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

net/publication/282672500

Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Welfare

Research · October 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4793.4163

CITATION READS

1 5,685

1 author:

Ashonshok Kachui
Tata Institute of Social Sciences
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

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

Poverty Alleviation through SHGs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashonshok Kachui on 09 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tata Institute of Social Science
Masters in Globalisation and Labour Studies
Social Protection and the State (GL4)

Draft Paper for Literature Review on

Corporate Social Reponsibility and

Social Welfare

ASHONSHOK KACHUI
M2015GL001

Submitted to: Versha Ayyar Date: 7 Oct 2015

Assistant Professor Place: Mumbai
Center for Labour Studies
TISS, Mumbai
 Contents

Introduction 1

Corporates towards Social Welfare 2

Social Welfare through Corporate Social Responsibility 3

Corporate Social Responsibility and the future 4

Corporate Social Responsibility debate: Case for and against CSR 5

Conclusion 6

Reference
Abstract
Corporate Social Responsibility has gained interest over the years. The definition of CSR is
unlimited and the scope of expansion is huge. The corporation has social, moral and economic
responsibility to fulfill since they are in inherent contract with the society. The definition of social
welfare according to corporate is different than from the general viewpoint. Since discretionary and
philantrophic responsibility rests on legal and economic responsibility, the intend of corporation
tends to lean toward profit making most of the time. The invent of social media has the potential to
change the way corporates function. The future practice of corporate towards social welfare is
bright if the stakeholder exert more pressure and demand more from the corporations. The
responsibility of social welfare from corporations ultimately lies the consensus of the people
(government) in two way option: either they implement regulation on corporate social responsibility
or let corporates do their own regulations by being transparent and practicing integrity.

Key words: corporate social responsibility, social welfare, accountability

INTRODUCTION
Corporate Social Responsibility has been around for the past 50 years since the rise of the
corporations and private firms in the the late 20th century. After Keynesian economics or
government interventionist declined their control paving the way for neoliberal and privatised
corporatist led economy in the 1980s and 1990s, there is a growing debate for defining Corporate
Social Responsibility. Yet after so many years, there isn't one conclusive idea to promulgate CSR.
Many scholars are of the view that Corporate Social Responsibility encompasses several concepts
such as corporate citizenship, sustainable business, environmental responsibility, business ethics
and corporate accountability (Matten & Moon, 2008). It was during 1950s that corporates
conceptualized the idea to build, restore or maintain public image (Caroll, 1991). There are several
reasons behind the shift or goal displacement1 . Some scholars like Richter (2001), Jenkin (2005),
Bendell (2005) are of the view that CSR saw its initiative after growing waves of anti-trust
movements around the world and especially in the US.
One of the most intriguing thing as observed about the corporate social responsibility is that it is
getting more expansive than accumulative (Crane et al., 2008). A simple search on Google for the
phrase 'corporate social responsibility' garnered 12,900,000 results in 2007 (Broomhill, 2007) but in
2015, October 1, the same phrase got 64,900,000 results. This five fold increase in a span of eight
years highlights that CSR is a trend that is ever growing. The definition of Corporate Social
Responsibility is also contested and debated. Thus in general term, the CSR is viewed as according
to the likeness and whatever seem fit by the author who is ascribed to a particular set of thought. To
a neo-liberal CSR term seen as a set of voluntary policies, codes or regulations initiated and driven
by the corporations. To a radical politcal economist, it is view as a naive and uneffective and
inadequate practice initiated to cover up and legitimise the environmentally destructive practice by
the corporates. To a neo-Keynesian, CSR is seen an initiative for the 'stakeholders' for positive and
inclusive growth which is voluntary and not mandatory.
One must ask why there is surge in CSR practice both in academic and corporate practices. CSR
growth is emphasised as a result of growing influence of corporates and decline of state
intervention. Yet others view it in positive light saying CSR is an ethical business activity,
benefiting the stakeholders and the company by way of 'tricke-down-effect'.2 This review article
will try to link CSR and social welfare practice, how they have the capacity to contribute something
to the society, why they should and how they can. In order to come to understand this, the
methodology applied here will be to ask
1. Do corporate have obligations to commit resources for social welfare?
2. What are the socially responsible business practices the corporates needs to initiate?
3. Is CSR for companies interest or public interest?
4. What is the future prospect or role of CSR?
This article looks at two view point: while the social welfare is viewed from corporate's standard,
the critique comes from general point of view. Some cited examples are taken from google search
results and may seem narrowly interpreted. Measures has been taken that the article presents
unbaised viewpoint from both side.

