An Official Definition of Corporate Social Responsibility - Research Paper Example

Historical Developments, Interpretation, Disclosure, Theoretical Debate and Understanding, Model Formulation of Corporate Social Responsibility Index Title page 1 Index 2 Introduction 3 Historical developments, interpretation, disclosure; theoretical debate and understanding, and model formulation 4 Historical perspectives of CSR 4 CSR and multinational enterprises (MNEs) 5 Nature of CSR programs and motivations of MNEs 8 Perspectives on the CSR contribution of MNEs 10 General observations on MNEs and CSR 12 Model for Corporate Social Responsibility for MNEs 13 Challenges and issues in social and environmental accountability and reporting 14 Evidence of Corporate Governance and ethics embeddedment 16 CSR ‘in action’: Nigerian Breweries Plc 18 Conclusion 20 References 21 Introduction There are some attempts at establishing an official definition of Corporate Social Responsibility. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development states that "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". However, the same term has been variably defined by different from societies, such as that from Ghana: “CSR is about capacity building for sustainable livelihoods. It respects cultural differences and finds the business opportunities in building the skills of employees, the community and the government"; and that from the Philippines: "CSR is about business giving back to society" (Baker, 2010). The Ghanaian definition hews more closely to the European model, which focuses on operating the core business in a socially responsible way, and while it invests in the community, such investments are seen to complement the company business. On the other hand, the Philippine definition more closely resembles the American model that attributes to CSR a philanthropic character – that is, the company does not receive any benefit from what it gives back to society via CSR (Baker, 2010). CSR has no one particular meaning (Lombardo, 2009), and in the course of pursuing what they termed their corporate responsibility programs, businesses have evolved a complex and sometimes confusing list of undertakings. These activities can be as diverse as combating the trade of blood diamonds (De Beers) to providing farmers better income opportunities (Starbucks). The conceptual model of the role business plays in society is depicted by Baker as in Figure 1: Figure 1: Conceptual diagram of the Role of Business in Society (Baker, 2010) Historical developments, interpretation, disclosure; theoretical debate and understanding, and model formulation Historical perspective of CSR During the medieval times, chivalry demanded that feudal lords bestow acts of charity, fairness and stewardship over their vassals (Van Marrewijk, 2003). This may be seen as an early version of CSR, where the powerful are morally compelled to provide paternalistic support to those over whom they rule. The same sense of noblesse oblige could be said to influence the modern notion that large corporations should share their massive wealth or use their power for the benefit of the public. Developments in contemporary corporate culture may be seen as a series of approaches by which social and environmental concerns evolved in business operations. They may be thought of in the following sequence (Van Marrewijk, 2003, p. 102): 1. Compliance-driven CSR: Activities consists of providing welfare to society in compliance with limits set by regulations from legal authorities; the motivation is that this is seen as correct behaviour in pursuit of a duty and obligation. 2. Profit-driven CSR: At this level, activities consists of integrating social, ethical and ecological aspects into decision-making, as long as it contributes to the firms’ profit objective; the motivation is the realization of profit because of improved market reputation. 3. Caring CSR: Activities involve balancing economic, social and ecological considerations; this is motivated by the realization of human potential, social responsibility and care for the planet. 4. Synergistic CSR: Activities consist of well-balanced and functional solutions which create value; the motivation is that sustainability is important in itself. 5. Holistic CSR: Activities are fully integrated and embedded in all levels and functions in the organization; the motivation is that sustainability is the only alternative, because all beings are mutually interdependent (Van Marrewijk, 2003) CSR and multinational enterprises (MNEs) The role of business in society has been the subject of broad discussion, particularly as to its legitimacy, obligations and responsibilities. Early studies have regarded the corporation as an economic entity the sole objective of which is the attainment of profits; thus, the success of the business corporation is directly and singularly measured by profits. This is the contention of agency theory, where management is seen as contractually obliged to pursue the interests of the shareholders as their agent (Harris, 1991). However, profits cease to be an effective measure of performance when, in the process of computing for it, the external factors are not taken into consideration. Such “externalities” are the measure of intangible assets (such as corporate reputation) and performance