Practice of Corporate Social Responsibility in India

Introduction
Mahatma Ghandi stated, ‘The wealth that one creates has to be ploughed back for the benefit
of society’. The relationships between business and society have been studied for a long time
to find out the way through which business can pro-actively promote the public interest by
encouraging community growth, development and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm
the public sphere, regardless of legality. Essentially, corporate social responsibility is the
deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decisions (Kakabadse and Morsing,
2006). Guthrie and Parker (1990) quite convincingly recognized the process of undertaking
corporate social responsibilities and reporting such activities at a regular interval as an
essential device for organizations towards ensuring the long term continued existence.
Corporate social responsibility has become an inevitable priority for business leaders across
the globe in recent times. Governments, activists and media now hold the companies
accountable for the social consequences of their actions and favorable publicity is often
bestowed on companies with prominent CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs. Yet
for all hype of surrounding CSR efforts, they are frequently counterproductive (Vogel, 2005).
The aim of this essay is to critically evaluate the good practices of corporate social
responsibility in India, which will deliver an in-depth understanding of how and why this
approach is being practiced by different organizations in the local context. In addition to this,
an inside view of the prospects and potential bottlenecks of CSR in Indian environment will
also be discussed.

Definition of Corporate Social Responsibility

Generally, CSR refers that organizations consider the interests of society by taking
responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, suppliers, employees,
shareholders, communities, future generation and environment. According to Hopkins
(2003), CSR is concerned with treating the internal and external stakeholders of the firm
ethically or in a socially responsible manner and the wider aim of corporate social
responsibility is to create higher and higher standards of living, while preserving the
profitability of the corporation, for its stakeholders. Similarly, The World Business Council
for Sustainable Development (1999) explains CSR as continuing commitment by business to
behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life
of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large. On
the other hand, Farmer and Hogue (1985) viewed CSR quite differently saying that it means
businesses are pursuing their economic, social and environmental responsibilities on a
voluntary basis and are integrating them into all business operations, while interacting with
their stakeholders. Logsdon et al. (2006) mentioned an important thing about CSR that the
interpretation of CSR often changes in the area of strategic management due to the fact of
varying national and cultural factors. Later on Moon and Vogel (2008) reinforced it saying
that CSR is highly contextual and strongly depends on the country and the state of
governance of that time. However, Hopkins (2003) found in his study that businesses that
engage in CSR typically focus on some or all of the followings:
• Environment: While focusing on this, organizations look at the environmental impacts
of their products and services, as well as what they do outside the business to improve
the environment.
• Employees: The organizations who think in this perspective, they take care of all the
employees adequately focusing on workplace conditions, benefits, living wages, and
training.
• Communities: The organizations that care about communities they voluntarily take
advance steps to improve the quality of life for employees and their families as well
as for the local community and society.
• Regulations: While focusing at this point, organizations respect the laws fully and
often exceed them to be more socially responsible.
• Emergency supports: Sometimes organizations keep plans ready to manage business
crises and ensure safety for employees and surrounding communities. Besides they
also take initiatives to provide support in times of emergencies such as disaster or
epidemics.

Prominence of CSR
In the current globalizing world, the easy accessible and available mode of information has
enabled stakeholders to be more aware of the company, product, and brand etc. Thus Heal
(2008) stated that the 21st century is the century of the social sector organizations and the
more economy, money, and information become global, the more community matters.
Werther and Chandler (2006) advised in he same vein that, wherever possible, customers
now want to buy product from trusted brands, suppliers want to form business partnerships
with companies they can rely on, employees want to work for companies they respect, and
NGO’s want to work with company who work with the same vision for the benefit of the
people. Similarly Jerry and Rson (1989) viewed CSR as good business sense in the
globalizing world where companies are increasingly relying on brand strength (particularly
global lifestyle brands) to add value and product differentiation, and where NGO-driven
consumer activism is increasing. Frederick (2006) added fuel to this assumption saying that
satisfying each of these stakeholder groups allows companies to maximize their commitment
for profit to another important stakeholder group, their investors. In contrast to this, Friedman
(1962) argued that CSR decrease shareholder’s wealth as organization’s insiders (managers
and directors) often seek to over-invest in CSR for their private benefit to the extent that
doing so improves their reputations as good global citizens. Barnea and Rubin (2006) backed
him (1962) up saying that corporate mangers don’t have the right skills and expertise to deal
effectively with social problems. Farmer and Hogue (1985) added to the speculation that they
had this response from their study which shows that some people consider the money spent
for CSR as a self imposed tax and think that the cost will later on passed to consumers.

