Whether Corporation Should Engage in Maintaining Public Good Though It Is against the Interest - Research Paper Example

Why corporations should promote stakeholder involvement and public good objectives even when these conflict with the interests of shareholders. Why they should be legally permitted to do so and the extent to which corporate social responsibility is legally required Name Institution Law Tutor Date Introduction There is no precise definition that can be used to encompass what Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) entails hence diversified definitions of CSR exist. Definitions range from defining CSR as not being limited to how companies use the profits they make, but also encompassing how the organizations make these profits. It goes way beyond compliance and philanthropy and addresses how companies manage not only their social impact, but also their economic and environmental impacts. CSR also involves the relationship of the organization with its key partners: place of work, supply chain, public policy, and community.1 Firstly, a three dimensional terminology has been used to aid in the definition of CSR. This definition involves three diversified concepts of CSR: altruistic CSR which entails the organizations having the responsibility of acting and living while observing the interest of other people. The second dimension reviews ethical CSR which embeds an organization avoiding social injuries and harm to others as it conducts its operations. The final dimension is strategic CSR which incorporates the actions an entity engages in that translate to its benefit and also the benefit of its stake holders. To a greater extent, the discussion in this paper will be more anchored to reviewing the strategic dimension since the paper aims at reviewing to what extent a corporation should engage in maintaining public good though this move is against the interest of the stakeholders.2 Evidence reveals that CSR has its origins and can be traced back to the United Kingdom with reference to factors that make the UK acquire a leadership role. To begin with, UK has a colonial past especially in the African countries and has a viable international position necessitating its anchor in CSR activities. Consequently, UK serves as the headquarters for a great number of accountancy firms especially those bestowed with CSR embedded in the extensive journalistic expansion in the country. Subsequently, UK felt the prime impact of industrial revolution in the eighteenth century and thus experienced the first privatization of industries thus necessitating the need for early involvement in CSR. In addition, UK has spearheaded majority of the non-governmental community projects and aided in the shape of Shell and Unilever with the aid of Anglo-Dutch drivers. All these factors have worked in unison to give the UK a comparative advantage as far as CSR is concerned.3 CSR has also been defined as incorporating financial reporting of organizations to the relevant stakeholders. 4 The history of disclosing information currently being referred to as CSR has been documented to have existed in the UK since 1900s with reference to Hardfield’s Limited.5 The disclosures in these company included issues dealing with government policy, commercial responsibility, armaments, and professional responsibility to relevant stakeholders. However, the difference was in the quality of information disclosed with the current information being disclosed in the CSR being of a higher quality. This has led to the documentation of the importance and motivations of companies in the UK to engage in disclosures not only with the aim of informing their stakeholders. Disclosure informs the public of the activities of the organization, organizations also derive CSR positive public relations from disclosing and also to meet the disclosure requirements as stipulated by the stakeholders. Also, disclosure illustrates if employees are tailored to meeting the company’s target and to show that organizations abide by the regulations of CSR. Disclosure also reveals to stakeholders the importance of other non-financial activities that an organization engages and thus a relevance of public involvement in the affairs of the organization.6 Additionally, the European Commission defines CSR as integration of environmental and social concerns by companies as they operate their businesses and involves a voluntary interaction with stakeholders. This means that the hub of CSR according to the European Commission is that an organization is not only in existence to serve its economic needs, but also exists to serve the environmental and social needs. This definition of CSR however contradicts with the neo-classical shareholder assertion that the principle aim of an organization is to make profits. This therefore incorporates the social and environmental aspect of CSR to the UK definition of CSR earlier foretold. Also, the European Commission definition of CSR incorporates the voluntary basis in which the stakeholders become involved in the operations of the organization.7 Body 1 Explain and give example of Stakeholders & Public Good objective and arguments whether promoting their involvements are justified. Prior to investigating if the involvement of stakeholders is justified, it is important to understand what the term stakeholder implies. Stakeholders have been defined as indispensable entities and the organizational survival depends on these entities. Consequently, these groups identified as stakeholders depend on the organization for them to be able to achieve their objectives while the organization needs the stakeholders to exist. This therefore means that stakeholders include any individual or entity who has the capability of influencing or who can be adversely affected by the organization being able to achieve its goals. It is therefore important to note that for the utmost survival of the organization, there has to be stakeholders and also the stakeholders’ need the continued operation of the organization. This further emulates that the organization forms the epitome of the stakeholders and is connected to the various stakeholders by the use of spokes. Being an interlinked collaboration, it is important that both parties work in collaboration in ensuring that not only are the objectives of the organization are met, but the needs of the stakeholders are also addressed. 