CONTENT

S.NO TOPICS REMARKS

1 INTRODUCTION
2 MEANING
3 DEFINITION
4 HISTORY

5 PRINCIPLE OF CSR

6 WHY CSR
7 BENEFITS OF CSR
CSR AS PER COMPANY ACT 2013
8

ACTIVITIES OF CSR
9

10 METHODS OF CSR
11 CSR FUND DISTRIBUTION

12 REVIEW OF CSR ACTIVITIES

13 CONCLUSION

14 REFERENCE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Introduction

CSR covers the relationship between corporations and the societies with which they interact.

It also includes the responsibilities that are inherent on both sides of these relationships.

CSR defines society in it’s widest sense.

The literature on CSR and Sustainability, developed prodominently in Europe, North America and
UK : Corporate Philanthropy (1950’s) Public welfare.
 Meaning of CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility means that a company takes steps to ensure there are positive
social and environmental effects associated with the way the business operates. Businesses that
engage in active CSR efforts take stock of the way they operate in the world to incorporate
addressing cultural and social issues, with the aim of benefiting both in the process. Not only
can CSR models increase business and revenue, they promote change and progress throughout
the world, which often involves helping people with few or no resources.
Businesses that ignore corporate social responsibility run a risk to their bottom line and their
brand. Having a bad reputation socially and environmentally can create serious negative effects
on the overall profitability and success of a company, as nowadays consumers want to spend
their money on products and services that they believe in, and engage with companies that
follow ethical practices that meet their own beliefs.
CSR is viewed different from philanthropy. When properly implemented, it should become
ingrained in the values and culture of a company, and positively affect the way the company
does business. CSR should become inherent in the mission and message of an organization, and
also hold a strong place in marketing and advertising. Companies should be aware that
promoting their CSR model only benefits the company if they are already acting on their plan.
Otherwise, falsely claiming to bring social change to those in need could lead to bad publicity.
 Definitions of CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility has been defined by many authors and institutions in recent
times.
At the global level, the concept of CSR was firstly mentioned in 1953 in the publication “Social
Responsibilities of Businessman” by William J. Bowen.

Bowen has suggested that the “social responsibility of businessman refers to the obligations of
businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions or to follow those lines of action
which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society.”

European Commission described CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business operations and interaction with their stakeholders on a
voluntary basis.”

World Business Council for Sustainable Development defined CSR as “the 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.

According to Forbes (2010), corporate social responsibility works in two ways. The company
gives back to the society, in turn, people get to know about the company who helped them most
and cater to their products and services.

According to Infosys founder, Narayan Murthy, “Social responsibility is to create maximum

shareholders value, working under the circumstances, where it is fair to all its stakeholders,
workers, consumers, the community, government and the environment.”
 History and Evolution of CSR

India has the world’s richest tradition of corporate social responsibility. Though the term CSR is
comparatively new, the concept itself dates back to over a hundred years. CSR in India has
evolved through different phases, like community engagement, socially responsible production
and socially responsible employee relations. Its history and evolution can be divided into four
major phases.

PHASE 1 (1850 TO 1914)

The first phase of CSR is known for its charity and philanthropic nature. CSR was influenced by
family values, traditions, culture and religion, as also industrialization. The wealth of businessmen
was spent on the welfare of society, by setting up temples and religious institutions. In times of
drought and famine these businessmen opened up their granaries for the poor and hungry. With
the start of the colonial era, this approach to CSR underwent a significant change. In pre-
Independence times, the pioneers of industrialization, names like Tata, Birla, Godrej, Bajaj,
promoted the concept of CSR by setting up charitable foundations, educational and healthcare
institutions, and trusts for community development. During this period social benefits were driven
by political motives.

