Paper Title : Attributes of Corporate Bodies and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)Scoring :
The Indian Evidence.
About the Authors
Author:- Dr. A N Shankar
Address: -
Associate Professor , Department of Commerce,
Sikkim University, Gangtok-793102, Sikkim.
E-Mail:-
anshankar9@gmail.com, Mobile :- 9436354728
Co- Author : Dr. N M Panda,
Professor, Dept. of Commerce,
North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, Meghalaya.
E-Mail:-
nagaripanda@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
The advent of globalization, consequential scarcity of resources, improved communication
systems, public awareness, and regulations forced business houses to legitimize corporate social
responsibility (CSR) as integral component for sustainability. Over the past five decades the discourse
of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been its implications on the corporate world. The present
study is an analysis of implications of business houses’ attributes on CSR legitimization in India.
Using the CSR ratings by the Indian leading agency (Karmayog) as a surrogate measure of CSR
performance, cross sectional analysis of three years CSR scores of top 500 companies dispersed
across 38 industries is presented, in order to identify the business organisations’ attributes that cause
variation in CSR performance in India. The objective of the study is to offer a holistic perspective of
association of CSR legitimization with business attributes such as age, profitability , ownership
pattern, operational domain (domestic and international), and industry to which the firm belongs. The
result reveals; (a) Increased CSR legitimization over three years and (b)Strong association of business
houses’ attributes with the CSR scores, suggesting a need for unique CSR model that is in
commensuration with the attributes of business houses. It is imperative from the findings that
attention on CSR legitimization is much demanded from the business houses that are at infancy.
Key words : Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Legitimisation,
Introduction:
Across the globe over half a century CSR has been one of the key concerns amongst scholars
and practitioners. The theoretical constructs of CSR have evolved from corporate philanthropy as
business obligation, (Elisabet and Domenec 20041, Min Dong Paul Lee ,2008)2to normative
approaches including stakeholder legitimization, three dimensional approach, triple bottom line and
finally sustainability being the key concern. Of all the theories (Turban and Greening 19973)the
practitioners of CSR i.e., the state regulatory authorities and the business organisations prefer
normative aspects as they have functional value addition towards corporate planning. The shifts in
approaches to CSR are in commensuration with the dynamic business environment (Torbjörn et.al
20094, Carsten and Thomas, 20105), whereby the factors significant to corporate good have shifted
1
Elisabet Garriga, Domenec Mele (2004), Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: mapping the Territory, Journal of Business
Ethics,53,pp 51-71.
2 Min Dong Paul Lee (2008), A Review of the Theories of Corporate Social Responsibility: Its Evolutionary Path and the Road Ahead,
International Journal of Management Reviews,10(1), 53–73
3 Turban, D., & Greening, D. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees.
Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.
4Torbjörn Tagesson, et al. (2009). What Explains the Extent and Content of Social and Environmental Disclosures on Corporate
Websites:A Study of Social and Environmental Reporting inSwedish Listed Corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management , 16, pp.352–364.
5 Carsten Albers and Thomas Günther,(2010),Disclose or not disclose: determinants of social reporting for STOXX Europe 600 firms, Z
Plan Unternehmenssteuerung, 21,pp. 323–347.
from local to regional and then global concerns. Empirical studies (Isabelle Maignan et al.19996,
Lichtenstein et al. 20047,Chahal and Sharma 20068,Shaomin Li et al. 20109) suggest legitimization of
CSR have proved fruitful to the business organizations in long run with respect to corporate finance,
growth , and market expansion thus the quid pro quo approach stands true. A cursory look at the
observations from the empirical studies makes it imperative to assert that in the western world
(Esrock and Leichty 199810; Hooghiemstra 200011) CSR has been legitimized better than that of the
developing and underdeveloped nations by virtue of its strategic significance. In the developing
economies it is only the large multinational corporations ( MNCs) that are legitimizing CSR, probably
the realization of quid pro quo is weak by the medium and small enterprises confined to the domestic
peripheries.
Next to China, India is the second largest growing economy in the world. The financial
system of India is peculiarly and to some extent immune to the drastic adversities of global financial
market. It is thus a relatively risk free and attractive investment hub for international investors in near
future. Ameliorate and exacerbate market reactions above all the investors across the globe rank
investment proposals based on the CSR performance profile (Janney and Gove,201112, Brammer and
Millington, 2005)13.
Due to shift from agrarian to industrial economy, significant social imbalances evolved in
India (Mohan, 2001) as a result CSR gained importance, with adoption of declaration suggesting that
corporate citizen is responsible not only for itself, but also for its customers, workers, shareholders,
and community (IIC, 196614). Economic liberalisation paradigm in the 1990s affected the corporate
sector accompanied by the realization among industry of the social needs and the role in addressing
these needs (Das Gupta, 2007). The findings of the Partner in Change (PIC) survey that includes 536
companies across India, corporate philanthropy is the most significant driver of CSR, followed by
image building, and employee morale and ethics (PIC, 2003 15). Over the past decades, CSR activities
6
Isabelle Maignan et al.(1999),Corporate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and Business Benefits, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 27(4),455-469.
7 Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to
corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16–32.
8 Chahal, H., & Sharma, R. D. (2006). Implications of corporate social responsibility on marketing performance: A conceptual
framework. Journal of Services Research, 6(1), 205–216.
9 Shaomin Li et.al(2010), Corporate Social Responsibility in Emerging Markets The Importance of the Governance Environment,
Management International Review, 50,635–654.
10 Esrock, S., & Leichty, G. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting? Public Relations
Review, 24(3), 305–319.
11 Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management: New perspectives why companies engage in
corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1/2),55–68.
12 Jay J. Janney and Steve Gove,(2011), Reputation and Corporate Social Responsibility, Aberrations, Trends, and Hypocrisy: Reactions
to Firm Choices in the Stock Option Backdating Scandal, Journal of Management Studies, pp,1-24. doi: 10.1111/j.14676486.2010.00984.x, visited on 7th July 2011.
13 Stephen Brammer and Andrew Millington,(2005),Corporate Reputation and Philanthropy: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of
Business Ethics, 61(1), pp. 29-44.
14 IIC (India International Center)(1966), Social responsibilities of business. New Delhi: India International Center.
15 PIC (Partners in Change). (2003), Third report on corporate involvement in social development in India. New Delhi: Partners in
Change.
in India evolved from charity and traditional philanthropy and moved toward the mainstream globaloriented conception of the term (Das Gupta, 2007).
