Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship - Research Paper Example

Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship INTRODUCTION Milton Friedman (1970) claims that the responsibility managers and directors of corporations are to uphold the benefit and interest of the shareholders, “ …that responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom” (2). As such, the economic interest of the owners and shareholders become the primordial impetus that drives organizational policies and visions. Moreover, it is claimed that not prioritizing the interests of the shareholders is immoral and veers away from the very reason of the inception of an organization (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971). In this sense, business transactions, whether it is exchange of goods or services, is an exchange for money (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971). However, some radical changes have happened during the second half of the 20th century. Two of the most important changes for this period are globalization and the rapid developments in the field of computer and information technology (Soros, 2002; Calder & Watkins, 2007). Although globalization has acquired various meanings (Soros, 2002), generally it is understood as referring to economic policies embraced by nation-states. In this regard, globalization is the removal of economic trade barriers via the elimination of tariff to allow freer movements of goods, services, capital, people and even culture (Balakrishnan, 2003: Fischer, 2003: Peet, 2004; Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard, 2004). Likewise, in globalization as nation-states open their market economy to other nations, it necessitates the carrying out of neo-liberal policies, lesser governmental intervention in the market and free-market (Killion, 2003; Malanczuk, 1997; Helleiner, 2003). While these changes are happening in the economic front, rapid developments in computer and information technology have paved for ease of access to information, a more sophisticated but easier way of gathering, processing and keeping data. Although there may be other factors influencing change like social movements during the 1970s (Mirvis, 1994), human crisis (Marshall, 2007) and other concerns, it cannot be denied that globalization and developments in the computer and information technology are two of the most important changes, which contributed to the paradigm shift in the business world. Corporate social responsibility has altered the face of contemporary business organizations - the paradigm shift that has happened to the corporate world. In light of this fundamental change, this paper will look into corporate social responsibility and will undertake a critical analysis corporate social responsibility in theory and in action. It is the hope of the researcher that this study contributes to a better understanding of corporate social responsibility. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The idea of corporations providing public service goes as far back as 18th century (Bir, Suher and Altinbaşak, 2009). However, the contemporary notion of corporate social responsibility is a result of sweeping changes, which started during the 1950s. From 1950s until 1970s, a transformation in the social consciousness of people was happening (Mirvis, 1994). One of its causes was by the rediscovery of the age-old notion that all beings, regardless whether living or non-living, were connected (Mirvis, 1994). Moreover, during this period, people were made aware of “carcinogens present in air, water and land and the trauma of thalidomide babies” (Mavis , 1994;¶ 11) due to pursuit of development. Likewise, the Vietnam War opened the notion that advancements in technology could be used for massive destruction (Mavis, 1994). These events, together with the reality of global poverty, violation of human rights, high rates of unemployment, global hunger and widening gap between the rich and the poor prodded people and governments to take a re-look at what they were doing in their own society and around the globe (Mavis, 1994; Marshall, 2007; Ortega – Villaseňor, 2004). Likewise, contemporary globalization started already during this period. As countries started to embrace the open-door policy, which allowed the entrance of foreign investors in their own national-local market, it created a more competitive market (Helliener, 2003). At the same time, a shift in marketing strategy was happening. Organizations begun recognizing the fact that consumers were not mere passive recipients of information, rather, they were active receivers and that satisfaction of their preferences was at the heart of all production and marketing strategies (Hastings & McDermott, 2006). Simultaneously, rapid advancements in computer and information technology transformed this period into an era of information, which connotes the idea that information, which is necessary in the acquisition of knowledge is vital for the survival of an organization in the contemporary period (Axelrod, 2004) and that consumers’ access and exchange of information was easier. These brief rundowns of events present the historical condition that contemporary organizations are confronted. These events challenge the traditional perception that organizations are established for the primary purpose of making profit alone (Marshall, 