Home Free Lab ReportsCHAPTER ONE 1

CHAPTER ONE 1

CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the concept that companies or organizations have a commitment to elements in the public other than investors are past that endorsed by law or Union contract (Davis, 1960). Corporate social responsibility is getting increasing consideration particularly in ongoing decades. For instance, in excess of 50 percent of global executive recognize CSR as their utmost priority (Barton, 2007). The usage of a CSR approach may create a trusting connection between the organization and stakeholders to wind up focused on the organization through activities, for example, customers’ steadfastness, stockholder capital venture and provider speculation (Garriga ; Mele, 2004). CSR alludes to organization exercises and status identified with its perceived societal or stakeholder commitments (Lee, 2008) underlying the intrigue and concern for CSR is in the way that organizations don’t work in vacuum, rather they can be seen as “Open system” contingent upon a few variables and influential to others through trading yield and change society. Keeping in mind the end goal is to survive and flourish resources assets must be held to in any event cover costs of expenses and overabundance benefit is viewed as beneficial. In order words there should be effective firms along these lines working tenaciously on achieving their objectives. Their exercises are planned and led by enhanced performing actors with self-interests.

In the improved CSR technique put forward by the European Commission in 2011 and in numerous past and ongoing scientific publications, an extensive spotlight is being determined to the advantage of CSR to society all in all. Thusly, much effort is being made to progress CSR in all member states and organizations all things considered. Also, member states are not simply asked to improve their individual CSR procedures, yet in addition to prepare for some further administrative aims. Some business associations (e.g. the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry) are fairly hesitant to recognize compulsory CSR requirements progressed by the Commission, despite the way that the regard and significance of CSR for society is perceived. Moreover, there is progressively concern that CSR activities are simply of magnanimous nature, as well as add to a positive image of the organization, to expanded employee and customer satisfaction and additionally to other delicate variables that should be considered while evaluating business accomplishment (Malte & Marieta, 2012).

The present-day CSR (likewise called corporate obligation, corporate citizenship, responsible business and corporate social opportunity) is an idea whereby business organizations think about the enthusiasm of society by assuming liability for the effect of their activities on customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, communities and other stakeholders and their environment. This commitment demonstrates that the organizations need to agree to legislations and intentional take initiatives to enhance the prosperity of their employees and their families and in addition for the local community and society at large. CSR essentially alludes to strategic corporations or firms conduct their business in a way that is moral, and society well disposed. CSR can include a scope of exercises, for example, working in association with local communities, socially sensitive venture, creating associations with employees, customers and their families, and including in exercises for environmental protection and sustainability (Maimunah, 2009).
1.2 Statement of Research Problem
Promoters of CSR observed that desires for different groups in the general public are not being met by the organizations. These groups are leasers, present and resigned workers, customers, providers, contenders, all level of government, the community, the environmentalist and the human right organizations. These desires ranges from protected and important occupations, clean air and water, great pay bundle and magnanimous gifts, safe items, supporting of scholastic research, scholarship awards, and so on.

In Nigeria and most countries of the world, the aforementioned expectations are not being met rather organizations maximize profit by the provision of goods and services needed but not taking into consideration the negative impact it has on people’s lives and the environment. More often, in recent years many organizations who fail to carry out their CSR claim that this is because of low productivity and lack of adequate finance to carry out their CSR activities. This has led to attacks on these organizations by different group of people and human right organizations in form of boycotting of product, destruction of lives and properties etc. Damages resulting from attacks causes fall in organizational productivity, irreplaceable worker might leave the organization, capital intensive equipment destroyed and production capacity fall. If swift measures are not taken to stop falling capacity, the organization may shut down as a result of this factors.
?
The problem which led to this research paper lies in the claim of many organizations who fail to carry out their CSR as they claim that they lack the necessary resources as well as the claim of the society against the organizations for failing to give hears to their demands. Going by the following issues, this paper aims at examining the effects of CSR on organizational productivity and the satisfaction of their customers who make up the larger environment.

1.3 Objectives of the study
The objective of this study is on investigating the benefits of CSR of an organization on the productivity of the organization and environmental satisfaction. Other auxiliary objectives includes the following:
a) To highlight the relevance of CSR as a managerial strategy to achieve organizational goals and objectives.
b) To know the impact of CSR actions on the economy.
c) To identify why some organizations are not socially responsible
d) To make recommendation on how organization can improve their productivity and effectiveness by being socially responsible.
1.4 Research Questions
a) How does CSR contribute to organizational productivity?
b) What effect does CSR have on customers’ satisfaction?

1.5 Research Hypothesis
H01: Corporate Social Responsibility does not decrease organizational productivity
H02: Corporate Social Responsibility does not have an influence on customer satisfaction.

1.6 Significance of the study
This research is aimed at contributing to the existing knowledge on how CSR action affects organizational productivity and customer satisfaction. It also seek to achieve the level of encouragement and motivation the organization has given to its employees to work effectively and efficiently among others to create social responsibilities to the society. The importance of this research is therefore to highlight the various ethics and social responsibilities of a business organization to satisfy the societal needs. This study will therefore illustrate how organizations should treat the society and it will also highlight the usefulness of social responsible action programs to individuals, organizations, society and government.
1.7 Scope of the study
The research is limited to 4 selected Telecommunication service providers in Nigeria (Globacom, Mtn, 9Mobile and Airtel). The selected organizations are reputable telecommunication companies in the country with a large customer base and they have been involved in several social responsibility actions in recent times which is why the researcher has deem the selected organizations as appropriate for the research purpose.

1.8 Operational definition of terms
a) Social responsibility: social responsibility refers to the dedication of an organization to contribute to feasible financial improvement working with employee, their families, local community and society to enhance personal satisfaction.
b) Customer satisfaction: this alludes to the proportion of how items and services provided by an organization meet or outperform customer expectation
c) Organization: a sorted-out group of individuals with a specific reason, for example, a business or government division.
d) Customer: member or person or an organization that buys products or services from an organization.
e) Satisfaction: this is the pleasure obtained by fulfillment of basic needs of a customer at a particular time.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This section catches and reported significant literatures which are identified with the study issue. The purpose is to expand the significance of the study issue, to offer reason for characterizing pertinent research questions and to condense the existing theories on the exploration issue for further assessment of the research result. The section will be isolated into conceptual framework, theoretical framework and empirical framework to be trailed by a rundown of the reviewed literatures.

