No.

39-2006 ICCSR Research Paper Series - ISSN 1479-5124

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Nigeria: western mimicry or indigenous practices? Kenneth M Amaeshi, Bongo C Adi Chris Ogbechie and Olufemi O Amao

Research Paper Series International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility ISSN 1479-5124 Editor: Jeremy Moon International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility Nottingham University Business School Nottingham University Jubilee Campus Wollaton Road Nottingham NG8 1BB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 115 951 4781 Fax: +44 (0)115 84 68074 Email jeremy.moon@nottingham.ac.uk http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR

4

4

f

o

1

e

g

a

P

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Nigeria: western mimicry or indigenous practices? Kenneth M Amaeshi, Bongo C Adi Chris Ogbechie and Olufemi O Amao
Abstract Drawing empirical evidence from indigenous firms, this study explores the meaning and practice of CSR in Nigeria. It was found that

indigenous firms perceive and practise CSR as corporate philanthropy aimed at addressing socio-economic development challenges in

Nigeria. This finding confirms that CSR is a localised and socially embedded construct, as the ‘waves’, ‘issues’ and ‘modes’ of CSR practices identified amongst indigenous firms in Nigeria reflect the firms’ responses to their socio-economic context. It is anticipated that this paper will add to the body of knowledge on CSR, especially as it relates to Africa, which has a relatively dearth of literature on CSR; and provide some insights to multinational firms operating in Nigeria.

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Socio-legal business context, Developing countries, Africa, NigeriaAuthors

4

4

f

o

2

e

g

a

P

Authors Kenneth M. Amaeshi (Warwick Business School, United Kingdom), Bongo C. Adi (Regional Development Economics, University of Tsukuba, Japan) Chris Ogbechie (Lagos Business School, Pan-African University, Nigeria) Olufemi O. Amao (Department of Law, University College Cork, Ireland) Address for correspondence All correspondence to: Kenneth M. Amaeshi Warwick Business School The University of Warwick Coventry, CV4 7AL Email: kenneth.amaeshi@wbs.ac.uk

4

4

f

o

3

e

g

a

P

Introduction

This paper seeks to contribute to the meagre literature on CSR in developing economies by providing a Nigerian perspective of CSR. Nigeria makes an interesting case to explore the meaning and practice of CSR for many reasons. Nigeria is the most populous black-country in the world and is influential both within sub Saharan Africa and in the global economy – not least in the proven capability of her internal events to destabilize the global oil market. In fact, incessant political unrests within the country are not unconnected to the social and environmental concerns that lie at the heart of CSR debate1. Problems of poverty in the midst of plenty, environmental negligence and bureau-political corruption implicate both the behaviour of the Nigerian government and those of multinational oil companies in particular. There have been a number of studies on CSR in Nigeria, most of which have, mainly, focused on multinational firms and less on indigenous firms (e.g. Ite, 2004, 2005; Frynas, 2000, 2001; Boele et al 2001; Wheeler et al., 2002). If the CSR practices of multinational firms

operating in Nigeria reflect the national business systems of their home countries, as Jones (1999) and van Tulder and Kolk (2001) argue, the question therefore arises on how indigenous Nigerian firms

4

4

f

o

4

e

g

a

P

e

r

u

t

a

r

e

t

i

l

R

S

C

n

i

y

d

u

t

s

e

s

a

c

d

e

t

n

e

m

u

c

o

d

l

l

e

w

a

s

i

a

g

a

s

i

n

o

g

O

.

s

v

l

l

e

h

S

e

h

T

1

While the CSR construct is a new coinage4. beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law”3. In other words. w ) ) b e t i 1 m 1 s r u e 0 r 0 / n o a 0 0 o 2 m 2 t ( p M . . e e w y t i k a h t o o j i l i T l h B i p t . n a s d c l k e c e m o s a s b s / u b s l a s i a o i ) n c e G 3 o r o i 5 a s t . The resurgent interest in the practice provides a fertile ground for different discourses and actors. it is not a new practice. And more recently. r e d a h p ) e l t t 1 f o i c s d 0 h c a 0 p . d S r _ i n i l C f o o w s c f e r e o _ h e r 2 t a d s 0 s r n n 0 a e e o 2 i r p d t s H a i e c n p / g i . r n f c v 8 a o s o l c i e 5 u r l n e p s a g o r t A a e m P t n i a n o r e e d w t p i e o t r e i r s w a i d v o n e t a . i 9 _ 3 1 n e t ( 0 i r n f 0 e e e n 2 . a r o t u W ( y M e p n . is there a Nigerian brand of CSR or is it an imitation of western CSR practices? The EU’s Green paper on CSR defined it as ‘a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’2. z s r a a o z t o t n r c p u o f o o g i f t r p n o a i u t t c c d m e i e i / r u r / p : r o s p t o c i p r s t c t e t t n e t I A h o h n c 2 3 4 t i . y s 2 l n e t R s e . which lends it to multiple and contested constructions (Moon 2002). n s r m i n e o o o a s r c n p a / d n e t t v g n ( n o a i i i t .perceive and practice CSR. e g n h n 3 t i o t 0 c t 0 g i 4 p l 2 n i f 4 i . r f s d 2 s i e c 0 e d l h / 0 t l 2 a w y i n o i n d . h d e t s m . r 4 . It could be traced back to such examples as the Quakers in 17th and 18th centuries whose business philosophy was not primarily driven by profit maximisation but by the need to add value to the society at large – business was framed as part of the society and not separate from it. McWilliams and Siegel (2001:117) define it as “… actions that appear to further some social good.

Given the dominance of the West in shaping the CSR agenda.. However. 1999. d t u C c t n s a a n p o e . t o 0 h 2 n C N ( C e f d a . 2005. b s g m e n d o s i c l s s l u e a u c o c b c o o o r f l e c p s g i e n t c n u u . t t a e i . o ) m c e l i 2 t e a i r 0 v n e n l 0 r o 2 U m ( u v o e A J n n i h o e n t i o h y t . Quazi and O’Brien. issues and modes7 of CSR : . M c L n n n g u o d a i n t t i n m s i a d w n . the contemporary CSR movement could be. suggests that meaning and practice of CSR is socio-culturally embedded. we explore the current meaning and practice of CSR in Nigeria with emphasis on the waves. philosophies and values (Kemp 2001. 1998. Fig. 2005. a s o i s r t w i c p l w u a R i d w c S / o e / : r C p p t p s t a t e n h h l t u b t r i e c s s a u n a g p o r h a p m . Bennett. 2005). a central concern in the current drive for global CSR practice is the seeming underlying assumptions of the homogeneity of the CSR construct at a global level. In this regard. 1990. Orpen. Kusku and Zarkada-Fraser. Maignan. 2005)6. especially through Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and Multinational Institutions (MNIs)5. there is a burgeoning literature on the meaning and practice of CSR across cultures and national boundaries (e. 2001. Fig. Chapple and Moon. arguably. r ) 2 p o o ( 6 i p p t 0 r a a . CSR is on its way to globalization. 2004. p o ) s e M 6 4 e e 0 r e r d 0 g h e 2 a y t s ( l P s l a g a e i i c n s c c o l o a A a s [ n / ) d i g 3 e ( r i R d o S . A common strand that runs through most of these studies. 2005. said to be largely founded on Anglo-American priorities. m i ) d o o ) l a 5 c r l 6 0 o o 0 ) n 0 F F I 0 1 2 ( ( 5 6 7 2 . And as typical of other business concepts. e ’ 6 l s a 2 c b e i i s v r h 4 a f c n 4 r o A w f a ‘ . 2000.g. 1987. In this paper. Hamann et al. p s i o y n e h l r C o s e o n l v y e a i l z t M l b i c t a o d i e i l c C p n s G o a e s e t s r e a ) l n . Langlois and Schlegelmilch. Jones. Chapple and Moon.

