What Is The Importance Of Corporate Social Responsibility
In The 21st Century?
The term of corporate social responsibility has well known by the literature since 1960 which covers self-regulated mechanism that managers of the company tend to act taking into consideration profits of the company as well as the needs of the society. Haynes, Murray and Dillard suggests that “Although in recent decades the practice of Corporate Social Responsibility has become mainstream, with virtually every FTSE 100 company including it on their agenda in some form, the conceptualisation of CSR remains contested and even confused.”[1] The term ‘corporate social responsibility’ covers many issues such as company objectives, ethical rules and sustainability development in national and international level. In the literature, there is a lack of exact definition such a wide-range concept. However, the definition made by various authors causes uncertainty about what the term exactly covers and aims. According to Dahlsrud, corporate social responsibility has five dimensions: the environmental dimension, the social dimension, the economic dimension, the stakeholder dimension and the voluntariness dimension.[2] It has been defined by the UK government in this way: “It is defined as the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions on society and the environment above and beyond its legal obligations, through transparent and ethical behavior.”[3]
Companies have increased their power within the society and their position in the society. As a result of this, the society has questioned them about the social matters. The questions about human rights, legal developments, employee rights, environmental consciousness and corporate governance have become issues related with corporate social responsibility. The public interest might have taken as a main purpose of the social responsibility of the corporates. In that context, to act in accordance with public interest means to ensure long-term sustainability considering the benefits of future generations.
Over the last decades, there has been an increase in the number of sectors have acted responsibly within the society and the companies. In accordance with that, these businesses have started to establish a separate service in order to analyse corporate social responsibility codes, reports and updates. McBarnet focuses on these issues that “The range of issues involved is constantly expanding, with matters such as the promotion of ‘diversity’ in the workforce, ethical policies on the supply chain, responsible marketing, especially with regard to marketing to children, and even demand for a responsible approach in the food business in relation to obesity, recently added to the agenda.”[4] As a result of this, the corporate social responsibility has become an understanding of ethical rules fall within the scope of business world in order to make the world better place to live.
This paper aims to illustrate the issues covered by corporate social responsibility and the relations between each other. In the first part, I will mention about the dominant approaches in the context of the responsibility. In the second part I will discuss its relation with law, human rights and sustainable development.
Accordingly, in the following part I will mention about the arguments for and against the corporate social responsibility.
1. Grounds For Corporate Social Responsibility
To critically evaluate the corporate social responsibility, first the meaning of being socially responsible needs to be understood. Carroll has explained the corporate social responsibility with the pyramid of corporate social responsibility including four layers.
Figure 1: The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (Carroll, 1991)
In 1991, Carroll critically analyses four elements of the corporate social responsibility indicating that; “To be sure, all of these kinds of responsibilities have always existed to some extent, but it has only been in recent years that ethical and philanthropic functions have taken significant place.”[5]
In the following paragraphs I will briefly explain what these four dimensions exactly include.
1.1. Economic Responsibilities
As its nature, business entities have been created to make profit by the investors. The companies were established to maximize the sales, minimize the costs, to be effective and competitive.
1.2. Legal Responsibilities
The business needs to follow various federal, state and local regulations and fulfil those legal obligations. The employment rights, consumer protection rights, taxation law are important in order to be socially responsible.
1.3. Ethical Responsibilities
Ethical means the obligation of acting fair and justice taking into consideration of the interest of the employees, consumers, shareholders and the community as a whole. It is important for a company to follow ethical standards and social norms.
