(i) Title of submission Indian CSR - An Overview

(ii) Name of the author: Dr. R Ramakrishnan

Chief Consultant, Vivin Consultants
(iii) Mailing address: J108 S&P Living spaces, Kamarajar Street,
Aynambakkam, Chennai 60095 INDIA
(iv) E-mail address of Author: ramakrish54@gmail.com or consultvivin@gmail.com
(v) Phone number(s) Mobile: +919952669656

Dr. Ramakrishnan Ramachandran, a baby boomer, did his Ph.D. in Stakeholder

Management and has been associated with founding 3 B schools in rural Tier 2/3 cities in
India.
After working in the Government of India in the Cabinet Secretariat and Indian High
Commission Seychelles for 22 years, he worked in the manufacturing and IT sector for the
next 8 years and has also done consultancy works in the field of Quality for small and
medium industries in India. He joined academics on a full-time basis in 2005 to pursue his
passion –teaching'.
Author of books ranging from Total Quality Management to Environmental Science to
Ethics, Ramakrishnan Ramachandran has presented over 40 papers on various
management topics. He is continuing his research work on various topics ranging from
Mentoring to Marketing as he tries to give shape to the future managers of India. He can be
contacted at Cell No. +919952669656 and ramakrish54@gmail.com
Dr. Ramakrishnan is currently engaged in training corporate clients on TQM, 5S,
TPM, Stakeholder engagement, CSR, CRM, Improving Sales and other consultancy works.
He also conducts workshops for students of MBA/Engineering and other college students on
Soft Skills- Improving Self-confidence, Goal Setting, Time Management, How to be
employable, etc and giving guest lectures on the current topics in Management like Business
Analytics, Social Forecasting, Crowd Sourcing, IPR, etc.

*************

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

 Indian CSR - An Overview
ABSTRACT
Ancient Vedic invocations of India have essentially been global in their value
premises. A stakeholder approach to management is elaborated by many great ancient
Indian scriptures. The Indian scriptures analyzed essentially point out that organization and
its members can relate themselves with the stakeholders either by the Family Relations View
or the Transcendental Spiritual View. The Indian scriptures spell out the relationship that
should exist between the leader and the stakeholders.
The Charity was part of Indian culture and history at all times. The concepts of
community food, giving alms to the poor and destitute, making offerings in the temple,
serving the underprivileged and feeding orphans on their birthdays, keeping some part of
their monthly income aside for donations or in the name of the Almighty, etc. are an
indication of rich and socially responsible behavior of every Indian.
The four reasons for the adoption of CSR policies and practices attributed by Sundar
to the Indian companies were
 Contributing to society without expecting anything in return, or philanthropy,
 Internal reasons, such as the desire to improve relations with employees,
customers, and shareholders,
 Better relations with local communities for publicity or tax benefits and
 Enlightened self-interest.
The four phases of business philanthropy in India identified by are,
 Ethical Model
 Statist Model
 Liberal Model
 Stakeholder Model
Oriental thinkers view the entire creation to have emanated from one supreme
power, including the instruments of economic production. Nature, which is harnessed by
industry, is also a part of that Divine Entity. Hence management now becomes grateful to
that Entity for its bounty.
An insight into the history of CSR reveals that the idea of philanthropy solely
dominated and businesses often restricted themselves to a one-time financial grant till the
1990s. Commitments to their resources for long term projects were absent. . The concept of
CSR has been changing over the last few years with the transition from giving as an
obligation or charity to giving as a strategy or responsibility

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

 What is necessary today is the need for a reorientation of corporate organizations’
approach towards stakeholders and stakeholders’ welfare, coupled with an ardent desire to
implement the same. Relationships with stakeholders are considered extremely important.
Changes in business have stressed upon the application of a wide range of
approaches. These are characterized by harnessing the product with increased levels of
satisfaction among consumers. Attention to business ethics is rising across the globe, and
many companies realize that to succeed, they must earn the respect and confidence of their
customers.
The economic reforms at the beginning of the 1990s opened the Indian economy for
international competition and privatization. However; the Indian economy is still challenged
by widespread poverty widening gaps between different income groups, which creates
opportunities for CSR to contribute to development. CSR in India has always been linked
with the idea of social welfare and development.
India became the first country to make CSR mandatory in 2013. Mandatory CSR is
perhaps a solution to reach places that State cannot reach on its own The CSR mandate
may give corporates opportunity to broaden their vision of CSR. The progress on CSR has
been slow but is showing signs of improvement as it completes five years.
There is a widespread feeling in India, that the high GDP growth rate of the past
decade has remained confined to urban areas only and has not reached rural India to lift the
poor section of the society. . But many view the mandatory proposal as a contradiction and
contend that CSR should be voluntary.

***************

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

 Indian CSR- An Overview
FULL PAPER
Like any other concept, the concept of Corporate Social responsibility is not new to
India. Ancient Vedic invocations of India have essentially been global in their value
premises. Loka samastato sukhino bhavantu (May the entire earth finds happiness) has
been a philosophical idea of convergence. The ’collective’ and ’holistic’ Eastern perspectives
of Indian tradition have been universal in their tone, while contemporary ethics literature is
contrastingly individualistic in its focus.
A Stakeholder approach to management is elaborated by many great ancient
Indian scriptures. Some of them are:
 Manusmriti,
 Ramayana
 Mahabharata, (Shanti Parva and Vidura Neeti in Udyog Parva), and
 Kautilya’s Arthashastra.
They expound on how the kings of those times decided to ensure the welfare of all
stakeholders within the kingdom. This establishes the fact that the stakeholder approach of
management for optimizing the welfare of all concerned is not new to India, and has been in
practice for a very long time.
There is a wealth of knowledge relating to this concept in the ancient Indian texts.
Sivakumar (1995)1 identified the contributions made by various researchers and eminent
personalities to the importance and relevance of ancient Indian texts to recent times in his
doctoral thesis on values-based management. The Indian scriptures analyzed essentially
point out two ways by which an organization and its members can relate themselves with the
stakeholders.
The Family Relations View
Indian scriptures, especially the literature on the administration of kingdoms in
ancient India analyzed by Sivakumar, describe this type of relationship. The type of family
relationships analogies used includes:
 Father–Children (Paternal relationship);
 Mother–Children (Maternal relationship); and
 Brother–Brother (Fraternal relationship

