2.1 Introduction to the Chapter
This chapter provides a choice of literature relevant to the construct of Corporate Social Responsibility ( CSR ) . It starts with a brief history of CSR, it provides some definitions and it moves farther to analyze facets like the Layers of CSR, the relation between CSR and Business Ethics and the Drivers of CSR. Some benefits and unfavorable judgment over the construct are discussed and the strong relation between CSR and the company ‘s Stakeholders is examined. The chapter continues with the Areas and the Activities of CSR and the Levels that act uponing the acceptance of CSR are analysed. Finally, some Global CSR tools as the United Nations Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative are presented.
2.2 The History of CSR through the Centuries
The Business Relations, Accountability, Sustainability and Society Centre, known as BRASS, in its study History of Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability ( 2007 ) , states that “ The history of societal and environmental concern about concern is every bit old as trade and concern itself. Commercial logging operations for illustration, together with Torahs to protect woods, can both be traced back about 5,000 old ages. In Ancient Mesopotamia around 1700 BC, King Hammurabi introduced a codification in which builders, hosts or husbandmans were put to decease if their carelessness caused the deceases of others, or major incommodiousness to local citizens. In Ancient Rome senators grumbled about the failure of concerns to lend sufficient revenue enhancements to fund their military runs, while in 1622 dissatisfied stockholders in the Dutch East India Company started publishing booklets kicking about direction secretiveness and ‘self-enrichment ‘ “ .
Traveling farther, Eberstadt ( 1977 ) claims in his survey that phenomena of societal duty were already presented in the ancient Greece, while today ‘s corporate duty motion is an effort to reconstruct a 2,000-year-old tradition of concerns being connected to the community ( cited in Panwar, Rinne, Hansen & A ; Juslin, 2006 ) .
In the eighteenth century the concerns started to expect that holding an efficient labor force was indispensable for the successful bringing of their activities. During that period Adam Smith, the great moral philosopher and innovator in economic sciences, nowadays for the first clip the traditional or classical economic theoretical account. The theoretical account suggested that the demands and the involvements of the populace would best be met if the persons act in self-interest mode. Driven by their ain opportunisms, the persons would bring forth and present goods and services which would gain them net income, but besides meet the demands of the others ( Fernando, 2009 ) . Harmonizing to Brown ( 2005 ) , the companies in order to maintain their employees satisfied, because of the negative effects that the deficiency of nutrient, lodging and health care had in the labour force efficiency, they started to put in lodging, health care and nutriment. Therefore, the worker small towns of the industrial revolution, company medical installations and the subsidised plants canteen appeared. That action of societal philanthropic gift by the companies can be considered as the precursor of the modern twenty-four hours CSR.
Sims ( 2003 ) claims that the modern-day CSR originated back to the beginning of the twentieth century and is based upon two rules. The first, the rule of charity, is based on spiritual tradition and suggests that those who are good financially should give to those with troubles. The 2nd one, the rule of stewardship, says that the administrations have an duty to function the society and fulfill the populace ‘s demands since their wealth and the power that they have springs through their activities within the society. This 2nd rule had an impact on affected how companies were faced by authoritiess, imperativeness and other groups and led to the conductivity of new more socially responsible Torahs.
The bend of the concerns to the society and the development of a more social thought led the administrations to increase their duty and consideration for both societal and environmental wellbeing. This response to environmental and societal affairs by the corporations is what it is known today as Corporate Social Responsibility ( Panwar et al. , 2006 ) .
2.3 Definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility
The rise of the construct of Corporate Social Responsibility during the past decennaries resulted to the uninterrupted argument about the exact significance of the term. The lone by and large accepted position about the term CSR is that is a construct which covers several facets. Frankental ( 2001 ) , remarks that “ CSR is a obscure and intangible term which can intend anything to anybody, and hence is efficaciously without intending ” .