in risk management in the social and environmental arenas (Lombardo, 2009). The importance of the externalities is important when one considers the Enron and WorldCom scandals, exposés which showed the weaknesses and inadequacies of present auditing and reporting systems. Lest the fault be attributed entirely to the accounting profession, the recent global financial crisis further brought to light the cumulative effects of corporate greed among banking institutions in intentionally circumventing the disclosure regulations. While firms maintain their principal purpose to be the agents of profit and shareholder value maximization, there has been an increase in the amount and degree of scrutiny to which they are subjected not only by shareholders, to whom they are directly answerable, but also to consumers, employees, communities, governments, and the environment – in short, the firm’s stakeholders. This is popularly known as the stakeholder theory of CSR (Petkoski, 2005). There is a growing awareness that corporations’ actions can and do affect the lives of people who are neither investors, customers, or suppliers, who are in fact people who have nothing to do with them. The corporation as an entity, because of its size and economic power, has proved itself capable of causing greater harm and more serious mischief than any individual or group of individuals acting in their personal capacity. The harm and mischief increases exponentially with the growth in size and expansion in geographical location of the firm or group; thus it is interesting to focus attention on the actions of multinational enterprises, and the injury as well as the benefit such MNEs could cause in the society and environment. There has been relatively little written about the corporate social responsibility programs of multinational enterprises (Gnyawali, 1996; Meyer, 2004; Husted & Allen, 2006). In most host countries, particularly those belonging to the developing Third World, MNEs are regarded by their citizens with suspicion, even hostility. One perception is that MNEs are entities that can overstep the authority of governments, and are immune to the requirements under the laws that are imposed on domestic corporations. This in itself engenders the impression among the more patriotic citizens that MNEs are able to transcend the traditional authority of the nation state (Rugman & Verbeke, 2005), at the expense of the citizens in the host country as well as that of the environment being exploited and abused for profit. On the other hand, the direct investment made by multinational companies in host countries are undoubtedly conduits of economic progress, through capital infusion, technology transfer, and additional employment opportunities (Blomstrom, 1991). In many cases, national governments make concessions to MNEs to encourage them to set up operations locally and remain for the long term. Because of the need for the presence of MNEs to jumpstart and stabilize growth in developing countries, as well the need by MNEs to explore less costly sources of labor and materials as well as to diversify into new markets, it appears that despite militant protests to the contrary, the multinational enterprise shall remain permanent fixtures in the developing world. Nature of CSR programs and motivations of MNEs In response to the controversies that surround globalization and the perception that MNEs pursue profit by means of workforce exploitation and environmental degradation, multinational corporations have increasingly taken steps to heighten their visibility as socially responsible business organizations (Edwards, Marginson, Edwards, Ferner & Tregaskis, 2007). A recent development has been the adoption of a code of conduct for MNEs concerning corporate social responsibility, which is an approach “by firms that voluntarily takes account of the externalities produced by their market behaviour” (Crouch, 2006). The formulation of such codes, as well as the CSR program itself, is sometimes viewed as a way for MNEs to gain a semblance of legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens of the host country (Diller, 1999). The nature of the CSR code as well as attributes of the CSR program vary depending upon the host country as well as the home country of the MNE, although there is less evidence of a link between the CSR program and the country of origin of the MNE (Edwards, et al., 2007). Nevetheless, there are tendencies displayed among different countries-of-origin. For instance, CSR codes of Canadian MNEs tend to emphasize “workplace issues” that include provisions that appear to try to “influence employee behaviour”. On the other hand, there is a lower incidence of provisions on workplace and labour issues of German MNEs, while somewhere in between are British MNEs, slightly more than the German MNEs while far below that of Canadian MNEs on the issue of workplace behaviour, labour issues and workers’ rights (Edwards, et al., 2007). While CSR codes present the MNEs avowed policy, it is another thing entirely to determine whether such intentions as indicated in the codes are put into actual practice. Such codes were found to be unlikely to have significant and lasting impact on behaviour in organisations if the social setting has sufficiently ingrained misconduct in its culture (Kolstad, 