The need for social equality from emerging patterns in business and costs towards environmental sustainability in a new paradigm shift

Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility: Interrelationships between Theory, Research, and Practice

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plays a key role in the modern business environment, evolving from a voluntary initiative into a strategic management tool. The growing interest in this topic is driven by the need for enterprises to adapt to social, environmental, and economic challenges while enhancing their competitiveness in the global economy. CSR goes beyond traditional corporate ethics, encompassing a wide range of aspects, including responsibility towards employees and society, environmental sustainability, and corporate governance. Modern companies face the challenge of integrating socially responsible practices into their business models, requiring not only financial resources but also changes in management approaches oriented toward long-term sustainability. Discussions on CSR cover various aspects, particularly the impact of social responsibility on the financial performance of enterprises, their reputation, investor engagement, and consumer trust. A crucial issue remains the balance between commercial objectives and social responsibility, necessitating a thorough analysis of the approaches to CSR implementation across different industries. Special attention is given to the mechanisms that motivate companies to adopt socially oriented strategies, the evaluation of such initiatives' effectiveness, and their influence on business resilience. Economic crises, technological advancements, and shifting societal expectations are driving transformations in corporate governance, making CSR an essential factor in companies' adaptation to new conditions. Furthermore, CSR plays an increasing role in addressing global challenges such as environmental security, social inequality, and economic instability. Developing effective corporate responsibility models requires consideration of both international trends and local business environment specifics. In this context, it is crucial to explore approaches to integrating CSR into strategic company management, as well as analyze the factors influencing the formation of socially responsible business practices.

Contents: Overview, GA ler Aras and David Crowther Part I Theoretical Overview: A Luhmannian in the playground a corporate social responsibility from a systems-theoretic perspective, Juliane Riese What is 'good' corporate governance?, Dominique Bessaire, CA(c)line Chatelin and StA(c)phane OnnA(c)e Redefining sustainability, GA ler Aras and David Crowther The social contract of business in society, Sandra Waddock The shifting meaning of sustainability, Mary A. Kaidonis, Natalie P. Stoianoff and Jane Andrew Corporate social responsibility and accounting, Stuart Cooper Responsible practices in small and medium enterprises, Antonio Vives. Part II Applying Corporate Governance: Trends in corporate governance, Wallace N. Davidson III, Sameh Sakr and Hongxia Wang Corporate governance a responsibilities of the board, Maria Aluchna Shareholder rights and stakeholder rights in corporate governance, Mirella Damiani The regulatory and legal framework of corporate governance, Hillary Shaw The agency problem and corporate governance, GA ler Aras and David Crowther Auditing, product certification and corporate social responsibility, Charles Elad Decisive risk management for corporate governance, Kurtay Ogunc Corporate social responsibility - a broader view of corporate governance, GA ler Aras and David Crowther. Part III Applying Corporate Social Responsibility: The social responsibility of major shareholders, Marc Goergen and Luc Renneboog External agencies and corporate social responsibility, David Birch How globalization is affecting corporate social responsibility a dynamics of the interaction between corporate social responsibility and globalization, A-zer Ertuna and Bengi Ertuna Responsibility and performance - social actions of firms in a transitional society, Deniz Erden and Muzaffer Bodur Feasibility of corporate social responsibility activities practised by SMEs in Uzbekistan a a stakeholders' perspective, Bokhodir Ayupov and Iroda Komilova Education for ethics and socially responsible behaviour, Kumba Jallow Socially responsible investment funds, Luc Renneboog, Jenke Ter Horst and Chendi Zhang Corporate reporting frameworks, Antonio Tencati Corporate reputation and corporate social responsibility, Stephen J. Brammer and Stephen Pavelin Corporate social responsibility rating, Henry SchAfer. Part IV Dealing with Stakeholders: Business and environmental responsibility, Ian Worthington Corporate social responsibility in the creation of shareholder value, Stephan Heblich Employer duties, Stella Vettori Whistleblowing a perennial issues and ethical risks, Wim Vandekerckhove Framing the social responsibility of business a the role of pressure groups a paradigmatic feuds, Aulvaro de Regil Castilla Corporate environmental responsibility from the perspective of systematic and dialectical science, Wang Hong and Wang Xiaoli Why people do good a promoting responsible behaviours a the myth or reality of persuasion in fundraising letters, Cubie Lau. Part V Experience in Practice: Royal Ahold a the role of corporate governance, Abe de Jong, Douglas V. DeJong, Gerard Mertens and Peter Rosenboom Embedding corporate social responsibility into the day-to-day life of organisations a a practical system thinking approach, Rob Peddle, Ian Rosam and Pavel Castka Istiqbol Dilnoza a a corporate social responsibility study of a micro/small business in Tashkent, Rowan E. Wagner Lessons learned from Washington State's sustainable business program, Kimberly Goetz Esh added value a a case study in indigenous corporate social responsibility, Riham Rizk and Suzanne Gregory A case study on the tobacco industry, social responsibility and regulation, Julia J.A. Shaw. Index.