There are ample researches on CSR engagement by Indian corporations (Mohan, 200116;
Sagar & Singla, 200417Arora & Puranik, 200418; Das Gupta, 200719). Moreover, India has been
included in several cross-country studies of CSR in the emerging and Asian nations (Chapple &
Moon, 200520; Kimber & Lipton, 200521, Bertelsmann Foundation, 200722, Baughn et al., 200723 ,
SHRM, 200724). Noteworthy of them is by Sagar and Singla (2004) wherein the authors emphasize
that spirituality and CSR are deeply rooted in the Indian tradition, indicative of CSR is just a new
bottle for an old wine with adequate synthesis of efforts (Mohan, 2001, Arora & Puranik, 2004; Das
Gupta, 2007;). Engagement in charity by Indian corporations were often implicit, but over time CSR
has become more dominant with broader scope (Das Gupta, 2007). In India, corporate philanthropy is
legitimized with corporate activities for several reasons (Visser 2008:49025) of which the following
are the main few.
1. First, it is a “result of strong indigenous traditions of philanthropy in developing countries.”
2. Second, companies realize that they cannot succeed in societies that fail, and philanthropy is
seen as the most direct way to improve their business responsibility.
3. Third, there is often an ingrained culture of philanthropy that differentiates India, because
India had been reliant on foreign aid or donor assistance from Great Britain.
The majority of Indian corporations have policies regarding labor issues, community relations,
and environmental practices. However limitations to CSR implementation in India still exist, such as
the low level of economic development, corruption, and resistance to dialogue with stakeholders,
among others (SustainaAbility, 200526). In this backdrop it is felt essential to embark on the CSR
performance of Indian companies and particularly how does it vary across the overall corporate
16
Mohan, A. 2001. Corporate citizenship: Perspectives from India. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2, pp.107–117.
Sagar, P. & Singla, A (2004), Trust and corporate social responsibility: Lessons from India. Journal of Communication Management,
8,pp. 282–290.
18 Arora, B. & Puranik, R. (2004), A review of corporate social responsibility in India. Development, 47(3),pp. 93–100.
19 Das Gupta, A (2007), Social responsibility in India towards global compact approach, International Journal of Social Economics, 34,
pp. 637–636.
20 Chapple, W. &Moon, J( 2005), Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR Web site reporting.
Business and Society, 44,pp. 415–441.
21 Kimber, D. & Lipton, P(2005), Corporate governance and business ethics in the Asia-Pacific region. Business and Society,
44,pp.178–210.
22 Bertelsmann Foundation (2007), The CSR navigator: Public policies in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Gütersloh: The
Bertelsmann Foundation.
23 Baughn, C., Bodie, N., & McIntosh, J(2007), Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other
geographical regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14, pp. 189–205.
24 SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management). (2007). 2007 corporate social responsibility: United States, Australia, India,
China, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil: A pilot study. Virginia: SHRM.
25 Visser,W. (2008), Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D.
Siegel (Eds.), The oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 473–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26 SustainAbility(2005), India: Ancient civilization, largest democracy. London: SustainAbility Ltd.
17
profile? The present study is thus envisaged into the CSR performance of 500 Indian companies to
offer a bird’s eye view of the implications of corporate profile CSR performance.
Literature Review:
Steen Thomsen(2001)27analyses ethical business codes as governance mechanisms, i.e. institutions which
facilitate coordination of economic behaviour. Ethical business codes are compared to other social institutions
market solutions, government intervention, the prevailing social ethics, and their efficiency is evaluated in
terms of transaction costs. In the event of failure to achieve social outcomes in presence of unique information
normative rationale for ethical codes is discovered. Economic incentives are identified inspiring firms towards
social commitment but they fail to ensure CSR performance. This argument negates with the contentions of
Jordi Surroca, Joseph A. Tribo and Sandra Waddock, (2010) and contradicts with that of Lance Moir, (2001)28
who reviewed the theoretical constructs regarding CSR and identified that most of the works advocate the
advantages of CSR to the firm and suggests that the CSR is to be viewed for social advantage rather than
corporate advantage. The study was confined to cost aspects of CSR and thus suggests thorough evaluation of
organizational profile and CSR performance .
Constantina,Bichta, (2003)29 conducted a study on significance associated with bio-pysical
environmental policies of a firm across the industries and firm wise Internal and external business factors. He
found that there is a significant varaiation of environmental policy of a firm based on industry and firm level
internal and external factors affecting environmental policies. He further insisted that workforce mobilisaiton is
essnetial for devising and implementing environmental policies at firm level in Greece. He states that indirectly
it is the (corporate managers) agents who are held responsible for CSR adherence. Thus, role of ownership
pattern of the firm has significant impact on the implementation of CSR programmes. The sample in the study
included two different industries and was confined to only one firm in each, thus lacks the strength for
generalisation as indicated in its limitations. This paves way for further study in the field which may consist of
more samples, and broader range of firm attributes in addition to industry specific factors only.
Further, Paul Cox, Stephen Brammer, and Andrew Millington, (2004)30 in their study investigated the
pattern of institutional shareholding in the U.K. and its relationship with socially responsible behavior by
companies within a sample of over 500 UK companies. They estimated a set of ownership models that
distinguish between long- and short-term investors and their largest components that could incorporate both
aggregated and disaggregated measures of corporate social performance (CSP). Study revealed that long-term
institutional investment is positively related to CSP providing further support for earlier studies by Johnson and
Greening (1999, Academy of Management Journal 42, 564-576) and Graves and Waddock (1994)31, Academy
27
Steen Thomsen(2001)27,Business Ethics as Corporate Governance, European Journal of Law and Economics, 11(2), pp.153-164.
Lance, Moir, (2001), What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?, Corporate Governance, 1 (2), pp.16 – 22.
29 Constantina,Bichta. (2003). Corporate Socially Responsible Practices in the Context of Greek Industry. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management , 10, pp.12–24.
30 Paul Cox, et al.(2004),An Empirical Examination of Institutional Investor Preferences for Corporate Social Performance, Journal of
Business Ethics,52(1). pp. 27-43.
31 Graves, S. B. and S. A. Waddock: (1994), 'Institutional Owners and Social Performance', Academy of Manage
28
of Management Journal 37, 1034-1046). Synthesis of CSP into its constituent components reveals that the
pattern of institutional investment is related to the form which CSP takes. Investigation of the impact of
investment screens on the selection of stocks suggests that long-term institutional investors select primarily
through exclusion, rejecting companies with poor CSP. Their findings negates with that of Constantina,Bichta,
(2003) and Dulacha G. Barako and Alistair M. Brown(2008), who argues that sense of propriety of managers is
the key factor for CSR implementation. But the studies cited above ignore the attributes of the firm such as age
of the firm, its industry etc.
Dulacha G. Barako and Alistair M. Brown(2008)32, examined the influence of gender and board
representation on communication of CSR by Kenyan banks. Their descriptive statistical analysis revealed that
the level of corporate social disclosure by Kenyan banks is low with a mean of 15%, indicating that disclosure
of corporate governance information is not of primary concern to Kenyan banks. In particular, there is a
complete lack of disclosure on the categories of Recruitments, Employment of Special Groups, Assistance to
Retiring Employees, Employees Productivity and Turnover. The results of multiple regression analysis indicate
that board representation can fundamentally improve corporate communication. A higher level of women
representation and independent directors greatly improves disclosure. The representation in board of course
highlights the type of ownership across which the CSR performance have been evaluated within the same
industry, but across the industries the age of the firm and the ownership style together with the profit margin of
the firms is not studied to offer a broader view about the CSR performance.