1.4. Philanthropic Responsibilities
The business needs to provide activities supporting the good for the community such as arts, education, health and culture in a voluntary basis. Philanthropic responsibilities are located at the top of the pyramid representing less important matter than the other three concepts but mostly desired one.
|
Responsibility |
Basis |
Explanation |
|
Economic |
Be profitable. |
The foundation upon which all others rest.
|
|
Legal |
Obey the law. |
Law is society’s codification of right and wrong. Play by the rules o the game. |
|
Ethical |
Be ethical. |
Obligation to do what is right, just and fair. Avoid harm. |
|
Philanthropic |
Be a good corporate citizen. |
Contribute resources to the community; improve quality of life. |
Figure 2: The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (Carroll, 1991)
It can easily be seen from the Carroll’s pyramid that the economic responsibilities are the main foundation of being socially responsible and others cannot survive without this purpose. While the companies were following the economic framework to maximize its profit, the expectation of the society from the company is to fulfil the legal requirements. In addition to that, the company needs to follow ethical norms were not regulated legally; but expected within the society acting sensible to the human being. The philanthropic responsibilities are the mostly desired ones by the societal members. Jamali and Mirshak suggests that “Recognizing that social issues may change over time depending on the industry in which firms exist, an effective responsibility performance entails a systematic attempt at fleshing out the social issues that are of most interest to the firm.”[6] Broad examining of the pyramid shows us that the corporate social responsibility includes relations between the company and the society, and the voluntary initiatives of the company for its societal members.
Stakeholders of the company should be mentioned here to fully understand the pyramid approach. Stakeholders can be defined such as who have been affected via the companies positive and the negative way with its actions. Stakeholders can be arrayed like employees, customers, creditors, suppliers, local community and social activists. Various types of stakeholders represent different types of responsibilities shown by the pyramid. Although, each of these stakeholders have expectations from companies to fulfill those four dimensions within their interests, at least one of them.
As a result of these statements, the corporate managers need to develop an understanding such as covering the company and its societal members and their relation with the economy, law, ethics and morality.
2. Related Issues With Corporate Social Responsibility
2.1. Law and Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate social responsibility has been recognised as voluntary activities via companies must be beyond the legal framework. However, self-regulated approach to the corporate social responsibility has not seen realist because it has been forced by social and economical concerns within the society. NGOs defend the idea that the firms should follow the regulations have been made by authorities and should not left it in voluntary basis. In this regard, there is a lack of understanding about the corporate social responsibility that it should be followed by voluntarily or legally within the framework of the companies.
Corporate social responsibility is an important concept for the developing states. The business entities might also be used for the social improvements for its societal members with the help of the government. According to some of the government regulations, there are certain types of regulations require social responsibility standards for the companies. It needs to a serious attempt while formulating the corporate social responsibility as long as it is hard to define such a wide-range of concept. However, normative rules will be a good idea to accrete within the social, economical and ethical concepts of being socially responsible. According to Buhmann, “We have seen that international law and specific standards serve as a source of CSR, and that statutory law also used by governments to demand or encourage corporate actions that relate to CSR, for example through reporting.”[7]
It is evident from the fact that the corporate social responsibility is in close relationship with the employee rights, human rights, environmental factors and the norms underlying this concept are also related with law. Labour rights, human rights and national legislative guides can be considered as legal norms. Normative values such as ethical norms, norms within the corporation also can be assumed as non-legal instruments in that context. This illustration shows us that the law and the corporate social responsibility approaches are related to each other in binding and non-binding level.
The strength issue here is the not the only legal instruments affect the responsibility, as well as the social and market pressures put in effort to the business entities. The corporate social responsibility also has been located beyond the law requirements in order to achieve social, economical, ethical and normative purposes. These four dimensions have made this concept in related with the legal and beyond legal subject.
NGOs pressures over the companies should not be forgotten here while mentioning the beyond legal requirements. The civil organisations also can be used to control the business entities whether they are acting in accordance with the law or not. While these societies doing that, they will use their own control mechanisms and also they will ensure that the companies have taken into consideration their interest while setting their standards in order to be socially responsible.