2007). Likewise, it casts doubt to the validity of the view that corporations are removed from social realities and that it has its own domain, which is standing apart from the vicissitudes of society (Hemingway, 2002). In response to this reality, a transformation in the nature of contemporary organization happened. Organizations have acknowledged the truism that they are not isolated entities but that they are part of the society where they are conducting their business transactions. In this regard, organizations have embraced the notion that they are social actors (Zolsnai, 2006). As social actors, organizations have accepted the fact that their actions and undertakings are being conducted in the public arena whose influences are not limited only within the organization, but is also affecting the lives and environment of people outside the organization who are generally considered as the stakeholders of the organization (Roper & Cheney, 2005). As such, it becomes necessary that organizations interact and endeavour for collaborative actions not only with the stockholders of the company but also with the people whose interests are affected by the actions of the organizations (Tencati & Zolsnai, 2009). In lieu with this, organizations established partnerships with stakeholders that are built on trust, which is founded on transparency and accountability (Morsello, 2006; Livesey & Kearnis, 2007). In this manner, contemporary organizations concern themselves with the social, political and environmental issues involving the interests of both the shareholders of the organization and the stakeholders of the company (Tencati & Zolsnai, 2009). This change in the nature of contemporary organizations is concretely manifested by the adaptation and incorporation of corporate social responsibility as an integral element in the organizations’ mission and vision. Corporate social responsibility is the response of contemporary organizations to the challenges of the contemporary period (Hemingway, 2002) The change in the nature of contemporary organizations is brought about by social, economic, environmental and political factors working together. This reality highlights the fact that the survival of organizations in the contemporary period is rooted on the connection among the organization, the stakeholders, the society, the environment and the shareholders. The failure to recognize the intricate connection and conditions, with which contemporary organizations are thriving, is a failure to understand why corporate social responsibility as a response to changes plays a dynamic role in the continued existence of an organization in the contemporary period. DEFINING CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES As corporations and organizations are considered as social actors (Zolsnai, 2006), understanding corporate social responsibility (CSR) vis-à-vis the nature of contemporary organization a clearer perspective of the role CSR plays as businesses recognize their societal role. Corporate social responsibility has been defined in varied ways An organization’s obligation to maximize its positive impact and minimize its negative effects in being a contributing member to society, with concern for society’s long-run needs and wants. CSR means being a good steward of society’s economic and human resource (Lantos, 2001) Corporate social responsibility is “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. This definition contains the credo of business ethics, which can be summarized in three points: (i) the need to integrate the economic, social and environmental impact in all business operations to create sustainable economic growth, (ii) a focus on stakeholder management and manager's accountability to all the stakeholders, and (iii) a commitment to go over and above explicit legal requirements to respect the implicit social contract between business and society so that the firm’s “license to operate” goes with social responsibility to create sustainable value for all its stakeholders” (Zolsnia, 2006;3). A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis (Commission of the European Communities, 2001) Open and transparent business practices based on ethical values and respect for employees, communities and the environment, which will contribute to sustainable business success (IBLF, 2003) A socially responsible firm is one whose managerial staff balances a multiplicity of interests. Instead of striving only for larger profits for its stockholders, a responsible enterprise also takes into account employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities and the nation"(Caroll, 1999). The process by which managers within an organization think about and discuss relationships to stakeholders as well as their roles in relation to the common good, along with their behavioral disposition with respect to the fulfillment and achievement of these (Basu & Palazzo, 2008). These definitions are only some of the various definitions that are given to CSR. However, from these definitions one can already see the overlapping interests that are considered integrated in the definition of CSR. Fig. 1 These definitions show that corporate social responsibility pertains to finding the balance as the firm responds to the legal, political, social, environmental, and stakeholders’ interests. Moreover, the definitions show that the managerial staff of the