e o y v l a p p o w r m e h e t s . o d i e e t ( a . which in turn shapes or influences their CSR activities. The study is largely exploratory and does not present or adopt any normative stance (or ‘best practice’ approach) towards the practice and meaning of CSR. n e n a h l o i i T t h . We finally discuss the findings and conclude. And then use the results of a purposive survey of the meaning of CSR among Nigerian banks to conduct an exploratory analysis of indigenous conception of CSR. t p r e i r u h a f s f l r d e e l n u w t o r c e a e s p y . e g r . it is worthwhile to situate the concept of ‘the firm’ within the Nigerian context. n u g . We do this by. 2006). a p s c .e. and later by exploring the socio-economic conditions in which these firms operate. i ) t s a d l e n e d a r o c ) n i y d t d e n f a e a n s s i n d m o a i n t x a a e d h e n t l b u a o r e f e h . We first explore the context in which firms operate in Nigeria – i. therefore. a e ( e s i s t a h 7 h p m e y w h e g h u t o s r e h u t s s ’ i s e e d h t o m o ‘ t e n h o t . examining the characteristic of the Nigerian corporate governance framework – which is the socio-legal contract between firms and society. In order to understand the meaning and practice of CSR amongst Nigeria indigenous firms. . l d t e e n r t e n e m e e n y m o o e l r l i p p v m n m e e i 4 y 4 e f h o e c i g a h P . the corporate governance framework and socio-economic conditions influencing indigenous firms. It examines CSR as a neutral business practice (Amaeshi and Adi. Nigerian Corporate Governance framework and Socio-economic conditions: Implications for CSR This section is founded on the assumption that firms are products of their socio-economic environment. s h .amongst indigenous firms. first.

together with the UAC were as ruthlessly competitive as the local towns themselves and 4 4 f o 8 e g a P . hunting. The trading was in the mains internal until the contact with North African in the trans-Saharan trade (Orojo. The United Africa Company (UAC). Before the contact with the west the mode of production was largely agrarian and peasantry in nature.Characteristic of the Nigerian Corporate Governance framework Present Nigerian firms as institution of socio economic production and exchange originated within the context of colonial imperialism and have therefore evolved in the context of modernisation and contact with the Western world. These large companies. founded by George Goldie in 1879 was one of the earliest modern firms that operated in the area that later became Nigeria. cattle rearing and trading. Nigerians were mainly engaged in agriculture. But it had to compete with a number of equally “rough-hewn British” merchants who were originally slave traders but turned into other trading lines at the abolition of the slave trade. 1992). It was this firm that received the British concession for control of areas surrounding the Niger River under the charter of the Royal Niger Company in 1886. The first generation of Nigerian firms evolved toward the end of the slave trade. Nigeria gained independence from Britain in 1960.

banditry characterised the initial strategy of colonial firms in their dealings with the indigenous people of Nigeria. By virtue of Colonial statutes enacted between 1876 and 1922. The early companies in Nigeria were British based. The implication of this approach was that the common law concepts such as the concept of the separate and independent legal personality of companies as enunciated in Salomon v. 1900’ subject to any later relevant statute. the slave raiding instinct prevailed and these merchants resorted to outright banditry (see Law. and the statutes of general application in England on the first day of January. for instance).frequently engaged force to compel local trading partners to comply with the terms of exchange. has a rich historical antecedent. 1992:17). the doctrines of equity. Salomon was received into the Nigeria Company law and has since remained part of the law (Orojo. However with continued growth of trade. Occasionally however. The abolition of slave trade and the formal establishment of British Authority over its Nigerian colony saw a rapid growth both in internal and external trade in 19th Century Nigeria (Orojo. the law applicable to companies in Nigeria at this time was the ‘common law. 1992). In other words. the colonialist felt 4 4 f o 9 e g a P . The case of the Niger Delta versus Nigerian State and Oil corporations therefore. 1995.

which is in the process of being taken through parliament. The first company law in Nigeria was the Companies Ordinance of 1912. the Nigerian legal framework has not gone the same direction. communities and the environment (see Williams and Conley. suppliers. 2002). n J d a n e e o s s s i o e l t i n a n g g a e o n e c i p t S e p r m 0 o e 9 m r C 9 e a t 1 t e s a . Despite the fact that the Nigerian Company Law was modelled after UK law it has been largely interpreted and applied from the perspective of the U. 1948 (Guobadia.CAMA) is largely modelled on the U. 2000). 4 e a A 4 i b r f d e o M n g : 0 i a a 1 i s N e r e g e i n a g i n i P a s N p e .it was necessary to promulgate laws to facilitate business activities locally.S contractarian model. i e a t n i e a r o S l e ( i s t i g a i – g l s e N y l i n n g l i a e a l e p p c i o i c t m t c o n n c i i a r r e R p P S h t d e C f n h f a t o o s t s w c r a e e l A L b p i s y c m r n e n e a i t p t r m a p m e o e h M C t m s d . i s m n o o a g C p a 9 m L 7 ( o c . o a o e s j i l o y l e l r n e A i l O r o d h s O s . While in the U. It still essentially reflects the shareholder supremacy and shareholder wealth maximization goal9 characteristic of e d & h e t i i l y l .K there has been a noticeable shift in focus in the conception of the purpose of the company to ‘enlightened shareholder value’ and the requirement that companies report on the impact of their operations on other stakeholders such as employees. which was a local enactment of the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 of England. t h r c s t e i d A r l l l e s i o d r B h e n e t e r t U h a a T h s 8 9 M . culminating in the recent Company Law Reform Bill8. n d o n i e t o c d r e n s 3 o . . and even the current company law of Nigeria (now known as the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 . .K Company Act.

h 9 o v a g h t P y i 9 s c h e 1 P y n r ( n u t m y a a a i . g t o O A 2 n 0 p ( s O . 9 t e r 8 8 . r d 4 7 o m 1 V u j n 5 o ) o o a e 9 r r 1 b f b 4 a y 0 t O 4 t 0 n m L P r f ( a a 2 o a o ( s s n p p l 1 a R n a a i C 1 m L r A P e e o y e c t g e f W g N a S i u o e . In essence. a s s 9 p e . this conception of the company for example differentiates the relationship of employees of companies from employees in the public service in Nigeria. . @ i m l a n L c 0 p W o b 4 o 1 a c s ) i 1 u y ) N t e p 9 i 4 e i P n a 9 s 8 ) a h t n c 9 o o ) 7 t r a i p 9 a r l p 5 5 f 1 p ( o o 0 3 o m P s ( . 9 s i V 1 e 0 o 9 a y t h 2 1 c i ) o t . which have consistently ruled in favour of the supremacy of shareholders.12 This. n r d f W a N i m o y o i f N a . n y 5 u 4 o e t l 0 9 u c p h n 1 y 0 . This view has been followed by the Nigerian courts. Companies are thus viewed as private actors to be run exclusively in the interests of shareholders. c a e E 1 N e 2 L h l . o t u 9 s 2 a m o d p 9 6 k s a d 1 ) r l . i s t 6 i s e 5 . n 0 1 2 h t a 1 1 1 N A B p p t i . I ( 2 f b v 9 e . n g e 1 i V 1 ) t 0 e e ( t ( s U l c 5 e 0 v i . 0 e r 2 l a ) ) i 5 n e l t 1 p O 6 t 2 o . C i t i d s o r d c l L a e b .the U. N t t n i . : 2 h o r i ( t C a t P i r ( R o l . o t s k u o V 2 c n t n a p . creates some real . ) . x e r 0 n o s o t e a l 0 k u y h e P a t 2 r ( p y t o e ( i c a u o r L i f n m d a ) R . 8 e d d b 2 P d w ( e t r 9 u o e e m i o L t l R S e f D . R e e I e i e h s g L f r G t i m i m W o . r o h s e i 2 9 s d O T e s S O W 3 2 s . y l s P . L ( 7 n r e o A V 9 a 6 t e e W 9 R 4 h d S p d 5 y s L . g h i t e i m ) 3 m v s C d a 7 o 5 N t l y t .10 This position has also been reflected in the interpretation of the relationship between the company and stakeholders. i a h i s o d e p t t r R s r B t w e o e . m a e L d L g 2 v K o i R L n i a c 5 W a i e t n N d 5 l r e N n s ) a e U p h n e 8 r 4 . 2003). P N d N s h N . t e p f r N s i s a 9 h e h s 2 7 o 7 t e o r g ) ) r g i y 2 e l d a 5 4 l M t v N 8 a n n . A company could terminate the employment of its employees at will and for no reason after giving due notice which is one month by statute and usually three months by contract. 9 i L n ( a 9 o 9 . . M x e a a u t .S contractarian school (Fannon.11 that of companies employees are not so protected. in our opinion. Whereas the termination of the employment of public servants are statutorily protected so that the relationship cannot be brought to an end except on specific grounds provided by statute. 0 i F m o s t n y . g i e o e e r t a ) c e p a e s p y 8 s L v ) S S o n e a 2 r .