According to McBarnet, “What is emerging in the arena of CSR is a complex interaction between government, business and civil society, private law, state regulation and self-regulation, at national and international levels, with social, legal, ethical and market pressures all being brought to bear in ways that cut across traditional pigeon-holes, and which …. interrelate with and foster each other.”[8] This finding shows us that the corporate social responsibility acts in reliance to the rules that as if they were formally binding. The interrelation between these four dimensions are comprising the corporate social responsibility, on the other hand causes a difficulty to draw an exact line between the moral rules and legal rules.
As it is clearly seen from the above explanations that the corporate social responsibility needs to have broader framework regulated by legal rules in accordance with the demands of the stakeholders. The legal rules shall be used for control mechanisms such as asking for reports, actions made for the societal members etc. On the other hand, stakeholders have power to use over the companies and the companies have to act in accordance with their interests while they were attending to a socially responsible work. The legal and ethical norms should be seen as complementary factors of the corporate social responsibility not the alternatives of the acting socially responsible.
2.2. Human Rights and Corporate Social Responsibility
In 1948, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that; “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”[9] In order to achieve the understanding of the Declaration about human being, the corporate social responsibility has a significant role in the contemporary era. Welford suggests that, “In other words, there is a dire need for human rights to be brought directly into the debate and the policy considerations of those who formulate the policies and operate the institutions that are at the forefront of the drive for the increased globalization of contemporary society.”[10]
The companies need to take into consideration the ethical norms as well as the economic factors of their business in the 21st Century. The improvements of the technology should be used as a tool for the common good while it has been referring for the interests of the companies.
The Corporate Social Responsibility agenda of the companies should also rely upon social approaches including protection of the human rights. UN Human Rights Council has adopted legal rules called ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’[11] including principles for the companies in order to act relying upon those rules. These principles held managers of the company accountable for their behaviors through the human rights. UN Human Rights Council has held up to provide certainty about the duties and responsibilities of the companies and governmental bodies regarding human rights.
In the literature, there is a concept called ‘triple bottom line’ which brings new concepts to the financial purpose of the companies such as social and ecological purpose. Triple bottom line refers to the shareholders and stakeholders interests in the company referring to people (social), planet (environmental) and profit (financial). With the help of triple bottom line; companies tend to adapt their agenda in accordance with the social and ethical norms as well as the financial aspects. Although, companies have been controlled by those mechanisms in order to attempt socially responsible activities.
The strong interrelation between the business entities, human rights and corporate social responsibility has come into prominence in the 21st century. The companies have power over the employees (in a broad sense human beings too) in order to protect their rights and to violate their rights with the business ethics though. To protect the human rights there is a necessity to ask a question to the companies if they were liable under international human rights requirements or not. According to Horrigan, “In the absence of a comprehensive international framework and correlative enforcement mechanisms for corporate social responsibility and liability, litigation against parent companies or group enterprises in North America, the UK and elsewhere seeks to hold them ‘legally accountable in developed country courts for negative environmental, health and safety, labor or human rights impacts associated with the operations of members of their corporate family in developing countries …. by testing the boundaries of existing legal principles, rather than by calling for new regulation.”[12]
The question still arises about “Is it possible to adopt a regulation covering business needs and public interests in order to protect human rights?” In that context, stakeholders have common sense about this legal framework stating that it is a necessity to have this kind of regulation adopted by all parts of the companies for its corporate social responsibility activities.
To become a socially responsible company is a question that the managers of the company need to ask themselves. There is a drawback here is that the companies are not capable to accept whether if they really focus on being socially responsible or just acting as it is for the company’s reputation. In practice, the companies put themselves in a denying process about the corporate social responsibility initiatives. According to Frankental, “Denial may take a number of forms;
· Lack of conception of what human rights is.
· Lack of acknowledgement of their responsibility for the human rights impact of their operations.
· Lack of analysis as to how their operations might impinge on human rights, and how they could use their legitimate influence actively to further human rights.”[13]
In practice, there is a lack of regulations about human rights in business. Despite of the regulations implemented by worldwide organizations, there is a really strength issue about the behavior’s of the companies. Besides, the international regulations about human rights in business have effects within and beyond states. In order to ensure acceptable position under the international law, it needs to go further about implementations of the human rights to the business.
