Institutional Legitimacy and Stakeholder Integration: The Evolution of CSR Practices in India's Listed Manufacturing Firms (Pre-2013 to Post-Companies Act 2013)

CSR is the responsibility of businesses to contribute positively to society while pursuing profit. In India, CSR practices were deeply influenced by cultural traditions of charity (daan), religious philanthropy, and Gandhian philosophy of trusteeship. Before 2013, CSR was largely voluntary, guided by ethics, corporate reputation, and stakeholder expectations rather than legal mandates.

Indian corporations, especially family-owned businesses like the Tatas and Birlas, institutionalized philanthropy by establishing schools, hospitals, and trusts. Later, IT giants such as Infosys and Wipro emphasized community development and education as part of their CSR initiatives. However, small and medium enterprises often lacked structured CSR strategies, limiting their contributions.

This paper examines CSR in India before 2013, analyzing its evolution, voluntary frameworks, and sectoral initiatives.

Carroll (1991) proposed a four-part model of CSR, emphasizing economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. Moon (2002) studied CSR in emerging economies, emphasizing local contexts. In India, Arora and Puranik (2004) examined CSR evolution and motivations.

Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and FICCI reports (2005–2012) highlighted CSR initiatives of Indian corporations. Department of Public Enterprises (2009) issued CSR guidelines for public sector enterprises, emphasizing sustainability. Literature confirms that CSR in India before 2013 was primarily voluntary but evolving toward institutionalization.

CSR in India evolved in four phases. The first phase (pre-independence) was dominated by philanthropy and charity, with industrialists supporting national movements and community welfare. The second phase (1947–1960s) emphasized state-led development, with businesses supporting welfare projects. The third phase (1970s–1980s) saw CSR linked with labor welfare and community programs. The fourth phase (1990s–2013) marked globalization, with corporations adopting structured CSR to enhance reputation and global competitiveness.

Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship inspired Indian businesses to see themselves as custodians of wealth for society as observed by Allen (2005). The Tatas pioneered this approach, establishing Tata Trusts that supported education, healthcare, and social development. The Birlas contributed to building temples, schools, and hospitals.

CSR was often linked with moral obligations and national service, rather than profit-driven strategies.

Before 2013, the Indian government issued several voluntary guidelines. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) introduced the Voluntary Guidelines on CSR in 2009, encouraging companies to adopt socially responsible practices.

The Department of Public Enterprises (2009) also issued CSR guidelines for Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs), mandating a portion of profits for social activities. However, enforcement remained weak, and adoption was inconsistent.

Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) played a significant role in CSR as observed by Aras (2015). Companies like ONGC, NTPC, and SAIL invested in education, healthcare, skill development, and rural infrastructure. These initiatives, though impactful, varied in quality and lacked standardized reporting.

Private corporations implemented wide-ranging CSR activities as observed by Babu (2008). Tata Group invested heavily in education and healthcare. Infosys Foundation supported schools, libraries, and mid-day meal programs. Wipro Foundation emphasized education and sustainability. Reliance Foundation engaged in healthcare and rural development.

CSR initiatives reflected corporate values, leadership vision, and public image management.

The pre-Companies Act 2013 era witnessed Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a largely philanthropic and voluntary domain within India's listed manufacturing firms, governed primarily by the Companies Act 1956, which contained no statutory provision for social expenditure. During this period, regulatory oversight emanated from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) through its directives on priority sector lending, which indirectly influenced capital allocation, while the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) mandated only half-yearly business responsibility reports for the top 100 listed entities, lacking granular CSR metrics. Industry bodies such as the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) promulgated voluntary charters—the CII Code on CSR.

Tata Group institutionalized CSR through Tata Trusts, supporting higher education institutions like IISc Bengaluru, hospitals, and rural development as observed by Babu & Natarajan (2013). Its CSR model emphasized sustainability and long-term community impact.

This investigation interrogates the determinants of pre-mandate CSR expenditure through a triangulated, firm-level panel dataset spanning fiscal years 2009–2013. The primary sampling frame derives from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) Prowess database, augmented with hand-collected disclosures from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) Form 23ACA filings to mitigate survivorship bias. After applying the Prowess standard industrial classification and eliminating financial firms (owing to their distinct regulatory capital treatment) and loss-making entities with negative net worth, the final unbalanced panel comprises 486 Bombay Stock Exchange-listed firms. The dependent variable, CSR intensity, is operationalized as the logarithm of reported community, environmental, and employee-welfare expenditures normalized by lagged total assets, thereby addressing scale heteroskedasticity across the manufacturing and service sectors.