T Pieter van Beurden Tobias Go¨sslinghe ,(2008)33 One of the older questions in the debate about
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is whether it is worthwhile for organizations to pay attention to societal
demands. This debate was emotionally, normatively, and ideologically loaded. Till now, this question has been
an important trigger for empirical research in CSR. However, the answer to the question has apparently not
been found yet, at least that is what many researchers state. This apparent ambivalence in CSR consequences
invites a literature study that can clarify the debate and allow for the drawing of conclusions. The results of the
literature study performed here reveal that there is indeed clear empirical evidence for a positive correlation
between corporate social and financial performance. Voices that state the opposite refer to outdated material.
Since the beginnings of the CSR debate, societies have changed. We can therefore clearly state that, for the
present Western society, ‘‘Good Ethics is Good Business.’’ But the study in 2010 by Jordi Surroca et al.
identifies a contradictory notion on empirical grounds. Thus it is felt essential to envisage into the literature
study to offer empirical evidence at least in Indian context.
Franklin, (2008).34In a survey on CSR in 2008, pointed out that the more effort that goes into CSR, the
more numbered its days as a unique concept will be. For some aspects of the dealings of the international
textile industry, particularly the fight against child labour, it seems CSR is becoming less and less a concept
that could help achieve competitive advantage and more and more simply ‘the way business is done in the 21st
mentjournal ,37, pp.1034-1046.
32 Dulacha G. Barako and Alistair M. Brown(2008) , Corporate social reporting and board representation: Evidence from the Kenyan
banking sector ,Journal of Management and Governance, 12,pp.309–324.
33 T Pieter Van Beurden ,Tobias Glo¨ssing ,(2008) Worth of Values – A Literature Review on the Relation Between Corporate Social
and Financial Performance, Journal of Business Ethics , 82.pp.407–424.
34 Franklin D. (2008). Special report: Corporate social responsibility: Just good business. The Economist, Jan 17th,pp. 1–21.
century’. Franklin’s opinion on CSR aspects of textile industry may hold true, other significant industries are
attracting relatively more labour thus the present study is felt essential to answer whether the case is identical in
case of other industries, with varying ownership patterns, age and operational area.
A comparative study has been conducted by by Christoph Lattemann et al. (200935) on reasons
for variation in CSR reporting by firms with higher level of economic development in China and
India. Taking a sample of 68 companies they found that Indian firms report more than that of Chinese
firms which is attributed to rule based governance rather than relation based. Further they identified
that such a CSR communication intensity varies across the industry and firm size and composition of
the board of directors. Above all the governance environment at national level has significant role in
improving CSR communication.
Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, and Aurora Martínez-Martínez, (2009)36 in order to identify
why business organizations are engaged in CSR? , used repeated ANOVA for 100 large Spanish firms
to find that ,the benefits of CSR issues fall within five major categories; namely: quality of products
and services, global business, innovativeness, corporate culture, and ethical obligations. However,
surprisingly he pointed that CSR had no significant effect on financial soundness. Whereby, he
concludes that CSR is not always detrimental to company goals and performance. In a nutshell he
contends that CSR has to be viewed proactively than reactive for long run sustainability by saying so
he contradicts his own statement “CSR is not always detrimental to company goals and
performance”. The findings may hold true for Spain but in Indian context the contention may be
deferred.
Yongqiang Gao (2009)37,conducted content analysis of the official websites of top 100
companies in China to reveal the social performance of large Chinese companies . The objective was
to give a broad overview about the Chinese large companies as to overall CSR performance,
component of CSR variable stressed most and significant stakeholders addressed on the sites. Further
the study envisaged into the different ownership companies and among different industrial companies.
The findings indicate that CSR/CSP in China is still at infancy, and CSR/CSP is across industries and
ownership patterns. This is in tune with the findings of Constantina,Bichta, (2003)in greek industries,
Hayam Wahba, (2010)in Egypt, Torbjörn Tagesson, Veronica Blank, Pernilla Broberg and Sven-Olof
Collin,( 2009). This calls for an investigation in Indian context as the political and economic
environment in China and India are different so that the findings could be generalisaed with larger
sample of companies.
35
Christoph Lattemann et al. (2009), CSR Communication Intensity in Chinese and Indian Multinational Companies, Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 17(4): 426–442.
36 Juan-Gabriel et al.(2009). Linking corporate social responsibility with admiration through organizational outcomes. Social
Responsibility Journal , 5 (4), pp.499 - 511.
37 Yongqiang ,Gao (2009) ,Corporate Social Performance in China: Evidence from Large Companies, Journal of Business Ethics,
89,23–35.
Philipp Schreck(2009)38 studied the association between CSR and CFP found an evidence that
one cannot suppose a generic positive relation between CSR generally and profits. But there is
evidence of such a relation for CSR’s individual components. For example, consider corporate
government and business ethics as well as environmental management. Another finding is that in
contrast to what has often been assumed from a neoclassical perspective, there is no significant
negative relation between CSR and profit. This view further keeps the author neutral about the
association between CSR and CFP. The confusion created by the researcher needs answer based on
larger data base. Thus the present study could highlight aspects in broader context than that of
financial performance as an attribute for CSR performance.
Jeremy Galbreath, (2009)39 has explored to identify how CSR could be embedded in
corporate strategy? Based on the conceptual analysis of classic works contends that, treatment of CSR
as an issue that is strategic, rather than one that is problematic or potentially a threat. By doing so,
firms are offered a means to take a much more proactive approach to CSR than reactive. Success of
embedding CSR as a strategy depends more on the flexibility of the firm’s organizational structure
and other attributes which needs to be studied.
Chiara Mio(2010)40 in a study investigated into the terms and conditions that facilitate the
quality of sustainability, environmental and social reports of listed multi-utility companies in Italy,
and its association with the quality of such reports and some variables (turnover, employees,
complexity, etc.). Further they
highlighted
the different maturity levels of companies in the
application of the principles required by the main reporting models used in the world (Global
Reporting Initiative Third Generation: GRI-G3; AA1000 SES Accountability 1000: AA1000), and
investigated the reasons for the different approaches to the models’ various principles/criteria. Both
the level of the materiality of the reports and the inclusiveness of stakeholders are lower than other
principles, even for sustainability reports from companies with a high level of compliance. As a result
of this study, strategic motivation has been recognized as the discriminatory element with respect to
the quality of reports, especially in companies of considerable size. This study is silent regarding the
ownership pattern and age of the firms that determine the flexibility of incorporating the CSR as
strategy with adherence to global norms.
