13 mohammad khalil ahmed pp

Maratha Mandir’s Babasaheb Gawde Institute Of Management Studies

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN INDIAN ORGANISATIONS
Dr. Mohammad Khalil Ahmed
Associate Professor, Burhani College of Commerce & Arts Mumbai, khalila8@gmail.com

Introduction

In early 1950’s & 60’s the literature was not heavily represented in CSR discourse. However, this
decade ‘marked a significant growth in attempts to formalize, or more accurately, state what CSR
means’ (Carroll, 1999). According to Carroll, “CSR encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and
discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time.”
Some of the most prominent writers during that time were Keith Davis, Joseph W McGuire, William
C Frederick and Clarence C Walton. Frederick wrote that ‘Social responsibility in the final analysis
implies a public posture toward society’s economic and human resources and a willingness to see that
those resources are used for broad social ends and not simply for the narrowly circumscribed interests
of private persons and firms’(Carroll 1999) Howard Bowen in 1953 argued that since social
institutions shaped economic outcomes it was to be expected that business firms as an economic
outcome of societal interests should consider the social impact of business activity. According to
Bowen, “CSR refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies to make those
decisions or to follow those lines of relations which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values
of our society.” CSR implies some sort of commitment, through corporate policies and action. This
operational view of CSR is reflected in a firm’s social performance, which can be assessed by how a
firm manages its societal relationships, its social impact and the outcomes of its CSR policies and
actions (Wood, 1991). Social reporting and social audits are examples of how firms can assess their
social performance. In 1960’s Keith Davies argued that CSR refers to ‘the firm’s consideration of, and
response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical and legal requirements of the firm’
(Davies, 1973). Frederick 1960 stated ‘Social responsibility means that businessmen should oversee
the operation of an economic system that fulfills the expectations of the people. And this means in
turn that the economy’s means of production should be employed in such a way that production and
distribution should enhance total socio-economic welfare’ (Fredrick, 1960). Thus, the definitions of
CSR in 1960’s were an attempt to link society and businesses, defining society in broadest terms.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:
• To explore the various definitions and descriptions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
• To study the theoretical concepts expounded by various researchers
• To elaborate upon development of CSR in India
• To study the deployment of current CSR practices in India.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Scope of the study is limited to study concept of CSR and mostly focusing on the different CSR
activities carried out by Indian corporates.

METHODOLOGY:
The study was conducted using both primary and secondary data. Karmyog Study Report on CSR.
Secondary data
It was collected from various books, articles, journals and blogs on CSR .

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:
• The study does not consider each and every company i.e. only few companies are taken as
examples.
A responsible enterprise also takes into account employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities, and
the nation. Carroll 1979 offered the following definition of CSR. The social responsibility of business
encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (or philanthropic) expectations that


society has of organizations at a given point in time (Turner, 2006). European Commission described
CSR 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”. 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.” In 80s & 90s there were fewer
definitions but more efforts to measure and conduct research for the purpose of operationalizing CSR. It is
holistic concept that can mean different things to different groups and stakeholders. Gray, Owen, &
Maunders in 1987 defined CSR as “the process of communicating the social and environmental effects of
organizations economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to society at large”.
Similarly, Perks 1993 defined corporate social reporting as “the disclosure of those costs and benefits that
may or may not be quantifiable in money terms arising from economic activities and substantially borne
by the community at large or other stakeholders”. A term ‘corporate social innovation’ was first
introduced by Rosabeth Moss Canter in 1999 who argues that firms should use social issues as a
learning laboratory for identifying unmet needs and for developing solutions that create new markets.
Large corporations began to go public about corporate social responsibilities and publish some of their
efforts, but they also made public that ‘any approach to corporate responsibility must begin with the
practical recognition that the corporation must be profitable enough to provide shareholders a return
that will encourage continuation of investment’ (Wilson, 2000). Another trend appearing in literature
is the increasing dialogue between stakeholders. Companies are augmenting their discussions with
labor unions, environmental groups and other relevant stakeholders and the implementation of
certification solutions by corporations, which is the establishment of codes of conduct (Kapstein,
2001), monitoring and reporting. Kingston and Wagner 2004 suggest that leadership on sustainability
and CSR are important to set priorities and to ensure that commitments are achieved. Bebbington et
al.(2008) use the term CSR reporting, which highlights the link between the reporting function and the
organizational functions and operations that are concerned with, and impacted by, activities associated
with CSR. The CSR movement was an early response to an article published in 1970 by Friedman stating
that ‘social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’. CSR has emerged as the business issue of
the 21st century and has been studied for over 50 years. To this day academics do not have a consensus
on its definition (Wood, 1991; Carroll, 1991). Bowen’s definition of social responsibility of businessmen
was ‘it refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies to make those decisions, or to
follow those lines of relations which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society
(Carroll, 1999).

