Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Development - Essay Example

? Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable development: Tobacco industry Table of Contents Introduction 3 Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable development 5 Theories and Practices 7 Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable development: Tobacco industry 13 Application of theories to practice 17 Conclusion 20 Reference 22 Bibliography 26 Introduction Organisations across the world are seen to be struggling with a new responsibility. This is to meet the requirements of the present generation as well as ensuring that there is compromising with regards to the abilities of the generations to come. Organisations have been increasingly called upon for taking up additional responsibilities for the way their operations are having an impact on the society and its natural environment (D’Amato, Henderson & Florence, 2009, p.1). Most of the large enterprises today are seen to attribute the virtues of the corporate responsibilities to the shareholders or other stakeholders (Crane, 2008, p.282). At the same time they also increasingly have to apply principles of sustainability to the way they have been operating their business. Sustainability is said to be those activities of an organisation which are typically voluntary in nature and also demonstrates its concerns for the social and environmental issues which are related to its business operations and also its interactions with the stakeholders (D’Amato, Henderson & Florence, 2009, p.1). In the globalising world, sustainable development actively promotes accountability and corporate responsibility. This includes both the inclusion and implementation of intergovernmental measures and agreements, public private partnerships, international initiatives, effective national regulations and continuously supporting the continuous improvement of corporate practices (Tully, 2007, p.374). There is a certain link between corporate responsibility and sustainable development. Sustainability has emerged as being one of the most critical actions principles among the different responsibities of a company. An organisation can only be regarded as a responsible one if it seen to follow the principles of sustainable development (Salina & Salina, 2007, p.187). Companies are required to operate within a well defined legal framework, and complying with the law is amongst the most important responsibilities. Apart from this there are certain hindrances to the regulations and the business which should be kept minimised as much as possible (Salina & Salina, 2007, p.187). Recently, much debate has increased with regards to the diminishing scope from sustainable development to economic competitiveness. However, the focus remains concentrated and committed to the corporate responsibility of companies (Lenssen, 2006, p.324). However, it must be understood that it not just about obeying the law. It implies a business in which organisations must behave like partners within their community, and not just like profit making bodies. Moreover, they are also to promote the interests of the shareholders (Mazumdar, 2008). The recent emphasis on the issue gets reflected through one of the statements made by Manuel Barroso, the Commission President of the Lisbon Agenda, where he states that “corporate social responsibility practices can play a key role in contributing to sustainable development” (Lenssen, 2006, p.324). The spread of the concept of corporate responsibility in different forms or guises, like business ethics, corporate citizenship, sustainability, corporate social responsibility or stakeholder’s perception about the firm has become inseparable from the theories of competitiveness of firms. “Professional and business codes of practice promote ethical corporate behaviour, for example in recruitment, career development and consultation procedures” (Gill, 2006, p.166). Previously corporate responsibility was perceived as an outside agenda, but recently, it is being perceived as an integral part of the functioning of businesses and markets (Lenssen, 2006, p.325). Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable development Recently corporate social responsibility is found to revolve more around the concept of sustainability. However, this is also true that one idea pertaining to a sustainable strategy may go against another pertaining to the same. The ideas may generate conflicts arising from different priorities of the stakeholders. The financial status and other climatic changes have been making the concerns for corporate responsibility and sustainable development more critical and important. These issues are being increasingly addressed at the global level (London Metropolitan University, 2011, p.2). CSRs are the sense of voluntary and self interest driven programs and strategies by organisations which are meant to address the issues perceived as being a part of the social responsibility by companies and stakeholders. CSR is primarily about the management systems and initiatives and the way companies manage the social impacts arising out of their actions and operations. CSR was associated with the idea and concept of sustainable development from the very start at the “United Nations Rio Earth Summit in 1992” (Debroux, 2011, p.26). Here sustainable development was defined as that which meets requirements of present without compromising abilities of the generations to come to meet their own requirements. The management practices relaying to CSR explains the reason why the MNCs in the western countries demonstrate greater scope and sophistication in terms of the corporate responsibility practices. However, the recent initiatives coming from the companies in Asia show their active interest in this particular respect. At present the environmental issues looks dominant in the global