Resources on Corporate Social Responsibility

Posted at h in Corporate Social Responsibility by 0 Comments

0 Likes

Corporate social responsibility, or “CSR”, in the United States has its roots in the sustainability movement that began in the early 1960s, when environmentalists first raised concerns about the use of chemical pesticides by the general public and large corporations. By the end of that decade, environmental awareness campaigns and conferences had placed the topic squarely on to national public and political agendas and the federal government formed regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and funded extensive research on the effects of chlorofluorocarbons, volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and deforestation on the environment.[1] However, even as these activities were occurring the practices of environmental and social sustainability were still considered to be threats to economic sustainability until 1987, when the World Commission on Environment and Development issued a report titled Our Common Future that was to serve as the foundation for the argument that environmental and social health positively impacted economic health, thus encouraging sustainable development that was ultimately in the best long-term interests of businesses and all members of society.[2]

Beginning in the 1990s, a new economic theory of the firm, the “corporate community model”, put stakeholders at the center of corporate strategy. Masuku explained: “… the organization is viewed as a socioeconomic system where stakeholders are recognized as partners who create value through collaborative problem solving. It is the role of the organization to integrate the economic resources, political support, and special knowledge each stakeholder offers ‘not to do well’, but because it provides a competitive advantage.”[3] Throughout the 1990s, CSR became more international in scope, but was typically reactive in nature and often a response to negative publicity. During this time, a holistic, triple-bottom-line accounting framework of sustainability also began to emerge. Since the 2000s, CSR has grown increasingly strategic, and a broader concept of sustainability has gained ground as more empirical research on the topic has continued. Public pressure to address negative corporate externalities, and pressing social, economic, and environmental issues has driven the evolution of these practices. Over time, they have blurred the lines between the public, private, and civil sectors, and redefined traditional roles and structures in the process.[4] In addition, as time has gone by, CSR has become recognized as “[a] business strategy to make the ultimate goals of corporations more achievable as well as more transparent, demonstrate responsibility towards communities and the environment and take the interests of groups such as employees and consumers into account when making long-term business decisions.”[5] Other important drivers of CSR have been the surge in interest of investors in corporate sustainability practices of their portfolio companies[6] and the growing volume of empirical research supporting the arguments that CSR actually provides significant business benefits to companies and their shareholders. It now appears that the future of CSR lies with development of a new paradigm centered on the idea of creating “shared value”, meaning that the role of business in society should be re-imagined as continuing to create private value for its shareholders but doing so in a way that the corporation also creates public value for society.

The emergence of CSR also reflects the recognition and acceptance that businesses are “open systems” and that most of what companies do generate both benefits and costs for societies, which means that businesses should assume certain duties and obligations, in addition to their financial interests, to protect and benefit other members of society and refrain from taking actions that could harm them. Companies have seen their reputations tarnished and their stock prices tumble in the wake of disclosures of a wide range of unethical and socially irresponsible activities including insider trading, fraudulent accounting, exploitative labor practices in their manufacturing facilities in developing countries, abuse of the environment and predatory pricing practices. Activities of this type have been going on for a long time; however, it would appear that accelerated competition and globalization has increased the pressure on managers and made it more difficult for them to take the time necessary to carefully weigh their decisions about how to behave. More and more, managers act out of expediency rather than ethical judgment. At the same time, scrutiny of companies and the decisions and actions of their managers has increased as regulators and activists have advanced investigative and communication tools in their hands to learn more about what companies do and quickly disseminate information into the marketplace. These same stakeholders have also mobilized to develop new global standards for corporate ethics and social responsibility that have begun to change the way that companies conduct their business operations.