Corporates towards Social Welfare

Adrian Cadbury (2006) writes that corporate social responsibility stems from the fact that
businesses are under implied agreement with the society. So this agreement obligates them to look
to it that they follow fair competition and trade practices, comply local community and state's
guidelines and deliver practices that do not effect the environment by means of reduction in green-
house gases or use of alternative clean energy. Corporates are legally obligated to commit resources
to social welfare in India3 and some parts the world. However, the government of India put caps and
limits who should contribute mandatorily and voluntarily, and Indian law seems to favour corporate
side as the Companies Act, 2013 first obligates companies with turnover of over Rs. 1000crs to
have mandatory CSR programmes with CSR committee members elected from the board members
with atleast one independant directors and for those with Rs. 500 net worth as voluntary. Reinhardt
et al., (2008) says 'imposition of regulatory constraints' by the state should be one condition for
CSR's contribution towards social welfare. As companies attain new heights through increased
profits, high level of motivation from the state, domination through market and influence through
products, it is about time that they stress more towards social welfare by sacrificing corporate
profits in the public interest (Elhauge, 2005). Social Welfare as defined by the Wikipedia is the
provision of minimum level of well-being for all citizens sometimes refered to as public aid. By
stressing the word 'minimum' and 'profit', it is reasonable to argue that mimimal contribution by the
corporates through CSR can be a legitimate bargain for both. Legitimate because corporates are
bound under implied agreement with the society; agreement that may or maynot be written .
However, the society should keep in mind that corporates thrive because of people buy from the
corporates and not the other way round. Social Welfare is supposed to be taken care of by the
government as citizens are under social contract with the state. Yet when almost 70% of a citizen's
income are spend on consumable and non-consumable item, it is imperative that Corporates must
contribute something back. A simple check list of compiled expenditure shows rural and urban
expendure: an overview of average spending on buying goods and luxery items. Average
expenditure on food items across urban and rural area was 42.6% of income. The chart below
shows the corporate involvement in daily expenditures. The figures correspondent to the National
Sample Survey 68th Round (June 2011-July 2012).

Expenditure Percentage Corporate Involvement

Fuel and Lighting (excluding 7% Yes. (Tata Power, Reliance
transportation) Power)
Clothing and Footwear 7% Yes. Almost all brands are
corporates.2
Medical Expenditure 6.7% Yes. Purely Indian pharma
industry is fairly low. Public
hospital system is in decline.3
Education 3.5% Yes. Public education
institution is doing well.
Conveyence 4.2% Yes. But chief transport like
train and bus is still under
public control.
Luxury Items 4% Yes. 100% luxury items are
owned by private.
Consumer durables 4.5% Yes.
Total 36.9

Fig 1. Corporate involvement into the daily expenditure of Indian citizens both rural and urban.
The above table does not contain the food item expentiture. The same survey reports that average
Indian household spends about 42.6% of income on food and other consumable items. In the food
industry, corporations are heavily involved. There has been rise in consumption of miscellaneous
goods and services, from 23.4% in 2004-05 to 26% in 2011-12 in rural areas and from 37.2% in
2004-05 to nearly 40% in urban areas. (NSS data)
Sumarising the above expenditure, it is pertinent to say that corporations are highly influential into
the lifestyle of an average Indian. From the moment a person wakes up to brush his teeth to the
night time he washes his face, he uses corporate made products to satisfy his needs. So if we spend
so much on buying stuffs from the corporates, why can't we push forward and make them contribute
atleast for some minimal assistence. The government of India is highly supportive of corporates
and even go to the extend of waiving legal sanctions, taxes, charges from them. At the same time,
the baseline Profitability Index4 in India is significantly stronger as compared to other developing
states. BPI measures how much an asset's value grows, the preservation of that value while the asset
is owned, and the ease of bringing home the proceeds from selling the assets. This assesment
indicate the profitability of corporates in India.
It is only fair to justify that corporations give back back in the form of social welfare for the people
they are involved with. If they take so much of what general public earns, it is logical to argue that
corporates return what they have accumulated in the form of social welfare.

