Socio-Legal Perspectives and the Concept of CSR

M R Bothra, Trilok Kumar Jain

Abstract


This article looks at changes in the legal requirements regarding CSR in Indian context. This is a review article 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.


Keywords


CSR, Companies act, Legal requirements, Corporate social responsibility.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aguilera R, Rupp DE, Ganapathi J et al. Justice and social responsibility: A social exchange model. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology Annual Meeting, Berlin, 2006.

Aguilera R, Rupp DE, Williams CA et al. Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review 2007; 32(3): 836-63.

Albinger HS, Freeman SJ. Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics 2000; 28(3): 243-53.

Ambrose ML, Seabright MA, Schminke M. Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organisational injustice. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2002; 89: 947-65.

Ambrose ML, Arnaud A, Schminke M. Individual moral development and ethical climate: The influence of person–organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics 2008; 77(3): 323-33.

Andersson LM, Pearson CM. Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review 1999; 24(3): 452-71.

Aquino K, Douglas S. Identity threat and antisocial behaviour in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modelling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2003; 90(1): 195-208.

Ashforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review 1989; 14(1): 20-39.

Aupperle KE, Carroll AB, Hatfield JD. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal 1985; 28(2): 46-463.

Barnett ML. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 2007; 32(3): 794-816.

Bearman P. Generalized exchange. American Journal of Sociology 1997; 102(5): 1383-415.

Berry CM, Ones DS, Sackett PR. Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 1997; 92(2): 410-24.

Bhattacharya CB, Sen S. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review 2004; 47(1): 9-24.

Bhattacharyya SK, Rahman Z. Why large local conglomerates may not work in emerging markets. European Business Review 2003; 15(2): 105-15.

Bowen HR. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row, 1953.

Brammer S, Millington A. The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure and industry type on corporate community involvement. Journal of Business Ethics 2003; 45(3): 213-26.

Brammer S, Millington A, Rayton B. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management 2007; 18(10): 1701-19.

Brickson SL. Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly 2005; 50(4): 576-609.

Brockner J, Greenberg J. The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational justice perspective. In: Carroll J (Ed.). Advances in applied social psychology: Business settings. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990: 45-75.

Brown TJ, Dacin PA. The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing 1997; 61(1): 68-84.

Carmeli A, Gillat G, Waldman DA. The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies 2007; 44(6): 972-92.

Carroll AB. A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. Academy of Management Review 1979; 4(4): 497-505.

Carroll AB. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 1979; 4(4): 497-505.

Carroll AB. A history of CSR: concept and practices. In: Crane A, Matten D, McWilliams A et al. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. UK: Oxford University Press, 2008: 19-45.

Cochran PL, Wood RA. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal 1984; 27: 42-56.

Colquitt JA. Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004; 89(4): 633-46.

Colquitt JA, Scott BA, LePine JA. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 2007; 92(4): 909-27.

Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management 2005; 31(6): 874-900.

Cropanzano R, Goldman B, Folger R. Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2003; 24(8): 1019-24.

Dabos GE, Rousseau DM. Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees and employers. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004; 89(1): 52-72.

De Cremer D. When authorities influence followers’ affect: The interactive effect of procedural justice and transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2006; 15(3): 322-51.

Degoey P. Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice organizations. In: Staw BM, Sutton RI (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 22. New York: JAI Press, 2000: 51-102.

DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. The Iron Cage Revisited Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 1983; 48 (2): 147-60.

Donaldson T, Preston LE. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 1995; 20(1): 65-91.

Dormann C, Zapf D. Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2001; 22(5): 483-504.

Douglas NH, Sridharan V, Radhakrishnan A et al. Testing the accuracy of employee-reported data: An inexpensive alternative approach to traditional methods. European Journal of Operational Research 2008; 189(3): 583-93.

Dutton JE, Dukerich JM. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal 1991; 34(3): 517-54.

Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 1994; 39(2): 239-63.

Economist 2008. Just good business. Special report on CSR. Jan 19th.

Edenkamp P. Insights into how consumers are thinking, how they are acting and why. Brandweek 2002; 43(36): 16-20.

Egri C, Maignan I, Ralston D et al. A Cross-cultural study of corporate social and environmental responsibility practices and benefits. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, New-Orleans, 2004.

Ekeh PP. Social exchange theory: The two traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Friedman M. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profit. The New York Times Magazine, Sep 13, 1970: 122-26.

Jones TM. Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics. Academy of Management Review 1995; 20(2): 404-37.

McWilliams A, Siegel D. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review 2001; 26: 117-27.

Palazzo G, Scherer AG. Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation. A Communicative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 2006; 66(1): 71-88.

Prahalad CK, Lieberthal K. The End of Corporate Imperialism. Harvard Business Review Jul-Aug 1998: 68-79.

Scherer AG, Palazzo G. Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility. Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective. Academy of Management Review 2007; 32: 1096-120.

Shrivastava P. The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability. Academy of Management Review 1995; 20(4): 936-60.

Warhurst A. Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Social Investment: Drivers of Tri-Sector Partnerships. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2001; 1: 57-73.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.