issues and trends continually emerge subjecting not only the understanding of CSR but also defining best policies and practices that would make CSR truly socially responsive. CSR advocates strongly believe that the practice of CSR is indeed beneficial to all, but could it be possible when stakeholders see business from different lens as dictated by their own interest? If ever this may be true, how far does CSR satisfy the demands of the many stakeholders – the consumers, the wider community (local, regional, and international) and supply chain members?
Answering these questions would surely lead us to various issues that would bring us to realise that CSR matters more than ever as socio-economic disparity widens, as transnational corporations are more and more protested, and as corporate governance scandals – from Enron to WorldCom (Hopkins 2003, p. xi) and lately the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scandal in US housing (Cristie, 2007) – shock the economy, harming people’s lives. But before going any further, one basic issue that needs imperative attention, as this will help put things into proper perspective, is defining CSR, as Hopkins (2007, p. 15) rightly argued, “The lack of widely agreed definition contributed to misunderstanding and cynicism towards the concept itself.” What is this CSR that rocks the business world all about?
With many stakeholders – the consumers, wider community (local, regional, international), and supply chain members – pursuing their own interest, it is unsurprising to know that the definition of CSR in literatures vary. From among these definitions three are chosen for their distinct emphases.
CSR covers the relationship between corporations (or other large organizations) and the societies with which they interact. CSR also includes the responsibilities that are inherent on both sides of these relationships. CSR defined society in its widest sense, and on many levels, to include all stakeholder and constituent groups