8 Stakeholder involvement entails the interaction between stakeholder, and the decision making of the organization. The stakeholders involved in the decision making process of the organization include service providers, non-governmental and private sectors, and the public. Stakeholder involvement encompasses both participation and consultation; the former meaning the ability of the stakeholders to influence the decisions of the organization that may affect the stakeholders. The latter entails the impetus in which the stakeholders are allowed by the organization to share, influence, and have control over the decision making process of the organization. In consultation the organization has limited control over the process which the stakeholders engage into the organization. With this insight, this paper will concentrate on the assessment of the justification of stakeholder involvement.9 By stakeholders playing a great role in influencing the activities of the organization, their involvement is justified. The government as a major stakeholder in an organization is justified in the involvement of the operations of the organization. This is especially with reference to the rules and regulations set by the government outlining how organizations should be operated and especially as pertains to the payment of taxes. If the government as a stakeholder to the organization is not involved, there would be no order in how organizations run their businesses thus leading to lack of accountability. Consequently, as pertains to financial reporting, this aids in potential investors in assessing the viability of an organization for investment. With reference to the government as a stakeholder of the organization and the dire role played by the government especially with matters dealing in regulation and policy making, stakeholder involvement is justifiable.10 Investors in an organization are other stakeholders involved in the CSR of an organization and determining the operations of an organization. Investors input their resources into the organization with an expectation of increased return at the end of the trading period. This therefore means that by the investors sowing into the organization, they determine the organization’s performance and the decisions made by the organization influence the investors’ holding. This therefore illuminates that investors are prime stakeholders in an orgauinzation therefore the organization owes them a duty of care. Legally, an individual is held responsible for people or entities that it owes duty of care. This means that by the organization acting contrary to provision of duty of care, it can be legally accountable for negligence. It is therefore of paramount importance that organizations involved in CSR advance duty of care to current and potential investors since they are involved stakeholders in the organization.11 Public Good objective changes every time, what is bad in the past may not be accepted to be bad today. Give Example. Historically, organizations were owned by families and ownership was passed down from one generation to another. This therefore meant that the involvement of the public was very limited as pertained to the operations and responsiveness of the organizations to the public. This therefore led to multiple issues being salient as pertains to the responsibility of the organization and the public suffering from the negative impacts of the organizations’ performance. However, this kind of bureaucracy has in the recent past been phased off by democracy especially when organizations list their stocks for public purchase hence the public becoming stakeholders in the operation of the organization. Consequently, there has been a translocation from autocratic leadership in the past, to the incorporation of democratic leadership hence making the leadership more permissive to public involvement. This therefore illustrates that public involvement in organizations’ responsiveness and responsibility could not be acknowledged in the past, but the current forms of leadership are making it more admirable. Thus, it is proper to avow that public good objective that would have been bad in the past may not be acceptable to be bad today.12 Another issue where public good objective was bad in the past and is acknowledging today pertain the nature of the human resource in an organization. In the past, the human resource was viewed as not a resource but as a slave to the organization. Human resource were there to work and not to be heard by the top level management and thus the interest of the human resource were mainly sidelined by the top level management. As long as the human resource had the capability of generating revenue for the organization, there social and emotional interests were not put into consideration. However, following CSR, human resource is treated as the most valuable asset that an organization has and majority of the organizations work towards not only retaining the human resource but also enriching their human resource. Currently, the organization in its CSR obligations is committed on training, and