scenario, however, an increasing numbers of Asian organisations have been beginning to adopt the CSR practices. A growing number of companies, even though a small number have been seen to be internalizing the CSR activities within the organisational mechanism of the company. They have also been actively engaging themselves with the stakeholders in cases of complex projects which are related to diseases, biodiversities and other issues (Debroux, 2011, p.26). However, companies have been confronting with certain societal barriers, which are very weakly supported by the legislations, international standards, and consumer disengagements. As more and more companies have been implementing CSR, and pushing their businesses towards a sustainable approach, the more are they being confronted with such barriers (Lenssen, 2006, p.410). Thus the need has aroused for overcoming the barriers and the generation of competitive advantage through the better performance of CSR activities. Additionally sustainable development is such an issue which goes much beyond the company gates. To handle issues that corporate responsibility presents to the whole industries, like health impacts, climate change, and child labour, companies are required to combine and work together. This need has fortunately been recognised by organisations like WBCSD, “World Business Council for Sustainable Development” (Lenssen, 2006, p.410). In 2001, a number of projects were initiated in Mexico, to eliminate using practices of child labour. This was meant to improve not only the lives of the children but as a practice of CSR (Hopkins, 2007, p.66). By entering into partnerships with various organisations, sectors, companies and suppliers, a number of innovative solutions can be identified to confront the CRS challenges. In other words, the industries must work together to raise their standards. Efforts must go into sharing the costs and risks of development and also enjoying both the opportunities and benefits of improving the CRS standards (Lenssen, 2006, p.410). Over the years the belief has grown that CSR involves a cost which eventually brings in long term benefits and sustainable profits. This awareness has been spread across the world (Matei & Dinu, n.d., p.462). Many organisations are seen to be issuing guidelines on CSRs. Additionally they also offer professional certification for practices which ensure sustainability assurance (Idowu & Filho, 2009, p.25). Theories and Practices Big businesses have increasingly come under pressure of acting to challenges of corporate responsibility. This is more so because businesses are constantly under pressure of competition as well as strategic consolidation. In this regard, information may be provided with regards to the pharmaceutical industry. This is primarily because of the close association of corporate social responsibility (CSR) with issues like health treatments, patent protection, affordability, etc. (O’Riordan & Fairbrass, 2008, p.3). This industry has been particularly criticised by stakeholders for various reasons, like their high levels of profit, patent usage, marketing expenditures, high investments towards drug development, political lobbying, price levels, and excessive salaries (O’Riordan & Fairbrass, 2008, p.4). The various economic and social theories combined help in explaining the role business plays in society and also helps to frame the society’s expectations towards the private sector. The various theories of corporate responsibilities that have emerged bear its root in the environmental and social sciences. However, corporate responsibility should no longer be treated as an alternative of the mainstream social theories, but rather perceived as the examination of the ways the theories can be put into practice (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.16). What distinguishes corporate responsibility from corporate philanthropies is that the corporations of today remain more concerned with implementing programs and policies rather than just giving back to society. These programs are not required legally. Some economists have targeted the fact that the use of company’s assets do not bear a direct relation with factors other than maximization of shareholder’s value. However, the theory of corporate responsibility gives definite answers to such criticisms which show that private enterprises are not exploitative in nature and they can be managed in ways that contributes to the general welfare of the society (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.17). The theory of corporate responsibility can be explained under the following two contexts. The responsible enterprise; and The extent of corporate responsibilities. The responsible enterprise The major aspect which distinguishes between the previous and the present concepts of corporate responsibility is that the focus is more on the companies than the individual entrepreneurs. Davis (1973), was among the first theorists to put forward the fact that the companies should be seen as institutions and referred more in terms of corporate responsibilities than individual acts (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.17). Part from linking power and responsibility, Davis declared that companies should remain transparent to public scrutiny and inputs. Also, the social benefits and costs should be regarded as important factors in the business and also be priced into the products. It regarded that in cases, where it has the required competencies, the company should get involved in the social affairs like any other citizen (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.18). The following fire depicts the evolution of the theory corporate responsibility as a definite field. Figure 1: Timeline of corporate responsibility (Source: Oxford University Press, 2007, p.18) The extent of corporate responsibilities Corporate responsibility is