Vol 4 Issue 1 July 2014
ISSN No :2231-5063
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
International Multidisciplinary
Research Journal
Golden Research
Thoughts
Chief Editor
Dr.Tukaram Narayan Shinde
Associate Editor
Dr.Rajani Dalvi
Publisher
Mrs.Laxmi Ashok Yakkaldevi
Honorary
Mr.Ashok Yakkaldevi
Welcome to GRT
RNI MAHMUL/2011/38595
ISSN No.2231-5063
Golden Research Thoughts Journal is a multidisciplinary research journal, published monthly in English,
Hindi & Marathi Language. All research papers submitted to the journal will be double - blind peer reviewed
referred by members of the editorial board.Readers will include investigator in universities, research institutes
government and industry with research interest in the general subjects.
International Advisory Board
Flávio de São Pedro Filho
Federal University of Rondonia, Brazil
Mohammad Hailat
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences,
University of South Carolina Aiken
Hasan Baktir
English Language and Literature
Department, Kayseri
Kamani Perera
Regional Center For Strategic Studies, Sri
Lanka
Abdullah Sabbagh
Engineering Studies, Sydney
Ghayoor Abbas Chotana
Dept of Chemistry, Lahore University of
Management Sciences[PK]
Janaki Sinnasamy
Librarian, University of Malaya
Catalina Neculai
University of Coventry, UK
Romona Mihaila
Spiru Haret University, Romania
Ecaterina Patrascu
Spiru Haret University, Bucharest
Delia Serbescu
Spiru Haret University, Bucharest,
Romania
Loredana Bosca
Spiru Haret University, Romania
Anurag Misra
DBS College, Kanpur
Titus PopPhD, Partium Christian
University, Oradea,Romania
Fabricio Moraes de Almeida
Federal University of Rondonia, Brazil
George - Calin SERITAN
Faculty of Philosophy and Socio-Political
Sciences Al. I. Cuza University, Iasi
Anna Maria Constantinovici
AL. I. Cuza University, Romania
Horia Patrascu
Spiru Haret University,
Bucharest,Romania
Ilie Pintea,
Spiru Haret University, Romania
Xiaohua Yang
PhD, USA
......More
Editorial Board
Iresh Swami
Pratap Vyamktrao Naikwade
ASP College Devrukh,Ratnagiri,MS India Ex - VC. Solapur University, Solapur
R. R. Patil
Head Geology Department Solapur
University,Solapur
Rama Bhosale
Prin. and Jt. Director Higher Education,
Panvel
Salve R. N.
Department of Sociology, Shivaji
University,Kolhapur
Govind P. Shinde
Bharati Vidyapeeth School of Distance
Education Center, Navi Mumbai
Chakane Sanjay Dnyaneshwar
Arts, Science & Commerce College,
Indapur, Pune
Awadhesh Kumar Shirotriya
Secretary,Play India Play,Meerut(U.P.)
N.S. Dhaygude
Ex. Prin. Dayanand College, Solapur
Narendra Kadu
Jt. Director Higher Education, Pune
K. M. Bhandarkar
Praful Patel College of Education, Gondia
Sonal Singh
Vikram University, Ujjain
Rajendra Shendge
Director, B.C.U.D. Solapur University,
Solapur
R. R. Yalikar
Director Managment Institute, Solapur
Umesh Rajderkar
Head Humanities & Social Science
YCMOU,Nashik
S. R. Pandya
Head Education Dept. Mumbai University,
Mumbai
Alka Darshan Shrivastava
G. P. Patankar
S. D. M. Degree College, Honavar, Karnataka Shaskiya Snatkottar Mahavidyalaya, Dhar
Maj. S. Bakhtiar Choudhary
Director,Hyderabad AP India.
Rahul Shriram Sudke
Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore
S.Parvathi Devi
Ph.D.-University of Allahabad
S.KANNAN
Annamalai University,TN
Sonal Singh,
Vikram University, Ujjain
Satish Kumar Kalhotra
Maulana Azad National Urdu University
Address:-Ashok Yakkaldevi 258/34, Raviwar Peth, Solapur - 413 005 Maharashtra, India
Cell : 9595 359 435, Ph No: 02172372010 Email: ayisrj@yahoo.in Website: www.aygrt.isrj.net
Golden Research Thoughts
ISSN 2231-5063
Impact Factor : 2.2052(UIF)
Volume-4 | Issue-1 | July-2014
Available online at www.aygrt.isrj.net
GRT
FROM CSR TO SHARED VALUE
Gurvinder Kaur1 and Kamaldeep Kaur2
1
Department of Commerce, Mata Sundri College for Women, New Delhi, INDIA.
