Upload
others
View
24
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Chapter-1
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)-
Introduction and Theoretical Consideration
The chapter attempts to provide introduction and theoretical consideration to
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) evaluation techniques of CSR in vogue’ and role
of HRM in CSR and CSR in India.
1.1. Introduction
Organizations felt it is their responsibility and responded to issues such as global
warming and climate change, green house gases and the dangers of deforestation by
developing policies on how to manage their operations in an ethically and socially
responsible manner. The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has
emerged to explain this ‘new’ approach, building on the existing and more narrowly
focused concept of business ethics. This shift can be seen in a range of changing
organizational priorities, for instance: sourcing more products ethically (e.g. the growing
commitment to Fair trade products), the implementation of diversity policies that go
beyond the minimum requirements of equal opportunities legislation, the increased use
of environmentally-friendly machinery in manufacturing operations, and the increased
re-use of recycled materials. Increasingly organizations have been developing
strategies and policies for CSR and publicizing these to customers, suppliers,
shareholders, and employees; as well as to other relevant stakeholders, such as
national and regional governments. Consumers and the media are much more aware
of the social and environmental responsibilities of organizations. However, some
business executives still indulge in socially irresponsible and unacceptable behavior
(Idowu and Papasolomou, 2007).
The idea that a business has one and only one objective to maximize profits has
been the majority view of business for the better part of our history. In other words
business mangers exist only to serve the best interests of the stockholders. The first
change came in the 1930s. The view was advanced and accepted that managers of
large companies must make decisions which maintain an equitable balance among the
2
claims of stockholders, employers, customers, suppliers, and the general public.
Managers were considered trustees for these interests. Although decisions might be
made which resulted in short-range profits at less than a maximum, many of those who
held this view argued that if the balancing was done correctly, the long-range profit
interests of the company would be maximized. There were some who felt that some
actions not directly related to profits might be taken, but their acceptable range was
negligible (Steiner, 1975).
Another major break from the older concept has taken place. It is the view that
business must get deeply involved in dealing with major social problems. Although this
involvement is partly justified by its proponents because it may be done profitably, there
is a growing body of opinion, in and out of business, that significant business actions
have to be taken even though there is no direct relationship with profit. There are some
people who talk as though business alone can handle the social problems the
government has failed to resolve. Most observers see the lack of reality in this view,
but many assert that business must reexamine the profit concept. Paralleling this
thought is a deep concern about the human values of the employees of corporations.
At this stage actions may be accepted which do not directly increase and may actually
reduce profits, at least in the short run (Steiner, 1975). There is no consensus about
these current ideas, and it does seem clear that the underlying thought is distinctly
different from the past views of balancing interests and of profit maximization (Adizes
and Weston, 1973). These three views are not of course, sequential. Among
managers, the public, government officials, and students of business, each idea can be
found today as a basis for action and thought (Richman, 1973).
People create organizations to leverage their collective resources in pursuit of
common goals. As organizations pursue these goals, they interact with others inside a
larger context called society. Based on their purpose, organizations can be classified
as for-profits, governments, or nonprofits. At a minimum, for-profits seek gain for their
owners; governments exist to define the rules and structures of society within which all
organizations must operate; and nonprofits (also called NGOs non-governmental
3
organizations) emerge to do social good when the political will or the profit motive is
insufficient to address society’s needs (Werther & Chandler, 2010).
Society exists, therefore, as a mix of these different organizational forms. Each
performs different roles, but each also depends on the others to provide the complete
patchwork of exchange interactions (products and services, financial and social capital,
etc.) that constitute a well-functioning society. Whether called corporations,
companies, business, proprietor-ships, or firms, for example, for-profit organizations
also interact with government, trade unions, suppliers, NGOs, and other groups in the
communities in which they operate, in both positive and negative ways. Each of these
groups or actors, therefore, can claim to have a stake in the operations of the firm.
Some benefit more, some are involved more directly, and others can be harmed by the
firm’s actions, but all are connected in some way to what the firm does on a day-to-day
basis (Werther & Chandler, 2010).
A firm’s stakeholders include those individuals and groups that have a stake in
the firm’s operations. However a broad view has not always been the norm, however.
Over time, as the impact of business on society has grown, the range of stakeholders
whose concerns a company needs to address has fluctuated from the initial view of the
corporation as a legal entity that is granted societal permission to exist by charter, to a
narrower focus on the rights of owners, to a broader range of constituents (including
employees and customers), and back again and at the end of the 20th century, to a
disproportionate focus on shareholders. Increasingly, however, companies are again
adopting a broader stakeholder outlook, extending their perspective to include
constituents such as the communities in which they operate. Today, companies are
more likely to recognize the degree of interdependence between the firm and each of
these groups, leaving less room to ignore stakeholders’ pressing concerns (Werther &
Chandler, 2010).
Just because an individual or organization meets this definition of an “interested
constituent”, however, does not compel a firm (either legally or logically) to comply with
every stakeholder demand. Nevertheless, affected parties who are ignored long
4
enough may take action against the firm, such as a product boycott, or they may turn to
government for redressal. In democratic societies, laws, rulings by government
agencies, and judicial interpretations provide a minimal framework for business
operations that reflects a rough consensus of the governed. Because government
cannot anticipate every possible interaction, however, legal action takes time, and a
general consensus is often slow to form. As a result, regulatory powers often lag
behind the need for action. This is particularly so in complex areas of rapid change,
such as information technology and medical research (Werther & Chandler, 2010).
CSR is both critical and controversial. It is critical because the for-profit sector is
the largest and most innovative part of any free society’s economy. Companies
intertwine with the societies in which they operate in mutually beneficial ways, driving
social progress and affluence. In fact, the term company comes from a combination of
the Latin words cum and panis, the literal translation of which originally meant
“breaking bread together. Today, however, the meaning of a company implies a far
greater degree of complexity. Companies create most of the jobs, wealth, and
innovations that enable the larger society to prosper. They are the primary delivery
system for food, housing, medicines, medical care, and other necessities of life.
Without modern day corporations, the jobs, taxes, donations, and other resources that
support governments and nonprofits would decline significantly, negatively affecting the
wealth and well-being of society as a whole. Businesses are the engines of society
that propel us toward a better future (Werther & Chandler, 2010).
At the same time, however, CSR remains controversial. People who have
thought deeply about why businesses exist or what purpose they have within society do
not agree on the answers. In spite of the rising importance of CSR today for corporate
leaders, academics, and bureaucrats alike, many still draw on the views of Milton
Friedman, who argued against CSR in the 1960s because it distracted leaders from
economic goals. Friedman believed that the only “social responsibility of business is to
increasing its profits” that society benefits most when businesses focus on maximizing
their financial success (Werther & Chandler, 2010).
5
The entirety of CSR can be discerned from the three words this phrase contains:
corporate social, and responsibility. CSR covers the relationship between corporations
(or other large organizations) and the societies with which they interact. CSR also
includes the responsibilities that are inherent on both sides of these relationships. CSR
defines society in its widest sense and on many levels, to include all stakeholder and
constituent groups that maintain an ongoing interest in the organization’s operations
‘(Werther & Chandler, 2010). A view of the corporation and its role in society that
assumes a responsibility among firms to pursue goals in addition to profit maximization
and a responsibility among a firm’s stakeholders to hold the firm accountable for its
actions (Carroll, 2002).
‘Stakeholder groups range from clearly defined consumers, employees,
suppliers, creditors, and regulating authorities to other more amorphous constituents,
such as local communities and even the environment. Issues of legitimacy and
accountability exist, with many nonprofit organizations, for example, claiming expertise
and demanding representative status, even when it is unclear exactly how many people
support their vision or claims. Ultimately, however, each firm must identify those
stakeholders that constitute its operating environment and then prioritize their strategic
importance to the organization. Increasingly, companies need to incorporate the
concerns of stakeholder groups within the organization’s strategic outlook or risk losing
societal legitimacy. CSR provides a framework that helps firms embrace these
decisions and adjust the internal strategic planning process to maximize the long-term
viability of the organizations. Consider some different viewpoints (Werther & Chandler,
2010).
CSR is a fluid concept. It is both a means and an end. An integral element of
the firm’s strategy the way the firm goes about delivering its products or services to
markets, it is also a way of maintaining the legitimacy of its actions in the larger society
by bringing stakeholder concerns to the foreground (end). The success of a firm’s CSR
reflects how well it has been able to navigate stakeholder concerns while implementing
its business model. CSR means valuing the interdependent relations that exist among
businesses, their stakeholder groups, the economic system, and the communities
6
within which they exist. CSR is a vehicle for discussing the obligations a business has
to its immediate society, way of proposing policy ideas on how those obligations can be
met, and a tool for identifying the mutual benefits for meeting those obligations. To put
it simply CSR addresses a company’s relationships with its stakeholders (Werther &
Chandler, 2010).
As a result of the blend of academic study and managerial practice,
understanding of CSR and how firms are integrating it is complex and still evolving.
And because CSR influences all aspects of firm’s strategic outlook and day-to-day
operations, CSR’s cutting edge can be controversial, especially among those
stakeholders whose interests are not considered primary by decision makers.
CSR embraces the range of economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary actions
that affect the economic performance of the firm. A significant part of a firm’s
fundamental responsibilities is complying with the legal or regulatory requirements that
relate to day-to-day operations. To break these regulations is to break the law, which
does not constitute socially responsible behavior. Clearly, adhering to the law is an
important component of any ethical organization. But, legal compliance is merely a
minimum condition of CSR. Rather than focus of firms’ legal and regulatory
obligations, Strategic CSR focuses more on the ethical and discretionary concerns that
are less precisely defined and for which there is often no clear societal consensus’
(Werther & Chandler, 2010).
As organizations around the globe continue to restructure, downsize, and
reshape the social contract through varied, short-term employment contracts, concerns
arise regarding the appropriate actors and ethical spaces of CSR. Who should assume
responsibility for workers, and how do national players shape the policies and practice
of CSR within a global economy? (Townsley and Sthol, 2003).
One of the assumptions used by advocates of CSR is that organizations with
better reputation enjoy competitive advantage over those with lower or inadequate
reputation. Or, this theme might be fashioned as advocates of reputation management
who champion it. One of the advantages of achieving and being perceived to have
7
achieved the objective of corporate responsibility gives the organization a stronger and
therefore more rewarding reputation. This stronger reputation can lead to profits and
defend the organization in times of crisis and during public policy issues and battles
(Heath and Ni, 2009).
Roberts (2003) sought to delineate four different versions of CSR. The first is a
negative case that suggest that CSR is an ethical sensibility which is routinely
construed as an exclusively financial burden, advertised and enforced by disciplinary
processes both within and beyond the corporate hierarchy, with a view to protect self
from negative public criticism.
The second is a more positive form of CSR termed as the ‘ethics of
narcissuses’. Stimulated by new forms of negative external visibility, the corporate
response has been to seek to build a positive image of its own by nurturing corporate
ethical codes and new forms of social and environmental reports.
The third comprises of an attempt to develop corporate social responsibility
which seeks to give more than local reach to sincere moral sensibility within the
corporation. This is done by the creation of new forms of internal social and
environmental controls, with associated rewards and incentives. The final form
suggests, the need felt by the organization to establish potential dialogue across the
corporate boundary with the stake holders who, are most vulnerable to the effects of
negative corporate conduct.
The rise in social consciousness is the effort of a number of interest groups.
One group that has taken social justice concerns directly to large corporations is the
activist shareholder community. It is primarily composed of nonprofit, nongovernmental
groups like religious, environmental, and labour organizations, among others as well as
interest groups, that want to influence corporate behavior (Logsdown and Buren 2008).
It is also felt that corporate social responsibility can help cut costs and boost sales.
However, there are other significant benefits which businesses sometime forget about,
as they are slightly harder to measure. Benefits such as improved reputation, stronger
customer loyalty and motivated employees need not be overlooked, and can in fact be
8
measured. For example, improved motivation could lead to reduce absenteeism and
reduced staff turnover. Similar, customer loyalty could increase levels of repeat
purchasing.
According to Davis and Blomstorm, the concept of social responsibility is based
on the premise that social responsibility arises from the huge ‘social power’ that
business wields in the community where it exists, by means of the opportunities for
employment that it creates for the local population. This is besides the protection that it
provides to the environment. So, business must have an equitable relationship with the
rest of the community/society. Business is part and parcel of the socio-political system.
As such, decisions about business activity cannot be treated merely as abstract
economic decisions. Economic activities are inseparable from the overall system.
And, therefore, it owes responsibility for consequences of its own operations which
impact others interests.
There are five propositions based on the said premise which are as follows:
� Those who do not use power responsibly in a way acceptable to the society will in the long run, stand to lose it (power);
� As a responsible organization, the company will function as an open system. Since it uses the resources of the society as input it will disclose its operations to the society. As an open system it will interact with the society;
� Prior to making decisions on the manufacture of a given product or service that it wants to provide to the society, the organization will accurately calculate and properly evaluate the social costs and benefits of the activity;
� The final selling price of the product should include the full social cost of the product and the service, lest the consumers pay for the impact of their consumption;
� Business organizations are responsible for direct social costs. As such, their managers should be involved in taking up need-based projects to meet the social needs of the local communities.
Implications of the five propositions are as follows:
� Since the society has allowed business to harness its resources in furtherance of its (company’s) objectives to achieve the business mission, and goals, it (society) expects the business to manage resources as a responsible trustee. Business is expected to act as a responsible trustee, failing which the law takes its own course;
9
� Profit- seeking organizations ought to constantly survey their environment to assess the merging needs and wants of the society. If the social costs of needs are too high, responsible organizations will postpone the related operations voluntarily till such costs are reduced;
� Organizations ought to carry out through cost-benefit analysis prior to the start of the operations;
� Organizations should change a fair price for their products and services. The price will include social and overhead costs. Further, in the past the society had to incur the social cost of eliminating pollution. But, in contemporary times, if the polluter fails to eliminate pollution voluntarily, the law takes its own course. For example, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984, where the management of the Union Carbide Factory was penalized by the Supreme Court of India, though its orders, asking the company to pay heavily for the immense irreparable, physical damages caused to the people. The penalty runs into crores of rupees payable to the victims of the tragedy;
� Business should bear the proportionate societal cost as an individual citizens.
Response of business to the above propositions is rather lackluster and are as
follows:
� Business observes the code of practice, relevant legislations of the society; � Business pays local and corporate taxes.
The above arguments of business are countered by the following rejoinders:
� That business derives benefits from the society; � That business should contribute to the costs of resolving the problems of the
society, e.g. related to education and training, sanitation, creation of purchasing power, social amenities, piped drinking water system in certain areas not covered by the state and so on.
In return, business gets supply of educated, healthy personnel for jobs and
developed community life where business can prosper. However, in case the voluntary
methods as regards its social responsibility fails, the law takes its own course.
A responsible business is achieving commercial success in ways that honour
ethical values and respect people, communities and the natural environment. These
businesses minimize any negative environmental and social impacts and maximize the
positive ones. In practice, CSR involves assessing all the potential ways that the
company’s actions and operations may impact others. It means looking beyond the
office walls and outside the operational fence lines to consider how decisions affect a
broad range of individuals, groups and organizations referred to as stakeholders.
10
These affected interests include local communities, non-governmental organizations,
investors, employees, customers, suppliers, host governments and regulatory agencies
(Ramesh & Praseeda, 2010).
Events around the world over the last few decades have emphasized the need
for corporate entitles, their stakeholders, governments and international organizations
to take the issue of corporate social responsibility seriously. Incidents such as the
explosion at Union Carbide in Bhopal, India in 1984, the oil spillage at Prince William
Sound, Alaska USA in 1989, a few corporate scandals; for example the Mirror Group
UK 1991, Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) 1991 UK, Satyam
computers India, Polly Peck 1991 UK, Enron USA 2001, World Com USA 2002,
Parmalat, Italy, 2003 etc., remain fresh and indelible in our minds. Other issues such
as climate change and global warming, human rights abuses, terrorism and the
globalization of the world economy also affect how corporate entities conduct their
operational practices. These operational practices consequently impinge on how
corporate entities perceive their responsibilities to societies; and in turn societies’
expectations from corporate entities have increase (Idowu & Filho, 2009).
The issue of CSR is a topical one in every country around the world today
(although the importance attached to it may differ in each country), not because CSR is
a soft issue but because it is an issue that touches different aspects which are
important and of concern to us all. A transnational organization for example; may be
faced with differing aspects of CSR in different countries of operation. What falls under
the umbrella of CSR in one country may perhaps be of little or no significance in
another. Issues such as poverty, inability to service and repay international debt,
illiteracy, HIV/AIDS, the absence of clean running water and electricity, fraud, bribery
and corruption are social ills typical of the under-developed world whilst other issues
such as global warming, terrorism, money laundering, corporate and individual
philanthropy, CO2 emissions reduction might be issues that affect all nations but are
publicized by the more industrialized ones. The impact of these social problems, will
differ from country to country and some of the consequences are CSR related which
require CSR related solutions (Idowu & Filho, 2009).
11
Many years ago, corporate entities were only expected by societies to provide
goods and services, provide employment, pay corporate taxes, maximize the wealth of
the providers of capital regardless of whose interests or feeling were injured during the
course of doing so and conform to the basic rules of society. In addition to all these, as
a result of some of the events and issues noted above, they are now expected to be
socially responsible. Being socially responsible simply requires a corporate entity to
behave well in all its dealings and put in place appropriate measures which would help
to reduce the adverse impact of its actions on both the environment and its
stakeholders. An entity that fails to demonstrate responsibility in its actions, may not
survive beyond the short term, it is therefore in the best interest of those corporations
which aspire survive and prosper to behave responsibly. The field of CSR has several
challenges and opportunities. It has been argued by some commentators, researchers
and advocates of the field of CSR that several benefits could be derived by an entity if it
were perceived by an entity if it were perceived by its stakeholders and the general
public as being socially responsible. The following are a few of the often cited:
• Improvement in its shareholder value; • Increased customer loyalty; • Ability to form beneficial strategic alliances; • Ability to attract motivated and committed workforce; • Sympathetic media at critical times; • Ability to attract top class employees from top class universities; • Tax incentives given by tax authorizes (Idowu & Filho, 2009).
Organization entities around the world have realized that modern stakeholders
are no longer naïve instead they are sophisticated, educated, well informed and above
all, they know what is best for them. They will not hesitate to take whatever actions are
deemed responsible and legitimate to request organization to produce what is needed.
Many companies have realized that providing information to ‘all and sundry’ on their
CSR activities is a good method of achieving positive public relations. Several other
benefits flow from this action, for example customers will continue to be loyal, equity
investors will be happy to invest, donors will continue to donate generously, loan
creditors and suppliers would happily take credit risks, there will be nothing for the non-
12
governmental organizations (NGOs) and their members to complain or protest about
and several other requirements of modern stakeholders and the environment would
have been met. Effective CSR is now at the forefront of what modern corporate entities
crave, they aspire to implement CSR initiatives which portray them as being socially
responsible in all the actions they take visible results of these initiatives go a very long
way to placate and satisfy all stakeholders ‘(Idowu & Filho, 2009).
1.2 The rationale for CSR:
Stakeholder theory as first propounded by Freeman (1984) suggested that
managers must satisfy a variety of constituents (ed. Workers, customers, suppliers,
local community organizations) who can influence firm outcomes. According to this
view, it is not sufficient for managers to focus exclusively on the needs of stockholders
or the owners of the corporation. Stakeholder theory implies that it can be beneficial for
the firm to engage in certain CSR activities that non-financial stakeholders perceive to
be important.
A different view was expressed by Theodore Levitt, marketing expert. In his
1958 Harvard Business Review article, ‘The dangers of social responsibility’, he
warned that ‘governments’ job is not business, and business’s job is not government’.
Milton Friedman(1970), the Chicago monetarist, expressed the same sentiment. His
maxim was that the social responsibility of business is to maximize profits within the
bounds of the law. He argued that the mere existence of CSR was an agency problem
within the firm in that it was misuse of the resources entrusted to managers by owners,
which could be better used on value-added internal projects or returned to the
shareholders.
Generally, however, academics at least have been in favour of CSR and there is
plenty of evidence both in the UK and the United States that many firms are pursuing
CSR policies.
13
1.3 Arguments supporting CSR:
The moral appeal-the argument that companies have a duty to be good citizens.
The US business association Business for Social Responsibility (2007) asks its
members ‘to achieve commercial success in ways that honour ethical values and
respect people, communities and the natural environment’.
� Sustainability-an emphasis on environmental and community stewardship. As
expressed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Social Development
(2006) this involves ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.
� Licence to operate-every company needs tacit or explicit permission from
government, communities and other stakeholders to do business.
� Reputation-CSR initiatives can be justified because they improve a company’s
image, strengthen its brand, enliven morale and even raise the value of its stock
Porter and Kramer (2006).
The rationale for CSR as defined by Millman and Keim (2001) is based on two
propositions. First, there is a moral imperative for businesses to ‘do right thing’ without
regard to how such decisions affect firm performance (the social issues argument) and
second, firms can achieve competitive advantage by tying CSR activities to primary
stakeholders (the stakeholders argument). Their research in 500 firms implied that
investing in stakeholder management may be complementary to shareholders value
creation and could indeed provide a basis for competitive advantage as important
resources and capabilities are created that differentiate a firm from its competitors.
However, participating in social issues beyond the direct stakeholders may adversely
affect a firm’s ability to create shareholder wealth.
As argued by Moran and Ghoshal (1996), ‘that what is good for society does not
necessarily have to be bad for the firm, and what is good for the firm does not
necessarily have to come at a cost to society’. It could be argued, more cynically, that
there is room for enlightened self-interest that involves doing well by doing good.
14
Much research has been conducted into the relationship between CSR and firm
performance, with mixed results. For example, Russo and Focus (1997) found that
there was a positive relationship between environmental performance and financial
performance. Hillman and Kiem (2001) found that if the socially responsible activity
were directly related to primary stakeholders, then investments may benefits not only
stakeholders but also result in increased shareholders wealth. However, participation
in social issues beyond the direct stakeholders may adversely affect a firm’s ability to
create shareholder wealth.
1.4 CSR competency framework:
The basis for developing a CSR strategy is provided by the following
competency framework of the CSR Academy (2006), which is made up of six
characteristics.
� Understanding society-understanding how business operates in the broader context and knowing the social and environmental impact that the business has on society;
� Building capacity- building the capacity of others to help manage the business effectively. For example, suppliers understand the business’s approach to the environment and employees can apply social and environmental concerns in their day-to-day roles;
� Questioning business as usual-individuals continually questioning the business in relation to a more sustainable future and being open to improving the quality of life and the environment;
� Stakeholder relations-understanding who the key stakeholders are and the risks and opportunities they present. Working with them through consultation and taking their views into account;
� Strategic view-ensuring that social and environmental views are included in the business strategy so that they are integral to the way the business operates;
� Harnessing diversity- respecting that people are different, which is reflected in fair and transparent business practices?
To develop and implement a CSR strategy based on these principles it is necessary to:
� Understand the business and social environment in which the firm operates; � Understand the business and HR strategies and how the CSR strategy should
be aligned to them;
15
� Known who the stakeholders are (including top management) and find out their views and expectations on CSR;
� Identify the areas in which CSR activities might take place by reference to their relevance in the business context of the organization and an evaluation of their significance to stakeholders;
� Prioritizes as necessary on the basis of an assessment of the relevant and significance of CSR to the organization and its stakeholders and the practicalities of introducing the activity or practice;
� Draw up the strategy and make the case for it to top management and the stakeholders;
� Obtain approval for the CSR strategy from top management and key stakeholders;
� Communicate information on the whys and wherefores of the strategy comprehensively and regularly;
� Provide training to employees on the skills they need in implementing the CSR strategy;
� Measure and evaluate the effectiveness of CSR.
1.5 Corporate Social Responsibility-key learning po ints:
The meaning of corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR refers to the actions
taken by business that further some social good beyond the interests of the firm and
that which is required by law. It is concerned with the impact of business behavior on
society and can be regarded as a process of integrating business and society.
CSR strategy: CSR strategy determines how socially responsible behavior is
exercised both outside and within the firm.
CSR activities: CSR activities include incorporating social characteristics or
features into products and manufacturing processes, adopting progressive human
resource management practices, achieving higher levels of environment performance
through recycling and pollution abatement, and advancing the goals of community
organizations.
The rationale for CSR: There are two arguments for CSR (Hillman and Keim,
2001). First, there is a moral imperative for businesses to ‘do the right thing’ without
regard to how such decisions affect firm performance (the social issues argument) and
16
second, firms can achieve competitive advantage by tying CSR activities to primary
stakeholders (the stakeholders argument).
1.6 Developing a CSR strategy:
� Identify the areas in which CSR activities might take place by reference to their relevant in the business context of the organization and an evaluation of their significance to stakeholders;
� Prioritize as necessary on the basis of an assessment of the relevance and significance of CSR to the organization and its stakeholders and the practicalities of introducing the activity or practice;
� Draw up the strategy and make the case for it to top management and the stakeholders in order to obtain their approval;
� Communicate information on the strategy comprehensively and regularly; � Provide training to employees on the skills they need in implementing the CSR
strategy. 1. What does the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) mean and what
are the main activities involved? Review the situation in your own organization
and identify what CSR activities are taking place and what more could be done.
2. Common on the following remarks: “The most important thing a corporation can
do for society, and for any community, is contribute to a prosperous economy’
(Porter and Kramer, 2006). ‘Profits should be a reflection not of corporate greed
but a vote of confidence from society that what is offered by a firm is valued’
(Matsushita, 2000).
3. You have been asked by your HR director to produce a memorandum setting
out the business case on why the company should develop a more active
corporate responsibility strategy. You looked at the research conducted by IRS
(Egan, 2006) and came across the following information: ‘The main motivation
for employers in engaging in community and charitable work seem to be varied
and sometimes interlinked. The following factors were cited by 12 organizations
each: to enhance corporate image/reputation, to promote the business and to
improve employee satisfaction and motivation. The desire yo help others was
mentioned by 10, with seven wishing to help employee development and four
hoping to boost recruitment and retention. Two organizations each mentioned
the aims of enhancing profitability, helping acquire public sector contracts and
helping to acquire other contracts. Just one employer was motivated by a sense
17
of moral obligation’. Taking into account these varied arguments, produce the
business case.
1.7 CSR Theories:
Garriga & Mele (2004) after considerable research and review on CSR theories
present a synthesis which is worth examining. ‘Since the second half of the 20th
century a long debate on CSR has been taking place. In 1953, Bowen (1953) wrote
the seminal book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Since then there has
been a shift in terminology from the social responsibility of business to CSR.
Additionally, this field has grown significantly and today contains a great proliferation of
theories, approaches and terminologies. Society and business, social issues
management, public policy and business, stakeholder management, corporate
accountability are just some of the terms used to describe the phenomena related to
corporate responsibility in society(Garriga and Mele,2004). Recently, renewed interest
for corporate social responsibilities and new alternative concepts has been proposed,
including corporate citizenship and corporate sustainability. Some scholars have
compared these new concepts with the classic notion of CSR (Marrewijk, 2003; and
Matten et al., 2003 and Wood and Lodgson, 2002).
Some theories combine different approaches and use the same terminology with
different meanings. This problem is an old one. It was 30 years ago that Votaw(1972)
wrote: ‘‘corporate social responsibility means something, but not always the same thing
to everybody. To some it conveys the idea of legal responsibility or liability; to others, it
means socially responsible behavior in the ethical sense; to still others, the meaning
transmitted is that of ‘responsible for’ in a causal mode; many simply equate it with a
charitable contribution; some take it to mean socially conscious; many of those who
embrace it most fervently see it as a mere synonym for legitimacy in the context of
belonging or being proper or valid; a few see a sort of fiduciary duty imposing higher
standards of behavior on businessmen than on citizens at large’’. Nowadays the
panorama is not much better. Carroll (1994), characterized the situation as ‘‘an eclectic
field with loose boundaries, multiple memberships, and differing training/perspectives;
18
broadly rather than focused, multidisciplinary; wide breadth; brings in a wider range of
literature; and interdisciplinary’’.
However, some attempts have been made to address this deficiency. Frederick
(1987, 1998) outlined a classification based on a conceptual transition from the ethical–
philosophical concept of CSR (what he calls CSR1), to the action-oriented managerial
concept of social responsiveness (CSR2). He then included a normative element based
on ethics and values (CSR3) and finally he introduced the cosmos as the basic
normative reference for social issues in management and considered the role of
science and religion in these issues (CSR4). In a more systematic way, Heald (1988)
and Carroll (1999) have offered a historical sequence of the main developments in how
the responsibilities of business in society have been understood (Garriga and
Mele,2004).
Other classifications have been suggested based on matters related to CSR,
such as Issues Management (Wartick and Rude, 1986; Wood, 1991a) or the concept of
Corporate Citizenship (Altman, 1998). An alternative approach is presented by
Brummer (1991) who proposes a classification in four groups of theories based on six
criteria (motive, relation to profits, group affected by decisions, type of act, type of
effect, expressed or ideal interest). These classifications, in spite of their valuable
contribution, are quite limited in scope and, what is more, the nature of the relationship
between business and society is rarely situated at the center of their discussion
(Garriga and Mele,2004). This vision could be questioned as CSR seems to be a
consequence of how this relationship is understood (Jones, 1983; McMahon, 1986;
Preston, 1975; Wood, 1991).
CSR theories and related approaches are focused on one of the following
aspects of social reality: economics, politics, social integration and ethics. According to
Parsons (1961), it can be observed in any social system: adaptation to the environment
(related to resources and economics), goal attainment (related to politics), social
integration and pattern maintenance or latency (related to culture and values). CSR
theories are classified into four groups:
19
1. A first group in which it is assumed that the corporation is an instrument for
wealth creation and that this is its sole social responsibility. Only the economic aspect
of the interactions between business and society is considered. So any supposed
social activity is accepted if, and only if, it is consistent with wealth creation. This group
of theories could be called instrumental theories because they understand CSR as a
mere means to the end of profits.
2. A second group in which the social power of corporation is emphasized,
specifically in its relationship with society and its responsibility in the political arena
associated with this power. This leads the corporation to accept social duties and rights
or participate in certain social cooperation. They can be called as political theories.
3. A third group includes theories which consider that business ought to
integrate social demands. They usually argue that business depends on society for its
continuity and growth and even for the existence of business itself. This can be termed
as group integrative theories.
4. A fourth group of theories understands that the relationship between business
and societies are embedded with ethical values. This leads to a vision of CSR from an
ethical perspective and as a consequence, firms ought to accept social responsibilities
as an ethical obligation above any other consideration. These can be termed as group
ethical theories (Garriga and Mele,2004).
1.7.1 Instrumental theories:
In this group of theories CSR is seen only as a strategic tool to achieve
economic objectives and, ultimately, wealth creation. Friedman’s view regarding this
approach is that ‘‘the only one responsibility of business towards society is the
maximization of profits to the shareholders within the legal framework and the ethical
custom of the country’’ (1970).
Instrumental theories have a long tradition and have enjoyed a wide acceptance
in business. As Windsor (2001) has pointed out recently, ‘‘a leitmotiv of wealth creation
progressively dominates the managerial conception of responsibility’’ (Windsor, 2001).
Concern for profits does not exclude taking into account the interests of all who
have a stake in the firm (stakeholders). It has been argued that in certain conditions the
20
satisfaction of these interests can contribute to maximizing the shareholder value
(Mitchell. et, al., 1997; Odgen and Watson, 1999). An adequate level of investment in
philanthropy and social activities is also acceptable for the sake of profits (McWilliams
and Siegel, 2001).
In practice, a number of studies have been carried out to determine the
correlation between CSR and corporate financial performance. Of these, an increasing
number show a positive correlation between the social responsibility and financial
performance of corporations in most cases (Frooman, 1997; Griffin and Mahon, 1997;
Key and Popkin, 1998; Roman et, al., 1999; Waddock and Graves, 1997).
Three main groups of instrumental theories can be identified, depending on the
economic objective proposed. In the first group the objective is the maximization of
shareholder value, measured by the share price. Frequently, this leads to a short-term
profits orientation. The second group of theories focuses on the strategic goal of
achieving competitive advantages, which would produce long-term profits. In both
cases, CSR is only a question of enlightened self-interest (Keim, 1978) since CSRs are
a mere instrument for profits. The third is related to cause-related marketing and is very
close to the second (Garriga and Mele,2004).
1.7.2 Maximizing the shareholder value approach:
A well-known approach is that which takes the straightforward contribution to
maximizing the shareholder value as the supreme criterion to evaluate specific
corporate social activity. Any investment in social demands that would produce an
increase of the shareholder value is to be made, acting without deception and fraud. In
contrast, if the social demands only impose a cost on the company it has to be
rejected. Friedman (1970) is clear, giving an example about investment in the local
community: ‘‘it will be in the long run interest of a corporation that is a major employer
in a small community to devote resources to providing amenities to that community or
to improving its government. That makes it easier to attract desirable employees, it may
reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and sabotage or have other
21
worthwhile effects.’’ So, the socio-economic objectives are completely separate from
the economic objectives (Garriga and Mele,2004).
Currently, this approach usually takes the shareholder value maximization as the
supreme reference for corporate decision-making. The Agency Theory (Jensen and
Meckling, 1976; Ross, 1973) is the most popular way to articulate this reference.
However, today it is quite readily accepted that shareholder value maximization is not
incompatible with satisfying certain interests of people with a stake in the firm
(stakeholders). In this respect, Jensen (2000) has proposed ‘enlightened value
maximization’. This concept specifies long-term value maximization or value-seeking as
the firm’s objective. At the same time, this objective is employed as the criterion for
making the requisite tradeoffs among its stakeholders (Garriga and Mele,2004).
1.7.3 Strategies for achieving competitive advantag es:
A second group of theories are focused on how to allocate resources in order to
achieve long-term social objectives and create a competitive advantage (Husted and
Allen, 2000). In this group three approaches can be included: (a) social investments in
competitive context, (b) natural resource-based view of the firm and its dynamic
capabilities and (c) strategies for the bottom of the economic pyramid.
a) Social investments in a competitive context. Porter and Kramer (2002) applied
the well-known Porter model on competitive advantage (Porter, 1980) to consider
investment in areas of what they call competitive context. The authors argue that
investing in philanthropic activities may be the only way to improve the context of
competitive advantage of a firm and usually creates greater social value than individual
donors or government can. The reason presented (the opposite of Freidman’s position)
is that the firm has the knowledge and resources for a better understanding of how to
solve some problems related to its mission. As Burke and Lodgson (1996) pointed out,
when philanthropic activities are closer to the company’s mission, they create greater
wealth than other kinds of donations. Porter and Kramer (2002) conclude,
‘‘philanthropic investments by members of cluster, either individually or collectively, can
22
have a powerful effect on the cluster competitiveness and the performance of all its
constituents companies’’.
b) Natural resource-based view of the firm and dynamic capabilities. The
resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) maintains that the
ability of a firm to perform better than its competitors depends on the unique interplay of
human, organizational, and physical resources over time. Traditionally, resources that
are most likely to lead to competitive advantage are those that meet the four point
criteria: they should be valuable, rare, and inimitable, and the organization must be
organized to deploy these resources effectively (Garriga and Mele,2004).