Social Welfare through Corporate Social Responsibility

Although the root of corporate social responsibility lies in philantrophy and charity, the prospect of
it is large. It encompasses several activities from feeding the hungry to granting opportunities for
the marginalised, to taking care of the sick and destitute to giving aid for starting up ventures.
Before we began to assert that corporates should provide social welfare to the general society, there
were a number of dessentors who didn't favour it. Milton Friedman (1970) proposed that corporates
were sole entity only for the purpose of making profits. Another reason that CSR should not
promote social welfare was that they have no social skill since they are in 'pursuit of profit' (Davis,
1973). F.A. Hayek in his Studies In Philosophy, Politics And Economics (1969) argues that
corporate social responsibility would displace the aim and endeavour of the firm. Yet if we observe
the classical objections to CSR, they were merely driven because at that time corporation's were not
as big as today, CSR was a new concept and state intervention was prevalent. A simple search in
google typed 'against csr' will show result of 23,200,000 while for 'support for crs' shows
56,000,000 results. This google result may not serve as a evidence but considering the abject
intrusion of corporates into our lives, its should be rationale for citizens to demand more from them.
Social Welfare is vast and extensive as human needs are unlimited. Yet in academic context of CSR,
there are four generally agreed norms that is considered to be quintessential. Also known as Caroll
pyramid of corporate social responsibility, the four chief responsibilities are: Philantrophy, Ethics,
Legal and Economic.

Fig. 1 Diagram of Caroll's CSR Pyramid (Caroll 1991)

Some of the good socially responsible businesses that can benefit the public in the form of social
welfare will be:

1. Discretionary business practices and investments that supports social cause (Kotler & Lee,
2005)
Over the years comapanies shift towards adoption of more responsible business practices as a result
of regulations, consumer complaints and interests groups who lobbied with their state
representatives to pressurize companies. The companies also with evidences that socially
responsible business practices led to increase in profitability and good will of company commited
resources to such venture. Companies which take discretionary practices seriously are rated above
those who don't. A case example of a company's discretionary practice is given in the box.

CASE 1.
Google Green
Google's effort to promote focuses on people, profit, and planet, where it addressed environmental and social
issues to improve our collective liveability. It also stressed on natural capital where it placed negative values on
practices that deteriorate eco-system and focus on positive practices that promoted clean eco-system. As a result,
it invested on R&Ds that offered clean source of energy, less paper work, less wastage of resource. Google Green
initiative impacted growth as their data center reduced energy consumption by over 50%.
 2. Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (Cavaleiri, 2007)

The growth of global competition and the growing divide between developing countries and
developed countries prompts to ' take advantage of the economic and legislative asymmetries
present in the global market'. Through globalisation and liberalisation, big and small companies
alike locate their manufacturing activities anywhere where significant economic gain can be
achieved. Somewhere where there is less regulation on environment, cheap labour cheap raw
materials. So there is a growing trend for need to 'contain' this phenomenon of globalisation. Not
only is it important that companies hold protection of environment, quality and transparency into
account but that they ethically practice cooperation with the local bodies in the form of proper
wage, social protection and social responsibility. Thus a company that ethically practices its
business will ultimately contribute to the social welfare as a whole.

CASE 2.

Adidas' PlayFair-PayFair
Through CSR intitiative, the company ensured that its suppliers ethically practice fair play by compensating
workers by complying the state's standard minimum wages where ever it is located. And whenever new and
higher minimum wage are required, Adidas make it obligatory for its suppliers to abide by the norms and
standards mandated by the unions and governments. It considers the benefits of maintaining long-term
relationships, so they avoid shifting or changing thier suppliers. Thus Adidas is ranked one of best global brands
in the world.

3. Legal Responsibilities (Valor, 2013)

Law is defined as “the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as
regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.”
Therefore it is a consensus defined and written, applicable when desired. Corporates as they come
under the periphery of the community also have to abide by the laws. So when they promote
Corporate Social Responsibility, they should make sure that they have to they are doing it in light of
the community standard and laws. So it is the duty of community as a stakeholder to push
companies to incorporate social and environmental objectives in their agenda even when economic
agents show that these agenda may be of little economic value. Companies incorporating
community agenda and law also have to be held accountability when there is breach of trust. So it is
imperative that Corporates practice that there may be welfare for the community and not only for
economic growth.
CASE 3.
Molson Coors Alcohol Responsibly
Drinking is a social problem around the world. Legal control over it has not done so much to mitigate it. As a
producer, Molson Coors incorporated a policy through CSR that seeks to spread education of drinking
responsibily. It commits its resources for the community through innovative means like making free taxi
available in some booze themed New Year's Eve party, Fourth of July party etc for the consumers who drink in
their pubs. This simple initiate avoid hassles and problems arising out of inebriation. Thus contributing to the
social harmony where Molson Coors participate.

