• The multiple stakeholder obligations stance is that many groups have a stake in what the organisation does.
• This is particularly important in the business context, where shareholders own the business but employees, customers and government also have particularly strong claims to having their interest considered. It is suggested that modern corporations are so powerful, socially, economically and politically, that unrestrained use of their power will inevitably damage other people’s rights.
• Under this approach, the exercise of corporate social responsibility constrains the corporation to act all times as good citizen. Particular emphasis is laid on the preservation of employment and protection of the environment.
• Stakeholder stance posits that the essence of business primarily lies in building relationships and creating value for all its stakeholders. Though the composition of stakeholders may differ depending on company’s industry and business model, the main stakeholders typically include employees, customers, communities, suppliers, and financiers (owners, investors). All these stakeholders are equally important for the company and any trade-off among the stakeholders should be avoided.
• Performance should not be measured simply through the financial bottom line. Long term survival is dependent on social and environmental performance as well as economic (financial) performance, and therefore it is important to take account of the views of stakeholders with interests relating to social and environmental matters.
  NOTE: The following points can also be considered as significance of the CSR stance taken by the Board:.
• Redeem company’s image through damage control.
• Reliable source of supply of inputs to ensure continuity of operations.
• Reduce labour turnover and improve service quality to customers.
• Avoid legal suits and associated costs.

This stance of CSR involves with recognition of the long-term financial benefit to the shareholder of well-managed relationships with other stakeholders. The justification for social action is that it makes good business sense. An organisation’s reputation is important to its long-term financial success. Given that employees see it as important that their employer acts in a socially responsible manner, a more proactive stance on social issues also helps in recruiting and retaining staff. So, like any other form of investment or promotion expenditure, corporate philanthropy or welfare provision might be regarded as sensible expenditure. The sponsorship of major sporting or arts events by companies is an example.
The avoidance of ‘shady’ marketing practices is also necessary to prevent the need for yet more legislation in that area. Managers here would take the view that organisations not only have responsibility to their shareholders, but also a responsibility for relationships with other stakeholders (as against responsibilities to other stakeholders). So communication with stakeholder groups is likely to be more interactive than for laissez-faire-type organisations. They may well also set up systems and policies to ensure compliance with best practice (for example, ISO 14000 certification, the protection of human rights in overseas operations, etc.) and begin to monitor their social responsibility performance. Top management may also play more of a part, at least insofar as they support the firm taking a more proactive social role.

This stance of CSR explicitly incorporates multiple stakeholder interests and expectations rather than just shareholders as influences on organisational purposes and strategies. Here the argument is that the performance of an organisation should be measured in a more pluralistic way than just through the financial bottom line. Companies in this category might retain uneconomic units to preserve jobs, avoid manufacturing or selling ‘anti-social’ products and be prepared to bear reductions in profitability for the social good. Some financial service organisations have also chosen to offer socially responsible investment ‘products’ to investors. These include only holdings in organisations that meet high standards of social responsibility in their activities.
In such organisations responsibility for CSR may be elevated to board-level appointments and structures may be set up for monitoring social performance across its global operations. Targets, often through balanced scorecards, may be built into operational aspects of business and issues of social responsibility managed proactively and in a coordinated fashion. The expectation is that such a corporate stance will, in turn, be reflected in the ethical behaviour of individuals within the firm. Organisations in this category inevitably take longer over the development of new strategies as they are committed to wide consultation with stakeholders and with managing the difficult political trade-offs between conflicting stakeholders’ expectations.

i) Keener Ltd is pursuing shapers of society corporate social responsibility stance. Shapers of society stance regard financial considerations as of secondary importance or a constraint. These are activists, seeking to change society and social norms. Here the social role is the raison d’être of the business. Such organisations may see their strategic purpose as ‘changing the rules of the game’ through which they may benefit but by which they wish to assure that society benefits. In this role it is unlikely that they will be operating on their own: rather they are likely to be partnering with other organisations, commercial and otherwise, to achieve their purposes. The Keener Ltd has put Mercyland community at the centre of its purpose.

ii) Standard Ltd is pursuing the laissez-faire stance of corporate social responsibility. The laissez-faire view represents an extreme stance. Proponents argue that the only responsibility of business is to make a profit and provide for the interests of shareholders. It is for government to prescribe, through legislation and regulation, the constraints which society chooses to impose on businesses in their pursuit of economic efficiency. Organisations should meet these minimum obligations but no more. Expecting companies to exercise social duties beyond this can, in extreme cases, undermine the authority of government.

iii) Poor Ltd is pursuing enlightened self-interest stance of corporate social responsibility. Enlightened self-interest is tempered with recognition of the long-term financial benefit to the shareholder of well-managed relationships with other stakeholders. The justification for social action is that it makes good business sense. An organisation’s reputation is important to its long-term financial success. Given that employees see it as important that their employer acts in a socially responsible manner, a more proactive stance on social issues also helps in recruiting and retaining staff. So, like any other form of investment or promotion expenditure, corporate philanthropy or welfare provision might be regarded as sensible expenditure. The avoidance of ‘shady’ marketing practices is also necessary to prevent the need for yet more legislation in that area. Managers here would take the view that organisations not only have responsibility to their shareholders, but also a responsibility for relationships with other stakeholders (as against responsibilities to other stakeholders).

iv) High Ltd is pursuing a forum for stakeholder stance of corporate social responsibility. A forum for stakeholder stance explicitly incorporates multiple stakeholder interests and expectations rather than just shareholders as influences on organisational purposes and strategies. Here the argument is that the performance of an organisation should be measured in a more pluralistic way than just through the financial bottom line. Companies in this category might retain uneconomic units to preserve jobs, avoid manufacturing or selling ‘anti-social’ products and be prepared to bear reductions in profitability for the social good. Some financial service organisations have also chosen to offer socially responsible investment ‘products’ to investors. These include only holdings in organisations that meet high standards of social responsibility in their activities.