The ‘‘dynamic capabilities’’ approach presents the dynamic aspect of the
resources; it is focused on the drivers behind the creation, evolution and recombination
of the resources into new sources of competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997). So
dynamic capabilities are organizational and strategic routines, by which managers
acquire resources, modify them, integrate them, and recombine them to generate new
value-creating strategies. Based on this perspective, some authors have identified
social and ethical resources and capabilities which can be a source of competitive
advantage, such as the process of moral decision-making (Petrick and Quinn, 2001),
the process of perception, deliberation and responsiveness or capacity of adaptation
(Litz, 1996) and the development of proper relationships with the primary stakeholders:
employees, customers, suppliers, and communities (Harrison and St. John, 1996;
Hillman and Keim, 2001).
A more complete model of the ‘Resource-Based View of the Firm’ has been
presented by Hart (1995). It includes aspects of dynamic capabilities and a link with the
external environment. Hart argues that the most important drivers for new resource and
capabilities development are constraints and challenges posed by the natural
biophysical environment. Hart has developed his conceptual framework with three main
interconnected strategic capabilities: pollution prevention, product stewardship and
sustainable development. He considers as critical resources continuous improvement,
stakeholder integration and shared vision (Garriga and Mele,2004).
23
c) Strategies for the bottom of the economic pyramid. Traditionally most
business strategies are focused on targeting products at upper and middle-class
people, but most of the world’s population is poor or lower- middle class. At the bottom
of the economic pyramid there may be some 4000 million people. On reflection, certain
strategies can serve the poor and simultaneously make profits. Prahalad (2002),
analyzing the India experience, has suggested some mind-set changes for converting
the poor into active consumers. The first of these is seeing the poor as an opportunity
to innovate rather than as a problem. A specific means for attending to the bottom of
the economic pyramid is disruptive innovation. Disruptive innovations (Christensen and
Overdorf, 2000; Christensen et al., 2001) are products or services that do not have the
same capabilities and conditions as those being used by customers in the mainstream
markets; as a result they can be introduced only for new or less demanding
applications among non-traditional customers, with a low-cost production and adapted
to the necessities of the population (Garriga and Mele,2004).
Disruptive innovations can improve the social and economic conditions at the
‘‘base of the pyramid’’ and at the same time they create a competitive advantage for
the firms in telecommunications, consumer electronics and energy production and
many other industries, especially in developing countries (Hart and Christensen, 2002;
Prahalad and Hammond, 2002).
1.7.4 Cause-related marketing:
Cause-related marketing has been defined as ‘‘the process of formulating and
implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the firm to
contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in a
revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives’’
(Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). Its goal then is to enhance company revenues and
sales or customer relationship by building the brand through the acquisition of, and
association with the ethical dimension or social responsibility dimension (Murray and
Montanari, 1986; Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). In a way, it seeks product
differentiation by creating socially responsible attributes that affect company reputation
(Smith and Higgins, 2000). As McWilliams and Siegel (2001) have pointed out:
24
‘‘support of cause related marketing creates a reputation that a firm is reliable and
honest. Consumers typically assume that the products of a reliable and honest firm will
be of high quality’’. For example, a pesticide-free or non-animal-tested ingredient can
be perceived by some buyers as preferable to other attributes of competitors’ products.
Other activities, which typically exploit because related marketing, are classical musical
concerts, art exhibitions, golf tournaments or literacy campaigns (Garriga and
Mele,2004). All of these are a form of enlightened self-interest and a win–win situation
as both the company and the charitable cause receive benefits: ‘‘the brand manager
uses consumer concern for business responsibility as a means for securing competitive
advantage. At the same time a charitable cause receives substantial financial benefits’’
(Smith and Higgins, 2000).
1.7.5 Political theories:
The political theory of corporate social responsibility is based on assumptions
about the “motivations of public official and corporations. Political decision-makers
orient their behavior towards constituencies that can provide valuable resource”.
“Elected officials seek resources that can help them get reelected.” Appointed officials
seek political support to perform their jobs effectively (Baxi & Prasad (ed.), 2006).
A group of CSR theories and approaches focus on interactions and connections
between business and society and on the power and position of business and its
inherent responsibility. They include both political considerations and political analysis
in the CSR debate. Although there are a variety of approaches, two major theories can
be distinguished: Corporate Constitutionalism and Corporate Citizenship.
1.7.6 Corporate constitutionalism:
Davis (1960) was one of the first to explore the role of power that business has
in society and the social impact of this power. In doing so, he introduces business
power as a new element in the debate of CSR. He held that business is a social
institution and it must use power responsibly. Additionally, Davis noted that the causes
that generate the social power of the firm are not solely internal of the firm but also
25
external. Their locus is unstable and constantly shifting, from the economic to the social
forum and from there to the political forum and vice versa (Garriga and Mele,2004).
Davis attacked the assumption of the classical economic theory of perfect
competition that precludes the involvement of the firm in society besides the creation of
wealth. The firm has power to influence the equilibrium of the market and therefore the
price is not a pareto optimum reflecting the free will of participants with perfect
knowledge of the market (Garriga and Mele,2004).
Davis formulated two principles that express how social power has to be
managed: ‘‘the social power equation’’ and ‘‘the iron law of responsibility’’. The social
power equation principle states that ‘‘social responsibilities of businessmen arise from
the amount of social power that they have’’ (Davis, 1967). The iron law of responsibility
refers to the negative consequences of the absence of use of power. In his own words:
‘‘whoever does not use his social power responsibly will lose it. In the long run those
who do not use power in a manner which society considers responsible will tend to lose
it because other groups eventually will step in to assume those responsibilities’’
(Davis,1960). So if a firm does not use its social power, it will lose its position in society
because other groups will occupy it, especially when society demands responsibility
from business (Davis, 1960).
According to Davis, the equation of social power responsibility has to be
understood through the functional role of business and managers. In this respect, Davis
rejects the idea of total responsibility of business as he rejected the radical free-market
ideology of no responsibility of business. The limits of functional power come from the
pressures of different constituency groups. This ‘‘restricts organizational power in the
same way that a governmental constitution does.’’ The constituency groups do not
destroy power. Rather they define conditions for its responsible use. They channel
organizational power in a supportive way and to protect other interests against
unreasonable organizational power (Davis, 1967). As a consequence, his theory is
called ‘‘Corporate Constitutionalism’’.
26
1.7.7 Integrative social contract theory:
The earliest elements of the notion of the existence of a ‘social contract’ are
found in Plato’s ‘The Republic’. However, the Social Contract Theory developed in the
17th century through Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Philosophers such as John Locke
(1632-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) later expanded on Hobbes’
work and developed it towards different directions. A social contract, with implicit and
explicit terms, is conceived to exists between the organization and the public at large,
not just merely its shareholders (Baxi & Prasad (ed.), 2006).
Donaldson (1982) considered the business and society relationship from the
social contract tradition, mainly from the philosophical thought of Locke. He assumed
that a sort of implicit social contract between business and society exists. This social
contract implies some indirect obligations of business towards society. This approach
would overcome some limitations of deontological and teleological theories applied to
business (Garriga and Mele,2004).
Afterwards, Donaldson and Dunfee (1994, 1999) extended this approach and
proposed an ‘‘Integrative Social Contract Theory’’ (ISCT) in order to take into account
the socio-cultural context and also to integrate empirical and normative aspects of
management. Social responsibilities come from consent. These scholars assumed two
levels of consent. Firstly a theoretical macro social contract appealing to all rational
contractors, and secondly, a real micro social contract by members of numerous
localized communities. According to these authors, this theory offers a process in which
the contracts among industries, departments and economic systems can be legitimate.
In this process the participants will agree upon the ground rules defining the foundation
of economics that will be acceptable to them (Garriga and Mele,2004).
The macro social contract provides rules for any social contracting. These rules
are called the ‘‘hyper-norms’’; they ought to take precedence over other contracts.
These hyper-norms are so fundamental and basic that they ‘‘are discernible in a
convergence of religious, political and philosophical thought’’ (Donaldson and Dunfee,
2000). The micro social contracts show explicit or implicit agreements that are binding
within an identified community, whatever this may be: industry, companies or economic
27
systems. These micro social contracts, which generate ‘authentic norms’, are based on
the attitudes and behaviors of the members of the norm-generating community and, in
order to be legitimate, have to accord with the hyper-norms (Garriga and Mele,2004).
1.7.8 Corporate citizenship:
Although the idea of the firm as citizen is not new (Davis, 1973) a renewed
interest in this concept among practitioners has appeared recently due to certain
factors that have had an impact on the business and society relationship. Among these
factors, especially worthy of note are the crisis of the Welfare State and the
globalization phenomenon. These, together with the deregulation process and
decreasing costs with technological improvements, have meant that some large
multinational companies have greater economical and social power than some
governments. The corporate citizenship framework looks to give an account of this new
reality, as we will try to explain here (Garriga and Mele,2004).
In the eighties the term ‘‘corporate citizenship’’ was introduced into the business
and society relationship mainly through practitioners (Altman and Vidaver- Cohen,
2000). Since the late 1990s and early 21st century this term has become more and
more popular in business and increasing academic work has been carried out (Andriof
and McIntosh, 2001; Matten and Crane, 2003).
Although the academic reflection on the concept of ‘‘corporate citizenship’’, and
on a similar one called ‘the business citizen’, is quite recent (Matten et al., 2003; Wood
and Logsdon, 2002), this notion has always connoted a sense of belonging to a
community. Perhaps for this reason it has been so popular among managers and
business people, because it is increasingly clear that business needs to take into
account the community where it is operating (Garriga and Mele,2004).
The term ‘‘corporate citizenship’’ cannot have the same meaning for everybody.
Matten et, al., (2003) have distinguished three views of ‘‘corporate citizenship’’: (1) a
limited view, (2) a view equivalent to CSR and (3) an extended view of corporate
citizenship, which is held by them. In the limited view ‘‘corporate citizenship’’ is used in
a sense quite close to corporate philanthropy, social investment or certain
28
responsibilities assumed towards the local community. The equivalent to CSR view is
quite common. Carroll (1999) believes that ‘‘Corporate citizenship’’ seems a new
conceptualization of the role of business in society and depending on which way it is
defined, this notion largely overlaps with other theories on the responsibility of business
in society. Finally, in the extended view of corporate citizenship (Matten et al., 2003,
Matten and Crane, 2003), corporations enter the arena of citizenship at the point of
government failure in the protection of citizenship. This view arises from the fact that
some corporations have gradually come to replace the most powerful institution in the
traditional concept of citizenship, namely government (Garriga and Mele,2004).
The term ‘‘citizenship’’, taken from political science, is at the core of the
‘‘corporate citizenship’’ notion. For Wood and Logsdon(2002) ‘‘business citizenship
cannot be deemed equivalent to individual citizenship-instead it derives from and is
secondary to individual citizenship’’. Whether or not this view is accepted, theories and
approaches on ‘‘corporate citizenship’’ are focused on rights, responsibilities and
possible partnerships of business in society (Garriga and Mele,2004). Some theories
on corporate citizenship are based on a social contract theory (Dion, 2001) as
developed by Donaldson and Dunfee (1994, 1999), although other approaches are also
possible (Wood and Logsdon, 2002).
In spite of some noteworthy differences in corporate citizenship theories, most
authors generally converge on some points, such as a strong sense of business
responsibility towards the local community, partnerships, which are the specific ways of
formalizing the willingness to improve the local community, and for consideration for the
environment (Garriga and Mele,2004).
The concern for local community has extended progressively to a global concern
in great part due to the very intense protests against globalization, mainly since the end
of the 90s. This sense of global corporate citizenship led to the joint statement ‘‘Global
Corporate Citizenship – the Leadership Challenge for CEOs and Boards’’, signed by 34
of the world largest multinational corporations during the World Economic Forum in
New York in January 2002. Subsequently, business with local responsibility and, at the
same time, being a global actor that places emphasis on business responsibilities in a
29
global context, have been considered as a key issue by some scholars (Tichy et al.,
1997; Wood and Lodgson, 2002).
1.7.9 Integrative theories:
This group of theories looks at how business integrates social demands, arguing
that business depends on society for its existence, continuity and growth. Social
demands are generally considered to be the way in which society interacts with
business and gives it a certain legitimacy and prestige. As a consequence, corporate
management has to take into account social demands, and integrate them in such a
way that the business operates in accordance with social values (Garriga and
Mele,2004).
The content of business responsibility is limited to the space and time of each
situation depending on the values of society at that moment, and comes through the
company’s functional roles (Preston and Post, 1975). In other words, there is no
specific action that management is responsible for performing throughout time and in
each industry. Basically, the theories of this group are focused on the detection and
scanning of, and response to, the social demands that achieve social legitimacy,
greater social acceptance and prestige (Garriga and Mele,2004).
1.7.10 Issues management:
Social responsiveness, or responsiveness in the face of social issues, and
processes to manage them within the organization (Sethi, 1975) was an approach
which arose in the 70s. In this approach it is crucial to consider the gap between what
the organization’s relevant public expect its performance to be and the organization’s
actual performance. These gaps are usually located in the zone that Ackerman (1973)
calls the ‘‘zone of discretion’’ (neither regulated nor illegal nor sanctioned) where the
company receives some unclear signals from the environment. The firm should
perceive the gap and choose a response in order to close it (Ackerman and Bauer,
1976).
Ackerman (1973), among other scholars, analyzed the relevant factors regarding
the internal structures of organizations and integration mechanisms to manage social
issues within the organization. The way a social objective is spread and integrated
30
across the organization, he termed ‘‘process of institutionalization’’. According to Jones
(1980), ‘‘corporate behavior should not in most cases be judged by the decisions
actually reached but by the process by which they are reached’’. Consequently, he
emphasized the idea of process rather than principles as the appropriate approach to
CSR issues (Garriga and Mele,2004).
Jones(1980) draws an analogy with the political process assessing that the
appropriate process of CSR can be a fair process where all interests have the
opportunity to be heard. So Jones has shifted the criterion to the inputs in the decision-
making process rather than outcomes, and has focused more on the process of
implementation of CSR activities than on the process of conceptualization (Garriga and
Mele,2004).
The concept of ‘‘social responsiveness’’ was soon widened with the concept
‘‘Issues Management’’. The latter includes the former but emphasizes the process for
making a corporate response to social issues. Issues management has been defined
by Wartick and Rude (1986) as ‘‘the processes by which the corporation can identify,
evaluate and respond to those social and political issues which may impact significantly
upon it’’. They add that issues management attempts to minimize ‘‘surprises’’ which
accompany social and political change by serving as an early warning system for
potential environmental threats and opportunities. Further, it prompts more systematic
and effective responses to particular issues by serving as a coordinating and
integrating force within the corporation. Issues management research has been
influenced by the strategy field, since it has been seen as a special group of strategic
issues (Greening and Gray, 1994), or a part of international studies (Brewer, 1992).
That led to the study of topics related with issues (identification, evaluation and
categorization), formalization of stages of social issues and management issue
response. Other factors, which have been considered, include the corporate responses
to media exposure, interest group pressures and business crises, as well as
organization size, top management commitment and other organizational factors
(Garriga and Mele,2004).
31
1.7.11 The principle of public responsibility:
Preston and Post (1975, 1981) criticized a responsiveness approach and the
purely process approach (Jones, 1980) as insufficient. Instead, they proposed ‘‘the
principle of public responsibility’’. They choose the term ‘‘public’’ rather than ‘‘social’’, to
stress the importance of the public process, rather than personal-morality views or
narrow interest groups defining the scope of responsibilities (Garriga and Mele,2004).
According to Preston and Post an appropriate guideline for a legitimate
managerial behavior is found within the framework of relevant public policy. They
added that ‘‘public policy includes not only the literal text of law and regulation but also
the broad pattern of social direction reflected in public opinion, emerging issues, formal
legal requirements and enforcement or implementation practices’’ (Preston and Post,
1981).
Preston and Post (1975, 1981) analyzed the scope of managerial responsibility
in terms of the ‘‘primary’’ and ‘‘secondary’’ involvement of the firm in its social
environment. Primary involvement includes the essential economic task of the firm,
such as locating and establishing its facilities, procuring suppliers, engaging
employees, carrying out its production functions and marketing products. It also
includes legal requirements. Secondary involvements come as consequence of the
primary.
In practice, discovering the content of the principle of public responsibility is a
complex and difficult task and requires substantial management attention. As Preston
and Post (1975, 1981) recognized, ‘‘the content of public policy is not necessarily
obvious or easy to discover, nor is it invariable over time’’. According to this view, if
business adhered to the standards of performance in law and the existing public policy
process, then it would be judged acceptably responsive in terms of social expectations.
The development of this approach was parallel to the study of the scope regarding
business–government relationship (Vogel, 1986). These studies focused on
government regulations – their formulation and implementation – as well as corporate
strategies to influence these regulations, including campaign contributions, lobbying,
32
coalition building, grassroots organization, corporate public affairs and the role of public
interest and other advocacy groups (Garriga and Mele,2004).
1.7.12 Stakeholder management:
Instead of focusing on generic responsiveness, specific issues or on the public
responsibility principle, the approach called ‘‘stakeholder management’’ is oriented
towards ‘‘stakeholders’’ or people who affect or are affected by corporate policies and
practices. Although the practice of stakeholder management is long-established, its
academic development started only at the end of 70s (Sturdivant, 1979). In a seminal
paper, Emshoff and Freeman (1978) presented two basic principles, which underpin
stakeholder management. The first is that the central goal is to achieve maximum
overall cooperation between the entire system of stakeholder groups and the objectives
of the corporation. The second states that the most efficient strategies for managing
stakeholder relations involve efforts, which simultaneously deal with issues affecting
multiple stakeholders (Garriga and Mele,2004).
Stakeholder management tries to integrate groups with a stake in the firm into
managerial decision making. A great deal of empirical research has been done, guided
by a sense of pragmatism. It includes topics such as how to determine the best practice
in corporate stakeholder relations (Bendheim et. al., 1998), stakeholder salience to
managers (Agle and Mitchell, 1999; Mitchell et. al., 1997), the impact of stakeholder
management on financial performance (Berman et. al., 1999), the influence of
stakeholder network structural relations (Rowley, 1997) and how managers can
successfully balance the competing demands of various stakeholder groups (Ogden
and Watson, 1999).
In recent times, corporations have been pressured by non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), activists, communities, governments, media and other
institutional forces. These groups demand what they consider to be responsible
corporate practices. Now some corporations are seeking corporate responses to social
demands by establishing dialogue with a wide spectrum of stakeholders (Garriga and
Mele,2004).
33
Stakeholder dialogue helps to address the question of responsiveness to the
generally unclear signals received from the environment. In addition, this dialogue ‘‘not
only enhances a company’s sensitivity to its environment but also increases the
environments understanding of the dilemmas facing the organization’’ (Kaptein and
Van Tulder, 2003).
1.7.13 Corporate social performance:
The corporate social performance (CSP) includes a search for social legitimacy,
with processes for giving appropriate responses.
Carroll (1979), generally considered to have introduced this model, suggested a
model of ‘‘corporate performance’’ with three elements: a basic definition of social
responsibility, a listing of issues in which social responsibility exists and a specification
of the philosophy of response to social issues. Carroll considered that a definition of
social responsibility, which fully addresses the entire range of obligations business has
to society, must embody the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary categories of
business performance. He later incorporated his four-part categorization into a
‘‘Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibilities’’ (Carroll, 1991). Recently, Schwartz and
Carroll (2003) have proposed an alternative approach based on three core domains
(economic, legal and ethical responsibilities) and a Venn model framework. The Venn
framework yields seven CSR categories resulting from the overlap of the three core
domains (Garriga and Mele,2004).
Figure-1.1
Carroll’s CSR Pyramid
34
Carroll (1979) categorised CSR into four layers, namely, economic, legal, ethical
and discretionary responsibilities. In the past, businesses focused on economic and
legal aspects, but gradually, they showed concern for ethical and discretionary aspects
as well. The pyramid diagram enables to visualise that there is friction between the 4
opposing components and that they cannot satisfy all of them at the same time.
The terms altruistic or humanitarian CSR involves possible personal or
organizational sacrifice. Humanitarian CSR is Carroll’s “fourth face” of CSR-
philanthropic responsibilities: the implied concept of corporate citizenship fundamental
to the notion of giving back to society (Brenkert, 1996).
Strategic CSR: Strategic CSR or “strategic philanthropy” (Carroll, 2001) is done
to accomplish strategic business goals. Such strategic philanthropy grew popular
around the mid-1980s. Carroll, (2001) expects it to grow in the years ahead. Socially
responsible behavior involves sacrifices (Baxi and Prasad. 2006).
Wartich and Cochran (1985) extended the Carroll approach suggesting that
corporate social involvement rests on the principles of social responsibility, the process
of social responsiveness and the policy of issues management. A new development
came with Wood (1991b) who presented a model of corporate social performance
composed of principles of CSR, processes of corporate social responsiveness and
outcomes of corporate behavior. The principles of CSR are understood to be analytical
forms to be filled with value content that is operationalized. They include: principles of
CSR, expressed on institutional, organizational and individual levels, processes of
corporate social responsiveness, such as environmental assessment, stakeholder
management and issues management, and outcomes of corporate behavior including
social impacts, social programs and social policies (Garriga and Mele, 2004).
1.7.14 Ethical theories :
The fourth group of theories or approaches focus on the ethical requirements
that cement the relationship between business and society. They are based on
principles that express the right thing to do or the necessity to achieve a good society.
From the main approaches the following are distinguished.
35
The concept of social responsibility is closely related to business ethics. Social
responsibility refers to the idea that business have a responsibility to society beyond
making profits. That is, social responsibility means that a company must consider the
welfare of other constituents (e.g., customers, suppliers) in addition to stockholders.
Although business ethics usually concern the ethical dilemmas faced by managers as
individuals, social responsibility is usually concerned with the ethical consequences of
policies and procedures of the company as an organization. Monitoring the working
conditions of suppliers, paying for the education of the children of workers, and
donating money to the local community are examples of social responsibility in action.
1.7.15 Normative stakeholder theory:
Stakeholder theory, which McWilliams (2001) called ‘the dominant paradigm in
CSR,’ originated in response to one of CSR’s most noteworthy critic, eminent
economist Milton Friedman. Thus, stakeholder social responsibility holds that mangers
and other employees have obligations to identifiable groups that are affected by or can
affect the achievement of an organization’s goals.
Three primary reasons often are suggested for embracing stakeholder social responsibility: (1) enlightened self-interest, (2) sound investment, and (3) interference avoidance. Under the rationale of enlightened self-interest, management uses social responsibility to justify numerous decisions and actions. The general idea is that a better society creates a better environment for business. Under the rationale of sound investment, management believes that social responsibility has a positive effect on a company’s net worth.
Figure-1.2
Common Stakeholders of Organizations
Secondary Stakeholders
Media Governments (regulatory Agencies)
Political Action Unions Groups / Activists
Primary Stakeholders
Customers Suppliers Employees Shareholders
The organization
36
The following Strategic Action Competency feature reports on key section of Nortel.
Network’s published statement of its commitments to primary stakeholders. The facets
of a model comprehensive ethics program within a single organization are:
� Broad performance criteria: Managers and employees consider and accept broader criteria for measuring the organization’s performance and social role than those required by law and the marketplace.
� Ethical norms: Managers and employees take stands on issues of public concern. They advocate ethical norms for the organization, the industry, and business in general.
� Operating strategy: Managers and employees maintain or improve current standards of the physical and social environment. Another operating strategy is for organizations to compensate victims of pollution and other hazards created, even in the absence of clearly established legal grounds. Also, managers and employees evaluate possible negative effects of the organization’s plans on other stakeholders and then attempt to eliminate or substantially reduce such negative effects before implementing the plans.
� Response to social pressures: Managers and employees accept responsibility for solving current problems. They are willing to discuss activities with outside groups and make information freely available to them. They are also receptive to formal and informal inputs from outside stakeholders in decision making.
� Legislative and political activities: Managers show a willingness to work with outside stakeholders for enactment, for example, of environmental protection laws. They promote honesty and openness in government and in their own organization’s lobbying activities.
The stakeholder approach grounded in ethical theories presents a different
perspective on CSR, in which ethics is central.
In 1984, Freeman focused on the stakeholder view and propounded six
categories: owners, employees, customers, suppliers, communities and governments.
Other scholars have since included the natural environment as an additional
stakeholder (Carroll and Buchholz, 1999-2000). Donaldson and Preston (1995)
created a well-known stakeholder theory typology to argue for stakeholder engagement
as an essential management tool (Baxi and Prasad, 2006).
Stakeholder management has been included within the integrative theories
group because some authors consider that this form of management is a way to
37
integrate social demands. However, stakeholder management has become an ethically
based theory mainly since 1984 when Freeman (1984) wrote Strategic Management: a
Stakeholder Approach. In this book, he took as starting point that ‘‘managers bear a
fiduciary relationship to stakeholders’’ (Freeman, 1984), instead of having exclusively
fiduciary duties towards stockholders, as was held by the conventional view of the firm.
He understood as stakeholders those groups who have a stake in or claim on the firm
(suppliers, customers, employees, stockholders, and the local community). In a more
precise way, Donaldson and Preston (1995) held that the stakeholder theory has a
normative core based on two major ideas (1) stakeholders are persons or groups with
legitimate interests in procedural and/or substantive aspects of corporate activity
(stakeholders are identified by their interests in the corporation, whether or not the
corporation has any corresponding functional interest in them) and (2) the interests of
all stakeholders are of intrinsic value (that is, each group of stakeholders merits
consideration for its own sake and not merely because of its ability to further the
interests of some other group, such as the shareowners) (Garriga and Mele, 2004).
Following this theory, a socially responsible firm requires simultaneous attention
to the legitimate interests of all appropriate stakeholders and has to balance such a
multiplicity of interests and not only the interests of the firm’s stockholders. Supporters
of normative stakeholder theory have attempted to justify it through arguments taken
from Kantian capitalism (Bowie, 1991; Evan and Freeman, 1988), modern theories of
property and distributive justice (Donaldson and Preston, 1995), and also Libertarian
theories with its notions of freedom, rights and consent (Freeman and Philips, 2002).
A generic formulation of stakeholder theory is not sufficient. In order to point out
how corporations have to be governed and how managers ought to act, a normative
core of ethical principles is required (Freeman, 1994). To this end, different scholars
have proposed differing normative ethical theories. Freeman and Evan (1990)
introduced Rawlsian principles. Bowie (1998) proposed a combination of Kantian and
Rawlsian grounds. Freeman (1994) proposed the doctrine of fair contracts and Phillips
(1997, 2003) suggested introducing the fairness principle based on six of Rawls’
characteristics of the principle of fair play: mutual benefit, justice, cooperation, sacrifice,
38
free-rider possibility and voluntary acceptance of the benefits of cooperative schemes.
Freeman and Philips (2002) have presented six principles for the guidance of
stakeholder theory by combining Libertarian concepts and the Fairness principle. Some
scholars (Burton and Dunn, 1996; Wicks et. al., 1994) proposed instead using a
‘‘feminist ethics’’ approach. Donaldson and Dunfee (1999) hold their ‘Integrative Social
Contract Theory’. Argandona (1998) suggested the common good notion and Wijnberg
(2000) an Aristotelian approach. From a practical perspective, the normative core of
which is risk management, The Clarkson Center for Business Ethics (1999) has
published a set of Principles of Stakeholder Management (Garriga and Mele, 2004).
Stakeholder normative theory has suffered critical distortions and friendly mis-
interpretations, which Freeman and co-workers are trying to clarify (Phillips et. al.,
2003). In practice, this theory has been applied to a variety of business fields, including
stakeholder management for the business and society relationship(Carroll and
Buchholtz, 2002; Post et. al., 2002; Weiss, 2003).
The stakeholder social responsibility holds that mangers and other employees
have obligations to identifiable groups that are affected by or can affect the
achievement of an organization’s goals.
1.7.16 Law and social responsibility:
Many members of society argue strongly that managers must consider the
impact of their decisions and actions on society as a whole and that they must assume
responsibility for their activities. It is argued that managers have to take steps to
protect and improve the welfare of society. Some researchers have suggested that
organizations exist for the purpose of serving the needs of society. Therefore, being a
steward of the needs of society is socially responsible, appropriate, and natural act. In
short, managers must evaluate their decisions and actions, not merely from the
perspective of organizational effectiveness, but also from the perspective of the greater
good.
39
Managers must, of course, obey the law, but social responsibility goes beyond
the letter of the law. Social responsibility is an organization’s obligation to engage in
activities that protect and contribute to the welfare of society. An organization’s social
responsibilities are always shaped by the culture and the historical period in which the
organization operates. Just as a society’s values, norms, and mores change over time,
so does the definition of what is socially responsible behavior.
The two concepts “legality” and “social responsibility” are not one and the same.
Social responsibility is often seen as acts that “go beyond” what is prescribed by the
law. The legality and responsibility identifies four distinct organizational approaches to
social responsibility: illegal and irresponsible, illegal and responsible, irresponsible and
legal, and legal and responsible.
Illegal and Irresponsible: Today, an illegal and irresponsible strategy is a high-risk
strategy and may be fatal to an organization, because a broad spectrum of society will
no longer tolerate such behavior.
Illegal and Responsible: Some organizations fellow strategies that are social
conscious and responsible, but that violate the letter of the law.
Irresponsible and Legal: Some organizations operate without violating a single law,
but still do not act in socially responsible manner.
Legal and Responsible: Finally, some organizations obey the law and at the same
time engage in socially responsible behavior.
There is lot discussion on the relationship between CSR and HRM/HRD.
Scholars rarely cover the topic in any depth while those in other disciplines rarely
mention a role for HRM/HRD apart from limited references to training interventions.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an ambiguous and problematic concept
that is difficult to operationalize (Pedersen, 2006). Consequently, there are no easy
solutions to how an organization can best implement a CSR strategy. This suggests
the need for experimentation based on learning-by-doing: testing out different
40
strategies and gauging reactions to these. It also makes it difficult to determine the
true, underlying reasons why organizations adopt a CSR policy/strategy.
In terms of understanding the impact on organizations of CSR it is important to
appreciate two particular theories: shareholder theory and stakeholder theory. These
two theories reflect the tensions that exist between the two competing perspectives on
globalization referred to above. Shareholder theory gives priority to profit maximization
based on a corporation’s legal obligations to generate shareholder wealth (Key, 1999).
This is consistent with the economic perspective on globalization referred to above.
Stakeholder theory looks beyond profit maximization and focuses on social and
environmental values, based on a corporation’s moral obligations to all those who have
a stake in the business (Freeman, 2001). This reflects the social perspective on
globalization referred to above. However, this delineation between economic and
social is an artificial one as economic decisions tend to have social consequences
(Pedersen, 2006). A CSR strategy underpinned by shareholder theory encourages a
short term perspective.
However, shareholder theory has been criticized as an overly simplistic view
given that business organizations have to satisfy the needs of stakeholders other than
shareholders (Freeman, et. al.,2004). Stakeholder theory enables an organization to
adopt a longer term perspective. Stakeholder theory looks beyond shareholder value
to embrace a wide range of stakeholders. It is being increasingly recognized that long
term sustainability relies not just on the shareholder but on all other stakeholders
relevant to the organization (Zink,2005). This perspective increasingly underpins
organizational approaches to CSR (Burchell and Cook, 2006) as a successful CSR
strategy involves a two-way relationship between business corporations, as well as
other types of large organization, and the societies within which they interact (Werther
and Chandler, 2006). MNCs, in particular, interact with a wide range of societies
across the globe both directly (e.g. subsidiaries are located in different countries) and
indirectly (e.g. sourcing of raw materials). Consequently, organizations need to wrestle
with a balancing act between economic, ethical and social objective (Lantos,2001).
41
As Crane and Matten(2007) observe, CSR encompasses the following
responsibilities:
� Economic: business corporations exist to make a profit for shareholders while providing other stakeholders with economic benefits such as fair-paying jobs for employees and good quality products for customers (Lantos, 2002). Equally, other types of organization, such as local government, health, charities etc need to adhere to economic and financial principles to ensure their continued existence.
� Legal: all organizations operate within the context of a legal framework which can reflect national, regional, and international legislation. The emphasis is on compliance (Maycunich Gilley, et. al., 2003).
� Ethical: This is the ‘grey’ area as discussed above. Organizations may not be legally required to operate in a particular way but may choose to do so because of some overriding moral obligation. This is about doing something because it is right to do so (Lantos, 2002).
� Philanthropic: this is where an organization exercises ‘discretion to improve the quality of life of employees, local communities, and ultimately society in general’ (ibid: 50). This has been termed altruistic by Lantos(2002) and often manifests as organizations making significant charitable donations. There is link here to the fifth layer of HRD evaluation labeled; ultimate value’ that was discussed in chapter-9.
The need to achieve a balance reflects the fact that the overlap between
economic and social benefit is at the heart of a successful CSR policy (Werther and
Chandler, 2006). However, from an international perspective different CSR
responsibilities are emphasized in different parts of the world (Crane and Matten,
2007).
1.7.17 Universal rights:
Human rights have been taken as a basis for CSR, especially in the global
market place (Cassel, 2001). In recent years, some human-rights-based approaches
for corporate responsibility have been proposed. One of them is the UN Global
Compact, which includes nine principles in the areas of human rights, labor and the
environment. It was first presented by the United Nations Secretary- General Kofi
Annan in an address to The World Economic Forum in 1999. In 2000 the Global
42
Compact’s operational phase was launched at UN Headquarters in New York. Many
companies have since adopted it. Another, previously presented and updated in 1999,
is The Global Sullivan Principles, which has the objective of supporting economic,
social and political justice by companies where they do business. The certification
SA8000 (www.cepaa.org) for accreditation of social responsibility is also based on
human and labor rights. Despite using different approaches, all are based on the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations general
assembly in 1948 and on other international declarations of human rights, labor rights
and environmental protection.
