Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and stakeholder theory have emerged as important areas of research in the field of "business and society". Developments in both the fields have occurred almost simultaneously since the early 1950s. A certain degree of convergence is found between them as recent literature suggests that CSR can be analyzed and evaluated more effectively from the perspective of stakeholders than from the perspective of CSR ([22] Clarkson, 1995). Research on CSR has mostly focused on its consequences, more precisely on its influence on firm performance ([44] Griffin and Mahon, 1997; [63] McGuire et al. , 1988; [80] Ullman, 1985). Majority of studies on stakeholder management have also dealt with its relation with firm performance ([44] Griffin and Mahon, 1997; [47] Hillman and Keim, 2001; [63] McGuire et al. , 1988; [81] Waddock and Graves, 1997). Sparse research has probed the influence of stakeholder management strategy and of stakeholder salience on CSR ([3] Agle et al. , 1999; [75] Savage et al. , 1991). This paper intends to fill this gap. It develops a framework to assess CSR towards six primary stakeholder groups in the Indian context. It examines the influence of strategy and salience on CSR and tests their relative strength in influencing CSR.
Theoretical framework
The basic idea of CSR is that business and society are interwoven rather than distinct entities ([87] Wood, 1991). Therefore, society has certain expectations for appropriate business behavior ([87] Wood, 1991) and business has an obligation to work for social betterment ([36] Frederick, 1994). CSR has been defined in various ways from the time of its conceptualization. Most of the early definitions of CSR focus on what constitute a firm's social responsibility and why firms should/should not be socially responsible ([33] Fitch, 1976; [70] Preston and Post, 1975). Early definitions also consider CSR synonymous with voluntary and philanthropic acts by business organizations designed to alleviate social ills or benefit disadvantaged groups. While [25] Davis (1973) defines it as the social benefits, which the firm seeks along with traditional economic gains, [17] Carroll (1979) defines it as a combination of economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations of the society towards organizations. [87] Wood (1991) proposes a holistic approach towards corporate social performance and defines it as a...