NAME: OLADOYIN BENEDICT ADEWALE

STUDENT ID NUMBER: 22104101

DEPARTMENT: MSC ENREPRENEURSHIP (SEPT 2022

COURSE: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, BUSINESS ETHICS

TYPE: ASSESSMENT

DATE: 19TH MAY 2023.

QUESTION 2
“Corporate responsibility can be used to ‘green wash’ commercial activity”. Does the literature
on corporate responsibility support this contention?

ABSTRACT

The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has gained significant attention in recent years,
with companies increasingly promoting their environmental and social initiatives. However, concerns
have been raised that Corporate Social Responsibility can be exploited as a tool for greenwashing,
whereby companies create an illusion of sustainability while engaging in activities that contradict their
claims. This abstract examines the literature on corporate responsibility to determine whether it supports
the contention that it can be used for greenwashing. Through academic research, case studies, stakeholder
perspectives, and discussions on reporting and transparency, the literature acknowledges the existence of
greenwashing and highlights instances where companies have misled stakeholders with false or
exaggerated claims of sustainability. The literature emphasizes the need for transparency, independent
verification, and robust reporting mechanisms to mitigate the risk of greenwashing. While not all
Corporate Social Responsibility efforts are deemed insincere, the literature emphasizes the importance of
critical evaluation to ensure that claims align with meaningful actions and outcomes. Finally, the analysis
supports the contention that Corporate Social Responsibility can indeed be used to greenwash commercial
activity, emphasizing the necessity for vigilance and scrutiny in assessing companies' sustainability
claims.

INTRODUCTION

The number of studies on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has experienced a significant increase in
recent years (Lyon and Montgomery, 2015; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Wagner et al., 2009). The
emergence of interest in CSR dates to the 1960s when the recognition grew those businesses, despite
being economic institutions, wielding substantial influence in society (Roberts, 1992). Presently, firms
must incorporate CSR into their strategies as it holds the potential to drive social progress. Firms, acting
as social actors, have a pivotal role in utilizing resources, expertise, and insights for the betterment of
society (Porter and Kramer, 2006).

However, there has been a concerning surge in the dissemination of misleading information by
companies, particularly regarding environmental and social aspects (Lydenberg, 2002). Various quarters,
including social and environmental activists, are raising increasing concerns about corporate deception,
often camouflaged in persuasive rhetoric (McQuarrie et al., 2003). The apprehension is growing that
some companies may engage in manipulative reputation management practices with their stakeholders
such as customers, the financial community, regulators, and society at large, concealing faults and issues,
enhancing their reputation, or appearing more competitive.

Furthermore, the term "greenwashing" entered the American business vocabulary relatively recently, in
1989, as stated by Merriam-Webster. It refers to the practice wherein corporations feign environmental
concerns, particularly to mask products, policies, or activities that harm the environment or to overstate
their sustainability credentials. In contrast, corporate social responsibility (CSR) embodies a business
model that aims to ensure organizations take responsibility for their impact on the community and the
environment. While CSR seeks to maximize positive contributions and minimize negative impacts,
greenwashing does the opposite. (Shah, 2022)

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) AS A CONCEPT

The increasing prominence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has led to a substantial and ever-
expanding body of literature, encompassing both academic and practitioner perspectives. It is
unsurprising that CSR generates considerable controversy and debate within the management field, as
few subjects elicit as much contention. Consequently, a multitude of definitions for CSR exist, mirroring
the diverse opinions regarding the appropriate role of corporations in society (Crane et al., 2008).
McWilliams et al. (2006) further contend that consensus regarding a singular definition of CSR has yet to
be reached.

While consensus on a singular definition of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) remains elusive, there
are a few definitions that have gained relatively widespread acceptance. Among them is the definition put
forth by Keith Davis (1973), who characterized CSR as the acknowledgment and response of firms to
matters that extend beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal obligations of the organization.
Additionally, Carroll (1979) provided a more comprehensive definition, encompassing the very elements
excluded by Davis, stating that the social responsibility of businesses encompasses the economic, legal,
ethical, and discretionary expectations that society imposes on organizations at a particular point in time.

