INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

The importance of protecting the environment has never been greater than now. The capacity of the earth, our spaceship, to absorb more waste or more energy, is fast getting exhausted. Environmental damage has already caused the extinction of hundreds of species of plant and animals. Human beings themselves are now under threat. There is an urgent need to protect the water we drink and use, the air we breathe the soil on which our crops and plants grow.

Most of the corporate companies and small and medium scale enterprises are practicing Social responsibility activities not only to protect the environment also to protect social well-being. They showed this separately and in the annual report. All around the world, researchers in management field giving more importance to study about the issues regarding corporate social Responsibility.

In this study the factors affecting the Social Responsibility of employees were divided into 3 broad categories like Personal, motivational and societal factors. Personal factors include heredity, support from family & relatives and friends. Motivational factor include financial motivation, Offers on higher studies, job assurance and assigning the needy resources. Societal factor include the importance of environmental care, health care and humanism.

Business organizations strive to survive by the efficient use of the factors of Production and other facilities of the society. This process puts organizations in an Interdependent relation with the government, the community at large and the environment. Such interdependence gives rise to a series of broader responsibilities to Society in general (Mullins, 2005). Mullins further illustrates that the social

responsibilities are both internal and external to the organizations.

Presently, there is an increasing concern with the social responsibilities of organizations. This is reflected in part by the extent of government action and

legislation on such matters as, for instance, employment protection, equal opportunities, companys acts, consumer law, product liability and safeguarding the environment (Mullins, 2005). Based on this the social responsibilities of organizations have turned into a legal requirement. CSR was buzzword created in the early 1970s although it was seldom abbreviated back then. The term corporate social responsibility(CSR) refers to ethical, legal and philanthropic behaviour in the workplace, market and community. Respect for

employees, the community and environment in thus central to CSR. However this is always observed with corporate profitability as the overriding objective. At its best, CSR should bolster a corporates status and contribute lasting value to its shareholders as well as to society at large.

1.3 COMPANY PROFILE Established Capital Building Facility

: October, 2006 : 948 Million : 208 Million : 740 Million

Managing Director : S.W.LEE No of Employees : 250 Scale of Company Plant Land Building : 22936 Sq.m : 11619 Sq.m : 2009 (USD 312 Million ),2010 ( USD 40 Million)

Annual Sales Revenue

DAS was established in the year of 2006 and it is achieving a Gradual Growth from the beginning. The area of the Factory & Office is around 16000 sq.ft with Manpower of 275 and number of Machines 30 and working with of 3 Shifts. MISSION:

To manufacture and sell products confirming to the prescribed quality norms within time at a reasonably good price through a process that is professional, fair and impartial. To supply products and to ensure 100% reliability and compatibility with

quality standard to our customers, of high quality, that they would set the standard of excellence for the industry and continually reinforce our standing as an industry leader. VISION: To make DAS a professionally-managed, dynamic, vibrant, value based organization with exceptionally skilled, highly motivated human resources committed to total customer satisfaction and face present & future challenges in Automobile industries (Auto components industry). QUALITY POLICY: The quality policy of DAS is to manufacture and supply quality products to meet customer requirements and continually strive to improve to achieve customer satisfaction through an establish quality management system. QUALITY OBJECTIVES: To meet customer requirements of quality and on time delivery To evaluate suppliers to meet requirements To continually improve in all operations through employee training and involvement.

1.2 INDUSTRY PROFILE Gyeong-Ju, Korea

DAS stakes its reputation as a leading automotive seating company in the industry and will become a world-class automotive seat company.

DAS provides a wide range of multi functional mechanism from 2way to 10way as well as retractable and foldable rear seats that enhance vehicle differentiation CEO Establishment Main Item Seat complete, mechanism assembly track, Recliner, Height adjuster : US$ 3.5 Million : 1260 (Local) / 600 (Global) : US$ 418 Million (2009) : TS 16949, ISO 14001 : Stamping, E-coating, Fine-Blanking, Wire cutting, staking, Robotic welding. Customer Current program : Hyundai,Kia,GM,Ford,JCI,Lear,Magna,Dymos : 90 % of Hyundai passenger car, Ford, Mechanism. Chairman S.E.Lee

: Mr. OH HAN KOOK : 10th July 1987

Capital Employees Annual Sales Revenue Quality certification Equipment

Established in 1987, DAS has dedicated its resources in the technological advancement and become specialized in the production of automotive seats, and their components. Thus, DAS has grown steadily as a leading automotive seating company in the industry.

DAS is committed to safety and comfort. We recognize that the quality of an automotive seat contributes significantly to the comfort and safety of passengers. DAS is also aware of the natural environment and committed to develop environment friendly products by strengthening the role of the R&D center. DAS has built strong and enduring relationships with our customers, employees, suppliers and communities. The relationships are based on common expectations, values, mutual trust and respect. We will do our best to satisfy our customers and we are committed to keep the good relationships. INFINITE AUTOMOTIVE SEATING TECHNOLOGY: DAS R&D centers in Gyeongju and Asan lead the trend of automotive seating technology and are capable to develop customized products with ceaseless communication with our customers. DAS believes the technology for human safety is truly the modern technology. With the mind that safety is the highest priority; DAS will supply, through modern design and FEA, the high quality automotive seats you can trust.

PRODUCT PROFILE: The following are product range manufactured in the company Manual recliner Power recliner Manual rail Power rail Height adjuster

Car Model i10 (Hyundai)

Car Model i20 (Hyundai)

Car Model Verna (Hyundai)

PROCESS RANGE: The following are the different kinds of process range design in the company. Design & Manufacturing of Press Tools Sheet Metal Pressings Projection/Spot/CO 2 Welding Heat Treatment

 Electro Plating/Nickel Chrome Plating Powder Coating EDP Coating Nylon Coating Spray Painting Insert Molding Turning Machine Tapping

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Primary objectives:

To study about the factors influencing Social Responsibility of Employees.

Secondary objectives:

To study about the personal factors affecting the Social responsibility of Employees.

