Globalisation, Brands, & Business Organisation - Essay Example

? “Corporate social responsibility is an important feature of corporate branding and corporate reputation management. Branding therefore creates pressure for greater corporate social responsibility”. Abstract Corporate branding and corporate reputation management are important tools for the creation of both economic and social capital. Corporate behaviour is under increasing scrutiny as members of the public look for and demand social responsibility and values. Corporate branding and corporate reputation are significant for communicating corporate social behaviour and social values. CSR activism has emerged to challenge corporate branding as a means of putting pressure on corporations to change their behaviour and to conduct their commercial activities in socially responsible ways. It therefore follows that corporate branding is now a powerful method by which corporations can signal corporate social responsibility. This research study demonstrates that corporate social responsibility is an important feature of corporate social responsibility and as such branding creates pressure on corporations to implement greater corporate social responsibility practices. The main question is whether or not using corporate branding to improve corporate social responsibility is a sound financial decision for companies. Will consumers be moved to purchase branded products because they are linked to corporate social responsibility? Or should companies market their brands so as to influence consumer sentiments in favour of the social or ethical standard incorporated in the brand? In determining whether or not to incorporate CSR into corporate branding another relevant question is whether or not companies can strategically and effectively make the connection between a trademark and CSR. These are the main questions considered in this research study. This study is therefore divided into two parts. The first part of this study offers a definition and explanation of the concepts and development of corporate social responsibility in the 21st century. The second part of this paper represents the main part of this study and analyses corporate branding and demonstrates its synergy with corporate social responsibility. The second part of the paper also demonstrates how corporate social responsibility is an important part of corporate branding and corporate reputation management. Introduction Corporate branding is an important strategy used by firms to remain current and meaningful or to respond to market changes. Corporate branding is driven by brand personality which reflects the values of the corporation.1 Thus corporate branding and brand personality connects the values of the corporation with consumers either directly or indirectly. In this regard, brands build corporate reputation and essentially require stakeholder management.2 Brands make promises and build trust and as such are just as effective for connecting the corporation with the community and stakeholders as corporate social responsibility (CSR) is.3 Brand value can measure corporate performance as a result of its combined commercial value, its ability to drive consumer demand and its strength in terms of building corporate reputation, loyalty and market position.4 It therefore follows that branding can be an important instrument for implementing CSR. However, there are a number of important issues worth considering. Firstly, the issue of whether or not trademarks or brands can be effectively used to connect specific aspects of CSR to the company behind the trademark or the brand is important for determining the feasibility of implementing CSR in corporate branding strategies. Secondly, the issue of whether or not corporations may have to market brands or trademarks so as to influence consumer loyalty to the CSR issue and thus the brand or trademark requires consideration. Thirdly, it is also important to determine the extent to which CSR influences consumers to purchase a brand connected to a social cause or issue. CSR is particularly important for today’s corporations as consumers and investors have become more concerned about corporate behaviour and look more closely at corporate reputation and ethical behaviour.5 Moreover increasing concerns among consumers indicate that environmental and social issues relative to modernization challenge how firms should approach corporate branding strategies.6 CSR by definition provides an important strategy by which corporate branding can be positioned to strengthen corporate brands and corporate reputation. CSR provides unique opportunities for firms to tap into consumer’s concerns about the environment and social issues.7 Thus CSR can facilitate a firm’s branding strategies by providing a method by which corporate brands are identified with social and environmental issues. In light of the significant role that brands play in improving the firm’s reputation, reflecting corporate values and connecting with consumers, brands are putting pressure on corporations to implement CRS strategies. This research study identifies the link between corporate branding, corporate reputation and CSR. It is argued that current market and socio-economic conditions have shaped the significance of corporate branding and corporate reputation in a way that puts pressure on corporations to implement or improve CSR strategies. This research paper is therefore divided into two main parts. The first part of this paper provides an analysis of CSR and its significance for corporate culture today. The second part of this paper connects CSR with