CSR Notes For Students
CSR Notes For Students
CORPORATE
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Table of Contents
Chapter I
Development Scenario
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On the positive side, India's democratic political system has endured despite
early doubts about the robustness of its basic political institutions. The political
system has weathered the challenges posed by civil violence, social unrest and
separatist social movements while preserving basic democratic freedoms. The
political environment has fostered a vocal and free press, an articulate educated
segment and a relatively free exchange of ideas. The Indian economy has
developed the capacity to produce a range of goods for domestic consumption.
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
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
infectious diseases and is more likely to be literate than fifty years ago.
over the lifetime. See Table 4 A ‘Statistical Profile of India’ in the later part of this
chapter.
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
related to and are more ambitious than the Millennium Development Goals1. The
following table provides you with a list of Millennium Development Goals, which
have been accepted at a global level.
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 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
poverty of the world's poor through providing lasting and secure livelihoods that
minimize resource depletion, environmental degradation, cultural disruption and
social instability". Sustainable development is defined as a pattern of social and
structured economic transformations (i.e. development), which optimizes the
economic and societal benefits available in the present, without jeopardizing the
likely potential for similar benefits in the future. A primary goal of sustainable
development is to achieve a reasonable and equitably distributed level of
economic well being that can be perpetuated continually for many human
generations.
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.
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
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.
Digital Bibliography
Chapter II
2.0 Introduction
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.
The credit for bringing social responsibility into business community’s consciousness
goes principally to business leaders like JRD Tata, Ramakrishna 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).
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 and 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.
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 by 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, consumers 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
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’s—Anna (food),
Akshar (literacy) and Arogya (health).
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.
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.
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, population 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.
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.
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 stakeholder8 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.
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.
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 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 each 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.
2.10 Conclusion
References
Aga, Rohinton D., Changing the Mindset, Tata McGraw –Hill Publishing Co.
Ltd, New Delhi, 1994.
Lala R.M (1992), Beyond the Last Blue Mountain, A Life of JRD Tata, Viking,
New Delhi, 1992.
Sundar Pushpa, (2000) Beyond Business, Tata Mcgraw Publication, New Delhi
Chapter III
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: -
Investors
Governments Political
Groups
Trade
Employee Communities
Association
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 theory 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.
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 profits 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 measured 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.
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
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 level 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.
3.6 Business ethics: Business Ethics is an academic field unto itself. According to
Fieser (2001), “ the field of business ethics examines moral controversies 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 testing
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.
Conclusion
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
Chapter IV
Just as conditions change and directions shift in the business world, CSR
programme trends also develop over time. These trends include branding, core
competency fit, partnerships, outsourcing, and integration.
First, branding and signature programmes are popular. Developing a brand name
or a signature series helps companies in positioning and advertising their values
to the public. For instance Times of India lends its name for mobilizing funds to
help NGOs.
Second, many companies are developing CSR initiatives that deliberately tie in
with their core competencies. Product, human resources and equipments are the
major competencies of any business house. Companies may volunteer to lend
these and contribute in community development activities. For instance paper
companies like Ballarpur Paper Industries will develop forestry programmes
because they need wood for their own paper production. Developing forestry is
good both for the community as well as for the industry. An educational product
company may emphasize education programs. Providing material aid to NGOs
may start a base for wider relationship. This help the company to build its own
image. See the following box for examples.
Providing material aid to NGOs may start a base for wider relationship.
To the civil society organizations it should strengthen its functioning and ability to create
an impact, and for the public sector it should aid in achieving its target in the real sense of
the term. To the government cross sector partnerships should benefit in improving its
governance by providing specific interventions in managerial and technical areas. For
instance see the example in the box below.
9
Enabling environment for growth means enhance reputation and licence to operate, improve
motivation and retention of good quality employees; support strategic market positioning and
market entry; increase operational efficiency and quality; promote better risk management and
access to financing and enable a more stable society and healthy economy for a company to
operate in.
10
Share holder Value: - The financial return that a company earns in the process of producing
and delivering products of services, compared to the total cost of financial capital used, and the
company’s ability to generate long term cash flows.
11
Societal Value: - The economic social and environmental value that a company adds to its host
communities host countries and society in general, in the process of producing and delivering
products and services, compared to the societal costs it creates, and the company’s ability to
generate long-term benefit flows.
Cash donations from business make all the difference to a struggling community
organization and can help attract further support. Increasingly companies plan
donations and activities based on certain issues, which are of concern to them.
However there is always scope for finding appropriate partner to work on
innovative schemes. Ideas and Innovation can come from all the sectors. What
is important is clarity of thought and purpose. (See examples in the box below)
Mahindra and Mahindra’s has a single focus. All its activities are
centered on its philosophy of encouraging education at all levels. It
has partnered with various NGOs both in urban and rural areas to
spread the message of education.
The flow of resources of time and goods into voluntary and community groups
continues to expand. For example, there are schemes using surplus new goods
such as those promoted by Pfizer India Limited, SmithKline Beecham
Pharmaceuticals, Kellogs India etc.