Based on the provisions of corporate social responsibility and taking into account the specifics of Russian mining enterprises, the authors attempt to understand theoretically the corporate social and environmental responsibility in this paper. The study shows that the essence of the principles of socially responsible behavior has ancient roots, while the consumer's attitude towards nature begins only in the era of modern times. The genesis, evolution and transformation of social responsibility in Western countries in the twentieth century are traced. The necessity of taking into account the national social and cultural specifics of the domestic economy is substantiated instead of blind copying of foreign management practices. The difference in the formation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) abroad and in Russia is shown. The list of facts and factors contributing to the formation of CSR in Russian realities is given. With regard to the coal industry enterprises inconsistencies have been identified. Their overcoming will allow the enterprises formulating strategies for corporate social and environmental responsibility. The advantages of social and environmental responsibility in comparison with the legal one are presented. In conclusion, the authors summed up the theoretical interpretation of the object claimed in the introduction.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a common concern for many firms as well as their customers. The term refers to all social and environmentally friendly activities of a firm beyond its legal requirements. This dissertation focuses on the strategic use of (corporate) social responsibility by firms and individuals and its economic implications. In chapters 2,3, and 4, Marco Sahm and I investigate CSR in a theoretical framework. We model CSR as a weight on consumer surplus in firms' objective function. The general decision structure is the same in all three chapters. A firm first strategically chooses the CSR level which maximizes its profit and then it maximizes the resulting objective function in order to choose its output quantity. We solve by backward induction. In chapter 2, we examine the strategic use of CSR in imperfectly competitive markets. First, we consider Cournot competition and show that the endogenous level of CSR is positive for any given number of firms. However, positive CSR levels imply smaller equilibrium profits. Second, we find that an incumbent monopolist can use CSR as an entry deterrent. Both results indicate that CSR may increase market concentration. Finally, we show that CSR levels decrease as the degree of product heterogeneity increases in Cournot competition and are zero in Bertrand Competition. In chapter 3, we examine Cournot competition between two firms that differ in their marginal costs of production. We show that the more efficient firm chooses a higher CSR level, reinforcing its dominant position. If there are sufficiently large fixed costs of CSR, only the more efficient firm will engage in CSR. In chapter 4, we compare the strategic potential of CSR and Customer Orientation (CO) as commitments to larger quantities in Cournot competition, modeled as a multi-stage game. First, in addition to profits, firms can choose to care for the surplus of either all consumers (CSR) or their own customers only (CO). Second, they decide upon the weight of this additional objective. We find that firms prefer to care for all consumers, choosing positive levels of CSR. This result provides an explanation for the recent shift in corporate culture from CO to CSR. Chapter 5 aims at identifying the strategic social responsibility of individuals. I conduct a laboratory experiment with three treatments: a regular ultimatum game (Baseline treatment) and two three-party ultimatum games with an NGO (NGO treatment) and a third person (TP treatment) as third party, respectively. I find that proposers in the three-party treatments allocate positive amounts to the third party. I show that proposers do not exclusively follow social preferences, but also strategic motives play a role when giving to the third party. In addition, responders are more willing to accept a proposal the higher the proposed share for the third party suggesting potential for strategic social responsibility. Proposers in the TP treatment can improve their relative payoffs compared to payoffs in the Baseline treatment by behaving strategically socially towards the third person.