To study about the motivational factors affecting the Social responsibility of Employees.

To Study about the societal factors affecting the Social responsibility of Employees.

1.2 NEED FOR STUDY The title of this project clearly states that the purpose of the study is to compare the employees social responsibility activities in DAS INDIA PVT LTD. This is also an attempt to know the various benefits offered by the society. In employees social responsibility activities through an around focusing on health care, educational infrastructure, sanitation, socio cultural activities and other infrastructure development.

Scope of the study This study helps to enrich the commitment of management towards the social responsibility activities in students community. It provides the path to maximize their total social responsibilities. This study can be used as a base for the researcher who carries out the research with similar area like factors affecting the Social Responsibility of other stakeholders etc.

1.4 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Employees perceptions on corporate social responsibility:

In the construction industry, corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) is increasingly valued as one factor that will contribute to business sustainable development. Construction enterprises typically develop CSR reports as one way to maintain a positive corporate image. There is a growing body of research which considers the effectiveness of CSR. However, understanding what CSR means to the construction industry, and how to practice it, is limited. This paper develops a framework for CSR indicators relevant to construction enterprises worldwide as a tool for CSR performance. CSR stakeholders are identified through literature review, and these stakeholders are mapped on construction process and corporation to represent stakeholders involved in construction enterprises. Based on stakeholder theory, CSR performance issues related to each stakeholder are developed to show key factors of CSR performance of construction companies, and the indicators are subsequently extracted to reveal specific contents included in these performance issues. The indicator system provides guidance for CSR implementation in the construction industry and enables construction enterprises to assess CSR performance scientifically, which in turn will assist the attainment of business sustainable development. Future research opportunities exist to define a transparent weight system, to investigate the role of contextual factors, and to examine interactions of stakeholders and interactions of indicators in this model Employee well-being, firm leverage, and bankruptcy risk

Corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) is increasingly seen as an imperative for sustainable business and there is a growing literature on the effect of CSR on corporate reputation. Despite this, a pall of ambiguity and uncertainty remains around what CSR means and how it should be practiced. This paper offers a unique addition to the body of literature to date by revealing that CSR is an emerging industry in Australia, which is in the process of developing its own reputation as a set of business practices.

The paper is based on exploratory qualitative research using a case study methodology. Interviews were conducted with key actors within the industry to investigate shared understandings of what CSR means, perceptions of CSR practice and of the industry as a whole, and who is involved in shaping these perceptions. The research revealed that the CSR industry in Australia is in its early stages of development and is therefore in need of increased internal cooperation if it is to develop a strong reputation.

Attracting responsible employees: Green production as labor market screening Employees of liquidating firms are likely to lose income and non-pecuniary benefits of working for the firm, which makes bankruptcy costly for employees. This paper examines whether firms take these costs into account when deciding on the optimal amount of leverage. We find that firms with leading track records inemployee well-being significantly reduce the probability of bankruptcy by operating with lower debt ratios. Moreover, we observe that firms with better employee track records have better credit ratings, even when we control for differences in firm leverage.

Formal intervention in employee health: Comparisons of the nature and structure of employee assistance programs and health promotion programs It is commonly assumed that social capital influences health, but only few studies have examined this hypothesis in the context of the workplace. The present prospective cohort study of 6028 public sector employees in Finland investigated social capital as a workplace characteristic which potentially affects employee health. The two indicators of social capital were trust in the labour market, measured by security of the employment contract, and trust in co-worker support. Self-rated health status and psychological distress were used as indicators of health. The combination of subsidised job contract and low co-worker support (i.e. the lowest category of social capital) was associated with poorer health prospects than the combination of permanent employment and high support (the highest social capital category) in an age-adjusted model, but this association disappeared in logistic regression analysis adjusted by sociodemographic

background factors and baseline health. Fixed-term employment predicted better selfrated health and less psychological distress when compared with permanent employment. Co-worker support was most common in permanent and least common in subsidised employees and it was associated with better self-rated health in women. Our findings suggest only partial support for the hypothesis of work-related social capital as a health resource. Organizational and client commitment among contracted employee In the employee reporting and social and environmental accounting and reporting fields, disputes are commonplace between academics who advocate improvements to reporting as a means of making those who control capital more accountable within capitalism and Marxist writers who see such improvements as possible obstacles to a change to an alternative society. Gramsci's war of position concept, which allows the interpretation of progressive change as valuable per se and as having the potential to create the conditions for advancement to an alternative economy, is proposed as a means of resolving these differences. This argument is illustrated by reference to the UK's trade union learning representative initiative. Social capital in working life and the health of employees Hypotheses based on skill asset arguments and Weberian perspectives of social closure emphasize the role of asset specificity and skill standards in accounting for American employees social policy preferences. The evidence from three waves of General Social Surveys shows that employees with high asset specificity are more likely to support higher social spending, which is consistent with Iversen and Soksice argument. The evidence also supports the skill asset specificity thesis at the occupational level: employees with a high level of specific skill standards compared to general skill standards have stronger incentives to support higher social spending. However, controlling for the denominator effects, the individual asset specificity measure loses its explanatory power, while the effects of occupational asset specificity and general skill standards are robust.

The findings suggest that the level and composition of skill assets at the occupational level are critical for understanding of employees social policy preferences in the era of industrial restructuring.

