Corporate Social Responsibility by Nil

7/31/2019 Corporate Social Responsibility by Nil

1/18

1

1.0 Introduction:

Marinetto (1999) demonstrated that due to the social and political change in 1970s

organization considering the corporate social responsibility as a serious course of action and

they tried to get themselves involve for the social wellbeing. And this era is known as the

beginning era of proper corporate social responsibilities. Due to high inflation, high inflation

rate and slow economic growth in the recessionary period of 1970s slowed down the pace of

corporate social responsibilities in many developed countries in Europe and America. Later

1974 labour party reformed the business environment and the British government tried to

emphasize the wider sense of responsibility through the business environment reengineering.

Moreover, Environmental degradation, exploitation of labour and irresponsible behaviour to

the developing countries came into thoughts to the businesses and the governments (Gray etal., 1996). Later in 1970s there was a survey conducted about the roles and attitudes of the

businesses towards the society and it had been discovered that most of the CEOs and the

business were interested to work for the wellbeing of the society rather than focusing only on

the profit of the organizations such as the organizations like IBM, British steel and

Pilkingtons worked for the social development by educating people and creating jobs through

opening up small businesses (Gray et al., 1996).

Importantly, from 1977 to 1987 there was a substantial increase in the amount of charity for

the social development and CSR was more likely used as a social development toll than

corporate business strategy techniques. However, later 1980s some of the governments

especially UK to influence the CSR activities offers the tax rebate on the CSR activities and

in this time due to the increasing political awareness (Marinetto, 1999) towards environment

made the organization concern about the environmental issues (Gray et al, 1996). But other

than Scandinavian countries most of the developed countries discussed Business ethics rather

than Social responsibilities (Mathews, 1984). Due to the strong political rights movement in1980s American organization put more emphasizes on the community and customers.

Nevertheless, disability, racism, sex, inequality, responsibility of the labour was considering

in the context of business and employee relations (Gray et al., 1996). Moreover, some major

natural calamities in this decade force the organizations, business and academics to think the

environmental issues more than ever before (Marinetto, 1999).

However, the accounting professionals talked about the social responsibilities since 1970s

and they mentioned the long term benefit of the social responsibilities and they also talked


2/18

2

about the social and environmental issues in the financial statement along with the economic

issues (Marinetto, 1999). Importantly, Mathews (1984) discussed the external interactions of

the organization and the importance of including the external issues such as social and

environmental issues in the organizations report. After that Community, consumer and

employee related reporting were discussed back in 1990s; as inthis decade altruism became

fade and the organization tried to involve business in the society, organization started put

most emphasizes on stakeholder engagement and they tried to minimize the affect of their

decisions on stakeholder and corporate governance come into play more effectively ( Gray et

al., 1996; Tiroli, 2001; Marinetto, 1999). After 2000 due to the increase of the accountability

sustainability report is becoming popular in all over the world (Herzig & Godemann, 2010).

However, the now the Corporate social responsibility concept and mechanism is stronger

than ever before and stakeholder engagement, corporate citizenship, corporate governance,

social and environmental disclosures are facilitating the organizations for sustainable

development of the society and the businesses as well.

2.0 Definition and Interpretation of Corporate Social Responsibility

2.1 Corporate Social responsibility (CSR):

In the publication of World Business Council for sustainable development, to define thecorporate social responsibility Holme & Watts (2000) stated "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". They want the organization to behave ethically

and by ensuring the legal obligations working for the development of the life standard of the

community.

According to the European Commission (2010)," CSR is a concept whereby companies

integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their

interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis." To illustrate the CSR issues

European Commission (EC) expect the organization to work beyond the minimum level of

legal obligations and with the help of the stakeholders work for the economical,

environmental and social welfare of the society.