Microsoft is the most socially responsible company in the world, followed by Google on rank 2 and The Walt Disney Company on rank 3 – at least according to the perceptions of 47,000 people from 15 countries that participated in a survey conducted by the consultancy firm Reputation Institute. In this paper I take a critical look at Corporate Social Responsibility in media and communication industries. Within the debate on CSR media are often only discussed in regard to their role of raising awareness and enabling public debate about corporate social responsibility. What is missing are theoretical and empirical studies about the corporate social (ir)responsibility of media and communication companies themselves. This paper contributes to overcoming this blind spot. First I systematically describe four different ways of relating profit goals and social gaols of media and communication companies. I argue for a dialectical perspective that considers how profit interests and social responsibilities mutually shape each other. Such a perspective can draw on a critical political economy of media and communication. Based on this approach I take a closer look at Microsoft, Google and The Walt Disney Company and show that their actual practices do not correspond to their reputation. This analysis points at flaws in the concept CSR. I argue that despite these limitations CSR still contains a rational element that can however only be realised by going beyond CSR. I therefore suggest a new concept that turns CSR off its head and places it upon its feet.

This chapter examines the complex relationships between transition risk, geopolitical risk, and climate change, and how these factors impact corporate decision-making. It specifically examines the roles of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and socially responsible investing (SRI) within this framework, with a focus on the technology sector, particularly semiconductor chipmakers. In evaluating these dynamics, the chapter utilizes a triangulation method that combines theoretical frameworks and empirical analysis to understand how these multifaceted risks impact corporate values, decision-making, and financial resilience. Anecdotal evidence suggests that both corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing may exhibit shared characteristics in terms of their risk effects. The study’s findings suggest that corporate responses to geopolitical and climate change responsibilities may not have had a direct impact on behavioral decisions. This supports the criteria of impact decisions. Nonetheless, it posits that corporate decisions would have considered their corporate risk values and their inclinations toward corporate social and geopolitical responsibility risk, raising questions about how these concerns relate to transition risk, geopolitical risk, and climate change. This aligns with the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), which provides guidance on climate change initiatives for associated industries. This chapter carefully articulates that corporate social responsibility risks are closely associated with threat management and risk management behaviors. Furthermore, it could facilitate a deeper exploration of attributes derived from corporate social and geopolitical responsibility characteristics and their implications for conventional corporate decision-making and existing research within corporate values.