Hopt and Teubner (1985) suggested that corporations today are best positioned when they
reflect the values of the constantly shifting and sensitive market environment in which they
operate. While describing the importance of CSR, Carroll and Buchholtz (2008) pointed out
an issue that with the growing trend of media and easy access to information through mobile,
TV even the minor mistake (such as a corruption scandal) of the company is brought in
public in no time and this sometime fuels the activist group and likeminded people to spread
message which can lead to situation like boycott of the brand. So, in order to establish a good
corporate image, organizations need to response to social problems and include social
responsibility in their corporate objectives. However, Chahoud et al. (2007) argued in the
opposite vein that leading companies who report on their social responsibility are basket
cases and the most effective business leaders don't waste time with this.
Sometimes companies have to concentrate on social problems due to legal provisions and
agreement conditions (For example an industrial organization in India must obtain a
certification from Pollution Control Board). However, Friedman (1972) and Levitt (1958)
both highlighted that CSR is the responsibility of politicians and government and it places
unwelcome responsibilities on businesses rather than on the government or individuals.
Besides, from the point of view of Lee (2008), the efficient use of organizational resources
will be reduced if businesses are restricted in how they can conduct their affairs. Sometimes
different situations such as natural calamities or environmental accidents sometime demand
CSR (Dr. Pandey, 2008). For example, gas leak at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal,
wherein the company had to monetarily compensate through medical treatment. Major
corporations which have existing reputation problems due to their core business activities
may engage in high-profile CSR programs to draw attention away from their perceived
negative impacts (such as British American Tobacco takes part in health initiatives in all over
India).

Implementation of CSR
Same as Farmer and Hogue (1985), Boeger (2008) identified CSR as a total business
approach where a complete ‘social perspective’ is integrated into all aspects of business
operations. Kotler and Lee (2005) added fuel to this assumption saying that the issue of how
corporations integrate CSR into everyday operations and long-term strategic planning will
define the business marketplace in the near future by differentiating the brand. A study
conducted by Beesley and Evans (1978) highlighted a few key steps on the road of
integrating CSR within all aspects of operations which include:
• Better communication between top management and organization to ensure that the
commitment of top management is passed throughout the organization.
• Appoint a CSR position at the strategic decision-making level to manage the
development of policy and its implementation
• Develop a good relationship with all stakeholder and interest groups to share
information and smoothen the implementation process of CSR.
• Incorporate a Social or CSR Audit within the company’s annual report to reinforce
the CSR policies that have been created.
• Introduce an anonymous feedback or whistle-blower process, if possible by an
external ombudsperson, to operate CSR activities more effectively.

CSR scenario in India

• Background of CSR in India
India is one of the fastest growing large countries with rising interest in investment from
global market. Its emerging market, with a mega population of 1.2 billion people, attracts
global investors who want to minimize their risk of depending just on western markets
(Chahoud et al., 2007). Indian market is, however, quite different from those of western
countries. Maheshwari (2010) found out in her study that the Indian business community is
characterized by high family ownership and lack of transparency. Besides the equity market
is relatively more illiquid, than compared to western markets. Cheung et al. (2009) added to
the same context that the traditional agency problem is not applicable in India because there
is seldom a separation of management and ownership. In addition, market discipline
mechanisms, such as hostile takeovers, cannot function properly in India because of the
concentrated or family ownership. Thus CSR developed very slowly in India though it was
started a long time ago. The study conducted by Chahoud et al., 2007 revealed that corporate
social responsibility, in India, is still characterized mainly by philanthropic and community
development activities and Indian companies and stakeholders have begun to adopt some
aspects of the mainstream agenda, such as the integration of CSR into their business
processes and engagement in multi-stakeholder dialogues. To describe the current state and
future prospects of CSR in India Sundar (2000) divided the development of CSR into four
phases based on the country’s political and economic background. Later on, Chahoud et al.
(2007) reinforced him (2000) saying that different CSR practices moved on parallel with
India’s historical development. The four phases are as follows:

