Communication for socially responsible initiatives.
Sharma, Seema ; Mann, Deepa
This paper discusses the communication strategies adopted by the
corporate while planning and implementing their CSR initiatives in
India. Based on the data collected from five companies--a private
sector, a public sector, a private-private joint venture, a
public--private joint venture and a multinational corporation-the paper
finds that the CSR communication within the companies is top driven.
There are different levels of stakeholder involvement in CSR
communication. With respect to the communication between the corporate
and the communities, the paper contends that the companies simply may
not have communication specifically focused on them. In addition, the
communication strategies adopted by the corporate and implementing
partners in the communities run the risk for the corporate houses of
either hearing what they want to hear or of the communities'
dominance over the company.
Introduction
Communication plays an important role in determining how the CSR
initiatives of a company are viewed by the stakeholders, more
specifically the public at large. In fact, a large part of the
literature on CSR communication is aimed at identifying the
communication strategies adopted by the business houses to brand
themselves as socially responsible organizations. However, besides this,
an effective communication can play a very important role in the success
of CSR interventions in the communities. The Companies' Act 2013
has mandated CSR for a large number of companies in India. While the
companies are being encouraged to take up CSR initiatives especially in
the communities which are in and around their business operations, it is
very essential for the companies to deliberate upon the communication
strategies that they adopt in the field for their CSR interventions. The
prevailing communication strategies of the corporate aimed at the
employees, consumers, prospective consumers or the shareholders may not
work in the new context in which the corporate is being encouraged to
engage with the communities. However, not much literature is available
on the communication in the context of the community-corporate inter
phase for CSR interventions in India. One may perhaps look into the
available literature on development communication to understand the
context in which the message is received and interpreted by the
communities and also the suitable vehicle for this communication. While
the literature on development communication emphasizes on the need for a
communication strategy that can facilitate desired social change; the
corporate world is yet to come to terms with the language that such
communication requires and to make it part of their communication
strategy. This process necessitates a dialogue amongst the stakeholders
of CSR. This paper aims to highlight the communication strategies
presently being used by the corporate for their CSR intervention. The
paper is based on the data collected from five organizations in the
course of understanding their CSR processes. The data collected
underscores the need for research to identify effective communication
strategies in the emerging social and legal environment within which CSR
now operates. The paper takes the stakeholder's perspective on CSR.
The stakeholders focused on in the context of CSR are the organization,
its employees, the communities and the NGOs.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Carroll (2008) maintains that CSR is the product of 20th century.
While the concern of the business community for society can be traced
back to centuries through their philanthropic initiatives, however, the
present form of CSR is a new phenomenon through which the corporate aims
to achieve competitive advantage while also making responsible
interventions in the communities. CSR may be defined as the fulfillment
of economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities by the
corporate (Ibid).In India the state has taken lead in defining and
contextualizing CSR (Sharma, 2013). The Department of Public Enterprises
(DPE), Government of India had defined CSR in 2010 in the following
manner:
CSR is a company's commitment to operate in an economically,
socially and environmentally sustainable manner, while recognizing the
interests of its stakeholders. This commitment is beyond statutory
requirements. CSR is, therefore, closely linked with the practice of
sustainable development. CSR extends beyond philanthropic activities and
reaches out to the integration of social and business goals. These
activities need to be seen as those which would, in the long term, help
secure a sustainable competitive advantage (Department of Public
Enterprises CSR Guidelines, 2010)
This definition has been further clarified in the revised CSR
guidelines prepared by DPE in 2013. The new definition identifies the
stakeholders of CSR and has also removed the term competitive edge from
the earlier definition of 2010. The revised guidelines define corporate
social responsibility and sustainability as the "company's
commitment to its stakeholders to conduct business in an economically,
socially and environmentally sustainable manner that is transparent and
ethical. Stakeholders include employees, investors, shareholders,
customers, business partners, clients, civil society groups, government
and non-government organizations, local communities, environment and
society at large" (Department of Public Enterprises CSR Guidelines,
2013). In addition, the schedule V11 of the Company's Act, 2013
outlines the activities that shall constitute corporate social
responsibility.
