CORPORATE
CORPORATE
SOCIAL
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
Reading material developed
Reading material developed
for CSR subject
for CSR subject
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1
1. . CChhaapptteer r I I :: DDeevveellooppmmeennt t SScceennaarriio o 33
2
2. . CChhaapptteer r III I :: IIntnteerfrfaace ce bbeettwweeeen n bbususinineesss s aannd d ssoocicieety ty 88
3
3. . CChhaapptteer r IIIII I :: MuMultlti-i-StStakakehehololdeder r MaMananagegemmenent t of of CSCSR R 2020
4
4. . CChhaapptteer r IIV V :: TTrreenndds s iin n CCSSR R pprrooggrraammmmees s 2277
5
5. . CChhaapptteer r V V :: OOppeerraattiioonnaalliissiinng g CCSSR R – – ssoomme e ttiipps s 3355
6
6. . CChhaapptteer r VVI I :: MMeeaassuurriinng g tthhe e iimmppaacct t oof f CCSSR R 4400
7
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1
1. . CChhaapptteer r I I :: DDeevveellooppmmeennt t SScceennaarriio o 33
2
2. . CChhaapptteer r III I :: IIntnteerfrfaace ce bbeettwweeeen n bbususinineesss s aannd d ssoocicieety ty 88
3
3. . CChhaapptteer r IIIII I :: MuMultlti-i-StStakakehehololdeder r MaMananagegemmenent t of of CSCSR R 2020
4
4. . CChhaapptteer r IIV V :: TTrreenndds s iin n CCSSR R pprrooggrraammmmees s 2277
5
5. . CChhaapptteer r V V :: OOppeerraattiioonnaalliissiinng g CCSSR R – – ssoomme e ttiipps s 3355
6
6. . CChhaapptteer r VVI I :: MMeeaassuurriinng g tthhe e iimmppaacct t oof f CCSSR R 4400
7
Chapter I
Chapter I
Development Scenario
Development Scenario
1.
1.0 0 ININTRTRODODUCUCTITIOON N
The dawn of a new millennium is expected to usher in an era of hope and The dawn of a new millennium is expected to usher in an era of hope and goodwill, where concerted global action will motivate, develop, and define a goodwill, where concerted global action will motivate, develop, and define a comprehensive and integrated vision for the future. We have left behind a comprehensive and integrated vision for the future. We have left behind a
century marked by unparalleled rates of population growth and near-calamitous century marked by unparalleled rates of population growth and near-calamitous destruction of our natural resources and the environment. However, the
destruction of our natural resources and the environment. However, the
acceleration in scientific and technological advancements and the recognition acceleration in scientific and technological advancements and the recognition that a good quality of life is the fundamental right of citizens do indicate that all is that a good quality of life is the fundamental right of citizens do indicate that all is not lost.
not lost.
Review of India’s Progress Review of India’s Progress
On the positive side, India's democratic political system has endured despite On the positive side, India's democratic political system has endured despite early doubts about the robustness of its basic political institutions. The political early doubts about the robustness of its basic political institutions. The political system has weathered the challenges posed by civil violence, social unrest and system has weathered the challenges posed by civil violence, social unrest and separatist social movements while preserving basic democratic freedoms. The separatist social movements while preserving basic democratic freedoms. The political environment has fostered a vocal and free press, an articulate educated political environment has fostered a vocal and free press, an articulate educated segment and a relatively free exchange of ideas. The Indian economy has
segment and a relatively free exchange of ideas. The Indian economy has developed the capacity to produce a range of goods for domestic consumption. developed the capacity to produce a range of goods for domestic consumption. Mass famines and epidemics have been prevented due to effective organization Mass famines and epidemics have been prevented due to effective organization of relief by the central and state governments. The lives of ordinary people have of relief by the central and state governments. The lives of ordinary people have improved on many counts: The average person in India lives longer, is less likely improved on many counts: The average person in India lives longer, is less likely to die in infancy or childhood, is better equipped to resist the depredations of to die in infancy or childhood, is better equipped to resist the depredations of infectious diseases and is more likely to be literate than fifty years ago.
infectious diseases and is more likely to be literate than fifty years ago.
In spite of India's many positive accomplishments, there is a feeling in the global In spite of India's many positive accomplishments, there is a feeling in the global community that India, as a society has not lived up to its potential, given its
community that India, as a society has not lived up to its potential, given its considerable natural and human resources. Two problems in particular-poverty considerable natural and human resources. Two problems in particular-poverty and population growth-loom large over the horizon. In spite of an impressive and population growth-loom large over the horizon. In spite of an impressive expansion of the middle class and an increase in urban living standards, poverty expansion of the middle class and an increase in urban living standards, poverty continues to be an endemic
continues to be an endemic problem. Over a third of the population, lives inproblem. Over a third of the population, lives in abject poverty -that is- below the modest poverty-line income established by the abject poverty -that is- below the modest poverty-line income established by the Indian government. Although the poverty rate declined since the mid- seventies, Indian government. Although the poverty rate declined since the mid- seventies, the total population living below the poverty line has scarcely changed and
the total population living below the poverty line has scarcely changed and remains at around 28.6 per cent of the total population. Further, millions of remains at around 28.6 per cent of the total population. Further, millions of
people who are not officially poor also suffer from income and food insecurity, as people who are not officially poor also suffer from income and food insecurity, as do those living in poverty. Poverty is associated with a host of secondary social do those living in poverty. Poverty is associated with a host of secondary social problems-high birth rates, lower life expectancy, higher child mortality, chronic problems-high birth rates, lower life expectancy, higher child mortality, chronic malnutrition and illness, child labour, illiteracy, and low economic productivity malnutrition and illness, child labour, illiteracy, and low economic productivity
over the lifetime. See Table 4 A ‘Statistical Profile of India’ in the later part of this over the lifetime. See Table 4 A ‘Statistical Profile of India’ in the later part of this chapter.
chapter.
Population growth continues to be a problem in spite of recent declines in the birth Population growth continues to be a problem in spite of recent declines in the birth rate.
rate. India's numerous social India's numerous social problems have been problems have been discussed at length discussed at length in academicin academic and official publications. Inadequacies in various areas are routinely identified in and official publications. Inadequacies in various areas are routinely identified in official publications such as the Economic Survey and the Five Year Plan reports. official publications such as the Economic Survey and the Five Year Plan reports.
