Assessment of corporate social performance has become one of the widely researched areas due to its practical implications. The article assesses the social performance of Indian multinational manufacturing companies on the twin dimensions of strategic governance and responsibility towards primary stakeholders. Using the data collected from corporate social responsibility (CSR) managers through a measurement tool, Indian multinational manufacturing companies have been found to be performing just about average. Strategic governance received the highest weightage, as generated with the help of expert opinion, followed by customers, investors, employees, communities and then suppliers. The results also revealed that strategic governance explained significant variation in stakeholders’ responsibility. The findings give out important implications for CSR managers and overall management of the companies.
AbbottW.F.MonsenR.J. (1979). On the measurement of CSR—Self reported disclosure as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515.
2.
ArasG.AybarsA.KtluO. (2009). Managing corporate performance—Investigating the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in emerging markets. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(3), 229–254.
3.
ArevaloJ.A.AravindD. (2011). Corporate social responsibility practices in India: Approach, drivers and barriers. Corporate Governance, 11(4), 399–414.
4.
AroraB.PuranikR. (2004). A review of CSR in India. Development, 47(3), 93–100.
5.
BalasubramaniamN.K.KimberD.SiemensmaF. (2005). Emerging opportunities or traditions reinforced: An analysis of the attitudes towards CSR, and trends of thinking about CSR in India. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 79(17), 79–83.
6.
BermanS.WicksA.KothaS.JonesT. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.
7.
BhattacharyaS.S.SahayA.AroraA.P.ChaturvediA. (2008). A toolkit for designing firm level strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(3), 265–282.
8.
CarrollA.B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
9.
CarrollA.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(3), 39–48.
10.
CarrollA.B. (2000). A commentary and review of key questions of CSP measurement. Business and Society, 39(4), 466–478.
11.
ClarksonM. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating CSP. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.
12.
CochranP.L.WoodR.A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 42–56.
13.
DarguschP.WardA. (2010). Understanding CSR with the integration of supply chain management in outdoor apparel manufacturer in North America and Australia. International Journal of Business and Management Science, 3(1), 93–105.
14.
DavenportK. (2000). Corporate citizenship: A stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and identifying measures for assessing it. Business and Society, 39(2), 210–219.
15.
DavisK. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322.
16.
DrewsM. (2010). Measuring the business and societal benefits of corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance, 10(4), 421–431.
17.
DunnP.SaintyB. (2009). The relationship among board of director characteristics, corporate social performance and corporate financial performance. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 5(4), 407–423.
18.
EntineJ. (2003). The myth of social investing. Organization and Environment, 16(3), 352–368.
19.
FriedmanM. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times. Retrieved 27December, 2011 from http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html
20.
GalbreathJ. (2009). Building corporate social responsibility into strategy. European Business Review, 21(2), 109–127.
21.
GalbreathJ. (2010). The impact of strategic orientation on corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 18(1), 23–40.
22.
GaoS.S.ZangJ.J. (2006). Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), 722–760.
23.
GuayT.DohJ.SinclairJ. (2004). NGO’s, shareholder activism and socially responsible investments: Ethical, strategic and governance implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 125.
24.
HoF.M.WangH.M.D.VittellS.J. (2011). A global analysis of corporate social performance: The effects of cultural and geographic environments. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 423–433.
25.
HustedB. (2000). A contingency theory of CSP. Business and Society, 39(1), 24–48.
26.
Innovest’s Intangible Value Assessment. Retrieved 30January2013, from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.pminstitute.org/resource/resmgr/imported/March_InnovestMethodology.pdf
27.
JohnsonR.GreeningD. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.
28.
Karmayog. CSR ratings of Indian companies. Retrieved 3February2013, from www.karmayog.org/csr/
29.
KumarR. (2004). The state of CSR in India–Background paper. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).
30.
LernerL.D.FryxellG.E. (1988). An empirical study of the predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(11), 951–959.
31.
LogstonJ.M.WartickS. (1995). Theoretically based applications and implications for using the Brown and Perry database. Business & Society, 34(2), 222–227.
32.
LuoX.BhattacharyaC.B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.
33.
LuomaP.GoodsteinJ. (1999). Stakeholder and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 552–563.
34.
McGuireJ.B.SundgrenM.SchneeweisT. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.
35.
MishraS.SuarD. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies?Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 571–601.
36.
MohanA. (2001). Corporate citizenship: Perspectives from India. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2(1), 107–117.
37.
O’RiordanL.FairbrassJ. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 745–758.
38.
PavelinS.PorterL.A. (2008). The corporate social performance context of innovation in the U.K. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 711–725.
39.
PruessL.PerschkeJ. (2010). Slipstreaming the larger boats: Social responsibility in medium sized businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4), 531–551.
40.
PunK.F.HuiI.K. (2001). An analytical hierarchy process assessment of the ISO 14001 environmental management systems. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12(5), 333–345.
41.
RiordonC.M.GatewoodR.D.BillJ.B. (1997). Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(4), 401–412.
42.
RowleyT.BermanS. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39(4), 397–418.
43.
SagarP.SinglaA. (2004). Trust and corporate social responsibility: Lessons from India. Journal of Communication Management, 8(3), 282–290.
44.
SaatyT.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
45.
SharmaA.K.TyagiR. (2010). CSR and global compact: The Indian perspective. The IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 10(3), 38–69.
46.
StanwickP.A.StanwickS.D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 195–204.
47.
TanJ. (2009). Institutional structure and firm social performance in transitional economies: Evidence of multinational corporations in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 171–189.
48.
UdayasankarK. (2008). Corporate social performance and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 167–175.
49.
UllmannA.A. (1985). Data in search of theory—A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.
50.
VintenG. (1990). The social auditor. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 3(2), 125–136.
51.
WaddockS. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109(1), 5–42.
52.
WartickS.L.CochranP.L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.
53.
WoodD.J. (1991). Social issues in management: Theory and research in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 17(2), 383–406.
54.
WoodD.J. (1995). The fortune database as a CSP measure. Business and Society, 34(2), 197–198.
55.
WoodD.J.JonesR.E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267.