Although for many people universal rights are a question of mere consensus,
they have a theoretical grounding, and some moral philosophy theories give them
support (Donnelly, 1985). It is worth mentioning the Natural Law tradition (Simon,
1992), which defends the existence of natural human rights (Maritain, 1971).
1.7.18 Sustainable development:
Another values-based concept, which has become popular, is ‘‘sustainable
development’’. Although this approach was developed at macro level rather than
corporate level, it demands a relevant corporate contribution. The term came into
widespread use in 1987, when the World Commission on Environment and
Development (United Nations) published a report known as ‘‘Brutland Report’’. This
report stated that ‘‘sustainable development’’ seeks to meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability to meet the future generation to meet their own needs’’
(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Although this report
originally included the environmental factor, the concept of ‘‘sustainable development’’
has since expanded to include the consideration of the social dimension as being
inseparable from development. In the words of the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (2000), sustainable development ‘‘requires the integration of
social, environmental, and economic considerations to make balanced judgments for
the long term’’.
Numerous definitions have been proposed for sustainable development
(Gladwin and Kennelly, 1995). In spite of which, a content analysis of the main
definitions suggests that sustainable development is ‘‘a process of achieving human
43
development in an inclusive, connected, equip able, prudent and secure manner.’’
(Gladwin and Kennelly, 1995).
The problem comes when the corporation has to develop the processes and
implement strategies to meet the corporate challenge of corporate sustainable
development. As Wheeler et. al. (2003) have stated, sustainability is ‘‘an ideal toward
which society and business can continually strive, the way we strive is by creating
value, creating outcomes that are consistent with the ideal of sustainability along social
environmental and economic dimensions’’.
However, some suggestions have been proposed to achieve corporate
ecological sustainability (Shrivastava, 1995; Stead and Stead, 2000). A pragmatic
proposal is to extend the traditional ‘‘bottom line’’ accounting, which shows overall net
profitability, to a ‘‘triple bottom line’’ that would include economic, social and
environmental aspects of corporation. Van Marrewijk and Werre (2003) maintain that
corporate sustainability is a custom-made process and each organization should
choose its own specific ambition and approach regarding corporate sustainability. This
has to meet the organization’s aims and intentions, and be aligned with the
organization strategy, as an appropriate response to the circumstances in which the
organization operates.
1.7.19 Common good approach:
This third group of approaches, less consolidated than the stakeholder approach
but with potential, holds the common good of society as the referential value for CSR
(Mahon and McGowan, 1991; Velasquez, 1992). The common good is a classical
concept rooted in Aristotelian tradition (Smith, 1999), in Medieval Scholastics
(Kempshall, 1999), developed philosophically (Maritain, 1966) and assumed into
Catholic social thought (Carey, 2001) as a key reference for business ethics (Alford and
Naughton, 2002; Mele, 2002; Pope John Paul II, 1991). This approach maintains that
business, as with any other social group or individual in society, has to contribute to the
common good, because it is a part of society. In this respect, it has been argued that
business is a mediating institution (Fort, 1996, 1999). Business should be neither
44
harmful to nor a parasite on society, but purely a positive contributor to the wellbeing of
the society.
Business contributes to the common good in different ways, such as creating
wealth, providing goods and services in an efficient and fair way, at the same time
respecting the dignity and the inalienable and fundamental rights of the individual.
Furthermore, it contributes to social well-being and a harmonic way of living together in
just, peaceful and friendly conditions, both in the present and in the future (Mele, 2002).
To some extent, this approach has a lot in common with both the stakeholder
approach (Argandona, 1998) and sustainable development, but the philosophical base
is different. Although there are several ways of understanding the notion of common
good (Sulmasy, 2001), the interpretation based on the knowledge of human nature and
its fulfillment seems to us particularly convincing. It permits the circumnavigation of
cultural relativism, which is frequently embedded in some definitions of sustainable
development.
The common good notion is also very close to the Japanese concept of Kyosei
(Goodpaster, 1999; Kaku, 1997; Yamaji, 1997), understood as ‘‘living and working
together for the common good’’, which, together with the principle of human dignity, is
one of the founding principles of the popular ‘‘The Caux Roundtable Principles for
Business’’ (www.cauxroundtable.org).
TABLE 1.1 Corporate social responsibilities theories and rela ted approaches*
Type of theory Approaches Short description Some key references Instrumental theories (focusing on achieving economic objectives through social activities)
Maximization of shareholder value
Long-term value maximization
Friedman(1970), Jensen (2000)
Strategies for competitive advantages
Social investments in a competitive context
Proter and Kramer (2002)
Strategies based on the natural resource view of the firm and the dynamic capabilities of the firm
Hart (1995), Lizt (1996)
Strategies for the bottom of the economic pyramid
Prahalad and Hammond(2002), Hart and Chirstensen(2002), Prahalad(2003)
Cause-related marketing
Altruistic activities socially recognized used as an instrument of marketing
Varadarajan and Menon (1998), Murray and Montanari (1986)
Political theories (focusing on a
Corporate constitutionalism
Social responsibilities of business arise from the
Davis (1990,1967)
45
responsible use of business power I the political arena)
amount of social power that they have
Integrative Social Contract Theory
Assumes that a social contract between business and society exists
Donaldson and Dunfee (1994, 1999)
Corporate(or business) citizens
The firm is understood as being like a citizen with certain involvement in the community
Wood and Lodgson (2002), Andriof and McIntosh (2001) Matten and Crane (in press)
Integrative theories (focusing on the integration of social demands)
Issues management Corporate process of response to those social and political issues which may impact significantly upon it
Sethi (1975), Akerman(1973), Jones(1980), Vogel(1986), Wartick and Mahon (1994)
Public responsibility Law and the existing public policy process are taken as a reference for social performance
Preston and Post(1975,1981)
Stakeholder management
Balances the interests of the stakeholders of the firm
Mitchell et al. 1997) Agle and Mitchell(1999), Rowley(1997)
Corporate social performance
Searches for social legitimacy and process to give appropriate responses to social issues
Carroll(1997), Wartick and Cochran(1985), Wood(1991b) Swanson (1995)
Ethical theories (focusing on the right thing to achieve a good society)
Stakeholder normative theory
Considers fiduciary duties towards stakeholders of the firm. Its application requires reference to some moral theory (Kantian, Utilitarianism, theories of justice, etc.)
Freeman(1984,1994), Evan and Freeman(1988), Donaldson and Preston(1995), Freeman and Philips(2002), Phillips et al. (2003)
Universal rights Frameworks based on human rights, labour rights and respect for the environment
The Global Sullivan Principles (1999),UN Global Compact (1999)
Sustainable development
Aimed at achieving human development considering present and future generations
World Commission on Environment and Development (Brutland Report) (1987), Gladwin and Kennelly (1995)
The common good Oriented towards the common good of society
Alford and Naughton(2002), Mele(2002) Kaku (1997)
*Source: Garriga and Mele, (2004).
1.8 Approaches or models to CSR:
According to Wikipedia some researchers have identified a difference between
the Canadian (Montreal school of CSR), the Continental European and the Anglo-
Saxon approaches to CSR. And even within Europe the discussion about CSR is very
heterogeneous.
46
A more common approach of CSR is philanthropy. This includes monetary
donations and aid given to local organizations and impoverished communities in
developing countries. Some organizations do not like this approach as it does not help
build on the skills of the local people, whereas community-based development
generally leads to more sustainable development.
Another approach to CSR is to incorporate the CSR strategy directly into the
business strategy of an organization. For instance, procurement of Fair Trade tea and
coffee has been adopted by various business houses. Its CSR manager commented,
"Fair trade fits very strongly into our commitment to our communities."
Another approach is garnering increasing corporate responsibility interest. This
is called Creating Shared Value, or CSV. The shared value model is based on the idea
that corporate success and social welfare are interdependent. A business needs a
healthy, educated workforce, sustainable resources and adept government to compete
effectively. For society to thrive, profitable and competitive businesses must be
developed and supported to create income, wealth, tax revenues, and opportunities for
philanthropy. CSV received global attention in the Harvard Business Review article
Strategy & Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social
Responsibility by Michael E. Porter, a leading authority on competitive strategy and
head of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School; and
Mark R. Kramer, Senior Fellow at the Kennedy School at Harvard University and co-
founder of FSG Social Impact Advisors. The article provides insights and relevant
examples of companies that have developed deep linkages between their business
strategies and corporate social responsibility. Many approaches to CSR emphasize
businesses against society, stressing the costs and limitations of compliance with
externally imposed social and environmental standards. CSV acknowledges trade-offs
between short-term profitability and social or environmental goals, but focuses more on
the opportunities for competitive advantage from building a social value proposition into
corporate strategy. CSV has a limitation in that it gives the impression that only two
stakeholders are important - shareholders and consumers - and belives the multi-
stakeholder approach by most CSR advocates( Wikipedia).
47
Many companies use the strategy of benchmarking to compete within their
respective industries in CSR policy, implementation, and effectiveness. Benchmarking
involves reviewing competitor CSR initiatives, as well as measuring and evaluating the
impact that those policies have on society and the environment, and how customers
perceive competitor CSR strategy. After a comprehensive study of competitor strategy
and an internal policy review performed, a comparison can be drawn and a strategy
developed for competition with CSR initiatives (Wikipedia).
Figure-1.3
Source: Wikipedia
There are several approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which are
discussed below:
The Three- Approach to CSR:
� Level 1: Principles of social responsibility.
� Level 2: Processes of social responsiveness.
� Level3: Products (or Outcomes) as they relate to the firm’s societal
relationships.
Social responsibility emanates from the fact that the business organization exists
within the social construct and owes its very existence to the demand created by
societal agents. Therefore there is a need for the organization to plough back some of
48
the benefits back into creation of social assets. Social responsiveness related to the
ability of the business organization to be able to realize this responsibility and to rise to
the occasion. Social responsiveness exhibits the desire of the organization to make
meaningful contribution and not just make gestures of corporate philanthropy. The
organizations also need to look beyond public relations into the concept of creation of
healthy and positive societal relationships that will yield results in the long term.
According to Aswathappa,(1999), there are two basic approaches to the
concept of corporate social responsibility. Some theorists, focusing on the “micro” level
of analysis, try to show individual companies how they can be more socially
responsive. Other researchers concern themselves with the “macro” level of analysis,
assuming that the government, not individual companies, should establish a country’s
social goals. Needless to say that it is the micro level of analysis which is significant.
1.8.1 Ackerman’s Model: Micro-level theorist Robert Ackerman was among the
earliest people to suggest that responsiveness, is should be the goal of corporate
social endeavour. Ackerman described three phases through which companies
commonly tend to pass in developing a response to social issues (see Table-2).
Table -1.2: Ackerman’s three stages of social responsibility
Organizational level
Phase of organizational Involvement Phase I Phase II Phase III
Chief Executive Issue: Corporate Obligation Action: Write and communicate policy Outcome: Enriched purpose, increased awareness
Obtain knowledge Add staff specialists
Obtain organization commitment. Change performance expectations.
Staff Specialists Issue: Technical problem Action: Design data system and interpret environment Outcome: Technical and information ground work
Provoke response from operating units Apply data system to performance measurement.
Division Management
Issue: Management problem Action: Commit resources and modify procedures Outcome: Increased responsiveness
49
In phase 1: a corporation’s top managers learn of an existing social problem. At this stage, no one asks the company to deal with it. The chief executive officer merely acknowledges the problem by making a written or oral statement of the company’s policy towards it.
In Phase 2: the company hires staff specialists or engages outside consultants
to study the problem and to suggest ways of dealing with it. Up to this point, the
company has limited itself to declaring its intentions and formulating its plans.
In Phase 3: is implementation. The company now integrates the policy into its
ongoing operations. Unfortunately, implementation often comes slowly-and often not
until the government or public opinion forces the company to act. By that time, the
company has lost the initiative. Ackerman thus advises that managers to “act early in
the life cycle of any social issue in order to enjoy the largest amount of managerial
discretion over the outcome.”
Carroll’s four-part Model: Archie B. Carroll has promulgated the four part model
(Shown in Figure-3), while discussing the Nature of social responsibility. The model
(through the length of its bars) suggests that because a business firm is basically an
economic entity, its primary responsibility is economic. It must produce the goods and
/or services that society wants and sell them for a profit. Legal responsibilities are also
basic. Firms should operate within the law. Some researchers also call this as
Business and Society Approach.
Figure-1.4 Total Social Responsibilities
In the above model, ethical responsibilities refer to behavior by the firm that is
expected by society but not codified into law. Although these responsibilities are
somewhat ill-defined in general, in specific situations they can be fairly clear. However,
ethical and discretionary responsibilities together constitute the social responsibility of
business. The four responsibilities are listed in order of priority. A business unit must
Discretionary
Responsibilities
Economic
responsibility
Ethical
Responsibility
Legal
Responsibility
50
earn profit in order to satisfy its economic responsibilities. In order to continue to exist it
must follow laws thus fulfilling legal responsibilities. After these basic responsibilities
have been satisfied, the firm should seek to fulfill its social responsibilities. It can then
fulfill its ethical responsibilities by doing those things that society tends to value but
have not been brought under legal frame. After satisfying its ethical responsibilities, the
company can focus on discretionary responsibilities which are purely voluntary actions
that society has not yet considered as important (Aswathappa,1999).
The discretionary responsibilities of today may become the ethical
responsibilities of tomorrow. The provision of day-care facilities, for example, is moving
rapidly from discretionary to an ethical responsibility. Carroll suggests that to the extent
that firms fail to acknowledge discretionary or ethical responsibilities, society will assert,
and bring them under legal framework. Before that happens, it is advisable that
companies undertake ethical and discretionary activities voluntarily
(Aswathappa,1999).
1.8.2 Business and Society Approach:
The view that corporations have an obligation to society developed at a time
when corporations were enjoying unprecedented levels of power – especially over
citizens – while exercising little social responsibility (Wood, 1991, Carroll, 1999).
Carroll’s model of CSR, which came into prominence during the 1970s, framed
business responsibilities into four components: economic, legal, ethical, and
discretionary. When the author reformulated the model in 1991, he depicted it in the
form of a pyramid, with economic performance being the most basic function
(depicted at the bottom of the pyramid) and moving up to legal, ethical and
philanthropic (which replaced discretionary) components (Table -1.3 ).
Carroll’s CSR pyramid (1991) stated that a socially responsible corporation
should simultaneously “strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good
corporate citizen”. He specifically distinguished between philanthropic and ethical
responsibilities noting that many corporations assume that they are being socially
responsible by being good corporate citizens in the community. Interestingly, several
scholars and economists have in fact rejected philanthropy as a legitimate corporate
51
action (Lantos, 2001; Friedman, 1970). Carroll himself stated that philanthropy, while
highly desirable, is actually less important than the first three components of CSR. It
should be noted that even though the four components have been discussed as
separate constructs, they are not mutually exclusive.
Building on Carroll’s work, Lantos (2001) classified CSR into three forms:
ethical, altruistic, and strategic. Ethical CSR is the minimal, mandatory fulfillment of a
corporation’s economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities to its publics. Lantos argued
that strategic CSR, where corporations participate only in those philanthropic actions
that will financially benefit them by attracting positive publicity and goodwill, should be
practiced over altruistic CSR, which constitutes making philanthropic contributions at
the possible expense of stockholders. He stated that altruistic CSR is not legitimate.
Despite their different orientations, these scholars have put forth a common notion that
corporations do not operate in isolation from the society where they exist. This
symbiotic relationship was summarized by Wood (1991): “Business and society are
interwoven rather than distinct entities”.
Table-1.3 Economic, Legal, Ethical & Philanthropic Components of
Carroll’s CSR Pyramid S.No Economic Components
(Responsibilities) Legal Components (Responsibili ties)
1. It is important to perform in a manner consistent with maximizing earnings per share
It is important to perform in a manner consistent with expectations of government and law.
2. It is important to be committed to being as profitable as possible.
It is important to comply with various federal, state, and local regulations.
3. It is important to maintain a strong competitive position.
It is important to be a law abiding corporate citizen.
4. It is important to maintain a high level of operating efficiency.
It is important that a successful corporation be defined as one that fulfils its legal obligations.
5. It is important that a successful corporation be defined as one that is consistently profitable.
It is important to provide goods and services that at least meet minimal legal requirements.
Ethical C omponents (Responsibilities)
Philanthropic Components (Responsibilities )
52
1. It is important to perform in a manner consistent with expectations of societal mores and ethical norms.
It is important to perform in a Manner consistent with the philanthropic and charitable expectations of society.
2. It is important to recognize and respect new or evolving ethical moral norms adopted by society.
It is important to assist the fine and performing arts.
3. It is important to prevent ethical norms from being compromised in order to achieve corporate goals.
It is important that managers and employees participate in voluntary and charitable activities within their local communities.
4. It is important that good corporate citizenship be defined as doing what is expected morally or ethically.
It is important to provide assistance to private and public educational institutions.
5. It is important to recognize that corporate integrity and ethical behaviour go beyond mere compliance with laws and regulations.
It is important to assist voluntarily Those projects that enhance a community’s "quality of life."
Source: Carroll, A. B. (1991) The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34 (4), 39-48
1.8.3 Economic Approach:
Contrary to the proponents of the business and society approach, classical
economists separated social functions from economic functions, asserting that
businesses have the basic responsibility of maximizing profits for their owners or
shareholders. Adam Smith (1863, as cited in Lantos, 2001), perhaps the first to
espouse the market value maximization perspective, argued that by pursuing profits,
corporations produce the greatest social good because the invisible hand of the
capitalist market ultimately helped solve society’s problems. Lantos (2001) used the
term Economic CSR to refer to profit-oriented CSR activities, which absolves
corporations from social contribution because they pay taxes and wages to employees
rather than enslaving them (Marvoux, 2000). Some economists have gone as far as to
argue that the only social responsibility corporations have is to obey the law
(Carroll,1996).
Like Carroll, Milton Friedman offered the dominant and well known view
representing the economic approach separating social functions from business
functions, asserting that the “business of business is business.” (Klonoski, 2001).
However, Friedman (1970) did recognize a spectrum of moral and ethical
responsibilities, positing that the social responsibility of corporations is to “make as
53
much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those
embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.”
1.8.4 Stakeholder Approach:
The economic approach overlooked the fact that in the effort to maximize
profits, corporations do affect multiple stakeholders (Freeman, 2001). The stakeholder
approach to CSR viewed the corporation as “a set of interrelated, explicit or implicit
connections between individuals and or groups of individuals” (Rowley, 1997) that
include anybody who “can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s
objectives” (Freeman, 1984). This approach distinguishes between primary (e.g.
employees, customers and suppliers) and secondary (e.g. the media and NGOs)
stakeholders according to their relative impact on the corporation (Clarkson, 1995). It
advocates that corporations are responsible for addressing the interests of the various
stakeholders – not just those of the owners and/or shareholders – because they make
other, non-monetary investments, albeit at varying levels depending on the
corporation’s objectives (Freeman, 1984; Key and Popkin, 1998; Boehm, 2002).
1.9 Definitions of CSR- A Historical Growth:
‘It is widely acknowledged that modern corporations have some social
responsibility towards society; even the most adamant opponents of CSR agree with
this assertion. There is, however, a different perception of what this responsibility
entails, which in effect suggests that there are different paradigms of CSR. On the one
hand there are some supporters of CSR who believe and argue fervently that an
entity’s social responsibility is a single one, which is that the entity must increase its
profits whilst staying within the rules of the game. To argue otherwise, they say is
preaching pure and unadulterated socialism; after all businesses are not established for
eleemosynary purposes (Friedman 1962, 1970). On the other hand, Elkington (1997)
in his triple bottom line concept argues that the social responsibility of a business entity
is three-fold: to create Economic value by being profitable; to create Ecological value,
which is to engage in activities that are beneficial to the natural environment; and to
create Social value, which is to engage in activities that are beneficial to life and the
community. Carroll and Buchholtz (2003) have extended this idea and argue that the
54
social responsibility of a business organization is fourfold. This responsibility, they
argue, can be expressed either as a pyramid or in terms of a equation. When
expressed as an equation, it is the sum total of four different responsibilities: Economic
responsibilities (ECR) (which is to make a profit) plus Legal responsibilities (LGR) (to
obey the law) plus Ethical responsibilities (ETR) (to do what is right, fair, and just at all
times) plus philanthropic responsibilities (PHP) (to be a good corporate citizen),’ (ldow
and Felho,2009).
When the arguments of these researchers are expressed mathematically, three
equations emanate (ldow and Felho,2009):
Friedman (1962,1970): CSR=Profit Elkington(1997):
CSR=ECV+ECLV+SOCV Carroll and Buchholtz (2003): CSR=ECR+LGR+ETR+PHR
When Carroll and Buchholtz’s (2003) proposition is expressed in terms of a
pyramid, it results in an entity’s ECR at the base and its PHR at the top. The entity’s
CSR is therefore depicted in a hierarchical form in the order of ECR, LGR, ETR, and
PHR (ldow and Felho,2009).
Friedman (1962, 1970), Elkington (1997), and Carroll and Buchholtz (2003) all
agree that making a profit is a social responsibility of a business entity and that this is
one of the objectives of any profit-seeking concern. A not-for-profit corporate entity
either has no social responsibility or has a different set of CSRs according to Friedman
(1962,1970). Interestingly, all but Friedman (1962, 1970) agree that there is more to
CSR than just profit seeking. CSR covers a wide spectrum of other activities that seek
to make life a lot better seeking. CSR covers a wide spectrum of other activities that
seek to make life a lot better for stakeholders, societies, and the environment (ldow and
Felho,2009).
55
Table- 1.4 Definitions of CSR by researchers and organizations promoting the
field Author Definition
WBCSD (1999) (World Business Council for Sustainable Development)
CSR is the ethical behavior of a company towards society; management acting responsibly in its relationship with other stakeholders who have a legitimate interest in the business, and it is the commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large.
Bloom and Gundlach(2001)
The obligations of the firm to its stakeholders people and groups who can affect or who are affected by corporate policies and practices. These obligations go beyond legal requirements and the company’s duties to its shareholders. The fulfillment of these obligations is intended to minimize any harm and maximize the long-run beneficial impact of the firm on society.
Mc Williams and Siegel (2001)
CSR are actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law.
Jackson (2003) CSR is the overall relationship of the corporation with all its stakeholders…. Elements of corporate social responsibility include investment in community outreach, employee relations, creation and maintenance of employment, environmental responsibility, human rights, and financial performance.
Crowther and Rayman-Bacchus(2004)
CSR is concerned with what is or should be the relationship between the global corporation, government of countries, and individual citizens.
The European Union (2004)
CSR is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis.
Kotler and Lee (2005) CSR is a commitment to improve community well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources.
A fundamental problem in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is that
there is no universally accepted definition of the concept (Sriramesh, 2007). Bowen
(1953) offered one of the earliest definitions seeing CSR as the “obligations of
businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines
of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society”. Since
then, the field has evolved assuming different names such as corporate social
responsiveness (in the 1970s) and corporate social performance (in the 1980s). This
evolution also reflects an increase in awareness in important areas of action and
performance that the early definitions had overlooked (Carroll,1991).
Bowd, Harris, and Cornelissen’s (2003) defines CSR, by deriving from the views
of scholars such as Carroll (1999), Wood (1991), Freeman (1984), and Friedman
(1970). Bowd, et. al. and incorporating recent industry reports such as Commission of
56
the European Communities (2001, 2002) and the Financial Times Top 100 Index to
define the term: CSR in corporations’ being held accountable by explicit or inferred
social contract with internal and external stakeholders, obeying the laws and
regulations of government and operating in an ethical manner which exceeds statutory
requirements….
Addressing the vagueness of the term “ethical manner,” Bowd, et. al. offered
examples of ethical behavior such as proactive community involvement, philanthropy,
corporate governance, and commitment to the environment. This definition also entails
a commitment to accountability, where the organization is obliged to measure and audit
its CSR strategy, aims, principles, and manifestations, while simultaneously continuing
its focus on generating profits for investors.
CSR has variously been described as a ‘motherhood issue’ (Ryan, 2002) ‘the
hot business issue of the noughties’ (Blyth, 2005) and ‘the talk of the town in corporate
circles these days’ (Mees & Bonham, 2004). There seems to be an infinite number of
definitions of CSR, ranging from the simplistic to the complex, and a range of
associated terms and ideas (some used interchangeably), including ‘corporate
sustainability, corporate citizenship, corporate social investment, the triple bottom line,
socially responsible investment, business sustainability and corporate governance’
(Prime Minister's Community Business Partnership,2006). It has been suggested that
‘some…researchers…distort the definition of corporate social responsibility or
performance so much that the concept becomes morally vacuous, conceptually
meaningless, and utterly unrecognizable’(Orlitzky, 2005); or CSR may be regarded as
‘the panacea which will solve the global poverty gap, social exclusion and
environmental degradation’ (Van Marrewijk, 2003). Hopkins has commented that
‘without a common language we don’t really know that our dialogue with companies is
being heard and interpreted in a consistent way’ (Hopkins, 2003). It is therefore
important to explore the language of CSR if we are to understand and debate the
concepts involved (Thomas and Nowak, 2006). The researcher reviews and examines
the studies made on CSR and synthesizes various definitions for better understanding:
57
The term CSR may appear to be relatively new to the corporate world, the
literature reveals that the evolution of the concept itself has taken place over several
decades. The fact that the terminology itself has changed over this time also suggests
that the meaning ascribed to concepts such as CSR will continue to evolve in tune with
business, political and social developments. The impact of globalization and mass
communication also means that while definitions will reflect local situations, they will
also be strongly influenced by global trends and changes in international law (Thomas
and Nowak, 2006).
1.9.1 1920s – 1950s:
The CSR has a long history, which evolved with the development of businesses
and that has been meeting the emerging needs of the society. The modern concept
and form of CSR has appeared through a transition that started during the early
twentieth century. During that period, calls for CSR came from outside the industrial
sector in the form of unions (Kuhn and Shriver ,1991).
Bowen (1953), raises a question, “What responsibilities to society may
businessmen reasonably be expected to assume?”
Bowen (1953) makes an initial definition of the social responsibilities of
businessmen: It refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to
make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of
the objectives and values of our society.
According to Heald (1957), another CSR expert of the contemporary period
gave a definition of CSR as: CSR is recognition on the part of management of an
obligation to the society it serves not only for maximum economic performance but for
humane and constructive social policies as well.
It has been suggested by Windsor that ‘business leaders have since the 1920s
widely adhered to some conception of responsibility and responsiveness practices’
(Windsor 2001). Others have argued that the genesis of CSR was in the 1930s with the
debate between AA Berle and E Merrick Dodd over the role of managers (Post, 2003 ;
Turner 2006). Merrick Dodd contended ‘that the powers of corporate management are
held in trust for the entire community’ (Boatright in Post 2003). In 1953, Bowen
58
conceptualized CSR as social obligation – the obligation ‘to pursue those policies, to
make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of
the objectives and values of our society’ (Bowen in Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Carroll
has described Bowen as the modern ‘Father of Corporate Social Responsibility’ and
believes that his work marks the beginning of the modern period of literature on CSR.
(Carroll, 1999) Bowen took a broad approach to business responsibilities, including
responsiveness, stewardship, social audit, corporate citizenship and rudimentary
stakeholder theory (Windsor, 2001).
Peter Drucker(1954) was one of the first to explicitly address CSR, including
public responsibility as one of the eight key areas for business objectives developed in
his 1954 book, The Practice of Management. While Drucker(1954), believed that
management’s first responsibility to society involved making a profit, ‘he felt it was also
most important that management consider the impact of every business policy and
action upon society’ (Joyner & Payne, 2002).
The case for social responsibilities of business rests primarily on the ground that
corporations are creatures of society and should therefore respond to the demands of
society. It is indeed in the interest of the enterprise itself. As Druker(1954), has
observed, “The first responsibilities which management owes to the enterprise…is to
consider such demands made by society on the enterprise (or is likely to be made in
the near future) as may affect attainment of its business objectives. It is management’s
job to find a way to convert these demands from threats to, or restrictions on, the
enterprise’s freedom of action into opportunities for sound growth, or at least to satisfy
them with least damage to the enterprise” (Drucker, 1954).
It is now clearly understood that the 1950s was a period of the beginning of
Modern era of CSR. Corporate managers and board directors started feeling that they
exist as society exist and they have some obligation towards the society
(Rahman,2011). CSR literature during this period discussed about the obligations of
the businesses towards achieving the desired objectives, values and policies for the
society (Bowen, 1953; Heald, 1957).
59
1.9.2 1960s:
The literature of the 1960s is not heavily represented in CSR discussion.
However, Carroll believed that this decade ‘marked a significant growth in attempts to
formalize, or more accurately, state what CSR means’. (Carroll,1999) To mention that
some of the most prominent writers during that time were Keith Davis, Joseph W
McGuire, William C Frederick and Clarence C Walton. Davis’s assertion that ‘some
socially responsible business decisions can be justified by… having a good chance of
bringing long-run economic gain to the firm, thus paying it back for its socially
responsible outlook’ (Davis in Carroll, 1999) is an interesting precursor to contemporary
debates about the financial implications of CSR. Davis’s later assertion that ‘The
substance of social responsibility arises from concern for the ethical consequence of
one’s acts as they might affect the interests of others’ (Davis in Carroll, 1999)
introduces the notion of business ethics to CSR.
Keith Davis (1960) defines social responsibility by arguing that it refers to
“businessmen’s decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the
firm’s direct economic or technical interest”. Frederick (1960) was also an influential
contributor to the early definitions of social responsibility and according to him: [Social
responsibilities] mean that businessmen should oversee the operation of an economic
system that fulfils the expectations of the public. And this means in turn that the
economy’s means of production should be employed in such a way that production and
distribution should enhance total socio-economic welfare.
Walton (1967), addresses many facets of CSR in modern society. He presents a
number of different varieties, or models, of social responsibility, including his
fundamental definition of social responsibility: In short, the new concept of social
responsibility recognizes the intimacy of the relationships between the corporation and
society and realizes that such relationships must be kept in mind by top managers as
the corporation and the related groups pursue their respective goals (Walton, 1967).
In 1960, Frederick wrote that ‘Social responsibility in the final analysis implies a
public posture toward society’s economic and human resources and a willingness to
60
see that those resources are used for broad social ends and not simply for the narrowly
circumscribed interests of private persons and firms’(Frederick,1960). Clarence C
Walton emphasized that ‘the essential ingredient of the corporation’s social
responsibilities include a degree of voluntarism, as opposed to coercion’ (Walton,
1967), an argument that business continues to put forth today. Walton also counselled
‘the acceptance that costs are involved for which it may not be possible to gauge any
direct measurable economic returns’ (Walton ,1967).
Beginning in the 1960s moral issues in business were raised on a record level.
During this time, many businesses were selling unsafe products harmful for the
environment, society was not succeeding in helping economically deprived citizens,
bribery was common and morality suffered to money and power (Lantos, 2001). The
1960s broadened the area of literature on CSR.
1.9.3 1970s:
The literature on CSR includes many references to Milton Friedman’s
‘minimalist’ view of corporate responsibility (Lucas, Wollin & Lafferty, 2001) and his
famous comment in 1970 (Hopkins 2003 ; Turner, 2006). Friedman (1970) expressed
CSR from a different angle and with a business-centric view:
There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources
and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the
rules of the game, which is to say, engage in open and free competition, without
deception or fraud.
Friedman’s view has continued to be debated over the decades, for example
McAleer, who concluded that Friedman’s arguments were unsound and his views
unclear, and Oketch, who suggested that ‘Today, many would not be comfortable with
such a profit-oriented statement’ (McAleer 2003, and Oketch, 2004).
Johnson (1971) presented a number of definitions of CSR and then criticized
and analysed them. Johnson presented four views of CSR as narrated below (Rahman,
2011):
61
1. A socially responsible firm is one whose managerial staff balances a
multiplicity of interests. Instead of striving only for larger profits for its stockholders, a
responsible enterprise also takes into account employees, suppliers, dealers, local
communities, and the nation.
2. Social responsibility states that businesses carry out social programs to add
profits to their organization.
3. A socially responsible entrepreneur or manager is one who has a utility
function of the second type, such that he is interested not only in his own well-being but
also in that of the other members of the enterprise and that of his fellow citizens.
4. The goals of the enterprise, like those of the consumer, are ranked in order of
importance and that targets are assessed for each goal. These target levels are
shaped by a variety of factors, but the most important are the firm’s past experience
with these goals and the past performance of similar business enterprises; individuals
and organizations generally want to do at least as well as others in similar
circumstances.
Eilbert and Parket (1973), define CSR as:
Perhaps the best way to understand social responsibility is to think of it as “good
neighbourliness.” The concept involves two phases. On one hand, it means not doing
things that spoil the neighbourhood. On the other, it may be expressed as the voluntary
assumption of the obligation to help solve neighbourhood problems. Those who find
neighbourliness an awkward or coy concept may substitute the idea that social
responsibility means the commitment of a business or Business, in general, to an
active role in the solution of broad social problems, such as racial discrimination,
pollution, transportation, or urban decay.
Sethi (1975), in a classic article, discusses “dimensions of corporate social
performance,” and distinguished between corporate behaviour into 3 level model-these
three tiers were called as “social obligation”(a response to legal and market
constraints), “social responsibility” (congruent with societal norms) and “social
62
responsiveness” (adoptive, anticipatory and preventive). Preston and Post (1975)
sought to draw attention away from the concept of CSR and toward a notion of public
responsibility. They stated that in the principle of public responsibility, “the scope of
managerial responsibility is not unlimited, as the popular conception of “social
responsibility” might suggest, but specifically defined in terms of primary and secondary
involvement areas”. In 1979, Carroll, offered the following definition: The social
responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary
expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time (Carroll, 1979).
Early research studies on CSR conducted in the 1970s included Bowman and
Haire’s measurement of corporate involvement in CSR. Their research used a variant
of content analysis to measure the number of lines covering social responsibility in
company annual reports. The headings they used included ‘corporate responsibility,
social responsibility, social action, public service, corporate citizenship, public
responsibility, and social responsiveness’ (Carroll 1999).
CSR definitions grew well in the 1970s. Business people during that period were
significantly engaged with corporate philanthropy and community relations. A few
definitions appeared this time that stressed the inclusion of stakeholders, needed to
match public expectation and utilization of CSR for long term benefits of the society.
Four facets of social performance became well known during this period. These were
social responsibility, social accounting, social indicators, and the social audit
(Backman, 1975).