1.3
1.3 Tenth Tenth Five Five Year Year Plans Plans and and Millennium Millennium Development Development GoalsGoals
In the Tenth Five Year Plan the Planning Commission has outlined India’s human In the Tenth Five Year Plan the Planning Commission has outlined India’s human development goals and targets for the next five to 10 years. Most of these are development goals and targets for the next five to 10 years. Most of these are related to and are more ambitious than the Millennium Development Goals
related to and are more ambitious than the Millennium Development Goals11. The. The following table provides you with a lis
following table provides you with a list of Millennium Development Goals, whicht of Millennium Development Goals, which have been accepted at a global level.
have been accepted at a global level.
1.4
1.4 SUSUSTSTAINAINABABLE LE DEDEVEVELOLOPMPMENENT T
To achieve the goals of the tenth plan and move towards the goal of sustainable To achieve the goals of the tenth plan and move towards the goal of sustainable development is the country’s vision. It is true that achieving sustainable
development is the country’s vision. It is true that achieving sustainable
development both in the country and at the global level is indeed a daunting task. development both in the country and at the global level is indeed a daunting task. The primary objective of the sustainable development is to reduce the absolute The primary objective of the sustainable development is to reduce the absolute poverty of the world's poor through providing lasting and secure livelihoods that poverty of the world's poor through providing lasting and secure livelihoods that minimize resource depletion, environmental degradation, cultural disruption and minimize resource depletion, environmental degradation, cultural disruption and social instability". Sustainable development is defined as a pattern of social and social instability". Sustainable development is defined as a pattern of social and structured economic transformations (i.e. development), which optimizes the structured economic transformations (i.e. development), which optimizes the economic and societal benefits available in the present, without jeopardizing the economic and societal benefits available in the present, without jeopardizing the likely potential for similar benefits in the future. A primary goal of
likely potential for similar benefits in the future. A primary goal of sustainablesustainable development is to achieve a reasonable and equitably distributed level of development is to achieve a reasonable and equitably distributed level of economic well being that can be perpetuated continually for many human economic well being that can be perpetuated continually for many human generations.
generations.
We live in global community that increasingly measures development successes We live in global community that increasingly measures development successes in terms of the well-being of the average citizen. The Human Development Index in terms of the well-being of the average citizen. The Human Development Index ranks India in the lowest tier of countries because so many people lack access to ranks India in the lowest tier of countries because so many people lack access to basic goods such as education, health, housing and social services.
basic goods such as education, health, housing and social services.
Governments alone cannot handle development issues. Both public and private Governments alone cannot handle development issues. Both public and private efforts must be expended to solve the problems identified above. A judicious mix efforts must be expended to solve the problems identified above. A judicious mix of government and non-gover
of government and non-government initiatives will have to be worked out tonment initiatives will have to be worked out to accelerate the pace of development.
accelerate the pace of development.
1.5
Challenges in the 21st Century cannot be tackled by yesterday’s rule of governance. There is a need to develop new ways of thinking and new approaches to governance at every level of society. It is an accepted fact, that, there are crucial linkages between economic growth, human development, social cohesion and environmental sustainability
Today’s world is interdependent where problems of poverty, unemployment, inequality, environmental degradation and social disintegration are concerned because each of them affect various sectors in varying degrees. The trend worldwide is for the barriers between the various sectors to be removed in order to resolve social issues and develop systems based on collaborative and consultative models.
If business has to be developed, the society needs to be developed, business sector cannot flourish in any country, if the environment required by business is not conducive. Increasing social issues impacts the entire society in general and business in particular because to a large extent business is dependent on the society for its growth and prosperity.
The concept of business responsibility to society was not considered when the first factories were established partly because, prior to that time, no institution in society had demonstrated the power necessary for independent action potentially detrimental to society as a whole. From the beginning, industry had such power but its effects were neither anticipated nor clearly recognized as the industrial system grew. Only recently has the social responsibility issue towards
community has come to the forefront.
Management Tasks in the Changing Scenario
In the three decades since Drucker’s analysis of the three tasks of management, namely managing business, managing managers and managing workers and work (Drucker, 1963), another management task has been receiving growing attention. Some discuss this task as managing the business environment; others speak of managing the environmental pressures or the social responsibilities of business. There is a shift both, in the emphasis placed on different tasks and in the nature of the work of many managers. The result of the shift on the validity of Drucker’s division of the jobs of management is to add a new dimension to
business that broadens all the tasks of management. Now, a good manager is expected to include a social or environmental component in the performance of Drucker’s three tasks. In his book on Management: Task Responsibilities and
Economic reforms and effective social policy are interlinked. Economic growth is crucial. No country has achieved sustained improvements in living without it. But, investing in people to create human capital – which is the main attribute that people draw on in order to live more productive lives – is equally critical to raising living standards. (World Bank Annual Report, 1995).
Practices, Drucker (1963), also points out that ‘ None of our institutions exists by itself and is an end in itself’. Everyone is an organ of our society and exists for the sake of society. Business is exception. Free enterprises are also governed by the legal and moral aspects of the society. Therefore, management can no longer afford to ignore society and its demands.
Among the factors responsible for this new emphasis are the cumulative impacts of the accelerating role of change in our industrial society and the reaction of society to both, the advantages and disadvantages of unparalleled industrial
growth. The most fundamental impact on society is from technological and social change. It is not surprising that the rapid rate of change in the industrial world has created not only new cultural and social attitudes but also the need for a new set of relationships between the business firm and the surrounding society. The evolution of modern society and the impact of successful industrial development have created great stress and strains. This situation has brought new
dimensions to the tasks of managers and has emphasized the need for
management to reappraise the way that a business enterprise should relate to social demands.
IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION
Socially responsible corporations till a few decades back were something of an oxymoron. Social problems were the concern of the state, and businesses
argued, that they had nothing to do with it as profitability and social responsibility could never go together. Friedman’s libertarian view of a company’s
responsibility towards society echoed this thinking and remained influential for many years. “There is one and only social responsibility of business,” he wrote in his book Capitalism and Freedom, “ 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, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”. This argument did make a lot of sense in a monopolistic, stable and
localized economy, and in a society where other stakeholders were relatively less influential. But, then, the rules of the game changed. Markets became global; competition intensified as multinationals swept across borders. Companies got restructured and reengineered. Redundant employees charged re-engineered firms with betrayal and loss of trust, while the existing ones worked under a cloud of uncertainty. Images of gas-poisoned victims and oil-soaked birds in the
aftermath of the Bhopal gas disaster and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska made the world sit up and take notice of the impacts that business could have on the external world.
Stakeholders, who have long remained dormant, have stirred awake and are now proving themselves as major forces to be reckoned with. The dent these
developments have caused in the bottom line of companies have forced many to think anew about their responsibilities to society. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) towards community has become the business issue of the 21st century!
