1.0 INTRODUCTION In decades, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) standards formulations in businesses are amongst pathways of environmental sustainability.
Globally, businesses draw plans to incorporate environmental activities to prevent the future negative externalities (Madsen and Ulhoi, 2001). CSR implementations as a widespread concept in businesses lead to a linkage between brand companies and agents of development (Lund-Thomsen, 2013). In this view, companies implement standards and have in mind, supplier control mechanisms to benefit society (Mueller, dos Santos and Seuring, 2009). Ingenbleek, Binnekamp, and Goddijn 2007 agree that companies provide more benefits for shareholders. Companies protect employees and communities. The CSR standards formulation is a hierarchal process with an appropriate code of conduct and requires members to seek voluntary approval from authorization agents.Knowingly, the fundamental of CSR standards in business starts with questions.
This probing brings contention that concern stakeholders in an organization. Ethical decisions and CSR from philosophical context are then designed from these questions (Weiss, 2014). Though, very discrete, CSR standards on environment protection are old phenomenon. As government seems lost in its role, companies seemingly push their voluntary CSR plan to stay. “These companies prevent to be subdued by Government “in which way” and “how much” CSR activities they should implement” (Dzindo, 2015).
Companies find it more practical to do ahead future CSR concerns and integrate standards into their day-to-day operations. Incorporating sustainability into strategic financial management promotes business performance as equity increases and helps to attract staff and guarantee retention of staff. General elements of businesses CSR responsibility apply across industries. However, different businesses potentially have relatively distinctive CSR activities which come with CSR deficiencies. CSR deficiencies are extremely unfavorable to corporate financial performance.
Analyzing these deficiencies to ensure appropriateness requires CRS standards formulation in organizations which inextricably links stakeholder theory (Maloni and Brown, 2006). There is, however, a compelling need for relevant CRS standards formulation in China (Li and Foo 2016). This study, therefore, distinctively examines Alibaba Group’s CSR standards formulation for environment protection in China.
Alibaba Group conceptualizes the internet as a playing field for small-scale firms to control innovations and grow domestic economies effectively. Statistically, in 2014, China witnessed a cross-border GMV of RMB 4.2 trillion, accounting for 14.9% total foreign trade volume of China which is higher than Germany’s Gross Domestic Product. Alibaba Group serves two billion global consumers to buy products online, hence facilitating the realization of their global strategic vision of “Global Buy, Global Sell” (Alibaba Group’s CSR report 2014-2015).Notwithstanding kinds of knowledge on CSR standard formulation in businesses, the study uses existing literature to critically highlight how China’s CSR standards formulation impact environment protection and corporate financial performances.
To highlight this, we utilize a model to show the relationships between companies CSR and financial performances and how stakeholders with the “power” and “urgency” ensure CSR standards implementation on environmental protection. Assessing companies CSR reports, stock exchanges, and adopting institutional-stakeholder typology framework, the study sets out: To examine how stakeholders implement CSR standards on environmental protection of China.To evaluate potential stakeholders and institutions involved in CSR standards on environmental protection of China. To assess how CSR implementation affects businesses financial performances in China.The paper has five further chapters. Chapter two is the brief literature review; addresses the various typologies and assess relevant stakeholders in CRS standards formulation.
Chapter three is a theoretical framework. Chapter four is an empirical model used. Chapter five and Chapter six are discussions and conclusions respectively, followed by weakness and recommended future research.