Purpose- In the steadily increasing stream of CSR, one of the most important issues addressed is the role of external stakeholders. This research involves one aspect of the issue of the external stakeholders, specifically the partnership approach to CSR and more in particular the relational process that underpins social innovation within strategic cross-sector partnership between different types of actors involved in the partnerships (Mailand. M, 2004). Moreover the study aims to discuss the duality of success and failure in strategic collaborations between non-profit and for-profit organizations in an Indian context.
Methodology- The analysis is based on an ongoing social partnership between for-profit organisation (ONGC) and non-profit (Helping hand for cancer care patients). This study includes interviews with managers and other employees along with the use of existing knowledge on social partnership between organisations to support the methodology.
Findings- The findings provide a grounded framework based on previous research that provides a step-by-step approach for implementing corporate social responsibility through social partnership.
Research limitations- The structure developed in this paper provides an opportunity to examine to what extent does social partnership between NPO and BUS has been implemented in organizations as well as alternative approaches for implementation.
Key Words- Non-profit organisation, Business, Partnerships, implementation, NGO, CSR.
Chapter 1. Introduction
For many years, community development goals were philanthropic activities that were seen as separate from business objectives, not fundamental to them; doing well and doing good were seen as separate pursuits (Kotler P, Lee N, 2005). Companies are now beginning to recognize how greater social and environmental responsibility can improve the firm’s performance (Zadek, 2004). In a market oriented economic structure, corporate sector is the originator of economic growth. According to Wood (1991),” the basic idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (henceforth CSR) is that business and society are interwoven rather than distinct entities.” (Dean, P., 2007).The notion that business has duties to society is firmly ingrained. According to Werther. B. W, Jr., and Chandler. D., 2010, the entirety of CSR can be discerned from the three words: Corporate, Social and Responsibility. CSR defines society in its widest sense and covers the relationship between the corporation and society within which it interacts. The idea of Business looking beyond profits to their roles in society is generally termed as CSR.
The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility has gained increased significance in recent years. While Government is responsible for setting rules and parameters within which society and business operate. On the other hand businesses are largely responsible for creating wealth and driving progress within the society. In addition NGO’s and NPO’s exists to do social good without seeking profits, they reach into areas where profit and politics do not reach. Implementing CSR is facilitated through standards and common codes of conduct. Although firms themselves have set the standards, governments have played a role in defining common rules (Nourick, S., OECD, 2001). It is therefore imperative that corporations come forward & shares the responsibility for inclusive & redistributive growth (CSR, Whitepaper KPMC).The context of CSR is very dynamic due the ideal mix of business goals and societal expectations which is constantly evolving.
CSR is currently characterized by many unsystematic practices which lack transferability (Seitanidi M,Crane A,2008).If CSR is to develop from solid grounds , it is necessary to foster its future development through embedding societal issues and expectations raised by legitimate stakeholders in the day-to-day strategies, policies, and operations of the organization (Nijhof A, Bruijn T,Honders H, 2008). Most CSR scholars and societal actors therefore assume that CSR can only be fully developed in partnership; partnerships in which the exploration of new roles is a central element (Nijhof A, Bruijn T,Honders H, 2008).Over a decade ago, the Committee for Economic Development one group of business leaders advocated the formation of a “government-business partnership for social progress”. It was understood by them that the society’s problems were too complex to be tackled by business alone. Recent developments such as the Millennium Development Goals and Make Poverty History campaign have also raised awareness of the world’s development challenges and increased recognition that no one sector-Government, Business or civil society can solve these challenges alone (Doh and Teegen 2002) (Concern Universal Org.2010).According to Frederick. C. W, 2006 the notion of Social partnership for resolving social problems are a powerful idea and the future of CSR lies in this direction.
Often it has been assumed that the emergency of CSR is a function of economic and social development. For this reason it is been followed by the observation that CSR appears to be faster in Westernized countries than other countries like Asia. However, according to Matten and Moon 2004, CSR is often implicit in Asian countries and more a function of national business systems rather than development per se.
The focus of CSR has changed the attitude of business all over the world. As one of the world’s fastest growing economies, India certainly cannot be ignored in this regard. A survey of global business executives conducted by McKinsey & Company found that Indian executives were “the most enthusiastic proponents” for a wider social role for business, with 90% reportedly endorsing the “public good dimension” (“McKinsey Global Survey,”2006).Historically speaking, social responsibility of companies is a well-established phenomenon in India, and the country has one of the world’s richest traditions of CSR. In its oldest forms, CSR in India included the concept of corporate philanthropy. The philanthropy first practiced by Indian businesses was initially rooted in religious belief and culture, but with the changing times, there has been a significant shift in the approach (Sharma, Seema G, 2009). Indian families such as TATA and Godrej have a significant industry presence and reputation for social responsibility. TATA steel is one of the first companies to produce a corporate sustainability report. In recent years some large Indian companies have started signing up to voluntary international CSR initiatives. There are 87 Indian companies which have signed up the UN Global Compact’s nine principle on Human rights, labor and environment (Hopkins, M., 2007).
1.2. Significance of the study:
India (Mumbai) where the research has taken place has a long rich history of CSR. Companies like TATA and Birla have set an own unique benchmark in the field of CSR in India. In spite of such successful examples CSR is yet in the nascent stage in India. CSR is coming out of the purview of ‘doing social good’ and is fast becoming a ‘business necessity’ (Times internet ltd, 2010). This study moves ahead of CSR stimulus that has previously been dealt with, into an examination of new trends within relatively old frontiers. It will investigate the relationship between ONGC (BUS) and Helping Hand for Cancer Care (NPO). The significance of this study lies in the following:
1) In spite of the long history of CSR in India, there have been not much empirical evidences in terms of implementing CSR through partnership. This study is exclusive, due to the research investigation of a partnership between a Business and an NPO in India with an aim of identifying the kind relationship and partnership they share.
2) To indentify the kind of partnership they share, this study takes into consideration Setanidi and Crane 2008, Cross-Sector Partnership model. Furthermore to classify the level of relationship they share, studies of Selsky and Parker 2005:855 on cross-sector partnership to address social issues (henceforth CSSPs) have been used.
3) Seitanidi’s holistic framework 2010 has been used to set the research questions with some changes for this study. Since there was no scope for the use of quantitative research, this study is based on qualitative research. The use of Semi-structure interview is used to collect the primary data. Furthermore there is a need of closer examination by academicians on long-term relationships as most studies have been focused on examining short-term relationships (Selsky and Parker, 2005).
1.3. Aim of the Research:
The research question for this study address the phenomena of CSR, socially responsible restructuring and firm’s performance and their relationship (L.Zu, 2008). The aim of this research is to evaluate and investigate the relationship of a Social Partnership for carrying out CSR between ONGC (BUS) and Helping Hand for Cancer Care (NPO) in India.
To achieve the significance of this study, it has been divided into a series of guiding questions:
1. The first section examines the context of business and civil society interactions. Which forms of CSR interventions have been formed for promoting community development in IndiaHow has social development been enhanced by CSR?
2. The second section elaborates the Company-Community Collaborations (henceforth CCC). Who are the stakeholders of CCCWhat kind of partnership can be developed between Corporations, community and government in the context of CSR What commitments can they make?
3. The third and the last section explore the role of government in social partnerships, the obstacles and opportunities and to find effective ways to promote such partnerships in India.
1.4. Objectives of Research:
In order to achieve the above aim, the objectives of this research are;
Present and briefly describe the understanding of CSR in India.
To investigate the relationship between ONGC and Helping Hand for Cancer Care in terms of implementing CSR through Social Partnership.
To analysis and evaluate the Social Partnership by employing Seitanidi’s holistic framework (2010) in terms of the three stages of partnership. For each stage of the analysis, all or some of the research questions adopted by Seitanidi (2010) will be utilised at different states.
Explore the findings of the analysis in order to derive the useful information that can help further research the subject matter.
Examine, based on the findings, whether this relationship can be considered a partnership.
1.5. Research Questions:
In order to evaluate the impact of Social Partnership between ONGC and Helping Hand for Cancer Care the following questions arise;
Q1. How is CSR understood in India?
Q2. How is Social Partnership understood in India?
Q3. Can Social Partnership be successful in implementing CSR?
Q4. The level of Commitments between the Partners ?
Q5. Recommendations for implementing CSR in better ways within the Social Partnership context
1.6. Structure of Dissertation:
The dissertation is divided into six chapters. Brief description of these chapters has been presented below.
Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter covers introduction of the dissertation and significance of study for Implementing CSR through Partnership in India. Research aims and objectives are also covered in chapter.
Chapter 2: Literature review. This chapter covers previous studies conducted in the field of topic. Partnership selections and its stages, meaning of NPO in India and the history of CSR in the Indian context.
Chapter 3: Company Profile. This chapter covers the background and history of ONGC and Helping Hand for Cancer Care on which this study is based.
Chapter 4: Methodology. This chapter contains a description of research methodology involved in this study. Research strategy, methods and context of study are important features of this chapter.
