See discussions, stats, and author profiles for esta publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329100543

Measuring corporate social responsibility: a review of the literature (2010-

2017)

Article · July 2018

DOI: 10.14349 / sumneg

CITATIONS READS

0 73

2 authors, Including:

Melissa Lis-Gutierrez
University of Applied and Environmental Sciences
5 PUBLICATIONS one CITATION

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of This Publication Also working on These are related projects:

Social Innovation and Complex Adaptive Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Melissa Lis-Gutierrez on 21 November 2018.

The user has downloaded Requested enhancement of the file.

SUM BUSINESS, 9 (20), XX-XX, July-December 2018, ISSN 2215-910XDoi: https://doi.org/2018.

SUMA BUSINESS

Review article

Measurement of corporate social responsibility: a

review of the literature (2010-2017)
Andrés López Puentesone and Melissa Lis-Gutierreztwo
University Central, Bogotá, Colombia. Mail electronic: APUENTESL@UCENTRAL.EDU.CO. ORCID: 0000-0002-1137-5751.
one

Docentand researcher, University dand science applied Y environmental (UDCA) Bogotá, Colombia. correo theectrónico: melissalis @ UDCA.
two

edu.co. ORCID: 0000-0002-2598-3088.

IN FOR M AC ion RT IC UL OR Esume N

Received May 9, 2018 Accepted This article seeks to establish what forms of measuring corporate social responsibility
June 22, 2018 Online on July 1, (CSR) have been documented in academic literature between 2010 and 2017. From a
2018 preliminary identification of 250 documents related to CSR are a sample was selected 33
articles that explicitly use any classified cation or proposed forms of measurement. It was
JEL codes: possible to determine that the main proposals for this type of measurement are related to
M14, M10, M19, M29, L29 (1) the analysis of reports submitted by companies, and (2) the development of single and
multiple indicators.
SHOVELbras cl BIRD:
corporate social responsibility,
corporate social responsibility,
social responsibility,
indicators of social
responsibility, CSR
measurement.

Measurement Corporate Social Responsibility: A review of the

literature (2010-2017)
ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Social responsibility,
Corporate Social Responsibility,
social responsibility,
social responsibility indicators,
measure of social responsibility.
The objective of esta paper is to Establish the forms of measurement of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Which Have Been documented in the academic literature, Between
2010 and 2017. From a preliminary selection of 250 documents related to CSR, it was semi-
lected to That sample of 32 papers make explicit the use of the classification of the propos -
the forms of measurement. This process has enabled to determine That the main Proposals
for this type of measurement are related to the analysis of the reports presented by the
companies, as well as the formulation of a single and multiple indicators.

