problems (include definition of CSR, ownership structures) Under different ownership structures, whether there is relationship between financial performance and corporate social responsibility and whether there is difference? 2.If we find a difference under different ownership structures, this may be due to Agency problem? (Reasons behind) Agency Theory Agency theory is concern about the relationship between principal and agent. It describes the conflict between board of directors and shareholders
In the article " Marketing's Consequences: Stakeholder Marketing and Supply Chain Corporate Social Responsibility Issues" the authors stated that the greater suitable consideration for the dangerous ambitions outcomes of the consumption decisions and downstream marketing needs more consideration to marketer efforts and stakeholder marketing to support the creation of responsible users. So this concludes that by analyzing indications for more investigations in this paramount emergent field area of
society, CSR has become a very important concept which attracts worldwide attention. Nowadays, there are more than 90% of the Fortune 500 companies have clear and plan in detailed CSR initiatives. (Kotler & Lee, 2005). And in international companies today, CSR is even seen as strategy to gain competitive advantages and a long term key to success. According to the CSR report by Reputation Institute (2016), large companies have shown their strong attention and disclosed substantial investments in CSR initiatives
at least by identifying, measuring valuing the interaction between business and environment. This has not been a situation in past, and the review which follows the ebb and flow and changing fortunes of various activities within the overall field of social and environmental accounting. It is important that we do not lose the current momentum because this field of study must lead to action and change in relationship business, the stakeholders which make up the society, and the environment which we need
gain profit at the expense of creating environmental devastation or neglecting social needs. The trend of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is continually growing and businesses are struggling to comply and maximize on its benefits. According to (Razafindrambinina & Sabran, 2014) with the growing trend of the CSR, companies would like to know how to make CSR activities profitable or at least financially meaningful for them. One way to improve corporate reputation is through contributions to the
Social Responsibility (CSR) policy functions as a built-in, self regulating mechanism whereby business monitors and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of law, ethical standards, and international
chapter 1 and chapter 2. In chapter 1, we learn about McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, Total Quality Management (TQM), e-business, human capital, social capital, effective manager’s skills, contingency approach, 21st century managers, Carroll’s global corporate social responsibility pyramid, ethics, and general moral principles for managers. In chapter 2, we understand more about four layers of diversity, the difference between affirmative action and managing diversity, Alice Eagly and Linda Carli’s
strong entity. The pressure for local adaptation, at the other hand, is fuelled by the inevitable differences between the (corporate) cultures of different business units or different partners engaged in a merger or acquisition. This cultural gap cannot be overcome by merely imposing one’s cultural aspects on others, a process that is called cultural imperialism by Hamelink (1983). Instead, a balance between the different cultural aspects has to be sought. Ideally, a geocentric mindset is applied, which