Corporate Social Responsibility in India

In India, CSR has evolved to encompass employees, customers, stakeholders and sustainable
development or corporate citizenship. The spectrum of CSR includes a number of areas as human
rights, safety at work, consumer protection, climate protection and caring for the environment, and
sustainable management of natural resources. From the perspective of employees, CSR activities
include providing health and safety measures, preserving employee rights and discouraging
discrimination at workplace. This helps in fostering a healthy environment within the company. For
example, after 1945, TATA implemented social welfare provisions for its employees that have since
become the legislative norm. From the perspectives of customers, CRS activities may include
commitment to product quality, fair pricing policies, and so on.
CSR taken up by various genres of companies primarily focuses on poverty alleviation,
environmental protection and sustained development. Companies are taking initiatives for
developing infrastructure in rural areas, e.g., TATA Motors provides desks, benches, chairs, tables
cupboards, electrical fittings and educational and sports material to various primary schools in
Singur. The company has also planned similar programmes to upgrade school infrastructure and is
also planning to set up a computer laboratory in one of the high schools. Similarly, TVS Electronics
was involved in CSR during the Tsunami to provide relief measures to the victims. They have also
participated with the government to improve sanitation in a village called Tiruvidenthai. Such


initiatives will help in improving the conditions of rural people. Satyam Foundation of Satyam
Computer Services Ltd., Infosys Foundation of Infosys Technologies Ltd., GE Foundation of the
General Electric Company are exemplary instances of the philanthropic commitment of the
corporate sector in India.
After Independence, JRD Tata who always laid a great deal of emphasis to go beyond conducting
themselves as honest citizens pointed out that there were many ways in which industrial and
business enterprises can contribute to public welfare beyond the scope of their normal activities. He
advised that apart from the obvious one of donating funds to good causes which has been their
normal practice for years; they could have used their own financial, managerial and human
resourced to provide task forces for undertaking direct relief and reconstruction measures. Slowly,
it began to be accepted, at least in theory that business had to share a part of the social overhead
costs of. Traditionally, it had discharged its responsibility to society through benefactions for
education, medical facilities, and scientific research
among other objects. The important change at that time was that industry accepted social
responsibility as part of the management of the enterprise itself. The community development and
social welfare program of the premier Tata Company, Tata Iron and Steel Company was started the
concepts of “Social Responsibility.” (Gupta, 2007)
The term corporate social performance was first coined by Sethi (1975), expanded by Carroll
(1979), and then refined by Wartick and Cochran (1985).In Sethi’s 1975 three-level model, the
concept of corporate social performance was discussed, and distinctions made between various
corporate behaviors. Sethi’s three tiers were ‘social obligation (a response to legal and market
constraints); social responsibility (congruent with societal norms); and social responsiveness
(adaptive, anticipatory and preventive) (Cochran, 2007). An ideal CSR has both ethical and
philosophical dimensions, particularly in India where there exists a wide gap between sections of
people in terms of income and standards as well as socio-economic status (Bajpai, 2001). 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’. Commission of the European Communities 2001
stated that being socially responsible means not only fulfilling legal expectations, but also going
beyond compliance and investing ‘more’ into human capital, the environment and the relation with
stakeholders(Bajpai, 2001). Over the time four different models have emerged all of which can be
found in India regarding corporate responsibility (Kumar et al.2001).