reflected in the way corporations interact with their employees, customers, suppliers, the community in which it operates and also the extent to which they protect the environment (Werther & Chandler, 2010, p.6). Davis viewed and presented how organisations could contribute towards social goals and the way in which they could be accomplished. According to Manne and Wallich (1972), corporate responsibility expenditure is that which generates the marginal returns lower than that generated though other actions. It is also referred to as “an actual corporate expenditure, not a conduit for individual largesse” (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.19). The obvious questions which follow is that whether corporate responsibility should remain limited to the extent to which generates profit, and whether companies can be denied from getting moral credit for the actions which are taken towards commercial reasons. Three concentric circles of responsibilities have been identified by Manne. They are the creation of jobs, products and economic growth; the sensitivity towards the changing social values; and the emerging responsibilities towards urban blight and poverty (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.19). The circles not only embrace the core activities in business but also suggest ways in which the companies would manage their relationships with the society. However the emphasis is primarily given to the voluntary actions which the companies are not supposed to be accountable for. The following demonstrates Carroll’s (1979) “multidimensional model of corporate responsibility” (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.19). This model has evolved as the most widely used frameworks because it demonstrates the important principles and responsibilities including economic, ethical, legal and the discretionary responsibilities clearly. Figure 2: The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.20) An organisation which is socially responsible must try to be a good, corporate citizen, remain ethical, obey all the laws, and at the same also make profits (Vallabhaneni, 2009, p.z). The strength of the model lies in the facts that the different responsibilities can be drawn together which were earlier considered to be either mutually exclusive or problematic. It identifies the separate categories and then the corresponding actions which fall in those categories are considered as the corporate responsibility. It may apparently seem that the businesses remain responsible to only those factors which are specified by the law. But in reality, legal compliance accounts for only one part of the entire responsibility. The host environment influences the corporate behaviour of the company in more than one way. One responsibility can be demonstrated by the stakeholder theory which suggests corporations must be associated with whom and why. The stakeholder theory says that all businesses require themselves to be approved by the others in society, in order to be able to function effectively. The stakeholder theory provides a comparatively stronger rationale than that of Carroll. This is because it suggests certain actions that the companies must do so than they can maintain their legitimacy. However, the theory does not suggest any obligation on the part of the firm to go further beyond that (Oxford University Press. 2007, p.21). It says that an organisation’s licence of operation remain central to the legitimacy theory which says that an organization’s core values must be aligned with that of the society in which it operates. It offers methods of managing the stakeholders against various threats. This can be done by educating them of the organisation’s intentions, attempting to change their perceptions about events, diverting their focus and attention or even changing their expectations (Oxford University Press. 2007, p.21). One of the major contributions of the theory is that it makes the management practices a part of the corporate responsibility enquiry. Earlier the theory was primarily concerned with normative behaviours of companies, but since 1970, emphasis has been given to the theory as much as other management practices. For example, the theory of corporate responsibility as put forward by Ackerman and Bauer’s (1976) emphasises on how organisations must react and respond to societal expectations. Lately, the managerial approaches towards corporate responsibility have been evolving rapidly and the requirement of measurement has also become an integral part of the responsibility (Oxford University Press. 2007, p.21). Today’s research focuses on the role of organizations in the modern society and measure the extent of corporate social performance, corporate social responsibility and corporate social responsiveness. Reviews and studies have revealed that there is a certain link between the above three aspects and the corporation’s economic performance. The relationship even suggests that the incorporation of NGOs in the strategy making process would yield greater financial returns. The multinational organizations are not opposed to the environmental regulations. As suggested by Prakash (1996), “if the costs of implementing environmental agreements are diffuse, and the benefits concentrated, they will support such agreements” (Doh & Guay, n.d., p.6).This gives insight into the fact that when NGOs successfully urge for the adoption of the standards, organizations might support the agreements if they could share the costs as well as retain their individual benefits (Doh & Guay, n.d., p.6). Recent reviews on the role of NGOs in the development of environmental standards and international labour, suggest that firms experience greater benefits from the improvement of their social and economic performance. The benefits result from the competitive advantages that result from improved performance and efficiencies. It also results into enhanced goodwill and reputation from the positive perceptions about the organisation (Doh & Guay, n.d., p.6). Moreover companies with good reputations have a greater chance of financial assistance and loans from institutions and also at low interest rates (Tulder & Zwart, 2006, p.207). Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable development: Tobacco industry Tobacco is considered to be one of those industries which cause sufferings or even human death. The project makes an attempt to show whether the industry can be considered to be responsible, and why stakeholders refuse to engaged to such companies (Blowfield, Blowfield & Murray, 2008, p.350). The tobacco industry is one of the most frequently cited examples of industries where corporate responsibility is hijacked. A number of developing nations have demonstrated reduction in the percentage of male smoking. Simultaneously, the number of lung cancers, cardio-vascular diseases, and other tobacco related diseases has also come down considerably (Merson, Black & Mills, 2006, p.302). Apart from the diseases tobacco also contributes towards environmental damage, and reduces economic productivity. The people it employs are regarded as wasted labour (Shah, 2008). Critics have claimed that industries such as tobacco, gambling, arms that can never considered being responsible because of the nature of products produced by them (Blowfield, Blowfield & Murray, 2008, p.348). Organisations from various sectors conduct programs and projects aiming to reduce social inequity. This is done by ways of improving healthcare, education facilities, or through the provision of management and vocational trainings, and enhancing the provision of leisure or other cultural activities. Sectors like the tobacco industry has been increasingly recognising the responsibility and increasing their focus towards such CSR efforts which bears relevance with their business (World Health Organization, 2003, p.2). Organisations even try to instil the values of corporate responsibilities in the employees. It is seen that a number of thoughtful people in society choose not making profits from others’ behaviours which they consider objectionable themselves (Asongu, 2007, p.42). Two transnational companies which have recently adopted CSR efforts are Philip Morris and British American Tobacco (Hirschhorn-a, 2004). Companies investing in CSR activities have grown despite the fact that they usually remain unsure of the amount they need to invest in such activities (Ferando, 2009, p.238). One area in which mostly all tobacco companies invest efforts to for enhancing their image is by developing and promoting smoking prevention programs for the youth. Apparently, the programmes seem to be dissuading or preventing the young generation from smoking, but the resulting effect is found to be contradictory. By portraying the fact that smoking activities are not good for health, or is considered to be an adult activity, the programs eventually increase the attraction towards cigarettes among the young generation. Adopting measures like provision of age proof at the point of purchase ultimately prove to be ineffective. The young generation are easily able to circumvent such restrictions (World Health Organization, 2003, p.2). As a matter of fact, they try to detract the attention from the proven and effective solutions like tax increases and price increases to which the young generation is found to be more sensitive. Tobacco companies seem to be increasingly opposing tax and price increases. They counter the argument by saying that tax increases act as an incentive towards smuggling (Joossens, 2011). However, smokers would not find it necessary to seek out for a black market only to save a small amount of money. Reasonably priced cigarettes would always be available to people who wanted to buy them (Tobacco-Free Kids, 2000, p.1). Another area in which the tobacco companies are seen to have been increasing their focus is the education sector. This has been done by providing scholarships, grants, professorships and even by creating an entire school. “At the end of 2000, the University of Nottingham announced the creation of the UK’s first International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility” (World Health Organization, 2003, p.3). More and more tobacco companies have been promoting CSR practices. However, the attainment of sustainable development is one critical issue which requires concern. “The World Business Council for Sustainable Development” aimed to promote CSR as being both favourable for the world as well as for the individual businesses. It was said companies perform better by doing good to others. This is made possible through enhanced customer loyalty and goodwill (Hirschhorn-b, 2004, p.2). It is seen that too much emphasis on corporate responsibility and sustainable development have not been acceptable by many tobacco companies. The transnational companies are being increasingly demanded to accountability from their annual reports of profit and losses “to include the economic, legal, environmental and social impacts of their businesses” (Hirschhorn-b, 2004, p.2). Some institutional purchasers of mutual funds and started screening the shares as they were more keen on buying the ones which were more socially responsible. This led to a problem in which the transnational companies began to show expanded and false reports with such names as “Social reporting”, “triple bottom line”, “corporate citizenship”, etc. (Hirschhorn-b, 2004, p.2). Such accountability requires the approval of United Nations’ Global Compact which has designed the nine principles of CSR. It is alarming to see that none of the tobacco companies have signed with the Global Compact. However, such ignorance had taken a toll on the reputation of tobacco companies. There were growing public concerns regarding