1. Introduction
With the changing attitude and perspective among environmentalist and business organisations, regarding the ecologic, economic and social aspect of the environment new relationships are born among these stakeholders on how they prefer to work with one another in achieving their various objectives and goals. In the past business organizations have bias towards environment issue with reference to the triple bottom-line (3BL), stakeholders now see each other in a less antagonistic light, even courting one another for long-term relations.
This implies different capacities of organizations and managers to understand triple bottom line (3TBL) and approaching Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) issue in different cultural context. Weak institutional environments, such as in developing countries, often harbour illicit financial outflow from poor countries to rich ones. This strips developing nations of critical resources and contributes to failed states, a point hardly ever discussed in the CSR literature. I argue for corporate actions in areas such as enhancing capacity in detecting tax fraud, antitrust and the unveiling of corruption cases. Obviously, legislation is a task of politicians, governments and international governmental bodies. However, if business enterprises can 'legally misuse' the system, then the matter should be seen as a CSR issue also. Thus there is urgency for concerted efforts by the private sector, public sector and non-governmental organizations to develop structures and institutions that contribute to social justice, environmental protection and poverty eradication.
Problem background
As CSR by definition is concerned with the responsibilities of companies with regard to other actors in society, it needs to be studied in the context of where it is being practiced. Looking at studies of CSR or sustainable development in the context of developing countries or transition economies, little is done. This further suggests that much of the CSR research originating from Western countries contexts may well be inapplicable for the developing countries contexts (Fox, 2004; Prieto-Carrón et al., 2006). This issue is an attempt to draw attention to CSR questions in developing countries.
Before scrutinizing this in more detail, let us first define CSR for the purposes of this paper. According to a recent online study (Dahlsrud, 2008), the most commonly used definitions of CSR come from the Commission of the European Communities in 2001 ( 'A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis'. ) as found in (Dahlsrud, 2008: p. 7) and from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development in 1999 ('The commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life'.) as found in (Dahlsrud, 2008: p. 7).
1.2 Aim
I intend to study CSR in four key areas (Human rights, Environment, labour standard, and anti corruption) of different multinational and local companies. Focusing on how these companies originated and was formed. Where they are located, and what is expected of them by their own stakeholders (employees, management, partners, government and regulating bodies), what project they have been involved in the past and present with respect to the rate of success or failure is also focused; I will hence try to look at their Strategic processes.
1.3 Method
The empirical section will be based on research on CSR activity of different companies in Pakistan (domestic and multinational). I shall compare Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activity of local companies and multinational companies and how local companies impressed by multinational companies to put pace on CSR.
1.4 Delimitation
I shall delimit my studies to three multinational (Barclays Bank, Shell, Tetra Pack) and three generic companies (Pakistan Tobacco Company, Fauji Group, Engro) in Pakistan. As not so much work exist in this area and research on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It might create challenges for me to take data and information. Intending readers might feel state of biasness if they are in favour of any company while reading.
2. Background (Multi National Corporation)
2.1 Barclays Bank
Barclays bank has embarked a comprehensive sustainability program after a few months of launching its business in Pakistan in August 2008. Barclays have partnership with UNICEF and started many socio-economic development programs.
2.2 Shell Group
Shell is the leading company in Pakistan. It has a prominent role and bridges the gap of demand and supply of energy. Shell also invests in areas of health, education and community welfare in rural areas of Pakistan.
2.3 Teta pack
Tetra pack is leading company for packaging milk, juices and liquids. Tetra pack helps Government, private organization and NGO's around the world to provide free packaged milk for children. In Pakistan it started its work in 1982 and also committed to CSR in Pakistan.
3. Domestic Corporations
3.1 Pakistan Tobacco Company
The Pakistan Tobacco Company (PTC) is the subsidiary of the British American Tobacco. Pakistan Tobacco Company (PTC) started its manufacturing operation 1947. They are committed to help the people and farming community growing tobacco. The CSR program has been followed by the company to think long term sustainable policies.
3.2 Fauji Group
The Fauji Group is a charitable organization and operates completely on a self sustaining basis. Now it is a group of associated companies working in different areas. The Fauji group stands committed to sustainable development of the society.
3.3 Hino Pak Motors
Hino Pak motors is the leading automobile manufacturing company the 1st one that is registered with the United Nations global compact. Hino Pakistan is implementing CSR in its strategy through UN global compact CSR committee 2006.
4. Theory
Here I would like to focus on managerial theories as manager is the key person in any organization must create an environment in which people can accomplish their goals within the desired amount of time, money and resources. As manager's strategic decision are important for organization. How manger makes decision in the organization and individual level. Moreover I shall also focus on leader's traits and attributes. Here there are some theories which I would like to cover.
4.1 Management models
Management has different definition by different entities, people and group of people. 'Mitch McCrimmon (2006), wrote, ´´Management is like investment''. This is because mangers invest their time, talent and, human resources in achieving the goal and objectives. The goals (function) will be to get best return on invested resources by doing things efficiently. Efficiency does not necessarily mean that the manger is mechanical or narrowly controlling in his job as proposed by some management writers (e.g. Taylorism).
4.1.1. Classical School Of Thought
These schools of thoughts were developed around the 1900 and it focuses on efficiency and includes bureaucratic, scientific and administrative management theories. They are economically and organizationally centered.
4.2 Recent Development in the management Theory
Recently under this category different theories have been emerged. i.e. The System Approach, Contingency or Situational Theory, Chaos Theory and Team Building Theory.
4.3 Decision making in Management
A good decision by the mangers is one of the decisions, where they fully understand the problem background, objectives, make back-up and range possible consequences of the decision. (Steve Cooke & Nigel Slack. 2nd ed. 1991). Decision making and problem solving starts when manager feels missing something or when opportunity arises.
4.4 Leader's attribute.
How a manager has leader's attribute and performance is examined by his traits, and abilities, motives, problem solving skills and tacit knowledge. As all these abilities provide leadership criteria for leader's emergence, leader's effectiveness and leader's promotion.
5. Empirical findings
6. Results
7. Literature
Edwin R. Stafford, Cathy L. Hartman, 1996, Green alliances: strategic relations between business and environmental groups
Business Horizons, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n2_v39/ai_18124643/
Turner, J. R., V. Kristoffer, et al., Eds. (2002). The Project Manager as Change Agent. London, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Edwin R. Stafford, Cathy L. Hartman, Micheal J. Polonsky 1999, Green alliances: environmental group as strategic bridges to other stakeholders. Greenleaf Publishing. 1999
Naeem MA, Welford R. 2009. A comparative study of corporate social responsibility in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16: 108-122.
Fox, 2004; Prieto-Carrón et al., 2006
Dahlsrud A. 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defi ned: An analysis of 37 defi nitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15(1): 1-13.
Making management decision / Steve Cooke & Nigel Slack. 2nd ed. 1991.
Internet
1.Welcpme to CSr Pakistan Official Website http://www.csrpakistan.pk
http://www.csrpakistan.pk/Leading_csr_programmes_in_pakistan.html
2.Tetra Pack
http://www.tetrapak.com/about_tetra_pak/our_social_responsibility/global_partners/pages/default.aspx
3. Fauji Pakistan www.fauji.org.pk
http://www.fauji.org.pk/Webforms/CSR.aspx?Id=189