CSR Surveys:

In the context of India, CSR studies were few and limited. Singh and Ahuja 1983 conducted the first study
in India on CSR of 40 Indian public sector companies for the years 1975-76 and found that 40 percent of
the companies disclosed more than 30 percent of total disclosure items included in their survey. Raman
(2006) used content analysis technique to examine the chairman’s message section in the annual reports of
the top 50 companies in India to identify the extent and nature of social reporting. This study concluded
that the Indian companies placed emphasis on product improvements and development of human
resources (Raman, 2006). According to a survey done by Partners in Change 2000, which covered 600
companies and 20 CEOs for judging Corporate Involvement in Social Development in India 85 percent
agreed that companies need to be socially responsible; only 11 percent companies had a written policy; over
60 percent of the companies were making monetary donations; health,
education and infrastructure were most supported issues.
From 2000 onwards, 4 important surveys have been conducted, which give significant macro level
conclusions about Indian corporate. The first and second surveys were carried out in 2001 and 2002 by
Business Community Foundation for TERI-Europe. The survey sought to explore the perception of
workers, company executives and general public about social, economic and environmental
responsibilities. It was found that all companies irrespective of size or sector have awareness of CSR and
its potential benefits. Many companies were collaborating with NGOs, have labor and environmental
policy guidelines in place.


A third survey was jointly conducted in 2002 by CII, United Nations Development Program (UNDP),
British Council (BC) and Price Water Coopers (PWC). The most striking features of the responses to
the survey is that the respondents are in near unanimity that CSR is very much a part of the domain of
corporate action and the passive philanthropy is no longer sufficient. A significant proportion of
respondents, recognize CSR as the mean to enhance long-term stake holder value.
The fourth survey, the Karmyog CSR rating 2007-08 is for the largest 500 companies. Karmayog is a
platform for the Indian non-profit sector providing research on CSR activities of Indian companies. It
rated the 500 largest Indian Companies based on their CSR activities. The companies were rated on 0
to 5 levels based on criteria’s like products & services, reach of CSR activities, expenditure on CSR,
harmful processes etc.
This is the basic premise for Karmayog undertaking a rating of the Corporate Social Responsibility
activities of India’s 500 largest companies (by sales).
This is the first time that such an exercise has been done in any country.
Observations from the Karmayog CSR Rating of India’s 500 largest companies:

Most companies are not doing any CSR. Many companies are only making token gestures towards
CSR in tangential ways such as donations to charitable trusts or NGOs, sponsorship of events, etc. Most
companies believe that charity and philanthropy equals to CSR; very few companies are using their
core competence to benefit the community. Most companies use CSR as a marketing tool to further
spread the word about their business. The fact that companies are hiring advertising agencies for their
CSR further highlights this. Only 5 Indian companies (from this study) publish a Corporate
Sustainability Report to measure and assess the impact of their business on the environment. Very few
companies openly state the processes followed by them, the damage caused by these processes, and
the steps taken to minimize this damage. Very few companies state how much they spend on CSR.
There is no mention of the amount spent in any of their balance sheets or annual reports. Most
companies just list and describe their CSR activities and seem to be spending minimal amounts on CSR.
Very few companies are engaged in CSR activities in the local communities where they are based. Very
few companies have a clearly defined CSR philosophy. Most implement their CSR in an ad-hoc manner,
unconnected with their business process.
Most companies spread their CSR funds thinly across many activities, thus somewhere losing the
purpose of undertaking that activity. Most companies appear reluctant to themselves fulfill their CSR
unless it is mandatory by law.
The Karmayog CSR Ratings are from 0 to 5 (5 being the highest).