2.1 Conceptual Framework
The Corporation isn’t just a mere driving force of the present economic and money related accuracy, yet it additionally can be viewed as an indivisible element associated with the development of numerous social, natural and moral products or externalities. Economic and societal advancement persistently expanded scale and extent of business sectors and firms to the phenomenal advantage of society at large, be that as it may, at the cost of including a comparative ascent in negative impacts and open externalities which may come in type of environmental degradation, misuse of labor or ongoing over the top risk taking in the financial sector. Disregarding the reality that the government is relied upon to right such conduct and reestablish the welfare ideal, organizations or corporations have put more assets in business related public good provision or decrease of negative externalities past necessities by law and regulation. These acts can be referred to as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), self- regulation or beyond compliance and has left many economist and observers in confusion (Kitzmueller, 2010). Recent review have discovered that two out of three people need corporations to go past profit expansion and add to more extensive society objectives and right around 60 for each penny specify factors identified with an organization’s more extensive duties—labour practices, business ethics, responsibility to society at large, or environmental impacts to be critical determinants of their assessment about a firm. In the UK, 70% of buyers express that they will pay more for an item that they see as morally predominant, while half of American customers say their view of an organization drove them to think about fulfilling or rebuffing an organization by buying or not obtaining its items or services, or by talking up for or against such an organization

Since the second half of the twentieth century a long conflict on corporate social responsibility (CSR) has developed. Bartunek (2002) composed the fundamental book titled Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. From that point forward there has been a move in phrasing from the social responsibility of business to CSR. Essentially, this area has enhanced altogether and directly has an expanding number of theories, methodologies and terminologies. Society and business, stakeholder management, corporate responsibility, social issues management and open approach are only a couple of the terminologies used to depict the wonders identified with corporate social responsibility in the general public. As of late, restored energy for corporate social responsibilities and new elective ideas have been proposed, including corporate citizenship and corporate sustainability. A few researchers have differentiated these new thoughts and the considerable idea of CSR (Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Wood and Lodgson, 2002).
Organizations principally exist predominantly to make profit. The profit intention has frequently been seen as speaking to an absence of concern for every single other goal of an organization. In any case, today organizations are understanding that with a specific end goal to remain beneficial in a quickly evolving condition, they would need to end up socially responsible. Along these lines, the conviction that beyond making profit for the shareholders, business enterprises ought to likewise serve the premiums of all stakeholders has culminated into the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Ugwunwanyi & Ekene, 2016).

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is generally characterized as activities that seem to promote some social good, past the interests of the firm and that which is required by law (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). This implies CSR comprises of those intentional organizational exercises that appear to build social welfare (Barnett, 2007). When the change of some social good is conjured—however conditional those results might be—an innate standardizing judgment is made on the grounds that, as for CSR, the spotlight isn’t just on social change; rather, CSR is about the advancement of society somehow by responsible corporations. This normal conceptualization of CSR depends on three crucial premises: first, business as usual should be addressed in light of the fact that clearly the present state of affairs is dared to be unsustainable and subsequently, needing change; second, organizations are the correct specialists of progress; at long last, what is great and what is better is plainly obvious and can be surveyed objectively.
In the present age, economic activity and exchange isn’t conceivable without considering the social responsibility it has begun on the grounds that amid the season of on the learning of the (customers products and services) expanded and lastly they (customers) items that the organization decides to social obligation and lawful, financial, moral and ecological committed and the usage and lead the development. Taking part in socially responsible activities enhances stakeholder fulfillment, as well as positively affects corporate reputation (Gupta, 2012). The body of evidence against the idea of CSR is frequently started with the classical economic contention verbalized commandingly by the late Milton Friedman (1962). Friedman trusted that management has one duty and that is to amplify the profits of its proprietors or shareholders. Friedman contended that social issues are not the worry of businessmen and that these issues ought to be settled by the liberated workings of the free market system. Furthermore, this view holds that, if the free market can’t tackle the social issues, it falls not upon business, but rather upon government and legislation to carry out the activity. Also, criticism to CSR has been that business isn’t prepared to deal with social activities. This position trusted that mangers are mentally inclined towards finance and duties and don’t have the vital aptitude (social abilities), to settle on socially oriented choices (Davis 1973; Archie et al, 2010).

The thought of corporate social responsibility (CSR) isn’t new in our general public. It appeared when corporations were conceived and social orders to suit them. Social responsibility is the thing that the French philosopher Rousseau comprehended to be the ”Social Contract” amongst business and society. Corporate social responsibility has gotten developing enthusiasm from business researchers over the recent decades. The linkage amongst CSR and firm performance, anyway has been a disputable issue among researchers as there has not been an agreement with respect to the effect that CSR would have on firm performance (Alshammari, 2015). In the previous couple of years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an idea has pulled in the consideration of most researchers in management, with the study of corporate citizenship, moral and social responsibility is showing up with more recurrence (Post et al., 2002).

As of late, customers, employees, providers, community groups, governments, and a few investors have urged firms to attempt extra interests in corporate social responsibility (CSR). A few firms have reacted to these concerns by dedicating more assets to CSR. Other organizations’ managers have opposed, contending that extra interests in CSR is conflicting with their endeavors to amplify profits (McWilliams ; Siegel, 2000). Today, numerous organizations are distributing a yearly corporate social responsibility report and making it accessible online with the goal that all stakeholders can see plainly what the firm is doing so as to lead its business in a socially and environmentally responsible way. This is one approach to make an impression on all stakeholders that social responsibility is as essential as profits and should thusly be estimated.

