تاثیر مسئولیت پذیری اجتماعی شرکت ها بر رفتار مشتری در بخش بانکداری لبنان The CSR’s influence on customer behavior in the Lebanese banking sector

Abstract The Lebanese society has lately started to give interest in CSR activities. We treated this topic by studying, from one hand, how deep the Lebanese banks are involved in CSR activities, and from another hand, how the CSR is influencing the client’s behavior in the Lebanese banking sector. By using the quantitative approach, we came up with very interesting and unpredicted results. ۱٫ Introduction Nowadays, “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) seems to be very popular among the western academic and business environments. Despite the large number of books, articles and theses that dealt with the subject of CSR, the concept remains vague, or even controversial. It is in the mid-1990s that the concept of CSR was widely spread especially with the liberalization of world economies and declining social and economic roles of the state. This soaring concept, particularly in Europe, has caused much writings for several years to the point that some saw it as a temporary fad. Indeed, the idea may seem strange at first, especially to those who have long believed in the importance of profit in the growth of the private enterprise and the role of the state in the preservation of this growth and in the limitation of abuse that can be generated by the enterprise in its quest to maximize profit. In fact, there are many who see in the social actions of the private enterprise, actions of philanthropy, marketing or advertising. While those who preach a social role of the enterprise cannot imagine the private enterprise liberated from this role and guided solely by profit without any concern for the environment. Even before this basic concept was perfectly perceived and started gaining a relative unanimity as to its meaning, several other concepts that are directly or indirectly related to it have appeared, and have spread around the world and even had a significant impact on legislation, regulations and behaviors. We refer here to the concepts of business ethics, sustainable development and corporate governance. The main objective of this paper is to better understand the meaning of the CSR concept by reviewing its key definitions and the main theories underlying it as well as related concepts and their relationships with it. But above all, this paper has the ultimate target to answer the following research questions: How deep are the Lebanese firms in general and Lebanese banking sector involved in CSR activities? What are the reasons for which CSR is influencing clients’ behavior in the Lebanese banking sector and how? ۲٫ Corporate social responsibility (CSR) The “corporate social responsibility” expression covers the responsibilities which businesses hold toward the societies in which they are based and operate. There is no doubt that CSR does not mean the same thing, all the time and for everyone. For some, CSR joins legal responsibility and for others, it refers to the ethical or socially responsible behavior. In looking at the direct sense of the term CSR, it turns out that the term responsibility is not used here in the sense of obligation or duty because the action is deemed voluntary. In addition, this responsibility underpins a commitment from the company, which implies consequences on itself and others. The definition of CSR by the European Commission is the following: a concept referring to the voluntary integration by companies of social and environmental concerns to their business operations with their stakeholders. In this sense, the socially responsible enterprise not only satisfies the applicable legal requirements, but also goes beyond that to invest more in human capital, its relations with stakeholders and the protection of the environment (Rose, 2006). The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) defines CSR as the commitment of companies to adopt ethical behavior and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of employees, their families as well as the local community and society (Field, 2008). Other authors consider that CSR is in line with expectations that the society has, at some point, from the enterprise atthe economic, legal, ethical and discretionary levels (Carroll, 1979a). Indeed, the enterprise is nowadays subject to a lot of pressure from the society: shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, laws and regulations, civil society groups and so on. By integrating sustainable development (SD) to its objectives, the enterprise ends up having unlimited liability of the countless economic, social, and environmental responsibilities confronting it (Joras, Igalens, & Mancy, 2002). The time when only the economic output is expected from the enterprise is gone (Frederick, Davis, & Poet, 1988). We are probably assisting to a change in the nature of business and its responsibilities. The concept as such seems to be widely accepted. It is widely distributed and used by academics and enterprises. Nevertheless, some authors find it so far confusing, and do not hesitate to criticize it. The differences in apprehensions come from the definition of the enterprise and its role. Is there a universal theory of the firm? This question leads us to wonder about the purpose of business and of any economic system: Why does the enterprise exist? For liberals, the enterprise has pure economic concerns. The only social responsibility of the enterprise is to provide as many profits as possible to shareholders. Milton Friedman is the most famous reference to this current. To summarize his main ideas from 1970, the enterprise (business) cannot have responsibilities; only persons such as owners or managers do (Friedman, 1970). They have responsibilities toward the owners who employ them in the sense that they must carry outthe work as those wish itto be carried out, a work that only consists of producing as much money as possible, while conforming to the basic rules of society dictated by the laws and ethics. As a person, the leader or manager may have responsibilities that he voluntarily assumes toward his family and his country. He can deliberately pay a portion of his income to causes he deems valid and can quite refuse to work on behalf of certain enterprises. Thus, he acts and spends his own energy and his own money. But he cannot possibly act on behalf of his employers and make a judgment for a general social interest in their place. He is engaged in the business to run it as an expert in management and not to solve the problems of society, especially when such actions affect business costs. Business spending in favor of social actions is not justified and goes against the spirit of pure competition. These actions would be permitted only if they benefit the business of a tax deduction. Finally, for Friedman, who qualifies CSR as a doctrine, it is opposing to the principles of the liberal system of imposing to the enterprise social actions which form an obstruction in its pursuit of profit. For him, the collective well-being is guaranteed not by ethical behavior, but by the invisible hand and the free functioning of the market. Friedman had a predecessor, who believed that the enterprise should be concerned with improving production and increasing profits in accordance with the terms of the game (market) – to which he associated the honest action – while social issues should be left to the state (Levitt, 1958). This view differs from that of Albert Carr who believes that the ultimate goal of business is to make profits, but to achieve this goal the company follows corrupted ways, because business cannot be guided by ethics as in private life (Carr, 1968). There is thus no consensus or unanimity on the definition of the enterprise and ipso facto that of CSR. This concept seems elusive and has accumulated many meanings over the years. This led Frankenthal P. to say that CSR is a vague and intangible term that cannot mean anything (Jamali, 2008). It is therefore meaningless for him. We prefer to not arrive to such a conclusion, but rather to say that the concept of CSR is very complex, a general agreement on its definition would be virtually impossible because social problems differ from one country to another (Masaka, 2008). CSR is a very evolving concept. One might even wonder if it really consists of a concept. It is rather an elusive concept difficult to measure, a great idea based on a moral position, and thus relative. Nevertheless, some regulation of the enterprises’ social action is still necessary. CSR is also a dynamic concept which links the various elements and levels of the company between them. Values and expectations change with time and circumstances that are themselves changing (Okoye, 2009). It is therefore normal that the meaning of this concept differs between countries, cultures and ideologies. Some authors qualify CSR as a sunshade concept which houses within varied and sometimes completely contradictory claims (Delalieux, 2005). For other authors, each era conceals its own requirements of social responsibility, but these are based on the achievements of periods that preceded them (Pasquero, 2005). Nowadays, we are witnessing a normalization oftheCSR transforming it into a sort of moral or humanitarian crusade. Note also that the phenomenon of CSR is not limited to the private enterprise and extends to governments and global organizations. Thus this phenomenon called “corporate social responsibility”. Similarly, the concepts that are related to it, such as good governance, also apply in state institutions, global organizations and cooperative associations.