challenges in adopting and implementing some western notions of CSR (i. the west by the Yorubas and the east by the Ibos. little or no emphasis would be placed on such CSR waves as employee relations or consumer protection (a) Socio-economic conditions Nigeria is a concatenation of tribes. albeit. An example of this tension was the 1967 to 1970 civil war and the tribal militarization of the Nigerian polity (over 35 odd years of her 46 years of independence) that plunged the country back in all indices of development. The Hausas dominate the northern part of the country. In that regard. necessitated by the imperialist interests of the then British government to ease the governance of this amalgamated entity called Nigeria. These tribes have continued to co-exist.e. languages and religions. responsible employee relations) in Nigeria and further questions the touting of CSR as a standardised global practice. with great internal tension. 4 4 f o 2 1 e g a P . Yoruba and Ibo. Given the contractarian orientation of the Nigerian corporate governance framework we propose. that: CSR activities in Nigeria would not be framed from a stakeholder perspective (or socialist model). therefore. The predominant ethnic groups and languages in Nigeria are the Hausas. cultures.

cash crops were introduced. n o i t a m i x o r p p a n a y l n o s i s i h T 3 1 . At independence in 1960. with a population of about 140 million13. and a market for consumer goods began to emerge. its dominance and overwhelming importance has left Nigeria operating an almost mono-culture economy with oil accounting for 78 percent of federal government revenue. By the early 1970s. First. agriculture was the dominant sector. it destabilised the then emergent strong economic base of the country. 4 r 4 e f p o a 3 p 1 s i e g h t a P g n i t i r w f o e m i t e h t t a s u s n e c n o i t a l u p o p g n i o g n o n a s i e r e h T . oil emerged as the leading variable in the national economic scene. Nigeria is very rich in natural resources and earns significant revenue from her oil reserves. During that era. The Nigerian economy is largely dependent on its oil sector which supplies 95 percent of its foreign exchange earnings. more than 95 percent of export earnings and about 11 percent of GDP in 2000. it has continued to unleash untold devastations on the locales .Nigeria has abundant natural and human resources. accounting for well over 50 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and was the main source of export earnings and public revenue. However. The primary sources of growth of the Nigerian economy prior to the 1960s have traditionally been agriculture. Since then. the presence of oil in Nigeria has remained more of a curse than a blessing in many ways. infrastructure was developed. with the agricultural marketing boards playing a leading role. Second. industry and services.

In addition. a 6 3 1 9 1 . rivers and farmlands) are polluted and destroyed. y a d a a i r 2 8 e $ . W 0 4 9 4 4 . 1 U 6 . Despite her rich natural resources. Their main sources of livelihood (i. The road networks are underdeveloped and there are a host of communities and cities cut off from each other due to unassailable transportation . These damages often lead to conflicts between the oil firms and the host communities. 1 g 4 9 0 8 . S o 9 1 0 9 1 n a 4 … U 1 1 2 4 > 1 B e d g l a r P o 9 0 . the marginalisation of the Niger-Delta region is further compounded by oil politics – a reflection of the tribal politicking in which the country is engulfed. M 6 9 8 1 2 4 . A 6 4 f 3 k 5 . i w 3 9 7 5 2 2 o N 1 3 1 9 6 7 l e b g n i v i l n o i t a l u p ) ) o $ + P S 5 . P D N U 4 1 ) 6 0 5 . 5 .e. … U 3 1 5 > 2 a i s y a 0 3 . A more graphic comparative data on the socio-economic condition of Nigeria is presented in the table below: Nigeria suffers from poor infrastructural development. l 2 5 8 . 2006). K 1 9 3 9 5 . 0 0 7 4 2 ( 0 6 5 4 .where the oil resources are extracted – especially the Niger-Delta region of the country. . i h t t t r n a e o o i R p t m e t ) a s l s R n a u t ) n l u t s p n o o i a e o n l ( C l o p i m i a ) l d f p t l i 6 m a i o o ( l 0 e p b e 0 a n % v H $ 2 c ( o ( e ( S i r t D y s y e a U c 1 t e ( l d 4 r p a c 1 l e r e u I i I r P l e p o v d t N D b D o o i n a W H G G P P I L 5 T 1 . . 5 . 5 0 0 2 x e d n I t n e m p o l e v e D n a m u H . 5 0 e 1 d 0 ) g 2 o a o . Nigeria has a per capita income of around $390 and life expectancy of 45 years (World Bank. The case of the Ogoni people and Shell is a well documented study in the CSR literature.

weak enforcement of contracts. inadequate physical security. These factors have deterred foreign entrepreneurs from investing in Nigeria and induced many Nigerians to take their money and skills abroad (NEEDS. corruption. Nigeria has one of the worst health care systems in the world and the doctor-patient ratio is almost 1:1000. there is a total collapse of governance in Nigeria. compared to the Western standard. Businesses wishing to operate in Nigeria face many constraints. xv) The Niger-delta region of the country. has up to today continued to seek social justice and environmental protection but the oil politics is restlessly driven by 4 4 f o 5 1 e g a P . As such. and indeed the entire Nigerian nation.networks. and the high cost of finance. 70 percent of the population had income of less than $1 a day – and the figure has risen since then (NEEDS. The education system is under-funded and illiteracy rate is up to 40 percent. The public sector is very weak and on top of these. particularly road networks and electricity supply. In 1980 an estimated 27 percent of Nigerians lived in poverty. including poor infrastructure. By 1990. 2005). In sum. More than two-thirds of Nigerians are poor. corruption threatens to crumble the country.

confirmed that some of the schools. these provisions have often been on an ad hoc basis and often not sustained. community investment. So. On the other hand. etc. Arguably. schools. for example. the history of ‘organised’ CSR in Nigeria can be traced to practices in the oil and gas sector driven by western MNCs. Ite (2004) argued that the government has continued to renegade on its commitment that it becomes almost impossible for the CSR investments by the oil firms to contribute positively to their host communities. hospitals and other social amenities claimed to be provided by some of the firms in this sector have been abandoned or did not meet the needs of the communities they were meant to support. Shell. has over time described their CSR activities in various terms to match with their intended strategies at each time – sustainable development. However. In order to make up for the government’s governance failures and in order to protect their business interests in the region. Christian Aid (2004) in its report on the activities of Shell in this region. The CSR activities in this sector are mainly focussed on remedying the effects of their extraction activities on the local communities. the firms operating in this sector have often provided pipe-borne waters. these firms often engage in CSR.powerful interests – the government and the oil firms. hospitals. for instance. etc. 4 4 f o 6 1 e g a P . The Nigerian oil sector is dominated by MNCs.