the health effects of using tobacco. By refusing to address the issues aggressively, companies only landed up spoiling their goodwill. This consequently led to a dramatic change in the tobacco environment in the US. Many of the companies entered into agreements with the state’s attorney general. It was alarming to see the dramatic change in the way cigarettes were marketed or sold (Hirschhorn-b, 2004, p.3). Altria, which was previously known as PM Companies, is one example of such companies which sets a favourable example for implementing CSR. The company demonstrates its commitment towards being a socially responsible company whose actions and thoughts are aligned with the good of the common people and the community it serves. The name change was primarily meant to demonstrate and highlight the initiatives that the company took towards CSR (Hirschhorn-b, 2004, p.5). Application of theories to practice Utilitarianism had a major influence on fiving shape to the “European welfare state” with focus on the social safety networks. It is also evident in the areas of corporate social responsibility, like labour standards, that define such outcomes which are intended to provide benefits to the workers. However, the historical political thoughts evolving since 1970, have given a new shape to the concept of corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. Rawls (1971), argues that the Government has an important role to play regarding fair and equitable distribution. According to him, unequal distribution of income and wealth would only then be possible and acceptable of people at the bottom level would be better off than in any other distribution. However, this fact has been opposed by Nozick (1974). His emphasis was more on the outcomes or the “patterns of distribution over time” (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.24) than whether the transactions leading to the outcomes were fair and just. According to Nozick, the distribution of anything, be it wealth or any other thing would be considered to be just, if and only if it was attained through legitimate and just means of distribution. The distributions of properties and holdings in the society would be considered to be just if the people were entitled to all they possessed. The two justifications presented by Nozick and Rawls are different regarding the roles of the government. This is relevant to the notions of corporate responsibility as there are various debates pertaining to the regulations of organisations and also the roles of businesses in the administration of justice. While discussing about the historical context it was seen that the according to the liberal traditions companies were treated as citizens. This forms the basis on which the need for government intervention was minimised as put forth by Nozick. This perspective might emerge the fact that corporate responsibility could be viewed as an intrusion unwarranted in the rights of the corporate citizens. It can also be regarded as a way in which government intervention could be reduced. In the same way, the Rawlsian tradition presents the fact that corporate responsibility is the way in which the business resources could be harnessed for achieving social justice, or considered to be an arena where the issues pertaining to justice arising out of the relationships between society and business could be considered (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.25). Among the most important examples which demonstrate application of theories of corporate responsibility to practice is the pharmaceutical sector. It is seen that the pharmaceutical companies along with the public relation agencies demonstrate their aspirations to implement CSR (Coombs & Holladay, 2007, p.99). This is also demonstrated by its attempt to do social good through the products it beings to the society. The sector is considered to be one of the popular and ethical investors because of this. Moreover, the sector also demonstrates CSR activities through its donation of drugs to the poor nations. Tropical diseases like elephantiasis, leprosy, and river blindness are some the diseases which are taken care of by the pharmaceutical sector as part of their social corporate responsibility (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.25). Both research and drugs manufacture comprises of the major CSR agenda of the pharmaceutical sector (Mullerat, 2009, p.334). However, they still have to face such questions as to the use of animal products for manufacturing drugs, most importantly the legitimacy related to the suffering that is inflicted on the animals (Visser, et al., 2010, “Animal Welfare”). The reputation of the sector was spoilt to a certain extent in 1998. A consortium among the drug companies had filed a case against the government in South Africa, where Nelson Mandela was named as the defendant. The case was pertaining to the companies’ attempt to prohibit the generic drugs distribution used for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. The industry claimed that it was primarily meant for the protection of “intellectual property rights” (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.26), but it was repeatedly confronted with assault against price fixing and against the fact that it was denying access to the medicines. During the same period, a drug maker in Canada applied for manufacturing the generic form of a popular anti depressant called Paxil. The original patent by “GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)” was on the verge of expiring. It filed four infringement lawsuits which effectively prohibited the entry of the generic drug in the market of America (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.26). In 2001, the case pursued in South Africa was dropped. GSK was one of the first companies which came forth to sell the HIV/AIDS treatment at highly discounted prices