1.

0 Introduction: Marinetto (1999) demonstrated that due to the social and political change in 1970s organization considering the corporate social responsibility as a serious course of action and they tried to get themselves involve for the social wellbeing. And this era is known as the beginning era of proper corporate social responsibilities. Due to high inflation, high inflation rate and slow economic growth in the recessionary period of 1970s slowed down the pace of corporate social responsibilities in many developed countries in Europe and America. Later 1974 labour party reformed the business environment and the British government tried to emphasize the wider sense of responsibility through the business environment reengineering. Moreover, Environmental degradation, exploitation of labour and irresponsible behaviour to the developing countries came into thoughts to the businesses and the governments (Gray et al., 1996). Later in 1970s there was a survey conducted about the roles and attitudes of the businesses towards the society and it had been discovered that most of the CEOs and the business were interested to work for the wellbeing of the society rather than focusing only on the profit of the organizations such as the organizations like IBM, British steel and Pilkingtons worked for the social development by educating people and creating jobs through opening up small businesses (Gray et al., 1996). Importantly, from 1977 to 1987 there was a substantial increase in the amount of charity for the social development and CSR was more likely used as a social development toll than corporate business strategy techniques. However, later 1980s some of the governments especially UK to influence the CSR activities offers the tax rebate on the CSR activities and in this time due to the increasing political awareness (Marinetto, 1999) towards environment made the organization concern about the environmental issues (Gray et al, 1996). But other than Scandinavian countries most of the developed countries discussed Business ethics rather than Social responsibilities (Mathews, 1984). Due to the strong political rights movement in 1980s American organization put more emphasizes on the community and customers. Nevertheless, disability, racism, sex, inequality, responsibility of the labour was considering in the context of business and employee relations (Gray et al., 1996). Moreover, some major natural calamities in this decade force the organizations, business and academics to think the environmental issues more than ever before (Marinetto, 1999). However, the accounting professionals talked about the social responsibilities since 1970s and they mentioned the long term benefit of the social responsibilities and they also talked

about the social and environmental issues in the financial statement along with the economic issues (Marinetto, 1999). Importantly, Mathews (1984) discussed the external interactions of the organization and the importance of including the external issues such as social and environmental issues in the organizations report. After that Community, consumer and employee related reporting were discussed back in 1990s; as in this decade altruism became fade and the organization tried to involve business in the society, organization started put most emphasizes on stakeholder engagement and they tried to minimize the affect of their decisions on stakeholder and corporate governance come into play more effectively ( Gray et al., 1996; Tiroli, 2001; Marinetto, 1999). After 2000 due to the increase of the accountability sustainability report is becoming popular in all over the world (Herzig & Godemann, 2010). However, the now the Corporate social responsibility concept and mechanism is stronger than ever before and stakeholder engagement, corporate citizenship, corporate governance, social and environmental disclosures are facilitating the organizations for sustainable development of the society and the businesses as well. 2.0 Definition and Interpretation of Corporate Social Responsibility 2.1 Corporate Social responsibility (CSR): In the publication of World Business Council for sustainable development, to define the corporate social responsibility Holme & Watts (2000) stated "Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by 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". They want the organization to behave ethically and by ensuring the legal obligations working for the development of the life standard of the community. According to the European Commission (2010)," CSR is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis." To illustrate the CSR issues

European Commission (EC) expect the organization to work beyond the minimum level of legal obligations and with the help of the stakeholders work for the economical, environmental and social welfare of the society. According to Carroll (1979), for a definition of social responsibility to fully address the entire range of obligations business has to society, it must embody the economic, legal,
2

ethical and discretionary categories of business performance. As profit is the main purpose of the business Carroll has given highest emphasizes on the economic responsibilities; however, philanthropic responsibilities talks about the optimal caring (Lanto, 2001, Carroll, 1979) which is extravagancy (Wan-jan, 2006) and supererogatory (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003) for the organization. However, Lantos (2001), Lewis (2003) stated CSR as very

effective marketing tool to achieve organizational goal (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003) by reduce the expectations gap (Lewis, 2003) between organization and stakeholders, gaining competitive advantages and regaining public trust. Nevertheless, Mintzberg (1983) divided CSR in 4 forms that focus on the purpose of the CSR such as paying back, self-interest, stimulating consumers perception but social welfare (Moore, 2003; Goyder, 2003) should be the main consideration.