The influence that businesses have within society has also led to calls for companies to be proactively involved in addressing and solving environmental and societal problems. One commentator observed that, in general, companies have taken one of three approaches to social responsibility: resistance, which has included actively fighting to eliminate, delay or significantly reduce the imposition of socially responsible duties on their operations; reactive, which means waiting for duties to be imposed and then evaluating alternative means for complying with those duties; and proactive anticipation, meaning proactive communication with interested stakeholders (i.e., those persons and entities that have an interest in or who are affected by how a business conducts its operations) before duties are imposed externally to learn and understand their needs and collaborate with them to find ways to assist them in a manner that is consistent with the business’ own goals and objectives.[7] In a similar vein, Kelly et al. observed that approaches to social responsibility taken by businesses appeared to fall within three broad categories: no contributions (i.e., companies that do not recognize an obligation to society and do only what is legally required); responsible contributions (i.e., companies that choose to respond on a case-by-case basis to market requests for contributions); and proactive contributions (i.e., companies that proactively integrate social responsibility into their strategic plans and make contributions a part of the business goals).[8]

A company’s position with respect to social responsibility depends on its values, mission, resources and management philosophy, and the record on social responsibility for many companies is actually a mix of the various approaches describe above, often combined with actions that not only make no social contribution but which actually appear to be intentional or unintentional statements to their stakeholders that they don’t really care about whether or not an act is socially responsible or not. Kelly et al. offered a list of corporate actions that illustrate the wide range of behaviors in the marketplace[9]:

A major consumer products company introduced a line of “99% natural” cleaning products, earning the endorsement of the Sierra Club and the right to affix the Sierra Club logo on the products. The company committed to make an annual contribution to the Sierra Club based on a percentage of the sales of the new product.
A large food processing company donated a significant percentage of its profits to charity; however, it remained subject to allegations of unethical and socially irresponsible actions including unfair business practices (e.g., controversies regarding the way that they raised chickens) and unsavory labor and environmental practices.
A large food and beverage company decided to stop advertising unhealthy, albeit highly profitable, food products to young children in recognition of growing concerns about childhood obesity. The company also planned to eliminate in-school marketing and remove certain unhealthy snacks from school vending machines.
Enron and Arthur Andersen, both of which were once considered to be exemplary companies, stumbled and disappeared under the weight of massive accounting frauds at Enron that Arthur Andersen helped to cover up. The aftermath was massive financial losses for small investors and permanent career disruption for employees of both firms who lost their jobs and were saddled with a black mark on their resumes for their affiliation, albeit innocent, with these corporate pariahs.
One of the largest global banks received a substantially amount of taxpayer bailout funds and then turned around and sponsored a large marketing and entertainment event at the Super Bowl. While the bank defended its actions as necessary and appropriate for future growth, critics took the bank to task for wasting public funds and overall insensitivity about how its actions would be perceived during a period of intense financial unease among ordinary citizens.
In spite of a clear record of significant levels of defects in some of its most popular models, a global automobile maker delayed admitting problems for months and resisted taking remedial measures. In fact, even when the company finally announced a recall it did not halt new sales of recalled models until five days later. Analysts not only criticized the company’s response but also speculated that the company knew about the defects even before the cars were put on the road and went ahead anyway.

Simply put, social responsibility can be seen as an organization acting as a “good corporate citizen”; however, while the definitions seem simple and straightforward the reality is that social responsibility covers a wide range of actions and situations and there is no universal consensus about which actions improve societal welfare. Moreover, determining whether a particular action is “socially responsible” raises a variety of economic, ethical, environmental and legal considerations, many of which may be in conflict. For example, bankruptcy is a legally sanctioned process for avoiding payment of financial obligations to suppliers and others in many countries; however, when a company goes bankrupt it often leaves its creditors struggling to survive because they can no longer count on the revenues they had hoped to receive from the debtor to pay their employees, invest in new equipment and provide their shareholders with a fair return on their investment. Intense competition between businesses is also encouraged by antitrust laws, but competition creates winners and losers and often drives good companies offering products that consumers want out of business.

