Keywords

CSR, United Nations, Global Compact, Statutory.

Introduction

Over the decade, one can witness the continuous and persistence growth in the significance and emerging implementation of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR). It has been constantly remained the focus of substantial discussion, interpretation, theory building and research study. Despite the present discussions on meaning of CSR and what it embrace, This concept has created and advanced both academic as well as practitioner societies in its omit worldwide. Worldwide the global agencies like World Bank, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European commissions, has been effectively advancing the concept of CSR. Business corporates have been continuously pushing their focus towards economic growth along with politics and societal development (Baxi, 2006).

Business politics have evolved the new ideology of corporates towards society that is marrying the business proposals with the social devolvement issues. So that idea of responsibility towards society can be beyond profit maximization that must involve all the shareholders as well as stakeholders. One can see the developments in the business responsibilities over the time by the organizations from the following Table 1:

Table 1 Important CSR Development
Developments From Literature
Social and eco-friendly accounting	“…..collaborating the social and environmental impact of organizations’ actions to specific interest groups within society and to the civilization at large” (Gray et al., 1987)
Ecological advancement	“…growth which meets the needs of the contemporary without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (UNWCED, 1987)
Three-layered bottom stroke	“…a mode of business reporting that encompasses environmental and social as well as financial concerns.” (McKenzie, 2004)
CSR Pyramid	“…corporate social performance, sideways four layers labeled, economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities.” (Carroll, 1991)

We can infer that CSR is a holistic strategic integrated approach or a business strategy to manage social, environmental, educational and health impacts of business. The role among corporate investors to work mutually is using pressure on both public & private organizations to change. Stakeholders and investors are applying pressure on organizations to act responsibly as per the economy demands. With the increasing power of media and the internet, the involvement of non-governmental organizations (Ngo’s) is also increasing towards social corporate behavior. The advancement of community in holding businesses accountable for their actions is increasing through education and dialogue.

Carroll’s Model and CSR Development

In 1991, Carroll (1991) expressed his views by giving a CSR model in a pyramid form, as shown in Figure 1. He had used his fundamental historical clarification for the comparative weighting, stating: “To be sure, all these kinds of responsibilities have always existed to some extent, but it has only been in recent years that ethical and philanthropic functions have taken a significant place” (p.40). Since then this model has been used as a basic model by a lot of researchers to study the work on the changes and developments of CSR.

Earlier the organizations were only focusing upon economic responsibility but Carroll presented a slight different view and widens the scope for CSR initiatives by defining ethical responsibility, philanthropic responsibility, and legal responsibility. Now a paradigm shift can be observed from literature that mere business of business is not only to earn profit this has been switched to CSR that is paying back to the society, as it also helps in creating competitive advantage and better financial performance to CSR and also creates a corporate environment, a quality orientation, a social and economic responsibility, and this is, what all-inclusive CSR precisely means (Sharma, 2016). India has taken a step ahead of economic responsibility and become the first country in the world to enshrine CSR ACT in the company law 2014. As per Carroll’s model Indian economy is at second stage of the pyramid that is for obeying the law one needs to indulge into social initiatives. Third stage of pyramid defines that one needs to do good and right things by opting fair means and avoiding undue harm to the society. and the last stage of pyramid defines CSR as it should be part of corporate behaviors and not be treated as a burden one should be a good corporate citizen and by their own will opt for paying back to the society.

The first section of the paper is designed to address the introduction to ‘‘Corporate Social Responsibility’’ and ‘‘The United Nations Global Compact’’ and further, lays the theoretical background to CSR and the UNGC. Next section covers ‘‘Indian CSR Act 2014’’ & lays out the initiatives & regulations that have been listed under the Act, and various strengths and limitations of the Indian CSR act. Last section of the paper finalizes the concluding remarks & suggestions for future research.

UNGC and CSR

United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) believes that it is possible to create a global economy that composed of inclusive sustainability and delivers lasting benefits to people, planet, communities and markets. UNGC supports companies in doing business responsibly by lining up their business strategies and operations with Ten Principles of GC. UNGC also supports companies in taking strategic actions to wider their societal objectives, such as the upcoming UN Sustainable Development Goals, with an emphasis on association and innovation (Hemming et al., 2004).

