"4.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CSR AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGECompetitiveness in general terms can be described as the strength of an organisation over itscompetitors (Murths and Lenway,1998).Vilanova, Lozano and Arenas (2008) posits that CSR and competitiveness relates throughinnovation and learning cycle, where polices, practices and corporate values are defined andredefined permanently. They further proposed that CSR is embedded as learning takes placein business processes and it generates innovative CSR practices then competitiveness whenintegrated. Porter and Kramer (2007) agrees that CSR can be more than a charitable deed, acost or constraint-it can also be a basis of innovation, opportunity and competitive advantage.Vilanova, Lozano and Arenas (2008) proposed a framework connecting CSR andcompetitiveness: they also proposed that image and reputation creates the connectionbetween CSR and competitiveness through the following management process: strategy,stakeholder management and accountability. Figure 3 CSR and Competitiveness framework LearningStrategyImagesReputationStakeholderCompetitivenessCSR BrandingIdentityAccountabilityInnovationSource: Marc Vilanova 20074.6 STAKEHOLDER VERSUS SHAREHOLDER THEORIESOrganisations are characterised to be obligated or ethical when adopting to sanctions andrules concerning the business and society they operate in (Devinney, 2009). In carrying outthese activities certain people are affected voluntarily or involuntarily. Freeman (1984) positsthat such people are considered as stakeholders and they are affected by the organisation?saims, goals and decisions.4.7 SHAREHOLDER THEORYThe shareholder theory otherwise called Fiduciary Capitalism holds that the sole socialresponsibility of business is profit making. This view was upheld by the Nobel laureateMilton Friedman, his theory concentrated around the argument of shareholders and management?s deal to make profit for the organisation, therefore are ethically and lawfullydevoted towards the service to the organisation?s interest. Presently, the theory has been viewed as a historic way in which business is done, this is as aresult of organisations identifying the disadvantages or difficulties of doing business relyingon the maximization of shareholder?s value. However, critics about this theory as posited byCrane et al. (2008) states that profit can increase, while workers are exploited, irreversiblyexhaustibility of natural resources and the environment can still be seriously damaged. Smith (2003) also criticized this theory by positing that managers may involve in unethicallypractice of manipulating the financial accounts in order to satisfy the interest of theshareholder to maximize the profit since it is the main objective of business. 4.8 STAKEHOLDER THEORYThe stakeholder theory in contrast to the shareholder theory, involves or take intoconsideration individuals or factors with a stake in the organisation. On the other hand,Freeman, Wicks and Parmar (2004) are of the view that the two points should not beseparated. The shareholder theory supports that it is the obligation of the organisation toincrease the share value of its shareholders. The stakeholders include suppliers, clients,representatives and the community. The organisation is responsible to consider every factoror group that would be influenced by their decisions and activities in one way or the other.An organisation by Freeman, Wicks and Parmar (2004) has two primary objectives ofexpanding shareholder?s value or satisfying the interests of all parties or stakeholders that areaffected by the company?s activities and decisions. Therefore, based on these managementtheories, the organisation management is fixed with the responsibility of multi-tasking tomanage between the two tasks in order to remain sustainable and not to focus on one and discard the other. Though they are diverse but yet with specific similarities. The similarityreveals that stakeholders are made up one or numerous groups of shareholders. 4.9 DIMENSIONS OF CSRIrrespective of the accepted meaning of CSR by Carroll (1999), corporate sustainability wasexcluded. Corporate sustainability as depicts by Wilson (2003) is made up of the followingcomponents like sustainable development, corporate accountability and stakeholder theory.However, Van Marrewijk (2003) describes CSR and CS as “voluntary” actions implementedby organisation in during the deliberations of the effects of its actions or operations with thehost community.Due to no generally recognized definition of CSR, this study will focus its definition aroundthe dimensional exploration of CSR, which will embody the oil and gas industry CSRactivities been executed. This will therefore be categorized into ethical, financial, social andenvironmental activities.Figure 4 Dimensional Model of CSR CORPORATESUSTAINABILITY CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSIBILITYRESPONSIBILITY Figure 2.3: Dimensional model of CS/CSR. Source: van Marrewijk (2003) Source: (Van Marrewijk, 2003) "