CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF OIL AND GAS COMPANIES

[priyanka bhutani]

1.  INTRODUCTION:

Top Board members are devoting their lot of time and energy for framing the regulations relating to corporate social responsibility for their company to which they adhered to. Now it has become a board room agenda. Corporate social responsibility could be understood as a concept whereby a corporate does over and above for what they are supposed to do as per the present legal compliance.

Corporate social responsibility is a concept of 21^st century where the role and objective of the corporate is not just to earn the profits but also, giving back to the society in one way or the other. Managers have devoted significant responsiveness to the proper implications of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development in its publication “Making Good Business Sense" by Lord Holme and Richard Watts, defined corporate social responsibility in the following words: Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a business approach for addressing the social and environmental impact of company activities. Companies from the oil and gas sector have been at the Center of CSR development. With increasing expectations placed on business, one needs to ask if CSR is able to fulfill these larger expectations.

From a historical perspective, CSR is simply the latest manifestation of earlier debates as to the role of business in society. What is new, according to Fabig and Boele is that “today’s debates are conducted at the intersection of development, environment and human rights, and are more global in outlook than earlier in this century or even in the 1960s[1]”.

The scope of CSR is all encompassing as it includes five dimensions of environment, social, economic, stakeholder, and voluntariness (Alexander Dahlsrud CSR, 2006) and has become increasingly noticeable in the Indian corporate scenario. Organizations have realized that besides growing their businesses it is also vital to build trustworthy and sustainable relationships with the community at large. Today, CSR in India has gone beyond merely charity and donations, and is approached in a more organized fashion. It has become an integral part of the corporate strategy. Companies have CSR teams that devise specific policies, strategies and goals for their CSR programs and set aside budgets to support them. These programs, in many cases, are based on a clearly defined social philosophy or are closely aligned with the companies‟ business expertise. CSR Programs could range from overall development of a community to supporting specific causes like education, environment, healthcare etc.

Indian entrepreneurs and business enterprises have a long tradition of working within the values that have defined our nation's character for millennia. India's ancient wisdom, which is still relevant today, inspires people to work for the larger objective of the well-being of all stakeholders. These sound and all-encompassing values are even more relevant in current times, as organizations grapple with the challenges of modern-day enterprise, the aspirations of stakeholders and of citizens eager to be active participants in economic growth and development[2].

Corporate Social Responsibility is a Company's commitment to operate in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner, while recognizing the interests of its stakeholders. This commitment is beyond statutory requirements. Corporate Social Responsibility is closely linked with the practice of Sustainable Development. Corporate Social Responsibility extends beyond philanthropic activities and reaches out to the integration of social and business goals. As observed by Alexander Dahlsrud CSR (2006), the definitions show that CSR is nothing new at a conceptual level; business has always had social, environmental and economic impacts which are concerned with stakeholders, the government, customers, or owners, and dealt with regulations. This has been managed through established patterns developed over many years.

Modern CSR programs reflect the recognition that business, including the energy business, does not happen in a social vacuum. Today’s oil and gas companies work within an ever-broader and more complex set of social institutions, norms and expectations that exist alongside market forces, but which are created and shaped in other ways. Some of these expectations take the form of legal requirements, and others reflect ethical norms that may turn out to be every bit as important to companies in the long run as laws and regulations. Many of these expectations come from society, governments, NGOs, and the community at large. Others may arise from business leader’s individual desires to “do the right thing.”

2. FIVE C'S IN CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:

Kotler and Lee (2005) state that there are five C’s in CSR/CSI that corporation must fulfill. The first “C” stands for “conviction” this a about real improvement in business performance, not PR. The second “C” means “Commitment”, which means “when we commit, we deliver”, Communication means “we have committed to open, honest, and direct communication with all the stakeholders. This integrates new tools of communication that are used by corporations that reinforce reciprocity in communication. The communication discussed by Kotler and Lee is a two way process of communication and all stakeholders are respected and addressed. Consistency is a process of continuous improvement. For instance CSR programs at Econet and NRZ should be continuously implemented. The fifth “C” stands for “credibility”; it should be known that the corporation ability to trust their performance depends on the credibility of their effort. Corporation should regularly review and consider new or modified business practices to will improve the quality of life and, at the same time, provide some net benefit to the corporation, ideally financial, operational relation-ship-building, or marketing in nature. This capture the open system concept, that asserts that corporations should interact with the environment in order for it to survive. Econet and NRZ survives under economically constraints because there have been taking care of their public who even things were tough could sympathize with them. The application of five C's by Econet and NRZ in their approach to CSR by PR department is one salient issue that the study assesses.

3. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE LIGHT OF GLOBALIZATION

With globalization, the negative consequences of businesses have increased, as has the public call for corporate responsibility. Now, corporates are not just considered the “bad guys”, causing environmental disasters, financial scandals, and social ills. They are at the same time considered the solution of global regulation and public goods problems as in many instances state agencies are completely unwilling to administer citizenship rights or contribute to the public good. The global framework of rules is fragile and incomplete. Therefore, corporates have an additional political responsibility to contribute to the development and proper working of global governance. Considering the legal and moral rules of nationally bound communities as the point of reference for corporate legitimacy becomes a challenge against the background of a globally expanded corporate playing field (Palazzo and Scherer 2006). There are no globally enforceable legal standards or broadly accepted moral rules that might define the legitimate activities of multinational corporations. With globalization the companies are already focusing voluntarily on CSR issues, but it is clear that some further form of legislation is necessary.

A balance has to be made between no regulation and full regulation. Advantages of having legislation on CSR:

• It would help to avoid the excessive exploitation of labour, bribery and corruption.
• Companies would know what is expected of them, thereby, promoting a level playing field.
• Many aspects of CSR behaviour are good for business (such as reputation, human resources, branding and making it easier to locate in new communities) and legislation could help to improve profitability, growth and sustainability.
• Some areas, such as downsizing, could help to redress the balance between companies and their employees.
• Rogue companies would find it more difficult to compete through lower standards.
•  The wider community would benefit as companies reach out to the key issue of underdevelopment around the world.

