Network Past Issues

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN INDIA: NEED FOR A FRESH LOOK
Sai Krishna Nanduri

So far, the scope of CSR has been defined by several academicians and practitioners in terms of the stakeholders involved in the strategies designed for CSR and the diversity of practices envisioned as a part of CSR in ones’ firm. However, there is a wide gap between the two positions: (1) the definition and framework of the concept; and (2) the actual practice and implementation of the concept.
In this paper, I tried to capture the arguments put forward by researchers, attempted to explore the scope of CSR, and argued for the need for a fresh look. In this direction, I tried to define the territory of CSR while identifying the different dimensions associated with the construct, with the belief that a clear understanding of certain dimensions of CSR will help us comprehend the existing and potential practices of CSR. This would in turn aid in resolving the conflicts between different academicians and practitioners about the role and importance of CSR, which further helps in improving the application of CSR in different areas.
An examination of the extensive literature on CSR that has emerged in the last four decades reveals the existence of different approaches adopted by corporate bodies in fulfilling their social responsibility. The perceptions of different stakeholders (especially corporate executives) regarding the concept of CSR; the factors that shape the existing strategies of a corporation in fulfilling its CSR mission; the barriers that prevent a corporation from fulfilling its CSR commitment; the practices adopted as part of a corporation’s strategy for meeting its CSR goal and the role of different stakeholders in this strategy—each of these dimensions is an independent area of study in itself.
In this article, I have limited the discussion to two important dimensions: (1) the inclusion of different stakeholders as a part of CSR strategy; and (2) the various CSR practices that are being adopted by firms in the present and the practices that these firms may potentially adopt in the future.
Defining and Practising CSR: A Brief Review
Ever since the term CSR has been coined by Bowen (1953) in his book, “Social Responsibilities of the Businessman”, the history of CSR as a concept is an interesting story to narrate. Time to time, different researchers have come out with different meanings for this term based upon the context and their understanding. Way back in 1953, Bowen has suggested that the ‘social responsibility of businessmen refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society’. This view was given a fillip when Goyder (1961), who emphasised the role of a firm’s social responsibility on the collective attitude of that body: ‘A worker as an individual responds to money incentives but his collective attitude depends on the social purpose of his work, socially respected status and the distribution of the company’s responsibility to consumers.’
The concept of CSR was significantly expanded and redefined in terms of the stakeholder theory proposed by Johnson in 1971 and by Carroll in 1979. While the former emphasised the role of different stakeholders of the company, the latter categorised the expectations of society from an organisation in terms of economic, legal, and discretionary benefits. Henceforth, the concept of CSR was redefined constantly as popular concepts such as the ‘stakeholder theory’ and the notion of the ‘triple bottom line.
The field of CSR has been explored by various academicians and practitioners who have proposed different frameworks, models, and approaches for further developing and elaborating this construct. These include the ‘four models of CSR’ (Arora and Puranik 2004), the ‘social responsibility grid’ (Jadeja 1996), and various ‘strategic and ethical approaches’ (proposed by different authors). What is common to all these approaches is the fact that the field of CSR is seen to possess principally two important dimensions: (1) the inclusion of certain stakeholders within the ambit of CSR; and (2) the nature and type of CSR activities practised by corporate bodies, and thus the role played by corporate bodies in the development of society.
A review of the empirical studies of CSR in India revealed that CSR activities have been restricted to a limited set of practices, namely community development (education, health, social issues) and human resource development (British Council 2002; Kumar 2003; Business Indiaa 2004; Business Indiab 2004; Gite 2006; Mathew and Gupta 2006; Sambrani 2007; Thirumal and Aravanan 2007). In regard to these CSR practices, one cannot overlook the importance ascribed to community development practices, which dominate the field. This is very much unlike the CSR practices reported in Asian and Western countries where major emphasis is given to environmental aspects. This fact raises doubts about the extent to which the CSR concept has become part of corporate strategy in India. Even a cursory look at the available certifications (ISO 14000, ISO 14001, environment accounting and audit, social accounting and audit, safety audit, social accountability 8000 standards) and awards (FICCI Award for Rural Development, Asian CSR Awards in the areas of Education and Environment) that are used as proxies for assessing the CSR practices and activities of a firm reflect this skewed pattern (Gite 2006; Shrimal and Verma 2000; Goswami 2006).
With this background, I have tried to identify the trends in defining the roles of various stakeholders for the conceptualization of the construct – CSR. Similarly, I have documented various meanings and dimensions ascribed to the construct, by corporations or by their foundations and trusts. Keeping in mind the importance of changing contexts, I have argued that there is a need to fill the gap between what has been envisioned for CSR and what has been put into practice. I have discussed how this goal can be achieved by redefining the roles of the different stakeholders in CSR for the benefit of corporations and of society at large.
References
Arora Bimal and Puranik Ravi (2004). A Review of Corporate Social Responsibility in India. Development 47(3): 93-100.
British Council, UNDP, CII and Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility Survey 2002– India, British Council, India.
Business Indiaa. (2004). “People power community initiatives for social issues are an integral part of corporate social responsibility”, Vol 686, pp. 110.
Business Indiab. (2004). Prioritising action corporate social responsibility is increasing in India, Vol 698, pp. 122-123.
Bowen, H R (1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper & Row, NewYork.
Carroll. A. B. (1979) “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol 4, pp. 497-505.
Gite P. (2006) “Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in India: Myth or reality”, Southern Economist, Vol 45 No 4, pp. 7-8.
Goswami R. (2006) “Governance Corporate Social Responsibility and Affected Tribal Communities”, ICFAI Reader, Vol 9 No 7, pp. 51-54.
Goyder George, (1961), The Responsible Company, Oxford Blackwell, New York.
Jadeja J D. (1996) “Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Critique”, Synergy: Sardar Patel University Journal of Management, Vol 1 No 2, pp. 35-45.
Johnson, H L (1971), Business in Contemporary Society: Framework and Issues, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Kumar P. (2003) “Corporate Social Responsibility Assessment of Global and Indian Trends and Prospects”, Paradigm: Journal of Institute of Management Technology, Vol 7 No 1, pp. 15-23.
Mathew Romina, and Gupta Vivek (2006). Tata Group Integrating Social Responsibility with Corporate Strategy. Case Folio 6(4): 30-44.
Shrimal Ritu, and Verma Ashutosh (2000). Social Responsibility Accounting a Tool for Measuring Corporate Social Performance. Prestige Journal of Management and Research 4(2): 215-225.
Sambrani S. (2007) “Managing Corporate Social Responsibility Framework to the New Bottomline of Business”, Economic Challenger, Vol 9 No 34, pp. 41-46.
Thirumal S and Aravanan S (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility the Indian Response, Indian Economic Panorama 17(1): 53-54.

The author can be contacted at f034@irma.ac.in