Conclusion
The most fundamental impact on society is from technological and social change. Increasing social issues impacts the entire society in general and business in particular because to a large extent business is dependent on the society for its growth and prosperity. Governments alone cannot handle development issues. Both public and private efforts must be expended to solve the problems identified above. A judicious mix of government and non-government initiatives will have to be worked out to accelerate the pace of development.
1.11 Questions for Study
How far according to you has India progressed?
Is there a need for joint action to change the development scenario? Justify
What are millennium development goals?
What is the objective of the Tenth five-year plan?
Digital Bibliography
UNDP India: http://www.undp.org.in/ You and Aids: http://www.youandaids.org
Chapter II
Interface between Business and Society 2.0 Introduction
The business enterprise system is the mechanism selected by society to produce and distribute goods and services. Originally, people felt that a business enterprise had fulfilled its social responsibility by surviving and realizing the maximum profit possible. The resources of society could be used by the business enterprise to make profits as long as the enterprise complied with the few rules imposed by governments to check abusive practices. The market system provided the regulation necessary to police the system, and profits provided incentive and insured efficiency. The work ethic and self interest were the guiding principles of the system. By making a profit, business enterprises contributed to a growing, healthy economic system that provided employment and adequate incomes for all. In other words, corporate social responsibility was to operate profitably, and the corporation could not survive without profits, much less play a social role. The practice of business contributing for social development has continued through the ages and as economic political and social conditions changed, the business response to social need also underwent a change. Over the years there has been a shift from merchant charity to corporate citizenship. (Sundar P. 2000)
First Phase-Merchant Charity
The concept of parting with a portion of one’s surplus wealth for the good of the society is neither modern nor a Western import to India, instead it dates back to the Vedic period. Merchant class was nourished by a social and religious ethic, which put charitable giving high on its list of virtues. Charity2 or daanam was an ingrained part of the merchant’s life. Merchants provided relief in the times of natural disasters, developed supportive
infrastructures like dharamshalas (pilgrim rest houses), bathing ghats, (community
bathing areas), panjrapoles (animal refuges), and provided drinking water facilities. They also rendered support in the areas of education, health, preservation of art, and culture. The shift from purely ameliorative charity for religious reasons and causes during the pre industrial era, shifted towards the more Western form of philanthropy3 along with
continuation of contribution to older forms of charity. In the period 1850-1914 the period
2
Charity, popularly used term for altruistic giving, implies giving to the poor and those in distress/need. It is not concerned with removing the conditions, which cause distress. It is generally linked to religious belief and teachings.
3
Philanthropy is derived from the Greek word ‘ philien’ (to love) and ‘ anthropos’ (man) means love for mankind. It is defined as creative use of wealth for the long-term benefit of society, without any expectation of a quid pro quo.
saw the beginnings of industrialization in India. Like their counterparts in the West, the rich business families began to set up trusts and endow a host of modern institutions such as schools, colleges, hospitals, destitute homes, art galleries, and museums, and
preservation and propagation of Indian culture.
Role of Business Leaders
The credit for bringing social responsibility into business community’s consciousness goes principally to business leaders like JRD Tata, Ramak rishna Bajaj, Arvind Mafatlal and Kasturbhai Lalbhai. As champions of free enterprise, they feared that irresponsible behaviour by the business community would lead the government to encroach on its freedom more and more. Meanwhile, Gandhiji’s mantle as the moral guide of India had fallen of Vinoba Bhave who launched the gramdan (gift of village), bhoodan (gift of land) and sampatidan (gift of wealth) movements to put Gandhi’s ideas of trusteeship into practice. Vinoba wanted businessmen to interest themselves in humanitarian, cultural, educational and other beneficial social activities and inspire them to consider business as a social mission. Vinoba Bhave’s work had the backing of the very political leaders who had opposed the idea of Gandhiji’s trusteeship before Independence. It was clear to
Nehru and other political leaders that encouraging class struggle and raising expectations of the depressed classes without the means to meet them would only be to invite trouble (Rolnick 1962). The trusteeship theory therefore was seen as a safer way of bringing social transformation without any violent social upheaval. It reinforced the traditional concepts of charity and thereby the viability of the old social structure, while
simultaneously trying to promote the socialist ideal of classless egalitarian society. It was therefore supported by both the capitalists and the government, though many paid lip service to it (IMC, 1963).
2.3 Second Phase- Trusteeship
In the second phase that is 1914-1960, philanthropy was honed by the vision of free, progressive and modern India. Many of the leading businessmen came under the spell of Mahatma Gandhi and his theory of trusteeship4 of wealth. They contributed liberally to his programmes for removal of untouchability, women’s emancipation a nd rural
reconstruction. Along with a new vision for philanthropy, business continued to support and create physical, cultural and social institutional infrastructure. When India became free, the independent state looked to the business community to propel the country to a prosperous future and in the euphoria of independence, the business class, confident of its capabilities, responded both, by creating more wealth and utilizing it for non-business purposes.
4
M.K. Gandhi conceived Trusteeship as a non-violent process to convert private property capitalism into a public property social institution based on social good rather than individual or collective greed. He repeatedly returned to the realm of joint family. Gandhiji envisaged industry as a joint enterprise of labour and capital in which both owners and workers were co-trustees for society. In his moral theory of trusteeship was enclosed a social policy which was attuned by political expediency. His moral policies and politics were coordinated for the realization of a harmonious social order.
Third Phase- Declaration of Social Responsibilities of Business
The next shift came in the 1960’s, which ushered in an era of economic and political troubles and saw the business community operating under several constraints. Jai Prakash Narain carried Vinoba’s message forward. In 1965, he was the moving spirit behind the seminar on social responsibilities of business, organized in Delhi b y the India
International Centre and the Institute of Gandhian Studies Varanasi. One of the results of the Conference was the declaration of Social Responsibility of Business.
The conference clearly brought out that business has responsibilities towards its
stakeholders, which consist of employees, shareholders, government, co nsumers and the community. The relationship between business with its employees, consumers,
shareholders, government is legally spelt out. However there is no law, which governs the relationship of the business enterprise with the society/community. The conference felt that business should pay equal attention to the community and understand its importance as a stakeholder. The concept of social responsibility towards the community was broader than charitable giving for community affairs.
The Delhi seminar was followed by the Calcutta seminar in 1966. At its end it set up a study group to prepare a set of business norms for adoption by the business community; to examine the hurdles in the way of implementation of these norms; and to recommend remedial measures. In its report, the study group examined responsibility under five broad heads viz. responsibility of business towards consumers, the community, employees, shareholders, other businesses and towards the State. One immediate fallout of the conference was that JRD Tata, Ramakrishna Bajaj and other businessmen launched the Fair Trade Practices Association in Bombay in 1966 to codify and implement fair business practices.
