For many years, the concept of corporate social responsibility remained alien to the Nigerian banking industry, as the overriding emphasis was profit and nothing else (Amaechi, 2009). As at the time in question, banks‘ management never bordered about the customer or the environment within which business is being operated, and that created a lot of problems for the various institutions. That was largely because the customer had little or no option, as the number of banks then was relatively small. Moreover, the literacy level and consciousness of the bank customers was quite low and so many things were taken for granted. Indeed times have changed a great deal and awareness about banks corporate social responsibility has continued to grow steadily ever since. It is no longer an issue to be toyed with in the policy making processes in the banks, as policies, products and services can only be introduced after evaluation and consideration of the responses, from the society and business environment. There have always been fears that without such considerations, organizations are bound to record product or service failure. Today, corporate social responsibility profile of banks is being used as marketing tool in a competitive industry.
CSR is part of the business ethics which accountants and management are concerned with because the interested in the factors that facts the profitability of the business. CSR can be defined as the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2003). CSR is a means of analyzing the inter-dependent relationships that exist between businesses and economic systems, and the communities within which they are based. CSR is a means of discussing the extent of any obligations a business has to its immediate society; a way of proposing policy ideas on how those obligations can be met; as well as a tool by which the benefits to a business for meeting those obligations can be identified (CSR Guide).
McWilliams and Siegel (2001) define CSR as actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law. The concept of corporate social responsibility means that organizations have moral, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities in addition to their responsibilities to earn a fair return for investors and comply with the law. A traditional view of the firm suggests that its primary, if not sole, responsibility is to its owners, or stockholders. However, CSR requires organizations to adopt a broader view of its responsibilities that includes not only stockholders, but many other constituencies as well, including employees, suppliers, customers, the local community, local, state, and federal governments, environmental groups, and other special interest groups. Collectively, the various groups affected by the actions of an organization are called stakeholders. Further, CSR challenges businesses to attend to, and interact with, the firms‘ stakeholders while they pursue economic goals. Consequently CSR is frequently linked to such constructs as business ethics, corporate citizenship, stakeholder engagement, sustainable development, corporate governance, sustainable finance and social responsible investment (Amaeshi & Adi, 2007).
Matten and Moon (2004) underline the centrality of the ethical and philanthropical areas of responsibility to the study of CSR because of the differentiation they allow to establish between voluntary corporate behaviour and mere compliance. The CSR debate has focused on the moral and philanthropic responsibilities, giving little attention to economic and legal re- sponsibilities.
Schwartz and Carroll (2008) develop a three-domain approach, in which they propose the assumption of the philanthropic or discretionary component under the ethical and/or economic components. The reasons for such proposal are related, on the one hand, to the difficulty in distinguishing between philanthropic and ethical activities on both the theoretical and practical levels, and, on the other hand, to the observation that philanthropic activities are often explained by underlying economic interests.
According to Adeyanju (2012), economic responsibility is the bed rock of all responsibilities and the foundation of all CSR, which if not achieved other responsibility will not be attained. This responsibility emphasizes the reason for business establishment. Adeyanju (2012) says that the company is to comply with established laws by government. The law reflects a view of codified ethics that embody basics notion of fairness established by the government. Such laws include payment of taxes, environmental protection and other. Ethical responsibility emphasizes the activities and practices expected by the society members, which includes complying with the norms in areas which they operate (Adeyanju, 2012).
Nickels, Williams and Nim (2002) suggest that CSR has several dimensions:
(i) Corporate philanthropy: This is the dimension of CSR that includes charitable donations.
(ii) Corporate Responsibility: Dimension of social responsibility that includes everything from hiring minority workers to making safe products.
(iii) Corporate Policy: This refers to the position a firm takes on social, politics and political issues.
According to Friedman (2006), there is one and only one social responsibility of business- to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud. Friedman's statement that a business's social responsibility lies in making profit has shown a controversial point of view in modern business. Some people believe in Friedman's ideas while others do not. Is it possible that Friedman can be both right and wrong? In business, there are different situations that require different perspectives and methods of approach. On one hand, it is correct to say that the main focus of a business should be to make profit. Without profit, a business cannot survive. In a way, Friedman's theory does promote social responsibility to society. The increase of profits in a company benefits the economy which benefits the citizens of that economy.
Friedman believed that social responsibility should not be forced by the government. While most economists agree with this notion, many believe that he may have gone to an extreme by saying that it is the company's only social responsibility. Companies can still maintain their successful path while pursuing several different methods of social responsibility simultaneously. Responsibility to stakeholders can still be achieved while helping to strengthen the community. For example, companies can conduct research to provide a safer product to consumers.
According to Paula (2009), Friedman's perspectives represent the most famous and frequently cited opposition to Corporate Social Responsibility. He went further to say that Friedman opposition is termed the "economic" argument against CSR, who has argued that the primary responsibility of business is to make a profit for its owners, albeit while complying with the law. Sainthouse (2009) says that the "competitive" argument recognizes the fact that addressing social issues comes at a cost to business. To the extent that businesses internalize the costs of socially responsible actions, they hurt their competitive position relative to other businesses.
Gwynne (2009) argues that those in business are ill-equipped to address social problems. This "capability" argument suggests that business executives and managers are typically well trained in the ways of finance, marketing, and operations management, but not well versed in dealing with complex societal problems. Thus, they do not have the knowledge or skills needed to deal with social issues. This view suggests that corporate involvement in social issues may actually make the situation worse. Part of the capability argument also suggests that firms can best serve societal interests by sticking to what they do best, which is providing quality goods and services and selling them at an affordable price to people who desire them.