organization is no longer just concern with the fulfilment of the stockholders’ interest but of equal weight and importance is satisfaction stakeholders’ multiple interests as well (Zolsnai, 2006). Dalshrud (2006) has conducted a research regarding the various definitions of CSR. In his research, he has found out that there are five dimensions incorporated in the definition of CSR. These five dimensions are “environmental dimension, social dimension, economic dimension, stakeholder dimension and, voluntariness dimension” (Dalshrud 2006, p 5). Moreover, he has found out that the definitions forwarded may not necessarily include the five dimensions mentioned. In this regard, he claims that CSR is not a “one size fits all” programme. Rather, it is dependent on the nature of the organization and conditions that the organization is dealing. Nonetheless, what is significant in the midst of these various approaches in understanding CSR is the notion that firms and corporations are actors whose actions may directly or indirectly affect and influence the lives of the people and the condition society where the firm is situated. However, according to Lantos (2002), firms as actors should not be equated or apprehended as similar to human actors. He claims that businesses as ‘actors’ are geared toward a particular goal and as such all actions undertaken are systematically directed toward the fulfilment of the defined goal within the limited parameters and resources available to the firm (Lantos, 2002). Any unforeseen deviation from the goal can be considered as detrimental to the status of the firm. As such, to claim that firms’ actions are the same with human actions is misleading (Lantos 2002, p 206). Corporations, including CSR, are all social constructs (Dalshrud, 2006). In this sense, it can be maintained that corporations as social constructs are basically tools created by humanity itself to make life easier and the attainment of the good life a reality. As such, the limitations in the actions of corporations are deemed to be necessary so that it can perform its functions or reached its goals. However, although corporations are social constructs, it does not mean that it cannot go beyond the set limits. In fact, it is equip in satisfying multivariate interest if it wills. This is made possible by the fact that organizations are not monolith, but they too respond and are affected by trends and events that they encounter in the physical and social condition where they find themselves. In this regard, the various definitions provided to clarify corporate social responsibility present the following elements essential in corporate social responsibility. These are (1) CSR is a process, which necessitates not only the cooperation and interests of all involve in the life of the organization, but it also requires the participation of people who are not directly affected by the actions of the organization (Basu & Palazzo, 2008). (2) CSR recognizes the equal importance of shareholders and stakeholders interests if it is to survive the competitive global market (Caroll, 1999; IBLF, 2003; Zolnai, 2006). (3) CSR, by recognizing the role of voluntarism, acknowledges not only the limits set by the laws pertaining to firm’s action, but it also manifest that organizations can decide, if it wills, to go beyond the law as it responds to the challenges of the contemporary period, of the global market (Zolsnai, 2006). Corporate social responsibility can undertake the necessary actions that are expected from it because it is buttressed by two important theories – the social contract theory and the stakeholders’ theory. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY The social contract theory, basically holds that business are part and members of the society. They are not removed from its reality. In fact, it is within the society that businesses operate and perform their transaction. This is evidenced by the licensing that the society construed (Marrewick, 2003). Licensing is the procedure and the requirement set by the society , which allows the organizations to operate in a particular social sphere. In this regard, the corporations enter into an agreement with the society that it will conduct its business not only for the benefit of the owners or stockholders, but it will also uphold the values of the society where it is situated and will conduct its business patterned after societal expectations (Gray, Owen and Adams, 1996). The social contract presents the idea that businesses do not simply operate under the invisible hands of the market. Rather, under the social contract, it contextualizes the establishment of the firm within a particular physical and historical time, while affirming the notion that businesses do not work in a vacuum but it is part of a complex market system where the interplay of societal expectations and business expectations meet (Marrewick, 2003). Moreover, under this theory businesses are ‘deemed’ responsible to the society for the following reasons: 1. It is the society that has given the corporation the license to pursue its goal. As such, it is responsible to return something to the society (Lantos, 2001). 2. It is a contract or agreement between the society and the business. Thus, both are bound to pursue their interest in a manner that benefits both and satisfy their interest. 