United Nations Global Compact (GC) Ten Principles

Initiatives have been undertaken by The United Nations Global Compact that envisioned inspiring and persuading business companies to performance socially responsible activities. Further, all the members of the international communal have been obligating to the following ten principles concerning social responsibility practices (United Nations, 2010):

Human Rights

1. Business organizations have to assist and signifies the protection of internationally acknowledged human rights.

2. To assure that the businesses are not complicit in human rights exploitations.

Labor Standard

1. Business organizations have to withstand the liberty of alliances and the operative gratitude of the right to collective bargaining.

2. All types of forced and obligatory labor have to be eliminated.

3. The child labor have to be eradicated.

4. Prohibiting the all type of inequity with regard to employment and occupation.

Environment

1. Business organizations must sustenance a preventive methodology towards environmental issues.

2. Environment responsibility must be promoted by Business organizations.

3. Inspire the growth and circulation of environmentally friendly technologies.

Anti-Corruption

1. Efforts need to be made against corruption, extortion as well as bribery in all its form.

The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) frequently updates with business organizations towards social responsibility initiatives. The UNGC procedure also encompasses of an annual communication on progress (COP) report. Those corporations who do not meet the COP closing date will be denoted as “non-communicating” on the website of Global Compact. On tenth anniversary of Global Compact in New York in June 2010, 8,000 representatives across the globe participated in the Global Compact, and further 1,500 individuals joined the conference. The GC Office preserves a decentralized set-up assembly and attempts to frontier bureaucratic panels to endorse open interaction and corporation. It further utilizes the support of the other UN agencies to guarantee success in its purpose. For instance, The GC Office performs with UN Development Program (UNDP) departments to sustain an existence in local areas with around 6,000 business members, the Global Compact is “the largest voluntary corporate citizenship set-up of its kind,” and this ensures it “a strong local presence than other similar initiatives in many other countries” (McKinsey 2004; pp. 9-10). Prior to the Compact, there was a lack of a strong influential body to promote CSR (Scherer, 2009). These initiatives helped in increasing mindfulness about human rights, work practices, child labour and environmental violations of organizations, particularly those of international businesses, and has extended international awareness on essential CSR practices. GC strongly encourages networking among corporates; administration bodies, and public society corporations so, mutual learning is nurtured across many stakeholders (McKinsey, 2004). This section covers the principles proposed by Global compact. These GC principles have a strong influence on Indian CSR act 2014 as in Table 2:

Table 2 Relation Between CSR Act 2014 & UNGC Principle
Sr. no.	UNGC Principle	CSR Act 2014
	Human Rights	Decreasing child death and refining maternal health Battling HIV-AIDS, along with other diseases Managing Gender inequities and empowering women Eradication of extreme hunger and poverty
	Environment	Environmental sustainability
	Labor standard	Employment enhancing vocational skills Women empowerment

As discussed in the above table it becomes very clear that majority of the CSR act obligations have been influenced by global bodies like UNGC. Today, in the globalized village, here every day we are surrounded by discussions provided by newspaper, magazine or journal, on issues like CSR, business initiatives towards CSR practices, innovation and productivity, sustainability, societal development etc. On a regular basis some books, specific journals, dictionaries, news magazines, websites, encyclopedias and blogs about recent CSR updates and new regulations in the same. The business world has created its own organizations specializing in the initiative. Clubbing or merging of business with society for social causes that is Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), founded in 1992 is a business organization that provides proficiency on the subject and provides an opportunity to business officials so that one can achieve advances in the field of CSR and learn from one another.

Literature Review

Till date there is no agreed upon definition of what CSR composed of (some researchers still claims that there should not be one definition), in the 1950s, there was a limited discourse about CSR. Frank Abrams (1951) started discussing the concerns regarding the wider responsibilities of management in this complex business environment. Milton Friedman (1970) defined the social responsibility of business as a tool to increase profits for business unit. Initially primary focus of business was on profit maximization but later on the focus of business was clubbed with responsibilities towards society and doing good works for societal progress. This introduces the managers as a public trustee, for balancing corporate resources, and philanthropy as business help for suitable sources (Frederick, 2006).