Jordi Surroca, Josep A. Tribo and Sandra Waddock, (2010)41 in their study using a sample of
599 companies across 28 countries on association between corporate social responsibility
performance and financial performance found that there do not exist any direct relationship between
38
Philipp Schreck(2009), The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: Understanding and Measuring Economic Impacts of
Corporate Social Performance. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
39 Galbreath, J. (2009). Building corporate social responsibility into strategy. European Business Review , 21 (2), pp.109 – 127.
40 Chiara Mio,(2010),Corporate Social Reporting in Italian Multi-utility Companies: An Empirical Analysis ,Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management,17, pp.247–271.
41 Jordi Surroca, et al.(2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Role of Intangible Resources . Strategic
Management Journal , 31, pp. 463–490.
corporate responsibility and financial performance and merely an indirect relationship is identified
which relies on the mediating effect of a firm’s intangible resources such as Innovation, Human
Capital, Reputation and Culture. The findings of this study contradicts the findings of Waddock
(1994)42.This reveals the impact of time gap and the evolutionary stage of theoretical construct of
CSR. The study is silent regarding the impact of age, ownership pattern, and comparison with their
domestic counterparts of the companies in the sample and industry wide analysis.
Janet Elaine Haddock-Fraser and Marielle Tourelle, (2010)43 examined the extent to which the
consumer influence corporate behaviour towards reporting environmental management activities, by
means of environmental disclosures by the UK FTSE 100 companies. Further, the study explored
whether proximity to the end-consumer is associated with particular motivations for environmental
management – whether cost-reducing or reputational benefits. They found that close-to-consumer
companies will have a greater focus on reputational benefits and are more active in more active in
particular environmental measures than their counterparts. Irrespective of cost reduction benefits such
companies undertake environmental activities , suggesting that reputation with consumers/society
may be a particular business motivator for them. On the basis of consumer base and the brand name
when argued the association of CSR, it is noteworthy to mention that the world’s top 10 brands are
the one that attract smaller number of consumers as they are more into cosmetics and luxuries where
as the broad consumer base is for the essentials such as food, pharmaceuticals, clothing, financial
services, infrastructure, and telecommunication. Thus the above study to be generalized needs
thorough analysis of other attributes that influence the CSR performance.
Hayam Wahba, (2010) 44 using econometric analysis, on a sample of Egyptian firms, found
that the institutional ownership exerted positive and significant effects on a corporation’s tendency to
adopt environmental management standards only when financial resources are available with
constrained investment opportunities. A possible explanation of this finding is that Egyptian
institutional investors are more likely to use corporate environmental responsibility to offset their
inability to confront managerial discretionary power. An implication of this finding is that not only
will different types of stakeholder ask for different levels of social and environmental responsibility,
but also the same type of stakeholder may ask for different levels of social and environmental
responsibility in different contexts. In this study, performance of CSR only for the sake of attracting
institutional finance has been strongly argued in Egyptian context, thereby ignoring the other
determinants of CSR adoption.
42
Graves, S. B. and S. A. Waddock: (1994), 'Institutional Owners and Social Performance', Academy of Management Journal ,37,
pp.1034-1046.
43 Janet Elaine et al. (2010). Corporate Motivations for EnvironmentalSustainable Development: Exploring the Role of Consumers in
Stakeholder Engagement. Business Strategy and the Environment , 19, pp.527–542.
44Hayam Wahba. (2010). How Do Institutional Shareholders ManipulateCorporate Environmental Strategy to Protect TheirEquity
Value? A Study of the Adoption of ISO 14001by Egyptian Firms. Business Strategy and the Environment , 19, 495–511.
Atle Blomgren, (2010)45 conducted a qualitative study of executive perceptions on the
relationship between CSR and profit margins. With a sample of senior executives at 15 of the largest
textile companies on the Norwegian market. Six out of the 15 companies represented were foreign
owned and the results are thus relevant for the international textile industry. The results herein support
the contention that there is no business case for CSR in the sense of helping achieve profits above
industry average, but only a business case in the sense of helping achieve profits at industry average.
The findings of this study need further empirical support as to trace the attributes that determine the
CSR performance and adherence.
Torbjörn Tagesson, Veronica Blank, Pernilla Broberg and Sven-Olof Collin,( 2009)46 studied
the annual financial statements and corporate reporting on websites with a view to explain the extent
and content of social disclosure information on corporations’ websites. Applying multi-theoretical
framework they found that there exists positive correlation of size and profitability with the content
of social disclosure information on these websites. In general, State-owned corporations disclose
more social information on their websites than privately owned corporations that varies across the
industries, regarding not only the extent of social disclosures, but also their content. There is a
variaiton in CSR performance across the ownership style, but the age of the companies could not be
ignored as it determines the approach of the companies towards the CSR.
Stephen J. Brammer, Stephen Pavelin and Lynda A.Porter (2009)47, investigated into the
degree to which corporate charitable giving is influenced by a firm’s internationalisation and/or
whether it has operations in one or more countries of concern. They found that the CSR performance
varies across nations for international business organizations based on the country in which the firm is
operating in order to maintain good reputation. The study is silent regarding the CSR performance of
the TNCs in native country whether it is better than the domestic counterparts and is it true that the
older companies perform better than the new ones? These questions are not answered.
Chih Hung Chen, (2011)48in his study with a view to identify the factors significant for best
CSR model for Taiwanese firms. By applying Structural equation modeling to 185 companies in order
to assess the proposed CSR model containing four latent factors and 13 observation indicators, found
that accountability, transparency, competitiveness, and responsibility are the factors that play key role
in determining efficacy of CSR model. However, he concluded that companies taking accountability
and transparency as priority would strengthen their competitiveness and generate responsibility and in
45
Atle Blomgren(2010), Does Corporate Social ResponsibilityInfluence Profi t Margins? A Case Study of Executive Perceptions.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , DOI: 10.1002 visited on 12-02-2011.
46Torbjörn Tagesson, et al. (2009). What Explains the Extent and Content of Social and Environmental Disclosures on Corporate
Websites:A Study of Social and Environmental Reporting inSwedish Listed Corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management , 16, pp.352–364.
47Stephen J. Brammer, et al. (2009),Corporate Charitable Giving, Multinational Companies and Countries of Concern, Journal of
Management Studies ,46(4),pp.575-597.
48Chih Hung Chen. (2011). The major components of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Global Responsibility , 2 (1), pp.85 –
99.
turn lead to CSR. Companies would obtain great advantages in the long run. The study ignored the
organizational broad characteristics that encompass CSR policy determination and implementation.
In another study Chih Hung Chen, and Winai Wongsurawat, (2011)49 applies path analysis to
identify the factors affecting CSR model on a sample of 170 Taiwanese companies to arrive at a
conclusion that accountability and transparency provide statistically significant contributions to the
prediction of competitiveness that has significant effect on corporate responsibility. Further he
concludes that implementing CSR is not only the smart and right thing to do from a insider looking
out approach, but also the right thing to do from an outsider looking in approach that negates with
Kumar(1989)50. Whether the organizational characteristics have implications over the CSR
performance the study remains silent.
