Since the beginning of 21st century, enormous research work has been done related to Corporate Social Responsibility. It captures a continuum of ethics and criterion for measuring a company’s involvement towards community development. The increasing pressures of businesses on humanity and the natural environment have raised concerns among people all around the world considerably. Today, the various stakeholders in national and international communities expect more responsible use of increased business power. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) may provide a general framework to structure the responsible use of corporate power and social involvement (Duygu Turker, 2009)¹. Within the branch of management, stakeholder theory has arisen most recently; this also enters in the field of social responsibility.

Without centering on the content of corporate social behavior, stakeholder theory defines its field of application sustaining the idea that firms do not have responsibilities towards society in general, but rather they should only be concerned about individuals or groups that may be directly or indirectly affected by their activity (Donaldson and Preston, 1995)² and (Clarkson, 1995)³.

Community is generally defined as a group of people sharing a common purpose, who are interdependent for the fulfillment of certain needs, which live in close proximity and interact on a regular basis. There are shared expectations for all members of the group and responsibility taken from those expectations. The group is respectful and considerate of the individuality of other persons within the community. In a community there is a sense of community which is defined as the feelings of cooperation, of commitment to the group welfare, of willingness to communicate openly, and of responsibility to and for others as well as to one’s self (Maimunah Ismail, 2009)⁴.‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ concept has been understood differently at different time period. Over the years, CSR practices in India have evolved from notions of pure philanthropy and charity, to CSR practiced as a part of social develop- ment, to the multi-stakeholder approach that is the current global trend (Seema G. Sharma, 2009)⁵. Corporate Social Responsibility means corporate are equally responsible for the development of the society in the vicinity while ensuring the success of the business. Corporate are expected to meet the expectation of all the stakeholders such as employees, suppliers and community at large. CSR brings sustainable development by meeting economic, environmental and social objectives.