In India there are an existent but small number of companies which practice CSR. This engagement
of the Indian economy concentrates mainly on a few old family owned companies, and corporate
giants such as the Tata and Birla group companies which have led the way in making corporate social
responsibility an intrinsic part of their business plans. These companies have been deeply involved
with social development initiatives in the communities surrounding their facilities. Jamshedpur, one
of the prominent cities in the northeastern state of Bihar in India, is also known as Tata Nagar and
stands out at a beacon for other companies to follow. Jamshedpur was carved out from the jungle a
century ago. TATA’s CSR activities in Jamshedpur include the provision of full health and education
expenses for all employees and the management of schools and hospitals.
In spite of having such life size successful examples, CSR in India is in a very nascent stage.
The rationale for Corporate Social Responsibility in India
Gandhiji was a person who in several respects was ahead of his time. His view of the ownership of
capital was one of trusteeship, motivated by the belief that essentially society was providing
capitalists with an opportunity to manage resources that should really be seen as a form of trusteeship
on behalf of society in general. Today, we are perhaps coming round full circle in emphasizing this
concept through an articulation of the principle of social responsibility of business and industry.
While the interests of shareholders and the actions of managers of any business enterprise have to be
governed by the laws of economics, requiring an adequate financial return on investments made, in
reality the operations of an enterprise need to be driven by a much larger set of objectives that are
today being defined under the term Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).


The broad rationale for a new set of ethics for corporate decision making, which clearly
constructs and upholds a company’s social responsibility, arises from the fact that a business
enterprise derives several benefits from society, which must, therefore, require the enterprise to
provide returns to society that have now become even more important than traditional relationship
between government and business. These go far beyond what was the case a few decades ago.
Role of Social Responsibility in Indian companies:
In a global CSR study undertaken in 7 countries (viz. India, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore,
Malaysia, The Philippines and Indonesia) by the U.K. based International Centre for CSR in
2003, India has been ranked second in the list. This ideally shows the value that is important to
customers in India. Bharat Petroleum and Maruti Udyog have been ranked as the best companies
in the country. The next comes in the list are Tata Motors and Hero Honda. Canara
Bank,Gujarat Ambuja and Wipro are involved in community development work of building
roads, running schools and hospitals. ACC has been rendering social service for over Five
decades. They are setting up schools, health centers, agro-based industries and improving the
quality of rural life. BHEL is actively involved in the Welfare of the surrounding communities
is helping the organization to earn good will of the local people BHEL is also providing
drinking water facilities, construction of roads and culverts, provision of health facilities,
educational facilities, and so on companies like ONGCs are encouraging sports by placing
good players on their pay rolls. TISCO, TELCO and HINDALCO won the award for excelling
in CSR, jointly given by FICCI and Business world for the 2003. ONGC has also committed
resources by adopting a few villages to implement president Dr. Abdul Kalam’s idea of PURA
(Provision of Urban Amenities in Rural Areas). NTPC has established a trust to work for the
cause of the physically challenged people. Similarly in the private sectors like Infosys, Wipro
and Reliance are believed to be most socially responsible corporations.
In 1999 Kofi Annan of the United Nations invited corporate leaders for a Global Compact to
promote nine principles covering three areas: human rights, labor rights, and sustainable
development. Today, India can be legitimately proud to have had the second largest number of
companies from any country subscribing to the Global Compact. Several public sector
companies have joined together to form the Global Compact Society of India.

Recommendations for better CSR
Corporates no doubt have made significant contributions towards the sustainable development of our
country. Considering the limitations of the corporates in their CSR activities, we can make some
recommendations which can be used towards satisfaction.
• Companies should extend their CSR activities in less privileged states rather than
concentrate in resource rich states.
• It is essential that companies develop an effective value chain system of their products
through their CSR activities, which is essential for competing in the global market.
• It will give better results if activities are based on a more participatory approach and touch the
grassroots level.
• Voluntarism among employees should be encouraged and institutionalized through recognition
and incentives.
• There is also need for public-private partnership with well-defined controls and process for the
best use of resources for social change.
• Special training need to be given to business mangers in working with social issues.
• Participation of small and medium business should be encouraged.
• Experience has shown that working with NGOs is more worthwhile and result-oriented. Joining
hands with related NGOs is therefore advisable.
The Road Ahead
The parliamentary standing Committee on Finance has proposed mandatory corporate social
responsibility(CSR) by companies as part of changes to Companies Bill 2009. The committee has
stated that every company having a net worth of Rs. 5000 crore or more or a turnover of Rs. 1000
crore or more, or a net profit of Rs. 5 crore or more during a year shall be required to spend every