Also with the advantages, there are certain disadvantages of legislation also which can be summarized as:

• Additional bureaucracy, with rising costs for observance.
• Operation costs could rise above those required for continued profitability and sustainability.
• Critics say that the CSR of companies is simply to make a profit, and legislation would increase the vocalization of these concerns.
• Reporting criteria vary by company, sector and country, and they are in constant evolution.

4. GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE:

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), was convened in 1997, and it was established to improve sustainability reporting practices, while achieving comparability, credibility, timeliness, and verifiability of reported information. The Guidelines were first released in June 2000, with a revision in 2002 and a further revision during 2006. The purpose of these guidelines is to develop globally accepted sustainability reporting guidelines. These guidelines are also voluntary and are used by organisations in reporting on the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of their activities. Approximately 1000 organisations worldwide incorporate the GRI's Guidelines into their reporting.

Some Indian companies which report as per GRI guidelines are ABN Amro Bank NV, ACC Ltd, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd, ITC Ltd, Reliance Industries Ltd, Shree Cement Ltd, Tata Consultancy Services, Tata Steel Ltd, Tata Tea Ltd and others. One thing to be noted here is that out of the companies reported above some of them are from oil and gas sector.

Globalisation and the significant growth and influence of the private sector have highlighted issues such as CSR and the regulation of MNEs. Despite these initiatives, there still remains a gap in legal accountability of CSR practices, particularly in relation to MNE operations in jurisdictions outside their home state. To maximise the benefits of international investment corporations must operate within a clear framework of governance, underpinned at national and international level by law and regulation enforceable either by the company’s home state or by a court of international standing, e.g., the International Court of Justice. In addition national laws should be widened to enable corporations to be held accountable for inappropriate conduct, in jurisdictions outside their home state.

5. CSR IN OIL AND GAS:

The nature of an industry determines the CSR concerns also the social concerns are highly diverse between different industries. The concerns may vary between countries, but the key concerns related to an industry’s operations are typically shared in most countries, and this is no different in the oil and gas sector. The oil and gas sector has been among the leading industries in championing CSR. This is at least partly due to the highly visible negative effects of day-to-day operations such as oil spills and the resulting protests by civil society groups and indigenous people.

The exact nature of CSR is understood in different ways, with differences in understanding or representation of the concept relatable to different paradigms and concerns. Although there are several contested notions of what CSR should be and how it should work, there is some agreement upon what it broadly entails.

According to Chris MacDonald, Ph.D. (2011), there’s plenty of confusion about what CSR is. Indeed most of the definitions don’t even read like definitions. They’ll only explain what CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) is “about,” or what it “relates to”, but they won’t define what it is. Any definition worth its salt ought to take the words in the term seriously, and note that the term “CSR” refers to some kind of responsibility, and then explain just what kind of responsibility it is. A number of concepts and issues are covered under the heading of CSR, including human rights, environmental responsibility, diversity management, sustainability, and philanthropy. It is a complex area with an interdisciplinary focus.

Corporate Social Responsibility is a Company's commitment to operate in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner, while recognizing the interests of its stakeholders. This commitment is beyond statutory requirements. Corporate Social Responsibility is closely related with the practice of Sustainable Development. Corporate Social Responsibility extends beyond philanthropic activities and reaches out to the integration of social and business goals. These activities are needed to be seen in such a way that it would in the long term, help secure a sustainable competitive advantage.

But, at an operational level, the story is different. Due to globalization, the operations of the businesses are changing at an increasingly rapid pace. New stakeholders and different national legislation are putting new expectations on business and altering how the social, environmental and economic impacts should be optimally balanced in decision making. In that respect, CSR management tools are needed, in addition to the previously established patterns, to develop and implement a successful business strategy.

6. CSR - THE INDIAN SCENARIO:

Corporate Social Responsibility in India is finally a “reality” in India. Now, Indian corporates have realized that they have to look not only at the economic dimension of the company, but also at its ecological and social impact, which are the three pillars of CSR. To become a planned strategy integral to business success, Indian companies have lot of catching up to do. CSR is also linked to the broader issue of “Corporate Governance”. Presently, Indian companies have to take a closer look at CSR and link it to corporate governance, if they really want to make a mark in all the three pillars of CSR.

According to a recent pilot survey by CII in Tamil Nadu, (Express Buzz) only 40 per cent of the companies practice CSR initiatives. The survey highlighted that a majority of the companies did not take CSR seriously and those who did, they are doing it only with a philanthropic frame of mind. The survey also revealed that more than 50 per cent of the companies made their employee welfare activities as part of their CSR initiative, not really contributing to an outside community or its development. Sustainable CSR programmes mean a consistent mix of economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic tenets. In today's changed business scenario, there is an increased focus on giving back to society and creating a model which works long term and is sustainable. It is imperative that the best practices for inclusive growth are shared with the stakeholders.

7. CSR APPROACHES OF OIL INDIA LIMITED & INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED:

Both the national Oil Companies have a specific vision statement on its CSR. In OIL, the vision is “OIL is a Responsible Corporate Citizen deeply committed to socio-economic development in its areas of operations[3]”, while for IOCL, the focus is “…to help enrich the quality of life of the community and preserve ecological balance and heritage through a strong environment conscience[4]".  Both the companies have earmarked a definite 2 percent of its Profit after Tax as annual CSR budget. Health & medical care, education, aid to natural calamities, merit scholarships, environment etc. are the common focus areas. Both the companies are guided by CSR policy documents and have well laid down strategies for CSR initiatives.

Also, other oil and gas companies are focusing on CSR activities. Like Bharat Petroleum Corporation, they are running a rainwater harvesting project Boond, in association with the Oil Industries Development Board, selects draught-stricken villages to turn them from “water-scarce to water-positive”. Some of BPCL’s other social programmes include adoption of villages, prevention and care for HIV/AIDS and rural health care.

Indian Oil Corporation runs the Indian Oil Foundation (IOF), a non-profit trust, which works for the preservation and promotion of the country’s heritage. IOCL also offers 150 sports scholarships every year to promising youngsters. Some of its other initiatives lie in the domains of clean drinking water, education, hospitals and health care.

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation offers community-based health care services in rural areas through 30 Mobile Medicare Units (MMUs). The ONGC-Eastern Swamp Deer Conservation Project works to protect the rare species of Easter Swamp Deer at the Kaziranga National Park in Assam. ONGC also supports education and women empowerment.