Castka, Bamber, Bamber and Sharp ( 2004 ) argue that “ there is no individual important definition of CSR. The CSR construct seems to be a slackly defined umbrella encompassing a huge figure of constructs traditionally framed as environmental concerns, sustainable development public dealingss, corporate philanthropic gift, human resource direction and community dealingss ” .
During the scrutiny of assorted literatures it can be seen that there is non a individual by and large accepted definition, although many writers and world-wide establishments defined the term CSR in similar ways.
The first academically accepted definition of CSR can be found in the book ‘Social Duties of the Businessman ‘ , written by Howard Bowen in 1953. Bowen defines CSR as “ an duty to prosecute those policies, to do those determinations, or to follow those lines of action that are desirable in footings of the aims and values of our society ” ( cited in Panwar et al. , 2006 ) .
Carroll ( 2004 ) argues that “ the societal duty of concerns encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretional ( philanthropic ) outlooks that society has of organisations at a given point in clip ” , while Buhmann ( 2006 ) merely defines CSR as “ making more than what is required by jurisprudence ” . Johnson, Scholes and Whittington ( 2005 ) , define CSR as “ the ways in which an administration exceeds its minimal duties to stakeholders specified through ordinance ” .
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development ( WBCSD ) defines CSR as “ the go oning committedness by concern to act ethically and lend to economic development while bettering the quality of life of the work force and their households every bit good as the local community and society at big ” ( cited in Castka et al. , 2004 ) .
Finally, the internationally known jurisprudence house Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in the study ‘The Development and Impact of CSR on the Construction Industry ‘ ( 2006 ) , defines CSR as “ the voluntary integrating of environmental, societal and human rights considerations into concern operations, over and above legal demands and contractual duties ” .
To reason, it can be clearly seen that the basal line of the above definitions is the volunteering duty that the administrations must hold over their employees and their households, the environment and the general populace which sometimes may travel further their legal demands.
2.4 Layers of Corporate Social Responsibility
Harmonizing to Sachs, Ruhli, and Mittnacht ( 2005 ) the likely best known economic paradigm that prepare the land for farther research on the construct of CSR is the Carroll Pyramid ( Figure 1 ) .
Carroll ( 1991 ) suggests that there are four sort of societal duties that an administration should take into history while carry oning its activities and those duties constitute entire CSR. Those four societal duties of an administration were presented into a four-layered pyramid theoretical account, called ‘The Pyramid of Responsibilities ‘ . The four beds of duties are economical, legal, ethical and philanthropic.
The bottom bed and the foundation of the pyramid is the Economic Responsibilities. The concern must be profitable in order to maintain its stockholders satisfied, produce goods and services necessary to the consumers and be able to make new occupations and promote invention.
The 2nd bed of duties is the legal and is all about following the jurisprudence. The concerns should non merely be net income driven but at the same clip they must esteem the Torahs and ordinances produced by authorities and it is expected that the concerns would maintain their economic activities inside the model of the jurisprudence and wage by the regulations of the game.
The ethical duties are related to fairness and morality. The people ‘s rights and beliefs must be respected, any sort of injury, physical or societal, must be avoided and any injury caused by others must be prevented.
The last bed is the philanthropic duties which urge the concerns to be good corporate citizens. The concerns through their activities must lend resources to the community and most significantly must be able to assist to betterment of the quality of life.
Dodgson placed the four beds of duty in a pyramid in order to demo the strong connexion between the four sorts of duties. If a sort of duty in the pyramid theoretical account is absent so the 1s above can non be achieved.