The literature reviewed above indicates the inconclusive direction of association between the
CSR and CFP. It is imperative that studies across the world reveal there exists association between
corporate doing good and its reputation, the institutional investors are concerned with the corporate
reputation thus long run financial performance is associated with CSR. In the international arena the
transnational corporations reveal better Corporate social responsibility adherence than the
corporations confined to domestic peripheries. It is also emphasized in the literature that industry wise
variation in Corporate social responsibility performance significantly exists. The works cited above
are confined to Europe , USA , UK, Africa, China, and Taiwan. A scope for further study cannot be
ruled out on the grounds that the above empirics are subject to the limitations regarding the sample
size and homogeneity of population that limit generalization of the findings. Most of the studies
included only one parameter of the business performance that fails to offer holistic perspective of
impact of overall business attributes on firm level CSR performance. However, literature discussed
above has ignored age factor of the companies, the variable that captures how the CSR is sustained
and enhances the sustainability of the corporate firm. India being the second largest growing economy
and expects considerable foreign investments in near future thus this study is felt essential to pave
way for the new entrants in the market regarding consequences of fostering Corporate social
responsibility.
Objective of the study :
The objective of this study is to probe into the association of firms’ attributes such as Age,
Ownership style, Profitability, Operational area (Domestic, International), and Industry specificity
with the CSR performance. In order to attain the objective following null hypotheses have been
formulated:
49Chih
Hung Chen, and Winai Wongsurawat. (2011). Core constructs of corporate social responsibility: a path analysis. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Business Administration , 3 (1), pp.47 – 61.
50 Kumar V K. (1989), Management Accounting an Organisational Perspective, Emerging Perspectives in Management Accounting,
New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
1. H01 CSR scores are dispersed evenly across varying profitability level of Companies.
2. H02 There is no variation of CSR scores across the age of the company.
3. H03CSR scores are spread evenly across the ownership pattern of the company.
4. H04 CSR scores do not vary across the area of operations of the company be it domestic or
international. (Non-MNCs and MNCs)
5. H05CSR scores are evenly dispersed irrespective of the product line the companies are
operating .
Method of Study :
With a view to offering an overall perspective of CSR legitimization in India latest data
comprising of top 500 companies has been obtained from the Karmayog CSR rating agency’s
website. The Karmayog CSR agency ranks its clients on the parameters such as: Products and
Services, Need of Society, Must – do CSR, Least harmful process, Impacts of usage, Harmful
products, Harmful processes, Minimum CSR Spend, Employee participation and volunteerism, Reach
of CSR Activities, Social Banking and Social Responsibility.
For identification of impact of attributes on CSR scoring spread over three years 2007-2009,
analysis of data has been done using percentages and ANOVA across the following attributes: (a)Year
of establishment, b) Gross Profit/ Turnover Ratio, c) Type of ownership, d) and the Industry to which
a company belongs, e)Operational area(domestic or international) .
a) Companies’ age, measured in terms of years i.e number of years from the year of
establishment. To avoid the effect of outliers the classification is made using SPSS in such a
way that approximately 1/3rd of the companies are included in each class. Classification is
made as companies established before 1963, between 1963 to 1985, and after 1985.
b) Operational efficacy measured by means of the ratio gross profit to turnover. To maintain
control on the effect of large numbers approximately 1/3rd of the companies have been included
in each class. Classification is made using SPSS as companies with Gross Profit Turnover ratio
less than 3.87%, between 3.87% to 11.85%, and above 11.85%.
c) Companies operational area has been categorized into domestic confined to India and
international including domestic and International.
d) Ownership pattern broadly categorized as Indian Multinational Corporation (IMNC),
multinational corporation (MNC), Public Sector unit (PSU), and private sector (Pvt) .
e) Nature of product line broadly classified by way of industry to which the company belongs to
amongst the 38 industries identified by the Karmayog CSR rating agency.
Analysis
Table- 1: Percentage of Companies with CSR Scores during the years 2007-2009
CSR Scores
Year
2007
2008
2009
Low
0
36.57
34.29
25.60
1
2
3
17.48
24.08
29.40
34.30
31.43
29.20
10.36
8.16
13.20
High
4
1.29
2.04
2.60
No. of
Companies
309
490
500
Table-1, reveals the CSR rating by the Karmayog rating agency from Low to High on 5
point scale ranging from 0-4 for companies registered with Karmayog CSR rating agency. There is a
noteworthy decline in percentage of companies scoring low from 36.57 % to 25.6 % amounting to
11% of the companies moving towards greater scores. Similarly, the table reveals that in high scores
there is a marginal move from 1.29% to 2.6 % a difference of 1.31%. It is astonishing to know that
the percentage of companies scoring 2 point medium scores are declining , where as the percentage of
companies scoring next to extremes(High and Low) are increasing. This combined shift of the CSR
scores is indicative of inclusion of CSR policies in the objectives of the companies.
A cross sectional analysis is conducted based on CSR scores of the companies over the period of three
years across each of the profile attributes from a-e, mentioned above to offer a bird’s eye view of the
Indian companies CSR legitimizing phenomena.
2009
2008
2007
Table- 2: Percentage of Companies with CSR Scores during 2007-2009 on the basis of Gross Profit to Turnover
Ratio
Gross
Percentage of Companies with CSR Scores
Profit to
Low 0
1
2
3
High 4
turnover
Ratio in
Number of
Year Percentage Companies
Below3.87
95
39.18
18.56
29.9
12.37
0
3.87 -11.85
107
42.86
18.1
28.57
9.52
0.95
Above 11.85
107
28.04
15.89
43.93
9.35
2.8
Below3.87
160
41.25
26.25
24.38
7.5
0.63
3.87 -11.85
165
37.58
25.45
27.88
7.27
1.82
Above 11.85
165
24.24
20.61
41.82
9.7
3.64
Below3.87
166
34.94
32.53
21.08
10.84
0.6
3.87 -11.85
167
26.95
31.14
26.95
11.98
2.99
Above 11.85
167
14.97
24.55
39.52
16.77
4.19
A shift is observed over the years in all companies from low scoring 0-1 to 2-3 points indicative of
their improving sensitivity to corporate social responsibility aspects of all the companies rated by agency
Table-2. Further, it is observed that there is a variation in Corporate social responsibility scores across the
profitability levels through three years, Table-8 reveals that at 0.05 level of significance the F values for 2007,
2008, and 2009 are 3.099, 9.498, and 14.223 respectively. Thus it can be inferred that greater number of
companies with high profit margin above 11.85% are scoring in the range of 3-4 points and it is increasing
through 2007-2009. Though, this finding is contradicting that of Jordi Surroca, Josep A. Tribo and Sandra
Waddock (2010) which states that Corporate social responsibility is not positively associated with profitability
only, however, it is in conformity with the short run Quid Pro Quo of strategizing CSR. In a nutshell the
hypothesis H01 Irrespective of profitability level of the company CSR scores are dispersed evenly stands
rejected in Indian context at 0.05 level of significance. Similar were the results observed in Panda and Shankar
(2009)51.