The state in this period also took on many of the obligations that were traditionally the responsibility of the community and the family, such as care of the sick, destitute, aged, and widows. As government increased the taxes on business, coupled with mistrust of business, business interest in philanthropy began dwindling. Though the government expected business to support and financially contribute towards state led community development activities, business organizations gave a poor response. Ironically the high tax regime aided by deterioration in business morality led to a large expansion in the establishment of charitable trusts for the purposes of tax planning.
The 70’s saw a renewed corporate interest in social concerns and a new element emerged on the philanthropic scene that is corporate philanthropy as distinct from family business philanthropy.
It was not only a concern with ethics which made business shift from building institutions to becoming concerned with grassroots issues at the community level. The shift was in keeping with global trends, which had led to the
emergence of the concept of managerial trusteeship. It became clear to business that their survival and continued profitability depended on a more systematic
involvement in regenerating the local communities which went beyond customer relations and provision of welfare amenities to its own employees. It was also felt that while massive investment in building up the country’s infrastructure there was little attention paid to basic social amenities like drinking water, schools, dispensaries, and agriculture. This condition activated the rise of voluntary action in the form of NGOs. While the NGOs had the commitment to work, they lacked financial resources. Hence, it exerted pressure on both, the government as well as the private sector to collaborate with them to achieve the goal of social
development. This led the government to offer tax concessions to motivate industry to involve itself in the developmental work and assist the work of
voluntary sector. In 1977, section 35CC was introduced into the Income Tax Act to provide for 100% deduction to a company in respect of expenditure incurred by it on approved programmes of rural development.5 It led to a variety of community involvement activities. This induced many companies to enter the field of rural development. Some contributed to cultural organizations, others adopted schools; still others invested in housing and other community projects, while some others offered job retraining or internships, all of it directed to the whole community. Though the contexts were different, a more constructive engagement with poor communities was undertaken as a response to the grim social situation in India.
The post 1980 period saw an upswing in business fortunes due to economic reforms and other factors. The tax incentives given in the seventies were later withdrawn in 1983-84 as it was being misused. With this, those who were involved in community development with mercenary intentions also stopped their contributions. Even after tax incentives were withdrawn sensitive business leaders realized that unless the business community contributed to basic developmental needs, its survival would be threatened and it is in their own self-interest to participate in the nation building effort (Mafatlal A, 1996). One of the first to articulate this was JRD Tata. And as always he led by example. He committed all Tata companies to ethical behaviour and programmes of community development by amending the Articles of Association of Tata Companies to include a clause that specified companies’ responsibility to all stakeholders including the community. In order to redeem the image, JRD Tata wanted Indian Companies to go beyond conducting themselves as honest citizens. He advised that, “ Apart from donating for good causes we can use our financial, managerial and human resources to provide task forces for undertaking direct relief and reconstruction measures. This form of public community service could be expanded by the cooperative effort among members of various industries”(JRD Tata 1986). In his advocacy of responsibility towards community Ramakrishna Bajaj and Arvind Mafatlal joined JRD. They felt the business community is an essential ingredient of our democratic society and it has a duty not only to create wealth, but also to promote ethical and social goals of the
5
Approved programmes of rural development include construction and maintenance of rural roads; drainage and sanitary systems in rural areas; construction and maintenance of hospitals, dispensaries, and family planning centres; drinking water facilities and so on.
community. Unless it fulfills both these functions and thereby plays its due role as a responsible section, it will not be able to ensure its own survival.
The ethical dimension of wealth creation and the vision of a moral and just society drove many business leaders of the time such as Arvind Mafatlal, to efforts at improving grass roots communities. According to Arvind Mafatlal, apart from monetary donation, contribution of management skills to the development work is essential. Hence he gave Bhartiya Agro Industries foundation both monetary funds and management inputs. He insisted that corporate involvement should promote long term development work in the three ‘A’sAnna (food), Akshar (literacy) and Arogya (health).
Spurred partly by the realization that supporting community development is in the interest of business, several business leaders began to advocate the importance of community as a stakeholder in business. Of this philanthropic giving was only one aspect, the others were more related to more ethical business practice and concern for the physical environment in which the business operated. This period saw a swing from charity and traditional philanthropy towards more direct engagement in the mainstream development concerns of the society. Government of India introduced several tax incentives for making philanthropic donations and pursuing developmental activities6 2.6 Fourth phase- Corporate Citizenship
The period from 1990 has witnessed a phenomenal growth in the corporate sector in terms of size, complexity and sophistication. Liberalization has added a new wave of MNCs who have set up their factories in India, either on their own or in collaboration with Indian companies. Companies have started becoming more and more responsible towards their stakeholders. There is a growing importance of recognizing ‘community’/ society as a stakeholder in business. There is a realization that if social development is neglected, businesses cannot prosper. Government alone cannot handle social issues. If businesses have to be expanded and be made profitable then their active participation in social development is required.
Most of the private sector companies have community development programmes at their home locations or in the immediate geographic environment. For instance some of them have set up developmental
organizations themselves like Bombay-based Excel Industries have NGOs in rural Kutch. The drought prone hinterlands of Gujarat, for example, have always attracted corporate NGOs. While setting up their headquarters in Bombay and in other parts of the country, Gujarati industrialists have by and large retained a
6
Organizations could claim tax relief for philanthropic activities under sections 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There are specific provisions for deductions in respect of donations for rural development activities under section 80 GGA. (2) (b), and for the National Rural Development Fund under section 80GGA (2) (d). In addition to these incentives, way back in 1977 the Government of India introduced several tax reliefs under section 35CC, which were later on revised in 1985.
sense of attachment to their home state and many of them have attempted to contribute to its development by setting up sponsored trusts, dedicated to rural development. Bhalla Kora Mathen, the Vice-President of the Narottum Lalbhai Rural Development Fund and the Lalbhai Group Rural Development Fund says, `Though the Lalbhais had always contributed to charity, it was in 1985 that
Kasturbhai Lalbhai decided to get directly involved in rural development. He felt that the group's management expertise could be a great asset in this type of work”. Corporates like the Lalbhais, Mafatlals, Shroffs, L&T, HLL, Deepak
Fertilizers have attempted to bring in management professionals into an area that was once the social workers’ concern. Critics of corporate sponsored trusts feel that many corporate NGOs have been content to play a facilitating role,
implementing World Bank sponsored projects or the government’s Integrated Rural Development Programme projects. The level of funding from their parent corporates has often been paltry in comparison to their profits (Sundar P, 1984). Managalore Chemicals and Fertilizers (MIF), a UB group company, has been involved in socio-economic development work for several years now. MCF surveyed several villages in the districts of Bellary and Raichur for
implementation of the improved agricultural programmes. Introduction of double cropping, use of balanced fertilizers, better water management, and so on are a few of the achievements which have increased the income of farm families from RS. 4,000 to RS. 10,000 annually.
