See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269408205

CSR as a Strategic Management Tool:

Article  in  International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change · March 2014

DOI: 10.4018/ijcesc.2014010103

CITATIONS READS

8 6,575

3 authors, including:

Edwin Agwu Agnes Taylor

Fortune Educational Services, London, United Kingdom Coventry University
84 PUBLICATIONS   600 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dyslexia Assessment Teacher Training View project

journal View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edwin Agwu on 12 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014 27

CSR as a Strategic
Management Tool:
Expectations and Realities of
Two MNCs in Nigeria
Edwin M. Agwu, Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK
Agnes R. Taylor, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

ABSTRACT
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a concept has been a subject of debate in the management cycle
for decades. However, the incorporation of CSR, competitive advantage and strategic management into top
management decision making processes, forms a set of new alliances that are beginning to gain attention.
This paper examined the strategic alliances of these highly volatile but significantly critical components in
order to determine the extent to which these three seemingly incongruous factors can be achieved in reality
within a developing country such as Nigeria. Using a comparative case study approach, the activities of two
multinationals - Shell Plc and Coca Cola – were examined. The critical success factors were explained based
on the strategies adopted in order to determine the impact on the society and whether they were in line with
stakeholders’ expectations. Findings however indicate that there has been an interplay of high level forces
which has resulted in the unsavoury news emanating from the oil producing communities in Nigeria, unfor-
tunately, the activities of Coca cola in both the content and context of their operations have received little or
no attention. This paper contributes to the scarce literature of this discourse within the African continent in
general and Nigerian state in particular as well as sets a precedent for future research.

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Management Cycle, Multinational Companies, Nigeria,
Stakeholders

INTRODUCTION (TNC) or multinational enterprise (MNE), are

The world of corporate social responsibility is
one that could be described as entangled and
interwoven, as well as one that is neck-deep
in the murky waters of management all over
the world. Multinational corporations (MNC),
otherwise known as trans-national corporation
acronyms which are often used interchange-
ably to describe international organisations
that produces good and/or services which are
supplied to more than one country.
Fassin (2008 p.366) stated that MNCs
are corporations that have their management
headquarters in one country, known as the home

DOI: 10.4018/ijcesc.2014010103

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
28 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014
country, and operates in several other countries,
known as host countries. Castka and Balzarova
(2008) stressed that the balance sheet of some
MNCs far exceed that of some host countries
while Levis (2006) contend that some large
MNCs influence the political processes of their
host nations due to the role they play within
the economies.
Different types of MNCs operate within
the African continent such as oil companies,
airlines, beverages, pharmaceuticals, etc.
Despite the cultural, economic and territorial
differences, these MNCs’ have been able to ma-
noeuvre their ways and entrench their operations
within the various African countries in which
they operate as well as other emerging markets
such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc.
Policy makers and of course researchers
have dedicated a lot of time and money trying
to understand the implications of the different
policies as well as practices of these MNCs,
their relationships to their business strategies
(Pearce and Doh 2005, p.34) and their impacts
on the culture and lives of the community and
countries where they operate. Several research-
ers such as Husted (2003); Levis (2006); Sasse
and Trahan (2007); Fassin (2008); Castka and
Balzarova (2008), have attempted to chart a
course for various MNCs’based on the outcomes
of their findings.
CSR has become very relevant, especially
in the new millennium. However, researches in
these areas have received overwhelming domi-
nance from the western-centric centred research
and these researches have been mostly within
the developed countries of North America and
Europe and of late a focus on the transitional
or emerging economies of China, Brazil, India,
and Russia.
The theoretical, methodological as well as
practical gaps churned out from these researches
are more applicable to the developed and tran-
sitional economies. Unfortunately, researches
focusing on developing economies, such as
Nigeria, are scarce. Where research does exist
there is a limited attempt to fully capture the
depth of the issues in relations to incorporating
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
CSR into the strategic management of corporate
entities in order to gain a competitive advantage.
This study attempts to fill this gap in
knowledge by examining the alliance of stra-
tegic management and CSR within the African
continent. We believe that this could add to the
debate in relations to other developing countries
of the world with detailed issues revolving
around impact, empowerment, environment,
development and human rights. It is thus be-
lieved that burning issues such as environment
and development as well as human rights will
provoke high level discussions among research-
ers and policy makers.
The study, it is envisaged will generate
new ideas and contribute to the extant literature
within the African continent and strengthen
the alliance between MNCs’, their mode of
business strategies and improve their com-
petitive advantages through the application of
favourable CSR polices and practices in their
respective host communities in particular and
the countries in general.
The objective of this study therefore is to
investigate the CSR initiatives of MNCs stra-
tegic management in Nigeria and review these
in line with competitive advantage approaches.
The research question coined out of this is: Can
corporate social responsibility as a strategic
management initiative create competitive ad-
vantage for MNCs in Nigeria? Since this is a
case study, it is important to formulate specific
objectives in order to achieve both the specific
and broader aims and objectives of the study.
The specific objectives therefore will be to:
• Explain the relationships between CSR,
strategies and competitive advantage;
• Explore the context of social responsibility
in corporate strategies;
• Describe how CSR can create competitive
advantage in developing economies.
This paper is divided into various sections.
The introduction lays out the foundations of the
paper. Section two dwelt on the objectives and
the review of related literatures. While the third
 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014 29

section presents the qualitative approach in the
form of case study of selected Shell Plc and Coca
cola plants in Nigeria, detailing discussions
with managers and some notable stakehold-
ers. Finally the fourth section concludes the
research work and presents a comprehensive
framework based on the findings. This last
section also proposes the research agenda for
future researchers.
WHAT IS CSR?
Corporate Social Responsibility in all ramifica-
tions is formed by three strong words: corporate,
social and responsibility. Organisations exist
and socially interact with people and environ-
ment. Therefore the responsibility in CSR calls
for a symbiotic and cohesive existence. Caroll
(1991, p.43) views CSR as a fluid concept
which forms part of various organisations
strategies. And further states that the success of
a firm’s CSR reflects on how well it has been
able to navigate stakeholders concerns while
implementing its business model. CSR was
also seen as the valuing of the interdependent
relationships that exists among businesses,
their stakeholder groups, the economic system,
and the communities within which they exist
(Christian Aid 2005). Briggs and Verma (2006,
p.26) also stressed that CSR is a vehicle for
discussing the obligations a business has to its
immediate society, a way of proposing policy
ideas on how those obligations can be met, and
a tool for identifying the mutual benefits for
meeting those obligations. Other definitions
of CSR are shown in Table 1.
Beyond these academic definitions, lies
the definitions ascribed to CSR from both the