2.1 Corporate Sustainability (CS):

Corporate sustainability is the means of creating long term relationship between employee and consumers by ensuring the long term social, economic and environmental well being of the society (Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010). To create an effective sustainable strategy organization needs to consider all the dimensions and their impacts and interrelations. According to Dyllick, (2000); Hardtke and Prehn, (2001) cited in as Baumgartner & Ebner, (2010) , risk mitigation strategy focuses on the legal and external aspects of environment; legitimating strategy states external relationship, efficiency strategy talks about the ecoefficiency and holistic sustainability strategy demonstrates the sustainability of all the business issues. However, Baumgartner & Ebner (2010) mentioned transparency, employee development and resource efficiency are the main principles of corporate sustainability. Importantly, there needs to have a strong stakeholder engagement, corporate governance and good corporate citizenship need to be there for implementing a strong corporate sustainable strategy.

2.2 Corporate Social performance (CSP):

Wood (2010) stated that corporate social performance is the process that focuses on the impacts and the outcomes of society, stakeholders and the firm. According to Clarkson 1995; Cornell and Shapiro 1987; Donaldson and Preston 1995 cited in as Orlitzky et al., (2003) showed that due to stakeholder engagement the relationship between the CSP and Corporate
3

financial performances is positive. CSP states that organization should focus on the benefits and disadvantages it creates in the society, environment, culture, economic and politics. And to get the maximum resources out of these sources organizations should increase the benefits and eliminate the harms of their activities; otherwise, in the long run organization will lose their access and they may lose the legitimacy (Wood, 2010).

3.0 Theoretical Debate

3.1 Stakeholder Theory: According to the stakeholder theory of Freeman (1984) organization needs to work for the best interest of their stakeholder rather than only focusing on the wealth maximization of the shareholders (Friedman, 1979). Crane and Matten (2004) stated that stakeholders are the people who are directly or indirectly related to the organization and the organizational decisions affect them either positively or negatively. Stakeholder theory suggests maintaining the fiduciary relationship with the stakeholders. Moreover, it also wants to engage the stakeholders in the decision making process as they are somehow affected by the decision of the organization (Freeman, 1984; Robert & Freeman, 2003). Freeman stated that firm should consider the stakeholders preferences, demands and take initiatives based on the conversations. Stieb (2008) argued that the stakeholder theory focuses more on self interest rather than focuses on altruism. Moreover, stakeholder theories does not mention among the stakeholders who have highest decision making power as he mentioned unequal decision making power of the stakeholders. Mitchell et al., (1997) argued that if the organization harms people to fulfil its objective the affected people have the legitimate interest in the organization and based on their damage their influence and power is determined in the organization as stakes. So, it the central message of the stakeholder theory is to give impression that the organizations are not only strategically rational but also morally rich enough to consider the interests of the people who are affected by the organizations. However, stakeholder engagement may slow down the pace of organizational decision making. Moreover, as the managers and the stakeholders had different objectives, conflict of goals may arise from the stakeholder engagement in the organization (crane et al., 2008). For example, john Lewis Partnership Engage government, NGOs , Local authorities, Customers, local communities, employees, suppliers, trade associations, consumers associations and

other stakeholders in their decision making process to avoid the negative impact of their decision on the stakeholders (Official Website of john Lewis partnership, 2010). 3.2 Agency Theory: Barely and means (1932) cited in as Solomon (2010); Jensen & Meckling, (1976) stated that separation of ownership from management control and the incentive policy of the managers give birth of notorious agency problem that reduces the shareholder value and the growth of organization. As the short term investment inflate the performance in the performance appraisal managers are more intended to invest in the short term project rather than invest on the long-term project that ensures the long term growth of the organization (Crane and Matten, 2004). However, the agency theory of corporate governance talks about the role of the directors who are intermediaries between the shareholders and the managers of the company and the directors ensure the arbitrage of the different needs of the two parties and importantly, ensuring the best usage of the resources for the well being of the organization, shareholders, other stakeholders and society (Solomon, 2010). Figure 3.2: The mechanism of Agency Theory `