Further down South, SPIC's agro-service centres and rural development centres in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh are training farmers in scientific farming and helping them in integrated farming efforts. In fact, the ASC is part of a marketing exercise, in that it retains its market by augmenting its core product - Urea. `No doubt, our service activities have helped us to improve the brand image of our products,' says a SPIC official.
Similarly new MNCs like Coca-Cola India, Motorola, and Pepsi all have initiated community development activities in India to facilitate their acceptance with the local community. MNCs like Procter and Gamble have initiated cause-related marketing and reported to have increased sales through it. They claim that a social attribute added to brand increases the product’s marketability.
According to Krishna Rao,(1997) and the IMRB survey (1993) more and more companies are eager to adopt a credo that blends liberal idealism with the more common management precepts to community development. Seventy per cent of the companies surveyed by IMRB stated that they were into community
development for totally selfless reason i.e to fulfill their social responsibilities. Fifty per cent felt concerned for a specific group, and twenty per cent cited the benefit to the organization.
The survey on corporate social responsibility conducted b y Partners in Change in 2003 highlights the following findings:
86% agree that corporates have a social responsibility
Health and Education were the 2 most chosen sectors for contribution
52% spontaneously mention employees as targets for social development; however, 71% do mention community
19% had a policy on community development- written or unwritten
About 70% are involved in Social Development activities- the number goes up amongst those having a written policy
Donations remain the most preferred mode.
Companies agree that involvement in social activities helps in image building.
Many business Corporations today accept that it is in their self-interest to be more socially aware and to engage in programmes for the benefit of the community. But the number of corporations actually undertaking social responsibility is still very small. It is important to note that the present day
corporate involvement arises from the recognition that business can play a direct role in maintaining a stable and healthy community environment, improve the quality of life, effectiveness of institutions, and thereby create a favourable business environment. The goal is to establish a dynamic relationship between communities and business in which both complement each other.
2.7 Post Liberalization and its Impact on Social Development
Globalization has had a "worrisome impact." Globalization had increased the inequalities between nations. Two hundred and fifty years ago, the richest countries were only five times richer than the poorest. In 1976, Switzerland was 52 times richer than Mozambique and in 2000, it was 508 times richer. (Vajpai A, 2000) In India we are concerned with minimizing the negative effects of social change and development. A list of social
problems that seems to bother us would include poverty and inequality in the distribution of wealth, unemployment, hunger, malnutrition, popu lation growth, discrimination,
disease, squalor, crime, delinquency, violence, alienation of youth and other sections. The nation is committed to the goal of welfare state: socialistic pattern of society raising the living standards of all the people and the quality of life. The benefits of science and technology are phenomenal but their distribution is unequal. This has resulted in inequalities of wealth and power leading to stresses and strains. No democratic society can function effectively and expect to maintain its dynamism. When the subsystems do not coordinate for solving its problems, social problems will not be solved by
governmental action alone. Subsystems should often make compromises and the several groups must maintain pressures and seek to work out acceptable solutions (Bhushan Y.K, 1999).
The UN Human Development Report of 2003 notes that India’s expenditure on human priority concerns - basic, education, primary health care, child nutrition, etc. is very low. The report notes, "India is clearly investing far too little in its human capital and it will have to explore several avenues to find additional resources for human investment". One such avenue clearly has to be the corporate sector (Sundar P., 1996). As we endeavour
towards a developed India through various reforms, it is worthwhile to recall what the distinguished economist Amartya Sen (1998), said in this regard " The central issue is to expand the social opportunities open to people. In so far as counter-productive regulations and bureaucratic controls compromise the opportunities, the removal of these hindrances must be seen to be extremely important. But the creation of social opportunities on a broad basis requires much more than the 'freeing' of markets. It calls in particular, for expansion of educational facilities, and health care for all and public provisions for nutritional support and security. It also demands a general political, economic, and social programme for reducing the inequalities that blot out social opportunities from the lives of so many hundreds of millions of Indian citizens."
The above fact also typifies the global interest in making business and industry more socially responsible, and in forging alliances between it, the government and the non-commercial voluntary sector. This is not surprising because, as an instrument for development, corporate social action has several inherent strengths; it can access financial resources but also leadership, organizational skills and a pool of trained individuals. Not subject to the pressures of periodic elections, it can take a long-term view of problems and promote durable solutions, though it is limited by fluctuations in profits; and it need not spread itself thin in an effort to please everybody. Though private business philanthropy or social action can never match or supplant the resources or services provided by the state, its value lies in providing plurality of funding, and in the quality of its support - innovative, flexible and of direct consequence.
2.8 Main Motive for Recognizing Community as a Stake Holder
The business world's main motive for recognizing community as an important stakeholder and initiating community development activities is long-term educated self-interest, not altruism. It is largely discussed at various forums that companies act responsibly in large measure because they can do well by doing good. From this perspective, corporate social responsibility towards community becomes a strategy for gaining competitive advantage and a vehicle that helps business achieve its strategic goals. There are several aspects to corporate social responsibility as a strategy for gaining competitive advantage7. The commercial applicability of a good reputation is one. Companies that act in accordance with principles of good corporate citizenship may reap a reputational dividend. Ensuring that a company has a good reputation in markets where consumers are increasingly socially aware has been proven by experience to be of considerable economic importance.
Some seem to think that you can manage reputational risk largely with smoke and mirrors. They talk dismissively of corporate social responsibility as cheap window 7
Fortunately, companies seem to have realized their folly in hankering after short-term financial gains and have recognized how strategically important it is to be socially responsible. A focus group study of British companies by the Institute of Citizenship Studies' indicated that strategic business interest, market reputation and employee morale were considered as the main reasons for the companies to become socially responsible.
dressing aimed more at changing perceptions than at improving the reality. But any substantial gap between perceptions and reality - between words and deeds - is not sustainable for long. There is no place to hide in today's interconnected world. A good reputation can therefore basically only be created and maintained by results. Talk is no longer cheap. Words have consequences. Corporations must walk the talk. Otherwise they will have to pay. Corporate social responsibility towards communities today implies both a deeper and a wider engagement than previously with the societies in which companies operate. Through such an engagement companies can gain new insights into these societies and increase their understanding of the environment. This will make them more politically and culturally sensitive.