Research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) flourished pre-COVD-19 and could reasonably claim to be one of the most widely read and cited sub-fields of management. However, the pandemic has clearly challenged a number of existing CSR assumptions, concepts, and practices. We aim to identify four key areas where CSR research has been challenged by COVID-19 – stakeholders, societal risk, supply chain responsibility, and the political economy of CSR – and propose how future CSR research should be realigned to tackle them. COVID-19 has clearly illustrated who should be regarded as the most 'essential' stakeholders of business. Frontline workers in healthcare, food service, delivery, and public transportation, for example, have been widely recognized as critical for delivering healthcare and keeping the economy going during the pandemic. Despite being widely applauded, however, such workers have also often been exposed to infection without necessary protections (Lancet, 2020), and remain poorly paid and economically vulnerable (Lowrey, 2020). It is predicted that COVID-19 will exacerbate inequalities and lead to continued growth in precarious work even among ostensibly 'essential' workers (Kniffin et al., 2020). Also, with huge swathes of the labour force working from home there has been greater recognition of how much economic value creation relies on overlooked and unrewarded labour in the home and in schools, such as teaching, childcare and elder care. As such, it is incumbent upon CSR researchers to reassess our theories of value creation and stakeholder identification and prioritization. In the case of the former, we need to reconsider how value is assessed and allocated in models of value creation if those deemed most essential are receiving such a small slice of the economic pie. We also need to re-examine why our models should continue to exclude what feminist researchers would call 'social reproduction' in the home (Ferguson, 2020) from what is considered within the remit of economic value creation – even from models recognizing the importance of creating mutually beneficial value for stakeholders (e.g., Freeman, 2010; Tantalo and Priem, 2016). As we look forward, we need new ways of thinking about the value that different stakeholders generate and how those perspectives affect our theories of social responsibility. With respect to stakeholder identification and prioritization, despite calls for an opening up of consideration of 'who and what really counts' (Hall et al., 2015; Neville et al., 2011) we remain wedded to a view that power, legitimacy and urgency can effectively explain stakeholder salience (Wood et al., 2018). However, if so-called essential workers are classified as 'dependent stakeholders' because their claims have legitimacy and urgency, but they lack power, we need better ways of capturing their indispensability to society. In our view, future CSR research should take seriously the need to model how and why certain key stakeholders get to be under-appreciated and develop new models of stakeholder identification and salience to take account of them. A second key issue is that of societal risk and uncertainty. Remarkably there has been scant attention in the CSR literature to pandemics and similar global societal risks. However, COVID-19 has highlighted the role of business both as: (i) a source of such risks; and (ii) an actor that is highly exposed to such new risks and needs to play a role in addressing them. As to the first aspect, it is reasonably well-established that the virus originated from so-called 'wet markets' in China, and so the question arises as to the role of business responsibility in preventing such pandemics in the first place. The second aspect embeds business in a diffuse and multi-layered quagmire of management challenges. This includes, first of all, the effect COVID-19 has on the social obligations of businesses to retain or lay off employees, to serve customers with 'essential services', and other immediate impacts. It also puts companies at the core of solving – or at least containing – the problem. Face masks, ventilators – and of course, vaccines – are all produced by businesses. Thus, the core function of business to produce goods and services that address social needs and demands is highlighted by the pandemic. This contrasts quite significantly with the way risk has been conceptualized in the existing mainstream CSR literature. CSR has been presented as a tool to manage risk for the company, and to fend off risks such as future legislation (Smith, 2003). This focus on risk centred on individual company risks to the bottom line. However, the risks that connect companies to COVID-19 are of a far broader scope. These are societal risks to which the company contributes, and at the same time to which it is exposed. As such, COVID-19 should give renewed attention in the CSR literature to the debate around 'risk society' (Beck, 1992), the central point of which is that modern societies are exposed to risks for which there are no mechanisms to adequately cope with them. The risks are beyond individual decisions and the protection of insurance but are an inherent part of modern society. Government inability to fully manage such risks focuses attention on an arena of 'subpolitics' (Beck, 1997) where next to traditional political actors, civil society organisations, companies, and other actors enter the space where solutions are negotiated and executed and thus firms become 'responsibilized' (Reinecke and Ansari, 2016). The key conclusion here is that CSR research needs to shift from an individual to a societal conception of risk and examine how this plays out in CSR theory and practice. A third area of challenge for CSR research concerns the issue of responsibility in supply chains. Surges in demand for medical products such as personal protective equipment and ventilators, as well as shortages caused by stockpiling have demonstrated the fragility of some of our global supply chains, especially when lockdowns have severely disrupted production. In addition, low wage workers in these supply chains have clearly borne a great deal of the brunt of these shocks with many workers left without pay, employment, or social protections (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2020; Leitheiser et al., 2020). Supplier factories too have been faced with cancelled orders, delayed payments, and demands for deep discounting in industries relying on low cost sourcing such as the global garment industry (Leitheiser et al., 2020). Such developments have highlighted the vulnerability of global supply chains to external shocks and the precarity of workers and suppliers in these chains. This challenges some of the existing assumptions in the CSR literature about the nature of supply chain responsibility, and the inevitability of disintermediation and offshoring. For instance, if one response to the pandemic is a reorganization of supply chains to prioritise integration and localness to ensure greater resilience, what would this mean for supply chain responsibility? Or, will sourcing companies see COVID-19 as proof that outsourcing helps immunize them from severe risks since so much of their operations are outsourced and therefore beyond their direct economic and social responsibility? Future CSR research will need to become more adept at conceptualizing and evaluating these configurations of risk-resilience-responsibility in supply chains. More fundamentally, if corporate-led responsible sourcing programmes are largely unable to protect those most at risk in global supply chains when they most need it during a global pandemic, we have to question whether they are really worth our continued attention as management researchers. Rather, future research should focus on exploring alternative ways of ensuring that the rights and livelihoods of precarious workers in the supply chain are protected, for example through worker-driven social responsibility or extra-territorial regulation of business responsibility for human rights. CSR as conventionally understood appears to be a dead-end. This brings us to our final challenge in that COVID-19 has exposed the new political economy of CSR. On the one hand, COVID-19 has re-centred governments as the key actors in tackling grand challenges rather than being seen as increasingly ineffective in this space, as they are often portrayed in the CSR literature. On the other, it is clear that the social responsibility of companies in the pandemic has been to act along with governments (and other actors) to address the pandemic – not so much by voluntary, charitable good deeds (although these have also played their role) but by employing (and safeguarding) workers, producing socially useful products, and protecting their stakeholders. As such, COVID-19 questions the core purpose of what a firm is about and what role it should play in society. One could argue therefore that, going forward, the instrumental version of CSR that dominated management scholarship is largely unfit for purpose (Scherer and Palazzo, 2011), or even dead (Fleming and Jones, 2012). COVID-19 rather points to the fact that we need to explore how different systems of capitalism across the globe have prepared for and dealt with the challenges of the pandemic, and what role for business responsibility is allocated in these systems to address social demands and the needs of wider society. Ultimately, COVID-19 could point us to a different way of conceptualizing private enterprise. Rather than being boxed into some 'CSR' concept that does not transcend the self-interest of the firm, research in this field needs to better theorize how business is a part of societal governance, and how the social and political responsibilities of business can be redefined from a systemic perspective (Rhodes and Fleming, 2020). The point is we need to move beyond CSR and think about different modes of organizing or new models of the firm that repurpose business to truly attend to social needs and goals. Such research in the scholarly community, however, is still at a nascent stage (De Bakker et al., 2020).