As typical of MNCs. A common trend among the . For instance. privately held. family owned and operated (Limbs and Fort 2000. Oyejide and Soyibo. language and religion as the three major contexts that shaped Nigerian business practices. the motivations to engage in CSR are varied – response to market forces. there is a higher incentive to protect their brands and investments through CSR. 6 1 However. 2001. However. most of these compelling pressures to be engaged in CSR may not necessarily be applicable to most Nigerian indigenous firms. And moreover. globalization. etc. Limbs and Fort (2000) for example identified ethnicity. Ahunwan. Most indigenous firms in Nigeria are SMEs. Local consumer and civil society pressures are almost nonexistent. some traditional/indigenous values could be glimpsed. consumer and civil society pressures. no indigenous Nigerian firm has multinational operations and less than 20 percent of all registered companies are publicly quoted. The activities of these firms are therefore visible because of their global reach. s e i 7 r t n u o C n a c i r f A t s e W g n i r u o b h g i e n o t n i d n a p x e o t g n i n n i g e b e r a s k n a b n a i r e g i N e m o s . As such. in the midst of these colonial influences on business practices. law enforcement mechanisms are weak and made inefficient by institutionalised corruption. 2002). h g u o h t l A 6 1 4 4 f o 1 e g a P . albeit with some difficulties.

According to Limbs & Forth (2000) ‘the family-owned nature of most private businesses and the cultural notions of extended kinship suggest a propensity toward communitarian identity. In establishing a firm. language and religion. there appear to be strong notions of group identification according to ethnicity. which is common to all the groups (Limbs and Fort 2000). Further.’ In this regard. The family network is very important in Nigeria and almost if not all ethnic group in Nigeria believes that individual responsibility extend beyond the boundaries of immediate family.different tribes and peoples. which could have implication for the CSR discourse. we argue the case that the socio-cultural characteristics of Nigeria are unique and as such. This trend is rooted in the concept of ‘extended kinship’. the founder represents not only the company but also the family (Limbs and Fort 2000). This practice has been described as Nigeria’s form of social security (Limbs and Fort 2000). is the communal philosophy of life and concern for the less privilege. which could be a whole community sometimes. Therefore in his business judgement the founder balances the demand of business with his responsibility to the extended family. the meaning and practice of CSR amongst indigenous Nigerian firms would mainly be shaped by the 4 4 f o 8 1 e g a P .

consumer protection. education.g.g. This is driven by our proposition that: CSR in Nigeria would be aimed towards addressing the peculiarity of the socio-economic development challenges of the country (e. They might not necessarily reflect the popular western standard/ expectations of CSR (e. infrastructure development.g. First. the study adopts a two pronged and two stage approach. From available directories. These business leaders were identified and selected based on their entrepreneurial achievements. health care provision. communalism and charity). telecom. climate change concerns. etc) and would be informed by socio-cultural influences (e. fair trade. finance and manufacturing. which are visible in the 4 4 f o 9 1 e g a P . poverty alleviation. it starts by drawing on ‘informed’ public opinion of Nigerian indigenous private sector leaders across the four key sectors of the Nigerian economy: oil & gas. social responsible investments. etc) Methodology We ensured that the research design and data collection matched the research objective – to explore the meaning and practice of CSR in Nigeria. green marketing. comprehensive list of companies in each sector was generated.socio-economic conditions in which these firms operate. In order to avoid imposing any pre conceived connotations of CSR.

e. One of the authors is a faculty member of a premier and highly respected business school in Nigeria and had access to a good number of these business leaders.public domain. questions were open-ended to avoid biasing the responses. Getting hold of this calibre of people is very challenging given their very busy schedules and distance. telephone and emails). by virtue of their positions have sufficient knowledge of CSR activities in their sector and the economy. Data were collected through structured interviews (face-to-face. We leveraged on social networks to overcome this barrier. Most of these respondents are CEOs or other Senior Executive Personnel who. The instruments for the structured interviews were designed and developed strictly to elicit responses in relation to meaning and practice of CSR activities in Nigeria. The researchers recognise that one of the drawbacks of self reporting of CSR activities is the danger of public relations (PR) misuse (i. Using a ‘snow-ball’ circulation technique. the questions were phrased to give respondents the leeway to talk of activities outside their firms and not use the self reporting for 4 4 f o 0 2 e g a P . as such. blowing one’s trumpet). In addition. In all we recorded 41 interviews. the business leaders were used when possible to gain access to other business leaders within their respective social networks.

the financial services sector (especially banks) was chosen because it is about 90 percent owned and run by indigenous entrepreneurs. The questions were also brief and straight to the point (see sample in the appendix section).PR. issues like CSR would be amongst the first to be 4 4 f o 1 2 e g a P . which have significant presence of multinational firms. The Nigerian banking sector has recently undergone a consolidation whereby existing 90 banks pre December 2005 were reduced to only 25 banks. as would be expected. As such the sector is still caught up in after-merger-trauma. 2005). Although it could be argued that CSR reporting ‘…is not necessarily a reflection of CSR policies and practice’ (Chapple and Moon. 2005). It is anticipated that this sector will provide a much more succinct indigenous meaning and practice of CSR in the Nigerian economy than manufacturing. This part of the study was based on CSR web reporting of the firms in this sector in line with similar studies in this area (Chapple and Moon. The second leg of the research maps the outcome of the interviews on one of the key sectors of the economy in order to validate the first stage. telecoms and oil/gas sectors. respectively. In this case.

The result of both the structured interviews and the content analysis of the web-based CSR reporting are presented below. Some of these descriptions include: “[CSR is] The corporate act of giving back to the immediate and wider community in which organisations 4 4 f o 2 2 e g a P . work from the premise that Nigerian banks who currently web-report their CSR activities have a strong commitment to CSR. 44 percent of the sector . The CSR web reports were content-analysed with emphasis on the waves.kept on hold in situations like this. In an environment where basic human needs and infrastructure (by western standards) are a luxury. We. therefore. From the list of 25 we eliminated foreign owned banks from our sample (i. the meaning of CSR was largely framed to reflect the local realities. Almost all the people interviewed described CSR along the lines of philanthropy and altruism.e. modes in line with Chapple and Moon (2005). Standard Chartered Bank and Stanbic Bank) and also banks without websites or web-based CSR reports. issues. Analyses/Discussions Meaning of CSR As anticipated.e. CSR was mainly seen from a philanthropic perspective – a way of ‘giving back’ to the society.as shown in the appendix section). and were finally left with 11 banks in our sample (i.

Writing on its CSR practice and : philosophy. a fully functional department responsible for identifying areas. Zenith philanthropy is the channel through which Zenith Bank gives back to society. Corporate Social Responsibility is not just a buzzword. Zenith Bank set up Zenith Philanthropy. sectors and causes deserving of philanthropic aid…. it is a way of life. To emphasize this belief. One would invariably ask why we have to set up a department just to give money out? At 4 4 f o 3 2 e g a P . one of the first four banks in Nigeria states At Zenith.carry out their business in a manner that is meaningful and valuable and relevant to that community” (CEO of a consulting firm) “[CSR] is a way for the companies to reach out to their host communities by positively impacting on their environ” (Senior Executive of an Oil/Gas firm) “[CSR] is a way of saying ‘thank you’ to the environment in which they [sic] operate and a way of also showing a sense of belonging to the society at large” (Senior Executive of a bank) Content analysis of the web reports also confirms this inclination to interpret CSR in terms of philanthropy.

the kinship-network-based system of business organization would imply that businesses first serve the interest of their network members as their primary constituency. 4 4 f o 4 2 e g a P . 1977. family or kinship pattern of production characteristic of agrarian mode of livelihood – the household economy – has been the governing order of business organization which is still reflected in the structure of most indigenous firms (see Nafziger. t s w e w s a w c / / : a p r t t o h F 7 8 1 1 . A traditional and informal sector example of this would be the case of auto spare-parts business cluster found in Nnewi. w e k n n a N b f h o t i y n d e z u . original] . Silverstein. E n n i m r _ e y t s p u o l r c h l t a n i a r l t i s h u p d / n i m i o c . 1983. charity are therefore conceived within the moral economy of kin-based solidarity and reciprocity (Adi.Zenith Bank. 2006). provision of city-wide 8 1 security. 1969. Philanthropy. For different regions of Nigeria. ) 7 9 9 1 ( m a g i t u a r B e e s s a i e r v e i t g c i e j N b n O r # e t s m a f c . the traditional. we see giving back to society as a serious and passionate cause [emphasis. 1984). 7 1 The overwhelming conception of CSR as philanthropy may not be unconnected to traditional socio-cultural heritage of the indigenous firms. Eastern Nigeria that play crucial roles in their local community development including. goodness to society. For CSR therefore.