A specific data has been gathered to show as to how much the companies in oil and gas sector are spending on CSR activities. The data has been collected from the Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2881 dated 14.3.2013. The data of few Maharatna and Navratna companies engaged in oil and gas sector has been gathered.

MAHARATNA CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES TOP PSU’S SPENDING ON CSR 

S. No.	Name of the CPSE	Year	Total funds allocated for CSR (Rs. Crore)	Funds utilized for CSR (Rs. Crore )
1.	Coal India Limited	2010-11 2011-12	262.28 553.33	152.33 77.33
2.	Indian Oil Corporation Limited	2010-11 2011-12	131.11 953.60	128.41 82.73
3.	National Thermal Power Corporation Limited	2010-11 2011-12	72.37 45.52	72.21 49.43
4.	Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited	2010-11 2011-12	335.352 378.48	219.03 121.08

NAVRATNA CPSES

TOP PSU’S SPENDING ON CSR                                                           

S. No.	Name of the CPSE	Year	Total funds allocated for CSR (Rs. Crore)	Funds utilized for CSR (Rs. Crore )
1.	Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited	2010-11 2011-12	15.00  30.78	20.10  26.54
2.	Oil India Limited	2010-11 2011-12	25.00  50.00	29.40  50.19
3.	Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited	2010-11 2011-12	22.00 7.73	18.23 7.76
4.	GAIL (India) Limited	2010-11 2011-12	69.54 (including carry forward amount of financial year 2009-10) 82.77	63.91 54.43
5.	Power Finance Corporation Limited	2010-11 2011-12	11.89  13.24	8.91 13.27
6.	Power Grid Corporation of India Limited	2010-11 2011-12	20.41 13.48	15.58 24.93

8. VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES FOR CSR IN INDIA:

In order to assist the businesses to adopt responsible governance practices, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has prepared a set of voluntary guidelines which indicate some of the core elements that businesses need to focus on while conducting their affairs. These guidelines have been prepared after taking into account the governance challenges faced in our country as well as the expectations of the society. The valuable suggestions received from trade and industry chambers, experts and other stakeholders along with the internationally prevalent and practiced guidelines, norms and standards in the area of Corporate Social Responsibility have also been taken into account while drafting these guidelines.

8.1       FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE:

Each business entity should formulate a CSR policy to guide its strategic planning and provide a roadmap for its CSR initiatives, which should be an integral part of overall business policy and aligned with its business goals. The policy should be framed with the participation of various level executives and should be approved by the Board.

8.2       CORE ELEMENTS:

The CSR Policy should normally cover following core elements:

1. CARE FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS:

The companies should respect the interests of, and be responsive towards all stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, project affected people, society at large etc. and create value for all of them. They should develop mechanism to actively engage with all stakeholders, inform them of inherent risks and mitigate them where they occur.

2.  ETHICAL FUNCTIONING:

Their governance systems should be underpinned by Ethics, Transparency and Accountability. They should not engage in business practices that are abusive, unfair, corrupt or anti-competitive.

3.  RESPECT FOR WORKERS' RIGHTS AND WELFARE:

Companies should provide a workplace environment that is safe, hygienic and humane and which upholds the dignity of employees. They should provide all employees with access to training and development of necessary skills for career advancement, on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. They should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining of labour, have an effective grievance redressal system, should not employ child or forced labour and provide and maintain equality of opportunities without any discrimination on any grounds in recruitment and during employment.

4. RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS:

Companies should respect human rights for all and avoid complicity with human rights abuses by them or by third party.

5.  RESPECT FOR ENVIRONMENT:

Companies should take measures to check and prevent pollution; recycle, manage and reduce waste, should manage natural resources in a sustainable manner and ensure optimal use of resources like land and water, should proactively respond to the challenges of climate change by adopting cleaner production methods, promoting efficient use of energy and environment friendly technologies.

6. ACTIVITIES FOR SOCIAL AND INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT:

Depending upon their core competency and business interest, companies should undertake activities for economic and social development of communities and geographical areas, particularly in the vicinity of their operations. These could include education, skill building for livelihood of people, health, cultural and social welfare etc., particularly targeting at disadvantaged sections of society.

8.3       IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE:

1. The CSR policy of the business entity should provide for an implementation strategy which should include identification of projects/activities, setting measurable physical targets with time-frame, organizational mechanism and responsibilities, time schedules and monitoring. Companies may partner with local authorities, business associations and civil society/non-government organizations. They may influence the supply chain for CSR initiative and motivate employees for voluntary effort for social development. They may evolve a system of need assessment and impact assessment while undertaking CSR activities in a particular area. Independent evaluation may also be undertaken for selected projects/activities from time to time.

2. Companies should allocate specific amount in their budgets for CSR activities. This amount may be related to profits after tax, cost of planned CSR activities or any other suitable parameter.

3. To share experiences and network with other organizations the company should engage with well-established and recognized programmes/platforms which encourage responsible business practices and CSR activities. This would help companies to improve on their CSR strategies and effectively project the image of being socially responsible.

4. The companies should disseminate information on CSR policy, activities and progress in a structured manner to all their stakeholders and the public at large through their website, annual reports, and other communication media.

8.4       GUIDELINES ON CSR FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISES:

The Department of Public Enterprises had issued Guidelines on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for CPSEs in April, 2010 which have been issued formally to the Ministries/Departments for compliance in the Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) under their administrative control. Following are the salient features of guidelines on CSR & Sustainability:

1. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability is a company’s commitment to its stakeholders to conduct business in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner that is transparent and ethical.
2. In the revised guidelines, CSR and Sustainability agenda is perceived to be equally applicable to external and internal stakeholders, including the employees of a company, and a company’s corporate social responsibility is expected to cover even its routine business operations and activities. CPSEs are expected to formulate their policies with a balanced emphasis on all aspects of CSR and Sustainability – equally with regard to their internal operations, activities and processes, as well as in their response to externalities.
3.  In the revised guidelines CSR and Sustainable Development have been clubbed together in one set of guidelines for CSR and Sustainability because of close linkage between the two concepts.
4. Public Sector enterprises are required to have a CSR and Sustainability policy approved by their respective Boards of Directors. The CSR and Sustainability activities undertaken by them under such a policy should also have the approval/ratification of their Boards. Within the ambit of these guidelines, it is the discretion of the Board of Directors of CPSEs to decide on the CSR and Sustainability activities to be undertaken.
5. The financial component/budgetary spend on CSR and Sustainability will be based on the profitability of the company and shall be determined by the Profit After Tax (PAT) on the company in the previous year.