Some studies examining Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have found positive associations between
CSR and organizations' financial performance (e.g., Reverte et al., 2016). However, other studies have
yielded mixed or insignificant relationships (e.g., Barnett and Salomon, 2012). One possible reason for
these mixed results is the lack of consideration for moderating or mediating influences (Endrikat et al.,
2014).

Companies can adopt two types of CSR strategies (Kim et al., 2012). One strategy involves taking
dedicated and rigorous action to implement CSR governance, investing significant resources to "walk the
talk" and achieve substantial CSR outcomes (Clarkson et al., 2011). The other strategy entails engaging in
symbolic and opportunistic CSR governance, which focuses on improving corporate image or addressing
emerging issues without deep or strategic implementation of CSR activities. In this case, CSR governance
may be seen as a superficial or 'greenwashing' approach (Christmann and Taylor, 2006). Consequently,
the potential for significant CSR and financial benefits may be reduced due to a larger legitimacy gap,
wherein there is a discrepancy between an organization's actions and societal expectations. A long-term
legitimacy gap can lead to inferior financial performance outcomes and even operational failure of the
organization (Wang and Sarkis, 2017).

Unsuccessful implementation of CSR governance or a misalignment between designed CSR activities and
outcomes may also contribute to the lack of positive relationships between CSR and financial
performance. Therefore, it is hypothesized that CSR governance can contribute to superior financial
performance only when companies genuinely implement CSR governance and achieve meaningful CSR
outcomes by "walking the talk." (Wang and Sarkis,2017)

CSR practices have gained rapid acceptance and implementation on a global scale, encompassing both
developed and developing countries. As a management strategy, CSR has become widely adopted,
formalized, and integrated into organizational frameworks, policies, and operations. It has permeated
various facets of businesses, reflecting its deep assimilation within the corporate landscape. The rationale
for embracing CSR is predominantly driven by the "business case" perspective, recognizing the mutual
benefits it brings to companies and society at large. The proliferation of CSR can be attributed in part to
the enthusiastic embrace and endorsement it has received from academia. Scholars from diverse
disciplines have actively contributed to the field, leading to a surge in rigorous theoretical frameworks
and extensive research on the subject. This academic enthusiasm has provided a solid foundation for the
continued expansion and advancement of CSR in the years to come. (Carroll, 2016)

MILTON FRIEDMAN’S ARGUMENT – FRIEDMAN DOCTRINE

Nobel Prize Laureate Milton Friedman, an influential economist, and a political thought leader, expressed
a famous argument regarding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). His viewpoint, often referred to as
the Friedman Doctrine, emphasizes that the primary responsibility of a business is to maximize
shareholder value within the boundaries of the law. According to Friedman, in his famous article ‘The
Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’ published in the New York Times Magazine of
13th September 1970, argued that businesses exist to generate profits and serve the interests of their
shareholders, and any allocation of resources towards social or environmental causes beyond legal
requirements can be seen as a violation of the fundamental purpose of a corporation. (Crane et al., 2008)

Friedman (1970) further powerfully argued that it is the role of governments and individuals, not
corporations, to address social and environmental issues. He believed that when businesses engage in
CSR activities, they are essentially spending shareholders' money on causes that may not align with their
financial interests. Again, Friedman maintained that decisions on societal matters should be made through
the democratic process and not by corporate executives who lack the democratic legitimacy to represent
society, therefore CSR is an undemocratic practice. He opined that instead of allowing society to
determine the public interest, managers often take on roles for which they are neither adequately trained
nor legitimately qualified, hence unethical.

In Friedman's perspective, businesses that engage in CSR activities are often acting against the interests
of their shareholders by diverting resources away from profit-making activities. He emphasized that
pursuing profits is essential for economic growth and job creation, benefiting society in the long run.

However, in recent years, the Friedman doctrine has been subjected to reevaluation by business leaders,
activists, and scholars. Some believe that Friedman's conception of a business's purpose, initially
considered enlightened in 1970, remains relevant today. Others argue that corporations' disregard for
social responsibility jeopardizes communities and even the foundations of capitalism itself. Critics assert
that the Friedman doctrine is too narrow in the context of contemporary business.