2
Department of Commerce, SGTB Khalsa College, New Delhi, INDIA.
Abstract:-This paper studies major contributions that have been made by scholars to the concept of CSR
for last sixty years, organizes and presents entire web of diverse meanings attached to the umbrella term
CSR, which for the purpose of current study includes CSP (corporate Social Performance) and Corporate
Social Responsiveness, in an orderly, simple and integrated form. An all-inclusive yet short definition
has been proposed. This paper finally throws light on merger of this movement into “Shared value”
concept. No study so far has emphasized on need of convergence of the two concepts namely CSR and
Shared value.
Keywords:Corporate Social Responsibility, Shared Value .
INTRODUCTION :The term, Corporate Social Responsibility, means something, but not always the same thing, to everybody (Votaw
1973). While to critics CSR is 'none of the business' of business, to proponents it is buzzword. Some scholars see it as economic
and legal responsibility; others see it beyond legal responsibility. Some view it as a contribution from the profits; to others
'contributions' is but a trivial part of CSR, important part being the process through profits have been earned in the first place.
Sethi (1975) observed that CSR has come to mean all things to all people. Conceptual developments appear to be a web of
meanings, where it has become difficult to extract precise meaning of the term. The reason is that the developments have not
been systematically integrated with one another but usually have been treated as competing ideas. (Wood 1991) Wood has
worked in direction of giving a comprehensive model 'Corporate Social Performance' but the concept given by Wood still
remains an add-on to business. Contribution of Wood and other scholars is valuable in setting stage for CSR to be seen at the
heart of business. This paper organizes different meanings attached to CSR, so that it can be seen as a coherent field.
This paper studies and classifies definitions given by researchers under the following heads:
CSR - to make profit and abide by law:
The narrowest possible definition of CSR has been given by most popular critic of CSR, Friedman. He argues that the
only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game and engages in free
competition without deception or fraud. Most of the academicians would not agree with Friedman but after studying likes of
Enron, it is argued that this definition is the precondition of CSR or at least the basic check against Corporate Social
Irresponsibility. If this check could have been applied, Satyam could not have won Golden Peacock award for Corporate
governance while it was busy cooking the worst corporate fraud of the Indian history. Similarly, major U.S. banks, while
promoting unsustainable financing vehicles that turned out to be socially and economically devastating, could not have
claimed that they were socially responsible just because they had charitable contribution programs (Porter and Kramer, 2011).
Enron could not have looked like an exceptional corporate citizen. (Sims and Brinkmann 2003) In these instances and in many
more ''what companies do'' can be equated with Corporate Social Irresponsibility (Jones, Bowd and Tench 2009) not because
that corporate(s) are not contributing for communities, but because they are equating CSR to philanthropy. It thus follows that
abiding by law is minimum expected of any corporate. In all the examples mentioned above the corporate(s) sometimes
indulged in illegal acts but would often take advantage of loop holes in law or did abide by letter of law but not by spirit of law.
(Schwartz and Carroll 2003)
Gurvinder Kaur1 and Kamaldeep Kaur2 , “FROM CSR TO SHARED VALUE ”, Golden Research Thoughts | Volume 4 | Issue 1 | July 2014 |
Online & Print
1
.From CSR To Shared Value
CSR - to make profit and abide by the spirit of law:
Some authors have kept legal responsibility out of the scope of CSR where they are of the opinion that there exists an
enormous, developed system to enforce legal accountability. Academicians like Devis feel “Social responsibility begins where
the law ends.” Similar connotation is found when responsibility is taken to mean a condition in which the corporation is at least
in some measure a free agent. Manne and Wallich are of the opinion that to the extent something is imposed on the corporation
by law, the corporation exercises no responsibility when it implements them. CSR, then, is doing more than the requirements of
applicable laws and regulations governing the environment, worker safety and health (Portney 2005).It follow that whatever
the corporate(s) do under coercion should not be regarded as part of the Responsibility. Legal responsibility thus is: “not taking
advantage of loop holes in law” (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003) and abiding by law when laws of land are not stringent or
violation of law is tolerated or is an accepted phenomenon in the given society. Thus, CSR goes beyond increasing profit and
includes abiding by the spirit of the law.
