TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page – – – – – – – – – i
Declaration – – – – – – – – ii
Approval Page – – – – – iii
Dedication – – – – – – – – iv
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – v
Table of Contents – – – – – – – – vi
List of Tables – – – – – – – – – viii
List of Figures – – – – – – – – ix
Abstract – – – – – – – – x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study – – – – – – – 1
1.2 Statement of Problem – – – – – – – – 4
1.2 Objective of the Study – – – – – – 6
1.3 Significance of the Study – – – – – – 7
1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study – – – – – – 8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Literature Review – – – – – – – 9
2.2 Hypotheses – – – – – – – 42
2.3 Operationalisation of key Concepts – – – – 44
2.4 Methodology – – – – – – – 42
2.4.1 Theoretical Framework – – – – 43
2.4.2 Research Design – – – – 46
2.4.3 Method of Data Collection – – 47
2.4.3.1 Population of the Study – – – – – – 47
2.4.3.2 Sample and Sampling Procedure – – – – 47
2.5.5 Sources of Data collection – – – – – 48 2.5.5 Validity and Reliability of Instrument – – – 49
2.6 Method of Data Analysis – – – – 49
CHAPTER THREE: AREA OF THE STUDY
3.0 Background of the Area of the Study – – – 50
3.1 Organizational Structure – – – – – 51
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
4.0 Introduction – – – – – – – 57
4.1 Data Presentation and Analysis – – – – 57
4.1.1 Presentation and analysis of personal data of respondents – 57
4.1.2 Presentation and analysis of substantive data – – 62
4.2 Finding and discussion of findings – – – – 97
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary – – – – – – – – 100
5.2 Recommendations – – – – – – 101
5.3 Conclusion – – – – – – – 103
Bibliography – – – – – – – – 104
Appendices – – – – – – – 109
LIST OF TABLES
- Table 2.1: An array of ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ definitions by various institutions and academia
- Table 2.2: Four-Part Model of Corporate Social Responsibility
- Table 4.1: Age distribution of Respondents
- Table 4.2: Gender distribution of Respondents
- Table 4.3: Marital status of Respondents
- Table 4.4: Distribution of Educational Qualification of Respondents
- Table 4.5: Occupational distribution of the Respondents
- Table 4.6: Respondent’s views based on the usage of GSM
- Table 4.7: Respondent’s Stakeholder group of MTN and Glo companies
- Table 4.8: Respondents view on awareness of CSR activities of MTN and Glo
- Table 4.9: Respondents view on the extent of awareness of the companies CSR activities
- Table 4.10: Respondent’s view on medium of getting information on Companies CSR
- Table 4.11: Respondents view on the CSR activities expected of MTN and Glo companies
- Table 4. 12: Respondents view on the CSR activities performed by MTN and Glo companies
- Table 4.13: Respondents view on the Corporate social responsibility activities are targeted towards employee welfare
- Table 14: Respondents view on the Stakeholder’s perceptions towards the CSR activities of the companies
- Table 15: Respondents view on the stakeholder’s attitude towards responsible companies
LIST OF FIGURES
- Figure 2.1: The correlation between Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Environment.
- Figure 2.2: The pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility
- Figure 2.3: Stakeholder groups of the organization.
- Figure 3.1: Organizational structure of MTN Nigeria
- Figure 3.2: The Organizational Structure of Glo Nigeria
- Figure 4.1: Age distribution of Respondents
- Figure 4.2: Gender distribution of Respondents
- Figure 4.3: Marital status of Respondents
- Figure 4.4: Distribution of Educational Qualification of Respondents
- Figure 4.5: Occupational distribution of the Respondents
- Figure 4.6: Respondent’s views based on the usage of GSM
- Figure 4.7: Respondent’s Stakeholder group of MTN and Glo companies
- Figure 4.8: Respondents view on awareness of CSR activities of MTN and Glo
- Figure 4.9: Respondents view on the extent of awareness of the companies CSR activities
- Figure 4.10: Respondent’s view on medium of getting information on Companies CSR
- Figure 4.11: Respondents view on the CSR activities are expected of companies
- Figure 4. 12: Respondents view on the CSR activities performed by companies
- Figure 4.13: Respondents view on the Corporate social responsibility activities are targeted towards employee welfare
- Figure 4.14: Stakeholder’s perceptions towards the CSR activities of the companies
- Figure 4.15: Respondents view on the stakeholder’s attitude towards responsible companies
Abstract
Corporate social responsibility, which is the set standard adopted by companies to positively impact on the society has the potential to contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable development in the world. With the advent of economic globalization, firms no longer act as independent entities without regarding the interest of the general public. States, civil societies and businesses among others, are now considered the key agents of sustainable development; and business has become more successful and seems to be playing a leadership role. The objective of this thesis is to therefore to examined the Corporate social responsibility of MTN and Glo in Anambra and Enugu States from (2003- 2013). In the light of the above, the study specifically examined why the MTN and Glo companies engage in corporate social responsibility, the impact of MTN and Glo corporate social responsibility on the stakeholders in Anambra and Enugu States and how MTN and Glo can enhance their corporate social responsibility in order to achieve greater stakeholder’ satisfaction in Anambra and Enugu States. Data collected for this study are from both primary and secondary sources Primary data were obtained from pretested questionnaire administered to 250 respondents in Anambra and Enugu states of Nigeria using both stratified and purposive sampling technique. Data was analyzed using chi- square. The analysis of data and the interpretation of results reveal that the corporate social responsibility activities of MTN and Glo have impacted positively on stakeholders in the states; although the awareness level is still low. The study however concluded that the corporate social responsibility activities of MTN and Glo are relatively inadequate in the states when considered from the enormous profit generated by the companies in the states.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