Some argue that shareholder interests extend beyond financial gains and that an exclusive focus on profits
neglects these other important priorities. They contend that corporations, given their significant influence
on regulatory frameworks, are inseparable from the societies in which they operate. Accordingly, it is
argued that principles of shared success should be developed. (Merrick, 2021)

Interestingly, some of the critics of the Friedman doctrine are businesses themselves. In 2019, the
Business Roundtable, an organization composed of CEOs from large organizations, led by Jamie Dimon
of JP Morgan Chase, released a statement outlining an expanded view of corporate purpose. This
perspective emphasized the creation of value for all stakeholders, including employees and community
members. (Business Roundtable, 2019)

Merrick (2021) further expansiated that, defenders of the Friedman doctrine, however, contend that there
is nothing in it that prohibits organizations from engaging in actions that benefit the environment,
promote gender equality, advance racial justice, or address other social concerns. The key distinction is
that such actions should not be driven by a sense of social obligation, but rather by the understanding that
they contribute to long-term value maximization. If investments in social good lead to reduced risks,
lower costs, or increased customer attraction, these investments are consistent with Friedman's principles.
Regardless of the stance a manager may hold on to the Friedman doctrine, it is increasingly challenging
for businesses to remain indifferent to the question of whether they have a social purpose, as
demonstrated by the experiences of companies like Coca-Cola in recent times. The concept of social
responsibility in business, once limited to boardrooms, classrooms, and speeches, has transcended those
boundaries, and evolved into a significant issue that concerns not only managers and shareholders but
also employees, elected government officials, and, increasingly, customers.

Finally, Steve Kaplan of the Chicago Booth, explained that the Friedman doctrine, which emphasizes
maximizing shareholder value, can adapt to changes in stakeholder perspectives. As customers and
employees increasingly prioritize social issues, as witnessed over the past few decades, addressing these
concerns can have positive impacts on a company's stock price in both the short and long term. Kaplan
further asserted that Milton Friedman's position remains valid, as he did not advocate mistreating the
environment. Friedman explicitly acknowledged that if the world evolves, and customers place greater
importance on a company's environmental responsibility, being an environmentally responsible
organization can enhance shareholder value.

CARROLL’S ARGUMENT OF CSR- CARROLL’S PYRAMID OF CSR

Archie B. Carroll, a renowned scholar in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), developed a
conceptual framework known as the Carroll's Pyramid of CSR. Carroll (1979), initially formulated a
four-part definition of CSR, stating that it encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
expectations placed on organizations by society at a particular time. These four responsibilities establish a
fundamental framework that outlines and defines the nature of a business's obligations towards the society
it operates within. They serve as a foundation or structure, enabling a detailed delineation and
characterization of businesses' responsibilities within their societal context. To gain acceptance from a
responsible businessperson, CSR needs to be presented in a manner that encompasses the full spectrum of
business responsibilities (Crane et al., 2008). These four components of CSR are interconnected and form
a hierarchical pyramid as analyzed below.

1. Economic Responsibility: The foundation of the pyramid is economic responsibility, which

In furtherance to his research, Carroll (2016), opined that virtually all economic systems globally,
the importance of businesses generating profits for societies is widely acknowledged. He stated
that when considering their economic responsibilities, businesses employ various concepts aimed
at financial efficiency. These encompass aspects such as revenue generation, cost-effectiveness,
investments, marketing, strategies, operations, and other professional practices focused on
enhancing the organization's long-term financial success. In today's highly competitive global
business landscape, economic performance and sustainability have become pressing concerns.
Firms that fail to achieve success in their financial sphere risk going out of business, rendering
other responsibilities they may have irrelevant. Therefore, meeting economic responsibilities is a
fundamental requirement that must be fulfilled in a competitive business environment.

2. Legal Responsibility: The second level of the pyramid is legal responsibility. In addition to
meeting economic obligations, businesses are required to operate within the laws and regulations
of the jurisdiction where they operate. This component emphasizes the importance of compliance
with legal frameworks to ensure fair competition, protect consumers, and uphold societal norms.
Carroll (2016) asserted that businesses are not only recognized by society as economic entities,
but they are also subject to a set of basic principles that define the expectations for their operation
and functioning. These principles encompass laws and regulations that reflect society's
 perspective on codified ethics. These regulations serve as a framework established by lawmakers
at the federal, state, and local levels, outlining fundamental standards for fair business practices.
In essence, they articulate the minimum requirements that businesses are expected to adhere to in
order to operate in a just and ethical manner as determined by society.