2.1.1 Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility
In the study of Visser (2010) evolution of CSR is grouped into five (5) different stages of evolution: the Periods of Greed, Philanthropy, Marketing, Management and Responsibility. Each of these stages ordinarily shows an alternate stage of CSR namely: Defensive, Charitable, Promotional, Strategic and Transformative CSR.
Stage 1—The Age of Greed: is portrayed by Defensive CSR in which all corporate sustainability and responsibility practices which are ordinarily constrained—are embraced just if and when it very well may be demonstrated that shareholder value will be ensured accordingly. Thusly, employee volunteer projects (which demonstrate confirmation of improved staff inspiration, duty and profitability) are normal, nor are consumptions (for instance in pollution controls) which are believed to fight off regulation or keep away from fines and punishments.
Stage 2—Charitable CSR in the Age of Philanthropy: is the act whereby an organization supports distinctive social and natural causes through endorsements and sponsorships, frequently managed through a Foundation, Trust or Chairman’s Fund and directed at engaging local communities or civil society organizations.
Stage 3—Promotional CSR in the Age of Marketing: is the thing that happens when corporate supportability and duty is seen generally as a publicizing opportunity to overhaul the brand, image and reputation of the organization. Special CSR may draw on the demonstrations of Charitable and Strategic CSR and change them into PR spin, which is consistently depicted as ”greenwash”.
Stage 4—Strategic CSR emerging from the Age of Management: implies relating CSR activities to the organization’s core business (e.g Coca-cola and water administration), regularly through adherence to CSR codes and execution of social and environmental management systems, which normally include cycles of CSR policy development, objective and target setting, program usage, evaluating and reporting.
Stage 5—transformative CSR in the Age of Responsibility: bases its exercises on recognizing and taking care of the hidden drivers of our present unsustainability and flippancy, routinely through propelling plans of activity, upsetting their techniques, items and administrations and crusading for dynamic national and international strategies.
Table 1: The Ages and Stages of CSR
Business Age Stage of CSR Modus Operandi Key Enabler Stakeholder Target
Greed Defensive Ad Hoc Interventions Investments Shareholders, government ; employees
Philanthropy Charitable Community Programmes Projects Communities
Marketing Promotional Management systems Media General public
Management Strategic Business Models Codes Shareholders ; NGOs/CSOs
Responsibility Transformative Products Regulators ; customers
Source: Visser, 2010
2.1.2 Benefits of CSR to the Organization
Realizing CSR includes arrangement of areas of interest. Numerous researchers have demonstrated that a socially responsible organization squares away to both business and society. Arnold (2010) trusts that the principal advantage that streams from CSR is improved connection amongst organizations and communities. Appearing as an ethical endeavor motivates society’s trust and makes the connection more public. Researchers have broadly portrayed how organizations can profit from CSR exercises (Balcerowicz, 2015; Perry & Towers, 2013; Gupta, 2012). They recommend executing socially responsible solutions in organizations and convince that they bring different positive result. A great part of the time they indicate gigantic number of updates, starting with the development in salaries to enable both large and small scale enterprises to spread the likelihood of CSR and get it under way in their step by step exercises. The benefits of corporate social responsibility with respect to business organizations are raised in Figure 1.?

Fig. 1: Benefits of CSR to the Organization
Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2018
Kurucz, Colbert and Wheeler (2008) set a key centrality of CSR for being able to build a brand image. With the coordination of all stakeholders’ needs, reputation of an organization as a responsible business moves forward. Additionally, organizations fulfilling their CSR approach don’t have to worry over social permit to work (Balcerowicz, 2015). Through the credibility organizations can develop esteem and achieve profitability. The craving of the end purchasers for faultless items may prompt a fall in offers of an organization blamed for exploitative practice. A terrible picture of an entity can result even in boycotting its items. What’s more, it is hard to “greenwash” it. After buyers choose to blacklist one organization’s items, the greater part of them never return to purchasing from it. Thusly, the best approach is to remain off the media radar by complying with the moral standards from the begin (Perry ; Towers, 2013). In a similar vein, endorsement of local communities can likewise be effectively won by CSR activities and empower organizations to work undisturbed (Diviney ; Lillywhite, 2007). CSR is in like manner a strategy for perceiving a business from others. Through presenting itself as a forerunner of competent perspective, an organization can rise from the group and in like manner instigate customers into acquiring its products and supporting it in various ways (Gupta, 2012). In addition, a growing number of financial specialists search for dependable organizations to place assets into moral estimations of a business can pull in rich businessmen that should need to add to the organization’s flourishing and profitability. Thusly benevolence of the substance can increase in a general sense in the wake of completing CSR in organization’s preparation (Kurucz et al, 2008; Mullerat, 2010; Perry ; Towers, 2013).

Doorman and Kramer (2016) in like manner display conviction that transforming into a socially responsible organization does not simply incorporate costs and philanthropies, which tie directors, anyway it furthermore passes on focal points to them and to society. Among those advantages, Porter and Kramer (2016) discuss technological developments, various opportunities rising and, likely the most vital for this situation, competitive advantage. On account of CSR the organization can come up to a pioneer position in the area (Diviney ; Lillywhite, 2007). Adjusting social responsibility is a magnificent situating technique, since it builds estimation of the brand. It might prompt upgraded impact of an organization in the business. Some CSR practices, such as lessening waste, impact operational effectiveness, and hence make generation more financially savvy and increment benefits at last (Perry ; Towers, 2013).

2.1.3 Benefits of CSR to the Society
Besides bringing a wide combination of favorable circumstances for an organization, CSR should, above all, add to the flourishing of the overall public. Passing on preferences to the whole society should similarly be the recognizable driver for business to start and continue with CSR contribution (Perry ; Towers, 2013). Albeit most researches center around the upsides of CSR to associations and why they should actualize it, there are not many that said the additions of the general public.

Corporate association in nearby community’s issues improves the atmosphere in its environment (Golaszewska-Kaczan, 2009). People who have been helped by organization’s activity are happier and benefit from a higher desire for regular day to day existence. In addition, seeing that organizations oversee to communities flourishing influences everyone to feel more secure and on a very basic level decreases pollution inside the overall population. Organization’s generous activities create benefits for the slightest advantaged, helping the poor and expanding trust (Carrol & Buchholtz, 2008). Trainings, all over dealt with for people from outside of the organizations, are an unfathomable favored outlook for society. They raise people’s knowledge and set it up in important aptitudes that can help neighborhood subjects for the duration of regular daily existence. CSR activities about wellbeing increment, care in the general population field and effect its conduct, inducing people to go for their therapeutic examinations and demonstrating to them that prevention is better than cure. These activities result in more advantageous and better instructed society (Arnold, 2010). Participating in CSR values may bring about growing better relations with governments. On account of this collaboration the two sides can find a superior method to serve society and give it more prominent than before economic improvement openings (Arnold, 2010). Figure 2 introduces a rundown of points of interest of social duty of organizations from the perspective of the general public.