On observing the age of the companies and their CSR scores it is observed that the companies with mediocre
history(Established between 1963-1985) are well adapted to the contemporary business dynamics and they are
more in percentage scoring between 3-4 points, followed by the older companies that are established before
1963.
Year of
Establishment
Number of
Companies
2007
Before 1963
1963-1985
After 1985
74
101
134
2008
Before 1963
1963-1985
After 1985
2009
Table-3 : Percentage of Companies with CSR Scores during the years 2007-2009 on the basis of
Companies’ Age(year of establishment)
Before 1963
1963-1985
After 1985
Year
Percentage of Companies with CSR Scores
Low 0
1
2
3
High 4
36.72
33.01
41.03
14.06
21.36
17.95
38.28
34.95
26.92
10.16
7.77
14.10
0.78
2.91
0.00
164
163
163
26.63
33.96
42.59
23.08
21.38
27.78
36.69
33.96
23.46
11.24
6.92
6.17
2.37
3.77
0.00
167
166
167
15.88
27.95
33.14
27.06
31.68
29.59
35.29
24.84
27.22
18.24
11.80
9.47
3.53
3.73
0.59
However, it is surprising to note that companies established after 1985 seems to be less strategizing the
Corporate social responsibility aspects than their counterparts (table-3). The Corporate social responsibility
scores across the companies’ age varies significantly (table-8) in the years 2008(F=0.99) and 2009 (F=2.09),
however, for the year 2007(F=1.10) the variation is insignificant. The hypothesis H02 CSR scores do not vary
across the age of the company stands rejected for the years 2008 and 2009 only, and for the year 2007 the F
values indicate not to reject the null hypothesis at 5% level of significance .
Table-4 : Percentage of Companies with CSR Scores during the years 2007-2009 based on Transnational
operations
Percentage of Companies with CSR Scores
1
2
3
4
Year
Operational
Area
2007
International
Domestic
26.25
40.17
12.50
19.21
38.75
32.75
18.75
7.42
3.75
0.44
2008
International
Domestic
21.78
37.53
18.81
25.45
38.61
29.56
13.86
6.68
6.93
0.77
0
International
12.62
24.27
32.04
23.30
7.77
2009
Domestic
28.97
30.73
28.46
10.58
1.26
Table-4 reveals that in 2007 the companies with international operations scored best portion of CSR
rating from score 2-4 outperforming the companies confined to domestic boundaries, and the trend is improved
from worse to better and continued till 2009. As revealed in table-8 the variation in CSR ratings is significant at
51
N M Panda and A N Shankar (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility Concerns and Corporate Performance; Some Evidence for
India, GITAM Review of International Business, 2(1).pp. 93-111.
0.05 level with F values 14.29, 24.68, and 31.22 for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively and the null
hypothesis H04 CSR scores do not vary across the area of operations of the company be it domestic or
international stands rejected which negates with the outcomes of Ans Kolk and Jonatan Pinkse(2010)52 .
A further synthesis of the information is made in table- 5 by splitting the companies on the basis of
ownership reveals that Non- Indian MNCs scored better throughout than Indian MNCs. Over the three years
within domestic periphery of operations PSUs are outperforming the Private sector that is in confirmity with
Torbjörn Tagesson et, al ( 2009). In the year 2008 it is noteworthy that the Indian MNCs have well scored the
CSR ratings than the MNCs the cause may be attributed to global financial turmoil to which Indian MNCs are
considerably immune.
Table-5 : Percentage of Companies with CSR Scores during the years 2007-2009 on the basis of ownership type
2007
IMNC
MNC
PSU
Pvt
2008
Percentage of Companies with CSR Scores
Number of
Companies
49
31
50
179
IMNC
MNC
PSU
Pvt
2009
Ownership
Type
IMNC
MNC
PSU
Pvt
Year
Low 0
1
2
3
28.57
22.58
46.00
38.55
10.20
16.13
18.00
19.55
32.65
48.39
28.00
34.08
22.45
12.9
8
7.26
High
4
6.12
0
0
0.56
65
36
59
330
24.62
16.67
25.42
39.70
16.92
22.22
30.51
24.55
33.85
47.22
35.59
28.48
16.92
8.33
8.47
6.36
7.69
5.56
0
0.91
67
36
60
337
13.43
11.11
5
33.23
25.37
22.22
26.67
31.45
31.34
33.33
48.33
24.93
19.4
30.56
20
8.90
10.45
2.78
0
1.48
The findings are not in hypothesized direction and indicative of the role of stakeholder theory in CSR
performance, it is in conformity with the findings of Jose-Manuel Prado-Lorenzo, Isabel Gallego-Alvarez and
Isabel M. Garcia-Sanchez (2009)53 . Marguerite Schneider and AlixValenti (2010)54 suggests that it is private
corporations that rely more on profitability of CSR performance than the public sector units even the above
findings suggests a variation in CSR ratings between the PSUs and Private sector.
In order to test the Industry wide variation F-Test has been conducted (table-6) and it is found that
there is significant variation in Corporate social responsibility ratings in the year 2009 that supports studies
conducted in past. But to the contradiction it is found that for the period from 2007 to 2008 such a variation is
not significant, the cause may be attributed to the number of companies in each industry during the period may
not suffice the assumptions underlying statistical tools. The present findings for the period (2007-2008) are
52
Ans Kolk and Jonatan Pinkse (2010) The Integration of Corporate Governance in Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management ,17, pp.15–26.
53 Jose-Manuel Prado-Lorenzo, Isabel Gallego-Alvarez and Isabel M. Garcia-Sanchez (2009) Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate
Social Responsibility Reporting: the Ownership Structure Effect, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16,
pp. 94–107.
54 Marguerite Schneider and Alix Valenti (2010), The Effects of “Going Private” Using Private Equity :The Newly Private Corporation
and the Dimensions of Corporate Performance, Business and Society Review,115(1),pp.75–106.
contradictory to that of Panda and Shankar (2009) cause may be attributed to the sample size and absence of
concrete CSR ratings by agencies during the period.