The survival of business and its continued profitability will depend upon a more systematic involvement in regenerating the local communities, which are beyond
customer relations (Deshmukh B.G, 1999). The concept of ‘giving’ is itself enlarged and it includes contribution of financial, managerial, organizational and personnel resources to the community. In sum, being a good corporate citizen means contributing back to the same community that generated your profit.
2.9 Difference between Old and New Concept
The major difference between the older corporate social responsibility practices towards community and the newer concept is that, the former was the result of the personal interest of the philosophy of the founder / owner of the corporation in the latter it is the result of a considered decision by the board and is a part of corporate policy and action. A second difference is that it eschews the older practice of endowing institutions in favour of programmes of direct involvement in community development.
More recently there has been a belief that business exists for more than profits (or economic goals), with the public expecting something else from business. As a result, the original concept of social responsibility involving the maximization of profits has been modified. Although profits are to be made, social, as well as economic, goals are to receive attention. Society depends on business to achieve social as well as economic goals, that is, social responsibilities are placed on business. While social responsibility has figured in commercial life over the centuries, in the modern era increasing pressure has been placed on corporations to play a more explicit role in the welfare of society. This implies that business should have balance in maintaining stakeholder 8 relationships. It should treat all its stakeholders important.
The present day corporate involvement arises from the recognition that business can play a direct role in maintaining a stable and healthy community environment, improve the quality of life, effectiveness of institutions, and thereby create a favourable business
8
Business stakeholder- People who have direct and indirect influence over business. For instance, in business, employees, shareholders, consumers, government and community are major stakeholders.
environment. The goal is to establish a dynamic relationship between communities and business in which both complement each other. For instance financial performance and social investment in education or health may look mutually incompatible in the short-term but in the long run, it provides the companies with a literate and healthy labour market and, most important, it enhances the reputation of the company in the minds of the consumer. Many major corporations consider such investments not only as an act of `putting back' something to society, but also as the foundation stone for the future
benefits of the company. In India, we have the Tata’s Birla’s, Mafatlal’s Lalbhai Group and Bajaj Group who have been engaged in extensive community development activities from the pre-independence period. Social investment reflects the desire of companies to ensure that they are socially responsible and bene ficial. At the same time, it reflects those companies' self-interest to ensure that society is strong and health y. After all, business depends on a prosperous and healthy society for its own prosperity. (Ratan Tata, 1999). Definitions of CSR
There have been many definitions of corporate social responsibility, and rather than giving one, listing the key elements found in various definitions may be more insightful. Buchholz (1991, p. 19) identified five key elements found in most, if not all, definitions.
Corporations have responsibilities that go beyond the production of goods and services at a profit.
These responsibilities involve helping to solve important social problems, especially those they have helped create.
Corporations have a broader constituency than stockholders alone.
Corporations have impacts that go beyond simple marketplace transactions.
Corporations serve a wider range of human values than can be captured by a sole focus on economic values.
According to Wood (1991, p. 695), the "basic idea of corporate social responsibility is that business and society are interwoven rather than distinct entities" and that
expectations are placed on business due to its three roles: as an institution in society, as a particular corporation or organization in society, and as individual managers who are moral actors within the corporation. These roles result in three levels of analysis institutional, organizational, and individual and can be expressed in terms of three principles of corporate social responsibility legitimacy, public responsibility, and managerial discretion.
The principle of legitimacy refers to society's granting of legitimacy and power to business, and business's appropriate use of that power and the possibility of losing that power. Corporate social responsibility defines the institutional relationship between
business and society that is expected of any corporation. Society has the right to grant this power, to impose a balance of power among its institutions, and to define their legitimate functions. The focus is on business's obligations as a social institution, and society takes away power or imposes some sort of sanction on business if expectations are not met.
The principle of public responsibility means that business is responsible for outcomes related to its areas of involvement with society. The level of application is organizational, that is the corporation, and confines business's responsibility to those problems related to a firm's activities and interest. This principle includes the view that firms are responsible for solving the problems they create. The nature of social responsibility will vary from corporation to corporation as each firm impacts society's resources in different ways or creates different problems. The principle involves emphasizing e ach corporation's relationship to its specific social, ethical and political environment.
Last, the principle of managerial discretion refers to managers as moral actors who are obliged to exercise such discretion as is available to them to achieve socially responsible outcomes. Discretion is involved, as the actions of managers are not totally prescribed by corporate procedures. The level of application is the individual who has the choices, opportunities, and personal responsibility to achieve the corporation's social responsibility (Wood, 1991, pp. 695-700).
Although the topic of social responsibilities of business rose to prominence in the 1970s (Carroll, 1979; Wartick and Cochran, 1985), the first publication specifically on the field dates back to 1953, with Bowen’s “Social responsibilities of the businessman”. In this work Bowen argues that industry has an obligation “ to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of actions which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of society” (Bowen, 1953). Epstein (1987a, 1987b), however, argues that the concept of specific business ethics can be traced further back to certain academics and businessmen in the nineteenth century who promulgated the belief that “private business is a public trust. Bowen (1953) sets the scene in this field by suggesting that the concept of specifically corporate social responsibility emphasizes.
Businesses exist at the pleasure of society and that their behavior and methods of operation must fall within the guidelines set by society; and
Businesses act as moral agents within society.
This discussion of definitions could be extensive, b ut the purpose is to provide an appreciation for social responsibility. Further understanding of the concept, its ori gins, and its interpretations is achieved by summarizing some of the debate over social responsibility.
2.10 Conclusion
In conclusion the development of business and industry in general and specifically in India has been accompanied by a clear change in the attitudes of society and the business community itself about its obligations to the society and how they need to be expressed. For reasons unconnected with old traditions of corporate giving, business is steadily being drawn into a new relationship with government and voluntary organizations at local, national and international levels. The chief reasons are the relative decline of the nation state, the contracting role of government, the expanding role of business, and the
emergence of an organized voluntary sector and a changing intellectual climate within companies.
Questions for Study
Discuss how business responded to social development in the past. Discuss what is Corporate Citizenship
Discuss the benefits a company would derive from community development activities.
What is the difference between old and new concept of CSR?
References
Aga, Rohinton D., Changing the Mindset, Tata McGraw –Hill Publishing Co. Ltd, New Delhi, 1994.
Galliara Meena, Sahaveeryam, Manual for Managing Sustainable Partnerships, Business and Community Foundation, New Delhi, 2000 Iyer, Raghavan, ( 1965) Gandhian Trusteeship in Theory and Practice, Concord Grove Press.
Juneja M. M.(1993), The Mahatma and the Millionaire , --Birla : A Biography,
Modern Publishers, Hissar,
Lala R.M (1992), Beyond the Last Blue Mountain , A Life of JRD Tata, Viking, New Delhi, 1992.