1 Sivakumar, N. (1995), 'Value-Based Management: Historical Roots in India and Current Practices'. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, School of
Business Management, Sri Sathya Sai University, Prashanti Nilayam, Andhra Pradesh.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

The Transcendental Spiritual View
In this view, the transcendental spiritual unity in all beings is taken as the basis of
relationships. Thus, a person who practices this view sees another person as the spiritual
self-defined as ‘Atman’ or ‘Brahman’ in the Indian scriptures.
According to Indian philosophy, the Atman is the innermost reality of all beings.
This view can provide the most stable basis for the relationship between an organization and
its stakeholders.
Sivakumar has highlighted the main aspects as:
 The relationship of the leader with the various stakeholders;
 Reciprocation from stakeholders;
 Guidelines for stakeholder policies; and
 Stakeholder policies.
The Indian scriptures spell out the relationship that should exist between the
leader and the stakeholders. The literature on economic organizations in ancient India
describes the empathy the businessmen in ancient India had for their clients (Verma 1972)2.
Sivakumar further highlights illustrations regarding the various stakeholder policies
that can be developed in the Indian scriptures like the Manusmriti, Shanti Parva and
Arthashastra. They describe the policies that should be developed by the king and the
government machinery to promote the welfare of the citizens
Kumar and Balsari (2004)3 and CREM-report (2004)4 trace the long traditions of
engaging in philanthropic activities and participating in community development by Indian
society and businesspeople from the rich cultural and religious background of India,.
According to Pushpa Sundar (2000)5, Indian businesses historically depict a strong
tradition of making contributions towards society. The business community coming chiefly
from Vaishya Varna class like Parsis, Marwaris, Gujaratis and the Chettiars, have
established a lead not only in business but also in philanthropy occupied a significant place
in philanthropic activities. They provided relief in times of crisis such as famines or
epidemics, throwing open warehouses of food and treasure chests.
The Charity was part of Indian culture and history at all times. The concepts of
community food, giving alms to the poor and destitute, making offerings in the temple,

2 Verma, O.P. (1972), ‘Organization and Function of Some South Indian Guilds’, in D.C. Sircar, ed., Early Indian Trade and Industries (Calcutta:
University of Calcutta).
3 Kumar, R., Balsari, V., & Murphy, D. (2002). Corporate Responsibility in India: A Changing Agenda?. The Ethical Corporation Newsletter.
4 CREM-report nr. 03.650 (2004); "Corporate Social Responsibility in India, Policy, and practices of Dutch companies", Consultancy and
Research for Environmental Management.
5 Sundar, P. 2000. Beyond Business: From Merchan Charity to Corporate Citizenship. Indian Business Philanthropy through the Ages. Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New Delhi.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

serving the underprivileged and feeding orphans on their birthdays, keeping some part of
their monthly income aside for donations or in the name of the Almighty, etc. are an
indication of rich and socially responsible behavior of every Indian.
Merchants supported temples by building Dharmashalas (rest houses), night
shelters and Ghats (bathing platforms). They also provided drinking water facilities, water
tanks, wells, and animal sheds. They also establishment Pathshalas (village schools offering
primary education) and donated money and materials for dowries for poor girls.
Pushpa Sundar claims to capture and present the shifts, from merchant charity to
corporate citizenship in India and differentiates between charity, philanthropy, CSR and
corporate citizenship. These shifts were the business response to evolving societal needs
and demands during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The four reasons for the
adoption of CSR policies and practices attributed by her to the Indian companies were
 Philanthropy - Contributing to society without expecting anything in return.
 Desire to improve relations with employees, customers, and shareholders
(Internal reasons, )
 Publicity and goodwill by better relations with local communities or Rebates
in tax and
 Enlightened self-interest.
It can be inferred from the above that the concepts of CSR and welfare originated
was known to India, and were in vogue for many centuries before it found any reference in
Western literature. This is evident, for example, in the recognition that sustained economic
growth and development holds greater promise for new markets and customers for
companies’ services and products, and hence investment.
The three distinctive features of Indian philanthropy highlighted by Sundar are.
 It is a story of Indian businessmen. Women did not play too important a
role in business philanthropy historically.
 It is a story of indigenous rather than an expatriate business.
 Philanthropy is largely a story of family businesses like in other Asian
countries.
Despite these distinctive features modern philanthropy in India has some
similarities with the West. Like in the west, religious beliefs and sentiments can be seen as
the driving forces associated with capital accumulation, industrial wealth and the resultant
social consequences. Indian philanthropy vehicles of Trusts and foundations closely
resemble their western counterparts. However, the form of form philanthropy takes in any
society depends on the unique history, culture, traditions, and economic and political
organization of a nation. Unlike in the West, grant-giving foundations were absent in India.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

 A second difference is that religion’s influence continues to play, an important role
in Indian business philanthropy while it receded in the West with corporate growth. The
concept of keeping a share of one’s surplus wealth for the good of society is neither a
modern nor a Western import into India.
The four phases of business philanthropy in India identified by Sundar are,
 From 1850 to 1914;
 From 1914 to 1960;
 From 1960 to 1970; and
 The 1980s and 1990s.
Sundar classifies the shift in the first phase of business philanthropy in India during
the pre-industrial era toward a more secular (Western form) of philanthropy in the period
between 1850 and 1914 and consists of charity for purely religious reasons.
Newly rich business families led by Jamsetji Jejeebhoy, Jamsetji Tata, etc,
spearheaded the new Westernized trends of philanthropy by setting up trusts and institutions
such as educational institutions, hospitals, orphanages, widows’ homes, art galleries, and
museums. Older forms of charity, such as the building and maintenance of temples, pilgrim
rest houses, and water tanks also continued exhibiting business giving elements of both
charity and philanthropy.
According to Lala (2004)6, similar to the American millionaire Andrew Carnegie,
establishing 2,000 public libraries in North America and Scotland, Jamsetji Tata offered
scholarships to deserving Indian students for their education at universities overseas by
establishing the J.N. Tata Endowment in 1892. These philanthropic practices matured during
the golden period for Indian capitalism and business philanthropy was during the second
phase (1914–1960). This was dominated by Gandhi's theory of trusteeship, the aim of which
was to consolidate and amplify social development. According to(Narayan 1966)7, Gandhiji’s
theory of the “trusteeship” of wealth influenced great Industrialists like G.D. Birla, Jamnalal
Bajaj, Ambalal Sarabhai, and Lala Shri Ram. They contributed to Gandhi’s reform programs,
of the welfare of Untouchables, women’s empowerment, and rural development.
Kumar et al., (2001)8 identifies Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship is an “ethical model” of
CSR with a voluntary commitment by companies to public welfare. According to Pachauri
(2004)9, Gandhi's view of the ownership of capital was one of trusteeship. This is motivated
by the belief that essentially society was providing capitalists with an opportunity to manage