Lantos ( 2001 ) characterises the Carroll ‘s pyramid theoretical account of CSR as ‘altruistic ‘ or ‘humanitarian ‘ and argued that the house will be good to utilize it as marketing excessively in order to advance its image. Following this position Lantos ( 2001 ) proposes a new theoretical account of duties by reclassifying Carroll ‘s pyramid from four to three beds. The first bed of Lantos theoretical account is the Ethical CSR and includes economic, legal and ethical duties as one group. The 2nd bed is the Altruistic CSR which is equal to Carroll ‘s philanthropic bed and suggests that concerns must lend to the community even if a portion of the net incomes must be sacrificed. The last bed of Lantos theoretical account is the Strategic CSR where concerns are carry throughing their philanthropic duties non merely because of generousness but besides because they expect fiscal returns from the positive promotion.
2.5 Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility
Business Ethical motives and Corporate Social Responsibility are two near related constructs but they are non indistinguishable. As it can be seen Business Ethics play a really of import function in Carroll ‘s Pyramid of duties as Ethical motives Duties are placed in the 2nd highest bed. Both constructs refer to values, ends and determination devising based on something more than merely doing a net income ( Mullerat, 2010 ) . In general footings the bottom line of moralss is separately making the right thing while avoid immorality and harmful actions for you and the others in your activities. On the other manus CSR is more about the duties that an administration must hold over its stakeholders than merely its stockholders. A socially responsible administration must move ethically ( Mullerat, 2010 ) .
Phatak, Bhagat and Kashlak ( 2005 ) define Business Ethics as “ the moral thought and analysis by corporate decision-makers and other members sing the motivations and effects of their determinations and actions ” . Furthermore, Ferrell and Fraedrich ( 1998 ) add that “ concern moralss compromises moral rules and criterions that guide behavior in the universe of concern ” . The construct of Business Ethics is critical for every self-respected administration and this is why many companies today develop codifications of moralss and do committednesss about their ethical behavior to the populace ( Fisher, 2003 ) .
Harmonizing to Seitel ( 2001 ) , the administrations develop moralss codifications in order to:
Increase public assurance: Due to assorted dirts, chiefly refering corruptness and grafts inside administrations, the populace ‘s trust for concerns has been declined. Therefore, companies have decided to follow the moralss codification in order to better their image.
Root the tight of ordinance: Due to the worsening trust and assurance of the populace for concerns, the authoritiess increased their statute laws and ordinances in order to change by reversal the state of affairs. The companies adopted the moralss codifications in order to demo that they have ethical behavior and can be trusted.
Improve internal ordinances: Due to the addition of the size of administrations and the development of transnational operations it is indispensable that some codifications of behavior must be created in order to hold the same behavior criterions among the employees.
Business moralss depend on two chief factors, civilization and clip ( Svensson and Wood, 2003 ) . The concern environment civilization is influenced by traditions, faith, ethical values and persons and can be defined as what is accepted and what is unacceptable. The company ‘s success can be affected if different sentiments, that is to state different civilizations, can non be adopted satisfactory by the administration. Additionally, what is accepted and what is unaccepted can be affected by the concern clip component. The concern universe is a fast changing environment and what is considered ethical today it can turn out to be unethical tomorrow. As it can be seen the success or the failure of a concern is closely connected with moralss and that is why Business Ethical motives must be used as a corporate doctrine instead than a corporate codification in every administration.
To reason, Johnson et Al. ( 2005 ) argue that the society ‘s outlooks, which have major influence on companies and administrations, are based on three degrees of Business Ethics. The macro degree is the first one and is related to the ethical position of the company. Simply, the macro degree is related to the extent in which the administrations are willing to make more than their legal demands in order to fulfill their stakeholders. The 2nd 1 is a portion of the macro degree and is the Corporate Social Responsibility degree. This degree is concerned the ability of administrations to excel the lower limit demands needed in order to keep the administration ‘s ethical stance. The person or managerial degree is the last degree of Business Ethics. This is a really of import degree since is connected with the behavior and actions of persons inside the administration.