1.9.4 1980s:
In 1980, Thomas M. Jones entered the CSR discussion with an interesting
perspective. He defined CSR:
Corporate Social Responsibility is the notion that corporations have an obligation
to constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by
law and union contract. Two facets of this definition are critical. First, the obligation
must be voluntarily adopted; behaviour influenced by the coercive forces of law or
union contract is not voluntary. Second, the obligation is a broad, extending beyond the
63
traditional duty to shareholders to other societal groups such as customers, employees,
suppliers, and neighbouring communities.
Carroll believes that in the 1980s, ‘the focus on developing new or refined
definitions of CSR gave way to research on CSR and a splintering of writings into
alternative concepts and themes such as corporate social responsiveness, CSP, public
policy, business ethics, and stakeholder theory/management’ (Carroll,1999). Carroll
outlined the work of a number of researchers, including Jones(1980), who ‘posited that
CSR ought to be seen not as a set of outcomes but as a process’ and Tuzzolino and
Armandi ( 1981) who ‘sought to develop a better mechanism for assessing CSR by
proposing a need-hierarchy framework patterned after Maslow’s (Carroll,1999). Their
organizational need hierarchy suggest that organizations, like individuals, had criteria
that needed to be fulfilled or met, just as people do, as portrayed in the Maslow
hierarchy. Thus developed the organisational hierarchy as a conceptual tool that could
be used to assess socially responsible organizational performance.
Strand (1983) presents a systems paradigm of organizational adaptations to the
social environment that how social responsibility, social responsiveness, and social
responses connected to an organization-environment model. Carroll (1983) provides
another definition of CSR:
CSR involves the conduct of a business so that it is economically profitable, law
abiding, ethical and socially supportive. To be socially responsible . . . then means that
profitability and obedience to the law are foremost conditions to discussing the firm’s
ethics and the extent to which it supports the society in which it exists with contributions
of money, time and talent. Thus, CSR is composed of four parts: economic, legal,
ethical and voluntary or philanthropic.
Freeman (1984), developed stakeholders theory and brought a new dimension
in CSR literature. According to him, stakeholders include customers, competitors, trade
associations, media, environmentalists, suppliers, government, consumer advocates,
local communities and business community, who need active participation for
successful CSR implementation.
64
Epstein (1987) defines CSR by relating it to social responsibility,
responsiveness, and business ethics. He pointed out that these three concepts dealt
with intimately related, even overlapping, themes and concerns. He defined CSR as the
following: Corporate social responsibility relates primarily to achieving outcomes from
organizational decisions concerning specific issues or problems which (by some
normative standard) have beneficial rather than adverse effects on pertinent corporate
stakeholders. The normative correctness of the products of corporate action have been
the main focus of corporate social responsibility.
The 1980s have been described as having ‘a more responsible approach to
corporate strategy’ (Freeman,1984). Prominent was the work of R Edward Freeman on
the emerging Stakeholder Theory (Lucas, Wollin & Lafferty 2001; Post 2003; Windsor
2001). Freeman saw ‘meeting shareholders’ needs as only one element in a value-
adding process’ and identified a range of stakeholders (including shareholders) who
were relevant to the firm’s operations (Freeman,1984). Freeman’s 1984 paper
continues to be identified as a ‘seminal paper on stakeholder theory’, and stakeholder
theory as the ‘dominant paradigm’ in CSR. (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).
A prominent development in terms of CSR was the global debate on sustainable
development that emerged in this decade. The World Conservation Strategy that was
published in 1980 stressed the interdependence of conservation and development and
was the first to conceptualize ‘sustainable development’ (Tilbury & Wortman, 2004). In
1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published the
Brundtland Report, ‘Our Common Future’. The report states that ‘Sustainable
development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without
compromising the ability to meet those of the future’ (World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987). This early definition of sustainable development
is often quoted, but it is interesting from the viewpoint of the CSR debate that most
authors do not seem to quote the next sentence from the report (Thomas and Nowak,
2006):
Far from requiring the cessation of economic growth, it recognizes that the
problems of poverty and underdevelopment cannot be solved unless there is a new era
65
of growth in which developing countries play a large role and reap large benefits,
(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
The report clearly links sustainable development with economic growth and sets
the direction for future debate on this issue. Although there are examples of earlier
work that touched on the issue of CSR and financial profit, Carroll identified the 1980s
as the period when ‘scholars were becoming interested in the question of whether
socially responsible firms were also profitable firms. If it could be demonstrated that
they were, this would be an added argument in support of the CSR movement’
(Carroll, 1999). Aupperle, Carroll, and Hatfield’s 1985 study of the relationship between
CSR and profitability confirmed the priorities of four components of CSR previously
identified by Carroll, as ‘economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary’ (Carroll, 1999).
1.9.5 1990s:
The CSR concept is used ‘as the base point, building block, or point-of-
departure for other related concepts and themes, many of which embraced CSR-
thinking and were quite compatible with it. CSP, stakeholder-theory, business ethics
theory, and corporate citizenship were the major themes that took center stage in the
1990s’. (Carroll, 1999).
An important contribution to the literature was made by Wood in 1991 when she
revisited the CSP model and ‘placed CSR into a broader context than just a stand-
alone definition (Thomas and Nowak, 2006). An important emphasis in her model was
on outcomes or performance’. (Carroll,1999) The CSP framework developed by Wood
and the pyramid of responsibilities developed by Carroll, with economic responsibilities
at the base and philanthropy at the apex, are discussed in depth in the literature,
including Carroll (1999) and Windsor (2001).
Swanson (1995) suggested that there were three main types of motivation for
CSR:
i. The utilitarian perspective (an instrument to help achieve performance objectives);
ii. The negative duty approach (compulsion to adopt socially responsible initiatives to appease stakeholders); and
66
iii. The positive duty view (businesses self-motivated regardless of social pressures), (Swanson in Maignan & Ralston 2002).
Wood (1991) also identified three main types of processes used by businesses
to implement their CSR motivational principles: environmental management, issues
management and stakeholder management. ‘Once implemented throughout the
organization, these processes help the firm to keep abreast of, and to address
successfully, stakeholder demands’ (Wood in Maignan & Ralston 2002). However, this
may be a somewhat simplistic view of CSR and relationships with stakeholders. It is
also a view that was overtaken in the 90s by a broadening discussion of the concept of
stakeholder, and whether ‘the first priority of a corporation is to its shareholders’
(Nahan in Ryan, 2002) or whether policymakers should develop ‘a flexible multi
stakeholder approach to promoting CSR.
Even within the group that O’Rourke (2003) has described as the ‘primary’
stakeholders – the shareholders – ‘the boundary zone of CSR is currently being
negotiated’ with companies (O'Rourke 2003). According to O’Rourke(2003):
A trend also noteworthy in the late 1990s was that of shareholder activists
linking their environmental or social issue to financial performance and/or risks faced by
the company. By claiming that environmental and social issues have a direct effect on
shareholder value, shareholder activists are moving the rhetoric of their activism out of
the realm of “ethics” or good versus bad behaviour, and into that of traditional issues of
profitability, risk and shareholder value.
During 1990, a few more definition of CSR emerged. Hopkins (1998), defines
CSR, where he emphasized on treating internal and external stakeholders ethically or
responsibly, as below: Corporate social responsibility is concerned with treating the
stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a socially responsible manner. Stakeholders exist
both within a firm and outside. Consequently, behaving socially responsible will
increase the human development of stakeholders both within and outside the
corporation.
67
Woodward and Clyde (1999) define CSR as a contract between business and
society: A “Contract between society and business wherein a community grants a
company a license to operate and in return the matter meets certain obligations and
behaves in an acceptable manner.
On one hand “stakeholders involvement is one of the major components of CSR,
on the other hand, employees as well as community support is also a very integral
parts of CSR as well (Rahman, 2011). Khoury, et. al., (1999), promoters of
stakeholders‟ roles, employees and community support, describe CSR as:
Corporate social responsibility is the overall relationship of the corporation with
all of its stakeholders. These include customers, employees, communities,
owners/investors, government, suppliers and competitors. Elements of social
responsibility include investment in community outreach, employee relations, creation
and maintenance of employment, environmental stewardship and financial
performance.
Elkington (1997) introduced the concept Triple Bottom Line which focuses on
three issues - social responsibility (people), environmental responsibility (Planet), and
economic responsibility (profit).
During this period, Carroll and Buchholtz (2000) defines CSR as: The idea of
social responsibility requires the individual to consider his (or her) acts in terms of a
whole social system, and holds him (or her) responsible for the effects of his (or her)
acts anywhere in that system.
In the 1990s, a few major definitions of CSR emerged that brought a new
phenomenon in the definition of CSR. Hopkins, (1998) explanation regarding CSR
stakeholders, who play both within and outside the organization, sounds appropriate.
Woodward-Clyde (1999) defines CSR as a social contract that gives us an
understanding of CSR definition in a very simple way. The concept of triple bottom-line
was introduced in this decade by Elkington(1997), which has been widely accepted in
the corporate world. The business case for CSR has been gaining solid foundation,
68
surrounding the idea of People, Planet and Profit, which means that what is good for
the environment and what is good for the society is also good for the financial
performance of the business. Finally, Carrolls,( 1999) contributions in the development
of CSR history through his article Evolution of a Definitional Construct, has given a new
height in the relevant literatures in this decade and can be really appreciated (Rahman,
2011).
Writing in 1999, as the new millennium approached, Carroll(1999) suggested
that, ‘the CSR concept will remain as an essential part of the business language and
practice, because it is a vital underpinning to many of the other theories and is
continually consistent with what the public expects of the business community
today’,(Carroll 1999).
1.9.6 An Historical Perspective:
At the start of the 20th century, there were few corporate acts of charity. Instead,
wealthy business people gave as individuals from their personal wealth to charitable
causes. Two principles provided the foundation for contemporary views on social
responsibility. The first of these, the principle of charity, is rooted in religious tradition
and suggests that those who have plenty should give to those who do not. Under the
influence of this principle, individuals in the business community increasingly decided to
use some of their corporate power and wealth for the social good. Over time, an
increasing number of business leaders adopted and spread the idea that business has
a responsibility to society beyond simply providing necessary goods and services.
A second principle that shaped corporate social responsibility is the principle of
stewardship. This principle asserts that organizations have an obligation to see that
the public’s interests are served by corporate actions and the way in which profits are
spent. Because corporations control vast resources, because they are powerful, and
because this power and wealth come from their operations within society, they have an
obligation to serve society’s needs. In this way, managers and corporations become
the stewards, or trustees, for society.
69
1.9.7 Phase one: Profit-Maximizing Management - During the period of economic
scarcity in the 19th and early part of the 20th century, most American business
managers felt they had one primary responsibility to society. They were to underwrite
the country’s economic growth and oversee the accumulation of wealth. Business
managers could pursue, almost single-mindedly, the objective of maximizing profits.
Managers essentially felt that what was good for business was good for the country.
This strong business ethos was shattered, however, by the Great Depression of the
1930s.
1.9.8 Phase Two: Trusteeship Management- After the Great Depression, the number
of privately held American corporations began to decline. Organizations found
themselves having to respond to the demands of both internal and external groups,
such as stockholders, customers, suppliers, and creditors. As a consequence,
organizations had to shift their orientation to social responsibility, and the result was the
emergence of trusteeship management. Corporate managers needed to maintain an
equitable balance among the competing interests of all groups with a stake in the
organization. Pressure from these groups led to the use of some of the corporate
wealth to meet social needs.
1.9.9 Phase Three: Quality-of-Life Management- In the 1960s, a new set of national
priorities began to develop, and the pressure on managers to behave in socially
responsible ways intensified. Such issues as poverty, environmental pollution, and
deteriorating inner cities raised widespread concern about the quality of life in the
United States. The consensus was that managers had to do more than achieve narrow
economic goals. They are to enhance our quality of life by helping solve society’s ills.
The principles of charity and stewardship were firmly in place.
1.9.10 21st
Century:
Moir (2001), the prolific writer in the history, reviews a broad understanding of
what is meant by corporate social responsibility and how and why business might
accept such behaviour in the beginning of 21st century (Rahman, 2011).
70
European Commission (2002) describes CSR as a close relationships between
companies and societies to tackle social and environmental concerns. They define
CSR as:
CSR is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental
concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on
a voluntary basis.
According to Lantos (2001), there are three kinds of CSR, ethical, altruistic and
strategic. Ethical CSR is the demand for firms to be morally responsible to prevent
injuries and harm that could be caused by their activities. Altruistic CSR is true
voluntary caring, even at possible personal or organizational sacrifice. Lantos (2002)
states, strategic CSR is exhibited when a firm undertakes certain caring corporate
community service activities that accomplish strategic business goals(Rahman,2011).
De Bakker et. al., (2005) presents that though CSR literature has been in existence for
more than three decades and this issue has been in discussion from many angles, but
no progress has been achieved in CSR literature due to three contradictory views.
These views were, a) development occurred from conceptual vagueness; b) hardly any
progress is to be expected because of the inherently normative character of the
literature; c) progress in the literature on the social responsibilities of business is
obscured or even hampered by the continuing introduction of new constructs
(Rahman,2011).
CSR has generated significant debate in academic and corporate circles in
recent times. According to Jamali and Miurshak (2007), this debate acknowledges the
importance of CSR in the first-world, but raises questions regarding the extent to which
corporations operating in developing countries have CSR obligations. They added, due
to lack of knowledge and experience in the CSR field, many corporations in the
developing countries may not feel any obligation to the society. World Business Council
for Sustainable Development (2008) has introduced its CSR definition, which is: the
continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic
development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as
well as of the local community and society at large”.
71
The 21st Century is the era of emerging CSR as an important concept in
industry. Large corporations are having full fledged CSR departments and hiring CSR
Managers and CSR consultants, nowadays. Law and accounting firms are emerging to
tackle CSR issues in their relevant fields. Universities are holding CSR conferences
and researcher are contributing to the new literature in the CSR field with a great
momentum; there are publishers, who are printing CSR related books and journals;
there are journalists, who are reporting on CSR issues in the newspapers
(Rahman,2011). These notions, perceptions and observations are supported by
McBarnet et. al., (2009).
Many CSR definitions were developed by the scholars based on the social,
economical, political and environmental context of that period since 1950s. No unique
definition emerged in last few decades in the history of CSR that can be used for all
purposes. It is also suggested to organizations by many experts to develop their own
working definition of CSR themselves. All the definitions of CSR cover various
dimensions including economic development, ethical practices, environmental
protection, stakeholders involvement, transparency, accountability, responsible
behaviour, moral obligation, corporate responsiveness and corporate social
responsibility.
The concept of corporate social responsibility is based on the idea that not only
public policy but companies, too, should take responsibility for social issues. In more
recent approaches, CSR is seen as a concept in which companies voluntarily integrate
social and environmental concerns into their business operations and into the
interaction with their stakeholders. The idea of being a socially responsible company
means doing more than comply with the law when investing in human resources and
the environment (Chahoud et.al., (2007).
In general terms, the CSR approach seeks to motivate companies to assume
responsibility for problems and challenges that used to be addressed by the state
regulation. Despite various attempts at an unambiguous description of CSR, the
72
concept still lacks a uniform definition. Consequently, the various stakeholders define
CSR in their own way, and several approaches to CSR exist Chahoud et.al., (2007).
The two poles of the existing approaches are self-regulation and legal regulation
(Chahoud, 2005,). Between those two extremes, the multi-stakeholder initiatives stand
for the alternative approach of co-regulation (figure 4). The dimensions of the CSR
triangular concept can be characterized as follows Chahoud et.al., (2007):
� The self-regulation approach is characteristic of most company-related initiatives. In this case, companies decide for themselves how far to engage in CSR and which CSR measures to implement. As the role of the state is limited, liability is limited, too.
� In legal regulation, the government is the most important player. This is reflected in multinational initiatives which are based on binding legal commitments. Individual codes of conduct for companies from one side of the spectrum, the legal instruments the other.
� Multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as the Global Compact or the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies, are located between the two extremes and can be defined conceptually as co-regulation approaches in which stakeholders are involved in a company’s CSR policy-making process. In this “third way” (Utting,2005), NGOs, business associations, governmental organizations and multilateral institutions, among others, work together in a constructive manner to achieve complementary goals in the CSR process.
It is important to bear in mind the difference between internal CSR, where
workers, shareholders and investors are the beneficiaries, and external CSR, where
communities, civil society groups, other companies or institutions are the main
beneficiaries. Internal and external CSR should be seen as complementary if the
sustainable development of CSR policies is to be achieved Chahoud et.al., (2007).
73
Figure 1.5: CSR triangle concept
Source: Chahoud et.al., (2007).
1.10 Organizing a CSR programme:
“All most all organizations whether big and small recognize that some sort of
CSR related problem, opportunity or challenge exists. In turn, this recognition provides
the intent proceeding with a CSR assessment, with the purpose of better understanding
the nature of the problem, opportunity or challenge and its significance for the business
( Hohnen, 2007).
A logical first step is to gather and examine relevant information about the firm’s
products, services, decision making processes and activities to determine where firm
currently is with respect to CSR activity, and to locate its “pressure points” for CSR
action. A proper CSR assessment has to provide an understanding of the following:
� The firm’s values and ethics;
� The international and external drivers motivating the firm to undertake a more
systematic approach to CSR;
� The key CSR issues that are affecting or could affect the firm;
� The key stakeholder who need to be engaged, and their concerns;
� The current corporate decision making structure and its strengths and
inadequacies in terms of implementing a more integrated CSR approach;
� The human resource and budgetary implications of such an approach; and
� Existing CSR-related initiatives.
Multi-stakeholder
Initiatives/co-regulation
CSR
Self-regulation Legal regulation
74
The assessment should identify the main and opportunities, and culminate in a
thorough gap analysis: where is the organization strong and where is it weak relative to
internals goals, peers and best practices? How well is the firm’s strategy responding to
emerging issues and opportunities? This is essential for identifying priorities and for
selling the approach within and outside the firm ( Hohnen, 2007).
1.10.1 Need for an assessment:
A rate snapshot of how far the firm is down the CSR road, is necessary to make
informed decisions about moving ahead. Front-end intelligence gathering in the form of
a CSR assessment can save a firm from launching an ineffective CSR approach or
heading in a direction that is not sustainable in business terms. An assessment can
also help identify CSR gaps and opportunities and thereby improve business decision
making. Importantly, it can act as a remainder of existing legal requirements (Hohnen,
2007).
1.10.2 Assessment Procedure:
A five stage CSR assessment process:
1. Assemble a CSR leadership team;
2. Develop a working dentition of CSR;
3. Identify legal requirements;
4. Review corporate documents, processes and activities; and
5. Identify and engage key stakeholders.
This is not the only way to do an assessment; rather it is one way a firm can
review the full range of its operations through a CSR lens. A number of organizations,
have developed useful tools to help firms perform an assessment. The bottom line is
that as long as the firm does a through appraisal of its current and potential activities
from a CSR perspective then it will have achieved the objective of the assessment
(Hohnen, 2007).
75
1.10.3 Assembling a CSR leadership team:
Like any successful management strategy, CSR processes needs both high
level management vision and support, and buy-in all levels of the company. For this
reason, a CSR leadership team would include representatives from the board of
directors and top management or owners, as well as volunteers from various units
within the firm that are affected by or involved in CSR issues. Other representatives
could be senior personnel from human resources, environmental services, health and
safety, community relations, legal affairs, finance, marketing and communications.
Front-line staff in these areas and any other personnel who may become key players
involved in implementing the CSR approach the firm eventually develops also have to
be on the team (Hohnen, 2007).
Employees at all levels have to be encouraged to contribute their time, energy
and ideas. As the work of the team progresses and a better understanding of the
implications of CSR emerge for the firm, it is quite possible that the membership of the
team will change.
Even when there are no members of the board of directors on the team, it is
vitally important that it be directly accountable to senior management and ultimately,
the board. This acknowledges that affective CSR implementation requires integration
of the principles of CSR into the firm’s central values and activities. Involvement of the
CEO as CSR champion sends a clear signal that the firm considers CSR to be
important (Hohnen, 2007).
1.10.4 Developing a working definition of CSR:
The first task of any leadership team is to develop a working definition of CSR
for the firm. According to Hohnen, (2007) the definition of CSR has to be something
quite general:
� CSR is the firm’s practices and policies that contribute to the well-being of the
environment, economy and society. They address the need of customers,
suppliers, shareholders and employees, as well as those of government, the
76
general public and the communities where the firm operates, without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
� CSR is the way the company integrates economic, environmental and social
objectives while, at the same time, addressing stakeholder expectations and
sustaining or enhancing shareholder value.
� CSR is the overall relationship between the corporation and its stakeholders,
which include customers, employees, communities, owners/investors,
government, suppliers and competitors. Elements of CSR include investment in
community outreach, employee relations, creation and maintenance of
employment, environmental stewardship and financial performance.
� CSR is the responsibility the firm has to its stakeholders. It means that the firm’s
products and services create value for customers and contribute to the well-
being of society. It means the firm operates using ethical business practices
and expects the same from its suppliers and partners. It means minimizing the
environmental impact of its facilities and products. It means providing jobs,
paying taxes and making a profit, as well as supporting philanthropy and
community involvement. It means treating employees with respect and being a
good neighbor to the people next door as well as those half a world away.
The team may also wish to identify key values that motivate the firm, and
particular concerns it and members of its supply chain have, such as inclusiveness,
stewardship and integrity. These could be related, for example, to the environment,
workplace, community relations (including diversity issues), human rights, customers,
government relations, bribery and corruption, or corporate governance (Hohnen, 2007).
Engaging people at all levels of the organization from employees to managers
and members of the board of directors in developing the definition of CSR from the very
beginning will help ensure the approach the firm ultimately takes to CSR will resonate
and be supported throughout the organization.
The input of members of the board, the CEO and other senior managers can be
particularly helpful in articulating a definition, since they ared able to shed light on the
initial motivations for launching work on CSR. As noted above, wherever possible
77
CEOs and others have to follow internationally agreed standards and instruments,
since these offer legitimacy and consistency for CSR efforts (Hohnen, 2007).
1.10.5 Identifying legal requirements:
As noted above, a CSR approach is not a compliance-based activity. It
is all above voluntary choices a firm makes to improve its performance and the way it
relates to society. In this context, an essential step is to ensure that the business
already respects existing laws, whether in relation to such things as governance,
taxation, bribery, labour or environment. A good CSR strategy and the firms’ reputation
can be quickly damaged if it is found to be in breach of basic laws (Hohnen, 2007).
1.10.6 Reviewing corporate documents, processes and activities:
With a working CSR definition and an initial understanding of the motivations
behind the firm’s interest in CSR, the team has to review key corporate documents,
processes and activities for actual and potential CSR implications.
� Documents: Existing mission statements, policies, codes of conduct, principles
and other operating documents are logical candidates for review. External
documents associated with programs or initiatives which the firm subscribes to
may also need revisiting. These would include sector-wide standards, principles
or guidelines. It may be that the existing mission statement, policies or codes
address worker relations, customer satisfaction or environmental protection in
some regard. It is useful for the leadership team to explore why these items
were developed and to learn from them (or at least acknowledge that they are
CSR-related). It may be that they were past response to CSR pressure points.
By the same token, an absence of any reference to societal impacts or
commitments in these documents may indicate that a culture shift may be
required to integrate CSR effectively into decision making and business
activities.
� Processes: One of the advantages of a CSR approach can be to promote
“joined-up” thinking and a more integrated strategic approach to material social
and environmental issues. For this reason, existing decision-making social and
78
environmental issues. For this reason, existing decision-making processes
warrant review. Typically, firms have specific decision-making processes and
associated decision-making bodies in place to address particular aspects of
operations, and these may affect the CSR approach. For example, a health and
safety committee may take the lead in determining the resources, training and
implementation of worker health and safety programs. Senior legal counsel may
play a key role in decisions about environmental protection activities, in
conjunction with senior engineers and other staff. It may also be that various
parts of the organization are treated quite differently from one another. In many
firms, decision making concerning suppliers is an area that touches on CSR in
many regards, including training, wages, and health and safety protection. It is
instructive for the leadership team to review these types of decisions, who
makes them and how. It is also important to determine whether there is a unit or
process in place to coordinate decisions about issues with a societal dimension.
� Activities: The firm’s activities that relate directly to providing its products or
services to users can be closely connected to CSR. In addition to thoroughly
examining internal operations for CSR-related challenges and opportunities, it
may be useful for the leadership team to examine those of competitors and firms
in other sectors. These can be helpful indications of areas in which the firm
might wish to concentrate attention. Practical ideas may also be gleaned by
examining activities in other jurisdictions, such as the level of security or conflict
overseas, since these may be indicators of challenges or opportunities to come.
The team also have to consider activities of business partners (particularly
supply-chain partners), since these may significantly affect the firm.
1.10.7 Identifying and engaging key stakeholders:
The leadership team has to reveal important social responsibility trends,
problems and opportunities to act upon, the team may nevertheless miss important
issues that are more evident to those outside the firm. As a result, the team may wish
to hold discussions with key external stakeholders about CSR. Mapping the interests
and concerns of stakeholders against those of the firm can reveal both opportunities
79
and potential problem areas. Indeed, many leading firms now see stakeholder
engagement as central to the task of identifying the issues that are most material to
them (Hohnen, 2007).
It is important to be clear about the purpose of these discussions, since
stakeholders might view it as an opportunity to express their views more generally
about the company’s behavior in relation to them. Key to engaging effectively with
stakeholders is to map their definition of “success” in working with the company.
Identifying the results from this task (e.g., a summary of the CSR assessment that is
publicly available) would be helpful. Larger firms may choose to engage one of the
many independent consultants specialized in stakeholder mapping to help them with
this or other CSR processes. As noted below, another consideration to bear in mind
the capacity of stakeholder groups to remain engaged in any ongoing consultation’
(Hohnen, 2007).
The table-6 is an example of the many CSR self-help tools that are on the
market and have been developed largely by the business community.
Table-1.5
CSR tools
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) www.wbcsd.org
The WBCSD is a Geneva-based business association with a membership of some 180 international companies from 35 countries, covering more than 20 industrial sectors. Its mission is to promote sustainable development through economic growth, ecological balance and social progress. WBCSD’s free “Corporate Social Responsibility: Making good business sense” publication provides a process for addressing CSR, including a self-assessment questionnaire. The WBCSD Chronos e-learning tool (mentioned above) is also relevant.
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) http://www.bsr.org
BSR is a non-profit business association headquartered in San Francisco with offices in Europe and Asia. Established in 1992, it offers advisory services, research and conferences on CSR. BSR’s “Designing a CSR structure” tool is a low cost aid for helping identify the steps necessary for a company to consider and set up an internal management system integrating CSR into the entire company’s organization and culture.
80
Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) http://www.gemi.org
GEMI is a U.S. based organization of companies dedicated to fostering global environmental, health and safety (EHS) excellence through the sharing of tools and information to help business achieve EHS excellence. Since 1990, GEMI has created tools and provided a forum to help business foster global environmental, health and safety excellence and economic success. GEMI’s SD Planner is a free self-assessment and planning tool that can be customized to suit the needs of individual companies.
Caux Round Table Self Assessment and improvement Tool http://www.cauxroundtable.org/ resource.html
Founded in 1986, the Caux Round Table is a network of senior business leaders from industrialized and developing nations who recognize that business must take a leadership role in developing a more fair, free and transparent society. In addition to its Principles for Business, the group has developed the Self Assessment and improvement Tool to help senior executives and boards of directors address growing expectations for responsible business conduct. Modelled after the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program, it translates seven general principles for business into seven assessment categories, and considers company performance within each from seven perspectives.
1.11 CSR in India and current trends:
To understand the current state of Indian CSR, India’s long tradition must be
taken into account. Its CSR approach is closely linked to its political and economic
history, in which four phases can be distinguished:
During the first phase (1850-1914) CSR activities were mainly undertaken
outside companies and included donations to temples and various social welfare
causes. The second phase (1914-1960) was largely influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s
theory of trusteeship, the aim of which was to consolidate and amplify social
development. The reform programmes included activities geared particularly to
abolishing untouchability, empowering women and developing rural areas. The third
phase (1960-1980) was dominated by the paradigm of the “mixed economy”. In this
context, CSR largely took the form of the legal regulation of business activities and/or
the promotion of public-sector undertakings (PSUs). The fourth phase (1980 until the
present) is characterized partly by traditional philanthropic engagement and partly by
steps taken to integrate CSR into a sustainable business strategy.
Contrary to various expectations that India would follow the global agenda, its
current approach still largely maintains its own features, elements of the global CSR
81
mainstream being only marginally integrated. Specifically, the philanthropic approach is
still widespread: while the Indian understanding of CSR shows a slight shift from
traditional philanthropy to sustainable business, philanthropic CSR patterns are still
apparent in many Indian companies. In addition, the imbalance between the internal
and external CSR dimensions is still huge.
The Indian CSR agenda continues to be dominated by community development
activities, particularly in the areas of health and education. While most Indian
companies view their community development projects as important contributions to
the existing development challenges in their region of operation, many stakeholders are
more critical of this approach. Where community development is concerned, Indian
stakeholders’ criticism focuses on the following aspects:
� a company’s community development approach based on the argument that it
needs to “give something back to society” lacks transparency and specific
standards;
� community development approaches often amount to little more than window-
dressing and must be compared to violations of social and environmental
standards within companies;
� public authorities in local communities very often lack the required know-how
and experience to negotiate business-driven commitment to community
development;
� very few companies disclose their motivation and business interests when
engaging in community development.
In India the CSR multi-stakeholder approach is still rather fragmented, and
interaction between business and civil society organizations, especially trade unions, is
still rare and takes place, at best, on an ad-hoc basis. Although many civil society
organizations are active in India, the empirical findings did not show that these
initiatives play a significant role in shaping the CSR agenda in India. Despite these
general observations, there are numerous networks that could form a basis for an
effective and powerful CSR multi-stakeholder approach in the future.
82
The phases are not static and the features of each phase may overlap other
phases, they are presented in detail:
1.11.1 The First Phase:
In the first phase charity and philanthropy were the main drivers of CSR. Culture,
religion, family values and tradition and industrialization had an influential effect on
CSR. In the pre-industrialization period which lasted till 1850, wealthy merchants
shared a part of their wealth with the wider society by way of setting up temples for a
religious cause. Moreover these merchants helped the society in getting over phases of
famine and epidemics by providing food from their godowns and money and thus
securing an integral position in the society. With the arrival of the colonial rule in India
from 1850s onwards the approach towards CSR was changed.
The industrial families of the 19th century such as Tata, Godrej, Bajaj, Modi,
Birla, Singhania were strongly inclined towards economic as well as social
considerations (Mohan, 2001). However it has been observed that their efforts towards
social as well as industrial development were not only driven selfless and religious
motives but also influenced by caste groups and political objectives.
1.11.2 The Second Phase:
In the second phase, during the independence movement, there was increased
stress on Indian Industrialists to demonstrate their dedication towards the progress of
the society. This was when Mahatma Gandhi introduced the notion of "trusteeship",
according to which the industry leaders had to manage their wealth so as to benefit the
common man. "I desire to end capitalism almost, if not quite, as much as the most
advanced socialist. But our methods differ. My theory of trusteeship is no make-shift,
certainly no camouflage. I am confident that it will survive all other theories." This was
Gandhi's words which highlights his argument towards his concept of "trusteeship".
Gandhi's influence put pressure on various Industrialists to act towards building the
nation and its socio-economic development. According to Gandhi, Indian companies
were supposed to be the "temples of modern India". Under his influence businesses
established trusts for schools and colleges and also helped in setting up training and
83
scientific institutions (Mohan, 2001). The operations of the trusts were largely in line
with Gandhi's reforms which sought to abolish untouchability, encourage empowerment
of women and rural development (Arora, 2004).
1.11.3 The Third Phase:
The third phase of CSR (1960–80) had its relation to the element of "mixed
economy", emergence of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and laws relating labour
and environmental standards. During this period the private sector was forced to take a
backseat. The public sector was seen as the prime mover of development. Because of
the stringent legal rules and regulations surrounding the activities of the private sector,
the period was described as an "era of command and control". The policy of industrial
licensing, high taxes and restrictions on the private sector led to corporate
malpractices. This led to enactment of legislation regarding corporate governance,
labour and environmental issues. PSUs were set up by the state to ensure suitable
distribution of resources (wealth, food etc.) to the needy. However the public sector
was effective only to a certain limited extent. This led to shift of expectation from the
public to the private sector and their active involvement in the socio-economic
development of the country became absolutely necessary (Arora, 2004). In 1965 Indian
academicians, politicians and businessmen set up a national workshop on CSR aimed
at reconciliation. They emphasized upon transparency, social accountability and
regular stakeholder dialogues. In spite of such attempts the CSR failed to catch steam
(Mohan, 2001).
1.11.4 The Fourth Phase:
In the fourth phase Indian companies started abandoning their traditional
engagement with CSR and integrated it into a sustainable business strategy. In 1990s
the first initiation towards globalization and economic liberalization were undertaken.
Controls and licensing system were partly done away with which gave a boost to the
economy the signs of which are very evident today. Increased growth momentum of the
economy helped Indian companies grow rapidly and this made them more willing and
able to contribute towards social cause. Globalization has transformed India into an
84
important destination in terms of production and manufacturing bases of TNCs are
concerned. As Western markets are becoming more and more concerned about and
labour and environmental standards in the developing countries, Indian companies who
export and produce goods for the developed world need to pay a close attention to
compliance with the international standards (Arora and Puranik, 2004).
1.12 Current State of CSR in India:
The opening up of India’s economy to foreign trade, investment, and competition
can be traced back to 1991. Capitalism in the country is built on a caste system that
has been criticized by many people from other cultures as oppressive but which has
proven to be highly stable as a social system. In the past major development projects
have been hindered by endemic corruption within India’s bureaucratic and political
structures. It is a country that seems to be characterized by disorder and social
networks based on nepotism. Despite the economic growth many in India remain
desperately poor. Often unemployed parents have to send their children to work in
sweatshops as it is easier for children to find this type of work than it is for adults.
Estimate of the number of people in India living in poverty vary from 260 million to 470
million. In the impoverished rural areas standards of education are very poor.