First phase: CSR motivated by charity and philanthropy

The CSR researchers identified that, in the first phase, the oldest form of CSR was motivated
by charity and philanthropy with direct influence from culture, religion, family tradition, and
industrialization process. Business operations and CSR engagement were based mainly on
corporate self-regulation. According to Arora and Puranik (2004), merchants committed
themselves to society for religious reasons and shared their wealth for religious purpose such
as building temples in the pre-industrial period up to 1850s. Besides they used to provide
relief in times of crisis such as famine or epidemics. Western types of industrialization
reached India and changed CSR from the 1850s onwards under colonial rule. Mohan (2001)
contributed in the same vein saying that the pioneers of industrialization in the 19th century
in India were a few families such as the Tata, Birla, Bajaj, Lalbhai, Sarabhai, Godrej,
Shriram, Singhania, Modi, Naidu, Mahindra and Annamali etc and they were strongly
devoted to philanthropically motivated CSR. Sundar (2000) reinforced it advising that the
early pioneers of industry in India were leaders in the economic, as also in the social fields.
However, their engagement was not only altruistic and stimulated by religious motives as
Mohan (2000) stated, ‘It had business considerations in supporting efforts towards industrial
and social development of the nation and was influenced by caste groups and political
objectives.’

Second phase: CSR for India’s social development

Sundar (2000) highlighted that the second phase of Indian CSR (1914-1960) was dominated
by the country’s struggle for independence and influenced fundamentally by Gandhi’s theory
of trusteeship for consolidation and amplification of social development. During the struggle
for independence, Indian businesses actively engaged in the reform process considering the
country’s economic development as a protest against colonial rule. India Partnership Forum
(2002) supported Sundar (2000) saying that the corporate sectors participated in institutional
and social development with the vision of a modern and free India. According to Mohan
(2001), Mahatma Gandhi introduced the notion of trusteeship in order to make companies the
“temples of modern India” and businesses, especially well established family businesses, set
up trusts for schools, colleges, training and scientific institutes. The heads of the companies
largely aligned the activities of their trusts with Gandhi’s reform programs which included
activities that sought in particular the abolition of untouchability, women’s empowerment and
rural development (Arora and Puranik, 2004).

Third phase: CSR under the paradigm of the “mixed economy”

The paradigm of ‘mixed economy’ with the emergence of legislation on labor and
environmental standards, affected the third phase of Indian CSR (1960-1980). This phase is
also characterized by a shift from corporate self-regulation to strict legal and public
regulation of business activities. Chahoud et al. (2007) discovered in their study that the role
of the private sector in advancing India receded under the paradigm of the ‘mixed economy’.
During the Cold War, India decided to take a third course between capitalism and
communism and the public sector was seen as the prime mover of development. Arora and
Puranik (2004) described 1960s as an ‘era of command and control’ because strict legal
regulations determined the activities of the private sector at that time. They (2004) also added
that the introduction of a regime of high taxes, quota and license system imposed tight
restrictions on the private sector and indirectly triggered corporate malpractices. As a result,
corporate governance, labor and environmental issues rose on the political agenda and
quickly became the subject of legislation. Furthermore, state authorities established Public
Sector Undertakings with the intention of guaranteeing the appropriate distribution of wealth
to the needy. However, the assumption and anticipation that the public sector could tackle
developmental challenges effectively materialized to only a limited extent (Sundar, 2000).
Consequently, what was expected of the private sector grew, and the need for its involvement
in socio-economic development became indispensable. The research conducted by Mohan
(2001) showed that the initial and cautious attempt for reconciliation was made by Indian
academics, politicians and businessmen at a national workshop on CSR in 1965. According
to the workshop agenda, businesses were to play their part as respectable corporate citizens,
and the call went out for regular stakeholder dialogues, social accountability and
transparency. Despite these progressive acknowledgements, Chahoud et al. (2007) identified
that this CSR approach did not materialize at that time.