2.6 Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility
The current impulse behind Corporate Social Responsibility is being built based on a assortment of really of import factors. Ernst and Young ( 2002 ) reference that there are five cardinal drivers which encourage the increasing concern focal point on CSR. These are: ( 1 ) greater stakeholder consciousness of corporate ethical, societal and environmental behavior, ( 2 ) direct stakeholder force per unit areas, ( 3 ) investor force per unit area, ( 4 ) equal force per unit area and ( 5 ) an increased sense of societal duty ( cited in Jones, Comfort and Hillier, 2006 ) .
Panwar et Al. ( 2006 ) , argue that there are diverse motives that lead to the acceptance of CSR by the administrations. For illustration a concern is following CSR in order to run into compulsory legal demands aimed at commanding destructive concern patterns while another concern is utilizing CSR in order to increase its productiveness and better its fiscal public presentation. It is besides suggested that a company by utilizing CSR in its practises can better functional countries such as market placement and hazard direction.
Harmonizing to Wood ( 1991 ) , the construct of CSR is being driven by three major rules. First, concerns are obliged to utilize their power responsibly since they are above all societal establishments. Second, the duty for the results of the engagement with the populace is upon concerns. Last, discretion must be exercised in determination devising procedures by the single directors who are besides moral agents.
Andriof and McIntosh ( 2001 ) believe that the drive force behind the construct of CSR is the consumers and employees. These two classs are keeping the power in the market system today. Consumers and employees are now good informed about the several challenges the universe has to face and they do non truly believe that the authoritiess can alter things. They accept that corporations are the most powerful societal establishments of the present epoch and most significantly they are willing to honor those corporations who are antiphonal to their concerns.
Finally, Girod and Bryane ( 2003 ) use a strategic selling position reasoning that CSR is “ a cardinal tool to make, develop and prolong differentiated trade name names ” . Furthermore, the Commission of the European Communities ( 2002 ) argues that the administrations in order to better respond to the cardinal alterations in the overall concern environment they adopted CSR and used it as an of import component in new and emerging signifiers of administration. These alterations include globalization and the duties companies feel the demand to turn to, as they progressively beginning merchandises and services in developing states ; the issues of image and repute, which have become progressively of import elements in corporate success ; and the demand for companies to enroll and retain extremely skilled forces ( cited in Jones, et al. , 2006 ) .
2.7 Benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility
Many administrations are utilizing presents CSR as a selling tool due to the fact that the execution of CSR patterns can convey to the administration a broad scope of possible benefits, both direct and indirect.
The Department of Trade and Industry ( DTI ) has said that implementing a CSR policy, “ … can convey existent concern benefits by cut downing hazard, by heightening trade name value, by opening doors and making good will, and by bettering staff efficiency and morale. It can besides pull stable and ethical investing and add competitory border ” ( Chartered Institute of Building, Report )
Harmonizing to Mackey, Mackey & A ; Barney ( 2005 ) in the instance that a company surpasses the lower limit CSR demands so the possible benefits can take to a positive consequence to the company ‘s public presentation and value.
Gildea ( 1994 ) and Zaman et Al. ( 1991 ) , stress out that research has shown that companies that care for the environment and exhibit good CSR patterns experience increased consumer purchase penchant in add-on to increased investing entreaty ( cited in Panwar et al. , 2006 ) . Many consumers prefer to purchase for ethical concern. A study conducted by Cone Inc. ( 2004 ) showed that 91 % of the consumers have a more positive image of a merchandise or a company when it supports a cause. The 90 % of the consumers would see exchanging to another company ‘s merchandise or services if they found out about a company ‘s any improper or unethical practises. In add-on, Muckiewicz ( 1993 ) supports that the repute of an administration plays a critical function as research surveies show that 9 out of 10 consumers use it in order to make up one’s mind which merchandise or service they will purchase from those that are similar in monetary value and quality.
Harmonizing to Bernstein ( 2004 ) , CSR benefits both the company and the community. Due to utilize of CSR the corporate civilization and corporate name of the company can be improved significantly therefore the best employees can be attracted and the motive of the work force will stay in high degrees. The society benefits from CSR patterns every bit good through a assortment of services and action, though the company has to make some kind of social benefit in order to be called socially responsible.