As far as it is seen from the above explanations about human rights and business, there is a need for rules engaging those two concepts each other. Companies have started to add their agendas this approach while nominating their managers, directors in order to be sensible and effective about human rights law. The role of the companies in order to improve their regulatory framework about human rights should not be undermined. In the mean time, accountability of the companies for the human rights activities and concerns should be followed concurrently by regulatory mechanisms. As a result of that, the correlation between the states and the international bodies will ensure the responsibility of the companies both national and international level. This understanding is looking for new approaches for business entities such as having cross border mindsets thereby mitigating the relation between business and human rights as it is supposed to be in the 21st century.
2.3. Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Responsibility
The relation between sustainable development and the corporate social responsibility has been considered as a global concern over the last decades. The distinction between the interests of the companies and the concerns of the stakeholders need to be focused on. The case here is to ensure these two rationales within the corporate social responsibility understanding: financial profits and social benefits. Also, the pressures from the NGOs focus on the need for awareness of the companies in the context of interest of the society including past, present and the future.
The definition of the sustainable development is a really strength issue in corporation level. According to the ‘UN Documents’ about sustainable development, it means:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
· the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
· the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.”[14]
The prominent future of the sustainable development of the company is to fulfill the needs of the society within social and environmental level in addition to its financial purpose. Each of the stakeholders has different interests over the company because of that; there is a need for guiding requirements for the implementation of the sustainability. According to Juscius, “The key premise of corporate sustainability is that corporations should fully integrate the social and environmental objectives with their financial aims and account for their actions against the wellbeing of a wider range of stakeholders through the accountability and reporting mechanism.”[15]
In the globalization era, the companies have put in effort to their socially responsible activities to ensure sustainable profits for the society as well as the financial profits of the business. Sustainability also refers to the interests of the stakeholders and this approach led companies deeply focus on social and environmental expectations of the members of the society. Hawkins suggests that “On the one hand, CSR has become somewhat of a millstone for the business community, creating a whole new raft of pressures in what is an increasingly complex trading environment. On the other hand, the concept of sustainability, which was once a sensible idea to conserve resources, has become a buzzword for every NGO trying to generate support.”[16] Sustainability might be considered in the middle of changes in the energy, climate, population, governance, environment, technology and consciousness within the society.
In order to ensure continuity of the sustainable development, companies need a regulatory framework including environment and the community expectations. The globalization impacts over the companies have changed the demands about being socially responsible. As a result of that, if the companies intend to focus on the interests of the society, they need to change their strategy to deal with the conflicts between now and then.
The European Sustainability Reporting Association aims to provide sustainability reports across European countries.[17] These reports represent a guideline for the companies in order to have an overview and analyze their position about sustainability. For instance, one of the best practices in the EU is the Climate Change Bill which has been adopted in 2008 in the UK. The main aim of the Bill is to manage and mitigate the climate changes with legally binding regulations and it has called for mandatory reporting for the carbon emissions by UK companies. This Association helps to provide more socially responsible activities via companies with its regular reports.
In the 21st century, the companies need to have broad understanding of being socially responsible. The strength issue here is to enhance theoretical and practical framework for the companies. In order to do so, companies should take into account social and environmental aims as well as the financial profits. Also, the companies need to consider the interests of the stakeholders and use control mechanisms such as reporting, controlling throughout the sustainability process. To protect the interrelation between stakeholders and the business initiatives is possible only within the company’s attempts for the further dialogues.
It is evidence from the fact that corporate social responsibility needs to be in close relationship with the sustainability approach to protect the company and the society in the globalized era. Elena suggests that “The promotion of CSR as a mandatory support for other policies and priorities and as proactive solutions to societal and environmental challenges, it can enhance the competitiveness in the Europeanization and in the globalization context.” [18] To build a bridge between the business and the community will take place if the companies reform their corporate social responsibility agenda.