Study by Moon (2004), explains the role of government and its importance amongst the corporate companies in driving corporate social responsibility practices as a business initiative. News in The economic Times (2012), conveyed an opinion of former Indian president Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam in a CSR award function arranged by industry body Assocham. Abdul Kalam expressed that organizations should dedicate some part of its aim towards corporate services. It should be compulsory for all the corporate organizations to expend a percentage of its profit on some corporate social responsibility practices. Abdul Kalam also conversed about the proposed bill on CSR practices.

Bhattacharyya & Chaturvedi (2012), research titled “CSR looks set to emerge as an independent stream with measurable output” on CSR practices in India, affirmed about the proposed bill on CSR practices that how the bill will be going to influence the company’s policies. The scholars and social activist gave their opinions and said that due to the implementation of the CSR bill, corporate company’s doings will be going to change a lot. The corporate organizations, who have not involved themselves in CSR activities till now, will be going to start investing on social responsibility practices. Additionally the corporate companies who have already initiated social responsibility projects will be getting a strong foundation or bond with the society.

Research by Bansal, Parida, Kumar (2012), entitled “Emerging trends of Corporate Social Responsibility in India” examined 30 companies from 11 different sectors listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) with the help of their annual reports. Focus of the research was to examine list down the major sectors undertaken by companies for social responsibility practices implementation. A few of these sectors were Transport Equipment sector, Finance and Metal Mining sector, IT & Power, Capital goods, Telecom, Housing, FMCG, Oil & Gas and Cipla.

News in The Economic Times (11 Jan.2013), revealed the strategies adopted by DELL company for encouraging its employees in initiating different CSR projects. The news argued that the employees of the company actually forced the company to start some pay back projects for the society. Now Company has been initiated and deeply involved into social responsibility activities in the fields of education, environment and employee welfare. Other than Dell Company, the news also highlighted about CSR initiatives undertaken by companies like Maruti and Gogrej that these companies indulge into provide induction training to the employees and prepare them for community services. Maruti also have a program named e-parivartan for its employees and make them completely aware about community problem and finally they work on development of their solutions Table 3.

Table 3 Theories of CSR
Types of theories	Approaches	Some key references
Ethical theories (major emphasis is on the right thing for a good society)	• Stakeholder normative theory	Freeman (1984, 1994), UN Global Compact (1999)
Instrumental theories (major emphasis is on realizing economic objectives through social activities)	• Maximization of shareholder value Strategies for competitive advantages	Friedman (1970), Jensen (2000) Porter & Kramer (2002)
Political theories (major emphasis is on a sensible use of business power in political context)	• Corporate (or business) citizenship	Wood & Lodgson (2002)
Integrative theories(major emphasis is on the integration of social demands)	• Stakeholder management • Corporate social performance	Mitchell et al. (1997), Agle & Mitchell (1999)

Vast literature is available supporting theories and definitions that have been accepted by the corporates and academicians to conceptualization the concept of CSR. But widely accepted and recognized literature follows the theories proposed by Archie, B. Carroll.

Later on analysis by Patrick Murphy (1978) claimed that in the era of 1960s and early 1970s were the ‘Awareness’ and ‘Issue’ eras about the concept of CSR. Frederick (2008) described the 1960s and 1970s as a phase of ‘corporate social responsiveness’. Lee (2008) quoted that another quality of the era 1960s was a lack of any pairing of social responsibility practices with financial performance. In other words, social responsibility initiatives were driven primarily by external controls or externally driven, socially conscious motivations, and businesses were not gazing for anything specific in return to the business. Since then change in the thought process of business houses was ignited and now corporate started showing their willingness in the CSR by voluntary initiating and indulging into different social causes. Here onwards by the end of 1990’s corporate realized the need of marring CSR practices with business decisions and policies in Figure 2. Three known market initiatives have the Dow Jones sustainability group index, the FTSE four good indexes, and the World Business Council for sustainable development (Knaepfel, 2001).