6 Lala, R.M. 2004. The Creation of Wealth: The Tatas from the 19th to the 21st Century. Penguin Books India, New Delhi.
7 Narayan, J.P. 1966. Social Responsibility of Business. Manaktalas, Bombay.
8 Kumar, R., D.F. Murphy, and V. Balsari. 2001. Altered Images: The 2001 State of Corporate Responsibility in India Poll. Understanding and
Encouraging Corporate Responsibility in South Asia—Update 1. Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi.
9 Pachauri, R.K. 2004. “The rationale for corporate social responsibility in India.” The Financial Express, 22 December.
www.teriin.org/features/art227.htm

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

resources. This should be seen as a form of trusteeship on behalf of society in general. This
is similar to King Marthanda Verma of Travancore who, made the Deity Lord Padmanabha
as the sovereign and ruled the country as his servant taking the title Padmanabha dasan.
According to Arora (2001)10, the concept of CSR evolved later from the ideas of
trusteeship that were expounded in England and the United States in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries that matched with Gandhiji’s ideas.
Varma (2004)11.asserts that, Gandhiji was not against wealth and emphasized that
there should be no forced redistribution of wealth. He wanted the alleviation of suffering and
called for social justice. He felt that government intervention would be ineffective and a
conscious change has to come from the wealthy. Gandhiji wanted the wealthy to share their
wealth voluntarily and was against the wealth being coerced into sharing their wealth
(Renold 1994)12.
Indian industry developed closer ties with Congress, as resentment grew against
British rule. The famous Bombay plan developed by top industrialists like G.D. Birla and
J.R.D. Tata in 1944 contained a detailed plan to achieve India’s postwar economic
requirements (Tomlinson 1979)13; (Das 2002)14.
Prakash-Mani, (2002)15, citing the 2001 State of CSR in India poll based on the four
thinking approaches elaborates the evolution of CSR in India in four models that co-exist in
India today
Ethical Model: Ethical Model revived and reinterpreted the promotion of Gandhiji’s
“trusteeship” by managing business entity as a trust held in the interest of the community
prompting many family-run businesses to contribute generously towards .socioeconomic
development. The efforts of the Tatas group in establishing townships are worth mentioning
in this model.
Statist Model: Statist Model came into being in the post-independence era with the
patronage of Jawaharlal Nehru. The era saw the movement from capitalism to socialism and
was driven by a mixed and socialist kind of economy. State ownership and legal
requirements decided the corporate responsibilities in this model. This phase of CSR from
1960 to 1980 coincided with a period of economic and political troubles, in which business
operations were constrained. The government's socialist agenda leads to a "mixed

10 Arora, B. (2004). A Review of Corporate Social Responsibility in India. Development, 47(3), 93-100.
11 Varma, P.K. 2004. Being Indian: The Truth about Why the 21st Century Will Be India's. Penguin Books India, New Delhi.
12 Renold, L. 1994. "Gandhi: Patron saint of the industrialist." South Asia Graduate Research Journal, Introductory Issue, Vol. 1, No. 1.
http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/pages/sagar/ spring.1994/sagar.intro.toc.may1994.html.
13 Tomlinson, B.R. 1979. The Political Economy of the Raj 1914–1947: The Economics of Decolonization in India. Macmillan Press, London.
14 Das, G. 2002. India Unbound: From Independence to the Global Information Age. Penguin Books India, New Delhi.
15 Prakash-Mani, Kavita: 2002 ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in the Indian Context’, Sustainability Radar, February 2002, pp 29-30.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

economy," dominance of PSUs and strict legislation on labor and environmental standards,
and strict legal and public regulation of business activities.
Liberal Model: The model was encapsulated by Milton Friedman, who famously
remarked that profit maximization is the sole reason for business. Hence Business needs to
obey the law and generate wealth. Social responsibilities can be addressed through taxation
and private charity
Stakeholder Model: The model came into existence during the 1990s as a
consequence of the failures of governments and the increase of the power of influences of
the business over the governments. It is realized that businesses also have certain societal
roles to fulfill apart from growing economic profits and follow the “triple bottom line” approach
focusing on accountability and transparency through several mechanisms. In this phase,
Indian CSR, the business/ society interface began, characterized by a dynamic corporate
sector on the one hand and a variety of approaches to social development on the other.
We can add one more model to the above as the mandatory CSR model with India
making CSR mandatory from 2013.
It has often been stated that CSR in the Indian context is, neither social work nor
social service; corporate charity nor corporate philanthropy, community development nor
social development. In the process of globalization, India has become an important
economic and political actor. With more transnational companies resorting to global
sourcing, India has become an attractive production and manufacturing site for the world.
Indian companies producing for the global market need to comply with international
standards, as western consumer markets are becoming more responsive to labor and
environmental standards in developing countries. Indian CSR agenda and practices are also
affected by this new situation
Corporate social responsibility is different; it identifies what the gain for the corporate
sector is, and the mutuality factor. It brings stakeholder responsibility and shareholder
responsibility in concert as an option for business strategy. The term Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) has been used synonymously with the term Corporate Stakeholder
Management (CSM) by many Indian authors.
CSR has gained prevalence in the last few decades in India, especially due to
pressures within the country as well as from the international market. These pressures are
often expressed in terms of the concerns of interest groups who are significant for the
bottom line of the corporation.
Furthermore, arguments rise on the notion of a group of advocates of CSR that says
that it is an elementary point that greater equity does not guarantee less poverty, or even
holding the total national income constant.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