4. Economic Responsibility (Rai and Bansal 2014)

As per the An Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure in India published by
Economic and Political Weekly, the concept of CSR has the potential to bring a revolution in the
development of the economy. CSR can adress the problems of society when there is rising fiscal
deficit and leakages in the welfare schemes by generating capital (now that it is made into law) that
can give a boost to investment in human and physical capital. India has passed a law that make it
mandatory for companies to spend 2% of their profit for CSR, these account for upto 20,000-25,000
crore. These contribution if utilised under proper direction and innovative use, can significantly
improve economic sustainability of India.
CASE 4
TCS's 100 crore pledge toward 'Clean India'
PM Narendra Modi's Swachh Bharat urged companies and stakeholder of India to contribute to clean India. Tata
Consultancy pledged Rs. 100 Crore towards PM's novel project. This fund will finance hygienic sanitation
facilities for girl students across 10,000 schools in the country. TCS believes that this initiative will have a
tangible impact on the level of education achievement and development of India's next generation. The project
will go on to improve sanitation and in the long run reduce financial burdens required for sanitation.

Corporate Social Responsibility debate: Case for and agiainst CSR

On August 2010, Dr. Aneel Karnani of the University of Michagan published an editorial on the
Wall Street Journal “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility”. Here the author argued
that the idea of companies acting on the interest of the public was deeply flawed. Citing examples
of how companies incorporate the idea of social welfare with their deliberate profit maximization
scheme, Karnani set a case of the fast-increasing trend of introducing healthier food in fast food
joints. This he says was not because of the corporates responsibility but due to the increase demand
of healthier food market. Similarly the author cites the example of the automobile industry.
Automobile companies are now committed to making more fuel effiecient cars because the demand
for them has them has been proliferated by the increase in the oil prices. Over the years the demand
for healthier food has been became more interested in what they eat and not hesitate to air their
concerns on social media (Doering, 2015). At the same time, the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute found out a corelation between fuel price rise and surge in
purchase of fuel efficient cars (UM-TRI, 2012). Corporate social responsibility thus can be argued
that it acts according to the shape and interests of the public. The argument that company are
separate and free enterprise running only for the profit maximisation is only true when we minimize
the role of corporate social responsibility.
There are numerous arguments that corporate social responsibility is indeed good if they are
properly regulated even though it might involved sacrificing profit. Even Karnani does not deny
that. However his assertion that Companies push CSR as only for profit can be looked in another
way. Dough Bannerman (2010) writes that companies are able to realize profits precisely because
they fulfill a public interest. So what is the use of Corporate Social Responsibility after all these
time?
Dough says that companies through its corporate social responsibility can identify social need,
develope a product or service to fulfill the need and charging amount commensurate with the
benefit or value provided. While Karnani may be pessimistic about the future and the intent of
corporates, he and many others do not thoroughly reject Corporates Social Responsibility and the
benefits derived from it. The days of Friedman are gone. Corporates are here to stay and their is a
hope that none among sholars who would conveniently type from their computers the need to
remove corporates and be replace by government. The critiques on corporates social responsibility
too doesn't deny the importance and potency of CSR. They all come to a one point and that is
regulation. The governance that makes corporate practice ethical and profitable. Even though the
academicia is divided over who will regulate the governance of corporate, their prominence and
importance is not denied. Now company self regulation is emerging to be critical for their survival.
Self assesment and transparency towards in shareholder and stakeholder is seen as a criteria in CSR.
Good governance is now considered an important cornerstone in CSR (Bannerman, 2010). Clusters
of companies come together and form institutions that will monitor and reward the best practices,
the most competant among them will be publicised and thus boosting chances of gaining more
goodwill. Accordingly the interests of shareholders are not what is running the company. The
consumers interests and trends is what shaping the behaviour of the companies (Pfeffer, 2009). So
the criticism that corporate social responsibility is “greenwashing”, not sufficient, not effective etc,
if carefully acessed, can be because of lack of involvement and demand from the society.
Involvement in a sense that the society take lightly the matters of corporations and ignore their
misdeed. Many developed nations have reliable government and NGO who ensure the right of the
people before corporates. Recently the BP oil spill of 2004 was settled with the company paying
nearly 21 billion dollar. This is a result of coalition of NGO, public outcry and the government
initiative. Effective prosecution and punishment of irrresponsible pracitices can be done only when
the society involve more and regularly ask for transparency and integrity of the company.
Corporate Social Responsibility and the future.
CSR is in itself evolving over time. And along with globalisation, it has brought a mixed reaction
