Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Business economics – Business Ethics, Corporate Ethics, grade: B, King`s College London, language: English, abstract: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and share price performance are strategic in nature. As a result, organizations must give disclosure and report such initiatives to stakeholders as well as shareholders. The value is revealed in the share price of the public organizations (Bevan, 2010). The boost in share value of socially responsible companies surpasses companies which don’t involve in any reporting of corporate social responsible activities (Robinson, 2010).
In this report, we will talk about the relationship between share price performance and disclosure of corporate social responsibility in Mark & Spencer (Robert, 2009).
Marks and Spencer is one among the dominant retailers of clothing, home products, food, and financial services of United Kingdom. 10 million people do shopping every week in more than 375 Marks and Spencer stores in the United Kingdom (Goldenberg, 2009). Additionally the Company has 155 stores run under franchises in twenty eight countries, generally in European, the Middle Eastern, Asian and the Far Eastern countries, and stores in the Republic of Ireland, Hong Kong and the United States supermarket group, Kings Super Markets. Marks and Spencer is formed in business units that cover food and general products (Retail Technology, 2012). The general products unit has been further divided into clothing of women, menswear, beauty, home etc.
In proportion to the current focus on the advantages of Corporate Social Responsibility, it is argued that Marks and Spencer’s social commitment with its stakeholders produces resources which create durable benefits for the company (Bookbinder, 2010). In this study, CSR is viewed as an important resource for Marks and Spencer and it makes possible better lasting share price performance. Corporate Social Responsibility is the valuable resource for Marks & Spencer, it is found that CSR-linked shareholder proposals which are implemented by the small margin of votes produce better financial performance (Stokes, 2012).