Teleology, Deontology and Utilitarianism: A Note-Ananda Das Gupta

1.    Almost in the Hegelian sense, the traditional teleology is a synthesis of the thesis of deontology and the antithesis of Unitarianism.

2.    Deontological approaches to ethics attempt to ascertain the content of duty without considering the consequences of particular ways of acting. Generally speaking, deontologists have thought that moral principles are ascertained through some sort of logical test of consistency, as Kant maintained

3.    Teleological approaches to ethics, on the other hand, morally evaluate actions by looking to their consequences — right actions being right because they tend to have good consequences, wrong actions being wrong because they tend to have bad consequences. Thus, for teleologists, evaluations of consequences as good or bad provide the premises for inferring the norms of right acting.

4.    Teleological approaches to morals are now often identified with some variety of utilitarianism. Utilitarians morally assess individual actions (or sometimes policies, laws or rules of action) by their consequences, the best being those that produce the greatest proportion of good over evil.

5.    The terms ‘teleology’ and deontology’ refer to the ends and the means ethical systems of thinking. Some justify immoral means to a greater ethical end. Some place an emphasis on the means to an end, recognizing that appropriate steps must be taken during the enforcement process so that fair and impartial processes remain intact.

6.    Teleological methods, sometimes called consequentialist methods, are based on estimating what the likely outcomes of a given course of action will be, and then choosing the method that has the most positive consequences and the fewest negative consequences. According to these methods, those actions should be chosen which lead to more positive and fewer negative consequences, and those actions should be rejected which lead to more negative consequences and fewer positive consequences. John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism is usually seen as the classical expression of consequentialist ethical thinking, and so is Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics.

Deontological, or duty-based, ethical systems, on the other hand, are those that simply claim, directly and simply, what the fundamental ethical duties are. The Ten Commandments (from Exodus and Deuteronomy in the Hebrew Torah) would be examples of deontological ethical thinking. According to the Ten Commandments, these actions -- honor your father and mother, do not steal, do not commit adultery, keep holy the sabbath, etc -- are stated as simply right things to do or wrong things to do. They are said to be our clear moral duty. The Ten Commandments do not merely suggest, for example, that you look at the consequences of actions and then weigh the possible outcomes to determine if an action is right or wrong. Instead they say that some actions are just plain right and others are just plain wrong.

7.   Situational Ethics was pioneered by Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991). His work, Situation Ethics, founded the modern situational ethics movement. Since then, almost every publication on situational ethics has referred to the model presented in Fletcher's writings. Fletcher was an Episcopal priest, a member of the Euthanasia Educational Counsel, and an advocate for Planned Parenthood. He was a supporter of both euthanasia and abortion. Situational Ethics, according to Fletcher's model, states that decision-making should be based upon the circumstances of a particular situation, and not upon fixed Law.

My fellow academician Prof. Bengt Gustavsson from School of Business, Stockholm University wrore to me on 23rd December 2011;

Dear Prof. Das Gupta,

Thanks for your link to your blog that I have read with great interest. I certainly agree with your classification of the Indian value system from my many visits to your country and the many lectures and discussions I have had with learned Indian pundits/scholars. It provoked some thougths in me that I like to share:

The problem with deontological value systems is that, although moral, they are relative and contextually bounded. We can certainly argue that many of the values you are exemplifying in your text are universal in space but not necessarily eternal in time. For example, virtues (as Aristotle claimed are aquired, must be practiced and admired) in the Edda-days of Scandinavia (abt. 800 AD) admired where braveness, strength and boldness. Today these are not the most admired in favour of for example equality and sustainability. I would love to find a transcendental, universal and eternal virtue list but I have failed so far. Another problem is that deontological systems cannot accomodate conflicting interest very well (although historically, the Indian society has been able to manage that pretty well), for example when freedom virtues are confronted with individual integrity.  

The problem with teleological systems is that although they are said to be immoral ("it's OK to lie if the consequences of my lies are good") is that they do have a moral basis in how to assess the consequences (apart from measuring them in space and time). Utilitarianism held that maximizing pleasure over pain in the action was the ultimate measuring rod, which is of course a moral postulate. It could in the same spirit be replaced by other moral values, such as the balance of service to God or mankind over the Evil and egotistically.

Another issue about these systems is empirical evidence, which is important in the academic world. The strenght of teleological systems is their alleged measurability that can lead to an "objective" ethical decision, given that we accept the moral foundations on the measuring method (e.g. pleasure/pain ratio). Given the difficulties with this system, we can argue that we do have an "evidence-based" system of ethics, which was the goal of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. However, even the deontological systems could quite easily be "evidence-based" simply by assesing the degree of achivement of the values involved. For example, if honety is such a value, we can assess that countries with small or big corruption problems have evidence in relation to that value. Of course, there are a number of problems in this approach as well, for example how do you assess the degree of "God-fearing"?

Finally, my experience from introducing teleological and deontological theories to my students is not necessarily that they are practicing them, but it forces them to think about ethical issues and realize that the world we live in is imbued by ethical considerations - I consider that as a good step towards an ethical world.

Best of luck with your blog!

Regards

Bengt

______________________________________________________

Bengt Gustavsson, Ph.D., docent

Stockholm University, School of Business

SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden

Phone: +46 8 162190

Corporate Citizenship: Perspectives in the New Century; Ananda Das Gupta; published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, England, 2008

See Link: http://www.c-s-p.org/flyers/9781847184351-sample.pdf

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ECONOMICS; EMERALD GROUP, ENGLAND, GUEST EDITOR: Ananda Das Gupta

Get connected to the link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47938311/Socio-economic-issues-of-India  for the entire e-journal

Foundation of Indian Moral System : Ananda Das Gupta

Indian moral system contains within it both social ethics and individual ethics. The whole of Indian moral system proceeds on the assumption that as a human being every man has to discharge two types of moral obligations- one related to the other member so the society and the other related to one’s own self. Under the former once such virtues or duties as  ahimsa, dana, daya (compassion) paropakara (help or service to other, asana, prnayama and such other methods of cittasuddi etc. The idea here is that morality is the inculcation and practice of characteristic human virtues as against the animal inclinations. The question of the inculcation or practice of such human virtues or duties arises not only in relation to the other members of the society, but in relation to oneself also by virtue of one being a man, and not a bare animal.

Indian outlook is spiritual and the Indian moral system is oriented towards that spiritual goal, The spiritual goal is generally known as  Moksa and morality in any of its form is a means to that goal. So morality in India is thoroughly spiritualistic.

 Indian moral system has a metaphysical basis. In the West, ethics is autonomous and it does not need to have a metaphysical or religious foundation. It is a social affair and therefore the ought-questions of morality are to be decided simply on social and rational considerations. It does not need to have any transcendental basis. Moreover, metaphysics purports to deal with factual (although of a fundamental nature) questions and purely factual considerations can never become a foundation of deciding ought-questions. For, from mere ‘is’, there is non-passage to ‘ought’. If, however, we make such a passage, we become victim of a fallacy popularly known as ‘naturalistic fallacy’. The two distinguished features of Indian concept of morality are as follows: (1). Authority has the basis for deciding what is moral and what is immoral and (2). Morality refers not only to the social obligations but also to obligations related to one’s own self.