with it. In this interdependent world, there is a mixture of both good and bad reaction for whatever
companies practice. So CSR is also seen as both good and bad. Some are optimistic it will become
imparative for companies to come forward and share responsibilities for distributing social welfare
and growth (Chatterji 2011). While others are of the view that many countries will take years to
catch up with CSR practices prevalent in Western countries (Steger 2008).
In the wake of globalisation, many national governments have seen decline in their ability to ensure
well being of their nation. The United Millenium Declaration clearly indicate the need to add a
social dimension to the business activities of corporates. It aims to achieve global enhancement by
developing good partnership with corporations as they posses expertise, talent and funds. Therefore
the UN suggests that Corporates should invest in emerging economies and provide financial aid and
acess to technology and knowledge. By doing so, the burden to provided basic social and
development will be lightened. Due to globalisation, corporates are procuring and intruding almost
all the aspects of our lives, therefore they can atleast contribute minimum profits for the welfare of
all. Ulrich Steger in the concluding paper of The Oxford Handbook Of Corporate Social
Responsibility points out that many developing nations are suspicious of Western intentions, as they
feel that CSR is a con to intervene into the local business. These suspicion might stem from the lack
of CSR practice that remain unheard of. The way CSR runs today can change the outcome it is
viewed tommorow. If a company wants to venture into new and potential economy, they can initiate
CSR activity before introducing itself.
Globalisation has indeed seen its positive result. Now the corporates are run at the demand of the
public. There is a hope that social media will evolve the way the corporate functions. Facebook,
twitter, instagram etc will do effectively to change the fabric of the business ethics. They will be
instrumental in bringing the concept of 'bottom up' approach (Daley, 2010). Social media give the
platform to consumers to vent their anger or complaint and what not. The fate of company lie in the
ability to satisfy its customers. It is the hope that if consumers demand more from the corporates, its
is imperative that they will have to oblige. Social Welfare and Social Security is what is expected
from the netizens and denizens to demand from the corporates in the near future. This demand will
have to be met, other wise the whole purpose of their existence is void null.
Conclusion
Corporations are inherent part of our society now. They have offered us comforts and means to
enjoy what we can effort. They have employed millions and provided for their welfare. They are
one cheif source of income for a nation. They hold key to nations development and economy. Yet
they are seen doing less for the society on their part. Many have now come to terms with what
companies can offer but not many are assertive of what they should contribute. Since corporates are
engaged with the needs of the society, the society must carefully pass responsibility to the
corporates for their welfare too. Because welfare of the society is a need and when governments
cannot provide all the ammedities required by the public, the public should either pressure the
government to look means of employment or find resources to provide them. Where do we find
resources from? As discussed above, corporates enjoy the privelege of our hard-earned money, it
should be our responsibility that our government ensure that we are not duped into paying more
than we should, it should be our responsibility that our government regulate the practices of the
corporates, because lets admit it, corporates are here to stay and they are not here for free hand-outs
or social service. Its either us who are wilfully ignorant of not doing much to ensure non-
exploitative practice or the governments do not evaluate the impact corporates can contribute to the
society's welfare. Social welfare according to many is the basic provision ensuring minimum
support for well being of the society. But in the context of corporates, it means practicing ethical
and practical business practice that benefit society in the long run. But it is the tendency of
corporates to forego social service and strive towards profit. Inorder to ensure this doesn't follow
suit academia should be agree that corporates cannot be run alone voluntarily. There are thousands
of ways a company can escape with day light robbery in the guise of CSR. They may either link
their profit making motive and the society's trend or they can come in the form of good governance
and replace the need for governance altogether.
In the context of globalisation, the need for corporate governance is very much need. A corporates
can destablize a country within a short span of time and escape without accountability. This should
reinforce the need for government intervention. Indian government intitiative to mandate CSR
practice is a good step but the implication should be broaden so that the social welfare in both
general and company's term will be fulfilled. But too much government intervention is also a 'put
off' for international business (Gray, 2010) and now that CSR is made mandatory in India, the
debate on whether
NOTES:
1. Goal displacement is the act of unintentional goal in the original goal into a new goal. Such
displacement diverts organizational resources away from the organizational goal. When
served goal become the primary goal in an organization goal displacement takes place.
2. The trickle-down effect is a marketing phenomenon that affects many consumer goods.
Initially a product may be so expensive that only the wealthy can afford it. Over time,
however, the price will fall until it is inexpensive enough for the general public to purchase.

