“Water me...

I water you”, this in the most basic terms can be

said to be the root, bane and modern success ‘open sesame’ of
Corporate Social Responsibility as a legal and corporate concept.
Being a symbiotic relationship of mutualistic benefit between
companies and their social environments, Corporate Social
Responsibility has been defined by the Government of the United
Kingdom as1; the ‘voluntary action businesses take over and above
legal requirements to manage and enhance economic,
environmental and societal impacts. As Company law and the
society evolve and develop, corporations and businesses are tilting
towards establishing their functional structures on a foundation
steeped in favour of positive societal impact. The employment of a
diverse staff base, environmentally friendly waste and disposal
practices, pro-bono human rights advocacy, amongst other
foundational principles being adopted by companies and
incorporated as part of their constitution and in day to day
operation, spotlight the import of Corporate Social Responsibility as
an essential business and corporate requirement as opposed to its
status as a “legal option” when first introduced. Corporate
responsibility (CR) is about the impact an organization makes on
society, the environment and the economy2. It is a company’s
awareness of its legal and social obligation to protect,preserve and
develop the immediate community it is situated in. CSR is however
notably different from ESG, in that CSR directly affects stakeholders,
whereas ESG ( Environmental, Social and Governance) affects
investors. Corporate Social Responsibility is the ethos guiding a
company and its interaction with the community hosting it. It
directly affects all practices and activities of the company; from

1
‘CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY, Good for Business & Society: government response to call for views on corporate
responsibility’, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, UK, [2014], 1

2
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), ‘Corporate Responsibility:
An Introduction’ < https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/corporate-responsibility-
factsheet/#:~:text=Corporate%20responsibility%20(CR)%2C%20also,viable%20over
%20the%20long%20term. > accessed 3 March 2024
garnering and sourcing for raw materials to conveying and
exporting finished products.

History suggests that the field of corporate social

responsibility (CSR) has been practiced in the UK for well over two
hundred years. Albeit, those actions that are tantamount to the
activities now referred to as social responsibility were not previously
so described3. The Abolition of Slave Trade on the 25th of March,
1807 can ascribed as the first act of corporate social responsibility
by the United Kingdom, in that it abolished a discriminatory and out
rightly irresponsible and inhumane trade practice. During the
Industrial Revolution of 1750–1830, several British industrialists and
entrepreneurs had indirectly practiced some aspects of corporate
social responsibility as we know it today 4. A key example cited by
Idowu and Co is the entrepreneur Richard Arkwright 5 who identified
that employees were ‘human assets’ who should be treated
responsibly in order to get the best work performance from them 6.
Arkwright provided low-cost housing close to his factories for his
employees, this being similar to modern low/no rent accommodation
provided by companies and institutions for their employees (e,g
Staff Housing within the University Campus for Academic staff and
faculty members). Titus Salt7 can be said to have pioneered modern
corporate environmentalism by situating his woolen mill at Saltaire,
outside Bradford Town centre given the reputation of Bradford Town
as the most polluted in England as at then. Over a 20-year period,
Salt created a model community for his staff in which every home

3
Samuel O Idowu and Others, ‘Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility’,
Springer, [2009], 11
4
Samuel O Idowu and Others, ‘Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility’,
Springer, [2009], 11
5
Wikipedia, ‘Richard Arkwright’, < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Arkwright >
accessed on 3 March 2024
6
Samuel O Idowu and Others, ‘Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility’,
Springer, [2009], 11
7
Wikipedia, ‘Titus Salt’, < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt > accessed on 3 March
2024
had running water8. Cook in ‘Who Cares, Wins’9, recited the CSR
behaviour of sweet maker; Rowntree who built “Rowntree Village”
for his employees in 1904 in York. In 1906, Rowntree set up a
pensions fund for his staff, in 1916 he established a profit-sharing
scheme for his employees, and in 1918 he introduced staff
holidays10. These progressive steps taken by company owners
during the Industrial Revolution in England, formed part of the
foundation of CSR and have contributed to its successful application
in our modern day English corporate society as CSR is seen as a
business custom rather than a legal obligation. It is trite to observe
that most scholars believe the UK National Insurance Act of 1911
introduced by Herbert H. Asquith’s Liberal Government 11 marked the
first legislative step in terms of governing and enforcing CSR in the
UK. Section 135 of the the UK Companies Act 200612 provides that;
directors are required to consider the interests of employees,
consumers, suppliers, the environment and the community when
pursuing the interests of shareholders. This does not, however,
equate to converting CSR into a legal responsibility or duty. Nor
does the law really offer actionable strategies or tangible standards
or benchmarks13.