PAT of CPSES in the Previous year	Range of the Budgetary allocation for CSR and Sustainability activities (as percent of PAT in previous year)
(i) Less than100 crore (ii)100 crore to500 crore (iii)500 crore and above	3 percent -5 percent 2 percent -3 percent 1 percent -2 percent

All CPSEs shall strive to maximize their spending on CSR and Sustainability  activities and move towards the higher end of their slabs of budget allocation.

6. Loss making companies are not mandated to earmark specific funding for CSR and Sustainability activities. However, they must pursue CSR and Sustainability policies by integrating them with their business plans, strategies and processes, which do not involve any financial expenditure. They may also collaborate with the profit making CPSEs and assist them in ingenious ways without financial support in CSR and Sustainability activities.
7. Mandatory compliance with legal requirement/rules/regulations/laws in letter and in spirit will be covered under CSR and Sustainability activity. However, expenditure on such activities would not be covered by CSR‟s financial component and would be considered as mainstream businesses spend.
8. The unutilized budget for CSR activities planned for a year will not lapse and will, instead, be carried forward to the next year. However, the CPSEs will have to disclose the reasons for not fully utilising the budget allocated for CSR and Sustainability activities planned for each year. The unspent amount will have to be spent within the next two financial years, failing which, it would be transferred to a “Sustainability Fund” to be created separately for CSR and Sustainability activities.

9. From amongst these beneficiaries of CSR and Sustainability spend (financial component) of a company, the stakeholders directly impacted by its operations and activities can rightfully stake a claim for attention before others. Such stakeholders are generally located in the periphery of commercial operations of a company. The corporate social responsibility of a company towards these stakeholders extends beyond its legal obligation to compensate for, and ameliorate the impact of its commercial activities. For this reason, CPSEs must accord priority to these stakeholders and undertake CSR and Sustainability projects in the periphery of its commercial operations on priority.
10. CPSEs are expected to take initiative to promote welfare of employees and labour by addressing their concerns of safety, security, professional enrichment and healthy working conditions, whether mandated or otherwise. However, expenditure on mandated activities cannot qualify for CSR’s financial components.
11. Although CPSEs may select their CSR and Sustainability projects from a vast range of available options, priority should be accorded to activities pertaining to (i) inclusive growth of society, with special attention to the development of weaker sections of society and the backward districts of the country, and (ii) environment sustainability. CSR and Sustainability initiatives should focus on capacity building, skill development and infrastructural development for the benefit of the marginalised and under privileged sections of the local communities and also in the backward regions so that avenues are created for their employment and income generation, and they also experience empowerment and inclusion in the economic mainstream. Weaker sections would include SC, ST, OBC, minorities, women and children, BPL families, old and aged, physically challenged, etc.

12. It is mandatory for CPSEs to take up at least one major project for development of a backward district as identified by the Planning Commission for its Backward Region Grand Fund (BRGF) Scheme, and one major project for environment sustainability. For Maharatna CPSEs, it is mandatory to take up one more major project in either of the two categories.

13. A Board level committee headed by either the Chairman and / or Managing Director, on an Independent Director would assist the Board of Directors to formulate CSR and Sustainability policies and oversee the implementation of CSR and Sustainability projects/activities by the CPSE.
14. There is emphasis on internalizing the philosophy and spirit of CSR and Sustainability within the organizational culture and ethos. The philosophy and spirit of corporate social responsibility and sustainability should get embedded in the core values of all the CPSEs, be imbibed by the employees at all levels and it should permeate into all the activities, processes, operations and transactions of the enterprise. Corporate enterprises professing t behave responsibly are expected to produce goods and services that are safe and healthy for the consumers and the environment, with reduced cost to the company in the long run.
15. 5 per cent of the annual budget for CSR and Sustainability activities has to be earmarked for Emergency needs, which would include relief work undertaken during natural calamities/disasters, and contributions towards Prime Minister’s / Chief Minister’s Relief Funds.

16. Ethical conduct of business lies at the core of responsible business. To promote organizational integrity it is essential that premium is placed on individual probity of employees; transparency in all activities, dealing and transactions is encouraged; unethical, corrupt and anti-competition practices are discouraged temptation of quick returns and marginal gains in business through questionable means is resisted; and, position and situations that give rise to possible conflict of interest are avoided.

17. Sustainability reporting and disclosure of all CSR and Sustainability activities undertaken by a CPSE is mandatory. By reporting transparently and with accountability, public sector companies can gain and reinforce the thrust of the stakeholders. This, in turn, would provide a powerful stimulus to their CSR and Sustainability policies and agenda, and motivate them to pursue them with greater vigour.

As per the above guidelines on CSR issued by the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) in April, 2010, all profit making Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs), including Maharatna CPSEs are required to select CSR activities which are aligned with their Business strategy and to undertake them in a project mode. CPSEs are mandated to spend their funds on CSR projects selected by them with the approval of their respective Boards. All profit making CPSEs are required to allocate budget mandatorily through a Board Resolution as percentage of net profit (previous year) in the following manner:

PAT of CPSES in the Previous year	Expenditure range of CSR in a Financial Year ( percent of profit)
(i) Less than100 crore (ii)100 crore to500 crore (iii)500 crore and above	3 percent -5 percent 2 percent -3 percent (subject to a Minimum of3 Crore) 0.5 percent -2 percent

Loss making CPSEs are not mandated to earmark specific funding for CSR activities. CSR Budget is fixed for each financial year and this fund does not lapse. It is transferred to a CSR funds in which it accumulates. Implementation of CSR activities of CPSEs is monitored by the administrative Ministries/Departments of concerned CPSEs. States/UT/PSU-wise information of CSR work undertaken by the CPSEs, including Maharatna CPSEs and the number of persons benefited therefrom is not maintained centrally in the Department of Public Enterprises. Information furnished by Maharatna and Navratna CPSEs on total funds allocated for CSR and the funds utilized for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 is given in the Annexure-II. CPSEs are free to take up CSR Projects for upliftment of weaker sections and backward districts. taxmanagementindia.com