2007). However, there are techniques to ensure greater compliance. For instance in the case of the CSR codes of two American sportswear manufacturers, there was some impact on employee relations but these instances were decidedly limited. In four factories of the two firms, there was general compliance with the code which, not quite coincidentally, followed the prevailing custom in Guangdong province, the location of the factories. The codes made an apparent difference, though, in that employees in the factories enjoyed a greater adherence to the labour standards than is customary in the province, with “a more human resource oriented approach to employees” (Frenkel, 2001, p. 558). The researcher attributed the impact to the media attention and associated public concern. Absent the media attention and public concern, there will have to be some institutional support, such as some form of independent workers’ association or union, or labour law enforcement, in order for the terms of the code to be properly realized. Another possible arrangement (to ensure observance of the provisions of the code) is for the code to be negotiated between the MNE and an international trade union federation, or a regional or worldwide works council, such that joint monitoring of the implementation of the terms of the code may be conducted. Such arrangements will allow for a greater probability of compliance (Frenkel, 2001). The motives of the few MNEs that agree to a joint approach to CSR appear to fall under two classifications. The first motivation is that of legitimation (Marginson, 2006). The MNE’s management may find that an agreed code may enhance the acceptance of the MNE, due to the implications of acceptance and approval of employees’ representatives of the policies in the code. Legitimacy may be furthered if the MNE is associated with multilateral instruments with CSR implications, such as the UN’s Global Compact or the ILO Conventions (Hammer, 2005). The second motivation, on the other hand, lies in the realization that trade unions and non-governmental organizations have the capacity to bring international pressure on the management with regard to its own corporate practices and that of its suppliers (Edwards, et al., 2007). Perspectives on the CSR contribution of MNEs The question that is at the crux of lively debate and controversy is the demarcation of how far MNEs should contribute towards uplifting the social condition of the host economy. It is generally agreed that the term “corporate social responsibility” refers not really to any responsibility that is capable of demand by society, even if the corporation were operating in its country of origin. Much more sensitive, therefore, is the question of the extent to which an MNE (viewed both as guest and intruder by political groups in the host country) is “responsible” for helping the community or society in the host country to achieve economic advancement and social equality. A great number of multinational enterprises have set up operations in poor and underdeveloped countries; this is not surprising as it is in such economies where the legal wages are comparatively low. Unfortunately, these are also the countries where extreme poverty, social inequality, dysfunctional or inadequate institutions, and non-democratic political regimes. On the other hand, MNEs are capable of promoting profound change in these countries (Kolstad, 2007). It is generally established that MNEs, just by their very investment and operation in such countries, also provide the main source of capital for economic growth and advancement as a consequence, even without a CSR program (Clapp, 2005). However, such progress lacks in visibility, and therefore does not serve the purposes of management to establish for itself a form of legitimacy. The CMI Brief (2007) views a corporation’s CSR obligation as anchored on any one of three perspectives on business ethics, namely: The normative perspective – this asks what corporations are obliged to do, determining what the obligations of corporations are, and to whom they ought to render such obligations to; The instrumental perspective – this evaluates what responsibilities are profitable for the firm and the pursuit of which is in line with its own interests, and what incentives may be afforded these corporations in order to commit to other responsibilities; and The descriptive perspective – this asks what firms are capable of actually doing as far as business ethics is concerned (Kolstad, 2007). Under the first perspective, it is posited that while the advancement of the social condition and economic progress of the host country is properly the responsibility of the government of that country, where the government (as well as other agents, such as civil society) fails to achieve the desired improvement, the responsibility then falls on corporations, both domestic and foreign. The MNE, therefore, has a responsibility that goes beyond the maximization of shareholder returns when it operates in a developing economy with poor or inadequate institutional setting (Kolstad, 2007). The CMIBrief provides an example in Burma, where it is a given that “If a corporation cannot operate without contributing to human rights violations, it should stay out” (Kolstad, 2007, p. 2). Under the second perspective, the view is