Table -6: Results of ANOVA between CSR scores and Corporate profile attributes
Attribute
Year
Degrees of
freedom
F –Value
Significance
Gross Profit
Turnover Ratio
Owner Ship
Industry
Operational Area
Domestic
/International
Age
2007
2008
2009
2007
2008
2009
2007
2008
2009
2007
2008
2009
3
305
3
486
3
496
2
306
2
487
2
497
37
271
37
452
37
462
2
306
2
487
2
497
0.99
1.10
50853
9.049 18.591 3.099 9.498 14.223 1.10
2.09
0.99
2.09
(0.002) (0.000) (0.000) (0.047) (0.000) (0.000) (0.322) (0.482) (0.000) (0.738) (0.000) (0.000)
2007
1
2008
1
2009
1
307
488
498
14.29
24.68
31.22
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.000)
Limitations of the study :
The present study though covers the majority of corporations operating in India rated by the premier
CSR rating agency Karmayog. This study needs further crosschecked with the rankings of other CSR rating
agencies in the world to derive generalized opinion. Under the given constraints of Indian business
environment the non-availability of ratings for the recent past may not portray real time characteristic image of
association between CSR and the corporate attributes.
Discussion / Conclusion and suggestions
CSR being imperative for business organizations across the globe to attract investments, distract
government and public criticism on certain key policies and regulations. Recently
CSR has been
acknowledged by the International Financial Reporting Standards Committee. By the virtue of IFRS the efforts
put forward by the corporate sector for CSR will now be treated as assets of the company with effect from the
financial year 2011-2012 in turn it should fuel the momentum of CSR in India. Hence, the findings that year
after year there is an increasing frequency of companies that score improved CSR ratings may be attributed to
the fact that CSR performance is formally recognised. The study reveals some interesting facts that contradict
simple logic such as a new born company is usually assumed to have embedded in its policies the minimum
required clauses that contemporary business environment needs for success and growth which is absent.
Instead the old companies assumed to be conservative have well realized the need and manifested the same in
deeds. Ownership wise it is found that global players are more adapted to CSR adherence than national and
gap is still existing between private sector and public sector units. It is evident from findings that PSUs are well
to do in CSR but, it is not surprising in a welfare economy like that of India. However the need for educating
private sector to incorporate CSR cannot be overemphasized. The findings based on association of operational
area with CSR ratings suggests that companies with transnational operations score significantly more to adhere
to the global norms. Profitability however remains key concern thus investment in altruism is possible if at all
there is enough savings from routine business activities thus the level of profitability is positively associated
with extent of CSR performance and scoring. Industry wide the variation is not apparent in initial two years
2007 and 2008 but the year 2009 observed significant variation. Cause of variation in CSR scores may be
attributed to nature of business and operations as found in past studies but in this case one cannot ignore the
increase in number of companies. Besides all the empirics it remains noteworthy that altruism is still missing to
a great extent and need of the hour is adequate orientation for managers and upcoming entrepreneurs in
corporate houses towards business environment and CSR.
ANNEXURE
Annexure -I: Year of Establishment and Ownership wise Companies rated by Karmayog till the year 2009
Type of
Ownership
Indian
Multinational
Corporation
( I-MNC)
Multinational
Corporation
(MNC)
Public
Sector
Unit(PSU)
Private
Total
Before 1963
14
28
33
95
170
1963-1985
23
3
20
115
161
After 1985
30
5
7
127
169
Year of
Establishment
67
36
60
337
500
Total
On the basis of ownership it can be seen that the number of companies established before 1963 are 170 that are registered with
Karmayog Corporate social responsibility rating agency being maximum followed by companies established after the year1985 169 and
161 companies between the years1963 to 1985.
Annexure-II
Parameters for CSR Evaluation and rating by Karmayog
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Products and Services: The subjective rating (0-5) is based on the Company’s main products / services.
Need of Society: If the product / service offered is not needed by society, then the Karmayog CSR rating = 0. Zero Rated
Products: Companies which make the following are given a Zero Karmayog CSR rating: - cigarettes and tobacco based
products- liquor companies
Must – do CSR: Every Company degrades the environment, just as every individual does. Hence, every Company must be
working to reduce environmental degradation, and to rejuvenate the source / place from where it uses resources or operates.
To get a Karmayog CSR rating of even 1, a Company must be engaged in environmental work that rejuvenates and restores
the damage done.
Least harmful process: The process followed in the making of that product or delivery of that service is considered while
assigning the rating of a Company. The process followed should be one that does the least harm. (apart from the mandatory
regulations and laws in place)
Impacts of usage: The implications of the usage of the product / services is considered while assigning the rating of a
Company. (pollution, environmental degradation, waste generation, etc.)
Harmful products: Companies which make the following extensively damage the environment. Hence a Karmayog CSR
rating of not more than 2 can be given to them, even if they are doing extensive work under CSR. Chemicals (such as
fertilizers, paints, plastics)
Harmful processes: Companies which engage in the following processes extensively damage the environment. Hence a
Karmayog CSR rating of not more than 2 can be given, even if they are doing extensive work under CSR. Mining, Aviation,
Thermal power generation, Cement manufacture, Automobiles, Auto parts, Tyres manufacture, Paper, Forestry based
products manufacture, Iron and steel manufacture.
Minimum CSR Spend: A company must spend an amount equivalent to at least 0.2 % of its sales for CSR activities. Such an
amount provides an idea of the magnitude of CSR that can be done by a Company. If a Company does not spend this
minimum amount, then a zero or low Karmayog CSR rating would be give.
Employee participation and volunteerism: This factor has not been a deciding factor in the Karmayog CSR rating as it is
more important for the Company as a whole to have a defined CSR philosophy which it practises. Within such a set-up, each
employee will be a more sensitised participant, and will hence be contributing towards the CSR objectives of the Company.
This is a far more effective, and long-lasting method of practising CSR as compared to employee pay-roll giving and
volunteerism, which is often not voluntary and is usually also temporary.
Reach of CSR Activities: A second rating has also been carried out simultaneously to determine the extent of
impact
that a Company’s CSR activities has. Accordingly, a company would be assigned either “a”, “b”, or “c” where a = CSR
activities involving employees only, b = CSR activities in the immediate physical vicinity of the Company’s operations and c
= CSR activities involving the larger community and society as a whole.
Social Banking and Social Responsibility: Banking, Insurance and Finance sectors tend to get rated higher because of the
nature of their work. However, engaging in micro-finance and rural banking does not automatically mean good CSR practice,
as often what is termed as “social banking” is just a simple extension of the customer base and business, and is also part of the
priority sector lending that is mandatory.
References
Ans Kolk and Jonatan Pinkse (2010) The Integration of Corporate Governance in Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosures, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management ,17, pp.15–26.
Arora, B. & Puranik, R. (2004), A review of corporate social responsibility in India. Development, 47(3),pp. 93–
100.
Atle Blomgren(2010), Does Corporate Social ResponsibilityInfluence Profi t Margins? A Case Study of Executive
Perceptions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , DOI: 10.1002 visited on 1202-2011.
Baughn, C., Bodie, N., & McIntosh, J(2007), Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries
and other geographical regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14, pp. 189–
205.
Bertelsmann Foundation (2007), The CSR navigator: Public policies in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe.