Stakeholders of CSR
Typically, stakeholders are a group of individuals who may affect
or get affected by the business activities of an organization and these
generally are the shareholders, employees, customers, supply chain and
now the environment and civil society. The communities around the
business operations of an organizations have, for long not been
considered as major stakeholders in organizations' business
activities in India on account of the fact that they did not wield power
and their claims were never considered as urgent even if these may have
been legitimate. The controversies surrounding land acquisition and
rehabilitation by the business are a proof of that. The CSR mandate in
India takes these communities as major stakeholders of CSR. The revised
DPE guidelines clarify that the stakeholders of CSR are "the
employees, investors, shareholders, customers, business partners,
clients, civil society groups, government and non-government
organizations, local communities, environment and society at large"
(Department of Public Enterprises CSR Guidelines, 2013).
The stakeholders have traditionally been seen through the prism of
power, legitimacy and urgency of the claims (Mitchell et al, 1997). The
organizations with this perspective are likely to prioritize the
competing claims of the stakeholders on the basis of these criteria.
Consequently, they may end up giving more weightage to the power and
urgency of the claims since these are seen to be having more impact on
the business in the short term. However, this perspective needs a
complete review in the present context of CSR in India.
Communication in CSR
The success of the CSR initiatives and their sustainability depends
on the communication strategies adopted by the corporate in connecting
and communicating with the stakeholders and this communication must be
in the form of a dialogue. The stakeholder's dialogue is a two way
communication and negotiation process (Burchell & Cook, 2006). It
aims to co--create a shared understanding between the company and its
stakeholders ( Johnson--Cramer et al, 2003).While dialogue may be the
most suitable form of communication in CSR, the organizations may follow
three different communication strategies namely the stakeholder
information strategy, stakeholder response strategy and stakeholder
involvement strategy (Morsing & Schultz, 2006) in CSR communication.
In the stakeholder information strategy one way communication takes
place in which the organizations tell and the stakeholders listen.
Companies using this strategy acknowledge the power of stakeholders to
influence the company both positively and negatively and therefore the
desire to inform them of the good acts of the corporate so as to ensure
their support (Smith, 2003; Morsing et al, 2006). The stakeholder
response strategy is a two way asymmetric communication model. The
communication flows to and fro amongst the stakeholders but this
strategy is largely a one-sided approach as the sole intention of the
organization is to convince its stakeholders. Thus the companies many a
time seek feedback within the framework developed by them and thus end
up hearing what they wish to hear. The stakeholder's dialogue takes
place in the stakeholder's involvement strategy of communication.
This is also a two way communication model and is more symmetrical in
nature. This strategy underscores the importance of involving
stakeholders for developing CSR initiatives which are mutually
beneficial with an understanding that both the parties are willing to
change.
The success of the CSR initiatives in communities requires a
stakeholders' dialogue. This dialogue ensures that the stakeholders
are committed to solve their common problems (Waddock, 2000, Burchell
& Cook, 2006). Through the process of dialogue, a collective sense
making is achieved and if it is a guided dialogue; then the organization
can compile and coordinate various competing views of the reality and
produce a single account for action; a process referred to as guided
sense making (Maitlis, 2005). CSR initiatives implemented in this manner
in the communities are likely to have a better chance of bringing
desired changes in these communities.
Theoretical Framework
The paper takes the stakeholders' perspective on CSR. Taking
cue from the revised CSR guidelines 2013, it looks into the CSR
communication with respect to the following stakeholders: the employees
of the organization, implementing NGOs and the communities. The CSR
communication of the corporate in relation to these stakeholders has
been analyzed within the framework of stakeholders' dialogue and
the process of guided sense making. (Maitlis, 2005). The CSR
communication strategies given by Morsing et al (2006) have been used to
analyze the CSR communication of the corporate.
Research Methodology
The data for the research was collected from five organizations *
which had their corporate offices in Delhi NCR. These organizations
represented private sector, public sector, private-private joint
venture, public--private joint venture and a multinational corporation
(MNC). The master list of the organizations was prepared by combining
lists from three different sources namely; The Confederation of Indian
Industries, Department of Public Enterprises (Government of India) and
Ministry of Large and Medium Enterprises (Government of India). The
consolidated list had 951. companies whose corporate offices were in
Delhi and NCR. On careful scrutiny of the list, a total of 264 companies
were found to be engaged in CSR. After applying the inclusion criteria
of taking only those organizations that had been in business for at
least ten years and were engaged in CSR initiatives for at least five
years, the number of companies involved in CSR came out to be 256. This
list was then divided into five categories namely public sector, private
sector, joint venture (private--private), joint venture
(public--private) and MNC (Multinational Corporation) to get
representation from different sectors to understand their CSR
communication with identified stakeholders. The stratified lists thus
obtained included 20 public sector companies, 58 private companies, 14
joint ventures (public--private), 65 joint ventures (private-private)
and 99 MNCs.