Fig. 2: Benefits of CSR to the Society
Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2018

2.1.4 CSR and Customer Satisfaction
Consumer satisfaction is an aggregate worldwide appraisal in light of experiences with firms after some time and is a focal marker of past, present and future execution (Anderson et al., 1994). All things considered, consumer satisfaction has turned out to be a standout amongst the most basic objectives of firms and is an imperative focal point of business strategy. Consumer satisfaction could best be clarified by using the equity theory (Oliver, 1997; Oliver & Swan, 1989a, 1989b) and the anticipation disconfirmation worldview (Oliver et al., 1997; Tse et al., 1990). Given their introduction towards social trade and customer cooperation, value hypothesis and the hope disconfirmation worldview are fitting to ground theory advancement in investigating the connection between an organization’s display of social responsibility and its partners; to be specific, its customers.

Equity theory centers around reasonableness, rightness or judgments people make in reference to what one party or alternate gets. The theory for the most part proposes that in trades, if people feel evenhandedly treated, fulfillment is the outcome (Goodwin ; Ross, 1992; Oliver, 1997). Henceforth, individuals incur certain costs (inputs) in trades for a specific level of yield from firms. Equity thus influences the person’s general assessment of the firm. Then again, the anticipation disconfirmation worldview proposes that people contrast trades and firms with their earlier desires (Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988; Tse et. al., 1990). Regardless of whether the correlation results are seen as more regrettable than anticipated, superior to expected, or similarly of course, will straightforwardly drive satisfaction assessments (Oliver, 1980, 1981). Simply more particularly, singular level satisfaction is what amount to perceived performance avows or disconfirms performance desires. In like way, when performance exceeds desires, satisfaction increases. Right when desires exceeds performance passed on, satisfaction diminishes. In total, the expectation disconfirmation perspective predicts that satisfaction should increase with performance and diminishing with disregarded desires. With respect to, there are different ways the construct is required to earnestly influence consumer satisfaction.

In a very much reported corporate turnaround (Westbrook, 2000), the American firm, Sears, Roebuck and Company set customer service at the core of its corporate strategy. Understanding that offering quality items at moderate costs could be progressively duplicated by contending retailers, Sears created and executed the ’employee-customer-profit chain’ model to gain an upper hand (Porter & Kramer, 2006). The model connected employee activities, consumer satisfaction, and productivity, and analyzed how immediate and particular changes in employee activities would enhance consumer satisfaction, and, at last, profitability. Subsequent to losing $4 billion of every 1992, after five years in the wake of actualizing the model, in 1997 the organization posted a profit of 1.5$ billion. As per Sternberg (1997) and Westbrook (2000), a key measurement of the turnaround at Sears was overwhelming investments in workers, especially in preparing them in the ‘workmanship’ of reacting to and surpassing customer expectations. Maignan et al., (1999) point out that organizations are not legitimately required to offer training; rather, training is an optional duty that flags a promise to CSR.

2.1.5 Criticism of CSR
Corporate social responsibility is generally examined in literature. By and by, not the greater part of the suppositions are ideal. There are the individuals who caution about the drawbacks of CSR. Ijaiya (2014) takes note that researchers lauding the advantages spilling out of CSR center around utilizing it to discover the change of financial performance in a long haul. He contended that truth be told, those activities are not genuinely ‘social’. As indicated by him CSR serves corporatizing social conduct to influence it to bring the profit.

A few organizations can likewise be blamed for hypocrisy. Those organizations affirm the thoughts of CSR, when in actuality indulge in series of corporate misuse, as environmental destruction, complicity with oppressive administrations, exploitative work conditions, insufficient item and process wellbeing gauges, movement of polluting enterprises to areas with frail natural security administrations, annihilation of neighborhood jobs, brutality against indigenous networks (Ijaiya, 2014). In the meantime, those organizations make deception of consistence with social responsibility rules. As a general rule they simply build up their advertising efforts, while manhandling their corporate power.

Moon (2014) brings up the trouble of estimating the genuine effect of CSR usage. It is conceivable to check the long stretches of voluntary work by employees or look at the rate of mishaps occurring in an office. Be that as it may, those estimations can’t measure the distinction it makes to the general public and related appraisal of regardless of whether it merits paying the expenses. There is no probability of estimating to what degree tackling the issue was an impact of the organization’s social responsibility activity.
?
Another weakness of corporate social responsibility was recognized by Ijaiya (2014). He shows that drive to raise shareholders’ esteem won’t generally prompt making of win-win circumstances. In some cases it incites their dispossession. It is a justified concern that a few organizations attempt to purchase communities’ altruism with CSR, overlooking that the main issue that ought to be essential is society’s prosperity. Some developing nations comprehend CSR as only altruism and in light of that twisted picture their local organizations can’t be completely socially responsible.

Golaszewska-Kaczan (2009) presents a few contentions that can be the reason why organizations don’t get engaged with corporate social responsibility in any case. The legitimate method of reasoning against CSR is the unimportant lawful identity of an endeavor. It’s anything but a human, subsequently can’t be relied upon to modify its activities to moral benchmarks. One of the social contentions is that taking part in social projects gives excessive power to organizations. It is underscored by the way that directors are talented for the most part in financial aspects and don’t have capacities required to reply to social issues. In addition, it is troublesome for an organization to manage activities without the help of the larger part of individuals from the community, and there are individuals that are not partial to the possibility of partnerships putting their noses in social issues.