Table 1. Definitions of CSR

Author Definition
It is the obligation of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or
Bowen (1953 to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values
of out society
It implies a public posture toward society’s economic and human resources and a
Frederick (1960) willingness to see that those resources are used for broad social ends and not simply for
the narrowly circumscribed interests of private persons and firms
There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and
engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of
Friedman (1962)
the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or
fraud.
Davis and Blomstrom Social responsibility, therefore, refers to a person’s obligation to consider the effects of
(1966) his decisions and actions on the whole social system.
Social responsibility implies bringing corporate behaviour up to a level where it is
Sethi (1975)
congruent with the prevailing social norms, values, and expectations of performance.
The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and
Carroll (1979)
discretionary expectations that society has of organisations at a given point in time.
Corporate social responsibility is the notion that corporations have an obligation to
Jones (1980) constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law
and union contract.
The basic idea of corporate social responsibility is that business and society are
Wood (1991)
interwoven rather than distinct entities.
CSR is about how companies manage the business processes to produce an overall
Baker (2003)
positive impact on society.
Source: Kakabadse, N.K. Rozuel, C. and Lee-Davies, L. (2005)

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
30 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014

business and societal perspectives. Though,
often related to sustainability, the basis for the
definition is also as fluid as that of the academic
perspective, hence the views are relative in ap-
proach as evidenced in Table 2.
Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001, p.406)
argued that businesses of all shapes and sizes
have responsibilities to the society where they
operate and this belief can be traced back as
early as the seventeenth century. Donaldson
and Preston (1995, p.78) opined that the way
in which people view and define the relation-
ship between business and society has evolved
and transformed over the years. As there are
no uniform codes of conduct, or a scripted ap-
proach to CSR, various organisations in various
countries operate a variety of CSR policies,
principles and practices (Halabi, et al., 2006,
p.24). Despite the many years of CSR practices,
the burning questions still is – why the differ-
ences in principles and practices?

Table 2. CSR definitions from business and societal perspectives

Organisation Definition
World Business
Corporate Social Responsibility is business’ commitment to contribute to sustainable
Council for Sustainable
economic development working with employees, their families, the local community,
Development
and society at large to improve their quality of life.
(WBCSD) (2003)
Corporate Social Responsibility is the way in which a company manages and improves
CSR Europe (2003) its social and environmental impact to generate value for both its shareholders and its
stakeholders by innovating its strategy, organization and operations.
Corporate Responsibility involves the ‘fit’ businesses develop with the societies in
Organization for which they operate. The function of business in society is to yield adequate returns to
Economic Co- owners of capital by identifying and developing promising investment opportunities and,
operation and in the process, to provide jobs and to produce goods and services that consumers want
Development (OECD) to buy. However, corporate responsibility goes beyond this core function. Businesses
(2003) are expected to obey the various laws which are applicable to them and often have to
respond to societal expectations that are not written down as formal law
Companies have to recognize that their ability to continue to provide goods and services
Amnesty International
and to create financial wealth will depend on their acceptability to an international
– Business Group (UK)
society which increasingly regards protection of human rights as a condition of the
(2002)
corporate license to operate.
The Corporate
As an ‘organ of society’, companies have a responsibility to safeguard human rights
Responsibility
within their direct sphere of operations as well as within their wider spheres of
Coalition (CORE)
influence.
(2003)
Linked to the application by corporations of the sustainable development principle,
the concept of CSR integrates three dimensions: an economic dimension (efficiency,
profitability), a social dimension (social responsibility) and an environmental dimension
Novethic (2003)
(environmental responsibility). To respect these principles, corporations must pay more
attention to all the stakeholders which inform on the expectations of civil society and the
business environment.
We define social responsibility as the impact or interaction we have with society in three
Unilever (2003) distinct areas: (i) voluntary contributions, (ii) impact of (business’s direct) operations,
and (iii) impact through the value chain.
Social responsibility for Novo Nordisk is about caring for people. This applies to
our employees and the people whose healthcare needs we serve. It also considers the
Novo Nordisk (2003)
impact of our business on the global society and the local community. As such, social
responsibility is more than a virtue – it is a business imperative.
Source: Kakabadse, N.K. Rozuel, C. and Lee-Davies, L. (2005)