This could also account for the lack of emphasis on the other waves of CSR (i. the same beliefs could have easily found an outlet/expression in the Nigerians’ understanding and practice of business-society relations.e. one would have expected this religious inclination to influence the attitude of Nigerian businesses to bribery and corruption – the domain of ethical responsibilities. It can be argued. that since gifts and sacrifices are core to religion.CSR as philanthropy in Nigeria could also be tied to some religious influences. 2006). which are prevalent in western economies with strong markets and regulatory mechanisms. which unfortunately are weak in most African countries. legal and ethical responsibilities. The belief in the supernatural or some spiritual realities is central to the weltenschaung of an average Nigerian (Adi. therefore. As such most of these countries make less demands on firms in terms of economic responsibility. One way of accounting for this could be that the firm as a mode of production is a borrowed practice and therefore alien to most African countries. 4 4 f o 5 2 e g a P . including Nigeria. However. socially responsible products and processes and socially responsible employee relations). Nigeria is a very theistic country. especially as these responsibilities are enforced through market and regulatory forces. This did not come through in the study.

7 percent either claimed there is almost no awareness of CSR or there is high awareness with significant actions. while 7. respectively as shown in the table below: 2 4 4 f o 6 2 In terms of CSR waves. Issues and Modes All the interviewees acknowledged that Nigerian firms are engaged in one CSR activity or the other. 5 % 7 8 7 n o i t n c o a i t t c n a a t c i n f i a c n i l g f i i e s s s n v t e g e i l u n s o e f r o h h t t a i i c i w t w w a s s s i o s s r e e e n t t n n c s e e a r r o r a a a m l h w w C A A A s s e n e r a w A f m o u l i e e h l d g w v e b i o e a H L M L T . the interviews and web reporting both show that the emphasis is more on community involvement.CSR in Nigeria: Waves. less on socially responsible employee relations and almost none existent in relation to socially responsible products and processes. The top five issues reported on the community involvement wave from the interviews are as shown below: e g a P 7 7 . Only a bank reported of its social responsible investment product – ethical funds. . However. In line with this philanthropic and altruistic understanding of CSR 85 percent of the respondents said that there is an awareness of CSR in Nigeria but without significant actions.

while sometimes ignoring local constructions of CSR. As expected. When asked of issues they would want addressed via CSR the respondents repeated the above issues but substituted sports/arts and culture CSR activities with security issues: These priorities.e. strategically. mirror the peculiarity of the Nigerian socioeconomic conditions. most multinational firms operating in Nigeria miss out on these priorities but rather focus on either CSR mandates from their home countries or CSR activities that directly impact on their businesses (i. the British American Tobacco (BAT) Nigeria established a British 4 4 f o 7 2 e g a P 6 8 1 3 1 3 5 2 4 % % 3 3 8 8 6 3 4 2 5 2 ) ) t t n n e e m m p p o o l l e e v v e e d d l l l l i i k k s s d d n n a a g g t t n n i i n n d n n e e i i e s e a a e s r e e r r m m r s t t r u p p u a e t a s c r o o l g g c l l s d n n u I e e h i i t h n n d C t l v v d d o o y l e e t i i a A a d i t t u u e l l d d r e s a a c c n i i o e e e H a h i n n r r v v i i u f f r s e e ( ( s t u u l l o o P t t s l l r c c n n I a a n n d o o A t u u o o i i e y r r 4 3 i i y y t t t / t n t t t t i s s s a a c r r s s e i i t r e e c c r e e e r a a l l v v u r r r u u o p v v c o o f f b b u d d o o x r r p e n n a a C E E E P P P P S S I I T T . In November 2002. these firms are beginning to respond to local needs. ‘strategic’ CSR). again.These correspond to what were identified through web reporting analysis (see appendix). albeit. However.

also. This programme. It could also benefit the wider society in form of knowledge spill over as BAT may not be in a position to employ all the interns. The foundation is also working with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture to provide improved maize seedlings and cassava cuttings to farmers from communities of production.American Tobacco Foundation. is primarily a strategy for BAT to enhance the quality of its employable labour pool. has a similar programme which it uses to enhance the science and engineering skills required in the Nigerian oil and gas sector. the multinational firms are more strategic . The foundation has commenced series of Poverty Reduction Projects for unemployed youths in different States of Nigeria. Shell Nigeria. These activities targeted at the community and the suppliers (tobacco farmers) are meant to directly raise the livelihood of these stakeholders and ultimately the purchasing powers of consumers (mostly youths).their 4 4 f o 8 2 e g a P . In essence. the role of which is to identify and implement community enhancement programmes across Nigeria. while indigenous firms are more involved in philanthropic CSR. BAT Nigeria in the same year introduced an Undergraduate Internship Programme to contribute towards the development of promising undergraduates and prepare them for life in the corporate world. it could be argued.

The following were identified by the interviewees as the top five main drivers of (reasons for) CSR in Nigeria: These drivers are not unique to Nigeria and have been identified in other cultures and national business systems.g. Some of the reasons they gave for this response include the need for the private sector to complement the government in providing for the people (e. 4 4 f o 9 2 e g a P 8 8 8 1 1 6 % 3 3 3 3 3 4 s e r u s s ) e s r e p c c n i e l u b l f u p n i / l ) a s n n o o i i t t a a t n c i t e l p u ) x g e m n i y g t d i n i n n d a u r u l b m c ( n s m i o ( n s c o ( s n i e t n o s i c a o t d l i n c t a o e e i i u e t z t s R s i 5 e l r a n s c l a p ’ e l i e l a u l b v i m c m g b o r b r l o e o i u a D G C R P F L T .g. Lantos. 2001). here.CSR activities (e. through capacity building. But the interesting thing. The respondents all agreed that CSR is necessary in the Nigerian business environment. is how similar drivers across localities give rise to different CSR responses. poverty alleviation and capacity building) cut across both the market and non market environments corporate strategy (Baron. as well. which further reinforces the argument that CSR is a socially embedded construct and practice. 1995.

it will be worthwhile to situate it within the context offered by the Nigerian corporate governance framework for such social orientations.e. employment. this will be hard to achieve as long as the institutional framework places more emphasis on firms as private actors. as well as the awareness that companies cannot truly claim to be successful and outstanding performers if the economy and people in which they claim to have attained this success are below par – as the case of Nigeria. etc) (Fannon. with private rights mainly embedded in contracts (license of operation). economic growth. Unfortunately. and less emphasis on firms as fabrics of the society with the purpose of providing some social benefits (i. sustainability. productivity. 2003). By its emphasis 4 4 f o 0 3 e g a P .infrastructure development and healthcare provision). Some also argued that many of the firms in Nigeria make huge profits and they need to give back to assuage the sometimes overt or covert deleterious effect of their activities. This view is well reflected in one of the comments of the interviewees: …it is necessary mainly to remind the companies which make huge profits from Nigeria that their customers are not only economic clients but social beings with social needs which can be enhanced by the corporate social responsibility activities (Academic/Consultant) While this comes across as a reasonable expectation.