CSR includes economic responsibility which goes beyond 'profit maximization':
Heald (1970) observes CSR as an obligation to provide 'service' beyond profits, yet without denying profits .This
section focuses on economic responsibility which goes beyond 'profit maximization'. The paper argues that 'profit
maximization' was never the objective of companies. It always was 'wealth maximization'. Academicians have used these
terms interchangeably and there is no harm in doing that if it is comprehended in the same sense, but battle of wits ensues when
practitioners focus on 'profits at any cost' and end up in erosion of shareholders' wealth . The infamous Manville case illustrates
just this: owners were aware of the fact that asbestos causes cancer but didn't disclose this to employees of the firm who later
suffered from cancer and many succumbed to the disease. The company faced thousands of individual and class action lawsuits
based on asbestos-related injuries. By 1982 the pace of litigation against Manville had increased to an average filing of three
cases per hour, every hour of the business day. The company projected its total asbestos liability at more than $1 billion. (Kevin
Delaney, 1992; John Coffee, 1995) Similarly, with Enron "Some $60 billion of shareholder value disappeared with Enron's
implosion (ibew.org). We can appreciate the need to replace 'profit maximization' with economic responsibility. Definitely
CSR includes but is not restricted to economic and legal responsibility. Davis (1973) defines the firm's concern for issues
beyond the narrow economic, technical and legal requirements as CSR.
CSR is being ethical :
In the above mentioned Manville case, even if it had nothing to do with depletion of wealth, whatever Manville did
was immoral. What or who is unethical is irresponsible. It follows that Business must act “justly,” as a proper citizen should.
(McGuire, 1963) Only then it can be addressed as 'Responsible.' The essence of social responsibility lies in the concern for
consequences of one's acts as they might affect the interests of others. (Davis, 1967) and the prime concern is the normative
correctness of the products of corporate action (Epstein, 1987, p. 104) or to check any negative externalities. It sounds obvious
but it is not or how could high levels of uranium be found in hair samples of mentally-ill children from Malwa region of Punjab.
These harmful chemicals, such as cyanide, are coming into the rivers, mostly from factories situated in Ludhiana, Jalandhar
and Phagwara. The paper first talks about 'negative consequences of one's acts' or 'negative externalities' and then about
'interests of others'
CSR is “internalizing negative externalities”:
Corporate social responsibility thus is internalization by the company or business of the social and environmental
effects of its operations through proactive pollution prevention and social impact assessment so that harm is anticipated and
avoided and benefits are optimized (Warhurst 2000b) CSR activities could reverse or mitigate the adverse impacts of business
(Carroll 1996)
CSR is taking into account the interest of others or working for social ends:
The most valid question now is who these 'others' are? Are these mentally ill children in Malwa case or are these
'others' the employees of the company or customers or suppliers or can they be employees of suppliers as well? Perhaps the
clear answer is –yes, all of them. Unfortunately, it is not that clear an answer or else this movement called CSR was not required
only. Involvement of Nike and then Apple in sweatshops emphasizes the fact that even corporations which are supposedly
responsible could ignore the interest of society. Irresponsible behavior stays hidden even in today's theoretically ''open'' and
''transparent'' organizations. (Jones, Bowd and Tench, 2009) Responsibility is pursuing those policies, making those decisions,
or following those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society. (Bowen, 1953) The
whole idea of Social Responsibility is to see that the economy's resources be utilized for socio-economic ends (Frederick,
1960). CSR can be understood as the practice of harmonizing acts of companies with the rest of society (Altman, 1998) and this
toning can best be done through stakeholders approach. Corporate social responsibility is "the notion that corporations have an
Golden Research Thoughts | Volume 4 | Issue 1 | July 2014
2
.From CSR To Shared Value
obligation to constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law or union contract,
indicating that a stake may go beyond mere ownership" (Jones, 1980).
Stakeholders approach to CSR:
Stakeholder concept can be used to create more fine-grained analyses that combine business and ethics (Freeman,
1994). Stakeholder theory argues that managers and entrepreneurs must take into account the legitimate interests of those
groups and individuals who can affect (or be affected by) their activities. (Freeman, 1994; Donaldson and Preston,
1995)Numerous articles and books written on stakeholder theory generally credit R. Edward Freeman as the "father of
Stakeholder Theory"(Laplume, André; Karan Sonpar, Reginald Litz , 2008). A responsible enterprise takes into account the
interests of employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities and the nation as a whole (Johnson, 1971). Putting it differently It takes into account interest of both the local community which surrounds a business and the wider and increasingly worldwide
community which touches every business through its products, its supply chain, its dealer network, its advertising, and so on
(McIntosh et al., 1998) and treats natural environment as one of the stakeholder.