World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2001, describes CSR as “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, and the local communities.” Business operates in the boundary walls of society. CSR is a way to pay back to the society for the resources that are taken from society should be shared with society. Companies are working on CSR initiatives in co-operation with NGO’s (non- government organizations) and also assist companies in defining and planning their CSR strategies (Ligteringen & Zadek, 2005). In addition to this market and society have formed partnership to develop and implement specific issues of CSR strategies (Alston & Roberts, 1999, Heap, 2000, Stafford et al., 2000, WEMOS, 2004).

In a broad-spectrum CSR is defines initiatives of companies that addresses social and environmental issues and that is beyond what is needed by law (Doh & Gray, 2006, Mcwillians & Sigel, 2001, Van Marcwijk, 2003), behind CSR practices there are many driving forces both internal and external. In most of the cases CSR is mainly a response towards the increasing demands of citizens/customers and NGO’s used by enterprises to maintain their authority and for avoidance of bad publicity in the market. Some internal driving forces behind CSR initiatives are: shareholders (Monks et al., 2004), happy employees (Ruggie, 2001), cost saving (Sharma & kiran, 2012).

Various social responsibility initiatives taken are designed at facilitating, endorsing and enhancing CSR practices based on various approaches followed by firms. Some of CSR initiatives focus on, observing and benchmarking initiatives in the areas of, social development, educational activities, health, and improving environmental performance of companies adding to the transparency of CSR practices of companies and providing an incentive for better performance. Other initiatives aimed to expedite and promote CSR policy development and implementation through information provision, knowledge management and knowledge sharing and co-operation. Also there are practices and initiatives for promoting more CSR through legal norms.

CSR: USA and INDIA

The idea of making CSR a mandatory practice for companies was dismissed by great thinkers like Friedman, Hansman, and Mercury. But considering changing globalized scenario as the revenue generated by business companies increases, for further future business opportunities/scope, one should also consider the respective growth of social resources and human development. Globalization has increased the scope of sale of products and goods manufactured in one country and sale in other. Many developed nations follow the concept of paying back to the society. Paying due attention to global market, India has taken a step ahead by passing a CSR act. So that gap between richer and poor can be minimized and prosperity of society as a whole be considered as an aspect of business growth plan. As the problem cannot be solved only by the government, participation of people, companies, and policies should be aligned to uplift the social status of economy. Table 4 given below shows the companies expenditure on CSR spending against GDP of India and USA.

Table 4 Expenditure on CSR Spending Against GDP of Unites States and India
Country name	GDP in US$	CSR expenditure in %age	Value in US$	Population in million
India	916251738112	0.6%	5497510429	1122
USA	13163899650048	2.0%	263277993001	299

From the Table 4 one can depict that India's spending on CSR in terms of percentage of GDP has been stagnant at 0.6 per cent in the last decade and that is much lower than the US. Based on data available and by following the footprints of GC Indian government has intervened into company’s law and legalized the CSR Act, so that in the near future gap can be minimized.

CSR and India

No part of the world is untouched from need and implementation of CSR initiatives (Wayne visser, 2012). So in this context developing economy like India is not an exception but definitely by the legalization of the CSR and adding up of special clauses in the companies Act for the CSR practices India remarkably became the first country in the world to do so. The first in the world to legalize the Indian Companies Act, 2013, redefines the scenery of the Indian social sector, indicating a new epoch on the route to inclusive growth (FICCI–Accenture, 2014). One of the most significant feature of the new Company Law administration is keeping the corporate social spending requirement (CSR) mandatory and will be governed under the Section 135 of the act. If we talk about relation of CSR with India, it’s not new; it’s as deep-rooted and old as Indian history. The word CSR might be the latest but concept is as old as Indians on earth, its division is been done on the basis of religious grounds but the meaning is the same that is in the past times Hindus call it Dharmda, Sikhs call it Dashant and Muslims call it Zakath (Muniapan & Dass, 2008). Meaning of these terms is donation of some part of your earning or monthly income at the religious places. Later on concept of donations at the end of financial year has been transformed into social responsibility towards society that escorts business. As the people joined hands together formed business houses and world entered into a globalized planet this concept of donations is also been reframed and renamed as CSR. CSR is the responsibility of business corporations to make contributions towards balanced economic development, operating with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to make the quality of their lives better (WBCSD, 2000). In India CSR is looked upon as an essential part of corporate philanthropy in which business organizations enhance the social development to assist the initiatives of the government to benefit the society. However with the passage of time, the state of CSR has transformed a lot: from being philanthropic to being socially responsible to multi stake holders to legalization. Mohan (2001), the era of 1960’s and 1970’s visualized an advent of CSR initiatives being inbuilt in corporate philanthropy. Initially, there was limited documentation for social responsibility activities in India. Since then there is an increasing realization towards contribution to social initiatives globally with an urge to improve the immediate environment (Shinde, 2005).