Chapter 5: Data Analysis and Discussions. This chapter summarizes finding from participants’ responses and evaluates the findings of the interview with the literature review.Chapter 6: Conclusion. This is a final chapter of the report and presents final conclusion of the project as well as further research recommendations
Chapter 2. Literature Review
CSR is a shifting concept and the espousal of CSR has become a matter of attention worldwide. People often talk about it as it was a recent phenomenon, but in reality its core is the ongoing effort to understand what it means to comprehend business as part of society (Ward. H, & Smith. C, 2006). Furthermore that it is an attempt as old as business Endeavour (Ward. H, & Smith. C, 2006).The issue of CSR is a very controversial subject that continues to attract a lot of attention, from those who argue that the whole issue is irrelevant to business (Freeman and Liedtka ,1991) through those who see the relevance, but think it is a bad idea for business(Friedman,1962 cited in Scribd, 2010), to a vast group of writers who think that CSR is of strategic importance of business (Asongu. J. J., 2007).There has been no shortage of history to dwell on to the debate about CSR. CSR is an area which investors, especially institutional investors are showing a growing interest. Academics, Business, NPO/NGO sectors have also gained escalating attention in the subject of CSR, which has resulted in extensive body of academic and practical literature.
With the help of recent development CSR partnership has becomes one of the effective way to meet the challenges a company may face. Despite the volume of writings on both CSR and partnerships, the literature review will focus on those areas most relevant to the research questions (Concern Universal Org.2010).
2.2. The history of CSR: Concepts and Practices
2.2.1. History of CSR:
The history of CSR is as old as the history of business itself, even though the concept was not formally formulated until recently (Asongu. J. J., 2007). The evolution of theCSR constructs established in the 1950s in United States. Until the 1990s publications on CSR came in peaks and troughs, rather than a steady rise (De Bakker, et al.2005). Business practices in the 1900’s that could be termed socially responsible took different forms; philanthropic donations to charity, services to the community, enhancing employee welfare and promoting religious conduct (Banerjee.B.S, 2007). In the early writings on CSR, it was referred to more often as social responsibility (SR) than as CSR. The decade of 1960’s marked a significant growth in the attempt to formalize what CSR means (Carroll.A , 1999 38: 268).
2.2.2. Concepts of CSR:
The first and most prominent writer to define CSR was Keith Davis, who defined SR by arguing that it refers to “businessmen’s decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical interest” (Davis, 1960, p. 70 cited in Crane, A., et.al 2008). Definitions expanded during the 1960s and proliferatedduring the 1970s. In the 1970’s there was mentioning about the Corporate Social Performance (CSP) and CSR. One of the major writers for CSP was S. Prakash Sethi . Sethi stated that,” whereas social obligation is proscriptive in nature, social responsibility is prescriptive” (Sethi 1975, cited in, Carroll.A , 1999 38: 268). In 1980’s the research of CSR gave way to alternative concepts such as CSP, stakeholder theory and business ethics. In 1991 Archive Carroll revisited the four part definition, he stated that, “For CSR to be accepted by the conscientious business person, it should be framed in such a way that the entire range of business responsibilities is embraced. It is suggested here that four kinds of social responsibilities constitute total CSR: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Furthermore, these four categories or components of CSR might be depicted as a pyramid. To be sure, all of 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” (Carroll.A , 1999 38: 268).
Figure 1 Carrol’s CSR Pyramid: (Source: CSR Quest, 2010)
The pyramid of CSR depicted the economic category as the base (the foundation upon which all others rest), and then built upward through legal, ethical, and philanthropic categories (Carroll, 1991, p. 42). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR (Carroll, 1991) (Cited in Crane and Matten, 2007), CSR can be divided in four categories, in a hierarchical format. This model’s graphical representation implied a hierarchy of responsibilities moving from economic and legal through to more socially oriented ones of ethical and philanthropic responsibilities (Meehan, J., Richards, A., Meehan, K.,2006, cited in, Carroll, 1991)
According to Carroll and Buchholtz (2000:35) (cited in Crane and Matten, 2007) “The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organisations at a given point in time”.
The next important concept which made a difference in CSR was the stakeholder theory (ST). The ST concept can be traced back to 1963, where it was first mentioned by name in a Stanford Research Institute Memorandum (Freeman, 1984 cited in Freeman, E., Hitt, M., et al ,2001). Since then ST has gained increasing use in strategy development literature. Its popularity has increased with the seminal publication of Freeman’s (1984) Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach (Polonsky.M, 1995). ST is based on the principle that “The firm takes into account all of those groups and individuals that can affect, or are affected by, the accomplishment of organizational purpose” (Freeman, 1984 cited in Polonsky.M, 1995). In one case a stakeholder might have a legal claim on the organization; for example, owners expecting a given level of financial performance. In another case a stakeholder, such as the general public, may simply be interested in how the organization affects the country’s economic growth. As can be seen stakeholder importance can vary, as can the specific organizational issues they are concerned with (Polonsky.M, 1995). Businesses come into regular contact with customers, suppliers, government agencies, families of employees, special interest groups. Decisions made by a business are likely to affect one or more of these “stakeholder groups” (Tutor2u, 2010). A major reason for increasing adoption of a Stakeholder Concept in setting business objectives is the recognition that businesses are affected by the “environment” in which they operate(Tutor2u, 2010) .
Figure 2: Stakeholder Model: (Source: Qwick Step.com, 2010)
Some other definitions: The World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2010, defines Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ,”as the continuing commitment of business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large”
Despite the growing awareness and popularity of the term CSR, there is no general consensus as to what it actually means. Plotting the future of CSR presents some basic challenges (Ward, H., Smith, C., 2006). The first is the basic uncertainty over how to define the scope and content of CSR. The lack of a single clear definition of CSR and its objective can often seem like a blockage in building common understanding on how best to move forward (Ward. H, & Smith. C, 2006). CSR as a term varies equally in its meaning across the economic literature as authors understanding of CSR differ regarding the evaluation of corporate purpose and motivation (Crane & Matten, 2004).The concept of CSR encompasses many dimensions of business activity ranging from the social (e.g. community programmes), to economic (e.g. employment) to the environmental (e.g. waste reduction).
The CSR definitions describe observable facts, but fail to present any guidance on how to manage the challenges within this phenomenon (Dahlsurd, A.2006). Therefore, the challenge for business is not so much to define CSR, as it is to understand how CSR is socially constructed in a specific context and how to take this into account when business strategies are developed (Dahlsurd, A.2006). CSR as a term varies equally in its meaning across the economic literature as authors understanding of CSR differ regarding the evaluation of corporate purpose and motivation (Crane & Matten, 2004).The concept of CSR encompasses many dimensions of business activity ranging from the social (e.g. community programmes), to economic (e.g. employment) to the environmental (e.g. waste reduction) (Beril,Z., Burcu, O., 2007).The theoretical approach to CSR is based on the question of what organisations are responsible for and what they are motivated by (Bueble,E. 2008).
2.3. Perceptions and Practices of CSR in India:
A group of Economist and Politicians have given a name to the emerging countries from different continents the ‘BRIC countries’ Brazil, Russia, India and China. The term was first used in the Goldman Sachs 2003. The BRIC’s economic and political context provides a general context for the future of CSR (Mullerat. R., 2010)
The notion of CSR is not new in India. It has a long tradition of paternalistic philanthropy. Corporate Philanthropy and industrial welfare has been put to practices since the late 1800’s in India (Gupta, A.2007). The arrival of the East India Company in 1620 was a milestone in the history of trade and of socio-political in India. Over the subsequent 200 years, the purely trade and business interest of the East India Company changed to social and political management of the country by company executives until 1885, when India came under the British crown. The business leaders of emerging indigenous industry remained rooted in the tradition of philanthropy, which gradually metamorphosed into CSR (Gupta, A.2007). According to Chakraborty, 1997 the strength of Indian traditions and classical literature provides an underlying ethos that reinforces CSR, but also argues that modern business practices are likely to erode this. The market liberalizations process, which began in 1991, heralded a new era of change in India, it promoted a more pragmatic and western –style ethical stances (Fisher et al. 2001; Sharma, S.2009).
A survey by the Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) called ‘Altered Images: the 2001 State of Corporate Responsibility in India Poll’ Traces Back the History of CSR in India and suggests that there are four models of CSR (TERI, 2010).
1)Ethical model : The origin of the first ethical model of corporate responsibility lie in the pioneering efforts of 19 th century corporate philanthropists such as the Cadbury brothers in England and the Tata family in India. The pressure on Indian industrialists to demonstrate their commitment to social development increased during the independence movement, when Mahatma Gandhi developed the notion of ‘trusteeship’, whereby the owners of property would voluntarily manage their wealth on behalf of the people. Gandhi’s influence prompted various Indian companies to play active roles in nation building and promoting socio-economic development during the 20th century. The history of Indian corporate philanthropy has encompassed cash or kind donations, community investment in trusts and provision of essential services such as schools, libraries, hospitals, etc. Many firms, particularly ‘family-run businesses’, continue to support such philanthropic initiatives.