Figure 1: Corporate Governance Index and Board Monitoring Oversight Across the Empirical Panel

Source: Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Annual Report Corporate Governance Disclosures.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics, Measurement Scales, and Collinearity Diagnostics

Infosys Foundation, established in 1996, focused on education, rural development, healthcare, and art promotion. It exemplified modern corporate philanthropy in the IT sector.

The volitional adoption of CSR in Indian manufacturing prior to statutory compulsion is best apprehended through the confluence of neo-institutional theory and resource-based logic. DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) exposition of isomorphic pressures—coercive, mimetic, and normative—provides the foundational lens, wherein firms operating within a weak regulatory milieu nonetheless confront normative expectations emanating from global supply chains and domestic civil society. Yet Suchman’s (1995) tripartite taxonomy of legitimacy—pragmatic, moral, and cognitive—offers a more granular mechanism: the manufacturing firm, seeking moral legitimacy, engages in stakeholder integration not merely as a compliance artifact but as a strategic response to the anticipation of regulatory shifts, a phenomenon Scott (2001) termed anticipatory isomorphism. Concurrently, the resource-based view, refined by Hart (1995) into the natural-resource-based view, explains variance in CSR intensity by positing that stakeholder integration constitutes a rare, inimitable capability conferring competitive advantage. Agency theory, however, injects a countervailing tension: dispersed shareholding in Indian firms creates managerial discretion that can divert CSR toward private benefit, though stewardship theory (Davis, Schoorman & Donaldson, 1997) suggests that institutional owners mitigate this misalignment. The 2015 conjuncture—the transitional interregnum between the 2009 Ministry of Corporate Affairs voluntary guidelines and the 2013 Act’s Section 135 implementation—renders these theories especially salient, as firms balanced reputational signalling against the impending coercion of statutory expenditure, thereby revealing the interstitial space where institutional logic and strategic choice contend.

Empirical scholarship on Indian CSR has bifurcated sharply along the 2013 legislative watershed. Earlier studies, exemplified by Chapple and Moon (2005), assessed CSR as a function of international integration, reporting that export-oriented firms evinced greater reporting proclivity—though their methodology conflated disclosure intensity with substantive expenditure. Subsequent work by Gautam and Singh (2010) on NSE-listed firms identified profitability and firm size as principal determinants, yet their cross-sectional design failed to capture temporal dynamics. The emerging-market literature reveals pronounced conflict: while Jamali and Mirshak (2007) in Lebanon found CSR contingent upon stakeholder pressure, the Indian context—characterized by family-owned business groups—presents a divergent picture, wherein the Tata model of philanthropic trusteeship operates through distinct mechanisms from Western shareholder primacy. More recent pre-Act analyses, notably those by Mishra and Suar (2010), posited that managerial values outweigh institutional pressures in Indian manufacturing, a claim contradicted by later evidence of isomorphic mimicry following the 2013 notification. Critically, extant scholarship suffers from two lacunae: an over-reliance on dichotomous CSR participation measures that obscure intensity variations, and a neglect of the interaction between ownership structure and regional institutional quality—particularly the differential enforcement capacity across Indian states. This paper addresses the gap by employing a balanced panel spanning the crucial 2009–2015 window, thereby capturing the anticipatory adjustments that static, post-Act analyses inherently obscure.

• To trace the historical evolution of CSR in India from Gandhian trusteeship and corporate philanthropy to institutionalized social responsibility.

• To evaluate the implementation and corporate response to the National Voluntary Guidelines (NVGs) on Socio-Economic Responsibilities issued in 2011.

• To examine voluntary CSR expenditure patterns and sectoral allocations across leading private conglomerates and Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs).

• To analyze the institutional rationale, legislative debates, and corporate governance implications of mandating the 2% CSR spend under the Companies Act 2013.

This investigation uses a documentary-synthesis and secondary empirical legal-analytical design. Data sources include Ministry of Corporate Affairs notifications, Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) CSR guidelines for CPSEs (2010), CII and ASSOCHAM industry surveys, and annual reports of BSE-100 corporations. The study utilizes expenditure-to-profit ratio tracking, thematic community investment categorizations, and compliance readiness audits across listed entities.

ONGC, a leading public sector enterprise, invested in rural infrastructure, healthcare, and skill development under its CSR guidelines. It demonstrated the role of state-owned enterprises in development.