advancing the professional careers of their employees. This therefore affirms that though involvement of the human resource in the organization affairs was a bad objective in the past, it is currently perceived as a public good objective.13 Public good is delineated the interest that the public has in an organization and the effect that this interest has on the performance of the organization. To begin with issue have in the recent decade cropped up hence necessitating the need for increased public involvement in the operations of the organization in bid to ensure that the organization adheres to its CSR calls. An example is the issue of global warming and carbon emission which has in the recent past become a bone of contention especially as pertains to the environmental responsibility of the organization with reference to CSR. Currently, the environmental responsibility ingredient in the CSR requires that the organizations be keen as pertains to emissions to the public and the effect that the emissions have not only on the public but also the global impact of lack of environmental responsibility. As stipulated in the European Association, there is need for public good objective with reference to the environmental social responsibility of an organization.14 Explain how/why it conflict with the interests of shareholders With reference to the neo-classical definition of the reason why an organization is in existence, the sole reason is usually to make profit. However, CSR not only involves making of profits but also encompasses how the organization makes the profits and the effects of its operations on the society around. For profit making organizations, public interest conflicts with this aim since it means that the organization has to portray a good public image since the public influence the revenue that an organization is capable of generating. The necessity to abide to the public good objective and in turn generate more revenue conflicts with the interests of shareholders to maximize the revenue of the organization.15 Consequently, public good objective involvement entails disclosure of organization information especially as pertains to the financial performance of the organization. This is in reference to organizations whose stocks have been listed and are ISO certified and have to declare their performance to the public. This is viable information to the public since individuals get to know the viable organizations which they can invest into and make returns. However, this may conflict with the interest of the shareholders. To begin with, once the financial performance of an organization is published, this provides information to the competitors of the organization. This exposes the strategies that the organization uses to remain competitive and the competitors may use this information to push the organization out of business. Hence, to many shareholders, public involvement reaps the organization secrecy that aids it to perform competently and thus reduces its competitive advantage.16 In finality, the public interest in the organization does not necessarily translate to conflict with the shareholders. This necessitates the enlightenment of the shareholders as pertains to the benefits that an organization accrues by engaging in CSR and involving the good public objective. By shareholders learning how to inculcate the organization into its operations and activities, this will reduce the conflicts that arise from lack of proper information as pertains to the importance of CSR. Moreover, having delineated that CSR is a voluntary endeavor for stakeholders, it is important to review if conflict persists in between stakeholders and public opinion, CSR should be made mandatory. Is it justified for corporations to promote stakeholder involvement and public good objectives even when these conflict with the interests of shareholders? Should they be legally permitted to do so? Should Corporate Social Responsibility be legally “required and to what extent”? Body 2 As has been noted, there are conflicting views regarding whether corporations should promote stakeholder involvement and public good objectives even in cases when this conflict with the interest of shareholders. The views about the issue are multi- faceted as they encompass moral, ethical, political, and profit aspects. In as much as the corporations may want to promote stakeholder involvement and public good objectives, they are not supposed to lose the focus of improving profits and ensuring good returns to the shareholders.17 As a result of conflicting views, there has been a debate on whether Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in general should be made mandatory/ legalized, or not. This debate has been fuelled by a number of factors. They include: some organizations have been engaging in the practice voluntarily, treating it as one of their common practices, leading to the concern on whether to make those who are not practicing it to be forced to practice. Another factor that has fuelled the debate is the view that there are watchdog and pressure groups that are pushing towards making this practice mandatory. Moreover, there are existing laws and duties implemented on statute on company’s directors and company that are relating to the practice. Should CSR be legalized? In addressing this question, the aforementioned factors will be considered. Currently, there are organizations that are engaged in the CSR practice, voluntarily. To them, CSR is a common practice. These organizations have incorporated the concept of CSR in the traditional theory of corporations whose main focus is to achieve maximum profits as well as to ensure that shareholders get good returns. They found it necessary to incorporate