Legal and Regulatory Considerations

Regardless of the reasons for implementing a CSR initiative, there are certain legal and regulatory issues and trends that should be considered since national, state and local governments in countries all over the world have already adopted a wide range of laws and regulation relating to key stakeholders other than shareholders including workers, consumers and the environment. For example, in today’s business world, all companies, regardless of their size, business model and scope of activities, are required to understand and comply with a plethora of laws and regulations relating to employment (e.g., harassment, discrimination and immigration laws); antitrust and unfair competition; consumer transactions including product health and safety standards; environmental impacts of operations and product usage; health and safety; privacy and data security; and conflicts of interest, working with government officials, lobbying and political activities (e.g., contributions). In addition, there is a noticeable rise in new laws and regulations relating to topics that are typically associated with CSR initiatives such as requiring publicly-listed companies to make public disclosures on environmental and social responsibility performance; expanding directors’ fiduciary duties and corporate governance disclosure requirements to include taking into account environmental, social and governance issues; and tightening prohibitions on bribery of public officials.[10]

Beyond the Law: Voluntary CSR Standards and Initiatives

Compliance with laws and regulations is a starting point for becoming a socially responsible company, not only because the legal standards are generally instructive minimum guidelines, but also because failure to adhere to laws and regulations will bring adverse public attention to the company and undermine any other efforts that the company might be making to be perceived as a socially responsible actor. However, it should not be forgotten that laws are often at best minimum standards of socially responsible and ethical behavior and that the scope of the commitments and activities associated with any CSR initiative can be daunting and normally extend well “beyond the law” to include corporate governance and ethics; public health and safety; environmental stewardship; human rights (including core labor rights); sustainable development; working conditions (including safety and health, hours of work, wages); industrial relations; community involvement, development and investment; involvement of and respect for diverse cultures and disadvantaged peoples; corporate philanthropy and employee volunteering; consumer issues, customer satisfaction and adherence to principles of fair competition; anti-bribery and anti-corruption measures; accountability, transparency and performance reporting; and supplier relations, for both domestic and international supply chains.[11]

Williams noted that since the late 1990s there has been a proliferation of transnational, voluntary standards for what constitutes responsible corporate action, including standards have been developed by states; public/private partnerships; multi-stakeholder negotiation processes; industries and companies; institutional investors; functional groups such as accountancy firms and social assurance consulting groups; NGOs; and non-financial ratings agencies.[12] Notable multi-sector standards initiatives have included Social Accountability 8000 and the Ethical Trading Institute, and influential multilateral initiatives have included the OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the ISO 26,000 Corporate Responsibility standards, the UN Global Compact and the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework in the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights that articulates the human rights responsibilities of states and companies.[13]

According to Williams, most of the corporate responsibility standards are voluntary, although India passed legislation in 2014 that required companies to establish a corporate responsibility committee at the board level and contribute 2% of net profits to corporate responsibility initiatives.[14] It should not be forgotten, however, that many of the topics generally included within the general subject of CSR have been addressed to some degree in domestic regulations covering labor rights, environmental and consumer protection, anti-discrimination and anti-bribery. Countries vary in the degree to which regulatory standards relating to corporate responsibility are relied upon and Williams noted that empirical evidence suggested that the underlying regulatory standards effectively shape the sustainability culture within countries, and have both a strong effect on how companies handle corporate responsibility issues and a strong effect on the sustainability.[15] For example, Williams pointed out that Matten and Moon have argued that “in countries with stakeholder corporate governance systems and more expansive social welfare arrangements, corporate responsibility is ‘implicit’ in doing business according to law, so companies do not need to be as “explicit” about taking on social responsibilities, as do leading companies in more shareholder-oriented countries”.[16]

While there a large number and wide range of instruments and frameworks that companies can use as guides for developing their own goals and principles for responsible action, the principal points of reference are the United Nations Global Compact (“UN Global Compact”), the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“UN Guiding Principles”), the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (“OECD Guidelines”) the ISO 26000 Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility (“ISO 26000”) and the International Labour Organization Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (“ILO MNE Declaration”). In fact, in 2011 the European Union Commission invited all large European enterprises to make a commitment by 2014 to take into account at least one of the principles and guidelines among the UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines or ISO 26000 when developing their approach to CSR; all European based multinationals to commit by 2014 to respect the ILO MNE Declaration; and all European enterprises to meet their corporate responsibilities to respect human rights as defined in the UN Guiding Principles. While companies may publicly commit to supporting one or more of these principles and guidelines, as well as others not mentioned above, they do not explicitly build their activities on such reference points but instead implement them through their specific CSR engagements and activities including their internal operations and their relationships with business partners in their value chains.[17]