Principle (Suppliers of the resources, E.g. Shareholders)

Direction

Board of Directors

Control

Agents (User of the resources, E.g. managers)

As the personal interest of the shareholders and the managers come into play, sometimes organization tends to receive short term benefit that may be detrimental for the society or environment (Tiroli, 2001; Kulik, 2005). For example, Huntingdon Life Sciences conducted scientific research through the animal experimentation. Later there was some protest aroused

against them for experimenting on animal to serve the purpose of the agents. As a result of that the organization lost numbers of investors from UK and USA (Solomon, 2010). However, Incentives such as long-term share option for the employees, Voting rights for the shareholders, takeover mechanisms, Divestment are the crucial elements of corporate governance that helps to reduce the agency cost and smooth the way of agency theory (Heath, 2009). However, there are some controversy goes on about the effectiveness of agency theories and the underlying ethics of the agency theory. Sometimes agent takes self-cantered decision to maximize the organizational value where rationality and egoism reflects more than the altruism (Heath, 2009). Moreover, Kulik (2005) cited in as Heath (2009) argued, "agency reasoning" on the part of Enron executives led to the creation of an "agency culture" and an organizational structure within the firm that encouraged corrupt behaviour. 3.3 Corporate Ethics: According to Crane & Matten (2010), Business ethics is the study of business situation, activities and decisions where issues of right and wrong are addressed. There are some controversies go on about the right or wrong decision. It is better to mention either it is morally right or wrong or commercially, strategically and financially right or wrong. From the perspective of business ethics and corporate citizenship this right or Wrong decision is more likely considered morally. According to Crane & Matten (2010), ethics are derived by the morality of the organization that is derived from the norms, values and belief of a society and importantly, it gives the moral judgment. However, it is mandatory for the businesses to do business by following the laws but there is no legal obligations exist for the businesses to follow the ethics (Stohl et al., 2009). More precisely, the corporate ethics begins where the law ends. For example, animal testing is not banned by law in most of the countries but being an ethical organization they can avoid it (Kapstei, 2001).
Figure: the relationship between ethics and law

Ethics

Law

Kaptein and Schwartz, (2008) cited in as Stohl et al. (2009) stated that code of ethics is formalized statement that determines the present and future behaviour of the organization to support the stakeholders through the inter-organizational or intra-organizational practices and relations. However, Friedman (1976) and Wan-jan (2006) enforced to maximize the shareholders wealth by doing business complying with the legal business environment and As long as the business is doing business abiding by the law is sufficient for them. Organizational cultures, Type of the society, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, Masculinity-Femininity and the types of orientation determines the moral obligations of the business (Kapstei, 2001). Importantly, the organizational norms and values influence the decision making of the management (Crane & Matten, 2010). However, Organization gives emphasizes on the ethical decision making as the consumers react towards the unethical activities and with the help of the humanitarian or animal rights organization they stop buying the product of unethical companies (Stohl et al., 2009). Importantly, it is a great opportunity for the business to improve their image by taking a strong ethical stand. For example, Body shop is highly acclaimed for his moral and ethical standing that helps them to build a very strong image and even charge higher price (Crane & Matten, 2010, Value Report of Body Shop, 2009).