At long last, Golaszewska-Kaczan (2009) raises various economic contentions restricting the advantages of corporate social responsibility. Right off the bat, he brings up that as a business, the focal point of an organization ought to be on expanding productivity for the advantage of just the investors and social exercises remove the consideration from profit. Designating the cash-flow to CSR rather than innovative work may put the organization off guard in connection to its rivals. He expressed further that the enthusiasm of the different partners may be at struggle with each other and the venture will dependably need to pick one’s needs finished the others’.

2.2 Theoretical Framework
The study under review will consider two relevant theories which try to explain the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility. These two theories are the Shareholder theory and the Stockholder Theory.
?
2.2.1 The Shareholder Value Theory
Shareholder value theory is the predominant economic theory being used by business. Boosting shareholder riches as the reason for the firm is built up in our laws, economic and financial related theory, administration practices, and languages. Business colleges hold shareholder value theory as a focal tenet. Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman (1970) unequivocally contends for augmenting budgetary return for shareholder. His industrialist viewpoint plainly considers the firm possessed by and worked for the advantage of the shareholders. He says there is just a single social duty of organizations—to utilize its assets and take part in exercises intended to build its profits so far as it remains within the guidelines of the game, which is to state, take part in open and free rivalry without trickery or extortion. Friedman’s announcement reflects three essential suspicions that loan support to the shareholder perspective of the firm. The primary assumption is that the human, social and environmental costs of working together should be camouflaged just to the degree required by law. Each and every other cost should be externalized. The second supposition is that self-interest as the prime human spark. In that capacity, people and organizations should and will act wisely in their own particular self-interest to grow capability and motivating force for society. The third supposition is that the firm is on an extremely essential level a nexus of concurrences with control taking off to those understandings that have the best impact on the efficiency of the firm.
1. Externalization of Costs
As demonstrated by this perspective, increasing shareholder esteem as the target of the firm is the best approach to most successfully achieve the best outcome for society (Jensen, 2001). Taken genuinely, regardless, this theory holds that organization ought to keep up the business to open up wage to shareholder—maximizing income, limiting cost, and diminishing risk. One way to decrease cost is by externalizing it through such means as tainting nature. A way to expand income is to offer things that have a more unmistakable cost to society than is dealt with in the costs of the things, for instance, cigarettes or sport utility vehicles.

2. Self-interest as the Prime Human Motivator
The major presumption of present day economic theory is a perspective of the individual self, acting soundly in self-intrigue (Achebe, 1998). The suspicion is prefaced on the way that except if proper governance structures are emplaced, managers will keep their best interests in mind and not in light of a legitimate concern for the shareholders (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). This theory mirrors a Theory X (McGregor, 1960) story of the individual manager looking to augment his or her pay and maintain a strategic distance from punishment.

3. The firm as a Nexus of Contracts in service of profitability
The nexus of contracts theory (Alchian & Demsetz, 1972; Coase, 1937) delineates the firm in a web of understood and unequivocal contracts with stakeholders; be that as it may, the shareholder has supremacy over different stakeholders (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). The board and management keep on having a guardian obligation to augment shareholder value (Bainbridge, 2002). The firm as a nexus of agreements depicts the firm in connection to its condition—a perspective of the firm searching externally into its environment. AResource dependency theory gives a comparable view wherein it portrays control/reliance connections (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) between the firm and different performing artists in its environment and enables basic respect for those stakeholders in the earth who have the best impact on the productivity of the firm.

Legitimization of Shareholder Value Theory
It is so socially imbued into the financial community that business exists mostly to boost the enthusiasm of shareholders; many trust it to be an uncontestable truth. It take frame in business college, is multiplied in and fortified by and by, and is legitimated through different sources, from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Markowitz, 1952) to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Bank of Sweden who grant the Memorial Nobel Prize in Economics. Crafted by the Nobel Laureates in financial theory acknowledges shareholder wealth amplification as a given assumption (Markowitz, 1952; Modigliani & Miller, 1958; Sharpe, 1964). Altogether, prevailing perspectives on corporate governance and educational program of most business colleges bolster the viewpoint that the sole motivation behind business in our community is business. Business acting past its financial concerns is, best case scenario misinformed (Jensen, 2001) and is misallocating or potentially misusing societal assets (Easterbrook & Fischel, 1991; Friedman, 1970; Sternberg, 1997). Business increases the value of the economy through the proficient conveyance of merchandise and enterprises. Social and natural concerns are identified with business through the commercial center and governmental regulations.
?
2.2.2 The Stakeholder Value Theory
The goal of the stakeholder value theory is to offer an elective motivation behind the firm. Stakeholder value theory suggests the reason for the firm is to serve more extensive societal interests beyond economic value creation for shareholders alone. It is getting to be key to the critical story of business in the society. The idea of stakeholder value theory is credited to R. Edward Freeman (1994) whose unique idea was that directors have an ethical commitment to consider and properly adjust the interests everything being equal. Hillman & Keim (2001) set that a stakeholder value theory of the firm should reclassify the reason for the firm; the plain motivation behind the firm is to fill in as a vehicle for organizing stakeholder interests. Stakeholder theory communicates the possibility that business associations are needy upon stakeholders for progress, and stakeholders have some stake in the association. Stakeholder theory is currently fundamental to business morals courses in MBA programs (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2008; Jennings, 2002). The subject of who is a Stakeholder is disputable. Question emerge, for example, regardless of whether Stakeholders represent a wide class of the individuals who are influenced by or influence the organization (Evan & Freeman, 1993) or are just those people and constituencies that adds to the organizations’ wealth-creating capacity and exercises (Post, Preston ; Sachs, 2002). In the event that stakeholder theory includes just the individuals who influence the organization and its profits, at that point it winds up subordinate to shareholder value theory, not a contrasting option to it. An expansive system of stakeholders is offered by Wheeler and Sillanpaa (1997). They include four classifications of partners: essential social, auxiliary social, essential non-social and optional non-social. Primary social, secondary social, primary non-social and secondary non-social. Primary stakeholders are vital to a corporation’s success and secondary stakeholders are less influential.
Table 2: Stakeholder Framework
Primary Social Stakeholder Secondary Social Stakeholders
• Shareholders and other speculators
• Employees and Managers
• Customers
• Local Communities
• Suppliers and Business partners • Government and regulators
• Civic institutions
• Social pressure groups
• Media and academic commentators
• Trade bodies
• Competitors
Primary Non-social Stakeholders Secondary Non-social Stakeholders
• The natural environment
• Future generations
• Non-human species • Environmental interest groups
• Animal welfare organizations
Source: Wheeler & Sillanpaa (1997)
The stakeholder value theory is divided along two different ways: Normative and Instrumental. The Normative stakeholder route continues in the custom of a viewpoint of the firm in relationship to its diverse stakeholders with no partner having pervasiveness. The instrumental way, nevertheless, attempts to relate stakeholders’ management to wealth creation. In doing accordingly, instrumental stakeholder theory transforms into a subset of shareholder value theory.