Though some researchers date the beginning of the concept CSR from academic interest as far, harking back to the 1850s (Balza & Radojicic, 2004; Doane, 2004; Smith, 2003), it is only in recent times that it has obtained the much popularity within teaching and research institutions, enterprises, business, governments, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs (non-government organizations) (Garriga & Mele, 2004). The year 2000 was the turning point for challenges in support of CSR activities. For example, government organizations called for noteworthy ‘‘corporate environmental and social responsibility and accountability’’ in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (UN, 2002 & 2003). Here onwards need for moving step ahead from Carroll’s first responsibility originated and journey for legalization of CSR concept started, and India has taken a lead and legalized this in the form of CSR Act 2013. Unlike in some nations such as Australia, Denmark, France, Holland, Norway, and Sweden, where just the CSR practices reporting is mandatory, India along with Mauritius become part of 2% CSR spending group in the world, which has made mandatory both reporting and spending on CSR initiatives.

CSR Act

All over the world companies are under pressure to exhibit that they are responsible corporate citizens, in Europe and America about 70 percent of large organizations have been providing details regarding their corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Regardless of this, the idea of CSR remains disputable over the time and has engrossed strong conclusions on both sides from academics, administrators, social activists, and NGO’s. One summit of contention is whether legal reporting on CSR activities by companies should there. In several countries there are already mandatory CSR reporting, including Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Australia. Going one considerable step further, the Indian government has sincerely considered making CSR activities compulsory for organizations (Karnani, 2013).

One essential aspect of various CSR initiatives taken by companies is the network influences that result from the interactions happening during these initiatives. Many, CSR activities, are influenced by, the UN Global Compact, WBCSD, Prince of Wales ILBF, BSR, SDI, GRI, CSR Europe, these are many member bodies-or participation-based associations (Moir, 2001; McKinsey, 2004). These initiatives involve disseminating news and information through, web pages disclosure, newsletters, scientific papers, research papers and best practice contemplates, as well as uniting companies together for customary meetings, conferences, and seminars. These member bodies can contribute impressively to the dissemination of technologies and environmental management practices (Kemp, 1995; Luken et al., 2004). By data exposure and bringing organizations together, such activities offer chances to organizations to find out about real-life examples of how social responsibility ventures been carried by other businesses and to get data about or get in contact with potential venture collaborators.

In India the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) had initiated the Corporate Social Responsibility Voluntary Guidelines in year 2009. These CSR guidelines have been now included in the schedule VII of Act proposed in 2013 have been legally accepted. This Act proposed that every company under the company’s act having worth of 500 crore INR or a turnover of 1000 crore INR under Section 135 states, during the financial year company shall comprises the corporate social responsibility committee of the board. And the committee prerequisites to include the three or more directors, with at least one independent director. The report should comprises the minute details regarding work undertaken CSR activities The committee will be preparing the policy, which includes proposed set of activities précised in Schedule VII, which are as follows:

1. Eliminating intense hunger and poverty

2. Endorsement of education

3. Encouraging gender equality and women empowerment

4. Reducing child death and civilizing maternal health

5. Combating human immune deficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, malaria and other diseases

6. More social business projects

7. Such other matters as may be prescribed

The CSR activities organizing committee will be proposing the expenditure to be encountered and administer the activities from a time-to-time. The board of committee shall reveal the subject matter of the CSR policy in its report, and put these on the official website, if any, of the company. These act rules have to be applicable from financial year 2014-15. 2014, about 8,000 Indian companies meet this definition, according to the Economic Times, which would equate to 12,000-15,000 crore Rs. annually in giving (or nearly $2 billion). Big giants like Tata, Wipro, and Reliance are already into social development projects and have set up foundations and participate in numerous philanthropic activities aimed at various social developments of society in Figure 3. Gupta (2007), state that community development and social welfare program of the leading Tata Company, Tata Iron and Steel Company was founded the concepts of “Social Responsibility.”

In the twenty first century where everything is globalized, business need to go beyond traditional approach of profit maximization and accomplish the aspirations of a wide range of investors as well as shareholders (society at a glance). European Commission of Communities (2001) specified that being socially responsible does not means only realizing legal expectations, but it’s going beyond compliance and devoting ‘more’ into human capital, the environment stability and the relation with stakeholders. According to CSR Asia, CSR is a company’s commitment to operating in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner whilst balancing the interests of diverse stakeholders.

CSR act guidelines and GC UN (Global Compact United Nations) initiative have been intended to support and motivate business companies to act more socially responsible towards society where these firms operate, and one must focus on inclusive growth rather than individualistic or mere own profit making. Most of the initiatives taken up under section VII of companies act India are identical as principles taken up by United Nations regarding social responsibility. So world is any how Collaboratly (members of GC and international community) taking united actions and initiatives to support the global society at a glance. These global and national social responsibility initiatives and conferences inspires young aspirants and future business tycoons and nevertheless established business houses to amalgamate business policies with social development initiatives, so that this world can became a better place to live in. UNGC principles has been discussed to give clearer insight of the CSR ACT schedule VII. And this is acting as a building block for the act schedule VII.

Challenges in Implementation of CSR

Many of the CSR policies mentioned in the schedule VII of the act are already undertaken by the some of the companies under CSR. Several recommended activities are already being practiced by many corporate organizations, individuals as the preferred practices for CSR. On the other hand, section 135 (1) also direct each organization to constitute a CSR committee to determine on the projects and programs to be undertaken by the company. There can be overlapping between the different business corporate regarding framing and implementation of same CSR practices listed in the schedule. So it’s very important to notice here that regulating committee need to be careful while examining the social responsibility practices initiated by different corporate house. Another major challenge for the committee could be putting the every available information regarding CSR initiative undertaken by the company, efforts made during implementation of the same, and challenges faced to be updated on some online portal, so that overlapping of same projects can be avoided and others can be benefitted from the experiences of the company. This will also help in cross verification whether the company has actually done something to revert the society or just for having tax and other benefits they are show casting the things. By having an online portal for every social initiative anyone one can actually get to know and cross verify the difference between whatever listed on website and actual implemented project. Other challenge may be there will be a chance that schedule VII would significantly persuade the decision making of the committee and would also restrict the liberty of the decision making committee to best spend CSR resources in best way.

Shimata (2000), states that several global institutions like World Bank, created further stimulus for international measures and described focus towards the economic and social impact of corruption. They particularly emphasized the close link amongst advancement of nation, corruption, and poverty. So, business corporates must perceive themselves as having social responsibilities to support significant evolution towards fighting corruption and by the sake of social work must not indulge into tax saving only and grasping other benefits.

Corporate bodies and NGOs must systemize, design and timely monitor the measures to reduce the opportunity for corruption and establish incentives for public integrity (Johnston & Kpundeh, 1998). Corporate engagement with NGOs, and civil society gives an operational means of creating a visible, legitimate reform movement that permits all interested people to learn from each other (Edward & Hoseah, 2001), the foremost challenging is with the emergence of globalization and expansion of international trade, business corporates have to pay attention towards their social projects initiation and should be able measure and cross verify the corruption free outcome and deliverables as per the proposed structure.