However, despite the inefficiencies of the state education system, there is still a large
pool of well-educated, financially literate, and highly motivated workers (mainly the
result of an expanding private education sector). In terms of the environment, air
quality in large cities is poor, enforcement of environmental laws is weak, and water is
becoming increasingly scarce. Dirty water is causing the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of children each year. Deforestation is contributing to problems of soil
erosion, which in turn impacts on farming. People still remember the Union Carbide
scandal at Bhopal in 1984 when there was a major leak from the plant causing death
and illness to many thousands. The abandoned plant remains today along with 25
tonnes to toxic waste. Eventually the company paid out US$ 470 million in
compensation although this was relatively little given the scale of the disaster.
As discussed above, CSR is not a new concept in India. Ever since their
inception, corporates like the Tata Group, the Aditya Birla Group, and Indian Oil
85
Corporation, to name a few, have been involved in serving the community. Through
donations and charity events, many other organizations have been doing their part for
the society. The basic objective of CSR in these days is to maximize the company's
overall impact on the society and stakeholders. CSR policies, practices and programs
are being comprehensively integrated by a increasing number of companies throughout
their business operations and processes. A growing number of Corporates feel that
CSR is not just another form of indirect expense but is important for protecting the
goodwill and reputation, defending attacks and increasing business competitiveness.
Companies have specialized CSR teams that formulate policies, strategies and
goals for their CSR programs and set aside budgets to fund them. These programs are
often determined by social philosophy which have clear objectives and are well defined
and are aligned with the mainstream business. The programs are put into practice by
the employees who are crucial to this process. CSR programs ranges from community
development to development in education, environment and healthcare etc.
For example, a more comprehensive method of development is adopted by
some corporations such as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Maruti Suzuki India
Limited, and Hindustan Unilever Limited. Provision of improved medical and sanitation
facilities, building schools and houses, and empowering the villagers and in process
making them more self-reliant by providing vocational training and a knowledge of
business operations are the facilities that these corporations focus on.
On the other hand, the CSR programs of corporations like GlaxoSmithKline
Pharmaceuticals’ focus on the health aspect of the community. They set up health
camps in tribal villages which offer medical check-ups and treatment and undertake
health awareness programs. Some of the non-profit organizations which carry out
health and education programs in backward areas are to a certain extent funded by
such corporations.
Also corporates increasingly join hands with Non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and use their expertise in devising programs which address wider social
problems.
86
India’s economic reforms and its rise to become an emerging market and global
player has not resulted in a substantial change in its CSR approach. Contrary to
various expectations that India would adopt the global CSR agenda, its present CSR
approach still largely retains its own characteristics, adopting only some aspects of
global mainstream CSR.
In the year 2010-11 the Government of India issued guidelines on CSR for
public sector enterprises and all the PSU’s follow the same in implementing CSR
programmes. On 18th Dec-2012 the Lok Sabha cleared the companies Bill-2011. Only
France and Indonesia are having CSR as part of their legislation. And if this bill goes
through Rajya Sabha, perhaps India is going to the first country in the world that will
have CSR as law. Aspect the bill certain companies will quality for CSR- the
companies that have a turnover of Rs.1000 crores, values of Rs. 500 crores and
average net profit of Rs.5 crores for the preceding three years. They have to spend 2%
of profits on CSR activities. The choice of speding (CSR) is left to the respective
industries. In case if they don’t spend that money, they have to report-why they did not
do it. In case the organization don’t spend and don’t report the government can also
invoke section 134-which means, they will be penalized, fined etc (Economics Times-
18th December-2012).
The empirical results of the study show that Indian CSR is still in a confused
state (Arora and Puranik, 2004). This is evident from the following:
� The Indian understanding of CSR seems to be shifting from traditional philanthropy towards sustainable business. Nevertheless, philanthropic patterns remain widespread in many Indian companies.
� Community development still plays the decisive role in the Indian CSR agenda.
1.13 CSR Movement:
Corporate Social Responsibility is not new to any country. India has a long
tradition in this field ( to give an example in 1850’s merchants and in 1907 Tata’s are
involved in philanthropic activity).
87
But many people view the CSR movement as a relatively recent social
phenomenon, but this is not entirely true. In actual fact, moral issues arising from
commercial activities have occupied philosophers, writers, religions leaders and law-
makers for centuries, if not millennia (Hood, 1996).
With industrialization, however the role of business in society became an issue
of more than academic importance, as large scale commercial activity began to impact
on the lives of more and more people. Some industrialists began to take philanthropic
obligation upon them, inspired by religion convictions, social concern, a desire to
emulate the land-owning classes, or a combination of there.
But isolated philanthropic initiatives provided no answer to the more fundamental
questions: did business have any inherent responsibilities towards society? It was in
America, during the 1930s, that this debate really took off. In 1929, in a address that
this still stands strikingly relevant today, the then Dean of Harvard Business School,
Walter B. Donhan, said; Business started long centuries before the dawn of history, but
business as we now know it is not new in its broadening scope, new in its social
significance. Business has not learned how to handle these changes, nor does it
recognize the magnitude of its responsibilities for the future of civilization (Peattie,
2002). There are many individual examples of what today are called ‘voluntary CSR
initiatives’ that date back to the same time, or earlier, in 1914.
In due course, overall, the CSR movement has brought about a change in
emphasis. Reflecting the shift from a ‘state centered’ to a ‘market-dominated world’,
greater prominence is now given to ‘people centered (as opposed to ‘state centered’)
concerns. This is to suggest that organization do not continue to pose considerable
political and regulatory problems of states. But while states have made studies in the
national and international regulations of issues such as investor protection taxation and
corruption, it seems that health and safety and environmental issues have been left
behind.
88
Globalization is giving rise to a new political struggle, not between states and
multi-nationals or, necessarily between North and South, but between ‘people and
corporation’.
1.14 Globalisation and CSR:
‘Globalization can be defined as the free movement of goods, services and
capital. This definition does not cover all the aspects of globalization or global changing.
Globalization also is a process which integrates world economies, culture, technology
and governance. This is because globalization also involves the transfer of information,
skilled employee mobility, the exchange of technology, financial funds flow and
geographic arbitrage between developed countries and developing countries. Moreover
globalization has religious, environmental and social dimensions. In order to
encompass this broad impact area globalisation covers all dimensions of the world
economy, environment and society. Moreover it is apparent all over the world and the
world is changing dramatically. Every government has a responsibility to protect all of
their economy and domestic market from this rapid changing (Crowther, and Aras,
2008).
The question is how a company will adapt to this changing. First of all companies
have to know different effects of globalization. Globalization has some opportunities and
threats. A company might have learn how to protect itself from some negative effects
and how to get opportunities from this situation.
Globalization affects the economy, business life, society and environment in different
ways:
� Increasing competition,
� Technological development,
� Knowledge/Information transfer,
� Portfolio investment (fund transfer between developed countries and emerging
� markets),
� Regulation/deregulation, International standards,
� Market integration,
89
� Intellectual capital mobility, and
� Financial crisis-contagion effect-global crisis.
1.15 Competition:
Globalization leads to increased competition. (Increased competition is a
consequence of globalization) This competition can be related to product and service
cost and price, target market, technological adaptation, quick response and quick
production by companies etc. When a company produces with less cost and sells
cheaper, it will be able to increase its market share (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
Customers have too much choice in the market and they want to acquire goods
and services quickly and in a more efficient way. And also they are expecting hıgh
quality and a cheap price which they are willing to pay. All these expectations need a
response from the company, otherwise sales of company will decrease and they will
lose profit and market share. A company must be always ready for price, product and
service and customer preferences because all of these are global market requirements
(Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
1.16 Exchange of Technology:
One of the most striking manifestations of globalization is the use of new
technologies by entrepreneurial and internationally oriented firms to exploit new
business opportunities. Internet and e-commerce procedures hold particular potential
for to broaden their involvement into new international markets (Wrighta & Etemad,
2001). Technology is also one of the main tools of competition and the quality of goods
and services. On the other hand it necessitates quite a lot of cost for the company. The
company has to use the latest technology for increasing their sales and product quality.
Globalisation has increased the speed of technology transfer and technological
improvement. Customer expectations are directing markets. Mostly companies in capital
intensive markets are at risk and that is why they need quick/rapid adapting concerning
the customer/market expectations. These companies have to have efficient technology
management and efficient R&D management (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
90
1.17 Knowledge/Information transfer:
Information is a most expensive and valuable production factor in the current
environment (presently/currently/at the current time). Information can be easily
transferred and exchanged from one country to another. If a company have a chance to
use knowledge and information then it means that it can adapt to this global changing.
This issue is similar with the technology transfer issue in global markets. The rapid
changing of the market requires also quick transfer of knowledge and efficient using of
that knowledge and information.
1.18 Portfolio investment (Financial fund flows):
Globalization encourages increased international portfolio investment.
Additionally, financial markets have become increasingly open to international capital
flows. For this reason, portfolio investment is one of the major problems of developing
economies. It is almost the only way to increase liquidity of the markets and economies
for emerging countries through attracting foreign funds. Significantly, this short term
investment can dramatically impact on the financial markets. When the emerging
economies have some problem in their country or investors make enough profit from
their investment then these investors might leave the market. This would mean that
market liquidity decreased and financial markets indicators plummet immediately
(Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
1.19 Regulation/deregulation and international stan dards:
Globalization needs more regulation of the markets and economy. There are
many new and complicated financial instruments and methods in the market and such
instruments easily transfer and trade in other countries because of the globalisation
effect. Every new system, instrument or tool requires new rules and regulations to
determine its impact area. These regulations are also necessary to protect countries
against global risks and crises. When the crisis comes out of one country then it
influences other countries with trade channels and fund transfers, which we call the
contagion effect. On the other hand, during globalisation the shares of big companies
are trading in the international stock markets and these companies have shareholders
91
and stakeholders in many different countries. International rules and regulations also
offers protection to small investors against the big scandals and other problems in
companies.
International standards also regulate markets and economies by means of
international principles and rules such as International accounting standards,
international auditing standards. It aims to make corporate reporting standardized and
comparable. So that is why the globalised world has more rules and more regulations
and international standards than before (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
1.20 Market integration:
In fact globalisation leads to the conversion of many markets and economies into
one market and economy. The aim of international standards and regulations is also to
deregulate all these markets. The economy needs financial structures capable of
handling the higher risk in the new economy. For this reason financial markets must be
broad, deep, and liquid. There are many examples in the current situation for market
integration which are also the result of increasing competition in the economy.
Integration examples are prominent in company mergers and acquisitions as well.
1.21 Qualitative Intellectual capital mobility:
Another effect of globalisation is human capital mobility through knowledge and
information transfers. One of the reasons is that international/multinational companies
have subsidiaries, partners and agencies in different countries. They need skilled and
experienced international employees and rotation from country to country to provide
appropriate international business practice. This changing also requires more skilled,
well educated and movable employees who can adapt quickly to different market
conditions (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
92
1.22 Financial crisis-contagion effect-global crisi s:
Financial crises are mostly determined through globalisation and as a result of
the globalisation impact. In fact, this is quite a true explanation. The financial world has
witnessed a number of crises cases. Generally financial crises come out from
international funds/capital flows (portfolio investments), lack of proper regulations and
standards, complex financial instruments, rapid development of financial markets,
asymmetric information and information transfers. One country crisis can turn into a
global crisis with systemic risk effect. Systemic risk refers to a spreading financial crisis
from one country to another country. In some cases, crises spread even between
countries which do not appear to have any common economic fundamentals/problems.
Previous global crises have also showed that one of the reasons for the crisis is
unregulated markets (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
1.23 Globalisation affects on CSR:
John Maynard Keynes calculated that the standard of living had increased 100
percent over four thousand years. Adam Smith had an important (seminal) idea about
the wealth of communities and in 1776 he described conditions which would lead to
increasing income and prosperity. Similarly there is much evidence from economic
history to demonstrate the benefit of moral behaviour; for example, Robert Owen in New
Lanark, and Jedediah Strutt in Derbyshire – both in the UK – showed the economic
benefits of caring for stakeholders. More recently Friedman has paid attention to the
moral impact of the economic growth and development of society.
It is clear that there is nothing new about economic growth, development and
globalisation. Economic growth generally brings out some consequences for the
community. This is becoming a world phenomenon. One of the most important reasons
is that they are not taking into account the moral, ethical and social aspects of this
process. Some theorists indicated the effect of this rapid changing more than a hundred
year ago. Economic growth and economic development might not be without social and
moral consequences and implications (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
93
Another question is who is responsible of this ongoing process and for ensuring
the wellbeing of people and safeguarding their prosperity. Is this the responsibility of
governments, the business world (businessman), consumers, shareholders, or of all
people? Government is part of the system and the regulator of markets and lawmakers.
Managers, businessmen and the business world take action concerning the market
structure, consumer behaviour or commercial conditions. Moreover, they are
responsible to the shareholders for making more profit to keep their interest long term in
the company. Therefore they are taking risk for their benefit/profit. This risk is not
opposed to the social or moral/ethical principles which they have to apply in the
company. There are many reasons for ethical and socially responsible behaviour of the
company. However, there are many cases of misbehavior and some illegal operations
of some companies. Increasing competition makes business more difficult than before
in the globalised world.
The good news and our expectations are that competition will not have any
longer bad influence on company behaviour. According to international norms (practice)
and expectations, companies have to take into account social, ethical and
environmental issues more than during the last two decades. One of the reasons is
more competition not always more profit; another reason is consumer expectation is not
only related to the cost of products but also related to quality, proper production process
and environmental sensitivity (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
Moreover shareholders are more interested in long term benefit and profit from
the company. The key word of this concept is long termism which represents also a
sustainable company. Shareholders want to get long term benefit with a sustainable
company instead of only short term profit. This is not only related to the company profit
but also related to the social and environmental performance of the company. Thus,
managers have to make strategic plans for the company concerning all stakeholder
expectations which are sustainable and provide long term benefit for the companies
with their investments. However, Sustainability can be seen as including the
requirement that whatever justice is about – fair distribution of goods, fair procedures,
respect for rights – is capable of being sustained into the future indefinitely. Thus
94
sustainability requires that the values of justice are capable of being continued into the
future: if current practices for instance were just from the present point of view but
would prevent the same practices from occurring in the future, that would be rejected
from the point of view of sustainability (Dower, 2004). So investor or shareholder
expectations and all other stakeholders approaches are supporting a socially
responsible and ethical company more than other companies. Globalisation has had a
very sharp effect on company behaviour and still see many problems crop up
particularly in developing countries. This is one of the realities of the globalisation
process. However they are hoping to see some different approaches and improvements
to this process with some of them naturally related to some international principles,
rules and norms. But most of them are related to the end of this flawed system and the
problems of capitalization (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
The challenge of CSR in a globalizing world is to engage in a process of political
deliberation which aims at setting and resetting the standards of global business
behaviour. “While stakeholder management deals with the idea of internalizing the
demands, values and interests of those factors that affect or are affected by corporate
decision-making, we argue that political CSR can be understood as a movement of the
corporation into environmental and social challenges such as human rights, global
warming, or deforestation” (Scherer & Palazzo, 2008).
1.24 Globalisation, Corporate Failures and CSR:
Enron, WorldCom, Qwest, Parmalat, Sunkill, ImClone, Satyam Computers and
various other corporate failures bring out some governance and CSR issues and have
increased attention to the role of business ethics. Managers and CEO’s of these
companies must be considered responsible for all of these failures and these are cases
of “corporate irresponsibility”. Many people have the opinion that if corporations were to
behave responsibly, most probably corporate scandals would stop (Crowther, and Aras,
2008).
CSR protects firms against some long term loss. When corporations have social
responsibilities, they calculate their risk and the cost of failure. Firstly, a company has to
95
have responsibility to share holders and also to all stakeholders which means that it has
responsibility to all society. Corporate failures have an important impact on all the
society. In particular, big scandals sharply affect the market and the economy. Various
stakeholders (e.g. employee, customer, consumer, suppliers etc.) as well as
shareholders and regulators of the firm have a responsibility to ensure good
performance. Therefore, CSR is not only related to firms but also related to all society.
So changing the role of corporate responsibility shifts/moves the focus from the real
problem that society needs to address (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
One of the reasons for this result is increasing competition between the company
and the market. Managers tend to become much more ambitious than before in their
behaviour and status in the globalised world. Thus the focus has to be on corporate and
managerial behaviour. The question is how to behave as a socially responsible
manager and how to solve this vital problem in business life and in society. In the
business world there are always some rules, principles and norms as well as
regulations and some legal requirements.
However, to be socially responsible one must be more than simply law abiding
who has to be capable of acting and being held accountable for decisions and actions.
The problem is the implication for all of these directions for company and managerial
behaviour. On the other hand, one perspective is that a corporation is a “legal person”
and has the rights and duties that go with that status—including social responsibility. In
the case of Enron, managers were aware of all regulations, even though they have
known all irresponsible and unethical problems in the company management, they did
not change their approach and behavior (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
It is not always possible to control behaviour and corporate activity with
regulations, rules and norms. So another question arises in this situation, that if people
do not know their responsibility and socially responsible things to do and if they do not
behave socially responsibly then, who will control this problem in business life and in
the market. The concern is that the social responsibility implication of the company
cannot be controlled through legal means. This is the only social contract between
96
mangers and society and stakeholders of the company and for responsible and
accountable behavior (Crowther and Aras, 2008).
Firms will consciously need to focus on creating value not only in financial terms,
but also in ecological and social terms. The challenge facing the business sector is how
to set about meeting these expectations. Firms will need to change not only in
themselves, but also in the way they interact with their environment (Cramer,2002).
1.25 Globalisation - opportunity or threat for CSR:
It is clear that the globalisation has different effects on the social responsibility of
the company and the behaviour of managers. Some of these are supporting
companies/managers for motivating towards socially responsible behaviour, while
others of them are destroying fair business and all principles, norms and regulations
which are the result of increasing competition. Globalization has created bigger
companies in terms of turnover, market capitalization, and amount of assets. This
causes imperfect competition with other small and medium size companies which is a
major threat for them. But it might also provide to companies great opportunities for
reaching people and customers, and for collaboration with other companies from all
over the world. In fact globalisation is an inevitable phenomenon for which there is no
alternative. Well regulated and controlled markets are not a big problem and threat, but
lack of regulation and norms is the main problem in a developing country which
globalisation has a big influence in these economies (Crowther and Aras, 2008).
Moreover CSR implementation is the one of the most important issues for
globalised economies and markets. CSR requires some rules for the determination of
the relationship between the corporation and society, which is still a complicated
process. The implication is that CSR is not merely a simple process but also needs a
long term strategic approach by companies which need to learn socially responsible
behaviour and their decision makers must enforce these principles in the company.
When the company takes a long term perspective it will have benefits concerning
profit and stakeholder interests in the company. Some studies show that there is a clear
97
relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance which is an important
academic research topic. Research results focus on the existence of slack resources
resulting from better financial performance made when companies invest in areas that
are related to social actions. Some other results also support the good management
approach which states that good management practice resulting from engagement in
social actions enhances the relationship with stakeholders, leading to better financial
performance. This topic still needs more research for finding better solutions for
corporate behavior (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
The duty of corporations is serving their shareholder through providing proper
products and services. The purchasing decision of the customer is not only related with
price and quality but also based on a consideration of the social behaviour of the
company. Socially responsible investment and behaviour gives some opportunities to
the company which is more visible than others and show more concern for stakeholders
also.
In particular, the development of information technology is helpful for the
company for trading in any place in the world to any customer. Customers want the
corporation to behave properly to its suppliers, and their suppliers to treat their
labourers fairly even in far distant countries. When the company behaves unethically
then people will know this problem all over the word and its effect on company sales
and stakeholder interests for the company (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
Globalisation has a multidimensional effect relating to socially responsible
behaviour. Good and bad behaviour are easily visible around the world and all company
stakeholders will be aware of it. A company can use this opportunity both ways, which
is that good behaviour affects the company positively but unethical behaviour will
undoubtedly have negative effects for them. Companies already know that proper
behaviour is the only way they can survive and enhance their commercial interests and
thereby increase their profits. So the demands of society will be reflected in corporate
behaviour. A firm has an investment in reputation, including its reputation for being
socially responsible. An increase in perceived social responsibility may improve the
98
image of the firm's management and permit it to exchange costly explicit claims for less
costly implicit charges. In contrast, a decline in the level of stakeholders' view of a firm's
social responsibility may reduce its reputation and result in an increase in costly explicit
claims (Mcguire & Sundgren &Schneeweis,1988), the CSR’s impact at the present time
is that it benefits some people and some companies in some situations. Consequently
thought is being given to the implications of CSR for the developing world (Blowfield M,
J. G. Frynas, 2005).
Globalisation has an enormous effect on society and business life which can be
manifest in a number of different ways. So business life needs more regulation and
proper and socially responsible behavior than before. The relationship between
business failure/ scandals increased after the globalization, and social responsible
behavior (Crowther, and Aras, 2008).
1.26 Arguments for and Against Social Responsibilit y:
The classical view of Milton Freidman about social responsibility is:
� What does it mean to say that ‘business has responsibilities’? Only people can
have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may
have artificial responsibilities, but ‘business as a whole cannot be said to have
responsibilities, even in this vague sense…. What does it mean to say that the
corporate executive has a ‘social responsibility’ in his capacity as businessman?
If these statements are not pure rhetoric, it must mean that the corporate
executive is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employees.
Friedman says that economists argue that today’s manager’s primary
responsibilities is to operate the business in the best interest of stockholders.
Because the stockholder’s single concern is financial return, managers should
not suggest spending their organization’s money and resources for social good.
If they do so, they undermine the market mechanism as well. Because socially
responsible actions usually reduce profit and dividends, stockholders lose. If
prices go up to pay for our social actions, our customers lose. Moreover,
99
consumers reject higher prices, and then sales drop. For this reason the
company will lose.
1.27 An analysis of Friedman’s View:
When Friedman recommends that business managers seek only to ‘increase
profit’ and make as much money as possible’, he is not suggesting that they ignore
ethical responsibilities. He does not endorse any of the skeptical positions. Rather, he
argues for the normative position, and claims that in pursuing the maximization of
profits one is doing what is ethically required. Business managers ought to increase
profits because, objectively, this is the ethically correct thing to do.
On moral issues, Friedman offers the following principle to guide the action of
individual business managers:
In a free enterprise or a private-property system, a corporate executive is an
employee of the owners of the business. He has a direct responsibility to his
employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business, in accordance with their
desire, which generally will be to make us much money as possible while conforming to
the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in
ethical custom.
Friedman’s ethical position is quite radical. He tells us that in principle an
individual in business must always make the decision that will increase profit, but what
increase the profit? For example:
� To stock market will view the socially responsible company as less risky and
open to public criticism, which is why social responsibility will improve
company’s stock price in the long term;
� Business organizations usually have enough money, resource, technical
experts, and managerial talent to support social projects;
� People consider social goals very important.
100
The investors and consumers are empowered by information. This transparency
of business practices means that corporate social responsibility is no longer a luxury
but a requirement.
A narrow focus on products and services, brands and logos, revenues and
margins, is no longer enough. In the emerging global economy, companies will also be
judged on the basis of environmental stewardship, employee relations, diversity,
community relations, and human rights. If a company cannot communicate in these
terms-if it cannot manage its reputation to these requirements-then it cannot compete
and it will not prosper. Consumers want to know is inside a company. They want to do
business with companies they can trust and believe in.
Corporate social responsibility is nothing more than corporations becoming
accountable to all their stakeholders-not just shareholders, but employees, customers,
the communities in which they do business, the people downriver and downwind who
drink and breathe and inhabit the ecosystem that each corporation touches, for good or
for bad.
The emerging, information-based global economy will demand transparency and
sustainability. Business can no longer succeed at the expense of their employees, the
community or the environment. Corporate social responsibility is a business strategy
designed for an economy where economic, environmental and social goals are
positively interwoven.
101
Part-B
1.28 CSR Evaluation (measurement) and Reporting
An evaluation tracks the overall progress of a firm’s CSR approach and forms
the basis for improvement and modification. With the information derived from
verification and reporting, a firm is in a good position to rethink its current approaches
and make adjustments.
Evaluation is all about learning. Learning organizations are those whose
existence is based on continuous receipt and review of new information and adaptation
for sustainable advantage. They do not simply attempt to achieve objectives; they are
constantly on the alert to adapt to changing circumstances or to find ways for improving
their approaches. An evaluation involves stakeholder engagement, including comments
and suggestions from management, CSR coordinators, managers and committees,
employees and outside stakeholders (Hohnen, 2007).
The art of business has analogies to sailing. It is about setting a course, steering
to make best use of the prevailing winds, and constantly checking to see if the sails
need to be adjusted. In similar fashion, an evaluation allows a firm to see whether it is
on course, and what it needs to do to be more effective. It enables the firm to:
� determine what is working well, why and how to ensure that it continues to
do so;
� investigate what is not working well and why not, to explore the barriers to
success and what can be changed to overcome the barriers;
� assess what competitors and others in the sector are doing and have
achieved; and
� revisit original goals and make new ones as necessary.
This base of information allows the firm to determine whether the current CSR
approach is achieving its objectives and whether the implementation approach and
overall strategy are correct. An evaluation not only helps identify valuable information
about process and performance, it also helps identify internal partners, and can help
develop more “joined-up” management (Hohnen, 2007).
102
Drawing on the CSR objectives and indicators, and the information obtained
through the verification and reporting process, firms have to consider and respond to
the following questions (Hohnen, 2007):
� What worked well? In what areas did the firm meet or exceed targets?
� Why did it work well? Were there factors within or outside the firm that helped it
meet its targets?
� What did not work well? In what areas did the firm not meet its targets?
� Why were these areas problematic? Were there factors within or outside the firm
that made the process more difficult or created obstacles?
� What did the firm learn from this experience? What should continue and what
should be done differently?
� Drawing on this knowledge, and information concerning new trends, what are
the CSR priorities for the firm in the coming year? and
� Are there new CSR objectives?
The determination of good performance is dependent upon the perspective from
which that performance is being considered and that what one stakeholder grouping
might consider to be good performance may very well be considered by another
grouping to be poor performance (Child, 1984). The evaluation of performance therefore
for a business depends not just upon the identification of adequate means of measuring
that performance but also upon the determination of what good performance actually
consists of (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
As the determination of standards of performance depends upon the perspective
from which it is being evaluated, so too does the measurement of that performance,
which needs suitably relevant measures to evaluate performance, not absolutely as this
has no meaning, but within the context in which it is being evaluated. From an external
perspective therefore a very different evaluation of performance might arise, but
moreover a very different measurement of performance, implying a very different use of
accounting in that measurement process, might arise.
103
The measurement of stakeholder performance is perhaps even more
problematic than the measurement of financial performance. Objective measures of
stakeholder performance are usually reported in the annual reports of companies.
These measures provide a reputation rating, as gathered from ‘rivals’ perceptions, in
nine categories and these measures are also added to also provide a total score. The
nine categories are (Crowther & Aras, 2008):
� Quality of management;
� Quality of goods and services;
� Capacity to innovate;
� Quality of marketing;
� Ability to retain top talent;
� Community and environmental responsibility;
� Financial soundness;
� Value as long-term investment; and
� Use of corporate assets.
1.29 Social accounting:
Social accounting first came to prominence during the 1970’s when the
performance of businesses in a wider arena than the stock market, and its value to
shareholders, tended to become of increasing concern. This concern was first
expressed through a concern with social accounting. This can be considered to be an
approach to reporting a firm's activities which stresses the need for identification of
socially relevant behaviour, the determination of those to whom the company is
accountable for its social performance and the development of appropriate measures
and reporting techniques.
Thus social accounting considers a wide range of aspects of corporate
performance and encompasses a recognition that different aspects of performance are
of interest to different stakeholder groupings. These aspects can include (Crowther &
Aras, 2008):
� The concerns of investors;
104
� A focus upon community relations; and
� A concern with ecology.
Measuring performance in terms of these aspects will include, in addition to the
traditional profit based measures, such things as:
� Consumer surplus;
� Economic rent;
� Environmental impact; and
� Non-monetary values.
Many writers consider, by implication, that measuring social performance is
important without giving reasons for believing so. Solomons (1974) however considered
the reasons for measuring objectively the social performance of a business. He
suggests that while one reason is to aid rational decision making, another reason is of a
defensive nature (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
Unlike other writers, Solomons(1974) not only argued for the need to account for
the activities of an organisation in term of its social performance but also suggests a
model for doing this, in terms of a statement of social income. His model for the analysis
of social performance is as follows (Crowther & Aras, 2008):
Table-1.6
Model for social performance
Analysis of Social Performance
Statement of Social Income: Rs.
Value generated by the productive Process
xxx
+ unappropriable benefits
xxx
- external costs imposed on the community
xxx
Net social profit / loss
xxx
105
While Solomons (1974) proposes this model, which seems to provide a
reasonable method of reporting upon the effects of the activities of an organisation on
its external environment, he fails to provide any suggestions as to the actual
measurement of external costs and benefits. Such measurement is much more
problematic and this is one of the main problems of any form of social accounting – the
fact that the measurement of effects external to the organisation is extremely difficult
(Crowther & Aras, 2008).
Indeed it can be argued that this difficulty in measurement is one reason why
organisations have concentrated upon the measurement through accounting for their
internal activities, which are much more susceptible to measurement.
1.30 Aspects of performance:
One factor of importance to all organizations, which comes from its control
system, is the factor of performance measurement and evaluation. To evaluate
performance it is necessary to measure performance and Churchman (1967) states that
measurement needs the following components (Crowther & Aras, 2008):
� Language to express results;
� Specification of objects to which the results will apply;
� Standardization for transferability between organisations or over time; and
� Accuracy and control to permit evaluation.
Kimberley, Norling and Weiss (1983) also make this point and argue that
traditional measures do not necessarily even measure some aspects of performance
and can certainly lead to inadequate and misleading evaluations of performance. They
state that (Crowther & Aras, 2008):
� Traditional perspectives on performance tend to ignore the fact that
organizations also perform in other, less observable arenas. Their performance
in these areas may in some cases be more powerful shapers of future
possibilities than how they measure up on traditional criteria. And, paradoxically
competence in the less observable arenas may be interpreted as incompetence
by those whose judgements are based solely on traditional criteria. Particularly in
106
the case of organizations serving the interests of more than one group where
power is not highly skewed and orientations diverge, the ability to develop and
maintain a variety of relationships in the context of diverse and perhaps
contradictory pressure is critical yet not necessarily visible to the external
observer.
1.31 The balanced scorecard:
A different perspective upon performance evaluation has been proposed by
Kaplan and Norton (1992) with the development of their balanced scorecard approach.
They argue that traditional measurement systems in organisation are based upon the
finance function and so have a control bias but that the balanced scorecard puts
strategy and vision at the centre. They identify four components of the balanced
scorecard, each of equal importance, and each having associated goals and measures.
The four components are (Crowther & Aras, 2008):
� Financial perspective - how does the firm look to shareholders;
� Customer perspective - how do customers perceive the firm;
� Internal business perspective - what must the firm excel at; and
� Innovation and learning perspective - can the firm continue to improve and create value.
They state (1993) that measurement is an integral part of strategy, stating:
The managers of today recognize the impact that measures have on
performance. But they rarely think of measurement as an essential part of their
strategy. For example, executives may introduce new strategies and innovative
operating processes intended to achieve breakthrough performance, then continue to
use the same short-term financial indicators they have used for decades, measures like
return on investment, sales growth, and operating income, and effective measurement,
however, must be an integral part of the management process (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
They maintain that the balanced scorecard is a way of evaluating performance
which recognizes all the factors affecting performance and it is certainly true that an
107
external perspective, in the shape of customers, is included in this framework. The
framework they propose looks as in Table-7
Table-1.7
The Balanced Scorecard Financial Perspective Customer Perspective
Internal Business Innovation and
Prespective Learning Perspective
The scorecard enables companies to balance their short-run and long-run goals.
It also highlights where results have been achieved by trade off of other objectives
(Crowther & Aras, 2008).
The scorecard uses four perspectives from which to view the firm. These are:
� Financial How the company is perceived by the shareholders. � Customers How the company is perceived by its customers. � Internal What must the company excel at e.g. core competencies. � Innovation & Learning How can future value are created.
Each business that adopts the approach develops its own purpose built
scorecard that reflects its “mission, strategy, technology and culture”. The strength of
the system is that it measures the success in achieving the strategies cascaded down
by top management. There is often a divergence between mission statements,
strategies and performance measures. The scorecard offers a mechanism to avoid this
divergence (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
The scorecard could, for example, take a mission statement that has a customer
focus and convert generally stated goals into specific objectives and then develop
associated performance measures. In this example the measurement system may seek
an interface with the customer’s management information system. If the customer has a
system for capturing data that assesses its suppliers the firm could attempt to capture
this information to enable it to judge its performance through the customer’s eyes
(Crowther & Aras, 2008).
The balanced scorecard system, it is claimed, actually balances the competing
needs of an organisation. In its original form (1992) the balanced scorecard was
108
credited with the ability to "allow managers to look at the business from four important
perspectives". The technique is claimed to focus upon the needs of the stakeholders of
a business. Thus shareholders and customers are two specific stakeholders that are
mentioned within the balanced scorecard. The focus upon innovation and learning
however and upon continuous improvement would also indicate the need for employee
development and supplier relations should be incorporated within the internal-business-
process perspective (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
In fact each business is expected to design and adopt its own scorecard to meet
its own needs. Kaplan and Norton (1996) explicitly state that they "don't think that all
stakeholders are entitled to a position on a business unit's scorecard. The scorecard
outcomes and performance drivers should measure those factors that create
competitive advantage and breakthroughs for an organization." The overarching
objective of the balanced scorecard is to achieve both short-term and long-term
financial success and is actually competing with other more explicitly shareholder value
based approaches as a method to enable businesses to achieve this (Crowther & Aras,
2008).
1.32 The environmental audit:
Before the development of any appropriate measures can be considered it is first
necessary for the organisation to develop an understanding of the effects of its activities
upon the external environment. The starting point for the development of such an
understanding therefore is the undertaking of an environmental audit. An environmental
audit is merely an investigation and recording of the activities of the organisation in
order to develop this understanding (Kinnersley, 1994).
Indeed ISO14000 is concerned with such audits in the context of the development
of environmental management systems. Such an audit will address, inter alia, the
following issues:
� The extent of compliance with regulations and possible future regulations; � The extent and effectiveness of pollution control procedures; � The extent of energy usage and possibilities increasing for energy efficiency; � The extent of waste produced in the production processes and the possibilities
109
for reducing such waste or finding uses for the waste necessarily produced; � The extent of usage of sustainable resources and possibilities for the
development of renewable resources; � The extent of usage of recycled materials and possibilities for increasing
Recycling; � Life cycle analysis of products and processes; � The possibilities of increasing capital investment to affect these issues; and � The existence of or potential for environmental management procedures to be
Implemented.