Core Subjects of CSR

CSR is a complex subject that has attracted widespread interest and generated a far-ranging array of definitions, dimensions and models. In order for companies to anchor their CSR focus, they need to identify and understand the core subjects of CSR and the specific issues associated with each of those subjects. As mentioned above, ISO 26000 recommended that organizations plan on addressing seven core subjects with respect to social responsibility: organizational governance; human rights; labor practices; the environment; fair operating practices; consumer issues; and community involvement and development. The subjects of CSR identified in ISO 26000 are largely consistent with the views of commentators and representatives of important CSR observers and stakeholders including representatives of industry, government, labor, consumers, NGOs and academia. The ISO 26000 core subjects can be found among the required reporting areas in GRI sustainability reporting framework mentioned below (e.g., procurement practices; environmental matters, such as materials, energy and water; labor practices; human rights; local communities and product responsibility. Additional activities that are certainly fundamental and essential with respect to implementation of CSR include CSR strategy, innovation, legal and regulatory compliance, governance and management (including creation of a board-level CSR committee), organizational culture, integration of CSR into organizational processes, stakeholder engagement, impact assessment and reporting and communications.[18]

CSR for Small Businesses

While CSR has been a topic of discussion for larger businesses for a long time, relatively little attention was paid to CSR and small businesses. However, as governments have come to realize the importance of small businesses—small- and medium-sized enterprises (“MSEs”)—to their economies as drivers of employment, research and guidance on management topics for MSEs has become more prevalent. While managers of small businesses rightly have concerns about the costs associated with many CSR projects, and non-governmental organizations have not spent as much time and effort on monitoring CSR among SMEs, more and more SMEs are beginning to appreciate the potential benefits of having some type of CSR initiative, even if it scaled down to fit the size of the firm and the relatively meager resources available. For example, as larger companies have integrated supply chain management into their CSR initiatives SMEs seeking to become supply chain partners have been forced to take a hard look at their efforts with respect to social responsibility, particularly the ways that they treat their workers and the impact of their operations on the environment. Another driver of CSR among SMEs is their dependence on their relationship with the local community. While larger companies operate in numerous locations around the world, SMEs have one primary site and depend heavily on the strength and support of the community surrounding the site. As such, it is incumbent on SMEs to act in a socially responsible manner in their interactions with community members and support community efforts in areas such as education, health, safety and general welfare.

In spite of the above-referenced benefits of embracing CSR, SMEs reasonably complain about finding the time and resources to collect the necessary information, develop and implement CSR strategies and continuously engage with stakeholders. Owners and senior managers of SMEs typically wear a number of different hats already and adding CSR leadership assignments often seems to be just too much. Fortunately, the size and scope of activities of SMEs may actually make it easier to find information and reach out to important stakeholders. For example, since SMEs are already closely linked to their communities and dependent on them for customers, labor and supplies it is generally a small step to extend the relationship into social responsibility projects. In the same vein, SMEs often have higher levels of employee participation in decision making and this facilitates worker engagement of health and safety, product quality and service and implementing eco-friendly manufacturing processes.

While small businesses operate under resource constraints that make it impractical for them to implement comprehensive CSR initiatives on the scope of those that have been adopted by larger companies, they nonetheless can begin by referring to the same authoritative international instruments such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Global Compact Principles, each of which are intended to be applicable to organizations of all sizes. Governments and business associations have also created and published guides and other resources relating to a wide range of SME management topics including the use of environmental management systems by SMEs and adopting the management systems framework of the International Standards Organization to the SME context.[19] Other resources tailored to the particular needs of small businesses seeking to implement a CSR initiative include the “Introduction to Corporate Social Responsibility for Small & Medium-Sized Enterprises” available online from the European Commission with links to other European Union publications and tools on CSR and SMEs; and the CSR handbook for SMEs developed by the Caux Round Table (www.cauxroundtable.org), an international network of principled business leaders working to promote moral capitalism.