Instrumental Stakeholder Theory
Donaldson and Preston (1995), the instrumental view builds up a system for analyzing the associations, assuming any, between the practice of stakeholder management and the achievement of various corporate performance goals. From the instrumental body of research come the terms corporate social performance (CSP), corporate financial performance (CFP), and stakeholder management. A supposition of the instrumental contention is that overseeing stakeholders will prompt more noteworthy profits. More than thirty long periods of instrumental research recommend an unmistakable positive relationship between the CSP and CFP of an enterprise (Margolis ; Walsh, 2001; Orlitzky, Schmidt ; Rynes, 2003).

Hillman and Kein (2001) depict stakeholder theory from an emphatically instrumental view in testing connections among shareholder value creation, stakeholder management, and the company’s interest in social issues. They discover fabricating better relations with essential stakeholders like workers, customers, providers, and communities could prompt expanded shareholder wealth by helping firms create impalpable, significant resources which can be wellsprings of upper hand. They likewise discovered that social commitment past that to primary stakeholders wrecks shareholder value. Their utilization of the term stakeholder management is steady with the predominant perspective of corporate reason to be to maximize shareholder wealth. Most of the stakeholder literature, frequently accidentally, unequivocally strengthens business as usual of stakeholder value theory. Each exact model intended to interface CSP and CFP is a contention certainly tolerating stakeholder value theory and consigning stakeholder theory as subordinate.
?
Normative Stakeholder Theory
The Normative stakeholder theory is the key premise of stakeholder theory (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Normative stakeholder theory expect that all stakeholders have natural esteem and no stakeholder has a priority of interest over other stakeholders. The normative angle has two suppositions that are not the same as shareholder value theory: relational interest compared with self-interest and balancing instead of maximizing. A normative aspect of stakeholder theory grasps a perspective of the corporation adjusting the interests everything being equal and not maximizing performance for the advantage of the shareholders (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Margolis & Walsh (2001; 2003) call for extended motivation for clear and normative research. The normative parts of stakeholder theory represent its distinction from shareholder value theory. Normative stakeholder theory gives an elective clarification of the motivation behind the firm and gives an alternate arrangement of behavioral assumptions. A feeling of adjusting replaces augmenting and accordingly, relationship within the environment replaces the individual following up on the environment. Normative stakeholder theory requires a perspective of the firm in more extensive service to society.
2.2.3 Comparison of the Theories and implications for Organizational theory
Instrumental stakeholder theory is like the economic theory of corporate reason for existing being to boost wealth of shareholders. On the off chance that just an augmentation of economic theory, authoritative bits of knowledge of stakeholder theory just serve to propel the productivity of wealth generation and pass up on alternate chances for organizational theory, for example, enhancing the social and environmental fallout of work. Organizational theory needs to assume an important part in the public eye it its own particular right (Bartunek, 2002; Clegg, 2002; Murrell, 2002). How organizations influence the social equity and how social equity is circulated inside organizations were focal concerns in the development of organizational theory from its sociological roots (Hinings & Greenwood, 2002). These inquiries were supplanted with an inexorably smaller concentration toward hierarchical adequacy and effectiveness. Organizational development and related sociologies must keep on asking the more extensive societal inquiries identified with organizations and not simply serve to make business more powerful and effective (Clegg, 2002; Murrell, 2002). Organizational theory must continue tending to these basic inquiries to remain vital and critical, and additionally in case it is to achieve its fullest potential in serving a greater society past the current situation of capability and simpleness (Bartunek, 2002; Hinings & Greenwood, 2002).
?
2.3 Empirical Framework
A large number of researches have been carried out to investigate the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on organization productivity and societal satisfaction from different views and in various environments. However majority of the researches are set in developed country’s context.

Orlitzky (2013) in his study found that the characteristics supporting CSR are driven by a communist-collectivist arrangement, which is inherently repudiated to industrialist/libertarian estimations of free enterprise and autonomy. He assumed that without fundamental reflection on the leftwing conviction framework instantiated by CSR, the business community may coincidentally grasp and oversee values that undermine free markets.

Clegg (2002) argued that managers are not just occupied with CSR activities as a result of strategic reasoning, but rather in view of the presence of an ethical order for them to act dependably without respect to the consequences for the organization. Notwithstanding, he additionally expressed that there is a business case for corporate social responsibility. Jones (1995) portrays the common advantage of CSR activities for organizations and their stakeholders, specifically for the stakeholders: since firms show obligation by their CSR inclusion, they are seen as dependable and accordingly as sheltered market transaction partners.

Milton Friedman (1962) posited that management has one obligation and that is to maximize the profits or investors. Friedman contended that social issues are not the concern of business people and these issues should be settled by the free market. Correspondingly, McWilliams and Siegel (2000) discovered that CSR may influence organization’s financial performance. Be that as it may, they likewise trusted that CSR activities embraced by organization can likewise decrease social risk and can profit the organization over the long haul. In their words, CSR may have leverage and burden for an organization; it relies upon CSR usage viability by organization.

The study of Mehralian et. al (2016) demonstrated that organizations see CSR as a significant asset that prompts an economical advantage by advancing and supporting Total Quality Management (TQM) execution. Two reciprocal perspectives connecting CSR and performance were recognized in the study: first, CSR advances a firm’s image and reputation, which will eventually draw in more qualified and faithful employees, purchasers, and different stakeholders, prompting social permit renewal; in this way helping the organizations to accomplish a feasible quality favorable position. Second, TQM intervenes the connection amongst CSR and organizational performance. Increased attention to CSR issues in the pharmaceutical business is useful in executing managerial practices that prompt enhanced image about the organization’s task.