Then through simple random sampling, every 10th company was
contacted from each strata seeking their cooperation for the study. Only
eight companies agreed to participate in the study. The list of eight
companies included one public sector undertaking, two private companies,
one joint venture (private--private), three multinational corporations,
one joint venture (public-private). Of these eight companies, the
researcher purposively selected five companies which had at least one
CSR project in Delhi and NCR.
The data was collected by using a mix method approach. Interview
schedules, questionnaires, focus group discussions and observations were
used to collect data from management, employees, trade unions, NGO
representatives and the communities. Table 1 provides a brief of the
five organizations whose CSR communication strategies were studied.
Beyond Legal Obligations
While the companies which fall within the stipulated financial
limits as per the Companies Act, 2013 now need to undertake CSR, there
are reasons beyond this mandate that have motivated the corporate to
undertake these initiatives even before CSR was mandated. The five
corporate studied underlined following reasons for taking up CSR
initiatives. The first reason is the desire to relate CSR with the
stakeholder response. The company B thus prefers to implement CSR
initiatives in areas near the plant to avoid opposition and unrest from
the community arising out of the company's business operations. It
relates its CSR initiatives with the response of the communities around
its area of operation. It recognizes that the stakeholders of a company
especially the communities may be affected by its business operations.
The positive aspects of its operations such as increased economic
opportunities may be accompanied by the negative impacts such as
environmental hazards, traffic jams and issues arising out of land
acquisition. The CSR interventions of the company help to reduce the
negative response of the communities towards its operations. Secondly,
the CSR initiatives of an organization are seen as means to enhance
business opportunities. The companies may thus look at the CSR
initiatives as tools to improve the purchasing power of the prospective
customers and to enhance the company's brand image. For instance,
company D views children as their prospective customers. It focuses on
child development, education and vocational training so that it can
enhance its customer base in future. Similarly, company E also views its
CSR initiatives as investments to increase their loyal customers. The
third rationale for undertaking CSR initiatives provided by the
companies is that these initiatives contribute towards getting a
competitive workforce in future. The company C views CSR interventions
as an opportunity to build future workforce. The company maintains that
their contribution towards education and vocational training will
provide them with competitive workforce in future. Company D also
considers its CSR as a mechanism for getting competitive workforce in
future and hence focuses on children as part of its CSR. The fourth
rationale is that CSR activities facilitate the building of a satisfied
and prosperous society. A satisfied and prosperous society in turn
positively impacts the business and result in development of both the
company and the country. For instance, company A is of the opinion that
CSR should not be seen within the narrow perspective of deriving direct
benefits out of it. It sees CSR as an endeavor to build a satisfied and
prosperous society and hence takes up CSR initiatives across the
country.
All the five organizations consider investment in the communities
through CSR to their competitive advantage; let us look at how
communication is used by the companies to engage with the stakeholders
to meet their CSR goals.
Communication on CSR
The present paper has considered employees, NGOs and communities as
the three stakeholders of the organizations to understand their CSR
communication. The communication on CSR in the five companies has been
interrogated at three levels in this paper. These are:
1. Within the organizations.
2. Between the organizations and the NGOs.
3. Between the implementing agency (the CSR department of the
corporate, its foundation or the NGOs) and the communities,
Let us look at the communication of the corporate in relation to
the stakeholders at all the three levels.
Communication within the Organizations
The communication on CSR within the organizations must necessarily
flow amongst all those who are directly or indirectly part of the CSR.
There are thus different stakeholders amongst whom the communication on
CSR flows within the organizations. The communication with respect to
CSR within organizations is likely to flow amongst the top management,
the implementing staff of the CSR decisions and the employees of the
organization.
The CSR communication flow in all the five organizations follows a
top--bottom approach. All the CSR decisions are top driven and are
communicated to the staff at the implementing level. The communication
between the top management and the implementing staff is largely
restricted to the management seeking inputs, feedbacks and
clarifications to facilitate its decision making. Since the direction of
CSR is scripted by the top management, the implementing staff receives
directives for action and it ensures that the written communication in
the form of reports is regularly submitted and necessary approvals for
the projects are taken from the top management. The findings from the
field show that the top management may not necessarily take cognizance
of the CSR projects related inputs provided by the implementing staff.