corporate branding and corporate reputation. The Nature and Corporate Value of CSR With globalization non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have gained important footholds in the “global political economy”.8 NGOs have drawn particular attention to the value of stakeholder theory and raised concerns about the negative consequences of globalization, in particular, issues relative to labour and the environment.9 Pressure from NGOs has therefore encouraged corporations to develop codes of conduct consistent with stakeholder theory and thus CSR models of corporate governance.10 For the purpose of this research study we adopt the definition of CSR used by the European Commission. In this regard, the European Commission defines CSR as: ...a concept whereby companies decide voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner environment.11 The European Commission also noted that companies have been under increasing economic, environmental and social pressure to implement CSR practices and policies. CSR strategies are implemented as a method of communicating with a wide range of stakeholders that corporations come into contact with that they are acting in responsible ways. The wide range of stakeholders includes investors, consumers, shareholders, employees, government and NGOs. According to the European Commission, when corporations adopt CSR strategies they are making investments in the corporation’s future as there is a reasonable expectation that “voluntary commitment” helps to “increase” the corporation’s “profitability”.12 According to the European Commission, there are four main factors driving the need for corporations to adopt CSR strategies. The factors are: The forces of globalization which has increased both concern and interest among citizens, consumers, governments, NGOS and investors.13 Social issues are having a more profound impact on investment decisions at both the individual and institutional levels including consumers and investors.14 Widespread concerns about environmental issues.15 The world is now technology driven and with technology comes a greater expectation of transparency and accountability. 16 Academic debates over CSR first appeared in the literature during the 1950s. CSR was predicated on the assumption that corporations had a responsibility to society. The responsibility arose out of the fact that corporations were societal instruments and management acted as society’s trustees and therefore had a duty to balance the conflicting interests of consumers, suppliers, shareholders, employees and the community. Thirty years later these groups with conflicting interests would be referred to as stakeholders.17 Social scientists Aguilera, Rupp, Williams and Ganapathi argued in favour of sustainable development which necessarily engages CSR and the interest of a wider category of stakeholders. Specifically, the economic growth and development anticipated through “a fair and open world trading system” is a significant response to world poverty, but economic progress must be facilitated in way that not only promotes global safety and security today, but also well into the future.18 In words, economic progress must not be experienced globally by sacrificing the environment.19 Since the turn of the 21st century CSR and corporate governance have gained significant attention from shareholders, the public and government officials.20 CSR has gained increasing currency with both the European Commission and the UK government.21 In 2004 the UK Government adopted a policy for promoting CSR to encourage a corporate environment in which: Private, voluntary and public sector organizations in the UK take account of their economic, social and environmental impacts, and take complementary actions to address key challenges based on their core competencies – locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. 22 In April 2006, following the implementation of the Companies Act 2006, the CSR campaign in the UK was let by the CORE Coalition and the Trade Justice Movement. CORE has a membership of over more than 9 million including 130 charities and organizations such as Friends of the Earth, Amnesty Internationals, churches, union and other community organizations and the Trade Justice Movement. CORE’s main purpose is to enlighten the public as to the changes in the Companies Act 2006 relative to directors’ duty which were expanded to incorporate some degree of CSR. 23 The Companies Act 2006 essentially imposes upon corporations a statutory duty to implement CSR strategies, although in a limited way. Specifically, by virtue of 172 of the Companies Act 2006, directors have a duty to promote the company’s success.24 In executing the duty to promote the company’s success, directors must act in “good faith” and must consider what action will be of the greatest benefit to the company’s members.25 Directors are also required to take into consideration: the likely outcome of decisions in the long run; employees’ interests; the need to cultivate the firm’s business relations with customers, suppliers and other relevant parties; the impact that the corporation’s business activities have on the environment and the community; the company’s reputation; and the need to be fair to all company members.26 By codifying CSR, the Companies Act 2006 reflects a determined shift away from shareholder primacy theory and a shift toward stakeholder theory. Previously, shareholder primacy dominated Company law in the UK and supported a culture in which directors only had a responsibility toward shareholders.27 The only statutory duty outside of the statutory duty to protect the interest of shareholders was the duty to protect employee interests.28 Section 309 of the Companies Act slightly modified this duty by imposing upon directors the duty to safeguard the interests of the employees.29 However, this statutory expressing a duty to safeguard the interest of the employee was no more than an expansion of the duty to safeguard the interest of shareholders. Logic dictates that one of the most effective ways to maximize shareholder value is to protect the interest of employees so that they are more productive. 