CSR around the World

Rahim surveyed steps that had been taken around the globe to integrate the core principles of CSR into the policy objectives of different economies and global companies. Global companies in Europe have been guided by the EU Commission’s Green Paper on Promoting a Framework for CSR and the European Code of Conduct Regarding the Activities of Transnational Corporations Operating in Developing Economies. A number of individual countries in Europe have also taken action driven, at least in part, by a series of resolutions adopted by the European Parliament to facilitate the development of the incorporation of CSR principles in its member economies: the UK established a post of CSR Minister to encourage greater social responsibility in UK companies and the UK’s Companies Act of 2006 included specific reporting requirements on environmental and social issues; Belgium passed legislation requiring pension fund managers to disclose the extent to which they consider ethical, social and environmental criteria in their investment policies; France required listed companies to disclose their impact on social and environmental issues in their annual reports and accounts; and each of the Scandinavian countries mandated environmental disclosures. There have also been a number of important quasi-legal initiatives for the promotion of CSR at the national level throughout Europe including the International Business Leaders Forum, the Ethical Trading Initiative and Partnership for Global Responsibility.[20]

Rahim noted that, in contrast to Europe, the US has been slower in using formal regulation to incorporate CSR into the business strategies and operations of corporations, an approach that is consistent with the preference in the US for minimal legislative control of business. According to Rahim, the US has emphasized developing specialized organizations that set rules and standards, and provide enforcement regimes, for certain aspects of CSR including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. A variety of industry and other non-governmental organizations have also contributed guidelines that can be referenced for the self-regulatory initiatives of individual companies including the US Model Business Principles and the work of the Center for Corporate Ethics and the Fair Labor Association. Trade associations in specific sectors, such as automobile manufacturing and paper products, have promulgated guidelines for their members on environmental management practices for themselves and their suppliers.[21]

Principles of CSR have been important in Japan since the post-war reconstruction period, during which the resolution “Awareness and Practice of the Social Responsibility of Business” was adopted and stated the fundamental principal that businesses should not simply pursue corporate profit, but must seek harmony between the economy and society, combining factors of products and services, and that social responsibility is a better way to pursue this goal.[22] Various cabinet ministries have undertaken initiatives to promote and achieve CSR including the Cabinet Office;, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; and the Ministry of Environment. For example, the Cabinet Office issued its “Corporate Code of Conduct” in 2002 to build consumer confidence in businesses and set guidelines to promote the establishment and implementation of corporate codes of conduct.[23] The influential Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry collaborated with the Japanese Standards Association on the creation of a working group to develop CSR standards in Japan and Japan has been an active participant in the development of intergovernmental initiatives relating to CSR. The result of all this activity has been that Japanese companies have been global leaders in disclosures of CSR activities, investment in internal resources to oversee CSR commitments and adoption of codes of conduct based on international standards.[24]

CSR Organizations

In addition to the non-profit CSR institutions and resources described above, useful information on CSR is available from the following organizations:

African Institute of Corporate Citizenship (http://www.aiccafrica.org)
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (http://www.business-humanrights.org)
Business Social Compliance Initiative (http://www.bsci-eu.org)
Business for Social Responsibility (http://www.bsr.org)
Business in the Community (http://www.bitc.org.uk)
Caux Round Table (http://cauxroundtable.org)
Ceres (www.ceres.org)
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (http://www.ceres.org)
Conference Board (http://www.conference-board.org)
Corporate Register (http://www.corporateregister.com)
Ethos Institute (http://www.ethos.org.br)
Ethical Trading Initiative (http://www.ethicaltrade.org)
European Academy of Business in Society (http://www.eabis.org)
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (http://www.eitransparency.org)
Fair Labor Association (http://www.fairlabor.org)
Future-Fit Business Benchmark (http://www.org)
Global Unions (http://www.global-unions.org/).
SDG Compass (http://sdgcompass.org/)
Sustainability Reports (http://www.sustainability-reports.com/)
Transparency International (http://www.transparency.org/)
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (http://www.wbcsd.org)
World Council for Corporate Governance (http://www.wcfcg.net)