3. Under this theory, an organization is responsible to the society because the firm uses the resources of the as it pursues its goal. On the other hand, the society as a contractor to the agreement provides the guarantee to the corporation that it will be allowed to perform its operations but the business should be a vehicle for the attainment of the good life for the members of the society. However, although the social contract theory provides an initial motivation why a firm is socially responsible, it fails to present and explain why corporations will have to be responsible in the long run (Moir, nd). Likewise, it does not give a clear-cut distinction between social validity and legitimacy of the business (Moir, 2002). As such, it leaves open the confusion between social contract and legitimacy theory (Moir, 2002). CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE STAKEHOLDERS’ THEORY Corporate social responsibility assumes that corporations are responsible for the actions and the consequences of their actions in lieu of the fulfillment of their goals. However, an important question underpins this assumption and that is ‘who are they responsible to?’ Initially, the answer to the question is clear, the corporation is responsible to the shareholders. However, considering the developments in the human context, corporations are no longer just solely responsible to the shareholders, but that they too are responsible for the stakeholders. Who are the stakeholders? Freeman (1984: 46) gives a very broad definition: “a stakeholder in an organization is (by definition) any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” which could complete the list of stakeholders. This definition is considered as the landmark definition of the term as it is the one, which is often cited when definition of stakeholder is asked (Vos, 2002). In this regard, since the actions of the corporations has an effect on the stakeholders or the actions of the stakeholders have an effect on the attainment of the objectives of the corporation, the stakeholder theory lays down the answer to the question to whom the corporation are responsible - the stakeholders. This simplistic representation of the stakeholders’ theory is not without concerns. The first problem that they have raised is that the definition of stakeholders is too broad. It does not present a clear-cut solution to the question (Vos, 2002). As such, what they did is that they have furthered classified stakeholders into primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders refer to those people “A primary stakeholder group is one without whose continuing participation the corporation cannot survive as a going concern while “those who influence or affect, or are influenced or affected by, the corporation but they are not engaged in transactions with the organization and are not essential for its survival” (Clarkson 1995, pp 106 -107). Risk is another way of ascertaining who are the stakeholders. According to Mitchell et al (1007) there are two kinds of stakeholders – the voluntary and involuntary stakeholders. The “Voluntary stakeholders bear some form of risk as a result of having invested some form of capital, human or financial, something of value, in the firm. In-voluntary stakeholders are placed at risk as a result of a firm’s activities” (Mitchell et al., 1997). Finally, Goodpaster (1998) makes the distinction based on the fiduciary gains that the stakeholders possess. Fig 2 These categories are important because it is recognized that the definition given by Freeman (1984) to concept of stakeholder is too broad making the concept vague and its actuality an abstract reality (Hemingway 2002). Furthermore, in the definition it seems that the organization is responsible to everybody, thus failing to present actual and existing people, who in one way or another, are affected by the corporation or can effect changes in the corporation. This vagueness becomes even more remarkable when questions of justice, respect and democracy are raised for clarification of the relation between CSR and stakeholders (Hemingway 2002). Fig 3 GLOBALIZATION ICT DEV OTHER CONCERNS CONTEMPORARY ISSUES CORPORATION CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY SOCIAL CONTRACT STAKEHOLDERS’ THEORY THEORY Figure three shows the connection of the factors presented. Corporations are embedded in time and space, which means that business enterprises as a social construct act and attain their goals within the society where they belong. Organizations cannot be considered as removed from society because the material needs and wants of the society are some of the primordial reasons for its inception. As such, corporations are not free from influences that affect society. The contemporary period bears witness to those changes in contemporary organizations (Tencati & Zolsnai, 2009; Hemingway, 2002; MOnsma 2006). In response to the challenges of the period, organizations incorporate CSR as part of its vision and goal. It is the 21st century way of survival. Corporate social responsibility provides adequate support for the organization because it is buttressed by theories that explicate the relation of all the factors working in CSR. That is why corporations that solid and authentic corporate social responsibility can handle the oscillations of the global society. However, although CSR is a solid response to contemporary human condition, CSR has to hurdle real situations