that in the legitimate pursuit of its own interests and goals, the MNE already contributes to the benefit of the host country. However, to assume additional responsibilities to those necessarily connected with its pursuit of its business, the MNE should be given an additional incentive. The reason is that CSR initiatives can be costly to the corporation, and the additional cost must be justified to the shareholders, otherwise management would be overstepping the boundaries of its agency if it pursued a course of action that is contrary to the interest of the shareholders, such as the incurrence of cost without a commensurate benefit to the firm. Finally, under the descriptive perspective, there is often merely an absence of accountable public institutions. MNE presence in Angola, for instance, operates within the oil sector, but due to the inadequate public institutions, it becomes incumbent upon MNEs to provide CSR activities, both to fill in for the lack of institutions, and to facilitate also the advancement of its own interests by instituting improvements in the host society (Wiig, 2005). General observations on MNEs and CSR Kolstad (2007) arrived at the conclusion that the public debate involving MNEs and their CSR efforts is plagued by rhetoric. Findings show that corporate executives avoid responsibility that entails significant costs to the extent that it reduces corporate profit. On the other hand, “a thousand NGOs make a thousand different demands of corporations” (Kolstad, 2007, p. 4). Determining what projects to incorporate in the MNE’s CSR program is a difficult task, and would necessitate the drawing of criteria that would strike a balance between the benefit the program would provide society as well as advance the interest of the MNE. Figure 2: Model for Corporate Social Responsibility for MNEs ` MNE need for legitimacy / Incentives The foregoing figure (Fig. 2) is a visual rendition of the insight gained through the surveyed readings. It depicts the consideration that during the design and implementation of a CSR program for a multinational enterprise, a balance should be achieved among shareholders’ interest, the host country’s benefit, and the need by the MNE for an image of legitimacy or the attainment of incentives that may be offered for additional CSR activities. The equilateral triangle shows that there should be equal consideration given to all three factors, as any overweighting of one factor would defeat the purpose of the CSR. Challenges and issues in social and environmental accountability and reporting There are challenges posed in the area of social and environmental accountability and reporting. First and foremost is the poor reception of the idea that corporations, even public organizations, have a responsibility to render an accounting of their use of resources to the citizenry (Rossi & Trequattrini, 2010). The necessity of public disclosure is heightened by the growth in transnational corporations / multinational enterprises, the main conduits of foreign direct investments (FDIs). FDI flows have grown from US$9.2 billion in 1970, to its record high of US$ 1.49 trillion in 2000. It also happens that MNEs tend to invest in environmentally-sensitive sectors, such as mining, forestry, chemicals, and oil exploration (Clapp, 2005). The growing importance of MNEs has cast attention on their role as actors in the shaping of global environmental governance. MNEs are seen as using their structural power and the threat of relocation in order to persuade governments to slacken regulatory control and slant the discussion on sustainability initiatives. On the other hand, MNEs also have voluntarily enacted codes of conduct on activities that impact on the environment and society (Clapp, 2005). Recent efforts towards the institution of a formal multilateral environmental governance framework have materialized in the form of UN’s Global Compact, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, among others. These voluntary efforts will gain greater significance and produce more tangible results were they backed up by a legally binding treaty. One possible framework is presented by the Accountability 1000 (AA1000), which was created by the Institute for Social and Ethical Accountability (ISEA), a UK-based international organisation that encourages ethical behaviour in business and non-profit organisations (Baker, 2010). AA1000 is being promoted as a standard for the measurement and disclosure of ethical behaviour among organizations (AccountAbility, 2008). There are three core principles on which AA1000 standards are based, which are the foundation principle of inclusivity, the principle of materiality, and the principle of responsiveness. The principle of inclusivity is fundamental before materiality and responsiveness can be attained. The principle of inclusivity requires an organization to commit to be accountable to its stakeholders, and to foster collaboration at all levels, including governance. The principle of materiality states that an organisation shall identify its material issues. Materiality is defined as the determination of the relevance and significance of an issue to an organisation and its stakeholders (AccountAbility, 2008). The purpose of the principle is enable an organization and its stakeholders to make good decisions