© 2018 University Foundation Konrad Lorenz. This is an Open Access article under license CC BY-NC-ND (http: // creativecommons.
org / licenses / by-nc-nd / 4.0 /).
2 SUMA BUSINESS, 9 (20), XX-XX, July-December 2018, ISSN 2215-910X
Introduction
Since the beginning of the XXI century has discussed the
initial ts, evolution and approaches the concept of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) or (RSC) and the importance of its
applicability (Razeg, 2010). Despite the above, although the
need for measurement and impact of CSR emerged in
parallel with the origin of the concept for a century (Cardona
Acevedo, Duke Orozco & Rendón Acevedo, 2013), only
began to materialize since 2010, when companies began to
produce CSR reports, dis- briendo also the problem of how
to measure CSR actions and their impact sufficient and
consistent manner (Stran- dberg, 2010). Today, CSR is a
transcendental topic for researchers such strategic
management because of the difficulties in defining and
measuring (Carroll, Primo &
ANDlCSR concept or RSC, used interchangeably, has been
widely discussed; in 2001 the Commission of the European
Communities Dades (CCE) defined CSR as the situation where
organizations include social and environmental concerns in their
business operations and rela- tions with stakeholders
(stakeholders) of volun character - Tario (European 2001). Later,
Dahlsrud (2008) made an analysis of the concepts and organized
according to five dimensions: environmental, social, economic,
stakehol- ders and the volunteer. Therefore, this self defined CSR
as an emerging field of management, understanding and focused
on meeting the needs of the stakeholders of an organization.
A decade later, in 2011, the CEC updated the concept of
CSR and defined it as the responsibility of enterprises for
their impacts on society (European, 2011). Recently, Guthey
& Morsing (2014) suggested that CSR is best defined as a
stage for the creation of meaning, the plurality of opinions
and discussion on social norms and conflicting expectations
related to business.
Now, in accordance with Pérez Pineda (2012), the
measure- ment of CSR originates in three respects. The first is
associated with the debate about whether the company social
issues must take into account and whether they can be
profitable. The second builds on concerns about the impact
of business, from the perspective of sustainability. Ter- zero
due to the demand of civil society. In turn, this author finds
that the interest of the inclusion ye measuring various actors:
(1) directors of firms, (2) sharehold- tas of the company, who
seek to establish the benefits of financial support for CSR
activities; (3) civil society and (4) governments, who want to
know the social impact of resources for CSR activities.
Por Meanwhile, authors like Diaz Foncea, Marcuello &
Marcuello (2012), in their review of methodologies for analyzing
and measuring the results of socialist companies they concluded
that there are numerous tools to communicate results to
stakeholders. However, caron identified that there is a clear
difficulty in the description and measure- ment of the social impact
of CSR actions. Likewise, Gallardo-Vázquez, Sánchez-Hernández
& Corchuelo-Martinez Azua (2013) argued that it had not found an
adequate measure of the effects of responsibility
social (RS) and that there were scales CSR be located relative
to other momentous strategic variables for businesses. In
addition, De Leaniz & Del Bosque Rodríguez (2013)
concluded that the problems in the measurement of CSR
were due to the complexity of the issue, lack of defi- nition of
the concept and the unreliability of the measurement results.
Regarding the benefits of measuring social value and
impact of the activities of CSR stakeholders, Pa ornescu
( 2 0 1 4 ) s it eñaló C ua t r or p oi n t s main: ( on e ) c ons- truir
reputation, (2) facilitate access to funding opportunities, (3)
ensuring efficient and effective use of re- sources; (4)
motivate employees to achieve objectives.
Meanwhile, Burlakova (2014) states that since the
adoption of the concept of CSR, have constantly tried devel-
rrollar sophisticated and general calculations to measure
results We responsible management of the company.
However, the author also argues that, despite the variety of
techniques, there are flaws in the calculations due to the
divergence of the primary data. Similarly, it confirms that the
indicators should be transparent and comparable.
For all the above is worth doing a review of the
academic literature in depth, in order to established cer
what forms of measurement of CSR that have been
documented in academic literature between 2010 and 2017
are seeking to present a systematization of the main
proposals.
This article will introduce you to the community ways of
measuring CSR, by classification and synthesis. Likewise, it
is expected that this work will help stakeholders
(shareholders, owners, suppliers, customers and so- ciedad
in general) to determine what the alternatives are to perform
a measurement of CSR within an organization of and choose
from the various options.
To meet the above, the methodology is not experimental
and longitudinal descriptive, qualitative approach, since it
corresponds to a review of the literature between 2010 and
2017, from a protocol inclusion and exclusion of documents.
This study started from an initial semi lesson 250 articles
associated with the issue of CSR subsequently identified 33
including measuring its forms.
The work is divided into three sections. Prime-ra in the
methodology is presented. In the second results organized
into two subsections (1) in which cat- egories forms CSR
measurement is grouped; (2) main proposals for the
measurement of CSR, according to the substantial
literature between 2010 and 2017. In the third part the
conclusions.
Methodology
This paper describes the methodology used is not
experimental criptivo un- type of qualitative approach, and