PHASE 2 (1910 TO 1960)

The second phase was during the Independence movement. Mahatma Gandhi urged rich
industrialists to share their wealth and benefit the poor and marginalised in society. His concept of
trusteeship helped socio-economic growth. According to Gandhi, companies and industries were
the ‘temples of modern India’. He influenced industrialists to set up trusts for colleges, and
research and training institutions. These trusts were also involved in social reform, like rural
development, education and empowerment of women.
PHASE 3 (1950 TO 1980)
This phase was characterised by the emergence of PSUs (Public Sector Undertakings) to ensure
better distribution of wealth in society. The policy on industrial licensing and taxes, and
restrictions on the private sector resulted in corporate malpractices which finally triggered suitable
legislation on corporate governance, labour and environmental issues. Since the success rate of
PSUs was not significant there was a natural shift in expectations from public to private sector,
with the latter getting actively involved in socio-economic development. In 1965, academicians,
politicians and businessmen conducted a nationwide workshop on CSR where major emphasis
was given to social accountability and transparency.

PHASE 4 (1980 ONWARDS)

In this last phase CSR became characterised as a sustainable business strategy. The wave of
liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation (LPG), together with a comparatively relaxed
licensing system, led to a boom in the country’s economic growth. This further led to an increased
momentum in industrial growth, making it possible for companies to contribute more towards
social responsibility. What started as charity is now understood and accepted as responsibility.

Dempsey added that contributive justice is the first principle of economic organization; it imposes
a positive obligation upon every economic agent not only to contribute positively to every
community of which he is a member but to contribute positively to the formation of necessary
communities which do not exist. Both Dempsey and David argued that the broad spectrum of
business leaders, regardless of how they might articulate it, believed in a fundamental obligation
to create a just society beyond the immediate boundaries of the business and within which
business could operate effectively. They built on a rich dialogue that preceded their writing by
many years, and they foreshadowed future debates about business responsibility. According to
ESCAP (2011), in the late nineteenth century, businesses raised concerns on the welfare of their
employees and their impact on society in general. With the emergence of the labor movement and
spreading of slums triggered by the industrial revolution, businesses started to provide social
welfare on a limited scale, including the construction of hospitals and bath houses and provision
of food coupons.
 Why CSR

CSR has become increasingly important because today’s heightened interest in the proper role of
business in society has been promoted by increased warmth to and awareness of environmental
and ethical issues.
Issues such as environmental damage, improper treatment of workers, and faulty production
leading to customer inconvenience or danger are being highlighted during the last decade;
elsewhere, investors and investment fund managers have began to take account of a firm’s CSR
policy in making investment decisions; some consumers have become increasingly sensitive to
the CSR programmes of the firms from which they buy their goods and services.
CSR should not be viewed as a drain on resources, because carefully implemented CSR policies
can help your oragnisation:

 Win new business.

 Increase customer retention.
 Develop and enhance relationships with customers, suppliers and networks.
 Attract, retain and maintain a happy workforce.
 Save money on energy and operating costs and manage risk
 Differentiate yourself from your competitors .
 Generate innovation and learning and enhance your influence
 Improve business reputation and standing.
 Provide access to investment and funding opportunities.
 Generate positive publicity and media opportunities due to media interest in ethical
business activities.
 CSR as per companies Act 2013:-

The companies act, 2013 is scheduled to go into effect for fiscal years beginning april 1, 2013.
While the act contains many provision that affect indians companies, perhaps none has been the
subject of as much descussion as Section 135, which covers CSR. The basic requirements are
few, but options for implementing the act are vast. The requirements of the Section 135, which
covers CSR ,are as follows:

 Who is required to spend and how much?

 What are they required to do?
 Which activities qualify?
 Who is required to spend and how much?

The laws applies to all indian companies that are subject to the Companies
Act,2013. CSR requirements come into place during any financial year in which
company has:
-RS 500 crore or more than worth
-RS 100 crore or more in turnover,or
-RS 5 crore or more net profit
Companies that meet one or more of these conditions are required to spend 2% of
the average net profit for the preceeding 3 financial years on CSR initiatives.
 What are they required to do ?