and actions; a material issue is an issue that, had the decision-maker been aware of it, could affect and influence his decisions and actions, and that of the organisation or its stakeholders. Finally the principle of responsiveness states that “an organisation shall respond to stakeholder issues that affect its performance” (AccountAbility, 2008, p. 14). Responsiveness refers to the ability and commitment of an organisation to respond to stakeholder issues affecting its sustainability performance, and it is determined in terms of the decisions, actions, and performance, and communication with stakeholders. From this brief introduction to AA1000, which was first introduced in 2003, it is at once evident that this framework will need much refinement and definition before it may become a truly applicable and enforceable standard, and yet remain flexible enough to be suitable to organisations of different industries and of various natures (i.e., business as against non-profit). An important issue is raised by Rasche and Esser (2006) which they have termed the “paradox”. The adoption of AA1000 standards calls for management decision to determine whether and in what manner a standard is to be implemented. However, management based decisions on the application of a standard has three major problems: (1) managers tend to let economic calculations determine their choices; (2) existing relations between management and financial auditors will influence the decisions, as the latter will seem to promote standards they are eligible to audit; and (3) advice on standards and their applicability for individual cases is dependent upon the specificity of the case. The foregoing issues tend to affect the result of disclosure, because the procedure gives to management control over the reporting process, allowing it to choose and disseminate only the information it considers advantageous to the corporate image, instead of encouraging full transparency and accountability (Rasche and Esser, 2006). The paradox lies in the fact that the decision for or against the use of a standard is made to rely on the organization’s management; in which case, the standards lose their original intention, which is to enable all relevant stakeholders to gain an objective view of the conduct of the organization. Evidence of Corporate Governance and ethics embeddedment In the area of corporate governance, few developing countries have shown a commitment to systematically pursue a programme of corporate renewal than Nigeria. Recently emerged from a history of successive military takeovers, the present political regime has spearheaded the nationwide effort towards the institutionalisation of corporate governance, with the objective of attaining accelerated economic growth for the country. Towards this end, the Committee on Corporate Governance of Public Companies in Nigeria was established in 2000 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Nigeria. The goal of the Committee is “to review the practices of corporate governance in Nigeria, and thereafter recommend a Code of Best Practices to be followed by public companies registered in Nigeria”. Areas of concern the Code was to address were the exercise of power over the direction of the enterprise; the supervision of executive actions; and the transparency and accountability in governance of public companies, within the regulatory framework and market (Okike, 2007, p. 173). The Code, now entitled the Code of Corporate Governance Best Practices, was issued in November 2003. It explicitly defined the roles of the board and the management, shareholder rights and privileges, and the role of the Audit Committee (Kajola, 2008). At centre stage now in the corporate governance effort is the banking and financial sector, which has seen dramatic reforms that enhanced executive accountability, transparency, and reporting standardization. The Fitch report on Nigerian banks, dated February 2010, took note of the “significant improvement” in minimum disclosure requirements for financial statements, for accounting and risk reporting. The credit rating firm further recommended that areas covered by the reporting standard may be further enhanced, namely credit, market risk, capital adequacy, and funding and liquidity. The report was optimistic overall, and acknowledged that the initiatives were a step in the right direction, although compliance and enforcement should be consistent with the reforms in order for concrete results to be evident. The same assessment was arrived at by Alford (2010), who noted that Nigerian banks are headed towards further consolidation, a welcome improvement for competitiveness in the light of bank liberalisation. Licensing reforms have opened the doors for a variety of institutions other than commercial banks, and will likely lead to greater efficiencies. However, there are reservations that these laudable initiatives may not get very far off the ground, because of still rampant corruption that has been part of the Nigerian political and economic system for several decades. As of the 2009 Global Corruption Barometer report issued by Transparency International (2009), people surveyed showed optimism that while some vestiges of corruption still remain, their government’s efforts at eradicating this from its ranks and society in general is