3. India was one the first country to bring mandatory CSR and made it into law under
Companies ACT 2013.
4. Baseline Profitabilty Index How much an asset's value grows, the preservation of that value
while the asset is owned, and the ease of bringing home the proceeds from selling the assets.

CASE 1. Moreno, C. (2015, February 10). Doing Their Part: 3 Excellent Examples of Corporate
Social Responsibility. Retrieved from http://lineshapespace.com/doing-their-part-3-excellent-
examples-of-corporate-social-responsibility/

CASE 2. "The Adidas Group." ALL IN FOR A LIVING WAGE. N.p., 26 June 2014. Web. 03 Oct.
2015.

CASE 3. Corporate Values | Business Ethics | Molson Coors. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/responsibility/what-matters-to-us/alcohol-responsibility

CASE 4. Economictimes.com. (2014, August 18). TCS pledges Rs 100 crore for PM Narendra
Modi's 'Clean India' initiative. Economic Times.

REFERENCE
1. Bendell, J. (2005). In whose name? The accountability of corporate social responsibility.
Development in Practice, 15(3-4), 362-374.
2. Broomhill, R. (2007). Corporate Socal Responsibility: Key Issues and Debates. Don
Dunstan Foundation.
3. Bannerman, D. (2010, August 25). Shooting the Messenger Over CSR -- again.
4. Cadbury, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility. Twenty-First Century Society, 1(1), 5-
21.
4. Cavalieri, E. (2007). Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility. Management (www.
unimib. it/symphonya), (2), 24-34.
5. Chatterji, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility
6. Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. S. (Eds.). (2008). The
handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press.
7. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilitiess
Academy of Management journal, 16(2), 312-322.
8. Daley, J. (2010). TEARING DOWN THE WALLS How social media is changing
everything about the way we do business. Entrepreneur, 56.
9. Doering, C. (2015, April 3). Consumers Demand Healthier Ingredient. USA Today.
10. Elhauge, E. (2005). Sacrificing corporate profits in the public interest. NyUL Rev., 80, 733.
11. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its
Profits. New York Times Magazine.
12. Gray, J. (2012, September 5). Too much government meddling. World Finance. Retrieved
from http://www.worldfinance.com/home/special-reports-home/to-intervene-or-not-to-
internvene
13. Hayek, F. A. (1969). The corporation in a democratic society: in whose interest ought it and
will it be run. Business Strategy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 225.
14. Harris, J. L., Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2010). Evaluating fast food nutrition and
marketing to youth. New Haven, CT: Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity.
15. Jenkins, R. (2005). Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty.International
affairs, 81(3), 525-540.
16. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. Doing the Most Good for Your
Company and Your Cause, New Jersey.
17. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility.Academy of management
Review, 33(2), 404-424.
18. Pfeffer, J. (2009). Shareholders first? Not so fast. Harvard business review,87(7-8), 87-95.
19. Reinhardt, F. L., Stavins, R. N., & Vietor, R. H. (2008). Corporate social responsibility
through an economic lens. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2), 219-239.
 20. Rai, S., Bansal, S. (2014) An Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure in
India. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol - XLIX No. 50, December 13, 2014.
21. Richter, J. (2001). Holding corporations accountable: Corporate conduct, international
codes, and citizen action. Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Steger, U. (2008). Future perspectives of corporate social responsibility, where we are
coming from? Where are we heading. The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social
Responsibility. Oxford, NY, 560-567.
23. Valor, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: Towards
corporate accountability. Business and Society Review, 110(2), 191-212.

View publication stats