2)Statist model: A second model of CSR emerged in India after independence in 1947, when India adopted the socialist and mixed economy framework, with a large public sector and state-owned companies. The boundaries between the state and society were clearly defined for the state enterprises. Elements of corporate responsibility, especially those relating to community and worker relationships, were enshrined in labour laws and management principles. This state sponsored corporate philosophy still operates in the numerous public sector companies that have survived the wave of privatization of the early 1990s.
3)Liberal Model: Indeed, the worldwide trend towards privatization and deregulation can be said to be underpinned by a third model of corporate responsibility – that companies are solely responsible to their owners. This approach was encapsulated by the American economist Milton Fried-man, who in 1958 challenged the very notion of corporate responsibility for anything other than the economic bottom line. Many in the corporate world and elsewhere would agree with this concept, arguing that it is sufficient for business to obey the law and generate wealth, which through taxation and private charitable choices can be directed to social ends.
4)Stakeholder Model: The rise of globalisation has brought with it a growing consensus that with increasing economic rights, business also has a growing range of social obligations. Citizen campaigns against irresponsible corporate behaviour along with consumer action and increasing shareholder pressure have given rise to the stakeholder model of corporate responsibility. This view is often associated with R. Edward Freeman, whose seminal analysis of the stakeholder approach to strategic management in 1984 brought stake holding into the mainstream of management literature (Freeman, 1984). Ac-cording to Freeman, ‘a stakeholder in an organisation is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives.’ (TERI, 2010).
Corporate India has always boasted a strong tradition of corporate philanthropy, where business leaders have been viewed as leaders of social development (Mohan 2001). Regardless of this strong tradition of philanthropy, CSR research in India in the recent past has primarily focused on identifying the ideal ‘how to carry out CSR,’ often leading to contradictory findings on the related practices (Kumar et al. 2001). According to a survey done by the Teri Foundation, the most apprehensive national problems which Indians are concerned about are Overpopulation, environmental problems, spread of human diseases, and depletion of natural resources.
Using the framework of CSR, the Indian definition of CSR would view the following at descending order of importance (Pratiyogita Darpan Aug 2008):
a)Activities aimed at communities that benefit them in sustainable manner (Philanthropic, Social, Investment, or Commercial initiatives).
b)Basic Business practices that go beyond legal compliance to benefitting the disadvantaged amongst the company’s stakeholders.
c)Advocating change in public policy and laws that benefit disadvantaged people.
2.4. Global Practices of CSR:
Despite of the different definitions and meanings, CSR comprises of six broad set of initiatives and techniques; Responsibility and monitoring framework, Financial SR indexes, International Conventions and the Millennium Development Goals, Principles, standards and norms (United Nations Environment Programme,2009).
2.5. Government Initiatives’ for CSR in India:
India is an emerging economic powerhouse, Indian business has traditionally been socially responsible and some of the business houses have demonstrated their efforts on this front in a laudable manner yet poverty, health problems, environment problems remains the reality for most of the Indian population (Goyal, 1999;Gangrade, 2001; Siddiqui, 2003). The culture of social responsibility needs to go deeper in the governance of the businesses. In order to assist the businesses to adopt responsible governance practices, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has prepared a set of voluntary guidelines which indicate some of the core elements that businesses need to focus on while conducting their affairs (Ministry of Corporate Affairs Government of India, 2009).
1) The CSR policy of the business entity should provide for an implementation strategy which should include identification of projects/activities, setting measurable physical targets with timeframe, organizational mechanism and responsibilities, time schedules and monitoring. Companies may partner with local authorities, business associations and civil society/non-government organizations. They may influence the supply chain for CSR initiative and motivate employees for voluntary effort for social development. They may evolve a system of need assessment and impact assessment while undertaking CSR activities in a particular area. Independent evaluation may also be undertaken for selected projects/activities from time to time.
2) Companies should allocate specific amount in their budgets for CSR activities. This amount may be related to profits after tax, cost of planned CSR activities or any other suitable parameter.
3) To share experiences and network with other organizations the company should engage with well established and recognized programmes/platforms which encourage responsible business practices and CSR activities. This would help companies to improve on their CSR strategies and effectively project the image of being socially responsible.
4) The companies should disseminate information on CSR policy, activities and progress in a structured manner to all their stakeholders and the public at large through their website, annual reports, and other communication media.
The above guidelines are cited in Corporate Social Responsibility Voluntary Guidelines 2009, Ministry of Corporate Affairs Government of India.
According to Waddock (1988:18) social partnership is “A commitment by a corporation or a group of corporations to work with an organisation from a different economic sector (public or nonprofits). It involves a commitment of resources – time and effort – by individuals from all partner organisations. These individuals work co-operatively to solve problems that affect them all. The problem can be defined at least in part as a social issue; its solution will benefit all partners. Social partnership addresses issues that extend beyond organisational boundaries and traditional goals and lie within the traditional realm of public policy – that is, in the social arena. It requires active rather than passive involvement from all parties. Participants must make a resource commitment that is more than merely monetary”. Partnership is a general term that encompasses a board range of types of relationships. It is an activity to do something together, a correlation that consists of mutual or attuned objective and an acknowledged distribution of specific roles and responsibilities among the participants (Mullerat.R, 2010). At the World Economic Forum in 1999, UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, presented the Global Compact challenging business leaders all over the world to ‘embrace and enact’ a set of universal principles in the areas of human rights, labour standards and the environment(UNRISD, 2010). The Compact also encourages business to engage in cross-sector partnerships with the public sector and civil society in order to promote development (UN Global Compact, 2010). At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 the need for and the importance of collaborative alliances between the three sectors was highlighted further. Partnerships as a new approach to development were put very high on the agenda and during the 9 days of the summit more than 300 partnerships between governments, NGOs and business were announced (Johannesburg Summit, 2010). Since then the partnership model has gained further ground as a new approach to development and an important tool for the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals. The partnership model is not only supported by the development community. It is also widely embraced by the private sector. When the term partnership was employed it was primarily used to refer to partnerships between the Government and Business usually termed as “PPP” (Public-Private Partnership”). According to Googins and Rochlin (2000), “partnerships offer the chance to form a strong arrangement where each party’s distinctive capabilities and resources are combined, complementing and strengthening each other, thus creating results that are a lot better than any results each sector could create on its own”. In the past 25years, collaborative activities are becoming more prominent and extensive in all sectors (Alter & Hage, 1993: 12).Many significant activities by business in society involving CSR require collaboration partnership with others, and particularly public sectors (Selsky and Parker,2005).
Cross-sector partnerships bring together actors from two or more sectors to work on problems whose solutions often require the information and capacities of more than one sector (Brown. D. L., 2005). According to Seitaindi. M, and Ryan, 2007, cross-sector partnerships have been one of the most exciting and challenging ways that organizations have been implementing CSR in recent years. NPO-BUS partnership is one of the four different types of partnerships (Figure 1) that represent what is referred to as ‘social partnerships’ (Waddock 1988; Googins & Rochlin 2000) or as ‘Cross-sector partnerships that address social issues’ (CSSPs) (Selsky and Parker 2005:1).
Figure 3: Cross Sector Partnership (Source Seitanidi.M, 2007)
One type of collaborative engagement is partnerships among business, government, and civil society—the three main societal sectors that address social issues and causes (Austin, 2000; Stone, 2000; Young, 1999). In these cross-sectors social-oriented partnerships, or CSSPs, organizations jointly address challenges such as economic development, education, health care, poverty alleviation, community capacity building, and environmental sustainability. According to Selky and Parker, 2005 CSSP’s is defined as, “Cross-sector projects formed explicitly to address social issues and causes that actively engage the partners on an ongoing basis. Such projects may be transactional– short-term, constrained and largely self-interest oriented or integrative (Austin, 2000 cited in Selky and Parker, 2005) and developmental—long-term, open-ended and largely common interest oriented” (Googins & Rochlin, 2000; Wymer & Samu, 2003 cited in Selky and Parker, 2005).
2.6.2. Selection of Partnership:
Partnership implementation does not begin after a strategy has been planned and designed, but is integral to its selection in the first place. The first phase of partnership implementation is therefore Partnership Selection, which commences with the decision to choose ‘partnership’ as the preferred associational form rather than other forms of community involvement (Seitanidi and Ryan, 2007). The selection of partnership done in this study is influenced by Selky and Parkers (2005) study on CSSP’s and as an operational device for this review, its division into four different grounds,
1)Represents partnerships between non-profit organizations and businesses that encompass social issues and causes. They tend to center on environmental issues and economic development initiatives but also address health, equity, and education issues.
2)Represents partnerships between governments and businesses. The main form here is the public-private partnership (e.g., Rosenau, 2000a). They tend not to concentrate directly on social issues or causes but on infrastructure development and public services such as water and electricity that have important social implications.
3)Represents partnerships between governments and non-profit organizations. This encompasses contracting out of public services and “third way” public policy approaches (Salamon, 1995). Studies in this arena tend to concentrate on job development and welfare.