Indian ethics has been more perceptive than speculative or critical. Indian thinkers have always adopted a practical outlook and consequently they have never separated theoretical thinking form their practical consequences.  This is obvious in Indian philosophical thinking conspicuously marked, as it I, by the practical concern of live rating people from the ocean of worldly misery. Even in logical thinking this concern may be seen in the Indian logician’s refusal to bring about sharp distinction between formal and material truth or between deduction and induction.  This concern finds articulation in Indian ethics, which is by and large perceptive, prescriptive or normative. In other words, the primary concern of Indian ethics has been to prescribe norms for a morally elevated life in both its personal and social aspects.

 Moreover, Indian moral system is out and out humanistic. To many western scholars, this characteristic may sound just the opposite of what they have so far thought to be the actual position. Many Western thinkers dealing with the ethical aspect of Indian thought have opined that room for humanistic ethics in Indian thought is unlikely, because it is basically other worldly and life-negating in its approach. Such an impression about Indian thought betrays one’s utter ignorance about its true nature and spirit. The Advaita Vedanta does not deny the reality of this world outright. Rather, on the contrary, it fully firms the reality of the world from the practical standpoint. And from this standpoint all ordinary human relationships are fully real, so that there is a full-fledged scope for a humanistic ethics. Even from the real standpoint, or what may even be called the transcendental standpoint, Samakara does not so much deny the reality of this world as he insists on re-interpreting it. According to him, what is to be realised from the real standpoint is not that the world is complete void, but that is fully spiritual and devoid of multiplicity. The multiplicity and materiality are illusions. What is real is spiritual unity. And what can be a more solid basis for humanistic ethics, rather fro universalistic ethics, than this kind of realisation that the apparent multiplicity of the word is sheer illusion and what is real is a basic spiritual unity? This will be still clearer if we try to see to some extent what humanism actually means and implies.

Modern Indian thinkers such as, Vivekananda, Tagore and Gandhi have sought to make morality a direct means to Moksa.They presented such a conception of Moksa that even social morality by itself becomes directly relevant for the attainment of Moksa. Moksa for them is nothing other than what Tagore specifically calls realising oneself into other and others into oneself, or else, realising the universal self within the individual self. Such a realisation they point out, perhaps rightly, is possible only by cultivating the social virtues of compassion, love, brotherhood etc. Morality becomes a path of direct relevance for the attainment of the highest ideal of life.

The rightness and wrongness of an action is determined with reference to its conduciveness or unconduciveness to pre-accepted non-moral goals. The theory of ethics based on answer of this type is known as teleological theory. The other type does not refer to any ulterior non-moral end or goal. According to it, an action is right or wrong in virtue of its own merit or demerit and not in terms of the goal that it leads or does not lead to. The theory of ethics based on answer of the above kind is knows as the deontological theory.

Deontological theories deny what teleological theories affirm. They deny that the right, the obligatory and the morally good are wholly, whether, directly or indirectly, a function of what is non-morally good… They assert that there are other considerations that may make an action or rule right or obligatory besides the goodness or badness of its consequences- certain features of the act itself other than value it brings into existence, for example, the fact that it keeps a promise, is just, or is commanded by God or State. Teleologists believe that there is one and only one basic or ultimate right-making characteristic, namely the comparative value (non-moral) of what is, probably will be, or is intended to be brought into being. Deontologists either deny that this characteristic is right making at all or they insist that there are other basic or ultimate right making characteristics as well.”

It is clear from the above that for a teleological theory conduciveness to some goal is the necessary criterion for the rightness of an action whereas for deontological theory either it is not at all the case of at least it is not the only and exclusive criterion for judging an action to be right; there are also other considerations besides. Now let us try to categorise the Indian theories of moral obligation and value as teleological and deontological on the basis of the above clarifications regarding the nature of the two theories.

In a way the whole Indian ethical system is deontological something is dharma (duty, obligation or virtue) simple because it is a Vedic law or Dharma Sutras and Sastras prescribe it. This seems to be the temperament of the entire Indian system taken in general. We have seen definition of morality being advanced more often in terms of what is enjoined   by the Vedas and Dharma Sastras. It is hardly said that what leads to Moksa  is morality, bit it is  repeatedly said that what is enjoined by the Vedas, or what is willed by  God or what marks the imitation of the virtues imbibed by God is morality. The Mimamsa clearly says there is no duty other than what is prescribed by the Vedas. So something is duty because it is enjoined by the Vedas as duty.

The Nyaya- Vaisesika

In the Vaiseskika sutras, the very definition of dharma is given in terms of the ulterior ends like abhyudaya (prosperity) and nihsreyasa. It is said that what ever leads to prosperity and highest end is dharma. So here it seems clear that the obligator ness for dharma arises from the twin ends of worldly prosperity and final liberation. Some actions are to be called moral or immoral with reference to whether they lead to the twin ends or not. The Vaisesika morality is definitely teleological then. Similarly, the Nyaya gives primary importance to Istasadhanata in determining the obligator ness of a moral action, or a moral law on which some action is based.

 The Mimamsa

 As opposed to this, the Mimamsakas do not take the obligator ness of moral actions as stemming from the consequence or the end. According the Kumarila, the end or phala may be said to determine the motive of the agent, but not eh obligatoriness. The obligatoriness is the result of the Vidhi of which the action in question is an instance. The imperativenss or the obligatoriness of the action is independent of the end or phala. To  quote Professor Mitra again, “According to Kumarila, the end, the  consequence determines only the motive or the choice, but not he obligatoriness of the imperative… The phala or consequence is only pravarttaka, i.e. a psychological motive but is not vidheya, i.e. the object of moral imperative. It is a psychological implicate  of the moral action, an end as motive being necessary for moral as for all actions, but it is not a moral implicate of the imperative which is obligatory independently of the end of consequence. Hence, the end or phala, according to Kumarila, forms only to motive to move the agent for action. What makes the action moral or immoral is simply its Vedic sanction or lack of it. The moral obligatoriness of the action follows from the Vedic source without any consideration for the consequence.