dinal lengths as they reviewed within the academic literature
ways to measure CSR between 2010 and 2017, then
synthesize and categorize the findings. Gaede & Rowlands
(2018) emphasize that the revisions are enriching for com-
bine and concentrate extensive range of research,
highlighting findings and guiding others in the future.
 SUMA BUSINESS, 9 (20), XX-XX, July-December 2018, ISSN 2215-910X
This study started from an initial selection of 250
articulated those associated with the issue of CSR; later, 33
were identified including ways of measuring CSR. The
protocol followed Perestelo-Perez (2013) and included: (1)
identification of field of study, subject and period to be
analyzed; (2) the formulation of the problem; (3) the
definition of criteria for Trouble- information; (4) selection of
references and studies; (5) critical reading; (6) extraction of
relevant information and data; (7) the analysis and synthesis
of evidence hundred- typhimurium (Lis-Gutierrez, Lis-
Gutierrez, Viloria, Gaitan-Angulo & Balaguera, 2016).
The selection of references and studies followed Lis-
Gutié- rrez et al. (2018) Lulewicz-Sas (2017):
n
Pi (TO B) = Σ pi (TO B)
i=
1
Pi ( TO| B) = one if TO ∈ ARTi ΛB art i
0 if TO Ï ARTi B Ï ARTi
0 if TO ∈ ARTi B ∉ ARTi
0 if TO ∉ ARTi B ∈ ARTi
Where:
P(TO B): Set of items that meet the con- conditions A
and B.
Pi ( TO B): Article selection probability from ia conditions
A and B.
i: number of scientific papers (i = 1, 2, ..., n).
A: set of words in the search equation in the title or
SUMMARY1.
B: condition publication period (2010-2017).
ARTI: conjunto of articles in access open qEU cumple with
tol less ato of thes cONDITIONS TO or B.
For five six phases critical reading, and extraction of
relevant data and information documents were part of the
sample were selected, but included in its WELL Nor
contained forms of measurement of CSR.
results
In this study two types of work were identified: (1)
proposing a grouping or categorization of the ways to
measure CSR; (2) formulating indicators to measure CSR.
Below is each of the work of the two categories identified.
Categorization of ways to measure CSR
In the words of Koerber (2010), may be more than 300
standards covering different aspects of behavior and
corporate responsibility. As a result, it was noted in the
review article an effort to categorize and / or mixing different
forms
1 title-ABS-KEY ( "social corporate responsibility") OR title- ABS-KEY (
"CSR") OR TITLE-ABS- KEY ( "CSR") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (
"Corporate Social Responsibility ")).
3
measurement. Then the proposals identified in recent years
to categorize or classify the ways to measure CSR relate.
CarMrs A c e v e do a n d t to L. (2 0 1 3 ) f o rm e r plican q EU
d ada l to fa l t aregulation and control to business organizations
and its impact on society, has promoted a sufficient number of
technical standards Cre, reports, certifications and reports to
perform and communicate CSR programs. However, De Leaniz &
Del Bosque Rodriguez (2013) state that in academic literature there
is no consensus on the measurement of CSR because of the large
number of investi- gations on this subject.
According to research Maignan & Ferrell (2000), three
main approaches to measuring the commitment of
companies to fulfill their social responsi- bilities were
identified: (1) expert evaluation; (2) only indicators and / or
multiple and (3) surveys managers. Meanwhile, Blowfield
(2007) describes what is known about the impacts of CSR
comes from three main sources: (1) case studies, (2) CSR
reports of individual companies and (3) lificaciones CA-
companies . There are also reports that documented perience
the progress of the undertakings par- lares associations;
reports on particular resources or facilities. In addition, there
are reports tracking par- lares aspects of CSR.
Turker (2009), extending the classification of Maignan &
Ferrell (2000) suggested five categories for grouping
methodologies to measure CSR: (1) reputation indexes or
databases, (2) indicators of problems, (3) conte- analysis
reports nest (4) scales measuring CSR indi- vidual level and
(5) scales measuring CSR organizational level. Ebrahim &
Rangan (2010) classify the proposals to measure social
performance in six ways: (1) expected return, (2)
experimental methods, (3) logic models,
(4) strategic approach, (5) participatory methods and based
on relationships and (6) integrated approaches. No Obs-
tante, jobs are mainly categorized enfo- ed in non-profit
organizations.
On the other hand, Marimon, Alonso-Almeida, Alejandro
Rodríguez & Cortez (2012) classify CSR standards: (1)
regulatory structures, (2) guidelines and (3) admin- istrative
systems. The classification is made taking into account the
disclosure of environmental, social and ethical issues. In his
review, Pérez Pineda (2012) proposes a typology to
concentrate the various ways of measuring CSR in three Gru
pos: (1) management models, (2) profitability models and (3)
performance models in them summarizes the variety of al-
ternatives. However, work is not proportionate na
measurement methodology CSR.
From another perspective, De Leaniz & Del Bosque
Rodríguez (2013) found six viable approaches to measure-
ment of CSR: (1) indices reputation, (2) databases,
(3) iNDICATORS aICOS Y multi ples, (4) análisi s of
cONTENT of p ublications, (5) surveys to m ember of l to
organization of Y , (6 ) scale s of p erception de via tion. A ceí
m y Saint, Pai r do Herras- you, Paredes Gázquez & Dand lto
Cet up Gonzalez (twentyfifteen) to liston five shapes of
measurements pairto lto RS, iss son: (one) cuestiona- rios of
questions cerroneous, (two) measurements of
comportamiento and perceptuales, (3) measurements
indirectas to trbirds of toproxima- tions aidimensionales, (4)
agencias of Rating Y (5) technic decision multicriterio.
4 SUMA BUSINESS, 9 (20), XX-XX, July-December 2018, ISSN 2215-910X