CSR includes economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibility of corporate(s):
This is how CSR is understood by most of the theorists. The social responsibility of business encompasses the
economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that a society has of organizations at a given point in time (Carroll,
1979; 2008, 500). Carroll's pyramid is perhaps the most famous depiction of the concept. It became a starting point for many
researchers and many models are based on Carroll's definition.
Towards a comprehensive definition:
A comprehensive definition given by Committee for Economic Development (CED) in 1971 includes the basic
economic responsibility at the core, the middle circle to include ethical and stakeholder approach to CSR and the outer most
circle to include philanthropy where the committee has described The intermediate circle encompassing responsibility to
exercise economic function with a sensitive awareness of changing social values and priorities….. and more rigorous
expectations of customers for information, fair treatment, and protection from injury. Googins, Bradley K., Mirvis and St
Rochlin, (2007) quoted “ The Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship (BCCCC) has popularized a definition of CSR
along three dimensions: 1) moral/ethical conduct or compliance with “rules”; 2) philanthropy; and 3) harms and benefits of a
company's commercial activities on society. This boils down to a principle of minimize harm (“do no harm”) with maximize
benefit (“create shared value”)”
CSR revolves around the basic question of how the profit has been earned:
The rationale behind the concept of CSR is to encourage companies to make profits while subjecting the 'process' to
responsible behavior, i.e. it is not profits at any cost but how profits are made.(Michael Hopkins) The focus has been on CSR
embedded in every goal oriented decision and action….that such relationships must be kept in mind by top managers as the
corporation and the related groups pursue their respective goals…..( Walton, 1967) Focus of the companies should be on the
right kind of profits—profits that create societal benefits rather than diminish them. (Porter and Kramer, 2011)
Philanthropy in CSR:
Philanthropy has been given more than its due share. Most of the corporations understand S in CSR as certain
unprivileged or underprivileged strata of society or certain social and environmental cause towards which they direct their
efforts and funds. While contributing for causes is a welcome movement, but battle of wits ensues when CSR gets equated to
philanthropy and the rest of the components of CSR mix acquire a backseat. It is because of this phenomenon that most
irresponsible corporate(s) like Satyam and Enron could be seen as responsible. Any corporate contributing from above
mentioned 'right kind of profit' for benefit of the society is actually responsible. Corporate(s) contributing from profit which
has been earned in an irresponsible manner can't be addressed as Responsible.
Corporate Social Responsiveness: practical aspects of making an organization responsible:
“Social responsiveness has become the general means to the ends of satisfying corporate social obligations.” (Wartick
Cochran, 1985) The focus of Responsiveness is on institutionalization of the CSR, scanning the environment for emerging
problems, put into practice systematic approach to respond to social pressures, and learn how to respond in fruitful, humane
and practical way (Frederick, 1994). Some authors like Ackerman & Baeur (1976) have emphasized on responsiveness instead
of responsibility, while Sethi (1975) coupled responsiveness to anticipatory and preventive exercise.
Golden Research Thoughts | Volume 4 | Issue 1 | July 2014
3
.From CSR To Shared Value
CSP: dynamic approach to CSR
The CSP model is integration of the principles of corporate responsibility, the policies of social issue management and
the process of social responsiveness. (Wartick and Cochran, 1985) A Comprehensive model from philosophy behind CSR at
three levels viz. institutional organizational, and individual to processes involved viz. environmental assessment, stakeholder
management, and issues management to actual impact of corporate actions, programs and policies has been given by Wood
1991. The stage here is set to move on from CR as an add-on to business to see CR at heart of business
CSR to be at core of the business:
Responsible business is about recognizing social and environmental concerns as part of core business practice.
(McIntosh and Mohan, 1999) “CSR should be secured within core business activities and add value to corporate success”
(Newell and Frynas, 2007; Carroll, 2008)
We have reached a stage where before moving on to the concept of 'shared value' an All-inclusive definition of CSR is
required only then we will be able to appreciate the merger of CSR into 'Shared Value'
All-inclusive definition:
“CSR is Wealth maximization of the shareholders, which is possible if the corporate(s) subject the processes to
maximum benefit of all the stakeholders.”