Such an audit will require a detailed understanding of the processes of an
organisation and so will be detailed and cannot be undertaken just by the accountants
of the organisation. It will also involve other specialists and managers within the
organisation who will need to pool their knowledge and expertise to arrive at a full
understanding. Indeed one of the features of environmental accounting is that its
operation depends to a significant extent upon the cooperation of the various technical
and managerial specialists within the organisation such accounting cannot be
undertaken by the accountants alone (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
The objective of such an audit is firstly to arrive at an understanding of the effects
of organisational activity and then to be able to assign costs to such activity. It has to
enable the managers of the organisation to consider alternative ways of undertaking the
various activities which comprise the operational processes of the organisation and to
consider and evaluate the cost implications, as well as the benefits, of undertaking such
processes differently.
Such an audit will probably necessitate the collection of information which has
not previously been collected by the organisation, although it may well be in existence
somewhere within the organisation’s data files. A complete environmental audit is a
detailed and time consuming operation but there is no need for such an exercise to be
completed as one operation. Indeed the review of processes and costs have to be a
continuous part of any organisation’s activity which can lead to the implementation of
better processes or control procedures without any regard to environmental
implications(Crowther & Aras, 2008).
110
Thus the way to approach this is to extend the normal routines of the
organisation to include a consideration, and quantification, of environmental effects on
an ongoing basis.
Once this audit has been completed then it is possible to consider the
development of appropriate measures and reporting mechanisms to provide the
necessary information for both internal and external consumption. These measures
need to be based upon the principles of environmental accounting, as outlined below. It
is important to recognize however that such an environmental audit, is essential starting
point for the development of such accounting and reporting, is not to be viewed as an
discrete isolated event in the developmental process.
Environmental auditing needs to be carried out on a recurrent basis, much as is
financial or systems auditing, in order to both review progress through a comparative
analysis and to establish where further improvement can be made in the light of
progress to date and changing operational procedures (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
1.33 The Measurement of Performance:
The measurement of performance is central to any consideration of performance
evaluation and this resolves into two areas for consideration, namely why measure and
what to measure. Measurement theory states that measurement is essentially a
comparative process, and comparison provides the purpose for measurement.
Measurement enables the comparison of the constituents of performance in the
following areas (Crowther & Aras, 2008):
� Temporally by enabling the comparison of one time period with another; � Geographically by enabling the comparison of one business;
sector or nation with another; and � Strategically by enabling alternative courses of action and their projected consequences to be compared.
Performance itself is not absolute but rather comparative and it is essential in
evaluating performance to be able to assess comparatively in the nature of ‘better than
expected’, ‘worse than the competition’ etc. It is not possible to assess performance in
111
other than these terms and so a quantitative approach to performance evaluation is
essential even if some aspects of performance are qualitative in nature. It is necessary
therefore that measurement is a constituent of performance evaluation and so it
becomes necessary to determine what has to be measured in order to evaluate
performance (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
It is essential therefore to select appropriate measures for the purpose of the
evaluation. It is argued however that appropriate measures cannot be selected until the
purpose of evaluation has been determined. It is therefore again demonstrated that the
foundation of performance measurement is the identification of the reasons for the
evaluation of performance, and this must now be considered. It is clear from the
evaluation of the literature, and a consideration of actual practice, that the evaluation of
performance takes place for several reasons (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
� For control;
� For strategy formulation; and
� For accountability.
1.34 The Evaluation of Performance:
A variety of measures exists to measure and evaluate performance, and while
these have been criticized in their efficiency by some writers, it is nevertheless true that
such measures have a role in this function. The efficiency of measures of performance
can only be determined however by considering their use in the measurement of
performance when the purpose of that measurement has been determined. It seems
reasonable to argue that different purposes need different measures and that perhaps
some, but by no means all, measures are universal in addressing all needs.
Measurements derive their meaning however from the use to which they are
applied and mis-measurement by using measures incorrectly causes conflict and mis-
understanding. Once a framework has been developed which identifies and addresses
needs and purposes of evaluation it is then possible to consider the efficiency and
effectiveness of existing measures and identify deficiencies in the measurement
112
system. It is then possible to develop and implement new measures which are
appropriate to the purposes identified (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
It can readily be seen that the differing needs of different parties in the evaluation
process cause tensions within the organisation as it seeks to meet its internal control,
strategy formulation and accountability functions and produce a reporting structure to
meet these needs. While the basic information required to satisfy these needs is the
same information, or at least derives from the same source data, the way in which it is
analyzed and used is different, which can lead to conflict within the organisation.
Such conflict is exacerbated when a measure is adapted for one need but only at
the expense of deterioration in its appropriateness for another purpose. Part of the
semiotic of corporate reporting however is that managers have the ability to manage
information provision in such a way that all stakeholders can be satisfied both with the
information received and with the performance of the organisation (Crowther & Aras,
2008).
One factor of importance in performance evaluation is the concept of the
sustainability of performance. It is therefore important for all stakeholders to be able to
ascertain, or at least project, not just current performance but its implications for the
future. Performance evaluation must therefore necessarily have a future orientation for
all evaluations. The appropriate measures developed through this proposed framework
are likely to facilitate a better projection of the sustainability of performance levels and
the future impact of current performance.
This is because the addressing of the needs of all stakeholders is likely to reveal
factors which will impact upon future performance and which might not be considered if
a more traditional approach was taken towards performance evaluation. An example
might be the degree to which raw materials from renewable resources have become
significant to many industries recently but were not considered at all until recently by
any stakeholders of an organisation other than community and environmental pressure
groups (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
113
1.35 Multi-dimensional performance management:
Probably the best known of the multi-dimensional performance measurement
frameworks is the balanced scorecard, which is already considered. Another example is
the service profit chain which specifically considers three stakeholders – namely
employees, customers and shareholders. Again this model specifically considers the
first two stakeholders as means to achieving superior financial results.
Thus it is argued that satisfied and motivated employees are essential if service
quality is to be of a high standard and hence customers are to be satisfied. Further it is
then argued that satisfied customers provide the base for superior financial results. Both
of these models acknowledge the needs of stakeholder groups and thus deem it
necessary to measure performance for these groups but still target financial
performance as the ultimate goal (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
A stakeholder managed organisation therefore attempts to consider the diverse
and conflicting interests of its stakeholders and balance these interests equitably. The
motivations for organizations to use stakeholder management maybe in order to
improve financial performance or social or ethical performance, howsoever these may
be measured. In order to be able to adequately manage stakeholder interests it is
necessary to measure the organization’s performance to these stakeholders and this
can prove complicated and time-consuming (Crowther & Aras, 2008).
1.36 Other views on CSR Evaluation (measurement) an d Reporting:
The researcher after reviewing the studies made on measurement and
evaluation thought it is necessary to present other views with regard to measurement
tools and techniques followed and existing all over the world.
According to Ramesh and Praseeda (2010) for years, people wanting to
measure and report real performance in CSR have been frustrated over one area in
particular the apparent impossibility in making any kind of real objective measurement
of the company’s social impact. Now, a new tool claims to solve this problem the
Social Footprint.
114
The Social Footprint, produced by the Centre for Sustainable Innovation,
promises great things. It is, according to the Centre, “ a corporate sustainability
measurement and reporting method that quantifies the social impact of organizations
on people”. Further, it “produces the true bottom-line oriented measures of impact”
(Baker, 2006). It’s worth remembering that measurements will probably only show the
immediate impact of CSR.
The Karmayog has offered a few guidelines that may be used to measure the
CSR activity of an organization. They are:
1. A company must spend a minimum of 0.2% of annual sales on CSR;
2. A company must publish its CSR activities in the annual report, or in a separate
Sustainability Report; and
3. A company must adopt international guidelines for Environment, Health and
Safety as well as for industry-specific processes.
Many corporate social responsibility reports are largely taken up with
apparitional statements about cheerful but apparently random initiatives accompanied
by pictures of cheerful and apparently random employees. If there are measures,
these tend to focus on activity numbers of programmes started; numbers of people
seconded and amounts of money spent. This is not entirely surprising as charting the
results of corporate social responsibility initiatives really difficult. Finally, there is the
issue of how to interpret the results. As with any set of objectives, success will depend
on the choice of measure, the basis of comparison and the degree of stretch in target.
1.37 Likerman suggests a four step measurement mode l:
1. Clarify the measurement framework
The process of defining the objectives in terms that reconcile external
requirements with internal aims is the first elements in clarifying the measurement
framework.
2. Find better measures
Measures and related targets, linked clearly to corporate social responsibility
objectives, need to be chosen with care. Work practices in a recycling workshop in
115
Bangladesh or a textile plant in Burma may meet local criteria but be quite
unacceptable in Britain.
3. Ensure that measurement is credible
Credible measures of achievement start with credible data. This is often a
serious problem on the ground contributions to HIV/Aids in sub-Saharan Africa will be
difficult enough for those on the spot and the definition of “cure” for less lethal diseases
may well vary. This also applies inside the organization.
4. Recognize Limitations of the measures alone
Even after clarifying objectives, improving the measures and ensuring credibility,
performance measurement challenges will remain. Corporate social responsibility is
not a factory product and its measurement is not an exact science.
1.37.1 He also suggests eight step Approaches to me asurement:
Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide has developed an eight-step program for
CSR Issues Management. The eight steps are:
� Identification: What issues could arise either because of the client’s industry or
its scale?
� Prioritization/classification: Which of these issues could cause significant
damage to the client’s reputation or business operations if not managed
effectively?
� Monitoring: How is this issue evolving, on a monthly or even daily basis?
� Preparation: How can we anticipate the course of this evolution and devise an
action plan?
� Action to influence issue: What steps can we take to change the course of an
issue’s progression?
� Issue/crisis response: If the issue developed into a crisis that threatened the
company’s ability to conduct business, how would we react?
� Evaluation: Did we respond effectively to the issue, preventing its emergence as
a crisis? What lessons were learned?
116
� Re-classification: Has the issue lessened in severity over time? Is it still a
concern moving forward? (Narang, 2009).
In recent years, there has been growing evidence in academia suggesting that
the relationship between CSR practices and financial performance is at minimum
neutral but quite likely positive (Bodwell, Graves, & Waddock, 2002). To date, there
are no generally accepted models for auditing CSR practices, although the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
did make significant attempts at providing guidelines for social responsibility. However,
these do not constitute an over- arching approach to auditing CSP as a result of which
many corporations either contract auditing corporations to conduct traditional
verification, draw on area expert consultancies, or use customized processes to
measure their CSR activities.
Some aspects are amenable to quantification while others are not.
Nevertheless, measurement tools are needed to be developed.
Since CSR can be operationlized in so many different ways, there are no reliable
aggregate numbers available on CSR activity at the present time. The ‘Global
Reporting Initiative,’ a key coalition of corporations, NGOs, accountancy organizations,
business associations, and other stakeholders from around the world convened by the
United Nations Environment Program, confirmed in 2001 “there is a need to assess the
uptake of CSR practices and aggregate and disaggregate data from various sources”
(White, 2002).
An example of the private-sector working to develop its own standards is the
accounting profession. Accounting firms and professional accounting societies,
including the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Institute of
Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Society of Management
Accounts of Canada, has designed frameworks of CSP indicators that companies can
voluntarily apply.
Kotler and Lee (2008), opine that the ongoing measurement of marking activities
and financial investments for corporations has a long record, with decades of
117
experience in building sophisticated tracking systems and databases that provide
analysis of returns on investments and compare current activities to benchmarks and
“gold standards.” By contrast, the science of measuring return on investments in
corporate social initiatives is very young, with little historic data and expertise.
Marketing professionals and academic experts in the field confirm this challenge.
• Sinha, Dev, and Salas (2004) report that “Since the benefits related to CSR are
the directly measurable, and most firms do not disclose expenses related to
such activities, it is difficult to directly assess the return on CSR investment.
• McDonald’s(2002) reports that even measuring a major event is challenging.
“Most of our current goals and measurements are related to processes, systems
development, and standard setting….. We are 70 percent franchised around the
world: Currently, we do not have systems to collect and aggregate what some
5,500 independent owner/operators do for their community, people, and
environment at the local level.”
• John Gourville and Kash Rangan(2003) confirm this difficulty: “Rarely do firms
fully assess a cause marketing alliance and its potential impact on both the for-
profit and the nonprofit entities. Yes, there are several stunning success
stories….but most for-profit businesses would be hard-pressed to document the
long-term business impact of their cause marketing campaigns and most
nonprofits would have trouble pinpointing the value they bring to the
partnership.”
And yet, as Bloom, Hoeffler, Keller, and Basurto (quoted in Kotler & Lee, 2005)
conclude, “showing that the program was a more financially productive promotional tool
than other possible promotional tools is becoming increasingly necessary.”
Michael (2003), elucidates the following techniques to measure the impact of CSR:
1.38 Social Auditing:
Several techniques have been developed for measuring different aspects of
social responsibilities discharged by corporate houses. Social Auditing (SA) techniques
was introduced for dealing with defining, observing and reporting measures of ethical
118
behavior and social impact of an organisation relation to its aims and those of its
stakeholders.
1.39 AA 1000:
Account Ability 1000 (AA 1000) was launched in November 1999 by the ISEA.
Account Ability deals with linking various CSR management tools, such as the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Sustainability Integrated Guidelines for Management
(SIGMA), the Balanced Scorecard and other initiatives.
1.40 EAS:
Ethical Accounting Statement (EAS) was developed at the Copenhagen
Business School basing on the stakeholders’ approach. However, this approach does
not believe in benchmarking with reference to external sources on the ground that such
measures are meaningless.
1.41 Global Reporting Initiative:
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)’s reporting guidelines were released in
March 1999. Subsequently in 2002, GRI was set up as a permanent, independent,
international body with a multi-stakeholder governance structure with headquarters in
Amsterdam.
Based on sustainability concept, GRI has been developed as one of the
important frameworks to assess and measure CSR. It has been attempting to devise a
set of indicators so that companies can report progress in meeting the Triple Bottom
Line (TBL) covering (i)Principles of social responsibility, (ii) Process of social
responsibility and (iii) Products (or outcomes), as they relate to the firm’s societal
relationships.
1.42 SA 8000:
In 2002, Social Accountability International (SAI) developed new International
standards (SA 8000) indicating the auditable requirements on a broad range of issues
such as child labour, health and safety, freedom of association, right to collective
bargaining, discrimination, disciplinary practices, working hours and remuneration
119
According to Wikipedia: a business to take responsibility for its actions, that
business must be fully accountable. Social accounting, a concept describing the
communication of social and environmental effects of a company's economic actions to
particular interest groups within society and to society at large, is thus an important
element of CSR.
Social accounting emphasizes the notion of corporate accountability.
Crowther defines social accounting in this sense as "an approach to reporting a firm’s
activities which stresses the need for the identification of socially relevant behavior, the
determination of those to whom the company is accountable for its social performance
and the development of appropriate measures and reporting techniques." An example
of social accounting, to a limited extent, is found in an annual Director's Report, under
the requirements of UK Company Law.
A number of reporting guidelines or standards have been developed to serve as
frameworks for social accounting, auditing and reporting including:
• Accountability’s AA1000 standard, based on John Elkington's triple bottom line
(3BL) reporting
• The Prince's Accounting for Sustainability Project's Connected Reporting
Framework
• The Fair Labor Association conducts audits based on its Workplace Code of
Conduct and posts audit results on the FLA website.
• The Fair Wear Foundation takes a unique approach to verifying labour
conditions in companies' supply chains, using interdisciplinary auditing teams.
• Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines
• Good Corporation's Standard developed in association with the Institute of
Business Ethics
• Earthcheck www.earthcheck.org Certification / Standard
• Social Accountability International's SA8000 standard
• Standard Ethics Aei guidelines
• The ISO 14000 environmental management standard
120
• The United Nations Global Compact requires companies to communicate on
their progress (or to produce a Communication on Progress, COP), and to
describe the company's implementation of the Compact's ten universal
principles. This information should be fully integrated in the participant’s main
medium of stakeholder communications, for example a corporate responsibility
or sustainability report and/or an integrated financial and sustainability report. If
a company does not publish formal reports, a COP can be created as a stand-
alone document.
• The United Nations Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on
International Standards of Accounting and Reporting (ISAR) provides voluntary
technical guidance on eco-efficiency indicators, corporate responsibility
reporting, and corporate governance disclosure.
The FTSE Group publishes the FTSE4Good Index, an evaluation of CSR
performance of companies.
In some nations, legal requirements for social accounting, auditing and reporting
exist (e.g. in the French Bilan Social), though international or national agreement on
meaningful measurements of social and environmental performance is difficult. Many
companies now produce externally audited annual reports that cover Sustainable
Development and CSR issues ("Triple Bottom Line Reports"), but the reports vary
widely in format, style, and evaluation methodology (even within the same industry).
Critics dismiss these reports as lip service, citing examples such as Enron's yearly
"Corporate Responsibility Annual Report" and tobacco corporations' social reports.
In South Africa, as of June 2010, all companies listed on the Johannesburg
Stock Exchange (JSE) were required to produce an integrated report in place of an
annual financial report and sustainability report. An integrated report includes
environmental, social and economic performance alongside financial performance
information and is expected to provide users with a more holistic overview of a
company. However, this requirement was implemented in the absence of any formal or
121
legal standards for an integrated report. An Integrated Reporting Committee (IRC) was
established to issue guidelines for good practice in this field.
EU Commission 2003 gives sector-wide CSR instruments (measurement/reporting)
as:
� Aspiration Principles and Codes of Practice (no external audit or benchmarking)
a) UN Global Compact (UNGC)
b) Ethical Trading Initiative Base Code (ETI)
(companies active in UK markets only)
c) Global Sullivan Principles (mainly US companies)
d) OECD Guidelines for TNCs
� Management Systems and Certification Schemes (external audit/ verification
standard including professional auditor accreditation)
a) Social Accountability SA 8000
b) ISO 14000
c) British Standards Institution’s OHSAS 18001 Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series
d) Fair Labour Association (FLA)
e) Eco-Management and Audit Scheme EMAS
f) EU Eco-label criteria (for specific products) (companies active in EU markets)
� Rating Indices (no-sign-up; external audit & benchmarking; no professional auditor accreditation; only for companies listed in the respective indices)
a) Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index (DJSI)
b) FTSE 4 Good Selection Criteria � Accountability and Reporting Frameworks (i.e. no substantive guidelines)
a) Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (GRI)
b) Account Ability 1000 Series (AA 1000S).
According to CSR Globe participating companies are the Measurement & Monitoring Tools are:
� Employed and customer surveys; � SRI rankings; � Listings and rankings in Dow Jones sustainability index, FTSE4 Good Global
100 index & other sustainability indexes;
� Relationships with stakeholders;� Public attitude and trust surveys;� Internal measurements such as improvements in employee health and safety,
reduction of wastes, efficiency in resources usage and productivity;� Positive and negative media coverage;� Peer and expert evaluation;� Benchmarking; � Reporting tools such as GRI, KPI and environmental audit systems;� Shareholder dialogue and informational feedbacks;� Image among financial analysts and regulators; and� External auditors and verifications.
1.43 Raman Model:
Raman (2012) by
papers on various social
framework for measuring
of a CSR initiative. The
to these again and again
maximizes limited resources in pursuit for scaling
masses.
1. Inclusivity
Customers
(Innovations for the peopl
1. What is the product’s
really from the lowest
2. Do low-income
Does the enterprise need to “push” the product?
3. What substitutes
the demand offered by the
122
Relationships with stakeholders; Public attitude and trust surveys; Internal measurements such as improvements in employee health and safety,
wastes, efficiency in resources usage and productivity;Positive and negative media coverage; Peer and expert evaluation;
Reporting tools such as GRI, KPI and environmental audit systems;Shareholder dialogue and informational feedbacks;
e among financial analysts and regulators; and External auditors and verifications.
Raman Model:
Raman (2012) by deriving from different research
social enterprises (focusing on India)
easuring / evaluating a community-based d
The questions engendered here – one may
again as the project evolves – will ensure
ited resources in pursuit for scaling-up its operations to reach the
Figure-1.6
Innovations for the people)
product’s addressable market? Are the custo
lowest income segments?
people say they genuinely want these prod
enterprise need to “push” the product?
substitutes exist for the products? How else do poor
offered by the product or services?
Internal measurements such as improvements in employee health and safety, wastes, efficiency in resources usage and productivity;
Reporting tools such as GRI, KPI and environmental audit systems;
reports and working
India) offer an effective
development approach
ay have to come back
that a social initiative
up its operations to reach the
customers or suppliers
products of services?
poor customers satisfy
123
Producers (Innovations by the people)
1. Are the stakeholders of the enterprise, beneficiaries of the products or
services? What is the level of community participation in delivering the
products / services for its own benefit?
2. Is the enterprise exploiting the existing distribution channels of others? Is it
aggregating the consumers and suppliers?
3. Is the enterprise open to continuous innovation to improve its operations?
2. Structure
(Innovations of the people)
1. What is the ownership pattern of the enterprise? Is it working as a franchise or
a cooperative?
2. Can the enterprise motivate large corporations to enter and participate
given the opportunities elsewhere? What are the networks and alliances the
enterprise has as part of its value chain?
3. Sustainability
1. What is the level of business model maturity?
2. What are the incentives for the participants in every segment of the supply chain? 3. What are the costs to reach and aggregate the participants – customers and suppliers?
4. How strong are the market linkages to end buyer? Can the business model at least cover its costs in the long run?
4. Capital Model
1. What type of financing is the enterprise using and how is the capital invested? 2. Are there enough credit facilities available for the project? 3. Is the producer cash flow cycle sustainable? Are the products priced to
match customer cash flow? Is the ticket price sufficiently low and the payback period sufficiently brief?
4. Is the enterprise affected by any form of government intervention (in the form of subsidies, schemes, etc.)? Is the local governance an ally or an adversary?
5. Evaluation Metrics
1. Is the enterprise focusing on people and not just shareholders’ wealth and
124
profits? 2. Are the consumers treated as beneficiaries, suppliers as partners and employees as innovators? 3. Is the enterprise measuring impact on community and environment also? 4. Are there concurrent evaluations during the course of the project? 5. Is the enterprise following the Triple Bottom Line (or 3BL) approach to evaluate its business?
As per Wikipedia, the concept of TBL demands that a company's
responsibility lies with stakeholders rather than shareholders. In this case,
"stakeholders" refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly,
by the actions of the firm. According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity
should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of
maximizing shareholder (owner) profit.
Figure -1.7
Triple Bottom Line Core Strateg y
Source: Pulmor Inc
CSR primarily relates to management practices, which promote sustainable
development and generate higher social capital for the corporate CSR practices are to
be viewed as business practices to be evolved by mutual consensus for meeting the
greater needs of the society and promoting the interest of the corporate as well.
People Provide products
And services that
enhance people’s lives
Creating new and
rewarding jobs
Sustainable
Viable
Beneficial
Planet Produce products that
are friendly to our
planet
Manage a business that
provides a good for
return for shareholders
Equitable
Profit
125
Part- C
1.44 CSR and role of Human Resource Management
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is exercised by organizations when they
conduct their business in an ethical way, taking account of the social, environmental
and economic impact of how they operate, and going beyond compliance. As defined
by McWilliams, et.al.,(2006). CSR refers to the actions by business ‘that further some
social good beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law’.
CSR has also been described by Husted and Salazar (2006) as being
concerned with ‘the impact of business behavior on society’ and by Porter and Kramer
(2006) as a process of integrating business and society. The latter argued that to
advance CSR, ‘we must root it in a broad understanding of the inter relationship
between a corporation and society while at the same time anchoring it in the
strategies and activities of specific companies.’
The contribution of people management (Redington, 2005) placed more
emphasis on CSR in the workplace when it defined it as: ‘The continuing commitment
by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while
improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local
community and society at large.’
CSR was justified by the CIPD (2007b) as a relevant and important HR activity
because:
� HR is responsible for the key system and processes underpinning effective
delivery. Through HR, CSR can be given credibility and aligned with how
business run. CSR could be integrated into process such as the employer
brand, recruitment, appraisal, retention, motivation, reward, internal
communication, diversity, coaching and training.
126
There is a strategic aspect in CSR and it is about deciding initially the extent to
which the firm should be in social issues and then creating a corporate social agenda-
considering and what social issues to focus on and to what extent. As Porter and
Kramer (2006) emphasize, strategy is always about choice. They suggest that
organizations that ‘make the right choices and build focused, proactive and integrated
social initiatives in concert with their core strategies will increasingly distance
themselves from the pick’. They also believe that: ‘It is through strategic CSR that the
company will make the greatest social impact and reap the greatest business benefits.’
Baron (2001) points out that CSR are what a firm does when it provides ‘a public good
in conjunction with its business and marketing strategy’.
According to Armstrong CSR strategy needs to be integrated with the business
strategy but it is also closely associated with HR strategy. This is because it is
concerned with socially responsible behavior both outside and within the firm-with
society generally and with the internal community. In the latter case this means
creating a working environment where personal and employment rights are upheld and
HR policies and practices provide for the fair and ethical treatment of employees. CSR
activities as listed by McWilliams.et.al.,(2006)include incorporating social
characteristics of features into products and manufacturing processes, adopting
progressive human resource management practices, achieving higher levels of
environmental performance through recycling and pollution abatement and advancing
the goals of community organizations.
Human resource management is well positioned to play an instrumental role in
helping the organization achieve its goals of becoming a socially and environmentally
responsible firm –reducing negative and enhancing positive impacts on society and the
environment. Further, human resource (HR) professionals in organizations who
perceive successful corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a key driver of
organizations financial performance, are influential in realizing on that objective. By
giving considerable guidance to organizations who wish to be the best place to work
and for firms who seek to manage their employee relationships in a socially responsible
way, there is a dearth of information for the HR manager who sees the importance of
127
embedding their firm’s CSR values throughout the organization, who wish to assist the
executive team in integrating CSR into the company’s DNA. And as high profile
corporate failures make all too clear, organizations that pay lip-service to CSR while
neglecting to foster a CSR culture run the risk of damaging their corporate reputation if
not their demise. Indeed, HR’s mandate to communicate and implement ideas, policies,
and cultural and behavioural change in organizations makes it central to fulfilling an
organization’s objectives to “integrate CSR in all that they do.” It is important to
understand that employee engagement is not simply the mandate of HR. Indeed
people leadership rests with all departmental managers. HR can facilitate the
development of processes and systems; however, employee engagement is ultimately
a shared responsibility. The more the HR practitioner can understand their leverage
with respect to CSR, the greater their ability to pass these insights along to their
business partners towards the organization’s objectives in integrating CSR throughout
their operations and business model.
The Human resources in many organizations influences many of the key
systems and business processes underpinning effective delivery, it is well positioned to
foster a CSR ethic and achieve a high performance CSR culture. Human resource
management can play a significant role so that CSR can become “the way the things
are done”. HR can be the key organizational partner to ensure that what the
organization is saying publicly aligns with how people are treated within the
organization. HR is in the important position of being able to provide the tools and
framework for the executive team and CEO to embed CSR ethic and culture into the
brand and the strategic framework of the organization. It is the only function that
influences across the entire organization for the entire ‘lifecycle’ of the employees who
work there – thus it has considerable influence if handled correctly. HR is poised for
this lead role as it is adept at working horizontally and vertically across and within the
organization, so important for successful CSR delivery.
Of course, for effective CSR implementation, it has to be under the Board level
and CEO’s control. If any organizational gap exist, the senior HR leader can become
128
champion, lead and help drive a CSR approach. As CSR is increasingly becoming part
of the business agenda and responsibility of the corporations, it will, certainly become
a natural agenda for the HR practitioner.
The following are key trends and business drivers for fostering this CSR-HR
connection, followed by a proposed roadmap or pathway for human resource
manager’s leaders seeking to make a substantial contribution to sustainability, CSR
and their firm’s business goals.
1.45 Trends and Drivers:
The evidence shows that if CSR in effectively implemented, it can have
significant impact in motivating, developing and retaining staff. The CSR study of
human resource practitioners conducted by the Society for Human Resource
Management (SHRM) in 2006, reveals that CSR practices are seen as important to
employee morale (50%), loyalty (41%), retention (29%), recruitment of top employees
(25%) and productivity (12%) (SHRM, 2007).
Internationally, HR, managers are developing and implementing incentive and
appraisal systems for organizational sustainability by hiring personnel that embody
these values. The research by The Conference Board reveals that 50% of global
managers report their companies do, or plan to, include corporate citizenship (aka
CSR) as a performance evaluation category. Additionally, 68% of respondents cite the
link between corporate citizenship and performance appraisal as “increasingly
important.” (Lockwood, 2004).
There are traces of incorporating CSR into human resource policies, but CSR
leadership remains limited, piecemeal and anecdotal, as found in the SHRM study:
nearly 2/3rds of HR professionals interviewed were directly involved in CSR activities,
only 6% were mainly responsible for creating CSR strategy and only 17% were
charged with implementing the strategy.” (SHRM, 2007).
Research shows that the critical success factors for implementing CSR include
overarching vision that includes CSR, having senior management and board level
129
commitment, engaged staff and the provision of skills, tools and incentives. The staff
participation in delivering on the company’s CSR aspirations is central to success in
this area. Documented case studies show that HR practices such as competency
development, can help embed CSR in an organization, not to mention benefit the
bottom line (Redington, 2005). The companies with a good CSR reputation are
benefiting from the stakeholder view that a company’s behaviour and presumably that
of its people is aligned with CSR values, in a consistent way. The organizations
seeking to build marketplace trust and reputation must embed their CSR values
throughout their business. And most of the leading companies are realizing that CSR
can be incorporated in the company’s employee brand and can be part of the value
proposition for working at a given firm. Sustainable HR management is central to this
objective.
The report, Developing the Global Leader of Tomorrow, observed that “a range
of human resource levers are important for developing [CSR] organizational
capabilities: building these knowledge and skills through leadership development
programs, career development planning, succession planning, performance
management and incentive systems and competency frameworks, and seeking these
knowledge and skills when recruiting new talent into the organization”(Ashridge, 2008).
Another factor that compels an active role for human resource managers is the
centrality of employees to achieving any organizational objective. Employees are the
top priority stakeholders; the others are shareholders, customers, and communities. As
a key driver of value in any organization, employees need to be engaged in the task of
integrating CSR throughout the firm, helping the organization achieve its CSR goals
and adhere to its CSR principles consistent with its strategic business direction.
Anything short of this is likely to develop cynicism and lead to reputational issues and a
disconnection between rhetoric and practice. The growing awareness that business
value is more and more a function of intangibles such as goodwill, reputation, trust,
talent and intellectual capital, makes this an increasingly important consideration.
In the “war for talent”, employer differentiation will become more and more
130
important. People increasingly want to work for an organization that has a
“conscience”, and values are key to building conscience. Thus, more and more
companies will be defining their organizational values in ways that are aligned with their
mission and vision. People prefer to work for companies that make a difference;
corporate values, infused with CSR, generate conscience. Companies that walk their
talk by embedding CSR throughout all they do will be the employer of choice in the
future labour market.
The same holds for “today’s” labour market, embroiled as it is in the economic
downturn. Many prospective employees will be seeking the basics of employment
security and belonging over employer conscience in the short term. Thus, companies
need to integrate their CSR beliefs with the financial business model in order to survive.
And the companies have to prove stable and financially viable in order to attract talent
– and they have to step up their efforts to fully integrate their CSR value proposition.
The companies that fail to engage their employees in the fulfillment of a robust
business mission are likely to experience declining productivity, which firms can ill-
afford in the current economy.
Under any circumstances, it is important that employees employment needs are
fulfilled before they are called upon to help the organization achieve its CSR goals. To
have a high performing team, it is essential that people receive the proper
compensation and recognition for their work.
Shareholders are another driver of the HR-CSR connection. Shareholders
around the world are pressuring companies to link executive compensation packages
to the company’s sustainability performance, motivated in part by the prevalence of
short-term and stock market-linked metrics in many executive compensation schemes
(The Ethical Funds Company, 2006). Active shareholders believe that compensation
packages based primarily on achievement of short-term financial targets have the
potential to deter companies from undertaking those activities that create sustainable
longer term value. This is in marked contrast to the 2005 survey of Canadian board
directors, conducted by McKinsey & Company and HRI Corporation on behalf of the
Canadian Coalition for Good Governance, which found the following factors to be
131
desirable in setting executive compensation: employee satisfaction (71%); leadership
development (78%); customer satisfaction (84%) and sustainable development (89%).
Increasingly asset managers, particularly institutional investors with long-term
investment horizons, are raising these issues in meetings with companies and through
the shareholder resolution process.
The global trend towards assessing the social and environmental impact of
business decisions will result in more organizations incorporating CSR practices in their
business strategies, as noted by Susan Meisinger, President and CEO of the Society
for Human Resource Management. “As these practices increase, HR professionals will
play a larger role in CSR programs, from strategy to implementation.” (CSR wire,
2007.) As noted earlier, CSR practices were seen as important to employee loyalty,
morale, retention, recruitment and productivity, important HR responsibilities and
important business drivers in the firm.
A key driver for HR activation on CSR goals is the CSR business case. The
benefits to employees are arguably the most quantifiable and the most frequently-cited
benefits of all the business case benefits for adopting a CSR or sustainability approach,
as seen below.
1.46 The Business Case:
One of the top, if not the top, factor driving CSR take-up is the need for
businesses to attract and retain high quality staff to meet current and future demands,
identified by 65% of respondents in a global study of privately held businesses
conducted by Grant Thornton (Grant Thornton, 2008A). A strong employer brand
aligned with employee values and concerns is becoming recognized as one of the best
ways of retaining talent with employees proud to work for a business that is highly
regarded. Further, staff attrition is disruptive, putting pressure on the remaining
employees and absorbing management time. Staff turnover can result in increased
operating costs, loss of business to competitors and reduced customer service
standards (Grant Thornton, 2008B) A well-developed performance and talent
management strategy with embedded CSR components can reduce the likelihood and
impact of losing employees.
