Corporate Social Responsibility : Supply Chain to Value Chain

The scale and nature of the benefits of CSR for an organization can vary depending on the nature of the enterprise, and are difficult to quantify, though there is a large body of literature exhorting business to

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is something that affects all companies and should be an active factor in the company’s decision making. It is something all corporations need to care about. CSR is when business’ or corporations take part in an initiative or campaign for a cause that will benefit society and/or in some way make the world a better place (Taylor, 2015). Initially, Corporate Social Responsibility started to take shape around the 1950’s, but some say that it dates all the way back to the 1800s, the idea of CSR was seen (Carroll, 2007). One may think that because it is dated so long ago, it doesn’t have an important impact today nevertheless, it is proven that Corporate Social Responsibility is a pathway for entities to self benefit as they are in the process of benefitting society.

Rangan, K., Chase, L., & Karim, S. (2015, January 1). The Truth About CSR. Harvard Business Review, 40-49.

The benefit to business of good Corporate Social Responsibility is difficult to quantify as it varies depending on the nature of the enterprise. Some scholars believe that there is a business justification for CSR. That is, what is good for the environment and society will be good for company profitability. And studies have shown a slightly positive correlation between CSR and financial gain (Steiner and Steiner, 2006). However, as Freidmanism claims, the first responsibility of business is to make enough profit to cover the costs for the future. If this social responsibility is not met, no other responsibilities can be (Hargreaves, 2006). Therefore it is critical that CSR activities are included in strategy formulation and that the level of resources devoted to CSR is determined like any other strategy – through cost/benefit analysis. Corporations will not throw money away…they need to see it

Keeping in mind its leadership position that it continues to maintain particularly within the chemical and consumer product markets, the stand that GIL (Godrej Industries Ltd.) holds on the CSR initiative within India is assumedly expected to affect the trend for CSR initiatives not only among smaller companies in the same or related industries but also the CSR initiatives among SMEs that receive investments through the parent Godrej

The realm of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is to increase business profitability and opportunities by making improvements in terms of operational effectiveness throughout the value chain (Rangan, Chase & Karim, 2012). This increasingly popular CSR among corporate and academic leaders is synonymous to the “shared value” framework, whereby organizations seek to co-create economic and social value. According to Ridurnolu, Prhalad and Rangaswami (2009), corporations from the United States recognize the business value of revolutionizing new manufacturing and technology that cut operating costs while minimizing impacts on the environment. This CSR domain focuses on operational efficiency and also building revenue, with the initiative to be determined by the ability to improve the corporate bottom line while at the same time returning social value. To achieve that, the strategy is to reengineer a corporation’s entire value chain, which stems from natural resource extraction and sourcing to manufacturing, shipping and product delivering.

It is generally difficult to determine whether corporate social responsibility initiatives are easier to implement in small firms as opposed to large firms. Corporate CSR perspective is the ethical responsibility to society and social bodies as the firm adopts due to business, financial, societal, governmental, and, moral image outcomes in society. In addition, the firm adopts ethical responsibility to external entities, which society focuses on and as a result magnifies and sensitises business stance and associations with external social bodies. In fact, CSR is the result of a discussion amongst the firm and its stakeholders about responsibilities and expectations. (Corporate Social Responsibility: One Size Does Not Fit All. Collecting Evidence from Europe) The EU defines small firms as, those that employ 50 staff or less and have a turnover that is e10 million or under as stated in European Commission, 2003b. Small firms and large firms are different, particularly in such areas as financial revenue, resources, market share, numbers of staff and ownership title as it explains in Curran and Blackburn, 2001. (Investigating the Impact of Business Size on Small Business Social Responsibility: A Critical Review) Firm size triggers a particular implementation pattern of CSR, i.e. SMEs is strong in implementing organisational CSR associated processes in fundamental business procedures, where MNCs efficiently connect their obligations to CSR, yet generally lack

It evaluates value creation in terms of environmental, social and economic performance. Hence, businesses have to succeed economically, as well as stressing concern for social justice and environmental quality. However, an issue with defining CSR is not only concerned with its miscellaneous attributes but also its heterogeneous body of research. Most research conducted is concerned with CSR from a perspective of theoretical articles and quantitative research. Defining CSR and quantifying its value through the use of statistics can be an ambiguous task, which thus; presents the opportunity to greater understand CSR through a qualitative approach.