Effects of employee trainings on the occupational safety and health in accommodation sector This paper describes the development and validation of a measure of organizational investments in social capital (OISC). The scale development process is carried out over three stages (item generation, scale purification, scale validation), with two separate data collection phases involving a total of 735 working adults from multiple and diverse service-related workplace settings. As such, the data provide evidence for the face, content, discriminant, convergent and nomological validity, dimensionality and reliability of the OISC measure. The OISC measure is a concise, unidimensional scale that has the potential for significant usage in the development and testing of theory, as well as practical application in retail and other service provision contexts. The role of corporate reputation and employees' values in the uptake of energy efficiency in office buildings Although loneliness in the workplace has received relatively little attention in the literature, loneliness in the workplace has a negative impact on quality of both work and private life of employees. While some researchers stress on individual antecedents and ignore the organizational factors, studies in psychology and sociology literature found significant relationship between social relationships and loneliness, which is the start point for this study. Therefore, the overall aim of this study was to investigate the effect of social climate (as an organizational level factor) on loneliness of employees (as an individual level factor) and results for employee well-being. This point makes the study a multilevel research which is less studied in workplace psychology literature. In this article, first, existing literature is reviewed about the loneliness in the workplace, organizational climate and employee well-being. Then a research model questioning the relationships among social climate, workplace loneliness and employee well-being is

structured and hypotheses related to the research model are developed in order to answer the research question 1 Is there a relationship between lonelines s of employees and social climate of the organizations? and research question 2 Does loneliness of employees and social climate of the organizations effect employee wellbeing?. In the light of the research questions, hypotheses are tested on the data gathered by questionnaire method including 203 participants from various sectors and different sized companies. Findings support significant relationships among the variables.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is a systematic approach to solve the research problem. It can be considered as a new research is done scientifically. Research methodology has many dimensions and research methods are a part of it. conducting for the first time and thus are original in character. collected by some, which already have through to statistical process. For

Secondary data is

3.1 TYPE OF PROJECT Research is an academic activity and as such the term should be used in a technical issue. According to Clifford Woody research comprises defining and refining problems, formulating hypothesis or suggested solutions, collecting, organizing and evaluating data; making deductions and researching conclusions and at last carefully testing the conclusions to determine whether they fit the formulating hypothesis. 3.2 TARGET RESPONDENTS The results could be skewed because of a small sample size of 50 only. The target respondents were only the MINDA SAIemployees. The main target for the purpose of collecting the sample for the study was to find out competency level of the employees.

3.3 ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions of the study are as follows: The results could be skewed because of a small sample size of 50 only. The employees have better level of competency in the orgainisation.

CONSTRAINTS The constraints of the study are as follows: The time is the major constraints during the study which is stipulated to one month. There may be bias in the collected information. Few respondents were reluctant while answering due to their busy schedule. LIMITATIONS The sample size chosen is covered only a small part of the whole population of minda sai Ltd. The study is confined to limited period. Accuracy of the study is purely based on the information as given by the respondents. Since the employees were very busy in their work load, it took more time for me to get the data. Some of the respondents discussed among themselves before filling the questionnaire. A few respondents were not co-operative.

3.4 PROPOSED SAMPLING METHOD Convenience sampling has been used in this study. Convenience sampling is used for selection of homogeneous sample for the study. It refers to selecting a sample of study objects on convenience. It is a non-probability sampling. This research study may include study objects, which are conveniently located. on convenient sampling however, cannot be generalized. Research findings based

3.5 DATA PROCESSING Data refers to the information or facts. It includes numerical, non numerical, Data collection is very

descriptive facts, qualitative and quantitative information.

essential to study the information, facts, figure that are directly related to the problem that has been formulated. The task of data collection begins after a research problem has been defined and research plan has been decided. The kinds of data collected are:

Primary data Primary data are those which are collected a fresh and for the first time and thus happen to be original in character. Primary data are to be originally collected through questionnaires. Secondary data Secondary data on the other hand, are those which have already been collected by someone else and which have already been passed through the statistical process. The secondary data was collected from company and web sites. In the case of secondary data nature of data collection work is merely that of compilation.

3.6 TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS The statistical tools applied for the study may include Karl-Pearson of coefficient correlation Two way annova One sample run test 3.6.2. TWO WAY ANOVA It is applicable for when the questions is asked two things (difference between rows and columns) Procedure: Step 1:

Setup hypothesis H0: There is no difference between columns. H1: There is some difference between columns. H0: There is no difference between rows. H1: There is some difference between rows. Step 2: Find the Grand total and Correction factor by using Correction factor = Step 3: Calculate SST= [ Step 4: Calculate SSC= Step 5: Calculate SSR= Step 6: Calculate SSE= SST-SSC-SSR Step 7: Form two way ANOVA table respectively. ANNOVA TABLE: Source variation of Sum squares of Degrees freedom of Mean squares F - ratio Ftab value ( ) ( ) ]

Between columns

SSC

C-1

Ftab (v1,v2)

Ftab (v1,v2) Between rows SSR R-1

Error

SSE

(C-1)(R-1)

THE ONE SAMPLE RUN TEST It is a non parametric method to randomness with which the sample items have been selected. The run test, based on the order in which the sample observation is obtained, is a useful technique for testing the null hypothesis Ho that the observation has indeed been drawn at random. The runs test can also be used to detect departures in randomness of a sequence of quantitative measures over time, caused by trends or periodicities. RUN: A run is subsequence of one or more identical symbols representing a

common property of the data. In other words, a run is defined as a set identical (or related) symbols contained between different symbols (such as at beginning or end of the sequence).

Karl-Pearson of coefficient correlation

Correlation may be defined as a tendency interrelation variation and coefficient correlation is the measure of such a tendency, i.e., the degree to which the two variables and integrated is measured by a coefficient which is called the coefficient of correlation, it gives the degrees of correlation.

The relationship between two variables such that a change in one variable results in a positive or negative change in the other variables and also a greater change in one variable result in corresponding greater or smaller change in the other variable is known as correlation. Properties of correlation: 1. It is measure of the closeness of fit in a relative sense. 2. Correlation coefficient lies between -1 and +1. 3. The correlation perfect and positive if r=1 and its perfect and negative if r= -1. 4. If r=0, then there is no correlation between the two variables and thus variables are said to be independent. 5. The correlation coefficient is a pure number and is not affected by a change of origin and scale. 6. It is relative measure of association between two or more variables. Working rule: The coefficient correlation is calculated by the following steps: Step 1: Denote one series by x and other series by y. Step 2: Calculate x and y of the x and y series respectively. Step 3: Take the deviations of the observation in x-series from x and write it under the column dy2. Step 5: Multiply the respective dx and dy and write them under the column headed by dxdy. Step 6: Apply the following formula to calculate r and rxy, the coefficient correlation. r = Ndxdy -dxdy Ndx2-(dx)2 Ndy2-(dy)2 headed by dx = x-x. Step 4: Square these deviations and write them under the columns headed by dx 2 and

4.2. PERCENTAGE ANALYSES

TABLE NO 4.2.1: GENDER GROUP OF EMPLOYEES GENDER MALE FEMALE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 110 0 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 100% 0% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.1: GENDER GROUP OF EMPLOYEES

100%

0% 1 2

INFERENCE From the above table, it is inferred that 100% of respondent are male and 0% of respondent are female.