According to Carroll (1979), for a definition of social responsibility to fully address the

entire range of obligations business has to society, it must embody the economic, legal,


3/18

3

ethical and discretionary categories of business performance. As profit is the main purpose

of the business Carroll has given highest emphasizes on the economic responsibilities;

however, philanthropic responsibilities talks about the optimal caring (Lanto, 2001, Carroll,

1979) which is extravagancy (Wan-jan, 2006) and supererogatory (Schwartz and Carroll,

2003) for the organization. However, Lantos (2001), Lewis (2003) stated CSR as very

effective marketing tool to achieve organizational goal (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003) by

reduce the expectations gap (Lewis, 2003) between organization and stakeholders, gaining

competitive advantages and regaining public trust. Nevertheless, Mintzberg (1983) divided

CSR in 4 forms that focus on the purpose of the CSR such as paying back, self-interest,

stimulating consumers perception but social welfare (Moore, 2003; Goyder, 2003) should be

the main consideration.

2.1 Corporate Sustainability (CS):

Corporate sustainability is the means of creating long term relationship between employee

and consumers by ensuring the long term social, economic and environmental well being of

the society (Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010). To create an effective sustainable strategy

organization needs to consider all the dimensions and their impacts and interrelations.

According to Dyllick, (2000); Hardtke and Prehn, (2001) cited in as Baumgartner & Ebner,

(2010) , risk mitigation strategy focuses on the legal and external aspects of environment;

legitimating strategy states external relationship, efficiency strategy talks about the eco-

efficiency and holistic sustainability strategy demonstrates the sustainability of all the

business issues. However, Baumgartner & Ebner (2010) mentioned transparency, employee

development and resource efficiency are the main principles of corporate sustainability.

Importantly, there needs to have a strong stakeholder engagement, corporate governance and

good corporate citizenship need to be there for implementing a strong corporate sustainable

strategy.

2.2Corporate Social performance (CSP):

Wood (2010) stated that corporate social performance is the process that focuses on the

impacts and the outcomes of society, stakeholders and the firm. According to Clarkson 1995;

Cornell and Shapiro 1987; Donaldson and Preston 1995 cited in as Orlitzky et al., (2003)

showed that due to stakeholder engagement the relationship between the CSP and Corporate


4/18

4

financial performances is positive. CSP states that organization should focus on the benefits

and disadvantages it creates in the society, environment, culture, economic and politics. And

to get the maximum resources out of these sources organizations should increase the benefits

and eliminate the harms of their activities; otherwise, in the long run organization will lose

their access and they may lose the legitimacy (Wood, 2010).

3.0 Theoretical Debate

3.1 Stakeholder Theory:

According to the stakeholder theory of Freeman (1984) organization needs to work for the

best interest of their stakeholder rather than only focusing on the wealth maximization of the

shareholders (Friedman, 1979). Crane and Matten (2004) stated that stakeholders are the

people who are directly or indirectly related to the organization and the organizational

decisions affect them either positively or negatively. Stakeholder theory suggests maintaining

the fiduciary relationship with the stakeholders. Moreover, it also wants to engage the

stakeholders in the decision making process as they are somehow affected by the decision of

the organization (Freeman, 1984; Robert & Freeman, 2003). Freeman stated that firm should

consider the stakeholders preferences, demands and take initiatives based on theconversations. Stieb (2008) argued that the stakeholder theory focuses more on self interest

rather than focuses on altruism. Moreover, stakeholder theories does not mention among the

stakeholders who have highest decision making power as he mentioned unequal decision

making power of the stakeholders. Mitchell et al., (1997) argued that if the organization

harms people to fulfil its objective the affected people have the legitimate interest in the

organization and based on their damage their influence and power is determined in the

organization as stakes. So, it the central message of the stakeholder theory is to give

impression that the organizations are not only strategically rational but also morally rich

enough to consider the interests of the people who are affected by the organizations.

However, stakeholder engagement may slow down the pace of organizational decision

making. Moreover, as the managers and the stakeholders had different objectives, conflict of

goals may arise from the stakeholder engagement in the organization (crane et al., 2008). For

example, john Lewis Partnership Engage government, NGOs , Local authorities, Customers,

local communities, employees, suppliers, trade associations, consumers associations and


5/18

5

other stakeholders in their decision making process to avoid the negative impact of their

decision on the stakeholders (Official Website of john Lewis partnership, 2010).