Chapter III
Multi-stakeholder Management of CSR
3.0 Introduction
In the last twenty years there has been a radical change in the companies with regard to globalization and liberalization in content. CSR is recognized as the vital backbone of the business. The following factors are taken into account for understanding the
importance of CSR:
- Globalization and the associated growth in competition;
Increased size and influence of companies;
Retrenchment or repositioning of government and its roles;
War for talent; companies competing for expertise
Growth of global civil society activism;
Increased importance of intangible assets.
3.1 Stakeholder Management: Stakeholder management is a generally accepted concept in the business community. Greater media exposure,
environmental and health related incidents that have caused public anxiety and local community conflict resulting from site management or planning decisions have ensured that effective management of stakeholders has risen up he list of priorities for company managers. Stakeholders have been defined as: “.. groups and individuals who benefit from or are harmed by, and whose rights are violated or respected by, corporate actions.” (Freeman 2001)
F I R M Investors Political Groups Customers Communities Employee Governments Suppliers Trade Association
Figure 1 – The stakeholder model of the corporation (Donaldson and Preston 1995)
Figure 1 identifies the main stakeholders a company. If business is to be responsible to society, who in society must it be responsible to? Society today consists of a wide range of people who have interests, expectation and demands as to what companies and
organizations ought to provide, and the ways in which they should behave. Companies are increasingly embracing these stakeholder groups and individuals, whether by
considering or including them in decision-making. The motivation here for businesses to become involved in CSR is to address the wide ranging and constantly changing set of demands that stakeholders have.
The stakeholders concept has continued as a central theme in CSR. Development of the concept has revolved around finding ways to integrate various stakeholders and their concerns into business activity. Clarkson (1995) spearheaded the ‘Redefining the Corporation’ project, a ten-year endeavor to set out “a process- and dialogue-based approach to treating stakeholders with respect by consistently monitoring their interests and status and taking those into account in corporate decision making.” Donaldson and Preston (1995) created a well-known stakeholder theor y typology to argue for
stakeholder engagement as an essential management tool.
3.2 Corporate Social Performance (CSP): Since the early 1980s a significant body of CSR research has centered around the debate over whether there is a relationship between good Corporate Social Performance (CSP) and strong financial performance, and what kind of relationship there is. Lantos (2001) argues that true CSR, that is strategic CSR, can only be carried out if a company also profits from its ‘good works’. Today, businesses are becoming increasingly interested in the idea of the ‘Triple Bottom Line’ (TBL). This idea focusses businesses not just on the economic value that they may gain from acting in a certain way, but also on the value that they may accrue to the
company’s bottom line by engaging in environmentally and socially beneficial practices. The three ‘lines’ represent the economy the environment and the society (Sustainability, 2002) and are all dependent on each other. Whether companies do (or can) actually take each line into account is difficult to measure as the arguments surrounding whether companies do benefit financially from being socially responsive are not clear cut. Government agencies and organizations promoting the CSR agenda seem to be
convinced that assuming a CSR role will bring financial gain to the business world. Few quotations are stated here to prove this point.
“…Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a powerful way of making sustainable competitive profit and achieving lasting value for the shareholder a well as for stakeholders. CSR and the reporting thereof is a win-win opportunity, not just for
companies and for financial investors but for society at large.” (CSR Europe 2003) “Socially responsible business practices contribute to corporate productivity and
Academic research has not been so concrete in its findings. Numerous studies have shown
A positive correlation between CSP and profit (Waddock & Graves 1997, Balabanis et al. 1998, Ruf et al. 2001). Balabanis et al. (1998) analyzed the economic performance of 56 large UK companies against measures of CSR performance and disclosure developed by the New Consumer Group. They found that economic performance is related to CSR performance and disclosure, however relationships were weak and lacked consistency. McWilliams & Siegel (2001) predict that there is a ‘neutral’ relationship between CSR activity and company financial performance. In their study, they investigated this relationship using a theory of the firm perspective, scale economies and cost-benefit analysis. Their three main conclusions were
:-The neutral relationship exists because the company that carries out CSR activities will have higher costs but higher revenues, whilst the company that has no CSR activities will have lower costs but also lower revenues, thus profits are equal.
Large firms will have lower average costs for providing CSR activities than smaller companies.
There is an optimal level of CSR that will maximise profits while satisfying the demand for CSR from multiple stakeholders. The ideal level of CSR can be determined by cost-benefit analysis.
Wright & Ferris (1997) predict a negative correlation between CSR activities and companies financial performance.
Although positive relationships have been found, there are several difficulties inherent in measuring these linkages. One of the main problems is that it is not clear whether social responsibility leads to increased financial performance or whether better pr ofits lead to more funds being available to devote to CSR activities. Another is that profit is an
incomplete measure of social performance (Lantos 2001). Yet another is the difficulty of developing a consistent set of measures that define CSR or CSP.
CSP is an important construct because it is ultimately CSP that must be me asured and compared to the financial performance of a firm in order to measure possible casual relationships. Providing concrete evidence to managers of the financial benefits of CSR should motivate companies to integrate CSR into their business activities. The danger lies in the fact that the much-wanted TBL so beloved of government and business support organizations must be proved conclusively. At present studies show diverse views.
3.3 Corporate Environmental Management (CEM): While most CSR theory
explicitly or implicitly includes responsibility to the natural environment, the past decade has seen more literature focused specifically on corporate environmental management. The increased focus on CEM both reflects and contributes to a growing private-sector interest in environmentally responsible strategy. Whereas in the 1960s companies tended to cope with environmental crises after they occurred by merely doing damage control, and in the 1970s and 80s companies simply to minimize costs associated with rapidly changing government environmental regulations, the 1990s witnessed companies taking a more active interest in proactive strategies – anticipatin g environmental impacts of
operations, taking measures to reduce waste, and taking advantage of business opportunities in the environmental arena. Initiatives such as ‘Total Quality
Environmental Management’ emerged to further the notion that environmental concern was good for business (Berry and Rondinelli, 1998).
One way of illustrating changes in business approaches toward the environment is the ’ecological footprint’, which surfaces often in popular business and environment-related literature. For instance, the beef industry was widely criticized for systematic clear-cutting in the Amazon, drastically altering and endangering the rainforest ecosystem; in other words, its operations left an enormous ecological footprint. The aim of many CEM programs is to reduce or even eliminate the company’s footprint (Hart and Milstein, 1999).