in the developing nations. The CEO of GSK stated that he had no intensions of heading a company which only focused towards catering to needs of the rich in society and also said that the company’s main objectives must be the health of the public (Oxford University Press, 2007, p.26). The case towards Paxil continued and a number of states in the United States allegedly accused the company for the filing of patent infringement lawsuits which consequently increased the cost of medicines. The company had also been accused of denying medicine access to poor people in the society with the aim of maximising profits. The suit was settled with the payment of $14m by GSK along with the commitment of no more wrongdoing. Apart from the other industries, the tobacco industry and the mineral extracting and oil industries also has taken a great zeal towards the adoption of CSR practices. The mining companies are contributing towards improving the development of society by the provision of jobs and employment opportunities, by building strong industrial base and efficiency enhancement (Mullerat, 2009, p.460). Conclusion While doing the project it was found that organisations across the world have been increasingly considering the implementation of corporate social responsibilities as one of their prime concerns. The project demonstrates the additional responsibilities that firms have to undertake because of the impact their operations are having on the society and the environment. The principles of sustainability have also gained importance with regards to the national regulations which are aimed towards the constant improvement of the corporate practices. Today, an organisation is considered to be responsible only if it seeks to follow the principles of sustainable development. There has been a transition in the way corporate responsibility was perceived. Previously it was considered to be an agenda outside the regular activities of the company. However today it is perceived as an integral part of the core business activities of companies. The corporate responsibilities are found to resolve around the concept of sustainability. However, the principles may vary from person to person depending on the priorities of the stakeholders. But most commonly, sustainable development is perceived as that which not only meets the present objectives but also makes the stand of not compromising with the abilities of the next generation to be able to meet their requirements. The origin of the concept of corporate responsibility cannot be attributed to theories only. The emergence of the modern businesses and limited liabilities has affected the relationships between businesses and societies. Moreover, the expectations of the society towards the companies have also undergone change. In the same way, the business activities which were affected by the society have also undergone change. Exploration of the various aspects of CRs shows how the functioning of businesses in resolving these activities has undergone change. The consequences of liberalization, which constituted a major factor in globalization, have aroused the expectation and necessity of rectifying the possible weaknesses in the markets like sustainability and social justice. The tobacco industry is one of the major contributors towards corporate social responsibility. This is primarily because of the great sufferings it causes in terms of human health. It is seen that this is one of the reasons why the stakeholders have been refusing to be engaged to such companies. However, the industry has also confronted with a number of opposition regarding this issue. The industry’s steps towards implanting CRSs have been perceived as being factors which are triggering their sales and growth. In other words it has been adding to the reputation and goodwill of the company. Big businesses are been encountering increasing pressure of reacting to the challenges of CRs. The challenge has even aggravated because they are under the conditions of extreme competition. Various theories have come up which explains the roles which businesses play in society. However, the theories focus primarily on examining the ways in which they can be put into practice. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility explains the hierarchy of responsibilities which organizations must undertake. This includes the economic responsibilities, legal responsibilities, ethical responsibilities and discretionary powers. It apparently seems as if businesses remain responsible only to the legal framework, but there are a host of external influences which affects the operations of the company. Reference Asongu, J. J. 2007. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility in Practice. Greenview Publishing Co. Blowfield, M., Blowfield, M. & Murray, A. 2008. Corporate responsibility: a critical introduction. Oxford University Press. Coombs, W. T. & Holladay, S. J. 2007. It's not just PR: public relations in society. Wiley-Blackwell. Crane, A. 2008. The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press. D’Amato, A., Henderson, S. & Florence, S. 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Businesses. [Pdf] . Available at: http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/CorporateSocialResponsibility.pdf. [Accessed on March 03, 301]. Debroux, P. 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development in Asia: a Growing Awareness. [Pdf]. Available at: http://keiei.soka.ac.jp/assets/pdf/keieironsyu/vol32_no1-3/philippe_debroux.pdf. [Accessed on March 04, 301]. Doh, J. P. & Guay, T. R. No Date. Globalization and corporate social responsibility:  how nongovernmental organizations influence labor and environmental codes of conduct. [Doc]. Available at: http://www62.homepage.villanova.edu/jonathan.doh/dohguay.mir-rev3.doc.  [Accessed on March 03, 2011].  