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014 31
The business world have in fact been
inundated with a flurry of changes in recent
years, however, the rise of issues surrounding
the societal expectations of MNCs have taken
the centre stage. Basically, the oil sector and
in fact the oil companies have been singled out
based on so many issues all over the world.
Levis (2006, p.51) stressed that issues relating
to human rights, employee rights and stakehold-
ers’ rights are top on the agenda and serves as
hot topic of discussion in many circles while
Castka and Balzarova (2008, p.282) contend
that environmental protection, community
relations, transparency, corruption, product
stewardship, principles and codes of practice
are on the front burners of the debate. Despite
several MNCs placing CSR at the core of their
strategies (Dentchev, 2005, p.408) only few have
actually understood how the integration of CSR
and their business strategies can raise the profile
of their organisations. It is this knowledge gap
that forms the crux of the misunderstanding and
misinterpretation of the roles expected of the
MNCs in the various parts of the world where
they operate.
STAKEHOLDERS:
WHO ARE THEY?
This often overlooked concept has in fact be-
come the real problem associated with the di-
verse views with which CSR is visited. While the
stockholders or shareholders are well defined
within the academic research paradigm, the
real meaning of stakeholders has loose descrip-
tion. Bruch and Walter (2005, 51) contend that
“stakeholders are those individuals or groups
who depend on the organisation to fulfil their
own goals and on whom, in turn, the organisa-
tion depends”; therefore one organisation is
concerned with a very large amount of people, if
not everyone since many people depend, either
directly or indirectly, on an organisation’s activ-
ity. And, if the organisation is accountable to
all its stakeholders (i.e., everyone) rather than
to one constituency (i.e., the shareholders or
stockholders), then the notion of accountability
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
becomes valueless because it is too broadly set
and useless from a managerial point of view
(Castka & Balzarova, 2008, 275). More often
than not, stakeholders are viewed by stockhold-
ers as groups that may harm the organisation
(Briggs & Verma 2006, p.25).
The facts that stakeholders can support
firms are often down-played. These too broad
definitional scopes of stakeholders often pitch
various groups together such as competitors
(though this can be argued further – see Boon
and Ababio (2009) and/or terrorists Fassin
(2008, p.365). It is therefore important that
stakeholders are sufficiently defined and placed
within the ambit of those that are favourable to
the organisational goals. These latter set, helps
organisations to achieve as much as possible a
win-win result. Castka and Balzarova (2008,
p.274) proposed a comprehensive, analytical,
stakeholder-based framework that encompasses
three concentric circles: the resource-base,
industry-structure and socio-political aspects
of a corporation’s environment. With support-
ing evidences from a thorough examination of
three companies; the authors further posits that
the firm-stakeholders relationships ‘are the es-
sential assets that managers must manage and
they are the ultimate sources of organisational
wealth’. Therefore it is critical to institutionalise
and maintain fruitful and open dialogue with key
(if not all) stakeholders to secure long-term sus-
tainable growth (Briggs & Verma 2006, p.26).
STAKEHOLDERS’ THEORY
The extensive research accorded the stakehold-
ers theory have yielded no concrete and gen-
erally acceptable definition as to its meaning.
Diverse authors, businesses, the society and
even the stakeholders have divergent views.
The hotbed of the battle however rages between
the stakeholders (society) and the stockholders
(shareholders). The opposing views of these
key players often sway opinions in various
quarters. Carroll (1991, p.47) argues that the
shareholders have legal claims on the purpose
of the firm they own. In furtherance of this,
32 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014
Donaldson and Preston (1995, p.66) stressed
that organisational managers are duty bound
to maximize the owners’ (shareholders) wealth.
However, Phillips (2001) contend that the inter-
est of other constituents have been discovered
to be of no less importance. It is on this basis
that Hillman et al. (2001, p.34) claimed that
“although a unified stakeholder theory with
general acceptance has yet to emerge among
stakeholder researchers, there does appear to be
some agreement regarding the general concepts
embodied in the stakeholder theory.”
This assertion is based on the work of
Jones and Wicks (1999), these authors listed
four main statements at the core of the stake-
holders’ theory: “(1) the firm has relationships
with constituent (stakeholder) groups, (2) the
processes and outcomes associated with these
relationships are of interest, (3) the interests of
all legitimate stakeholders have value, (4) the
focus of stakeholder theory is on managerial
decision-making” (Hillman et al., 2001, p.38).
However, in a broader term, Castka and Bal-
zarova (2008, p.45) described stakeholders as
all individuals or groups who can substantially
affect, or be affected by the welfare of the firm
- a category that includes not only the financial
claimholders, but also employees, custom-
ers, communities, government officials, etc.
Furthermore, Bruch and Walter (2005) stated
that stakeholder theory is never a legitimate
contender to value maximization, the authors
stressed that value maximization provide corpo-
rate managers with a single objective whereas
stakeholder theory directs corporate managers
to serve “many masters.” Based on the above,
it can be surmised that the ultimate purpose
of the stakeholder management theory is to
achieve a ‘win-win’ outcome, most probably in
a medium- to long-term perspective (Carroll,
1991, p.42), but it does not infer that managers
can manipulate stakeholders to reach the most
favourable trade-offs. Stakeholder management
aims to allocate resources adequately given the
outcome of prospective scenarios. It also aims
to repair previous damages traditionally left to
society’s kind-heartedness, which are referred
to as ‘externalities’. However, without the
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
clarity of mission provided by a single-valued
objective function, companies embracing
stakeholder theory will experience managerial
confusion, conflict, inefficiency and perhaps
even competitive failure (Corporate Council
on Africa 2006). While focusing attention on
meeting the demands of all-important corporate
constituencies, its specific long-term value
maximization, in all cases lies in the achieve-
ment of the organisation’s aims and objectives.
The social responsibilities of business
organisations encompass the economic, legal,
ethical, and discretionary expectations that the
society has of organisations at a given time (De
schutter, 2008, p.229).
Caroll analysed Figure 1 thus:
• Economic responsibilities: A firm has the
economic responsibility to produce an ac-
ceptable returns on its owners’ investment,
i.e. be profitable as it is the foundation upon
which all others rests;
• Legal responsibilities: Firms are also
obliged to act within the law of the land
or the community in which they operate.
They are duty bound to obey the laws of
the land as the law is a society’s codifica-
tion of right and wrong, hence the need
for firms to play by the rules of the game;
• Ethical responsibilities: Furthermore,
organisations are duty bound to be harm-
less to their environment, the community
and the stakeholders;
• Philanthropic responsibilities: Finally,
organisations have a discretionary respon-
sibility to act responsibly in a way that will
be of benefit to the firm, the environment
and their stakeholders. This is by adopting
the spirit of good citizenship – they are
therefore obliged to contribute various
resources to the community and improve
their quality of life.
Taking a cue from the above discussions,
CSR can be analysed within both the stockholder
and enlightened stakeholder frameworks. And
in the context of this study, host communities of
 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014 33
Figure 1. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility. Source: Caroll, A.B. (1991).
the oil producing regions of Nigeria and in fact
the entire Nigerian population in relation to the