132
Generally, there is a growing desire among employees to derive a sense of
greater purpose from their work; happier employees with increased job satisfaction can
unleash innovation in a firm. The following list provides an overview of the key business
benefits and economic value from employee CSR engagement. (Drawn from “The
Business Case for Sustainability” at: http://corostrandberg.com/publications_Tools.html#25h)
1.47 A case of Increased retention, reduced recruit ment and training costs:
A survey conducted for the Conference Board of Canada in 2000 found that
71% of employees want to work for companies that commit to social and community
concerns. In a similar Corporate Citizenship study by Cone Inc. in the U.S., 77% of
respondents indicated that “a company’s commitment to social issues is important
when I decide where to work”. A Scotiabank 2007 study of employed Canadians
concluded that 70% would consider changing jobs if their employers did not operate in
a socially responsible manner. With the replacement costs for the average worker
about $50,000 including lost output, recruitment, training and other elements, it pays for
companies to manage their CSR as well as their financial performance. (Another study
has put the recruitment, interviewing, hiring, training and reduced productivity costs at
$3,500 to replace one $8.00/hour employee.1) Further evidence of the importance of
social and environmental performance management comes from a World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) publication, in which it was reported
that “three-fifths of the graduates and potential employees surveyed by Accenture in
2004 rated ethical management as an important factor in their job search. Similarly
over two-thirds of the students (68%) in a global survey by Globe Scan in 2003
disagreed that salary is more important than a company’s social and environmental
reputation when deciding which company to work for.” (Pierce & Madden (n.d.). And in
the UK, 75% of professionals take social or ethical considerations into account when
changing employment, while over half of graduates will not work for companies they
believe to be unethical. (from: http://www.management-
issues.com/2006/5/25/opinion/csr-anintroduction.asp accessed on February 8, 2009.)
The Aspen Institute’s 2007 study of MBA students found them to be expressing
more interest in finding work that offers the potential of making a contribution to society
133
(26% of respondents in 2007 said this is an important factor in their job selection
compared with 15% in 2002). Further, in a 2006 study of 14 – 18 year-olds, 78% said
money “was less important to them than personal fulfillment”. They went on to work for
“companies that promote equality, a green environment, and social responsibility.”
(Commissioned by 1 Blake, R. 2006. Web ProNews. Employee Retention: What
Employee Turnover Really Costs Your Company.
www.webpronews.com/expertarticles/2006/07/24/employee-retention-what-employee-
turnoverreally- costs-your-company accessed Feb. 9, 2009. ad agency Energy BBDO,
as reported in “Saving the World at Work”, by Tim Sanders). A 2003 Stanford
University study Corporate Social Responsibility Reputation Effects on MBA Job
Choice found that MBA graduates would sacrifice an average of $13,700 in salary to
work for a socially responsible company. Some predict that the war for talent will not be
won through money, but through these intangibles.
It has long been known that a more motivated, engaged and inspired workforce
generates higher long-term productivity. A 2002 GlobeScan International survey
showed that eight in ten people who worked for a large company felt greater motivation
and loyalty towards their jobs and companies the more socially responsible their
employers became. Another study, reported on in the WBCSD publication revealed that
70% of staff who were committed to the values of the company said that their
productivity had increased in the past year while of those staff not committed to the
company only 1% had productivity improvements. (Pierce & Madden (n.d.). Bob
Willard, retired Canadian telecommunications executive and well known CSR author
and thought leader, has predicted that companies can expect a 2% increase in
employee productivity from improved company-wide teaming around common
sustainability issues that transcend departmental boundaries, and a 2% increase in
employee productivity from an improved work environment as a result of CSR. These
percentages generate tangible economic value to any firm’s balance sheet. Further, it
is well understood that boosted employee satisfaction and performance leads to
increased customer satisfaction, generating a further win-win for CSR oriented
companies. The converse is also true. Brand research reveals that in a study of
134
customer behaviour, “8% of customers switching brands are lured away by competition;
in contrast, 68% are turned away by an employee’s indifferent attitude” (Melcrum,
2008, citing American Marketing Association). Research shows that every unsatisfied
customer tells at least eight people about their experience (Melcrum, 2008). Engaged
employees are the company’s best defense against this virus. Employees working for
organizations aligned with their values are more likely to foster customer satisfaction
and loyalty, providing, of course, that their expectations are met. If an organization
promotes itself as being environmentally and socially responsible, and recruits
employees based on these claims, they need to demonstrate this is, in fact, true.
Employees will expect to see CSR in action, otherwise engagement drops immediately;
they will feel they were sold a “faulty” experience.
These business case benefits to the HR value proposition for firms with a strong
CSR brand are well documented and are driving many firms to intuitively strive for
higher CSR performance – to show that CSR is “the way we do things around here”.
The following is a roadmap or pathway for HR practitioners who seek to contribute to
the firm’s success and simultaneously, improvements to local and global social and
environmental quality.
A key aspect of organizations acting in a socially responsible manner is an
investment in human capital (Zink, 2005). This is easier for organizations that have a
surplus of resources to invest in this way (Pedersen, 2006). Consequently, HRM/HRD
practice should be at the heart of any CSR strategy. But what exactly is the role of
HRM/HRD in this process? In the non- HRM/HRD literature the role is usually restricted
to the provision of training. Training employees to do their jobs more effectively is
seen as having a positive effect on performance resulting in satisfied customers and
better financial gains for the organization (Crawford and Scalleta, 2005). Training can
be focused specifically on CSR or on helping employees in way that reflect on
organization’s commitment to CSR. For instance, in the provision of training and
education interventions to help employees manage personal financial debt. Training is
one way in which the leading businesses demonstrate their commitment to CSR
(Comfort, et. al., 2005). Most of the companies, have been training staff, those who
135
have volunteered to be ‘green champions’, how to conduct environmental audits and
how to educate other employees about CSR (Johnson, 2008). Training can assist
managers to engage with CSR particularly those who need help in adjusting their
behavior towards the concept (as with many preceding concepts many managers may
simply dismiss CSR as the latest ‘fad’ and only pay lip-service/offer limited support to
CSR policies, systems of reporting, and operational practices). Rees and McBain
(2004) observe that many managers are left untrained or poorly briefed on the
implications of CSR. The European Commission action plan on CSR published in 2002
recommended that management schools should include training on CSR (Zink, 2005).
In terms of the HRM/HRD literature, the HRM/HRD role is seen as being more
influential at a strategic level. For instance, Hatcher (2004) argues that HRM/HRD
practitioners have to develop democratic values in the workplace and focus more on
social justice than performance improvement. While Packer and Sharrar (2003) argue
that HRM/HRD departments can be turned into what they term HHBD departments:
Helping Human Beings Develop departments. This is emphasizing a holistic approach
to development that is consistent with a socially responsible approach to work (Bates
and Chen, 2005). Given that socially conscious organizations are likely to conduct
social audits in order to reflect on and evaluate CSR initiatives and identify
improvements (Maycunich Gilley, et. al., 2003) there is a potential role for the HRD
practitioner in:
� The design, implementation, and review of the social audit; � The design, implementation, and evaluation of improvement projects; � The communication of CSR benefits through daily HRD practice.
There is also an initial and the ongoing educational role that spans the design of
induction and CSR awareness sessions for existing employees. This can be achieved
through a combination of technology-based and face-to-face interventions. Maycunich
Gilley, et. al., (2003) refer to this approach as socially conscious HRM/HRD which has
both an educative and supportive role:
� HRM/HRD has responsibility to create a socially conscious work environment that benefits the whole social system, not just the organization…. HRD has a
136
unique opportunity to educate organizations about social responsibility and use HRD strategies to integrate social consciousness into organizational activities that have the potential to effect significant social change.
Maycunich Gilley, et. al., (2003) suggest that HRM/HRD practitioners should:
� Act as an advocate for employees when an organization breaches the psychological contract;
� Ensure that decisions are arrived at democratically by involving all stakeholders; � Teach and promote ethical management and leadership; � Challenge and improve traditional performance measures to include socially
responsible metrics; � Analyze and negotiate power relations in ‘a manner that facilitates socially
conscious though and action in organizations’.
1.48 The CSR competency Framework:
The CSR competency Framework is made up of six characteristics (Redington,
2005).
Understanding society:
Understanding how the business operates in the broader context and knowing
the social and environmental impact that the business has on society.
Building capacity:
Building the capacity of the others to help manage the business effectively. For
example, suppliers understand the business’s approach to the environment and
employees can apply social and environmental concerns in their day-today roles.
Questioning business as usual:
Individuals continually questioning the business in relation to a more sustainable
future and being open to improving the quality of life and the environment.
Stakeholder relations:
Understanding who the key stakeholders are and the risks and opportunities
they present. Working with them through consultation and taking their views into
account.
137
Strategic view:
Ensuring that social and environmental views are included in the business
strategy such that they are accepted as integral to the way the business operates.
1.49 Harnessing diversity:
Respecting that people are different, which is reflected in fair and transparent
employment and business practices.
Across each attribute, five levels of attainment are described: awareness,
understanding, application, integration and leadership. These attributes and
characteristics can be used for rating purposes, or as a basis for developing individual
competencies within a business.
World Business Council on Sustainable Development defined CSR as : the
continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic
development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as
well as of the local community and society at large.
According to Redington (2005) the DTI CSR competency framework literature
explains that: business operates today in a new market place. More than ever before,
stakeholders demand that business functions in a responsible way. While pressures to
make profits are unremitting, stakeholders expect ever-increasing standards of
accountability and transparency. Business responsibility and its relationship to the
community in which it operates and seeks to serve is more important than ever.
CSR is about recognizing the impacts a business has on all aspects of its
environment-i.e., economic, social, ecological- and the way it behaves towards them.
Other terms are;
� Corporate responsibility
� Corporate citizenship
� Sustainability
� Better world (BT-branded theme).
The driving forces behind the increasing interest in CSR (See Figure5, opposite)
include pressure from:
138
� Legislation, eg; on pollution and environmental issues
� Investors, with the spread of CSR performance indices
� Other stakeholders, particularly the enhanced power of non-governmental
organizations and lobbying groups
� Commercial issues of compliance and risk management
� The need to develop competitive advantage and brand reputation.
The companies prepare and public reports on their CSR activities. CSR
activities would normally address:
� The community
� The government and the media
� Employees
� Customers in the marketplace
� Suppliers and subcontractors in the supply chain
Figure 1.8
Drivers for CSR*
• Source: The virtuous circle
The significance of each activity will vary by business and industry but
companies typically report on:
Government Non
governmental
organization
CSR
Employment customers/client
Human rights environment
Suppliers community
Suppliers Employees
Investors Consumers
139
� Environmental responsibilities
� Human rights
� Ethics
� Health and safety.
Some people believe that CSR means business adopting a philanthropic
approach. But research supports the premise that there are strong links between the
extents of CSR activity and the performance of organizations.
Increasingly, CSR is recognized as being about having good business practices
and its impacts are seen as contributing to a business’s reputation and performance.
The latter is becoming increasingly important as the value of business becomes more
and more reliant on intangible elements. Qualitative information about a company is
becoming recognized as a key determinant of a share price and, therefore, an
important commercial issue for any quoted business.
1.50 The role of the HR function:
Most of the CSR activities are fundamentally related to the way in which people
are managed and developed an activity for which, in most cases, the HR function has
overall responsibility. Modern HR has evolved out of welfare functions (which can also
be seen as an early form of CSR activity). The function continues to evolve, as HR
professionals seek to:
� Put more people management responsibility ‘into the line’
� Make HR administration more efficient
� Play a more strategic role in support of the business.
The way people are managed and developed is critical to business performance.
Many HR practitioners recognize a need to develop a greater awareness and
confidence in dealing with wider business issues. The organizations have to develop
a more business-focused role. Correspondingly, the business agenda post-Enron,
(Satyam and) similar scandals have moved away from a pure shareholder focus to
emphasize the importance of all stakeholders (Redington, 2005).
140
The current interest in human capital management is also supporting HR
professional in their efforts to become more closely focused on outputs and outcomes.
Organizations are putting more resources into measuring the range of ways in which
people related activities contribute to their value.
The human resource management practices contribute value to business in
support of a CSR agenda. The organizations have to stimulate HR practitioners to look
for opportunities where their skills and actions can yield new, positive and measurable
benefits to the organization that employ them.
1.51 CSR and HR:
Some people interpret CSR as a cynical and defensive reaction to increased
external pressure and scrutiny. The HR practices such as a competency development
can help embed CSR in an organization and benefit its bottom line. The HR
departments have responsibility for codes of ethics and they should be well placed to
contribute to organizations wider CSR activities. An overall CSR strategy to be
successful, effective HR practices needs to be in place.
The model in Figure-7, which is based on empirical experience, describes the
relationship between the levels of involvement of HR practices and success of CSR
activity (Redington, 2005).
The strong HR involvement is a key factor in good CSR policies and procedures.
Having a good CSR reputation implies that a company’s behavior and that of its people
is consistent and is of a particular standard. So CSR values must be embedded
throughout the business, and good HR practices make this happen (Redington, 2005).
141
Figure 1.9 HR practices contributing to CSR
Extent of CSR activity Extent of HR involvement Source: The Virtuous Circle
� Tick box mentality means having a basic compliance approach to CSR. This
approach means that the organization has CSR policies in place, but not
necessarily the processes to sustain them for example, claiming to be an equal
opportunities employer without having measures to justify the claim.
� Corporate activity is when there is a degree of reporting, but it is driven centrally,
without any significant commitment or input from within the business.
� Functional activity is when CSR activity exists in different parts of the
organization, but there is no integrated approach across functions.
� Embedded means that the values and standards are fully understood by all staff,
adhered to in their day-to-day activity reflected in the organization’s strategic
decision-making.
Embedded
Functional activity
Corporate activity
Tick box mentality
None
High
Quite high
Moderate
Low
Very low
142
1.51.1 Step 1: Vision, mission, values for CSR stra tegy development:
Vision, Mission, Values
Successful CSR requires a clearly articulated vision, mission and values. The
HR manager could initiate or support the development, or upgrade, of a vision, mission
and values foundation if is not existing or does not explicitly address CSR. The
foundation needs to incorporate elements of corporate social responsibility or
sustainability in order for it to foster alignment. Where a CSR ethic has not yet taken
hold, the HR manager could champion the need and opportunity for a vision, mission
and set of values and show how it can add return on investment (ROI) to the
organization, why this could be both a good business strategy and a good people
strategy. The manager can bring the opportunities to the attention of the senior
executive and the board on what it means, and why it makes good business sense.
1.51.2 CSR Strategy Development:
Once the vision, mission and values framework is defined, the firm is ready to
undertake the development of its CSR strategy. The role of the human resource
manager at this phase is central to all other steps: it is critical that the human resource
function be represented at the table in the development of the CSR business plan and
strategic direction. They have an important “people perspective” to contribute and will
be involved in implementing key measures. Particularly in those firms where CSR is
housed in the human resource department, the HR manager has a key role in CSR
strategy development. HR is a strategic partner in the organization and as such, can
help drive the formulation of the CSR strategy.
1.51.3 Step 2: Employee codes of conduct:
The HR function is typically responsible for drafting and implementing employee
codes of conduct. The HR managers have to be through with the principles contained
in the employee codes. Since a number of recent high profile corporate frauds, boards
of directors have become very concerned about the ethical culture within their
organizations. This is an ideal home for the expression of an organization’s
143
commitment to socially and environmentally-based decision-making as it is one of the
rare documents which all employees are bound by and come into contact with. As such
it is a key tool for cultural integration of CSR norms. It is important to avoid rhetoric and
undefined terms such as “sustainability” and “CSR”, but to clearly enunciate the
conduct standards expected of employees.
1.51.4 Step 3: Workforce planning and recruitment:
Workforce planning consists of analyzing present workforce competencies;
identification of competencies needed in the future; comparison of the present
workforce to future needs to identify competency gaps and surpluses; the preparation
of plans for building the workforce needed in the future; and an evaluation process to
assure that the workforce competency model remains valid and that objectives are
being met. For a CSR oriented company, this consists of evaluating the need for skill
sets and competencies central to the emergent sustainability economy – an economy
of resource and energy scarcity, human and environmental security constraints,
changing societal norms and government expectations. Companies need to identify
their key CSR competencies and gaps in the context of these structural changes.
Referred to by many as the “green economy”, regardless of its title, the marketplace is
undergoing a systemic transformation that will require new competencies and skills.
(unpublished paper: Sustainability Labour Market Trends by Strandberg, 2009.) The
Co-operators Group Ltd., for example, is upgrading its eight competencies
(accountability and ownership; time and deadline management, practical problem
solving and judgment, communication, coaching and working with others) to reflect
their corporate sustainability commitments and values.
Talent management, which refers to the process of developing and integrating
new workers, developing and keeping current workers and attracting highly skilled
workers to work for the company, needs to consider alignment with the company’s CSR
vision and goals to ensure talent is developed with the appropriate focus. Often in the
area of talent management and recruitment, leading CSR companies develop an
employer brand that incorporates their CSR perspective into the employee value
proposition. More and more firms are profiling their CSR ethics in their recruitment
144
branding and marketing programs, promoting the benefits of working within a values
based culture. Employee volunteer programs and community involvement are oft-cited
company values expressed by employees, and found within employee value
proposition and internal brand development efforts. Campus recruitment programs are
ideal environments for CSR oriented recruitment, as is online recruiting where
technology savvy employees search for work. In this environment, recruitment
interviews include questions on ethics and CSR; the offer letter reinforces the corporate
culture; and early employee contact reinforces the CSR brand.
1.51.5 Step 4: Orientation, training and competency development:
During the orientation process employees should be given a thorough overview
of the clear line of sight between the company’s vision, mission and core CSR values
and goals. To ensure maximum alignment and early employee ‘buy-in’ to the strategic
CSR direction of the organization, this general orientation should be deemed
mandatory for all levels of new employees. New employees need to be provided
information about CSR policies and commitments, the key CSR issues the company
faces and the key stakeholders with which the firm engages. How the company
measures its CSR performance, the annual sustainability or CSR report, and where
they can find further company information on CSR are important elements of new
employee orientation programs. New hires should receive a copy of the core values.
Once inducted, employees have to be provided CSR training on an annual or
other regular basis. Employees will either have direct CSR responsibilities (e.g. energy
manager) or indirect CSR responsibilities (e.g. payroll clerk). Those with direct
responsibilities will receive technical and specialized training in CSR while those with
indirect responsibilities should receive training in top priority CSR issues of a more
general nature. Either way, it should be job-relevant as with health and safety training
for factory workers to strategic sustainability issues for executive management and the
Board.
145
It is important not to overlook the probationary review. This is an ideal moment
for consideration of the employee’s alignment with and commitment to the
organization’s CSR aspirations.
Through the workforce planning efforts referenced in Step 4 above, the firms
have to identify the CSR competencies the firm will require in future; learning plans and
programs will need to address anticipated CSR competency gaps. The management
plays an important role in understanding and delivering on key CSR objectives, it is
vital to make CSR an integral part of management training programs.
Simple measures, such as providing company values in all training sites and integrating
a dimension of CSR into all training programs have to be taken care.
Human resource managers understand the win-win in employee career pathing
and succession planning, particularly for the high performance individual. Employees
included in efforts to advance their career within the firm are more motivated, more
loyal and therefore more productive employees. Furthermore, succession planning is a
form of recruitment, insofar as recruitment costs are reduced and ideal candidates are
available to fill vacancies, especially in executive or career-track positions. Career
mapping and succession planning programs could incorporate CSR experiences either
within or outside the company, for example through secondments to social or
environmental organizations or assignments, or leaves to pursue CSR-related
executive work experience, to prepare the individual for CSR leadership as well as
general management roles.
1.51.6 Step 5: Compensation and performance managem ent:
Next to recruitment and competency development, compensation and
performance management are central to the HR function. HR is involved in setting
performance standards and expectations and monitoring results to performance
objectives. HR managers have to integrate CSR elements into job descriptions,
individual performance plans and team goals.
The most critical HR tool of all is the compensation and incentive program.
Human resource practitioners understand very well that “you get what you pay for”.
146
Typically companies reward on the basis of financial performance, which will singularly
foster profit-maximizing behaviour, overlooking the need to also consider sustainability
factors. The total reward and recognition program, including base salary, incentive pay,
long term incentives and other non-monetary recognition benefits (such as award
programs, employee of the month, promotions, career pathing, etc.), needs to be
aligned with the company’s CSR values and strategy. To do less is to guarantee under-
achievement of a company’s CSR objectives.
The strategic direction of an organization has to be set by the CEO and
Executive team, however, the HR department can help business units establish CSR
targets and develop performance evaluation systems that foster CSR behaviour by
providing the right tools and counsel.
In addition to focusing on executives and senior managers, the personal
objectives set by each employee could incorporate one CSR objective aligned with the
corporate CSR strategy. CSR has to be recognized in both the base job responsibilities
as well as the annual performance objectives at the individual and team levels.
Performance reviews could consider how the employee has advanced their personal
and the organization’s CSR goals over the period.
If CSR is built into incentive systems – salary packages and targets that
determine whether the manager receives a pay raise, promotion, etc. – the firm is
likelier to motivate greater CSR alignment. Certainly the opposite is true. Some
examples of nonfinancial measures include: customer satisfaction, reputation,
employee engagement, health and safety, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.
Job descriptions are not revised that frequently, so the opportunity of integrating
CSR into every job description throughout a company may be limited, unless a new
department is being established or a start-up company is launching. However, as roles,
departments and job requirements evolve, this often brings with it the task of fine-tuning
job descriptions. These are ideal opportunities for incorporating CSR parameters in the
job description – again, it is important that CSR generalities are avoided in favour of
specific deliverables and responsibilities.
147
From time to time there may be instances of significant CSR underperformance
or obstruction on the part of some employees, often employees in key positions of
influence. A finely tuned incentive program could influence most of this. However, there
may be a few instances where a senior influential employee who is not aligned with the
strategic CSR direction of the organization needs to be “performance managed” out of
the firm or given early retirement, or other exit packages.
Before this step is taken, one needs to be assured that the critical steps for
fostering change management, identified in Step 6 below, have been followed.
Oftentimes employee resistance comes about because deep-seated concerns or
values have been overlooked.
The final check can be during the exit interview process where questions related
to CSR and ethical matters can be asked in order to assess the degree to which
departing employees perceive values alignment conflicts with respect to the firm’s
decision making. Indeed, every exit interview can inquire into whether the firm delivered
on its CSR commitments and lived up to the terminating employee’s expectations.
1.51.7 Step 6: Change management and corporate cult ure:
Human resource managers are the guardians of corporate culture, team building
and change management processes. Growing and adapting to the changing
marketplace necessitates that firms pursue significant behavioural shifts from time to
time. Sometimes organizations require the outside assistance of change management
professionals to help them identify an appropriate strategy when they are attempting to
create significant behavioural change, but in the end, culture shift can only be achieved
and sustained if it is driven and sponsored effectively internally.
Mindsets and behavioural change come about through role modeling, building
awareness and generating desire (what is in it for me?) and conviction, developing
knowledge and ability and reinforcement through incentive programs. Culture change
requires setting the tone at the top – where executives and management demonstrate
and model the organization’s values – and then creating alignment throughout the
organization with the values you espouse to live. The values need to be reflected in all
148
processes starting with how you attract and recruit employees, to decision-making and
rewards and incentive programs, etc.
Keeping true to the CSR values compass is a critical guidepost to change
management and team alignment. Additionally, the move to incorporate a CSR ethic
throughout the firm necessitates a change management approach.
Change management experts realize that people come in different states of
readiness for advances for sustainability, or any change for that matter. People can be
grouped by state of readiness and then you can tailor your change approach
appropriately to each group. Nancy Lee, Founder and President of Social Marketing
Inc., has proposed a model for how this might work in a firm advancing a CSR change
management program. (Lee, 2008). As people generally fall into one of three readiness
groups, Nancy calls them greens, sprouts and browns, labeled A, B, and C below:
� Those that have the value and the behavior;
� Those that have the value but not the behavior; and
� Those that do not have the value or the behavior.
To advance CSR the organizations have to tailor their change strategy appropriately:
� Recognize Group A for their behaviour to encourage them to continue it;
� Promote, incent and reward Group B for behaviour changes. Ensure that these
“tools” are specifically designed so that the benefits are meaningful and the
barriers to change are removed for this group; and
� Leave Group C alone. Do not cut them out; just don’t tailor your promotions,
incentives, etc. to their needs. A large percentage of the C’s will change their
behaviour once the Group B’s (or the sprouts) have changed their behaviour so
that they do not stand out as the minority. The remainder of the C’s will not
change and they truly will be the minority (and perhaps a group you no longer
find a fit within your organization).
If each person is treated with the same strategy there is a risk of alienating
Group A because their behaviour was not recognized, find less advances with the
Group B’s because the promotions, incentives, etc, were not tailored to them, and
149
through the organization spends a lot of time, effort and money on Group C it can never
see a return as their motivator is not stand out.
It is important to advance a CSR ethic and program with these perspectives in
mind. The organizational culture, or “how work gets done around here”, is a key
dimension of any strong CSR agenda. People need to be rewarded for the way the
leaders want work done on the shop floor and in the C-suite. The foregoing steps are
building blocks to the development of a strong CSR ethic and corporate culture, the
likes of which will attract and retain the best and the brightest employees.
1.51.8 Step 7: Employee involvement and participati on:
As mentioned earlier, employees are among the key stakeholders for the
development of any CSR strategy or program. A critical first step in mission, vision,
values and strategy development is to understand the key concerns, priorities and
perspectives of all key stakeholders, particularly employees. It is a truism that
employees consulted and engaged in the development of new programs and
approaches are likelier to follow through with their implementation. Often companies
consult and engage their employees in the development and delivery of their
community involvement and charitable donations programs; however, what is called for
here is more substantive than this.
Melcurm has conceived of an employee engagement pyramid (Figure-8), from “I
am aware of the message”, I which employees are familiar with CSR strategy and how
it helps the company meet its objectives; to “I understand the message” wherein
employees learn the reasons behind the company’s CSR objectives and begin to
understand their role in making the company successful. The next stage is “I believe”,
where employees feel conviction towards the company’s values and objectives, and
finally, “I am committed to act”, at the pinnacle of the pyramid. Those employees who
are and feel their basic job needs are being meet and who achieve this level, will be
inspired to act in way that help the company reach its goals. (Melcrum, 2006).
150
Figure-1.10
To achieve basic employee education and awareness, many HR departments
become actively engaged in awareness-raising events and initiatives, such as contests,
and the like. Best practice CSR firms actively sponsor the establishment of “CSR
Champions Teams” in which employees throughout the organization are encouraged to
join a goup that meets on company time to conceive and launch CSR initiatives that
both green the company’s operations and achieve social value in the community.
Further, best practice CSR firms have programs and initiatives underway to support
employees and their families learn about, and take action on, their social and
environmental concerns at work, at home and in their communities. The Co-operators,
for example, held sustainability fair at their head office, inviting members of the
community to participate and providing information on environmental footprint
reduction, locally available eco products and other resources.
151
This is employee CSR engagement at the most engaged level – employees
helped to align their total work experience with their community and home values
become highly engaged, motivated and loyal employees.
In addition to ensuring employees are included in key decisions, an employee
CSR involvement and participation program can help develop the employee value
proposition that can foster retention and enhance recruitment. It is important not to miss
this step as organizations that fail to engage their employees in key decisions and in
their CSR embedment will generate low employee engagement resulting in employees
that either quit and leave or quit and stay.
1.51.9 Step 8: CSR Policy and Program Development:
HR is also in a position to drive policy development and program implementation
in HR areas that directly support CSR values. Wellness, diversity, work-life balance and
flextime policies are CSR programs directly within the HR manager’s purview. In
organizations committed to reducing their carbon footprint HR practitioners can develop
programs enabling employees to use alternative transportation to get to work (e.g.
providing showers, secure bike lock-ups, parking spots for van pools and co-op or
hybrid cars, bus passes, etc.) and work remotely, including other forms of
headquartering and “hoteling”, tele working, etc. Wellness programs can become a
platform for engaging employees in discussions about “personal sustainability” and
provide support for employees in the areas of stress management, spirituality at work,
health and fitness, healthy lifestyles, etc. Employee volunteering programs are also
within the HR mandate, and can help build out the employee value proposition and
employer brand while concurrently delivering on the firm’s CSR goals for community
engagement and investment. A related policy could be the development of an unpaid
leave program for employees to pursue personal projects aligned with company values.
Successful wellness, carbon reduction and employee volunteer programs require
management support, role-modeling and ongoing communications – which, if in place
become further vehicles to fostering employee awareness of, and engagement in, the
firm’s CSR approach.
152
Some HR departments also have responsibility for procurement. Those that do
could incorporate their CSR commitments into their purchasing program. By adopting a
sustainable purchasing policy, and integrating their social and environmental objectives
into supply chain management, HR practitioners can influence the sustainability
performance of their suppliers. Benefits providers, recruiters, and other suppliers to the
HR department can be asked to demonstrate how their practices align with the buyer’s
CSR values. Request for Proposals (RFPs) can incorporate questions and
requirements for a certain level of sustainability or CSR performance on the part of
vendors, thereby cascading CSR into the supply chain as further demonstration of how
the organization is walking its talk. (www.buysmartbc.com for tools, resources and
examples of how to integrate sustainability into your purchasing programs). HR
practitioners have a number of direct pressure points they can activate to leverage
sustainable practices throughout the workforce and the economy more generally.
1.51.10 Step 9: Employee Communications:
Every CSR strategy requires the development and implementation of an
employee communication program to convey the corporate direction, objectives,
innovation and performance on its CSR efforts. Intranets, websites, blogs, wikis, social
networking sites, podcasting, videos, forums, town hall meetings, regular tream
briefings, webcasts, voicemails, print and electronic newsletters and other forms of
social media need to be deployed to bring the CSR message to the workforce – in
ways that are attuned to the communication channels of the employee, which are
changing rapidly in this age of web 2.0. Even role-modeling by executive and the HR
department can be a useful tool of communicating CSR values. The ultimate goal of
CSR communications is to engage employees in the CSR mission of the firm, to help
build out the firm’s CSR DNA. It is important to note that employee engagement is
dependent on communication of board, CEO and senior management commitment, in
the absence of which employees will become cynical and unmotivated. Lack of CSR
commitment at senior levels could lead to disgruntled and frustrated employees finding
unmonitored, anonymous social networking sites to express their dissatisfaction. It is
important to close this potential gap with clear communication and walking the walk on
153
the part of senior executives. The Co-operators, for example, launched their 2008 –
2010 Sustainability Strategy with a CEO speech and CEO video to all staff.
One means to raise awareness of CSR on a regular basis, and to track
perceptions and opportunities throughout the year is the “quick poll”. The following
example is from 2008 experience :
� Is your household eco-friendly? � In the 2 minutes it takes for you to brush your teeth, how much water goes down
the drain? � October 19 – 25 is Waste Reduction Week. What is the top way your family
reduces household waste? � Which method of washing your dirty car wastes the least amount of water? � It’s Earth Day. What’s the biggest sacrifice you’re willing to make for the
environment? � A locovore is a new term for someone who…? � Do you expect to see the Arctic ice cap completely melted in your lifetime? � Do you make a conscious decision to buy Fair-trade products?
Staff responses can help the organization identify miscommunications and the
need for course corrections along the way. Such ad hoc, awareness raising surveys
can be important proactive tools to foster and embed the CSR message.
Through employee communications, HR can find and profile success stories of
CSR leadership within departments. HR managers are well positioned to share and
bring to life the organizational stories that can become guideposts for CSR values in
action within the company.
Whatever your approach, it is important to keep your CSR commitments alive in
your corporate communications on a regular basis.
1.51.11 Step 10: Measurement, Reporting – and celeb rating successes along the
way:
As what gets measured gets managed, it is vital that both CSR performance and
employee CSR engagement be actively measured and reported to executive, the board
of directors and publicly. Typically this is done in the form of an annual CSR report.
Increasingly, many of these reports are disclosing employee engagement scores,
including employee response to such questions as:
154
� “I am aware of and understand our CSR Strategy”;
� “I believe the firm acts in alignment with its CSR values and policy”;
� “I believe the firm is making progress towards implementing its CSR Strategy”;
� “Our CSR Strategy makes me feel proud to be working at the firm”;
� “I feel the firm encourages and supports me to contribute to CSR in the office/at
the workplace/in our meetings”;
� “I feel comfortable raising CSR issues in the workplace” ; and
� “I believe our organization is a champion of sustainability amongst the public”.
Other human capital metrics, such as turnover, health and safety, employee
development and diversity, for example, can be additional metrics which reveal the
firm’s CSR commitment and the degree to which it walks its talk.
In designing your CSR report again it is important to consult employees on what
to report and it is important that the report be received and approved by the board of
directors for public release. It is only under these conditions can the HR professional be
assured that these metrics and the firm’s CSR performance are taken seriously.
Some corporate boards go so far as to create a CSR committee of the board.
This is a topic of its own (see, for example, “The Role of the Board of Directors in
Corporate Social Responsibility” produced for the Conference Board by Strandberg
Consulting), however, if the Board buys into CSR as a business differentiator and sees
CSR as contributing to shareholder value, it warrants oversight by the full board of
directors and if possible, by a CSR committee of the Board of Directors. The Vancouver
Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC) for
example, have a board committee on Human Resources and Sustainability which
meets regularly to review the organization’s human resource and CSR performance
against its objectives. If the Board of Directors is in receipt of these performance
reports, it is likelier that the CEO will be held accountable for the elements that bring
the CSR strategy to fruition.
And finally, the organizations have to celebrate the successes large and small
along the way. From pats on the back to profile articles on the company intranet, to
155
celebratory events, ensure people are congratulated and achievements celebrated on
an informal and formal basis. To fully realize CSR objectives, including the integration
of CSR into “the way business is done around here”, it is important to honour the small
wins and major milestones achieved on the journey.
156
References:
� Aaronson, SA 2003, 'Corporate responsibility in the global village: The British role model and the American laggard', Business and Society Review, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 309-38.
� Ackerman, R. and R. Bauer: 1976, Corporate Social Responsiveness (Reston, Virginia).
� Ackerman, R. W.: 1973, ‘How Companies Respond to Social Demands’, Harvard University Review 51(4), 88–98.
� Agle, B. R. and R. K. Mitchell: 1999, ‘Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance and CEO Values’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 507–526.
� Alford, H. and M. Naugthon: 2002, ‘Beyond the Shareholder Model of the Firm: Working toward the Common Good of a Business’, in S. A. Cortright and M. Naugthon (eds.), Rethinking the Purpose of Business. Interdisciplinary Essays from the Catholic Social Tradition (Notre Dame University Press,Notre Dame), pp. 27-47.
� Altman, B. W. and D. Vidaver-Cohen: 2000, ‘Corporate Citizenship in the New Millennium: Foundation for an Architecture of Excellence’ Business and Society Review 105(1), 145–169.