The limitation of law determines that an economy without moral and ethical norms is necessarily an inefficient economy. If the development of today's enterprises only relies on legal constraints will not be able to achieve long-term development. Generally speaking, the concept of ethical management is to reflect the moral expectations of the group that has interests with the enterprise in the decision-making of the enterprise on the premise that the enterprise complies with the law. The content of ethical management includes paying attention to social responsibility, emphasizing corporate citizenship consciousness, facing the whole society, establishing the ethical and moral system and ethical mechanisms. Among them, Corporate social responsibility has attracted extensive attention from all sectors of society in recent years. Corporations’ social responsibility can be divided into economic responsibility, legal responsibility, environmental responsibility, community responsibility, and charitable responsibility. Many scholars have done a variety of research on corporate ethics and corporate social responsibility. But many people confuse the two concepts. Although the practice of corporate social responsibility is also developing with the change of business ethics. They are by no means the same thing. This essay classifies ethical management and social responsibility. Ethical management within the enterprise, through the efforts of the staff at all levels in the enterprise to create a good atmosphere, but the social responsibility of the enterprise pays more attention to the stakeholders, such as partners, customers, competitors, communities and governments, etc. At present, global economic integration has raised everyone's social responsibility to an unprecedented height. In a word, the modern enterprise is not only simple cooperation between capital and wisdom but also a perfect cohesion of morality, conscience, and personality. By assuming social responsibility, enterprises will establish a good reputation and image among stakeholders, so as to improve the competitiveness of enterprises. This essay will be based on this to discuss the significance of ethical management and social responsibilities in the contemporary business environment. In addition, this essay will analyze the reasons for the existence of corporate social responsibility and propose specific ways to strengthen corporate social responsibility.