the memorandum and article of association of the company a contract between the company and its members (stockholders) and officers (management) and between members and officers. c s w i e f l s f c e o i l t c r d i a t n r a a d s n . the Act makes the constitution of a company i. d r a ’ e n h a b c m u m u s m e d u s n m d a a s n s r t a r o i r e c d o m i e f n m f a e m o : y r e m s n o h a e t s w h p r f o t l e o . And most people think that CSR is one of the many ways companies can plough back a portion of their profit to their immediate environment. l m b e o s o f e c n m r s c e o e a i e s h m s t i D .S type contractarian approach. This finding is in many ways at variance with the current t e o c s e e r f n g f i 4 a e 4 e e y f h e o m t i h t 1 t e 3 o v y e t a b g h e e a r l P l m e i a t h h s w m s d o e r e f v r l e d e t s s e i r m g e t e e l r h a t n s s e a r h e . Under the Act.e. 9 1 In summary. In other words. e v s n y d o i i e n r e h a v p t o p w f r e t o m p e h t s o b t c c n l a m o e A r i e h s s o e t i f h r v r o t e e t o f r d p e o t p n ) d a u 1 e l n ( e h t a 1 c t r a 4 e y o r t v e t n r t h o n c e t i s o t e s c c j b a b e a o S r u f a 9 o S 1 o f t ‘ . the results/analyses show that the understanding and practice of CSR in Nigeria is still largely philanthropic and altruistic. the law thus essentially reflect the shareholder supremacy and shareholder wealth maximization goal of the U. a corporate governance framework reform would be needed to orientate Nigerian firms towards social considerations.S contractarian school.on shareholders wealth maximization the Nigerian legal framework as earlier discussed in this paper would appear to be promoting a U. To further underscore the recognised interest within a registered company.

economic responsibility is the first stage of CSR development while philanthropic responsibility is the last stage of CSR maturity. s s e n i s u b d n a y t e i c o s .understanding and practice of CSR in Western economies. Chancellor 0 2 of the Exchequer of the UK government) The study also confirms that cultural manifestation of CSR does not necessarily need to follow a linear progression as predicted by Carroll (1991. In the case of Nigeria. price and uniqueness but on how. cumulatively. for their engagement in their local communities and for their recognition that brand names depend not only on quality. corporate social responsibility goes far beyond the old philanthropy of the past – donating money to good causes at the end of the financial year – and is instead an all year round responsibility that companies accept for the environment around them. l a n i f _ r s c _ i t d / f d p / k u . and the contribution we make to poverty reduction. philanthropic responsibilities were emphasised over and above other aspects of ) f d p . where CSR is argued to have ‘advanced’ beyond philanthropy: Today. v o g . they interact with companies’ workforce. where we judge results not just by the input but by its outcomes: the difference we make to the world in which we live. 2004). w w w / / : p t t h ( 0 2 4 4 f o 2 3 e g a P . Now we need to move towards a challenging measure of corporate responsibility. (Gordon Brown. for the best working practices. community and environment. In Carroll’s model.

cartels. Considering this. economic. What the literature on the socially embedded nature of corporate social responsibility seems to suggest is that the behaviour of firms within a given society is determined by this interaction between firms. The specific nature of information asymmetries.g. 1989. 2005). 2003. for example. It also emphasises CSR practice as a socio-cultural product. are co-determined over time (Grief.” equilibrium mode of social organisation of labour and socio-economic production. oligarchs.Carroll’s model (i. markets and society in which they are embedded. incentive problems and efficiency calculations facing individuals or groups of individuals engaged in transactions determine the type of institutions of social exchange that evolve within such contexts. legal. Leeson. Conclusion Recent studies in institutional economics and economic history about the evolution of norms that under gird social exchanges.e. 2006) that have argued against Carroll linear predictions of CSR development. markets 4 4 f o 3 3 e g a P . which confirms our proposition. This does not in any way suggest that CSR practice is much more advanced in Nigeria but corroborates some studies (e. 1993. Visser. and ethical responsibilities). banditry have at various times and in various places emerged as the “rational. guilds and sometimes. suggest that firms.

Firms are therefore. Nigerian businesses have always looked up to the Western for ‘best practices’. total quality management. corporate strategy formulation and implementation. it 4 4 f o 4 3 e g a P . especially as some Nigerian firms (in banking and oil/gas sectors) move towards internationalization of their products and services. Thus. the distinctive feature of the Nigerian society and the history of its firms. such that a specific corporate action that may be considered socially responsible in one area might just not be indistinguishable from ordinary social etiquette in another. This is evident in the adoption of such practices as relationship marketing. In this regard. Since the firm as a mode of production is a borrowed concept in most African communities. Such banks as Zenith. Guaranty Trust and Diamond that have presence in some other African countries appear to be investing more in CSR. This strong dependency on the West could as well reshape the current understanding and practice of CSR in Nigeria. et cetera. combined with insecure property rights regimes and poor contract enforceability have considerable ramifications for CSR insofar as firms are socially embedded. It is within this context that CSR in Nigeria has been examined. socially constructed and their behaviour reflects those of the society in which they are embedded.and society.

For other types of modern firms in Nigeria such as the multinational corporations and indigenous firms that are modelled on the western (post-colonial) notion of the firm. Hence. it is only natural to imagine that the formulation of CSR in theory and practices should retain significant colonial undertones. like the colonial state. It will be also worthwhile to examine if CSR activities in Nigeria are sources or outcomes of corporate performance and to extend the study to other sectors of the Nigerian economy. Finally. Competition between foreign multinationals and local firms is still as stiff as ever in some sectors especially oil/gas and telecoms.is suggested that further research be conducted on how these internationalisation activities could impact on CSR practices of Nigerian firms. It is therefore not surprising that such firms should largely view the larger society as an arena for philanthropy. 4 4 f o 5 3 e g a P . foreign firms and the local ones modelled after them are not embedded within the society and culture. influenced by the process by which the Nigerian economy got integrated into the world economy as the history of the modern firm in Nigeria reveals. their relationship with the society is again. given the colonial origins of the modern Nigeria firms.

London: Commission for Africa. Oxford -Portland. and Moon. R. 2000. M. (2005). B. 2001. Germany and the UK: International comparisons of commercial orientation towards company giving in European nations. (1991). D. 44(4):415-439 Christian Aid 2004: Behind the mask. A. The Moral Economy and the Possibility of Accumulation in Africa: How the IFIs can Help West Africa Review (forthcoming) Amaeshi. w w w / / : 4 4 f o 6 3 e g a P p t t h . Oil in Nigeria: Conflict and Litigation Between Oil Companies and Village Communities. Business & Society. D.C. Substituting for the State: Institutions and Industrial Development in Eastern Nigeria. Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge. 2005 Commission for Africa. and Adi. Fannon. 18(2):114-119 Chapple. (2004). Manufacturing amnesia: corporate social responsibility in South Africa. J. Academy of Management Executive. I. 37(2):47-65 Bennett.B. B. LIT: Munster. World Development. P. B. W. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven-country study of CSR web site reporting. International Marketing Review.S and E. 25(7):1063-1080. (1997). International Affairs 81(3):599-617 Frynas JG. The real face of corporate social responsibility. Oregon: Hart Publishing Fig. (2006). d i a n a i t s i r h c .U Perspectives. A. Brautigam. A. Nigeria and Ogoni. L. Business Horizons. A. 2005. (2006). Shell. (2005). m t h .References Adi. x e d n i / r s c 1 0 4 0 / h t p e d n i / k u . Carroll. (1995). Working within Two Kind of Capitalism: Corporate Governance and Employee Stakeholding: U. Integrated strategy: market and nonmarket components. Fabig H. D. (1998). Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Utlish. C. Corporate philanthropy in France. K. Our Common Interest: Report of the Commission for Africa. 15(6):458-475 Boele R. A study in unsustainable development: II. Sustainable Development 9(2): 121–135. g r o . 34(4):39-48 Carroll. (2003). visited July 01. Wheeler D. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Ethics: An European Review (forthcoming) Baron. Corporate social responsibility and ‘stakeholder management’ versus a rights-based approach to sustainable development. California Management Review.