Some of the possible benefits that a concern can hold from the usage of CSR patterns can include improved fiscal public presentation and profitableness ; reduced operating costs ; long-run sustainability for companies and their employees ; increased staff committedness and engagement ; enhanced capacity to introduce ; good dealingss with authorities and communities ; better hazard and crisis direction ; enhanced repute and trade name value ; and the development of closer links with clients and greater consciousness of their demands ( cited in Jones et al. , 2006 ) . Table 1 nowadayss a sum-up of concern benefits of CSR.
Reasoning, it must be noted that the benefits from the acceptance of CSR practises can ne’er be predicted or be changeless since each company operates in a different and ever altering environment. Barnett ( 2007 ) adds that “ this capriciousness could take to limited support for CSR enterprises from the board, in times of fiscal instability ” . Thus, the concern instance back uping CSR has to be specific for every company and based on Rowley and Berman ( 2000 ) CSR accomplishments of an administration can non be collated against some criterions, since those does non be. Furthermore, McWilliams and Siegel ( 2001 ) point out that the possible being of those criterions would let CSR to be considered as portion of the investing determinations, as the company would be able to do opinions for its concern instance in a more formal manner.
2.8 Criticism against Corporate Social Responsibility
The construct of CSR, as it can be seen from the assorted definitions presented on old paragraphs, is based upon the rule that concerns do hold another duty than merely doing net incomes. Every administration has a duty towards the society, its people and the environment every bit good. At the same clip, many are those who are opposed the thought of incorporating CSR patterns into their corporations and they believe that stockholders involvement can be conflicted by runing a ‘good ‘ concern.
Dr Milton Friedmann ( 1970 ) , a celebrated economic expert, in his article The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Net incomes affirms that “ … there is one and merely one societal duty of concern is to utilize its resources and prosecute in activities designed to increase its net incomes so long as it stays within the regulations of the game, which is to state engages in unfastened and free competition without misrepresentation or fraud ” . Harmonizing to his economic theoretical account the administration is an economic establishment which should merely concentrate in the economic range. Administrations are seen strictly as legal entities incapable of value determinations. A director who uses a house ‘s resources for non-profit societal intents is thought to be deviating economic efficiency and imposing an “ illegal revenue enhancement ” on the administration ( Balabanis, Phillips and Lyall, 1998 ) .
Following this position Dr Robert Barrington ( 2008 ) states that the directors are concentrated on soft issues instead than difficult issues of the bottom line and this is something that is bing money to the stockholders. Traveling farther Frankental ( 2001 ) , conclude that CSR is merely a public dealingss innovation and it will stay like this. He believes that “ CSR can merely hold existent substance if it embraces all the stakeholders of a company, if it is reinforced by alterations in company jurisprudence associating to governance, if it is rewarded by fiscal markets, if its definition relates to the ends of societal and ecological sustainability, if its execution is benchmarked and audited, if it is unfastened to public examination, if the conformity mechanisms are in topographic point, and if it is embedded across the administration horizontally and vertically ” .
Henderson ( 2001 ) after the scrutiny of assorted issues related to the construct of CSR remarks that “ aˆ¦the current widely-held philosophy of CSR is profoundly flawed. It rests on a misguided position of issues and events, and its general acceptance by concerns would cut down public assistance and sabotage the market economic system ” . In the same gesture Moir ( 2001 ) suggests that those who adopt the neoclassical theoretical account of concern would follow the position that the lone societal duties that a corporation can hold are to supply employment, wage revenue enhancements and chiefly to maximize its net incomes ; hence, maximize its stockholders value.