The Oil Palm Companies is one of the highest contributions towards Indonesia economic development. However, the company performance in the oil palm companies is far from expectation which is related to how they responsible on their shareholders as well as stakeholders. Thus, the study purpose is to examine the relations between corporate governance mechanisms, corporate social responsibility and board equity ownership on performance in Indonesia’s Oil Palm Companies. The findings highlight a positive relationship between board equity ownership, corporate social responsibility and company performance. Furthermore, the moderating role of board equity ownership has a significant positive on the relationship between independence director and company performance as well as corporate social responsibility. The relationship between female director and company performance shows the same result with the interaction of board equity ownership. Currently studies have found that corporate governance mechanisms, corporate social responsibility have significant effect on company performance. Nevertheless, this evidence showed that direct relationship between corporate governance, social responsibility and company performance have mix results. Admittedly, the indirect relationship revealed that board equity ownership contributes significant effect on the relations between corporate governance, social responsibility and company performance particularly in Indonesia’s oil palm companies. Based on the author knowledge, a few studies have been done in oil palm companies which it provides a prominent issue in corporate governance mechanism particularly on board equity ownership which majority is held by family member ownership.
 Keywords Corporate governance, social responsibility, board equity ownership, company performance

Energy enterprises are an important basis for ensuring national energy security and economic development, and their social responsibility is closely related to addressing environmental concerns such as over-exploitation of resources and excessive discharge of pollution. The casual effects of management compensation incentives on corporate social & environmental responsibility are explored based on the panel data of Chinese energy enterprises from 2010 to 2021 using the instrumental variable estimation method. The results indicate that management salary incentives can significantly promote the implementation of corporate social responsibility and environmental responsibility, while the proportion of management shareholding will reduce corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental responsibility (CER) activities. In addition, there are obvious industry differences and corporate ownership differences in the effects of management compensation incentives on CSR and CER. The negative impact of equity incentives on CSR and CER is even more pronounced in the electricity and environmental industry, and salary incentives have a greater positive effect on CSR for state-owned enterprises. The study shows that enterprises should focus on the salary incentive of managers and appropriately reduce their shareholding. The government should pay attention to the development of state-owned energy enterprises, and limit the shareholding ratio of management through policies and other incentive systems.