M. D. (2005). The institutional determinants of social responsibility. (2001). and Hein. (2005). 15:57-72 g n i p o 4 4 f l o e 7 v 3 e e d g a P n i y t i l i b i s n o p s e r l a i c o s e t a r o p r o c . (2004). Corporate and state response to anti-oil protest in the Niger Delta. Kapelus.1 (Oxford – Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing) p. A. Protecting Minority and Public Interests in Nigeria Company Law: The Corporate Affairs Commission as a Corporations Ombudsman. (1989) Reputation and Coalitions in the Medieval Trade: Evidence on the Maghribi Traders. Poverty reduction in resource-rich developing countries: what have multinational corporations got to do with it? Journal of International Development. U. R. 20:163-179 Kemp. Business and Society Review. The American Economic Review. Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Kusku. M. 49 (4): 857-882 Grief. Agbazue. (2004). and Zarkada-Fraser. P. A. In: F.6]. F. T. A. 2001. (1999). A (2003).. Geneva.. A. (2001). (2000). E.Frynas JG. 284 Greif. (1993). 81 Hamann. Universalizing corporate social responsbility? South African challenges to the international organization for standardization’s new social responsibility standard. Corporate social responsibility in Indonesia: quixotic dream or confident expectation? Technology.. E. 11(1):1-11 Ite. Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade: The Maghribi’s Traders’ Coalition. African Affairs 100: 27–54 Gobbels. Institutions and Impersonal Exchange: The European Experience. McMillan (ed. False notions of corporate social responsibility. An empirical investigation of corporate citizenship in Australia and Turkey. Misguided virtue. Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Papers No. (2002). [Programme Paper No. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 110(1): 1-19 Henderson. T. 17(7):913-929 Jones. a d i n r a e g s i l a N n f o i o t a y n d i t u l t u s M e s a c a : s e i r t n u o c . British Journal of Management. Journal of Economic History. New Zealand Business Roundtable Ite. A. 2003) Greif. Reframing corporate social responsibility: The contemporary conception of a fuzzy notion (cited in van Marrewijk.) International Company Law Annual Vol. Business & Society. 83(3):525-548 Guobadia. Journal of Business Ethics. M. U.

The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. B. 30:57-72 McWilliams. G. and O’Brien. An empirical test of a crossnational modle of corporate social responsibility. & Siegel. (2003). M. 28 Van Marrewijk. Journal of Business Ethics 25:33-51 Silverstein. (1984). J. S. (2000).T (Forthcoming) “Trading With Bandits” Journal of Law and Economics Maignan. Ph. (1990). Stanford. (2002). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: a cross-cultural comparison. C. 44:95-105 4 4 f o 8 3 e g a P . (Lagos. S.. (2000). London: Europa Nafziger. Corporate social responsibility: an overview. CA. 18(7):595-630 Law. C. B. I. A. Journal of Business Ethics. Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe and the United States. Studies in Third World Societies.3-14). C. The Effect of the Nigerian Extended Family on Entrepreneurial Activity. The attitudes of united states and South African managers to corporate social responsibility. (1992). D.Langlois. 18(1). Part 1.20 Orpen. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. J. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. 3rd ed. M. African Capitalism: A Case Study in Nigerian Entrepreneurship. 6(2):89-96 Quazi. and Schlegelmilch. 21 (4): 519-539 Lantos. A. W. Journal of business ethics.O. D. P. Boston Silverstein. (2001). (1977). P. Boston University. In International directory of corporate philanthropy (pp. Nigeria: Mbeyi & Associates Nigeria Ltd ) pp 16. Socio-cultural Organization and Locational Strategies of Transport Enterprise: An Ethno-economic History of Nnewi Igbo of Nigeria. Dissertation. (2001). Igbo Kinship and Modern Entrepreneurial Organization: The Transport and Spare Parts Business. Company Law and Practice in Nigeria. Orojo. Journal of International Business Studies. (1969). R. No. 26(1):7-127 Moon. Academy of Management Review. Journal of Business Ethics. (2001). Economic Development and Cultural Change.D. Nafziger. Hoover Institution Press. W. (ed) (1995) From Slave Trade to ‘Legitimate’ Commerce: The Commercial Transition in Nineteenth-Century West Africa London: Cambridge University Press Leeson. Journal of Consumer Marketing. (1983).

2002. D. Corporate Citizenship in Developing Countries. Multinationality and Corporate Ethics: Codes of Conduct in the Sporting Goods Industry.Van Tulder.World Development Report 4 4 f o 9 3 e g a P . Fabig H. The international journal of organizational analysis. 32(2):267-283 Visser. 9(3):225-256 World Bank (2006). Journal of Business Ethics 39: 297–318. Revisiting Carroll’s CSR pyramid. W.R. (Eds). In: E.J. R. M. An Emerging Third Way? The Erosion of the Anglo-American Shareholder Value Construct 38 Cornell Int'l L. Williams C. and Kolk. The Copenhagen Centre Wheeler D. (2002): 493 Windsor.A and Conley J. (2006). A.M. Predersen and Huniche. Boele R. (2002). Journal of International Business Studies. The future of corporate social responsibility. Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms in extractive sector: lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni. (2001). (2001).

All papers can also be downloaded at the ICCSR website. the targeted journals normally require large time spans between submission and publication. the ICCSR Research Papers Series serves as a preliminary airing to working papers of ICCSR staff and affiliates which are intended for subsequent publication. Owen Recent developments in European social and environmental reporting and auditing practice – A critical evaluation and tentative prognosis No. which will normally include the Editor of the ICCSR Research Papers Series and one further academic in the field. these papers will include research reports. Published Papers No. The ICCSR Research Papers Series consequently is interested in assuring high quality and broad visibility in the field. 03-2003 David L. the ICCSR Research Papers Series offers the opportunity of publishing more extensive works of research than the usual space constraints of journals would normally allow. Second. The objective of the ICCSR Research Papers Series is twofold: First. The quality aspect will be assured by establishing a process of peer review. These include papers presented at symposiums and seminars. 04-2003 Dirk Matten & Andrew Crane Corporate Citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization 4 4 f o 0 4 e g a P . Consequently. 01-2003 Wendy Chapple & Richard Harris Accounting for solid waste generation in measures of regional productivity growth No. first drafts of papers intended for submission in journals and other reports on ongoing or completed research projects.Research Paper Series International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility ISSN 1479-5124 Editor: Jeremy Moon The ICCSR Research Papers Series is intended as a first-hand outlet for research output of ICCSR. there is a time goal: Given the quality of ICCSR publication. By this. In particular. Publication in the ICCSR Research Paper Series does not preclude publication in refereed journals. research output can be made available for a selected public which will not only establish ICCSR’s lead in advancing and developing innovative research in CSR but will also open the opportunity to expose ideas to debate and peer scrutiny prior to submission and/or subsequent publication. 02-2003 Christine Coupland Corporate identities on the web: An exercise in the construction and deployment of ‘morality’ No. literature reviews. which could serve as a primary data resource for further publications. work by postgraduate students etc. In order to achieve a reasonable visibility the ICCSR Research Papers Series has full ISSN recognition and is listed in major library catalogues worldwide. data analysis.