consumption of coca cola products, definitely,
are stakeholders. It is therefore, pertinent to
recognize and address the interests of these
wider stakeholders, which ultimately will go a
long way in placing Shell and Coca Cola in a
better perspective within the Nigerian polity.
Fassin, (2008, p.377) stressed that ignoring
stakeholders, especially the communities, as in
the case of oil companies, may in fact disrupt
the company’s operations and consequently
its value.
CSR AS A TOOL FOR
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
Corporate Social Responsibility is sometimes
referred to as corporate conscience and corpo-
rate citizenship. It is a concept that has come
to stay; hence the much heated debate and
uncountable academic research on the topic.
Organisations all over the world now understand
that CSR forms part and parcel of their reputa-
tions and brand identities. What constitutes CSR
depends on the particular situation of individual
firm and on the specific context in which they
operate as it is the case with Coca cola and
Shell in Nigeria. However, what distinguished
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
today’s understanding of CSR from the past
initiatives are the present practice of managing
it strategically and the development of various
instruments. Kakabadse, et al. (2005) stressed
that CSR strategies can create competitive
advantages if used properly; pointing out that
there is a positive association between strategic
social responsibility actions and competitive
advantage.
Researchers in strategy, such as Jones
(1980; McGuire, et al. (1988); Carroll (1991);
Levis (2006); Pearce and Doh (2005) and
others, consider reputation to be an internal
resource that should be well managed, as it is
an important differentiating aspect and potential
creator of competitive advantage. Furthermore,
Sasse and Trahan (2007, p.35) also argue that
CSR can create significant benefits in terms
of reputation and returns as well as the moti-
vation and loyalty of employees. In the same
vein, Starke (2006, p.142) argue that CSR can
also contribute toward strengthening valuable
partnerships. According to Yazji (2006) re-
searchers in marketing, public relations as well
as communications have all shown corporate
reputation to be crucial elements in increasing
the purchase and repeat purchase of products
and services. Well managed reputations often
allow organisations to speak directly to their
34 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014
target audiences. For Castka and Balzarova
(2008, p.281), market share increases, achieve-
ment of targets and goodwill are all embedded
in a well articulated CSR practices.
MINERAL RESOURCES
IN NIGERIA
Bello (2010) stated that there are several natural
resources in Nigeria and these can broadly be
divided into agricultural and mineral resources.
This paper concentrated on oil (and on one oil
company – Shell) as it has received much atten-
tion in various tabloids in Nigeria. The various
squabbles and skirmishes which have resulted
in long drawn wars displacing several families
and causing several deaths have all been blamed
on the oil wells in Nigeria and disagreements
on the sharing of this natural and national cake.
It is evident that Nigeria is rich in all forms of
mineral resources.
Fortunately, the substantial increase in
the demand for raw materials by emerging
markets such as China, India, Brazil and the
wide European Union and North America have
all resulted in sharp increases for the demand
of these minerals and have therefore put a lot
of pressure on the supply. This has resulted in
the territorial, commercial and social tensions
among the competing MNCs and their home
countries. Unfortunately, the Nigerian nation in
general and the host communities in particular,
like other African and developing countries
bears the brunt.
It is important to note that the major players
in this game of musical chair are the Nigerian
government and the major MNCs. However, the
accruing profits are often lopsidedly distributed
between government and the MNC concerned
(Amaeshi, et al., 2006; Agagu, 2008). The host
communities are often left to pick the pieces if
any. Most MNCs extract these minerals with
the government backings with little or no in-
volvement in the host communities’ cultural,
economic or developments. While the country
and community are simply viewed as an object of
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
great attention with respect to mineral resources,
it plays no active role in either the pricing or
manufacturing of these minerals.
METHODOLOGY
The analysis of CSR activities of two large
MNCs within the Nigerian polity can be
viewed as an uphill task. While Coca cola, a
non-alcoholic beverage is vastly known to all
ages and a present commodity in the remote
villages, towns and cities of Nigeria, Shell is
relatively unknown, except the wide coverage
accorded to its environmental hazards and
wanton killings ignited by the restless youths in
the Nigerian Nigeria Delta. However, Shell and
other oil companies plays ‘’active’’ role within
the southern region of the country. Therefore to
investigate the policies and practices, as well
as the manifestation of these giants within the
Nigerian economy, a case study strategy with
an interview method was deemed fit. This is
because; this study involves the exclusive in-
depth analysis of two large organisations whose
activities have brought both pain and joy to the
Nigerian citizens. Unfortunately, the activities
of coca cola are relatively under researched and
lack coverage both in documented literatures
and press releases.
Case study as a research strategy has been
explored in depth by various authors such
Creswell (2009) and Yin (2011). Creswell
(2009) stressed that the ‘’single most defining
characteristics of case study lies in delimiting
the object of the study: the case’’ (p. 27). The
case is a unit, entity, or a phenomenon with
defined boundaries that the researcher can
demarcate or ‘’fence in’’ (p.27), and therefore,
can also determine what will not be studied.
The case usually is ‘’a thing, a single entity, a
unit around which there are boundaries’’(p.27).
It may be the limit on number of people to be
interviewed, a finite time frame for observa-
tions, or the instance of some issues, concern,
or hypothesis. The researcher is challenged to
fully understand and articulate the unit under
 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014 35
study. Yin (2011) defined case study research
as ‘’the study of particularity and complexity
of a single case and the need to understand its
activity within important circumstances (p.19)’’.
Therefore, the main data collection utilised
for this study was the interview method. Gill
and Johnson (2010) stressed that interviews
involves a form of discussion between two or
more people with the objectives of obtaining
information regarding a specific topic through
a conversation of a professional nature. An-
other purpose of the interview was to gain a
deep insight (Creswell 2009); in this case, into
the CSR activities in various communities of
Nigeria from the individual participants (i.e.
practitioners and stakeholders). Yin (2011) also
stated that interviews are procedures used in
social science research for data collection or the
identification of social problems. The interview
questions were though in logical sequence, to aid
understanding, however, some flexibility was
applied such that the sequence can be altered
to suit the particular situation or flow.
Responses from fifteen managers were
recorded and transcribed for content analysis
(Merriam 2009, p.45). The next step was to
identify and extract meanings through open
coding and categorization of the information
collected (Silverman 2009, p.73). Triangulation
process was applied through the intertwined
analysis of both the qualitative information gath-
ered through interviews, documents reviewed
in company premises and the secondary data
collected from websites and others. The aim of
which was simply to corroborate the data from
the interviews as well as look out for discrepan-
cies (Gill and Johnson 2010, p.76). The data
analysis involved two stages: The CSR and
sustainability reports and the interview informa-
tion as well as secondary data were carefully
examined; the competitive advantages gleaned
and garnered from these were then discussed
with a view to charting a new course for CSR
among MNEs in Nigeria.
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
This study has two dimensions: explorative and