Kaufmann & Olaru (2012) led a research on the quantifiability of the effect of corporate social responsibility on business performance and found that the effect of CSR on business performance is quantifiable utilizing an indirect approach. The research proposed that another approach ought to be utilized by organizations to decide the impact of CSR on various stakeholders of the organization by estimating changes in stakeholder satisfaction levels because of investments in corporate social responsibility.

Kitzmueller (2010) in his study on Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility improved an endeavor to see how a company’s inspiration for CSR and potential government impetuses associate. The study discovered that the presence of a reputational channel amongst CSR and consumer request makes CSR a strategic behavior. The consequence of the study additionally gave a knowledge into the intensity of market powers, for example, purchaser inclinations in affecting firm conduct and its reliance on data. The study established that the request weight decides the target capacity of profit maximizing firms, and an expansion in individuals’ affectability towards CSR issues implements the working of the reputational channel and makes government mediation more defenseless towards swarming out effects. The study recommend the need to search for alternative public policy tool and even the likelihood of giving markets a chance to give people in general good alone by means of CSR.

In the study of Maimunah (2009) on the part of CSR on community development, he found that Community development is subject to CSR because the community is an exceptionally complex structure which includes individuals with various levels of control of benefits physically and subtly. The research moreover found that CSR is about business, government and basic culture facilitated exertion with all that truly matters in the achievement of a win-win situation among the three substances. The research prescribe a further research to be directed with highlight put on the expertise necessity of managers to complete and execute a ground-breaking and profitable CSR that will achieve financial objectives without risking the social goals.
Perry & Towers (2013) directed an study with the aim of portraying the corporate social responsibility in business and found that the principle factor for organizations’ prosperity is to meet the social expectations. The study proposed that organizations ought to submit themselves into social responsible actions as this outcomes in the economical and far reaching advancement. It furthermore prescribe that change in existing social responsible activities will ensure change in the employees’ performance, increase aggressiveness, ensure the organizations’ whole deal accomplishment, result being developed and change, and will at last make an adjust in the social, economic, and environmental areas.

Ugwunwanyi ; Ekene (2016) in their study on the issues and prospects of the usage of CSR in Nigeria found that such factors, for example, failure of the government to authorize CSR into law, debasement and self-centeredness, absence of enthusiasm for executing CSR, political and social uncertainty represents a genuine obstruction to organizations in actualizing CSR adequately and effectively in Nigeria. The study suggest that the government of Nigeria should put into law a legal structure for organizations on CSR as this will make CSR to be considered important and seen as mandatory as against non-obligatory.

2.4 Gaps in Literature
In summary, a large number of studies have established the effect CSR has on business performance and the society; in which most of these studies were carried out in the developed countries. In most developing nations like Nigeria which is the environment for this study; the impact of CSR is evident in the profitability of these organizations who claim to carry out CSR but the impact of their actions is not well felt in the society and the government of the country should be held accountable for this situation as there are no strict laws regulating the CSR activities of prominent organizations in the country. Ugwunwanyi ; Ekene (2016) attributed this failure on the part of the government to factors such as corruption, selfishness, lack of will to implement CSR among other factors.

To obtain optimum benefit of CSR on the society, the government needs to take charge of the situation and put in place a legal framework that will act as a regulator of the CSR actions of these organization in order to reap the benefit of a good and fair CSR action on the society and eliminate the exploitation of the consumers of the products ; services of these organizations.

?
2.5 Summary of Literature
There are merits of corporate social responsibility to both organizations and the society if well implemented. Organizations who carry out their CSR actions effectively stand to enjoy such benefits such as brand image, profitability, avoiding legal actions, it could also attract investors, cost reduction in the price of its product, customer loyalty on the part of its customers, risk mitigation, license to operate among other. The society in the same vein stand to enjoy such benefits such as improvement in standard of living, social activation, better employment opportunities, increased health etc.

Few of the literatures reviewed are against the involvement of corporations in corporate social responsibility stating that the focus of organizations should be the maximization of profit for its shareholders, adding that involvement in corporate social responsibility leads to higher cost and loss of focus on the main objective of the organization. Meanwhile other literatures reviewed are in support of the involvement of organizations in corporate social responsibility owing to the advantages mentioned above.

The aim of this research study is to investigate the impact of corporate social responsibility on the productivity of organizations and societal satisfaction. The study will take the literatures reviewed into consideration as a pilot for the study and make necessary recommendations in the concluding chapter of the research work.

?
References
Achebe, C. (1998). The trouble with Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Company.
Alchian, A., ; Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs and economic organization.
American Economic Review, 62.

Alshammari, M., (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance: The
Moderating Role of Reputation and Institutional Investors, International Journal of Business and Management; 10(6), 15-28.

Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., ; Lehmann, D,R. (1994) Customer satisfaction, market share,
and profitability: Findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing 58(3): 53-66.

Archie B.C., ; Kareem M.S. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice, International Journal of
Management Reviews, 85-105.

Arnold, M.F. (2010). “Competitive Advantage from CSR Programmes”, in: Louche, C., Idowu,
S.O., Filho, W.L. (Eds.), Innovative CSR: From Risk Management to Value Creation,
Greenleaf Publishing Limited, Sheffield.

Bainbridge, S. M. (2002). The board of directors as nexus of contracts: A critique of Gulati,
Klein ; Zolt’s ‘connected contracts’ model. (UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 02-05).

Balcerowicz, L. (2015). “Corporate Social Responsibility: Some Clarifications and Questions”,
in: Fryzel, B. (Ed.). The True Value of CSR: Corporate Identity and Stakeholder Perceptions, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 15-28.

Barton, J.H. (2007). New Trends in Technology Transfer: Implications for National and
International Policy, Issue Paper No. 18. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).

Bartunek, J. M. (2002). The proper place of organizational scholarship: A comment on Hinings
and Greenwood. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 422

Carroll, A.B., & Buchholtz, A.K. (2008). Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and
Stakeholder Management, 9th Edition, Cengage Learning, Stamford.