Companies that meet the financial criteria also have organisational and reporting criteria.
The board of directors must establish a CSR committee . the committee must have a minimum
of three members, atleast one of whom must be an independent director .

The CSR committee is required to:

develop and report on the CSR policy and associated initiatives to the board every year.
budget and monitor the CSR policy
report on the CSR policy and initiative undertaken during the year as the part of the report of the
board, which circulated with the annual report.
The board is required to :
Oversee implementation of the policy
Ensure that 2% of the profit are spend on CSR
Provide justification in the event that CSR spending falls short of 2%
If board does not publicly explain reasons for its spending short fall, the company subject to a fine
and possible imprisonment of officers.
 ACTIVITIES OF CSR

The following activities can be performed by a company to accomplish its CSR obligations:

 Eradicating extreme hunger and poverty

 Promotion of education
 Promoting gender equality and empowering women
 Reducing child mortality
 Improving maternal health
 Combating human immunodeficiency virus, acquired, immune deficiency syndrome, malaria
and other diseases
 Ensuring environmental sustainability,
 Employment enhancing vocational skills, social business projects
 Contribution to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund or any other fund set up by the
Central Government or the State Governments for socio-economic development, and
 Relief and funds for the welfare of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, other
backward classes, minorities and women and such other matters as may be prescribed.
 METHODS OF CSR (LIST OF METHODS):-

1. MODELS 2. ONLINE METHOD

CSR METHODS OR EVALUTION

3. STAKEHOLDER’S 4. SUSTAINABILITY
PRECEPTION POINT OF VIEW
 1.MODELS:-

MODELS

SELDIER’S MODEL ABT’S MODEL RALPH’S COMPREHNSIVE

SOCIAL BENIFITS COST
MODEL

 SELDIER’S MODEL-
Lee.J. Seilder has given two reporting formats for disclousure of social
information in his article. “Dollar value in the social income statement” in
1973 Seilder suggested seperate model of social income statement for profit
seeking organisation and seperate statement for non-profit organisation. Seilder
was of the view that the nature of social income of profit seeking
organisation differs from non profit organisation.
Features ofseldier’s Model-
 Both formats are compreshive.
 Both formats are flexible enough to accomadate changing social goals.
 Abt’s Model-
This model was developed by Abt associate in united state of a
America. Under this model social information is presented in a
Quantative form through social statements. It consist of two
Parts:
1) Social income statement
2) Social balance sheet
 RALPH’S COMPRENSHIVE SOCIAL BENEFIT COST MODEL-

Ralph. W. Estes has proposed a comprehensive model and Reporting format for social corporate
reporting in his book “corporatesocial accounting” in 1976 at New York USA, ralph’s
Model is based on two items. Social benefit and Social costs. SOCIAL BENEFITS. Ralph was of
the view while having intera ction with society,any coperate until may provide any benefit to
society economic or non-economic, internal or external. SOCIAL COSTS Social costs in
Ralph’s view were any cost, Sacrifice whether economics or non-economics made by Sacrifice
whether economics or non-economics made by Society and is not paid for an included in social
cost.
 2. ONLINE METHODS:-

Generally speaking, the tools can be divided into two groups: self-essesment tools and external
assesment tools. Especially for tools where the assessment has to be done by companies
themselves (self-assessment tools), there are many ways of doing.
1) Self assessment tools:

Self-assessment tools are tools with which companies do the assessment by themselves. The
respective company provides and fills in data, in some case does the calculation of the outcome,
and publishes the assessment result(if wishes to do so). Among the vast array of self assessment
tools are following:

a) Online tools :

