CSR ppt

1. CSR and Blockchain technology: A
proposed model for sustainable growth
Dr. Kuldeep Singh
Assistant Professor
JAIN (Deemed to be University)

2. Introduction
• CSR 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.
“Howard Bowen 1953”
• The Indian Companies Act, 2013
• Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes the requirements of CSR on certain companies.
Fig. 1 Applicability of CSR Provision

3. CSR Eco-System
Reference for critical parts of an eco-system has been taken from Indian Philanthropy report, 2014, by Bain & Co.

4. CSR Eco-System

5. Objective of the study
• To know the factors related to technology and
firms’ socially responsive behavior influencing
Sustainable Growth.
• To know the relationship between factors.
• To prioritize the sustainable growth Factors.

6. Data and Methodology
• The first phase includes an extensive literature
review to find out 10 factors.
• Final selection of factors has been made by
having discussions and interviews with experts.
• In the second phase, we have used ISM
modeling to determine the contextual
relationship between factors.

7. Why ISM and MICMAC ?
• Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) is a well-established
methodology for identifying relationships among specific
items, which define a problem or an issue.
• ISM approach starts with an identification of variables, which
are relevant to the problem or issue.
• Then a contextually relevant subordinate relation is chosen.
• Having decided the contextual relation, a structural self-
interaction matrix (SSIM) is developed based on pairwise
comparison of variables.
• After this, SSIM is converted into a reachability matrix (RM)
and its transitivity is checked. Once transitivity embedding is
complete, a matrix model is obtained. Then, the partitioning of
the elements and an extraction of the structural model called
ISM is derived.

8. • The purpose of MICMAC analysis is to analyze
the drive power and dependence power of
factors. MICMAC principle is based on
multiplication properties of matrices26. It is done
to identify the key factors that drive the system in
various categories. Based on their drive power
and dependence power, the factors, have been
classified into four categories i.e. autonomous
factors, linkage factors, dependent and
independent factors.

9. Enablers List
Sr. No. Enablers References Expert Mean Score
1 Sustainable Growth Babcock, 1970 [16]; Dutia, 2014
[17]
4.09
2 CSR Singh & Misra, 2021 [12] 3.82
3 Blockchain Technology Yadav, Misra, & Goundar, 2020 [18]
Singh, Misra, & Yadav, 2022 [19]
3.73
4 Competitive Market Conditions Nabiullina et al., 2016 [20] 4.09
5 Voluntary Management of Social and
Environmental Issues
Lee & Lee, 2019 [21] 4.18
6 Stakeholder Relationships Mainardes, Alves, & Raposo, 2012
[22]
3.64
7 Responsive Governance Bekkers, 2005 [23] 3.73
8 Sustainable Strategy Carneiro et al., 2016 [24] 3.45
9 Transparency and security of Transaction
Information
Xu et al., 2021 [25]; Yadav, Misra,
Rana, Singh, & Goundar, 2022 [26]
3.55
10 Technological Connectivity Schultz, Castelló, & Morsing, 2013
[27]
4

10. Structural self-interaction matrix
• Four symbols are used to explain the
relationship.
• V Variable i helps in achieving benefits for variable j
• A Variable j helps in achieving benefits for variable i
• X Variable i and Variable j helps in attaining benefits for
themselves
• O benefits of the variable i and variable j are not related
• Based on the V, A, X, O methodology the self-structured
interaction matrix (SSIM) is developed for the 10 factors
essential for sustainable growth

11. SSIM matrix of agripreneur
inclination model
F10 F9 F8 F7 F6 F5 F4 F3 F2 F1
F1 A A A A A A O A A
F2 A V A A V A V A
F3 V V A V O O V
F4 A V A A O A
F5 A V A X V
F6 A O A A
F7 V V A
F8 V V
F9 A
F10

12. Reachability Matrix
• The reachability matrix is derived from the SSIM.
• The symbols (V, A, X, O) are substituted with
binary numbers (0 and 1). The subsequent rule
is used to replace V, A, X, and O of SSIM to get
the initial reachability matrix.