The fourth phase: CSR at the interface between philanthropic and business approaches
In the fourth phase (1980 until the present), Sundar (2000) perceived that Indian companies
and stakeholders began abandoning traditional philanthropic engagement and, to some extent,
integrated CSR into a coherent and sustainable business strategy, partly adopting the multi-
stakeholder approach. In the 1990s, the Indian government initiated reforms to liberalize and
deregulate the Indian economy by tackling the shortcomings of the “mixed economy” and
tried to integrate India into the global market. Consequently, controls and license systems
were partly abolished and the Indian economy experienced a pronounced boom which has
persisted until today (Arora and Puranik, 2004). However, Chahoud et al. (2007) argued that
this rapid growth did not lead to a reduction in philanthropic donations. Indeed the increased
profitability also increased business willingness as well as ability to give, along with a surge
in public and government expectations of businesses.

Against this background, India has meanwhile become an important economic and political
actor in the process of globalization. This new situation has also affected the Indian CSR
agenda. With more transnational corporations resorting to global sourcing, India has become
an attractive and important production and manufacturing site. As Western consumer markets
are becoming more responsive to labor and environmental standards in developing countries,
Indian companies producing for the global market are influenced to comply with international
standards.

• Current state of CSR in India

While studying the current state of CSR in India Cheung et al. (2009) commented that India’s
economic reforms and its rise to become an emerging market and global player has not
resulted into substantial changes in its CSR approach. Contrary to various expectations that
India would adopt the global CSR standards, its present CSR approach still largely retains its
own characteristics adopting only some aspects of global mainstream of CSR. Furthermore,
Arora and Puranik (2004) declared that Indian CSR is still in a confused state. Their (2004)
study concluded that though the Indian understanding of CSR seems to be shifting from
traditional philanthropy towards sustainable business, philanthropic patterns still remain
widespread in many Indian companies and community development still plays the decisive
role in CSR agenda. The underlying pattern of charity and philanthropy means that
entrepreneurs sporadically donate money to external stakeholders as communities and general
social welfare bodies (such as schools or hospitals) without any concrete or long-term
engagement.

Ahmed (2009) contributed in the same context through an empirical research, under the
supervision of ASSOCHAM Research Bureau, on 300 Indian companies which are active in
26 various theme areas for their CSR initiatives. Her (2009) research, which was later on
supported by the survey of Mumbai based online organization Karmayog (2009), showed
that community welfare perceived to be the top priority area on the corporate sector’s list
with a share of 21.93 per cent out of the total 26 activities. It involves activities that focus
more towards the under-privileged community that lives around the vicinity of company
plants, facilitating education and health care and supporting projects that lead to employment
generation. The second most sort CSR initiative followed by Indian industrialist is towards
providing education and enlightening the youth of the country. CSR initiative for education
carved out a share of 19.64 per cent. The corporate sector helps in imparting education to the
deprived kids in the urban areas along with the children from rural areas that do not have any
access to medium of information. They provide funds that help in setting up local schools,
colleges and centers for learning and education. Since, global warming is the buzz word now-
a-days, Indian corporate sector as responsible members of the society have initiated their
efforts to preserve and save it. Thus, environment is the third most prioritized area undertaken
in CSR activities, with a share of 17.02 per cent. CSR projects in this area deliver solutions
that are both environmental and business friendly, providing financial benefits as well as
improving the firm's image as an environmentally-aware company. The fourth most popular
area, that corporate sector get involves in is the health care. They offer mobile medical
services with medical help along with organizing regular medical camps to eradicate
diseases, creating awareness on preventive health care among others. Among the 26 various
CSR initiatives, health carved out a share of 15.22 per cent. The Indian conglomerates are
equally extending their support in the development of the rural areas. They are providing both
financial and infrastructural assistance towards agriculture, animal husbandry, cottage
industries by developing local skills, using local raw materials and helping create marketing
outlets. Thus, it is the fifth most prioritized area under CSR initiatives contributing a share of
6.06 per cent. Rest of the other CSR initiatives have a very low percentage of implementation
such as women empowerment (3.44%), donations (2.95%), disaster relief (2.29%), children
welfare (1.47%), poverty eradication (1.47%), blood donation (0.98%), training (0.49%),
HIV/AIDS (0.16%), and relief work (0.16%) etc. A portion of the research of Ahmed (2009)
also focused on area wise concentration of CSR activities in India. The result highlighted
that, out of the 20 states/UTs at India, Maharashtra received maximum attention from Indian
industrialists for initiating their CSR activities with a share of 35.68%. It is followed by
Gujarat (11.62%), Delhi (9.66%), Tamil Nadu (9.17%), Andhra Pradesh (7.04%), West
Bengal (6.71%), Karnataka (6.55%), and Rajasthan (3.27%) etc.