case study based. On the explorative dimen-
sion, a bibliographic survey was carried out
with the collection of CSR related information
from periodicals, newsletters, annual reports,
internet, and other materials that are accessible
to the public about Coca cola and Shell; as well
as a review of their websites and documents
made available. This is because websites are
windows through which organisations’advertise
themselves. Hence website in this context and
according to Sasse and Trahan (2007, p.35) are
regarded as official presentations of organisa-
tions’ policies and practices. It is a forum for
passing information to stakeholders and the
general public (Zadek, 2006, 342).
However, concentration was purely on CSR
related information. These were augmented with
oral interviews as a case study (Yin, 2011, p78)
of sixteen managers each from the two organi-
sations (Coca cola and Shell Plc). These were
made up of eight plant managers in charge of
CSR in their respective locations in Coca cola
and eight managers from the head office of Shell
in Lagos and Abuja whose roles involves sus-
tainability and community relations. According
to Byrne and Ragin (2009) the development of
new ideas or theories is an essential features of
case studies of organisations. The discussion and
cross fertilization of new ideas and approaches
are considered to be of great value to the or-
ganization and the society. However, Gill and
Johnson (2010) stressed that the justification of
reasons as well as the organisations is of great
importance to fully understand the new idea or
theory. In the light of the above, a global soft
drink giant and an oil drilling company with
histories of CSR and corporate awards justifies
the choices of Coca cola, a well known, non-
alcoholic beverage drink widely known and
Shell also a house-hold name in the southern
region of Nigeria.
36 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014
FINDINGS
CSR has since the new millennium, and due to
the high level coverage by the internet, become
a world-wide fad. Local and global firms are
competing vigorously and want to be seen as
socially responsible. It is not surprising that most
service oriented organisations, especially very
small firms now include as a footnote to their
outgoing emails ‘’Please consider the environ-
ment before printing’’ others will simply state
‘’Do not print except it is absolutely necessary’’.
It is however unfortunate, based on the findings
of this study, that most organisations in the
developing countries such as Africa in general
and Nigeria in particular do not see the need for
CSR practices. This is because they do not see
the positive impact on their bottom-line. Most
organisations see CSR as added expenses that
simply decrease their profits. And some often
mistake sponsorship as CSR.
CSR PRACTICES OF COCA
COLA AND SHELL IN NIGERIA
The issue that stands out based on outcome
of previous research findings and the present
study are the influences of the stakeholders.
The high demand by various communities and
in fact the entire country for a fraction of what
these organisations reap from them; these have
prompted these organisations to respectively put
out statements that sound melodious to the ears.
Shell
We are involving more and more development
partners to help in addressing community needs.
Specific community development programmes
include micro credit and health schemes. We
have 27 clinics in Delta, we are a major sup-
porter of education of young children, with
over 17,000 children on shell’s scholarship at
any time.
In furtherance of this, they stated that:
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
We are encouraging the communities to own
and drive development themselves while we
provide financial assistance to them and tech-
nical assistance through development NGOs.
We have established operating procedures
and guidelines to help make the process ac-
countable and transparent. We still carry out
major infrastructures in partnership with the
government, and other local and international
partners (SPDC People and Environment Re-
port 2009, p.45).
The import of the above statement touches
on very nerve of the societal agitation as well
as expectation. However, it is left to be seen
if these rhetoric matches reality and actions.
The managers interviewed, positively and
with enthusiasm, discussed variously finished
and ongoing projects by Shell as well as the
past achievements in the various communities
where Shell operates. However, evidences from
reviewed reports states otherwise. The SPDC
report of 2008 contains the Kaiama Declaration
clearly states that: ‘’the un-abating damage done
to our fragile natural environment and to the
health of our people is due to the uncontrolled
exploration and exploitation of crude oil and
natural gas which has led to numerous oil
spillages, uncontrolled gas flaring, the open-
ing up of our forests to loggers, indiscriminate
canalisation, flooding, land subsistence, coastal
erosion, earth tremors, etc. Oil and gas exhaust-
ible resources and the complete lack of concern
for ecological rehabilitation, in the light of the
Oloibiri experience, is a signal of impending
doom of the people of Ijawland’’.
In furtherance of this and to drive home
their point despite the evidence of CSR prac-
tices as claimed by Shell in the report above,
the Kaiama declaration (www.unitedijawstates.
com/kaiama.htm) further states that: ‘’the
degradation of the environment of Ijawland by
Transnational oil companies and the Nigerian
State arise mainly because Ijaw people have
been robbed of their natural rights to ownership
and control of their land and resources through
 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014 37
the instrumentality of undemocratic Nigerian
State legislations such as the Land Use Decree
1978, the Petroleum Decree of 1969 and 1991,
the Lands (Title Vesting, etc) Decree No. 52 of
1993 (Orsborne Land Decree), the National
Inland Waterways Authority Decree No 13
of 1997, etc.’’ These interplays of arguments
present a dire picture. Shell’s claims of clear
cut CSR functions have in fact been rejected
and countered by the recipients of these CSR
activities with damning reports. Who then is
right and who is wrong?
This study discovered, based on the inter-
views and documents reviewed that Shell and
other oil companies in the Nigeria Delta have
not contributed significantly to the development
of the region. Rather, they have caused conflicts
within and between communities through a
strategic divide and rule policies. More wor-
risome is the fact that they support one group
against another as well as one community
against another, the employment of indigenes
are lopsided and huge unemployment exists.
This supports the views of other researchers
such as Okaba, (2005), Idemudia, (2007), the
kaiama Declaration and others that oil com-
panies operating in the Niger Delta employ
inadequate environmental standards, resulting
in poor public health issues, wrong human
rights and unsavoury relationships with the
various communities and put succinctly, these
organisations act more as a destabilizing force.
Coca Cola
This is a company that have received virtually
no attention with respect to their CSR activi-
ties within the African continent in general and
Nigeria in particular. However, the Social
Responsibility Report 2010; titled Towards
Sustainability, from a global perspective
stressed that:
Coca-Cola is intent on growing our business
by making a difference wherever our business
touches the world and the world touches our
business. We are committed to enhancing
people’s lives, economically empowering
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
women, providing access to safe water and
promoting water replenishment – in collabo-
ration with critical partners from civil society
and government.
They further states that:
We continued to invest significantly in commu-
nity programmes through out the recession. We
also engage with communities in other ways,
facilitating employee and community volunteer-
ism in our programmes and actively supporting
local networks of the Global Compact. Bottling
plant host visits from stakeholder groups and
plant managers are responsible for engaging
with communities on local issues.
Furthermore, the roles Coca cola have
played within the Nigerian educational sector
were clearly stated as captured in the words
of the Chairman of the Coca cola Company in
Nigeria thus:
We must however, note that the education sec-
tor is just one of several sectors contending for