On the other extreme of the statements above, Dave Packard, the co-founder of Hewlett Packard Company one time said “ I think many people assume, wrongly, that a company exists merely to do money. While this is an of import consequence of a company ‘s being, we have to travel deeper and happen the existent grounds for our beingaˆ¦ . We necessarily come to the decision that a group of people get together and be as an establishment that we call a company so that they are able to carry through something jointly that they could non carry through individually – they make a part to society ” ( cited in Handy, 2002 ) .
Concluding, Freeman ( 1984 ) argues that a corporation is incorrect to be seen merely as a private economic establishment, as it was suggested by Friedman ( 1970 ) , but it has to be besides seen as a societal establishment. This manner, corporations would be responsible for any of their actions against the people, the community and the environment. Based on his Stakeholder Theory, companies operations should non be based on the involvements of their stockholders but they have to be based on the interested of their stakeholders.
2.9 Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholders
The definition given about the construct of CSR from Johnson et Al. ( 2005 ) includes the words ‘obligations to stakeholders ‘ , which indicates that stakeholders have an of import function to play in this extent.
Freeman ( 1984 ) , the male parent of the Stakeholder Theory of the house, defines stakeholders as “ any group or person who can impact or is affected by the accomplishment of the organisation ‘s aims ” . The Stakeholder Theory of the house is used as a footing to analyze those groups to whom the house should be responsible ( Moir, 2001 ) .
The designation of the different stakeholder groups of the administration is highly of import during the execution of CSR patterns. Normally the stakeholder groups are separated into primary and secondary stakeholders. Harmonizing to Clarkson ( 1995 ) a primary stakeholder group is “ one without whose go oning engagement the corporation can non last as a traveling concern ” , while a secondary stakeholder group is “ those who influence or affect, or are influenced or affected by the corporation, but they are non engaged in minutess with the corporation and are non indispensable for its endurance ” . Based on those definitions a primary stakeholder group contains stockholders and investors, employees, clients, providers, authoritiess and communities. The secondary stakeholder group includes the media and a broad scope of particular involvement groups ( Clarkson, 1995 ) .
Harmonizing to Freeman ‘s ( 1984 ) definition of stakeholders the relation between the company and its stakeholders can be described as two-way. Castka et Al. ( 2006 ) back up the position that the execution of CSR is all about the right picks and strategic determinations and remark that the quandary that an administration ‘s stakeholders can hold are which picks and determination must take in order to fulfill. Berman, Wicks, Kotha and Jones ( 1999 ) , in order to happen a solution for those quandaries, derived two distinguishable stakeholder direction attacks ; the ‘instrumental ‘ and the ‘normative ‘ attack. The first, instrumental attack, suggests that concern for stakeholders is motivated by the perceptual experience that fiscal public presentation can be improved. The 2nd, intrinsic stakeholder committedness attack, assumes that administrations have a normative ( moral ) committedness to progress stakeholders ‘ involvements ( Castka et al. 2006 ) . The ‘instrumental ‘ attack was the one through empirical observation supported in Berman et Al. ( 1999 ) research while Harrison and Freeman ( 1999 ) reference that the conductivity of more research is indispensable in order to clear up the theoretical account of the ‘normative ‘ attack.
Although farther research is required it can be clearly anticipated, through the scrutiny of assorted literature, that the ‘instrumental ‘ attack is the most desirable among research workers. McWilliams and Siegel ( 2001 ) suggest that corporations need to carefully see in which facets of the CSR to put in and they comment that by utilizing cost-benefit analysis the directors can ideally find the degree of CSR. Additionally, Agle, Mitchell and Sonnenfeld ( 1999 ) argue that the determination to do a CSR investing is driven by the demands of the most powerful stakeholders within the administration, such as top direction staff and is normally connected with their desire to derive more net incomes and increase the stockholders ‘ value.
Finally Castka et Al ( 2004 ) believe that the intent of CSR is an investing and it must be considered and treated like one. Traveling farther they suggest that the balance between the demand for maximising ‘profit from CSR ‘ and the ‘demand for CSR ‘ from multiple stakeholders is the key to a nucleus return on investing in CSR ( Figure 2 ) . In order to accomplish this balance stakeholders ‘ outlooks should be assessed and examined through duologues and must be translated and included into the company ‘s scheme program.