4.0 Disclosures:
According to Soloman (2010) corporate disclosure represents the true performance of the organization to the stakeholders that bring trust in their relations. Moreover, the disclosure refers to the information regarding the financial report, balance shit, profit and loss account, Chairmans and directors speech, management forecast, Corporate social responsibility issues, environmental issues through the annual report, internet, and sustainability report and during the stakeholder meeting. According to gray et al. (2001), organization discloses the financial performance of the organization to let the stakeholders and outside people know about the performance of the organization. Bringing the transparency and attracting new investors are the main reason for corporate disclosure. However, According to Sobhani et al. (2009), there is a new trend has started in the organizations of developed and developing countries to disclose the social and environmental facts and the socially and environmentally sensitive industries make use of the disclosure trends and they are gaining competitive advantages by disclosing their true position (Gray et al. 2001, jenkin, 2009). However, Herzig & Godemann (2010) demonstrated that CSR reporting is used as a means of communication to the people and the organization used this report
7

as a communication tool that helps the organization to achieve financial and non-financial gains such as reliability, good corporate citizenship, transparency (Soloman, 2010) . Nevertheless, Sobhani et al. (2009) mentioned that organization feel pressure from the competitors to disclose the report. As the competitors discloses the reports regarding financial, social and environmental issues organization who does not disclose information is bound to disclose its report to be competitive in the market. Moreover, organization needs to disclose the report to comply with the rules and regulations of the government. However, Ho & Wang (2001) raised question about the effectiveness of the social and environmental reporting and they argued that sometimes investors and buyers take decision emotionally and they do not bother the current state of the real world. Moreover, Due to the accountability, transparency, corporate ethics and specially the pressure of the competitors force the organization to disclose the negative information about their business (Herzig & Godemann, 2010). Nevertheless, to show the belongingness to the community and from the fear of media organizations voluntarily disclose the negative information sometimes. Importantly, investors and the customers do not consider the transparency of the organization and eventually the organization loses its market (Ho & Wang, 2001). For this reason, fear of losing share price or market share restricts the organizations to disclose the negative information regarding their business (Gotshal & Manges, 2006). For example, British Petroleum (BP) had an accident in the Gulf of Mexico and they disclose the reasons and the consequences of the accident in details (Official Website of BP, 2010).

5.0 Corporate Social Responsibility Model for the large Organizations: Figure 5.0: Corporate Social responsibility model
Social & Environmen tal Disclosure

Accountability

Stakeholders Engagement

Corporate governanc e

Philant hropic

Ethical

Legal

Competitive Advantages

Corporate citizenship

Economic

In the model Economical, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities have been mentioned. As it is a large company it has the capabilities to give back the society. For this reason, ethical and philanthropic activities have been included. Moreover, Caroll (1979) included ethical and philanthropic responsibilities in his CSR model. Though Wan-jan (2006) argued philanthropic activities are not mandatory and it kills the profit of the business. Importantly, Philanthropic activities will give a competitive edge to the organization and it helps to build the brand value of the organization. Moreover, Most of the multinationals and large organizations are engaging themselves with different kinds of altruistic activities; therefore, to survive in the business competition it is mandatory for the business to exercise philanthropic activities (Lewis, 2003). Importantly, Organization must ensures the good economic performance abide by fulfilling all the legal obligations. Since achieving the business growth through the welfare of the stakeholders benefit is the main purpose of the business Economic responsibility needs to be prioritized most (Wan-jen, 2006). Moreover, Caroll (1979), Welford (2003), Meehan et al. (2006), Geva (2008), Jenkin (2009) talk about the economic responsibilities and it gets highest priority in everybodys corporate social responsibility model and economic responsibility is the most essential elements in most of the CSR model. Nevertheless, corporate governance is also included in the model which enables the organization to administer the management decisions. Moreover, corporate governance judge the relationship between the management and the stakeholders and it also judges the promise of the organization towards the society and stakeholders (Fombrun, 2006). However, corporate citizenship will be employed for facilitating the ethical responsibilities of the organization. Welford (2004) demonstrated the corporate citizenship in his model and supporting activities, educating and social campaigning has been included in his citizenship area. Moreover, Carroll, (1998); Waddock, (2004) included corporate citizenship in their model to cover the business- society relationship, where as mattern and cane (2005) gave equal priority to the corporate citizenship. Meanwhile, Meehan et al, (2006) align corporate citizenship with the corporate resources and found it as a means of strategic success. However, disclosing activities such as financial, social and environmental disclosure comes from the accountability of organization (Alexander et al., 2003). As the organization discloses the information about their operation and the consequences by disclosing the sustainability report, it will help the organization to get competitive advantages over the
9