To fully appreciate CSR as a symbiotic relationship between

corporations and communities, the diverse forms CSR can be
applied by a company need to be examined briefly. The Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) identifies four major
areas of Corporate Social Responsibility to wit 14;
8
Samuel O Idowu and Others, ‘Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility’,
Springer, [2009], 11
9
Cook S, ‘Who Cares, Wins’, Management Today, [2003], 2
10
Samuel O Idowu and Others, ‘Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility’,
Springer, [2009], 13
11
Cook S, ‘Who Cares, Wins’, Management Today, [2003], 3
12
UK Companies Act, 2006.
13
CSR Duty under Corporate Law, Business Law, Global Blog, [5 September 2022], <
https://www.360businesslaw.com/blog/csr/#:~:text=The%20UK%20government%20defines
%20Corporate,economic%2C%20environmental%20and%20societal%20impacts. > accessed 5 March 2024

14
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), ‘Corporate Responsibility:
An Introduction’ < https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/corporate-responsibility-
factsheet/#:~:text=Corporate%20responsibility%20(CR)%2C%20also,viable%20over
 Workplace – What’s the best way to look after employees and
other workers in the value chain?
 Environment – How can environmental impact be minimized or
improved?
 Community – How can the organization contribute positively to
society?
 Market place – What impact does the organizations’ products or
services have? Do they comply with all fair trading, corporate
taxes and anti-bribery requirements?

Following the CIPD’s classification, when business owners and

companies are in the process of drafting their companies
constitution and operational guides, when considering Corporate
Social Responsibility projects/ activities, their thoughts are to be
guided along the lines of Workplace, Environmental, Communal and
Market Place benefits. Workplace benefits could include
competitively higher and longer paid time off hours, increased
maternity and paternity leave benefits, promotion benefits with
each employee grade, rewards for outstanding staff and staff
behaviour inter alia. Environmental benefits, bordering with ESG
are unlimited and include safe and environmentally friendly waste
disposal mechanisms, recycling, reduced emission levels amongst
other eco-friendly and sustainable steps companies can take in the
interest of preserving the environment of their host communities.
Companies electing to take part in Community based CSR projects
can choose to volunteer and/or establish and operate aid centers for
the elderly, infirm and homeless, law firms can engage in pro-bono
human rights cases, advocacy for minority groups and beneficial
alliances with district attorneys for shorter sentences and lesser
punishments for non-violent offenders in the community. Market
Place CSR activities are majorly executed by companies whose

%20the%20long%20term. > accessed 3 March 2024

products directly impact their community e.g Cigarette companies
may engage in smoking sensitization programs to reduce the
number of underage smokers in their immediate community.
Pharmaceutical companies may provide subsidized prices of
popularly used medication (e.g pain relievers, birth control etc) to
their immediate community.

Elinkgton, in his book; ‘Cannibals with Forks: The Triple

Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’15, when describing Corporate
Social Responsibility, posited that it manifests itself in a “three-fold”
form thus; the social responsibility of a business entity is three-fold:
to create Economic value (that is, to be profitable), to create
Ecological value (namely, to engage in activities which are
beneficial to the natural environment) and to create Social value
(which requires it to engage in activities that are beneficial to life
and the community). Corporate Social Responsibility exists to create
a win-win scenario in the corporate business sphere. Carroll and
Co16argue that the social responsibility of a business organisation is
four fold and can be expressed either as a pyramid or in terms of an
equation. When expressed as an equation, it is the sum total of four
different responsibilities, which are Economic responsibility (ECR)
(which is to make a profit), Legal responsibility (LGR) (to obey the
law), Ethical responsibility (ETR) (to do what is right, fair and just at
all times) and Philanthropic responsibility (PHR) (to be a good
corporate citizen). Carroll in particular, defined CSR in the following
words; The social responsibility of business encompasses the
economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic)
expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in
time17. CSR is meant to cover the welfare of the host community,
whilst still allowing the company maximize profit making. Carroll
15
Elikngton John, ‘Cannibals with forks; The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’, Capstone Publishing
Limited Oxford Centre for Innovation, [1997], 120
16
Archie B. Carroll and Others, ‘Business and Society; Ethics and Stakeholder Management’, 7th Edition, South-
Western Cengage Learning, [2008], 45
17
Archie B. Carroll, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance,’
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, [1979], 497–505
identifies two points worthy of consideration when examining
modern day CSR.