3.4 Consumers:Consumer pressure and damage to the global image of popular brands is one reason why companies may be motivated to assume the mantle of social responsibility. Much recent pressure has centered on the protection of the environment e.g., campaigns to stop deforestation; other important issues include the protection of human and animal rights, safeguarding jobs, the inclusion of minorities and the behavior of companies operating in the developing world. A classic example is that of Shell
whose handling of the Brent Spar affair led to widespread consumer boycotts, and whose operations in Nigeria have been widely criticised. These issues motivated the company to issue its first Report to society in 1998.
“ The public demands from us the highest standards of ethical and environmental responsibility. They expect us to take a long-term interest in the economic and social well-being of the wider community, including the international community, and reflect this in sensitive development of the world’s resources” (Shell UK Ltd. Report to Society 1998)
The Shell case also illustrates the difficulties that exist in drawing the line between what a company may and may not be responsible for. In Nigeria, Shell was asked by the local community and political institutions to find solutions to local political and societal
problems without having the social or political authority to do so. Consumers may often make demands on a company to act in a responsible manner in areas outside the
company’s sphere of influence (and indeed outside the consumer’s experience) where they do not actually sell their products. Consumer’s pressure is very strong in the
developed world and is likely to increase not decline, especially in the current of concern about public health.
3.5 Risk Management: Risk management has tended to centre on the problems that can be caused by consumer pressures. However, today risk management encompasses a wider range of stakeholders, each of which must be considered if a company is to avoid a variety of pitfalls and protect its reputation. Companies often conduct business in areas where they could be at risk, especially if working in developing nations or with
companies with irresponsible practices. CSR activities can be used to mitigate these risks. The increased exposure of companies to the glare of public scrutiny has
encouraged (or forced) business to be increasingly transparent in their environmental and social disclosures. This has led to a growing trend in environmental and social or
sustainability reporting, and a commitment to improving social performance.
The most widely recognized definition of sustainability comes from the 1987 report, ‘Our Common Future,’ also known as the ‘Brundtland Report,’ of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development. This report defines sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Sustainability is applicable at both the leve l of the individual firm and the global level. Just as firms are encouraged to make their own operations more sustainable, the business community as a whole is called upon to sustain the global environment and stablize the global economy for the health of future generations. Over the long term this makes good business sense once companies realize sustainability also provides
continuing resources for their own operations.
Sustainability is inextricably linked to resource usage. A sustainable company does not deplete its raw material or human resources but takes measures to ensure that they will remain consistently available and productive. Accordingly, implementation of the sustainability concept can range from CEM to Human Resources Programs.
3.6 Business ethics: Business Ethics is an academic field unto itself. According to Fieser (2001), “ the field of business ethics examines moral c ontroversies that commonly arise in the business world. These include the social responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of corporate entities deceptive advertising, insider trading, basic employee rights, job discrimination, affirmative action, whether drug testin g
violates privacy, and whistle blowing.” Thus, the defining feature of business ethics is its basis in a moral standard. However, in a global business world, moral standards become increasingly difficult to define as varying cultural and legal standards are brought to bear on business decisions.
In the private sector, a rich tradition of business ethics practice is already established. Before CSR became well known, corporations were already hiring ethics officers and appointing workplace ethics teams. Operationalization of business ethics is tied in with many other forms of CSR, such as articulation and integration of core values, stakeholder interactions, social audits and other forms of social-performance measurement and
reporting (Business for Social Responsibility, 2001).
3.7 Employees: Many studies have shown that investing in employees can bring direct benefits to a company both financially and in terms of increased employee loyalty and productivity. Such investment can include schemes like provision of childcare facilities, flexible work hours and job sharing. Employee investment in as essential aspect of CSR as the workplace is also the community; especially in smaller companies where a substantial proportion of employees are likely to come from the local
community. Involving employees in CSR activities is another way of investing in them. Good social performance also provides companies with a competitive advantage when attracting a skilled work force. Gaining access to highly skilled, high value labour likely
to be stimulated by, and interested in, companies with well-developed CSR approaches is a strong motivating force. A recent study suggested that applicants are more likely to pursue motivating force. A recent study suggested that applicants are more likely to pursue jobs from socially responsible companies than from companies with poor social performance reputations (Greetings and Turban 2000). The study found that applicants might have a higher self-image when working for socially responsive companies.
Examples of companies using their CSP as a means of attracting quality employees include IBM, Microsoft and General Motors.
3.8 Personal values: Companies (and individuals within an organisation) may be motivated to carry out CSR for moral reasons. This approach to CSR is described in the literature as discretionary, voluntary or philanthropic CSR. Voluntary CSR goes beyond the usual economic confines of social responsibility in contributing to the common good at the possible, probable or even definite expense of the business (Lantos 2001).
Voluntary CSR does more than just prevent and rectify harms that a company may cause, it assumes the responsibility for societal problems that the compan y has not created. Carroll & Buchholtz (2001) also term this behavior as ‘corporate citizenship’. This approach has been questioned by a number of commentators, famously by Milton
Friedman who argued that “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits" ”1970), and more recently by Lantos (2001) who argues that voluntary CSR lies outside the scope of business responsibility. Why then would companies choose to get involved at this level? The answer lies in the personal values and commitment to principles of some individuals in business, who argue that it is the fundamentally ‘right thing to do’. There are likely to be other factors motivating companies to embrace a socially
responsible approach, however, the ones discussed above are those currently concerning researchers trying to provide a clearer understanding o f why companies get involved in CSR.
Conclusion
It must be appreciated that corporate social responsibility and a corporation's social performance are two of many factors in an extremely complex business environment in which the corporate manager is called upon to operate the business. Various stakeholders are constantly seeking a different role for business in society. Society today c onsists of a wide range of people who have interests, expectation and demands as to what companies and organizations ought to provide, and the ways in which they should behave.
Companies are increasingly embracing these stakeholder groups and individuals, whether by considering or including them in decision-making. The motivation here for businesses to become involved in CSR is to address the wide ranging and constantly changing set of demands that stakeholders have.
Questions for Study
According to you what motivates companies to execute its social
Discuss how strategic CSR is different from Ethical CSR?
Discuss why business ethics are important
Digital Bibliography
www.sustainability.co.uk/ www.csreurope.og/
www.bsr.org
References
1. Boston College Center for Corporate Community Relations Making the Business Case: Determining the value of Corporate Community Involvement, 2000.
2. Heledd Jenkins and Frances Hines – The Center for business relationships, accountability, sustainability and society working paper series No 4 –
Shouldering the burden of CSR: What makes business get committed? Brasr, Ecrc.
3. Rachel Phillips and Lisbeth Claus, “CSR and Global HR: Balancing the Needs of the Corporation and its Stakeholders”, International Focus, Society for HR
Management, 2002.
4. Geoffrey P. Lantos, “The Boundaries of CSR”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7 pp 59-630,2001