30 Section 172 on its face introduces CSR into law under the auspices of the enlightened shareholder theory. However, a closer examination of Section 172 reveals that the duty is voluntary. The voluntary nature of CSR under the Companies Act 2006 is implied by the fact that the CSR duties listed in Section 172 of the 2006 Act are not supported or strengthened by remedies in the event the director fails to comply with any of these duties.31 Regardless, providing CSR as a statutory duty represents an important step forward for corporate governance in the UK and provides directors with a significant defence should they fail to operate the company solely for the purpose of maximizing shareholder value.32 Developments in corporate governance as expressed in the Companies Act 2006 and by the European Commission, inform that corporations are not merely about business. Corporations are also about relationships and impacts on society. Therefore CSR is gaining increasing currency in today’s corporate culture. CSR has engaged what has been referred to as the “triple bottom line”: sustainable development constructed on the basis of finance, the environmental and social issues.33 CSR requires only that corporations voluntarily strategize toward achieving the triple bottom line. Corporate Branding and CSR Although brands have been in existence for at least 1,000 years, today’s society has been as exposed to brands and the power of brands more intensely than at any other time in brand history.34 Brands are present in all factions of everyday life: consumption, production, clothing, food, personalities, lifestyles, pop culture, politics and so on. As Fan explains, branding has emerged as more than just a method of “adding value to product”, branding is now about representing and promoting “lifestyles” and branding itself has “become a kind of culture.”35 Brands are now aiming for attachment to the lives, values, beliefs and politics of consumers.36 A great deal of corporate value is associated with a company’s name, reputation or brand. With corporate branding relying almost entirely on promotion, advertising campaigns and acquired goodwill, brands have penetrated all spheres of human existence. At the same time, the significant market value of brands for corporations has also made them vulnerable to anti-branding techniques on the part of socially and environmentally conscious movements. These anti-branding techniques are conducted in a variety of ways. For instance, activists often organize boycotts of specific corporate products or organize entertainment strategies that parodies brands by counter-advertising techniques. Advances in technology have also made it possible for spreading anti-brand messages to a larger audience at a far more rapid pace than previously. For the most part, anti-branding techniques are aimed at changing corporate behaviour. As Wai informs social activism: Have increasingly used pressure on brands to generate changes in corporate policies...the economic value attached to intangibles means that corporations such as Nike and Pepsi are vulnerable to protest strategies that associate the brand in the minds of consumers and investors with objectionable business policies...37 The significance of corporate branding is therefore obvious. Consumers and civil society have become conscious of social, political and environmental issues and have now created their own perceptions of brand values. In fact, the pressure put on brands to change corporate behaviour emanates from what Muniz and O’Guinn refer to as brand communities.38 Brand communities are defined by shared consciousness, convention and mutual moral duty to community and members of the community.39 Corporate branding is therefore under pressure to conform to brand communities or at the very least is consistent with brand communities so that members of the community identify with the brand or feel that the brand is a part of its shared conscience, convention and adheres to the community’s shared sense of duty to its members. Thus corporate branding has both economic and social capital. In order for corporate branding to be successful it is required to satisfy internal and external stakeholders each of which are important for the success of the organization.40 Communities and the larger range of stakeholders generally have an input in the trajectory of corporate branding. Corporate branding today is successful when it reflects the values, needs and concerns of stakeholders and ensures that stakeholder, particularly consumers who can be influenced by social activism and anti-branding, feel that they are a part of the corporation in that they share the same values. As Hatch and Schultz explain: It is this attraction and sense of belonging that affects the decisions and behaviours on which a company is built.41 Additionally, an effective corporate brand is created by virtue the “interplay between strategic vision,” the organization’s culture and the “corporate images held by its stakeholders”.42 Therefore corporate branding calls attention to stakeholder values