 They say that by redistributing the wealth of the capitalist among few existing small
entrepreneurs, one will get greater equity, but not less poverty. Indeed, given the prospect
that as a wealthy capitalist is likely to engage in greater philanthropy than the few
entrepreneurs, the redistribution may reduce the potential for future poverty reduction.
Hence, the best way to reduce poverty is by enforcing policies that sustain high rates
of growth of income, which could adopt an active instrument of poverty reduction through
greater philanthropy by the benefactors of growth. Members of growing CSR alliances like
the UN Global Compact crave to emerge as steadfast organizations committed to a socially
responsible body.
Therefore, any examination of the effect of an action to review its worth taken as a
whole makes no difference whether egotism or charity drives business to implement CSR.
Likewise, others interpret that while the business is benefited overtly in terms of improved
sales and enhanced brand image, followed by an implicit gain in the form of greater
customer loyalty and larger employee retention; it makes a positive impact on society at
large with corporates participating in the reconstruction of the community through a range of
services and innovative interventions.
The analysis of the contemporary roles of CSR in the global view of competitiveness
of business set forth some important issues that could be applied to uphold the merits of the
argument, which was posed to rationalize the fact that CSR is an extension of corporate self-
interest from cutting the deficit to earning 'just profit'.
Businesses are facing challenging times worldwide. Increased competition and
commercial pressure, combined with rising regulatory standards and consumer demand,
create a new combat zone. Traditional expectations from businesses are also changing fast.
We can no longer celebrate the life of an extraordinary entrepreneur with an unlimited supply
of ambition without falling short on scruples and ethics. Employing people, earning profit and
paying taxes is no longer enough.
Organizations are now expected o be accountable, to act responsibly and benefit
society as a whole. People expect sound ethical standards, sustainable management of
resources, and community participation besides the supply of quality products and services.
This has formed a vital agenda for CSR.
The proclamation that says that it is not enough for a company to make money and
pay taxes is not just an article of faith held by the social activists, but most corporate
connoisseurs have started worshiping the decree.
In a world where the corporate sector is fast adopting eco-friendly and socially
responsible strategies as a sustainable way of doing business, the no holds- barred
business strategy of yesteryears leaves a peculiar taste in the mouth. The strategy that

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

eulogizes the breaking of rules or exalts the practice of earning profits at any cost might
have been justifiable in another era or another economic regime.
Promoting it in today’s milieu— where issues of corporate governance and CSR are
no longer ‘soft’—seems terribly out of step with reality. Shareholders prefer and reward
ethical manufacturing and business practices through higher valuations.
Chakraborty (1991)16 has shown the deep roots of the Indian ethos from which Indian
managers can develop a structure of values based on which they can develop stakeholder
policies. He relates to the stakeholders and develops appropriate policies towards them
using a transcendental spiritual approach like
 A top-quality product or service has to be given to the consumer. This is primarily
a function of the mind or consciousness of the doer and only secondarily of
Quality Circles (QC) or Statistical Quality Control (SQC).
 Cooperation and trust are essential in organizations because the Divine inner
being of all individuals is one, and the deception of others is the deception of
oneself.
 Jealousy in organizations is harmful to mental health and thus has to be avoided.
 The individual must be respected in an organization, not because of his
individuality, but because of the transcendent, the Divine, enshrined in him.
 Practice work is worship by offering each piece of work to God is the best way to
approach the Divine through secular life.
 Customer satisfaction is essential because the customer is the Divine who has
come upon the organization in human garb and thus has to be served.
. Srivastava (1985)17 looks social responsibility with the Oriental concept that is
based on spiritual, unlike the Occidental concept that is based on enlightened self-interest.
Oriental thinkers view the entire creation to have emanated from one supreme
power, including the instruments of economic production. Management now becomes
grateful to that Entity for its bounty. Since nature, harnessed by industry, is also seen as part
of the Divine Entity, ceases to be the exploiter of nature and does not anymore think of him
to be the owner of any national wealth acquired by harnessing nature.
Instead, management plays the plain and simple role of being the custodian or
trustee of such wealth. Management thus becomes a social servant rather than a grabber of
social power. All the activities of management would be done with service motive to society,
with the awareness of the Supreme Creator. This concept of Social responsibility will be
more enduring and will lead to the self-actualization of the manager facilitating the practice of
values-based management.

16 Chakraborty, S.K. (1991), Management by Values (New Delhi: Oxford University Press
17 Srivastava, P.K. (1985), New Horizons in Management (Jaipur: Printwell Publishers).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

 Gopala Krishna (1992)18 studied the perceptions of the social responsibility of middle
and top-level executives of India. Most of the managers are quite favorable to CSR. The
aspects covered by him include the need and rationale of CSR, priorities, and approaches
towards CSR, organizational arrangement and implementation of CSR, and social auditing.
He concluded that:
1. Managers in the Indian industry are very favorable to CSR. Some of the factors
responsible for their acceptance are value change in society and public criticism
about the less satisfactory performance of the industry in terms of its social
responsibility.
2. Job creation and social relief and reconstruction are some of the priority areas of
CSR.
3. The most preferred organizational arrangement for implementation is a
permanent committee of executives.
4. The hurdles to implementation of CSR are poor profit performance and ad hoc
approach to social responsibility by top management.
5. The most acceptable method of social audit is the performance goals method.
6. There is no significant difference in the perceptions of top managers and middle
managers, both in the public and private sectors, regarding the performance of
CSR.
The priority areas of CSR were the Creation of jobs, social relief, and
reconstructions. They also found that the permanent committee of executives was the
organization’s most preferred arrangement for the implementation of CSR. According to
Chatterjee and Pearson (2000)19 Indian business society in modern times is a complex mix
that appreciated the ethical values of ancient traditions and the institutional and corporate
values of the colonial period.
The modern concept of CSR was introduced into the Indian business vocabulary in
connection with the economic reforms in the early 1990s when the country experienced an
inflow of international capital and companies (Sarkar and Sarkar (2004)20.
The interest and importance of, CSR as a driver for the development of the
relationship between business and society has accelerated swiftly in India in the last twenty
years. This is in tune with the general progress of CSR in the world economy (Whitehouse