9. PROVISION FOR CSR IN INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 2013:

The Companies Act, 2013 incorporates a provision of CSR under Section 135 which states that every company having net worth500 crore or more, or a turnover of1000 crore or more or a net profit of rupees five crore or more during any financial year, shall constitute a CSR Committee of the Board consisting of three or more Directors, including at least one Independent Director, to recommend activities for discharging corporate social responsibilities in such a manner that the company would spend at least 2 per cent of its average net profits of the previous three years on specified CSR activities. Major oil and gas companies are bog companies having net worth of crores. Thus, here we can assume that the above mentioned section is applicable on almost all the companies engaged in oil and gas sector in India.

The following activities can be included by companies in their CSR Policies:-

(i) Eradicating extreme hunger and poverty;

(ii) Promotion of education;

(iii) Promoting gender equality and empowering women;

(iv) Reducing child mortality and improving maternal health;

(v) Combating human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, malaria and other diseases;

(vi) Ensuring environmental sustainability;

(vii) Employment enhancing vocational skills;

(viii) Social business projects;

(ix) Contribution to the Prime Minister‟s National Relief Fund or any other fund set by the Central Government or the State Governments for socio-economic development and relief and funds for the welfare of the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribes, other backward classes, minorities and women; and

(x) Such other matters as may be prescribed.

The Companies Act, 2013, Section 135 also provides for constitution of a CSR Committee of the Board. The CSR Committee is required to;

(a) Formulate and recommend to the Board, a CSR Policy which shall indicate the activities to be undertaken by the company as specified in Schedule VII;

(b) Recommend the amount of expenditure to be incurred on the activities referred to in clause (a); and

(c) Monitor the Corporate Social Responsibility Policy of the company from time to time.

(d) The format for disclosure of CSR policy and the activities therein as part of Board’s report will be prescribed in the rules once the Bill is enacted.

10. CSR AND ENVIRONMENT:

The nature of oil and gas operations involves many potential negative environmental effects, particularly during exploration and production, including land clearance, oil spills and natural gas emissions[5]. Environmental risks of oil and gas operations are sensitive because oil and gas deposits are often located in developing economies near areas of high biological diversity and high ecological vulnerability, such as rain forests, mangroves and protected national parks[6]. While the use of terms such as “CSR” and “Sustainability” is relatively new, oil companies were prepared to voluntarily introduce some pollution-related initiatives for the protection of the environment.

Much of the public attention on oil companies was focused on marine pollution from the beginning. With the general rise in environmental awareness around the world since the 1970s, the quantity and scope of voluntary environmental initiatives have greatly increased and the environmental agenda has widened to include broader issues such as climate change and biodiversity.

One of the key signs of environmental engagement is that the oil companies now provide extensive environmental reports. Though, several comparative international studies have confirmed that environmental reporting amongst oil and gas companies is more extensive compared with other sectors including utilities and various branches of manufacturing, although partly it has been a result of the industry’s greater environmental impact. In addition, lot of oil companies are using third party verification of their environmental reports, compared with companies in most other sectors[7].

According to the 2005 survey of CSR reporting by the consultancy firm KPMG, sixteen out of twenty oil and gas companies listed among the 250 largest corporations in the world reported on corporate responsibility issues, which represented a significant increase from 58 percent to 80 percent between 2002 and 2005.

For emerging market companies, there are huge differences in environmental reporting and environmental practices between different companies. Obviously, environmental reporting is merely a means to an end, with the end being improved environmental practices. The reports are capable to trace performance over time and they provide evidence that oil companies have made some improvements in their environmental performance over the years.

The potential of CSR for addressing environmental issues can be explained only by merging of environmental and business interests. Both companies and the environment can benefit from a reduction in gas flaring and energy efficiency, as the sale of previously flared natural gas or energy savings can lead to better financial performance. Also, studies have shown that a business case or WIN-WIN outcomes of CSR is strongest with regards to environmental issues, as opposed to “social” issues such as health and safety, labour standards or local development.

Oil company managers and engineers have narrated various examples of instances when they were proud of their company’s environmental improvements, for instance, reducing carbon dioxide emissions, implementing a zero-spill policy for the company or replacing steel tubes with chrome tubes. Company’s staff discovered that there was a convergence of environmental and business interests.

Companies have been able to get the success at environmental improvements because the technical and managerial capabilities of oil companies are particularly suited to addressing environmental issues. Company managers are of the view that, when the environmental improvements can be reduced to distinct technical tasks, oil companies can perform CSR tasks to a high standard. They are of the view that the Environmental improvements such as new oil pipelines, improved forms of combustion or new production processes require similar engineering and managerial skills to those needed by oil companies in their commercial day-to-day operations, for instance, increasing production levels or reducing production costs. Technical problems need to be solved, new production processes and patents need to be developed, and project teams need to be formed, and so on.

But there is also another side of this picture. There are various constraints to better environmental performance. Companies are often reluctant to make environmental improvements without external government pressure. There is still little comparability between environmental reports of different companies. Even the most responsible oil companies sometimes decide that commercial interests are more important than ecological concerns, for instance, when developing oil fields next door to a national park. Finally, the consumption of the oil and gas products sold by oil companies is inherently harmful to the environment due to carbon emissions.  taxmanagementindia.com

11. CSR AND DEVELOPMENT:

The nature of oil and gas operations is such that it involves lot of interactions between companies and local communities during exploration and production. The results of such type of interactions are always in the favour of society as a whole. Because of this, it has become possible that the oil companies have to make investment in the development of their local communities. Oil companies are now making significant contributions towards community development schemes such as hospitals, schools and micro-credit schemes. Global spending by oil, gas and mining companies on community development programmes was estimated at over US$ 500 million per year in 2000, but the figure is certainly much higher today.

