| Summary: | Examining corporate social investment (CSI) in South Africa through a lens of institutional theory, this study investigates the validity of criticisms found in literature and society of the practice of CSI in the country. Using a two-phase explanatory sequential research design, an initial quantitative study of archival data provides insights into the current state of CSI in South Africa. Regression and principal component analysis are then used to investigate the relationship between CSI levels and indicators for corporate financial performance and social need. A subsequent qualitative study utilising thematic analysis of interview data addresses questions arising from the quantitative analysis. Semi-structured interviews are conducted with leading corporate executives and academics in the field of CSI regarding their perceptions of the efficacy of CSI and the motivations driving corporate funding of CSI, including their concerns regarding CSI and suggestions for improvements. This study reveals profound concerns amongst corporate practitioners and in academia regarding the practice of CSI, including perceptions that the social impact of CSI is low and that the quality of many CSI programmes is poor. The motivations behind the funding of CSI were also seen to be largely inauthentic, with companies driven primarily by regulation or self-interest in their funding of CSI, rather than a sense of moral imperative. Companies appear to embrace CSI in an attempt to adhere to the social expectations and laws of society, thereby gaining legitimacy, stability, and improved long-term survival prospects. The formal structures and rhetoric surrounding CSI have become decoupled from the underlying activities that characterise its practice, however, a result of relative corporate indifference to its social impact. This ceremonial commitment to the practice of CSI has led to an emphasis on the optics rather than the impact of CSI activities. The results of this study suggest that enhanced incentives or disincentives and greater accountability may be required in order to make CSI contributions more impactful, as may improvements to best practices in the field.
|
|---|