Most of the Indian companies are now expected to discharge their stakeholders'
responsibilities and social obligations along with shareholder wealth maximization goal.
Most of the leading corporations in India are involved in corporate social responsibility
programs in the areas like education, health, livelihood creation, skill development and
empowerment of the weaker sections of the society. Nevertheless, admirable and notable
efforts for CSR have come from the Tata group, Infosys, Bharti Enterprise, Coca-Cola India,
PepsiCo, Nestle, ITC, and Welcome group etc. Considered as pioneers in the field of CSR,
the Tata group has played an active role in nation building & social economic development.
Beverages Company Coca-Cola India has been awarded the 'Golden Peacock Global Award
for Corporate Social Responsibility-2008'. In fact, four Indians, including Sunil Mittal-
Chairman and Managing Director of the Bharti Group, Anil Agarwal-Chairman of mining
outfit Vedanta Resources, Shiv Nadar-Chairman of HCL Technologies and NGO activist
Rohini Nilekani were recently featured in the Forbes list of "48 Heroes of Philanthropy"
(Maheshwari, 2010). Still after such involvement with CSR issues, Karmayog (2009) stated
about the current scenario of CSR in India that it has not taken off yet and nearly half of the
top companies do nothing in way of CSR.
 • Prospects of CSR in India:
Chahoud et al. (2007) suggested that integrating a complete ‘social perspective’ into all
aspects of operations will maximize true value and benefit for organizations in India, while
protecting the huge investments companies make in corporate brands. Engaging with the
surrounding communities will secure a reputation that can further establish the business
besides creating good human capital that can serve the business (Arora and Puranik, 2004). .
On the other hand, Banerjee (2007) argued that the role of business is to create wealth by
providing goods and services and the pursuit of social goals will actually dilute businesses’
primary purpose. Besides, Smith (1976) mentioned, CSR behaviors will reduce economic
efficiency and profit and will imposes additional costs which will reduce the organization’s
competitiveness in the local market.

Maheshwari (2010) added to the prospects of CSR in India that organizations can easily
improve its corporate image and product positioning through CSR and thereby gain a high
market share. On the other hand, a note of caution about this came from Husted and Allen
(2007) as they argued that the social responsibility does not come from the company, but
from the people in charge of it and thus, without meaningful ethical and academic education,
mass introduction of CSR can’t be successful. While describing the feasibility of CSR in
India, Dr. Pandey (2008) highlighted that Indian government provides different opportunities
such as tax reduction and redemption, easy loan etc. to the organizations that are committed
to social responsibility. For example, corporate donations of social welfare projects of
approved NGO’s are exempted from income tax in India. This is because the government has
understand that it is nearly impossible to achieve the vision of India becoming a super power
unless some hard core fundamental work is done amongst the under privileged class with the
help of business organizations and they are brought into the mainstream of production and
contribution to the GNP. The Indian government has even opened a CSR support center in
Chennai to build knowledge, provide training and support CSR initiatives (Anonymous,
2010). Corporations in India which are keen to avoid interference in their business through
taxation or regulations can take substantive voluntary steps and can persuade governments
and the wider public that they are taking current issues like health, safety, diversity or
environment seriously and so avoid intervention. According to Cheung et al. (2009), CSR
helps the firms seeking to justify eye-catching profits and high levels of boardroom pay.
However, Zerk (2006) mentioned an important note here that the government should keep the
regulation to a minimum since regulation creates barrier to market entry for new
organizations.