  

The Ramanuja Vedanta

The Visistadvaita system of Ramanuja also comes to be a deontological system on scrutiny insofar as its characterisation as a moral system is concerned. Like other Indian systems, the system of Ramanuja also takes Moksa to be the ultimate human ed. Furthermore, by virtue of believing in samuccayavada.  Ramanuja gives morality an important place in men’s effort for attaining Moksa. But the question is, does conduciveness to Moksa constitute the necessary condition for an action to be moral?  Does the obligatoriness of a moral action follow from the final end Moksa? The answer is a clear ‘no’. For the obligator- ness of moral actions in the system of Ramanuja follows from the fact that moral qualities in their absolute and ultimate perfection constitute the essential nature of God and man’s duty is simply to imitate or to follow those moral qualities. Thus man’s moral virtues and duties are derivations from God’s moral qualities. They are to be observed and followed simply because they represent God’s qualities and God wants men to follow the moral qualities that He possesses in a perfect and absolute manner. So the sanction and authority of morality comes from no less a being than God. Moral qualities imbibed by God in a perfect manner are for us to imitate. In other words, out duty is to behave in a way God would do in a similar circumstance. For example, God possesses the moral quality of compassion, so we should be compassionate towards other; God possesses the quality of forgiveness, so we should forgive those who do wrong to us, and so on. In Ramanuja’s system God is regarded as a Moral Ideal with reference to which man’s duties are to be derived or deduced. So man’s moral duties follow directly from the moral perfections of God and not from any non-moral end like Moksa. So, Ramanuja’s system also is a deontological system and not a teleological one.

The Samkhya and the Advaita Vedanta

In Samkhya and Advaita Vedanta, as we have already seen, morality is neither necessary not sufficient for Moksa. So the question of the obligatoriness of the moral actions following from this non-moral end perhaps does not arise. Nevertheless, none of the systems takes moral virtues and duties simply valueless. What Samkhya criticises in the name of works are mainly ritualistic acts of the Vedas. But in its turn Samkya realises the importance of the moral virtues following from the sattvika nature of man. These moral virtues pave to some extent one’s path for Moksa also. But what is important to realise is that these moral virtues do not derive their sanction from end whether Moksa or anything else. They derive their sanction rather from the metaphysical nature of man.

Man as psychological being is an evolute of Prakrti. Of the three gunas of Prakrti, Sattva is the most commendable, because it is the repository of good human qualities. So virtues following from Sattva, such as kindness, restraint of sense organs etc., are to be inculcated and followed. Similarly, in Samkara moral virtues do not derive their sanction from Moksa, although they serve as auxiliaries in the attainment of Moksa.

After getting the reflection of the purusha, prakiti becomes conscious and agitated. This agitation disturbs the equilibrium of the three constituents of prakiti (sattwa, raja and tama) and thereby evolution becomes operative. First of all, the sattwa contituent becomes dominant and reason  (buddhi) appears. It has cosmic significance and hence is called the  Great (Mahat). Although reason is cosmic and above the ego, it is still individual and there are as many reasons as individual egos. The ego (ahamkara) evolves out of reason. Depending upon the dominance of one of the three constituents (gunas), we get three kinds of ego.

1.     Sattvika ahamkara

2.     Rajasika ahamkara and

3.     Tamasika ahamkara

The Non-orthodox Systems (Carvaka, Buddhism and Jainism)

Of the three non-orthodox Indian systems, the Carvaka (which is a Hindu system) is definitely a teleological system, because, according to it, the criterion for any action to be moral is the conduciveness of that action to worldly pleasure, a non-moral end. But the two non-Hindu systems- Bauddha and Jaina- are essentially deontological in nature. Like idealistic or spiritualistic Hindu systems they, no doubt, believe that performance of moral acts somehow contributes to the attainment of that performance of moral acts somehow contributes to the attainment of Moksa. In other words, we can say that both of these systems believe that moral actions definitely lead to desirable consequences in respect of both the worldly life and the life beyond. But the obligatoriness of moral actions or principles according to none of these systems flows from any extraneous end or goal. On the other hand, the obligatoriness flows from the venerable authority that is bestowed upon the original propounders of the two systems- Lord Buddha and Lord Mahavira.

Thus despite Moksa being the ultimate human end towards which all philosophical, religious and moral efforts are supposed to be directed in the Indian tradition, the Indian moral system, by and large, proves to be deontological in nature. And it is quite natural for it to be so. We have seen that the Sastras have been regarded as the primary source and sanction of dharma in India. That implies that although the observance of the Sastric  dharmas naturally and undoubtedly leads to good consequences, their moral worth is not to be evaluated  in terms of the consequences. Their moral worth is to be determined and assessed only with reference to whether they are enjoined by the Sastras. In other words, dharma is dharma not because it leads to Moksa, but because it has been enjoined by authority to be dharma. Hence, clearly the overall tone of Indian morality is deontological, implying  thereby that dharma is to be followed for the reason that it is dharma  as enjoyed by authority.

In the Indian context, man’s own nature furnishes a justification for his being moral. Perhaps this is why most Indian systems prove to be deontological in nature. According to them, dharma is to be followed because it is its own justification. Moksa has been brought forth as a motivation in the sense that one who will follow dharma will automatically pave his way for that, but Moksa has never been taken as a justification for being moral. Morality is involved in the nature of man. This can find an apt solution in solving the corporate ethical dilemmas.

A RELEVANT ARTICLE ON CSR

Corporate Social Responsibilty: An Emplty Vessel? by priyesh Sharma on September 4, 2010

Read This article: http://jurisonline.in/2010/09/corporate-social-responsibilty-an-emplty-vessel/

HARSHAD MEHTA SCAM-A Presentation by PGP Students of Indian Institute of Management kozhikode to Dr. Ananda Das Gupta, Adjunct Professor

 PLEASE SEE THE WEB LINK  http://www.scribd.com/doc/60699411/HARSHAD-MEHTA-SCAM-Business-Ethics-Report

Innovation for the Sustainable Economy in India-Ananda Das Gupta

India’s economic growth has received a strong impetus in post 1991 era.  This increased economic growth is mainly and directly is a result of country’s better monsoons and the free trade movement that started in that year.  Clearly the lethargic economic development was associated with greater protectionism and policy makers seemed to have learned an important lesson from 1950 to 1990 era.  The free trade movement of 1990s has shown positive results in economic terms.  The future economic growth therefore depends heavily on the speed of privatization and globalization. 

At the same time, corporate sustainability challenge represents a tall order for the business world that is accustomed to worry about the next contract and the annual financial performance rather than climate change, ecosystem capacity and poverty issues. The emerging requirements for corporate support to sustainable development probably represent a cultural shock that will take time to sink in the business way of thinking and working. Practically and realistically only the very successful companies could take up the challenge and hopefully will establish the required new sustainability bound business models that can be followed more widely in the future.

LATEST EDITED VOLUME ON SOCIETY AND BUSINESS-Editor: Ananda Das Gupta

Society and Business Two singular axioms     A review of 

‘Ethics, Business and Society – Managing responsibly’ edited by Ananda Das Gupta, Sage Publishers; New Delhi/ England/ USA/ Singapore; 2010

By Divyadarshini Patel in MANAGEMENT COMPASS

Ethics, Business and Society is a collection of articles touching the two gigantic primes – social responsibility and business ethics and how social responsibility forms a part of business ethics. Fourteen great contributions make an insightful reading, crafting a valuable reshuffle of the knowledge you already possess. The book consists of a number of case studies which successfully create awareness about the prominent issues faced by the Indian companies today. The authors have stressed on the subject of corporate social responsibility (CSR) – the subject that is usually side tracked these days even by the big business firms.

Section I

This section talks about The Society, Business and Ethics: The Broader Canvas and the idea is contained in a total of eight articles, looking at the various business ethics perspectives.

The first contribution comes from Arabinda on Business Ethics and the one line that caught my attention here was, “most people are more interested in their own welfare than that of other to the extent of damaging the latter.” This told, we realise in an instant, why business ethics are so necessary for any society. Arabinda discusses about the difficult choices one has to make, how critical is the role of conscience in making these decisions and the never-ending conflicts of paying off ethical debts in the midst of corruption and bureaucracy.

Bibek talks about Governance and Economic Development where he first points out the difference in the way governance is interpreted. A better governance would lead to faster economic development would be an appropriate line to sum up the whole article. Klaus raises the topic of Corporate Philanthropy that can help sustain mass poverty – a major social challenge. Klaus makes it very clear by quoting the example of Novartis Foundation that philanthropy is not an obligation but a sense of duty towards the society you live in.

While D. K. Srivastava puts forth a case study to detail the Perspectives on CSR, L. K. Maheshwari also provides an example to convey her views on Ethical Dimensions in Technical Education. Pingali voices his admiration for XLRI, seeing it renew the face of earth since the past 15 years with its belief in the power of people relationship. Education for a Just, Equitable Society by Dileep beautifully describes that when equality can be measured in terms of individual differences, equity comes into picture when equality becomes a group affair thus drawing our attention towards equitable education.

The first section ends with Subir’s Civil Society and Governance. Beginning with civilization, Subir gives a definition coupled with his views on the topics of society and governance as well. He focuses on politics, religion, media, equity and the new paradigms of the society concluding that “equity in quality of life has to be the over-riding objective of governance in civil society”.

Section II

Put across six sub sections, this section concentrates wholly and solely on Ethics in Business and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Towards Horizon.

Usha commences this section with CSR for Promoting Stakeholder Engagement. In any business stakeholders may or may not play an important part, but the profit and loss in business is equally applicable to them as any other branch of the same business. Thus a stakeholder’s engagement becomes important. “The state, business (private sector) and civil society are posited as the three institutional anchors of modern societies,” the author says. These three are also the most important stakeholders and their involvement is necessary for business prosperity.

Ananda writes about Integrating Environmental Management in Small Industries of India. He reasons out the importance of Indian industrialisation. The small industries do not play a small role in this country and while supporting these, many a times the environment is put at stake. He opines that it thus becomes the duty of these industries to think about saving the milieu.

Ethics in Science and Technology by Parthasarathi is on the changes brought about science and technology and the ignorance savoured towards the consequences. Technology management is a step that must be taken to curb the unforeseen hazards. Hereafter, Prasad gives his inputs on Indian Model of Leadership. Looking at the number of management schools in India and the ever-growing number of applicants, it is quite clear that most of us in this country aspire to become leaders. The writer says that “complexity, diversity, interdependence, speed and ambiguity” define 21st century leadership.N. Balasubramanian shares his views on Governing the Socially Responsible Corporation. Several comments, examples quotations make his article very appealing, grabbing instant attention. He chooses to quote the Gandhian way of shouldering social responsibility to help us understand. The best part of this article was when the author talks about the Gandhian corporate governanace, the excerpts from which are given below:

“Does good governance in the Gandhian frame (similar but much more rigorous than most international stewardship expectations) pay? There certainly is a strong business case for Gandhism (much as Gandhi himself disliked the label) in corporate governance. As noted earlier, leadership companies around the world – and in India – have incorporated many of these tenets (with varying degrees of rigour) in their governance frameworks, often long before…”

The concluding article is a joint contribution from Arindam and Pradip relating to Corporate Governance and the Role of Independent Directors. Directors of various institutions and their qualifications come to light and the article leads to the sensitive Satyam story.The Guiding spirit of our constitution is always at work but still there are times when a crisis in proper corporate governance arises. The contributors have taken care to discuss well known incidents to help the reader relate well to message they are trying to convey. Thus, it is a good compilation to through, especially for the Indian audience.It was very fascinating to go through each of the chapters although I cannot abstain from saying that it did confuse me at times as I was reading many people’s opinions about the same thing. But then, this is what the book is all about – various perspectives on and Society.

ETHICS and Resposible Leadership- research work by Ananda Das Gupta

Dr. Ananda Das Gupta has been engaged in teaching and research for more than twenty two years in different universities and institute across India, like North Eastern Hill University (Central university) as Head of the Department of Commerce at Aizawl, as Academic Counsellor to Indira Gandhi National Open University (North Eastern Regional Centre), as Associate Faculty at Vivekananda Centre for Indian Management (VCIM) in Indore, and currently is Professor in Organizational Development, Strategic Human Resources Management, Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics at Indian Institute of Plantation Management, Bangalore - a national level sectoral management school set up at the initiative of Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. He has a Masters Degree in Commerce with specialization in Personnel Management and he did his doctorate from University of Patna as a UGC-research Fellow. A Life Fellow of Indian Academy of Social Sciences and a Member of the Indian Society of Labour Economics, he is a Doctoral Supervisor of many Indian Universities including the prestigious BITS-Pilani. He has just edited the Special Issue on India of International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group, England.

Ananda Das Gupta’s books include the following:

National/ International Publications:

1. Human Values in Management, Ashgate Publishing limited, England, 2004.

2. Ethics in Business, Rawat Publications, Jaipur / New Delhi, 2005.

3. Corporate Citizenship: Perspectives in the New Economy, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, England; 2008

4. Contributed Chapter in The Interdisciplinary Year Book of Business Ethics, Peter Lang Publishes, Oxford, England; 2006,.

5. Ethics, Business and Society (Ed.) Sage New Delhi/ USA/ London/Singapore May 

     2010.

6. Encyclopedia on CSR (Four Volumes) Member of the International Editorial Board, Springer Group, Germany (forthcoming)

7. Prepared Study Material: Effective Communication and Conflict Management in MBA Course for IGNOU, New Delhi 2010.

8. Organizational Behaviour:   Design,Structure and Culture, Bioztantra-Wiley, New Delhi (2011).

Current Academic and Research Assignments:

Adjunct Professor: Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode
Adjunct Professor: S. P Jain Institute of Management and Research Mumbai
Guest Faculty: DOMS, Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Visiting Scientist: Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata
Guest Editor: International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group,England

Adjunct Professor: Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak
Member of the International Editorial Board: Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, Germany.

Inclusive Development and Responsible Business in India- Ananda Das Gupta

The Indian Scenario

The Genesis

The Indian economy has been under two distinct and diverse forces of ‘swadeshi’ i.e. buy Indian Goods’ and the need to integrate with the larger world economy. Both forces have significant economic and political implications in the region. Liberalization of the Indian economy in the late 1980s and early 1990s also saw the reestablishment of transnational corporations on the Indian horizon. The Indian political and economic climate has been far from stable in the last decade, and it has been claimed that transnational corporations, to influence this unstable political and economic climate in their favour, have used the concept of corporate social responsibility as bait. It is worth mentioning that though the concept of corporate social responsibility is gaining popularity with the Indian business too, its practice has been under varied external and internal influences. Therefore the benefit or loss of the increase in numbers and reach of transnational corporations is open to debate in the Indian context.

The Trends

The family run business of the 1920s and 1930s: the Tatas, the Shriram Group, and the Birla Group, were actively involved in running and establishing schools, colleges, hospitals, temples, cultural centers and training centers etc. Most of these infra-structural establishments are all well known today by the names of business that were instrumental in their establishment, for example the Shriram College of Commerce, the Birla Mandir (temple)one of which exists in almost each major city of the country, and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research etc. These infra-structural initiatives were instrumental in popularizing the identity of these companies. The initiatives were also essential as per Independence and early post-Independence India lacked advanced centers of research and education. The infra-structural initiatives and the economics reach of these businesses have made the Tatas, Birlas, and the Shrirams household names in the Indian context.

  Change in Threshold

In the age of globalization Corporations and business enterprises are no longer confined to the traditional boundaries of the nation-state. In the last twenty years the role of multinational corporations in defining the markets and consumers has been tremendous. The rules of corporate governance have changed. And there has been a range of reactions to this change. On the one hand globalization and liberalization have provided a great opportunity for corporations to be globally competitive by expanding the production base and market share. On the other hand, the same situation discounted against multinational corporations in different parts of the world. Labourers, marginalised consumers, environmental activists and social activities have protested against the unprecedented predominance of multinational corporations. The ongoing revolution in communication technology and the effectiveness of knowledge- based economics has created a new model of business and corporate governance. A growing awareness about the need for ecological sustainability has paved the way for a new generation of business leaders concerned about the responses of the community and sustainability of the environment.

Issues on Board

Globalization along with changed norms of production, labour and environment with conditions of best practice has influenced behaviour of businesses across the world. The success of the acceptance of these norms has been outside the letter of law and the adoption has often influenced state to adopt better/improved or at least changed role for itself. The norms of resettlement and rehabilitation as dictated by the Indian state are by law adopted by joint venture companies involved in extractive industries yet many other activities are also undertaken as corporate social responsibility, which are neither detailed nor dictated by law. Growth of civil society organizations has also led to increasing democratization in the marginalized and impoverished communities creating local responses to the grant meta narratives. Yet nation state needs to evolve a new role for itself in this fast changing world. A stable nation providing good governance is thus basic requirement for developing countries in their attempt to safe guard rights and interests of their poor and marginalized. Yet, the business are wary of investing time and resources in proactively dealing with pressure groups, media, and local people for social or community development as they often lack familiarity and the skills to do so (Business World, 1998a). Indian business has been actively involved in corporate philanthropy since the early 1900s. The charitable outlook of Indian businesses is progressively undergoing change under some external and internal influences. The increase in the momentum of corporate social responsibility has created new routes or avenues via which issues of corporate social responsibility are put to practice.

India in context: a dancing dragon?

An interesting development that marked the external environment in the last decade has been the emergence of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in general and India, in particular, as influential economic power houses in the global economy (Jain & Subhash 2006). Their remarkable GDP growth has transformed not only the nature and character of economic landscape of these countries but had wide ranging influence on their social and political life as well (Khanna et al. 2006). The projections suggest that amongst the BRIC economies India has the potential to grow the fastest over the next 30-50 years Notably, India’s growth rate is forecast to be above 5% throughout this period.  While India grew steadily some sectors of the economy have registered exponential growth.  For instance, the CAGR (Combined Annual Growth Rate) of the IT sector has been 30% year on year It has grown from a mere USD 4 billion in revenues in 1998 to a remarkable USD 64 billion in 2008 and it employs over 2 million people in 2009.  Its contribution to India’s GDP has gone up approximately five times from 1 percent to 5 percent in the last decade (NASSCOM, 2008). 

It is pertinent in this regard to have a brief analysis of India’s economic growth in the recent years which has merited global attention. A key indicator of the remarkable growth of world’s second largest populated state is that it is the fourth largest economy in PPP terms (2000). Since 2004, the growth in the Indian economy is quite close to the projected estimates for the BRIC countries. 

Two key forces that shaped the metamorphic changes in the Indian business environment have been the liberalization and privatization of the national economy.  Liberalisation and privatisation led to many changes in the external environment of organisations some which include the liberalisation and de-regulation of the various sectors of the economy such as insurance and telecommunication, the phenomenal growth of information communication technology, greater integration into the WTO and membership of global and regional trade organizations, and the liberal trade policies.  Furthermore, the forces of globalisation and privatization led to a heightened focus on competition, customers, clients and trade conditions.  In brief, these changes forced radical changes in the environment of organisations.    The transformation of the role of the sate from that of a controller and regulator to that of a facilitator of the economic activity is the embodiment of these changes.  Such changes in the external environment necessitate wide range of changes in workplace values and attitudes

New waves in India

·         Rapidly growing economy

·         Role of regulations vis-à-vis Pace of Rapid Growth

·         Role of Government, Private Sector and Civil Society

·         Inclusive Development and

·         Responsible Business Initiatives

 Current Issues

The triple bottom line (people, planet, profit) approach to CSR emphasizes a company’s commitment to operating in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner. The emerging concept of CSR advocates moving away from a ‘shareholder alone’ focus to a ‘multi-stakeholder’ focus. This would include investors, employees, business partners, customers, regulators, supply chain, local communities, the environment and society at large. The key components of research topics would therefore include the following:

• Corporate Governance: Disclosures, role of Board and CEO, Executive Compensation, Conflict of Interests, Accountability and Transparency, Limits to CSR and Economic Growth, Corporate Reputation, Corporate Citizenship, Code of Conduct.

• Workplace and labour relations: Responsibility in the context of employees, Customers, Supply chain and Community, Ethical Behaviour and Whistle blowing.

• Environment: Sustainability and growth.

• Community: Multi-sector partnership and Collaboration, Socially Responsible Initiatives, Leadership and Community Engagement Models.\  
• EPILOGUE
• 
  
  Globalization along with changed norms of production, labor and environment with conditions of best practice has influenced behavior of businesses across the world. The success of the acceptance of these norms has been outside the letter of law and the adoption has often influenced state to adopt better/improved or at least changed role for itself. The norms of resettlement and rehabilitation as dictated by the Indian state are by law adopted by joint venture companies involved in extractive industries yet many other activities are also undertaken as corporate social responsibility, which are neither detailed nor dictated by law. Growth of civil society organizations has also led to increasing democratization in the marginalized and impoverished communities creating local responses to the grant meta narratives. Yet nation state needs to evolve a new role for itself in this fast changing world. A stable nation providing good governance is thus basic requirement for developing countries in their attempt to safe guard rights and interests of their poor and marginalized.  Indian business has been actively involved in corporate philanthropy since the early 1900s. The charitable outlook of Indian businesses is progressively undergoing change under some external and internal influences. The increase in the momentum of corporate social responsibility has created new routes or avenues via which issues of corporate social responsibility are put to practice. This has led to a marked and a welcome participation of corporate house in the local development agenda, showing that they do feel responsibility for the environment and people of the area where they set up business. Now it is no longer a question of what and how they help, because they have already proven, more so in the last decade, that they do want to help, and that they do have the local welfare at heart. This attitudinal shift is not a response to any industrial, commercial or government diktat, of course, certainly increases goodwill. The fact that this makes it a two-way interaction is very welcome too, as that was the primary goal of the exercise anyway. The time for unmotivated philanthropy seems to be coming to an end in the Indian context, and the usage of the term ‘corporate social responsibility’ is gaining currency since the 1990s. Therefore well-established business also may have a well-established strategy of ‘corporate social responsibility’ to a) effectively deal with the instability of the Indian politico-economic climate, b) proactively deal with all the other stakeholders and c) meet the demands of international customer especially as regards to labour and environment. The success of the acceptance of these norms has been outside the letter of law and the adoption has often influenced state to adopt better/improved or at least changed role for itself. The norms of resettlement and rehabilitation as dictated by the Indian state are by law adopted by joint venture companies involved in extractive industries yet many other activities are also undertaken as corporate social responsibility, which are neither detailed nor dictated by law. Growth of civil society organizations has also led to increasing democratization in the marginalized and impoverished communities creating local responses to the grant meta narratives. Yet nation state needs to evolve a new role for itself in this fast changing world. A stable nation providing good governance is thus basic requirement for developing countries in their attempt to safe guard rights and interests of their poor and marginalized.
   
  

 

A View on Social Responsibility

 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

I

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability represent the way companies achieve enhanced ethical standards and a balance of economic, environmental and social imperatives addressing the concerns and expectations of their stakeholders. Corporate governance reflects the way companies address legal responsibilities, and therefore provides the foundations upon which CSR and corporate sustainability practices can be built to enhance responsible business operations.
Operational uncertainties and difficulties are compounded by recent observations of ‘company anxiety’ regarding CSR communications. Over-promising or declarations of rightness and good intentions could cause the mistrust of consumers and stakeholders, creating the opposite effects from those expected. Companies are recognizing that corporate responsibility communications should be low tone and straightforward, reflected in the actual behaviour of every member of the company, which is extremely difficult to achieve before CSR is integrated into the company’s bloodstream.



In market economies, the primary purpose of companies is to maximize shareholder value (for example, economic profit, share price and dividends) bound by legal/regulatory obligations which address specific social and environmental issues. For this, companies pursue competitive strategies which rely upon and develop relationships between the corporation and its stakeholders.
Since the early 1990s, corporate responsibility issues, including the social obligations of corporations, have attained prominence in political and business debate. This is mainly in response to corporate scandals but also due to the realization that development centred only on economic growth paradigms is unsustainable and therefore, there is a need for a more proactive role by states, companies and communities in a development process aimed at balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability and social cohesion.
This debate has motivated the following three interlinked movements in the corporate world:
1. corporate social responsibility (CSR);
2. corporate sustainability; and
3. worldwide reforms on corporate governance.
Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability represent the way companies achieve enhanced ethical standards and a balance of economic, environmental and social imperatives addressing the concerns and expectations of their stakeholders. Corporate governance reflects the way companies address legal responsibilities, and therefore provides the foundations upon which CSR and corporate sustainability practices can be built to enhance responsible business operations.
We distinguish between two interrelated dimensions for CSR and corporate sustainability:
1. corporate responsibility and sustainability as part of a new vision for the world based on a global
partnership for sustainable development; and
2. corporate responsibility and sustainability as a business management approach that should provide,
in the long run, better value for shareholders as well as for other stakeholders.
Early roots of CSR can be found in the actual business practices of successful companies, and early theoretical views in the 1950s and the 1960s linked corporate social obligation to the power that business holds in society. Theoretical developments are currently broadly subdivided into the ethical and accountability issues and the stakeholder approaches to strategic management.

The corporate responsibility movement is backed by United Nations (UN) initiatives such as the ‘Global Compact’ and the ‘Millennium Goals’, which have defined the goal and principles for responsible corporate behaviour in the following areas: human rights; labour standards; environment; health; anti-corruption; and economic responsibility.
Key driving forces include investor and consumer demands and governmental and public pressure. Particularly important is the support from socially responsible investing (SRI). The corporate responsibility movement is now entering a mainstreaming phase aided by standardization activities such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the AA1000 series and the ISO2600 guide.Corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability and corporate governance collectively are shaping the identity of organizations and are therefore increasingly integrated into the business strategy of successful corporations. Consequently, the field of responsible business strategy and practice is becoming one of the most dynamic and challenging subjects corporate leaders are facing today, and possibly one of the most important ones for shaping the future of our world.

The 4CR Multidimensional Corporate Responsibility Perspective

The 4CR multidimensional corporate responsibility perspective is aimed at establishing a coherent approach to addressing the various concepts of corporate responsibility and their integration with strategic management.
The 4CR taxonomy highlights four corporate responsibility areas: corporate competitiveness (CC); corporate governance (CG); CSR; and corporate sustainability (CS).
At the centre of the 4CR corporate responsibilities map is stakeholder management which provides the common link between corporate competitiveness and corporate responsibility and sustainability. The
key issues in each of the four corporate responsibilities are as follows:

1. Corporate competitiveness addressed by strategic management is a subject rarely discussed in the context of corporate responsibility. However, unless all strands of corporate responsibility are brought together under a common management framework, CSR and sustainability will remain peripheral activities and their impact is likely to remain well below required levels to achieve the millennium and related goals.
2. Corporate governance sets the legal framework to protect a company’s shareholders and stakeholders; the relative emphasis being dependent on national approaches.
3. The CSR is aimed at extending the legal requirements promoting ethics, philanthropy and social reporting to satisfy stakeholder concerns.
4. Corporate sustainability focuses on long-term economic and social stakeholder expectations both by optimizing their sustainability performance and by participating in networks with governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other stakeholders that can provide the capacity for
the world’s sustainable development.