TABLE NO 4.2.2: AGE GROUP OF EMPLOYEES

AGE BELOW 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 ABOVE 56 TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA)

NO OF RESPONDENT 40 47 15 8 0 110

PERCENTAGE (%) 36% 43% 14% 7% 0% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.2: AGE GROUP OF EMPLOYEES

43% 36%

14% 7% 0% 1 2 3 4 5

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 36% of respondent are below 25, 43% of respondent 25-35, 14% of respondents 36-45, 7% respondent 46-55 and 0%respondens are Above 56.

TABLE NO 4.2.3: QUALIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES

QUALIFICATION 10th STD TECHNICAL DEGREE UNEDUCATED TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA)

NO OF RESPONDENT 29 39 35 7 110

PERCENTAGE (%) 26% 36% 32% 6% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.3: QUALIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES

36% 32% 26%

6%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 26% of respondent are 10thstd, 36 %of respondent are technical, 32% respondent are degree, 6% respondent are uneducated.

TABLE NO 4.2.3: EXPERIENCE OF EMPLOYEES

EXPERIENCE BELOW 2 3-4 5-6 ABOVE 7 TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA)

NO OF RESPONDENT 26 47 21 16 110

PERCENTAGE (%) 24% 43% 19% 14% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.3: EXPERIENCE OF EMPLOYEES

5 14%

19%

2 24%

43%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 24% of respondent are below 2 years of experience, 43% respondent 3-4 years, 19% respondent 5-6 years and 14% of respondent above 7 years.

TABLE NO 4.2.5: MARITAL STATUS

MARTAL STATUS MARRIED UNMARRIED TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA)

NO OF RESPONDENTS 47 63 110

PERCENTAGE (%) 43% 57% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.5: MARITAL STATUS

57% 43%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 43% of respondent married, 57% of respondent unmarried.

TABLE NO 4.2.6: INCOME OF EMPLOYEES (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) INCOME BELOW 5000 5000 TO 10000 ABOVE 10000 TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS 18 56 36 110 CHART NO 4.2.6: INCOME OF EMPLOYEES PERCENTAGE (%) 16% 51% 33% 100%

51% 33% 16%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 16% of respondent are below 5000, 51% of respondent are 5000 to100000, 33% of respondent are 100000.

TABLE NO 4.2.7: FAMILY NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES

FAMILY NUMBERS 3 5 7 ABOVE 7 TOTAL (SOURCE: PIMARY DATA)

NO OF RESPONDENT 28 61 20 1 110

PERCENTAGE (%) 26% 55% 18% 1% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.7: FAMILY NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES

55%

26% 18%

1% 1 2 3 4

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 26% of respondent are 3 numbers, 55% of respondent 5 numbers,18% of respondent are 7 numbers,1% respondent are above 7 numbers..

TABLE NO 4.2.8: FAMILY STATUS OF EMPLOYEES (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) FAMILY STATUS POOR MIDDLE CLASS UPPER MIDDLE CLASS HIGH CLASS TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS 10 75 19 6 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 9% 68% 18% 5% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.8: FAMILY STATUS OF EMPLOYEES

5%

18%

68%

9%

INFERENCE From the above table, it is inferred that 9% of respondent are poor, 68% of respondent are middle class, 18% of respondent are upper middle class, 1% of respondent are high class.

TABLE NO 4.2.9: INTEREST IN SOCIAL ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES

INTEREST LOW MEDIUM HIGH TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA)

NO OF RESPONDENT 10 72 28 110

PERCENTAGE (%) 9% 65% 26% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.9: INTEREST IN SOCIAL ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES

65%

26% 9% 1 2 3

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 9% of respondent are low interest, 65% of respondent are medium interest, 26% of respondent are high interest.

TABLE NO 4.2.10: PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED HANDICAPPED YES NO TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 0 110 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 0% 100% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.10: PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

100%

0% 1

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 0% of respondent are yes, 100% of respondent are no.

TABLE NO 4.2.11: FAMILY AND RELATIVES SUPPORTS FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 26 20 18 29 17 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 24% 18% 16% 26% 16% 100%

CHART NO 4.211: FAMILY AND RELATIVES SUPPORTS

24% 18% 16%

26% 16%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 24% of respondent are strongly disagree, 18% of respondent are disagree, 16% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 26% of respondent are agree, 16% of respondent are strongly agree in family and relatives support is important do social services.

TABLE NO 4.2.12: FAMILYS PEACEFUL AND SUPPORTS FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 12 16 26 31 25 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 11% 14% 24% 28% 23% 100%

CHART NO 4.2. 12: FAMILYS PEACEFUL AND SUPPORTS

28% 24% 11% 14% 23%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 11% of respondent are strongly disagree, 14% of respondent are disagree, 24% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 28% of respondent are agree, 23% of respondent are strongly agree in my family is peaceful and supports me.

TABLE NO 4.2.13: FRIENDS SUPPORT FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENT 11 9 33 37 20 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 10% 8% 30% 34% 18% 100%

(SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) CHART NO 4.2. 13: FRIENDS SUPPORT

30%

34%

18% 10% 8% 2 3 4 5

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 10% of respondent are strongly disagree, 8% of respondent are disagree, 30% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 34% of respondent are agree, 18% of respondent are strongly agree in friends support is important do social services.

