Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access
Total views : 675

A Study on Stakeholder Perspective Regarding the CSR Model for Indian Organizations: Some Key Issues

Affiliations

  • Assistant Professor, Department of Business Management, Seth Jai Parkash Mukand Lal Institute of Engineering & Technology (JMIT), Radaur - 135 133, Dist. Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India
  • Professor & Chairman, Department of Business Management, Deenbandhu Chotu Ram University, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana, India

Abstract


Purpose: There has been an increasing interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) worldwide. For implementation of CSR in Indian organizations, this study was conducted to ascertain how Indian stakeholders perceive CSR, what they expect from Indian organizations, and which issues should Indian organizations give priority to while undertaking CSR initiatives. The research work also investigates the relationship between personal attributes (gender, marital status, age, and profession) and CSR practices dimensions. The paper analyzes whether there is any significant difference between the demographic variables and the concept of CSR practices in Indian organizations.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The study is exploratory in character and falls under the category of "general review" aimed at gaining familiarity and achieving insights into the phenomena, that is, stakeholders' perspective regarding the corporate social responsibility model in Indian organizations.

Findings: The study found that the Environment dimension emerged as the most important factor which means that a company's products should be eco-friendly and the organization should lay emphasis on reducing pollution and undertaking waste management initiatives. The Economic dimension emerged as the least important factor, which suggests that the organizations should not think that CSR is a costly concept or that CSR policies would have a negative impact on the company's economic performance. Furthermore, the paper concludes with recommendations for organizations to develop and implement CSR programs for the betterment of the society.


Keywords

Community, Economic Performance, Stakeholder, Corporate Social Responsibility, Initiatives, Demographic Variables

M1, M14, K32

Paper Submission Date : May 7, 2013 ; Paper sent back for Revision : August 2, 2013 ; Paper Acceptance Date : October 10, 2013.


Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 8)

References


  • Aguilera, R.V., 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. Emerald Management Reviews, 32 (3), 836-863.
  • Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2001). Unfolding stakeholder engagement (pp. 19-43). Sheffield UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
  • Barone (2000).Theories and concepts of CSR. Indian Journal of Commerce, 61 (3), 95-97.
  • Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper Row.
  • 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.
  • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38 (3), 268-295. DOI: 10.1177/000765039903800303
  • Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 92-117.
  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics, a European perspective: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Crawford, D., & Scaletta, T. (2005). The balanced scorecard and corporate social responsibility: Aligning values and profits. CMA Management, 79 (6), 20-27.
  • Davis, K. (1973). The business case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16 (2), 312-322. DOI: 10.2307/255331
  • Deresky, H. (2000). International management: Managing across borders and cultures, text and cases (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
  • Frederick, W.C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business and society thought. Business and Society, 33 (2), 150-164.
  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach (pp. 46 - 49). Boston: Pitman Publishing.
  • Idowu, S.O., & Towler, B.A., (2004). A comparative study of the contents of corporate social responsibility of UK companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 15(4), 420-437. DOI:10.1108/14777830410540153
  • Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (3), 203-217.
  • Maclagan, P. (2000). Corporate social responsibility as a participative process. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8 (1), 43-49. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8608.00124
  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2003).Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspective from American, French and German consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56 (1), 55-67.
  • McGuire, J.W. (1963). Business and society. New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Moskowitz, M. (1972). Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business and Society Review, 1, 71-75.
  • Roberts, R.W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosures: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17 (6), 595-612.
  • Silberhorn, D., & Warren, R.C. (2007).Defining corporate social responsibility: A view from big companies in Germany and the UK. European Business Review, 19 (5), 352-372. DOI:10.1108/09555340710818950
  • Williams, A. (2005). Consumer social responsibility? Consumer Policy Review, 15 (2), 34-35.
  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited: A Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (1), 50-84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00274.x

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.