experienced by actual people. CHALLENGES OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY As there are several dimensions (Dalshrud, 2006). On each dimension, CSR is challenged. In the social dimension, question of justice continues to hound CSR. Although it cannot be denied that notion of justice is vague, but the experience of actual people cries out for justice. SOCIAL DIMENSION REALITY SOLUTIONS POOR WORKING CONDITONS, AND CHILD LABOUR Nike’s sweat shops (Locke et al 2007) 1. Code of Ethical Conduct that is stringently followed and explained to all the workers (Locke et al, 2007; Rodríguez- Garavito, 2005 2. CSR that is not lip service (Compa, 2005) 3. Accountability and transparence (Stiglitz 2008, 2009) 4. Monitoring and auditing (Locke et al, 2007) Another concern that is gaining much attention in the last decade but is minimally included in the various definitions of CSR – environmental dimension. ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION REALITY SOLUTIONS Use of raw materials from Amazon 1. Body Shop procured raw materials from an indigenous group in Amazon. It was learned that Body Shop did not instigate any technology and knowledge transfer to the indigenous people. Yet, they have acquired huge profit out from it (Morsello, 2006). 2. Discrepancy between they say and what they do “the Body Shop case” (Entine, 2003) 1. Transparency and accountability to avoid discrepancy between words and actions (Entine, 2003). 2.Ethical conduct and this can start with honesty. The continued existence of environmental degradation, inhumane working condition, low wages, and, child labour show that the challenges face corporations remains the same even if there is global recognition of the significance of corporate social responsibility in the conduct of businesses. In fact, various institutions like Business for Social Responsibility, Commission of the European Communities, UK Government, World Business Council for Sustainable Development and scholars have come together creating not just clear- cut definitions of CSR but also frameworks with which CSR can be truly carried out in the actual factories, economic zones and business cites. However, despite the concerted efforts of organizations, academe and scholars, abuses to workers continue and utter disregard for the environment remains. These realities show that corporate social responsibility is never meant to be the panacea for the ills of contemporary organizations. However, corporate social responsibility shows that transformation is possible even on those institutions, which are considered as inflexible. This is a sign of hope. Something can still be done to curb the continued dehumanization of many workers in developing country and of the continued rape of natural resources of developing countries. In catering to the demands of affluent countries, many developing countries have failed to recognize the integrity of workers and nature. The dehumanization and destruction are all undertaken in the name of economic development. This is a great irony. Ironic because globalization, advancements in computer and information technology, and other developments and leaps in this period are meant to emancipate people from the quagmire of poverty, abuses and oppression (Peet, 2003). Unfortunately, the tenets of corporate social responsibility often encounter cold shoulders especially in developing countries. THE MODEL The model is to be applied to SMEs because the thrust for SMEs is to become competitive not only in the local market where they are situated but to go international and even global if possible (SME, 2007). In the model, going from right to left. The first move is to understand CSR. One cannot gain any clear insight of CSR without first trying to understand what are the elements and rudiments of the principle. The moment that entrepreneur is already comfortable with the idea of CSR, the next thing that must be done is to imbibe the idea that organizations are social actors. In SMEs this may be a lot easier to do because the business is known in the already. The third thing to do is to recognize and identify the stakeholders. Be aware of what are their expectations and other insights regarding the organization. Adopt transparency and accountability. This is a concern among SMEs. Since, the business has been with the family for quite a time, entrepreneurs become lax in terms being transparent and accountable. If transparency and accountability have been developed and integrated in the business, then, corporate social responsibility is embraced as one principle for the enterprise. The term use is ‘embrace’ to show that CSR is authentically considered as part of the goals and the mission of the business. It is not just a one-day seminar and then everything is already in place. The proper mind set toward it becomes perceptible if it is consciously incorporated as part of the business principle. Finally, apply CSR in the organization. There is an arrow going from the first phase to the last phase and then back again. The arrow signify if in doubt one can always retrace one’s step to remember what CSR is all about. One can always re-check where one is so that one knows whether she is still on the right track. Moreover, the model affirms that SMEs have a greater chance of competing internationally if they have clear-cut CSR as principles of the organization. The dynamism