which form a significant part of the ideologies underpinning CSR. CSR is perceived as a viable strategy for brand expression because it involves managing the corporation’s image and reputation from the perspective of others, particularly consumers.43 Likewise, branding not only improves corporate image and reputation, but by doing so improves long-term value for shareholders. In this regard, branding puts corporations in a position to both realise the principles of shareholder maximization and stakeholder theories and thus places corporations under pressure to adopt or strengthen CSR. In this regard, corporate brand positioning is important because it sends a powerful and distinct message of value to consumers. Brand positioning informs consumers by virtue of differentiation and value why the corporation’s brand should be purchased. More specifically, relationship theory informs that corporate brand positioning is an attempt to connect with the consumer.44 Currently, increasing concerns about the environment and the social changes in post-modern lifestyles are of primarily changing consumers’ attitudes, values and preferences.45 It therefore follows that since CSR appeals to the corporations to take account of the environment and social issues and corporate branding connects with consumers, corporate branding puts pressure on organizations to implement CSR. Research demonstrates that consumers are more likely to purchase goods, products and services that are environmentally significant in that they were produced by virtue of sustainable development methods.46 It therefore follows that CSR creates a competitive edge for companies and as such maximizes shareholder value. A study conducted by David, Kline and Dai found that consumes’ knowledge of a firm’s CSR policies has a significant impact on the image of the company from the consumer’s perspective and by correlation also impacts the purchasing intentions and decisions of the consumer.47 Moreover, Kapferer argues that brands creates or reaffirms ethics in that consumer “satisfaction” is “linked to the responsible behaviour of the brand in its relationship with society”.48 It can therefore be argued that brands are the link between consumers and their values and since consumers are largely inclined toward social and environmental conditions, brands put pressure on corporations to implement CSR. According to De Charnatony values are intricately linked to corporate brands and thus the values of consumers in branding becomes a critical issue.49 Corporate Societal Marketing provides a method by which a business firm can connect brands with consumers in ways that incorporates two possible images of association. First there may be associative image in which the brand user is perceived as socially and/or environmentally conscious. Secondly there may be an associative image of the producers and marketers of the branch that reflects an environmental and/or social conscience.50 Implementing CSR as part of the corporation’s strategic operations can generate a positive image that transfers over to the brand. Thus when a consumer purchases a corporation’s branded goods, services or products, the consumer is expected to have a positive image of the corporation. Moreover, when consumers purchase from the CSR company they are expected to come away feeling as though they have done something positive for cause or an issue. The ensuing feelings that consumers get are thus characterized as “social approval and self-respect”.51 Brand positioning in terms of CSR policies provides a differential selling point in that it gives consumers a compelling rationale for purchasing a specific brand.52 In this regard the definition of brand positioning is instructive. Brand positioning is defined as: The act of designing the company’s offer and image so that it occupies a distinct and valued place in the target customer.53 Put another way, brand positioning is largely accepted as a viable method for creating a competitive edge in garnering consumer values at all marketing levels and though communications with consumers. Brown and Dacin informed that when CSR is associated with strategies calling for positive action such as volunteering or donating to a cause or getting involved in the community do not appear to have an appreciable impact on the perceptions of consumers. However, when corporations incorporate CSR in their branding strategies and conduct brand positioning in a way that connects with CSR, these companies are more likely to be competitive and/or gain a competitive edge in the market.54 To this end, brand positioning and branding generally by definition becomes an important instrument in an age where the demands of modernization have directed companies to take an active role in sustainable development as a means of responding to environmental and social issues brought about by modernization and its twin partner globalization. Branding and brand positioning is required to transfer a significant value proposition to consumer. Brand positioning and branding is concerned with establishing differential points of the brand and the “points of parity” relative to the company’s competitors. 