These tools usually all use some kind of online masks. Online masks also work with so called
indicators1 which need to be answered by estimation, thus they do not work with exact
measurement. The advantage of online masks is that they are easy to handle, easy to fill in,
understandable, not too time consuming, and there is no possibility of skipping indicators. In
general,

positive and negative impacts are assessed, whereas negative impacts in most cases referred to

as ‘zero impact’. Some of these tools differentiate between sectors but most do not. Online

tools are in general self-assessment a tool, meaning the company decides when to start the

evaluation, how much time they intend to invest, and what to do with the outcome. The out-

come – either in form of a printable report on an excel spreadsheet or graphic demonstration –

summarises how many beneficiaries there are or how many percentages, points or stars have

been received. Only a few work with certificates. Most online tools have certain things in com-

mon: there is no obligation for impact evaluation; there is no obligation for making the results

public; and there is no obligation for follow-up actions. The tools also do not provide guidance

or information on how to follow-up on the results. This has to happen entirely voluntarily, may-
be by consulting experts. There are also many consultancies offering help and guidance for us-

ing certain kinds of tools like the LBG Model (see below). For many tools, log-in is necessary

which in most cases is associated with extra costs for registration.

There are tools which explicitly mention to evaluate the whole supply chain, including tools like

the MDGscan, Global Compact Self-Assessment tool, and Human Rights Compliance Assess-

ment. How they actually proceed in doing so, is not easy to evaluate because they do not pro-

vide information for free. Do they ask their suppliers to use the tool as well or do they answer

indicators by estimating of how their suppliers are performing or do they actually demand cer-

tain measures from their suppliers?

The following tools fall under the criteria of being an Online Tool:

1. MDG Scan

2. Wildesoft Tools

o Impact Manager

o LM3 Supply Chain Manager

o Impact Predictor

o Social Tool Organizer

3. LiSt Lives Saved Tool

4. Global Compact Self-Assessment Tool

5. LBG Model

6. Social e-valuator

7. Inclusive Business Challenge

8. HRIAM Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment

9. MoNA (Monitoring Nachhaltigkeit)

10. GIIRS (Global Impact Investing Rating System) (BCorp Certificate)

11. Human Rights Matrix

12. Human Rights Compliance Assessment

13. Accountability Measures

14. UN Global Compact Quick Self-Assessment and Learning Tool

15. Retail Supply Chain Portal - includes two tools WercsHELP and the GeenWERCS
 3. STAKEHOLDER’S PRECEPTION:-

The central role of stakeholders business returns from CSR practices, such as customer
loyaltyand company image enhancement, depend on how stakeholders perceive the company
social commitment. Some studies on CSR demonstrate that the stakeholder perception of a
company CSR is positively related with its organizational commitment, reputation and capacity to
attract employees (Greening & Turban, 2000; Peterson, 2004; Turban & Greening, 1996).
Moreover, stakeholders can heavily penalize companies that present themselves as social
responsible but are recognized as social irresponsible, to the point that stakeholders should be
involved in CSR activity planning (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Calabrese & Lancioni, 2008;
Freeman, 1994; Langtry, 1994; Schlossberger, 1994; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Despite the
central role of stakeholder perception in CSR assessment, CSR literature lacks specific
approaches and methods for its measurement.

The stakeholder perception assessment entails a subjective point of view, related to the experience
and personal opinion of the people involved in the analysis. This implies that the provided
judgments are linguistic and qualitative in nature. For this reason, we use linguistic variables
according to a fuzzy approach (Lin & Chen, 2004; Wang & Chuu, 2004; Zadeh, 1975), in the
variation of the 2-tuple developed by Herrera and Martinez (2000). Actually, the fuzzy linguistic
approach is most suitable whenever it is necessary to describe vague or imprecise aspects of the
real world that could determine the ineffectiveness of a quantitative measure (Dursun & Karsak,
2010; Tai & Chen, 2009; Zadeh, 1975). Besides stakeholder centrality in CSR assessment, we
also rec- ognize the necessity to integrate strategic financial and non-financial perspectives with
social and environmental aspects. For this reason, we adapt to our purpose the model proposed by
Panayiotou, Aravossis, and Moschou (2009) that integrates GRI (Global Reporting Initiative,
2006) with Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) and sustainability dimensions. GRI
indicators are hierarchized under BSC perspectives and sustainability dimensions, allowing a
complete CSR description according to the company strategy. In this way, the BSC approach is
enhanced with a social perspective that is absent in the original version. The hierarchy provides a
complete description of CSR activities in terms of economic, social and environmental
dimensions, measuring the level of CSR commitment as it is perceived by the stakeholders
involved in the analysis.