I call this definition all inclusive but to comprehend this short and sweet definition one needs to understand 'wealth
maximization', 'subject the process', 'stakeholders' against the backdrop of what all has been said under different heads of this
paper. For the purpose of adding clarity to the concept, these are being precisely mentioned here:
'Subject the processes' of wealth maximization means complying with not only letter of law but also with the spirit of
law, being ethical to all the stakeholders and internalizing any negative externalities.
'Wealth maximization' as against 'profit maximization' should be one of the goals of organization. The term
'Stakeholders' to be taken in the broadest of sense including who and what all can effect or can get effected by the business.
Stage set for Shared value:
It is quite natural to suggest that the very idea of value creation and trade is intimately connected to the idea of creating
value for stakeholders (Freeman, Wicks, Parmar 2004) The very objective of CSR movement can be achieved if CSR gets
embedded in every policy, decision and action of a business. A paradigm shift may be required in order for CSR to undergo real
progress and eventually become institutionalized according to principles of action rather than rhetoric (Jonker Marberg 2007)
Concept of 'Shared value' is actually institutionalization of CSR where “It (CSR) is not on the margin of what
companies do but at the center.”(Porter and Kramer, 2011) and this is need of the hour.
Concept of 'Shared Value' compared to CSR:
In this section the concept of shared value has been given the way it has been presented by Porter and Kramer to make
the comparison possible. “Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to
achieve economic success.”“Creating shared value presumes compliance with the law and ethical standards, as well as
mitigating any harm caused by the business, but goes far beyond that. The opportunity to create economic value through
creating societal value will be one of the most powerful forces driving growth in the global economy.” (Porter and Kramer,
2011) This concept is similar to that part of CSR which states “complying with not only letter of law but also with the spirit of
law, being ethical to all the stakeholders and internalizing any negative externalities” and then it goes beyond CSR, even
beyond Corporate Social Responsiveness and CSP when it illustrates how through this concept CSR can be woven into fabric
of business itself. Shared Value is to see that SR gets embedded in each and every small or big decision of the corporate be it
regarding product , packaging, location of the plant, energy use, retrofitting the building. It is actually looking at the bigger
picture where expenditure which might reduce short term profits can be seen as investments for long term success. Even
corporate giving can be commensurate with argument given by popular critic of CSR-Friedman, where giving can be strategic
and can finally bring back strategic benefits to business. In words of Porter and Kramer “Early studies of cocoa farmers in the
Côte d'Ivoire, for instance, suggest that while fair trade can increase farmers' incomes by 10% to 20%, shared value
investments can raise their incomes by more than 300%. Initial investment and time may be required to implement new
procurement practices and develop the supporting cluster, but the return will be greater economic value and broader strategic
benefits for all participants” needless to mention the business too.
Porter and Kramer have summarized the answer to the most important question bothering proponents of CSR theory
as to why after so much has been said and done; still corporate(s) are not implementing CSR. In words of Porter and Kramer: “A
big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated approach to value creation that
has emerged over the past few decades. They continue to view value creation narrowly, optimizing short-term financial
Golden Research Thoughts | Volume 4 | Issue 1 | July 2014
4
.From CSR To Shared Value
performance in a bubble while missing the most important customer needs and ignoring the broader influences that determine
their longer-term success. How else could companies overlook the well-being of their customers, the depletion of natural
resources vital to their businesses, the viability of key suppliers, or the economic distress of the communities in which they
produce and sell?”
Thus the concept is similar in many respects to what all has been mentioned in different sub topics in this paper and at
the same time, comes up at least theoretically with a complete solution to all CSR problems.
CONCLUSION:
After doing in depth study of wide variety of definitions and understandings of CSR that have been developed till
present, what seemed to be web of information can now be seen as systematic and logical evolution of the subject, different
models can be seen as complementing each other or one concept evolving from the other. The paper finds that the concept of
CSR has evolved but the evolution is not a linear one, it can better be compared to branches of the same tree (Waddock, 2004)
and finds ethics and not philanthropy (as understood by business) the root of this tree. 'Shared value' captures the whole content
and intent of CSR into business and thus CSR should merge into 'Shared Value' for greater good of society.