competitors. Moreover, by engaging the stakeholders in the business decision making organization ensures the ethical and philanthropic responsibilities that allow the organization to gain reliability, brand image and transparency from the society. Jenkin (2009) mentioned competitive advantage in his model and the organization gains competitive advantages by overcoming difficulties and integrating CSR strategies. Eventually, by getting competitive advantages they provide innovation, new market coverage and new business model. 6.0 Corporate Governance:

According to Fombrun (2006), corporate governance is the procedural, cultural and structural guidelines that ensure the best long term interest of the stakeholders. To enable the corporate governance effectively sustainable relationship between the stakeholders and the management is crucial (Tiroli, 2001). As the conflicts of the personal goal come into play in the organization, minimizing the agency cost is one of the main purposes of the corporate governance. Importantly, rules and regulations would be effective to form good corporate governance unless continuous strategic initiatives are implemented (Fombrun, 2006). As the interest of the shareholders as well as the stakeholders and the managers are different due to the personal preferences and interest, managing the corporate government is really challenging (Monks & Minow, 2008). However, some organizational factors such as the compensation structure (Fombrun, 2006), delegation of authority and job security (Tiroli, 2001) affects the corporate governance environment. Moreover, difference of perceptions about the sustainable business concept among the stakeholders, shareholders and management is crucial corporate governance issues. Shareholders may like to see the organizational growth in a sustainable manner whereas the managers may act like shorttermist that makes the job of corporate governance people challenging (Monks & Minow, 2008). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and International Finance Corp., the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) working for the best interest of formulation of effective corporate governance and they emphasized good corporate governance all around the world.

For instance, Singapore is an Asian country where corporate governance well established. Back in 2007, the minority shareholder faced problem and they claimed Isetan is not working for the best interest of the minor shareholders. According to the Singapores corporate
10

governance code of conduct, a person who does not have any interference to the organization would be employed as an independent director and he is supposed to work with his independent business judgment. In Isetan, the minority shareholders are claiming the additional dividend to use the credit whereas, due to the high tax bracket of the majority shareholder Isetan. As the company did not pay attention to the minority shareholder, the minority shareholder put this issue in the EGM. Importantly, the independent director of the company was brother of one of the director of the company. Due to the problem in the organization they removed the independent director and appointed a new independent director. After that some new proposals have been introduced about the roles and responsibilities of the independent directors and their appointment. And the consideration of the minority shareholders to the independent directors was emphasized on that proposal (Monks & Minow, 2010). British Petroleum practises good corporate governance system and the directors works as the intermediaries between the shareholders and the managers of the organization and they are accountable to the shareholders (Sustainability review of BP, 2009).

7.0 Challenges of Social and Environmental Reporting: 7.1 Social Challenges: According to Gray et al., (1996) cited in as Alexander et al., (2003), social accounting is the process of communicating the social and environmental effects of the organizations activities to society. According to Crane & Matten (2010), organization put the social and environmental information in their sustainability report. Importantly, due to the increase of stakeholder demand government and different organizations employed external bodies to check the reliability and validity of the information. Social Auditors are the external bodies who are responsible to judge the impacts of the organizations on the workforce, society and the consumers (Gao & Zhang, 2006). Later the dimension of social auditing has changed and now it also considers the environmental factors. However, According to Elkington, (1997), social auditing is the process

that allows the organization to comply their performance with the needs and expectation of the societies by verifying the internal and external documents of the organization. Importantly, social auditing enables to improve their social, environmental, ethical planning and stakeholder engagement (Frederick & Mayers, 2001,). Nevertheless, Gao & Zhang (2001) mentioned that it would not be beneficial to consider the social auditing as a tool of organizational disclosure, rather it gives the chance to the organization to have proper

11

feedback of their performance. For example, the Body Shop uses the social auditing model that has been developed by the NEF (Gao & Zhang, 2001).