The main focus of the present paper is to examine the societal perspective towards Corporate Social Responsibility. Now CSR has been mandatory after the enactment of Companies Act 2013 and qualifying corporate are required to spend at least 2% of its average net profit for the immediately preceding 3 financial years on CSR activities. Therefore, it becomes necessary to see whether they are really benefited or not by pursuance of CSR activities. Last section of the paper presents the conclusion and implication of the current research.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Publics believe corporations should be most concerned with producing quality products and services and with dealing with such indirect consequences of business activities as pollution or inflation. Strategies are proposed for communicating with each public about corporate social responsibility (James E. Gruni,1979)⁶. Organizations take responsibility for solving several social problems, including air pollution, over-use of natural resources, and other environmental problems caused by corporations. In response to these social expectations, enterprises carry out a variety of activities such as supporting charities, making donations, establishing social welfare arrangements, creating foundations, and becoming involved in volunteer work. Corporate social responsibility means that the corporation is responsible for its own behaviors to its stockholders, employees, other concerned parties and ultimately, the whole of society (Harrison and Freeman, 1999)⁷. A large number of researches suggest that corporations of the twenty-first century can derive enormous benefits when they are perceived as being socially responsible by their stakeholders (Crowther, 2003)⁸. Corporate philanthropy and corporate community programs can contribute to building relationships with customers (Hall, 2006)⁹. (Bae and Cameron, 2006)¹⁰ studied the significance of prior reputation on building a positive relationship with the public through corporate giving activities. The low consumer awareness of the various social issues in which firms engage with their CSR programs suggests that firms may need to educate consumers, so they may better contextualize CSR initiatives communicated. (Julie Pirsch, Shruti Gupta, Stacy Landreth Grau, 2007)¹¹ institutionalized CSR programs to be the most effective and increasing customer loyalty, enhancing attitude towards the companies and decreasing consumer skepticism and more effective at generating purchase intent. (Michael Blowfield, 2007)¹²Causality between an individual company's actions and major societal issues is too problematic, and there is no effective demand for companies or industries to be accountable in this way. Where there is a growing demand is among those, not least parts of the capital markets, who want to revisit the way companies are valued. Indeed, rather than framing the debate in terms of the impact of CSR, it might be more fruitful to think about the value of business to society, or more specifically in the context here, the value of business to development goals. In this way we are not left looking for an elusive causality between CSR activities and at societal consequences, but rather at what business as a whole contributes. As a result, CSR is not something with its own discrete outcomes, but an approach that helps business manage its relationship with society. (Alan and Sara, 2009)¹³ While CSR is effective in eliciting favorable consumer attitudes and behavior in theory, CSR has not proven its general effectiveness in the marketplace. The low consumer awareness of the various social issues in which firms engage with their CSR programs suggests that firms may need to educate consumers, so they may better contextualize CSR initiatives communicated. However, better context may amount to little if claimed CSR initiatives are perceived as inconsistent with other facets of the business that reflect its values and ethics. (Alan Pomering and Sara Dolnicar.2009)¹³ CSR initiatives are perceived as inconsistent with other facets of the business that reflect its values and ethics. (Andrea J. S. Stanaland, May O. Lwin and Patrick E. Murphy, 2011)¹⁴ examined CSR from the consumer's perspective, focusing on antecedents and consequences of perceived CSR. The findings strongly support the fact that particular cues, namely perceived financial performance and perceived quality of ethics statements, influence perceived CSR which in turn impacts perceptions of corporate reputation, consumer trust, and loyalty. Both consumer trust and loyalty were also found to reduce the perceived risk that consumers experience in buying and using product. (Liesbet Van Der Smissen, 2012)¹⁵ undertaken the study from a consumer’s point of view to analyze how they see CSR and what the value is they derive from it. She found that consumers associated CSR most often with the environment. (Geraldine Nkechinyere Okeudo, 2012)¹⁶ has examined the effect of social responsibility on the society. It has been proved that the society stands to benefit from company’s social responsibility and that the society was satisfied with the level of social responsibility undertaken by shell petroleum development company organization. It was discovered that a relationship exists between society and business organization because organizations need the society for its manpower and marketing of its products while the organization helps in so many ways in the development of the society. (Geetha and Jayakumar, 2014)¹⁷, has examined a) to explore the perception of respondents on corporate social responsibility, to find out the perception and knowledge of consumers of companies towards CSR practices in Salem city, b) to identify whether the CSR practices has made any effect in consumer decision-making while purchasing the products, and their willingness to pay a premium price for the CSR practices. They concluded that though the consumers in Salem might not aware of the mandatory provisions of CSR, they have showed their willingness to buy CSR products and willingness to pay premium price for the CSR practicing companies’ products. Hence, a positive link exists between the CSR and consumer behavior.

Above studies shows that enormous research work has been done on Corporate Social Responsibility in different directions but little research is done on how society perceives CSR activities, Do they feel any improvement in the education, employment, eradication of poverty, environment etc. due to activities undertaken by corporate for social upliftment. The present study is an attempt to solve this problem.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

· To study the societal perception regarding contribution of CSR activities in social and economic development.

HYPOTHESIS:

H₀1=Age have no impact on perception of beneficiaries regarding CSR activities.

H₀2= Gender have no impact on perception of beneficiaries regarding CSR activities.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The present study examined the view point of society regarding the role of CSR activities, undertaken by the corporate, in social and economic development of the vicinity. Perception of Society is measured based on ten CSR activities which are suggested under schedule VII of the Companies Act 2013. CSR activities in the area such as Eradication of Poverty, Education, Employment, Cleanliness, Environment friendly business practices, Promotion of rural sports, Olympic sports etc., Slum area development, Gender equality and women empowerment, Health care and Facilities for senior citizen have been considered for the study. The respondent were asked to rate their answer on five point Likeret Scale that ranged from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5(Strongly disagree). A sample of 100 respondents was collected from the five villages (Khorda, Jhamri, Dalanwas, Nayagaon and ) of Jhajjar district in Haryana. Convenient sampling technique was used to choose the sample. Mean, Standard Deviation and ANOVA statistics have been used in the current study to achieve the specified objectives.

DATA ANALYSIS:

Table1. Reliability Statistics

No of Items	Cronbach alpha
10	.784

Perception of the beneficiaries towards CSR was measured based on the ten items which have been suggested in the Companies Act 2013 under schedule VII. However, Reliability test was conducted and found that value of Cronbach's Alpha is more than .70 as shown in the Table1. Therefore all the items were included in the present study.

Table2. Respondents’ Profile

Variable	Sample
Gender
Male	87
Female	13
Age
15-30	32
30-45	40
above 45 years	28

Table 2 depicts the profile of respondents. It shows that most of the respondents are male whereas females are only 13%. This composition is good for the present study as male living in rural area are more attentive about the social responsibility undertaken by the corporate than female living in the same society. As per the table maximum respondents belong to 30-45 age groups who are considered as well informed stratum of the society.

	N	Sum	Mean	Std. Deviation
Eradication of Poverty	100	475	4.75	0.87
Education Level	100	362	3.62	1.54
Employment Level	100	332	3.32	1.48
Cleanliness in surrounding	100	486	4.86	0.70
Environment friendly Business Practices	100	483	4.83	0.71
Promotion of Sports	100	440	4.4	1.19
Slum Area Development	100	489	4.89	0.55
Gender Equality and Women Empowerment	100	488	4.88	0.54
Health Care	100	474	4.74	0.86
Facilities for Senior Citizen	100	495	4.95	0.36
Valid N (list wise)	100

Table4. Responses of the Beneficiaries to Different CSR Activities

Responses → Statements ↓	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
Eradication of Poverty	2	5	1	0	92	100
Education Level	4	40	0	2	54	100
Employment Level	2	50	3	4	41	100
Cleanliness in surrounding	2	2	0	0	96
Environment friendly Business Practices	1	4	0	1	94	100
Promotion of Sports	1	16	4	0	79	100
Slum Area Development	0	3	1	0	96
Gender Equality and Women Empowerment	0	2	3	0	95	100
Health Care	2	5	0	3	90	100
Facilities for Senior Citizen	0	1	1	0	98	100

Table5. ANOVA (Factor-Gender)

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Poverty	Between Groups	.138	1	.138	.181	.671
	Within Groups	74.612	98	.761
	Total	74.750	99
Education	Between Groups	.000	1	.000	.000	.991
	Within Groups	235.560	98	2.404
	Total	235.560	99
Employment	Between Groups	2.071	1	2.071	.950	.332
	Within Groups	213.689	98	2.180
	Total	215.760	99
Cleanliness	Between Groups	.123	1	.123	.252	.617
	Within Groups	47.917	98	.489
	Total	48.040	99
Environment	Between Groups	.432	1	.432	.852	.358
	Within Groups	49.678	98	.507
	Total	50.110	99
Rural	Between Groups	.004	1	.004	.002	.960
	Within Groups	139.996	98	1.429
	Total	140.000	99
Slum	Between Groups	.029	1	.029	.095	.759
	Within Groups	29.761	98	.304
	Total	29.790	99
Women	Between Groups	.017	1	.017	.059	.809
	Within Groups	28.543	98	.291
	Total	28.560	99
Health	Between Groups	.013	1	.013	.017	.896
	Within Groups	73.227	98	.747
	Total	73.240	99
SCitizen	Between Groups	.037	1	.037	.288	.593
	Within Groups	12.713	98	.130
	Total	12.750	99

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Poverty	Between Groups	2.025	2	1.013	1.350	.264
	Within Groups	72.725	97	.750
	Total	74.750	99
Education	Between Groups	10.852	2	5.426	2.342	.102
	Within Groups	224.708	97	2.317
	Total	235.560	99
Employment	Between Groups	1.485	2	.743	.336	.715
	Within Groups	214.275	97	2.209
	Total	215.760	99
Cleanliness	Between Groups	.136	2	.068	.138	.871
	Within Groups	47.904	97	.494
	Total	48.040	99
Environment	Between Groups	1.985	2	.992	2.000	.141
	Within Groups	48.125	97	.496
	Total	50.110	99
Rural	Between Groups	3.761	2	1.880	1.339	.267
	Within Groups	136.239	97	1.405
	Total	140.000	99
Slum	Between Groups	.857	2	.428	1.437	.243
	Within Groups	28.933	97	.298
	Total	29.790	99
Women	Between Groups	.459	2	.230	.792	.456
	Within Groups	28.101	97	.290
	Total	28.560	99
Health	Between Groups	.158	2	.079	.105	.901
	Within Groups	73.082	97	.753
	Total	73.240	99
SCitizen	Between Groups	.118	2	.059	.453	.637
	Within Groups	12.632	97	.130
	Total	12.750	99

It is seen from the table 6 that p value for all the statements is greater than .05 which confirms that null hypothesis 2 is accepted. Thus, it can be interpreted that there is no difference between the perceptions of beneficiaries belongs to different age group in respect to CSR activities.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS:

Business, Society and Government are connected to each other and development of each depends on the development of others. Similarly, Society Development is not the sole responsibility of the government. It’s the responsibility of all the stakeholders of the society and one of them is corporate. Corporate have their existence only because of the society where they supply their output and get input from them. Earlier CSR was in the form of charity and donations but now it has become mandatory for the qualifying companies to spend specified amount for the well being of the society. Few studies found that society is benefited from such CSR activities. The present study found that CSR activities brought positive impact only on education and employment level in the District Jhajjar of Harayana. Education and Employment are key area of development and progress in these areas will help to resolve other problems of the society. But rest of the areas like Eradication of Poverty, Cleanliness, Environment friendly business practices, Promotion of rural sports, Olympic sports etc., Slum area development, Gender equality and women empowerment, Health care and Facilities for senior citizen are being neglected by the corporate. These areas also need attention for achieving the objective of sustainable development of the society.

This study will be useful for the corporate and policy makers for framing appropriate policies as this study provides inputs on how well the CSR activities are being undertaken by the corporate. Thereby, plan can be formulated to improve the status of the neglected areas and holistic development of the society will be possible.

As such, this analysis suggest that a study should be conducted to find out which are the most preferred areas of the local neighborhood for CSR spending as socio-economic status of the society vary from district to district in a state.

REFERENCES:

1. Turker, D. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. Journal of Business Ethics. 2009; 85(4): pp. 411-427.

2. Donaldson T and Preston L. The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications'. Academy of Management Review. 1995; 20(1): pp. 65-91.

3. Clarkson MB. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review. 1995; 20(1): pp.92-117.

4. Ismail M. Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Role in Community Development: An International Perspective. The Journal of International Social Research. 2009; 2(9): 199-209.

5. Sharma SG. Corporate Social Responsibility in India: An Overview. The International Lawyer. 2009; 43(4): 1515-1533.

6. Grunig JE. A New Measure of Public Opinions on Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Journal. 1979; 22(4): 738-764.

7. Harrison JS and Freeman RE. ‘Stakeholders, Social Responsibility, and Performance: Empirical Evidences and Theoretical Perspective’. Academy of Management Journal. 1999; 42(5): 479-485.

8. Crowther D. 'Corporate Social Reporting: Genuine Action or Window Dressing?’. Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility. 2003; pp. 140-16.

9. Hall MR., 'Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Community Relations: Measuring Relationship- Building Results'. Journal of Public Relations Research. 2006; 18 (1): pp 1-21.

10. Bae J and Cameron GT. 'Conditioning Effect of Prior Reputation on Perception of Corporate Giving'. Public Relations Review. 2006; 32(2): 144-150.

11. Julie P, Gupta S and Grau SL. A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: an exploratory study. Journal of business ethics. 2007; 70 (02):125-140.

12. Blowfield M. Reasons to Be Cheerful? What We Know about CSR's Impact. Third World Quarterly. 2007; 28 (4): pp 683-695.

13. Pomering A and Dolnicar S. Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics. 2009; 85 (2s): 285-301.

14. Andrea JS May OL and Murphy PE. Consumer Perceptions of the Antecedents and Consequences of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 2011; 102(1): pp. 47-5.

15. Smissen LVD. The value of corporate social responsibility. Shodganga. 2012.

16. Okeudo GN, Effect of corporate social responsibility on the society (using shell petroleum development company as a case study). British journal of science. 2012; 3 (1): 156-164.

17. Geetha K and Jayakumar A. An analysis on consumer perception towards corporate social responsibility practices in salem city. Proceeding of the second international conference on global business, finance and social science. 2014; Chennai, Tamilnadu, India: gb14 Chennai conference.

Received on 20.05.2017 Modified on 05.10.2017

Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(1):516-521.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00080.X