18 Gopala Krishna, C. (1992), Corporate Social Responsibility in India (New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
19 Chatterjee, Samir R., and Cecil A.L. Pearson (2000); ”Indian Managers in Transition: Orientation, Work Goals, Values and Ethics”,
Management International Review, Vol: 40, No: 1, pp: 81-95.
20 Sarkar, Jayati and Subrata Sarkar (2004); "Corporate Governance Reforms and Corporate Sector Development in India", pp: 166-203, from
editors: Reed, Darryl, and Sanjoy Mukherjee; "Corporate Governance, Economic Reforms, and Development, The Indian Experience", 2004,
Oxford University Press New Delhi.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

(2006)21, (Baxi (2005)22, Balasubramanian et al. (2005)23. During this time, CSR has
increasingly taken the shape of a business case, even though it is still to a large extent
influenced by philanthropic values
An insight into the history of CSR reveals that the idea of philanthropy solely
dominated and businesses often restricted themselves to a one-time financial grant till the
1990s. Commitments to their resources for long term projects were absent. The efficacy and
efficiency of CSR initiatives were reduced as businesses never kept the stakeholder in mind
while planning for such initiatives.
The concept of CSR has been changing over the last few years with the transition
from giving as an obligation or charity to giving as a strategy or responsibility. CSR seems
to be starting to build on empowerment and partnership and slowly moving away from
charity and dependence. This emphasis can be seen for example in that the term CSR is
often referred to specifically as the philanthropic commitments of companies in India.
Code of conduct issues, and other issues that are related to the internal structure of
the company, which are considered to be important aspects in the western CSR framework,
are sometimes referred to as Corporate Governance (CG) (Baxi; 2005).
Literature shows that there’ are only a very few empirical studies in India to assess
the state of CSR (Singh et al. (1980)24. Even these studies relied on the data generated
from the business managers and not the society in general Reddy (2006).25
Singh et al. (1980)26 reported that the corporate community in India has been under
severe criticism for its indifferent attitude towards the problems of the common man and by
and large, has not provided the solution to social problems. They empirically examined
these criticisms by subjecting a sample of 251 respondents (corporate managers) with
varying degrees of experience and found that that corporate action is perceived to be pure
profit-maximizing predominantly, followed by calculative behavior.
Reddy (2006) studied the perception of sixty corporate managers using a
questionnaire and personal interviews on CSR in India. The manor drivers for CSR were
improving employee relations, maintaining social commitment, and becoming good
corporate citizens. A healthy and safe working environment, value for stakeholders, good

21 Whitehouse, Lisa (2006); ”Corporate Social Responsibility: Views from the Frontline”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol: 63, pp: 279-296.
22 Baxi, C.V (2005); The Current Context of Corporate Governance in India, Global Business Review, Vol: 6, pp: 303-314.
23 Balasubramanian, N K, David Kimber and Fran Siemensma (2005); ”Emerging Opportunities or Traditions Reinforced? An Analysis of the
Attitudes Towards CSR, and Trends of Thinking about CSR, in India”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol: 17, pp: 79-92.
24 Singh, P.; Maggu, A.; and Warrier, S.K. (1980), Corporate Social Responsibility: Realities and Expectations, Vikalpa, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 117-
130.
25 Reddy, A.J.M. (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility for Sustainable Development, Green Business (eds) Sahay, B.S.; Roger, R. Stough;
Amrik Sohal; and Sonu Goyal, Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
26 Singh, P.; Maggu, A.; and Warrier, S.K. (1980), Corporate Social Responsibility: Realities and Expectations, Vikalpa, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 117-
130.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

environmental concerns, support for community projects and charity are the main
components of CSR. Board members, customers, and shareholders are the key
stakeholders influencing CSR initiatives. Most of the managers agreed that CSR is an
important means for profitability.
CSR activities must include providing health and safety measures and preserving
employee rights and discouraging discrimination at the workplace. This creates a healthy
environment within the company. For example, TATA’s implementations of social welfare
provisions for its employees after 1945, has become the legislative norm. CSR activities may
include a commitment to product quality, fair pricing policies, and so from the perspectives of
customers.
Many organizations want to focus on poverty alleviation, environmental protection
and sustained development in their CSR. Many companies like TATA are developing
infrastructure in rural areas. TATA Motors for example, provided many primary schools in
Singur with furniture, electrical fittings, and educational and sports materials. They have also
set up a computer laboratory in one of the high schools. TVS Electronics provided relief
measures to the victims during the Tsunami as part of their CSR.
Mital (1988)27, describes the social initiatives of several companies and sets the
agenda for academic discussion on this issue. Several case studies of the firms engaged in
the CSR activities in India are compiled by Baxi and Prasad (2005)28. Besides, there are
several media reports and corporate disclosures in their Annual Reports where the CSR
activities are reported.
Even the industry associations like Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Chamber
of Commerce, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), etc. have
initiated affirmative action programs as a part of their CSR activities. These reports have the
potential to create a positive ambiance between corporate actions and the way it is
perceived by society.
What is necessary today is the need for a reorientation of corporate organizations’
approach towards stakeholders and stakeholders’ welfare, coupled with an ardent desire to
implement the same.
Srivastava and Venkateswaran (2000)29, summarizing recent research have
classified the motives of organizations engaging in CSR as
 Purely philanthropic;

27 Mital, K. M. (1988). Social responsibilities of business: concepts, areas, and progress. South Asia Books.

28 Baxi, C.V. and Prasad A., (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Cases- The Indian Experience, Excel Books, New Delhi,
India.
29 Srivastava, Harsh and Shankar Venkateswaran. (2000), The Business of Social Responsibility: The Why, What and How of Corporate Social
Responsibility in India (Bangalore: Books for Change).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

  Internal reasons like Improving the morale of employees, satisfaction of customers
and shareholders.
 External reasons like the benefits accrued by satisfying local communities, publicity
and tax benefits; and
 Enlightened self-interest creates a stable social environment and increases
prosperity resulting in a larger market and more profits in the long term.
Relationships with stakeholders are considered extremely important. Demonstrated
instances of this include the Honda Motor worldwide driver/rider education and traffic safety
programs. Another idea is the promotion of ’eco-technology’ through the establishment of the
Honda Foundation. The concept of ’eco-technology’ advocates that the aim of technology
should not merely be to increase profit and efficiency and that technological progress should
be in harmony with humanity and nature.
Reink Goodijk (2003)30 states that sensible, intelligent management recognizes the
importance of investing in relationship management and stakeholder involvement.
Relationship management and stakeholder involvement presume an open eye for and views
on all kinds of signals, developments, and problems, trying to balance all different interests
and answer the questions
There are two ways in which companies see CSR—one that avows an ethical
business practice of the corporation, and the other that is purely driven by inspired
philanthropy of organizations. For many companies, business ethics meant only compliance
with legal standards and adherence to internal rules and regulations until recently.
Today the situation is different. Attention to business ethics is rising across the globe,
and many companies realize that to succeed, they must earn the respect and confidence of
their customers.
Corporations are held increasingly accountable for their actions and are expected to
improve their business practices to emphasize legal and ethical behavior While corporate
philanthropy is generally defined as an engagement with the community at any level and
usually means giving back to the community in some sense (whether it is through funding,
volunteering, or any kind of donation or personal involvement), CSR is involved in more
internally focused activities in terms of human resources policy, ethical business practices,
environmental regulatory compliance and so on.
The firm’s performance can be seen as a joint function of product and market. While
the product remains largely fundamental, the market is influenced by a wide spectrum of
business strategies and, hence, is less predictable. Changes in business have stressed

30 Goodijk, Rienk (2003), ‘Partnership at Corporate Level: The Meaning of the Stakeholder Model’, Journal of Change Management, 3(3), 225–
42.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

upon the application of a wide range of approaches. These are characterized by harnessing
the product with increased levels of satisfaction among consumers.
According to Irani (2002),31 contemporary roles of corporates in building civil society
have increasingly become a global paradigm due to the emergence of new business models
and evolving norms of corporate governance. This rising awareness of the need for
ecological sustainability has created a new generation of business leaders who are
concerned about community responses and the sustainability of the environment. The new
trends in CSR need to understand in this context.
Jackson (1998)32 states that a few new indicators have come to calculate success
based on the increasing competition in business. ‘World’s Most Respected Companies’ is
one such new indicator that emerged out of the World Economic Forum in 2003. This factor
is reminiscent of the thinking that ‘respect’ is earned through competitive strategies and,
thus, is a benchmark for competitors. Such respect appears to create a matchless
competitive advantage resulting in elevated profit with increased loyalty of stakeholders.
The competence of reaching out to the community helps businesses appreciate the
fact that there is profit in their CSR initiatives. The advantages are twice compounded—
when a community views a business as actively reaching out to its members, participating in
reconstructing the community, addressing the issues and problems, minimizing
environmental impact and perpetuating moral integrity, then the community’s confidence in
the brand, as well as loyalty to it, starts growing.
Consequently, shareholders and consumers are more contented, which helps in
acquiring a competitive advantage for the company. Today companies have turned CSR and
the good corporate governance framework into a profitable corporate strategy.
It is a win-win solution—what is good for the community must be good for the
company’s bottom line as well. The potential of corporate social responsibility lies in the
‘triple bottom line’ benefits: profit for the economic bottom line, social bottom line, and
environmental bottom line.
Globalization has laid down the foundation of a competitive and open economy,
creating a great opportunity for businesses. At the same time, it poses a great threat to
sustainability.
As India’s experience shows, growth is not generated by the existence of savings
alone. In any case, a shortage of capital need not be a critical constraint as vast quantities of
foreign capital can always be obtained when needed with the opening on the capital
account. The child labor horrors of Victorian times as well as today, the problem of toxins in

31 Irani, Janmhed J. (2002), ‘Session on Corporate Social Responsibility’. Keynote address, 27th Annual Meeting of the US India Business
Council, ‘Taking Stock: Indian Industry in 2002’, Washington, DC, 17 June.
32 Jackson, Tony (1998), 'World's Most Respected Companies' Financial Times and PricewaterhouseCoopers, 30 November.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

cigarettes, pollution of rivers and atmosphere, and Third World ‘sweatshops’ with its
attendant abuses are all costs not accounted for by the pricing mechanism that governs
supply and demand. As such, there is no provision for these costs in the price paid and thus
no revenue pool to address them.
Given the existence of these externalities, the resolution of the issue of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) is thus inextricably wound up in larger social welfare issues and is
rightfully a matter of public debate. Society does indeed claim the ‘right’ to define for
corporations what is right and wrong through regulation and prosecution and to execute
justice in cases where ethical violations have occurred.
CSR has evolved in India to encompass stakeholders like employees, customers,
and sustainable development or corporate citizenship. Though a lot of information about the
use of the stakeholder approach as means of social responsibility by rulers of the state in
ancient times has been documented, its applicability and use either by corporates or other
institutions in the present era are lacking.
Further CSR has not generated much interest in the corporates and researchers,
although it is important because a favorable corporate image can reduce the complaints,
litigation and even influence the purchase decision of the buyers.
The generally recognized Western models of international business ethics are
inadequate to be accepted as a universal answer. Green (1994)33 argued that ‘Beneath their
disagreements, people and cultures share some very basic moral values. But to criticize
ethical relativism philosophically is not to deny that some moral values and beliefs differ from
society to society. Cultural diversity is an undeniable fact’.
34
Ohmae (1986) strongly advocates that the business values and ethics of the triad
(the US, Europe, and Japan) will be the model for the world to follow. On the other hand, in
recent work, Huntington (1996)35 predicts an emerging clash of cultures defying global
economic integration.
He argues that despite the rise of regionalism and global economic imperatives, the
forces dividing nations will remain strong due to the divergence of assumptions on religious
and social values. He contends that despite its considerable influence and impact, Western
values are bound to be replaced by the strength of other ideologies and traditional
spirituality