3.2 Agency Theory:

Barely and means (1932) cited in as Solomon (2010); Jensen & Meckling, (1976) stated that

separation of ownership from management control and the incentive policy of the managers

give birth of notorious agency problem that reduces the shareholder value and the growth of

organization. As the short term investment inflate the performance in the performance

appraisal managers are more intended to invest in the short term project rather than invest on

the long-term project that ensures the long term growth of the organization (Crane and

Matten, 2004). However, the agency theory of corporate governance talks about the role of

the directors who are intermediaries between the shareholders and the managers of the

company and the directors ensure the arbitrage of the different needs of the two parties and

importantly, ensuring the best usage of the resources for the well being of the organization,

shareholders, other stakeholders and society (Solomon, 2010). `

Figure 3.2: The mechanism of Agency Theory

As the personal interest of the shareholders and the managers come into play, sometimes

organization tends to receive short term benefit that may be detrimental for the society or

environment (Tiroli, 2001; Kulik, 2005). For example, Huntingdon Life Sciences conducted

scientific research through the animal experimentation. Later there was some protest aroused

Principle (Suppliers of the

resources, E.g. Shareholders)

Board of Directors

Agents (User of the resources, E.g.

managers)

DirectionControl


6/18

6

Ethics

against them for experimenting on animal to serve the purpose of the agents. As a result of

that the organization lost numbers of investors from UK and USA (Solomon, 2010).

However, Incentives such as long-term share option for the employees, Voting rights for the

shareholders, takeover mechanisms, Divestment are the crucial elements of corporate

governance that helps to reduce the agency cost and smooth the way of agency theory (Heath,

2009). However, there are some controversy goes on about the effectiveness of agency

theories and the underlying ethics of the agency theory. Sometimes agent takes self-cantered

decision to maximize the organizational value where rationality and egoism reflects more

than the altruism (Heath, 2009). Moreover, Kulik (2005) cited in as Heath (2009) argued,

"agency reasoning" on the part of Enron executives led to the creation of an "agency

culture" and an organizational structure within the firm that encouraged corrupt behaviour.

3.3 Corporate Ethics:

According to Crane & Matten (2010), Business ethics is the study of business situation,

activities and decisions where issues of right and wrong are addressed. There are some

controversies go on about the right or wrong decision. It is better to mention either it is

morally right or wrong or commercially, strategically and financially right or wrong.

From the perspective of business ethics and corporate citizenship this right or Wrong

decision is more likely considered morally. According to Crane & Matten (2010), ethics are

derived by the morality of the organization that is derived from the norms, values and belief

of a society and importantly, it gives the moral judgment. However, it is mandatory for the

businesses to do business by following the laws but there is no legal obligations exist for the

businesses to follow the ethics (Stohl et al., 2009). More precisely, the corporate ethics begins

where the law ends. For example, animal testing is not banned by law in most of the countries

but being an ethical organization they can avoid it (Kapstei, 2001).

Figure: the relationship between ethics and law

Law


7/18

7

Kaptein and Schwartz, (2008) cited in as Stohl et al. (2009) stated that code of ethics is

formalized statement that determines the present and future behaviour of the organization to

support the stakeholders through the inter-organizational or intra-organizational practices and

relations.

However, Friedman (1976) and Wan-jan (2006) enforced to maximize the shareholders

wealth by doing business complying with the legal business environment and As long as the

business is doing business abiding by the law is sufficient for them. Organizational cultures,

Type of the society, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, Masculinity-Femininity and the

types of orientation determines the moral obligations of the business (Kapstei, 2001).

Importantly, the organizational norms and values influence the decision making of the

management (Crane & Matten, 2010). However, Organization gives emphasizes on the

ethical decision making as the consumers react towards the unethical activities and with the

help of the humanitarian or animal rights organization they stop buying the product of

unethical companies (Stohl et al., 2009). Importantly, it is a great opportunity for the business

to improve their image by taking a strong ethical stand. For example, Body shop is highly

acclaimed for his moral and ethical standing that helps them to build a very strong image and

even charge higher price (Crane & Matten, 2010, Value Report of Body Shop, 2009).