55 Points of parity are those material facts about the product, goods or services are basically similar to the competition. Points of parity can also draw down on the distinctions in competitor’s brands and this is important because differences are the sources of competitive edge. However, points of differences are main sources of competitive edge. In this regard, points of differences are: Attributes or benefits that consumers strongly associate with the brand, positively evaluate, and believe that they could not find to the same extent with a competitive brand.56 However, differentiation for the sake of being distinguished from competitors alone is not enough for powerful and effective branding. Consumers must connect with the differentiation presented by the brand. Branding must be conducted in such a way that consumers are able to conclude that the differentiation has some appeal so as to give effect to strong, desirable and meaningful associations. A desirable differentiation in branding represents consumer value. Thus a desirable brand differentiation must be relevant, distinct and credible.57 In this regard branding taps into the conscience and emotions of the consumer. Since branding represents one of the main assets of company, brands must connect with consumers in a way that garners loyalty and commitment. Consumers are more inclined toward brands that are consistent with the values expressed by CSR. Thus branding puts pressure on companies to adopt CSR. Blumenthal and Bergstrom argue that although we currently live in a world primarily characterised by materialism, intangibles have become increasingly accepted as added value to the material world and is widely acknowledged throughout the corporate world.58 Branding has shifted from a “simple image-production scheme to a massive organizational alignment tool” and has led the way for CSR.59 Thus, corporate branding can be integrated with CSR or CSR can be integrated with branding strategies to produce a synergy that provides both social and economic value for corporations. In order to create an effective synergy between brands and CSR in way that is economically productive however, firms need to ensure the brand is associated with a specific CSR issue. There are no fixed prescriptions for implementing CSR. Garriga and Mele maintains that CSR theories can be implemented as, tools, politics, integration and value theories.60 Any of these mechanisms will impact that way that the company sees its role and activities in the broader community. Brand can be used to connect organizations with CSR by setting CSR functions that integrate business objectives with social issues and make contributions to social causes.61 There are two important strategies than can be used to make this connection: cause related marketing or partnerships with non-profit organizations. By taking this approach the brand is automatically associated with a social cause or issue. Seitanidi and Crane recommends incorporating CSR in a way that is “fit for purpose”.62 One technique is cause-related marketing which constitutes the use of advertising, packaging, promotions, campaigning and any number of communicative tools conveying the company’s CSR by associating the brand or trademark with a specific cause or a non-profit organization.63 It is generally believed that by investing in CSR, the business entity can expect an immediate improvement in sales and an improvement in corporate brand value in the long term.64 There is evidence that consumers are more loyal to brands associated with social causes or issues. For example a study conducted by Barone, Miyazaki & Taylor demonstrated that when prices and product performance were different, the participants more frequently selected weak performing products with higher prices “in return for perceived corporate social responsibility”.65 It would therefore appear that associating CSR with brands may not only influence consumers to adopt a specific cause but will also influence consumers to purchase a brand associated with a social cause or issue. Conclusion CSR takes into account the interests of all stakeholders. At the same time CSR provides a method by which companies can maximise shareholder value. Moreover, branding in the post-modern world, demands that companies create and position brands in a way that appeals to the consumer. CSR provides a technique by which consumers are attracted to brands. In this regard, branding puts firms under increasing pressure to adopt CSR because the latter has the potential to strengthen brands, corporate branding, corporate reputation and differentiate corporate brands and their individual product brands from competitors and their brands in a way that is desirable, meaningful and relevant. Corporate branding is no longer economically constructed. Corporate branding is now increasingly socially constructed and as such calls for aligning the corporation’s image and reputation with the values of not only its shareholders, but with the values and the conscience of a wide range of stakeholders. Thus corporate branding and CRS have a synergetic co-existence and can be integrated to maximize both shareholder and stakeholder value. The risk of anti-branding and social activism targeting corporate branding and individual brands informs that even from a purely economic perspective, corporations cannot afford to refuse to integrate CSR practices66 which by definition will influence the corporate brand. Bibliography Textbooks Baherjee, S. B. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. (Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2007). Balmer, J. M. T. and Greyser, S. A. Revealing the Corporation Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding and Corporate-Level Marketing. (London, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2003). Berle, A. and Means, G.The Modern Corporation and Private Property, (10th Edition. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1932/2009). Castka, P.; Bamber, C. and Sharp, J. Implementing Effective Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: A Framework. (London, UK: British Standards Institution, 2004). Elkinton, J. Cannibals and Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. (Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing, Ltd. 1998). Kapferer, J. N. The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity. (London, UK: Kogan Page, 2008). Keller, K.L. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice 2008). Von Stamm, B. Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity. (West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2nd Ed., 2008). Articles/Journals Aaker, D. A. ‘Positioning Your Product’. (1982) 25 Business Horizons, 56-62. Aguilera, R.; Rupp, D.; Williams,C. and Ganapathi, J. ‘Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organizations.’ (2007) 32(3) Academy of Management Review, 836-863. Bainbridge, S. M. ‘In Defense of the Shareholder Wealth Maximization Norm: A Reply of Professor Green’, (1993) 50 Washington and Lee Law Review, 1423-2447. Barone, M. J.; Miyazaki, A.D. and Taylor, K. A. ‘The Influence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn Deserve Another?’ (2000) 28(2) Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 248-262. Berrone, P.; Surroca, J. and Tribo, J. A. ‘Corporate Ethical Identity as a Determinant of Firm Performance: A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder Satisfaction.’ (2007) 76 Journal of Business Ethics, 35-53. Bronn, P.S. and Vrioni, A. B. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Cause-Related Marketing: An Overview.’(2001) 20 International Journal of Advertising, 207-222. Broomhill, R. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Key Issues and Debates.’ (2007) Dunstan Paper No.1/2007, 1-31. Brown, T. J. and Dacin, P.A. ‘The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses’, (1997) 61 Journal of Marketing, 68-84. Blumenthal, D. and Bergstrom, A. J. ‘Brand Councils that Care: Towards the Convergence of Branding and Corporate Social Responsibility.’ (May 2003) 10(4-5) The Journal of Brand Management, 327-341. David, P. Kline, S. and Dai, Y. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Practices, Corporate Identity and Purchase Intention: A Dual Process Model,’ (2005) 17(3) Journal of Public Relations Research, 291-313. De Chernatony, L. ‘Would a Brand Smell any Sweeter by a Corporate Name?’ (2002) 5(2/3) Corporate Reputation Review, 114-132. Doh, J. P. and Teegen, H. ‘Nongovernmental Organizations as Institutional Actors in International Business: Theory and Implications,’ (2002) 11 International Business Review, 665-684. Drezner, D. W. ‘Bottom Feeders’, (2000) 121 Foreign Policy, pp. 64-70. Fan, Y. ‘Ethical Branding and Corporate Reputation.’ (2005) 10(4) Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 341-350. Fiedler, L. and Kirchgeorg, M. ‘The Role Concept in Corporate Branding and Stakeholder Management Reconsidered: Are Stakeholder Groups Really Different?’ (2007) 10 Corporate Reputation Review, 177-188. Fournier, S. ‘Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research.’ (March 1998) 24(4) Journal of Consumer Research, 343-353. Garriga, E. and Mele, D. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory.’ (2004) 53 Journal of Business Ethics, 51-71. Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. ‘The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Investment Recommendations.’ (2010) Harvard Business School, Working Paper No. 11-017, 1-46. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. ‘Bringing the Corporation into Corporate Branding.’ (2003) 37 European Journal of Marketing, 1041-1064. Keller, K.L. and Richey, K. ‘The Importance of Corporate Brand Personality Traits to a Successful 21st Century Business.’ (2006) 14 Journal of Brand Management, 74-81. Kitchin, T. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Brand Explanation.’ (May 2003) 10(4-5) Brand Management, 312-326. Mark-Herbert, C. and von Schantz, C. ‘Communication Corporate Responsibility – Brand Management.’ (2007) 12(2) Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 4-11. Muniz, A. M. and O’Guin, T. C. ‘Brand Community.’ (March 2001) 27(4) Journal of Consumer Research, 412-431. Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M. ‘Corporate Rebranding: Destroying, Transferring or Creating Brand Equity?’ (2006) 40(7/8) European Journal of Marketing, 803-824. Pava, M. L. and Krausz, J. ‘The Association Between Corporate Social-Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost.’ (1996) 15(3) Journal of Business Ethics, 321-357. Seitanidi, M. M. and Crane, A. ‘Implementing CSR Through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, Design and Institutionalisation of Nonprofit-Business Partnerships,’ (2009) 85 Journal of Business Ethics, 413-429. Strahilevitz, M. ‘The Effects of Product Type and Donation Magnitude on Willingness to Pay More for a Charity-Linked Brand.’ (1999) 8(3) Journal of Consumer Psychology, 215-241. Wai, R. ‘Countering, Branding, Dealing: Using Economic and Social Rights in and Around the International Trade Regime.’ (2003)14(1) EJIL, 35-84. Williams, E. ‘CSR Europe’s Sustainable Marketing Guide.’ (2008) CSR Europe, 1-28. Winston, M. ‘NGO Strategies for Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility.’ (2002) 16(2) Ethics and International Affairs, 71-87. Official Publications/Papers Commission of the European Communities, ‘Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility.’ COM 2001, 366 , Final, 1-32. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Government Update. May 2004. Department of Trade and Industry, 1-28. Statutes Companies Act 2006. Companies Act 1985. Read More