Conclusion

The current study substantiates that becoming a GC participant, which means adopting and implementing voluntary CSR practices is going to benefit the business not only in the long run but also in the short run. CSR act and its implementation framework was introduced in year 2014, thought behind introduction of CSR act into Indian constitution was to create sense of belongingness among the corporate houses towards society. Although it’s been two years but yet no actions towards proposed regulations cross verification has been taken by government. As proposed by government there will be third party for identification and authentication of 2% spending done by corporate houses. This does not mean that companies are not indulging into any social responsibility projects but still what’s been proposed and what’s been revealed by companies and actually what’s been done that needs to be cross verified by third independent party. Need of the hour is not only companies just start investing or putting money into some social development project but one must need to carefully examine the needs of the society and accordingly different CSR policies and initiatives should be framed. Companies need to identify their own expertise that can be technology, health care, agriculture, skill development, job generation and development of products that must promote and able to support make in India concept too. A slight more responsive action in “doing good” and “behaving responsible” should be planned by companies, that may sharpen the scope of legalizing this social responsibility act on the business firms, specially giving direction to social initiatives and this will not be just putting money at various charities just for legal obligations. On a positive note we can forecast the India of 2050 as a growing economy not only in terms of economic growth and revenue generation but holistic growth of society, health, environment as a growth of nation.

Despite of the fact that some business companies were already into CSR practices implementation by their own willingness of paying back to the society, but still major change has been observed in to the policy making strategies adopted by the companies before and after the CSR act. Major change is now every company have different department to deal with CSR practices and they do give equal consideration to social initiative as it was given to technological initiative. Major change that has been observed after CSR law enforcement is that, now almost every firm has started discussing and mentioning about CSR initiatives on their respective websites. Research work is limited to CSR practices importance and CSR act regulations as till date government has not started verification of practices undertaken by various companies, once CSR committee will be constituted and verification of initiatives will be done then only actual picture will be cleared regarding repositions of before and after implementation of CSR act.