As the stakeholders of the organization can see the report of the social auditors, organization finds it bit risky and the organizations are not comfortable to be judged by the external bodies. Moreover, as the stakeholders can judge the actions of the organization, organization find it challenging (Gao & Zhang, 2006). As social auditing tries to make the organization more transparent, organization finds it difficult to accommodate. Moreover, the motive and the transparency of the organizations can be judged by the report of the social auditors (Zadek and Raynard, 1995; Hill et al.,1998; Gao and Zhang, 2001; Zhang et al., 2003 cited in as Goa & Zhang, 2001). However, identifying the key stakeholder groups, considering their opinion and accessing the organizations activity are the key responsibilities of social auditing (Gao & Zhang, 2006). As the social auditing consider the stakeholders dialogue and organizational activities, the issue of conflict of interest rises (Gray et al., 2001) and corruption (Sobhani et al., 2009) are the vital threats of the effective social auditing process. Moreover, as most of the information regarding the customers, social, environmental and ethical is qualitative, it is difficult to measure and the judgment may varies. Therefore, because of the measuring techniques and criteria the effectiveness of social auditing gets fade (Gao & Zhang, 2001, 2006; Gray et al., 2001). However, as the performance of the mangers and the shareholders profit depends on the organizational performance, the attitude of the managers (Frederick & Mayers, 2001) and the reluctant attitude of the auditors (Gray et al., 1996) are the other big obstacles of social auditing. According to the CSR report of John Lewis Partnership (2010), they have

conducted auditing in April 2010 to assess their management control and the communication and strategy of CSR and the performance within the partnership.

7.2 Environmental Challenges: Environmental reporting is the technique that states the consequences of the organizations decisions on the environment. Social Incentives for corporate voluntary environment disclosure is complemented by the stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and political economic theory (Mathews, 1993). To gain the strategic objective of the organization, it needs to fulfil the demand of the stakeholders. For this reason, organizations are very much interested to find out the needs and demands of the stakeholders and they try to fulfil the demands (Kolk, 1999). As stakeholders are engaging themselves with the corporations
12

decision making and by giving their opinion they try to minimize the negative effect of the corporations decision on the society and environment (Stieb, 2008), organization needs to disclose the environmental report to show the stakeholders that the evaluate the stakeholders dialogue (Alexander et al, 2003). Eventually, by disclosing the environmental report organization achieves the strategic objectives (Solomon & Lewis,2002). Nevertheless, Negative disclosures in the environmental report brings transparency to the organization and the reliability of the organizations information reached higher (Solomon & Lewis,2002).

According to Mathews (1994); Ashford & Gibbs (1990), legitimacy theory create a via between the society and the organizations and it creates a hypothetical route that shows the belongingness of the organization to the society. By disclosing the environmental report voluntarily organization wants to prove their involvement to the society (Mathews, 1994). Moreover, as organization sometimes does social and environmental damages the stakeholders and activist group blame the organization for damaging the environment. By publishing the environmental report organization react to the situation in a positive way and justify their social contract, strong involvement in the society (Guthrie and Parker, 1989; Isaksson & Steimle, 2009; Mathew, 1994). However, to what extent the organization discloses the information is crucial idea to determine the involvement of the organization to the society (Mathew, 1994). Moreover, the manipulation and hiding of the facts also need to be consider for determining the organizations positive involvement to the society (Ashford & Gibbs, 1990; Solomon & Lewis,2002 ). According to Gray et al., (1996), environmental disclosure is also related with the political economy theory that talks about the economic, social and political perspective. Moreover, it focuses the environment where there is power and conflict exists. And by disclosing the environmental report organization tries to admit different views and concerns (Kolk, 1999). In the Sustainability review of British petroleum (2009) mentioned about their improved technology that reduced the green house gas emission. Moreover, John Lewis Partnership committed to reduce the co2 emission, they are using renewable energy sources in all their shops and headquarters and they improved their shop energy efficiency by 20% (CSR Report of John Lewis partnership, 2010).