TABLE NO 4.2.14: HEREDITY FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 8 17 25 43 17 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 7% 15% 23% 40% 15% 100%

CHART NO 4.2. 14: HEREDITY

40% 23% 15% 7% 1 2 3 4 5 15%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 7% of respondent are strongly disagree, 15% of respondent are disagree, 23% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 40% of respondent are agree, 15% of respondent are strongly agree in heredity plays major role take care of social services.

TABLE NO 4.2.15: INCENTIVES IMPORTANT DO SOCIAL SERVICES FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 4 16 26 47 17 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 4% 14% 24% 43% 15% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.15: INCENTIVES IMPORTANT DO SOCIAL SERVICES

15%

4 24%

43%

3 14%

2 4%

INFERENCE

From the above table it is inferred that 4% of respondent are strongly disagree, 14% of respondent are disagree, 24% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 43% of respondent are agree, 15% of respondent are strongly agree in incentives most important to do social services..

TABLE NO 4.2.16: MINIMUM WORK LOAD HELPS EMPLOYEES ENGAGE IN SOCIAL ACTIVITIES FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 11 11 23 42 23 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 10% 10% 21% 38% 21% 100%

CHART NO 4.2. 16: MINIMUM WORK LOAD HELPS EMPLOYEES ENGAGE IN SOCIAL ACTIVITIES

38% 21% 10% 10% 21%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 10% of respondent are strongly disagree, 10% of respondent are disagree, 21% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 38% of respondent are agree, 21% of respondent are strongly agree in minimum work load helps employees engage in social activities.

TABLE NO 4.2.17: OFFERING PROMOTION IS IMPORVE TO DO SOCIAL SERVICES FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 8 17 31 34 20 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 7% 15% 28% 31% 19% 100%

CHART NO 4.2. 17: OFFERING PROMOTION IS IMPORVE TO DO SOCIAL SERVICES

28% 15% 7% 1 2 3

31% 19%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 7% of respondent are strongly disagree, 15% of respondent are disagree, 28% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 31% of respondent are agree, 19% of respondent are strongly agree in offering promotion is employees improve do social services.

TABLE NO 4.2.18: ALWAYS I KEEP MY ENVIRONMENT AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 9 22 18 31 30 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 8% 20% 17% 28% 27% 100%

CHART NO 4.2. 18: ALWAYS I KEEP MY ENVIRONMENT AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE

28% 20% 8% 17%

27%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 8% of respondent are strongly disagree, 20% of respondent are disagree, 17% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 28% of respondent are agree, 27% of respondent are strongly agree in always I keep my environment as clean as possible.

TABLE NO 4.2. 19: I AM CONSCIOUS ABOUT PERSONAL HEALTH CARE ACTIVITIES FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 14 12 23 40 21 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 13% 11% 21% 36% 19% 100%

CHART NO 4.2. 19: I AM CONSCIOUS ABOUT PERSONAL HEALTH CARE ACTIVITIES

36% 21% 13% 11% 19%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 13% of respondent are strongly disagree, 11% of respondent are disagree, 21% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 36% of respondent are agree, 19% of respondent are strongly agree in I am conscious about personal health care activities.

TABLE NO 4.2.20: ALWAYS I SHOW HUMANISM WITH EVERYBODY FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 10 15 23 33 29 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 9% 14% 21% 30% 26% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.20: ALWAYS I SHOW HUMANISM WITH EVERYBODY

26%

4 21%

30%

3 14%

2 9%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 9% of respondent are strongly disagree, 14% of respondent are disagree, 21% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 30% of respondent are agree, 26% of respondent are strongly agree in always I show humanism with everybody.

TABLE NO 4.2.21: PERSONALITY IS IMPORTANT DO SOCIAL SERVICES FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 10 7 35 40 18 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 9% 6% 32% 37% 16% 100%

CHART NO 4.2. 21: PERSONALITY IS IMPORTANT DO SOCIAL SERVICES

5 16%

37%

32%

6%

9%

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 9% of respondent are strongly disagree, 6% of respondent are disagree, 32% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 37% of respondent are agree, 16% of respondent are strongly agree in personality most important to do social services.

TABLE NO 4.2.22:PHYSICAL STRENTH SUPPORT TO INVOLVE IN SOCIAL SERVICES FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 11 18 18 37 26 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 10% 16% 16% 34% 24% 100%

CHART NO 4.2. 22:PHYSICAL STRENTH SUPPORT TO INVOLVE IN SOCIAL SERVICES

34% 24% 16% 10% 16%

Series1

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 10% of respondent are strongly disagree, 16% of respondent are disagree, 16% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 34% of respondent are agree, 24% of respondent are strongly agree in physical strength support to involve in social services.

TABLE NO 4.2.23: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WILL DO IMPROVE YOUR VALUES FACTOR STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL (SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA) NO OF RESPONDENT 9 10 15 36 40 110 PERCENTAGE (%) 8% 9% 14% 33% 36% 100%

CHART NO 4.2.23: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WILL DO IMPROVE YOUR VALUES

33%

36%

14% 8% 1 9% 2 3 4 5

INFERENCE From the above table it is inferred that 8% of respondent are strongly disagree, 9% of respondent are disagree, 14% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree, 33% of respondent are agree, 36% of respondent are strongly agree in social responsibility will do improve your values.