4.0Disclosures:

According to Soloman (2010) corporate disclosure represents the true performance of the

organization to the stakeholders that bring trust in their relations. Moreover, the disclosure refers

to the information regarding the financial report, balance shit, profit and loss account, Chairmans

and directors speech, management forecast, Corporate social responsibility issues, environmental

issues through the annual report, internet, and sustainability report and during the stakeholder

meeting. According to gray et al. (2001), organization discloses the financial performance of theorganization to let the stakeholders and outside people know about the performance of the

organization. Bringing the transparency and attracting new investors are the main reason for

corporate disclosure. However, According to Sobhani et al. (2009), there is a new trend has

started in the organizations of developed and developing countries to disclose the social and

environmental facts and the socially and environmentally sensitive industries make use of the

disclosure trends and they are gaining competitive advantages by disclosing their true position

(Gray et al. 2001, jenkin, 2009). However, Herzig & Godemann (2010) demonstrated that CSR

reporting is used as a means of communication to the people and the organization used this report


8/18

8

as a communication tool that helps the organization to achieve financial and non-financial gains

such as reliability, good corporate citizenship, transparency (Soloman, 2010) . Nevertheless,

Sobhani et al. (2009) mentioned that organization feel pressure from the competitors to disclose

the report. As the competitors discloses the reports regarding financial, social and environmental

issues organization who does not disclose information is bound to disclose its report to be

competitive in the market. Moreover, organization needs to disclose the report to comply with the

rules and regulations of the government.

However, Ho & Wang (2001) raised question about the effectiveness of the social and

environmental reporting and they argued that sometimes investors and buyers take decision

emotionally and they do not bother the current state of the real world. Moreover, Due to the

accountability, transparency, corporate ethics and specially the pressure of the competitors force

the organization to disclose the negative information about their business (Herzig & Godemann,

2010). Nevertheless, to show the belongingness to the community and from the fear of media

organizations voluntarily disclose the negative information sometimes. Importantly, investors and

the customers do not consider the transparency of the organization and eventually the

organization loses its market (Ho & Wang, 2001). For this reason, fear of losing share price or

market share restricts the organizations to disclose the negative information regarding their

business (Gotshal & Manges, 2006). For example, British Petroleum (BP) had an accident in the

Gulf of Mexico and they disclose the reasons and the consequences of the accident in details

(Official Website of BP, 2010).

5.0 Corporate Social Responsibility Model for the large Organizations:

Figure 5.0: Corporate Social responsibility model

Competitive

Advantages

Social &

Environmen

tal

Disclosure

Economic

Legal

Ethical

Philant

hropic

Stakeholders

Engagement

Corporate

governanc

Corporate

citizenship

Accountability


9/18

9

In the model Economical, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities have been

mentioned. As it is a large company it has the capabilities to give back the society. For this

reason, ethical and philanthropic activities have been included. Moreover, Caroll (1979)

included ethical and philanthropic responsibilities in his CSR model. Though Wan-jan (2006)

argued philanthropic activities are not mandatory and it kills the profit of the business.

Importantly, Philanthropic activities will give a competitive edge to the organization and it

helps to build the brand value of the organization. Moreover, Most of the multinationals and

large organizations are engaging themselves with different kinds of altruistic activities;

therefore, to survive in the business competition it is mandatory for the business to exercise

philanthropic activities (Lewis, 2003). Importantly, Organization must ensures the good

economic performance abide by fulfilling all the legal obligations. Since achieving the

business growth through the welfare of the stakeholders benefit is the main purpose of the

business Economic responsibility needs to be prioritized most (Wan-jen, 2006). Moreover,

Caroll (1979), Welford (2003), Meehan et al. (2006), Geva (2008), Jenkin (2009) talk about

the economic responsibilities and it gets highest priority in everybodys corporate social

responsibility model and economic responsibility is the most essential elements in most of the

CSR model.

Nevertheless, corporate governance is also included in the model which enables the

organization to administer the management decisions. Moreover, corporate governance judge

the relationship between the management and the stakeholders and it also judges the promise

of the organization towards the society and stakeholders (Fombrun, 2006).

However, corporate citizenship will be employed for facilitating the ethical responsibilities of

the organization. Welford (2004) demonstrated the corporate citizenship in his model and

supporting activities, educating and social campaigning has been included in his citizenship

area. Moreover, Carroll, (1998); Waddock, (2004) included corporate citizenship in their

model to cover the business- society relationship, where as mattern and cane (2005) gave

equal priority to the corporate citizenship. Meanwhile, Meehan et al, (2006) align corporate

citizenship with the corporate resources and found it as a means of strategic success.