13

8.0 Conclusion: Corporate Social Responsibility ensures the fairness of the business and it improves the relationship between the business and the society. To make the social strategy more effective stakeholder engagement, corporate governance, corporate citizenship play crucial role. Moreover, in response to their accountability organization discloses the social and environmental facts of their business along with the financial performance of the business that increase the transparency and belongingness in the business environment. Hopefully, by employing all the corporate strategies and administrative strategies organization will overcome all the shortcomings and challenges and make the world and their businesses more sustainable.

14

References Ashford, B. E. and B. W. Gibbs (1990) The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimating Organization Science, Vol:1, No. 2, pp. 177 194, Available at: <www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-73254.htm> [Accessed on 29th of November, 2010] Alexander, D., Britton, A. & Jorissen, A. (2003). International Corporate Reporting and Analysis. 4th Ed. USA; Thomson learning. Baumgartner, J., R. & Ebner, D. 2010, Corporate Sustainability Strategies: Sustainability Profi les and Maturity Levels. Sustainable Development, Vol: 18, pp. 7689 (2010) Available at: < www.interscience.wiley.com > [Accessed on 28th of November, 2010] Carroll, A.B. (1998), The four faces of corporate citizenship, Business and Society Review, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 1-7., Available at: <www.emeraldinsight.com/12153-71234.htm> [Accessed on 28th of November, 2010] Carroll, A., B. (1991) The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders Business Horizons, Vol: July-August 1991, Available at: <www.sciencedirect.com> [accessed on 24th of November, 2010] Cooper, M., S. & Owen, L., D. (2007) Corpora Social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing Link Accounting, organizations and society, Vol: 32, pp. 649667, Available at: <www.sciencedirect.com> [Accessed on 2nd of December, 2010]. Crane, A. , Matten, D. (2010).. Business Ethics. 3rd ed Uk: Oxford University press. Frederick, C., W. & Myers, S., M. (2001) The hidden politics of social auditing Business and society Review, pp. 49-54. Fombrun, J., C. (2006) Corporate Governance Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 267271. Available at ; <www.interscience.wiley.com > [Accessed on 28th of November, 2010] Gao, S., S. & Zhang, J., J.(2006) Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate sustainability Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, 2006 pp. 722-740 ,Available at: <www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm> [Accessed on 29th of November, 2010] Gray, R. (1992), Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 399-425, Available at: <www.emeraldinsight.com/1243-7154.htm> [Accessed on 28th of November, 2010]

15

Gao, S. and Zhang, J. (2001) A comparative study of stakeholder engagement approaches in social auditing Citizenship, Greenleaf Publishing, Vol: 20, pp. 239-55. Gotshal, W., J. & Manges, L. (2006). When Voluntary Negative Disclosure Is A Good Risk To Take, Corporate & Securities Law Advisor . Vol. 20, No. 6, Pgs. 18-26, Available at : <http://www.bowne.com/securitiesconnect/details.asp?storyID=1356 > [Accessed on 25th of November, 2010] Gray, R., Javed, M., Power, M., D. & Sinclair, D., C. (2001) Social and Environmental Disclosure and Corporate Characteristics: A Research Note and Extension Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol: 28(3), Available at: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com> [Accessed on 27th of November, 2010] Gray, R. , Owner, D. & Adams, C. (1996) Accounting & Accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and Environmental reporting UK: Prentice hall Heath, J. (2009) The Uses and Abuses of Agency Theory Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol: 19:4 (October 2009), Available at: <www.sciencedirect.com> [accessed on 27th of November, 2010] Herzig, C. & Godemann, J. (2010) Internet-supported sustainability reporting: developments in Germany Management Research review, Vol: 33, No. 11, pp.1064-1082, Available at: <www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm> [Accessed on 23th of November, 2010] Isaksson, R. & Steimle, U. (2009) What does GRI-reporting tell us about corporate sustainability The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 168-181. Available at: <www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm > [Accessed on 24th of November, 2010] John Lewis partnership (2010) Corporate social responsibility report 2010 Available at: < http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk> [Accessed on 26th of november, 2010] British petrolium (2010) Sustainability Review 2009 Available at: <http://www.bp.com>[Accessed on 28th of november, 2010] Kapstei, B., E. (2001) The Corporate Ethies Crusade Foreign affairs, Vol: 80 N:15, pp. 105-119, Available at: <www.sciencedirect.com> [Accessed on 26th of November, 2010]. Kolk, A. (1999) Evaluating Corporate Environmental Reporting Business Strategy and the Environment, vol: 8, pp. 225237 , Available at: <www.interscience.wiley.com> [Accessed on 24th of November, 2010] Marinetto, M.(1999) 'The Historical Development of Business Philanthropy: Social Responsibility in the New Corporate Economy' Business History, Vol: 41: 4, pp. 1 - 20 Available at:< http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00076799900000342> [Accessed on 30th of November, 2010]