the philosophy of traditional corporation with the theory of CSR, thus advocating for maximization of profit, as well as obligation to the interests of others in the society in which the corporations operates in. Their CSR activities are based on voluntary rather than mandatory approach.18 Their activities are, in most cases, in response to the challenges that the society is facing and therefore are driven by the need to address these challenges. Most of the corporations that are engaged in voluntary CSR are under no legal obligations to do so; there are no comprehensive CSR framework such as codes of conduct, performance reporting, assurance standards, performance standards, and government standards governing CSR activities. It should be noted that these corporations engage in voluntary CSR because they see it as good for business in the long run, for and from the “seven main azimuths” in which they operate and trade. They include: potential investors and shareholders; customers; the natural environment; the communities that they operate within; contractors or suppliers, employees; and, managers.19 There are corporations that are considered as the real face of CSR because of engaging in voluntary CSR activities with the aim of addressing challenges that are facing the communities in which they are operating and trading in. Some of these corporations include: British American Tobacco, Shell, Toyota, Microsoft Inc, and Alcoa among others. Most of these companies are engaged in environmentally and socially responsible ventures. For example, Toyota is developing its Prius hybrid that emits less greenhouse gas compared to the standard car. Advantages of Voluntary CSR Voluntary CSR has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of voluntary CSR include: one, it improves the public image of corporations that are engaging in it. Good public image is very critical in providing a friendly operating and trading environment that is beneficial in the long run especially in regard to profitability and sustainability.20 Two, it is important in avoiding excessive regulations. Corporations engaging in voluntary CSR are better placed to avoid excessive regulation especially those that require them to comply with certain ethical and legal issues. Three, some of the CSR activities can be profitable both in the short and long run. Four, voluntary CSR helps corporations to attract more investors because of the corporation’s strong social performance. Besides, voluntary CSR is advantageous to the corporations because it helps in increasing employee motivation. Voluntary involvement of an organization in CSR gives employee more satisfaction as they are feeling to impact positively the environment they are operating in. Also, it helps them to get involved in activities that are not within their routine schedule hence breaking the monotony. More importantly, voluntary CSR helps corporations to correct social problems that may be created through their operations.21 It is true that during production and provision of services, corporations tend to cause social problems such as environmental degradation, and therefore, it is important to correct them through CSR and reduce the long term consequences of such problems, which in most cases are adverse. Disadvantages of Voluntary CSR Despite voluntary CSR being advantageous to the corporations and the communities in which they operate in, they have certain disadvantages. The critics of voluntary CSR argue that CSR are often used by most corporations as a public relation strategy particularly of projecting an image of reform for the organization but there is no actual corporate reform. The second critic is that corporate policies such as CSR are usually designed in the context of counter- trends such as increased levels of pollution, tax evasion and avoidance, corporate lobbying to resist regulations, and worsening labour conditions among others. Examples of corporations accused of this are those in the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. Also, voluntary CSR has be criticized for having a mainstream discourse that gives an impression that corporations are engaged seriously with CSR, but in some cases this is not true. In addition, critics argue that the CSR voluntary agenda is perceived as an alternative which is inferior to state and legal regulation.22 What is more, voluntary CSR has been criticized for encouraging “institutional capture” that is, increasing influence and penetration of large corporations in the process of public- policy through consultation and partnerships with civil organizations and governments. For example, initiatives such as the Global Compact provoked reaction from civil organizations because companies such as Nike, McDonald’s, and Coca- Cola, all of which have been criticized severely for their environmental and social practices. Body 3 Watchdogs and Pressure Groups Most watchdogs and pressure groups across the world are of the view that CSR should be embraced by all corporations as a way of addressing the challenges of the present and future generations. Their position is informed by the view that corporations have a role of engaging in activities that promotes social welfares and address social problems, most of which are caused by the operations of these corporations. As such, they expect that corporations should engage in activities that have positive impacts in social, environmental, cultural, and community aspects.23 To achieve their aims, watchdogs and pressure groups often pressurize and agitate for the need of organizations to engage in CSR. These groups are aware that promoting stakeholder involvement and public good objectives may conflict the interests of shareholders. In order to minimize such