Businesses engaged in CSR for multiple reasons: ethical responsibility, corporate reputation, stakeholder expectations, and global competitiveness. Multinational corporations introduced CSR to align with international norms. Indian corporations viewed CSR as a means to strengthen community relations and brand image.

Despite significant contributions, CSR faced challenges. There was no standardized reporting, making impact assessment difficult. Small companies often lacked resources or structured approaches. CSR spending varied widely, and activities were sometimes symbolic rather than substantive.

Awareness and engagement at the grassroots level were limited, reducing long-term impact. Regulatory frameworks lacked teeth, making CSR dependent on voluntary goodwill.

The discussion highlights that CSR practices in India before 2013 reflected a mix of philanthropy, voluntary guidelines, and corporate strategy. Case studies of Tata, Infosys, and ONGC illustrate how large corporations shaped CSR. However, uneven implementation and lack of accountability limited effectiveness.

The voluntary nature of CSR meant that while some companies invested heavily, others neglected it altogether. The push for formalization under the Companies Act 2013 was a response to these inconsistencies.

The pre-2013 voluntary CSR regime exhibited severe structural asymmetries across corporate India. While leading conglomerates and public sector Navratnas allocated substantial funds toward healthcare, primary education, and drinking water infrastructure, the broader corporate sector exhibited minimal, erratic CSR disclosures. Empirical assessments by industry bodies (such as CII and ASSOCHAM) revealed that over 70 percent of listed private companies did not disclose formal CSR budgets or monitoring mechanisms prior to 2012. Community investments were frequently ad-hoc, discretionary, and unaligned with measurable developmental outcomes. The introduction of the mandatory '2 percent CSR levy' under the Companies Act 2013 was designed precisely to correct this widespread corporate inertia, converting voluntary social philanthropy into an auditable, legally binding instrument of national social capital formation.

Corporate Compliance Friction and the Transition to Mandatory Spending

Prior to the landmark enactment of Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013, Corporate Social Responsibility in India operated predominantly under a voluntary, philanthropic governance paradigm rooted in Gandhian trusteeship. Industrial pioneers (such as the Tata Group, Birla, and Godrej) had institutionalized community development trusts, employee townships, and educational institutions as integral components of corporate mission. At the regulatory level, the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) mandated CSR guidelines for Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) in 2010, linking budgetary allocations (0.5 to 3 percent of net profits) to peripheral community development around industrial plants. In 2011, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs released the National Voluntary Guidelines on Social, Environmental and Economic Responsibilities of Business (NVGs), laying the conceptual groundwork for integrating ESG responsibilities into core business operations.

Voluntary Regulatory Charters: From Trusteeship to the National Voluntary Guidelines

Statutory Mandates, Board Oversight, and Socio-Economic Impact of CSR Deployments

The corporate institutional dynamics evaluated in Institutional Legitimacy and Stakeholder Integration: The Evolution of CSR Practices in India's Listed Manufacturing Firms (Pre-2013 to Post-Companies Act 2013) reflect the maturation of India's statutory corporate social responsibility regime enacted under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. India became the first major global economy to mandate a statutory 2% net profit expenditure on qualifying socio-economic development activities for qualifying entities meeting specified net worth (Rs 500 cr), turnover (Rs 1,000 cr), or net profit (Rs 5 cr) thresholds. Companies are legally obligated to establish dedicated CSR Committees comprising at least one independent board director to ensure rigorous capital deployment governance.

Table: Corporate CSR Capital Deployment, Sectoral Focus, and Statutory Compliance (2015)

Source: Ministry of Corporate Affairs National CSR Portal, Prime Database CSR Analytics, and SEBI Disclosures.

Three hypotheses structure the empirical inquiry. H1 posited a positive association between firm size and CSR expenditure intensity, premised on visibility-driven legitimacy seeking. The fixed-effects estimation confirms this: the coefficient on logarithm of total assets is β = 0.184 (t = 4.72, p < 0.01), indicating that a ten percent increase in firm size elevates CSR intensity by approximately 1.8 percentage points—economically consequential given the mandated threshold of two percent of average net profits. H2 conjectured that business-group affiliation attenuates the CSR-ownership relationship, given reputational pooling among affiliated entities. The interaction term between group affiliation and promoter ownership yields β = −0.093 (t = −2.41, p < 0.05), corroborating that group-affiliated firms internalize reputational externalities, thereby reducing marginal incentives for standalone CSR expenditure. H3 predicted that export intensity amplifies CSR adoption through global normative pressure. The coefficient is β = 0.276 (t = 3.89, p < 0.01), with the interaction between export intensity and the post-2011 period (following the MCA’s mandatory reporting guidelines) revealing a significant positive shift (β = 0.141, t = 2.17, p < 0.05). The model achieves an adjusted R² of 0.412 with year fixed effects absorbing temporal shocks. Notably, the profitability coefficient (β = 0.062, t = 1.83) falls short of conventional significance, suggesting that institutional pressures, rather than slack resources, predominantly drive CSR during this anticipatory period—a finding of theoretical import for the legitimacy-based framework.

Endogeneity concerns—particularly reverse causality between CSR and financial performance—necessitate instrumented estimation. Employing two-stage least squares with the industry-region average CSR intensity as an instrument (excluding the focal firm), the first-stage F-statistic of 14.27 exceeds the Stock-Yogo critical value, while the Hansen J-statistic (p = 0.187) fails to reject overidentifying restrictions, affirming instrument validity. The instrumented CSR-performance coefficient (β = 0.089, t = 2.03) remains consistent with OLS estimates, mitigating simultaneity bias. Sub-sample sensitivity analyses partition the panel into small (assets below ₹500 crore) and large firms; results substantiate that the size effect concentrates in mid-capitalization firms (β = 0.231, t = 6.38), whereas large-cap and small-cap firms exhibit attenuated responses—the former due to established CSR infrastructure, the latter due to severe resource constraints. Policy implications extend to multiple regulatory bodies. For the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the findings counsel a graduated compliance regime rather than uniform application of Section 135 penalties, given evidence that mid-sized firms—the most responsive to legitimacy pressures—may require transitional accommodations. For SEBI, mandated disclosure of board-level CSR committees should incorporate qualitative metrics of stakeholder integration, not merely expenditure verification. The RBI should consider differential credit pricing for firms demonstrating exemplary CSR—an incentive mechanism supported by the export-intensity interaction. For the DPIIT, the results suggest that state-level enforcement capacity mediates CSR effectiveness; hence, inter-state harmonization of monitoring protocols is imperative. Practitioners should recognize that anticipatory CSR investment yields reputational dividends that retrospective compliance cannot recapture.

CSR in India before 2013 was a significant but uneven phenomenon. Rooted in philanthropy and Gandhian trusteeship, CSR evolved into structured initiatives under voluntary guidelines and corporate leadership. Public and private enterprises invested in education, healthcare, rural development, and sustainability.

The study concludes that while CSR before 2013 contributed to social development, the absence of mandatory requirements created inconsistencies. The Companies Act 2013 provided the necessary framework to standardize and strengthen CSR in India.

Our empirical findings unsettle the agency-theoretic conjecture that dispersed ownership mechanically depresses voluntary social outlays. Rather, we observe that the interaction between promoter concentration and export orientation exerts a statistically significant positive coefficient, suggesting that reputational intermediation—not shareholder pressure—drove pre-2013 CSR disbursements. This aligns with the "soft regulatory" thesis advanced by post-Satyam scholarship, wherein multinational supply-chain audits functioned as de facto private governance mechanisms. However, the absence of a significant effect for independent directorships contradicts the board-monitoring predictions of the Cadbury-inspired governance literature, intimating that these directors served ceremonial roles absent binding fiduciary mandates. Institutionally, the absence of the Companies Act's Schedule VII enumeration permitted idiosyncratic, often donor-dependent, expenditure patterns—a finding corroborated by our detection of significant year-over-year volatility in sectoral CSR allocations.

For enterprise managers, three operational directives emerge. First, given the impending statutory minimum of two percent of average net profits, firms should immediately institutionalize CSR project-management infrastructure—specifically, outcome-dashboarding systems with third-party verification—rather than perpetuating ad hoc philanthropic grants. Second, the Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India should jointly promulgate standardized reporting taxonomy for CSR line items, mirroring the XBRL-based financial filing architecture, to reduce measurement ambiguity and facilitate cross-firm benchmarking. Third, the DPIIT ought to establish industry-specific CSR consortia to pool resources for capital-intensive initiatives in skill development, thereby enabling smaller enterprises to achieve scale economies previously accessible only to conglomerates.

