corporate social responsibility dissertation.docx
DESCRIPTION
A study on Corporate Social Responsibility of 4 corporate and 60 beneficiaries of Petrochemical area in VadodaraTRANSCRIPT
STUDY ON
“CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: As perceived by Corporate and Beneficiaries”
(A study on Corporate Social Responsibility of 4 corporate and 60
beneficiaries of Petrochemical area in Vadodara)
RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:
Mrs. Sunita Jolly Priyank Shukla
APRIL 2013
VADODARA
STUDY ON
“CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: As perceived by Corporate and Beneficiaries”
(A study on Corporate Social Responsibility of 4 corporate and 60
beneficiaries of Petrochemical area in Vadodara)
RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:
Mrs. Sunita Jolly Priyank Shukla
APRIL 2013
VADODARA
A STUDY ON
“CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: As perceived by Corporate and Beneficiaries”
(A study on Corporate Social Responsibility of 4 corporate and 60
beneficiaries of Petrochemical area in Vadodara)
A
DISSERTATION SUBMITTED
TO THE FACULTY OF SOCIAL WORK
THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA
IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR
THE DEGREE OF
MASTERS OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:
Mrs. Sunita Jolly Priyank Shukla
Table of Contents
Sr. No Particulars Page No.
*** Preface i
*** Acknowledgement ii
*** List of Tables iii
1 Introduction & Research Methodology 1-42
2 Review of Literature 43-64
3 Data Analysis & Interpretation 65-102
4 Findings, Conclusion & Suggestion 103-111
5 Annexure: 112-124
A. References 113
B. Questionnaire 115
C. Interview Schedule 122
PREFACE
In the last twenty years, there has been a sea change in the nature of the triangular relationship
between companies, the state and the society. No longer can firms continue to act as independent
entities regardless of the interest of the general public. The evolution of the relationship between
companies and society has been one of slow transformation from a philanthropic coexistence to
one where the mutual interest of all the stakeholders is gaining paramount importance.
Companies are beginning to realize the fact that in order to gain strategic initiative and to ensure
continued existence, business practices may have to be molded from the normal practice of
solely focusing on profits to factor in public goodwill and responsible business etiquettes. An
examination of some of the factors which have led to the development of the concept of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) would be ideal starting ground for the conceptual
development of suitable corporate business practices for emerging markets.
The business environment has undergone vast changes in the recent years in terms of both the
nature of competition and the wave of globalization that has been sweeping across markets.
Companies are expanding their boundaries from the country of their origin to the evolving
markets in the developing countries which have been sometimes referred to as emerging markets.
The current trend of globalization has brought a realization among the firms that in order to
compete effectively in a competitive environment; they need clearly defined business practices
with a sound focus on the public interest in the markets.
The increase in competition among the multinational companies to gain first mover advantage in
various developing countries by establishing goodwill relationships with both the state and the
civil society is ample testimony to this transformation. Secondly, in most of the emerging
markets, the state still holds the key to business success because of the existence of trade and
business regulations restricting the freedom of multinational companies to incorporate their
previously successful business doctrines which have been tried and tested in the developed
nations. The state with its duty of protecting the interests of the general public would naturally be
inclined to give preference to companies which take care of the interests of all the stakeholders.
Thirdly, emerging markets have been identified as a source of immense talent with the rising
levels of education. For example, the expertise of India in churning out software professionals
and China in manufacturing has now become internationally renowned. In order to draw from
this vast talent pool coming up in developing countries, companies need to gain a foothold in
these markets by establishing sound business practices addressing social and cultural concerns of
the people. It has been observed that consumers consider switching to another company's
products and services, speak out against the company to family/friends, refuse to invest in that
company's stock, refuse to work at the company and boycott the company's products and services
in case of negative corporate citizenship behaviors.
- Priyank Shukla
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“There is no such thing as a self made man. We all are made up of thousands of others.”
- GEORGE ADAMS
First of all, I am very grateful to the Faculty of Social Work for granting this precious
opportunity to prove my determination by way of this research study.
“Feeling grateful but not expressing it, is like wrapping a gift but not giving it” ; hence, I take
this pleasure to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my guide Mrs Sunita Jolly. Our meetings made
me feel confident and relaxed. Despite of her busy schedule she was always ready to solve my
doubts and because of whom this research has become a reality.
Next I would like to thank executives of GSFC, GIPCL, IOCL and Reliance for giving me the
permission to do the research work and data collection. I would also like to thank all the
respondents for sparing their valuable time to respond to the questionnaires and Interview
Schedule.
Finally, I want to thank my parents and friends for their love and the faith in me, which inspired
me in my work.
Last, but not the least. I thank God without whom nothing would have been possible. He showed
me the path and light the way when all was dark.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO
TITLE PAGE NO.
1 Table showing the age group of respondents 66
2 Table showing Gender of Respondents 67
3 Table showing villages of the respondents 67
4 Table showing qualification of respondents 68
5 Table showing CSR Activities carried on in the target villages 69
6 Table showing Target Group on which CSR activities were focused 70
7 Table showing satisfaction with CSR activities 71
8 Table showing CSR activities needed in near future 72
9 Table showing reliability on CSR for Infrastructure Development 73
10 Table showing reliability on CSR for Education 73
11 Table showing reliability on CSR for Health 74
12 Table showing dependence on whom if CSR activities are not done in the villages
75
13 Table showing companies performing CSR activities in target villages 76
14 Table showing Need Assessment before CSR activity 77
15 Table showing instances of incomplete CSR activity 77
16 Table showing level of participation from villages in conducting CSR activity.
78
17 Table showing contribution from villagers in CSR activities 78
18 Table showing whether there is any contribution in funds from villages 79
19 Table showing amount of contribution from villages 79
20 Table showing Objective of Corporate Social Responsibility 80
21 Table showing desirability of CSR 81
22 Table showing Reason to get involved in CSR 82
23 Table showing whether separate board is there or not for CSR 82
24 Table showing department which looks after CSR in companies 83
25 Table showing programs carried out for CSR and their frequency 84
26 Table showing frequency of formal meetings held in a year to discuss about CSR
85
27 Table showing involvement of employees in CSR 86
28 Table showing employees involved in CSR program are 86
29 Table showing designing of CSR in reference to 87
30 Table showing suggestion for developing a sustainable CSR program 87
31 Table showing identification of linkages by management 88
32 Table showing reaction of government to your social responsibilities activity
88
33 Table showing future prospects of CSR 89
34 Table showing best suitable CSR approach 90
35 Table showing CSR is a window for keeping critics happy 91
36 Table showing there are many business benefits of CSR 91
37 Table showing CSR initiatives are marketing gimmick to sell to customers
92
38 Table showing CSR initiatives give the brand an aura of "Socially Responsible Brand"
93
39 Table showing CSR initiatives influences the brand image of a company or a product
93
40 Table showing CSR initiatives give competitive advantage over other firms
94
41 Table showing HR department’s role in addressing the CSR issue 94
42 Table showing A CSR initiative helps in enhancing overall financial position
95
43 Table showing Investment related to CSR should be covered in core finance module
95
44 Table showing CSR activity must center on profit maximization 96
45 Table showing Profit is necessary but only after meeting certain 97
obligations
46 Table showing Money and wealth are most important for your organization
97
47 Table showing Money spent on CSR brings long term benefit to company
98
48 Table showing Companies should inform customers about their indirect contribution
99
49 Table showing Tangible economic benefits for the company from CSR commitments
100
50 Table showing Employees have motives beyond economic needs 100
51 Table showing Group participation is fundamental for meeting social needs
101
52 Table showing Subordinates opinion should be considered 101
53 Table showing Business and government must cooperate to solve problems of society
102
54 Table showing Indian companies are not doing their best for society through CSR initiatives
102
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION &
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
Definition- CSR
“Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a powerful way of making sustainable competitive
profit and achieving lasting value for the shareholder as well as for stakeholders. CSR and the
reporting thereof is a win-win opportunity, not just for companies and for financial investors
but for social at large”. (europe2003)
CSR-A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:-
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has defined corporate
social responsibility as “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic
development “The primary purpose of CSR is to engage with the internal and external
stakeholders.
CSR is concerned with the treating the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a socially
responsible manner. The aim of social responsibility is to create higher standards of living, while
preserving the profitability of the corporation. (Michael Hopkins 1998).
During the initial phase of industrial development in the Western countries, philanthropic
contributions to civil society were popular. The initial debate on CSR took place in the United
States during the ‘60s. During this period, the debate focused on the changing role of companies
in society; and the increased power especially of multinational companies, among others.
One view sought regulations to protect society and the environment, and that the priority of
companies should be to make profit within these regulations. In contrast, others argued that
companies not only should have a responsibility to their shareholders, but also to their other
stakeholders.
DEFINING CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
World Business Council for Sustainable Development defines Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) as “The continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and
contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and
their families as well as of the local community and society at large.”
The European Commission advocates CSR as “Being socially responsible means not only
fulfilling legal expectations, but also going beyond compliance and investing more into human
capital, the environment and relations with stakeholders.”
Globalization and rise in competition
War for talent; tapping the vast talent pool
Strategic importance of Intangible Assets
Retrenching of the state and its roles
Thus CSR exhorts firms to diverge from their sole aim of maximizing profits and to lay more
importance on improving the economic and social standards of the community in their countries
of operation. CSR can be thus be simply defined as the additional commitment by businesses to
improve the social and economic status of various stakeholders involved while complying with
all legal and economic requirements. As Warhust (2001) points out, the three major elements of
CSR are product use which focuses on contribution of industrial products which help in well
being and quality of life of the society, business practice which focuses on good corporate
governance and gives high impetus for the environmental well being and equity which tries for
distribution of profits equitably across different societies especially the host community.
What is Corporate Social Responsibility?
The term is often used interchangeably for other terms such as Corporate Citizenship and is also
linked to the concept of Triple Bottom Line Reporting (TBL), which is used as a framework for
measuring an organization’s performance against economic, social and environmental
parameters.
The rationale for CSR has been articulated in a number of ways. In essence it is about building
sustainable businesses, which need healthy economies, markets and communities.
Asia Pacific perspective
Corporate social responsibility is represented by the contributions undertaken by companies to
society through its core business activities, its social investment and philanthropy programmed
and its engagement in public policy. In recent years CSR has become a fundamental business
practice and has gained much attention from chief executives, chairmen, boards of directors and
executive management teams of larger international companies.
They understand that a strong CSR program is an essential element in achieving good business
practices and effective leadership. Companies have determined that their impact on the
economic, social and environmental landscape directly affects their relationships with
stakeholders, in particular investors, employees, customers, business partners, governments and
communities.
The Asia Pacific context is distinct. On the one hand, there are long-standing traditions of respect
for family and social networks, and high value placed on relationships, social stability and
education. Diverse religions and cultures also bring distinct attitudes towards community social
behavior and engagement as well as support and philanthropic contributions.
Governments in the region also play distinct roles – often stronger in terms of influence on
economic and social priorities, yet not as advanced in terms of social safety nets. This has
resulted in the drivers for corporate citizenship being very different from those in other regions.
Many of the large corporations in Asia Pacific are private, and many do not have the same public
pressures on corporate behavior that public companies in Europe and North America have for
progress on corporate social responsibility, although this is changing. Yet many of the larger
companies in Asia Pacific have strong localized philanthropic programmed. Also, regional
companies that are engaged in supply chains of major global corporations and local affiliates of
global corporations from Europe and America have significant pressures and a strong business
case to develop corporate citizenship policies and practices within the region, not least on the
environment, human rights and labor standards.
World Economic Forum & CSR
The World Economic Forum has recognized the importance of corporate social responsibility by
establishing the Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative. The Initiative hopes to increase
businesses' engagement in and support for corporate social responsibility as a business strategy
with long-term benefits both for the companies themselves as well as society in general.
At the Forum's Annual Meeting 2002, the Initiative launched a joint CEO statement, Global
Corporate Citizenship: The Leadership Challenges for CEOs and Boards. This joint statement
recommends a framework for action that business executives can use to develop a strategy for
managing their company's impact on society and its relationships with stakeholders. This
statement was endorsed by the CEOs of over 40 multinational companies, including the CEOs of
Accenture, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Deutsche Bank, Rio Tinto, Siemens, Renault,
McDonald’s, Infosys Technologies, Coca-Cola, DHL and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & HUMAN RESOURCE
Social responsibility is an ethical ideology or theory that an entity, be it an organization or
individual, has an obligation to act to benefit society at large. Social responsibility is a duty every
individual or organization has to perform so as to maintain a balance between the economy and
the ecosystem. There is always a trade-off between economic development, in the material sense,
and the welfare of the society and environment. Social responsibility means sustaining the
equilibrium between the two. It pertains not only to business organizations but also to everyone
who’s any action impacts the environment. This responsibility can be passive, by avoiding
engaging in socially harmful acts, or active, by performing activities that directly advance social
goals.
Businesses can use ethical decision making to secure their businesses by making decisions that
allow for government agencies to minimize their involvement with the corporation. (Kaliski,
2001) For instance if a company is proactive and follows the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for emissions on dangerous pollutants and even goes an
extra step to get involved in the community and address those concerns that the public might
have; they would be less likely to have the EPA investigate them for environmental concerns. “A
significant element of current thinking about privacy, however, stresses "self-regulation" rather
than market or government mechanisms for protecting personal information” (Swire , 1997)
Most rules and regulations are formed due to public outcry, if there is not outcry there often will
be limited regulation.
Critics argue that Corporate social responsibility (CSR) distracts from the fundamental economic
role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing; others
argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful
multinational corporations though there is no systematic evidence to support these criticisms. A
significant number of studies have shown no negative influence on shareholder results from CSR
but rather, a slightly positive correlation with improved shareholder returns.
DIMENSIONS OF CSR AND RELEVANCE FOR EMERGING MARKETS
The Green Paper (2001) by the Commission of the European Communities identifies two main
dimensions of CSR, an internal dimension relating to practices internal to the company and an
external dimension involving the external stakeholders.
INTERNAL DIMENSION
This relates to practices internal to the company which need to be modified to incorporate CSR
practices.
A. Human Resource Management
CSR can be successfully implemented in an organization through precise management of its own
work force. The internal dimension of CSR includes elements like providing an environment for
lifelong learning for employees, employee empowerment, better information flow, improving the
balance between work, family, and leisure, diversified work force, profit sharing and share
ownership schemes, concern for employability as well as job security among others. Active
follow up and management of employees who are off work due to disabilities or injuries have
also been shown to result in cost savings for the companies. Molding of recruitment policies to
include people from ethnic minorities, older workers, women and the long-term unemployed
would be a significant step forward to incorporating CSR practices in Human Resources
Management.
In the context of emerging markets, the availability of cheap labor is an encouraging factor for
companies. Dawar and Chattopadhyay (2000) infer from their research that many times,
emerging markets are able to provide cheap skilled and unskilled labor at wages which would be
substantially cheaper than the normal cost of automation of the job positions. Developed markets
have clearly moved towards heavily capital-intensive distribution with the introduction of
electronic data interchanges, mechanized movement and monitoring of goods, and vending
machines that replace salespeople. By contrast labor-intensive distribution remains economical
in emerging markets. For example, in emerging markets, Coca-Cola has not invested in vending
machines. These are too expensive relative to salespeople. Benjamin, Brandt and Glewwe (2000)
report that in China, instead of vending machines, the company has experimented with a pushcart
program in which salespeople dispense the company’s drinks by the single-serve bottle.
Similarly, in India, almost 10% of Coca- Cola sales take place through fountains, where a
salesperson dispenses drinks by the paper cup. Daily sales of as little as 100 cups justify the cost
of the fountain and the person employed to dispense the drinks.
B. Work safety and health measures
Worker safety and labor health have been documented to be having a direct impact on
productivity of the labor force. Although legal measures exist in most nations on maintaining
standards for ensuring worker safety and providing health benefits, recent trends have made it
imperative for companies to adopt a proactive approach to this issue. In emerging markets
having significant cost advantages in labor, outsourcing of labor and processes have led to the
situation where companies not only need to maintain high safety levels in their own premises but
also ensure that their suppliers and other connected parties comply with these principles.
The increased focus on safety standards and employee welfare has led to the development of
standards across industries. Mechanisms are being designed especially in emerging markets for
measuring, documenting and communicating these qualities thereby saving time, work and costs
in the purchasing process.
C. Adaptation to change
A recent trend in the global business scenario has been the wide spread use of mergers and
acquisitions for business expansion. Also downsizing has been used, often ineffectively, as a cost
cutting measure by firms in their relentless push for profits.
According to the Green Paper (2001) by the Commission of the European Communities
“Restructuring in a socially responsible manner means to balance and take into consideration the
interests and concerns of all those who are affected by the changes and decisions. In practice the
process is often as important as the substance to the success of restructuring. In particular this
involves seeking the participation and involvement of those affected through open information
and consultation. Furthermore, restructuring needs to be well prepared by identifying major
risks, calculating all the costs, direct and indirect, associated with alternative strategies and
policies, and evaluating all of the alternatives which would reduce the need for redundancies.”
However, Bhattacharyya and Rahman (2003) point out that although most emerging economies
have labor laws preventing labor retrenchment even in the event of declining sales, in practice
lobbying with the bureaucracy and government is an aspect which firms cannot chose to ignore.
D. Management of environmental impacts
The importance of this aspect of CSR cannot be overemphasized. Optimization of resource
utilization and reducing environmentally damaging effluents can reduce the environmental
impact. This will also enable the firms to affect significant cost savings in energy bills and
pollution costs. Many firms in emerging markets have had to face serious repercussions from the
state and society for over exploitation of natural resources and disregard for environmental safety
measures. Studies by Consultancy and Research for Environmental Management on practices of
Dutch multinational companies in India (2004) highlight the importance attached by the
companies to maintenance of environmental standards. Many multinational companies are
realizing to their cost that early compliance with accepted standards will provide strategic
advantages in the long run even though cost inefficient in the near future.
EXTERNAL DIMENSION:
This dimension relates to practices concerning external stakeholders. The significance of this
dimension of CSR has come to the forefront with the advent of globalization leading to the
development of international standards for business practices.