Galant & Cadez (2017) summarize and group approaches

Analysis reputation indexes
in the literature to measure CSR also the list by frequency of
use: (1) indices reputation, (2) content analysis, (3) surveys Galant & Cadez content
based on questions - rivers and (4) dimensional (2017) Unidimensional questionnaire surveys
measurements. In Table 1 are presented ta summarizes
Measures
studies found.
Source: own calculations based on Maignan & Ferrell (2000), Blowfield
Table 1 - Summary of proposals for classifying measure- (2007), Turker (2009), Ebrahim & Rangan (2010), Marimon et al. (2012),
ments RSE Pérez Pineda (2012), De Leaniz & Del Bosque Rodriguez (2013), Pardo
Herrasti et al. (2015), Galant & Cadez (2017)
Auth Classification measures RS
or Proposals for a form of measurement
Expert evaluations single /
Maignan & Ferrell
(2000) and Ferrell multiple surveys Indicators This document takes into account the classification
(2000)
Case studies CSR Reports defined by De Leaniz & Del Bosque Rodriguez (2013), pues-
to which it can be grouped as much by proposals found in
Corporate ratings
the review.
Blowfield (2007) Databases

Reputational indices or databases Indicators

Content analysis of publications
single and multiple analysis report content
One of the ways most referenced in the literature to
issues
measure CSR is through the preparation, presentation and
Measurement scales to indicate level CSR
analysis of reports or reports of RS. Fraile & Fradejas (2012)
vidual
Turker (2009) asserted that the publication of CSR reports increases since
Measurement scales CSR ganizational level
the citizen has also increased sensitivity towards social and
organ-
environ- such problems. On content analysis reports or
expected return
reports of RS, Galant & Cadez (2017) mention that usually
Experimental methods (randomized controlled involves the delimitation of the constructs, finding
trials) information and classification of information for converting
strategic approach logic qualitative data into quantitative.
models Friar & Fradejas (2012) stated that sustainability reporting
can be considered as the primary re- ferent in the
participatory methods and based on the re-
Ebrahim & Rangan informational component, impac- related to economic, social
lations
(2010) and environmental to an organization. In this regard,
Structures integrators
Mercadé-Melé, Pinwheel & Fernández-Morales (2017)
regulatory approach claimed that the medium used to communicate al Guna CSR
guidelines activity influences the perception of CSR. It is for this reason
that companies perform better, are more likely to ensure
Administrative
their reports to TRA see an independent third party (Braam
Marimon et al.
management systems & Peeters, 2018).
(2012)
On the analysis of CSR reports, Almendros, Anke &
Models Models Models
Valdes (2013) stated that use a small, easily understandable
Performance Performance river vocabularies. However, they can be tedious and
Pérez Pineda (2012) Databases redundant. In this regard, Nazari, Hrazdil & Mahmoudian
(2017) proposed measure obfuscation disclosure reports of
Reputational indices single and
CSR. They concluded that greater disclosure and clarity of
multiple indicators CSR reports cia is associated with better performance CSR.
Content analysis of publications Surveys Regarding how to analyze reports, De Jong & Van der
Of Leaniz & Del Meer (2015) proposed five criteria for the identification and
members of the organization of perception
Bosque Rodriguez analysis of the activities reported in the annual CSR reports.
(2013) Scales The criteria were: (1) society benefits activity, (2) the activity
Questionnaires closed questions must be performed voluntarily, (3) the activity should not be
required by law, (4) the activity must be concrete, (5)
Behavioral and perceptual measures
organization itself should participate in the activity.
Indirect measures through one-dimensional However, re- search focuses on knowing whether CSR
approximations
activities were aligned or were consistent with the business
Agencias dand rating activities of the organizations.
Herrasti Pardo et
al. (2015) Multicriteria decision techniques
 SUMA BUSINESS, 9 (20), XX-XX, July-December 2018, ISSN 2215-910X
Continuing the way to analyze the reports of RS, Barrena-
Martínez, López-Fernández & Romero-Fernandez (2017)
addressed the measurement of the RS from human resource
policies, using analysis of reports of RS and two international
standards for measure the RS (GRI and ISO 26000) in order
to validate a number of socially responsible policies of
human resources. This model limits the analysis, although it
can be adapted to measure other policies within the
organization.
single and multiple indicators
Secondly, it was identified that the indicators are one of
the most widely used measurement of RS, about, &
Rodríguez-Hurtado (2012) González Luna-mentioned given
the need to measure CSR actions and results approaches ,
companies must define their objec- tives through indicators
identified below proposals relate.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (2008) made a clear and concise guide to