Crane, Matten and Spence (2008) stated that the multinational organizations operating away
from their home country can make sure that they stay welcome in India by being good
corporate citizens with respect to local labor standards and impacts on the environment.
Corporate Social Responsibility can be used as an important aid to recruitment and retention
within the competitive graduate market for Indian organization (Ontiveros, 1986). Potential
recruits are increasingly curious about an organization’s CSR policy during selecting where
to apply. CSR can also help to build a 'feel good' atmosphere among existing staff,
particularly when they can become involved through payroll giving, fundraising activities or
community volunteering. Crowther and Rayman-Bacchus (2004) highlighted in the same
context that the financial benefits of CSR must outweigh the costs, in the long run at least, to
ensure that CSR engagement is financially sustainable. Besides monitoring, certification and
reporting is crucial for the credibility and reliability of CSR activities in the local
infrastructure. However, Margolis and Walsh (2003) concluded in their study that market
outcome of CSR is still inconclusive.

Conclusion
CSR, which was derided as a joke, an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms by the
investment and business community until the late 1970s (Lydenberg, 2005), is increasingly
being crucial to maintain success in business in present days. According to Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (2001), every country should embrace the
remarkable concept of individuals and businesses forming a partnership to support social
causes and, in the context of India, such a partnership has enormous potential for
strengthening society to shape brighter futures for nations. Besides, this public-private
partnership with well-defined controls will reduce the dependency on the government for
social change. As a new reality of business, advised by Visser et al. (2007), stakeholders now
tend to support and reward the companies that fuel social changes along with their
businesses. Nevertheless, the challenges for CSR in India are also enormous. Welford (2010)
revealed that CSR should not be limited to large successful corporations and there should be
greater participation from most small, medium, and large businesses. The goodwill, that
organizations can generate from acts of social responsibility may, in fact, be worth far more
to the businesses than the amounts they give away (Mullerat and Brennan, 2005).
Corporations collectively can make India a better place for every citizen and business.

Reference:
Ahmed, Nusrat. 2009. ASSOCHAM Eco Pulse Study: Corporate Social Responsibility 2008-
09. ASSOCHAM Research Bureau. http://www.assocham.org/arb/. (accessed: 13/05/2010).
Anonymous. 2010. More Centres For Corporate Social Responsibility Planned. Chennai:
The Hindu. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
did=1958285061&sid=12&Fmt=3&clientId=6297&RQT=309&VName=PQD. (accessed:
13/05/2010).

Arora, B., and Puranik, R., 2004. A Review Of Corporate Social Responsibility In India.
Journal of the Society for International Development.

Barnea, Amir and Rubin, Amir. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility As A Conflict Between
Shareholders. CIBC Centre for Corporate Governance and Risk Management.
http://www.sfubusiness.ca/cibc-centre. (accessed: 13/05/2010).

Banerjee, Subhabrata Bobby. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, The Bad
And The Ugly. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Beesley, M.E., and Evans, Tom. 1978. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Reassessment.
Taylor & Francis.

Boeger, Nina. 2008. Perspectives On Corporate Social Responsibility. Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Carroll, Archie B. and Buchholtz, Ann K., 2008. Business And Society: Ethics And
Stakeholder Management. 7th Ed. Usa: Cengage Learning.

Chahoud, Tatjana. et al., 2007. Corporate Social And Environmental Responsibility In India -
Assessing The UN Global Compac's Role. Bonn: German Development Institute.

Cheung, Yan Leung. et al., 2009. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Matter In Asian
Emerging Markets?. Journal of Business Ethics.

Crane, Andrew., Matten, Dirk., and Spence, Laura J., 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility:
Readings And Cases In A Global Context. Routledge.
Crowther, David. and Rayman-Bacchus, Lez., 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Series:
Perspectives On Corporate Social Responsibility. England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Dr. Pandey, Devendra Prasad. 2008. Corporate Culture And Spiritual Ethic. Allahabad: Rajiv
Gandhi P.G. College.

Farmer, Richard N., and Hogue, Walter Dickerson. 1985. Corporate Social Responsibility.
2nd Ed. Lexington Books.

Frederick, William Crittenden. 2006. Corporation, Be Good!: The Story Of Corporate Social
Responsibility. United States Of America: Dog Ear Publishing.

Friedman, M., 1962. Capitalism And Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, M., 1972. Milton Friedman Responds: A Business And Society Review Interview.
Business and Society.