33 R. Green, The Ethical Manager (New Jersey: Macmillan College Pub., 1994), 290.
34 K. Ohmae, ’The Triad World View’, Journal of Business Strategy, 1986, 8(19).
35 S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

 Wicks (1990)36 rejected the practicality of universal standards and universal morality.
He argues that there are no universal standards that can be applied to every culture at any
given time. But moral values overlap from one culture to another, even though there is
tremendous diversity between Eastern and Western cultures, some moral values such as 'it
is wrong to harm others'; 'it is right to help people who need help', and 'truth and fairness' are
common acceptable codes.
It cannot be denied that the paradigm of ethical convergence or divergence is shaped
to a large extent by one’s view of culture The morals, laws, wisdom, and practices handed
down to a group for generations are the only authentic guidelines shaping one’s behavior or
the emerging worldview on ’right’ and ’wrong’.
The economic reforms at the beginning of the 1990s opened the Indian economy for
international competition and privatization. However; the Indian economy is still challenged
by widespread poverty widening gaps between different income groups, which creates
opportunities for CSR to contribute to development.
Today, the Indian corporate sector and institutions have grown to such a size, that
their hold on world resources, capital generated out of business and business with all the
sections of society has become enormous. More and more global companies are also
operating in India. This poses challenges as well as opportunities to Indian corporates as
well as the people of India.
The generally accepted view is that a company owes a debt to the society and the
community in which it has progressed when it has the resources and has come a long way in
its progress. It is also agreed that if a company has caused some loss to its surrounding
areas, it should make up for that loss, whether technical or environmental, as a part of its
CSR.
Wayne Visser (2008)37 details two key differences in how CSR is practiced in the
developing world versus the developed world. Firstly, in the former, CSR tends to be even
less formalized and institutionalized in terms of benchmarks commonly used (and hence
studied) in industrialized countries. Secondly, making an economic contribution through CSR
is seen as the most effective and important way for businesses to make an impact on
developing countries, while CSR in developed countries mostly focuses on businesses'
ethical and legal responsibilities.
As is evident for the discussions above CSR in India has always been linked with the
idea of social welfare and development. CSR is still limited to the passions of the promoter

36 .C. Wicks, ’Norman Bowie and Richard Roistyon Multinationals: Does Business Ethics Need Metaphysical Comports?’, Journal of Business
Ethics, 1990, 9, 191-200.
37 Visser, W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

family as things stand in India. CSR needs to be understood as a journey and not a
destination.
India became the first country to make CSR mandatory in 2013. Mandatory CSR is
perhaps a solution to reach places that State cannot reach on its own. The CSR mandate
may give corporates opportunity to broaden their vision of CSR. .
Event analysis studies show that significant changes in the stock prices reflect major
events affecting an industry’s profitability, either positively or negatively. Mehta & Deodhar,
(2014),38taking one such event analysis of the food industry showed that there was no
impact on the stock prices of the firms that were to get covered by the mandatory norms by
the passing of the CSR norms in the Companies Act in the Parliament.
In the first years of implementation, based on the report of KPMG (2015)39, 87 of the
eligible companies spent Rs 51.1.5 billion against the prescribed Rs 64.90 billion. But
amongst them only 38 % have spent 2 per cent or more towards CSR. This figure has
jumped to 76 % (KPMG 2019) 40 in five years clearly indicating the willingness of the Indian
corporates in nation building . The progress on CSR has been slow but is showing signs of
improvement as it completes five years. But this progress of CSR is not enough.
Apart from corporate India, many academicians, NGOs and other supporters of CSR
view the mandatory proposal as an anomaly and contend that CSR should be voluntary.
International agencies like UN, ILO or World Bank, also do not favor non-negotiable statutory
laws for implementing CSR
Thus, mandatory CSR norms seem to be taking more time. There is a widespread
feeling in India, that the high GDP growth rate of the past decade has remained confined to
urban areas only and has not reached rural India to lift the poor section of the society.

*****************

38Mehta, F., & Deodhar, S. Y. (2014). Assessing the impact of mandatory CSR on the food industry. Indian Institute of Management.

39 KPMG (2015) India’s CSR reporting survey 2015. Available at <https://home.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/12/KPMG-survey-of-CR-

reporting-2015.pdf>
40 KPMG (2019) India’s CSR reporting survey 2015. available at https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2020/02/india-s-csr-reporting-
survey-2019.pdf

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

 REFERENCE

Arora, B. (2004). A Review of Corporate Social Responsibility in India. Development, 47(3), 93-100.

Balasubramanian, N K, David Kimber and Fran Siemensma (2005); "Emerging Opportunities or

Traditions Reinforced? An Analysis of the Attitudes Towards CSR, and Trends of Thinking about
CSR, in India”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol: 17, pp: 79-92.

Baxi, C.V (2005); The Current Context of Corporate Governance in India, Global Business Review,
Vol: 6, pp: 303-314.

Baxi, C.V. and Prasad A., (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Cases- The Indian
Experience, Excel Books, New Delhi, India.

Chakraborty, S.K. (1991), Management by Values (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).

Chatterjee, Samir R., and Cecil A.L. Pearson (2000); "Indian Managers in Transition: Orientation,
Work Goals, Values and Ethics”, Management International Review, Vol: 40, No: 1, pp: 81-95.

CREM-report nr. 03.650 (2004); "Corporate Social Responsibility in India, Policy, and practices of
Dutch companies", Consultancy and Research for Environmental Management.

Das, G. 2002. India Unbound: From Independence to the Global Information Age. Penguin Books
India, New Delhi.

Goodijk, Rienk (2003), ‘Partnership at Corporate Level: The Meaning of the Stakeholder Model’,
Journal of Change Management, 3(3), 225–42.

