CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDYTowards the end of 1800’s to the early 1990’s the mission of businessfirms was exclusively economic. During this period, the cardinal purpose ofbusiness owners is to make as much profit as possible. To underscore theabove assertion, Milton Friedman (1972:88) had contended that the onlyresponsibility of the business is to make as much profit as it can for theowners. Today, partly due to the interdependencies of many groups in oursociety, the values, goals and attitudes of the society changed significantly.This accounts for the complexity in the society in the area of social,economic as well as environmental problems which have been experienced.This situation is in consonance with the view of Ackerman (1973:89), whenhe opined that the people increased awareness has brought some expectationand demand to bear on companies to be socially responsible to the society inwhich they operate. Thus we often talk about the social responsibility andsocial responsiveness of all organizations although the focus of this studyshall be on corporate organizations. There is a question as to what the socialresponsibility of business really means.xiThe concept of social responsibility is not new, although the idea wasalready considered in the early part of the twentieth century. The moderndiscussions of social responsibility got a major impetus with the book“social responsibility of business men” by Howard .R. Bowen, whosuggested that business actors should consider the social implications oftheir decisions, society being awakened with respect to the urgency of socialproblems is asking managers and owners of business what they are doing todischarge their social responsibility to the society in which they operategiven negative social impacts of their business on the society such aspollutions of all kinds air, water, solid waste noise to mention but a few.The concept of social responsibility refers to the firm’s considerationof and responses to the issues beyond narrow economic, technical and legalrequirement of the firm. It is the firm’s obligation to evaluate in its decisionmaking process the effects of its decision on the external social system in amanner that should accomplish social benefits along with the traditionaleconomic gains which the firm seeks for. However, Harper D. (1976) aclassical economist consistently argued against the need to do anything thatnegates profit maximization. He sees business social responsibility as anaberration Harper, (1976).xii1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMSOil spillage in some of the oil producing state is alarming and somepollution caused by industries in our country is on the high rate. Theproblems of the communities where the oil companies operate bring theseproblems constructively to the attention of the companies with which theyhave developed regular form for meetings. These companies have createdecological disaster, gas flowing in the communities. Therefore, the problemto be looked into in this research is that a corporate organisation does notbother about their social responsibility to the environment where theyoperate. Furthermore, poverty, lack of essential facilities and unemploymentare increasing is alarming proportion. As a result the needs and expectationof the society are not met by the business organisation.1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDYThe corporate organizations naturally have its own mix and differentemphasis. The overall objectives of every organisation are survival growth,profit, economic contribution and social obligation. It is known fact thatfirms in Nigeria usually lay more emphasis on profit maximization. Theobjective of this research work includes the following:xiiii. To examine the general attitude of ANAMMCO towards socialresponsibility.ii. To examine the consequences of the company ignoring its socialresponsibilities.iii. To evaluate the problems which hinder the performance of socialresponsibility practice by ANAMMCO.iv. To recommend possible solutions for the identified problems.