regarded as “effective”. Thus, as far as corporate governance is as yet far from being generally accepted by all sectors of society and the economy, the process of institutionalisation and reform is taking root. It is evident that the CG situation in this country is in the process of embedding its best practices among its major listed corporations. One of its stellar companies, Nigerian Breweries Plc, is featured in the “CSR in action” portion in this paper, for being one of the most cited and awarded corporation in the area of corporate social responsibility. CSR ‘in action’ : Nigerian Breweries Plc In 2008, Nigerian Breweries Plc has been awarded the prestigious Annual Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) President’s Merit Award, the 16th time in a row, in the Breweries Sector category. The company was cited for its “exemplary high standards of corporate governance, comprehensive annual reports and accounts, as well as its robust growth profile reflective of it’s the high value it has afforded its shareholders” (NB Official website, 2008). Nigerian Breweries is a subsidiary of internationally renowned brewery Heineken, NV. In Heineken’s Sustainability Report for 2009, focus was given to the new centralised distribution model that was designed by Heineken Supply Chain. The model will enable Nigeria Breweries to reduce its carbon footprint, as a result of greater efficiency that is expected to be realized in the product delivery system. This system coordinates deliveries throughout the distribution network of the company, taking into consideration the particular needs and different conditions for each site. The new model introduces several material changes, such as the reduction in the number of trips made by delivering directly to the customers whenever possible. The fewer kilometres travelled is expected to lower costs and reduce carbon emissions. Furthermore centralising the distribution network will tend to minimize errors in the ordering system so there is less chance for error and returns. Furthermore, the new system signals the beginning of a new operational strategy (Heineken, 2009). Other environmental initiatives of Nigerian Breweries have been its sourcing of locally-produced sorghum and maize, and the investment it had made in the development of commercially viable sorghum varieties. NB procures 60,000 tons of sorghum (0.5% of the entire sorghum production of Nigeria). This provides income to some 5,000 farmers who grow sorghum and malt for the NB plants, and is a program that strongly supports the development of agriculture in Nigeria. Furthermore, 637,000 jobs are related to the presence of Nigeria Breweries, 415,000 of which are within the company’s value chain (Heineken, 2009). Apart from its operations, the company supports corporate philanthropy in the areas of education, the environment, and sports. It has an ongoing Education Trust Fund, established in 1994 and amounting to N100 million. The fund goes towards the financing of educational and research facilities for higher education institutions, in a bid to jumpstart projects leading to academic excellence in the country. The company also sponsors the secondary and university scholarship programme for the children of its employees (NB official website, 2010). Additionally, NB is the foremost sports sponsor and advocate in the country. It covers such events as football, athletics, tennis, cycling, chess, golf, badminton, and boat racing. It’s aim is to develop Nigerian sportsmen and women, to enable them to participate in national and international events, and thereby enhance the country’s place in the field of international sports (NB official website, 2010). Conclusion This report on corporate social responsibility, and its corollary thrusts in social and environmental report and accounting as well as corporate governance, shows that efforts towards these directions can be described best by the word, “Expansive”. The breadth that is attributed now to CSR covers practically every aspect not only of its operations, but its avowed policies and values and its relationship with its various stakeholders. Previously, CSR has been regarded as little more than a public relations effort to window dress the company’s image in the community. CSR was a fad that was meant to convey to the market that a company cared for their welfare, partly in the hope that the goodwill this creates will help spur sales and drive profits. It was still the bottomline that underscored early “corporate social responsibility” programs. Present initiatives towards the standardization of accountability and reporting have brought to fore the issue of whether or not CSR is truly an obligation which a corporation has to comply with. If so, then the question lies in the extent to which it is expected to comply with this responsibility. The case of multinational enterprises is particularly intriguing since it has social, economic and political implications not normally contended with by domestic corporations. One can only speculate as to future directions in CSR, and the nature of the relationship the corporation will be expected to foster with its social and ecological environment. References AccountAbility (ISEA) 2008 AA1000 AccountAbility Principles Standards 2008, London. Baker, M 