3. Ethical Responsibility: Moving up the pyramid, ethical responsibility comes into play. This
component refers to the moral and ethical expectations that go beyond legal requirements. It
involves conducting business with integrity, fairness, and honesty, and includes behaviors such as
avoiding conflicts of interest, being transparent, and respecting the rights of stakeholders. (Crane
et al., 2008). Carroll (1979) opined that the societal expectations in most cultures recognize that
laws alone are necessary but insufficient. Beyond legal requirements, businesses are expected to
operate ethically and conduct their activities in an ethical manner. Embracing ethical
responsibilities entails adopting activities, norms, standards, and practices that, although not
legally mandated, are nonetheless expected by society. Ethical expectations encompass not only
compliance with the literal interpretation of the law but also adherence to its underlying
principles.

Furthermore, businesses are expected to demonstrate fairness and objectivity in their operations,
even in situations where laws do not provide specific guidance or directives.
These expectations aim to hold businesses accountable for a comprehensive range of norms,
standards, values, principles, and expectations that align with the preservation of stakeholders'
moral rights, as perceived by consumers, employees, owners, and the community. Distinguishing
between legal and ethical expectations can be complex. Legal expectations are indeed rooted in
ethical foundations, but ethical expectations extend beyond legal compliance, encompassing
additional considerations and obligations. (Carroll, 2016)

4. Philanthropic Responsibility: At the top of the pyramid lies philanthropic responsibility, which
involves voluntary actions and contributions that benefit society. This component encourages
businesses to engage in acts of corporate citizenship, such as supporting charitable causes,
contributing to community development, and investing in environmental sustainability initiatives.
While not a literal responsibility, philanthropy or business giving has become a commonly
expected practice in today's business landscape, aligning with the public's everyday expectations.
 The extent and nature of such activities are typically voluntary and discretionary, driven by a
business's willingness to participate in social initiatives that are not mandated by law and not
commonly regarded as ethical obligations for businesses. (Carroll, 1979).

However, as Carrol (2016) further asserted, some businesses do engage in philanthropy out of an
ethical motivation, driven by their desire to contribute to societal well-being. The public holds the
expectation that businesses will give back to society, representing the "expectation" aspect of this
responsibility. While some businesses may engage in philanthropy with altruistic intentions, most
view it as a practical means to showcase their commitment to good citizenship. By engaging in
philanthropic efforts, businesses aim to enhance their reputation and public image, rather than
solely pursuing noble or self-sacrificing reasons. The key distinction between the ethical and
philanthropic dimensions within the four-part model is that business giving is not necessarily
anticipated from a moral or ethical standpoint.

Carroll (1979) argues that while economic and legal responsibilities are obligatory, ethical, and
philanthropic responsibilities are voluntary yet commendable. He emphasizes that businesses should
strive to fulfill all four aspects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to be considered socially
responsible and contribute positively to society. However, as companies aim to meet their economic,
legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities, tensions and trade-offs inevitably emerge. How
companies choose to balance these responsibilities greatly influences their CSR orientation and
reputation. The economic responsibility of owners or shareholders requires a delicate balance between
short-term and long-term profitability. In the short run, companies may perceive their expenditures on
legal, ethical, and philanthropic obligations as conflicting with their duties to their shareholders.

When companies allocate resources towards fulfilling these responsibilities that seemingly prioritize the
interests of other stakeholders, they face the challenge of cutting corners or seeking the most
advantageous long-term outcomes. This is when tensions and trade-offs come into play. The conventional
belief suggests that resources dedicated to legal, ethical, and philanthropic purposes may necessarily
undermine profitability. However, according to the "business case" for corporate social responsibility
(CSR), this assumption or conclusion is unfounded. For quite some time, the emerging perspective has
been that social engagement can indeed lead to economic benefits, and businesses should strive to create
such a favorable scenario (Chrisman and Carroll, 1984).
GREENWASHING AS A PRACTICE

Greenwashing is a concept within the realm of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) that refers to the
deceptive or misleading practices adopted by companies to present a false image of environmental
responsibility. It involves the use of marketing, advertising, or public relations techniques to create an
appearance of being environmentally friendly, sustainable, or socially responsible, without substantiating
these claims with concrete actions or meaningful impact. (Shah. 2022)

Becker-Olsen & Potucek (2013) analyzed further that greenwashing can take various forms, such as
making exaggerated or unsubstantiated environmental claims, using misleading labels or certifications,
highlighting a single environmentally friendly aspect while neglecting other harmful practices, or
diverting attention from significant environmental issues through PR campaigns. The aim is often to
enhance a company's reputation, attract eco-conscious consumers, or gain a competitive advantage in the
market, without genuinely prioritizing sustainability or fulfilling their social responsibilities.

