The Concepts Of Csr And Financial Performance

Corporations are encouraged to conduct their activities in an ethically responsible manner, however neither the corporate world nor academia has produced a single – all encompassing definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The basic problem is that there are too many self-serving definitions that often lean toward the specific interests of the entities involved (Van Marrewijk, 2003). There has even been a quantitative study conducted on the many definitions of the term (Dahlsrud, 2006).

The purpose of this essay is to research the notion of CSR and uncover its true framework and outline what social responsibility truly means to corporate organisations, and whether it should be seriously considered to be a legitimate addition to the corporate framework of an organisation.

The term ‘corporate social responsibility’ is still in popular use, even though competing, complementary and overlapping concepts such as corporate citizenship, business ethics, stakeholder management and sustainability are all vying to become the most accepted and widespread descriptor of the field. At the same time, the concept of corporate social performance (CSP) has become an established umbrella term which embraces both the descriptive and normative aspects of the field, as well as placing an emphasis on all that firms are achieving or accomplishing in the realm of social responsibility policies, practices and results. In the final analysis, however, all these concepts are related, in that they are integrated by key, underlying themes such as value, balance and accountability (Schwartz and Carroll 2008), and CSR remains a dominant, if not exclusive, term in the academic literature and in business practice. Just to illustrate how the concept is always evolving, CSR International, a non-profit organization, announced in 2009 the birth celebration of CSR International, an exciting new organization supporting the transition from what it called the ‘old CSR’ (Corporate Social Responsibility) or CSR 1.0 to the ‘new CSR’ (Corporate Sustainability & Responsibility) or CSR 2.0. Whether CSR 2.0 turns out to be substantially different

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

Corporate Social responsibility (CSR) has been viewed in different ways by different school of thoughts; some see it has a voluntary initiative, while others think it’s a main part of every company’s structure and even an opportunity to improve brand. For this work, we would take the position of the later argument. It is simply giving back to the environment that you gain from. It involves protection of the environment, development of quality of the occupants of the environment and improving their quality of life. Like Barnard (1938), it is analyzing the social, economic, moral, legal and physical aspects of the environment.

Archie Carroll defines corporate social responsibility (CSR) as “the social responsibility of business encompassing the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of these organizations at a given point in time.” (Crane, 5) Interesting enough, there has been an abrupt growth of firm’s engagement in CSR within all industries. This is the result of growing requests from the civil society demanding firms, of all sizes, to legitimize their practices. (Crane, 4)

The idea of a perfectly clear and all-encompassing definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been much deliberated and remains controversial. The research of Marrewijk (2013, p.95) elaborated on the significance of this ongoing debate among academics, consultants and corporate executives which results in creating, supporting and criticising of different concepts. This essay illuminates CSR principles, consider different definitions and concepts and relates it to my definition. Furthermore, it supports companies’ interest in CSR only for profit maximisation.

The concept of CSR (corporate social responsibility), has been around for many years, it has continued to grow in significance and importance. Moreover, there has been a public debate and commentary on the same subject. For instance, (International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility) argues that CSR has had social-political influence i.e. the political regime, culture and legal systems of many countries around the globe. More companies around the globe in are engaging themselves in CSR activities, as a result, providing more information on social and environmental issues to the mass. According to (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Gurvitish and Sidorova, 2012), in the past, research that considers both CSR reporting and activity has

Corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is a popular debate topic over decades, has divided into five major dimensions over time. They are known as the stakeholder dimension, the social dimension, the economic dimension, the voluntariness dimension and the environmental dimension in research (Dahlsrud, 2008). The relationship between CSR and company’s performance, which is classified as the stakeholder dimension, aroused a controversial discussion among different research studies. Some research reported positive relationship in CSR and company’s performance (Mirvis, 2012), some research found negative results (Karnani, 2010), while there are also other research view CSR as

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become imperative on business convention nowadays. CSR can be defined as the way that firms manage the business processes to generate a positive influence on society (Baker, 2004). The term CSR was appeared in the 1950s, but until 1989, Ben and Jerry’s was the first company which truly publish a social responsibility report (Coles, 2012). In recent years, numerous organizations evaluate firms on their CSR performance since the society is concerned about the CSR ranking. Consequently, business managers in various countries may treat CSR as an inevitable priority (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Nevertheless, CSR is still a controversial issue in the world. Some businesses are struggling to balance corporate

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become imperative on business convention nowadays. “Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large” (Holme and Watts, 2000). The term CSR was appeared in the 1950s, but until 1989, Ben and Jerry’s was the first company which truly publish a social responsibility report (Coles, 2012). In recent years, numerous organizations evaluate firms on their CSR performance since the society is concerned about the CSR ranking. Consequently, business managers in various countries may treat CSR as an inevitable priority (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Nevertheless, CSR is still a controversial issue in the world. Some businesses are struggling to balance corporate and social aims due to the growing societal attention in CSR. This essay will compare and contrast arguments in favour of and against CSR from the perspective of firms.

The origin of Corporate Social Responsibility in businesses has no fixed date. Most experts, scholars, researchers, practitioners, writers, philanthropists, civil societies & conscious citizens opined that it can be carried out in an ethical and socially responsible manner. It is assumed that in the year 1960 corporate social responsibility began to emerge, and the civil rights movement, consumerism, and environmentalism greatly changed the way society expected the business world to behave. In the year 1970 there came the common use of the term CSR along with many attempts to officially define the phrase. In 1980, the new International Development Strategy focused on achieving a more stable world economy, stimulating economic growth, evening out social inequities and countering the worst impacts of poverty. While scholars from the 1970s into the 1990s wrestled with CSR concepts and developed stakeholder theory, numerous business leaders had independently articulated similar views on the purpose of business. Throughout this period scholars attempted to define, redefine, and clarify the concept of corporate social responsibility that they saw being assumed by, imposed upon, and played out by business. In addition, scholars sought to connect and integrate disparate principles and activities into a more comprehensive conceptual model.

Corporate Social Responsibility can be used to depict the approach that an organisation approaches the financial, environmental and social impacts of its strategic business life cycle. The issue of CSR has become

　　Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is defined as the corporate initiatives taken by the company which take responsibility to its stakeholders (Tricker, 2012). Over the years, most of the public listed companies are moving away from shareholders-oriented to stakeholders-oriented. This might be because they realised that it was no longer enough to focus on financial performance alone to enhance business sustainability and credibility. The companies with stakeholder perception believe that the CSR practices has a positive impact on their Corporate Financial Performance (CFP) and reputation.

While corporate social responsibility (CSR) has existed for a long time, it has garnered attention only in the last two decades as an important aspect of doing business. Academic research on CSR has evolved over the years, indicating a change in how CSR is viewed as time goes by. In the earlier years of