The study found that most of the communication on CSR with the
employees of the organization is done through the annual reports, the
company websites or through circulars/notices. The e-mails are used as
communication vehicle by those organizations which have engaged their
employees directly in CSR activities. Four organizations engaged their
employees in CSR activities at some level. Of these, organization A
involved its employees as instructors in their schools and as volunteers
in community development initiatives. However, the employees were not in
any way part of the decision making process of the CSR interventions.
The organization B engaged its employees in identifying the beneficiary
group under one of its project. The organization D sought suggestions
from its employees on the nature and type of CSR activities and their
implementation. The employees could communicate with the CSR
implementing staff on the activities that could be incorporated as part
of the CSR and the NGOs that could be contacted for implementation.
Organization E, by and large, used its employees as volunteers for the
implementation of some of its activities such as blood donation camps.
It communicated with its employees to seek their volunteering through
the mails and their CSR website. In organization C, the communication
between the CSR department and the employees was extremely weak to the
extent that many employees were not aware of the activities of the CSR
department. A few employees did not even know the existence of the CSR
department.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
We find that there is an exchange of communication in organizations
A, B, D and E. Although it is a two way communication, it is an unequal
exchange with the power to direct the communication lying with the
organization. This communication is a form of stakeholder response
strategy. On the other hand, organization C applied stakeholder
information strategy while implementing their CSR initiatives. In the
stakeholder information strategy, one way communication takes place in
which the organization tells and stakeholders listen. The favorable
corporate CSR decisions and actions are communicated to the stakeholders
of the company (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).
Communication Flow between Corporate, NGOs & Communities
Communication between the corporate, NGOs and the communities
follows an interesting pattern. Two organizations, viz. C and E did not
engage directly with communities. Their CSR programs were communicated,
clarified, translated and implemented via the implementing partners
(NGOs) whom they had selected. Organizations D and B were directly
engaged with the communities through their CSR department/ Foundation
and their programs were run in collaboration with the local panchayat or
the community based groups. Organization A was involved in CSR directly
with the communities through its foundation. It also worked through NGOs
in the communities. It had two projects. In one project, its employees
identified the community group and organized various activities and
under the other project it provides fund to the implementing partner/
NGO to run their initiative. Let us look at these communication patterns
separately.
Communication between Organizational Staff & NGOs
The communication between the staff of the corporate and the NGOs
follows a top bottom approach. The pattern of communication as was
observed within the organizations i.e., between the management and the
implementing staff, is by and large replicated at this level. The
implementing departments of the corporate were the communication centers
from where the decisions and commands flowed and were transmitted to the
NGOs. The NGOs were seen to be complying with these commands and
providing feedbacks on the performance in the field--both written and
verbal. The organizations that engaged NGOs for implementing CSR
initiatives viz., A, C and E were more like the funding agencies and
therefore laid down the grounds of engagement and communication with the
NGOs. The conditionalities, the deliverables and the number of
communities, the reporting formats as well as frequency of reports and
the monitoring mechanisms were decided by the corporate and clarified to
the NGOs. Company C selected the implementing NGOs through a process in
which the NGOs gave an expression of interest. There was no scope for
further discussion as all the major decisions for the project were taken
by the corporate based on their focus areas. Similarly, organization D
decided the areas of intervention and scope of the project and the NGO
acted as the implementer with a minimal say in the deliverables of the
project. The NGO submitted its project reports which largely focused on
the achieved targets. Organization B did not engage NGOs for its CSR
implementation.
While NGOs are seen as stakeholders in the CSR process, it is seen
that there is no dialogue between the NGOs and the corporate. It is an
asymmetrical two way relationship in which the corporate exercises power
on account of holding the purse strings.
Communication between the Corporate &Communities
Although all the five companies considered communities as their
major stakeholders in CSR and had undertaken initiatives in the
communities, however only two companies of them, A and B, engaged this
major stakeholder in planning and implementation of their CSR
activities. The remaining three organizations did not directly
communicate with the communities in the entire CSR implementation cycle
except during some programs which were held in the communities or for
the purpose of monitoring. Organization A while availing of the services
of NGOs in the community also worked directly with the communities
through its foundation.
There were three types of community involvement in the
implementation process thereby unfolding different communication
strategies used by them while engaging with the communities.