Following this lead, we choose a multi-criteria approach (MCDM) combined with fuzzy logic
(Herrera & Martinez, 2000; Tai and Chen; 2009). Stakeholders express the importance of each
GRI indicator with respect to BSC perspectives and sustainability dimensions. Moreover, the
methodology allows the stakeholder to state his/her perception of the performance of the indicator
in the company activities. Next, the stakeholder decides the importance of each BSC perspective
with respect to the CSR sustainability dimensions (Economic, Environmental and Social). All the
stakeholders’ judgments are expressed using linguistic terms and CSR commitment is calculated
as their weighted mean. Actually, the methodology \commitment in CSR activities or by an
inadequate capacity of the company to communicate its CSR initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:-

As described in the previous paragraph the company CSR (as perceived by internal and/or
external stakeholders) is measured utilizing the 2-tuple linguistic variables in a MCDM approach
based on a hierarchical structure of GRI indicators, BSC strategic perspectives and sustainability
dimensions. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodologies, based on the 2-tuple linguistic
representation model, reduce the problem of loss of information of other MCDM approaches and
they are used to handle a series of organizational problems, as in human resource management
(Fan, Suo, Feng, & Liu, 2011), virtual teams management (Dursun & Karsak, 2010) and
knowledge management (Fan, Feng, Sun, & Ou, 2009).
 4.SUSTAINABLE POINT OF VIEW:-

Sustainability describes the ability to maintain various systems and processes — environmentally,
socially, and economically — over time. Sustainability originated in natural resource economics,
but has since gained broader currency in terms of sustainable development and social equality.

Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR, usually refers to a company’s commitment to practice

environmental and social sustainability and to be good stewards of the environment and the social
landscapes in which they operate.

Some companies and economists rejected the idea of CSR because it implied an obligation to
society and future generations beyond those contained in the binding legal requirements of
business. However, most companies now embrace some notion of CSR.

Approaches to CSR vary. Some companies invest in CSR as reputation management or to sustain
the profitability of a company, and some invest in CSR out of a sense of moral obligation to
society. These resources focus on sustainability and CSR primarily in terms of moral obligation,
and offer insight into ethics concepts relevant to economic sustainability, environmental
sustainability, and social equity.

Begin by viewing the suggested videos for an introduction of concepts that are basic to
sustainability and CSR, such as determining what factors to favor in ethical decisions, the impact
of intangible factors in ethical dilemmas, and best practices for developing ethical culture in
organizations.

View additional videos to learn about the ways that incentives affect economics, how the slippery
slope leads to degradation, why “framing” matters, and the hallmarks of fair and equal
representation. Additional videos introduce behavioral biases that impact ethical decision-making,
such as the tendency to switch values based on our role and the importance of loss aversion in
making moral choices.

To prompt conversation, use the discussion questions which follow each video.
 CSR fund distribution upto 2019

1
%
7%
Poverty Alleviation, Healthcare
and WASH
Education & Skills
12% Gender Equality and Women
29%
Empowernment
2 Protection of Heritage & Art
%
Benefits to Armed Forces Veteran
0
% 2% Environment Sustainability
Technology Incubation
Rural Sports and Paralympic
Prime Minister’s National Relief
10% Fund
Rural Development
Urban Slum Development
0 Other (Admin, Misc. Projects)
%
3%
2
%
32%
 CSR Spend In Education and Skills Development Projects (by big 500)
INR Cr.

4000
3540
3500 3406

3000
2604 2643
2500
2224
2000

1500

1000

500

0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

CSR Spend In Healthcare and WASH Projects (by big 500)

INR Cr.
3500
3252
3130
3000

2555
2500 2360

2000

1588
1500

1000

500

0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
 CSR Spend In Environment Theme
INR Cr.