However, disclosing activities such as financial, social and environmental disclosure comes

from the accountability of organization (Alexander et al., 2003). As the organization

discloses the information about their operation and the consequences by disclosing the

sustainability report, it will help the organization to get competitive advantages over the


10/18

10

competitors. Moreover, by engaging the stakeholders in the business decision making

organization ensures the ethical and philanthropic responsibilities that allow the organization

to gain reliability, brand image and transparency from the society. Jenkin (2009) mentioned

competitive advantage in his model and the organization gains competitive advantages by

overcoming difficulties and integrating CSR strategies. Eventually, by getting competitive

advantages they provide innovation, new market coverage and new business model.

6.0Corporate Governance:

According toFombrun (2006), corporate governance is the procedural, cultural and structural

guidelines that ensure the best long term interest of the stakeholders. To enable the corporate

governance effectively sustainable relationship between the stakeholders and the

management is crucial (Tiroli, 2001). As the conflicts of the personal goal come into play in

the organization, minimizing the agency cost is one of the main purposes of the corporate

governance. Importantly, rules and regulations would be effective to form good corporate

governance unless continuous strategic initiatives are implemented (Fombrun, 2006). As the

interest of the shareholders as well as the stakeholders and the managers are different due to

the personal preferences and interest, managing the corporate government is really

challenging (Monks & Minow, 2008). However, some organizational factors such as the

compensation structure (Fombrun, 2006), delegation of authority and job security (Tiroli,

2001) affects the corporate governance environment. Moreover, difference of perceptions

about the sustainable business concept among the stakeholders, shareholders and

management is crucial corporate governance issues. Shareholders may like to see the

organizational growth in a sustainable manner whereas the managers may act like short-

termist that makes the job of corporate governance people challenging (Monks & Minow,

2008). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bankand International Finance Corp., the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD),

European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) working for the best interest of formulation

of effective corporate governance and they emphasized good corporate governance all around

the world.

For instance, Singapore is an Asian country where corporate governance well established.

Back in 2007, the minority shareholder faced problem and they claimed Isetan is not working

for the best interest of the minor shareholders. According to the Singapore s corporate


11/18

11

governance code of conduct, a person who does not have any interference to the organization

would be employed as an independent director and he is supposed to work with his

independent business judgment. In Isetan, the minority shareholders are claiming the

additional dividend to use the credit whereas, due to the high tax bracket of the majority

shareholder Isetan. As the company did not pay attention to the minority shareholder, the

minority shareholder put this issue in the EGM. Importantly, the independent director of the

company was brother of one of the director of the company. Due to the problem in the

organization they removed the independent director and appointed a new independent

director. After that some new proposals have been introduced about the roles and

responsibilities of the independent directors and their appointment. And the consideration of

the minority shareholders to the independent directors was emphasized on that proposal

(Monks & Minow, 2010). British Petroleum practises good corporate governance system and

the directors works as the intermediaries between the shareholders and the managers of the

organization and they are accountable to the shareholders (Sustainability review of BP,

2009).

7.0 Challenges of Social and Environmental Reporting:

7.1 Social Challenges:According to Gray et al., (1996) cited in as Alexander et al., (2003), social accounting is the

process of communicating the social and environmental effects of the organizations activities to

society. According to Crane & Matten (2010), organization put the social and environmental

information in their sustainability report. Importantly, due to the increase of stakeholder demand

government and different organizations employed external bodies to check the reliability and

validity of the information. Social Auditors are the external bodies who are responsible to judge

the impacts of the organizations on the workforce, society and the consumers (Gao & Zhang,

2006). Later the dimension of social auditing has changed and now it also considers the

environmental factors. However, According to Elkington, (1997), social auditing is the process

that allows the organization to comply their performance with the needs and expectation of

the societies by verifying the internal and external documents of the organization.