The concept of greenwashing highlights the importance of critically assessing corporate claims and
practices, and the need for transparency and accountability in CSR efforts. It underscores the significance
of genuine commitment and substantive actions towards environmental sustainability, rather than relying
solely on superficial or misleading communication strategies. Greenwashing serves as a reminder for
businesses and consumers alike to be vigilant in distinguishing between authentic environmental
responsibility and mere marketing tactics.

POPULAR CASES OF GREENWASHING SCANDALS BY LARGE ORGANIZATIONS

1. BP's "Beyond Petroleum" Campaign: In the early 2000s, British multinational oil and gas
company BP launched a high-profile advertising campaign emphasizing its commitment to
renewable energy and portraying itself as an environmentally responsible company. However, the
campaign was criticized as greenwashing because BP continued to heavily invest in and rely on
fossil fuels, including deepwater drilling operations that led to the devastating Deepwater Horizon
oil spill in 2010. In December 2019, ClientEarth, an environmental organization, filed a
complaint against BP, alleging that the company had deceived the public through its
advertisements highlighting BP's low-carbon energy products, even though over 96% of its
annual expenditures were allocated to oil and gas. (Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future, 2021)

2. Volkswagen's Diesel Emissions Scandal: In 2015, German automaker Volkswagen was exposed
for manipulating emissions tests in their diesel vehicles to appear more environmentally friendly
 than they were. This case highlighted how the company intentionally misled regulators and
consumers, undermining their claims of producing clean and eco-friendly cars. For a considerable
period, the vehicles manufactured by Volkswagen were regarded as among the least polluting in
the combustion-engine market. However, the situation changed when the US Environmental
Protection Agency discovered that these cars were emitting up to 40 times more pollutants than
what had been advertised. Volkswagen initially denied any manipulation of data or intentional
deception, attributing the discrepancy to a misunderstanding of the testing standards. (Earth.Org -
Past | Present | Future, 2021)

3. Nestlé's Water Bottle Claims: Nestlé, a leading multinational food and beverage company, faced
criticism for its marketing of bottled water brands, such as Poland Spring, which emphasized the
environmental benefits of their packaging. However, the company was accused of exploiting
local water resources and contributing to plastic pollution, raising questions about the authenticity
of their sustainability claims. For the third consecutive year, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo
secured their positions as the leading global plastic polluters, as revealed in Break Free from
Plastic's 2020 annual report. (Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future, 2021)

4. H&M's Conscious Collection: Swedish fast-fashion retailer H&M launched its "Conscious
Collection" as a line of clothing marketed as environmentally friendly and ethically produced.
However, investigations revealed issues such as unsustainable sourcing practices, poor working
conditions, and the use of hazardous chemicals in their supply chain, casting doubt on the
credibility of their sustainability claims. According to a report from Changing Market Foundation
in 2021, H&M emerged as the worst offenders, with a staggering 96% of their sustainability
claims being debunked. (Peel-Yates, 2021)

5. Coca -Cola Green Marketing and Campaign: The American beverage company Coca-Cola has
recently faced accusations of greenwashing in two separate instances. Firstly, it marketed its new
low-sugar variant, Coca-Cola Life, as a "green, healthy alternative." However, consumers and
nutritionists soon recognized that the beverage was not as healthy as claimed, leading to the
product being removed from store shelves. The labeling of "low sugar" was found to mislead
consumers regarding the actual sugar content remaining in the bottle. Secondly, Coca-Cola faced
 legal action regarding its claims of commitment to reducing plastic waste. Despite these claims,
the company was implicated as one of the largest contributors to global plastic pollution. (Koons,
2022). In June 2021, the environmental organization Earth Island Institute took legal action
against the beverage giant, alleging false advertising regarding its sustainability and eco-
friendliness claims. Despite being recognized as the world's largest plastic polluter, the company
has been promoting itself as sustainable and environmentally friendly. (Peel- Yates, 2021)

These are just a few examples of greenwashing cases where large corporations have faced allegations of
misleading or deceptive practices in their environmental claims. They highlight the importance of
scrutinizing corporate sustainability efforts and encouraging transparency and accountability to promote
genuine environmental responsibility.