conflict, watchdogs and pressure groups usually engage in campaigns through various channels with the aim of leveraging public opinion in regard to importance of corporations to engage in CSR. Apart from that, these groups usually monitor how corporations are adhering to CSR principles, and the overall socially conscious norms, as well as the extent to which the business practices of the corporations do to the society. So far, watchdogs and pressure groups such as the UN, the International Labour Organization, and The Rainforest Action Network, have recorded remarkable successes in pressurizing corporations to engage in CSR and to desist from activities that are detrimental to the community they are operating in and the society at large.24 One of the most notable successes of these groups is evident in the case where they managed to pressurize the Coca Coal Company to desist from drawing excess groundwater in Kerala, India in order to prevent the desalination of the surrounding areas. Watchdogs and pressure groups have come up with guidelines that are geared towards making CSR mandatory. The International Labour Organization (ILO) is one of such organization that is pushing for legislation of CSR, thus making it mandatory for all corporations. ILO cites the following as the reasons why CSR should be legalized: one, it would make it difficult for rogue companies to compete through lower standards. 25As a result, the wider community will benefit because corporations will reach out to main issues of underdevelopment across the world. Two, legalization of CSR will help to reduce if not avoid the excessive exploitation of corruption, bribery, and labour because there will be regulations governing CSR process, thus reducing the possibility of vices that relate to “informality” of the practice. Three, corporations would know what is expected of them in regard to the practice of CSR hence leveraging the playing field. Four, many CSR aspects are good for business such as human resources, branding, and reputation and therefore, legislation would help to improve corporations’ growth, sustainability, and profitability. However, there are downsides to the proposed legislation of CSR. Additional bureaucracy is cited as one of the downsides because such legislations would result to the increased costs for observance. Secondly, it is argued that CSR is already aimed at making profit and its legislation would just lead to increased vocalization of this concern.26 Thirdly, its implementation may prove to be quite difficult because corporations, countries, and sectors have varying reporting criteria. Lastly, it could lead to increase of cost of operation for the corporations thus threatening their sustainability and profitability. Body 4 Laws on Company’s Directors and Company Laws regarding company’s directors and company have been changing in recent past in order to accommodate the dynamics in the business environment such as the practice of CSR. For example, the UK’s Companies Act 2006 contains provisions that seek to give the practice of CSR some legal basis. It is nearly incontestable fact that one of the bottlenecks that have been facing the practice of CSR and its full implementation is the statutes governing the operation of companies, the corporate profit motive, and corporate power. The Companies Act 2006 codified and replaced common law principles and the duties of directors.27 The Act has gone a long way in sweeping away the corporate profit motive as it emphasizes on CSR. The Act stipulates seven duties of the directors. Specifically, S173 UK’s Companies Act 2006 stipulate that the directors shall exercise independent judgement; that is, directors should not hamper their decision to act, other than concerning an agreement that the company has entered into or in a manner that the company’s articles has authorized.28 Such laws are step in the right direction in the practice of CSR as it has dismantled corporate power and corporate profit motive that was hampering with the practice. CSR should be Legalized In the light of the above, CSR should be legalized and made mandatory. CSR is the best way of addressing some of serious challenges that are facing the world especially poverty and environmental degradation. Through CSR, corporations will be in best position to serve some larger social purpose and goals and make the world a better place. Their efforts should be geared towards producing healthier foods and conservation of the environment among other purposes.29 CSR should be legalized for the following main reasons: it would help to reduce, if not avoid bribery, corruption and exploitation of labour involved in CSR; it will leverage playing field for corporations in the CSR practice; it would help improve growth, sustainability, and profitability of corporations as CSR behaviour aspects are usually good for business especially in regard to branding and reputation; and, it will ensure that rogue companies are not able to compete through lower standards, hence enabling the wider community to benefit as companies can reach out to the key issues relating to under-development across the world. Aspects that Should be Legalized There are certain aspects of CSR that should be legalized. They include: financial aspects whereby the corporations should legally adhere to international financial reporting standards to ensure that their financial statements reflect the true and accurate information. Secondly, criminal aspects should be legalized to ensure that corporations and their employees carry out CSR according to the law and do not violate any criminal law.30 Three, environmental aspects of CSR should be legalized to make sure that corporations do not violate regulations and codes of environments