16

Mathews, M.R. (1997) Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: is there a silver jubilee to celebrate Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 481-531,Available at: <www.emeraldinsight.com/1263-7154.htm> [Accessed on 03rd of December, 2010] Meehan, J., meehan, K. & Richards, A.,(2006) Corporate social responsibility: the 3C-SR model, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 33 No. 5/6, 2006, pp. 386-398, Available at: <www.emeraldinsight.com/0306-8293.htm> [Accessed on 30th November, 2010]. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, L., F. & Rynes, L., S. (2003) Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis Organization Studies, Vol: 24(3), pp. 403441, Available at: <http://oss.sagepub.com/content/24/3/403> [Accessed on 25th of November, 2010] Official website of John Lewis Partnership, (2010): http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk Official Websites of British Petroleum, (2010) http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7064893 Official Website of European commission, (2010) http://ec.europa.eu Phillips, R., Robert; Edward Freeman (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. UK: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Suchman, C., M. (1995) Management Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approachers Academy of Management Review, Vol: 20, No.3, pp. 571-610, Available at : < www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-86569.htm> [Accessed on 23th of November, 2010] Sobhani, A., F.,Amran, A. & Zainuddin, Y. (2009) Revisiting the Practices of Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosure in Bangladesh Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol: . 16, pp. 167183 <www.interscience.wiley.com> [Accessed on 23th of November, 2010]. Stohl, C., Stohl, M. & Popova, L. (2009) A new generation of Corporate Codes of ethics Journal of business Ethics, Vol: 90, pp. 607-622, Available at: <www.sciencedirect.com> [accessed on 27th of November, 2010] Stieb, A., J. (2008) Assessing Freemans Stakeholder Theory Journal of Business Ethics Vol: 87, pp. 401414, Available at; <www.emeraldinsight.com/25463-73254.htm> [Accessed on 29th of November, 2010] Solomon, A. & Lewis, L. (2002) Incentive and Disincentive for Corpoarte Environmental ReportingAnnonym, Aailable at: <https://www.commerce.adelaide.edu.au/research/aaaj/apira_2001/papers/Solomon178.pdf> [Accessed on 02rd of December, 2010]
17

Tirole, J. 2001. Corporate Governance. Econoinetrica, Vol. 69, No. 1 (January, 2001), pp. 135, Available at:< http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692184?origin=JSTOR-pdf > [Accessed on 28th of November, 2010] Wood., J., D. (2010) Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol: 16, pp. 691718, Available at: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com> [Accessed on 25th of November, 2010] Wan-jan, S., W. (2006). Defining Corporate Social Responsibility Jounal of public Affairs, Vol: 6, pp. 176-184, Available at: < www.interscience.wiley.com> [Accessed on 22th November, 2010] Welford, R. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia, Greenleaf Publishing. Available at : <http://www.greenleafpublishing.com/content/pdfs/jcc17welf.pdf> [Accessed on 2nd of December, 2010]. Waddock, S. (2004) Parallel universes: companies, academics and the progress of corporate Citizenship Business and Society Review, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 5-42, Available at: <www.emeraldinsight.com/12353-73554.htm> [Accessed on 28th of November, 2010]

18