� Altman, B. W.: 1998, ‘Corporate Community Relations in the 1990s: A Study in Transformation’, Business and Society 37(2), 221–228.
� Andriof, J. and M. McIntosh (eds.): 2001, Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK).
� Andrioff, J.: 2001, ‘Patterns of Stakeholder Partnership Building’, in J. Andriof and M. McIntosh, (eds.) Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK), pp. 200–213.
� Argandona, A.: 1998, ‘The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good’, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 1093– 1102.
� Arora, B. (2004): India and Corporate Social Responsibility: An Explorative Review, Nottingham, International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, University Business School.
� Arora, B. and R. Puranik (2004): A Review of Corporate Social Responsibility in India, in : Development, Journal of the Society for International Development, 47 (3), 93-100.
� Ashridge. (2008). Developing the Global Leader of Tomorrow. Hertfortshire, UK: Author.
� Aswathappa, K. (1999), Essentials of Business Environment, Himalaya Publishing House, Mumbai.
� Barney, J.: 1991, ‘Firm Resource and Sustained Competitive Advantage’, Journal of Management 17, 99– 120.
� Baron, D(2001) Private policies, corporate policies and integrated strategy, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10 (7), pp.7-45.
� Bates, R. and Chen, H.C. (2005), Value priorities of human resource development professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (3): 345-68.
157
� Baxi. C.V. and Prasad Ajit (ed) 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility, Excel Books, New Dlhi.
� Bendheim, C. L., S. A. Waddock and S. B. Graves: 1998, ‘Determining Best Practice in Corporate-Stakeholder Relations Using Data Envelopment Analysis’, Business and Society 37(3), 306–339.
� Berman, S. L., A. C. Wicks, S. Kotha and T. M. Jones: 1999, ‘Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship between Stakeholder Management Models and the Firm Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 488–509.
� BHP Shareholders for Social Responsibility. Retrieved June 29, from, www.bhpethical.shares.green.net.au/index.htm
� Blowfield M, J. G. Frynas (2005), “Setting new agendas: critical perspectives on CorporateSocial Responsibility in the developing world”, International Affairs 8, 99 499-513.
� Blyth, A 2005, 'Business behaving responsibly', Director, vol. 59, no. 1, p. 30. � Bowen, H. R.: 1953, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Harper & Row,
New York). � Bowie, N.: 1991, ‘New Directions in Corporate Social Responsibility’, Business
Horizons 34(4), 56–66. � Bowie, N.: 1998, ‘A Kantian Theory of Capitalism’, Business Ethics Quarterly,
Ruffin Series, Special Issue, No. 1, 37–60. � Brandy, F. N.: 1990, Ethical Managing: Rules and Results (Macmillan, London). � Brewer, T. L.: 1992, ‘An Issue Area Approach to the Analysis of MNE-
Government Relations’, Journal of International Business Studies 23, 295–309. � Brummer, J.: 1991, Corporate Responsibility and Legitimacy (Greenwood Press,
New York). � Burchell, J. and Cook, J. (2006). It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes towards
corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15 (2): 154-70.
� Burke, L. and J. M. Logsdon: 1996, ‘How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off ’, Long Range Planning 29(4), 495–503.
� Burton, B. K. and C. P. Dunn: 1996, ‘Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 6(2), 133–147.
� Business for Social Responsibility (2007) Annual report, [email protected] � Business in the Community (2007) Benchmarking Responsible Business
Practice, bitc.org.uk � Carey, J. B.: 2001, ‘The Common Good in Catholic Social Thought’, St. John’s
Law Review 75(2), 311–313. � Carroll, A. B. and A. K. Buchholtz: 2002, Business and Society with Infotrac:
Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 5th ed. (South-Western, Cincinnati). � Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate
Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497–505. � Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Towards
the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders’, Business Horizons (July/ August), 39–48.
158
� Carroll, A. B.: 1994, ‘Social Issues in Management Research’, Business and Society 33(1), 5–25.
� Carroll, A. B.: 1999, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of Definitional Construct’, Business and Society 38(3), 268–295.
� Carroll, AB 1999, 'Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct', Business and Society, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 268-95.
� Cassel, D.: 2001, ‘Human Rights Business Responsibilities in the Global Marketplace’, Business Ethics Quarterly 11(2), 261–274.
� CBSR. (2003). Best People Practices: The Integration of Values into People Practices. Vancouver, BC: Author.
� Chahoud Tatjana et.al., Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in India Assessing the UN Global Company Role.
� Chahoud,Tatjana. (2005): Internationale Instrumente zur Forderung von Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Bonn: Deutsches Institut fur Entwicklungs- Politik (Analysen und Stellugnahmen, 2/2005).
� Chahoud,Tatjana.; Johannes Emeerling; Dorothe Kolb; Iris Kubina, Gordon Repinski; Catariana Schlager (2007), Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in India- Assessing the UN Global Compact’s Role, German Development Institute, Bonn.
� Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility and HR’s Role. London, UK: Author.
� Child J (1984); Organisation: A Guide to Problems and Practice; London; Harper & Row
� Christensen, C. M. and M. Overdorf: 2000, ‘Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change’, Harvard Business Review 78(2), 66–75.
� Christensen, C., T. Craig and S. Hart: 2001, ‘The Great Disruption’, Foreign Affairs 80(2), 80–96.
� Churchman C W (1967); Why measure; in C W Chuchman & P Ratoosh (eds); Measurement: Definition and Theories; London; Wiley; pp 83-94
� CIPD (2007b) Corporate Social Responsibility, CIPD Fact Sheet, www.cipd.co.uk
� Comfort, P.J., Comfort, D., Hillier, D. and Eastwood, I. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: a case study of the UK’s leading food retailers. British Food Journal, 107 (6): 423-35.
� Cramer J. (2002), “From Financial to Sustainable Profit”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, pp. 99–106 Published online in Wiley.
� Crane, A, and Matten, D. (2007) Business Ethics (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
� Crawford, D. and Scaletta, T. (2005). The balanced scorecard and corporate social responsibility: aligning values for profit. CMA Management, October: 20-7.
� Crowther, David; Aras, Guler (2008), Corporate Social Responsibility, Ventus Publishing Aps., Book Boon.com
� CSR Academy (2006) The CSR Competency Framework, Stationery Office, Norwich.
159
� CSR wire. (2007). Landmark Study Finds Global Spread of Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.csrwire.com/News/8095.html
� Davis, K.: 1960, ‘Can Business Afford to Ignore Corporate Social Responsibilities?’, California Management Review 2, 70–76.
� Davis, K.: 1967, ‘Understanding The Social Responsibility Puzzle’, Business Horizons 10(4), 45–51.
� Davis, K.: 1973, ‘The Case For and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities’, Academy of Management Journal 16, 312–322.
� Dion, M.: 2001, ‘Corporate Citizenship and Ethics of Care: Corporate Values, Codes of Ethics and Global Governance’, in J. Andriof and M. McIntosh (ed.), Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK), pp. 118–138.
� Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘the Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65–91.
� Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 1994, ‘Towards a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory’, Academy of Management Review 19, 252–284.
� Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 1999, Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).
� Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 2000, ‘Pre´cis for Ties that Bind’, Business and Society 105(winter), 436– 444.
� Donaldson, T.: 1982, Corporations and Morality (Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ).
� Donati, P.: 1991, Teoria relational Della societal` (Franco Agnelli, Milano). � Donnelly, J.: 1985, The Concept of Human Rights (Croom Helm, London). � Dower N. (2004) “Global Economy, Justice and Sustainability” Ethical Theory and
MoralPractice 7: pp. 399–415. � Egan, J (2006). Doing the decent thing: CSR and ethics in employment, IRS
Employment Review, 858, 3 November, pp.9-16. � Emshoff, J. R. and R. E. Freeman: 1978, ‘Stakeholder Management’, Working
Paper from the Wharton Applied Research Center (July). Quoted by Sturdivant (1979).
� Ethical Funds Company (2006). Shareholder Action Program 2006 Status Report. BC, Canada: Author.
� Etzioni, A.: 1988, The Moral Dimension. Towards a New Economics (The Free Press, New York).
� European Alliance for CSR. (2008). Valuing non-financial performance: A European framework for company and investor dialogue. Author.
� Evan, W. M. and R. E. Freeman: 1988, ‘A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism’, in T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and Business (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs), pp. 75–93.
� Fort, T. L.: 1996, ‘Business as Mediating Institutions’, Business Ethics Quarterly 6(2), 149–164.
160
� Fort, T. L.: 1999, ‘The First Man and the Company Man: The Common Good, Transcendence, and Mediating Institutions’, American Business Law Journal 36(3), 391– 435.
� Frederick, W. C.: 1987, ‘Theories of Corporate Social Performance’, in S. P. Sethi and C. M. Flabe (ed.), Business and Society: Dimensions of Conflict and Cooperation (Lexington Books, New York), pp. 142–161.
� Frederick, W. C.: 1992, ‘Anchoring Values in Nature: Towards a Theory of Business Values’, Business Ethics Quarterly 2(3), 283–304.
� Frederick, W. C.: 1998, ‘Moving to CSR4’, Business and Society 37(1), 40–60. � Freeman, R. E. and R. A. Philips: 2002, ‘Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian
Defence’, Business Ethics Quarterly 12(3), 331–349. � Freeman, R. E. and W. M. Evan: 1990, ‘Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder
Interpretation’, Journal of Behavioral Economics 19(4), 337–359. � Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman,
Boston). � Freeman, R. E.: 1994, ‘The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future
Directions’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 409–429. � Freeman, R.E.(1984) Strategic Management: A stakeholder perspective,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. � Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C. and Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and ‘the
corporate objective revisited’. Organization Science, 15 (3): 364-9. � Freeman, R.Edward; Ramakrishna S. Velamuri; and Moriarty Brain (2006),
Company stakeholder responsibility: A New Approach to CSR, Bridge Paper: Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics, http://www.corporate-ethics.org/pdf/csr.pdf.
� Friedman, M (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, New York Times Magazine, September, p.13.
� Friedman, M. and R. Friedman: 1962, Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
� Friedman, M.: 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, September 13th, 32–33, 122, 126 The New York Times Company..
� Friedman. M. 1962, Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, p.133.
� Frooman, J.: 1997, ‘Socially Irresponsible and Illegal Behavior and Shareholder’, Business and Society 36(3), 221–250.
� Garriga, Elisabet, Mele Domence (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility Theories; Mapping the Teritory, Journal of Business Ethics, 53:51-71, 2004, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Nertherlands. gin/item.cgi?id=174928&d=pndpr&h=pnhpr&f=pnfpr
� Gladwin, T. N. and J. J. Kennelly: 1995, ‘Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research.’ Academy of Management Review 20(4), 874–904.
� Global Sullivan Principles, The: 1999, http:// globalsullivanprinciples.org (September 2003).
161
� Goodpaster, K. E.: 1999, ‘Bridging East and West in Management Ethics: Kyosei and the Moral Point of View’, in G. Enderle (ed.), International Business Ethics. Challenges and Approaches (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame), pp. 151–159.
� Grant Thornton (2008). Recruitment and Retention: The Quest for the Right Talent. Bangkok: Author.
� Grant Thornton. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Necessity Not a Choice. Bangkok: Author.
� Greening, D. W. and B. Gray: 1994, ‘Testing a Model of Organizational Response to Social and Political Issues’, Academy of Management Journal 37, (467–498).
� Griffin, J. J. and J. F. Mahon: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate: Twenty-five Years of Incomparable Research’, Business and Society 36(1), 5–31.
� Griffin, J. J.: 2000, ‘Corporate Social Performance: Research Directions for the 21st Century’, Business and Society 39(4), 479–493.
� Harrison, J. S. and C. H. St. John: 1996, ‘Managing and Partnering with External Stakeholders’, Academy of Management Executive 10(2), 46–61.
� Hart, S. L. and C. M. Christensen: 2002, ‘The Great Leap. Driving Innovation from the Base of the Pyramid’, MIT Sloan Management Review 44(1), 51–57.
� Hart, S. L.: 1995, ‘A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm’, Academy of Management Review 20(4), 986–1012.
� Hatcher, T.(2004). On democracy and the workplace: HRD’s battle with DDD (democracy deficit disorder). Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (2): 125-9.
� Heald, M.: 1988, The Social Responsibilities of Business: Company and Community, 1900–1960 (Transaction Books, New Brunswick).
� Hillman, A and Keim, G (2001) Shareholder value, stakeholder management and social issues: what’s the bottom line?, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2), pp.125-39.
� Hillman, A. J. and G. D. Keim: 2001, ‘Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line’, Strategic Management Journal 22(2), 125–140.
� Honen, Paul, Jason Potts (ed) 2007, CSR Implementation Guide for Business, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada.
� Hood (1996), The Heroic Enterprises: Business and the common Good (New York: Free Press, 1996)
� Hopkins Michael (2003), elucidates the following techniques to measure the impact of CSR:
� Hopkins Michael, The Planetary Bargain, Corporate Social Responsibility Matters, 2003, Earth scan Publications, p.10.
� Hopkins, M 2003, 'The business case for CSR: Where are we?' International Journal for Business Performance Management, vol. 5, no. 2,3, pp. 125-40.
� HR Zone. (n.d.) Operation good guys: HR and CSR. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.hrzone.co.uk/cgi-
162
� Husted, B.W and Salazar, J (2006) Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance, Journal of Management Studies, 43 (1), pp.75-91.
� Husted, B.W. and D. B. Allen: 2000, ‘Is It Ethical to Use Ethics as Strategy?’, Journal of Business Ethics 27(1–2), 21–32.
� Idowu, O. Samuel; Filho; Walter Leal (ed) (2009), Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer Verleg Berlin Heidelberg, Germany.
� Idowu, S. O. and Papasolomou, I (2007). Are the corporate social responsibility matters based on good intentions or false pretences? An empirical study of the motivations behind the issuing of CSR reports by UK companies. Corporate Governance, 7 (2): 136-47.
� Jensen, M. C. and W. Meckling: 1976, ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost, and Capital Structure’, Journal of Financial Economics 3(October), 305–360.
� Jensen, M. C.: 2000, ‘Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function’, in M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds.), Breaking the Code of Change (Harvard Business School Press, Boston), pp. 37–58. Reprinted (2002) as ‘Value Maximization, Stakeholder
� Johnson, R(2008). E.ON’s ahead. People Management, 7 February: 24-7. � Jones, T. M.: 1980, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Revisited, Redefined’,
California Management Review 22(2), 59–67. � Jones, T. M.: 1983, ‘An Integrating Framework for Research in Business and
Society: A Step Toward the Elusive Paradigm?’, Academy of Management Review 8(4), 559–565.
� Joyner, BE & Payne, D 2002, 'Evolution and Implementation: a study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 41, pp. 297-311.
� Kaku, R.: 1997, ‘The Path of Kyosei’, Harvard Business Review 75(4), 55–62. � Kaplan R S & Norton D P (1992); The balanced scorecard -
measures that drive performance; Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb, 71-79
� Kaplan R S & Norton D P (1993); Putting the balanced scorecard to work; Harvard Business Review, Sept/Oct, 134-147
� Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., (1996) 'Using The Balanced Scorecard As a Strategic Management System', Harvard Business Review, January / February 1996, pp. 75-85.
� Kaptein, M. and R. Van Tulder: 2003, ‘Toward Effective Stakeholder Dialogue’, Business and Society Review 108(Summer), 203–225.
� Keim, G. D.: 1978, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: An Assessment of the Enlightened Self-Interest Model’, Academy of Management Review 3(1), 32–40.
� Kempshall, M. S.: 1999, the Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
� Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder ‘theory’. Management Decisions, 37 (4): 317-28.
163
� Key, S. and S. J. Popkin: 1998, ‘Integrating Ethics into the Strategic Management Process: Doing Well by Doing Good’, Management Decision 36(5–6), 331–339.
� Kimberley J, Norling R & Weiss J A (1983); Pondering the performance puzzle: effectiveness in interorganisational settings; in Hall R H & Quinn R E (eds); Organisational Theory and Public Practice; Beverly Hills; Sage; pp 249-264
� Kotler P and Lee N. 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause, John Wiley & Sons, NJ, USA.
� Kotler.P and Lee Nancy(2005), Corporate social Responsibility, Wiley India Pvt, Ltd., New Delhi.
� Lantos, G.P.(2002). The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19 (3): 205-30.
� Lantos, P. Geoffrey (2001), The foundries of Strategic CSR, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol.18 no.7, 2001, pp.595-630 MCB University Press, USA.
� Leavitt, T.: 1958, ‘The Dangers of Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business Review 36(September–October), 41–50.
� Lee, Nancy. (2008). Switched on to Energy: A Guide to Sparking Behavioural Change. Retrieved February 23, 2009, from wwe12.bchydro.com/forum/wpcontent/ uploads/2008/11/Switched%20on%20to%20Energy.pdf
� Levitt, T(1958) The dangers of social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp.41-50.
� Litz, R. A.: 1996, ‘A Resourced-Based-View of the Socially Responsible Firm: Stakeholder Interdependence, Ethical Awareness, and Issue Responsiveness as Strategic Assets’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 1355– 1363.
� Lockwood, N. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility: HR’s Leadership Role. HR
� Lucas, T, Wollin, A & Lafferty, G 2001, 'Achieving social responsibility through corporate strategy: a matter of governance', Governance and Capable Responsibilty in the New Millennium, Canberra.
� Madhumita Chatterji (2011), Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Magazine, Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_12_49/ai_n8583189/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
� Mahon, J. F. and R. A. McGowan: 1991, ‘Searching for the Common Good: A Process-Oriented Approach’, Business Horizons 34(4), 79–87.
� Maignan, I & Ferrell, OC 2004, 'Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3-19.
� Maignan, I & Ralston, DA 2002, 'Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses' self-presentations', Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 497-515. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from InfoTrac database.
� Maritain, J. 1971[c1943], The Rights of Man and Natural Law (Gordian Press, New York).
� Maritain, J.: 1966, The Person and the Common Good (Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame).
164
� Matsushita, A(2000) Common sense talk, Asian Productivity Organization News, 30 (8), p.4.
� Matten, D. and A. Crane: in press, ‘Corporate Citizenship: Towards an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization’, Academy of Management Review.
� Matten, D., A. Crane and W. Chapple: 2003, ‘Behind de Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship’, Journal of Business Ethics 45(1–2), 109–120.
� Maycunich Gilley, A., Challahan, J.L. and Bierema, L.L.(2003). Critical Issues in HRD: A New Agenda for the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
� McAleer, S 2003, 'Friedman's Stockholder Theory of Corporate Moral Responsibility', Teaching Business Ethics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 437-51.
� Mcguire,J.B, A. Sundgren, T. Schneeweis (1988), “Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance”, Academy of Management, Vol. 31, No, 4, 854-872.
� McMahon, T. F.: 1986, ‘Models of the Relationship of the Firm to Society’, Journal of Business Ethics 5, 181– 191.
� McWilliams, A & Siegel, D 2001, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective', Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 117-27.
� McWilliams, A, Siegal, D.S and Wright, P.M (2006) Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications, Journal of Management Studies, 43 (1), pp.1-12.
� McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2001, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 26(1), 117–127.
� Mees, A & Bonham, J 2004, 'Corporate social responsibility belongs with HR', Canadian HR Reporter, vol. 17, no. 7, p. 11. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from ProQuest database.
� Mees, A. and Bonham, J. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Belongs with HR. Canadian HR Reporter, pp. 11 – 13, April 5, 2004.
� Melcrum. (2006). Engaging Employees in Corporate Responsibility: How the World’s Leading Companies Embed CR in Employee Decision-making. London, UK: Author.
� Melcrum. (2008). Special Report on Internal Branding. London, UK: Author. � Mele, D.: 2002, Not only Stakeholder Interests. The Firm Oriented toward the
Common Good (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame). � Michael Hopkins (2003),The Planetary Bargain, Corporate Social Responsibility
Matters, 2003, Earthscan Publications. � Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood: 1997, ‘Toward a Theory of
Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’, Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853–886.
� Mohan, A. (2001): Corporate Citizenship: Perspectives from India, in: Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2, 107-117.
� Moran, P and Ghoshal, S(1996).Value creation by firms, Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, OH.
� Moulden, J. (2007). We are the New Radicals: A Manifesto for Reinventing Yourself and Saving the World. McGraw-Hill, New York.
165
� Murray, K. B. and J. R. Montanari: 1986, ‘Strategic Management of the Socially Responsible Firm: Integrating Management and Marketing Theory’, Academy of Management Review 11(4), 815–828.
� Novo Nordisk. (n.d.) Business Ethics and Vision and Strategy. Retrieved December 23,2008, from http://www.novonordisk.com/sustainability/values_in_action/Businessethics/ business-ethics.asp
� Ogden, S. and R. Watson: 1999, ‘Corporate Performance and Stakeholder Management: Balancing Shareholder and Customer Interests in the U.K. Privatized Water Industry’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 526–538.
� Oketch, MO 2004, 'The corporate stake in social cohesion', Corporate Governance, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 5-19.
� Orlitzky, M 2005, 'Payoffs to social and environmental performance', Journal of Investing, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 48. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from ProQuest database.
� O'Rourke, A 2003, 'A new politics of engagement: shareholder activism for corporate social responsibility', Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 12, pp. 227-39.
� Packer, A,H. and Sharrar, G.K.(2003). Linking lifelong learning, corporate social responsibility, and the changing nature of work. Advances in Developing Human Resource, 5(3): 332-41.
� Parsons, T.: 1961, ‘An Outline of the Social System’, in T. Parsons, E. A. Shils, K. D. Naegle and J. R. Pitts (eds.), Theories of Society (Free Press, New York).
� Pedersen, E.R.(2006). Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: how companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review, 111(2): 137-63.
� Perrini, F, Pogutz, S & Tencati, A 2006, 'Corporate social responsibility in Italy: State of the art', Journal of Business Strategies, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 65. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from ProQuest database.
� Petrick, J. and J. Quinn: 2001, ‘The Challenge of Leadership Accountability for Integrity Capacity as a Strategic Asset’, Journal of Business Ethics 34, 331–343.
� Phillips, R. A., E. Freeman and A. C. Wicks: 2003, ‘What Stakeholder Theory Is Not’, Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1), 479–502.
� Phillips, R. A.: 1997, ‘Stakeholder Theory and a Principle of Fairness’, Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1), 51–66.
� Phillips, R. A.: 2003, ‘Stakeholder Legitimacy’, Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1), 25–41.
� Pierce, M., and Madden, K. (n.d.) Driving Success: Human Resources and Sustainable Development. World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
� Pope John Paul II: 1991, Encyclical ‘Centesimus Annus’ (Catholic Truth Society, London) andwww.vatican.va.
� Porter, M. E. and C. Van der Linde: 1995, ‘Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate’, Harvard Business Review 73(5), 120–133.
� Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2002, ‘The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review 80(12), 56–69.
166
� Porter, M. E.: 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (Free Press, New York)
� Porter, M.E and Kramer, M.R (2006) Strategy and Society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, December, pp.78-92.
� Post, FR 2003, 'A response to "the social responsibility of corporate management: A classical critique"', Mid - American Journal of Business, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 25-35.
� Post, J. E., L. E. Preston, S. Sauter-Sachs and S. Sachs: 2002, Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth (Stanford University Press, Stanford).
� Prahalad, C. K. and A. Hammond: 2002, ‘Serving the World’s Poor, Profitably’, Harvard Business Review 80(9), 48–58.
� Prahalad, C. K.: 2002, ‘Strategies for the Bottom of the Economic Pyramid: India as a Source of Innovation’, Reflections: The SOL Journal 3(4), 6–18.
� Preston, L. E. and J. E. Post: 1975, Private Management and Public Policy. The Principle of Public Responsibility (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
� Preston, L. E. and J. E. Post: 1981, ‘Private Management and Public Policy’, California Management Review 23(3), 56–63.
� Preston, L. E.: 1975, ‘Corporation and Society: The Search for a Paradigm’, Journal of Economic Literature 13(2), 434–454.
� Prime Minister's Community Business Partnership, CSR - Defined. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from www.partnerships.gov.au/csr/corporate_csr_defined.shtml
� Quinn, D. P. and T. M. Jones: 1995, ‘An Agent Morality View of Business Policy’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 22–42.
� Quoted in K. Peatties’ Research insights into CSR (part 1) (2002) (2) New Academy Review 33, 50. Aaronson, SA 2003, 'Corporate responsibility in the global village: The British role model and the American laggard', Business and Society Review, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 309-38.
� Rahman Shafiqur (2011), Evaluation of Definition: Ten Dimensions of CSR, World Review of Business Research, Vol.1 no.1, March, 2011, pp:166-176.
� Raman Agarwal, (2010), How should you measure CSR? Create your imprint, CRISIL Young Thought leader.
� Ramesh, K; Praseeda, C. (2010), Measuring CSR-Some Perspectives, GITAM Journal of Management, Vol.8 no1, pp.156-166, Jan-Mar-2010.
� Redington Ian, (2005), Making CSR Happen: The contribution of people management, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
� Redington, I (2005). Making CSR Happen: The contribution of people management, CIPD, London.
� Redington, Ian. (2005). Making CSR Happen: The contribution of people management.
� Rees, D. and McBain, R.(2004). People Management: Challenges and Opportunities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.
� Roman, R., S. Hayibor and B. R. Agle: 1999, ‘The Relationship between Social Performance and Financial Performance’, Business and Society 38(1), 109– 125.
167
� Ross, S.: 1973, ‘The Economy Theory of the Agency: The Principal’s Problem’, American Economic Review 63, 134–139.
� Rowley, T. and S. Berman: 2000, ‘New Brand of Corporate Social Performance’, Business and Society 39(4), 397–412.
� Rowley, T. J.: 1997, ‘Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences’, Academy of Management Review 22(4), 887–911.
� Russo, M.V and Fouts, P.A (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability, Academy of Management Review, 40 (3), pp.534-59.
� Ryan, C 2002, 'The reputation wars', AFR BOSS. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from www.afrboss.com.au/printmagazine.asp?doc_id=22574.
� Sanjay Kumar Panda (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility in India, Past, Present and Future, The Icfai University Press, Hyderabad.
� Scherer, A. G., G. Palazzo (2008), “Globalization and corporate social Responsibility” The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility Eds.: A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, D. Siegel Oxford University Press 2008 (forthcoming)
� Schwartz, M. S. and A. B. Carroll: 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach’, Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4), 503–530.
� Selznick N (1957); Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation; Evanston, Ill; Row, Peterson.
� Sethi, S. P.: 1975, ‘Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Analytical Framework’, California Management Review 17(3), 58–65.
� Shen Hongmei (2006) Publications and MNC’s CSR: From A Developing Country’s Perspective, Maryland University, USA citations
� Shrivastava, P.: 1995, ‘The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability’, Academy of Management Review 20, 936–960.
� Simon, Y. R.: 1992 (1965), in V. Kuic (ed.), The Tradition of Natural Law. A Philosopher’s Reflections. (Fordham University Press, New York).
� Skinner, C. (June 2002). Links Between CSR and HR. Ethical Corporation Magazine.
� Smith, T. W.: 1999, ‘Aristotle on the Conditions for and Limits of the Common Good’, American Political Science Review 93(3), 625–637.
� Smith, W. and M. Higgins: 2000, ‘Cause-Related Marketing: Ethics and the Ecstatic’, Business and Society 39(3), 304–322.
� Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2007). 2007 Corporate Social Responsibility: United States, Australia, India, China, Canada, Mexico and Brazil: A Pilot Study. Virginia, US: Author.
� Solomon, R. C.: 1992, ‘Corporate Roles, Personal Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics’, Business Ethics Quarterly 2(3), 317–340.
� Sriramesh, K; Chew Wee Ng; Soh Ting Ting; Luo Wanyin, (2007) CSR and Public Relations: Perceptions and Practices in Singapore, International Public Relations Symposium, Slovenia.
� Stead, J. G. and E. Stead: 2000, ‘Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for sustainability’, Journal of Business Ethics 24(4), 313–330.
� Stedain, H.(2008). The money trap. People Management, 10 January: 24-9.
168
� Steiner A. George, (1975), Business and Society, Random House, New York. � Strandberg, C. (2004). Staffing CSR. Canadian Co-operative Association March
2004 Concern for Community Newsletter. British Columbia, Canada. � Sturdivant, F. D.: 1979, ‘Executives and Activist: Test of Stakeholder
Management’, California Management Review 22(Fall), 53–59. � Sulmasy, D. P.: 2001, ‘Four Basic Notions of the Common Good’, St. John’s
Law Review 75(2), 303–311. � Swanson, D. L.: 1995, ‘Addressing a Theoretical Problem by Reorienting the
Corporate Social Performance Model’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 43– 64.
� Swanson, D. L.: 1999, ‘Toward an Integrative Theory of Business and Society: A Research Strategy for Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 24(3), 506–521.
� Teece, D. J., G. Pisano and A. Shuen: 1997, ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’, Strategic Management Journal 18(7), 509–533.
� The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). London, UK. � The Clarkson Center for Business Ethics: 1999, Principles of Stakeholder
Management (Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, Toronto, Canada). Reprinted (2002) on, Business Ethics Quarterly 12(4), 257–264.
� Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function’, Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2), 235–256.
� Thomas, Gail : Nowak Margaret (2006) Corporate Social Responsibility: A definition, GSB working paper no.62, Curtin University of Technology, Australia.
� Tichy, N. M., A. R. McGill and L. St. Clair: 1997, Corporate Global Citizenship (The New Lexington Press, San Francisco).
� Tilbury, D & Wortman, D 2004, Engaging people in sustainability, IUCN, Gland. � Toyne, P. (Feb. 14, 2005). CSR an Introduction. Accessed on Feb. 8, 2009
from:http://www.management-issues.com/2006/5/25/opinion/csr-an-introduction.asp.
� Trevino, L. K. and G. R. Weaver: 1994, ‘Normative and Empirical Business Ethics’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(2), 129–143.
� Turner, RJ 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility: Should disclosure of social considerations be mandatory?. Submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services Inquiry. Retrieved November 24, 2006, from http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/corporate_responsibility/submissions/sub05.pdf
� United Nations: 1999, Global Compact (www. unglobalcompact.org). � Utting. P (2005), Rethinking Business Regulation: From Self-Regulation to
Social Control, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (Technology, Business and Society Programme, Paper-15).
� Van Marrewijk, M 2003, 'Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 44, no. 2/3, p. 95. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from ProQuest database.
� Van Marrewijk, M. and M. Werre: 2003, ‘Multiple Levels of Corporate Sustainability’, Journal of Business Ethics 44(2/3), 107–120.
169
� Van Marrewijk, M.: 2003, ‘Concept and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion’, Journal of Business Ethics 44, 95–105.
� Varadarajan, P. R. and A. Menon: 1988, ‘Cause-Related Marketing: A Co alignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy’, Journal of Marketing 52(3), 58–58.
� Velasquez, M.: 1992, ‘International Business, Morality and the Common Good’, Business Ethics Quarterly 2(1), 27–40.
� Vogel, D.: 1986, ‘The Study of Social Issues in Management: A Critical Appraisal’, California Management Review 28(2), 142–152.
� Votaw, D.: 1972, ‘Genius Became Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility Pt 1’, California Management Review 15(2), 25–31.
� Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303– 320.
� Wartich and Mahon: 1994: ‘Towards a Substantive Definition of the Corporate Issue Construct: A Review and Synthesis of Literature’, Business and Society 33(3), 293–311.
� Wartich, S. and P. L. Cochran: 1985, ‘The Evolution of Corporate Social Performance Model’, Academy of Management Review 10(4), 758–769.
� Wartich, S. L. and R. E. Rude: 1986, ‘Issues Management: Corporate Fad or Corporate Function?’, California Management Review 29(1), 124–132.
� Weiss, J. W.: 2003, Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach, 3rd ed. (Thomson – South- Western, Ohio).
� Wernelfelt, B.: 1984, ‘A Resource Based View of the Firm’, Strategic Management Review 5, 171–180.
� Werther, B. William and Chandler David (2010) Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, Sage Publications India, Pvt., New Delhi.
� Wheeler, D, Colbert, B & Freeman, RE 2003, 'Focusing on value: Reconciling corporate social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world', Journal of General Management, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 1-28.
� Wheeler, D., B. Colbert and R. E. Freeman: 2003, ‘Focusing on Value: Reconciling Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability and a Stakeholder Approach in a Network World’, Journal of General Management 28(3), 1–29.
� Wicks, A. C., D. R. Gilbert, Jr. and R. E. Freeman: 1994, ‘A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder Concept’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 475–497.
� Wijnberg, N. M.: 2000, ‘Normative Stakeholder Theory and Aristotle: The Link between Ethics and Politics’, Journal of Business Ethics 25, 329–342.
� Wikipedia. � Windsor, D 2001, 'The future of corporate responsibility', International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 225-56. � Windsor, D.: 2001, ‘The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility’, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis 9(3), 225–256. � Wood, D. J. and J. M. Lodgson: 2002, ‘Business Citizenship: From Individuals to
Organizations’, Business Ethics Quarterly, Ruffin Series, No. 3, 59–94.
170
� Wood, D. J.: 1991a, ‘Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate Social Performance’, Journal of Management 17(2), 383–406.
� Wood, D. J.: 1991b, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, Academy of Management Review 16(4), 691– 718.
� World Business Council for Sustainable Development: 2000, Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good Business Sense (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva).
� World Business Council for Sustainable Social Development (2006) from Challenge to Opportunity: The role of business in tomorrow’s society, WBCSSD, Geneva.
� World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our Common Future, June 26, 2006. Retrieved June 26, 2006, from, www.are.admin.ch/imperia/md/content/are/ nachhaltlgeentwicklung/brundtland_bericht.pdf
� World Commission on Environment and Development: 1987, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
� Wrighta, R. W, H. Etemad (2001), SMEs and the Global Economy, Journal of International Management, 7, pp 151–154
� www.wbcsd.org � Yamaji, K.: 1997, ‘A Global Perspective of Ethics in Business’, Business Ethics
Quarterly 7(3), 55–71. � Zadek, S.: 2001, ‘Partnership Alchemy: Engagement, Innovation, and
Governance’, in J. Andriof and M.McIntosh (eds.), Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK), pp. 200–212.
� Zappala, G 2003, 'Corporate Citizenship and the Role of Government: the public policy case', ed. DotP Library, Canberra.
� Zerk A. Jennifer (2006), Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility, Cambridge University Press, UK.
� Zink, K.J. (2005). Stakeholder orientation and corporate social responsibility as a precondition for sustainability. Total Quality Management, 16 (8-9): 1041-52.