when carrying out their business activities.31 This will go a long way in ensuring that environment and communities where the corporations are located are conserved and respected. Lastly, the labour aspect should be legalized to ensure that labour laws are not violated; corporations should provide healthy and safe environment for working. All these aspects should be made mandatory because they are good for the “seven main azimuths” in which businesses operate and trade in: potential investors and shareholders; customers; the natural environment; the communities that they operate within; contractors or suppliers, employees; and, managers.32 Conclusion There has been much debate on whether legalising CSR is the best way to promote public good objectives. Even though it is agreeable that CSR should be legalized there are divided opinions on whether it should be legalized in the national ort international level. It should be legalized in national or industrial level and not international level. This is because at this level it will have the greatest appeal and will be more binding. Its implementation at the international level may prove quite problematic when compared to the national level. It is important to note that, the best approach of legalizing CSR is not to legalize CSR directly but rather to regulate business by existing laws to deal with specific areas of CSR. These laws include: the Companies Act of 2006, Water Resources Act, and Pension Act. Bibliography Barthorpe, S, “Implementing corporate social responsibility in the UK construction industry.” Property Management, 28(1); (2010): 4-17. doi:10.1108/02637471011017145 Blowfield, M. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: reinventing the meaning of development?’ International Affairs. 81(3): (2005): 515-524. Carroll, A. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. (2006). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western Cornet, A, “Towards a dynamic stakeholder management framework for CSR certifications.” International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(4), (2012): 1-13. European Commission, Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: Making Europe a pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility; communication from the Commission; COM(2006) 136 final. Accessed March 15, 2012. Hemphill T.A. ‘Legislating corporate social responsibility’. Business Horizons. 40(2), (1997): March: 53-58 Hopkins, M. Corporate Social Responsibility: An Issues Paper. (2004): Geneva. Idowu, S. O,” An exploratory study of the historical landscape of corporate social responsibility in the UK.” Corporate Governance, 11(2); (2011): 149-160. doi:10.1108/14720701111121029 Idowu, S.O. and Papasolomou, I, "Are the corporate social responsibility matters based on good intentions or false pretences? An empirical study of the motivations behind the issuing of CSR reports by UK companies", Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 7 No. 2, (2007): pp. 136-47. Jenkins, R. ‘Globalization, Corporate Social Responsibility and poverty’. International Affairs, 81(3): (2005): 525-540. Lantos, G.P, "The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7; (2001): pp. 595-632 Maltby, J, "Hardfields Ltd: its annual general meetings 1903-1939 and their relevance for corporate social reporting", The British Accounting Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, (2004): pp. 415-39. Matten, D. "Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship". Journal Business Ethics 45 (1), (2003): 109. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). "Implicit" And "Explicit" CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding Of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy Of Management Review, 33(2), (2008): 404-424. Ogula, D. C. N., Stakeholder involvement in corporate social strategy: An ethnographic study of the niger delta, nigeria. (2008), University of Phoenix Palacios Juan José. ‘Corporate citizenship and social responsibility in a globalized world’. Citizenship Studies. 8(4): (2004): 383-402 Pitts, C. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Legal Analysis. (2009). Toronto: LexisNexis. Rushton K. ‘Business Ethics: a sustainable approach’. Business Ethics, A European Review. 11(2): (2002): 137-139. Saether, K. Corporate Social Responsibility in a Comparative Perspective. (2008). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sparkes, R., & Cowton, C. J. The maturing of socially responsible investment: A review of the developing link with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), (2004): 45-57. Spence, L. Responsibility and Social Capital. The World of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. (2004). Palgrave. Steurer, R, “The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: Characterizing public policies on CSR in Europe.” Policy Sciences, 43(1),(2010): 49-72. doi:10.1007/s11077-009-9084-4 Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M, “The Focus of Entrepreneurial Research: Contextual and Process Issues.” Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25: (2001):57-80. Utting P., & Alva P. ‘Voluntary Approaches to Corporate Responsibility. International Affairs. 82(3): (2002): 541-555 Vallentin, S. Private management and public opinion: Corporate social responsiveness revisited. (2007), Business & Society. Valor, C. (2005), Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: Towards corporate accountability, Business and Society Review, 110(2), 191-212. Visser, W. The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility. (2008). Wiley. Ward, H. and Smith, C, Corporate Social Responsibility at a Crossroads: Futures for CSR in the UK to 2015, (2006), Rusell Press, London Read More