government limited resources and in the face
of economic doldrums and upsurge in demand
for quality social services by the populace. It is
obvious that no government, irrespective of how
benevolent, can single-handedly provide all the
facilities needed in schools and colleges; hence,
the need and genuine call or other stakeholders
to participate in funding education.
Coca cola has obviously towed the same
step with other companies, the following ques-
tions were however posed to various plant
managers in the course of the interviews and
the pernickety responses are as follow:
Question: Coca cola has dual standards in the
production of its products, one high stan-
dard for the developed western countries,
another for the developing countries.
Coca cola: Our soft drinks are same high stan-
dards all over the world.
38 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014
Question: Coca cola products contain pesticide
residues which are above the developed
countries standards.
Coca Cola: Rigorous testing are usually carried
out in accredited laboratories, therefore we
are well within the internationally accepted
standards.
Question: Why are soft drinks industries not
regulated in Nigeria?
Coca cola: It is same in the EU and US. We are
very careful with the water we use.
Questions: Coca cola is toxic and not fit for
human consumption as it is used to flush
toilets as well as pesticides by farmers.
Coca cola: Coca cola and other soft drinks do
not perform the same functions as pesti-
cides. We have not tested it on crops or in
the toilets.
There exist a wide disparity between
rhetoric and reality as evidenced by the various
interviews, press releases by the MNCs, the
reality as well as views of the stakeholders. It
is worthy to note that these stark realities are
glaring both to the policy makers, government,
practitioner and stakeholders.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
CSR ACTIVITIES OF SHELL
AND COCA COLA IN NIGERIA
Findings of this study also dwelt severally on
the multiplicity of opportunities available to
these MNCS within the Nigerian context. These
include but not limited to market opportuni-
ties, resources, stakeholders, etc. This study
however, focused on the alignment of CSR to
their core businesses and the social impact of
the corporation competitiveness. The managers
who participated in the interviews were full of
praise for the roles Coca cola have so far played
within the Nigerian state with respect to the
environment and sponsorships. While Shell is
constantly blamed for oil spillages, gas flaring,
damage to the environments, etc, Coca cola’s
activities are largely ignored. However findings
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
of this study revealed that apart from the health
issues associated with Coca cola products with
its high levels of sugar contents, the challenges
posed by improper disposal of used Coca cola
bottles are very obvious in cities, towns and
villages all over Nigeria. While a good number
of these non-biodegradable bottles have found
secondary uses with retailers of motor engine oil,
petrol, palm oil, vegetable oil, local beverages,
herbal preparations and other liquid substances,
a good quantity end up blocking drainages and
waterways – causing flooding in various parts
and much more end up at the dump sites.
The general consensus based on the health
issues as evidenced by reports of various health
magazines portrayed coca cola as a health
hazard. Unger (2000) stressed that Coca cola
takes off the paints from cars and can clean the
battery terminals. Furthermore coke is seen as
one of the causes of liver damages which often
necessitate liver transplants (Benjamin et al.,
2006). Larsen and Nyvad (1999) also stressed
that coca cola contains caffeine, Oz caffeine
citrate, Oz citric acid and phosphoric acid, both
of which are dangerous to the human body; Coke
also causes osteoporosis because of calcium
consuming organisms. Unfortunately, these
health warnings as contained in cigarettes (in
the UK) are clearly absent in coca cola bottles
even in developed countries, yet governments all
over the world including medical practitioners
have often paid little or no attention to these.
Larsen et al. (1999) and Benjamin et al.
(2006) states that the sugar content in coke is
excessive and it is equivalent to ten teaspoon
of sugar at each given time. Unfortunately, not
many customers will willingly consume such
an amount of sugar at any rate, yet same set of
consumers willingly gulp huge quantities of
Coke and other beverages of excessive sugar
every day. This definitely cannot be good for
the organs that regulate insulin levels; moreover,
coke is terrible for dental health. Furthermore,
Benjamin et al. (2006) also stressed that consum-
ing so much amount of caffeine is damaging to
the body organs, therefore, to consume three to
 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014 39
five cokes a day which rounds up to twelve to
fifteen a week, simply amounts to a customer
paying a company that have developed an ad-
dictive, non-healthy beverage to destroy the
customer’s overall well-being. There are simply
no natural benefits to coca cola products.
UNFORESEEN DANGERS IN
THE SACKCLOTH OF CSR
It is evident from this study, and also in agree-
ment with previous studies that the negative
impacts of MNCs in most cases outweigh their
positive sides. This study discovered that Shell
as well and other oil companies and Coca Cola
in Nigeria enjoy high competitive advantage
over local firms, therefore the threat posed
by new entrants into their various markets
is very low (if any), hence the high levels of
monopoly. Hand in hand with the above, and as
evidenced by the reviews of related literatures
and findings of this study is that they misuse
the environment, create uncertainties, and
may not promote any form of well structured
developmental programmes for the economic
development of the host country’s economy.
Furthermore, the failure of the global economy,
the 2008 financial meltdown and the current fis-
cal problems ravaging the developed countries
have in fact heightened the self interest, profit
driven and competitiveness of economically
dominant nations. And the MNCs, being origins
of these economically dominant nations, play
several roles in the scheme, hence the high
levels of inadequate levels of CSR activities
in the developing countries.
STAKEHOLDERS AND CSR
FROM A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
It is evident that the Nigerian people bear the
brunt while the government play sings along
the tunes of the MNCs, thus CSR is more of a
lip service as fanned by the embers of corporate
press and official backing both with force and
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
propaganda. For development to be seen as
a right of the locals instead of as a gift, these
MNCs must commit to regular provision of
social infrastructures to these isolated rural
communities whose lands and rivers have been
destroyed. The MNCs must see themselves as
servants and not as masters, i.e. their limited
liabilities and corporate personhood must be
eliminated and they should serve the public
and not vice versa. To complete the cycle,
CSR should be the centre piece of MNCS and
the supply of social infrastructures should be
duly supervised by a body at both the state and
federal levels as well as great involvement of
the locals. And as contentions on rural develop-
ment and provisions of amenities become less
contentious, due to the adequate attentions and
involvement at all levels, there will be increase
in productions, sales and services all levels.
ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS
Government as a ‘’big brother’’ must wake up
to their responsibilities by enacting relevant
laws to protect their citizenry and ensure the
development of MNCs involvement in national
developments through but not limited to playing
active roles in:
1. The provision of education, training, tech-
nical assistances;
2. Ploughing back of some profits from these
multinationals not only through tax pay-
ments but community developments and
building of infrastructures;
3. Monitor compliance regularly;
4. Enforcement of responsible business
practices as well as punish corporate ir-
responsible practices.
The Nigerian government must ensure
that MNCs impacts are felt by their respective
communities where they operate. These could
be in the form of the development of structures
and institutions that contribute to environmen-
40 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014