While there is a wealth of community investments, the current reporting on these activities is very weak. The companies’ social and environmental reports contain only input and no output measures for their social investment. In other words, companies provide information on how much they have spent on education or philanthropic activities or how many local stakeholders participated in a project, but they provide no measures of how effectively the money was spent. Not even the level of spending is comparable between companies because it is not clear what is included and what is not included. Not a single company systematically measures the effectiveness of its development interventions, either in terms of scientific measures (e.g. changes in health indicators related to health spending) or in terms of a value-for-money analysis.

Sometimes it looks that the Oil companies seem to be simply satisfied that they spend money on “development”. Therefore, we are not able to know as to what extent the community investment has actually yielded tangible benefits for the local people.

One must also remember that the beneficiaries of oil company funded projects often have no alternative sources of support, particularly in developing economies where the government has failed in its development role. Yet, for all the money that oil companies have spent on development initiatives, there are surprisingly few tangible benefits for local stakeholders.

The positive impact of social investments is severely constrained by the companies’ own motives for community development work. Firms may embark on social investments in order to follow public relations priorities, in order to enhance employee motivation or in order to maintain a “licence to operate” (i.e. maintaining a stable working environment). These corporate priorities often constrain development efforts. The reports issued by the corporates do not provide any indicators of how effectively the community development funds are spent, and that projects are often driven by short-term expediencies rather than the long-term development needs of a community.

In contrast to best development practice advocated by the World Bank and other development institutions, CSR initiatives have often been conceived by the ‘helpers’ in the air-conditioned offices of oil companies and consultancies rather than through on-going participation with the beneficiaries, which follows the logic of CSR serving corporate priorities. Where oil companies have consulted local communities, the consultation exercises have often been superficial and grossly inadequate. The involvement of the beneficiaries of CSR in implementing projects is limited or non-existent and it may be limited at best to awarding contracts to locally based companies. While the involvement of locally based companies can be beneficial as it creates local employment.

The limitations of technical/managerial approaches can be seen in the manner, in which local communities are consulted. A consultation exercise is inherently qualitative and inherently lengthy requiring in-depth discussions and the building of a good rapport with people.

Treating consultation from a technical/managerial perspective leads managers to speed up discussions with local communities and to try to achieve an immediate goal (such as a written list of local demands) rather than trying to build bridges with the local people and spending lengthy periods discussing the causes of problems.

There are many examples of community investments, which lack basic equipment, which are unsuitable for the community or which are dysfunctional in some way. Local community development initiatives or “corporate social investments” in their current form have limited potential for developing genuine local community development in practice.

12. CONTRARY ARGUMENT: THE BUSINESS OF BUSINESS IS BUSINESS:

Having put the case for corporate social responsibility as good business practice, there is also a contrary argument against this is that it is not, in fact, a proper or sensible function of a company to concern itself with social and environmental matters beyond what is required by government law and regulation. The social function of companies is to focus on the job of making profits for shareholders, paying its employers and suppliers and paying taxes to governments, but not to take on social roles that really belong to governments and civil organisations.

Petroleum and mining projects are prone to social and political challenges and difficulties that companies cannot simply ignore. To gain community acceptance of the project in their midst, companies must show that they can provide social benefit and not cause unacceptable environmental damage. And it also makes sense as far as self-interest is concerned to assist community development as a means of helping to support a project economically through local employees and supplies and services. All this may be required by terms of their operating agreements with central and provincial governments. But even where this is not the case, if communities are alienated, eventually it will result in government actions, even if in the short term the company is operating where governments show a lack of interest or even care little about the local context. Eventually, these things will come back to haunt companies.

But the dilemma for companies is that how far they should go in providing education, health, small scale industry development and infrastructure (roads, ports and airports). They argue they are not, after all, alternative governments, although that may be in effect the expectation of local communities. 

CSR has evolved as a popular corporate jargon with multiple interpretation and perspectives. Also, there are a few common perceptions in all the diverse approaches like commitment of an organisation to operate in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner, while recognizing the interests of its stakeholders. In the wake of rapid globalization and pressing ecological issues, the perception towards the role of corporate in the broader social paradigm is undergoing a sea change. In the recent years, society and the state have put forward an expectation before public sector corporate to integrate the social responsibility aspects in their business persuasion. This scenario not only affects large scale public sector undertakings, but also includes firms of small scale.

The underlying assumption that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is one way through which companies can demonstrate their commitments towards being socially responsible. In fact, CSR as an integral aspect of corporate has double edge effect in terms of creating goodwill to the company and acting as a social and economic intervention to bring about large scale changes in the life of people from different walks. However, the focus of CSR in companies, especially in an Indian PSU is still essentially dominated by community development projects.

13. CSR AND REPUTATIONAL RISK:

Some NGOs and other observers contended that these stories are fairly typical of the oil and gas industry, an industry whose efforts to behave responsibly are mostly window-dressing or “green washing.”[8] This is consistent with the notion that oil companies, as rational maximizers of shareholder returns, will take advantage of absent or inadequate laws and regulatory standards, and will pollute and exploit local populations as long as they can avoid liability in the process.

Though, this view turns a blind eye to the forces that have put CSR closer to the centre of business decision-making over the last couple of decades. Some companies within the oil and gas industry may be embracing CSR because they believe that it is wrong to leave a legacy of toxic contamination, poverty and social dislocation. Also, they may recognize that reputational harm can be just as damaging to the bottom line as legal liability, and that investments in socially responsible behaviour may earn positive returns for them, at least, over the long run[9].

A. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

In order to protect the company’s reputation effectively, oil and gas companies have to compulsorily understand the perceptions and forces that determine that reputation. For that reason, developing more productive working relationships with external stakeholders, including governments, is now the sine-qua-non of the companies CSR programmes[10].

The efforts may be aimed at repairing reputational harm associated with past environmental damage, or forward-looking attempts to build good will in the society. These companies invest in the development of a skilled and healthy local workforce by promoting educational programs for locals, building local infrastructure, and more. They are also investing in promoting governmental transparency, and in human rights and security.

B. EMBRACING EXTRA-LEGAL “STANDARDS”

There is no substitute for the oil and gas companies for the application of clear standards of behaviour. For example, many oil companies have pledge to hold themselves to certain global minimum environmental standards, such as the ISO 14000 environmental management system, such as the minimization or elimination of flaring of natural gas. A World Bank survey of environmental performance within the oil and gas industry examined individual companies’ CSR reports and codes in an attempt to understand oil and gas companies’ approaches to environmental performance.