year at least 2% of the company’s average net profit during the three immediately preceding financial
years on CSR activities as decided by their BOD. In event of non-compliance of this requirement,
BOD in their annual report will have to highlight the reasons for not undertaking CSR activities. The
companies have been given free hand in deciding the areas/ activities of CSR.
The traditional view is that business is primarily established to multiply its income. Corporate profits
belong to the shareholders and if companies are required to pursue socially responsible objectives, it
means managers are spending money that belongs to others. As opposed to this, the liberal view
prescribes that a business should be sensitive to potential harms of its actions on various
stakeholders. In the middle lies the trusteeship model as suggested by Mahatma Gandhi. Business
should manage their enterprises as a trust held in the interest of the community. Corporate profits
enhanced during 1990s, and business realized that they had certain responsibilities towards the
society. This resulte4d in the evolution of the stakeholder model wherein companies measure their
performance using the “triple bottom line” approach taking into account ecological and social
performance in addition to financial results and evaluating actions in terms of people, planet and
profit.
Companies must adopt a strategy included in their day-to-day business operations and
integrate with their core business objectives. Consider for instance,. Dabur, Dabur’s efforts towards
sustainable cultivated sources for herbal ingredients and reducing the strain on natural herbal habits is
commendable. The BPO facilities set up by the JSW foundation at JSW’s remote locations to provide
an alternate livelihood to the local population is remarkable.. ITC’s sustainability Report is an
expression of ITC’s abiding commitment to build secured future for India. Its Triple Bottom Line
performance measured in terms of increasing economic, environmental and societal capital is
praiseworthy. ITC inspired by lofty vision of making a contribution to the national goals of
sustainable development and inclusive growth has innovatively crafted unique business models that
combines long term shareholder value creating with improving societal capital. Presently, e-choupals
cover 4000 villages and benefit over 4 million framers, while providing a unique source of
competitiveness of ITC’s agri-product sourcing. ITC’s Integrated Watershed Development initiative
has helped create fresh water potential covering over 46,000 hectares water-stressed areas.
Concerns like Infosys, Wipro, Tata, L&T ITC, Dabur, Mahindra and Mahindra, NTPC,
BHEL, Aditya Birla Group of companies and many others are doing yeomen service in the field of
CSR.

Conclusion
Business houses all over the world are increasing in realizing their stake in the society and engaging
in various social and environmental activities. CSR holds a very important place in the development
scenario of the world today and can pose as an alternative tool for sustainable development. As
companies have shown great concerns for their immediate community and the stakeholders, it can be
safely concluded that much of the fate of society lies in the hands of the corporate. A successfully
implemented CSR strategy calls for aligning these initiatives with business objectives and corporate
responsibility across the business principles to make CSR sharper, smarter, and focused on what
really matters.
There are several companies in India involved in diverse issues such as healthcare, education, rural
development, sanitation, microcredit, and women empowerment. Analysis of several surveys in India
suggest that though many companies in India have taken on board the universal language of CSR, CSR
seem to be in a confused state. Individual companies define CSR in their own limited ways and contexts.
The end result being that all activities undertaken in the name of CSR are mainly philanthropy, or an
extension of philanthropy. It seems that CSR in India has been evolving in domain of profit distribution.
There is a need to increase the understanding and active participation of business in equitable social
development as an integral part of good business practice.
A long term perspective by organizations, which encompasses their commitment to both internal and
external stakeholders, will be critical to success of CSR and the ability of companies to deliver on the
goals of their CSR strategy. Wealth has to be created before it can be distributed. The responsibility to


create wealth is of business. And responsibilities and rights must go together. Hence, the society
cannot disarm business of its rights which are essential for creating value.

With increasing and widespread commitment of corporate resources to CSR, attention is now
shifting to the strategic formulation, implementation, and measurement of the market returns to CSR
initiatives. But still a concern to companies is whether their focus on “doing good,” will provide
positive returns to their CSR actions. This emphasize the need for better measurement models of CSR
that capture and estimate clearly the effects of a company’s CSR actions on its stakeholders as well as
the nations in which they are operating. In this paper I have tried to highlight that developing
economy like India is progressing at a growth which is much higher to its social growth. It is
increasing the gap between the different strata of society in the country in terms of employment,
human development, capital distribution and poverty. Public sectors companies and government are
continuously introducing reforms to achieve the balance but it seems that it is not sufficient to bring
revolutionary changes in the social progress.