Commercial activity with an image, product or service to market can also build
relationship or partnership with a cause, or number of causes for mutual benefit,
for example a company may advertise that part of the price of the product will be
donated for a social cause. This can be part of their ‘cause related marketing
strategy’. See the following box for details. Companies adopting this stand feel
that a social attribute added to the product influences the consumers brand
behaviour and results in increased sales. There has been no official report or
research available on this aspect in India.
Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care India, has launched
PROJECT DRISHTI - the first ever Sight Restoration Corporate project
undertaken in association with the National Association for the Blind
(NAB). Project Drishti will attempt to restore sight to over 250 blind girls
from across the country through corneal transplant operations. In
association with UNICEF it has announced the launch of ‘OPEN
MINDS’-- a special program targeted to support and educate working
children. These initiatives are supported by their brands. Part of the
sale of their products is contributed towards these initiatives.
The Winning Game demonstrates the growing acceptance that a business can
gain competitive advantage by responding to the social, ethical or environmental
concerns of consumers. The value for the voluntary sector partner in such an
arrangement may include the opportunity to develop awareness of its cause or
message, raise profile, enhance their image, increase membership and generate
resources. Corporate management can motivate their employees to render their
talents and skills to NGOs. This can be a very enriching and satisfying
experience to both the organizations. See the following box for examples.
The voluntary sector has valuable skills in areas such as mobilising and
motivating volunteers, networking, advocacy campaigning and generating
support from financiers and local people. For business people contact with a
voluntary or community organisation enables them to learn some of these skills
or spot an opportunity for new business activity. For example, Excel Industries
Ltd. spotted business opportunity for manufacturing compost manure while aiding
Mumbai Municipal Corporation to resolve the garbage issue.
At the same time, voluntary sector leaders find themselves needing new skills in
a world of social enterprise and community business. While partnering with
business organizations they can benefit from the expertise in areas such as
strategic planning, marketing and so on.
deal with it only at a marginal level, while at the same time the company is
developing a significant quantity of CSR activities at management level. How can
access to information of all on CSR be promoted, so that the existing social
dialogue can expand to include these new dimensions? Furthermore, as a result
of decentralized production networks, recurrent restructuring mergers and
acquisitions, it is increasingly difficult for company boundaries to coincide with
the boundaries of social dialogue, whether the latter takes place at company or
sector level.
Social dialogue appears to face different options: first, it remains based on a
binary model with two actors and two different logics, and appears to exclude any
other parties. Second, a dialogue with other stakeholders could be developed in
parallel to the social dialogue and bridges built between these dialogues. Third, it
could be opened up to multiple logics, but then runs to risk of reducing
employees and their representatives to one stakeholder among many, while
workers see themselves as the parties most directly involved. The promotion of
an expanded dialogue without weakening the traditional social dialogue is one of
the major challenges in the development of CSR.
However, management receives primarily its mandate from the shareholders. The
question is therefore whether executives receive a real 'social mandate' which allows
them to commit the company towards other stakeholders and under what terms? Judging
by the importance of the personal commitment of managers to CSR, questions might also
be asked about the future of these commitments. Looking at society level: because the
influence of the companies is not limited to their borders, applying CSR may also affect
the way governance is exercised in society by involving companies in the local
community in order that companies and society could benefit from a mutual enrichment.
Enabling the actors to play their role: Skills and tools are important to allow
stakeholders to play their role properly. However, today the acquisition of these
skills by most of the stakeholders and the development of these tools is not
sufficient to allow them to act efficiently. Research shows, for example, that the
civil society has difficulties in playing its role, either because the actors and their
expectations are not clearly identified or because their members do not have the
necessary skills and resources to act properly. Initiatives which already exist that
aims at helping the actors both inside and outside the company to play their role,
could be reinforced. Examples would be helping the stakeholders to be more
structured, more professional and hence more efficient, or creating appropriate
Conclusion
In the business climate of the early 21st century, there seems to be some
identifiable factors that make some companies more responsive to CSR
concerns than others. Most of the programmes discussed in this chapter
pertaining to the types of corporate programs are not industry-specific; they are
activities that can be implemented by nearly any company. We are experiencing
a revolution in governance characterized by empowerment and consultative
action based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. To this end we need to
create innovative strategies and methodologies– which creates win-win situation
for all and communicate to others how consultative and collaborative model of
change is really profitable for all.
(1) Discuss the types of programmes that could be developed for promoting CSR
activities.
(2) Discuss the CSR programme trends with a few examples.
(3) What is cross sector partnership?
(4) Discuss a few strategies to develop CSR.
4.3 References
2. 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.
Chapter V
The company may like to further emphasize the values and principles it stands
for - to set its own ‘magnetic north’.