2.10 Areas of Corporate Social Responsibility
Andriof and McIntosh ( 2001 ) write that CSR is non ‘chequebook philanthropic gift ‘ , nor a survey based on concern moralss. They argue that the construct of CSR can be described as a vision that corporate leaders have for their concern which is beyond of merely doing net incomes. CSR has an impact on every activity of the company and can impact countries either interior or outside the company.
Harmonizing to Andriof and McIntosh ( 2001 ) the four distinguishable countries that CSR encompasses are:
By runing within these four countries companies can carry on specific programmes and do the difference and can actively supervise, evaluate and alter their effects of their activities. The execution of CSR and the thought behind going involved in these countries represents the new manner of making concern.
2.11 Activities of Corporate Social Responsibility
The construct of CSR can be divided into many and diverse spheres. Sen and Bhattacharya ( 2001 ) provide six wide spheres of CSR activities, based on a comprehensive summarization of CSR spheres contained in Socrates: The Corporate Social Ratings Monitor ( Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini & A ; Co. Inc. 1999 ) , a database that describes and rates more than 600 companies in footings of their CSR records. These spheres of CSR activities are:
Community Support: The company provides support to the community with the usage of wellness and educational and lodging plans for financially disadvantaged. The generous and advanced giving is promoted
Diverseness: The company provides enterprises for sex, race, household, sexual orientation and disablement diverseness
Employee Support: The company promotes wellness and safety, ensures occupation security and net income sharing, develops dealingss with the labour brotherhoods and allows employees engagement.
Environment: The company avoids the usage of risky waste direction techniques, utilizations and produces environmental friendly merchandises, develops pollution control and recycling techniques.
Non-domestic Operationss: The company prevents operations in states where human right misdemeanors occur or unhealthy labour patterns take topographic point.
Merchandise: The company produces safe merchandises and promotes research and development and invention.
Following the same line Johnson et Al ( 2005 ) present a checklist of the administration ‘s duties. Those duties are divided into two classs, the internal and the external facets of CSR, based on the countries that the administration ‘s activities can impact. Internal facets of the company ‘s activities can include employee public assistance, working conditions, occupation design and rational belongings. External facets of activities can include environmental issues, merchandises, markets and selling, providers, employment, community activity and human rights.
2.12 Levels act uponing the house ‘s Corporate Social Responsibility scheme
Based on the literature it can be seen that there are some of import degrees which can play a important function in the acceptance of a CSR scheme from the house. These degrees can be grouped into four different classs which are the part where the company operates, the state, the industry and the company itself. Harmonizing to Aguilera, Rupp, Williams and Ganapathi ( 2005 ) the four degrees are strongly connected as a house ‘s committedness to CSR can be influenced by micro ( single ) , meso ( organizational ) , macro ( state ) , and supra ( multinational ) participants. In add-on to this, Graafland ( 2004 ) found out that the industry ‘s civilization but besides the perceptual experience of the house itself can impact the degree of moralss inside the house.
Baugh, Bodie and McIntosh ( 2007 ) in there scrutiny of the regional degree province argue that the coverage incidence of CSR policies was comparatively lower in North America comparison to the 1s in Europe. This can be justified by the forceful environmental ordinances that they exist inside the European Union. On the other manus, Baugh et Al. ( 2007 ) found that the degree of philanthropic gift is higher in North America than in Europe. Harmonizing to KPMG ( 2005 ) the construct of CSR is comparatively new in the parts of South America and Africa, except of South Africa.