1400

1200 1181
1117
1075
1000

800
651
595
600

400

200

0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

CSR Spend In Women Empowerment and Gender Equality

INR Cr.

600
529
498
500 479

400

300
216
200
109
100
BENEFITS OF CSR
0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
 Organizations of all sizes are rapidly discovering that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
and sustainable business practices can foster improved green programs and overall
environmental stewardship.

Today, we are seeing increased awareness and active participation by business professionals
in the development of CSR policies. Organizations are increasingly more involved in green
initiatives by adopting sustainable processes and practices, adapting products and services to
the low-carbon economy and innovating in all areas their business. The net positive on
reducing waste, designing green buildings, implementing green operations and maintenance
plans — all have continually proven to yield a positive return on investment (ROI).

CSR has come to rely on a more complex set of factors than corporate governance alone, and
likewise also depends on sustainable development, environmental impact and supply chain
management.

The development of the new carbon trading markets, verified emission reductions (VERs),
also known as carbon offsets, and renewable energy credits (REC‘s), it has become easier for
organizations to create and measure direct ROI from CSR. Likewise, CSR efforts have shown
to yield measurable returns in waste reduction, improved efficiency, diminished liabilities,
improved community relations, and brand recognition.

Through communicating clear and measurable sustainability objectives and the

implementation of practical and equally functional corporate governance mechanisms,
organizations are realizing that they can have a achieve ROI through their sustainability
efforts.

Integral strategies in ensuring substantive long-term results include:

• Define path of progress in CSR and strategically manage expected organizational outcomes
• Ensure basic CSR values are culturally integrated across the organization
• Adopt an effective engagement strategy with stakeholders to create buyer awareness and
loyalty
• Properly map organizational objectives and critical success indicators with CSR performance
metrics Innovative organizations that understand the value of CSR work to create a corporate
culture in which each employee is committed to doing his or her part to improve the
environment. According toForrester Research , effective CSR and sustainability practices
within large companies have been shown to contribute to a profit increase up to 35 percent.

What’s Your ROI?

There are proven methodologies that demonstrate ROI benefits to CSR. A partial summary of
such strategies has been outlined below and reflect best practices in the implementation of
successful CSR programs designed to drive improved operational performance and net positive
ROI.

Business Benefit: Improving Operational Efficiency

Perhaps the strongest — and best documented — argument for engaging employees in
environmental practices is the connection between CSR involvement and increased operational
efficiency. Front-line employees are often in the best position to identify inefficiencies and
propose improvements. Educating employees on CSR can improve profitability by supporting
greater efficiency through less waste, water and energy usage.

Business Benefit: Innovation

Employee E&S education is also a source of innovation and savings resulting from the
development of new product and service lines as well as new technologies, materials or processes
that reduce water, energy usage or harmful materials.

Business Benefit: Supply Chain Management

Educating employees on sustainability practices throughout the supply chain can lead to greater
efficiencies and help build collaboration to meet sustainability, quality and other goals. It can also
strengthen relationships between a company and its suppliers by aligning values and objectives.
 Business Benefit: Financial Responsibility
We are seeing an unprecedented level of government programs and initiatives designed to drive
corporate decision-making within markets that include manufacturing, construction, etc., to invest
in implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations, and
maintenance solutions.
In many cases, the good news is that implementation of sustainable operations can drive increased
efficiency through reductions in energy consumption, implementation of building maintenance
methodologies that are often cost neutral, and decreasing the cost of workspaces through use of
recycled furniture while changing too low–use lighting (which provides eco-friendly work
environments), to name a few.

Government subsidies and incentives often further complement and reward efforts to develop and
implement successful sustainable operations and maintenance programs. Nearly all of the points
needed for LEED Certification (40 points) can be achieved through the energy and atmosphere
category (35 points). It is by far the largest category within the rating system, and emphasizes the
combination of energy performance and renewable energy, which has shown can lower costs by
up to 50percent in the first year alone.