1. Organization C follows the stakeholder information strategy with
the communities just the way it uses with its employees. The communities
do not play an active role in the CSR initiatives except for availing
the services under CSR and providing feedback on these services which is
collected as part of the impact evaluation exercise. Organization C
either invites applications for implementation of CSR initiative from
the interested NGOs or these NGOs themselves approach the corporate to
seek financial support for their projects. It then negotiates the area
of operation, conditionalities and expected outcomes with the NGOs who
then implement the initiatives. The NGOs by and large function as
service providers on behalf of the organization. The corporate does not
directly connect with the communities. Consequently, it does not have a
clear understanding of the community needs. The direct channels of
communication between the corporate and communities are absent. It is
the NGOs which provide the missing communication link between the
corporate and the communities and as implementing partners communicate
the organizational interventions to the community. The extent of
alienation of the communities from the entire process can be gauged from
the fact that many of the community members were not aware that the
organization C was providing the funds and support for the initiatives
of which they were a part. This is not to say that the communication
between the communities and the NGOS is one of dialogue. The NGOs being
service providers deliver the services to the community which is the
recipient. The communication originates from the NGOs and is received by
the community which interprets it and responds in the form of feedback.
In the same way, organization D also follows the stakeholder information
strategy and communicates with communities through NGOs. The
communication flow between these organizations and the communities is
given in fig. 2.
Company E identifies themselves the areas of CSR intervention and
the initiatives on its own and then looks for an NGO which can undertake
the implementation. It then seeks feedback of the communities on the
initiatives through the implementing NGOs. The NGOs after seeking
feedback from the community implement the CSR initiatives of the
company. This mechanism is different from the need assessment of a
community. It is more on the lines of a feasibility study of the
proposed initiatives. The data from the community reveals that the
implementing NGOs take the organizations' proposed areas of
intervention to the community and sell the intervention to the community
and motivate people to avail the benefits from the programs that have
been designed as interventions projecting them as the best solutions for
addressing their problems. The data shows that the company adopts the
stakeholder response strategy. Though it is a two way communication
here, it is predominantly an one sided approach in which the company
uses NGOs to seek feedback on issues but questions put forward are a
reflection of what the company intends to offer. This strategy runs the
risk of hearing what one wants to hear (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).
Fig. 3 depicts the flow of communication between the corporate and the
communities.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The community involvement process is adopted by companies A and B
where by the communities identify their needs and put up proposals for
an intervention to the company. Company A engages with the community
through its foundation and company B through its CSR department.
Although both the companies directly communicate with the communities
for CSR initiatives, there are differences between the two. Company A
uses the method of community involvement in the adopted village. The
community members are involved in the planning, implementation and
monitoring of the CSR projects in the village. The communities see
themselves as part of the company. This kind of response is likely to
come when stakeholder involvement strategy is consciously adopted. The
stakeholder involvement strategy adopts a dialogue with its
stakeholders. In this persuasion may occur but it is from the side of
both the stakeholder and the organization; each trying to persuade the
other to change. The symmetric communication model is based on the
progressive interaction of sense making and sense giving processes
(Morsing et al, 2006). So ideally, both the company and the stakeholders
will change as a result of engaging with each other through this model.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Company B has adopted a community for development initiatives. The
villagers have over the years started to take lead in planning the
desired initiatives. They now conduct monthly meetings and decide the
initiatives for which they wish the company to provide funds. This is
discussed with the representatives of the company and the funds are
released for all the proposed initiatives. The community views the CSR
initiatives of the company as a give and take relation. It believes that
since the company has to run its business in the area it should maintain
it. The community claims that it also extends help to the company at the
time of crisis such as strikes and unrest by contract labor and
therefore the company is obliged to reciprocate. Though this is a two
way communication it has the potential of stakeholders' dominance.
Figures 4-5 explain the communication of the two companies with the
communities.
Conclusion
Organizations are found experimenting with different ways of
communication in the area of CSR. There are multiple issues in the
process of communication on CSR. First, while there are a number of
stakeholders in CSR, however on account of the CSR mandate under the new
Companies Act 2013, the communities emerge as an important stakeholder;
especially those around the area of operation of the corporate.
Therefore, the organizations need to have strong communication channels
with the communities. However this channel is absent in three of the
five corporate who have substituted this missing link with the NGO
networks in communities. These NGOs in turn again have two patterns of
communication --one with the corporate and other with the communities.