tal protections and the alleviation of poverty.
Provision of basic amenities and engagement
on social enterprise developments.
Responsible issues the MNCs can focus
upon may be:
• Legal;
• Ethical;
• Philanthropic;
• Economic.
And the focal points and processes of
assistances could also be in the forms seen in
Table 3.
Coca cola should engage the services of
several jobless youths to collect used bottles
for recycling as part of the CSR environmental
consciousness.
LAWS AND REGULATIONS
• Findings revealed that regulations for the
powerful and massive soft drink industry
are much weaker, indeed non-existent as
compared to the oil companies such as
Shell which are laden with various decrees.
Unfortunately, the standards with which
the qualities of soft drinks are regulated
are simply lost in a maze of meaningless
definitions – the soft drink sector in Nigeria
is virtually unregulated;
• Amazingly, as opposed to the oil industries,
the soft drink sector gets a one-time license
to operate. There are no environmental
impact assessments and the sectors use of
water is not regulated, yet the consumption
of coca cola products is second to none in
the most populated country in Africa.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Future research could however, focus on CSR
and cultural diffusion as well as the marriage
between coca cola and McDonald with a view
to unravelling the nutritional importance of
these (Coke and McDonald products) to the
health of the populace.

Table 3. Focal points and processes of assistances in CSR

CSR Issues Focal Points Processes

• Corporate donations
• Sponsorships, scholarships and
Poverty alleviation, HIV/AIDS, training,
Community awards
environment, rural development, education
• Foundations
• Corporate philanthropy
Water pollution, afforestation, biodiversity, water • Sponsorships
Environment
management, recycling • partnerships
• Certification
Wages, working conditions, diversity and equal
• Partnerships
Workplace opportunities, employee privacy, health and safety,
• Code of conduct
sexual harassment
• Employee management
• Partnerships
Pricing, product safety, labelling and packaging,
• Sponsorships
Market place tax avoidance and evasion, corruption, responsible
• Code of conducts
marketing and consumption
• labels