Statistical tools 1. Karl- Pearson correlation 1. To find out the relationship between family state and interest in social activity. X Y : : 10 10 75 72 19 28 6 0 B=72 dy=Y-B -62 0 -44 -72 -178 4225 0 3136 4761 12122 3844 0 1936 5184 10964 dxdy 4030 0 2464 4968 11462

A=75 X 10 75 19 6 Y 10 72 28 0 Total dx=X-A -62 0 -56 69 -190

N= 4

r = 0.98 (or) 0.97

2. To find out the relationship between marital status and interest in social activities

X Y

: :

47 10

63 72

0 28 A=63 B=72 dy=Y-B -62 0 -44 -106 256 0 3969 4225 3844 0 1936 5780 dxdy 992 0 2772 3764

X 47 63 0

Y 10 72 28 Total

dx=X-A -16 0 -63 -79

N=3

r= 0.465

3. TWO WAY ANNOVA AIM: To find out difference between family and relatives support and friends supports.

Ho: There is no significance difference between family and relative b support and friends supports. H1:There is significance difference between family and relative b support and friends supports

FRIENDS SUPPORT levels FAMILY & RELATIVE SUPPORT Strongly disagree Disagree 3 Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree TOTAL 11 10 33 37 19 110 1 0 6 1 4 1 13 6 7 6 31 14 1 1 0 8 7 6 8 2 2 20 18 6 2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree 13 4 2 27 Agree Strongly TOTAL agree

FRIENDS SUPPORT

levels

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly TOTAL agree

Strongly disagree FAMILY & RELATIVE SUPPORT Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree TOTAL

13

27

Disagree 3

20

18

1 0

6 1

4 1

13 6

7 6

31 14

11

10

33

37

19

110

T = 110 Cumulative frequency (C.F) = C.F = 484 = = 484

We have to find out SST SST = ((6)+(2)(13)+(4)+(2)+(3)+(1)+(8)+(6)+(2)+(1)+(0)+(7)+(8)+(2)+ (1)+(6)(4)+(13)+(7)+(1)+(1)+(6)+(6)) C.F

=( 36+4+169+16+4+9+1+64+36+4+1+0+49+64+4+1+36+16+169+49+1+ 1+36+36+) C.F = SST SSC = = 809-484 322

+-C.F

= SSC SSR = = = SSR SSE = = = SSE =

24.2+20+217.8+273.8+72.2-484 124

*
145.8+80+64.8+192.2+39.2-484 38 SST-SSC-SSR 322 124 38 160

+-C.F

ANNOVA TABLE SV B/W COLUMN B/W ROW Ssr=38 SS Ssc=124 D.F (C-1)=51=4 (r-1)=51=4 ERROR Sse=160 (c-1)(r1)=16 MSE=10 MSR=9.5 FR=9.5/10=0.95 FR=(4,16)=3.01 MS MSC=31 F.RATIO FC=31/10=3.1 F.TABLE FC=(4,16)=3.01

Conclusion: For rows F calculation value < F table value so Ho is accepted. For column F calculation value > F table value so Ho is rejected.

4. TWO WAY ANNOVA

AIM: To find difference between incentive and minimum work load.

Set up hypothesis Ho: There is no significance difference between incentive and minimum work load. H1: There is significance difference between incentive and minimum work load load.

MINIUM WORK LOAD 1 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree INCENTIVES 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL 2 3 3 2 1 11 0 1 5 4 1 11 3 5 4 8 3 23 0 3 7 25 7 42 0 4 7 8 4 23 Agree Strongly agree

TOTAL

27 20 18 31 14 110

FRIENDS SUPPORT Strongly FAMILY & RELATIVE SUPPORT 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL 6 3 1 1 0 11 2 1 0 6 1 10 disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree 13 8 7 4 1 33 4 6 8 13 6 37 2 2 2 7 6 19 Agree Strongly agree

TOTAL

27 20 18 31 14 110

T = 110

N = 25 = = 484

Cumulative frequency (C.F) = C.F = 484

We have to find out SST SST = ((2)+(0)(3)+(0)+(0)+(3)+(1)+(5)+(3)+(4)+(3)+(5)+(4)+(7)+(7)+ (2)+(4)(8)+(25)+(8)+(1)+(1)+(3)+(7)+(4))) C.F

=( 4+0+9+0+0+9+1+25+9+16+9+25+16+49+49+4+16+64+625+64+1+ 1+9+49+16) 484 = SST SSC = = = SSC SSR = = * 809-484 586 +-C.F

24.2+24.2+105.8+352.8+105.8-484 128.8 * +-C.F

= SSR SSE = = = SSE =

5+51.2+135.2+441.8+51.2-484 200.4 SST-SSC-SSR 586 128.8 200.4 256.8

ANNOVA TABLE SV B/W COLUMN SS D.F MS MSC=32.2 F.RATIO FC=32.2/16.05=2.006 F.TABLE FC=(4,16)=3.01

Ssc=128.8 (C1)=51=4

B/W ROW

Ssr=200.4

(r1)=51=4

MSR=50.1

FR=50.1/16.05=3.1214 FR=(4,16)=3.01

ERROR

Sse=256.8 (c1)(r1)=16

MSE=16.05

Conclusion: For rows F calculation value > F table value so Ho is rejected. For column F calculation value < F table value so Ho is accepted.

One sample run test AIM : To find out marital status of the employees Ho H1 : marital status is affect in employee social responsibility : marital status does not affect in employee social responsibility

YYYYYY/N/Y/N/YYY/NNN/YY/N/YY/N/Y/NN/Y/NNN/Y/NNNN/YY/N/Y/NNNN/Y/N NNNNN/Y/NNN/Y/NN/Y/NNNN/Y/NN/Y/NNNN/YY/N/YYYY/N/YY/NNNNN/Y/N/Y Y/NN/YYY/NN/Y/N/YY/N/YYY/NNNNNN/Y/N.

R = 52, = = = = = = = +1

n1 = 47,

n2 = 63

+1 +1

54.836

= = =

5.108

= =

0.555

Decision: Take level of significance = 0.5 Table value 5% = 1.96

Table value (1.96) > calculation value (0.55) so Ho is accepted Statistical tools 1. Karl- Pearson correlation 5. To find out the relationship between family state and interest in social activity. X Y : : 10 10 75 72 19 28 6 0 B=72 dy=Y-B -62 0 -44 -72 -178 4225 0 3136 4761 12122 3844 0 1936 5184 10964 dxdy 4030 0 2464 4968 11462

A=75 X 10 75 19 6 Y 10 72 28 0 Total dx=X-A -62 0 -56 69 -190

N= 4

r = 0.98 (or) 0.97

6. To find out the relationship between marital status and interest in social activities

X Y

: :

47 10

63 72

0 28 A=63 B=72 dy=Y-B -62 0 -44 -106 256 0 3969 4225 3844 0 1936 5780 dxdy 992 0 2772 3764