4)Represents partnerships that involve actors from all three sectors. This arena focuses on large-scale national or international multi sector projects, but sub national projects are also included. Studies in this arena tend to focus on economic and community development, social services, environmental concerns, and health.
5)Represents transactional type of partnership, which may be described as a one way transfer of resources that is being termed as ‘partnership’ (Austin, 2000).
The partnership selection in this study consists of external stakeholder, which is Non-profit organisation in this case. The focus of this study will be only one type of Cross-sector partnership i.e. BUS-NPO Partnership, as described in the above arena no.1 which represent a brief explanation of BUS and NPO partnership.
The criteria employed to select the case were:
1)The scope of activities (international/national);
2)The purpose of the partnership (focusing on an environmental or social issue);
3)Type of resources exchanged across the partner organisations (financial/ nonfinancial);
4)the type of organisational reputation (a combination of three level scales of high–medium–low and positive–neutral–negative was employed based on the media content assessed for the original research)
5)The style of activity among the two organisations which here was constant (collaborative interaction) since the issue under examination was partnership implementation.
2.6.3. Defining the terms:
The focus of this study will be only on one type of partnership, i.e. NPO-BUS partnership with in a developing economy. It is important to discuss the terms that employed within the literature in order to justify their selection.
Non-Profit (NPO): Non-profit organizations are usually classified as either member serving (addressing the needs of only a select number of individuals) or public. The non-profit sector is a collection of entities that are organizations; private as opposed to governmental; non-profit distributing; self-governing; voluntary; and of public benefit. It often referred to as the third sector, independent sector, voluntary sector, philanthropic sector, social sector, tax-exempt sector, or the charitable sector (Learning to give, N.A).
Business (BUS): Business refers to a collection of individuals and structures grouped under the legal form of corporation in order to increase and maintain profit within particular spheres of interest (Seitanidi.M, 2010).
2.6.4. How is NPO/NGO understood in India?
India has a long tradition of volunteerism and charity. Movements for liberalisation, social reforms, welfare and development, and conscientisation per se have taken place in this country and continue to do so. During the latter part of the past century, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of civil society organizations in every part of the world. The growth in non-profit organizations (NPOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have experienced exponential increase in the number and scope around the globe.
The long history of voluntarism has provided a plethora of terms to represent such entities: voluntary organisation, voluntary agency, philanthropic organisation, people’s organisation, community-based organisation, non-government organisation, non-profit organisation, etc. There have been efforts to define these terms. These have at least facilitated categorisation of the entire sector under two subdivisions: one is popularly called ‘intermediary organisation’ and the other ‘grass-roots organisation’. There are several theories that have attempted to explain the origin and growth of the voluntary sector. According to Sen (1993), the status of NPOs is described purely on the basis of their structure and operation, and not their purpose or their source of income. However the term NGO is negative and non-explanatory because it includes private sector organisations, development corporations, etc. According to the UN (1968), ‘NGOs are any of those organisations which are not part of a government and which have not been established as a result of an agreement between governments’ (UN, 1968, cited in Ravichandran.N, et.al , 2006).
In India a voluntary non-governmental or non-profit organisation is what the law says it is, it does not recognise the term “non-government” in any sense or context. According to the Indian National Accounts System there are only two sectors: public and private, and within the latter, business enterprises and households. Due to this there are no separate categories for NPO within private sector, which means that there are located in household sector. Hence the Indian National Accounts System prevents the use of definition for NPO, due to the absence of such category ( Ravichandran.N, et.al , 2006).
2.6.5. Stages of CSSP’s:
According to Selsky and Parker (2005: 854), CSSPs can be examined according to ‘chronological stages’. Using several studies done by different researchers the three stages of building a cross-sector partnership between BUS-NPO, under which several studies are incorporated are;
1). Formation: Trust is one of the formation stages of CSSP and is viewed as an input to collaborative relationship (Hardy, Philips, & Lawrence, 1998; Iyer, 2003). But trust may have different meanings in the corporate world and in the non-profit sectors (Parker & Selsky, 2004). In the corporate world the term trust is traditionally based on controlled contractual exchanges, and in the non-profit sectors it is based on solidarity with the mission or on shared
values (Parker & Selsky, 2004). According to Huxham and Vangen, 1996, there are three motivation levels behind this kind of partnerships:
a)Meta-goals or the common goals,
b)Goals of each partner,
c)Goals of specific individual involved.
Mostly goals of each partner are taken into consideration while doing a research. A frequent topic regarding the partner’s goal is that the goals of a Non-profit tend to be more altruistic (Milne et al., 1996), while the goals of the business may be to enhance corporate image, selling products, gathering social capital ect. (Alsop, 2004).
2. Implementation: Implementing a shared or common vision among independent actors (Gray, 1989) typically means developing a common culture held together by shared values, common interests, and clear communication(Selky and Parker, 2005). The shared meta-goal is one source of CSSP identity building (Hardy, 1994). There may be difficulties often arising while implementing partnership between two different sectors. To overcome these complications Westly and Vredenburg, 1991 suggest on focusing on the meta-goals, by realigning partners expectations. It is also very crucial to develop a clear communication between partners.
3. Outcomes: Outcomes of business-non-profit partnerships have been measured at three levels: direct impact on the issue and its stakeholders; impact on building capacity, knowledge, or reputational capital that can attract new resources; and influence on social policy or system change. Direct impacts are most frequently measured, and more often in businesses than in nonprofits (Selky and Parker, 2005).
2.6.6. Seitanidi’s Holistic Framework:
Most of the literature of cross-sector partnership focuses on its strategic use. Seitanidi’s Holistic Framework diverges the literature by examining if the partnerships can deliver benefits that extend beyond the organisational to the societal level resulting from the intentional combined efforts of the partners (Seitanidi, 2010).
The framework is very essential as it critically examines Selky and Parker’s ‘Chronological stages’ of partnership and allows observation beyond any single stage. Therefore, this study will adopt Seitanidi’s holistic framework (2010), in order to evaluate a relationship in a holistic way.
3.1. Company Profile:
ONGC is a Stated-Owned Company, which was incorporated in 1959. Its sale is Rs82.00 billion (US$4.52 billion), and it has 47,757 employees working with it (Reference for Business, 2010).
3.2. Background Information:
The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) is one of Asia’s largest companies involved in exploration and production of oil. It produces more than 77% of India’s domestic petroleum and more than 81% of natural gas. The Petroleum Intelligence Weekly ranked ONGC as the 32nd largest oil company in the world. ONGC has its operations spread all over the country, both on-land and offshore. ONGC has an extensive installed infrastructure of drilling and workout rigs, onshore/ offshore production facilities, well stimulation services, subsea and land pipelines, gas processing and fractionation facilities, refineries, exploration and transport vessels, storages facilities and other infrastructure located throughout the main oil and gas producing regions of India (Mital.A, 2008).
The main objective of ONGC as laid down under section14 of the ONGC Act 1959 reads as “ The commission shall plan, promote, organise and implement programmes for the development of petroleum resources and the production and sales of petroleum and petroleum products produced by it and to perform such functions as the central government may assign to the commission” (Singh. B.A, Singh. A, 2004).
The importance of petroleum to India’s energy needs cannot be overstated. Currently, oil comprises approximately 34 percent of India’s total energy consumption and has been growing gradually as a share of the country’s energy consumption in recent years.
During the pre-independence period, the Assam Oil Company in the north-eastern and Attock Oil company in north-western part of the undivided India were the only oil companies producing oil in the country, with minimal exploration input. After independence, the national Government realized the importance of oil and gas for rapid industrial development and its strategic role in defence. Until 1955, private oil companies mainly carried out exploration of hydrocarbon resources of India. In Assam, the Assam Oil Company was producing oil at Digboi and the Oil India Ltd. was engaged in developing two newly discovered large fields Naharkatiya and Moran in Assam. In West Bengal, the Indo-Stanvac Petroleum project was engaged in exploration work. The vast sedimentary tract in other parts of India and adjoining offshore remained largely unexplored.
In 1955, Government of India decided to develop the oil and natural gas resources in the various regions of the country as part of the Public Sector development. With this objective, an Oil and Natural Gas Directorate was set up towards the end of 1955.
Soon, after the formation of the Oil and Natural Gas Directorate, it became apparent that it would not be possible for the Directorate with its limited financial and administrative powers as subordinate office of the Government, to function efficiently. The corporate history of ONGC began in 1956, with the mandate for exploration and production (E&P) of hydrocarbons in India. So in August, 1956, the Directorate was raised to the status of a commission with enhanced powers, although it continued to be under the government. In October 1959, the Commission was converted into a statutory body by an act of the Indian Parliament, which enhanced powers of the commission further. The main functions of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission subject to the provisions of the Act, were “to plan, promote, organize and implement programmes for development of Petroleum Resources and the production and sale of petroleum and petroleum products produced by it, and to perform such other functions as the Central Government may, from time to time, assign to it “.The act further outlined the activities and steps to be taken by ONGC in fulfilling its mandate.