In light of current business trends, social responsibility has become a strategic tool for such important outcomes as financial gains and market positioning, amongst others. However, social responsibility for businesses has been mainly associated with large corporations, and Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) were insignificant as they regarded social responsibility as a costly, unsustainable business initiative. Considering wholesale and retail SMEs in EThekwini Municipal region, corporate social responsibility has been growing greater importance in the minds of businesses. Given the enormity of the South African economy, social responsibility for business took centre stage during the socio-economic turbulence experienced in the country. To a great extent, social responsibility has appeared in literature covering large organisations but comparably, microscopic and scarce theoretical or empirical literature existing for small and medium enterprises. However, this scenario undermines the importance and critical role that SMEs play in the economy of the KwaZulu-Natal region. This research study aims to investigate Corporate Social Responsibility on Sustainable Growth of wholesale and retail SMEs in EThekwini Municipal region. This shall be done by assessing the attitude levels of wholesale and retail SMEs towards corporate social responsibility; investigating the practice of corporate social responsibility by wholesale and retail SMEs; exploring barriers undermining the practice of corporate social responsibility by wholesale and retail SMEs; and exploring SME owner-managers’ values key to the sustainable growth of the business. The Stakeholder Theoretical framework guides this study and a mixed method approach was adopted where data was collected by carrying out surveys. The researcher pedantically probed participants with the same questions by means of structured questionnaires. The primary data in respect of CSR on Sustainable Growth of wholesale and retail SMEs in EThekwini Municipal region were obtained by means of self-administered questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, which followed the completed questionnaires. The research considers a target population drawn from the membership list of the Durban Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The study was carried out and consisted of businesses that employed more than 20 and less than 200 fulltime employees. This research study is descriptive in nature and will make use of a descriptive model for data analysis. Regarding Corporate Social Responsibility on Sustainable Growth, the study mainly focused on wholesale and retail SMEs. To a large extent, the attitudes and perceptions of the respondents were negative and rather insignificant when it came to implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility. The main reason for this was the cost attached to CSR. In some instances, owner managers were not aware of the positive impact of CSR as a strategic tool in the sustainable growth of the business through participation. It emerged that majority of wholesale and retail SMEs were not fully involving Stakeholders in their business activities as required by the Stakeholder Theory. Some Stakeholders are valued more than others and many do not practice CSR towards the community and the natural environment, regarding it as extra-curricular from their core-business. In addition, majority of wholesale and retail SMEs rated their businesses as averagely successful citing the unstable economy that South Africa is currently going through which has seen unemployment rising above approximately 25 percent in 2013. The results showed that the major reason, amongst other reasons, causing wholesale and retail SMEs in EThekwini Municipal region fail to commit to CSR is the cost and the impact of practising CSR on their profit. Furthermore, SME businesses were of the belief that CSR was only for large corporations and that SMEs were insignificant since they had rather less or no impact on the environment. SMEs held the municipal authority responsible for practising social responsibility on the environment since they (SMEs) followed all the laws of the land. This study aspired to expand and contribute significantly to the body of knowledge regarding CSR by examining CSR on sustainable growth of wholesale and retail SMEs in EThekwini Municipal region. As new knowledge, the study proposed a model based on the Stakeholder Theory which is meant to assist wholesale and retail SMEs in EThekwini Municipal region to apply positive attitude towards embracing CSR in their businesses. However, the study recommends that local authorities and chambers of commerce must play a leading role in awareness and support mobilisation to try and motivate wholesale and retail SMEs to practise CSR. In addition, it is recommended that the phrase ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ should be re-phrased as ‘Small Business Responsibility’ or generally ‘Business Responsibility’ as a way of contextualising the whole responsible business idea, promote and refer to the social responsibility of SMEs. The phrase simply drives SMEs to think that they are excluded from the practice because of their size. The concept Corporate Social Responsibility imposes a challenging journey on SMEs, it is psychologically intimidating to SMEs, hence resistance to the practise of CSR.

Corporate Environmental and Social Responsibility, often referred to as CSR, is an initiative that requires companies to be accountable to the environment and society in relation to their business activities. The implementation of this responsibility varies across countries; some countries make it mandatory for all businesses, while others only require it in certain sectors, or treat it as a voluntary action reflecting business awareness and responsibility. This has become a subject of debate, especially when global urgency on sustainable development issues is being strongly emphasized, yet in practice, there is no uniform understanding or implementation, resulting in the lack of significant solutions to these global problems. This research aims to explore how CSR can have a positive impact on business development related to economic growth. Using the Systematic Legal Review research method, secondary data is used as the main reference, collectively collected on relevant topics and then processed into an information source. The results of this study show that CSR has a positive impact on business, both internally and externally in relation to business operations. It is hoped that this research can provide insights and ideas regarding the role of CSR, both directly and indirectly, in driving the growth and economic development of a country, as well as serving as an evaluation material to improve the effectiveness of CSR’s role.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability

Bioethics-CSR Divide