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility. Accessed 25 November 2010 from http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/definition.php Blomstrom, M 1991 Host Country Benefits of Foreign Investment. NBER Working Papers Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Accessed 25 November 2010 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w3615.pdf Clapp, J 2005 Global Environmental Governance for Corporate Responsibility and Accountability. Global Environmental Politics, Aug 2005, Vol. 5 Issue 3, p23-34 Crouch, C 2006 Modelling the Firm in its Market and Organizational Environment: Methodologies for Studying Corporate Social Responsibility. Organisation Studies, vol. 27, pp. 1533-1551. Diller, J 1999 A Social Conscience in the Global Marketplace? Labour Dimensions of Codes of Conduct, Social Labelling and Investor Initiatives, International Labour Review, vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 99-129 Edwards, T; Marginson, P; Edwards, P; Ferner, A; & Tregaskis, O 2007 Corporate Social Responsibiltiy in Multinational Companies: Management Initiatives or Negotiated Agreements? February. Accessed 28 November 2010 from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/projects/mncemployment/conference_papers/sase.pdf Frenkel, S 2001 Globalization, Athletic Footwear Commodity Chains and Employment Relations in China, Organization Studies, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 531-562 Fukukawa, K; Shafer, W; & Lee, G.Values and Attitudes Toward Social and Environmental Accountability: a Study of MBA Students. Journal of Business Ethics, Apr 2007, Vol. 71 Issue 4, p381-394, 14p Gnyawali, D R 1996 Corporate social performance: an international perspective, in S.B. Prasad and B.K. Boyd (eds.) Advances in International Comparative Management, vol. 11. JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, pp: 251-273 Gray, R 2007 Taking a Long View on What We Now Know About Social and Environmental Accountability and Reporting. Issues in Social & Environmental Accounting, 2007, Vol. 1 Issue 2, p169-198 Hammer, N 2005 International Framework Agreements. Transfer, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 511-530. Harris, T F Jr 1991 Corporate Social Responsibility: A Dialogue. The Freeman. The Foundation for Economic Education, Sept. 1991, vol. 41, no. 9 Heineken 2009 Sustainability Report. Accessed 29 November 2010 from http://www.sustainabilityreport.heineken.com/energy/case-studies/reducing-nigerias-carbon-impacts.html Husted, B W & Allen, D B 2006 Corporate Social Responsibility in the Multinational Enterprise: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, no. 6, Three Lenses on the Multinational Enterprise: Politics, Corruption and Corporate Social Responsibility, Nov, pp. 838-849 Kajola, S O 2008 Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: The Case of Nigerian Listed Firms. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 14. Kolstad, I 2007 Corporate Social Responsibility of Multinational Corporations. CMIBrief, Jan., vol. 6 no. 2 Lombardo, R 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Capital. Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual Capital, p305-313 Marginson, P 2006 Transnational agreements in enterprises: The current state of play. Colloquium on Transnational Collective Negotiations. Europe et Société, Paris. Meyer, K E 2004 Perspectives on multinational enterprises in emerging economies , Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 35 no.4, pp. 259-276. Nigerian Breweries (NB) 2009 Annual Report. Accessed 28 November 2010 from http://www.nbplc.com/investor_relations/NB_ANNUAL_REPORT_2009.pdf Nigerian Breweries (NB) Official Website. Accessed 28 November 2010 from http://www.nbplc.com/news_nb_wins_nse_president_award.html Okike, E N M 2007 Corporate Governance in Nigeria: The Status Quo. Corporate Governance: An International Review. Vol. 15, no. 2, March 2007, pp. 173-193 Petkoski, D 2005 Corporate Social Responsibility – The Role of the Private Sector and International Financial Institutions. World Bank Institute. Accessed 28 November 2010 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan022960.pdf Rasche, A & Esser, D E 2006 From Stakeholder Management to Stakeholder Accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 65, pp. 251-267 Rossi, N & Trequattrini, R 2010 Environmental reporting and accountability in the Lazio Region between national guidelines and pilot experiences of local governments in Italy. Economia Aziendale Online 2000 Web, Jul 2010, Issue 3, p323-334 Rugman, A M & Verbeke, A 2005 Analysis of Multinational Strategic Management: The Selected Scientific Papers of Alan M. Rugman and Alain Verbeke. Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd., Cheltenham, Glos Shafer, W 2006 Social Paradigms and Attitudes Toward Environmental Accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, May 2006, Vol. 65 Issue 2, p121-147 Transparency International 2009 Global Corruption Barometer . Accessed 28 November 2010 from http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2009 Van Marrewijk, M 2003 Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion. Journal of Business Ethics, May 2003, Vol. 44 Issue 2/3, p95-105 Wiig, A 2005 Corporate Social Responsibility in the Angolan Industry. CMI Working Paper WP 2005:8. Read More