of the factors that are encountered in the business world should give players in the field the chance to check if they want, wherever they are the status of CSR. This is important because there is ac tendency to mislead the people regarding the true stature and extent of CSR participation of an organization (Monsma, 2006). The case of Body Shop shows that people tend to believe organizations have the reputation of beings socially responsible and in fact some are willing to pay an extra price in support of the firm. However, it also shows that they also have the tendency to boycott organizations, which they think are immoral (Entine, 2003). Body shop presents what may possibly happen if one gets lax with CSR. Furthermore, the model does not assert that it has all the necessary elements of CSR. However, it has one of the most important gradients for success of CSR – transparency and accountancy. Disclosures can be done using the internet, other contemporary gadgets or over dinner. Other creative and possible means may be opened especially with SMEs because the population is not that big so there is the chance with which necessary information can be discussed and divulged by the party when immediately needed. This is the beauty of CSR. It allows practitioners the chance to articulate their ideas. Thus, paving the opportunity for its supporters to go over the entire process again and learn and re-learn CSR. CSR is not a one stop shop. It teaches the person to be connected and respectful of the inherent differences that may be encountered in the work place. Moreover, the chance to go over the dynamics of the model gives one the opportunity for a continuous re-evaluation, transparency, truth, honesty and accountability in all phases actions of the corporation. CSR in ACTION `Normally, discussion of CSR centres on how it can help people gain a better life. one company in UK has taken the step forward and as a show of support to CSR, the company is one of the first among brands which are not “authentically” animal tested - lush products. Lush products avoid the pitfall of body shop by having in their web full disclosures how the products are made. They can chat on line or discuss with the sales person information regarding the product. This is important as it empowers the consumers because it provides them the necessary data as they try to make a decision whether the product suits them or not. Lush serves the buying public not only in saving animals but also by giving them the opportunity of really knowing the product that they are getting or using. It is not just an image, but it is a recognition of the social responsibility that Lush company has toward the buying public, toward their clients (www.lush.co.uk). Another instance of CSR in action is UNILEVER. As CSR is not ‘one size fits all’, companies tailor-made their CSR to the needs and demands of the public where they are situated. UNILEVER Ghana has responded to the problem of HIV/AIDS by educating the people on HIV, by providing them means livelihood and by supporting HIV/Aids patient but also the family (www.unilever.com) . These are some of the stories wherein CSR works. Indeed CSR cannot solve all the ills of the world, but it can get to the bottom of some of the major social, political, environmental, economic, legal and, stakeholders issue. It does not promise beyond what it can deliver. However, what it assures is that corporations as social actors can become the beacon of hope if they opt to - just like UNILEVER Ghana or Lush UK. CONCLUSION Corporate social responsibility is a source of competitive advantage in the world of business. However, as one implements CSR, it is necessary that one also be ready in carrying out goals that go beyond the frames of laws, the pardigms of profit. This happens because CSR opens the standard wherein one’s responsibility is no longer just limited to one’s self or is motivated by personal interests. Rather, one sees and asserts the responsibility one has to all entities that may be affected by the corporation’s choice of action. It explicitly made manifest that one is responsible not only for one’s self but for all entities with which one has a chance to encounter, ““supreme test of solicitude, when unequal power finds compensation in an authentic reciprocity of exchange, which in the hour of agony, finds refuge in the shared whisper of voices, or the feeble embrace of clasped hands.” (Ricoeur 1992, p 191). The demand for corporations for transparency, truth, honesty and accountability in all actions of a corporation is a manifestation of CSR in action, of corporate governance that takes cognizance of the holistic an d authentic needs of the people while being responsive to the demands of current human conditions. REFERENCES: Balakrishnan,P. 2003. ‘Globalisation, power and justice’, Economic and Political Weekly, 3166 – 3170. Baron, D., 2007. ‘Corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship’, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, vol. 16, iss 3, pp 683 – 717. Basu, K., & Palazzo, G., 2008. ‘Corporate social responsibility: A process model of Sensemaking’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 33, no 1, pp Bir, S., Suher, K., & Altinbaşak, I., 2009. ‘Corporate social responsibility and employer Attractiveness’, Journal of Yasar University, 4(15), pp. 2303 – 2326. Carroll, Archie B., 1999, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of a Definitional Construct”, In: Business & Society, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 268-295. Clarkson, Max B.E., 1995, “A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance.” In: Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20. No. 1, pp. 92-117. Commission of the European Communities. 