In July 1991, the Government of India adopted liberalized economic policy which sought to de-regulate and de-license the core sectors including the petroleum sector. In 1993 after the adaptation of business of the former Oil & Natural Gas Commission to that of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, the Government disinvested 2 per cent of its shares. ONGC was thereof re-organised as a limited company under the company’s act 1956, in February 1994 (ONGC India Limited, 2009-2010).
3.4. Helping Hand 4 Cancer Care:
Helping hand for cancer care is a non-profit organisation which has grown out of Jaslok hospital. It is an initiative of Dr. Geeta. S.Advani and her husband Dr. Sh.H.Advani, an eminent medical oncologist. The organisation has been in existence from the past 6 years with the collaborative effort of the oncologists, oncology social workers, patients and their families and volunteers from all walks of life. Mobile Mammography breast clinic which aims to detect breast cancer at an early stage is the dream project of helping hand for cancer care. The literacy rate in India is low especially amongst women, which makes them unaware of diseases like breast cancer. Hence NGO like helping hand for cancer care help in spreading awareness of breast cancer in women between the age group of 40-70 years. The Mobile Mammography screening Van which runs all over Mumbai, is sponsored by ONGC. This initiative undertaken by ONGC and helping hand for cancer care is to teach and encourage the women for self breast examination which is necessary once a month (Helping Hand 4 Cancer Care, /).
This chapter shall discuss the research methods available forthe study and what is applicable for it to use in response for research questions in chapter 1 which is directed towards the impact of Social Partnerships between ONGC and Helping Hand for Cancer Care.
Similarly, this chapter presents the various procedures and strategies in identifying sources for needed information on the analysis and evaluation of the Social Partnership.
Therefore this part of the study specifies the method of research used, research design, respondents of the study, data collection, conducted semi-structures interview, data representative and data analysis of the gathered data.
4.2. Methods of Research Used:
As there is no Quantification involved in this study, Qualitative research was utilized. ‘Qualitative Research means any type of research that produces findings not arrived by statistical procedures or other means of quantification’ (Strauss,A.,L., and Corbin. J.,1998). This research methodology is proven to be very important in the analysis of the relationship between business and society (Harrison and Freeman, 1999). In explaining qualitative research, Denzin and Lincoln state that, qualitative implies an emphasis on processes and meanings that are not rigorously examined, measured (if measured at all), in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. Thus, there are instances, particularly in the social sciences, where researchers are interested in insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing (Noor. K.B., 2008).
4.3. The Research Design:
In order to come up with the most suitable research approaches and strategies for this study, Saunders et al. (2003) the research process onion is used. With the said process, it is easy to create an outline on what measures are most appropriate to be applied in the study. According to Saunder’s et al 2003, the central issue on how to collect the data needed to answer the research questions, there are important layers of onion that needed to peeled away.
4.4 Research Philosophy:
The research philosophy used for this study is Critical Realism. Critical Realism sees not only to understand but also to explain the social world (Kasi.P.M., 2009:96). According to Bhaskar (1998:2) critical realism is
‘A specific form of realism whose manifesto is to recognize the reality of the natural order and the events and discourses of the social world and holds that we will only be able to understand and so change-the social world if we identify the structures at work that generate those events and discourses…..These structures are not spontaneously apparent in the observable pattern of events; they can only be identified through the practical and theoretical work of the social sciences’.
This study is a combination of various theories and practical information collected from ONGC and Helping Hand for Cancer Care patients, to identify the cross-sector partnership.
Within Qualitative research, this study is based in an inductive design. According to Bryman and Bell (2007: 12), in an inductive method
‘the researcher infers the implications of his or her findings for the theory that prompted the whole exercise. The findings are fed back into the stock of theory and the research findings associated with a certain domain of enquiry.’
Figure1: Induction theory
Source: Adopted from Bryman and Bell (2007), Business research methods, p.14
This study evaluates whether a specific cross-sector partnership between ONGC and Helping Hand for Cancer Care can be considered. This requires an in-depth understanding and exploration of the relevant literature needed.
4.6. Research Strategies:
According to Yin (1998) the term case refers to an event, an entity, an individual or even a unit of analysis. It is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence. A single case is used for this study. Among other CSR partnerships of ONGC, only Helping Hand for Cancer Care Patients has been used to classify the social partnership between them. Hence the Case Study approach is the most suitable research strategy for this study. As said by Noor, (2008) case study is not intended as a study of the entire organisation, rather is intended to focus on a particular issue feature or unit of analysis. A case study is being concerned with the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions, which allow the investigation of contextual realities and differences between what was planned and what, actually occurred (Anderson, G., 1993).
4.7. Data Collection Methods:
Data has been collected from a variety of sources, allowing for a number of different perspectives to be taken into consideration in the development of the recommendations.
This study would be incomplete without secondary research. According to Stewart D. W, and Kamins M.A, (1993) ‘Secondary information consists of sources of data and other information collected by others and archived in some other form’.This data collection method is quicker, inexpensive and at most times a point of departure for primary research.
For this study, the secondary data was collected from written documents such as company reports, other documents, and online information. Other information which structure the theory were journals, books, other policy documents, and reviews complement the study.
Primary Data is any information collected specifically for the investigation at hand (Boone et al, 2007). The primary data for this study is gathered by conducting Semi-Structured interview. Semi-structured interview is one of the principal methods for collecting primary data. The choice of semi-structured interview rather than any other data collection method was employed because it is non-standardised and offers more flexibility to approach different respondents differently while still covering the same areas of data collection.
With the permission of the participants the interviews were tape-recorded for the insurance that all data will be noted.
Respondents of the study:
In this study from the ONGC side the respondents’ were the H.R. Manager of ONGC, the retired officer of the CSR department, the General Manager and the interns of the CSR department for the interview.
While from Helping Hand for Cancer care patients the respondents’ for the interview were one of the Doctors, A trusty of the NPO and a few patients.
4.8. Data Analysis of Methods:
The most commonly used qualitative analysis approach in the domain of social science is the organisation of data according to topics, ideas or concepts often called themes (Swanwic. T., 2010). The method of analysis chosen for this study was Thematic Analysis which is a process for encoding qualitative research (Boyatzis, 1998). According to Kellehear et al (1997), thematic analysis is a search for themes that appear as being vital to the description of the phenomenon. It is a form of pattern recognition within the data, where emerging themes become the categories for analysis (Fereday. J.,Muir-Cochrane.E., 2006). As the primary data for this research was qualitative, thematic analysis was found to be the most suitable, as its focal point is to recognize themes and patterns of behaviour (Aronson, 1994).
Chapter 5. Data Analysis & Discussions
This chapter will present and discuss the findings by employing the Holistic frame work laid down by Seitanidi, (2010) and Chronological Stages described by Selsky and Parker (2005).More specifically; the findings will be grouped through the application of the framework.
5.2. Application of the Frame work:
According to Seitanidi’s (2010) Holistic frame work and the Chronological stages as mentioned in the literature review, there are three stages of a partnership.
1).Partnership Formation stage:
The Formation stage of the social partnership consists of a set of construct.
Organisational Character Historical Evolution Motives
Of the relationship
A}. Organisational Characteristics:
In this section the structure of each organisation under examination before the collaboration will be presented, based on each organisation’s characteristics. Since, it is possible that the structure of an organisation affects its relationships.
ONGC is a leading public sector company of oil and natural gas engaged in E&P (Exploration and Production) activities in India. It is a state owned company; hence the Indian Government has the majority of stake in the company. The Government together with two states energy firms maintain an 84.11% in O.N.G.C. (Ganguly, S. 2007). O.N.G.C has a 47,757 employees working with it, and its sales is more than 4.52 billion $.
O.N.G.C. Organisational Chart
Source: O.N.G.C. official website 2009-2010.
Available at : http://www.ongcindia.com/organogram.asp
It has a hierarchical organisational structure rather than flat. It means that it has more layers of management and a more formal leadership style (Berger et al., 2004). The benefits of this type of structure are the quick decisiveness and action by the powerful people ((Berger et al., 2004).
ONGC’s very first Sustainability Report was produced in2009-2010. On the basis of this report, a CSR guidelines report was also made in July 2009. According to these guidelines report, their new CSR approach emphasised on transformation of CSR from ‘Philanthropy’ to ‘Stakeholder Participation’
ONGC is spearheading the United Nations Global Compact – World’s biggest corporate citizenship initiative to bring Industry, UN bodies, NGOs, Civil societies and corporate on the same platform (http://www.ongcindia.com/people.asp).
Helping Hand for Cancer Care:
It is an NPO established in 2002, and formed as a registered organisation in 2005. It is an initiative for helping patients’ surviving from cancer. Its dream project is to have more Mobile Mammography clinic for the early detection of breast cancer in Indian Women. While interviewing a member of the NPO, it was stated that:
“The helping Hand is doing a stupendous job in bringing for the masses a costly test for breast cancer detection at affordable rates so the Breast cancer detection reaches out to a large population”.