A. Local communities
The development of positive relations with the local community and thereby the accumulation of
social capital is particularly relevant for non-local companies. These relations are being
increasingly used by multinational companies to support the integration of their subsidiaries into
various markets in which they are present. Deep understanding of the local community and
social customs is an asset which can be utilized by the companies to gain strategic advantage.
In emerging markets, this is more relevant than ever because of the availability of cheaper labor
from the local communities. Companies would find it in their interest to substitute capital
substitution with labor and reap the cost benefits. For example, Dawar and Chattopadhyay
(2000) point out the instance of Whirlpool. “Whirlpool discovered that it was unable to sell its
high priced, fully automatic machines in the emerging markets. It was only after it introduced
twin-tub machines that were cheaper and utilized the consumers’ labor rather than electronics to
complete the entire washing cycle that sales took off. Interestingly, due to the fact that these
machines had long disappeared in the developed markets, Whirlpool had to acquire the
‘obsolete’ technology from Korea.”
B. Business partners
Building long term relationships of sound ethical foundation with suppliers, customers (and even
competitors in rare occasions) will enable companies to meet customer expectations better while
reducing complexity and costs. Companies should realize their CSR practices will be judged
taking into account the practices of their partners and suppliers throughout the supply chain. The
effect of corporate social responsibility activities will not remain limited to the company itself,
but will also touch upon their economic partners.
Companies in emerging markets actually take on additional CSR responsibilities because of the
existence of outsourcing opportunities in the form of suppliers and outsourcing agents. Also as
part of their social responsibility companies are expected to provide high quality products and
services, which meet customer expectations in a manner reflecting the company’s concern for the
environment and the local conditions. Thus in emerging markets, consumer based business
strategies would enable companies to build long lasting relationships with consumers based on
trust.
C. Human rights
According to Robbins (2000), “Companies operating in countries where human rights are
regularly violated may experience a climate of civil instability and corruption that makes for
uneasy relations with government officials, employees, local communities and shareholders.”
Amnesty International states:” Companies have a direct responsibility to ensure the protection of
human rights in their own operations. They also have a responsibility to use their influence to
mitigate the violation of human rights by governments, the forces of law and order or opposition
groups in the countries in which they operate.” The Caux Round Table Principles state that
companies have a responsibility to respect human rights and democratic institutions; and
promote them wherever practical.
In the context of emerging markets, operations of companies should not impinge on the land
rights of the local community. In particular, the company needs to make sure that people are not
forcibly removed from their homes and their livelihoods are not endangered. There is the
growing need to develop proper consultative processes with local groups protesting against
projects or operations in which they are involved. Firms also need to build confidence in the
local community that people (including union members) participating in peaceful protests against
company operations are not intimidated, arrested or in any other way threatened. Also,
companies can take steps to ensure forced labor is not used in their own, or their suppliers’
operations. According to Robbins (2000), there are reports of Gulags or prison labor camps in
China producing products that are then sold locally or exported. An example of foreign
companies benefiting from the ruling regime’s abuse of its people is the building of the gas
pipeline in Burma. Numerous reports tell of the use of forced labor on a grand scale. Companies
need to ensure that human rights principles are withheld in all their operations and related
activities in emerging markets.
Individual Social Responsibility
Individual social responsibility or ISR is the responsibility of every individual for his/her actions.
It is morally binding on everyone to act in such a way that the people immediately around them
are not adversely affected. ISR is a commitment everyone has towards the society – contributing
towards social, cultural and ecological causes. ISR is based on an individual’s ethics. Instead of
giving importance only to those areas where one has material interests the individual supports
issues for philanthropic reasons. “ISR is viewed as a tool for CSR”. ISR forms the base for CSR
or Corporate Social Responsibility because if everyone in a business organization does his/her
bit the bigger things automatically fall into place. The trends however show that big charitable
organizations recorded high growth due to the SR efforts of individuals and not corporate or the
government. ISR may be slightly impractical, especially in the modern competitive world, where
everyone works for self-interest, but it will succeed if we take decisions based on what will
benefit a large number of people and respect everyone’s fundamental rights. As individuals we
can make our small contributions to society by donating money to trustworthy NGO’s, saving
our resources by reducing our consumption, Eg. by switching off lights or computers when not in
use helps companies reduce their carbon footprints on the earth. In every religion be it Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or Christianity great stress has been laid upon individual social
responsibility. In the Bhagavad Gita, also known as the “management epic” Lord Krishna
teaches Arjun what his responsibilities as a king are. The Karma Yoga tells us about the fruits of
our labour and how they are directly related with our individual actions. According to Karma
Yoga a company which does good work will reap their benefits and vice-versa.
Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR has been defined by Lord Holme and Richard Watts in
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s publication ‘Making Good Business
Sense’ as “the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to
economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as
well as the local community and society at large". CSR is one of the newest management
strategies where companies try to create a positive impact on society while doing business. There
is no clear-cut definition of what CSR comprises. Every company has different CSR objectives
though the main motive is the same. All companies have a two point agenda- to improve
qualitatively (the management of people and processes) and quantitatively (the impact on
society). The second is as important as the first and stake holders of every company are
increasingly taking an interest in “the outer circle”-the activities of the company and how these
are impacting the environment and society.
Emerging normative status of CSR
Social responsibility as a non-binding, or soft law principle has received some normative status
in relation to private and public corporations in the United Nations Educational, Social and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
developed by the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee particularly in relation to child
and maternal welfare. Faunce and Nasu (2009) The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) is developing an international standard to provide guidelines for adopting
and disseminating social responsibility: ISO 26000 - Social Responsibility. Due for publication
in 2010, this standard will "encourage voluntary commitment to social responsibility and will
lead to common guidance on concepts, definitions and methods of evaluation." (ISO, 2009) The
standard describes itself as a guide for dialogue and language, not a constraining or certifiable
management standard.
Spirituality and Corporate Social Responsibility have had a deep-rooted connection in India. A
phenomenon that has preceded the coining of the term ‘CSR’, the link between the ‘karma’ as
espoused by sacred Indian texts and initiatives anchoring corporate as responsible citizens has
been amply evident in India since the early days.
This is widely divergent from the perspective of corporate social responsibility in Western
economies as reflected in the observation by Arthur Page, vice president of public relations at
AT&T for around 20 years and former advisor to the US President: “all business in a democratic
country begins with public permission and exists by public approval.”
Viewed from this perspective, public relations professionals are the custodians of trust for the
corporate world. While the global spotlight today focuses on debates on corporate trust, India can
proudly flaunt a head start in this arena. Yet, before we present India’s case, let’s briefly scan
some recent happenings, particularly in the US, that led to an erosion of trust in Corporate Inc.
worldwide.
Erosion of Trust in Corporate Inc.:
The turn of the millennium has witnessed mammoth bankruptcies, accounting scandals and
obstruction of justice allegations. The consequent tarnishing of gilt edged names like Enron,
WorldCom, Xerox, Arthur Andersen, Kodak, to name a few, has had widespread ripple effects in
the corporate world. Yet news continues to pour in
KPMG, the big accounting firm, agreed to pay $200 million in suits arising from audits of Rite
Aid and Oxford Health…
Bristol Myers, the pharmaceutical giant, inflated sales by $2.75 billion in 1999-2002. The
National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) has charged an executive of CSFB with
fraudulent allotment of hot IPOs to 300 of his corporate executive friends, to persuade them to
prefer CSFB for their investment banking business.
The new management of Tyco, whose CEO and CFO are under criminal prosecution for frauds
totaling $600 million, is discovering more new scandals. Health South has been charged with an
accounting fraud of $1.4 billion by inflating insurance claims.
There are a number of suits, in what could turn out to be the biggest case, against Citigroup, J P
Morgan and other investment banks for helping Enron and other companies to commit fraud, and
for rigging IPOs to defraud the investing public. Needless to say, this is hardly an exhaustive list.
The repercussions have been immense.
According to a survey by Business Week, 92% of respondents have “only some” or “hardly any”
confidence left that the market treats individual investors fairly. Some 93% have “only some” or
“hardly any” confidence in those who run big companies. About 95% feel the same way about
big auditing companies, such as Arthur Andersen.
Some 82% are either “not too confident” or “not at all confident” that corporations accurately
report how much money they make. And few of the respondents really believe that anyone can
or will do much about all this. For instance, 94% have “only some” or “hardly any” confidence
that Congress can write effective rules governing corporate financial practices. Some 93% have
the same view of the chances that federal regulatory agencies can do the job. And 60% strongly
disagree that corporations can successfully reform themselves.
According to another survey by Business for Social Responsibility, a global organization, 90 per
cent of American respondents want companies to look beyond the bottom line. BSR also found
that nearly 50 per cent form an impression of a company based on its behavior and 39 per cent
react negatively to a company that is perceived not to be socially responsible. These are
challenging times for companies, pension funds and individual investors. The Teacher
Retirement System of Texas and the Texas Employee Retirement System is the last fund that you
would expect to be impacted by corporate scandal. But look again. With approximately $100
billion to protect, they have to make wise investment choices for their members. Both funds
invested in Enron, and both talk about their losses on their respective websites.
In the communications business, we confront the challenge of this changing environment every
day. We see stakeholders hold companies under the magnifying glass, checking accountability,
monitoring performance and assessing a company’s impact in a community or on the
environment. We have seen and continue to see how this intense scrutiny has affected
businesses.
India too has seen some repercussions of the global mood:
There has been a general mood breeding a lack of trust in regulators following recent scams
unearthed in the Indian stock markets. The brooding has had its fallout on unsuspecting
companies, as ICICI Bank, one of the country’s largest banks, would confirm. A short message
service that the bank was on the verge of bankruptcy started the run, gathered momentum as
messages were flashed across cell phone networks, ICICI Bank branches across many cities
witnessed the unedifying spectacle of queues of people waiting to withdraw their money as fast
as they could. The Reserve Bank of India had to step in to calm things down.
The importance of trust Research by Burson Marsteller, called “Building CEO Capital” reveals
dramatic findings. After speaking with more than 1,100 business influential – CEOs and other
senior executives, financial analysts, institutional investors, the business media and government
officials in the United States – the research infers that the CEO’s reputation is a key factor in a
company’s reputation. In fact, the research data reveals that:
- CEO reputation accounts for a staggering 48 per cent of a company’s reputation
- Companies whose CEOs were rated “most admired” achieved a 13 per cent compound
annual shareholder return over a three-year period. Companies with CEOs who were
rated less favorably delivered a negative return.
- Eighty-eight per cent of respondents said that the CEO’s reputation would influence
whether they would recommend a company as a good place to work. Ninety-four per cent
would believe the company if under media pressure. Ninety-two per cent would maintain
confidence in the company when share price is lagging.
- The rise in the number, influence and sophistication of non-governmental organizations
that monitor, track and inspect global corporate players. Less than 30 years ago, there
were 1,400 NGOs. In 1995, there were nearly 30,000. Today that number has grown 10
fold.
- An increase in shareholder activism. Of the more than 700 shareholder resolutions filed
in the US in 2002, more than a third of them were based on social issues.
- Greater disclosure requirements of social and environmental performance as part of their
“new economic regulations” by Governments, particularly in Europe.
Just three years ago, the concept of triple bottom line reporting – that means assessing and
providing an accounting of a company’s social, environmental and economic impact and
performance – was embraced by only an enlightened few. Today, such reporting is embraced by
the majority to prove they are acting responsibly.
Respect is, in some ways, an intrinsic part of Indian culture. The Indian ritual of touching the feet
of elders is a good example of how respect manifests itself in everyday life.
This transcends into the corporate world. For decades now, since Independence, corporate
majors such as the Tata and Birla group companies have led the way in making corporate social
responsibility an intrinsic part of their business plans. These companies have been intensely
involved with social development initiatives in the communities surrounding their facilities.
Jamshedpur, one of the prominent cities in the northeastern state of Bihar in India is also known
as Tata Nagar and stands out at a beacon for other companies to follow.
Respect is a much sought after tag in the Indian corporate world. This is one of the reasons for
the immense popularity of The Most Respected Companies of India survey, initiated by one of
India’s premier business magazines, Business World in 1983, long before skeletons began
toppling out of the corporate closets around the globe. In fact, the magazine admitted in a cover
feature following its first survey that the overwhelming reader response to its first ever ranking
of corporate reputations indicated that “there is a great deal of interest within the management
community in the subject of corporate reputations” and that this interest was “more than
academic.”
KEY DRIVERS OF CSR:
(Source: Corporate Social Responsibility Survey 2002 – India, United Nations Development
Program, British Council, CII, PriceWaterHouseCoopers)
Areas of CSR addressed in corporate policies
(Source: Corporate Social Responsibility Survey 2002 – India, United Nations Development
Program, British Council, CII, PriceWaterHouseCoopers)
THE TOP 10 BENEFITS OF ENGAGING IN CORPORATE SOCIAL
RISPONSIBILITY:
1. Increased profit:
Several studies have shown a direct correlation between socially responsible business practice
and positive financial performance. A 1997 DePaul university study found that company with a
defined corporate commitment to ethical principle do better financially than companies that
don’t.
An 11-year hazard university study found that stakeholder-balanced companies showed four
times the growth rate &8 times the employment growth when compared to companies that are
shareholder-only focused.
2. Access to capital:
Companies that are committed to CSR often have accessed to capital that would not otherwise be
available due to increase in socially responsible investment (SRI). A 2001 study showed that
12% of total investment in the USA was of the socially responsible nature.
3. Reduced operating costs/increased operational efficiency:
Contrary to widely-held improved environmental management system do not automatically
result in greater cost. Over time, they improve official efficiency by reducing waste production
and water usage, increasing energy efficiency and in some cases, selling recycled materials.
There are also the company specific ways of reducing operating costs e.g. Dow chemical co. has
set themselves a target of reducing production of 26 toxic chemicals which will save them 5.4
million Euros per year-2.3 million Euros more than was spent on the initial investment to do so.
By considering impacts, a company’s action can result in environmental, social and economic
benefits. Construction firms, for example reducing products on-site: reduced landfill, reduced
community and noise disturbances of additional trucks bringing materials to site, reduced the
environmental impact of damaged caused by heavy trucks wheels and reduced cost for the client
of buying new materials.
4. Enhanced brand image and reputation
A good reputation is often very hard to build – and yet can be destroyed in less than a day. So
much of a company’s reputation results from ‘trust’ by stakeholders. A strong reputation in
environmental and social responsibility can help a company build this trust. However, it need to
result from real practices and can see through ‘fluff’. Non Government organization (NGOs) and
local communities are far more willing to not take action as a result of environmentally-
demanding incident if it is evident that the company has genuinely worked hard to prevent it
happening in the first place, and in place solid management practice for rectifying the situation-
quickly-and for learning and improving to prevent repeat occurrence.
5. Increased sales and customer loyalty:
Research has shown that consumer not only want good and safe products, but they also want to
know that what they buy was produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way. A
CSR study in Europe in 2000 showed that 70% of European consumers say that a company’s
commitment to car is important when buying a product and 1 in 5 would be willing to pay more
for products that are socially and environmentally responsible. Conversely 1 in 6 shoppers
frequently boycott products because of the manufacture’s reputation.
Likewise car can lead to new products lines. As Dr Richard steckel and robin Simons
pointed out in their book “doing best by doing good”. F. Schumacher & co products high quality
fabrics wall covering and carpets which are sold through interior designer to residential and
commercial costumer. In 1984 when Schumacher wanted a new product line, the company went
to the national trust for historic presentation. The trust……licensed Schumacher to reproduce
fabric patters and artifacts found in the buildings.” our company benefits because we are able to
replicate the fine design of the past artists and we are permitted to create new designs based on
traditional elements,” said Robert herring vice president of the designer relations. The national
trust benefits by receiving operating income from the royalties.”
6. Increased productivity and quality:
Business for the social responsibility id the membership for the organization based in san
Francisco that helps companies to improve their CSR learning, management and activities. they
say company efforts to improve working condition lessen environmental impacts or increase
employee involvement in the company’s decision making often lead to the increased
productivity and reduced error rate. For example companies that improve working condition and
labour practices among their suppliers often experience a decrease in merchandise that is
defective or can’t be sold”.
7. Increased ability to attract and retain employees:
A company’s dedication to CSR can helped to attract and retain employees. People want to work
for a company that is in accordance with their on values and beliefs. Employees are not just
worried about promotion and salary any more. Since novo Nordisk launched their values in
action program which aligns their business objectives with sustainable development they have
seen a 5%drop in staff turns over. 78% of employees would rather work for an ethical and
reputable company than receive a higher salary.
8. Potentially, reduced regulatory oversight:
The more a company shows it is committed to CSR by complying with an going beyond
legislation the more lenient governments and regulators may be with the company. they may be
given preferential treatment when appalling for permits or permission to do something, and if an
accident occurs will be regarded more favorably if they have been transparent and socially
responsible in the period running up the accident/incident.
9. Reducing risk and increased risk management:
The more the company is committed to CSR the less they are exposing themselves to business
risk. This could be reputation risk following bad press, e.g. the highly publicized Nike
Sweatshops”, financial risk or the environmental risk. Morley fund management for e.g. Has
produced environmental reporting guidelines outlining the type of information it expects
companies to include in their reports.(they have introduced a requirement for company to
disclose their approach to managing their environmental impact).
10. Keeping up with competitors and where the market is:
This is where business is heading: the world over regardless of the regional culture. The UK,
Denmark, France, and other areas in Europe; the USA, Canada India, South Africa, china are the
countries that come to mind immediately when discussing the weather and how companies are
embracing the concept of the corporate social responsibility. There are other four all starting
point are often different. some are driven by regulation and legislation , others are driven by self
regulation. Government, the city investors, local communities and suppliers are all putting
pressure on companies to live up to their expectation of the company in the society and in the
environment.