These are:
i. Industrial society faces serious human and social problems
brought on largely by the rise of the large corporations, and
ii. Managers must conduct the affairs of the corporation in ways to
solve or at least ameliorate these problems18. These factors
culminate into the Enlightened Interest Theory. Enlightened Interest
scholars believe for the sustainable continuity of a business, such
business must engage in CSR. It is in the long term interest of the
company. The Enlightened Interest School posits that; “if business is
to have a healthy climate in which to exist in the future, it must take
actions now that will ensure its long-term viability” 19. Additionally
the need to ward off Government from future restrictions and
regulations forms another basis for engaging in CSR by companies.
Carroll observed that; Today, there are numerous areas in which
government intrudes with an expensive, elaborate regulatory
apparatus to fill a void left by business’s inaction 20. The need to
ward off Government also births pro-activeness by corporations, this
being a theory in support of CSR. “Pro-acting” is much more
advisable than “reacting”. On this Carroll states21; ‘This position holds that pro-
acting (anticipating and initiating) is more practical and less costly than simply
reacting to problems once they have developed. Environmental pollution is a good
example, particularly business’s experience with attempting to clean up rivers, lakes,
and other waterways that were neglected for years. In the long run, it would have been
wiser and less expensive to have prevented the environmental deterioration from
occurring in the first place. Influencing the rapid turn to CSR as a medium for
competitive advantage and edge by corporations is the fact that the public

18
Thomas A.Petit, ‘The Moral Crisis in Management’, New York: McGraw-Hill, [1967], 58
19
Archie B. Carroll and Others, ‘Business and Society; Ethics and Stakeholder Management’, 7th Edition, South-
Western Cengage Learning, [2008], 51
20
Archie B. Carroll and Others, ‘Business and Society; Ethics and Stakeholder Management’, 7th Edition, South-
Western Cengage Learning, [2008], 51
21
Archie B. Carroll and Others, ‘Business and Society; Ethics and Stakeholder Management’, 7th Edition, South-
Western Cengage Learning, [2008], 52
strongly supports it22. Within the past decade, a Business
Week/Harris poll revealed that, with a stunning 95 percent majority,
the public believes not only that companies should focus on profits
for shareholders but also that companies should be responsible to
their workers and communities, even if making things better for
workers and communities requires companies to sacrifice some
profits23. Simon Zadek in Ethical Trade Futures24, recommending
CSR (this being preemptive of his latter work; The Civil Corporation)
said; “...corporate citizenship can become a significant route for
overcoming global poverty, inequality and environmental insecurity.
This requires that it evolves to a point where business becomes
active in promoting and institutionalizing new governance
frameworks that effectively secure civil market behaviour, globally.
Leading civil corporations will therefore be those that go beyond
getting their own house in order, and actively engage in promoting
governance frameworks that enable the wider business community
to address, effectively and without contradiction, the aspirations
underpinning sustainable development”.

The world is changing as we describe it, so to claim otherwise

would be just plain silly25 therefore in discussing the benefits of
Corporate Social Responsibility to businesses and business owners
and CSR being of competitive advantage, reference must be made
to the “The Business Case for CSR”. The business case reflects
why business people believe that CSR brings distinct benefits or
advantages to business organizations and the business
community26. Note that for a company to fully optimize
Corporate Social Responsibility and enjoy its benefit, it must

22
Duane Windsor, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Cases For and Against,’ in Marc J. Epstein and Kirk O. Hanson
(eds.), The Accountable Corporation, Volume 3, Corporate Social Responsibility Westport, Connecticut: Praeger,
[2006], 31–50.
23
Cited in Aaron Bernstein, “Too Much Corporate Power,” BusinessWeek [September 11, 2000], 149
24
Simon Zadek, ‘Ethical Trade Futures’, New Economics Foundation, London, [2000]

25
Simon Zadek, ‘The Civil Corporation’ Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA, [2001], 11
26
Archie B. Carroll and Others, ‘Business and Society; Ethics and Stakeholder Management’, 7th Edition, South-
Western Cengage Learning, [2008], 52
embrace and execute all aspects of CSR. Elinkgton opined that;
Any company believing that its operations are sustainable if they
meet economic efficiency and environmental quality standards, but
fail to meet emerging social and ethical standards, needs to
understand what lies behind the historic failings of companies like
I.G. Farben and Green Cross, and — on a very different scale — the
recent troubles of companies like Nike, Wal-Mart, Astra USA, Shell,
and even the Body Shop27. Michael Porter, in expounding the
Business Case for CSR and pointing out the intricate web of
corporate and social initiatives stated that; “Today’s companies
ought to invest in corporate social responsibility as part of their
business strategy to become more competitive.” 28. We shall
subsequently examine the failures of companies who ignored wholly
or in part; Corporate Social Responsibility. In a competitive context,
“the company’s social initiatives—or its philanthropy—can have
great impact. Not only for the company but also for the local
society29. Zadek30, quoting former UN Secretary General; Kofi Annan
in The Civil Corporation31; ‘When I speak about civil society, I don’t
mean only non-governmental organizations, though they are a very
important part of it. I also mean universities, foundations, labour
unions and – yes – private corporations’. The need for corporations
to take active part in societal preservation is no longer new news
even in global politics. Detailing ‘the Business Case’, Zadek
articulating his views on this theory of CSR said 32; ‘Much of
contemporary corporate responsibility has been framed by the so-
called ‘business case’ At its most straightforward, this is about the
pragmatic need to convince businesses that it is in their narrow
institutional interest to improve their social and environmental

27
Elikngton John, ‘Cannibals with forks; The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’, Capstone Publishing
Limited Oxford Centre for Innovation, [1997], 129
28
Michael E. Porter, ‘Competitive Strategy, Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors’, The Free Press,
A division of Simon & Schuster Inc. [1980], 10
29
“CSR—A Religion with Too Many Priests,” European Business Forum, Issue 15, Autumn [2003]. Also
see “Getting Smart at Being Good . . . ” Time Inside Business [January 2006], A1–A38
30
Simon Zadek, ‘The Civil Corporation’ Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA, [2001], 17
31
Gilbert Probst and Others, Managing Knowledge: Building Blocks for Success, Wiley, (2000).
32
Simon Zadek, ‘The Civil Corporation’ Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA, [2001], 18
performance, even (or at times especially) where relevant
legislation was absent or unenforced’. He noted further that 33; This
‘business case’ dimension to the thinking behind, and practice of,
corporate responsibility has been the single most important
mainstreaming driver. It has allowed for unholy alliances across a
spectrum of players, from the advocates of a Friedmanite ‘do it for
the money’ approach to business, to those with a more radical
change agenda. He identified four ways in which firms respond to
CSR pressures, and he holds that these form a composite business
case for CSR. His four approaches are as follows 34:

 The Defensive Approach: This approach is designed to alleviate

pain. Companies will do what they have to do to avoid pressure
that makes them incur costs.
 The Cost-Benefit Approach: This traditional approach holds that
firms will undertake those activities if they can identify direct
benefits that exceeds costs.
 The Direct Approach: In this approach, firms will recognize the
changing environment and engage with CSR as part of a
deliberate emergent strategy.
 The Innovation and Learning Approach: In this approach, an
active engagement with CSR provides new opportunities to
understand the marketplace and enhances organizational
learning, which leads to competitive advantage.

Zadek however warned with reference to the Business case that 35;
‘Much of the ‘business case’ debate, however, although
understandable, has been misguided. The view that there is a stable
relationship between, say, adhering to human rights and profitability
is, to be frank, foolish’. Putting it mildly he said 36; Put simply, some
33
Simon Zadek, ‘The Civil Corporation’ Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA, [2001], 18
34
Simon Zadek, ‘The Civil Corporation’ Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA, [2001]. See also Lance Moir, “Social
Responsibility: The Changing Role of Business,” Cranfield School of Management, U.K.

35
Simon Zadek, ‘The Civil Corporation’ Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA, [2001], 12
36
Simon Zadek, ‘The Civil Corporation’ Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA, [2001], 13
businesses will work out how to make money from, say, improved
environmental performance, while others will go bust in trying.
There are many factors that mediate the relationships between
context, drivers, enablers and performance37, he goes on further to
explain, concluding that in his opinion there is no water tight
‘Business Case’ this being the foundation for his book; The Civil
Corporation. Building off the business case and the
recommendations of Zadek in The Civil Corporation, I shall attempt
painting a proper picture of how a stable Corporate Social
Responsibility functional framework attracts consumers, motivates
employees and ultimately serves as a source of competitive
advantage for corporations in modern day UK.

To properly embrace the import of a stellar Corporate Social

Responsibility record to companies, we need to look at the steps
corporations will take in a bid to protect their public fascia in today’s
digital age with rapid information dissemination and its attendant
effects aka “cancel culture”. The mod case of DYSON TECHNOLOGY
LTD & ANOR V CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CORPORATION & ANOR
[2024] EWHC 400 (KB)38 is a clear cut example of the length a
corporation would go to protect its public Corporate Social
Responsibility image. In this case, the claimants alleged that the
defendants via their broadcast, cast public aspersions and raised
concerns of engagement in inhumane practices (abuse and
exploitation) and cover-up’s by a Malaysian supplier of the
company.The legal issues raised for determination included;
 Whether the Broadcast contained defamatory factual allegations
against the claimants.
 Whether the Broadcast implied complicity and cover up by the
claimants.

37
Simon Zadek, ‘The Civil Corporation’ Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA, [2001], 13
38
Dyson Technology Ltd & Anor V Channel Four Television Corporation & Anor
[2024] EWHC 400 (KB)
 Whether the defendants could rely on a defense of honest
opinion.
The Court in giving its ruling found that the Broadcast made
defamatory factual allegations against the claimants regarding their
actions or in-actions. And determined that the Broadcast implied
reasonable grounds to suspect the claimants responsibility for the
alleged wrongdoings. The Court addressed the defense of honest
opinion under Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 and ruled in
favour of the claimants on the issue of reference, rendering a
Reference Amendment Application unnecessary. Costs of the
Reference Amendment Application was also awarded to the
claimants to be paid by the defendants. Additionally in BUTTS V THE
SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [2019] ECWA
CIV 93339, Universities taking an active Corporate Social
Responsibility step as an institution in the society; radicalized
extremist speakers and their speeches on campus. The issue raised
for determination was; “Whether the statement about Dr. Butt in the
Press Release was a statement of fact or a statement of opinion.
The court in giving its ruling identified the notional single meaning
which is that ‘ the statement complained of would convey to
hypothetical reasonable reader, who must be assumed to have read
the whole of the statement’. The Court therefore held that the
statement about Dr.Butt in the Press Release was a statement fact
and not a statement of opinion. The Court also considered the
defence of honest opinion and the protection it affords for the
honest expression of opinion of those with strong views and
prejudices, including inferences of fact drawn by the commentator.

In an age where information carries more power than ever-

afore, the need for companies to maintain a public effigy suitable for
the modern independent public onlooker and approved by same, is
synonymous with the continued success and sustainability of the

39
Butt v The Secretary of State For The Home Department [2019] ECWA Civ 933.
company. The existence of a “cancel culture” amongst the younger
demographic comprising a greater percentage of the labour force
(ages 16-6440) makes it even more precarious for corporations who
are generally perceived as part of the elite (i.e) extensions of the
governing class and therefore cannot afford to make ethical,
environmental or other CSR mistakes.

In MS S NDEBELE V A BUBBLE COMPANY LTD (ENGLAND AND

WALES: SEX DISCRIMINATION) [2017] UKET 2302428/201641 A claim
dated 15 November, 2016 was brought by the claimant on grounds
of sex discrimination against two companies; The Change Group of
Companies Ltd, an agency for whom she worked as a temporary
worker; and A Bubble Company Ltd, or Bubble Food (the present
respondent)for whom she worked as a temporary worker on the 28 th
and 29th days of June, 2016. At a preliminary hearing on the 6 th of
March, 2017, the claims against the agency (The Change Group of
Companies Ltd) was struck out but the claim was allowed to
proceed against Bubble Food. She was to be paid ₤15 per hour, cash
in hand so it would have been clear to them that this was not a
Bubble Foods event. On Ms. Szojda’s account the claimant simply
asked her to clarify that she was not needed because she was a
woman, which Ms. Szojda confirmed. The relevant manager, Mr.
O’Brien, promised to investigate further. The claimant challenged
this email and suggests that it was fabricated between the agency
and the company to conceal the real reason, which was that she
had complained about the very same barbecue incident. Mr.Nisson
produced via his laptop a copy of the original email and the claimant
confirmed that it was just the difference in time format that raised
her suspicions. The Court with relation to the email held that at any
event, no technical evidence was put forward to counter the points
made by Judge Siddall and so we find no real reason to doubt that it
40
Employment, ‘Things You Need To Know’, UK.GOV, Published 28 November 2023 (Updtaed 8 December 2023),
< https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and
benefits/employment/employment/latest/#main-facts-and-figures > accessed 5 March 2024
41
Ms S Ndebele V A Bubble Company Ltd ( England and Wales: Sex Discrimination) [2017] UKET 2302428/2016
was a genuine email. No evidence was however led by the company
about any training in equal opportunities or in avoiding
discrimination and Ms Szojda when questioned by the Tribunal
about her training was quite candid that she had none. The Court
noted that since Ms. Ndebele was not employed directly, the
relevant section is Section 41 dealing with contract workers.

The sole issue raised for determination was; Whether the

respondent discriminated against the claimant on the basis of her
sex in relation to a potential benefit. The Court ruled thus; We find
that the claimant was not selected because of her sex and that a
male chef in the same position, having been recommended by Ms.
Szojda would have been offered this benefit, so the respondent is in
breach of. We find therefore that there is no statutory or other
defence available, and the claimant was the subject of an act of
direct discrimination in relation to this potential benefit. As a result,
and out of caution there is no basis for such a claim of victimization.
It was not necessary to hear further evidence in relation to
compensation since Mr. Davies took the view that there was no
mention of injury to feelings in the claimants witness statement and
so nothing to cross examine on. Accordingly the claimant is entitled
to compensation of
a. ₤75 for loss of earnings; and
b. ₤500 for injury to feelings.
This is highly indicative of the willingness and proclivity of Courts as
the most important judicial institution to lean in favour of employees
as opposed to corporations on claims bothering on Corporate Social
Responsibility; in this instance gender discrimination.

Companies seeking to garner the trust, confidence and public

respect of stakeholders ( employees and consumers) are
restructuring their corporate frameworks and guidelines to suit the
space-age quest for a greener, more peaceful and sustainable
global environment. In the business world, implementing a CSR
strategy can help a company gain a competitive edge and build
relationships with its stakeholders that benefit all parties involved,
while also saving money, reducing risk, and enhancing a company’s
legitimacy and reputation at the same time42. Companies such as
the now almost moribund German I. G. Farben 43 which Amongst
other things, invented and manufactured the Zyklon B gas used by
the Nazis in their gas chambers, also worked some 30,000 slave
laborers to death at Auschwitz alone, serve as extant examples to
companies of the dangers in engaging in business activities contrary
to CSR (this being synonymous with public empathy and
perception). Today, I. G. Farben is only a shadow of its former self —
having been stripped in 1953, as a punishment, of its production
facilities, most of which ended up in such companies as BASF,
Bayer, and Hoechst. Nike and Wal-mart also provide key examples
on the dangers of anti-CSR business practices in today’s age where
globalization and its key feature of rapid information dissemination
influences corporate competitive advantage and success. Ugly
stories about a different form of forced labor and about the social
conditions of production have dented the reputations of a series of
western companies — and led to major new pressures on suppliers
based in such countries as Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
Thailand44. The rapid awareness and concern of richer countries
(Western) with the welfare and sustainable existence of their
children’s children and the knowledge of the working conditions
children from third world and poorer countries face as part of the
supply chain for Western corporations, these corporations had to
take rapid Corporate Responsibility action in order to assuage the
damage the exposure of child labour in their workforce caused. ‘The

42
Peter Ndemena, ‘The Relationship of Corporate Social Responsibility in Gaining Competitive Advantage or
Contributing to Societal Benefits’, Austin Journal of Business Administration and Management, [2022] 6(1): 1052
43
Elikngton John, ‘Cannibals with forks; The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’, Capstone Publishing
Limited Oxford Centre for Innovation, [1997], 129
44
Elikngton John, ‘Cannibals with forks; The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’, Capstone Publishing
Limited Oxford Centre for Innovation, [1997], 130
issue had been around for years’45, Elinkgton notes, ‘...but 1996
brought into American living rooms stark images of Pakistani
children stitching footballs, Haitian workers sewing Walt Disney T-
shirts and tearful celebrity confessions46. Describing the impact of
mass media on corporate West, he further noted that 47; ‘If any
single moment defined the now agenda, it was the confession by
American talk-show host Kathie Lee Gifford that her Wal-Mart outfits
were made by Honduran girls paid 31¢ an hour — but, she said, she
hadn’t known. Her admission was picked up by a tiny human rights
organization, National Labor Committee, whose director went on to
a congressional hearing on labor abuses and increased the pressure
on Gifford and other celebrities who, like basketball star Michael
Jordan, endorse products made in this way’. Walmart in 2018 noted
several supply chain-focused efforts to improve its economic, social
and environmental impact and released its 2018 Global
Responsibility Report, revealing its commitment to meeting
consumer expectations and eliminating abuses in the supply chain 48.
The company has invested $100 million in programs to help workers
advance their careers in retail, and is funding the training for one
million farmers at the supplier level49. Nike on its part in its effort to
remedy its social image acknowledges that they will be able to
affect real change only by working with others, so they’ve partnered
with other companies to improve conditions in their shared supply
chain through the International Labour Organization’s Better Work

45
Elikngton John, ‘Cannibals with forks; The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’, Capstone Publishing
Limited Oxford Centre for Innovation, [1997], 130
46
Glenn Burkins, ‘US Labor Department cites firms for buying sweatshop products,’ Wall
Street Journal Europe, [22 May 1996]
47
Elikngton John, ‘Cannibals with forks; The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’, Capstone Publishing
Limited Oxford Centre for Innovation, [1997], 132
48
Kate Patrick Macri, ‘Walmart’s improved social responsibility efforts begin with supply chain’, Supply Chain
Dive, [25 April 2018], < https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/walmart-corporate-social-responsibility-
efforts/521961/ > accessed 5 March 2024
49
Kate Patrick Macri, ‘Walmart’s improved social responsibility efforts begin with supply chain’, Supply Chain
Dive, [25 April 2018], < https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/walmart-corporate-social-responsibility-
efforts/521961/ > accessed 5 March 2024
program, and to build GreenXchange, a digital platform that enables
companies to promote sustainability innovations 50.
Companies are tightening their Corporate Social Responsibility
belts, clenching tighter on to their extant advantageously
competitive positions or vying through more social and mass media
endorsed CSR projects and litigation. RDS in OKPABI & ORS V ROYAL
DUTCH SHELL PLC & ANOR (REV 1) [2018] WLR(D) 92, [2018] ECWA
Civ 19151, tactfully evaded mass public whiplash for oil spills in some
of its fields in Nigeria. The claimants being citizens of Nigeria and
inhabitants of areas affected by oil leaks from pipelines and
associated infrastructure in and around the Niger Delta sought
damages from RDS and SPDC for the ongoing pollution and
environmental damage caused by the leaks. The claim against RDS
is based on the tort of negligence under the common law of Nigeria,
which is to be regarded as the same as the law of England and
Wales for present purposes. The claimants were able to effect
service on RDS because it is registered and domiciled within the
jurisdiction. The legal issues raised were;
 Whether RDS owed a duty of care to the claimants in the
particular circumstances;
 Whether the claimants have demonstrated an arguable case
against RDS;
 Whether the actions of ExCo are attributable to RDS;
 Whether SPDC owes a duty of care to those whose property in
the vicinity would be damaged by spillage of oil from the pipeline
and facilities under its management.
The Court held that; the evidence of these two former employees
provided scant support for the claimants' argument that RDS owed
them a duty of care. The judge held that it is not fair, just and
reasonable to impose a duty of care on RDS, in part because SPDC

50
Denise Lee Yohn, ‘Blog Brand as Business-Bites, in csr Nike just does it’, Denise Lee Yohn Blog, [25 Fenruary
2010], < https://deniseleeyohn.com/in-csr-nike-just-does-it/#:~:text=collaboration%20%E2%80%93%20Nike
%20acknowledges%20that%20they,GreenXchange%2C%20a%20digital%20platform%20that > accessed 5 March
2024
51
Okpabi & Ors V Royal Dutch Shell PLc & Anor. [2018] WLR(D) 92, [2018] ECWA Civ 191.
has strict liability imposed upon it under the Nigerian statute. It
however noted that; it is arguable that in English law terms SPDC
would owe a duty of care to those whose property in the vicinity
would be damaged by spillage of oil from the pipeline and facilities
under its management. This still being indicative of the position of
Courts in the UK towards issues of Corporate Social Responsibility
directly affecting its citizens. Imagine the global social media stir a
judgment against RDS for oil spillages will cause and its concomitant
effects on Shells sales and position in the global oil market? This
deep rooted corporate gall represents almost physically the weight
CSR wields as a tool for competitive business advantage when
included as a significant base for stakeholder trust and confidence.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
PRIMARY SOURCES
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
Butt v The Secretary of State For The Home Department [2019]
ECWA Civ 933.
Dyson Technology Ltd & Anor V Channel Four Television Corporation
& Anor [2024] EWHC 400 (KB)
Ms S Ndebele V A Bubble Company Ltd ( England and Wales: Sex
Discrimination) [2017] UKET 2302428/2016
Okpabi & Ors V Royal Dutch Shell PLc & Anor. [2018] WLR(D) 92,
[2018] ECWA Civ 191.

LEGISLATIVE PRECEDENTS
UK Companies Act 2006 s135

SECONDARY SOURCES
TEXTBOOKS AND ARTICLES
Archie B. C, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance,’ Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, [1979], 497–505

Archie B. C and Others, ‘Business and Society; Ethics and Stakeholder Management’, 7th Edition,
South-Western Cengage Learning, [2008]

Bernstein A., “Too Much Corporate Power,” BusinessWeek [September 11, 2000]

Burkins G., ‘US Labor Department cites firms for buying sweatshop products,’ Wall
Street Journal Europe, [22 May 1996]

‘CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY, Good for Business & Society: government response to call for views on
corporate responsibility’, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, UK, [2014]

Cook S, ‘Who Cares, Wins’, Management Today, [2003]

“CSR—A Religion with Too Many Priests,” European Business Forum, Issue 15, Autumn [2003]. Also
see “Getting Smart at Being Good . . . ” Time Inside Business [January 2006]

Elikngton J., ‘Cannibals with forks; The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’, Capstone
Publishing Limited Oxford Centre for Innovation, [1997]
Idowu S.O and Others, ‘Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Springer, [2009]

Ndemena P., ‘The Relationship of Corporate Social Responsibility in Gaining Competitive Advantage or
Contributing to Societal Benefits’, Austin Journal of Business Administration and Management, [2022]

Petit T.A, ‘The Moral Crisis in Management’, New York: McGraw-Hill, [1967]
Porter M.E, ‘Competitive Strategy, Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors’, The Free
Press, A division of Simon & Schuster Inc. [1980]

Probst G and Others, Managing Knowledge: Building Blocks for Success, Wiley, (2000)

Windsor D., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Cases For and Against,’ in Marc J. Epstein and Kirk O.
Hanson (eds.), The Accountable Corporation, Volume 3, Corporate Social Responsibility Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger, [2006]

Zadek S, ‘Ethical Trade Futures’, New Economics Foundation, London, [2000]

Zadek S., ‘The Civil Corporation’ Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA, [2001]

ONLINE ARTICLES
CSR Duty under Corporate Law, Business Law, Global Blog, [5
September 2022], <https://www.360businesslaw.com/blog/csr/#:~:text=The%20UK
%20government%20defines%20Corporate,economic%2C%20environmental%20and%20societal

%20impacts.> accessed 5 March 2024

Denise Lee Yohn, ‘Blog Brand as Business-Bites, in csr Nike just does
it’, Denise Lee Yohn Blog, [25 February 2010], <
https://deniseleeyohn.com/in-csr-nike-just-does-it/#:~:text=collaboration%20%E2%80%93%20Nike

%20acknowledges%20that%20they,GreenXchange%2C%20a%20digital%20platform%20that >
accessed 5 March 2024

Employment, ‘Things You Need To Know’, UK.GOV, Published 28

November 2023 (Updtaed 8 December 2023), < https://www.ethnicity-facts-
figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and benefits/employment/employment/latest/#main-facts-and-

figures> accessed 5 March 2024

Macri K.P, ‘Walmart’s improved social responsibility efforts begin

with supply chain’, Supply Chain Dive, [25 April 2018],
<https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/walmart-corporate-social-responsibility-efforts/521961/
> accessed 5 March 2024
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD),
‘Corporate Responsibility: An Introduction’
https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/corporate-responsibilityfactsheet/
#:~:text=Corporate%20responsibility%20(CR)%2C%20also,viable%20over

%20the%20long%20term. > accessed 3 March 2024

Wikipedia, ‘Titus Salt’, < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt >

accessed on 3 March 2024

Wikipedia, ‘Richard Arkwright’, <

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Arkwright > accessed on 3 March 2024