13. Rules to replace VAXO to get
Reachability Matrix
SSIM matrix Reachability matrix (ij) Reachability matrix (ji)
• if i, j entry in the SSIM matrix is V in the reachability matrix i, j entry
becomes 1
in the reachability matrix j, i entry
becomes 0
• if i, j entry in the SSIM matrix is A in the reachability matrix i, j entry
becomes 0
in the reachability matrix j, i entry
becomes 1
if i, j entry in the SSIM matrix is X in the reachability matrix i, j entry
becomes 1
in the reachability matrix j, i entry
becomes 1
• if i, j entry in the SSIM matrix is O in the reachability matrix i, j entry
becomes 0
in the reachability matrix j, i entry
becomes 0

14. Initial reachability matrix
Enablers E -1 E -2 E -3 E -4 E -5 E -6 E -7 E -8 E -9 E-10
E-1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E-2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
E-3 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
E-4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
E-5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
E-6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
E-7 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
E-8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
E-9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
E-10 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1

15. Final Reachability Matrix with
Transitivity Analysis
Enablers E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9 E-10 Driv. P.
E-1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
E-2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5
E-3 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 0 1 1 9
E-4 1* 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
E-5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1* 8
E-6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
E-7 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8
E-8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
E-9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
E-10 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 6
Dep. P. 10 6 2 7 4 7 4 1 8 5 54

16. Sustainable Growth
Competitive Market Conditions
Technological Connectivity
CSR
Blockchain Technology
Sustainable Strategy
Responsive Governance
Voluntary Management of Social and Environmental Issues
Stakeholder Relationships Transparency and Security of Transactions

17. Finding and Outcomes
• The matrix of Cross Impacts - Multiplication
Applied to a Classification (MICMAC) is used
to define the outcomes of this present study.
• This analysis is used to classify the key
variables into four categories namely,
dependent criterion, independent criterion,
autonomous criterion, and linkage criterion.
• The identification and classification are made
on the basis of driving force and dependence
power of all the factors.

19. Conclusion
• This study provides a hierarchal structure of technology and
socially responsible enablers.
• ISM model shows that sustainable strategy is an important
factor that influences the use of Blockchain technology for
managing the socially responsible activities towards attaining
the sustainable growth.
• The finding draws attention to corporates and institutional
heads for their support and continuously giving efforts for
making social contribution in a responsive governance
framework.
• Some other factors can also be considered for future study.
The study used only expert mining for validation of factors. As
no statistical validation has been tackled, therefore researcher
can apply structural equation modeling (SEM) in their future
study for further statistical validation.