Importantly, social auditing enables to improve their social, environmental, ethical planning

and stakeholder engagement (Frederick & Mayers, 2001,). Nevertheless, Gao & Zhang

(2001) mentioned that it would not be beneficial to consider the social auditing as a tool of

organizational disclosure, rather it gives the chance to the organization to have proper


12/18

12

feedback of their performance. For example, the Body Shop uses the social auditing model

that has been developed by the NEF (Gao & Zhang, 2001).

As the stakeholders of the organization can see the report of the social auditors, organization

finds it bit risky and the organizations are not comfortable to be judged by the external

bodies. Moreover, as the stakeholders can judge the actions of the organization, organization

find it challenging (Gao & Zhang, 2006). As social auditing tries to make the organization

more transparent, organization finds it difficult to accommodate. Moreover, the motive and

the transparency of the organizations can be judged by the report of the social auditors

(Zadek and Raynard, 1995; Hill et al.,1998; Gao and Zhang, 2001; Zhang et al., 2003 cited in

as Goa & Zhang, 2001). However, identifying the key stakeholder groups, considering their

opinion and accessing the organizations activity are the key responsibilities of social

auditing (Gao & Zhang, 2006).

As the social auditing consider the stakeholders dialogue and organizational activities, the

issue of conflict of interest rises (Gray et al., 2001) and corruption (Sobhani et al., 2009) are

the vital threats of the effective social auditing process. Moreover, as most of the information

regarding the customers, social, environmental and ethical is qualitative, it is difficult to

measure and the judgment may varies. Therefore, because of the measuring techniques and

criteria the effectiveness of social auditing gets fade (Gao & Zhang, 2001, 2006; Gray et al.,

2001). However, as the performance of the mangers and the shareholders profit depends on

the organizational performance, the attitude of the managers (Frederick & Mayers, 2001) and

the reluctant attitude of the auditors (Gray et al., 1996) are the other big obstacles of social

auditing. According to the CSR report of John Lewis Partnership (2010), they have

conducted auditing in April 2010 to assess their management control and the communication

and strategy of CSR and the performance within the partnership.

7.2 Environmental Challenges:

Environmental reporting is the technique that states the consequences of the organizations

decisions on the environment. Social Incentives for corporate voluntary environment

disclosure is complemented by the stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and political

economic theory (Mathews, 1993). To gain the strategic objective of the organization, it

needs to fulfil the demand of the stakeholders. For this reason, organizations are very much

interested to find out the needs and demands of the stakeholders and they try to fulfil the

demands (Kolk, 1999). As stakeholders are engaging themselves with the corporations


13/18

13

decision making and by giving their opinion they try to minimize the negative effect of the

corporations decision on the society and environment (Stieb, 2008), organization needs to

disclose the environmental report to show the stakeholders that the evaluate the stakeholders

dialogue (Alexander et al, 2003). Eventually, by disclosing the environmental report

organization achieves the strategic objectives (Solomon & Lewis,2002). Nevertheless,

Negative disclosures in the environmental report brings transparency to the organization and

the reliability of the organizations information reached higher (Solomon & Lewis,2002).

According to Mathews (1994); Ashford & Gibbs (1990), legitimacy theory create a via

between the society and the organizations and it creates a hypothetical route that shows the

belongingness of the organization to the society. By disclosing the environmental report

voluntarily organization wants to prove their involvement to the society (Mathews, 1994).

Moreover, as organization sometimes does social and environmental damages the

stakeholders and activist group blame the organization for damaging the environment. By

publishing the environmental report organization react to the situation in a positive way and

justify their social contract, strong involvement in the society (Guthrie and Parker, 1989;

Isaksson & Steimle, 2009; Mathew, 1994). However, to what extent the organization

discloses the information is crucial idea to determine the involvement of the organization to

the society (Mathew, 1994). Moreover, the manipulation and hiding of the facts also need to

be consider for determining the organizations positive involvement to the society (Ashford

& Gibbs, 1990; Solomon & Lewis,2002 ).

According to Gray et al., (1996), environmental disclosure is also related with the political

economy theory that talks about the economic, social and political perspective. Moreover, it

focuses the environment where there is power and conflict exists. And by disclosing the

environmental report organization tries to admit different views and concerns (Kolk, 1999).