On the national degree, it is anticipated that the degree of support of CSR and the practises that a house will set up in order to advance CSR will be different from state to state. Chambers, Chapple, Moon and Sullivan ( 2005 ) province that cultural, economic, environmental and political factors can impact a house ‘s CSR patterns in a peculiar state. For illustration the little size and the reasonably big population of Singapore led to the betterment of the people ‘s environmental concerns and to the conductivity of new environmental policies ( Kimber and Lipton, 2005 ) . The houses in Norway have policies on autochthonal population due to a important minority autochthonal population in the North of the state while the codifications of behavior on moralss, graft and corruptness are most common in Italy due to the well known historical links to the Mafia ( Welford, 2005 ) .
Etzion ( 2007 ) argues that the research around the industry degree is chiefly focused on sectors which can be considered as environmentally debatable whereas other industry sectors with less environmental impact are non addressed decently. Adding to this Araya ( 2006 ) concludes that in Latin America the societal and environmental coverage is more common due to the fact that the industry is internationally oriented and more sensitive to societal and environmental issues.
Finally, there are several factors which can act upon CSR patterns at the company degree. Some of these factors can include the steadfast size, environmental policies, authorities ordinances, community force per unit areas, fiscal place of the company, employees, clients, stakeholders and scheme properties ( Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996 ) .
2.13 Corporate Social Responsibility Tools
The figure of companies that are utilizing CSR practises in their activities have multiplied in the last decennary. This bend to CSR drive the companies to incorporate planetary criterions and codifications of behavior which have become progressively of import in emerging markets ( Fliess, 2006 ) . Global criterions and codifications of behavior are non new constructs. Standards and codifications have been signed between authoritiess, administrations and companies from 1948 in order to develop some sort of moral authorization and make guidelines for companies ( Phatak et al. , 2005 ) . It is anticipated that it will be really hard for a CSR active company to voyage through all of these different 1000s of criterions and codifications ( Leipziger, 2003 ) . However if a company needs a counsel on how it should move in footings of CSR there are some good beginning such as the United Nations Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative.
2.13.1 United Nations Global Compact
The Global Compact is likely one of the most outstanding international codifications due to the broad international range that the United Nations ( UN ) represents, both in developed and developing states ( Kapstein, 2001 ) . In January 1999 the so secretary-general of the United Nation, Kofi Annan, turn toing the Davos World Economic Forum challenged the concern leaders to do globalization more human by fall ining a ‘global compact of shared values and rules ‘ . After the Davos Forum the thought of the UN Global Compact became world ( Williams, 2004 ) .
The Global Compact is based upon 10s rules which are related to the countries of human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption. These rules are derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labour Organisation ‘s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption ( UN Global Compact, 2008 ) . Through the Global Compact, the UN asks companies to move harmonizing to the rules when carry oning concern, nevertheless the co-operation is voluntary and failure to populate up to the rules will non be officially punished. Nevertheless, participants are obliged to make a clear statement that supports the 10 rules and explicitly advance the Global Compact ( Williams, 2004 and UN Global Compact, 2008 ) .
The UN Global Compact has two major aims which are:
Mainstream the 10 rules in concern activities around the universe
Catalyse actions in support of broader UN ends, including the Millennium Development Goals ( UN Global Compact web site ) .
2.13.2 Global Reporting Initiative
The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies ( CERES ) noted some unsatisfactory phenomena related to the companies societal and environmental public presentation. In late 1997 CERES in order to advance better corporate societal and environmental coverage and work towards planetary standardization of format and content for corporate coverage on a company ‘s environmental public presentation found. Since so the Global Reporting Initiative is administrated and funded by CERES ( Willis, 2003 ) .
The mission of GRI was to advance environmental public presentation and sustainability coverage patterns in order to level up with fiscal coverage patterns ( Willis, 2003 ) . Today the GRI model can be used by companies in order to benchmark organisational public presentation with regard to Torahs, norms, codifications, public presentation criterions and voluntary enterprises ; show organisational committedness to sustainable development ; and compare organisational public presentation over clip ( Global Reporting Initiative web site ) .