Notes

[1] K. Mink, The Effects of Organizational Structure on Sustainability Report Compliance (Purdue University College of Technology Masters’ Thesis, 2012), available athttp://docs.lib.purdue.edu/techmasters/62, 9.
[2] Id at 9-10.
[3] C. Masuku, Corporate Social Responsibility Literature Review and Theoretical Framework, available at https://www.academia.edu/2172462/CORPORATE_SOCIAL_RESPONSIBILITY_LITERATURE_REVIEW_AND_THEORETICAL_FRAMEWORK (citing W. Halal, “Corporate community: a theory of the firm uniting profitability and responsibility”, Strategy & Leadership, 28(2) (2000), 10).
[4] J. Cramer-Montes, “Sustainability: A New Path to Corporate and NGO Collaborations”, The Economist (March 24, 2017), http://www.economist.com/node/10491124
[5] M. Rahim, Legal Regulation of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Meta-Regulation Approach of Law for Raising CSR in a Weak Economy (Berlin: Springer, 2013), 13, 22 (citing A. Gill, “Corporate Governance as Social Responsibility: A Research Agenda” (2008)).
[6] https://www.unpri.org/about/what-is-responsible-investment
[7] Notes on “Chapter 9: Management Ethics and Social Responsibility”, http://www2.ivcc.edu/aleksy/Fall14/Fall14Mgmt/Plunkett10Ch09.pdf [accessed July 25, 2016]
[8] M. Kelly, J. McGowen and C. Williams, BUSN (Independence, KY: South-Western Publishing Company, 2014), 59.
[9] Id. at 60.
[10] P. Hohnen (Author) and J. Potts (Editor), Corporate Social Responsibility: An Implementation Guide for Business (Winnipeg CAN: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2007), 15-17.
[11] Id. at 4-5.
[12] C. Williams, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance” in J. Gordon and G. Ringe (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 7, available at http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works/1784.
[13] Id. at 8-9. See also the appendices to P. Hohnen (Author) and J. Potts (Editor), Corporate Social Responsibility: An Implementation Guide for Business (Winnipeg CAN: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2007), which includes a list of national CSR guidance and suggestions for further reading.
[14] C. Williams, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance” in J. Gordon and G. Ringe (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 13, available at http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works/1784.
[15] Id.
[16] Id. (citing D. Matten and J. Moon, “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, 33:2 (2008), 404).
[17] Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for Employers’ Organizations (European Union CSR for All Project, April 2014), 14-15. For resources on additional CSR and sustainability topics including anti-corruption, child labor, forced labor and human trafficking, non-discrimination, remedy and grievance processes, responsible supply chain management, stakeholder engagement and transparency and reporting, see Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for Employers’ Organizations (European Union CSR for All Project, April 2014), 51-62.
[18] For further information on the core subjects of CSR, see the chapter on that topic in this publication. See also, e.g., CSR Project Report Executive Summary, http://www.socsc.hku.hk/ExCEL3/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CSR-report-executive-summary.pdf; and ISO 26000 and the Declaration of Conduct, https://www.ds-pharma.com/csr/management/iso26000_1.html
[19] See International Organization for Standardization, ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility: Discovering ISO 26000 (2014) and Handbook for Implementers of ISO 26000, Global Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility by Small and Medium Sized Businesses (Middlebury VT: ECOLOGIA, 2011).
[20] M. Rahim, Legal Regulation of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Meta-Regulation Approach of Law for Raising CSR in a Weak Economy (Berlin: Springer, 2013), 13, 34-38.
[21] Id. at 38-39.
[22] Id. at 40 (citing M. Kawamura, The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility in Japan (Part 1)—Parallels with the History of Corporate Reform (NLI Research institute, 2004), 156).
[23] Id. (citing Asian Productivity Organisation, Policies to Promote Corporate Social Responsibility (Report of the Asian Productivity Organisation Top Management Forum, 2006)).
[24] Id. at 41-42.