In the Sustainability review of British petroleum (2009) mentioned about their improved

technology that reduced the green house gas emission. Moreover, John Lewis Partnership

committed to reduce the co2 emission, they are using renewable energy sources in all their

shops and headquarters and they improved their shop energy efficiency by 20% (CSR Report

of John Lewis partnership, 2010).


14/18

14

8.0 Conclusion:

Corporate Social Responsibility ensures the fairness of the business and it improves the

relationship between the business and the society. To make the social strategy more effective

stakeholder engagement, corporate governance, corporate citizenship play crucial role.

Moreover, in response to their accountability organization discloses the social and

environmental facts of their business along with the financial performance of the business

that increase the transparency and belongingness in the business environment. Hopefully, by

employing all the corporate strategies and administrative strategies organization will

overcome all the shortcomings and challenges and make the world and their businesses more

sustainable.


15/18

15

References

Ashford, B. E. and B. W. Gibbs (1990) The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimating

Organization Science, Vol:1, No. 2, pp. 177194, Available at:

[Accessed on 29th

of November, 2010]

Alexander, D., Britton, A. & Jorissen, A. (2003).International Corporate Reporting and

Analysis. 4th

Ed. USA; Thomson learning.

Baumgartner, J., R. & Ebner, D. 2010, Corporate Sustainability Strategies: Sustainability

Profi les and Maturity Levels. Sustainable Development, Vol: 18, pp. 7689 (2010)

Available at: < www.interscience.wiley.com > [Accessed on 28th

of November, 2010]

Carroll, A.B. (1998), The four faces of corporate citizenship,Business and Society Review,

Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 1-7., Available at: [Accessed on 28

thof November, 2010]

Carroll, A., B. (1991) The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral

Management of Organizational StakeholdersBusiness Horizons, Vol: July-August 1991,

Available at: [accessed on 24th

of November, 2010]

Cooper, M., S. & Owen, L., D. (2007) Corpora Social reporting and stakeholder

accountability: The missing LinkAccounting, organizations and society, Vol: 32, pp. 649-

667, Available at: [Accessed on 2nd

of December, 2010].

Crane, A. , Matten, D. (2010)..Business Ethics. 3rd

ed Uk: Oxford University press.

Frederick, C., W. & Myers, S., M. (2001) The hidden politics ofsocial auditingBusiness

and society Review, pp. 49-54.

Fombrun, J., C. (2006) Corporate GovernanceCorporate Reputation Review,

Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 267271. Available at ; [Accessed on 28th

of November, 2010]

Gao, S., S. & Zhang, J., J.(2006) Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate

sustainabilityBusiness Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, 2006 pp. 722-740

,Available at: [Accessed on 29th

of November,

2010]

Gray, R. (1992), Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of

gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainabilityAccounting,

Organisations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 399-425, Available at:

[Accessed on 28th

of November, 2010]


16/18

16

Gao, S. and Zhang, J. (2001) A comparative study of stakeholder engagement approaches in

social auditing Citizenship, Greenleaf Publishing, Vol: 20, pp. 239-55.

Gotshal, W., J. & Manges, L. (2006). When Voluntary Negative Disclosure Is A Good Risk

To Take, Corporate & Securities Law Advisor. Vol. 20, No. 6, Pgs. 18-26, Available at :

[Accessed on 25th

ofNovember, 2010]

Gray, R., Javed, M., Power, M., D. & Sinclair, D., C. (2001) Social and Environmental

Disclosure and Corporate Characteristics: A Research Note and ExtensionJournal of

Business Finance & Accounting, Vol: 28(3), Available at:

[Accessed on 27th

of November, 2010]

Gray, R. , Owner, D. & Adams, C. (1996) Accounting & Accountability: Changes and

challenges in corporate social and Environmental reporting UK: Prentice hall

Heath, J. (2009) The Uses and Abuses of Agency TheoryBusiness Ethics Quarterly, Vol:

19:4 (October 2009), Available at: [accessed on 27th

of

November, 2010]

Herzig, C. & Godemann, J. (2010) Internet-supported sustainability reporting: developments

in GermanyManagement Research review, Vol: 33, No. 11, pp.1064-1082, Available at:

[Accessed on 23th

of November, 2010]

Isaksson, R. & Steimle, U. (2009) What does GRI-reporting tell us about corporatesustainability The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 168-181. Available at:

[Accessed on 24th of November, 2010]

John Lewis partnership (2010) Corporate social responsibility report 2010 Available at: [Accessed on 26th

of november, 2010]

British petrolium (2010) Sustainability Review 2009 Available at:

[Accessed on 28th

of november, 2010]

Kapstei, B., E. (2001) The Corporate Ethies Crusade Foreign affairs, Vol: 80 N:15, pp.

105-119, Available at: [Accessed on 26th

of November, 2010].

Kolk, A. (1999) Evaluating Corporate Environmental ReportingBusiness Strategy and the

Environment, vol: 8, pp. 225237 , Available at: [Accessed

on 24th

of November, 2010]

Marinetto, M.(1999) 'The Historical Development of Business Philanthropy: Social

Responsibility in the New Corporate Economy'Business History, Vol: 41: 4, pp. 1 - 20

Available at:< http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00076799900000342> [Accessed on 30th

of

November, 2010]


17/18

17

Mathews, M.R. (1997) Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research:

is there a silver jubilee to celebrateAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10,

No. 4, pp. 481-531,Available at: [Accessed on

03rd

of December, 2010]

Meehan, J., meehan, K. & Richards, A.,(2006) Corporate social responsibility: the 3C-SRmodel,International Journal of SocialEconomics, Vol. 33 No. 5/6, 2006, pp. 386-398,

Available at: [Accessed on 30th

November,

2010].

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, L., F. & Rynes, L., S. (2003) Corporate Social and Financial

Performance: A Meta-AnalysisOrganization Studies, Vol: 24(3), pp. 403441, Available at:

[Accessed on 25th

of November, 2010]

Official website of John Lewis Partnership, (2010): http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk

Official Websites of British Petroleum, (2010)

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7064893

Official Website of European commission, (2010) http://ec.europa.eu

Phillips, R., Robert; Edward Freeman (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics.

UK: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Suchman, C., M. (1995) Management Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approachers

Academy of Management Review, Vol: 20, No.3, pp. 571-610, Available at : [Accessed on 23th

of November, 2010]

Sobhani, A., F.,Amran, A. & Zainuddin, Y. (2009) Revisiting the Practices of Corporate

Social and Environmental Disclosure in Bangladesh Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, Vol: . 16, pp. 167183

[Accessed on 23th of November, 2010].

Stohl, C., Stohl, M. & Popova, L. (2009) A new generation of Corporate Codes of ethicsJournal of business Ethics, Vol: 90, pp. 607-622,Available at:

[accessed on 27th

of November, 2010]

Stieb, A., J. (2008) Assessing Freemans Stakeholder TheoryJournal of Business Ethics

Vol: 87, pp. 401414, Available at;

[Accessed on 29th

of November, 2010]

Solomon, A. & Lewis, L. (2002) Incentive and Disincentive for Corpoarte Environmental

ReportingAnnonym, Aailable at:

[Accessed on 02

rdof December, 2010]


18/18

18

Tirole, J. 2001. Corporate Governance.Econoinetrica, Vol. 69, No. 1 (January, 2001), pp. 1-

35, Available at:< http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692184?origin=JSTOR-pdf > [Accessed on

28th

of November, 2010]

Wood., J., D. (2010) Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A ReviewInternational

Journal of Management Reviews, Vol: 16, pp. 691718, Available at:

[Accessed on 25th

of November, 2010]

Wan-jan, S., W. (2006). Defining Corporate Social ResponsibilityJounal of public Affairs,

Vol: 6, pp. 176-184, Available at: < www.interscience.wiley.com> [Accessed on 22th

November, 2010]

Welford, R. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia,

Greenleaf Publishing. Available at :

[Accessed on 2nd

ofDecember, 2010].

Waddock, S. (2004) Parallel universes: companies, academics and the progress of corporate

CitizenshipBusiness and Society Review, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 5-42, Available at:

[Accessed on 28th

of November, 2010]

Corporate Social Responsibility by Nil

Documents