Heal, G.M., 2008. When Principles Pay: Corporate Social Responsibility And The Bottom
Line. Columbia University Press.

Hopkins, Michael. 2003. The Planetary Bargain: Corporate Social Responsibility Matters.
Uk: Earthscan.

Hopt, Klaus J. and Teubner, Gunther. 1985. Corporate Governance And Directors'
Liabilities: Legal, Economic, And Sociological Analyses On Corporate Social
Responsibility. Walter De Gruyter.

Husted, B.W. and Allen, D.B., 2007. Corporate Social Strategy In Multinational Enterprises:
Antecedents And Value Creation. Journal Of Business Ethics.

Gandhi, Mahatma Mohandas. Mohandas Gandhi Quotes. Brainy Quote.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mohand as_gandhi.html. (accessed:
13/05/2010).
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L., 1990. Corporate Social Disclosure Practice: A Comparative
International Analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting.

India Partnership Forum. 2002. National Workshop On Promoting Corporate Citizenship In

India: Challenges And Opportunities. India Partnership Forum.
http://www.indiapartnershipforum.org/resources/Background%20paper.pdf (accessed:
13/05/2010)

Jerry, W. and Rson. 1989. Corporate Social Responsibility: Guidelines For Top
Management. Abc-Clio.

Kakabadse, Andrew and Morsing, Mette. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility: Reconciling
Aspiration With Application. Palgrave Macmillan.

Karmayog. 2009. Karmayog Csr Rating 2009 Of The 500 Largest Indian Companies.
Karmayog. http://www.karmayog.org/redirect/strred.asp?docId= 29464. (accessed:
13/05/2010).

Kotler, Philip. and Lee, Nancy. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing The Most
Good For Your Company And Your Cause. John Wiley And Sons.

Lee, Min-Dong Paul. 2008. A Review Of The Theories Of Corporate Social Responsibility:
Its Evolutionary Path And The Road Ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews.

Levitt, T., 1958. The Dangers Of Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review.

Logsdon, J.M. et al., 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility In Large Mexican Firms. The
Journal of Corporate Citizenship.

Lydenberg, S.D., 2005. Corporations And The Public Interest: Guiding The Invisible Hand.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Maheshwari, Varsha. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility: Creating Shared Value. Ajmer:
Economic Challenger. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
did=2005013431&sid=12&Fmt=3&clientId=6297&RQT=309&VName=PQD (accessed:
13/05/2010).

Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P., 2001. People And Profits?: The Search For A Link Between A
Company’s Social And Financial Performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mohan, A., 2001. Corporate Citizenship: Perspectives From India. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship.

Moon, J. and Vogel, D., 2008. The Oxford Handbook Of Corporate Social Responsibility:
Corporate Social Responsibility, Government, And Civil Society In Crane. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Mullerat, Ramon. and Brennan, Daniel. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Corporat
Governance Of The 21st Century. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

Ontiveros, Suzanne R., 1986. Corporate Social Responsibility: Contemporary Viewpoints.

Abc-Clio.

Organisation For Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Corporate Social

Responsibility: Partners For Progress. OECD Publishing.

Smith, A., 1976. An Inquiry Into The Nature And Causes Of The Wealth Of Nations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Sundar, P., 2000. Beyond Business: From Merchant Charity To Corporate Citizenship. New
Delhi: Tata MacGraw-Hill

Visser, Wayne. et al., 2007. The A To Z Of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Complete

Reference Guide To Concepts, Codes And Organisations. John Wiley And Sons.

Vogel, David. 2005. The Market For Virtue: The Potential And Limits Of Corporate Social
Responsibility. Brookings Institution Press.
Welford, Richard. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility And Environmental Management.
CSR Asia. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/9051354 7/home. (accessed:
13/05/2010).

Werther, William B., and Chandler, David. 2006. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility:
Stakeholders In A Global Environment. Sage.

World Business Council For Sustainable Development. 1999. Corporate Social

Responsibility: Meeting Changing Expectations. World Business Council For Sustainable
Development.

Zerk, Jennifer A., 2006. Multinationals And Corporate Social Responsibility: Limitations
And Opportunities In International Law. Cambridge University Press.