- Background to the Study
In recent times, corporations are encouraged to adopt corporate social responsibility, as part of their business practices. This is unlike the past, when the major aim of companies was focused on efficient resource allocation and profit maximization. This move for companies to behave in socially responsible ways is in accordance with the United Nations initiative on “Global Compact”. The Global Compact encourages business organizations globally to commit socially and ecologically to sustainable development.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), originated from the book, ‘Social Responsibility of Businessmen’ by Bowen in 1953 (Choudhary and Singh, 2012). However, great importance was never attached to corporate social responsibility until the outbreak of series of scandals in the early 21st century; some of the scandals includes: the Enron fraud of 2001, which highlighted the issue of corporate governance and the WorldCom in the US; the infamous Rebar Group and Zanadau cases both in Taiwan; the Coca- Cola bottle pollution in India highlighting environmental issues of water resources protection and the tainted milk incident, involving the Japanese Snow Brand Dairy company in 2003 (Uwuigbe, Uwuigbe, and Egbide, 2012; Chiu and Hsu, 2010). The formalized history of corporate social responsibility practices in Nigeria, according to Uadiale and Fagbemi (2012: 44), was in the Oil and Gas multinationals which were mainly focused on remedying the effects of their extraction activities on local communities by providing social amenities like pipe- borne waters, hospitals and schools.
Despite the wide acceptance of corporate social responsibility, there are contentious debate by researchers and practitioners on its relevance and how it should be practiced. This debate was steered in (1958) by an American Economist Milton Friedman who challenged the notion of corporate social responsibility, saying that the main focus of business should be on generating money and creating economic benefits within the framework of the law. As Friedman (1970) wrote in New York Magazine article “The Social Responsibility of the business is to make profit”, its resources should be used to engage in activities designed to increase its profit so long as it wishes to exist (Chrandrakanka, 2010; Malik, 2008; Hill, Ainscough, Shank and Manullang, 2007; Choudhary, 2012).
In response to Milton Friedman’s view of corporate social responsibility, Edward Freeman (1984) emphasized that organizations should not only be accountable and responsible to their shareholders but also balance the interests of their other stakeholders such as customers, employees, suppliers, government and community, who can either influence or be influenced by organizational activities (Wang, 2011; Lee, 2008; Hanuman, Ramdhony and Cheong, 2009).Edward Freeman’s view, according to MC William (2001) is called the dominant paradigm. The views of Friedman and Freeman were integrated in Drucker (2002) as thus:
“A business that does not show a profit at least equal to its cost of capital is socially irresponsible: it wastes society’s resources. Economic profit performance is the best, without which businesses cannot discharge any other responsibility, cannot be a good employer, a good citizen, a good neighbor: but economic performance is not the only responsibility of a business ….. Every organization must assume responsibility for its impact on its employees, the environment, the customers and whomever and whatever it touches. That is Social Responsibility” (Chrandrakanka, 2010).
Carroll Archie .B, in 1979 developed a four – part conceptualization of corporate social responsibility which includes economic, legal, ethical and discretionary (philanthropic) responsibilities. For corporate social responsibility to be accepted as legitimate according to him, it has to address the entire spectrum of obligations business has to the society, including economic, which is the most fundamental (Carroll,1991).
As argued by Edward Freeman, different stakeholders view on corporate social responsibility varies; the shareholders may interpret it as profit maximization; government may regard it as legitimate compliance and ensuring safe products and workplaces; Consumers may view it as a means of delivering high quality products at a good price and probably, ethical and philanthropic behavior, while the remaining stakeholder groups including communities, employees and society also have their diverse interpretation of corporate social responsibility (Chrandrakanka, 2010).
Studies have shown that corporate social responsibility is a key to long term success Studies have shown that corporate social responsibility is a key to long term success , reputation and brand image and without healthy and prosperous society, business entities would not excel (Asa, 2007; Zadek, 2005; Adeyanju, 2012; Amole, Adebiyi and Awolaja, 2012). The main objective of business activities in a society, apart from making profit includes serving the society by providing employment, raising the standard of living, playing role in civic affairs, providing basic amenities like health care, and education (Choudhary and Singh, 2012).
The deregulation and liberalization of the economy in 2001 due to the failure of NITEL controlled by the Federal government, led to advent of mobile telecommunication in Nigerian. Since then, the Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) industry have been experiencing rapid growth, boosted the nation’s economy and have led to employment of millions of Nigerian citizens, either as distributors of GSM phones, recharge card sellers or GSM phone repairers; but this does not mean that it existed without some consequences. In as much as the telecoms industry is affecting Nigerian economy and the lives of citizens and the as a whole, it is important that their activities do not compromise Nigerians lives and environment.