Jacqueline Cramer and Angela van der Heijden Developing Meaning in Action: (Re)Constructing the Process of Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Companies No. Swee Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann Industry self-regulation: A game-theoretic typology of strategic voluntary compliance No. Social and Sustainability Reporting: a Critical Evaluation of Leading Edge Practice No. 21-2004 Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten Questioning the Domain of the Business Ethics Curriculum: Where the Law ends or Where it Starts? No. 10-2003 Anita Fernandez Young & Robert Young Corporate Social Responsibility: the effects of the Federal Corporate Sentencing Guidelines on a representative self-interested corporation No. Wendy Chapple. Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society (2nd Edition) No. 12-2003 David A. Waldman. Mike Geppert & Dirk Matten Challenges for the German model of employee relations in the era of globalization No. Davies & Andrew Crane Ethical Decision Making in Fair Trade Companies No. 16-2004 Jan Jonker. 14-2003 Anita Fernandez Young. Caruana Morality in consumption: Towards a sociological perspective No.No. 08-2003 Edd de Coverly. 20-2004 Jeremy Moon Government as a Driver of Corporate Social Responsibility: The UK in Comparative Perspective No. 07-2003 Robert J. 05-2003 Karen Williams. 09-2003 Eleanor Chambers. 23-2004 David Owen and Brendan O’Dwyer Assurance Statement Quality in Environmental. 13-2003 Jeremy Moon. 22-2004 Jem Bendell Flags of inconvenience? The global compact and the future of United Nations No. Jeremy Moon & Michael Sullivan CSR in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting No. 06-2003 Iain A. 19-2004 James A. 17-2004 Wendy Chapple. Fitchett Buyers be Wary: Marketing Stakeholder Values and the Consumer No. Jeremy Moon & Robert Young The UK Corporate Social Responsibility consultancy industry: a phenomenological approach No. 15-2003 Andrew Crane In the company of spies: The ethics of industrial espionage No. 11-2003 Simon Ashby. Donald Siegel & Mansour Javidan Transformational leadership and CSR: A meso level approach No. Lisa O’Malley & Maurice Patterson Hidden mountain: The social avoidance of waste No. 24-2004 Robert J. Morrison Paul & Richard Harris Manufacturing and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Cost Implications of Voluntary Waste Minimisation No. Catherine J. Caruana Morality in consumption: towards a multidisciplinary perspective 4 4 f o 1 4 e g a P . 18-2004 Brendan O’Dwyer Stakeholder Democracy: Challenges and Contributions from Accountancy No.

32-2005 David Owen Corporate Social Reporting and Stakeholder Accountability The Missing Link No. Bongo C Adi. Drivers and Reporting Choices No. Amaeshi & Bongo Adi Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Utlish No. 34-2006 Judy Muthuri. Angela van der Heijden and Jan Jonker Corporate Social Responsibility: Balancing Between Thinking and Acting No. Andy Crane & Laura Browne Doing the Business: A film series programmed by ICCSR in conjunction with Broadway Cinema No. Chris Ogbechie and Olufemi O Amao Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Nigeria: western mimicry or indigenous practices? 4 4 f o 2 4 e g a P . 39-2006 Kenneth M Amaeshi.No. 26-2004 Stanley Chapman Socially Responsible Supply Chains: Marks & Spencer in Historic Perspective No. 37–2006 Kenneth M.29-2004 Dirk Matten and Jeremy Moon 'Implicit' and 'Explicit' CSR: A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe No.31-2005 Christine Hemingway The Role of Personal Values in Corporate Social Entrepreneurship No. 27-2004 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility: Reporting Workplace Issues No.30-2005 Nigel Roome and Jan Jonker Whistling in the Dark No. Jeremy Moon and Dirk Matten Employee Volunteering And The Creation Of Social Capital No. 38-2006 Aly Salama The ICCSR UK Environmental & Financial Dataset 1991-2002 No.35-2006 Jeremy Moon and Kate Grosser Best Practice on Gender Equality in the UK: Data.28-2004 Jacqueline Cramer. 25-2004 Krista Bondy.33-2005 David Owen CSR After Enron: A Role for the Academic Accounting Profession? No. 36-2006 Amanda Ball Environmental Accounting as ‘Workplace Activism’ No.

s w : s k n n i r r R S C Appendix .4 4 f o 3 4 e g a P g n i d l i u b y t i c a p a C t n e m p o l e v e d e r u t c u r t s a r f n I y p o r h t n a l i h p e r a c h t l a e H t n e m e v l o v n i d e s i l a n o i t u t i t s n I n o i t a c u d E y t i n u m m o C y p o r h t n a l i h P Y k n a b h t i n e Z t n e m e v l o v n i y p o r h t n a l i h P g n i d l i u b y t i c a p a C y t i n u m m o C y p o r h t n a l i h P Y k n a B a m e W t n e m p o l e v e d e r u t c u r t s a r f n I s n o i t a l e r s t r o p S e e y o l p m E e r a c h t l a e H t n e m e v l o v n i y t i l i b i s n o p s e r y p o r h t n a l i h P n o i t a c u d E y t i n u m m o C l a i c o S Y k n a B n o i n U g n i d l i u b y t i c a p a C t n e m p o l e v e d e r u t c u r t s a r f n I e r a c h t l a e H t n e m e v l o v n i y t i l i b i s n o p s e r y p o r h t n a l i h P n o i t a c u d E y t i n u m m o C l a i c o S Y k n a b c i n a e c O t n e m p o l e v e d e r u t c u r t s a r f n I t n e m e v l o v n i y t i l i b i s n o p s e r c l p k n a b y p o r h t n a l i h P n o i t a c u d E y t i n u m m o C l a i c o S Y l a t n e n i t n o c r e t n I k n a b s d n u f l a c i h t E s t c u d o r P s d n u F l a c i h t E Y d e r e t r a h C - C T B I g n i d l i u b y t i c a p a C t n e m p o l e v e d e r u t c u r t s a r f n I e r a c h t l a e H t n e m e v l o v n i t n e m p o l e v e d k n a b y p o r h t n a l i h P n o i t a c u d E y t i n u m m o C y t i n u m m o C Y t s u r t y t n a r a u G t n e m e v l o v n i y p o r h t n a l i h P n o i t a c u d E y t i n u m m o C N N k n a B t s r i F t n e m p o l e v e d e r u t c u r t s a r f n I e r a c h t l a e H t n e m e v l o v n i s t n e m t s e v n i y p o r h t n a l i h P n o i t a c u d E y t i n u m m o C y t i n u m m o C Y k n a b d n o m a i D s t r o p S t n e m e v l o v n i y p o r h t n a l i h P n o i t a c u d E y t i n u m m o C N N k n a b i r f A e r u t l u C / s t r A t n e m p o l e v e d e r u t c u r t s a r f n I t n e m e v l o v n i y t i l i b i s n o p s e r y p o r h t n a l i h P n o i t a c u d E y t i n u m m o C e t a r o p r o C Y c l p k n a B s s e c c A N / Y e d o M d e t e g r a t s e u s s I n i a M s e v a W y g o l o n i m r e T e t i s b e W s k n a B e o d m d n a e e v a a b a e o g i N t s g n m a o g n i t r p e s u s s i .

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN NIGERIA: MEANING AND PRACTICE – Interview Schedule What is your industry of business operations? What is your understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)? Do Nigerian firms engage in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)? Please. give some examples of CSR activities in Nigeria and what they are meant to address In your opinion. give reasons for your answers and where possible cite examples How would you rate the awareness and practice of corporate social responsibility in Nigeria? What do you think are or could be the main drivers of (reasons for) CSR in Nigeria? Please. what should be the main 5 priorities to be pursued by Nigerian firms as CSR at the moment? Is CSR necessary in the Nigerian business environment? Please. give reasons for your answers 4 4 f o 4 4 e g a P .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful