Relevant paper on CSR and HRM

Corporate Social responsibility and Human Resource Management-A Strategic-Balanced Model : Ananda Das Gupta

 Published in:

Professionals ́ Perspectives of Corporate Social Responsibility

Edited By Samuel O. Idowu, Walter Leal Filho

Published by: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2009

Link:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AgEifBoKFPEC&pg=PA392&lpg=PA392&dq=Corporate+Social+Responsibility+and+HRM%2B

Socially Responsible Initiatives in the New Millennium

The key issues for Socially Responsible Initiatives: Towards Future Mapping 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 models.

3. 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, NGOs and other stakeholders that can provide the capacity for the world’s sustainable development.

5. Business ethics and social accountability create important bridges between CSR and corporate governance. Investor demands and specifically SRI, philanthropy and corporate citizenship provide a common ground for CSR and corporate sustainability.

6.  Performance stability and fair globalisation are important aspects both in strategic management and corporate sustainability. Competition policy and regulation affects strategic management and corporate governance but has also implications for business ethics and CSR. Similarly, risk management is a key issue for strategic management and governance and specifically in terms of reputation risks it becomes a common aspect in all the responsibility areas.

The Parameters for Social Impact Management, widely accepted by Global Research   community are :

1. Civil Society Strengthening

The capacity for strong performance in civil society provides the foundation for lasting social benefits.Global civil society is a monumental social and economic force with vast potential to create a more free, fair and just global order. The collective nature of civic action helps ensure that the interests of citizens—including women, the poor and other marginalized groups—are weighed by public institutions that make policy and allocate resources. Many civil society organizations (CSOs) face common challenges limiting their effectiveness— namely the ability to manage human and financial resources, advocate to power holders, manage for results and bring promising social innovations to scale.

2. Performance Management

Measuring results enables us to achieve outcomes and tell success from failure.

Managing for results is central to the global revolution in public management and aid effectiveness. Strong performance monitoring systems sharpen strategy and learning, improve communications with stakeholders, help ensure that resources are focused on key results, and promote accountability. Yet these systems are often impractical and out of alignment with organizational skills and incentives.

Area of Focus:

• Performance Management Systems-designing and implementing performance management systems for specific projects and programs to reinforce program performance, learning and accountability.
• Building Capacity for Performance Management-building performance management capacity for entire organizations, including international donors and local partners such as governments and civil society organizations.

 

3. Programme Evaluation

Evaluation is a platform for learning, accountability and focused strategy.Program evaluation is central to organizational learning, performance improvement and accountability. Through evaluation we can determine the efficiency, relevance, effectiveness, sustainability and institutional impacts of development activities. Impact evaluation helps us to better understand the extent to which activities reach the poor and the magnitude of their effects on people's welfare.

Area of Focus:

• Impact Evaluation-systematic assessment of effects on individual households, institutions, and the environment caused by a given development project, program or policy.
• Evaluations for Program Improvement-evaluations focused on improving projects and programs during the project life.
• Participatory and Empowerment Evaluation-evaluations with central objectives to foster participation, learning and empowerment among local stakeholder groups.
• Evaluation Capacity Development-building organizational skills, incentives and systems to use evaluation in order to achieve results.

4. Strategic Planning

Managing with a clear vision, mission and strategy produces lasting outcomes. Globalization and failed and fragile states, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and country Poverty Reduction Strategies require more strategic alignment of development assistance. Donor coordination provides added potential to design and manage country programs that help to create stability and prospects for longer-term development. To stay relevant in this environment, aid agencies need to sharpen their missions, mandates and strategies and engage in constant learning and innovation.

Area of Focus:

• Designing Results-Oriented Sector Strategies and Country Programs-working with donors, governments and local stakeholders to develop results-oriented sector strategies and programs in health, education, environment, governance and economic growth.
• Strategic Planning for Organizations and Teams-creating a shared vision, mission and strategy with measurable results for an organization, team or operating unit; creating a culture for strategic management.

5. Effective Teams

Harnessing the creativity, collective wisdom and energy of diverse teams helps to catalyze development results.Effective teams are important catalysts for development and social change and they are increasingly diverse and dispersed. Team members come with different values, experiences, technical skills and cultural traditions. Technical assistance teams are pressured to produce results quickly, especially in challenging environments. Teams working closely with local counterparts need to model values of empowerment and participation. In these settings traditional team building is not enough.

Area of Focus:

• Team Planning Meetings-rapid start-up for effective technical assistance teams.
• Team Building for Existing Teams-team assessment and tailored team building, including Meyers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), to improve performance of existing teams.
• Building Team-based Organizations-creating organizational leadership processes, procedures, structures and incentives to support effective teams.
• Building Effective Virtual Teams-using specialized tools and methods for building virtual teams and communities of practice.
• research community is  aware of this  kind of proposed series and it will be well received.

Social Impact Management addresses Inclusive growth which includes more than just poverty alleviation and seeks to address the problem of equity through the enhancement of opportunities for everybody.

In the real world of competition and co-ordination, various situations elicit various trade-offs that the three pillars of economy-Business, Government and Society have to undertake for their survival and sustenance. In this paper, we look into many such case studies where each one was adamant in each scenario leading to betterment of one and detriment of another and thus arises the imbalance between the three pillars of economy.

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/