CSR AS A GREEN-WASH FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

The origins of greenwashing can be traced back to a hotel's promotional campaign that falsely claimed
towel reuse as part of its environmental corporate strategy (Netto et al., 2020). Consequently,
greenwashing has long been regarded as a negative phenomenon in academic and business literature.
However, it is worth noting that many organizations opt for greenwashing due to its lower
implementation costs and the ability to project a green image in the short term (Delmas & Burbano,
2011). The accusations of greenwashing primarily target firms that are not purely focused on
environmental concerns or do not exclusively produce green products in the market. Greenwashing
denotes the creation of a false perception of being an eco-friendly corporation, considering the level of
environmental friendliness (Seabrook, 2022).

Recent research has shown an increase in instances of greenwashing to cater to the demand from
environmentally conscious consumers. Unfortunately, as the demand for green products rises, so does the
prevalence of greenwashing, and this trend is expected to continue in the future (Dahl, 2010).
Consequently, policymakers and scholars have developed indicators to detect misleading practices and
identify instances of greenwashing by companies.

One way in which CSR has been used by organizations for greenwashing its’ commercial activities is
through selective reporting. Companies may highlight their positive initiatives and achievements in
sustainability, such as energy-efficient practices or charitable donations, while downplaying or ignoring
their overall environmental footprint or social shortcomings. By emphasizing a narrow set of actions
without addressing broader systemic issues, companies can create an illusion of responsible behavior
while continuing unsustainable practices. Example of this is the Volkswagen Emission Scandal

Another greenwashing tactic involves using vague or misleading language in CSR communications.
Organizations employ terms like "green," "eco-friendly," or "sustainable" without clear definitions or
measurable criteria, giving the impression of environmental responsibility without substantiating it, such
as the Coca-Cola Scandal. These ambiguous claims can mislead consumers who are seeking genuinely
sustainable products or services.

Additionally, CSR initiatives that are disconnected from a company's core operations can serve as a
distraction from its negative impacts. For example, a company heavily involved in environmentally
damaging practices may promote its efforts to support community development or engage in charitable
activities unrelated to its core operations. While these initiatives may have some positive impact, they can
divert attention from the company's larger environmental footprint. Most of the organizations that are
guilty of this act are MNCs involved in mining and exploration such as Shell Petroleum, with their
activities in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria.

Furthermore, CSR initiatives that are solely PR-driven and lack genuine commitment to sustainability can
be used to greenwash commercial activity. Companies may engage in token gestures or symbolic actions
that appear socially responsible but have little substantive impact. This can include cosmetic changes to
packaging, short-term campaigns, or partnerships with charitable organizations without meaningful long-
term commitments. E.g., Nestle and PepsiCo

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while CSR has the potential to drive positive change, it can also be misused as a
greenwashing tool. It is essential for companies to go beyond superficial gestures and genuinely integrate
sustainability into their business practices. Likewise, consumers, investors, and regulators must hold
companies accountable and demand transparency to distinguish genuine commitment to sustainability
from mere greenwashing.

To combat greenwashing, it is essential for consumers, stakeholders, and regulatory bodies to critically
evaluate the claims and actions of companies. Transparent reporting, independent certifications, and third-
party verification can help distinguish genuine sustainability efforts from mere greenwashing.
Additionally, stricter regulations and guidelines can be put in place to ensure that companies accurately
represent their environmental impact and commitments.

REFERENCES

Aguinis, H., and Glavas, A. (2012). What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal Of Management, 38(4), 932–968

Barnett, M.L. and Salomon, R.M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the
relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), pp.1304–
1320.

‌ Becker-Olsen, K., & Potucek, S. (2013). Greenwashing. In S. O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, L. Zu, & A.
D. Gupta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Business Roundtable (2019). Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote
‘An Economy that Serves all Americans’. [online] Business Roundtable. Available at:
https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-
promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans.
Carroll, A.B. (2016). Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking Another Look. International Journal of
Corporate Social Responsibility, [online] 1(3), pp.1–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6.