In spite of the progress India is making, the literacy rate among women is relatively low, which makes them unaware about the health issues. The mobile mammography clinics make it easier to reach the mass audience and spread awareness. This is clearly stated from a Dr. Working for the NPO
“This initiative of Mobile Mammography and Cancer awareness is an excellent media to spread the message of awareness for the early detection and prompt diagnosis for early management of Breast cancer. The impact it leaves behind among the common masses after the camp is tremendous.”
Source: Help for cancer care org.
Available at: http://www.helpforcancercare.org/Meet%20the%20Team.html
The organisational chart of this NPO is small and hierarchical in structure. According to Berger et al., (2004), the smaller the NPO, the more flexible, energetic and eager it will be. They may also appear to be more accommodating to the company, more malleable, more willing to accept risk, and more likely to offer exclusivity. It is more like a small team joining hands for a common cause.
B}. Historical Evolution of the relationship:
ONGC has CSR projects like undertaking villages, developing schools, hospitals ect in parts of the rural India. But in a city like Mumbai, where it has its head office, development of schools and hospitals was not needed. Hence it wanted a partner who needed their help in one of the CSR areas in which ONGC is involved.
Helping Hand for cancer care served ONGC’s CSR needs in the health sector. The NPO was suggested by the Additional Chief Medical General of ONGC, as he had consulted and worked with the NPO before.
As stated by him,
“Helping hand is professionally managed NPO which is serving the community and the poorer section of the society for early detection of Breast cancer.”
According to Seitanidi. M.(2010) the historical evolution of a pre-existing relationship can be either due to previous interaction between partners which included collaboration regional offices or consultation on special issues.
The formation of the partnership took place in 2009. A simple MOU was signed by both the partners. The agreement was to donate a mobile mammography clinic to the NPO for fighting breast cancer.
C}. Motives associated with each partner:
To set a particular criterion for a partnership selection, it includes a number of factors which enable the decision to partner with a particular organisation. Partner motivation is one of the frequent topics of discussion in the formation stage. Motivational differences are said to derail collaborative intent (Selky & Parker, 2005).
Regarding the motives of each organisation, in term of ONGC which is a state owned company, the motives were;
1). Firstly to involve ‘stakeholder participation’. NGO/NPO has always been one of the stakeholders. Hence the participation of an NPO was necessary and it also lead to the indirect participation of people at the grass root level.
2). To enhance organisation’s reputation (Seitanidi, M. 2010).
3). Seeking synergy with the partner who can support in the delivery of the goals.
4). Cost- effective relationship (Seitanidi, M. 2010).
5). Covering similar geographical area.
According to Iyer (2003) a common motive for a BUS is to pursue self-interest like enhancing corporate image (Alsop, 2004; Zammit, 2004). The motives of some organisation also tend to examine the effects of internal and external stakeholders. In this case, ONGC views stakeholder management as a means to an end (Sleky & Parker, 2005).
In most of the case studies, the motives of the non-profit tend to be altruistic in nature (Milne et al., 1996). Along with this, the NPO may also view their partnership with the BUS as a way to influence the society and to become important intuitional actors (Doh & Teegen, 2002).
In the case of Helping Hand for cancer care, the motives were;
1).To enhances organisation reputation.
2). Financial support in order to increase its activities.
3). Reaching as many people as possible and covering similar geographical area.
4). To encourage and educate the women.
From the findings of each organisation’s characteristics and each party’s motives, it can be argued that, ONGC’s collaborates with the NPO is for enhancing organisation image. Due to loss of public confidence towards the governmentin India and changes in the philanthropic giving’s (Weisbrod, 1997), it was necessary to enhance partnership with a private NPO like Helping Hand for Cancer Care.
While the NPO perspective is to seek financial help, make a social change at a bigger platform through the help of partnership and improve organisation reputation.
2). Partnership Implementation stage:
Moving towards the second stage of a relationship, the implementation stage here the objective is to investigate the evolution of the dynamics between the two organisations and to identify the phases of the partnership process (Seitanidi, 2010). The Holistic framework of Seitanidi involves three stages of partnership implementation;
A}. Partnership Selection:
The partnership selection stage is the first step of partnership implementation. It commences with the decision to choose partnership as a preferred form of association. As ONGC’s CSR policies have changed from Philanthropic to stakeholder participation, it is clear that social partnership is the ideal form of association.
B}. Partnership Design:
The second phase is to identify the design of the partnership. There are many sub-sections involved in the designing procedure, among which only a few are utilized in this partnership.
This stage involves experimentation with partnership relation, like drafting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and setting up partnership objectives (Seitanidi, 2008). An MOU was also drafted in case of ONGC and helping hand for cancer. The MOU was also necessary as a part of the government policy. Another area of partnership design is the partnership structure which involves several departments. In this study, as seen in the organisational structure the medical department fall under the H.R. department. The NPO was bought in by the medical department, while the documentation work was done by the H.R. department and the implementation was carry forwarded by the corporate communication department.
To summarize, although this partnership has undergone the experimentation and partnership structure phase, the partnership design is not completed. One of the most crucial phases is the ‘Virtual team’ (Seitanidi, 2008). This phase comprises a team of people from the BUS to help in the smooth functioning of the NPO. This leads to the ultimate adaption of the partnership. Hence this relationship went one step back and instead of strengthening its interactions, they separated their activities.
C}. Partnership Institutionalisation:
Reaching to a partnership institutionalisation stage is a long process. The relationship has to pass a few tests for a partnership to reach the institutionalisation stage. The first stage is known as ‘Relationship mastering’ stage. It means that although a crisis may occur, it can be resolved rather than cause a serious problem in the relationship (Seitanidi, 2010). The second stage involves familiarisation on personal level rather than just organisational level. This stage is known as the ‘Personal Familiarisation’ Seitanidi, 2008).
The relationship in this study as stated before is formed by the advice of the Additional Medical officer of ONGC, who had worked with the NPO before. Hence there is evidence of personal familiarisation in this partnership. But the partnership did not pass the relationship mastering stage.
To conclude with, the partnership in this study did not pass all the levels of the designing stage. As the level of familiarity was long before the formation stage, it can be argued that this relationship did not begin at the ‘selection process’ (Seitanidi, 2010). The design and institutionalisation stages are not completely passed by the organisations. The ‘Virtual Team’ phase could be relevant both the stages which could smoothen the relationship and pass the partnership designing stage completely.
The dynamics of this relationship involve the level of interaction between the organisations (Seitanidi,2008). According to Le Ber and Branzei (2010), (cited in Yaziji and Doh, 2009) if the BUS and NPO have a high level of engagement and interact frequently, than the strategic value of the partnership is also high. This leads to a more resourceful cross-sector partnership (Rondinelli and London, 2003). Although there seem to be clear communication between the two organisations in this study, it was more in an informal way. This resulted in lack of integration at some levels.
3).The Partnership Outcomes:
The outcomes of the BUS-NPO partnership have been measured at three levels: Organisation, Social, and Societal benefits (Selky, 2005) (Seitanidi, 2010). Although the partnership didn’t go through all the stages successfully, the outcomes of the partnership were benefitted to all. The motives and goals which each organisation had planned were achieved through this partnership.
The outcomes achieved by BUS:
1} ONGC has built a very health corporate reputation in terms of business and community involvement. This kind of CSR practice was taken up for the first time. This relationship did the work of filling up the gap of communication between the stakeholders and people at grass root level (Selky, 2005). This has enhanced the reputation of ONGC even more.
2} ONGC spends 16.5% in the health care sector; hence it needed a partner in this sector only. It has developed few cancer care hospitals in Assam and other parts of India. But setting up a hospital in a city like Mumbai would take a huge investment. Hence it joins hand with helping hand for cancer care for a cost-effective relationship.
3} To spread awareness among women of breast cancer.
The outcomes achieved by the NPO:
1} The financial support given by ONGC, helped to accomplish a very important dream of having a Mobile mammography clinic to help breast cancer.
2} After having a partnership with ONGC, it started bring recognised as a serious NPO, as it got more associates to help them. It also has a trust, which helps in giving finance to deprived people for cancer operation and treatments.
3} It also helped in improving its facilities and increasing public awareness. Now it also has its own Yoga centre for Cancer patients.
4} Along with all this, there were many successful stories of pre-medical treatment and recovery of cancer patients.
“…. It is a very inspirational organisation, which is working for a very noble cause. Breast cancer in India has been ignored a lot”. (A patient from the NPO).
Another outcome which both the organisation gained was the learning outcome. According to Waddell (1999) and London et al., (2005) learning is an important outcome in the cross-sector partnership. The learning process of ONGC started when it shifted its CSR policies from philanthropic to stake holder participation. After the transformation in the CSR policies, the partnership between ONGC and Helping Hand for cancer care was the first to be formed. Hence there were many flaws in it. The first learning outcome for the BUS was to develop more interpersonal skills which would make the partnership more resourceful, social learning that can lead to needed innovation (Waddell, 1999).To be involved in the partnership till the end.
The NPO learned the administrative skills, technical skills. Along with this they also learned that traditional sectors solutions cannot address certain challenges and therefore form social partnership to enhance learning and borrowing from organisations in other sectors.