2001. Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibilities, COM(2001) 366 final, Brussels Compa, L 2005 “Trade unions, NGOs and corporate code of conduct’ Dalshrud, A., 2006. ‘How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 Definitions’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, pp. 1 – 14. Entine, J. 2003. The myth of social investing: A critique of its practice and Consequences for corporate performance research, Organization & Environment,16,pp 352 – 370. Fischer, S. 2003. ‘Globalisation and its challenges’, The American Economic Review, Vol. 93, No 2, 1 – 30. Freeman, R.E., 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman/Ballinger. Helleiner, Eric. 2003. ‘Economic liberalism and its critics: The past as prologue’, Review of International Political Economy, 10, 4, p 685 – 693. Hemingway, C.A. 2002. ‘An exploratory analysis of corporate social responsibility: definitions, motives and values’. Research Memorandum 24, CMOL.UK: Hull University Business School. Jenkins, R., 2005. ‘Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty’, International Affairs, vol. 81, no 3, pp. 525 – 540. Killion,M. Ulric. 2003.’China and Neo-Liberal Constitutionalism’, Global Jurist Frontiers, Vol 3., Is 2, p 1 - 49 Kok, P., van der Wiele, T., McKenna, R., & Brown, R., 2001. ‘A corporate social responsibility audit within a quality management framework’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 31, pp 285 -297. Kotler, P.,& Zaltman, G. 1971. Social marketing: An approach to planned social change, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No 3,pp 3 – 12. Lantos, G.F., 2002. ‘The Ethicality of Altruistic Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 19, no 3, pp. 205 -232. Singh, A., & Zammit, A. 2004 “Labour standards and the race to the bottom: rethinking globalization and workers’ rights from developmental and solidiristic perspective”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 20, No 1, 85 -105. Magaro, M.M., 2010. ‘Two birds, one stone: Achieving corporate social responsibility through the shareholder primacy norm’, Indiana Law Review, 85, pp. 1149 – 1159. Malanczuk, Peter. 1997. Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7 rev. ed., New York:Routledge Marshall,J. 2007. The gendering of leadership in corporate social responsibility, Journal of Organizational Change Management: Special Issue on Women and Leadership, Vol. 20, No 2, pp 165 – 181. Mintzberg, H., 1983. ‘The case of corporate social responsibility’, Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 4, pp 3 – 16. Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood, 1997, “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” In: Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 853-886. Monsma, D. 2006. Equal rights, governance and the environment: Integrating Environmental justice principles in corporate social responsibility, Ecology Law Quarterly, 33, pp 443 – 500. Ortega-Villaseñor, D. 2004. The struggle for sustainability: Past practice, future possibilities, Sustainable Communities Review, Vol. 7, No 1, pp 19 - 29. Ricoeur, Paul. 1992. Oneself as Another. Trans. By Katherine Blarney. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. RodrÍguez-Garavito, C.A. 2004 “Global governance and labor rights: Codes of conduct and anti-sweatshop struggles in Guatemala and Mexico”, Politics & Society, Vol. 33, NO 2, 203 – 233. Roper, J., & Cheney, G. 2005. Leadership, learning and human resource management: The social entrepreneurship today, Corporate Governance, Vol. 5 No 3, pp 95 – 104. Soros, G. 2002. George Soros on Globalization. New York: Open Society Institute. Stiglitz, J. 2008. “Government failure vs market failure: Principles of regulation” Presented in “Governments and markets: towards a new theory of regulation” held on Feb 1 – 3, 2008, in Yulee, Florida. ___________. 2009. “The global crisis, social protection and jobs”, International Labour 1Review, Vol. 148, No 1-2, 1-14. Suarez-Orozco, M.M., & Qin – Hilliard, D.B. (2004). Globalization: Culture and Education in the new Millennium. Berkeley: THE ROSS INSTITUTE Supporting the Internalisation of SMEs: Final Report of the Expert Group. 2007. European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. Brussels: Belgium. Retrieved at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/index.htm Accessed on 9 December 2010. Tencati, A., & Zolsnai, L. 2009. The collaborative entreprise, Journal of Business Ethics, 85, pp 367 – 376. Vos, J. F.J., 2002. ‘Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders’, Research Report Williams, C., 2002. ‘Corporate social responbsbiliyt in a na era of economic globalization’, vol 35,pp. 705 -772. Zenisek, T.J., 1979. ‘Corporate social responsibility: A conceptualization based on organizational literature’, Academy of Management, 4, pp. 359 - Zsolnai, L. 2006. Competitiveness and corporate social responsibility, CSR Paper, Retrieved at http://www.feem.it/Feem/Pub/Publications/CSRPapers/default.htm. Accessed on 7 December 2010. Read More