‌Carroll, A.B. and Huseman, R.C. (1979). Readings In Organizational Behavior: Dimensions of
Management Actions. Boston, Mass. Allyn And Bacon.

‌ Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. (2006). Globalization and the Environment: Determinants of Firm Self-
Regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), pp.439–458.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490976.

‌Clarkson, P.M., Fang, X., Li, Y. and Richardson, G. (2013). The relevance of environmental disclosures:
Are such disclosures incrementally informative? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32(5), pp.410–
431. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2013.06.008.

‌Crane, A., Matten, D., and Spence, L.J. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in
A Global Context. London; New York: Routledge.

Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility. Routledge.

‌Dahl, R. (2010). Green washing: Do you know what you’re buying? Environmental Health
Perspectives, 118(6), A246–52, June.

Davis, K. and Blomstrom, R.L. (1975). Business and Society. McGraw-Hill Companies.

De Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & de Luz Soares, G. R. (2020). Concepts and
forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(19), 1–12

‌Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. Calıfornıa Management
Revıew, 54(1), FALL 2011. Available
from: https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/14016/
cmr5401_04_printversion_delmasburbano.pdf

Earth.org - Past | Present | Future. (2021). 10 Companies and Corporations Called Out For
Greenwashing. [online] Available at: https://earth.org/greenwashing-companies-corporations/#.
‌Endrikat, J., Guenther, E. and Hoppe, H. (2014). Making sense of conflicting empirical findings: A meta-
analytic review of the relationship between corporate environmental and financial
performance. European Management Journal, 32(5), pp.735–751.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.004.

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times.
[online] 13 Sep. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-
social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html.

Koons, E. (2022). Greenwashing Examples 2022: Top 10 Greenwashing Companies. [online] Energy
Tracker Asia. Available at: https://energytracker.asia/greenwashing-examples-of-top-companies/.

‌Lydenberg, S.D. (2002). Envisioning Socially Responsible Investing. Journal Of Corporate Citizenship,7,
57-77.

Lyon, T.P., and Montgomery, A.W. (2015). The Means and End of Greenwash. Organization And
Environment, 28(2), 223–249.

Merrick, A. (2021). Is the Friedman Doctrine Still Relevant in the 21st Century? [online] The University
of Chicago Booth School of Business. Available at: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/friedman-
doctrine-still-relevant-21st-century.

McQuarrie, E.F., and Mick, D.G. (2003). The Contribution of Semiotic and Rhetorical Perspectives to
The Explanation of Visual Persuasion in Advertising. In L.G. Scott and R. Batra (Eds.), Persuasive
Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective (Pp. 191–221). Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum.

Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H. and Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived Greenwashing: The Interactive
Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance on Consumer
Reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 125(4), pp.693–707. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
013-1944-3.

Peel-Yates, V. (2021). Greenwashing examples from 2020 & 2021 | Worst products & brands. [online]
The Sustainable Agency. Available at: https://thesustainableagency.com/blog/greenwashing-examples/.
‌Porter, M.E., and Kramer, M.R. (2006). The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social
Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92

Reverte, C., Gómez-Melero, E. and Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. (2016). The influence of corporate social
responsibility practices on organizational performance: evidence from Eco-Responsible Spanish
firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 112, pp.2870–2884.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.128.

‌Roberts, R.W. (1992). Determinants Of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of

Seabrook, V. (2022). Failure to spot greenwash gives ‘false confidence climate crisis is being addressed,’
regulator warns. Available from: https://news.sky.com/story/failure-to-spot-greenwash-gives-false-
confidence-climate-crisis-is-being-addressed-regulator-warns-12645407 (accessed 12 May 2023).

Shah, A. (n.d.). Council Post: How Companies Can Avoid Greenwashing And Make A Real Difference In
Their Environmental Impact. [online] Forbes. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/08/08/how-companies-can-avoid-
greenwashing-and-make-a-real-difference-in-their-environmental-impact/.

‌Wang, Z. and Sarkis, J. (2017). Corporate social responsibility governance, outcomes, and financial
performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, pp.1607–1616.