Abstract

The prohibition imposed on resource-rich nations by the Global North governments to legislate laws to control multi-national enterprises has hit a death nail in any attempt(s) to innovate corporate social responsibility. Consequently, a self-commitment strategy was recommended for adoption to guide business own activities. This strategy undermines business participation in effective social governance yet encourages externalisation of the corporate cost of production, leading to catastrophic ramifications for host communities. The paper, therefore, proposes a policy nuance, which is a novelty in the existing literature, to oversee social responsibility undertakings and brings on board the corporate body in the social development discourse. Meanwhile, an SPSS analysis shows a statistically significant p-value and a negative coefficient which indicates comparability between policy and corporate social responsibility resulting in an endorsement of the paper’s proposition. Conclusively, a policy distinction would ensure appropriate planning, realistic and objective target setting, and compensatory plus effective and efficient implementation of basic social amenities, while systematising and normalising social agenda in corporate management strategies. It would also inspire checks of multi-national enterprises’ commitments since benchmarks are established and visible for references. Expectedly, further study on an appropriate policy enforcement mechanism for social (and environmental) governance is recommended.

Highlights

  • 1.1 BackgroundThat the activities of mining multi-national enterprise (MNEs) have negatively impacted livelihoods and communities without adequate safeguards presents a worrying phenomenon

  • Though the equity disequilibrium existing between corporate profits and community’s needs is still unbalanced, the self-commitment, as a delivering system for these social development outcomes, is ineffective too

  • Evidence abounds that enterprises spending for charity skyrocketed from an estimated $125 million in 1990 to $830 million in 2002 in the US, yet the large chunk went for advertisement meant to highlight companies’ good deeds and image (p.29)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

That the activities of mining multi-national enterprise (MNEs) have negatively impacted livelihoods and communities without adequate safeguards presents a worrying phenomenon. A study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers reveals that mining MNEs gained from a whopping 1,900% of net profits spanning 2002 and 2007 yet this windfall did not benefit the owners (mostly Africa countries) of the mineral resources. A body of studies has questioned reliability of social interventions planned for host communities (Frynas, 2005) using cost and benefit analysis to excuse mining negative ramifications (Jenkins & Unies, 2001) and the destructive impact of Greenfield investment on land mass, leading to exacerbation of livelihoods (Clapp, 2005); (JA & Daly, 1993). Though the equity disequilibrium existing between corporate profits and community’s needs is still unbalanced, the self-commitment, as a delivering system for these social development outcomes, is ineffective too. Phillip Morris Companies spent $75 million in 1999 on benevolent activities and allocated $100 million for promotional jsd.ccsenet.org

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call