To conclude this, although the partnership did not go through all the stages successfully, it had a positive outcome. According to Seitanidi (2010), societal outcomes ‘refer to the unique benefits that accrue for society through the partnership relationship’. The partnership helped in spreading awareness about breast cancer in women, along with this through the help of this partnership the NPO got recognition which helped it develop the yoga centre and the give financial aid to the poor cancer patients. In this respect even though the partnership may not be the kind of social partnership described in the theories, its foundation still has a lot of positive societal outcomes.
Chapter 6. Conclusion
The concluding chapter of this research will assess the study as a whole. It will provide a brief summary of the findings. It will also identify whether the relationship can be considered as a partnership.
6.1. Summary of the Dissertation:
There is a lot of literature available in regard to CSR. But in spite of this, CSR is relatively a new approach to corporate management (Campbell, L., J. 2006). Different writers have suggested different approaches and meanings of CSR. One of the most discussed and important approach is the Cross-sector partnership. It is a partnership between Businesses-Government- Social sector.
This dissertation aims to evaluate the cross-sector partnership between a BUS (ONGC) and an NPO (Helping Hand for Cancer Care) in India. This partnership will be evaluated with the help of the Seitanidi’s holistic framework (2010) because Seitanidi was the first one to have an in-depth study of the stages of cross-sector partnership. The stages have also been identified by Selky and Parker (2005). But the Holistic framework provides a much clear view to analysis the partnership.
The literature review of this study discuss the practices and concepts in India, examine the cross-sector partnership according to Seitanidi, (2007), it also explains the stages of cross-sector partnership. As far as methodological approach is concerned, this study used an inductive qualitative research, with both primary and secondary data that were analysed through the utilisation of a thematic analysis.
6.2. Identification of the Partnership:
The partnerships between BUS and NPO share a high level of social legitimacy, because of the importance given to cooperation and mutuality (Seitanidi 2006). Hence these kinds of relationship have the potential to meet the demands faced by both sectors. But on a conceptual and practical level the implementation of partnership remains problematic (Mohiddin 1998).
According to Kumar et al., (2001) the primary focus of CSR in India is to identify ‘how to carry out CSR’, which often lead to conflicting findings on related practices.
The literature of this study identifies four models of CSR suggested by a survey of TERI foundation; Ethical model, Statist Model, Liberal model and the stakeholder model. The CSR structure of ONGC is based on the Stakeholder model. The identification and involvement of the stake holder (NPO) is present in the relationship, but the interaction level between the organisations is relatively low and so is the participation of ONGC in the activities of CSR. As stated by Hakansson and Ford, (2002) ‘A relationship development is a matter of joint action and it is always necessary to mobilize the other organisation in the process’.
As per the findings of the literature provided in this dissertation, it is identified that the partnership between ONGC and helping hand for cancer care cannot be considered a full-fledged partnership. According to the data collected with the application of the Holistic framework, the partnership has gone through the formation and outcome stage but has not completely passed the implementation stage.
Due to the failure of not passing the stages, the partnership according to Austin (2000), may merely be another transactional type of relationship.
A research by Googins and Rochlin (2000), identifies this type of partnership.
‘In U.S. 140,000 such ‘partnerships’ were formed in theUS by the 1990s, centred on educational improvement, the nature of these so called partnerships might in reality be better described as enduring transactions: The number [of partnerships] appears overwhelming, and the potential for change in the U.S. education system seems vast. It takes just modest investigation to determine that most of these engagements are about a one-way transfer of resources- i.e., a corporate benefactor provides some Dollars and used supplies to a needy school. As such this does not appear to satisfy the intuitive conditions of ‘true partnership’ between the sectors (Googins and Rochlin 2000: 132) ‘.
To conclude this, even in spite of the positive outcomes, the relationship seemed to be transactional, because of the level of interaction and the voluntary effort from the BUS side. The partnership can only be completed when both the organisations not only share their resources, but also work together. To put this in practical, the NPO’s in future must empower themselves which will further assist in prioritising the process and the intermediate nature of the interaction as a source of change that might lead to more symmetry (Seitanidi, 2007).
Recommendations for implementing CSR
Alter, K., & Hage, J. (1993). “Organizations working together”. Journal of Management December 2005.
Alsop, R. J. (2004) “The 18 immutable laws of corporate reputation”. New York: Free Press.
Alsop, R. J. (2004). The 18 immutable laws of corporate reputation. New York: Free Press.
Asongu. J. J., (2007) “Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility in Practice” Greenview publishing company.
Aronson, J. (1994), “A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis”, The Qualitative Report,2(1), Full Text [Online,] Available at: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR2-1/aronson.html [Accessed 1st September 2009].
Austin, J. (2000) “The collaborative challenge” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Best. J. S, Krueger. S. B, (2004) “Internet data collection” Saga Publications, INC.
Beril, Z., Burcu, O., (2007) “Communicating CSR through Corporate Websites: A research on Turkish GSM operators” Journal of Yasar University, 4(13), pp.1047-1065.
Berger, I., Cunningham, P. and Drumwright, M. (2004), “Social alliances: Company/Nonprofit collaboration”, California Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 58-90.
Boone, L. E, Kurtz, D. Mackenzie, H., Snow, K., (2009) ‘Contemporary marketing’ 2nd Canadian Ed., Nelson Edu. Ltd., pp, 235-241.
Bryman, A., Bell, E., (2007) “Business Research Methods” 2nd Ed. : Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.413-478.
Campbell, L., J. (2006) ‘Institutional Analysis and the Paradox of Corporate Social Responsibility’ American Behavioural Scientist, 49(7), pp.925-938.
Carroll, A.B. (1991) “The pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: toward the moral management of organisational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol.4, pp.39-48.
Carroll. A. (1999) “Evolution of a Definitional Construct” Business & Society; 38 (3),pp.268-295.
Crane, A., Matten. D, (2007) “Business Ethics” 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press ; Oxford. Pp.49-51.
Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D.,(2008) “ The Oxford handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility” Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.27-29.
Crouch. S, Housdem. M, (2003) “Marketing Research for Managers” 3rd Ed. Butterworth- Heinemann, pp.123-124.
CSR Quest (2010 ) Source: “http://www.csrquest.net/default.aspx?articleID=12770&heading”;
Accessed on: 20/07/2010.
Concern Universal Org. (2010),”How can partnerships between NGOs and business add value to Corporate Social Responsibility programmes in developing countries“.Source: http://www.concernuniversal.org/images/uploads/File/Helen%20Wadham%20Dissertation%20on%20CU%20and%20Tetley%20Nov%2005.pdf Accessed on: 14/06/ 2010.
Daly, J., Kellehear, A. & Gliksman, M. (1997)’The public health researcher: A methodological approach’ Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Dahlsurd, A., (2006) “How Corporate Social Responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management.
Dawson,C., (2007) “Practical guide to research methods: A user friendly manual for mastering research techniques and projects”. 3rd edition.
Dean, P., (2007), “Corporate Social Responsibility” Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology Source : “http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_yr2010_chunk_g97814051243319_ss1-210” Accessed on : 14/06/ 2010.
Doh, J.P., & Teegen, H. (2002) ‘Non-governmental organisation as institutional actors in international business: Theory & implications. International Business Review. 11, pp.665-684.
Fereday.J., Muir-Cochrane.E., (2006) ‘Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development’ International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (1), pp.1-11.
Frederick. C. W, (2006) “Corporation, be good! : the story of Corporate Social Responsibility” Dog Ear publishing, pg.66-67 .
Freeman, E., & Liedtka, J., (1991) “Corporate Social Responsibility: A critical approach” Business Horizons, 34 (4), pp. 92-98.
Freeman, E., Hitt,M., Harrison, J., S, (2001) “The Blackwell handbook of Strategic Management” Blackwell Publishers ltd. Oxford, pp.190-191.
Gable, G. (1994), “Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information system,” European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), pp. 112-126.
Gangrade, K. D. (2001) Working with Community at the Grassroot Level: Strategies and Programmes, Radha Publications, New Delhi.
Gray, B. (1989)“Collaborating”. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Googins and Rochlin, (2000). “Creating the Partnership Society: Understanding the Rhetoric and Reality of Cross Sector Partnerships” Business and Society Review, 105(1), 127-144.
Goyal, C. P. (1999) Social work in the changing scenario, in C. Patel, ed., Social Work Practice: Religio-Philosophical Foundations, Rawat Publications, New Delhi.
Gupta, A, D., (2007) “Social Responsibility in India towards global compact approach” International Journal of Social Economics, 34(9), pp.637-663.
Hardy, C. (1994) “Under organized inter organizational domains: The case of refugee systems”. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 30(3), pp. 278-296.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. (1998) “Distinguishing trust and power in inter organizational relations: Forms and facades of trust”. In C. Lane & R. Bachmann (Eds), Trust within and between organizations: Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp.64-87.
Helping Hand 4 Cancer Care (2010), Source: http://www.helpforcancercare.org/ ; Accessed on 13/07/2010.
Hewson, C. M., Laurent, D., & Vogel, C.M., (1996) “Proper Methodologies for psychological and sociological studies conducted via the internet” Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 32, pp.186-191.