Outcomes of CSR
Some of the positive outcomes that can arise when businesses adopt a policy of social
responsibility include:
Company Benefits:
Improved financial performance
Lower operating costs
Enhanced brand image and reputation
Increased sales and customer loyalty
Greater productivity and quality
More ability to attract and retain employees
Access to capital
Product safety and decreased liability
Benefits to the community and the general public:
Charitable contributions
Employee volunteer programs
Product safety and quality
Corporate involvement in community education, employment and homelessness
programs
Environmental benefits:
Greater material recyclability
Better product durability and functionality
Greater use of renewable resources
Integration of environmental management tools into business plans
Business importance of CSR:
Importance of CSR to a company’s activities
Improved financial performance
Reduced Operating Costs
Enhanced Brand Image and Reputation
Increased Sales and Customer Loyalty
Increased productivity and quality
Increased ability to attract and retain employees
Reduced regulatory oversight
Drivers of CSR:
The shrinking role of government
Demands for greater disclosure
Increased customer interest
Growing investor pressure
Competitive labour markets
METHODS OF CSR REPORTING
Moon (2002) distinguishes three types of CSR reporting ‘community involvement’, ‘socially
responsible production processes’ and ‘socially responsible employee relations’. During the
initial stages of development of CSR in emerging economies, the community involvement is
more along the lines of a philanthropic involvement with company involvement limited to
developing minimal or rather the absolutely necessary amount of communal goodwill necessary
to operate in the business environment. As compared with the developed countries like US, CSR
in developing countries is seen as part of corporate philanthropy where corporations augment the
social development to support the initiatives of the government. However in the US it is seen as a
strategic tool which helps the organizations to have a legitimate existence in the society. CSR is
considered inbuilt in the business existence of the traditional firms in the emerging markets like
India (Mohan, 2001). However, trends in this regard are heartening with companies trying to
establish strategic alliances with the state and the civil society thus establishing the presence of
CSR as an institution in these markets.
The remaining parameters are internal to the firm involving the molding of their business
activities while incorporating CSR practices. As companies start to embrace CSR practices to a
greater extent, it leads to changes in production processes so that all environmental and societal
norms are also satisfied even though they may not contribute to the profit maximizing objective
of the firm. This will mean that human rights agreements are also upheld taking into account the
rights of the local communities. CSR also leads to evolution of employee relations in the
company in such a way that employees become major stakeholders with definite decision
making powers especially in the area of formulation of CSR policy. The results of the
comparative study of these parameters by Chambers, Chapple, Moon and Sullivan (2003) show
that currently Asian nations are still faring strongly only in the first parameter of community
involvement thus corroborating the similar findings of Moon (2002).
GENERATIONS OF CSR
CSR theme has been researched since the 1950s. Notwithstanding the fact that business produces
goods and services that society needs, there is also interdependence between business and society
as an ongoing process.
Increasingly, up to the 1970s the understanding of CSR focused on companies’ obligation to
work for social betterment. However, since the 1970s focus shifted to social responsiveness--- in
other words, the capacity of organizations to respond to social pressures. With the change in the
managerial approach, CSR has now developed and become more main stream and leadership
roles for initiating a wide variety of CSR activities have been crystallized and highlighted.
Simon Zadek (2001) describes the development of CSR broadly in terms of three generations.
The first generation of CSR showed that companies can be responsible in ways that do not
detract from commercial success. The most prominent changes include adoption of a strategic
approach to philanthropy, expansion of the geographic focus of corporate, and evolving of
measurement tools.
The Second Generation is focusing on CSR as an integral part of long-term business strategy.
(D.E. Schended& C.W Hofer 1979)
A Third Generation of CSR is expected to make a significant contribution to address issues
such as poverty, exclusion and environmental degradation. This will involve both partnerships
with civil society and changes in public policy. (Mandatory social and environmental reporting
and support for consumer education, among other (Zadek 2001).
Arguments for CSR:
Those who argue in favor of organization in socially responsible ways offer many reasons, such
as:
- Balancing corporate power with corporate responsibilities.
- Discouraging the creation and imposition of government regulations.
- Focusing on social problems.
Arguments against CSR:
Organizations fulfill certain needs of society, and it is feasible for civil society to benefit from
the activities of an organization. Some arguments against CSR are:
- Stakeholders bear the costs of corporate social action (shareholders, employees and
consumers), which affect a “corporation’s operating efficiency and weaken competitive
position and advantage.”
- Mismatch of the roles and expectations between the organization and society.
- The prospects of corporations becoming even more powerful, as they may already
exercise considerable power over society.
- Management is trained in functional areas of management and does not have generic in
handling society issues.
THEORIES AND MODELS
Different Models of CSR
Ethics and CSR:
Business Ethics is an academic field unto itself. According to Fieser (2001), ‘business ethics
examines ‘moral controversies’ that commonly arise in the business world. Resolving ethical
conflicts needs to take into account legal and moral aspects.
The operationalization of business ethics is related to other forms of CSR, such as articulation
and integration of core values, stakeholder interactions, social audit and other forms of social-
performance measurement and reporting (Business for Social Responsibility, 2001).
Altruistic CSR
The terms altruistic or humanitarian CSR involves possible personal or organizational sacrifice.
Humanitarian CSR is Carroll’s “fourth face ‘of CSR—philanthropic responsibilities: the implied
concept of corporate citizenship fundamental to the notion of giving back to society. (Brenkert,
1996)
Strategic CSR: Strategic CSR or ‘strategic philanthropy “(Carroll, 2001) is done to accomplish
strategic business goals.
Such strategic philanthropy grew popular around the mid-1980s. Carroll, (2001) expects it to
grow in the years ahead. Socially responsible behavior involves sacrifices.
Political Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility
The political theory of corporate social responsibility is based on assumptions about the
“motivations of public officials and corporations. Political decision-makers orient their behavior
towards constituencies that can provide valuable resources”. “Elected officials seek resources
that can help them get reelected”. Appointed officials seek political support to perform their jobs
effectively.
Society Contract Theory
The earliest elements of the notion of the existence of a ‘ social contract’ are found in Plato’s
The Republic. However, the Social Contract Theory developed in the 17th century through
Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Philosophers such as John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau (1712-1778) later expanded on Hobbes’ work and developed it towards different
directions. A social contract, with implicit and explicit terms, is conceived to exist between the
organization and the public at large, not just merely its shareholders.
Friedman (1962) prescribed that an organization’s sole responsibility was to maximize profits for
shareholders. In the past, a firm’s profits were viewed as a measure of legitimacy.
Stakeholders Theory
Stakeholder theory, which McWilliams (2001) called ‘the dominant paradigm in CSR’,
originated in response to one of CSR’s most noteworthy critics, eminent economist Milton
Friedman.
In 1984, Freeman focused on the stakeholder view and propounded six categories: owners,
employees, customers, suppliers, communities and governments. Other scholars have since
included the natural environment as an additional stakeholder (Carroll and Buchholz, 1999-
2000). Donaldson and Preston (199%) created a well-known stakeholder theory typology to
argue for stakeholder engagement as an essential management tool.
Economic Theory of Self Regulation
In addition, certain CSR activities represent corporate self-regulation. In general terms, these
most commonly are environmental and ethics efforts.
“A more specific list of self-regulatory activities would include:
The adoption of business ethics codes or codes of conduct; efforts to ensure racial, ethnic, and
gender diversity; transparency and accountability measures; compliance with labor laws and
protection of human rights.
The Neoliberal, Neo-Keynesian and Radical Political Economy Approaches.
In defining CSR, neoliberal writers tend to see it fundamentally as the adoption of a set of
voluntary policies, codes or guidelines, initiated and driven by the corporation. For example, the
Australian Treasury, in a Submission to the Joint Parliamentary Inquiry on CSR, defined CSR as
a company’s management of the economic, social and environmental impacts of its activities’
(Australian Government, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services
2006)
The neoliberal discourse around CSR generally shares the view articulated by Milton Friedman
in the New York Times on September 13, 1970: there is one and only one social responsibility
of business-to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as
it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition
without deception or fraud.
GLOBALIZATION AND CSR
Traditionally, the role of the corporation has been understood primarily in economic terms.
Companies provide products and services and, in doing so, they create jobs and wealth.
Increasingly, stakeholders (shareholders, investors, communities, regulators, employees,
customers and non-governmental organizations) are taking a broader perspective of corporate
responsibility that incorporates not only economic performance, but also social and
environmental performance factors.
In the 1970s, it was the growing economic and technological power of US industry, however in
the 1990s; European industry is ready to challenge the US via the CSR route.
THE UN GLOBAL COMPACT
In 1999, Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General provided certain principles by way of Global
Compact. These principles focus on labour standards, human rights and environmental
protection.
The UK Government has strongly supported the Compact from the outset, as an incentive to the
private sector to pay its part in economic development, while being accountable against
universally recognized principles. Several leading UK companies, including Shell, BP, Rio
Tinto, BG Group and Unilever, have signed up the Compact.
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CSR
Social CSR aspects are as follows:
- Human rights
- Labor
- Consumer protection
- Respect for national sovereignty and local communities
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN CSR
The government’s approach to promoting CSR should seek to mainstream CSR within
community policies, engage the public and private sectors and promote greater transparency in
the marketplace. 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.
ROLE OF NGOs IN CSR
Individuals and the institutions in their interactions need to take into account the potential effects
of their exchange. The broader view of CSR is applicable to government, medial, industry,
NGOs and other variety of social institutions.
The new focuses on the need for socially driven investments, consistency in profits, fair wealth
distribution and good governance. NGOs are actively intervening by way of stakeholder and
community engagement action programmers.
CSR MAIN COMPONENTS
The scope of CSR is conceptually quite unbound at the present time. The debate between the
private sector, civil society and governments focuses on a few key issues. As there is no single,
commonly accepted definition of CSR, there is also no commonly accepted classification of the
main components of CSR. Often, CSR is related to
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
The focus is on finding sustainable solutions for natural resources use to reduce company’s
impact on the environment. Over the past several years, environmental responsibility has
expanded to involve substantially more than compliance with all applicable government
regulation or even a few initiatives such as recycling or energy efficiency. Many citizens,
environmental organization and leadership companies now define environmental responsibility
as involving a comprehensive approach to a company’s operation, maximizing the efficiency and
productivity of all assets and resources; and minimizing practices that might adversely affect the
enjoyment of the planet’s resources by future generations.
LABOR SECURITY
It includes freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective
bargaining; the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor; the effective abolition of
child labor; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of environment and occupation.
HUMAN RIGHT
Business practices can profoundly affect the rights and communities. The main focus is on
developing workplaces free from discrimination where creativity and learning can flourish
decent codes of professional conduct and where a proper balance can be maintain between work
and other aspects of our lives. Behaving irresponsibly on the issue of the issue of human right
could be costly because their reputation and bottom line is at stake. This is also related to
globalization and increasing international trade and challenge of findings ways of doing business
world – wide that respect human right and social justice and facilitate the appropriate
development of the emerging economies. Countries are expected to support and respect the
protection of international human right within their sphere of influence; and sure their own
corporation is not complicit in human right abuses. So socially responsible management
practices may contribute directly to profits.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
It includes: community partnership, employee giving, global community involvement,
philanthropy, product and services donation, release time, volunteerism etc. corporate
community involvement refers to a wide range of actions taken by companies to maximize the
impact of their donated money, time, products, services, influence, management knowledge and
other resources on the communities in which they operate. When strategically designed and
executed, these initiatives not only bring values in local communities where they have significant
commercial interests – as well as around the world.
BUSINESS STANDARDS
Cover a broad area of corporate activities such as ethics, financial returns, environment
protestation, and human rights and labor standards. The standards are usually accepted at
corporate, business association, industry or country level. The risk of international trade,
globalization, and instant communication has led to increasing pressure from various groups for
the formation of global business conduct standards. Can compliance with a global standard be
audited? And if so, who, if anyone, should monitor compliance? Source: UNCTAD, “Foreign
direct investment and the challenge of development,” World investment report, 1999.
MARKET PLACE
Marketplace issues, as they relate to corporate social responsibility, extend across a wide range
of business activities that define a company’s relationship with its customers. These activities
may be grouped into six categories; (1) product manufacturing and integrity; (2) disclosure,
labeling and packaging; (3) marketing and advertising; (4) selling practices; (5) pricing; and (6)
distribution. In each of these areas, companies are retooling their business strategies to address
new issues such as privacy and technology, marketing to children, heightened expectations for
product safety and environmental impact, increased scrutiny by consumers and non –
governmental organization, and the steady globalization of the consumer movement.
ENTERPRISE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
This broad concept includes: competitiveness, development of local Sees, entrepreneurship,
community economic development, micro finance in emerging economies etc. the drive of
entrepreneurs in developing countries can provide the catalyst to life and economy onto an
upward growth spiral. In many cases, however, the lack of an enabling business framework and a
scarcity of support structures for new businesses can work their wealth of financial, technical,
and managerial expertise, are being called upon to provide a focal point of support for local
businesses. At the same time, Macs can work to help governments understand the ways in which
an enabling business framework can be developed to fuel domestic entrepreneurial efforts.
HEALTH PROMOTION
The workplace is now recognized as an important setting for health promotion in industrialized
countries, and interest is growing in the wider role that business can play as a partner in health
development. Private sector business plays a dominant role as the driver of current global
economic development, and globalization is bringing new social and economic challenges. for
those concerned with promoting well – being, it is essential that policies and programs are
adjusted to address this new reality and that the business community is, as far as possible,
engaged as a partner in the promotion of well – being.
World Health Organization director general to the 51st world health assembly in 1998, grow
Harlem bundled indicated a signification shift in World Health Organization’s policy towards
engaging the private sector when she: “we must reach out to the private sector… The private
sector has an important role to play both in technology development and the provision of
services.
EDUCATION AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
As education is one of the key elements of sustainable development and pro poor growth,
business, working together with public sector and civil society, can make an important
contribution to providing an access to quality education for all. Companies can also make more
critical impact on the development process by raising standards in corporate education and
leadership development, and bringing best practices to their partners in developing and
transitional economies.
HUMAN DISASTER RELIEF
Companies, in co – operation with public sector, civil society, and international organization,
have played an important role in supporting humanitarian relief operations. Due to the rising
cost, threat and complexity of the consequences of major disasters on society, the key players to
utilize more development oriented approach.
CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
Corporate citizenship goes beyond philanthropy. It requires organizations to be actively involved
in the process of social and community development. Corporate’ activities in this area should
complement and supplement government action and not substitute it. It is widely understood that
being a good corporate citizen also makes good business sense.
EMERGING AREAS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
There are several emerging areas of corporate social responsibility – social responsibility,
business responsibility, environmental responsibility and stakeholder involvement.
Areas of social responsibility include – respecting human rights, contributing to social economic
development, employee welfare this include right to organize, eliminating child labour, non
discrimination, living wage and social security, training, safety, health and well being, lifelong
learning, empowerment of employees etc. Consumer protection includes right to information.
Respect for national sovereignty and local communities for multinationals. Sharing resources
with underprivileged communities and investing in sustainable development programs for the
community.
Areas of environmental responsibility include – respect for environment and environment
friendly technologies, conservation and discharge of energy, material and water in eco-friendly
manner, adopting preventive and precautionary measures for environment pollution control,
rectifying environmental damage at source, treating waste before disposing it, preservation of bio
diversity, promoting and implementing an environmental policy for sustainable energy and
environment.
Areas of business responsibility includes compliance with tax laws and other regulations,
investing in developing science and technology, fostering ethical trade practices, regulating
supplier’s CSR practices and distributor’s CSR practices and transparent financial reporting.
Areas of corporate social responsibility include extension of principles and ethical values
enshrined in organization to all its stake holders such as authorities, customer group, business
partners and external influences.
CORPORATE VOLUNTEERING
The voluntary work of employees (often members of management) of a corporation to the
benefit of local communities, primarily in the sphere of social services and education, is called
corporate volunteering. Mainly because of the bad memories of “mandatory volunteering” during
the reign of totalitarian governments, this form of corporate engagement in new EU countries, as
compared to the EU-15 countries, is having a hard time ending its place. However, employee
volunteering can serve as an interesting “team building” tool.
RECENT CSR INITIATIVES
An increasing number of companies are adopting a variety of “ voluntary initiatives” associated
with codes of conduct, improvements in environmental management systems and occupational
health and safety, company reporting on social and environmental policy and performance,
participation in certification and labeling schemes, an increase in corporate social investment in,
for example, community development projects, and philanthropy.
More recently, there has been an upsurge of international “multi stakeholder initiatives”,
involving a combination of business interests, NGOs, trade unions, and bilateral and multilateral
organizations, which set standards and promote monitoring, reporting and/or certification.
(The World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg 2002)
MYTHS OF CSR
CSR strategies may work under certain conditions, but they are highly vulnerable to market
failures, including such things as imperfect information, externalities, and free riders. Most
importantly, there is often a wide chasm between what's good for a company and what's good for
society as a whole. The reasons for this can be captured under what I'll argue are the four key
myths of CSR.
Myth 1: The market can deliver both short-term financial returns and long-term social
benefits.
One assumption behind CSR is that business outcomes and social objectives can become more or
less aligned. The rarely expressed reasoning behind this assumption goes back to the basic
assumptions of free-market capitalism: People are rational actors who are motivated to maximize
their self-interest. Since wealth, stable societies, and healthy environments are all in individuals'
self-interest, individuals will ultimately invest, consume, and build companies in both profitable
and socially responsible ways. In other words, the market will ultimately balance itself.
Yet, there is little if any empirical evidence that the market behaves in this way. In fact, it would
be difficult to prove that incentives like protecting natural assets, ensuring an educated labor
force for the future, or making voluntary contributions to local community groups actually help
companies improve their bottom line. While there are pockets of success stories where business
drivers can be aligned with social objectives, such as Cisco's Networking Academies, which are
dedicated to developing a labor pool for the future, they only provide a patchwork approach to
improving the public good.
In any case, such investments are particularly unlikely to pay off in the two- to four-year time
horizon that public companies, through demands of the stock market, often seem to require. As
we all know, whenever a company issues a "profits warning," the markets downgrade its share
price. Consequently, investments in things like the environment or social causes become a luxury
and are often placed on the sacrificial chopping block when the going gets rough.
Meanwhile, we have seen an abject failure of companies to invest in things that may have a
longer-term benefit, like health and safety systems. BP was fined a record $1.42 million for
health and safety offenses in Alaska in 2004, for example, even as Lord John Browne, chief
executive of BP, was establishing himself as a leading advocate for CSR, and the company was
winning various awards for its programs.
At the same time, class-action lawsuits may be brought against Wal-Mart over accusations of
poor labor practices, yet the world's largest and most successful company is rewarded by
investors for driving down its costs and therefore its prices. The market, quite frankly, adores
Wal-Mart. Meanwhile, a competitor outlet, Costco, which offers health insurance and other
benefits to its employees, is being pressured by its shareholders to cut those benefits to be more
competitive with Wal-Mart.3 CSR can hardly be expected to deliver when the short-term
demands of the stock market provide disincentives for doing so. When shareholder interests
dominate the corporate machine, outcomes may become even less aligned to the public good. As
Marjorie Kelly writes in her book, "The Divine Right of Capital": "It is inaccurate to speak of
stockholders as investors, for more truthfully they are extractors."
Myth 2: The ethical consumer will drive change.
Though there is a small market that is proactively rewarding ethical business, for most
consumers ethics are a relative thing. In fact, most surveys show that consumers are more
concerned about things like price, taste, or sell-by date than ethics.5Wal-Mart's success certainly
is a case in point.
In the United Kingdom, ethical consumerism data show that although most consumers are
concerned about environmental or social issues, with 83 percent of consumers intending to act
ethically on a regular basis, only 18 percent of people act ethically occasionally, while fewer
than 5 percent of consumers show consistent ethical and green purchasing behaviors.
In the United States, since 1990, Roper ASW has tracked consumer environmental attitudes and
propensity to buy environmentally oriented products, and it categorizes consumers into five
"shades of green": True-Blue Greens, Greenback Greens, Sprouts, Grousers, and Basic Browns.
True-Blue Greens are the "greenest" consumers, those "most likely to walk their environmental
talk," and represent about 9 percent of the population. The least environmentally involved are the
"Basic Browns," who believe "individual actions (such as buying green products or recycling)
can't make a difference" and represent about 33 percent of the population.7
Joel Makower, co-author of "The Green Consumer Guide," has traced data on ethical
consumerism since the early 1990s, and says that, in spite of the overhyped claims, there has
been little variation in the behavior of ethical consumers over the years, as evidenced by the
Roper ASW data. "The truth is, the gap between green consciousness and green consumerism is
huge," he states.8
Take, for example, the growth of gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles. Even with the steep rise in
fuel prices, consumers are still having a love affair with them, as sales rose by almost 8 percent
in 2004. These data show that threats of climate change, which may affect future generations
more than our own, are hardly an incentive for consumers to alter their behavior.9
Myth 3: there will be a competitive "race to the top" over ethics amongst businesses.
A further myth of CSR is that competitive pressure amongst companies will actually lead to
more companies competing over ethics, as highlighted by an increasing number of awards
schemes for good companies, like the Business Ethics Awards, or Fortune's annual "Best
Companies to Work For" competitions.
Companies are naturally keen to be aligned with CSR schemes because they offer good PR. But
in some cases businesses may be able to capitalize on well-intentioned efforts, say by signing the
U.N. Global Compact, without necessarily having to actually change their behavior. The U.S.-
based Corporate Watch has found several cases of "green washing" by companies, and has noted
how various corporations use the United Nations to their public relations advantage, such as
posing their CEOs for photographs with Secretary-General Kofi Annan.10
Meanwhile, companies fight to get a coveted place on the SRI indices such as the Dow Jones
Sustainability Indexes. But all such schemes to reward good corporate behavior leave us carrying
a new risk that by promoting the "race to the top" idea, we tend to reward the "best of the
baddies." British American Tobacco, for example, won a UNEP/Sustainability reporting award
for its annual social report in 2004.11 Nonetheless, a skeptic might question why a tobacco
company, given the massive damage its products inflict, should be rewarded for its otherwise
socially responsible behavior.
While companies are vying to be seen as socially responsible to the outside world, they also
become more effective at hiding socially irresponsible behavior, such as lobbying activities or
tax avoidance measures. Corporate income taxes in the United States fell from 4.1 percent of
GDP in 1960 to just 1.5 percent of GDP in 2001.12 In effect, this limits governments' ability to
provide public services like education. Of course, in the end, this is just the type of PR
opportunity a business can capitalize on. Adopting or contributing to schools is now a common
CSR initiative by leading companies, such as Cisco Systems or European supermarket chain
Tesco.
Myth 4: in the global economy, countries will compete to have the best ethical practices.
CSR has risen in popularity with the increase in reliance on developing economies. It is generally
assumed that market liberalization of these economies will lead to better protection of human and
environmental rights, through greater integration of oppressive regimes in the global economy,
and with the watchful eye of multinational corporations that are actively implementing CSR
programs and policies.
Nonetheless, companies often fail to uphold voluntary standards of behavior in developing
countries, arguing instead that they operate within the law of the countries in which they are
working. In fact, competitive pressure for foreign investment among developing countries has
actually led to governments limiting their insistence on stringent compliance with human rights
or environmental standards, in order to attract investment. In Sri Lanka, for example, as
competitive pressure from neighboring China has increased in textile manufacturing, garment
manufacturers have been found to lobby their government to increase working hours.
In the end, most companies have limited power over the wider forces in developing countries
that keep overall wage rates low. Nevertheless, for many people a job in a multinational factory
may still be more desirable than being a doctor or a teacher, because the wages are higher and a
worker's rights seem to be better protected.
LIMITATIONS OF APPROACHES TO CSR
We have mentioned a number of initiatives and actins by the governments and corporations in
the developed countries as also how several other developing economies are emphasizing the
CSR route to economic development. The CSR approaches since the 1990s have become:
inclusive “in the sense that ‘multi stakeholder’ initiatives are being adopted to promote the
concept and practices of introducing and managing CSR programs. Large corporations are
increasingly recognizing the need for corporate social action in the wake of consumer
movements and demands of the civil society. CSR is being interpreted as good corporate
governance and the need for good governance could hardly be overstressed. NGOs, trade unions
and multilateral institutions are emphasizing adoption of codes and standards to promote
monitoring and certification, of which the Global Reporting initiative is one example. The issues
involved in encouraging and institutionalizing public-private partnerships are also debated
world-wide. While the need for newer and innovative measures to assess the impact of CSR
programs on the society and community is stressed, we have yet to achieve significant progress
in this regard. On the one hand, large corporations have not much difficulty in committing some
resources towards promotions of CSR, on the other, the execution of multifarious schemes of
CSR and their monitoring and evaluation raise some fundamental concerns. CSR is not the core
competence of the corporate planners and top executives of the large corporations regardless of
their ownership. It is necessary to have an assessment if the government and various institutions
are to be committed to durable public-private partnership.
One of the limitations of the approaches to promoting CSR has been the relative lack of clarity
of the definition of CSR and the models of CSR to be adopted by the companies. The net result is
that regardless of ownership, the large corporations are undertaking multifarious activities,
without developing the core competency and adopting adequate institutional safeguards to ensure
an appropriate framework for CSR implementation.
The second limitation is that many corporations, especially the public enterprises, who are
ready to engage in CSR as it is being mandated by the Government, are not in a position to
determine what segments of socially responsive investment they should commit themselves to.
They are on the lookout for project ideas and they may hold dialogues with the NGOs and other
organizations as an exploration but they may not get much out of such an exercise because of
inadequate focus on the agenda building and agenda ownership process. One of the
consequences is that the corporations prefer the ‘existing product-existing market’ model and
therefore, adopt the measures and social action programs that the other corporations are
implementing.
This is turn shows a relative lack of measures to innovate and evolve newer CSR leadership
roles. The preference for standardized approaches does not allow opportunities to the
corporations to adopt local approaches. Also in this process the public-private partnerships may
leave out a significant segment of the small and medium enterprises that may often bear the brunt
of implicit costs of CSR programs adopted by the mega corporations. The World Bank research
has classified public sector engagement into mandating, facilitating partnering, and endorsing,
and in performing each of these roles the enterprises will need to move beyond compliance
mindset.
In the mandating role, the key areas are: control legislation, regulation, legal and fiscal penalties
and rewards; in the facilitating role the key areas are: enabling legislation, creation of incentives,
in partnering, and the focus is on: combining resources, raising resources and dialoguing; and in
the endorsing arena the focus is on: obtaining political support and undertaking publicity
measures. (Tom Fox , Halina Ward, and Bruce Howard, 2002)
According to the World Bank study cited above, some of the key constraints in the public sector
roles are: lack of capacity to negotiate and implement projects, integrating CSR with the regional
schemes, lack of engagement with processes and guidelines, weak institutional infrastructure and
weak organized labor, among others.
The third question that needs to be addressed is the need for capacity building in corporations
that are seriously pursuing corporate social action on a long-term basis. The skills, knowledge,
and attitudes required for planning CSR approaches, implementing the same, and evaluating
various outcomes are just not available in corporations. The operating executives would need
training and development programs and possibly a long-term engagement with a reputed CSR
practitioner and/or consultant in order to professionalize the activity. A related question is
internal stakeholder involvement in the proposed and/or ongoing/CSR activities. Unless the
internal stakeholders subscribe to the concept and practices of CSR, it would be very difficult to
undertake extensive schemes of CSR promotion for the external constituencies of the civil
society.
Last but not the least, large corporations in order to engage in a durable public-private partnering
process should develop a focus and not attempt a generic, all-inclusive variety of CSR role and
function, Within the public policy framework in a given country, a corporation needs to identify
areas of interest and capability to take up CSR in a focused manner. One of the main difficulties
in countries like India is that while competition is somewhat easier, the institutions and
enterprise find it very difficult to collaborate because of various reasons. In part, this is
attributable to the lack of open communication on and knowledge of CSR within and outside
corporations; therefore, in other words, there are issues of mindset and culture which are
fundamentally more important. It is in such a context that in countries like India we need to
endorse and encourage the recent practice by some leading public and private corporations
appointing specialist in CSR as a part of the top management team for introduction and
management of the CSR roles and functions.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
TITLE:-
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: As Perceived by Corporate & Beneficiaries.
SUBTITLE:-
A study on Corporate Social Responsibility of 4 corporate and 60 beneficiaries of Petrochemical
area in Vadodara
OBJECTIVES:-
1. To study the CSR activities done by the companies around Petrochemical Area.
2. To study the views of companies towards their CSR activities.
3. To study the view of beneficiaries towards the benefits received from the CSR activities.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS:-
1. Corporate Social Responsibility:
For the purpose of this study Corporate Social Responsibility means commitment and
activities done by the companies around petrochemical area to contribute to the economic
and social development while improving quality of life of the local community and
society at large.
2. Corporate:
For the purpose of this study corporates are the 5 companies of petrochemical area in
Vadodara involved in CSR activities for the nearby villages.
3. Beneficiaries:
Here beneficiaries are the people of nearby villages where the CSR activities have been
implemented by the corporate.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:-
The study on Corporate Social Responsibility is more relevant and worth considering in the
current time wherein globally it has been an established fact that no organization can ignore the
CSR. Moreover, with the introduction of Global Compact the concept of CSR has been
reinforced. The modern corporation has grown phenomenally impacting various constituencies
of civil society. The working of NGOs as well as the agencies like World Bank and other also
have brought lots of awareness and need to thoughtfully to work out for CSR.
The CSR is an emerging concept in Indian corporate world. The socio-economic changes,
particularly in the LPG era, have brought several challenges to the business. Along with the
focus on the business, the organization cannot, now ignore the need for CSR.
The business organization is an integral part of the society & as it is getting too much inputs
from the society as well as from the various stakeholders- viz. shareholders, customers,
employees, suppliers etc; so it is a moral obligation of the business that to give returns to them in
terms of doing something for the betterment of the community in which the company exists.It is
also found that the business which pays attention to the social causes has been perceived with
greater respect in community.
There are many industrial benefits that the company could get by adopting CSR in well manner
and that, ultimately leads to the development of the company as a whole.
A developed company by performing social activities in the place where it is established leads to
the development of the society.Further it will lead to the development of that state and ultimately
it lead to the social and economic development of the nation.
Thus, this study attempts to find out the views of corporates and beneficiaries regarding
Corporate Social Responsibility.
RESEARCH DESIGN:-
This study is Descriptive as it describes about the perception of Corporates and Beneficiaries
towards the Corporates Social Responsibility.
UNIVERSE:-
The Universe considered for the purpose of this study from beneficiaries includes the population
of all 6 villages where CSR activities has been conducted by the Corporates.
The Universe considered for the purpose of this study from corporate includes the 10 executives
of 4 companies of petrochemical area who are involved in CSR activities of their respective
companies.
SAMPLE:-
The Sample size for beneficiaries is restricted to 60 respondents from 6 villages i.e. 10
respondents from each village.
The Sample size for corporate is same as universe of corporate i.e. 10 executives of 4 companies
SAMPLING METHODS:-
1. Stratified Random Sampling Method was used to collect the data from beneficiaries.
2. Purposive Sampling method was used to collect the data from corporate.
TOOLS OF DATA COLLECTION:-
1. Questionnaire is used to collect data from corporates for the purpose of this study.
2. Structured Interview schedule which includes close ended questions is used to collect
data from Beneficiaries for the purpose of this study.
PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY:-
1. Introduction & Research Methodology
2. Review of Literature
3. Data Analysis & Interpretation
4. Findings, Conclusion & Suggestions
5. Annexure
a. References
b. Questionnaire
c. Interview Schedule
CHAPTER 2:
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Over the past decade, a growing number of companies have recognized the business benefits of
CSR policies & practices. Their experiences are bolstered by a growing body of empirical
studies which demonstrates that CSR has a positive impact on business economic performance,
and is not harmful to shareholder value. Companies also have been encouraged to adopt or
expand CSR efforts as the result of pressures from customers, suppliers, employees,
communities, investors, activist organizations and other stakeholders. As a result, CSR has
grown dramatically in recent years, with companies of all sizes and sectors developing
innovative strategies.
Books on CSR:
All books are content about CSR but it’s not giving clear one clear definition about CSR. Most
of the available literature defined CSR as complex phenomena, and regards the definition to be
unpractical. None of the book gave a clear historical review on CSR when the term was started
with its synonyms? The relatively short history of CSR has been nothing if not combative. In
literature they have not explained an important point is that; what is CSR now? Also literature is
limited only with few theories and models of CSR. Texts only defined one side of corporate
strategy or activities for society which most of the corporations are doing through CSR, literature
does not looking another side of capitalist business which is destroying livelihoods based on
natural resources. Here it is very important to mention the name of Stephen Dunne, (2007) who
has written in his paper that the very lack of clarity regarding what CSR means, has perhaps
become its single greatest strength: without any formal determination or widely accepted
definition, CSR has come to mean so very much. Come to the particular books which I used as a
review of literature for my research purpose.
The following books which are written on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by different
author in different ways.
CSR: As a Taken for Granted or Just Do It!
Philip Kotler is an author of the “Corporate Social Responsibility Doing the Most Good for Your
Company and Your Cause” (2005). This book does not focus philosophy of Kant and Aristotle.
(Author mentioned question ‘What Is Good?’ pp. 2-4) It is more focused on profitable outcome,
which gives only an aspiration on how organizations have reached at websites of Fortune 500
corporations. The capitalists focus more on their outcome rather than the process involved in it.
They only care about their results, for example the company A did plan B and achieved result C.
The purpose of this book is uncertain as it gives priority only to industrialists over the masses of
the people. Here CSR is locked by the author as a marketing perspective only. Purpose of Kotler
and Lee care less about CSR than marketing or big business.
The book Corporate Social Responsibility – Concepts and Cases: The Indian Experience: edited
by C V Baxi and Ajit Prasad (2005) this is divided into two sections. Section one contains
different papers, which analyses the conceptual framework of corporate social responsibility,
which has considered CSR concepts, practices and country experience, stakeholder engagement
theory, these all explained in very short outline. Ch. 1 Conceptual framework of CSR does not
give a thorough historical overview of CSR only clue is given on it in one paragraph. Also the
whole section is very less discussed on what is the genesis of CSR? How it emerged and when?
Theories and models of CSR do not give a deep idea about CSR and did not say which theory
and model is more applicable for India. All theories and models explain within 2 pages (pp. 6-7).
A global view on CSR only gives the idea of what was the objective of different countries’
government to implementing CSR. But what is the outcome, after adopting the CSR policy and
making different law or code, it does not reflect in the section. The book says government
approach to CSR should be more on productivity and competitiveness and achieving
transparency in the market (pp. 15). Here the question is how transparency is remaining good for
consumers in cut through the competition? Conclusion part does not take particular stand, the
authors showed both sides of philanthropy positive and negative.
The second is a collection of eighteen case studies highlighting various aspects of CSR in some
of the most famous companies in India. Here second section is trying to justify the big and
famous corporations are doing well. But section is more silence on some real facts which are
badly attached with these famous companies. For example, the case study of Ambuja Cement
mentioned as a shining example of leadership effort in “environmental Stewardship” and
company’s empowering Mission Statement is that “Give a Man orders..., Give him freedom and
authority and his task becomes a personal mission- ‘I CAN’.” But recent news published in
various well known newspapers that Vice President of Ambuja Cement, with few other
department managers have been arrested in connection to the Ambuja cement factory mishap,"
Five workers were killed when an ash container crashed in the mixing unit of the plant in Rawan
village. Chief Minister Raman Singh has directed the factory management to provide
compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the kin of each victim and a job to one member of their families.
This shows factory was not following The Industry Act, 1948, Ch. IV of Safety. I hope this
compensation amount will not treat under the title of CSR in their annual report. So, this is the
reality of most of the shining Indian’s companies or MNCs which are doing CSR plays with
common people’s lives, giving with ‘sugar coated’ words.
But N R Narayana Murthy, India’s well known industrialist, has written a book – “A Better India
a Better World.” The book is undoubtedly a philosopher’s statement or rather a collection of
statements. There are prevarications of the problem. The book is a collection of Narayana
Murthy’s lectures, and not a true “book” by him. Murthy believes that our future development
should be based on the following pillars. 1) Education 2) Good value system 3) Capitalism 4)
Globalisation. He explains how globalization is a win-win situation. But I would like to critique
these last two pillars through Prof. M. Kunhaman’s words which nicely put in the essay under
the title of “Unsustainable Globalization: A Theoretical – cum - Historical Perspective”, he says
market and capitalism are inseparable. Capitalism, in its highest form, cannot exist without
imperialism and imperialism inevitably leads to war. Capitalists are always aggressive and profit
minded. In the word of Poan Robinson who said “Animal spirit,” which is the motive force of
the capitalist. This is because no noble ideology or moral principle underlines such a system.
Book corporate social responsibility in Asia which is edited by Kyoko Fukukawa gives global
overview on CSR. This described the historical outlook and different experiences of CSR
existing in Asian countries. Compared to Asian Tiger countries the culture of CSR is very poor.
For example Bangladesh, which is world’s third largest employer in the textile sector and sixth
largest employer in the clothing industry though Bangladeshi garment workers are the lowest
paid and most shockingly exploited in the world. This is because lack of good governance. Here
also MNCs shows their visions, Mission statement and taking pride to do good business through
CSR.
Articles:
Articles gave a very brief reflection on CSR as it is shortly defined what is CSR? These models
do not say anything new about CSR. It’s just another dimension to look at CSR. Majority articles
defined some small case study, which is very general in Indian context and given case studies
and highlighted ideas are overlapping in most of the articles. For an example case study of ITC e
–Choupal, all articles follow all most same writing structure. Like the introduction, explained
through small case studies and conclude. Sunil Kumar and Shilpa Jain’s article talking about
what is the Bottom of Pyramid (brief explanation of C.K Prahalad’s book, ‘The Fortune at the
Bottom of the Pyramid’) how it is related to the world market? What is the requirement for BOP
development? These are all about for marketing purpose only. The article says the manager
should try to create awareness among the BOP consumer to afford and buy their product. Finally
it’s looking like scope of profit.
The same thing mentioned in the article of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Competitive
Corporate Advantage has written by Uma V.P. Shrivastava. Article’s explanation for the
manager is how organization survives for a long time or an enterprise’s long term social
responsiveness model. This is the general model or ideas which are only for enterprises and for
their profit.
R N Patil’s article on New Perspectives on CSR for Rural Development does not say anything
new about CSR and rural Development. It gives only a general explanation on CSR, what kind of
partnership should be? What corporations can offer? All these questions and answers for them
and not for ordinary or marginalized people.
But it does not give any clarification or solution on how CSR should eradicate caste, inequality,
gender into the Indian society? Which kind of strategies will more affected to the poor or
marginalized sections of the society. Most of the review has given justification of capitalist
activities through defined CSR. CSR today “means something, but not always the same thing, to
everybody” (Votaw, 1972: 25) and wayward path or not, it is making its presence felt. In short
Vision, Mission, CSR, etc. is only ‘sugar coated’ words and nothing else. Asian corporations are
rushing to copy ‘western model’ which is not fit in local traditions. Companies will simply do
everything they can to boost profits will end up increasing social welfare. In circumstances
where profits and social welfare are in direct opposition, an appeal to corporate social
responsibility will almost always be ineffective, because executives are unlikely to act
voluntarily in the public interest and against shareholder interests. Without profit there is no firm
and no corporate social activity. And at the same time, no company can afford to let its profits
drop.
CSR BETWEEN LEGITIMACY, ETHICS, STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE AND
SUSTAINABILE DEVELOPMENT
In recent years the business strategy field has experienced the renaissance of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) as a major topic of interest. The concept has not surfaced for the first time.
CSR had already known considerable interest in the 1960s and 70s, Spawning a broad range of
scholarly contributions (Cheit, 1964; Heald, 1970; Ackermann & Bauer, 1976; Carroll, 1979),
and a veritable industry of social auditors and consultants. However, the topic all but vanished
from most managers' minds in the 1980s (Dierkes & Antal, 1986; Vogel, 1986). Having
blossomed in the 1970s CSR all but vanished and only re-emerged in recent years.
CSR resurfaced forcefully over the past ten years in response to mounting public concern about
globalization. Firms find themselves held responsible for human rights abuses by their suppliers
in developing countries; interest groups demand corporate governance to be transparent and
accountable; rioters from Seattle to Genoa protest violently against the cost of free trade and
other perceived negative consequences of globalization. However, nearly two decades of neglect
have helped to undo much of the past achievements of corporate social responsibility. It is thus
no surprise that both practitioners and scholars are struggling once again to answer the question
what the strategic implications of CSR are.
The literature on CSR and innovation draws on a number of different theoretical
traditions, which often are in contradiction to each other. Wood (1991) describes three
levels of analysis:
institutional,
individual, and
Organizational.
Institutional Level: CSR as Organizational Legitimacy
Davis (1973) describes the iron law of responsibility, as the fact that firms exercising power will
eventually be held accountable by society. At this level CSR can be best understood as a quest
for organizational legitimacy. Firms are under the obligation not to abuse the power invested on
them by society or they risk losing society’s implicit endorsement. More recently this view point
has resurfaced as a firm’s need to retain its “license to operate” (Post, Preston, & Sachs, 2002:
21).
Individual Level: CSR as Moral Choices of Managers
At the individual level, CSR has been constructed by Ackermann (1975) as managerial
discretion. According to this view managerial actions are not fully defined by corporate policies
and procedures. So although managers are constrained by their work environment they
nonetheless have to weigh the moral consequences of the choices they make. The view of CSR is
strongly anchored in the business ethics literature (Jones, 1991; Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994;
Crane & Matten, 2003).
Organizational Level: CSR as Stakeholder Management
With Freeman’s (1984) seminal book the focus moved from legitimacy and morals towards a
new theory of the firm. Social considerations are thus no longer outside an organization but are
part of its purpose of being. CSR thus becomes a question of stakeholder identification,
involvement, and communication (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997; Morsing & Beckmann, 2006;
Morsing & Schultz, 2006).
“The purpose of stakeholder management was to devise a framework to manage strategically the
myriad groups that influenced, directly and indirectly, the ability of a firm to achieve its
objectives.” (Freeman & Velamuri, 2006)
The aim of stakeholder management is thus to analyze how a company can serve its customers
and be lucrative while also serving its other stakeholders such as suppliers, employees, and
communities. Recently the stakeholder perspective has dominated the reinterpretation of CSR
pushing the question of the legitimacy of corporate power as well as the moral dimension of
managerial decisions more into the background.
Global Level: CSR as Sustainable Development
The latest literature tradition to have impacted our understanding of corporate social
responsibility is that of sustainable development. It was the Brundtland Commission (1987) that
for the first time systematically emphasized the link between poverty, environmental
degradation, and economic development. Its definition of sustainable development, as meeting
the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs,
extends the responsibility of firms both inter- and intra generationally.
Thus firms are expected to also consider traditionally unrepresented stakeholders such as the
environment and as well as future generations. Although many CSR authors have taken up the
notion of a “triple bottom line” (Elkington, 1997) there remain important tensions between the
CSR and the sustainable development debate (i.e. Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002).
CSR – GLOBAL CONTEXT
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development in its publication, making Good
Business Sense by Lord Holmes and Richard Watts, used the following definition. Corporate
Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and
contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and
their families as well as of the local community and society at large.
The 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions Survey
More than 75 percent of consumers say that it is important for companies to be socially
responsible according to a survey released today by Penn Schoen Berland, Landor Associates,
and Burson-Marsteller. The Second Annual Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions Survey
tested consumer views of companies in 14 industries ranging from Apparel to
Telecommunications.
Despite the recession, consumers continue to prioritize social responsibility across business
sectors, and 55 percent are more likely to choose a product that supports a certain cause when
choosing between otherwise similar products. Moreover, 38 percent of respondents still plan to
spend the same or more for products and services from socially responsible companies, and 70
percent are willing to pay more for a $100 product from a company they regard as responsible.
However, companies are not communicating their CSR efforts with consumers as effectively as
they could. Only 13 percent of consumers report having read about a company’s social
responsibility agenda on its website. If companies are able to better communicate their CSR
efforts, they may have the opportunity to influence consumer perceptions seeing as 75 percent of
consumers who have read about a company’s social responsibility agenda on its website
indicated that it made them more likely to purchase products or services from that company.
Some of the study’s other key findings include:
- Of 14 tested industries, Food, Consumer Goods and Retailers are perceived as performing
best, while Financial Services, Healthcare and Media are perceived as performing worst.
- Consumers perceive General Mills to be the most responsible of 64 tested brands.
- Seventy-Two Percent say they will make some sacrifices in their spending or in their
salary to support social responsibility.
Businesses are owned by their shareholders - money spent on CSR by managers is theft of the
rightful property of the owners
This is the voice of the laisser-faire 1980s, still being given powerful voice by advocates such as
Elaine Sternberg. Sternberg argues that there is a human rights case against CSR, which is that a
stakeholder approach to management deprives shareholders of their property rights. She states
that the objectives sought by conventional views of social responsibility are absurd. Not all
aspects of CSR are guilty of this, however. Sternberg states that ordinary decency, honesty and
fairness should be expected of any corporation.
In the first instance, this case strongly depends on the model of social responsibility adopted by
the business being a philanthropic one. The starting point assumption is that, through CSR,
corporations simply get to "give away" money which rightfully belongs to other people. If CSR
is seen as a process by which the business manages its relationships with a variety of influential
stakeholders who can have a real influence on its license to operate, the business case becomes
immediately apparent. CSR is about building relationships with customers, about attracting and
retaining talented staff, about managing risk, and about assuring reputation. The market
capitalization of a company often far exceeds the "property" value of the company. For instance,
as much as 96% of Coca Cola is made up of "intangibles" - a major part of which rests on the
reputation of the company. Only a fool would run risks with a company's reputation when it is so
large a part of what the shares represent. In any case, if shareholders are to be accorded full
property rights one would expect to see the balancing feature of responsibility for the actions
taken by the enterprises they often fleetingly own. Since most shareholders remain completely
unaware of any such responsibility, it can only fall to the management - the "controlling mind" of
the company, to take that responsibility on.
The leading companies who report on their social responsibility are basket cases - the most
effective business leaders don't waste time with this stuff.
When surveys are carried out of the "Most Respected Business Leaders" you will often find
names there, such as Bill Gates of Microsoft, a few years ago Jack Welch of GE, who have not
achieved their world class status by playing nice. Welch is still remembered for the brutal
downsizing he led his business through, and for the environmental pollution incidents and
prosecutions. Microsoft has had one of the highest profile cases of bullying market dominance of
recent times - and Gates has been able to achieve the financial status where he can choose to give
lots of money away by being ruthless in business. Doesn't that go to prove that "real men don't
do CSR"
In the first instance, very few businesses operate in a black or white framework, where they are
either wholly virtuous or wholly without redemption. There are many aspects in the way Jack
Welch restructured General Electric which would play to the kind of agenda recognizable to
advocates of social responsibility - in particular that of employee empowerment. Welch has gone
on record as saying that he believes the time has passed when making a profit and paying taxes
was all that a company had to worry about. And since Welch moved on, General Electric has
been busy catching up big time with its Eco Imagination initiative.
Also, many of the leading companies with regard to their social responsibility are equally
successful companies. The same "Most Respected" surveys will usually provide other names at,
or near, the top such as IBM and Motorola - and these are companies that have been much more
strongly associated with the CSR movement. Coca Cola achieved its place partially because of
its profile in social responsibility.
When still in charge, Sir John Browne of BP was widely respected as having led BP into a strong
position as one of the world's leading companies whilst also showing environmental leadership.
The events that latterly tarnished that reputation simply show that skill in execution is the key to
success - but even those events don't disprove the fact that success in business and commitment
to responsibility can go hand in hand.
It's all very well for the very big companies with lots of resources at their disposal. For those
fighting for survival, it's a very different picture. You can't go spending money on unnecessary
frills when you're laying people off and morale is rock bottom. And the odd bit of employee
volunteering won't make any difference to our people when they feel cynical and negative about
how the company operates.
Social accounting, auditing, and reporting-
For a business to take responsibility for its actions, that business must be fully
accountable. Social accounting, a concept describing the communication of social and
environmental effects of a company's economic actions to particular interest groups within
society and to society at large, is thus an important element of CSR.
Social accounting emphasizes the notion of corporate accountability. D. Crowther defines social
accounting in this sense as "an approach to reporting a firm’s activities which stresses the need
for the identification of socially relevant behavior, the determination of those to whom the
company is accountable for its social performance and the development of appropriate measures
and reporting techniques." An example of social accounting, to a limited extent, is found in an
annual Director's Report, under the requirements of UK company law. A number of reporting
guidelines or standards have been developed to serve as frameworks for social accounting,
auditing and reporting including:
Accountability’s AA1000 standard, based on Ellington’s triple bottom line (3BL)
reporting
The Prince's Accounting for Sustainability Project's Connected Reporting Framework
The Fair Labor Association conducts audits based on its Workplace Code of Conduct and
posts audit results on the FLA website.
The Fair Wear Foundation takes a unique approach to verifying labour conditions in
companies' supply chains, using interdisciplinary auditing teams.
. Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.
Good Corporation’s Standard developed in association with the Institute of Business
Ethics.
Earthcheck www.earthcheck.org Certification / Standard
Social Accountability International's SA8000 standard
Standard Ethics Area guidelines
The ISO 14000 environmental management standard
The United Nations Global Compact promotes companies submitting a CSR/
sustainability report a Communication on Progress (COP). A COP report describes the
company's implementation of the Compact's ten universal principles.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on International
Standards of Accounting and Reporting (ISAR) provides voluntary technical guidance
on eco-efficiency indicators, corporate responsibility reporting, and corporate governance
disclosure.
Verite's Monitoring Guidelines.
The FTSE Group publishes the FTSE4Good Index, an evaluation of CSR performance of
companies.
In some nations, legal requirements for social accounting, auditing and reporting exist (e.g. in the
French bilan social), though international or national agreement on meaningful measurements of
social and environmental performance is difficult. Many companies now produce externally
audited annual reports that cover Sustainable Development and CSR issues ("Triple Bottom Line
Reports"), but the reports vary widely in format, style, and evaluation methodology (even within
the same industry).
Critics dismiss these reports as lip service, citing examples such as Enron's yearly "Corporate
Responsibility Annual Report" and tobacco corporations' social reports.
In South Africa, as of June 2010, all companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock
Exchange (JSE) were required to produce an integrated report in place of an annual financial
report and sustainability report.
An integrated report includes environmental, social and economic performance alongside
financial performance information and is expected to provide users with a more holistic
overview of a company. However, this requirement was implemented in the absence of any
formal or legal standards for an integrated report. An Integrated Reporting Committee (IRC) was
established to issue guidelines for good practice in this field.
Potential business benefits
The scale and nature of the benefits of CSR for an organization can vary depending on the nature
of the enterprise, and are difficult to quantify, though there is a large body of literature exhorting
business to adopt measures beyond financial ones (e.g., Deming's Fourteen Points, balanced
scorecards). Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes. Found a correlation between social/environmental
performance and financial performance. However, businesses may not be looking at short-run
financial returns when developing their CSR strategy.
The definition of CSR used within an organization can vary from the strict "stakeholder impacts"
definition used by many CSR advocates and will often include charitable efforts and
volunteering.
CSR may be based within the human resources, business development or public
relations departments of an organization, or may be given a separate unit reporting to the CEO or
in some cases directly to the board. Some companies may implement CSR-type values without a
clearly defined team or program me.
The business case for CSR within a company will likely rest on one or more of these
arguments:
Human resources:
A CSR programmer can be an aid to recruitment and retention, particularly within the
competitive graduate student market. Potential recruits often ask about a firm's CSR policy
during an interview, and having a comprehensive policy can give an advantage.
CSR can also help improve the perception of a company among its staff, particularly when staff
can become involved through payroll giving, fundraising activities or community volunteering.
CSR has been found to encourage customer orientation among frontline employees. See also
Corporate, whereby CSR can also be driven by employees' personal values, in addition to the
more obvious economic and governmental drivers.
Risk management:
Managing risk is a central part of many corporate strategies. Reputations that take decades to
build up can be ruined in hours through incidents such as corruption scandals or environmental
accidents. These can also draw unwanted attention from regulators, courts, governments and
media. Building a genuine culture of 'doing the right thing' within a corporation can offset these
risks.
Brand differentiation:
In crowded marketplaces, companies strive for a unique selling proposition that can separate
them from the competition in the minds of consumers. CSR can play a role in building customer
loyalty based on distinctive ethical values. Several major brands, such as The Co-operative
Group, The Body Shop and American Apparel are built on ethical values. Business service
organizations can benefit too from building a reputation for integrity and best practice.
License to operate:
Corporations are keen to avoid interference in their business through taxation or regulations. By
taking substantive voluntary steps, they can persuade governments and the wider public that they
are taking issues such as health and safety, diversity, or the environment seriously as good
corporate citizens with respect to labor standards and impacts on the environment.
Criticisms and concerns:
Critics of CSR as well as proponents debate a number of concerns related to it. These include
CSR's relationship to the fundamental purpose and nature of business and questionable motives
for engaging in CSR, including concerns about insincerity and hypocrisy.
Nature of business:
Milton Friedman and others have argued that a corporation's purpose is to maximize returns to its
shareholders, and that since only people can have social responsibilities, corporations are only
responsible to their shareholders and not to society as a whole. Although they accept that
corporations should obey the laws of the countries within which they work, they assert that
corporations have no other obligation to society.
Some people perceive CSR as in-congruent with the very nature and purpose of business, and
indeed a hindrance to free trade.
Those who assert that CSR is contrasting with capitalism and are in favor of neoliberals argue
that improvements in health, longevity and/or infant mortality have been created by
economic attributed to free enterprise. Critics of this argument perceive neoliberals as opposed to
the well-being of society and a hindrance to human freedom. They claim that the type of
capitalism practiced in many developing countries is a form of economic and cultural
imperialism, noting that these countries usually have fewer labor protections, and thus their
citizens are at a higher risk of exploitation by multinational corporations. A wide variety of
individuals and organizations operate in between these poles. For example, the REALeadership
Alliance asserts that the business of leadership (be it corporate or otherwise) is to change the
world for the better. Many religious and cultural traditions hold that the economy exists to serve
human beings, so all economic entities have an obligation to society (see for example Economic
Justice for All). Moreover, as discussed above, many CSR proponents point out that CSR can
significantly improve long-term corporate profitability because it reduces risks and inefficiencies
while offering a host of potential benefits such as enhanced brand reputation and employee
engagement.
Motives:
Some critics believe that CSR programs are undertaken by companies such as British American
Tobacco (BAT), the petroleum giant BP (well known for its high-profile advertising campaigns
on environmental aspects of its operations), and McDonald's (see below) to distract the public
from ethical questions posed by their core operations. They argue that some corporations start
CSR programs for the commercial benefit they enjoy through raising their reputation with the
public or with government.
They suggest that corporations which exist solely to maximize profits are unable to advance the
interests of society as a whole.
Another concern is that sometimes companies claim to promote CSR and be committed
to sustainable development but simultaneously engage in harmful business practices. For
example, since the 1970s, the McDonald's Corporation's association with Ronald McDonald
House has been viewed as CSR and relationship marketing. More recently, as CSR has become
main stream, the company has beefed up its CSR programs related to its labor, environmental
and other practices.
All the same, in McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, Lord Justices Pill, May and Keane
ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do badly in terms
of pay and conditions and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well
become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.' Royal Dutch Shell has a much-
publicized CSR policy and was a pioneer in triple bottom line reporting, but this did not prevent
the 2004 scandal concerning its misreporting of oil reserves, which seriously damaged its
reputation and led to charges of hypocrisy. Since then, the Shell Foundation has become
involved in many projects across the world, including a partnership with Marks and
Spencer (UK) in three flower and fruit growing communities across Africa.
Critics concerned with corporate hypocrisy and insincerity generally suggest that better
governmental and international regulation and enforcement, rather than voluntary measures, are
necessary to ensure that companies behave in a socially responsible manner. A major area of
necessary international regulation is the reduction of the capacity of corporations to sue states
under investor state dispute settlement provisions in trade or investment treaties if otherwise
necessary public health or environment protection legislation has impeded corporate
investments.
Others, such as Patricia Werhane, argue that CSR should be considered more as a corporate
moral responsibility, and limit the reach of CSR by focusing more on direct impacts of the
organization as viewed through a systems perspective to identify stakeholders.
Ethical consumerism:
The rise in popularity of ethical consumerism over the last two decades can be linked to the rise
of CSR. As global population increases, so does the pressure on limited natural resources
required to meet rising consumer demand (Grace and Cohen 2005, 147).
Industrialization, in many developing countries, is booming as a result of both technology and
globalization. Consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental and social implications
of their day-to-day consumer decisions and are therefore beginning to make purchasing decisions
related to their environmental and ethical concerns. However, this practice is far from consistent
or universal.
Globalization and market forces:
As corporations pursue growth through globalization, they have encountered new challenges that
impose limits to their growth and potential profits. Government regulations, tariffs,
environmental restrictions and varying standards of what constitutes "labor exploitation" are
problems that can cost organizations millions of dollars. Some view ethical issues as simply a
costly hindrance, while some companies use CSR methodologies as a strategic tactic to gain
public support for their presence in global markets, helping them sustain a competitive advantage
by using their social contributions to provide a subconscious level of advertising. (Fry, Keim,
Meiners 1986, 105) Global competition places a particular pressure on multinational
corporations to examine not only their own labor practices, but those of their entire supply chain,
from a CSR perspective.
Social awareness and education:
The role among corporate stakeholders is to work collectively to pressure corporations that are
changing. Shareholders and investors themselves, through investing are exerting pressure on
corporations to behave responsibly. Non-governmental organizations are also taking an
increasing role, leveraging the power of the media and the Internet to increase their scrutiny and
collective activism around corporate behavior.
Through education and dialogue, the development of community awareness in holding
businesses responsible for their actions is growing. In recent years, the traditional conception of
CSR is being challenged by the more community-conscious Creating Shared Value concept
(CSV), and several companies are refining their collaboration with stakeholders accordingly.
Ethics training:
The rise of ethics training inside corporations, some of it required by government regulation, is
another driver credited with changing the behavior and culture of corporations. The aim of such
training is to help employees make ethical decisions when the answers are unclear. Tullberg
believes that humans are built with the capacity to cheat and manipulate, a view taken from
(Trivers 1971, 1985), hence the need for learning normative values and rules in human behavior.
The most direct benefit is reducing the likelihood of "dirty hands" (Grace and Cohen 2005), fines
and damaged reputations for breaching laws or moral norms. Organizations also see secondary
benefit in increasing employee loyalty and pride in the organization. Caterpillar and Best Buy are
examples of organizations that have taken such steps.
Increasingly, companies are becoming interested in processes that can add visibility to their CSR
policies and activities. One method that is gaining increasing popularity is the use of well-
grounded training programs, where CSR is a major issue, and business simulations can play a
part in this.
One relevant documentary is The Corporation, the history of organizations and their growth in
power is discussed. Corporate social responsibility, what a company does to in trying to benefit
society, versus corporate moral responsibility (CMR), what a company should morally do, are
both important topics to consider when looking at ethics in CSR.
For example, Ray Anderson, in The Corporation, takes a CMR perspective in order to do what is
moral and he begins to shift his company's focus towards the biosphere by utilizing carpets in
sections so that they will sustain for longer periods. This is Anderson thinking in terms of Garret
Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons," where if people do not pay attention to the private
ways in which we use public resources, people will eventually lose those public resources.
Laws and regulation:
Another driver of CSR is the role of independent mediators, particularly the government, in
ensuring that corporations are prevented from harming the broader social well, including people
and the environment. CSR critics such as Robert Reich argue that governments should set the
agenda for social responsibility by the way of laws and regulation that will allow a business to
conduct them responsibly.
The issues surrounding government regulation pose several problems. Regulation in itself is
unable to cover every aspect in detail of a corporation's operations. This leads to burdensome
legal processes bogged down in interpretations of the law and debatable grey areas (Sacconi
2004). For example, General Electric failed to clean up the Hudson River after contaminating it
with organic pollutants. The company continues to argue via the legal process on assignment of
liability, while the cleanup remains stagnant. (Sullivan & Schiafo 2005).
The second issue is the financial burden that regulation can place on a nation's economy. This
view shared by Bulkeley, who cites the Australian federal government's actions to avoid
compliance with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, on the concerns of economic loss and national
interest. The Australian government took the position that signing the Kyoto Pact would have
caused more significant economic losses for Australia than for any other OECD nation (Bulkeley
2001, pg 436).
On the change of government following the election in November 2007, Prime Minister Kevin
Rudd signed the ratification immediately after assuming office on 3 December 2007, just before
the meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Critics of CSR also point out
that organization pay taxes to government to ensure that society and the environment are not
adversely affected by business activities.
Denmark has a law on CSR. On 16 December 2008, the Danish parliament adopted a bill making
it mandatory for the 1100 largest Danish companies, investors and state-owned companies to
include information on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in their annual financial reports.
The reporting requirements became effective on 1 January 2009. The required information
includes:
Information on the companies’ policies for CSR or socially responsible
investments (SRI)
Information on how such policies are implemented in practice,
Information on what results have been obtained so far and management’s expectations for
the future with regard to CSR/SRI.
CSR/SRI is still voluntary in Denmark, but if a company has no policy on this it must state its
positioning on CSR in their annual financial report.
Crises and their consequences:
Often it takes a crisis to precipitate attention to CSR. One of the most active stands against
environmental management is the CERES Principles that resulted after the Valdez incident in
Alaska in 1989 (Grace and Cohen 2006). Other examples include the lead poisoning paint used
by toy giant Mattel, which required a recall of millions of toys globally and caused the company
to initiate new risk management and quality control processes.
In another example, Magellan Metals in the West Australian town of Esperance was responsible
for lead contamination killing thousands of birds in the area. The company had to cease business
immediately and work with independent regulatory bodies to execute a cleanup. Odwalla also
experienced a crisis with sales dropping 90%, and the company's stock price dropping 34% due
to several cases of E. coli spread through Odwalla apple juice. The company ordered a recall of
all apple or carrot juice products and introduced a new process called "flash pasteurization" as
well as maintaining lines of communication constantly open with customers.
Stakeholder priorities:
Increasingly, corporations are motivated to become more socially responsible because their most
important stakeholders expect them to understand and address the social and community issues
that are relevant to them. Understanding what causes are important to employees is usually the
first priority because of the many interrelated business benefits that can be derived from
increased employee engagement (i.e. more loyalty, improved recruitment, increased retention,
higher productivity, and so on). Key external stakeholders include customers, consumers,
investors (particularly institutional investors), and communities in the areas where the
corporation operates its facilities, regulators, academics, and the media.
Branco and Rodriguez (2007) describe the stakeholder perspective of CSR as the inclusion of all
groups or constituents (rather than just shareholders) in managerial decision making related to
the organization’s portfolio of socially responsible activities. This normative model implies that
the CSR collaborations are positively accepted when they are in the interests of stakeholders and
may have no effect or be detrimental to the organization if they are not directly related to
stakeholder interests.
The stakeholder perspective suffers from a wheel and spoke network metaphor that does not
acknowledge the complexity of network interactions that can occur in cross sector partnerships.
It also relegates communication to a maintenance function, similar to the exchange perspective.
Robert Dahl (1972) argued influentially (among academics), 'that every large corporation should
be thought of as a social enterprise. It should be thought of as an entity whose existence and
decisions can be justified in so far as they serve public or social purposes' (Dahl, 1972 cited in
Beesley & Evans, 1978:17; see also McDermott, 1991). This is a position which recognized that
'business will benefit from a better society just as any citizen will benefit; therefore business has
a responsibility to recognize social problems and actively contributor its talents to help solve
them. Such involvement is expected of any citizen, and business should fulfill a citizenship role.'
Jones (1995) confirming Stakeholder Theory states, Firms involved in repeated transactions with
stakeholders on the basis of trust and cooperation have an incentive to be honest and ethical,
since such behavior is beneficial to the firm. The ethical behavior of firms will enable them to
achieve a competitive advantage, because they will develop lasting, productive relationships,
with these groups.
Hart (1995) emphasizing Resource-Based View of the Firms states, for certain companies,
environment social responsibility can constitute a resource or capability that leads to a sustained
competitive advantage.
Jennings and Zandbergen (1995), cities the bases of Institutional Theory to explain CSR and
said, "Institutions play an important role in shaping the consensus within a form regarding the
establishment of an "ecologically sustainable" organization.
Entine (1996) has put it that "There are two senses in which CSR could be defined. The narrow
sense is based on the broad principles of integrity and fairness and focuses on internal
stakeholders’ issues such as product quality, customer satisfaction, employee wages and benefits,
fair treatment of suppliers and shareholders, and local community and environment and
environment responsibilities, issues that a company can actually influence.
Corporate Social Responsibility: Unlocking the Value
According to the results of a global survey in 2002 by Ernst & Young, 94 per cent of companies
believe the development of a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy can deliver real
business benefits, however only 11 per cent have made significant progress in implementing the
strategy in their organization. Senior executives from 147 companies in a range of industry
sectors across Europe, North America and Australasia were interviewed for the survey.
The survey concluded that CEOs are failing to recognize the benefits of implementing Corporate
Social Responsibility strategies, despite increased pressure to include ethical, social and
environmental issues into their decision-making processes.
Research found that company CSR programs influence 70 per cent of all consumer purchasing
decisions, with many investors and employees also being swayed in their choice of companies.
"While companies recognize the value of an integrated CSR strategy, the majority are failing to
maximize the associated business opportunities," said Andrew Grant, Ernst & Young
Environment and Sustainability Services Principal. "Corporate Social Responsibility is now a
determining factor in consumer and client choice which companies cannot afford to ignore.
Companies who fail to maximize their adoption of a CSR strategy will be left behind."
CHAPTER 3:
DATA ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION
ANALYSIS OF BENEFICIARIES
Table – 1
Table showing the age group of respondents
Age Group (In Years) Frequency Percentage
21 to 30 12 20
31 to 40 28 46.67
41 to 50 11 18.33
51 to 60 6 10
61 to 70 3 5
Total 60 100
20 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 7005
101520253035404550
12
28
116
3
20.00
46.67
18.33
10.005.00
Frequency Percentage
As shown in the table, out of 60 respondents, 12 (20%) respondents have age between 21 to 30 while 11 (18.33%) respondents are between 41 to 50 age group. Maximum respondents’ i.e. 28 (46%) are between the age group of 31 to 40. Only 3 respondents have age more than 60.
Table – 2
Table showing Gender of Respondents
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 42 70
Female 18 30
Total 60 100
The above table shows that the ratio between male and female respondent is 7:3 respectively. There are total 48 male respondents and 12 female respondents.
Table – 3
Table showing villages of the respondents
Villages Frequency Percentage
Bajwa 10 16.67
Dhanora 10 16.67
Karachiya 10 16.67
Karodiya 10 16.67
Koyli 10 16.67
Ranoli 10 16.67
Total 60 100
The above table shows that the 10 respondents belong to each village. There are total 6 villages from where the respondents belong.
Table – 4
Table showing qualification of respondents
Educational Qualification Frequency Percentage
Illiterate 7 11.67
Primary 6 10.00
Secondary 17 28.33
Diploma 13 21.67
Graduate 17 28.33
Post Graduate 0 0.00
Total 60 100
Illiterate; 7
Primary; 6
Secondary; 17Diploma;
13
Graduate; 17
Qualification
IlliteratePrimarySecondaryDiplomaGraduate
The above table shows that the maximum numbers of respondents are graduate and Secondary qualified i.e. 17 (28.33%). Not a single respondent has done post graduation. Only 11.67% respondents are illiterate.
Table – 5
Table showing CSR Activities carried on in the target villages
CSR Activities Frequency Percentage
Education 10 16.67
Infrastructure Development 27 45.00
Mid-day meal 3 5.00
Health & Environment 20 33.33
Any Other 0 0.00
Total 60 100
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
27
3
20
0
16.67
45.00
5.00
33.33
0.00
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that the maximum respondents i.e. 27 (45%) are of the view that Infrastructure Development is focused more as a part of CSR activity in their village. 33.33% respondents believe that CSR related to Health & Environment is done in their village whereas only 5% counts for mid-day meal as a CSR activity.
Table – 6
Table showing Target Group on which CSR activities were focused
Target Group Frequency Percentage
Children 9 15.00
Youth 3 5.00
Aged 9 15.00
Village as a whole 37 61.67
Total 60 100
Children Youth Aged Village as a whole0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
93
9
37
15.00
5.00
15.00
61.67
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that mostly village as a whole is targeted for CSR activity by the companies. Youth is targeted the least for CSR activities.
Table – 7
Table showing satisfaction with CSR activities
Satisfaction Frequency Percentage
Yes 41 68.33
No 19 31.67
Total 60 100
The above table shows that 68.33% of the respondents are satisfied with the CSR activities in their villages where as 31.67% of the respondents are not satisfied with the CSR activities.
Table – 8
Table showing CSR activities needed in near future
Future CSR activities Frequency Percentage
Education 12 20.00
Health 18 30.00
Infrastructure 3 5.00
Drainage Facility 27 45.00
Any Other 0 0.00
Total 60 100
Education Health Infrastructure Drainage Facility05
1015202530354045
12
18
3
27
20.00
30.00
5.00
45.00
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that 45% of the respondents want Drainage facility as the future CSR activity in their villages. 30% of the respondents want Health care facility as the future CSR activity where as 20% want Education as the future CSR activity and only 5% want Infrastructure as the CSR activity in near future.
Table – 9
Table showing reliability on CSR for Infrastructure Development
Reliability for Infrastructure Frequency Percentage
Very high 1 1.67
High 22 36.67
Moderate Reliability 37 61.67
Not at all reliable 0 0.00
Total 60 100
The above table shows that the reliability on CSR for infrastructure development is neither too high and nor too low. 61% of the respondents believe that Infrastructure Development has a moderate reliability whereas only 1.67% believes that it has very high reliability. 36.67% believes that it has high reliability.
Table – 10
Table showing reliability on CSR for Education
Reliability for Education Frequency Percentage
Very high 3 5.00
High 19 31.67
Moderate Reliability 30 50.00
Not at all reliable 8 13.33
Total 60 100
The above table shows that the reliability on CSR for Education is neither too high and nor too low. 50% of the respondents believe that Education has a moderate reliability whereas only 5% believes that it has very high reliability. 13.33% believes that it is not at all reliable and 31.67% believes that it has high reliability.
Table – 11
Table showing reliability on CSR for Health
Reliability for Health Frequency Percentage
Very high 21 35.00
High 33 55.00
Moderate Reliability 6 10.00
Not at all reliable 0 0.00
Total 60 100
The above table shows that the reliability on CSR for Health high in the target villages. 55% of the respondents believe that Health has a High reliability whereas only 10% believes that it has moderate reliability. 35% of the respondents also believe that reliability on CSR for Health is very high.
Table – 12
Table showing dependence on whom if CSR activities are not done in the villages
Dependence Frequency Percentage
District Development Officer (DDO) 16 26.67
Government Aid 12 20.00
Government Schemes 22 36.67
Will Influence the co. 10 16.67
Total 60 100
District Devel-opment Officer
(DDO)
Government Aid Government Schemes
Will Influence the co.
05
10152025303540
1612
22
10
26.67
20.00
36.67
16.67
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that 36.67% of the respondents are of the view that if CSR activities are not done in their village then they will depend on Government Schemes. 26.67% of the respondents will depend on District Development Officer whereas 16.67% will try and influence the companies to do CSR activities.
Table – 13
Table showing companies performing CSR activities in target villages
Companies Frequency Percentage
GACL 10 16.67
GSFC 19 31.67
IOCL 7 11.67
Reliance/IPCL 11 18.33
GIPCL 13 21.67
Total 60 100
GACL GSFC IOCL Reliance/IPCL GIPCL0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
19
711
1316.67
31.67
11.67
18.3321.67
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that 31.67% respondents say that GSFC performs CSR activities in their village. 21.67% respondents say that GIPCL performs CSR activity in their village whereas 18.33% respondents say Reliance/IPCL. 16.67% and 11.67% respondents say that GACL & IOCL respectively performs CSR activities in their villages.
Table – 14
Table showing Need Assessment before CSR activity
Need assessment Frequency Percentage
Yes 26 43.33
No 34 56.67
Total 60 100
The above table shows that 56.67% respondents are of the view that need assessment is not done before conducting the CSR activity in their village whereas 43.33% respondents believe that need assessment is done before conducting the CSR activity.
Table – 15
Table showing instances of incomplete CSR activity
Incomplete CSR activity Frequency Percentage
Yes 21 35.00
No 39 65.00
Total 60 100
The above table shows that 35% respondents are of the view that there are instances where CSR activities initiated had been left incomplete whereas 65% respondents defer from this view.
Table – 16
Table showing level of participation from villages in conducting CSR activity
Level of Participation Frequency Percentage
Very high 1 1.67
Moderate 24 40.00
little bit 34 56.67
Not at all 1 1.67
Total 60 100
The above table shows that 56.67% respondent believe that there is very little level of participation from villages in conducting CSR activity. 40% respondent believes that level of participation form villages for CSR activities is moderate.
Table – 17
Table showing contribution from villagers in CSR activities
Contribution in CSR Frequency Percentage
Cash contribution 11 18.33
Personal Involvement 24 40.00
Planning & Decision Making 0 0.00
No Contribution 25 41.67
Any Other 0 0.00
Total 60 100
The above table shows that 41.67% respondents are of the view that there is no contribution from their side in CSR activities. 40% respondents are of the view that their contribution is in form of Personal Involvement whereas 18.33% respondent has contributed in form of cash for CSR activities.
Table – 18
Table showing whether there is any contribution in funds from villages
Funds from villages Frequency Percentage
Yes 38 63.33
No 22 36.67
Total 60 100
The above table shows that 63.33% respondents says that there has been contribution in funds from villages for CSR activities where as 36.67% respondents are of the view that there is no contribution in funds from villages for CSR activities.
Table – 19
Table showing amount of contribution from villages
Contribution in CSR Frequency Percentage
Up to 10 % 24 52.17
Up to 25 % 14 30.43
Up to 50 % 0 0.00
Labour Contribution 8 17.39
Any Other 0 0.00
Total 46 100
The above table shows that 52.17% respondents has contributed up to 10% of the total expenditure in cash for the CSR activity whereas 30.43% has contributed up to 25% of the total expenditure. 17.39% respondents say that they have contributed in form of labour for CSR activity.
Analysis of Corporate
Table – 20
Table showing Objective of Corporate Social Responsibility
Objective Frequency Percentage
Encourage responsible business practice
1 10
Promote the concept of good corporate citizenship
1 10
Highlight the social responsibility of the
organization1 10
Responsibility of an organization towards the
society7 70
Any other 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that, 7 (70%) respondents believe that the objective of CSR is “Responsibility of an organization towards the society” while 1 respondent each believes it is to either “Encourage responsible business practice”, “Promote the concept of good corporate citizenship” or “Highlight the social responsibility of the organization”.
Table – 21
Table showing desirability of CSR
Desirability Frequency Percentage
Very much desirable 4 40
Desirable 5 50
Indifferent 1 10
Not at all desirable 0 0
Total 10 100
Very much desirable Desirable Indifferent Not at all desirable05
101520253035404550
4 51 0
40
50
10
0
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that 5 (50%) respondents believe that CSR is desirable for business while 4 respondents believe that it is very desirable for business and only 1 respondent was having indifferent view point. Not a single respondent is of the view that CSR is not at all desirable for the business.
Table – 22
Table showing Reason to get involved in CSR
Reason Frequency Percentage
For better financial return 0 0
to boost brand image 0 0
just for marketing 2 20
To do good for society & environment
6 60
All of the above 2 20
Total 10 100
The above table shows that, out of total 10 respondents 6 i.e. 60% thinks that reason to get involved in CSR is to do good for society & environment. 2 respondents also think that the only reason to get involved in CSR is just for marketing of the company or a product. And 2 respondents also think that it is all the above mentioned reason.
Table – 23
Table showing whether separate board is there or not for CSR
Separate Board Frequency Percentage
Yes 7 70
No 3 30
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, there is separate board for CSR in the organization of 7 respondents.
Table – 24
Table showing department which looks after CSR in companies
Department Frequency Percentage
HR 2 20
Admin 2 20
Cross Functional Team 0 0
Outside NGO 0 0
Separate CSR division 6 60
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, in the organization of 6 (60%) respondents separate CSR division looks after the CSR activities while in the organization of 2 respondents it is done either by HR or by Admin.
HR
Admin
Cross
Functi
onal Te
am
Outside N
GO
Separa
te CSR
divisio
n0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2 2 0 06
20 20
0 0
60
Frequency Percentage
Table – 25
Table showing programs carried out for CSR and their frequency
Environment Rural Development Health Educational
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Regularly 4 40% 2 20% 4 40% 4 40%
Frequently 2 20% 6 60% 3 30% 4 40%
Sometimes 1 10% 1 10% 3 30% 2 20%
Never 2 20% 1 10% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 10 100% 10 100% 10 100% 10 100%
The above table shows that, out of 10 respondents, 4 (40%) are of the view that programs related to Environment are carried out regularly while 2 respondents are of the view that it is carried out frequently and other 2 says that it had never been carried out.
Out of 10 respondents, 6 (60%) says that program related to Rural Development is carried out frequently while 2 of them says that program related to Rural Development is done on regular basis.
As far as program related to Health is concerned, 4 respondents says that it is done on regular basis while 3 says that it is done frequently and remaining 3 says that it is done only sometimes.
Out of 10 respondents, 4 say that program related to education is carried out regularly and frequently and 2 respondents are of the view that it is carried out sometimes only.
Table – 26
Table showing frequency of formal meetings held in a year to discuss about CSR
Meetings Frequency Percentage
No Formal meetings 1 10
Monthly meetings 3 30
Quarterly Meetings 4 40
Six Monthly meetings 1 10
Annual Meetings 1 10
Total 10 100
No Formal meetings10%
Monthly meetings
30%
Quarterly Meetings
40%
Six Monthly meetings
10%
Annual Meetings10%
Frequency of formal meetings
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 4 (40%) respondents say that Quarterly meetings are held in a year to discuss about the CSR while 3 (30%) respondents say that Monthly meetings are held to discuss about the CSR. The remaining 3 respondent say that No formal meeting, six monthly meeting and Annual meeting respectively are held to discuss about CSR.
Table – 27
Table showing involvement of employees in CSR
Involvement Frequency Percentage
Exclusively working on it 6 60
Rotated on their willingness 1 10
Shoulder dual responsibility 3 30
Any other 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 6 (60%) respondents say that they are exclusively working on CSR while 3 respondent say that they are given dual responsibility and 1 respondent say that he is rotated on his own willingness.
Table – 28
Table showing employees involved in CSR program are
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Professionally Qualified 6 60
On the Job training is given 1 10
Self-Learning expected 3 30
Any other 0 0
Total 10 100
Out of 10 respondents who are involved in CSR program, 6 (60%) respondents are professionally qualified while 3 respondents say that self learning is expected out of them for doing CSR activity and 1 respondent say that on the Job training is given.
Table – 29
Table showing designing of CSR in reference to
CSR designing reference Frequency Percentage
Community Needs 1 10
Government guidelines 2 20
Company's global CSR framework
5 50
Any other 2 20
Total 10 100
Out of 10 respondents, 5 (50%) respondents say that designing of their CSR program is as per company’s global CSR framework while 2 respondents say that it is as per government guidelines and only 1 respondent say that CSR is designed as per community needs.
Table – 30
Table showing suggestion for developing a sustainable CSR program
Suggestion Frequency Percentage
Building awareness on CSR 2 20
Facilitating the adoption of CSR
2 20
Organizing seminars, meetings, visits etc
3 30
All of the above 3 30
Total 10 100
Out of 10 respondents, 3 respondents (30%) say that for developing a sustainable CSR program, seminars, meetings and visits should be organized while 2 respondents say that awareness should be build on the CSR and adoption of CSR should be facilitated. The remaining 3 respondent say that all the 3 suggestion helps in developing a sustainable CSR program.
Table – 31
Table showing identification of linkages by management
Linkages Frequency Percentage
CSR & Business Performance
5 50
CSR & Employee Relation 0 0
CSR & Community Support 5 50
CSR & Customer Loyalty 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 5 (50%) respondents feel that their management has been able to find out linkage between CSR & Business performance while other 5 respondents feel that there is a linkage between CSR & Community support. No one has been able to identify the linkage between CSR & Employee relation and CSR & Loyalty.
Table – 32
Table showing reaction of government to your social responsibilities activity
Linkages Frequency Percentage
Very Positive 5 50
Just appreciates 5 50
Negative 0 0
No reaction 0 0
Total 10 100
Out of 10 respondents, 5 respondents say that the response of government is very positive towards the CSR activities while remaining 5 say that government just appreciates their CSR activities.
Table – 33
Table showing future prospects of CSR
Future parameters Frequency Percentage
Bright 6 60
Very Bright 2 20
Poor 2 20
No future at all 0 0
Total 10 100
Bright Very Bright Poor No future at all0
10
20
30
40
50
60
62 2 0
60
20 20
0
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 60 % respondents are of the view that the future of CSR is bright while 20% of the respondents believe that it is very bright and only 20% of the respondents think that CSR have poor future.
Table – 34
Table showing best suitable CSR approach
CSR approaches Frequency Percentage
Community based development
7 70
Philanthropic 0 0
Creating shared value 2 20
Benchmarking 0 0
Incorporating CSR strategy into business
1 10
Total 10 100
Community based devel-
opment
Philanthropic Creating shared value
Benchmarking Incorporating CSR strategy into business
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
70 2 0 1
70
0
20
0
10
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 7 (70%) respondents believe that community based development is the best suitable approach for Corporate Social Responsibility while 2 respondents are of the view that best suitable approach to CSR is by creating a shared value.
Table – 35
Table showing CSR is a window for keeping critics happy
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 1 10
Uncertain 3 30
Disagree 6 60
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that 60% of the respondents disagree that CSR is a window for keeping critics happy while 30% of the respondents are uncertain whether CSR is just a window for keeping critics happy and 10% of the respondents agree to the above mentioned statement.
Table – 36
Table showing there are many business benefits of CSR
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 7 70
Uncertain 3 30
Disagree 0 0
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 7 (70%) of the respondents agree to the statement that there are many business benefits of CSR while 3 (30%) are uncertain of the above mentioned statement.
Table – 37
Table showing CSR initiatives are marketing gimmick to sell to customers
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 7 70
Uncertain 3 30
Disagree 0 0
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Can't say0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
07
3 0 00
70
30
0 0
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 7 (70%) respondents agree to the statement that CSR initiatives are marketing gimmick to sell to customers while 3 (30%) are uncertain of the same statement. No one disagrees to the statement that CSR initiatives are marketing gimmick to sell to customers.
Table – 38
Table showing CSR initiatives give the brand an aura of "Socially Responsible Brand"
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 2 20
Agree 5 50
Uncertain 2 20
Disagree 1 10
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 5 (50%) respondents agree and 2 (20%) respondents strongly agree to the statement that CSR initiatives give the brand an aura of
“Socially Responsible Brand”. 2 respondents are uncertain and 1 respondent disagree to the same statement.
Table – 39
Table showing CSR initiatives influences the brand image of a company or a product
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 2 20
Agree 5 50
Uncertain 3 30
Disagree 0 0
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 5 (50%) respondents agree and 2 (20%) respondents strongly agree to the statement that CSR initiatives influences the brand image of a company or a product. The remaining 3 respondents are uncertain of the same statement.
Table – 40
Table showing CSR initiatives give competitive advantage over other firms
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 4 40
Uncertain 5 50
Disagree 1 10
Can’t say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that 50% of the respondents are not sure (uncertain) whether CSR initiatives give competitive advantage over other firms or not while 4 (40%) respondents agree that CSR initiatives do give competitive advantage over other firms and 1 respondent disagree to that statement.
Table – 41
Table showing HR department’s role in addressing the CSR issue
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 4 44.44
Uncertain 4 44.44
Disagree 1 11.11
Can't say 0 0.00
Total 9 90
The above table shows that out of 9 respondents, 4 respondents agree and equal number of respondent are uncertain about the statement that HR department has significant role to play in addressing the CSR issue while 1 respondent disagree to the statement.
(Note: 1 respondent didn’t answered this question)
Table – 42
Table showing A CSR initiative helps in enhancing overall financial position
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 2 20
Uncertain 4 40
Disagree 3 30
Can't say 1 10
Total 10 100
The above table shows that, out of 10 respondents, only 2 (20%) respondents agree to a statement that CSR initiative helps in enhancing overall financial position. 4 (40%) respondents are uncertain about the same statement while 3 (30%) respondents disagree to it.
Table – 43
Table showing Investment related to CSR should be covered in core finance module
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 4 40
Uncertain 5 50
Disagree 1 10
Can’t say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 4 (40%) respondents agree that investment related to CSR should be covered in core finance module while 5 (50%) respondent are not sure (uncertain) whether it should be covered or in finance module or not. 1 respondent disagree to the above statement.
Table – 44
Table showing CSR activity must center on profit maximization
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 3 30
Uncertain 3 30
Disagree 4 40
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Can't say0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
03 3 4
00
30 30
40
0
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 4 (40%) respondents disagree that CSR activity must center on profit maximization while 3 (30%) respondents agree to that CSR activity must center on profit maximization and remaining 3 (30%) are uncertain about the above statement.
Table – 45
Table showing Profit is necessary but only after meeting certain obligations
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 6 60
Uncertain 3 30
Disagree 1 10
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 6 (60%) respondents agree that profit is necessary but only after meeting certain obligations while 3 (30%) respondents are uncertain of the above statement and 1 respondent disagree to it.
Table – 46
Table showing Money and wealth are most important for your organization
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 2 20
Uncertain 4 40
Disagree 3 30
Can't say 1 10
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 4 (40%) respondent are uncertain of the statement that money and wealth are most important for your organization while 2 (20%) agree to it. 3 (30%) respondent disagree with the above statement.
Table – 47
Table showing Money spent on CSR brings long term benefit to company
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 1 10
Agree 5 50
Uncertain 3 30
Disagree 1 10
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
Strongly Agree
Agree Uncertain Disagree Can't say05
101520253035404550
15 3 1 0
10
50
30
10
0
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 5 (50%) agrees that money spent on CSR brings long term benefit to company while 1 (10%) strongly agrees to above statement. 3 (30%) of the respondents are uncertain whether the money spent on CSR brings long term benefit to company or not and 1 (10%) of the respondents disagrees to the above statement.
Table – 48
Table showing Companies should inform customers about their indirect contribution
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 1 10
Agree 6 60
Uncertain 2 20
Disagree 1 10
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Can't say0
10
20
30
40
50
60
16
2 1 0
10
60
20
10
0
Frequency Percentage
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 6 (60%) respondents agree that companies should inform customers about their indirect contribution while 1 (10%) respondents strongly agrees to the above statement. 2 (20%) of the respondents are uncertain whether companies should inform customers about their indirect contribution or not while 1 (10%) disagrees to the same.
Table – 49
Table showing Tangible economic benefits for the company from CSR commitments
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 2 20
Uncertain 5 50
Disagree 3 30
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 5 (50%) respondents are uncertain whether CSR commitments results in tangible economic benefits for the company or not while 2 (20%) respondents agree that CSR commitments do result in tangible economic benefits for the company and 3 (30%) disagrees that CSR commitments do not result in tangible economic benefits.
Table – 50
Table showing Employees have motives beyond economic needs
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 1 10
Agree 7 70
Uncertain 2 20
Disagree 0 0
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 7 (70%) respondents agrees that Employees have motives beyond their economic needs and for organization efficiency their needs must be fulfilled. 1 (10%) strongly agrees while 2 (20%) disagrees to the above statement.
Table – 51
Table showing Group participation is fundamental for meeting social needs
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 8 80
Uncertain 1 10
Disagree 1 10
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 8 (80%) respondents agree to the statement that group participation is fundamental for meeting social and psychological needs of employees. 1 (10%) are uncertain and remaining 1 (10%) disagree to the above statement.
Table – 52
Table showing Subordinates opinion should be considered
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 1 10
Agree 6 60
Uncertain 2 20
Disagree 1 10
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 6 (60%) respondents agree that opinion of subordinates should be considered as it may lead to some profitable ideas while 1 (10%) disagree and 2 (20%) respondents are uncertain regarding the above statement.
Table – 53
Table showing: Business and government must cooperate to solve problems of society
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 1 10
Agree 6 60
Uncertain 2 20
Disagree 1 10
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
The above table shows that out of 10 respondents, 6 (60%) respondents agree that Business and Government must cooperate to solve the problems of society while 2 (20%) respondents are uncertain about the statement and 1 (10%) respondents disagree to the statement that Business and Government must cooperate to solve the problems of society.
Table – 54
Table showing Indian companies are not doing their best for society through CSR initiatives
Particulars Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 1 10
Agree 6 60
Uncertain 2 20
Disagree 1 10
Can't say 0 0
Total 10 100
CHAPTER 4:
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS
FINDINGS
Findings from Beneficiaries
More number of respondents from beneficiaries i.e. 46.67% is between the age group 31 to 40 years while 18.33% respondents are between the age group of 41 to 50 years.