X 47 63 0

Y 10 72 28 Total

dx=X-A -16 0 -63 -79

N=3

r= 0.465

7. TWO WAY ANNOVA AIM: To find out difference between family and relatives support and friends supports.

Ho: There is no significance difference between family and relative b support and friends supports. H1:There is significance difference between family and relative b support and friends supports

FRIENDS SUPPORT levels FAMILY & RELATIVE SUPPORT Strongly 6 2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree 13 4 2 27 Agree Strongly TOTAL agree

disagree Disagree 3 Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree TOTAL 11 10 33 37 19 110 1 0 6 1 4 1 13 6 7 6 31 14 1 1 0 8 7 6 8 2 2 20 18

FRIENDS SUPPORT levels Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly disagree FAMILY & RELATIVE SUPPORT Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree TOTAL 11 10 33 37 19 110 1 0 6 1 4 1 13 6 7 6 31 14 1 0 7 8 2 18 Disagree 3 1 8 6 2 20 6 2 13 4 2 27 Agree Strongly TOTAL agree

T = 110 Cumulative frequency (C.F) = C.F = 484 = = 484

We have to find out SST SST = ((6)+(2)(13)+(4)+(2)+(3)+(1)+(8)+(6)+(2)+(1)+(0)+(7)+(8)+(2)+ (1)+(6)(4)+(13)+(7)+(1)+(1)+(6)+(6)) C.F

=( 36+4+169+16+4+9+1+64+36+4+1+0+49+64+4+1+36+16+169+49+1+ 1+36+36+) C.F = SST SSC = = = SSC SSR = = = SSR SSE = = = SSE = 809-484 322

*
24.2+20+217.8+273.8+72.2-484 124

+-C.F

*
145.8+80+64.8+192.2+39.2-484 38 SST-SSC-SSR 322 124 38 160

+-C.F

ANNOVA TABLE

SV B/W COLUMN B/W ROW

SS Ssc=124

D.F (C-1)=51=4

MS MSC=31

F.RATIO FC=31/10=3.1

F.TABLE FC=(4,16)=3.01

Ssr=38

(r-1)=51=4

MSR=9.5

FR=9.5/10=0.95

FR=(4,16)=3.01

ERROR

Sse=160 (c-1)(r1)=16

MSE=10

Conclusion: For rows F calculation value < F table value so Ho is accepted. For column F calculation value > F table value so Ho is rejected.

8. TWO WAY ANNOVA

AIM: To find difference between incentive and minimum work load.

Set up hypothesis Ho: There is no significance difference between incentive and minimum work load. H1: There is significance difference between incentive and minimum work load load.

FRIENDS SUPPORT Strongly FAMILY & RELATIVE SUPPORT 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL 6 3 1 1 0 11 2 1 0 6 1 10 disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree 13 8 7 4 1 33 4 6 8 13 6 37 2 2 2 7 6 19 Agree Strongly agree

TOTAL

27 20 18 31 14 110 TOTAL

MINIUM WORK LOAD 1 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree INCENTIVES 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL 2 3 3 2 1 11 0 1 5 4 1 11 3 5 4 8 3 23 0 3 7 25 7 42 0 4 7 8 4 23 Agree Strongly agree

27 20 18 31 14 110

T = 110

N = 25 = = 484

Cumulative frequency (C.F) = C.F = 484

We have to find out SST SST = ((2)+(0)(3)+(0)+(0)+(3)+(1)+(5)+(3)+(4)+(3)+(5)+(4)+(7)+(7)+ (2)+(4)(8)+(25)+(8)+(1)+(1)+(3)+(7)+(4))) C.F

=( 4+0+9+0+0+9+1+25+9+16+9+25+16+49+49+4+16+64+625+64+1+ 1+9+49+16) 484 = SST SSC = = = SSC SSR = = = SSR SSE = = = SSE = * 809-484 586 +-C.F

24.2+24.2+105.8+352.8+105.8-484 128.8 * +-C.F

5+51.2+135.2+441.8+51.2-484 200.4 SST-SSC-SSR 586 128.8 200.4 256.8

ANNOVA TABLE SV B/W COLUMN SS D.F MS MSC=32.2 F.RATIO FC=32.2/16.05=2.006 F.TABLE FC=(4,16)=3.01

Ssc=128.8 (C1)=51=4

B/W ROW

Ssr=200.4

(r1)=51=4

MSR=50.1

FR=50.1/16.05=3.1214 FR=(4,16)=3.01

ERROR

Sse=256.8 (c1)(r-

MSE=16.05

1)=16

Conclusion: For rows F calculation value > F table value so Ho is rejected. For column F calculation value < F table value so Ho is accepted.

One sample run test AIM : To find out marital status of the employees Ho H1 : marital status is affect in employee social responsibility : marital status does not affect in employee social responsibility

YYYYYY/N/Y/N/YYY/NNN/YY/N/YY/N/Y/NN/Y/NNN/Y/NNNN/YY/N/Y/NNNN/Y/N NNNNN/Y/NNN/Y/NN/Y/NNNN/Y/NN/Y/NNNN/YY/N/YYYY/N/YY/NNNNN/Y/N/Y Y/NN/YYY/NN/Y/N/YY/N/YYY/NNNNNN/Y/N.

R = 52, = = = = = = = +1

n1 = 47,

n2 = 63

+1 +1

54.836

= = =

5.108

= =

0.555

Decision: Take level of significance = 0.5 Table value 5% = 1.96

Table value (1.96) > calculation value (0.55) so Ho is accepted

CHAPTER 5 5.1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

100% of respondent are male. 43% of respondent 25-35 age group of employees. 36 %of respondent are technical qualified. 43% respondent 3-4 years experienced. 57% of respondent unmarried. 51% of respondent are 5000 to100000 income group. 55% of respondent 5 numbers in family. 68% of respondent are middle class. 65% of respondent are medium interest in social activity. 100% of respondent are not handicapped. 26% of respondent are agree in family and relatives support is important do social services. 28% of respondent are agree in my family is peaceful and supports me. 34% of respondent are agree in friends support is important do social services. 40% of respondent are agree in heredity plays major role take care of social services. 43% of respondent are agree in incentives most important to do social services. 38% of respondent are agree in minimum work load helps employees engage in social activities. 28% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree in offering promotion is employees improve do social services. 28% of respondent are agree in always I keep my environment as clean as possible. 36% of respondent are agree in I am conscious about personal health care activities. 30% of respondent are agree in always I show humanism with everybody. 37% of respondent are agree in personality most important to do social services 34% of respondent are agree in physical strength support to involve in social services. 36% of respondent are strongly agree in social responsibility will do improve your values.