20. References
• [1] D. Jamali and R. Mirshak, “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 243–262, Mar. 2007,
doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9168-4.
• [2] M. Tingchi Liu, I. Anthony Wong, C. Rongwei, and T.-H. Tseng, “Do perceived CSR initiatives enhance customer preference and loyalty in casinos?,” Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manag., vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1024–1045, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2013-0222.
• [3] F. Zerbini, “CSR Initiatives as Market Signals: A Review and Research Agenda,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 1–23, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2922-8.
• [4] J. Yadav, M. Misra, and S. Goundar, “An overview of food supply chain virtualisation and granular traceability using blockchain technology,” Int. J. Blockchains
Cryptocurrencies, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 154, 2020, doi: 10.1504/IJBC.2020.108997.
• [5] R. Bustami, D. Na, E. Nasruddin, and S. R. A’mmari, “Exploring ISO 26000 and Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI): a neo-institutional analysis of two CSR institutions,” Int. Econ.
Lett., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 10–18, 2013.
• [6] M. P. Sharfman and C. S. Fernando, “Environmental risk management and the cost of capital,” Strateg. Manag. J., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 569–592, Jun. 2008, doi:
10.1002/smj.678.
• [7] A. Bhattacharya, V. Good, H. Sardashti, and J. Peloza, “Beyond Warm Glow: The Risk-Mitigating Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 171, no. 2,
pp. 317–336, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04445-0.
• [8] M. Karwowski and M. Raulinajtys‐Grzybek, “The application of corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions for mitigation of environmental, social, corporate governance
(ESG ) and reputational risk in integrated reports,” Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1270–1284, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1002/csr.2137.
• [9] M. Morsing and L. J. Spence, “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and small and medium sized enterprises: The governmentality dilemma of explicit and
implicit CSR communication,” Hum. Relations, vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 1920–1947, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1177/0018726718804306.
• [10] S. Lee, H. Han, A. Radic, and B. Tariq, “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a customer satisfaction and retention strategy in the chain restaurant sector,” J. Hosp. Tour.
Manag., vol. 45, pp. 348–358, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.09.002.
• [11] J. Bae, H.-H. Park, and D.-M. Koo, “Perceived CSR initiatives and intention to purchase game items,” Internet Res., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 329–348, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1108/INTR-
11-2017-0469.
• [12] K. Singh and M. Misra, “Linking Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Organizational Performance: the moderating effect of corporate reputation,” Eur. Res. Manag. Bus.
Econ., vol. 27, no. 1, p. 100139, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.100139.
• [13] I. Adelopo, K. Yekini, and L. Raimi, “Development-Oriented Corporate Social Responsibility: Volume 1,” in Development-Oriented Corporate Social Responsibility: Volume 1,
M. Blowfield, C. Karam, and D. Jamali, Eds. London: Routledge, 2015. doi: 10.4324/9781351285568.
• [14] A. Rashid, S. Shams, S. Bose, and H. Khan, “CEO power and corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure: does stakeholder influence matter?,” Manag. Audit. J., vol. 35,
no. 9, pp. 1279–1312, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1108/MAJ-11-2019-2463.
• [15] A. ElAlfy, N. Palaschuk, D. El-Bassiouny, J. Wilson, and O. Weber, “Scoping the Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Research in the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) Era,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 14, p. 5544, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12145544.
• [16] G. C. Babcock, “The Concept of Sustainable Growth,” Financ. Anal. J., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 108–114, May 1970, doi: 10.2469/faj.v26.n3.108.
• [17] S. Dutia, “AgTech: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Growth,” SSRN Electron. J., 2014, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2431316.
• [18] J. Yadav, M. Misra, and S. Goundar, “Autonomous Agriculture Marketing Information System Through Blockchain: A Case Study of e-NAM Adoption in India,” in Blockchain
Technologies, Applications and Cryptocurrencies, WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2020, pp. 115–138. doi: 10.1142/9789811205279_0005.
• [19] K. Singh, M. Misra, and J. Yadav, “Indian Corporate Governance with Relation to Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) Act: Proposing Business Intelligence (BI) and Blockchain as an
Integrated Key Strategy,” in The Convergence of Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies, WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2022, pp. 145–158. doi: 10.1142/9789811225079_0007.
• [20] K. R. Nabiullina et al., “The Model of Innovative Activities Management in a Competitive Market Conditions,” Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 231–236, 2016.
• [21] K. Lee and H. Lee, “How Does CSR Activity Affect Sustainable Growth and Value of Corporations? Evidence from Korea,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 508, Jan. 2019, doi:
10.3390/su11020508.
• [22] E. Wagner Mainardes, H. Alves, and M. Raposo, “A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships,” Manag. Decis., vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 1861–1879, Nov.
2012, doi: 10.1108/00251741211279648.
• [23] V. Bekkers, “Virtual policy communities and responsive governance: Redesigning on-line debates,” Inf. Polity, vol. 9, no. 3,4, pp. 193–203, May 2005, doi: 10.3233/IP-2004-
0053.
• [24] P. Carneiro, A. Jerónimo, V. Silva, F. Cartaxo, and P. Faria, “Improving Building Technologies with a Sustainable Strategy,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 216, pp. 829–840,
Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.12.080.
• [25] P. Xu, J. Lee, J. R. Barth, and R. G. Richey, “Blockchain as supply chain technology: considering transparency and security,” Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag., vol. 51, no. 3,
pp. 305–324, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2019-0234.
• [26] J. Yadav, M. Misra, N. P. Rana, K. Singh, and S. Goundar, “Netizens’ behavior towards a blockchain-based esports framework: a TPB and machine learning integrated
approach,” Int. J. Sport. Mark. Spons., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 665–683, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-06-2021-0130.
• [27] F. Schultz, I. Castelló, and M. Morsing, “The Construction of Corporate Social Responsibility in Network Societies: A Communication View,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 115, no. 4, pp.
681–692, Jul. 2013, doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1826-8.

21. Thank you