building CSR reports and indicators. The guide presents ca-
ity criteria, guiding principles and restrictions for selection of
basic indicators that can be succinct and confrontables.
Vitezić (2010) investigated the measurement system of
indicators of CSR in the pharmaceutical industry with a
critical analysis; subsequently he unified and established a
model of indicators for the pharmaceutical sector socially
responsible. The moderate the measurement is composed of
19 metrics to the yield of the pharmaceutical sustainability,
grouped into four categories: human, social, environmental
and economic.
The Spanish Association of Accounting and Business
Administration (2010) proposed a set of indicators for CSR
and corporate governance (CG) that can be used to assess
practices in these fields. Similarly, it develop- ment the
central scoreboard CSR (CSI-RSE) and classified in economic,
social and environmental. It is a multidimensional proposal
and its applicability to di- fferent sectors can provide
relevant information.
Focacci (2011) inspired by the principles of the triple
bottom line, he raised a quantitative synthetic method for
measuring and comparing the overall rate of corporate social
responsibility (TGRSC) of a company based on the
composition of economic, financial, biental am- information
and indexes of social values. The function is TGRSC = f (E, A,
S). It is a linear function that combines aspects economically
cos (E), environmental (A) and social (S), construction za
reali- based on the selection and classification of other indica-
tors; then they synthesized into a single expression. The main
limitation of the method is the lack of standard information
to be integrated directly. In addition, the proposal is general
and does not formulate indicators to expose peculiarities.
Then Luna-González & Rodríguez-Hurtado (2012) plan-
tearon a new model from the classic indicators of CSR as part
of the three-dimensional sostenibi- ity (environmental,
economic and social). The model in- cludes indicators that
aim to assess the importance of territory where company-
rial activities are developed. The proposal allows
contextualize the indicators in a local environment, adapting
to the needs par- lares of each region.
5
Rahman & Post (2012) develop a clear measure of
environmental corporate social responsibility based strictly
on information available to the general public (RSCA).
However, the author raised a dichotomy between RSCA and
the concept of CSR, since high levels of CSR does not equate
to high levels of RSCA. The proposal captures the most
important features of the RSCA and crosses inconvenienced
you with the convergence validity, discriminant and reliable.
The composite index was based on the ECSR measure
Clarkson, Li, Richardson & Vasvari (2008) and reiterative
spanned six categories in the concept of RSCA; the weighting
system included 22 points on topics such as governance
structure, credibility, environmental performance indicators.
The topics are grouped according to the allocation in the
index GRI guidelines. Finalmen- you, the instrument
proposes four possible scores RSCA: RSCA-general RSCA-
governance, RSCA-credibility, RSCA- environmental
performance.
Autores c om or G a ll a rdo-Vazquez an d t to L. (2013) rthey
ealizaron and they validated ato iscreek dand medidto for
lto it ADOPTION n dand RS, in- corporando tres bases
Teoricas dand análisis (It DIMENSIONn it econo- mica, memberl
Y medioambiental). ANDn its validation, the andstudio set
causal relationships between the RS and other variables such as
innovation, performance and competitive success.
GANGONE & Ganescu (2014) created a model to
evaluate CSR based on the theory of stakeholders, with this
the National Satisfaction Index stakeholders (INSI), which
defines 26 indicators to measure the expectations built
interest groups. Also they concluded that there is a
correlation between INSI and Human Develop- ment Index.
Burlakova (2014) proposed a model based on the rating
factors of CSR and current development model, the rating
factors take into account the actual data of a company
compared with the best results in the industry, and the
coefficient of development estimates the incre- ment in
company performance compared to previous periods.
Similarly, Janamrung & Issarawornrawanich (2015)
construct an index of RSC data from the CA- fication KLD
and RSC guide of civil society rativa Responsibility Institute
corpo- Stock Exchange Thai- land, methodology It covered
three components of CSR (community, employees and
environment) and consisted of 25 items. CSR practices of
companies were rated using data from public information
sources. Then the CSR Index figures are calculated by
dividing the sum total of the actual scores for each category
of the maximum total score of the corresponding category.
ACEt
The formula is: CSRInd =
t
MS
CSRInd = CorpMADMAN S OCIAL Responsibility Index,
Donde:
TOS = ActuaL score, and MS = Maximum score
If you do not have the information of an organization, the
results are negative, regardless of their CSR activities.
6 SUMA BUSINESS, 9 (20), XX-XX, July-December 2018, ISSN 2215-910X