CHAPTER 5 5.1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 100% of respondent are male. 43% of respondent 25-35 age group of employees. 36 %of respondent are technical qualified. 43% respondent 3-4 years experienced. 57% of respondent unmarried. 51% of respondent are 5000 to100000 income group. 55% of respondent 5 numbers in family. 68% of respondent are middle class. 65% of respondent are medium interest in social activity. 100% of respondent are not handicapped. 26% of respondent are agree in family and relatives support is important do social services. 28% of respondent are agree in my family is peaceful and supports me. 34% of respondent are agree in friends support is important do social services. 40% of respondent are agree in heredity plays major role take care of social services. 43% of respondent are agree in incentives most important to do social services. 38% of respondent are agree in minimum work load helps employees engage in social activities. 28% of respondent are neither agree nor disagree in offering promotion is employees improve do social services. 28% of respondent are agree in always I keep my environment as clean as possible.

 36% of respondent are agree in I am conscious about personal health care activities. 30% of respondent are agree in always I show humanism with everybody. 37% of respondent are agree in personality most important to do social services 34% of respondent are agree in physical strength support to involve in social services. 36% of respondent are strongly agree in social responsibility will do improve your values.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
In the work place policies, it is found that production oil A/C department is not happy about the work-life balance for its employees like flexible working hours or shift timings. This should be taken care by the organization to improve the

motivation level of its employees. The overall satisfaction regards the work place policies is moderate efforts could be taken to improve the same. The HR department is not very much satisfied with the employee participation on important decisions taken by the organization. Employee participation in

important matters will improve their morale & performance. The finance department also feels that the employees are not much encouraged to develop real skills of long term careers encouragement. Training must be provided to the employees to go up in their career path. The marketing department is not satisfied with the way the company has tried to reduce the companys environmental impact in terms of energy conservation, waste minimization and recycling, pollution prevention, protection of natural environment, sustainable transport options etc. They must be trained in these aspects. Almost all the departments are satisfied with the market place policies. The finance department feels that the company is not satisfactorily able to register and resolve complaints from customers, suppliers and business partners. This must be looked into by the organization. The crude cell and shipping department feels that CPCL does not satisfactorily work together with other companies to the industry on common issues. This must be taken care by the company. All the departments are very satisfied with the community and company values. This must be encouraged.

72

5.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY Future studies may be conducted among the employees of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited as to how the practice of Corporate Social Responsibility help in building relationships and their business. Suggestions can also be elicited from the employees as to the areas in which Corporate Social Responsibility can be extended to.

5.4 CONCLUSION

Employees social responsibility is the integral part of company, based on ethical value and respect for employees, community and the natural environment. In this study we found that overall view employees are satisfied but in some areas their expectation not fulfilled. This should be removed through proper effective CSR strategies. Regarding workplace policies all departments are satisfied except production oil A/Cs. In this department flexible timing is the only factor in remark. Through effective motivation, we can counsel the employees to overcome this. There is lack in employees participation. Through HR department they should trained and educate the importance of employees participation in work. In Finance department their expecting the real skills development, this should be encourage through proper training. In marketing department their expecting more effective ways to reduce the environmental impacts. Through proper CSR specialist or consultants this should be overcome. The above said same are recommended to the company for their future effective activities to execute the Corporate Social Responsibility in the company. So, the responsibility of company is to frame the strategies to inculcate the right sense of values reconciling and modifying the values in all areas that built a good reputation word of mouth publicity, customer delight, repeat business and consistent revenue.

Questionnaire
Dear employee I am Mohan doing my MBA (2010-2012) batch 2nd year in SRI RAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE .I am pursing my summer project A STUDY ON THE FACTERS AFFECTING SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES WITH REFERENCE TO DAS INDIA PVT LTD.

Hence, kindly spare your valuable time in responding questionnaire, while would help me to conclude my project in time. The information provided by you, will be kept confidential and it will be used for only academic purpose.

Personal details:

1. Name:

2. Gender:

a. Male

b. Female

3. Age: a. <25 b.25-35 c.36-45 d.46-55 c.>56

4. Qualification: a. 10th std b. technical c. degree

d .Uneducated

5. Experience; a. <2 yrs b. 3 4 yrs c. 5-6 yrs

d. > 7 yrs

1, Marital status

a. Married b. Unmarried

2, Income;

a. below 5000 b. 5000 to 10000 c. above 10000

3. Total family numbers

a.3

b.5 c.7 d .above 7

4. Family status

a. poor b. middle class c. upper middle class d. high class

5. Interest in social activities

a. low b. medium c. high

6. Physically Handicapped

a. Yes b. No

7. I am fulfilled by doing social service with the support of family and relatives a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

8. Belonging to a peaceful family helps me to support social service. a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

9. I am able to do social service with the help of my friends. a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

10. Providing importance to social services comes from heredity.

a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

11. I feel successful in doing social service when I get incentives. a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

12. Minimum work load helps me to engage in social activities.

a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

13. I am most satisfied when I keep my environment as clean as possible. a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

14. Being conscious about personal health care activities is important to me.

a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

15. Showing humanity to everyone provides me happiness. a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

16. I feel personality plays a major role in social services.

a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

17. Physical strength becomes more important to involve in social services. a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree

18.I always think that social responsibility will improve my values.

a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Neither agree nor disagree d) Agree e) Strongly agree