Corporate Responsibility Practice: The Overall Picture

The CSR and corporate sustainability movements are building an impressive momentum with the support from governments and the investment community through SRI and associated corporate sustainability indices. It is generally accepted that businesses are doing far more than ever before in guarding against ethical compromises, recognizing their social and environmental responsibilities, creating enhanced governance transparency and becoming more accountable to their stakeholders.
However, today, despite the progress achieved, corporate responsibility and sustainability is primarily about a handful of companies that have made corporate sustainability their business philosophy; some following the principles of their founders established centuries ago, others in response to crises that threatened their survival and a few simply because they recognized the long-term value of doing so. There are also many companies that have adopted, in name only, corporate responsibility strategies either because they feel obliged to follow their peers or because they see some marketing-related benefits.
In these cases, responsible behaviour may be skin deep but…it could grow deeper.
Overall, the large majority of companies that have not adopted CSR or related approaches view such programmes as costly exercises only affordable by large companies. Consequently, despite various attempts to clarify the business benefits and the business case, CSR remains a low priority for the vast majority of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The CSR and corporate sustainability, as business practice approaches, are at the infancy stage with relatively few adopters and questionable impact.

Evidently, it could take some time before corporate responsibility and sustainability becomes part of
mainstream business practice.

Objectives and Motivations of CSR Companies:-

For the large companies that have adopted CSR, we can distinguish a number of common objectives:

1. increased transparency and improved governance aimed at rebuilding public trust and investor confidence;
2. delivering wider societal value, including support for health and human rights improvements, and environmental protection;
3. contributing to regional development and global partnerships for sustainable    development; and
4. addressing in a balanced way the concerns of their key stakeholders.
These objectives express company expectations/wishes for the future development of their corporate
responsibility and sustainability programmes but do not always reflect current practices.

II

Success stories from responsible companies, for example, the leading companies in SRI indices, confirm that outstanding financial performance is not incompatible with good sustainability performance.

 However, the motivation of companies to address corporate responsibly and sustainability varies widely from instrumental approaches using responsible practices as a means of maximizing profits to intrinsic
approaches committing the company to upholding its values and principles irrespective of the impact on financial performance.
KPMG’s 2005 survey of corporate responsibility highlights the diverse motivations for corporate responsibility (74 per cent economic and 53 per cent ethical) and the following important business drivers: (i) to have a good brand and reputation; (ii) to be an employer of choice; (iii) to have and maintain a strong market position; (iv) to have the trust of the financial markets and increase shareholder value; and (v) to be innovative in developing new products and services and creating new markets.

CSR Investment Patterns and Implementation Features

Lack of economic indicators and analytical methods to evaluate the contribution of CSR investments ina company’s performance restrains management from embarking on CSR investments. This situation is likely to deteriorate in recessionary periods when non-essential investments are cut back.
In general, large companies appear to be happier to invest in establishing a foundation dedicated to supporting good causes rather than investing to integrate corporate responsibility in their strategies and operational processes, or to invest in developing appropriate support infrastructure, further confirming the early stage of CSR industrialization.

CSR implementation type Horizon Features

Opportunistic Short term Few activities; questionable substance; no continuity; no dedicated team; and no development plans.
Stable Long term Dedicated team; coherent programme; historic evidence of responsible performance; advantages/disadvantages of specific actions evaluated; and appropriateness for sector and size and benchmarking considered.
In examining the actual CSR operation in various companies, it would appear that there is some confusion in many employees as to what CSR is, which activities constitute CSR, what the boundaries are and how CSR can be integrated in mainstream business operations. The traditional activities of sponsoring, donations, charities, etc., have to be extended by advanced forms of responsible behaviour affecting all company decisions, functions and processes through programmes on human potential development,
contribution to the social welfare, environmental protection, etc. As a result, each company has to discover,
to a large extend, its own unique way to manage corporate responsibility and sustainability which, given the complexity of the change and management challenges, entails high costs and performance penalties.
Operational uncertainties and difficulties are compounded by recent observations of ‘company anxiety’ regarding CSR communications. Over-promising or declarations of rightness and good intentions could cause the mistrust of consumers and stakeholders creating the opposite effects from those expected.

Companies are recognizing that corporate responsibility communications should be low tone and straightforward reflected in the actual behaviour of every member of the company which is extremely difficult to achieve before CSR is integrated into the company’s bloodstream.

The Role of Associations and Collaboration Networks

A way of overcoming the uncertainties of how to develop efficient ways of implementing CSR is through collaboration with other companies with similar objectives which can be facilitated by CSR associations or collaboration networks.
This, together with the initial political pressure to progress a CSR agenda, has led to the emergence of a relatively large number of associations which helped enormously in setting the initial momentum and helped to create business communities with stable implementations. The downside is that each association promotes its own brand of social responsibility whilst some of the standards such as GRI are not followed widely. This coupled with the fact that SMEs are not as yet seriously involved in the CSR and
sustainability movement poses risks to the wider take up of corporate responsibility practices by the business world.
To turn the initial strength of the CSR-related associations into long-term success for sustainable development, greater convergence of CSR-related approaches and greater collaboration between associations would be beneficial.

Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

The key ‘broker’ in collaborative responsibility alliances is often represented by the NGOs. The World Bank defines NGOs as, ‘private organisations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community support’. Organizations like Oxfam, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Amnesty International
and thousands of others serve the public on a national and international scale. Today, an estimated 35,000 organizations qualify as international NGOs (with programmes and affiliates in a number of countries).
Many recent polls place NGOs as the most trusted organizations by the public, invariably far more trusted than national governments.
The NGOs could therefore play a central role in strengthening and maintaining the momentum of the corporate responsibility and sustainability movement by promoting and facilitating collaboration networks
for sustainable development. The common CSR and corporate sustainability approach adopted by business organizations involves assessing their economic, social and environmental impact; taking steps to improve it taking into account the requirements of their stakeholders; and reporting on relevant measurements. In this context, corporate responsibility means managing, in a transparent manner, the economic, social and environmental impact of the systemic organizational activity. This means defining
performance targets, for example, on revenue growth and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and reporting on actual results for the specified period without reference to related business processes.
The management process involves developing CSR or sustainability policies and strategies reflecting stakeholder needs which are implemented through a CSR/sustainability programme and then, annual reports are produced to inform stakeholders of the actual progress achieved. Policy development and
implementation programmes are normally carried out in a company-specific way as a no methodologies have been established to guide these processes.

On the other hand, CSR-related standardization has focused on reporting standards. Further, various CSR associations have produced reporting guidelines, and even SRI assessment criteria and assessment.
methods provide useful references for the annual reports. It follows that the production of the annual ‘corporate responsibility report’ has emerged as the central activity in CSR or corporate sustainability management. As the quality of the annual corporate responsibility reports increases (explained further later) and the report contents become integrated with the traditional annual financial reports, first, the important dimension of responsible behaviour, namely, enhanced transparency, is addressed; and second, company’s social and environmental impacts receive increased attention and are slowly considered within a single
framework with financial issues.
It should be highlighted that companies operating in high-impact sectors such as power generation, oil companies, transport and heavy industries have the burden to invest heavily on reducing their impact on environment.