It is widely accepted that green building occupants are healthier and much more productive in
their work. With an average of 90 percent of Americans spending more of their time indoors,
green buildings often have better indoor air quality and lighting, among other key advantages

Measuring the impact of CSR in achieving social and environmental goals can be difficult, but is
becoming more common if not expected within corporations, often as a factor of CSR. Typically
in business, what gets measured gets managed, and as long as the right metrics system is created
and data is tracked accurately, almost any environmental CSR initiative can yield positive results.

There seems to be a direct correlation between the implementation of effective green programs
and design of green buildings to improved office worker productivity and employee morale, while
driving efficiencies and reduced consumption.
Innovative, forward-thinking companies have learned that they must be fully committed to
strategic initiatives that are directly tied to their business core competencies (or those of clients,
employees, etc.). The advantages of doing so through an effective CSR program, such as building
brand recognition, realizing increased sales and fostering trust with employees and community,
can be achieved as a win-win in almost all situations. With committed leadership and a strategic
approach most companies can find a substantial ROI benefit in CSR

.
Conclusion
CSR as a concept has been the focus of various deliberations and much research over the past
few years; and has come to occupy an important place in the academic and business arena.
Evolving all the time, it has morphed from a purely philanthropic to a systemic and, finally,
strategic activity. India is the first country to have legislated CSR mandates. Others like Sweden,
Norway, UK, South Africa, Ghana and Ivory Coast follow some specific codes for sustainable
and socially accountable business practices, like Social Labour Plan (SLP) and Local Content
Law (LCL). The US, though it has a rich presence of industrial firms and big corporates, has
only some mandates for reviewing reports on corporate spending. There is no strong legislation,
as in India, for CSR spending.
After the enactment of the Companies Act-2013, it is estimated that approximately 2,500
companies have come in the ambit of mandated CSR; the budget could touch approximately INR
15,000 crores.15 It is very likely that the new legislation will be a game-changer, infusing new
investments, strategic efforts and accountability in the way CSR is being conceived and managed
in India. It has opened new opportunities for all stakeholders (including the corporate sector,
government, not-for-profit organisations and the community at large) to devise innovative ways
to contribute to equitable social and economic development. Currently, CSR in India is headed in
a positive direction as there already exists a multitude of enabling organisations and regulatory
bodies such as the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE), Ministry of Corporate Affairs
(MCA), and Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA). These institutions have already set the
wheels in motion and are playing an important role in making CSR a widespread practice and in
ensuring success in reducing inequalities without risking business growth.

References & Bibliography

Crowther D (2004); Limited liability or limited responsibility; in D Crowther & L Rayman-
Bacchus (eds), Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility; Aldershot; Ashgate; pp 42-58

Ortiz-Martinez E & Crowther D (2006); ¿Son compatibles la responsabilidad económica y la

responsabilidad social corporativa?; Harvard Deusto Finanzas y Contabilidad, No 71 pp 2-12

Paine T (1792); The Rights of Man (many editions)

Rousseau J-J (1762); The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right (many editions)
Abrams, F.W. 1951. “Management’s Responsibilities in a Complex World.” Harvard Business
eview 29, no. 3, pp. 29–30.
Anderson, R. February, 2009. “The Business Logic of
Sustainability.” TED2009, http://www.ted.com/talks/
ray_anderson_on_the_business_logic_of_sustainability

Bibliography (from Ancient Greek:, romanized: biblion, lit. 'book' and -γραφία, -graphía,
'writing'), as a discipline, is traditionally the academic study of books as physical, cultural
objects; in this sense, it is also known as bibliology[1] (from Ancient Greek: -λογία, romanized: -
logía). English author and bibliographer John Carter describes bibliography as a word having
two senses: one, a list of books for further study or of works consulted by an author (or
enumerative bibliography); the other one, applicable for collectors, is "the study of books as
physical objects" and "the systematic description of books as objects" (or descriptive
bibliography)