With respect to social issues such as workplace safety and human rights within the workplace, most oil companies adhere to the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) standards.

The work of oil and gas companies is as socially and politically complex as it is technically complex. Oil and gas companies serve a strong and constant worldwide demand for their products. The development of better and more sophisticated CSR programs, fed and nurtured by a more transparent, receptive approach to stakeholder engagement, represents their response to the changing expectations of governments, NGOs and neighbours over the last several decades. It also seems a logical response to the absence of effective government regulation and legal dispute resolution mechanisms.

In the oil and gas sector, CSR activities represent an attempt to fill that void. There is no secret that many oil-rich nations have been poorly governed. It is also true that oil companies have paid reputational costs for that lack of attention. It appears that most investor-owned oil and gas companies have reached the conclusion that their long-term best interests will be served by paying greater attention to the needs and wants of external stakeholders, and to their environmental and social legacy in the places they do business.

The last two decades have seen these companies make great strides toward doing business in a more sustainable and socially responsible way. They are now aware that the business of exploring for and producing oil and gas will always entail environmental costs and social challenges. The Deep-water Horizon disaster is a cruel reminder of that fact. Therefore, governments, NGOs and people will continue to pressure oil and gas companies to respond to the evolving social (as well as legal) expectations. Companies ought to respond to that pressure in a positive way. And, if they do not they are fully aware that they have put their reputations in danger and also, their future license to operate is at risk.

14. BEYOND CSR:

The above analysis suggests that neat categorisations of CSR are a fundamentally new departure towards sustainability is both mis­conceived. Responses have varied considerably both among and within companies, reflecting considerable differences in institutional settings and in the way companies are positioned in relation to activism and other key drivers of CSR  and company behaviour.

It also suggests that the future course of CSR will depend not only on activism and the business case, but also on national and international regulation and the role of the state. The ideology and practices of ‘voluntarism’ that characterise the discussions of CSR have diverted attention from government-business relations and the importance of regulation and regulatory threats as drivers of CSR. Also, the opposed debate between critics and proponents of corporate self-regula­tion and voluntary CSR initiatives has diverted attention from the possible synergies and complementarities between legalistic and voluntary, or softer and harder, regulatory approaches[11].

There are signs, however, that the contemporary focus on ‘corporate accountability’ within some civil society and academic circles, as well as the overdue critique of neo-liberalism by some international organisa­tions[12],  may be ‘bringing the state back in’. The concept of corporate accountability goes beyond CSR and mainstream voluntary approaches by emphasising that corporations should be obliged to answer to different stakeholders and incur some sort of cost or penalty in cases of non-com­pliance with agreed standards. It also suggests a need for far greater involvement of governments and inter-governmental processes in the design and implementation of CSR standards and processes and a greater reliance on hybrid or complementary forms of regulation that articulate voluntary CSR initiatives and legal frameworks[13].

The challenge for the future involves not only ‘bringing the state back’ but also recapturing the state, in the sense of increasing the influence of certain actors and coalitions. This will require confronting some of the major weaknesses regarding civil society activism; over­coming, for example, NGO-trade union tensions; reconnecting NGOs with social movements, governments and mainstream political processes; and building stronger and more equitable alliances between northern and southern organizations and networks.

15. CONCLUSIONS:

The evidence suggests that CSR has the greatest potential for addressing environmental challenges. Corporate reporting on the environment is steadily improving, new environmentally friendly technologies are being developed and tangible improvements are being made by some companies.

Environmental challenges benefit from the specific expertise that companies possess, as technical and managerial skills greatly assist environmental improvements. Most crucially, environmental initiatives appear to lead to WIN-WIN outcomes: the environmental impact of companies is reduced, while companies benefit from lower operating costs, better equipment and innovation. In contrast, the evidence suggests that CSR has less potential for addressing problems related to community development and governance. Companies could greatly benefit from better community relations and improved governance: fewer operational losses as a result of community dissatisfaction, less corruption, improved corporate reputations, and so on. Companies appear to be reluctant to address the issue of governance, while their approaches to community development are often ineffective.

Corporate Social Responsibility is a dynamic area with a broad purview, which encompasses all the key determinants of responsible business in the domains of society (stakeholders), economics (the financial sustainability of the business) and care for the environment. This is also referred to as the triple bottom line approach to business accounting and people, planet and profit aspects of a responsible business. However, CSR continues to be more often associated with community development initiatives as reflected in the case of two oil & gas Public Sector Companies, where sustainability, corporate governance, human rights, Supply chain management etc, which are key elements of CSR are dealt independent of CSR.

The findings from Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility – Oil Multinationals and Social Challenges suggest here are two deeper underlying reasons as to why oil companies fail to effectively address development and governance concerns. First, the “business case for CSR” (that is, the use of social initiatives for attaining corporate objectives) sets limits on what such initiatives can achieve for broader society. While the business case has potential for successfully addressing environmental issues, making a business case for tackling poverty or governance failures is often much more difficult. Unlike development agencies, companies do not tend to prioritise overall development goals such as poverty reduction. Indeed, profit-maximising motives are often incompatible with good development practice Second, multinational companies often fail to acknowledge the full extent of their interactions with society and politics and they do not accept responsibility for macro-level issues – issues concerning the society-wide impact of their industry. While companies clearly exercise political influence, they tend to reject the notion that they could play a constructive role in helping to address governance failures.

The work of oil and gas companies is as socially and politically complex as it is technically complex. Oil and gas companies serve a strong and constant worldwide demand for their products. At the same time, they have to depend upon inefficient, unreliable or corrupt governments for their legal licenses to do business. They often work in the shadow of intractable social conflicts and/or their own legacy of insufficient attention to the needs and concerns of society. The development of better and more sophisticated CSR programs, fed and nurtured by a more transparent, receptive approach to stakeholder engagement, represents their response to the changing expectations of governments, NGOs and neighbours over the last several decades. This seems a logical response to the absence of effective government regulation and legal dispute resolution mechanisms.