3. Arguments For and Against Corporate Social Responsibility
The idea of corporate social responsibility has its supporters as far as its opposing views. In the following paragraphs I will focus on why the authors think that it should be abandoned and adopted.
|
Arguments For |
Arguments Against |
|
1. Focuses on social issues where the business is the reason and the business solve that problem |
1. Damages the main purpose of the business |
|
2. Causes being active as a company in the society |
2. Causes to companies being more powerful than it is |
|
3. Participates to process through the company’s experience |
3. Rejects that the companies can struggle with the problems of the societal members |
|
4. Provides and protects the interests of the company as well |
4. Restricts the profit maximization |
|
5. Prevents the government being a sole power in the society |
5. Precludes the race within the companies in the global market |
According to the opposing views for the corporate social responsibility, it is nothing more than a tautology to think business entities can have social concerns as well as the financial ones. The main idea here is to prevent companies while they are using the employees in order to be socially responsible in corporation level. Corporate social responsibility force managers of the company to go further from the scope of the their power and expertise. As its nature, the managers of the company have been raised to act in accordance with the financial profits of the company. When the ethical and social norms have been added to that process, it will cause short-termism in terms of simplicity and logic. Freeman suggests that “The business community must, indeed, have its separate conversation, but the fundamental values that determine the nature of that conversation are irrevocably shared with the society in which business functions.”[19] The business needs to follow the needs of the society as a whole and get involved the current expectations within the members of the society.
On the contrary to those views, Wood has supported corporate social responsibility and he went further through the corporate social performance representing a new approach on the literature.[20] He assumed that there is measurement called corporate social performance regarding the benefits of stakeholders. This measurement will lead to companies to focus on the stakeholder interest groups such as employees, consumers and activists. It will help to reach the social concerns taking into consideration firm benefits. Nonetheless, this approach is a considerable debate in the literature but it cannot be denied that it will help to the companies in order to put corporate social responsibility into their agenda.
Both of the controversies about adopting corporate social responsibility understanding need to be evaluated critically in the literature because it sill represents a current debate in practice. Focusing on the relation between corporations, NGOs and society will result as a new approach through the being socially responsible in the corporate level. In order to do that, Banerjee suggests that “As we debate issues of corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, sustainability and stakeholders, let us never lose sight of the fact that companies are not the only inhabitants of this planet.”[21] This view shows us that the corporate social responsibility understanding should be the understanding of ‘to reach the good while ensuring the greater good for the society.’
4. Conclusion
It has been widely accepted that the corporate social responsibility comprises three factors including economical, social and environmental. The debate about this subject matter is how to implement these three dimensions to practice via companies. The strength issue here is how to manage this process even there is no consensus on the definition of the corporate social responsibility in the literature.
It is evident from the fact that corporate social responsibility covers issues like employee rights, consumer rights, human rights law, sustainable development, government and society as a whole. It should be kept in mind that the main strategy of the companies is to maximize the profits and minimize the costs. In the middle of 20th Century, to participate socially responsible activities have started to take place on the company’s agenda. The theoretical understanding and legal framework about this concept will be the first step to provide corporate social responsibility via companies. NGOs and non-profit organizations should not be forgotten here in order to control business entities via social tools. Buhmann suggests that “Finally, we may be observing steps in a shift in long held notions of the basic foundations of international law according to which the legal subjects of international (human rights, labor and environmental) law are states – but not private legal persons (such as corporations) or natural persons.”[22] In the following years, expectations of stakeholders will cause to create binding rules for the companies within states’ power over the companies.
The companies should be aware of the potential of the society in order to maximize its profits in the long term. It is a certain issue that companies can make profit while taking into consideration of the expectation of the society using their sources.