REFERENCES:
1.Ackerman, R. W. & Bauer, R. A. (1976). Corporate social responsiveness. Reston, VA: Reston
2.Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper &Row.
3.Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of management review,
4(4), 497-505.
4.Carroll, A. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: a historical perspective. The Accountable Corporation. Volume 3:
Corporate Social Responsibility.
5.Carroll, A. B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. The Oxford handbook of corporate
social responsibility, 19-46.
6.Coffee, J. C. (1995). Class wars: The dilemma of the mass tort class action.Columbia Law Review, 1343-1465.
7.Davis, K. (1967, Winter). Understanding the social responsibility puzzle: What does the businessman owe to society?
Business Horizons, 10, 45-50.
8.Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities.Academy of Management Journal,
16, 312-322.
9.Delaney, K. J. (1992). Strategic bankruptcy: How corporations and creditors use chapter 11 to their advantage. Univ of
California Press.
10.Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications.
Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
11.Epstein, E. M. (1987). The corporate social policy process: Beyond business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and
corporate social responsiveness. California Management Review, 29, 99-114.
12.Frederick,W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review, 2, 54-61.
13.Freeman, R. E. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory. Bus. Ethics Quart. 4(4) 409–421
14.Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”.
Organization science, 15(3), 364-369.
15.Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
16.Googins, B. K., Mirvis, P. H., & Rochlin, S. A. (2007). Beyond good company: Next generation corporate citizenship.
Macmillan.
17.Heald, M. (1970). The social responsibilities of business: company and community 1900-1960. Transaction Publishers.
18.Jones, B., Bowd, R., & Tench, R. (2009). Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: Competing
realities. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(3), 300-310.
19.Jones, T. M. (1980, Spring). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review, 59-67.
20.Jonker, J., & Marberg, A. (2007). Corporate social responsibility quo vadis. Journal of corporate Citizenship, 2007(27),
107-118.
21.Johnson, H. L. (1971). Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
22.Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of
management, 34(6), 1152-1189.
23.Manne, H. G., &Wallich, H. C. (1972). The modern corporation and social responsibility.
24.Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research McIntosh, M., McAntosh, M., Coleman, G.,
Jones, K. A., & Leipziger, D. (1998).Corporate citizenship. Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
25.McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.Newell, P., & Frynas, J. G. (2007). Beyond CSR? Business, poverty and social justice: an introduction. Third World
Quarterly, 28(4), 669-681.
Golden Research Thoughts | Volume 4 | Issue 1 | July 2014
5
.From CSR To Shared Value
27.Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
28.Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: a three-domain approach. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 503-530.
29.Sethi, S. P. (1975, Spring). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytic framework. California Management
Review, 17, 58-64.
30.Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or: culture matters more than codes). Journal of Business ethics, 45(3),
243-256.
31.Votaw, D. (1973). Genius becomes rare. In D. Votaw & S. P. Sethi (Eds.) The corporate dilemma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall
32.Warhurst, A., & Mitchell, P. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and the case of Summitville mine. Resources Policy,
26(2), 91-102.
33.Wood, D. J. (1991). Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718. Corporate social performance revisited.
34.Walton, C. C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
35.Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management
Review, 10, 758-769.
Gurvinder Kaur
Department of Commerce, Mata Sundri College for Women, New Delhi, INDIA.
Golden Research Thoughts | Volume 4 | Issue 1 | July 2014
6
Publish Research Article
International Level Multidisciplinary Research Journal
ForORIGINAL
All Subjects
ARTICLE
Dear Sir/Mam,
We invite unpublished Research Paper,Summary of Research
Project,Theses,Books and Book Review for publication,you will be pleased to
know that our journals are
Associated and Indexed,India
¬
International Scientific Journal Consortium
¬
OPEN J-GATE
Associated and Indexed,USA
EBSCO
?
?
Index Copernicus
?
Publication Index
?
Academic Journal Database
?
Contemporary Research Index
?
Academic Paper Databse
?
Digital Journals Database
?
Current Index to Scholarly Journals
?
Elite Scientific Journal Archive
?
Directory Of Academic Resources
?
Scholar Journal Index
?
Recent Science Index
?
Scientific Resources Database
?
Directory Of Research Journal Indexing
Golden Research Thoughts
258/34 Raviwar Peth Solapur-413005,Maharashtra
Contact-9595359435
E-Mail-ayisrj@yahoo.in/ayisrj2011@gmail.com
Website : www.aygrt.isrj.net