First, the companies identify their key stakeholders and their primary interests. This is used to select the responsibility areas they wish to focus on (responsibilities classification).

Formulating strategies and the CSR programme typically starts with impact analysis facilitating the specification of improvement targets in line with the specified policies. Quantifiable improvement targets and indicators are crucial to a successful corporate responsibility programme. Strategies, which should also be aligned with the overall business strategy, are then developed following evaluation of alternatives to achieve the improvement targets. Strategies are transformed into an action plan, the CSR programme, which is implemented by operational units through extensions of existing processes or through specific projects.

The CSR programme is monitored against the indicators set in strategy stage and the results are reported through CSR, sustainability or related reports. These reports which represent the central component of CSR management are often made public for transparency purposes, and frequently provide an
input into the assessment process undertaken by SRI evaluations or other benchmarking exercises.

Key Stakeholders Responsibilities Classification (Focus areas selected by each company reflecting priorities of key stakeholders) Policies Strategies Programme Measurement Reporting Identification of key stakeholders and their primary needs/ concerns.

1. Economic responsibility and
governance (products, customers,
suppliers, ethical standards).
2. Human rights and labour standards.
3. Health promotion and communities
support.
4. Environmental responsibility.

What are the company’s values and objectives in each responsibility area.
1. Impact assessment.
2. Improvement targets
and strategies.
3. Action programme.
1. Achievements.
2. Performance indicators.
3. Progressbenchmarking.
4. Independent reviews.
5. Feedback.

Corporate social responsibilities were defined by Bowen as ‘the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society’ (Bowen, 1953). At the time, corporate social obligation was linked to the power that business holds in society. This point was stressed by Davis (1962), who described business social responsibilities as ‘the businessman’s decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical interest…which need to be commensurate with the company’s social power’.
The earliest reference addressing specifically social auditing was around the early 1960s in a book by Goyder, called The Responsible Company. Goyder referred to various activities in the mid- and late
1950s and suggested that social audit could provide a management tool and could offer stakeholders a platform for challenging and influencing companies.

A balanced view of CSR is expressed by Vogel (2005) in The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility, suggesting that CSR is not a precondition for business success but a dimension of corporate strategy: Just as fi rms that spend more on marketing are not necessarily more profi table than those that spend less, there is no reason to expect more responsible fi rms to outperform less responsible ones. In other words, the risks associated with CSR are not different from those associated with any other business strategy; sometimes investments in CSR make business sense and sometimes they do not.
Vogel also highlights that ‘Surveys of the world’s top brands rarely cite CSR as an issue associated with a given brand. And companies that make most-admired lists do so by virtue of other factors—financial performance, customer satisfaction, innovation, and so on.’

Early Social Responsibility Models

Early theoretical work specifically addressing corporate social responsibilities is represented by Sethi (1975) who developed a three-tier model for classifying corporate behaviour which he labelled ‘corporate social performance’. The three states of corporate behaviour are based on:

1. social obligation (response to legal and market constraints);

2. social responsibility (addressing societal norms, values and expectations of performance); and

3. social responsiveness (anticipatory and preventive adaptation to social needs).

Sethi’s second tier requires that a company moves beyond compliance and recognizes and addresses societal expectations. The third tier requires that a company develops the competence to engage effectively with stakeholders and take proactive measures on their issues and concerns. Sethi also emphasized the cultural and temporal dependencies of corporate responsibilities and the importance of stable management

systems and standard classifications to facilitate measurement of progress and comparative analysis.

Building on Sethi’s model, Carroll (1979) proposed a model that contains the following four categories

of corporate responsibility in decreasing order of importance:

1. economic—be profitable;

2. legal—obey the law;

3. ethical—do what is right and fair and avoid harm; and

4. discretional/philanthropic—be a good corporate citizen.

The four classes of responsibility are seen to reflect the evolution of business and society interaction in the United States (US). According to Carroll, ‘the history of business suggests an early emphasis on the economic and then legal aspects and a later concern for the ethical and discretionary aspects’.

Economic obligations are therefore seen to be tempered by ethical responsibilities or social expectations and norms. Discretionary responsibilities go beyond ethical responsibilities and include philanthropic

measures such as corporate-sponsored programmes for disadvantaged workers.

In 1991,

The stakeholder theory, emphasizing a broad set of social responsibilities for business, was established by Freeman in 1984 through the groundbreaking work published in his book, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, which effectively established the field of ‘business and society’. Freeman defined stakeholders as ‘any group or individual who is affected by or can affect the achievement of an organisation’s objectives’. According to Freeman, the use of the term stakeholder grew out of the pioneering ideas at Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) in the 1960s, which were further developed through the work of Igor Ansoff and others. The basic SRI concept was that: managers needed to understand the concerns of shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, lenders and society, in order to develop objectives that stakeholders would support. This support was necessary for long term success.

Therefore, management should actively explore its relationships with all stakeholders in order to develop business strategies.

Stakeholder management approaches can be very different in practice, spanning from instrumental

approaches which use stakeholder relationships strictly as an instrument to maximize profit to intrinsic approaches, where fundamental principles guide how a company does business, particularly with respect to how stakeholders are treated (Donaldson and Preston, 1995)..

The two main streams represent the CSR perspective emphasizing ethical issues and social audit and the stakeholder approach representing the social dimension of strategic management. It should be noted

that sustainability did not feature in corporate responsibilities issues but is essentially related to environmental economics for ensuring that the costs and the benefits of environmental measures are well balanced.

References

1. Ansoff, H.I. (1979). The changing shape of the strategic problem. In D. Schendel & C. Hofer (Eds), Strategic management(pp. 30–44). Boston: Little Brown.
2. Aupperle, K.E., Hatfield, J.D., & Carroll, A.B. (1983). Instrument development and application in corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Proceedings, p. 369–373.
3. Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B., & Hatfield, J.D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–463.
4. Bowen, H. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper and Row.
5. Carroll, A. B. (1983). Corporate social responsibility: Will industry respond to cut-backs in social program funding? Vital Speeches of the Day, 49, 604–608.
6. ———. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
7. ———. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:Toward the moral management of organizational
8. stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.
9. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2(Spring), 70–76.
10. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implication Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
11. Freeman, E.R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
12. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. KPMG’s 2005 Survey of Corporate Responsibility. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.kpmg.com.au/Portals/0/
14. KPMG%20Survey%202005_3.pdf
15. Pinkston, T.S., & Carroll, A.B. (1994). Corporate citizenship perpectives and foreign direct investment in the US. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 157–169.
16. ———. (1996). A Retrospective Examination of CSR Orientations: Have They Changed? Journal of Business Ethics, 15(2), 119–206.
17. Sethi, S.P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytic framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58–64.
18. Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
19. A Multi Dimensional View of Corporate Responsibility: Dr. P.  Katsoulakos, and Prof Y. Katsoulakos, 4CR working Paper; 12^th July, 2006.