To make corporate social responsibility approach functional, companies need to use their power firstly to maximize the profits regarding expectations of the societal members, secondly as being a part of the making the world better place to live with ethical norms. The increasing demand on the corporate social responsibility both by companies and social actors should not be undermined in order to reach an understanding about common benefits. In the globalization era, corporate social responsibility will keep on going further in the light of compulsory regulations and societal norms regarding influences both in national and international level.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banerjee, S. B. (2008), Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, SAGE Publications, p.75
Buhmann, K. (2006),"Corporate social responsibility: what role for law? Some aspects of law and CSR", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 6 Iss 2, p. 197
Carroll, A.B. (1991), The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders, Business Horizons, p.40
Dahlsrud, A. (2008), How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Analysis of 37 Definitions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, pp.3-4.
Elena, Gabriela, Ioan & Georgeta M. (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Acta Universitatis Danubius Oeconomica, p.118
Frankental, P. (2001), Corporate Social Responsibility – a PR Invention?, Corporate Communications: An International Journal Volume 6 Number 1, p.21
Freeman, E. & Liedtka J., (1991), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach, Business Horizons / July-August, p. 92
Hawkins, D.E. (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility: Balancing Tomorrow’s Sustainability and Today’s Profitability, Palgrave McMillan, p.1. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.uk/books
Haynes, K., Murray, A., Dillard J. (2013), Corporate Social Responsibility, Routledge Publishing, p.7, retrieved from http://suss.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1041535
Horrigan, B. (2010), Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, p.308
Jamali, D., Mirshak R., (2007), Corporate Social Responsbility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context, Journal of Business Ethics, p.247
Juscius, V. (2007), Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Management of Organizations: Systematic Research issue 44, p.42
McBarnet, D. (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility beyond Law, through Law, for Law, Edinburgh School of Law Working Paper Series, p.1
Welford, R. (2002) Globalization, Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Rights, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9, p. 6
Wood,D. (1991), Corporate Social Performance Revisited, Academy of Management Review vol. 16, pp.691-718
[1] Haynes, K., Murray, A., Dillard J. (2013), Corporate Social Responsibility, Routledge Publishing, p.7, retrieved from http://suss.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1041535
[2] Dahlsrud, A. (2008), How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Analysis of 37 Definitions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, pp.3-4.
[3] Avaliable at: https://www.gov.uk/government/corporate-governance
[4] McBarnet, D. (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility beyond Law, through Law, for Law, Edinburgh School of Law Working Paper Series, p.1
[5] Carroll, A.B. (1991), The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders, Business Horizons, p.40
[6] Jamali, D., Mirshak R., (2007), Corporate Social Responsbility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context, Journal of Business Ethics, p.247
[7] Buhmann, K. (2006),"Corporate social responsibility: what role for law? Some aspects of law and CSR", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 6 Iss 2, p. 197
[8] ıbid 4, at p. 62-63
[9] Full text available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
[10] Welford, R. (2002) Globalization, Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Rights, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9, p. 6
[11] Full text available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf
[12] Horrigan, B. (2010), Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, p.308
[13] Frankental, P. (2001), Corporate Social Responsibility – a PR Invention?, Corporate Communications: An International Journal Volume 6 Number 1, p.21
[14] Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm
[15] Juscius, V. (2007), Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Management of Organizations: Systematic Research issue 44, p.42
[16] Hawkins, D.E. (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility: Balancing Tomorrow’s Sustainability and Today’s Profitability, Palgrave McMillan, p.1. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.uk/books
[17] http://www.sustainablereporting.eu
[18] Elena, Gabriela, Ioan & Georgeta M. (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Acta Universitatis Danubius Oeconomica, p.118
[19] Freeman, E. & Liedtka J., (1991), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach, Business Horizons / July-August, p. 92
[20] Wood,D. (1991), Corporate Social Performance Revisited, Academy of Management Review vol. 16, pp.691-718
[21] Banerjee, S. B. (2008), Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, SAGE Publications, p.75
[22] ıbid at 7, p. 199