Clegg, S. R. (2002). Lives in the balance: A comment on Hinings and Greenwood’s
‘Disconnects and Consequences in Organization Theory?’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 428- 441.

Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica.

Davis, K. (1960). Can Business afford to ignore corporate social responsibility? California
Management Review, 2, 70-76.

?
Diviney, E., ; Lillywhite, S. (2007). Ethical Threads: Corporate Social Responsibility in the
Australian Garment Industry, Brotherhood of St. Laurence, Melbourne. Retrieved from
http://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/handle/1/1727 (accessed 22 July 2015).

Donaldson, T., ; Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts,
evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Easterbrook, F. H., ; Fischel, D. R. (1991). The economic structure of corporate law.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409-421.

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York
Times Magazine, New York.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Garriga, E. ; Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping and territory.
Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51-74.

Golaszewska-Kaczan, U. (2009). Zaangazowanie Spoleczne przedsiebiorstwa, Wydawnicto
Uniwersytetu w Bialymstoku, Bialystok.

Goodwin, C. ; Ross, I. (1992) Customer responses to service failures: Influence of procedural
and interactional fairness perceptions, Journal of Business Research 25(2): 149-163.

Gupta, M. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Global Apparel Industry: An
Exploration of Indian Manufacturers’ Perceptions, Working paper, University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

Hillman, A.J., & Keim, G.D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social
issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal 22(2): 125-139.

Hinings, C. R., ; Greenwood, R. (2002). ASQ forum. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3),
411-421.

Ijaiya, H. (2014). Challenges of corporate social responsibility in the Niger Delta region of
Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy, (2014)3:1.

Jensen, M. C., ; Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency
costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.

Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective
function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3).

Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. 404-
437.

Kaufmann, N., ; Olaru, M. (2012). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Business
Performance—can it be measured, and if so, how? The Berlin International Economics Congress held on March 7th-10th, 2012.

Kitzmueller, M. (2010). Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility. European
University Institute, DOI: 10.2870/16517

Ksiezak, P. (2016). The Benefits from CSR for a Company and Society. Journal of Corporate
Responsibility and Leadership, 3(4), 53-65.

Kurucz, E.C., Colbert, B.A., ; Wheeler, D. (2008). “The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility”, in: Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon,J., Siegel, D.S. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 83-112.

Lee, M.P. (2008). Review of the Theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary
path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Review, 10(1), 53-73.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C., ; Hult, G.T.M. (1999) Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents
and business benefits, Academy of Marketing Science Journal 27(4): 455-469.

Maimunah, I. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility and Its role in community development:
an international perspective. Journal of International Social Research, 2(9), 199-209.

Malte, K. ; Marieta, O. (2012). The impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Business
Performance—Can it be measured, and if so, how?. Paper presented at the Berlin
International Economic Congress from March 7th-10th, 2012.

Margolis, J. D., ; Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits? The search for a link between a
company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Margolis, J.D. & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves company: Rethinking social initiatives by
business’, Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): 265-305.

Markowitz, H. M. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.(2000). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial
Performance: Correlation or Misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 603-609.

McWilliams, A., and Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm
perspective, Academy of Management Review. Vol. 26 (1), pp. 117-127.

Mehralian, G.H., Nazari, J.A., Zarei, L., Rasekh, H.R., (2016). The effects of corporate social
responsibility on organizational performance in the Iranian pharmaceutical industry: The mediating role of TQM, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 135, 1 November 2016, Pages 689-698.

Modigliani, F., ; Miller, M. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of
investment. American Economic Review, 48, 261-297.

Moon, J. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford
University Press Inc., New York, 83-112.

Mullerat, R. (2010). International Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Corporations
in the Economic Order of the 21st Century, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den
Rijn.

Murrell, K. L. (2002). The new century for global organization development: Responding to
the challenges of the new day. OD Practitioner, 34(1), 9-16

Oliver, R.L. ; DeSarbo, W.S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction judgments,
Journal Consumer Research 14(4): 495-507.

Oliver, R.L., ; Swan, J.E. (1989a). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and
satisfaction in transactions: A field survey approach, Journal of Marketing 53(2): 21-35.

Oliver, R.L., ; Swan, J.E. (1989b). Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on
merchant and product satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Research 16(3): 372-383.

Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T., ; Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight: Foundations, findings, and
managerial insight, Journal of Retailing 73(3): 311-336.

Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions, Journal of Marketing Research 17(4): 46-49.

Oliver, R.L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes on retail settings,
Journal of Retailing 57(3): 25-48.

Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill,
New York.

Orlitzky, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, noise, and stock market volatility.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(3), 238-254.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., ; Rynes, S. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance:
A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-411

Perry, P. ; Towers, N. (2013). Conceptual Framework Development for CSR Implementation
in Fashion Supply Chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution ; Logistics Management, 43(5/6), 478-500.

Pfeffer, J., ; Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper ; Row
Porter, M.E. ; Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive
Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, December, 78-93.

Post, J. E., Preston, L.E., Sauter-Sachs, S., ; Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the Corporation:
Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth (Stanford University Press, Stanford).

Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of
risk. Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425-442

Sternberg, E. (1997). The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance, 5(1), 3-10.

Tse, D.K., Nicosia, R.M., ; Wilton, P.C. (1990) Customer satisfaction as a process,
Psychology and Marketing 7(3): 177-193.

Ugwunwanyi, A., ; Ekene, C. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and its implementation
in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(2), 60-69.

Visser, W. (2010). The Ages and stages of CSR: From Defensive to Systemic Corporate
Sustainability and Responsibility. CSR International Inspiration Series (8).
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/corporate-social-responsibility.en

Westbrook, R.A. (2000). Towards a managerial research agenda for customer satisfaction,
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 13(1): 17-25.

Wheeler, D., ; Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation: A blueprint for maximizing
shareholder value. London: Pittman Publishing.

Wood, D. J. ; Lodgson, J. M. (2002). Business Citizenship: From Individuals to
Organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, Ruffin Series, No. 3, 59–94.