Fernando, A. C. 2009. Business Ethics: An Indian Perspective. Pearson Education India. Gill, R. 2006. Theory and practice of leadership. SAGE. Hirschhorn-a, N. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and the tobacco industry: hope or hype?. [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/20747748. [Accessed on March 04, 2011].  Hirschhorn-b, N. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and the tobacco industry: hope or hype? [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747956/pdf/v013p00447.pdf. [Accessed on March 04, 2011].  Hopkins, M. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and international development: is business the solution?. Earthscan. Idowu, S. O. & Filho, W. L. 2009. Professionals ? Perspectives of Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer. Joossens, L. 2011. Tobacco smuggling. [Online]. Available at: http://www.globalink.org/en/smuggling.shtml. [Accessed on March 04, 2011].  Lenssen, G. 2006. Corporate Responsibility and Competitiveness. Emerald Group Publishing. London Metropolitan University. 2011. Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Development. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.londonmetescem.com/docs/International_Symposium_on_CRSD_plain.pdf. [Accessed on March 04, 2011].  Matei, L. & Dinu, T. No Date. Regulation and Best Practices in Public and Nonprofit Marketing. Matei Lucica. Mazumdar, D. 2008. Sustainable development and CSR. [Online]. Available at: http://www.merinews.com/article/sustainable-development-and-csr/125226.shtml. [Accessed on March 04, 2011].  Merson, M. H., Black, R. E. & Mills, A. 2006. International public health: diseases, programs, systems, and policies. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Mullerat, R. 2009. International Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Corporations in the Economic Order of the 21st Century. Kluwer Law International. O’Riordan, L. & Fairbrass, J. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Models and Theories in Stakeholder Dialogue. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.crrconference.org/downloads/2006oriordanfairbrass.pdf. [Accessed on March 03, 301]. Oxford University Press. 2007. The origins of corporate responsibility. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199209095/blowfield&murray_ch02.pdf. [Accessed on March 03, 301]. Shah, A. 2008. Tobacco. [Online]. Available at: http://www.globalissues.org/article/533/tobacco. [Accessed on March 04, 2011].  Tobacco-Free Kids. 2000. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0024.pdf. [Accessed on March 04, 2011].  Tulder, R. V & Zwart, A. 2006. International business-society management: linking corporate responsibility and globalization. Routledge. Tully, S. 2007. International documents on corporate responsibility. Edward Elgar Publishing. Salina, J. L. & Salina, P. 2007. Next Generation Networks: perspectives and potentials. John Wiley and Sons. Vallabhaneni, D. 2009. What's Your MBA IQ?: A Manager's Career Development Tool. John Wiley and Sons. Visser, W., Matten, D., Pohl, M. & Tolhurst, N. 2010. The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility. John Wiley and Sons. Werther, W. & Chandler, D. 2010. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment. SAGE. Bibliography Anderson, J. W. 1989. Corporate social responsibility: guidelines for top management. ABC-CLIO. Bolton, D. & Benn, S. 2011. Key Concepts in Corporate Social Responsibility. SAGE Publications Ltd. Habisch, A. 2005. Corporate social responsibility across Europe. Springer. Higham, J. E. S. 2007. Critical issues in ecotourism: understanding a complex tourism phenomenon. Butterworth-Heinemann. Idowu, S. O. & Filho, W. L. 2009. Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer. Innes, J. & Norris, G. 2005. Corporate social responsibility: case studies for management accountants. Butterworth-Heinemann. Jonker, J. & Witte, M. C. 2006. Management models for corporate social responsibility. Springer. Kotler, P. & Lee, N. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing The Most Good For Your Company And Your Cause. Wiley-India. Kubr, M. 2002. Management consulting: a guide to the profession. International Labour Organization. Larkin, J. 2003. Strategic reputation risk management. Palgrave Macmillan. Leiss, W. & Chociolko, C. 1994. Risk and responsibility. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP. Litic, D. B. 2009. Spirituality and corporate social responsibility: interpenetrating worlds. Gower Publishing, Ltd.. Mallin, C. A. 2009. Corporate social responsibility: a case study approach. Edward Elgar Publishing. Mullerat, R. & Brennan, D. 2005. Corporate social responsibility: the corporate governance of the 21st century. Kluwer Law International. OECD. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: Partners for Progress. OECD Publishing. Parkinson, J. E. 1995. Corporate power and responsibility: issues in the theory of company law. Oxford University Press. Ogilvie, J. 2006. CIMA Learning System 2007 Management Accounting - Financial Strategy. Elsevier. Schreck, P. 2009. The business case for corporate social responsibility: understanding and measuring economic impacts of corporate social performance. Springer. Sims, R. R. 2003. Ethics and corporate social responsibility: why giants fall. Greenwood Publishing Group. Theodore, L. & Kunz, R. G. 2005. Nanotechnology: environmental implications and solutions. John Wiley and Sons. United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. Industry as a Partner for Sustainable Development: Finance and Insurance. UNEP/Earthprint. United Nations Environment Programme. 2009. Unep Annual Report: 2008. UNEP/Earthprint. Vogel, D. 2006. The market for virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Brookings Institution Press. Visser, W. 2006. Business frontiers: social responsibility, sustainable development and economic justice. ICFAI Books. Read More