MERC Global’s International Journal of Management ISSN 2321-7278 (Print) and ISSN 2321-7286 (Online) Volume 6, Issue 3, July 2018, pp. 37-46 URL: http://ijm.mercglobal.org/abstractm281.html © MERC Global NALCO’s CSR towards Project affected People: A Study of Gotamara, Angul District, Odisha Chandrakanta Sahoo D.Litt. Research Scholar, P.G. Department of Sociology, Sambalpur University, Odisha, India. CITATION: Sahoo, Chandrakanta (2018), “NALCO’s CSR towards Project affected People: A Study of Gotamara, Angul District, Odisha”, MERC Global’s International Journal of Management, Vol. 6, Issue 3, pp. 37-46. ARTICLE HISTORY: Submitted: December 19, 2017, Revision received: March 26, 2018, Accepted: April 02, 2018 ARTICLE TYPE: Research paper ABSTRACT The purpose of the present research is to find out socio-economic changes took place in the lives of project affected people of the Gotamara Village by the establishment of a manufacturing giant like National Aluminium Company (NALCO). The study uses primary and secondary methods for data collection. The researchers review the relevant literature, company reports, and village data from the secondary sources. They also use a survey questionnaire and focus group discussion to assess the socio-economic changes emerging due to Nalco operation. The studies found that Nalco has brought about positive changes among the Project Affected People (PAP) and the majority of them are changing their lifestyles. However, the company has made economic development in the region as a trade-off to environmental degradation which threatens sustainable ecosystems. There is a need to maintain an eco-system which should lead to economic development while protecting the environment. The company should adopt a triple bottom line approach- People, Planet and Profit while incorporating technology into the model. There is a need to conduct research in this direction. KEYWORDS: Customer social responsibility, Community, Socio-economic changes, NALCO. REFERENCES 1. Ackerman, R. W. (1973), “How Companies Respond to Social Demands”, Harvard University Review, Vol. 51, Issue 4, pp. 88-98. 2. Agle, B. R. and R. K. Mitchell (1999), “Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance and CEO Values”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, Issue 5, pp. 507-526. 3. Alford, H. and Naugthon, M. (2002), “Beyond the Shareholder Model of the Firm: Working toward the Common Good of a Business”, in S. A. Cortright and M. Naugthon (eds.), Rethinking the Purpose of Business. Interdisciplinary Essays from the Catholic Social Tradition (Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame), pp. 27-47. 4. Andriof and McIntosh, M. (eds.), Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship, Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK, pp. 200-212. 5. Brundtland Report (1987), “Our Common Future”, United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Oxford University Press. 6. Carroll, A. B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 497-505. 7. Carroll, A. B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organisational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34, pp. 39-48. 8. Davis, K. (1960), “Can Business Afford to Ignore Corporate Social Responsibilities?”, California Management Review, Vo. 2, pp. 70-76. 9. Davis, K. (1967), “Understanding the Social Responsibility Puzzle”, Business Horizons, Vol. 10, Issue 4, pp. 45-51. 10. Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T. W. (1994), “Towards a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, pp. 252-284.