The communication pattern of NGOs with the corporate is defined and
scripted by the business houses. It is by and large one way
communication where the commands flow from corporate and the
implementing partner interprets the commands and gives feedback on
actions taken. The nature of this communication dictates the
communication pattern of the NGOs with the communities wherein they
carry forward the message of the corporate and seek the desired
response. A complete break of communication between the corporate and
communities and a complete reliance by the corporate on the NGOs to fill
the deficit in communication may not be desirable in the long run. In
the case of those organizations which have direct engagement with the
communities, we find that the communication channel is open both ways.
The communication may originate from any side but there is an ongoing
exchange between the communities and the corporate. At the same time,
this two way communication also has its limits. This was amply
demonstrated in the case of organization B where it was the power of the
communities which dominated the communication.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
One also needs to take cognizance of the fact that the employees
have more of a passive role in the CSR initiatives of the organizations.
The study also underscores the power difference amongst the various
stakeholders of CSR. While the stakeholders' approach celebrates a
dialogue amongst the stakeholders, however the reality shows that the
corporate tend to have the maximum power and set the ground rules of the
communication that takes place amongst the three stakeholders.
It needs to be highlighted that the communication for change needed
in CSR requires that the message must have roots in the culture of those
communities towards which it is directed and the message should use the
medium with which the communities are comfortable. It is therefore
necessary to experiment with new models of communication. These models
of communication should be based on a guided dialogue and should enhance
the scope of legitimacy in the stakeholder's dialogue.
Seema Sharma is from Department of Social Work, University of
Delhi. Deepa Mann (Email:
[email protected].) is from Labor
Department, Government of NCT of Delhi
References
Burchell, J. & Cook, J. (2006), "It's good to talk?
Examining Attitudes Towards CSR Dialogue and Engagement Processes".
Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2): 154-70.
Burchell, J. & Cook, J. (2008), "Stakeholder Dialogue and
Organizational Learning: Changing Relationships Between Companies and
NGO's, Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1) 35-46.
Carroll, A. B. (2008), "A History of Corporate Social
Responsibility Concepts and Practices". 19-45. doi:
10.1093/oxforddhb/9780199211593.003.0002
DPE Guidelines on CSR (2010),
http://dpe.nic.in/important_links/dpe_guidelines. accessed: 04.03.2016
DPE Guidelines on CSR (2013),
http://dpe.nic.in/important_links/dpe_guidelines. accessed: 04.03.2016
Johnson-Cramer, M.E., Berman, S.L. and Post, J.E. (2003),
"Re-examining the Concept of Stakeholder Management" in
Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B. and Rahman, S.S. (Eds.), Unfolding
Stakeholder Thinking: Relationships, Communication, Reporting and
Performance: Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Maitlis. S (2005), "The Social Processes of Organisational
Sensemaking". Academy of Management Journal, 48 (1): 21-49.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle. B.R. & Wood, D.J. (1997), "Toward a
Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the
Principle of Who and What Really Counts" The Academy of Management
Review, 22, (4) 853-86.
Morsing, M. & Schultz, M. (2006), "Corporate Social
Responsibility Communication: Stakeholder Information, Response and
Involvement Strategies". Business ethics: A European Review, 15(4):
323-38.
Sharma S. (2013), "Corporate Social Responsibility in India;
The Emerging Discourse & Concerns". The Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 48(4): 582-96
Smith, N.C. 2003, "Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or
How?". California Management Review, 45(4): 52-76.
Table 1 Summary Profile of Organizations
Name of Nature of Major Areas of Implementing
Organization * Organization CSR Initiatives Agencies
A Private company Ideal village Foundation
engaged in project and
manufacturing youth
development
B Joint Venture Social CSR Department
(private- initiatives and
private) community
engaged in development
manufacturing initiatives
C Public Sector Extending NGOs
Undertaking support during
from energy national
sector emergencies,
community
development
programs,
health
initiatives and
education
D MNC engaged in Projects for Foundation and
FMCG the visually NGOs
challenged and
for the
children
E Joint Venture Vocational NGOs
(public- training, women
private) literacy, blood
engaged in and clothes
power donation,
distribution medical
services for
the communities
* The names of the organizations have been withheld to maintain
confidentiality. The terms business house, organization,
corporate and companies have been used interchangeably in the
paper to cover the business organizations that are undertaking
CSR