To measure the degree of information RS, Bonsón & Bed-
Narova (2015) developed an index that took place emplean-
do AECA indicators, which is calculated according to the
information reported in sustainability reporting and consists
of 26 indicators divided into three groups: environ- mental,
social and corporate governance. Recognizing that the
primary information comes from reports sostenibi- ity, it
means that there is a bias in other dimensions such as social
and economic.
Por OTRor side, Pinto-Ferreira, Ortigueira, Gómez, Louridor &
Areal (2015) propose ato It función dand Inde xand Econòmicor
SWs- tainable (FIE) based andn tres tosPECTS dand lto
production sustain- table, production, medior tonvironment Y
sociAge ofSDE lto Beholdto economic.For it emphasizes the
obligation to design a Sustainable Manufacturing System (SMS),
involving economic and ecological constraints, using production
variables, environment and society, to maximize efficiency and
environmental balance. The proposed function is: SUSTAINABL and
EIF = α * production EIF + β * environmetal EIF + γ * Social EIF
Donde ( , , ) son andl pesor of cada component in andl
process of toma of decisions. Sand consideran variables as
matwastelands, Energy, Water, beefiduals Sungone,
emissions, employees, providers Y cONSUMER.
Carroll a n d t to L. (2 0 16 ) post ul a t e on l to measure D -
S O CI A L -K L D,
dynamic study of responsibility / social cor- porate
performance with IRT Analytics. The design model is
focused on con- utility or benefit that a company receives to
implement a particular policy concerning CSR, using item
response theory (IRT).
Later, Jimenez Martinez & Lopez (2016) post-tularon a list
of indicators of the RS in the field of university (RSU); the
proposal is made based on the Guide for preparing
sustainability reports of GRI. The proposal develops general
to PARTICULAR, individualize the signs to the field of edu-
cation, specifically the university. Likewise, Sánchez-
Hernández & Mainardes (2016) propose a model to measure
the RSU using existing tados constructs and adapted to the
context of higher education institutions (IES). The measure
comprises 29 indicators divided into three constructs: (1)
orientation accountability,
(2) orientation programs responsible for education, (3)
guidance to responsible research programs.
From another perspective, Latif (2017) developed a
measurement scale for RSU, through the identification of key
determinants. The study concluded that the RSU has seven
dimensions: operational responsibilities, R &
stakeholders, legal, ethical, philanthropic involvement pica,
and community involvement. These studies reveal a deep
interest in measuring the social impact of the universities in
society, noting that the uni- versity organization has a
responsibility to the community in general.
Subsequently, Wuttichindanon (2017) developed an
assembly of CSR indices to estimate disclosure, the indices
are composed from three sources: KLD index, SCIRI and
Janamrung & Issarawornrawanich (2015). It also ensures that
the five main CSR disclosures according to 43 indices were:
rights concerns
human and equality, have a policy against corruption,
generous donations, health and safety at work, proficiency
training, among others.
United Nations (2018) developed a con- stock index
tituido by a group of companies. The model is based on the
ten principles of the Global Compact promoted by the UN
(human rights principles on borales la- standards on
environment and governance). The model relates corporate
performance on environmental, social and governance issues
with a requirement of profitability.
Other measurement proposals
Martinez, Pérez & Rodríguez del Bosque (2013) devel-
rrollan a scale of perception of CSR in the tourism sector
from the perspective of sustainable development, the
indicators formulated after a review of the literature and
qualitative research. The instrument was developed,
following the methodology of Churchill (1979). However, the
study is focused on the tourist industry accommodation,
therefore, is not generalizable to the entire industry and
other sectors.
Jonikas (2014) expresses a conceptual framework for
measuring the value created by CSR, the model takes into
account the alternative value measurement of economic,
legal, ethical and corporate philanthropy, and exam- ines the
characteristics of value shared. The model posits 33 questions
and multidimensional measures, where mixing different
types of methods (surveys, indicators, statistics, analysis).
The conceptual framework encompasses the different
dimensions of CSR is clear and synthesized chalk concerns of
stakeholders, the objec- tives and how to measure them.
Morioka, Evans & Carvalho (2016) propose a
comprehensive framework to measure the performance of a
sustainable business model (SBM) harmonizing performance
prism with the business components of the value
proposition. How- ever, research shows a bias in the data
recopi- sides and reports originating from autodeclarados
companies, also, the information is limited as companies do
not report many activities. Table 2 shows the measurement
proposals CSR are synthesized.
Discussion and Conclusions
Sand observed in the literature that several proposals have
been made to measure CSR. These involve content analysis,
reputation indices, indicators (single or mul- tiple), among others,
D,
the majority has reviews and constraints (Garcia-Vazquez et al.,
2013). The results of this articulated are a starting point in the
debate on the formulation of new ways to measure CSR.
Reviewing ways to measure CSR group them mainly
allowed two types: CSR reports and indicate single and