The ability of CSR is dubious to fill the regulatory and legal void. It is certainly true that the worse things get for people, the more pressure exists for government to act. If things get bad enough and government remains ineffective, that pressure might provoke a change in government, whether peaceful or violent. Some would argue, however, that the assumption that the system will eventually respond to this kind of pressure is a uniquely Western one.

In general, CSR debates appear to have marginalized debates on governance and macro level solutions to complex society-wide problems. Yet CSR initiatives will not be able to tackle some of the key social and environmental challenges in the oil and gas sector without addressing governance.

The limitations of CSR do not imply that oil companies should do nothing about societal issues. Firms are pressured to engage with the social and environmental aspects of their operations and they may benefit from the opportunities that CSR offers. Individual companies can still do a lot to improve their relationship with wider society, but they need to re-consider their approaches and they need to join hands with non-traditional partners.

There is now a vast literature about CSR from academic sources through to NGOs, business councils and development assistance agencies. Conferences on the subject seem dime a dozen. They all echo a common argument: ethical corporate policy is consistent with self-interest and good business. Long-term business interests for investors and managers are best served by being good corporate citizens. Yet it is still true that not all companies are virtuous.

16. REFERENCES:

[1]. Bhattacharyya and Rahman, Why large local conglomerates may not work in emerging markets, European Business Review, 15(2), pp.105-115 (2003).

[2]. Carroll, A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance, Academy of Management Review, 4(4), pp. 497-505 (1979).

[3]. Cochran and Wood, Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 27, pp. 42-56 (1984).

[4]. DiMaggio and Powell, The Iron Cage Revisited Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48 (April), pp. 147-160 (1983).

[5]. Edenkamp, Insights into how consumers are thinking, how they are acting and why, Brandweek, 43 (36), pp. 16 -20 (2002).

[6]. Friedman, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profit, The New York Times Magazine, Sept 13, pp. 122-126 (1970).

[7]. Jones, Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics, Academy of Management Review, 20(2), pp. 404–437 (1995).

[8]. McWilliams and Siegel, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 26, pp. 117-127 (2001).

[9]. Palazzo and Scherer, Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation. A Communicative Framework, Journal of Business Ethics, 66 (1), pp.71–88 (2006).

[10]. Prahalad and Kenneth, The End of Corporate Imperialism, Harvard Business Review, July-Aug, pp. 68-79 (1998).

[11]. Scherer and Palazzo, Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility. Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 32, pp. 1096–120 (2007).

[12]. Shrivastava, The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability, Academy of Management Review, 20(4), pp. 936-960 (1995).

[13]. Warhurst, Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Social Investment: Drivers of Tri-Sector Partnerships, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Spring, pp. 57-73 (2001).

BOOKS:

[1]. Batra, Marketing Issues and Challenges in Transitional Economies, Academic Publishers, Boston. MA, pp. 3-35 (1999).

[2]. Cohen and Kennedy, Global Sociology. MacMillan Press, London (2000).

[3]. Donaldson and Dunfee, Ties that Bind: A Social Contract Approach to Business Ethics, Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1999).

[4]. Giddens, Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK (1990).

[5]. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (1996).

[6]. Habermas, The Post national Constellation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (2001).

[7]. Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order, Chicago University Press, Chicago (1996).

[8]. Levitt, The dangers of social responsibility. In T. Meloan, S. Smith, & J. Wheatly (Eds.), Managerial marketing policies and decisions. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1970).

[9]. Whetten, Rands and Godfrey, What are the Responsibilities of Business to Society? Handbook of Strategy and Management, Sage, London (2002).

 

---

[1] H Fabig and R Boele, ‘The changing nature of NGO activity in a globalizing world: Pushing the corporate responsibility agenda’, 30 IDS Bulletin 3, 58-87 (1999).

[2] India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Corporate Social Responsibility Voluntary Guidelines 2009.

[3] Available online at:  http://www.oil-india.com/Vision.aspx/

[4] Available online at: http://www.iocl.com/Aboutus/corporatesocialresponsibility.aspx/

[5] RB Clark (ed), The long-term effects of oil pollution on marine populations, communities and ecosystems, London: Royal Society, (1982); J Estrada, K Tangen and HO Bergesen, Environmental Challenges Confronting the Oil Industry, New York: Wiley, (1997); S White, ‘Oil pollution: Clearing up the myths’, 15 Geography Review 5, 16-20 (2002).

[6] D Austin and A Sauer, ‘Changing Oil: Emerging Environmental Risks and Shareholder Value in the Oil and Gas Industry’, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, (2002).

[7] A Kolk, S Walhain and S van de Wateringen, ‘Environmental reporting by the Fortune Global 250: Exploring the influence of nationality and sector’, 10 Business Strategy and the Environment 1, 15-28(2001).

[8] See JOSHUA KARLINER, The CORPORATE PLANET: ECOLOGY AND POLITICS IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION 170–75 (1997).

[9] For a description of the rise of CSR within the oil industry, see Michael J. Watts, Righteous Oil? Human Rights, the Oil Complex, and Corporate Social Responsibility,30 ANN. REV. ENVTL. RESOURCES 373, 393–98,(2005).

[10] For another analysis of why stakeholder engagement is central to reputation management in the oil industry, see Lisa J. Laplante & Suzanne A. Spears, Out of the Conflict Zone: The Case for Community Consent Processes in the Extractive Sector, 11 YALE HUM. RTS. & DEV. L.J. 69, 71, 116 (2008).

[11] Levy and Kolk, ‘Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change,’ 296.

[12] United Nations Development Programme (undp), International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid, Trade and Security in an Unequal World. Human Development Report 2005 (New York: undp, 2005); United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (undesa), Report on the World Social Situation 2005: The Inequality Predica­ment. (New York: undesa, 2005); United Nations Conference on Trade and De­velopment (unctad), Economic Development in Africa: Rethinking the role of Foreign Direct Investment. unctad/gds/AFRICA/2005/1, (Geneva: unctad, 2005); and unrisd, Gender Equality: Striving for Justice in an Unequal World (Geneva: unrisd, 2005).

[13] Utting, ‘Rethinking Buisiness Regulation: from Self-regulation to Social Control;’ Halina Ward, Legal Issues in Corporate Citizenship (London: iied, 2002).