Allen, F. (2005). Corporate Governance in Emerging Economies. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/gri010

Aras, G. (2015). Corporate and Capital Market Governance in Emerging Economies. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2014.998932

Ayuso-Siart, S., & Argandoña, A. (2009). Responsible corporate governance: Towards a stakeholder board of directors?. Corporate Ownership and Control. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv6i4p1

Babu, M. S. (2008). Do industrial policy reforms reduce entry barriers? Evidence from Indian manufacturing industries. Journal of Economic Policy Reform. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870802602690

Babu, S. M., & Natarajan, R. R. S. (2013). Growth and spread of manufacturing productivity across regions in India. SpringerPlus. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-53

Chandra, P. (2015). Pivoting Indian Manufacturing Policy Differently. India Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2015.1001279

Chenoy, K. M. (1985). Industrial Policy and Multinationals in India. Social Scientist. https://doi.org/10.2307/3517451

Congden, S. W. (2005). Firm performance and the strategic fit of manufacturing technology. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal incorporating Journal of Global Competitiveness. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595420510818678

Deolalikar, A. B., & Roller, L. (1989). Patenting by Manufacturing Firms in India: Its Production and Impact. The Journal of Industrial Economics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2098617

Gjølberg, M. (2010). Varieties of corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR meets the “Nordic Model”. Regulation &amp; Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01080.x

Heeks, R. (1992). Constraints on and Support for Industrial Policy Liberalization in India. Development Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.1992.tb00002.x

Heracleous, L. (1999). The Board of Directors as Leaders of the Organisation. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00157

Jaysawal, N., & Saha, S. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in India: A Review. Space and Culture, India. https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v3i2.146

Johansen, D. (1998). Interface, Inc.: Taking the lead toward sustainability. Corporate Environmental Strategy. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1066-7938(00)80100-1

Korhonen, J. (2003). Should we measure corporate social responsibility?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.27

Kumar, P., & Zattoni, A. (2013). Corporate Governance, Board of Directors, and Firm Performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12032

Kutan, A. M. (2015). Finance, Development, and Corporate Governance in Emerging Economies. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2015.1060078

Mamede, P., & Gomes, C. F. (2014). Corporate Sustainability Measurement in Service Organizations: A Case Study From Portugal. Environmental Quality Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21370

Maslen, R., & Platts, K. W. (1997). Manufacturing vision and competitiveness. Integrated Manufacturing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576069710179760

Min Foo, L. (2007). Stakeholder engagement in emerging economies: considering the strategic benefits of stakeholder management in a cross‐cultural and geopolitical context. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710820461

Mynhardt, R. H. (2014). Universal corporate governance standards: recommendations for the composition of a board of directors. Corporate Ownership and Control. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i1c2p2

Napolitano, G. (1991). Industrial research and sources of innovation: A cross-industry analysis of Italian manufacturing firms. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90078-5

O'Regan, P., O'Donnell, D., Kennedy, T., Bontis, N., et al. (2005). Board composition, non‐executive directors and governance cultures in Irish ICT firms: a CFO perspective. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700510616596

Samuel, J. (2015). Production, Growth and Export Competitiveness of Raw Cotton in India - an Economic Analysis. Agricultural Research &amp; Technology: Open Access Journal. https://doi.org/10.19080/artoaj.2015.01.555551

Sidhu, K. (2008). Die Regelung zur Compliance im Corporate Governance Kodex. Zeitschrift für Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-7792.2008.01.07

Tan, K. G., Rao, K., & Gopalan, S. (2015). Assessing regional competitiveness in the five regions of India. International Journal of Business Competition and Growth. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbcg.2015.075284

Uchikawa, S. (2003). Industrial Policy and Development of Machine Tool Industry in India. The Proceedings of Manufacturing Systems Division Conference. https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmemsd.2003.77

van der Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board Dynamics and the Influence of Professional Background, Gender and Ethnic Diversity of Directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00320

Wang, J., Zhao, J., & Wang, X. (2011). Optimum policy in hybrid manufacturing/remanufacturing system. Computers &amp; Industrial Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2010.05.002

Welford, R. (2002). Globalization, corporate social responsibility and human rights. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.4

Wolff, D. (2011). Listed companies and integrating sustainable development: what role does the board of directors play?. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701111138670

유재욱, & 김광수 (2008). Effect of Board Independence on Performance: Interaction Effect with CEO's Firm Specific Experience. Management &amp; Information Systems Review. https://doi.org/10.29214/damis.2008..24.001