Gütersloh: The Bertelsmann Foundation.
Carsten Albers and Thomas Günther,(2010),Disclose or not disclose: determinants of social reporting for STOXX
Europe 600 firms, Z Plan Unternehmenssteuerung, 21,pp. 323–347.
Chahal, H., & Sharma, R. D. (2006). Implications of corporate social responsibility on marketing performance: A
conceptual framework. Journal of Services Research, 6(1), 205–216.
Chapple, W. &Moon, J( 2005), Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR Web
site reporting. Business and Society, 44,pp. 415–441.
Chiara Mio,(2010),Corporate Social Reporting in Italian Multi-utility Companies: An Empirical Analysis
,Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,17, pp.247–271.
Chih Hung Chen, and Winai Wongsurawat. (2011). Core constructs of corporate social responsibility: a path
analysis. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration , 3 (1), pp.47 – 61.
Chih Hung Chen. (2011). The major components of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Global
Responsibility , 2 (1), pp.85 – 99.
Christoph Lattemann et al. (2009), CSR Communication Intensity in Chinese and Indian Multinational Companies,
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4): 426–442.
Constantina,Bichta. (2003). Corporate Socially Responsible Practices in the Context of Greek Industry. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 10, pp.12–24.
Das Gupta, A (2007), Social responsibility in India towards global compact approach, International Journal of
Social Economics, 34, pp. 637–636.
Dulacha G. Barako and Alistair M. Brown(2008) , Corporate social reporting and board representation: Evidence
from the Kenyan banking sector ,Journal of Management and Governance, 12,pp.309–324.
Elisabet Garriga, Domenec Mele (2004), Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: mapping the Territory, Journal
of Business Ethics,53,pp 51-71.
Esrock, S., & Leichty, G. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agendasetting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305–319.
Franklin D. (2008). Special report: Corporate social responsibility: Just good business. The Economist, Jan
17th,pp. 1–21.
Galbreath, J. (2009). Building corporate social responsibility into strategy. European Business Review , 21 (2),
pp.109 – 127.
Graves, S. B. and S. A. Waddock: (1994), 'Institutional Owners and Social Performance', Academy of Management
Journal ,37, pp.1034-1046.
Hayam Wahba. (2010). How Do Institutional Shareholders ManipulateCorporate Environmental Strategy to Protect
TheirEquity Value? A Study of the Adoption of ISO 14001by Egyptian Firms. Business Strategy and the
Environment , 19, 495–511.
Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management: New perspectives why
companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1/2),55–68.
IIC (India International Center)(1966), Social responsibilities of business. New Delhi: India International Center.
Isabelle Maignan et al.(1999),Corporate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and Business Benefits, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4),455-469.
Janet Elaine et al. (2010). Corporate Motivations for EnvironmentalSustainable Development: Exploring the Role
of Consumers in Stakeholder Engagement. Business Strategy and the Environment , 19, pp.527–542.
Jay J. Janney and Steve Gove,(2011), Reputation and Corporate Social Responsibility, Aberrations, Trends, and
Hypocrisy: Reactions to Firm Choices in the Stock Option Backdating Scandal, Journal of Management
Studies, pp,1-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00984.x, visited on 7th July 2011.
Jordi Surroca, et al.(2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Role of Intangible
Resources . Strategic Management Journal , 31, pp. 463–490.
Jose-Manuel Prado-Lorenzo, Isabel Gallego-Alvarez and Isabel M. Garcia-Sanchez (2009) Stakeholder
Engagement and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: the Ownership Structure Effect, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, pp. 94–107.
Juan-Gabriel et al.(2009). Linking corporate social responsibility with admiration through organizational
outcomes. Social Responsibility Journal , 5 (4), pp.499 - 511.
Kimber, D. & Lipton, P(2005), Corporate governance and business ethics in the Asia-Pacific region. Business and
Society, 44,pp.178–210.
Kumar V K. (1989), Management Accounting an Organisational Perspective, Emerging Perspectives in
Management Accounting, New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
Lance, Moir, (2001), What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?, Corporate Governance, 1 (2), pp.16 –
22.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on
customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16–32.
Marguerite Schneider and Alix Valenti (2010), The Effects of “Going Private” Using Private Equity :The Newly
Private Corporation and the Dimensions of Corporate Performance, Business and Society
Review,115(1),pp.75–106.
Min Dong Paul Lee (2008), A Review of the Theories of Corporate Social Responsibility: Its Evolutionary Path
and the Road Ahead, International Journal of Management Reviews,10(1), 53–73
Mohan, A. 2001. Corporate citizenship: Perspectives from India. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2, pp.107–
117.
N M Panda and A N Shankar (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility Concerns and Corporate Performance; Some
Evidence for India, GITAM Review of International Business, 2(1).pp. 93-111.
Paul Cox, et al.(2004),An Empirical Examination of Institutional Investor Preferences for Corporate Social
Performance, Journal of Business Ethics,52(1). pp. 27-43.
Philipp Schreck(2009), The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: Understanding and Measuring
Economic Impacts of Corporate Social Performance. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
PIC (Partners in Change). (2003), Third report on corporate involvement in social development in India. New
Delhi: Partners in Change.
Sagar, P. & Singla, A (2004), Trust and corporate social responsibility: Lessons from India. Journal of
Communication Management, 8,pp. 282–290.
Shaomin Li et.al(2010), Corporate Social Responsibility in Emerging Markets The Importance of the Governance
Environment, Management International Review, 50,635–654.
SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management). (2007) Corporate social responsibility: United States,
Australia, India, China, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil: A pilot study. Virginia: SHRM.
Steen Thomsen(2001) ,Business Ethics as Corporate Governance, European Journal of Law and Economics,
11(2), pp.153-164.
Stephen Brammer and Andrew Millington,(2005),Corporate Reputation and Philanthropy: An Empirical Analysis,
Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), pp. 29-44.
Stephen J. Brammer, et al. (2009),Corporate Charitable Giving, Multinational Companies and Countries of
Concern, Journal of Management Studies ,46(4),pp.575-597.
SustainAbility(2005), India: Ancient civilization, largest democracy. London: SustainAbility Ltd.
T Pieter Van Beurden ,Tobias Glo¨ssing ,(2008) Worth of Values – A Literature Review on the Relation Between
Corporate Social and Financial Performance, Journal of Business Ethics , 82.pp.407–424.
Torbjörn Tagesson, et al. (2009). What Explains the Extent and Content of Social and Environmental Disclosures
on Corporate Websites:A Study of Social and Environmental Reporting inSwedish Listed Corporations.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 16, pp.352–364.
Turban, D., & Greening, D. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective
employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.
Visser,W. (2008), Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten,
J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 473–79. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Yongqiang ,Gao (2009) ,Corporate Social Performance in China: Evidence from Large Companies, Journal of
Business Ethics, 89,23–35.