12
The India Partnership Forum (IPF) is a joint initiative of UNDP India and the Confederation of
Indian Industry (CII), which seeks to promote multi-stakeholder dialogue on Corporate Social
Responsibility issues and a common understanding of good corporate citizenship particularly
through evolution of a common code. The Forum also seeks to promote and pilot new and
innovative initiatives in corporate partnership for development.
e) Putting CSR policy in the public domain: By the very logic of this subject, it
is critical to place the policy framework in the public domain. The CSR policy
should be publicized in the company’s annual report, website, newsletters and
external and internal communications
Conclusion
The basic objective of CSR is to maximize the company’s overall impact on the
society and stakeholders. India Partnership forum recommends several steps
that companies need to undertake to operationalize CSR practice including
inserting a suitable clause on CSR in the Articles of Association. The
Government’s approach to CSR should centre around productivity and
competitiveness and on achieving transparency in the market to promote an
effective dialogue with stakeholders. The voluntary sector / NGOs have a major
role to play in contributing to the process of social and community development.
References readings:
1. Harsh Shrivastava and Shankar Venkateswaran, The Business For
Social Responsibility - the why, what and how of corporate social
responsibility in India, Partners in Change, New Delhi, 2000
2. Ross Tennyson and Luke Wilde, ’The Guiding Hand: Brokering
Partnership for Sustainable Development, The Prince of Wales
Business Leaders Forum and the United Nations Staff College,
2000
Chapter VI
Introduction
It is easier to name the many types of programmes and activities under the banner of CSR
that it is to draw quantifiable conclusions about them. Since CSR encompasses both
discrete programmes such as employee volunteer projects and more nebulous principles
like cultural sensitivity, some types are easier to measure than others. Measurement of
CSR can be broken down into three separate categories. First, measuring the order of
magnitude of CSR at the present time: how many companies are implementing some kind
of CSR, on what scale, and in what specific ways? Second, quantifying the social and
environmental impact of existing programmes - in other words, quantifying corporate
social and environmental performance (CSP). Third, identifying, measuring, and
explaining cause and effect relationships between companies' CSR activities and their
financial performance.
A second 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 Accountants of
Canada, have designed frameworks of CSP indicators that companies can voluntarily
apply. According to consulting firm KPMG, 35% of the world's 250 largest corporations
now issue environmental reports (Kolk, 2000). A final example of private-sector
innovation in the area of standards is the social investing field. Social investing firms
have constructed indexes of companies that are screened on social and environmental
standards. In particular, KLD Research and Analytics's FDI (Domini 400 Social Index)
screens for alcohol, tobacco, gambling, nuclear power, and military contracting
involvement, environmental impact, charitable contributions, women and minority
directors and managers and other issues. The company's BMSI (Broad Market Social
Index) consists of all companies within the Russell 3000 that pass similar screening
criteria.
In India The Tata Council for Community Initiatives (TCCI) with the help of UNDP has
undertaken pioneering work in developing a sustainable human development index to
benchmark the contributions of Tata Corporates in the spheres of social development and
environmental protection. This is indeed a significant step towards systematically
measuring the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives of these
companies on the ground. UNDP feels privileged to have participated through its Human
Development Resource Center in the TCCI initiative, sharing its experience in human
development reporting and analysis. For more details on Tata Sustainability Index log on
to http://indiango.com/tata.pdf
6.7 Conclusion
The measurement of CSR helps businesses to better align organizational responses to the
requirements of the stakeholders that they serve. The measurement of CSR will
undoubtedly be useful for the CEOs and all the employees who devote precious time and
resources in upholding their common commitment to society.
Measurement of CSR can be broken down into three separate categories. First,
measuring the order of magnitude of CSR at the present time: how many
companies are implementing some kind of CSR, on what scale, and in what
specific ways? Second, quantifying the social and environmental impact of
existing programs - in other words, quantifying corporate social and
environmental performance (CSP). Third, identifying, measuring, and explaining
cause and effect relationships between companies' CSR activities and their
financial performance.
1. Arya P.P., Tandon B.B, ‘Corporate Governance Deep & Deep Publications, New
Delhi, 2003
2. Carroll Archie B/Buchholtz Ann K, Business and Society Ethics and Shareholder
Management, Thomson South Western, Australia, 2003
3. Kotler Philip, Lee Nancy Corporate Social Responsibility’, John Wiley & Sons,
New Jersey, 2005
4. Mary Ann Littrell and Marsha Ann Dickson, Social Responsibility in the Global
Market : Fair Trade of Cultural Products, Sage Publications, 1999
5. Marx Thomas G, Business and Society: Economic,Moral and Political
Foundations, Text and Readings, Engelwood, Prentice-Hall Publications, 2000
6. Mathias T.A. ‘Corporate Ethics’, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1994
7. Paul R. Niven, ‘Balanced Scorecard Step-by-step for Government and Nonprofit
Agencies’, John Wiley and Sons Inc, 2003
8. Rao P. Mohana, Corporate Social Accounting & Reporting, Deep & Deep
Publications, New Delhi, 1999
9. Sadler Philip, Building Tomorrows Company, Kogan Page Publishers, London,
2002
10. Singh Devi and Garg Subhash, Corporate Governance, Excel Books, New Delhi,
2001
11. Sundar Pushpa, Beyond Business, Tata Mcgraw Publication, New Delhi, 2000
Internet References
www.pwblf.org (Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum)
www.accountability.org (Accountability)