References:
• Arora, B. and Puranik R. (2004), “A review of corporate social responsibility in India”,
Development, Vol.47 No. 3, pp.93-100.
• Ashok Leyland Report on Corporate Social responsibility 2009-10.
• Bajpai, G.N. (2001), “Corporate Social Responsibility in India and Europe: Cross Cultural
Perspective”, available at: http://www.ficci.com (accessed 12 January 2009).

• Bryan W. Husted and José de Jesus Salazar, Taking Friedman Seriously: Maximizing Profits
and Social Performance, Journal of Management Studies, January 2006.
• Basu, D., Devarani, L. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility -Some basic dimensions”
• Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social
Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497–505
Caroll, A.B.(1999), “Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct”,
Business and Society, Vol.38 No. 3, pp.268-295.

• C.B. Bhattacharya and Sankar Sen (2004), “When, Why and How Consumers respond to
Corporate Social Initiatives, California Management Review, vol. 47
• Cochran, P. (2007), “The evolution of corporate social responsibility”, Business Horizons,
Vol.50 No. 2, pp. 449-454.
• Davis, K. (1983). ‘An expanded view of the social responsibility of business’. In Beauchamp,
T. L. and Bowie, N. E. (Eds), Ethical Theory and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, 94–7
• Dawar, N. & Chattopadhyay, A. (2000). “Rethinking Marketing Programs for Emerging
Markets, Davidson institute Working Paper Series).
• Frederick, W.C. (1960), “The growing concern over business responsibility”, California
Management Review, Vol.2, pp. 54-61.
• Guptara. P. Corporate Social Responsibility in India, South Asian Development Partnership,
UK. (http://www.southasian.org.uk/intro_social
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (1999).
• Gupta, A.D. (2007), “Social responsibility in India towards global compact approach”,

International Journal of Social economics, Vol.34, pp. 637-663.


• CSR: Meeting changing expectations, WBCSD.
http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?Typed&id=ODgwMw).
• Commission of the European Communities (2001). Green Paper for Promotion of
European Framework for
CSR.(http://www.btplc.com/societyandenvironment/reports/greenpaperonCSR.pdf).
• Components of corporate social responsibility (http://www.ficci-sedf. com/compo-
csr.htm)
• Samuel, J and Saari, A (2007). Corporate social responsibility.
(http://infochangeindia.org/corporatesrlbP.jsp, Feb., 2007).
Karmayog website, available at: http://www.karmayog.org/csr/ (accessed 27 February 2009).

• Kapstein, B. (2001), “The Corporate ethics crusade”, Foreign affairs, Vol.80, pp. 105-119.

• Raman, R. S. (2006),” Corporate social reporting in India - A view from the top”, Global Business
review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 313-324.

• Sanhdya, U (2006) Corporate Social Responsibility, The Hindu.
(http://www.thehindujob.com/0608/200608090006100.htm)
http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20050502/technologylike01.shtml).
• Turner, R.J. (2006), “Corporate Social Responsibility: Should disclosure of social considerations be
mandatory”, Submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services
Inquiry, available at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/corporate_responsibility/submissions/sub0
5.pdf (accessed 3 January 2009).

• Wood, D.J. (1991),”Towards improving corporate social performance”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 66-73. World Business Council for Sustainable Development

• Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited, academy of management review,
16 : 691 – 718.
http:www.indianngos.com/corporate/about – csr.htm (Sept., 2007).
• Mineral Resource Forum (MRF), CSR, Dec., 6, 2001. (http:/www.natural-
resources.org/minerals/csr/index,htm, Sept., 2007)
http://www.ncert.nis.in/textbooks/XI/business-studies/chapter2.pdf (Feb., 2007).
http://www.hll.com/citizen-lever/csrcom.asp (Feb., 2007).

13 mohammad khalil ahmed pp

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to 13 mohammad khalil ahmed pp

Recently uploaded

13 mohammad khalil ahmed pp