multiple ers. This classification shows that there are a
number of proposals and batteries indica- tors, however,
efforts to standardize them have had no effect, highlighting
the sustainability reports of GRI.
 SUMA BUSINESS, 9 (20), XX-XX, July-December 2018, ISSN 2215-910X
Table 2 - Summary of proposals for measuring RSE
Classification Autho
r
Nazari andt to the. (twenty17)
Content analysis of De Jong & Van der Meer (2015)
publications
Bit-Martinez, Lopez-Fernandez-
Fernandez & Romero (2017)
The United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (2008)
Vitezić (2010)
Spanish Association of Accounting and
Business (2010)
Focacci (2011)
Luna-González & Rodríguez-Hurtado (2012)
Rahman & Post (2012)
Gallardo-Vazquez andt to the. (2013)
GANGONE & Ganescu (2014)
Indicators
Burlakova (2014)
single and multiple
Janamrung & Issarawornrawanich (2015)
Bonsón & Bednárová (2015)
pinto-Ferreira andt to L. (2015)
Carroll andt to L. (2016)
Jimenez López & Martinez (2016)
Sanchez-Hernandez & Mainardes (2016)
Latif (2017)
Wuttichindanon (2017)
United Nations (2018)
Martínez andt to L. (2013)
Other proposals
Jonikas (2014)
measurement
I diedoka andt to the. (2016)
Source: Prepared based Nazari et al. (2017), Auger-Mar- Tinez et al.
(2017), United Nations Conference on Trade and Develo- pment
(2008), Vitezić (2010), Spanish Association of Accounting and
Business Administration (2010), Focacci (2011), Luna-Gonzalez &
Rodriguez-Hurtado (2012) Rahman & Post (2012), Garcia-Vazquez et
al. (2013), GANGONE & Ganescu (2014), Burlakova (2014),
Janamrung & Is- sarawornrawanich (2015), Bonsón & Bednárová
(2015), Pinto-Ferreira et al. (2015), Carroll et al. (2016), Jones et al.
(2016), Sanchez-Hernandez
The article shows that & in Mainardes (2016), aLatif
recent literature
theoretical
Wuttichindanon (2017), United Nations (2018), Martinez et al. (2013),
development on wayset to
Jonikas (2014), Morioka measure CSR is no evidence, but
al. (2016).
reports are still the main way to measure it in business.
Proposals stand where CSR analyzes of human resources
policies and ongoing standardization effort indicators such
as the GRI and ISO 26000 standards.
About the only measures or indicators it shows that the
main advantage is the availability of data and comparability
(Galant & Cadez, 2017). However, its disadvantage is that
focus on a single dimension of CSR, which is incompatible
with CSR approaches set out the multi tidimensionalidad
concept.
7
As regards future research, it would
great interest to delve into the ways to measure the im-
pact or the results of CSR in the different stakeholders in
order to validate whether the actions of CSR companies meet
their CSR targets paths. Another issue of relevance is to
encourage proposals to facilitate the adoption of standards in
small businesses and developing coun- tries.
REFERENCES
To themendros, C. P., Ankand, L. AND. & GoesLDES, R. T. (2013).
Corporate SW- official responsibility in the IBEX 35: A corpus-
based study of CSR reports. Social and proceeded-Behavioral
Sciences, 95, 612-620. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.689
Spanish Association of Accounting and Administration Em-
prey. (2010). Standardization of information on corporate
social-responsibility response (Document 7-Corporate Social
Responsibility Committee). Madrid: AECAE.
Barrena-Martinez, J., Lopez-Fernandez, M. & Romero-Fernández,
PM (2017). Socially responsible human resource poly- cies and
practices: Academic and professional validation. Euro- pean
Research on Management and Business Economics, 23 (1), 55-61.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2016.05.001
BLowfield, M. (2007). Reasons to be cheerful? What we Know About
CSR's impact. Third World Quarterly, 28 (4), 683-695.
Bonsón, E. & Bednárová, M. (2015). CSR reporting practices of
Eurozone companies. Journal of Accounting Accounting Journal, 18
(2), 182-193.
Braam, G. & Peeters, R. (2018). Perfor- mance and corporate
sustainability assurance on sustainability reports: Diffusion of
accounting practices in the realm of sustainable Develop- ment.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man- agement,
25 (2), 164-181.
Burlakova, Y. M. (2014). Assessing tI have development of
corporate social responsibility based on the monitoring of the
direct impact on the territory of indicators presence. Pro- Aktual'Ni
lemy Ekonomiky = Actual Problems of Economics, 162, 290-298.
Acevedo Cardona, M., Duke Orozco, YV & Rendón Acevedo, J.
TO. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility: theories, indexes,
standards and certifications. Notebooks Administration, 29 (50),
178-206.
Carroll, R. J., Primo, D. M . & RIchter, B. K. (2016 ) . using
It em em re- sponse Improve measurement theory to maintain
agement in strategic research: An application to re- sponsibility
corporate social. Strategic Management Journal, 37 (1), 66-85.
Clarkson, PM, Li, Y., Richardson, GD & Vasvari, FP (2008). Revisiting
the relation Between Environmental Performance and
environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Ac- counting
Organizations and Society, 33 (4-5), 303-327.
Churchill, GA (1979). A paradigm for developing better mea- sures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research Journal of
(2017),
Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64.
DahlsrYou, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is de- Fined:
An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsi- bility and
Environmental Management, 15 (1): 1-13.http: // dx.doi. org /
10.1002 / csr.132 doi: 10.1002 / csr.132
Dand Jong, M. D. T. & Goesn der meer, M. (2015). how does it
fit? Former- ploring the congruence Between Organizations and