References

1. Balza, M.D., & Radjicic, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Nongovernmental Organizations’, Unpublished master thesis, Linko¨pings Universitet, [online]. URL: http://www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/eki/ 2004/impsc/005/ [accessed 01.07.2004].
2. Baxi, C.V. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility concepts and cases: The Indian Experience, Excel Books, New Delhi.
3. Carroll, A.B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.
4. Doane, D. (2004). Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: Minnows, Mammoths and Markets’, Futures: the Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, special edition: the Future of Ethical Corporations.
5. Edward, G., & Hoseah, P. (2001). Measures to Combat Corruption at the Local, National and International Level, available at http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/ Hoseah.pdf.
6. FICCI Accenture. (2014). Organizing for success on corporate responsibility: The path to high performance Grant Thornton: Implications of companies Act, 2013 corporate social responsibility.
7. Frederick, W.C. (2006), Corporation, Be Good! The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility. Indianapolis, IN: Dogear Publishing.
8. Frederick, W.C. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: deep roots, flourishing growth, promising future. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 522-531.
9. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston.
10. Freeman, R.E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions.  Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409-429.
11. Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, The New York Times Magazine.
12. Gray, R., Owen, D., & Maunders, K. (1987). Corporate social reporting: accounting and accountability, Prentice-Hall, Exeter, UK.
13. Heap, S. (2000). NGOs Engaging with Business: A World of Difference and a Difference to the World (The International Non-governmental Organization Training and Research Centre (INTRAC), Oxford).
14. Hemming, C., Pugh, S., Williams, G., & Blackburn, D. (2004). Strategies for Sustainable Development: Use of a Benchmarking Tool to Understand Relative Strengths and Weaknesses and Identify Best Practice, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(2), 103-113.
15. Husted, B.V. (2005). Risk management, Real Options, and Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, 60(2), 175-183.
16. Johnston & Kpundeh, (1998), Cooperation among civil society, the private sector, and the government to institutionalize the attack on corruption will yield good governance; Vito Tanzi, Corruption Around the World: Causes, Consequences, Scope, and Cures 5 (Int'l Monetary Fund, Working Paper No. 98/63.
17. Karnani, A., (2013). Mandatory CSR in India: A Bad Proposal, Stanford social innovation review.
18. Kemp, R. (1995). Environmental Policy and Technical Change: A Comparison of the Technological Impact of Policy Instruments (Universitaire Pers Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands).
19. Lee, M.P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 53-73.
20. Ligteringen, E., & Zadek, S. (2005). The Future of Corporate Responsibility Codes, Standards and Frameworks, Global Reporting Initiative/AccountAbility, Amsterdam/London (Available from www. accountability21.net/uploadstore/cms/docs/Land scape%20Paper.pdf, Viewed December 14, 2006).
21. Luken, R., van Rompaey, F., & Zigova, K. (2004). The Determinants of Environmentally Sound Technology Utilization by Manufacturing Firms in Developing Countries, 1st Global Compact Academic Conference, 31 May–1 June, Istanbul.
22. McKenzie, S. (2004). Social sustainability: Towards some definitions, Working Paper Series, University of South Australia: Hawke Research Institute, Magill.
23. McKinsey. (2004). assessing the Global Compact’s Impact (McKinsey, New York).
24. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
25. Mohan, A. (2001). Corporate citizenship: perspectives from India, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 12(2), 107-17.
26. Moir, L. (2001). What do we mean by Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society, 1(2), 16-22.
27. Monks, R., A. Miller and J. Cook. (2004), ‘Shareholder Activism on Environmental Issues: A Study of Proposals at Large US Corporations (2000–2003)’, Natural Resources Forum 28(4), 317–330.
28. Muniapan, B., & Dass, M. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility: a philosophical approach from an ancient Indian perspective, International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 1(4).
29. Murphy, P.E. (1978). An evolution: corporate social responsiveness. University of Michigan Business Review, November, 20-22.
30. Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 57-68.
31. Ruggie, J.G. (2001). global_governance.net: The Global Compact as Learning Network, Global Governance 7(4), 371-378.
32. Scherer, A.G., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Globalization and social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J .Moon, D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (413-431). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33. Sharma, A. (2016), Key drivers endorsing CSR: a transition from economic to holistic approach, Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 5, 165-184.
34. Shimata, I. (2000), the world bank in a changing world, 53-69.
35. Shinde, S. (2005). Social responsibility corporate style, available at: http://www.express computer online.com/20050502/technologylike01.shtml (accessed 23 February 2009).
36. Smith, N.C. (2003), Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?, California Management Review 45(4), 52-76.
37. Stafford, E.R., Polonsky, M.J., & Hartman, C.L. (2000). Environmental NGO-Business Collaboration and Strategic Bridging: A Case Analysis of the GreenpeaceForon Alliance, Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(2), 122-135.
38. UN Global Compact. (1999). Corporate Citizenship in the World Economy. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/GC_brochure_FINAL.pdf.
39. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (UNWCED). (1987). Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
40. United Nations. (1999). The global compact. New York: Author. Retrieved from www .unglobalcompact.org.
41. United Nations. (2003). The UN and business. Retrieved from http://www.un. Org /partners /business/other pages/ procure.html.
42. United Nations. (2010). Overview of the UN Global Compact. Retrieved from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/ index.html
43. Van Marcwijk, M. (2003). Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion, Journal of Business Ethics 44(2-3), 95-104.
44. Wayne visser, (2012), http://www.waynevisser.com/wp content /uploads /2012/04/ chapter _wvisser_csr_dev_countries.pdf.
45. WEMOS. (2004). Goede Bedoelingen met Bijwerkingen. Informatie over Publiek-Private Initiatieven voor Gezondheid’ (Public–private partnerships for health; in Dutch), WEMOS Health for all Foundation, Amsterdam (Available from www.euforic.org/docs/ 200409061007215386.pdf?&username=guest@euforic.org&password=9999&groups=EUFORIC&work group=, Viewed December 13, 2006).
46. Wood, D.J., & Lodgson, J.M. (2002). Business Citizenship: From Individuals to organizations. Business Ethics, 3, 59-94.