It is generally difficult to determine whether corporate social responsibility initiatives are easier to implement in small firms as opposed to large firms. Corporate CSR perspective is the ethical responsibility to society and social bodies as the firm adopts due to business financial, societal, governmental, and, moral image outcomes in society. In addition, the firm adopts ethical responsibility to external entities, which society focuses on and as a result magnifies and sensitises business stance and associations with external social bodies. In fact, CSR is the result of a discussion amongst the firm and its stakeholders about responsibilities and expectations. Corporate Social Responsibility: One Size Does Not Fit All. Collecting Evidence from Europe. The EU defines small firms as, those that employ 50 staff or less and have a turnover that is e10 million or under as seen in European Commission, 2003b. Small firms and large firms are different, particularly in such areas as financial revenue, resources, market share, numbers of staff and ownership title as it explains in Curran and Blackburn, 2001. Investigating the Impact of Business Size on Small Business Social Responsibility: A Critical Review. Firm size triggers a particular implementation pattern of CSR, i.e. SMEs are strong in implementing organisational CSR associated processes in fundamental business procedures, where MNCs efficiently connect their obligations to CSR, yet generally lack complex

One notable example of an organization that adopts significant CSR initiatives from a developed country is Starbucks which is an American multinational corporation. On the other hand, a considerable example of a company with significant CSR from a developing country is China Mobile which is still in its global expansion stage. The China mobile company is a Chinese multinational corporation. The two different companies offer an effective platform for comparing the CSR understanding and initiatives of different organizations from the developed world and from developing countries. What makes the examples even more effective is the fact that the two companies are different stages of development in the global business environment. This makes it

Supply Chain Responsibility is or at least should be part of a company’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy. CSR is a strategy that managers use to monitor, maintain, and often times improve the environmental and social impacts of their companies as well as how they interact with all of their stakeholders not just the shareholders for which their operations effect. Managers should use their CSR plains to balance the expectations of their often competing stakeholders with their environmental, social, and economic goals. Some fundamental CSR concerns are stakeholder engagement, environmental impact, responsible sourcing of raw materials, standards and working condition of the labor force, social and gender equity as well as good governance and anti-corruption control. CSR approaches focus on what is called a Triple Bottom Line for measurable results. The three measures are profit which is the economic value that a company creates, social which is the how the company treats its labor force and the communities for which it operates in and environmental which is how the company is engaged in the creation and application of sustainable practices that produce reductions or eliminates environmental impacts.

There are several factors that determine that at the moment CSR is primarily relevant to large private sectors, according with our textbook, First, SMEs are informal in nature and this reason lack the need for bureaucratic systems and its structures due to the advantages of small size businesses. Second, large corporations, are often under the loop of the society and their actions are visible and vulnerable to criticism. And third, usually the small business are manger by the owner and for this reason, there is not obligation or direct pressure to serve the shareholders to maximize or return their investment at any cost.

The main goal of the study is to compare the current CSR practices in New Zealand and Bangladesh. To achieve this current practices of CSR activities of five companies in Bangladesh and four companies in New Zealand have been examined.

Problems of Corporate Social Responsibility in Sugarcane Value Chain in Utter Pradesh: An Analysis through Integrated Model of CSR

This essay will discourse Chapple and Moons’ (2005) study of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia. The argument will be done through a critical review of Chapple and Moons’ (2005) paper by considering exploration methods, limitations, findings and theoretical bases.