Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4Corporate Social Responsibility and SustainabilityCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingInnovation and Socioeconomic Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Profit-Seeking Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries: The Risk of Conflating CSR and R&D

Open access
Barnard, Helena, Pattit, Katherina·2022·Journal of Comparative International Management

Abstract

Strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR) has drawn praise for representing the "sweet spot" between communities’ needs and firms’ resources, capabilities and efforts. But what if the concept is pushed to its limits? A firm can initiate CSR projects not just to help communities, but to directly realize profit from them. In this conceptual paper, we ask how CSR is understood and functions when the intent of CSR projects is to conduct a form of research and development (R&D). The intended innovations are not science-based, but socially oriented; they seek to determine how to profitably meet the needs of poor people in developing countries. We develop our argument from conversations with managers and teaching cases that explain how executives believe CSR helps firms (learn how) to profitably serve new potential customers – whether through developing new markets or new products and services with a social purpose. Using CSR as a form of "living R&D" allows firms to make mistakes and to avoid short-term shareholder pressures. But there are very real risks to what in essence is unregulated experimentation on poor people, and we highlight some of them. Our argument highlights the ways in which such innovation and profit-oriented CSR challenge thinking on both CSR and R&D, and we make practical recommendations for how to ensure that intended beneficiaries are not harmed, but can instead benefit.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

This conceptual paper argues that firms in developing countries may use CSR as a form of “living R&D” to experiment toward profitable new markets and products for poor communities. It warns that conflating CSR with R&D obscures serious risks to communities and calls for R&D-like structures and safeguards for participating parties.

Key findings

  • Managers and teaching cases show CSR being used to support profit-seeking experimentation: the CSR label removes expectations of profitability and creates a “living lab.” Examples include Microsoft South Africa’s Biz4Afrika, which served almost a thousand small businesses through a network of 42 supporting companies in an environment with about 30% unemployment, and Danone’s Danimal yoghurt, distributed via “Danimamas” and “Daniladies.”
  • The paper identifies two key insights: managers link CSR and innovation in an intended virtuous cycle, and CSR is being conflated with R&D. Table 1 contrasts them: CSR has secondary benefit to the firm, primary benefit to community, no expectation of profits, and no protection of participating parties; R&D has primary benefit to the firm, secondary benefit to community, delayed profits, tolerance for failure, and protection of participating parties.
  • The authors highlight risks of unregulated experimentation on poor people. A postscript to the Danimal case reports that after its champion left Danone in 2010 the project was discontinued, traders sold less healthy snacks or expired yoghurt, and there is no evidence on what happened next; customers included children, babies, and people with HIV/AIDS.
  • Recommendations include extending R&D-type organizational mechanisms to socially-oriented innovation, offering tax or financial benefits, protecting firms from short-term shareholder expectations, increasing tolerance for failure, and developing safeguards and “radical transparency” for communities.

Methods

  • Design: conceptual paper developed primarily from prior literature, supported by teaching cases and conversations with managers.
  • Data/sample: a 2008 practitioner workshop at the Gordon Institute of Business Science in South Africa; published teaching cases such as Microsoft South Africa and Danone/Danimal; one quoted Namibian agro-processing CEO; other executives informally and off the record; cases from Southern Africa compared with cases from India.
  • Analysis: the authors build a theoretical argument from recurring patterns across cases and interviews, present Figure 1 on a virtuous cycle between CSR and innovation, and use Table 1 to compare CSR and R&D.

Limitations

  • The paper states that it is theoretical and that its engagement with empirical cases is “impressionistic and anecdotal”; it calls for more systematic evidence as an essential next step.
  • The paper states that only one executive was willing to be quoted, while other executives shared insights informally and off the record, often because projects had “not yet” succeeded.
  • Evident from the text: there is no systematic sample or empirical testing, reliance on teaching cases and informal conversations limits generalizability, and the authors note there is no evidence on what happened after the Danimal project was discontinued.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.55482/jcim.2022.32901

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 15 Not valid · 23 Not checked · 70 Own results and interpretations

27 more claims

Create a free account to see all 108 claims and to verify the 11 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 61
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 35

Create a free account to see these claims.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Altman, D. G., Rego, L., & Ross, P. (2009). Expanding opportunity at the base of the pyramid. People and Strategy, 32(2), 46.
  2. Journal of Comparative International Management H. Barnard and K. Pattit Vol. 25, No, 1, 58-81 (2022)
  3. Prahalad, C. K. (2006). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Pearson Education India.
  4. Rajak, D. (2006). The Gift of CSR: Power and the Pursuit of Responsibility in the Mining Industry, in Visser, W. et al. (eds.), Corporate Citizenship in Africa: Lessons from the Past; Paths to the Future. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
  5. Windsor, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective: Some Comments. Academy of Management Review, 502-504

Cited by

See all 4

Metadata

Authors
Barnard, H., & Pattit, K.
Affiliations
University of Pretoria (ZA)
Venue
Journal of Comparative International Management
Published
2022-06-30
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
61-83
ISSN
  • 1481-0468 (ISSN-L)
  • 1718-0864
OpenAlex
W4283787503
Cited by
4
References
67
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Comparative International Management (publishedVersion)
  • Érudit (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Business and International Management › Innovation and Socioeconomic Development
Keywords
research and development, developing countries, poverty reduction, shareholder pressure, new market development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.