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014 41
REFERENCE
African Development Bank. (2009). African develop-
ment report 2008/2009: Conflict resolution, peace
and reconstruction in Africa. ADB.
Agagu, A. A. (2008). Effect s of the oil industry on
the environment and the future of the Niger Delta of
Nigeria. Department of Political Science, University
of Ado-Ekiti.
Amaeshi, K., Adi, B., Ogbechie, C., & Amao, O.
(2006). Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria:
Western mimicry or indigenous influences? ICCSR
Research Paper Series (pp. 4,17, 25). The University
of Nottingham.
Baker, M. (2003) Corporate social responsibility –
What does it mean? Retrieved December 27, 2003,
from http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/
definition.html
Bello, O. (2010). NPDC takes over Shell’s oil wells
in Ogoniland. BusinessDay Newspaper (Vol. 19).
Retrieved March 3, 2012, from www.businessday-
online.com/NG/index.ogoniland
Benjamin, L. T. Jr, Roger, A. M., & Rosen-
baum, A. (2006). Coca-cola, caffeine, and
mental deficiency: Harry Hollingworth and the
Chattanooga trial of 1911. Journal of the His-
tory of the Behavioral Sciences, 27(1), 42–55.
doi:10.1002/1520-6696(199101)27:1<42::AID-
JHBS2300270105>3.0.CO;2-1 PMID:2010614
Birkhed, D. (1984). Sugar content, acidity and effect
on plaque pH of fruit juices, fruit drinks, carbonated
beverages and sport drinks. Caries Research, 18,
120–127. doi:10.1159/000260759 PMID:6583004
Boon, E., & Ababio, F. (2009, May 16-22). Corporate
social responsibility in Ghana: Lessons from the
mining sector. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual
Conference of the international Association for
Impact Assessment, Accra.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the
businessman. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Briggs, W., & Verma, A. (2006). Sharing the wealth:
by giving in times of need, corporations can do good
in the community – and for the bottom line. Com-
munication World, 23(1), 25–28.
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Bruch, H., & Walter, F. (2005). The keys to rethink-
ing corporate philanthropy. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 47(1), 48–55.
Byrne, D., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). The SAGE
handbook of case-based methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Carroll, A. B. (1989). Business and society: Eth-
ics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social
responsibility: Towards the moral management of
organisational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34,
39–48. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Castka, P., & Balzarova, M. A. (2008). ISO 26000
and supply chain: On the diffusion of the social
responsibility standard. International Journal of
Production Economics, 111, 274–286. doi:10.1016/j.
ijpe.2006.10.017
Christian Aid. (2005). Behind the mask: The real
face of corporate social responsibility. London,
UK: Christian Aid.
Corporate Council on Africa. (2006). China and
Africa: Understanding the growing trade and invest-
ment relationship.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1966). Business
and its environment. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
de Schutter, O. (2008). Corporate social responsibil-
ity European style. European Law Journal, 14(2),
203–236. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00411.x
Dentchev, N. (2005). Corporate social performance:
As business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics,
55(4), 395–410. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-1348-5
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder
theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and
implications. Academy of Management Review,
20(1), 65–91.
EMFS. (2004). European multi-stakeholder forum on
CSR – Final results and recommendations. Retrieved
from http://www.csreurope.org
42 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014
Fassin, Y. (2008). SMEs and the fallacy of formalis-
ing CSR. Business Ethics (Oxford, England), 17(4),
364–378. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00540.x
Frederick, W. C. (1960). ‘The growing concern over
business responsibility. California Management
Review, 2, 54–61. doi:10.2307/41165405
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2010). Research methods for
managers (4th (P. Chapman, Ed.).
Halabi, A., Kazi, A., Dang, V., & Samy, M. (2006).
Corporate social responsibility. Monash. Business
Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia),
2(3), 22–25.
Husted, B. W. (2003). Governance choices for corpo-
rate social responsibility: To contribute, collaborate or
internalize? Long Range Planning, 36(5), 481–498.
doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(03)00115-8
Idemudia, U. (2007). Community perceptions and
expectations: Reinventing the wheels of corporate
social responsibility practices in the Nigerian oil
industry. Business and Society Review, 112(3),
369–405. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8594.2007.00301.x
Jawahar, I., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Towards a
descriptive stakeholder theory: An organization life
cycle approach. Academy of Management Review,
26(3), 397–414.
Jones, T., & Wicks, A. (1999). Convergent stake-
holder theory. Academy of Management Review,
24, 206–221.
Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility
revisited, redefined. California Management Review,
22(3), 59–67. doi:10.2307/41164877
Kakabadse, N. K., Rozuel, C., & Lee-Davies, L.
(2005). Corporate social responsibility and stake-
holder approach: A conceptual review. Int. J. Business
Governance and Ethics, 1(4), 277–302. doi:10.1504/
IJBGE.2005.006733
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social re-
sponsibility: Doing the most good for your company
and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Larsen, M. J., & Nyvad, B. (1999). Enamel erosion
by soft drinks and orange juices relative to their pH,
buffering effect and contents of calcium phosphate.
Caries Research, 33, 81–87. doi:10.1159/000016499
PMID:9831784
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Levis, J. (2006). Adoption of corporate social respon-
sibility codes by multinational companies. Journal
of Asian Economics, 17, 50–55. doi:10.1016/j.
asieco.2006.01.007
McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T.
(1988). Corporate social responsibility and firms
financial performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 31, 854–872. doi:10.2307/256342
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide
to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Okaba, B. O. (2005). Petroleum industry and the
paradox of rural poverty in the Niger Delta. Benin
City: Ethiope Publishing Corporation.
Pearce, J. A. II, & Doh, J. P. (2005). The high im-
pact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 46(3), 29–39.
Phillips, R. (2001). Stakeholder legitimacy: A
preliminary investigation. Georgetown University
Business School Working Paper, Washington, DC.
Ringold, D. J. (1988). Consumer response to pro-
duce withdrawal: The reformulation of Coca-Cola.
Psychology and Marketing, 5(3), 190–210.
Sasse, C. M., & Trahan, R. T. (2007). Rethinking
the new corporate philanthropy. Business Horizons,
50(1), 29–38. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2006.05.002
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate
social performance: An analytic framework.
California Management Review, 17(3), 58–64.
doi:10.2307/41162149
Silverman, D. (2009). Doing qualitative research
(3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
SPDC People and Environment Report. (2009).
Retrieved February 15, 2013, from www.shellni-
geria.com
Starke, L. (Ed.). (2006). Good practice guidance for
mining and biodiversity. London, UK: International
Council on Mining and Metals.
Unger, H. (2000). Illnesses in Coke recall found
psychosomatic. Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
Atlanta, GA.
UNTAD. (2007). World Investment Report; Trans-
national corporations, extractive industries and
development.
 International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(1), 27-43, January-March 2014 43

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance
revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4),
691–718.
Yazji, M. (2006). Sleeping with the enemy for
competitiveness advantage: Corporation and NGO
partnerships. Switzerland: IMD International.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start
to finish. New York, NY: Guilford.
Zadek, S. (2006). Corporate responsibility and
competitiveness at the macro level: Responsible com-
petitiveness: Reshaping global markets through re-
sponsible business practices. Corporate Governance,
6(4), 334–348. doi:10.1108/14720700610689469

Edwin Agwu, PhD, MBA, MSc, BSc (Hons), NCE, MCMI, MIfL, AMNIM, a prolific writer and
researcher of note, is currently an Associate Lecturer/Dissertation Supervisor at Manchester
Business School, United Kingdom. In addition, he teaches various management courses as well
as business research methods and supervises postgraduate dissertations (masters and PhDs) at
various UK universities, these includes Middlesex University, Warwick University, University
of Sunderland, University of Wales, London School of Business and Finance, among others. He
earned his PhD in Strategic Management and marketing from the University of Wales, Cardiff,
United Kingdom and MSc in International Strategic Management from Staffordshire University,
MBA in Management from Adekunle Ajasin University in Nigeria, BSc (Hons) from the University
of Lagos in Nigeria and Nigeria Certificate in Education from Federal College of Education,
Okene also in Nigeira. His doctoral thesis focused on internet technological applications tailored
towards practical contributions to organizational developments. Edwin has more than 23 years
of combined lecturing and banking and finance experience. His academic research interest and
publications focuses on the adoption of network technologies in financial industries. He is also
interested in consumer behaviour in financial services. Edwin has published widely and presented
research papers at various conferences and seminars in the United Kingdom.

Agnes R. Taylor is an experienced management and business Administration consultant, with

a background in public and private sector organizations including the UN. She has extensive
experience in lecturing, training, mentoring and coaching, as well as in research and analysis.
She has a Doctorate in Business Administration from Hull University, MSc in Financial Manage-
ment from Middlesex University, MA in International Studies and Diplomacy from the University
of London SOAS, and LLM for the American University of London. She has lectured at many
universities in the UK including University of East London, University of Wales, Sunderland
University, Cardiff Metropolitan University and University of Gloucester. She is currently a
lecturer at Coventry University UK and supervises dissertations at both the MBA and PhD level
at other institutions.

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

View publication stats