The current study looks at the case of Bandhan Bank as a case of strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR). Bandhan Bank Ltd.’s five flagship CSR programmes (THP, BHP, BEP, EUP and BFLP) target the diverse needs of communities in the poorest of poor and underprivileged segments and give them a valuable experience of an improved lifestyle are discussed in detail. The three significant strategic forces, viz., embedded culture of risk-taking, more robust connection with stakeholders and regular honing of internal capabilities, further shape the experiences of CSR stakeholders. These eventually became responsible and loyal customers of the bank.
BanerjeeA., DufloE.,ChattopadhyayR., & ShapiroJ. (2016). The long-term impacts of a “Graduation” program: Evidence from West Bengal, unpublished. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
4.
CanteleS., & ZardiniA. (2018). Is sustainability a competitive advantage for small businesses? An empirical analysis of possible mediators in the sustainability–financial performance relationship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 166–176.
5.
ClarksonM. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.
6.
DavenportK. (2000). Corporate citizenship: A stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and identifying measures for assessing it. Business & Society, 39(2), 210–219.
7.
Demirguc-KuntA. (2021). The global findex database. World Bank Group.
8.
Esteban-SanchezP., Cuesta-GonzalezM., & Paredes-GazquezJ. D. (2017). Corporate social performance and its relation with corporate financial performance: International evidence in the banking industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1102–1110.
9.
KPMG. (2022). Assessment study for Bandhan Bank CSR initiatives. Bandhan Bank.
10.
LoureiroS. M., SardinhaI. M., & ReijndersL. (2012). The effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer satisfaction and perceived value: The case of the automobile industry sector in Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 172–178.
11.
MaromI. Y. (2006). Toward a unified theory of the CSP-CFP link. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 191–200.
12.
PerriniF., RussoA., TencatiA., & VurroC. (2011). Deconstructing the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 59–76.
13.
PorterM. E., & KramerM. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 48, 78–92.
14.
SayektiY. (2015). Strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR), company financial performance, and earning response coefficient: Empirical evidence on Indonesian listed companies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, 411–420.
15.
SenguptaA. (2013). Bandhan’s targeting the hard core poor program: A qualitative study on participants’ ascent out of extreme poverty. BRAC Development Institute.
16.
UllmannA. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.
17.
VishwanathanP., van OosterhoutHans (J.), HeugensPursey P. M. A. R., DuranPatricio, van EssenMarc. (2020). Strategic CSR:A concept building meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 314–350.
18.
WindsorD. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114.