Gopala Krishna, C. (1992), Corporate Social Responsibility in India (New Delhi: Mittal Publications).

Irani, Janmhed J. (2002), ‘Session on Corporate Social Responsibility’. Keynote address, 27th Annual
Meeting of the US India Business Council, ‘Taking Stock: Indian Industry in 2002’, Washington, DC,
17 June.

Jackson, Tony (1998), 'World's Most Respected Companies' Financial Times and
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 30 November.

K. Ohmae, ’The Triad World View’, Journal of Business Strategy, 1986, 8(19).

Krishna, C.G. (1992), Corporate Social Responsibility in India- A Study of Management Attitude,
Mittal Publications, New Delhi.

Kumar, R., D.F. Murphy, and V. Balsari. 2001. Altered Images: The 2001 State of Corporate
Responsibility in India Poll. Understanding and Encouraging Corporate Responsibility in South Asia—
Update 1. Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi.

Kumar, R., Balsari, V., & Murphy, D. (2002). Corporate Responsibility in India: A Changing
Agenda?. The Ethical Corporation Newsletter.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

Lala, R.M. 2004. The Creation of Wealth: The Tatas from the 19th to the 21st Century. Penguin Books
India, New Delhi.

Mital, K. M. (1988). Social responsibilities of business: concepts, areas, and progress. South Asia
Books.

Narayan, J.P. 1966. Social Responsibility of Business. Manaktalas, Bombay.

Pachauri, R.K. 2004. “The rationale for corporate social responsibility in India.” The Financial Express,
22 December. www.teriin.org/features/art227.htm

Prakash-Mani, Kavita: 2002 ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in the Indian Context’, Sustainability
Radar, February 2002, pp 29-30.

R. Green, The Ethical Manager (New Jersey: Macmillan College Pub., 1994), 290.

Ramakrishnan, Dr. (2017). Contribution of CSR Towards Development-The Indian Perspective.

Available at SSRN 3059833

Ramakrishnan, Dr. (2015). "Do Companies Benefit by CSR?." Journal of Research and
Development 3, no. 2

Ramakrishnan, Dr. (2019). Feasibility and Legal Requirements for CSR. Available at SSRN 3511330
.
Ramakrishnan, Dr. (2016). Indian CSR-Is It Different from Western? Available at SSRN 2902580.

Ramakrishnan, Dr. (2017). Mandatory CSR–Can It Help Indian Firms?. Available at SSRN 3497350.

Ramachandran, R. (2008). Significant Changes in the Business in the Last 30 Year due to Corporate
Social Responsibility. DSA Corporate Social Responsibility Study Group at the Magdalene College,
Cambridge University y UK.

Ramakrishnan, Dr. "Stakeholder Management–A Critical Study on the Opportunities and Challenges
from India." In 23rd AIMS Annual Management Education Convention, pp. 26-27. 2011.

Ramakrishnan (2009) Stakeholder management- A critical study on the challenges and opportunities=
Doctoral Thesis Alagappa University India available at http://hdl.handle.net/10603/54311

Ramakrishnan, Dr. (2019). Theories of Stakeholder Management. Available at SSRN 3535087.

Ramakrishnan, Dr. (2008).Towards Better Stakeholder Management. Corporate Social Responsibility:

Development with Equity Available at SSRN 1751042

Reddy, A.J.M. (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility for Sustainable Development, Green Business
(eds) Sahay, B.S.; Roger, R. Stough; Amrik Sohal; and Sonu Goyal, Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi.

Renold, L. 1994. “Gandhi: Patron saint of the industrialist.” South Asia Graduate Research Journal,
Introductory Issue, Vol. 1, No. 1.
http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/pages/sagar/spring.1994/sagar.intro.toc.may1994.html

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464

S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1996).

Sarkar, Jayati and Subrata Sarkar (2004); "Corporate Governance Reforms and Corporate Sector
Development in India", pp: 166-203, from editors: Reed, Darryl, and Sanjoy Mukherjee; "Corporate
Governance, Economic Reforms, and Development, The Indian Experience”, 2004, Oxford University
Press New Delhi.

Singh, P.; Maggu, A.; and Warrier, S.K. (1980), Corporate Social Responsibility: Realities and
Expectations, Vikalpa, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 117-130.

Singh, P.; Maggu, A.; and Warrier, S.K. (1980), Corporate Social Responsibility: Realities and
Expectations, Vikalpa, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 117-130.

Sivakumar, N. (1995), 'Value-Based Management: Historical Roots in India and Current Practices'.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, School of Business Management, Sri Sathya Sai University, Prashanti
Nilayam, Andhra Pradesh.

Srivastava, Harsh and Shankar Venkateswaran. (2000), The Business of Social Responsibility: The
Why, What and How of Corporate Social Responsibility in India (Bangalore: Books for Change).

Srivastava, P.K. (1985), New Horizons in Management (Jaipur: Printwell Publishers).

Sood, A., & Arora, B. (2006). The political economy of corporate responsibility in India. UNRISD.

Sundar, P. (2000) Beyond Business: From Merchan Charity to Corporate Citizenship. Indian Business
Philanthropy through the Ages. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New Delhi.

Tomlinson, B.R. (1979) The Political Economy of the Raj 1914–1947: The Economics of
Decolonization in India. Macmillan Press, London.

Varma, P.K. (2004). Being Indian: The Truth about Why the 21st Century Will is India's. Penguin
Books India, New Delhi.

Verma, O.P. (1972), ‘Organization and Function of Some South Indian Guilds’, in D.C. Sircar, ed.,
Early Indian Trade and Industries (Calcutta: University of Calcutta).

Visser, W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In The Oxford handbook of
corporate social responsibility.

Whitehouse, Lisa (2006); "Corporate Social Responsibility: Views from the Frontline”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol: 63, pp: 279-296.

Wicks. .C. ’Norman Bowie and Richard Roistyon Multinationals: Does Business Ethics Need
Metaphysical Comports?’ Journal of Business Ethics, 1990, 9, 191-200

***************

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3559464