Hopkins, M., (2007) “Corporate social responsibility and international development: is business the solution” Earthscan publishes, pg. 170-171.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (1996) “Working together: Key themes in the management of relationships between public and non-profit organizations”. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(7), pp.5-17.
Investor Word.com,(2010) Source:“http://www.investorwords.com/3331/non_profit_organization.html “
Accessed on: 15/08/2010
Iyer, E. (2003) “Theory of alliances: Partnership and partner characteristics”. Journal of Non profit and Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), pp. 41-57.
Johannesburg Summit (2010) Source: “http://www.johannesburgsummit.org” Accessed on:20/08/2010.
Kasi.P.M. (2009) ‘Research: What, Why, and how?’. Author House, pp.95-96.
Kumar, R., Murphy D. and Balsari, V. (2001), Altered Images: The 2001 State of Corporate Responsibility in India Poll, Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi.
Kotler, P., Lee, N., (2005) “Corporate Social Responsibility” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Canada, pp.1-20.
Learning to give, (N.A.) Source: “http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper41.html” Accessed on: 25/07/2010.
Le Ber, J. M., & Branzei, O. (2010) ‘(Re) Forming Strategic cross-sector partnerships: Relational Processes of social innovation’. Business & Society, 49(1), pp. 140-172.
L.Zu, (2008) “CSR; Corporate Restricting and Firm’s Performance –Emerical evidence from Chinese Enterprises” Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Mailand, M. (2004) “Social partnership as an approach to CSR: ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ actors, their roles and relations” Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 10: 416.
Mayle,D. (2006),”Managing innovation and change” 3rd Ed. Sage Publication.
Mc Givern, Y., (2006), “The practice of market and social research” 2nd Edition, Pearson education UK.
·McKinsey global survey of business executives: Business and society. (2006). McKinsey Quarterly. Source: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1741&L2=39&L3=29 ; Accessed on: 13/06/2010.
·Meehan,J., Richards, A., Meehan, K., (2006) “Corporate Social Responsibility : the 3C-SR model” International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6),pp.386-398
Milne, G. R., Iyer, E. S.,&Gooding-Williams, S. (1996) “Environmental organization alliance relationships within and across non-profit, business, and government sectors”. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 15(2), pp.203-215.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs Government of India (2009) Source: “http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/latestnews/CSR_Voluntary_Guidelines_24dec2009.pdf”
Mital. A, (2008) “Cases in strategic Management” Tata Mc Gram Hill
Mirabella. R. M, Gemelli. G, Malcolm. M. J, Berger. G, (2007) “Non-profit and Philanthropic Studies: International Overview of the Field in Africa, Canada, Latin America, Asia, the Pacific, and Europe” Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Supplement, 36 (4).
Mohan, A. (2001), “Corporate citizenship: perspectives from India,” Journal of Corporate Citizenship, summer,(2), pp. 107-117.
Mullerat. R., (2010), “International Corporate Social Responsibility: The role of Corporations in ………………” Published by Kluwer Law International.
Nijhof,A., Bruijin, T., Honders, H., (2008) “Partnerships for corporate social responsibility:A review of concepts and strategic options” Management Decision, (46)1, pp. 152-167
Nourick, S., OECD, (2001) , “Corporate Social Responsibility: partners for progress” OECD.
Noor, K. B., (2008) ‘Case study : A strategic research methodology’. American Journal of Appiled Science, 5(11), pp.1602-1604.
N. Ravichandran, S. Rajashree, Y. Sathyapriya and Ajit Jain, (2006) “Perspectives on Non-profit Mission and Financing in India” Journal of Health Management, 8 (2) .
ONGC India Limited, (2009-2010), Source: http://www.ongcindia.com/history.asp
Accessed on: 05/06/2010
Parker, B., & Selsky, J. (2004) “Interface dynamics in cause based partnerships: An exploration of emergent culture”. Non profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3),pp 458-488.
Pratiyogita Darpan, (August 2008), year,3, issue, 28, pp.253-255
Polonsky, M., (1995) “A Stakeholder theory approach to designing environmental marketing strategy” Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 5(3),pp.29-45.
Qwick Step. Com, (2010) Source: “http://www.csrquest.net/default.aspx?articleID=12770&heading” Accessed on:20/08/2010.
Ravichandran, N., Rajashree, S., Sathyapriya, Y., & Jain, A., (2006) “Perspectives on Non-profit mission and financing in India” Journal of Health Management, 8(2), pp.207-227.
Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. (2003) ‘ How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations’. Academy of Management Executive, 17, pp.61-76.
Salamon, L. (1995) “Partners in public service: Government-non profit relations in the modern welfare state”. Baltimore, MD; Johns Hopkins University Press.
Saunders, M. et al. (2006) “Research Methods for Business Students”. 4th Edition, Prentice Hall.
Saunders, .M.N.K., Lewis, P. And Thronhill, A. (2003) ‘Research Methods for Business students’3rd Ed. Harlow, Financial Times, Prentice Hall.
Scribd , (2010), “Social Business Book” Source: “http://www.scribd.com/doc/34920465/Social-Business-Book” Accessed on:26/07/2010
Selsky, J., Parker, B., (2005) “Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice”. Journal of Management, 31(6),pp.849-873
Seitanidi, M., (2010) “The Politics of Partnerships: A critical examination of Non profit- Business Partnerships” Springer.
Seitanidi, M.M., and Ryan, A., (2007) “Forms of Corporate Community Involvement: From Philanthropy to Partnerships. A Critical Review”. International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, (in press).
Seitanidi, M. M. And Crane, A., (2008) ‘Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of Non-profit- Business partnerships.
Sen, Sidhartha (1993). Defining the non-profit sector in India. Working Paper No. 12, Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-Profit Sector Project, IPS, Johns Hopkins University of Baltimore.
Singh.B.A, Singh.A, (2004) “Public Sector Reforms in India” S.B.Nangia, A.P.H Publishing Corporation.
Siddiqui, H. Y. (2003) Emerging social concerns and issues in the 21st century: socialwork response, in S. Singh and S. P. Srivastava, eds, Social Work Education in India: Challenges and Opportunities, New Royal Book Company, Lucknow.
Sen, Sidhartha (1993) “Defining the Non-profit in India. Working Paper No.12, Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-Profit Sector Project, IPS, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Strauss, A., and Corbin. J., (1998) ‘Basic of Qualitative Research’. 2nd Edition,nThousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Stone, M. (2000) “Exploring the effects of collaborations on member organizations: Washington County’s Welfare-to-Work Partnership”. Non-profit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), pp.98-119.
Swanwic. T., (2010) ‘Understanding Medical Education; Evidence, Theory and Practice’ Wiley-Blackwell, pp.329.
·TERI, (2010), Source: “http://www.terieurope.org/docs/CSR-India.pdf” , Accessed on:15/07/2010
Time’s internet ltd, (2010): Accessed on 25/8/2010. Source: http://timesfoundation.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4662536.cms Accessed on: 20/07/2010
Tutor2u, (2010) , Source: “http://tutor2u.net/business/accounts/stakeholder_theory.htm” Accessed on: 10/08/2010
United Nations (1968) “A system of national accounts” (Series F. No. 2 Rev. 3). Geneva: UN.
UN Global Compact, (2010) Source: “http://www.unglobalcompact.org” Accessed on:20/08/2010
UNRISD, (2010), Source: “http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BD6AB/%28httpEvents%29/BC20F4BAFFCFF713C1257219004ABB34?OpenDocument&panel=team” Accessed on: 20/08/2010
United Nations (1968). A system of national accounts (Series F. No. 2 Rev. 3). Geneva: UN.
United Nations Environment Programme, (2009) “Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products” UNEP Publications.
Waddock, S. A., (1988). Building Successful Partnerships. Sloan Management Review, summer , 17-23.
Ward, H., Smith, C., (2006) “ Corporate Social Responsibility at a Crossroads : Futures for CSR in the U.K to 2015” International Institute for Environment and Development, Source: “http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/16019IIED.pdf”; Accessed on: 15/07/2010.
Weisbrod, B. A. (1997) ‘The future of non-profit sector: its entwining with private enterprise and governmental’. Journal of Policy analysis and management, 16(4), pp. 541-555.
Westley, F., & Vredenburg, H. (1991) “Strategic bridging: The collaboration between environmentalists and business in the marketing of green products”. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), pp.65-90.
Werther. B. W. Jr., and Chandler, D., (2010) “Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment” 2nd Edition, Sage Publication Inc.
Wood, D. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisited,” Academy of Management Review,16 (4), pp. 691-719.
World Council on Sustainable Development, (2010),Source: “http://www.wbcsd.org/templates” Accessed on:20/07/2010.
Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009) ‘NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration’ New York: Cambridge University Press.
Yin, R., (1984) ‘Case study research: design and methods’ Sage publication, California, pp.11-15.
Young, D. R. (1999) “Non-profit management studies in the United States: Current developments and future prospects” Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(1), pp.13-23.
Zadek, S., (2004) “The path to Corporate Social Responsibility” Harvard Business Review, pp.125.