The Concept of CSR: Socio-Legal Perspectives

Authors

  • Dr. Trilok Kumar Jain "Professor, Manipal University Jaipur Hon. Vice President World Merit India Council Promoting Social Entrepreneurship and Social Development"
  • M R Bothra Company Secretary in Spice Group of companies in India.

Keywords:

CSR, Companies act, legal Requirements, Corporate Social Responsibility

Abstract

This paper looks at changes in the legal requirements regarding CSR in Indian context. This is a review paper which reviews the proposed legal reform. Different perspectives regarding making CSR mandatory are being discussed in the light of the discussions of proposals. The focus has shifted from Profit to People. The whole concept of CSR is based on the fact that the society provides resources for business and business has to give back to the society for its inclusive growth. Business goals have to be aligned with the social and environmental needs for its long term growth. A few corporate houses view the mandatory spending on CSR activities as an unjustified burden on corporates and is going to hit their bottom line because of additional spend of a minimum 2% of the profits on the prescribed CSR activities. There is criticism over the dictating terms of the legislatures for philanthropic initiatives of the companies.

References

1. Aguilera, R., Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., & Williams, C. A. 2006. Justice and social responsibility: A social exchange model. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology Annual Meeting, Berlin.
2. Aguilera, R., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. 2007. Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 836-863.
3. Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. 2000. Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3): 243-253.
4. Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. 2002. Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organisational injustice. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89: 947-965.
5. Ambrose, M.L., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M., 2008. Individual moral development and ethical climate: The influence of person–organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3): 323-333.
6. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 452-471.
7. Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. 2003. Identity threat and antisocial behaviour in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modelling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1): 195-208.
8. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20-39.
9. Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2): 46-463.
10. Barnett, M. L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 794-816.
11. Bearman, P. 1997. Generalized exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 102(5): 1383-1415.
12. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. 2007. Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2): 410-424.
13. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1): 9-24.
14. Bhattacharyya and Rahman, 2003. Why large local conglomerates may not work in emerging markets, European Business Review, 15(2), pp.105-115.
15. Bowen, H. R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
16. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2003. The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure and industry type on corporate community involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3): 213-226.
17. Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. 2007. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10): 1701-1719.
18. Brickson, S. L. 2005. Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations‘ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4): 576-609.
19. Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. 1990. The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational justice perspective. In. J. Carroll (Ed.), Advances in applied social psychology: Business settings: 45- 75, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. 1997. The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1): 68-84.
21. Carmeli, A., Gillat, G., & Waldman D. A. 2007. The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6): 972-992.
22. Carroll, 1979. A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance, Academy of Management Review, 4(4), pp. 497-505.
23. Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4): 497-505.
24. Carroll, A. B. 2008. A history of CSR: concept and practices. In: A. Crane, D. Matten, A. McWilliams, J. Moon & D. Siegel (eds.) The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 19-45. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25. Cochran and Wood, 1984 Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 27, pp. 42-56 . 26. Colquitt, J. A. 2004. Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4): 633-646.
27. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4): 909-927.
28. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6): 874-900.
29. Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. 2003. Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8): 1019-1024.
30. Dabos, G. E. & Rousseau, D. M., 2004. Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees and employers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1): 52-72.
31. De Cremer, D. 2006. When authorities influence followers‘ affect: The interactive effect of procedural justice and transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(3): 322-351.
32. Degoey, P. 2000. Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice organizations. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 51-102. New York: JAI Press, Vol. 22.
33. DiMaggio and Powell 1983, The Iron Cage Revisited Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48 (April), pp. 147-160.
34. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation : Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.
35. Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. 2001. Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5): 483-504.
36. Douglas, N. H., Sridharan, V., Radhakrishnan, A., Chakravorty, S S., & Siha, S. M. 2008. Testing the accuracy of employee-reported data: An inexpensive alternative approach to traditional methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3): 583-593.
37. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 517-554.
38. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M. & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2): 239-263.
39. Economist 2008. Just good business. Special report on CSR. January, 19th.
40. Edenkamp, 2002 Insights into how consumers are thinking, how they are acting and why, Brandweek, 43 (36), pp. 16 -20.
41. Egri, C., Maignan, I., Ralston, D., Bowen, F., Gond, J.-P., Lo, C., & Griffith, D. 2004. A Cross-cultural study of corporate social and environmental responsibility practices and benefits. Paper presented at the Academy
of Management, New-Orleans.
42. Ekeh, P. P. 1974. Social exchange theory: The two traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Friedman, 1970 The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profit, The New York Times Magazine, Sept 13, pp. 122-126.
44. Jones, 1995 Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics, Academy of Management Review, 20(2), pp. 404–437.
45. McWilliams and Siegel, 2001 Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective, Academy of Management Review,26, pp. 117-127.
46. Palazzo and Scherer, 2006 Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation. A Communicative Framework, Journal of Business Ethics, 66 (1),pp.71–88 .
47. Prahalad and Kenneth, 1998 The End of Corporate Imperialism, Harvard Business Review, July-Aug, pp. 68-79.
48. Scherer and Palazzo, 2007Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility. Business and Society Seen from a HabermasianPerspective, Academy of Management Review, 32, pp. 1096–120.
49. Shrivastava, 1995 The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability, Academy of Management Review, 20(4), pp. 936-960.
50. Warhurst, 2001 Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Social Investment: Drivers of Tri-Sector Partnerships, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Spring, pp. 57-73.

Published

2018-09-10

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2018): Journal of Advanced Research in Business Law and Technology Management

Section

Research Article

We, the undersigned, give an undertaking to the following effect with regard to our article entitled
“_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________” submitted for publication in (Journal title)________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________Vol.________, Year _________:-

1. The article mentioned above has not been published or submitted to or accepted for publication in any form, in any other journal.

2. We also vouchsafe that the authorship of this article will not be contested by anyone whose name(s) is/are not listed by us here.

3. I/We declare that I/We contributed significantly towards the research study i.e., (a) conception, design and/or analysis and interpretation of data and to (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and on (c) final approval of the version to be published.

4. I/We hereby acknowledge ADRs conflict of interest policy requirement to scrupulously avoid direct and indirect conflicts of interest and, accordingly, hereby agree to promptly inform the editor or editor's designee of any business, commercial, or other proprietary support, relationships, or interests that I/We may have which relate directly or indirectly to the subject of the work.

5. I/We also agree to the authorship of the article in the following sequence:-

Authors' Names (in sequence) Signature of Authors
1. _____________________________________ _____________________________________
2. _____________________________________ _____________________________________
3. _____________________________________ _____________________________________
4. _____________________________________ _____________________________________
5. _____________________________________ _____________________________________
6. _____________________________________ _____________________________________
7. _____________________________________ _____________________________________
8. _____________________________________ _____________________________________

Important

(I). All the authors are required to sign independently in this form in the sequence given above. In case an author has left the institution/ country and whose whereabouts are not known, the senior author may sign on his/ her behalf taking the responsibility.

(ii). No addition/ deletion/ or any change in the sequence of the authorship will be permissible at a later stage, without valid reasons and permission of the Editor.

(iii). If the authorship is contested at any stage, the article will be either returned or will not be
processed for publication till the issue is solved.