Male respondents are more than female respondents. They are in the ratio of 7:3.
Maximum numbers of respondents have graduate and secondary qualification.
45% of the respondents believe that CSR activity focused in their villages are of Infrastructure Development and 33.33% respondents are of the view that Health & Environment is focused more as CSR activities by the companies.
Corporate Social Responsibility activities done are focused more on development of village as a whole rather than on child or youth development.
Maximum number of people is satisfied with the Corporate Social Responsibility activities carried out by the companies.
More number of respondents wants Drainage Facility in their village as a part of future Corporate Social Responsibility activities.
As far as Infrastructure development & Education is concerned reliability on Corporate Social Responsibility is very moderate.
But, as far as Health is concerned reliability on Corporate Social Responsibility is high.
More number of respondents is of the view that they will have to depend on Government Schemes if Corporate Social Responsibility activities are not done in their villages.
Out of the 5 companies carrying out the Corporate Social Responsibility activities in the petrochemical area, GSFC is doing the maximum Corporate Social Responsibility activity followed by GIPCL, Reliance, GACL and IOCL respectively.
Most of the respondents say that need assessment is not done by the companies before carrying out the Corporate Social Responsibility activity.
Most of the respondents i.e. 65% say that there are no instances of incomplete Corporate Social Responsibility activities.
Most of the respondents say that there had been very little participation from villages in conducting Corporate Social Responsibility activities.
40% of the respondent says that their contribution in Corporate Social Responsibility activities is in the form of personal involvement.
63.33% respondent says that they have also contributed in funds for Corporate Social Responsibility activities.
Majority of the respondent i.e. 52.17% says that they have contributed up to 10% of the total expenses of Corporate Social Responsibility activity carried out in their village while 30.43% respondent says that they have contributed up to 20% of the total expenses of Corporate Social Responsibility activity.
Findings from Corporate
Majority of the corporate believes that objective of Corporate Social Responsibility is “Responsibility of organization towards the society”
Majority of the corporate believes that Corporate Social Responsibility is desirable for their business.
Most of the corporate has involved them in Corporate Social responsibility to do good for the society & environment.
Most of the companies have separate board for Corporate Social Responsibility in the organization.
40% of the respondent says that program related to Environment are carried out regularly by them as a part of CSR activity while as far as Rural Development is concerned, programs related to it are carried out frequently by the companies. CSR activities related to Health and Education is also carried out on a regular basis.
In most of the company, quarterly meetings are held to discuss about the matter related to Corporate Social Responsibility. 30% of the respondent says that monthly meetings are also held for CSR related matter.
60% of the respondents involved in Corporate Social Responsibility are exclusive working on it while 30% of the respondents are shoulder dual responsibility one of them being CSR.
60% of the employees working on Corporate Social Responsibility for their respective organization are professionally qualified in the field.
50% of the respondents say that designing of their Corporate Social Responsibility
activity are in accordance with company’s global CSR framework while 20%
respondents feel that it is according to government guidelines.
For developing a sustainable CSR program seminar, meetings and visits should be
organized before conducting the program. Also awareness should be build regarding the
program on the beneficiaries.
50% of the respondents believe that Corporate Social Responsibility has a direct linkage
with Business Performance while other 50% of the respondents are of the view that CSR
is linked with the community support.
50% of the respondent feels that reaction of government to their Corporate Social
Responsibility activity is very positive while other 50% are of the view that government
just appreciates their efforts related to CSR activity in the society.
Most of the corporate feels that Corporate Social Responsibility has a bright future and
there is not a single person who says that CSR has no future at all.
Majority of the respondent i.e. 70% believes that best suitable approach of doing
Corporate Social Responsibility is through Community Based Development approach.
70% of the respondent agrees that there are many business benefits of Corporate Social
Responsibility.
Majority i.e. 70% of the respondents believe that Corporate Social Responsibility
initiatives are marketing gimmick to sell to customers.
50% of the respondent feels that CSR initiatives give the brand an aura of Socially
Responsible brand.
Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives do influences the brand image of a company
or a product.
Corporate Social Responsibility does not any give clear cut advantage over the other
firms to an organization.
There is a mixed view to a statement that HR department has a significant role to play in
addressing the issue of Corporate Social Responsibility.
It is very clear from the study that Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives do not
enhance the financial position of an organization.
Majority of the respondent are uncertain as to whether investment related to CSR should
be included in core financial module or not.
Most of the respondents disagree to the statement that CSR activity must centre upon
profit maximization.
60% of the respondent believes that profit is necessary but only after meeting certain
obligations.
50% of the respondents feel that money spent on Corporate Social Responsibility brings
long term benefit to the company.
Majority of the companies believe that they should inform customers about their indirect
contribution to the society.
70% of the respondents feel that employees have motive behind the economic needs and
for the organizational efficiency their needs must be fulfilled.
80% of the respondents are of the view that group participation is fundamental for
meeting social needs.
While deciding on the Corporate Social Responsibility opinion of subordinates should
also be considered as it may lead to some profitable ideas.
60% of the companies believe that Business and Government must cooperate with each
other to solve the problems of the society.
Majority of the respondents say that Indian companies are not doing their best for society
through Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives.
CONCLUSION
The concept of CSR is becoming more and more popular throughout the world. Several
corporate have begun to implement programs related to CSR. Of course, not all of them are
being done in the spirit of sharing or serving the people. As far as petrochemical area in the city
of Vadodara is concerned, implementation of CSR activities is done properly and the
beneficiaries do reap the benefits of those activities. Infrastructure Development is the most
focused area by companies in and around petrochemical area, which is adopted as a part of CSR
initiatives. This can be seen in context to Gujarat Model at state level wherein Narendra Modi’s
emphasis is also on the development of state infrastructure. These CSR activities by the
corporate are supplementing the Gujarat Model.
It is found out from the study that if Corporate Social Responsibility activities are not done in the
villages, they would depend on the Government Schemes for such benefits. Involvement of both,
beneficiaries and benefactors for a cause always yields better and quality results. As seen in the
CSR approach in petrochemical area, there is an active involvement of people living in villages.
This involvement is in terms of personal contribution and cash contribution both.
CSR is responsibility of organization towards the society. CSR is desirable for the business as a
whole and is done to do good for society and environment. Programs related to Environment are
carried out regularly in the petrochemical area as a part of CSR initiatives and mostly companies
has separate board to discuss on the issue of CSR. Even improvement of Health and Education in
villages is given due importance by the companies as part of their CSR initiatives. People
working Corporate Social Responsibility in their respective companies are exclusively working
on it and quarterly meetings are held to discuss on the matter of CSR.
It is seen that employees are representative of the society & they do have needs beyond the
economical need i.e. psychosocial needs, developmental need & the organization should have
due concern to fulfill those need of their employee. Thus to fulfill this mission the organization
should see to it that all employees should be involved in decision making to make them realize
their importance in the organization & this will motivate them to lead the torch forward.
The need of an hour is not merely to do CSR activities but to build a sustainable CSR model for
petrochemical area. And to do that various seminars, meetings and visits should be organized by
the corporate before initiating the program so that they get accustom to ground reality and can
design the program accordingly. Over and above this most important thing is to create awareness
in the eyes of beneficiaries about the advantage of the seminars. As CSR is basically focused for
the welfare of the community people, the government should jointly take the responsibility to
solve the problems of the society.
Study also reveals that the best suitable approach for corporate social responsibility is
community based development approach and if such approach is adopted then corporate social
responsibility will have very bright future.
As a counter argument, study has also revealed that corporate social responsibility initiatives are
just a marketing gimmick by the companies and does not give any clear advantage over the other
companies. It also reveals that CSR initiatives by the company do not improve the financial
position of the company and it should not centre upon profit maximization.
Customers should be informed about the indirect contribution by the companies as it brings long
term benefits to the company. CSR is a corporate policy & commitment by the board of director
to the down below employees & each & every stake holders of the organization.
It also take care of various areas such as business conduct, customer care, human rights,
employees and their family members, suppliers as also community & health & safety of all.
Thus at the end finally concluding the importance to be given to CSR is that of DNA in the
human body. CSR is treated as a foundation on which the corporate business is developed.
SUGGESTIONS
1. The study reveals that there is a need of draining facility in the surrounding villages of
petrochemical area. So companies should try and focus more on drainage facility as part
of their Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives.
2. Right now the CSR activities are focusing more on development of village as whole,
instead of which focus should be on development of child in terms of proper education
and development of youth in terms of skill building.
3. The study shows that proper need assessment is not done by the companies before
conducting any CSR activity so, before initiating any CSR activity in the village need
assessment survey should be done.
4. Well Defined CSR policy should be there.
a. Well defined CSR policy which has wide spread acceptance, & known to all
stakeholders.
b. To make aware all the employees to integrate with all function of the organization
related to CSR.
c. To make community, socially & environmentally empowered to play pivotal role
in their own development.
d. Organization should play a role of facilitator rather than providing facilities.
5. For developing a sustainable CSR program, seminar, meetings and visits should be
organized before conducting the program. Also awareness should be build regarding the
program on the beneficiaries.
6. CSR need to be audited by independent audit firm to have CSR in true spirit for all stake
holders.
CHAPTER 5:
ANNEXURE
REFERENCES
Bibliography:
Ahuja, Ram. 2001. Research Methods. New Delhi: Rawat Publications: 155-184.
Baxi, C.V. and Ajit Prasad. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Cases. The
Indian Experience. New Delhi: Excel Book.
Been, S. and Dianne Bolton. 2011. Key Concepts in Corporate Social Responsibility. New Delhi:
Sage Publications Ltd: 56-62.
Kottler, Philip and Nancy Lee. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for
Your Company and Your Cause. New Delhi: Wiley India Pvt. Ltd.: 1-48.
Kumar, Sunil and Shilpa Jain. 2009. Serving the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Win-Win Game.
VikasVani Journal, Vol. 3, No.2: 1-6.
Mitra, Meera. 2007. It’s Only Business! India’s Corporate Responsiveness in a Globalized
World. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Murthy, N. R. Narayana. 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility and Philanthropy, A Better India
A Better World. New Delhi: Sage Publication.
Websites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
http://www.bsr.org/en/bsr-conference/session-summaries/2011/
http://www.csreurope.org/pages/en/activities.html
http://www.iblf.org/
http://www.slideshare.net/AngelinDafni/needs-and-importance-of-corporate-social-responsibility
http://www.weforum.org/reports
http://corpgov.net/stakeholders/
http://svn.org/get-inspired/svn-news-program
www.wbcsd.org
http://www.weforum.org/
http://www.unido.org/csr.html
Dissertations:
Shailja Raijada, 2008: Corporate Social Responsibility by selected Multinational Corporations in Gujarat.
Patadia Aarohi, 2008: Corporate Social Responsibility as perceived by the executives of GNFC Ltd, Bharuch.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CORPORATES
Priyank ShuklaMasters in Human Resource Management (2011-13)Faculty of Social Work,Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
Topic: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: As Perceived by Corporate and Beneficiaries.
Note: This information will be kept confidential and will be used only for
academic purpose.
1. Name (optional):-
2. Personal Information:
a) Age:-
b) Sex:-
c) Educational Qualification:-
d) Department:-
e) Designation:-
f) Work Experience in this Company:-
g) Total Work Experience:-
GENERAL INFORMATION:
3. According to you the objective of CSR is:
a. Encourage responsible business practice.
b. To promote the concept of good corporate citizenship.
c. Highlight the social responsibility of the organization.
d. Responsibility of an organization towards the society.
e. Any Other (Please Specify)
4. Do you feel that social responsibility is desirable for the business?
a. Very much Desirable
b. Desirable
c. Indifferent
d. Not at all Desirable
5. What do you think is the main reason for the organizations to get involved in the Corporate
Social Responsibility practices?
a. For better financial returns
b. To boost brand image
c. Just for marketing
d. To do good for the society and environment
e. All of the above
6. Do you have any Separate Board?
a. Yes
b. No
7. Who looks after Social Responsibility affairs in your organization?
a. Human Resource (HR) department.
b. Admin Department.
c. Cross functional team is identified.
d. Outside NGO.
e. Separate Social Responsibility Division.
f. Any Other (Please Specify): _______________________
8. Which programs do you carry out for the betterment of community?
Regularly frequently sometime Never
a Environmental protection
b Rural development
c Health
d Educational
e Others (Please Specify)
9. Frequency of Formal Meetings held in a year to discuss CSR agenda.
a. No formal meetings.
b. Monthly Meetings.
c. Quarterly Meetings.
d. Six Monthly Meetings.
e. Annual Meeting.
10. Employees Involved in CSR programs are.
a. Exclusively working on it.
b. Rotated on their willingness for volunteering.
c. Shoulder dual responsibility.
d. Any Other (Please Specify).
11. Employees involved in CSR program are:
a. Professionally qualified.
b. On the Job Training is given.
c. Self-Learning expected.
d. Any Other (Please Specify).
12. CSR is designed strictly in reference to :
a. Community Needs.
b. Government guidelines.
c. Company’s global CSR framework.
d. Any Other (Please Specify).
13. What are your suggestions for developing a sustainable CSR program?
a. Building awareness on CSR.
b. Facilitating the adoption of programs.
c. Organizing seminars, meeting, visits etc.
d. All of the above.
14. Management has been able to identify linkages between:
a. CSR & Business Performance
b. CSR & Employee Retention.
c. CSR & Community Support.
d. CSR & Customer Loyalty.
15. What is the reaction of government to your Social responsibility activities?
a. Very Positive
b. Just Appreciates
c. Negative
d. No reaction.
16. What according to you is the future prospect of CSR in India?
a. Bright
b. Very Bright
c. Poor
d. No future at all
17. Which approach for CSR best suits your organization?
a. Community based development approach.
b. Philanthropic approach
c. Creating shared value (CSV) approach
d. Benchmarking approach
e. Incorporating the CSR strategy directly into the business strategy
18. List down any 03 activities conducted by your company in the recent times?
a. ___________________________________________
b. ___________________________________________
c. ___________________________________________
Please Tick mark on the appropriate answer.
Sr.
No.
Statement Strongly
Agree
Agree Uncertain Disagree Can’t
say
PERCEPTION:
19. CSR is just a window that
companies do to keep critics
happy.
20. There are many business benefits
of CSR.
21. CSR Initiatives are just a
marketing gimmick adopted by
the company to sell to customers?
22. CSR Initiatives gives a brand the
aura of a "Socially Responsible
Brand".
23. CSR initiatives influence the
brand Image of a company or a
product.
24. CSR program(s) gives your firm
competitive advantage over other
firms in your industry.
25. The HR department has a
significant role to play in the
addressing of the issues of CSR.
26. If a company adopts CSR
practices its overall financial
performance is enhanced.
27. CSR is one of the hot topic in
today’s world and the investments
related to this should be covered
in the core module of the finance
allocation.
ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE:
28. CSR activity must center around
profit maximization.
29. Profit is necessary but only after
meeting certain other obligations.
30. Money and wealth are most
important for your organization.
31. Money spent on CSR actually
brings about long term benefits to
the company.
32. Companies should inform the
customers that a part of the price
they pay for the product will go to
charity.
33. There are tangible economic
benefits for your firm from
having CSR commitments.
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE:
34. Employees have motives beyond
their economic needs. For
organizational efficiency their
needs must be recognized.
35. Group participation is
fundamental for meeting social
and psychological needs of
employees. Besides it contributes
to organizational successes.
36. Subordinates opinion should be
considered because it may lead to
some profitable ideas.
37. Business and government must
cooperate to solve problems of
society.
38. Indian Companies are not doing
their best for society through CSR
initiatives.
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR BENEFICIARIES
Priyank ShuklaMasters in Human Resource Management (2011-13)Faculty of Social Work,Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
Topic: - CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: As Perceived by Corporates and Beneficiaries.
Note:This information will be kept confidential and will only use for
academic purpose.
(A) PERSONAL INFORMATION:
1. NAME:
2. AGE:
3. GENDER:
a. Male
b. Female
4. VILLAGE:
5. TALUKA:
6. DISTRICT:
7. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION:
a. Illiterate d. Diploma
b. Primary e. Secondary
c. Graduate f. Post Graduate
8. OCCUPATION:
9. CATEGORY:
(B) GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Which CSR activities have been done in your village?a. For Educationb. For Infrastructure Developmentc. For Mid-day meald. For Health & Environmente. Any Other_______________
2. Which target group was benefited from the CSR activities?a. Childrenb. Youthc. Agedd. Village as a whole
3. Are you satisfied with the CSR activities?a. Yesb. No
4. Which CSR activities do you want in your village in near future?a. Educationb. Healthc. Infrastructured. Drainage Facilitye. Any Other____________________
5. How much do you rely on CSR activities done by the companies as far as Infrastructure is concerned?
a. Very Highb. Highc. Moderate Reliabilityd. Not at all reliable
6. How much is your reliability on CSR activities as far as Education is concerned?a. Very Highb. High
c. Moderate Reliabilityd. Not at all reliable
7. How much is your reliability on CSR activities as far as Health is concerned?a. Very Highb. Highc. Moderate Reliabilityd. Not at all reliable
8. On whom will you depend if CSR activities are not done in your village?a. District Development Officer (DDO)b. Government aidc. Government Schemesd. Will influence the companies
9. Which company is doing or has done CSR activity in your Village?a. GACLb. GSFCc. IOCLd. Reliance/IPCLe. Any Other _________________
10. Do companies go for Need Assessment before conducting CSR activity?a. Yesb. No
11. Has there been any case where a particular company has started the CSR activity but has not been able to finish it completely?
a. Yesb. No
12. What is the level of participation from Village people in conducting the CSR activities?
a. Very Muchb. Moderatec. Little Bitd. Not at all.
13. What is your contribution in the CSR activities carried out in your village?a. Cash contributionb. Personal involvementc. Involvement in planning & decision makingd. No contributione. Any Other ________________
14. Is there any contribution in funds from village side in conducting the CSR activities?
a. Yesb. No
15. If Yes, how much contribution is their?a. 10%b. 25 %c. 50 %d. Contribution in terms of Laboure. Any Other ______________