Their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Journal of
Business Ethics. 143 (1), 71-83. SpringerLink recovered. com: http:
//purl.utwente.nl/publications/96750 doi: 10.1007 / s10551-015-
2782-2
Dand Leaniz, P. M. G. & Ofl Bosquand Rodríguez, I. R. (2013).
Revistheoretical ion of the concept Y strategys of
measurement of lto respsibility on- memberl corporate.
Prisma Social, oneone, 321-350.
Dayz Feleven to, M., Marcuelthe, C. & Marcuelthe, C. (2012).
Companysocial s Y evaluation of the impact Social. Review
of EcPublic onomía, Social Y Cooperational, 75, 179-198.
Ebrahim, A. & Rangan, VK (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact:
A contingency framework for measuring social performance.
Recovered fromhttp://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/10-099.pdf
 8 SUMA BUSINESS, 9 (20), XX-XX, July-December 2018, ISSN 2215-910X
European, C. (2001). Green paper: Promoting a European frame-
work for corporate social responsibility (presented by the
Commission). Luxembourg: EUR-OP.
European, C. (2011). A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-14 for corpo-
rate social responsibility: the European Commission to Par-
liament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Recovered
fromhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=-
COM: 2011: 0681: FIN: EN: PDF
Focacci, A. (2011). Corporate social responsibility performance
assessment by using a linear combination of key indicators Journal
of Business Governance and Ethics, 6 (2), 183-202.
Friar, I. TO. & Fradejas, N. TO. (2012). Gobierno corporate Y
rditing in- dand cUDITORS: ¿Existe algún andfect SWbre lto
performance business? ReviSt. dand Accounting, 15 (1), one43-
178. doi: https: // doi.org/10.1016/S1138-4891(12)70041-9
Gaede, J. & Rowlands, I. H. (2018). Visua liz in g member l
a cceptance research: TO bibliometric review orF thand
memberl acceptance liter- ature For Energy technology and
Fuels. AND RSES EnergY Research & Social scienEC, 40, 142-158.
Galant, TO. & Cadez, S. (2017). Corporate memberl responsibilitY
and financial performance relationship: A review of measure-
ment Approaches. Ekonomska istrazivanja, 30.
Gallardo-Vazquez, D. Sanchez-Hernandez, MI & Corchue- lo-
Martinez-Azua, MB (2013). Validation of a measuring instrument
for the relationship between orientation to corporate social respon-
sibility and other strategic variables of the company. Accounting
Review, 16 (1), 11-23. doi: https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / S1138-4891
(13) 70002-5
GANGONE, A.-D. & Ganescu, M.-C. (2014). Corporate memberl
respon- sibility in Emerging and developing economheis in
Central and Eastern Europe-a measurement modthe from
thand stakeholder theory perspective. Economic Research-
Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 27 (1), 539-558.
Guthey, E. & Morsing, M. (2014). CSR and the emer- gence of mediated
strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Ethics, 120 (4), 555-569.
Janamrung, B. & Issarawornrawanich, P. (2015). Thand
association Between social corporate responsibility perfor-
mance index and of firms in industry products and resources indus-
tries: empirical evidence from Thailand. Social Responsibility
Journal Social Responsibility Journal, 11 (4), 893-903.
Jimenez, CG, Martinez, AG & Lopez, MA (2016). Pro- posal of
indicators of university social responsibility in accordance with GRI
G4 Guide: The Case of the University of Córdoba. CIRIEC- Españaa
Journal of Public, Social and Cooperative, 87 (1), 103-137.
Jonikas, D. (2014). ValEU created through CMR measurement
pos- sibilities. S B S PRO P r o cedia - S o c i a l a n d B e h a v i o r a l
s c i e n ces, 156, 189-193.
Koerber, C. P. (2010). Corporate responsibilitY standards: current
implicaciones and futurand possibilitheis For peace through
com- merce. J o u r n a l o r F B u s i n ess Ethics, 4 6 1 - 4 8 0 . d oi:
1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 5 5 1 - 010-0397-1
Latif, K. F. (2017). Thand development and validation orF er-
based stakehold- scale for measuring social university
responsibil- ity (USR). Social Indicators Research, (2), 1-37. doi:
https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / s11205-017-1794-y
Lis-Gutierrez, J.-P., Lis-Gutierrez, M., Viloria, A., Gaitan-Angulo,
M. & Balaguera, M. I. (2016). Main failurand Factor RHE in
technol- ogy cons Ortia. Int ernat ion a l Jour nal or F Control
Th Eory and Appli- cations, 9(44), 395-399.
Lis-Gutiérrez, J. P., Gaitan-Angulo, M., Bouza, C., Balaguera,
MY.Lis-Gutierrez, M., Bthe train, C. & Aguilera-Hernandez, D.
(2018). Text Mining topplied to literaturand orn itsstainable itspply
chains (1996- 2018). MyI peed.
Lulewicz-Sas, A. (2017). Corporate social responsibility in the light of
management science Bibliometric analysis. Engineering came came
Engineering, 182, 412-417.
Luna GONZALez, J. P. & Rodrig uez-Hurtado, AND . (2012). It
am pliación thes posibilidades dand usor dand thes indiers
dand responsity Abi- memberl corporate. DynTO DynTO (Spain),
87(5), 558-565. doi: http: //dx.doi.org/10.6036/4586
View publication stats
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, OR. C. (2000). measuring corporate
citizship in- in two countries: The case of the United States and
France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23 (3), 283-297.
Marimon, F., TOlonso-Almeida, M. d. M., Rodríguez, M. d. P. & Cor-
complexion Alejandro, KA (2012). The worldwide diffusion of the
Global Reporting Initiative: what is the point? JCLP Journal of
Cleaner Production, 33, 132-144.
Martínez, P., Pérez, TO. & Rodríguez of the Bosquand, I. (2013).
measur- ing corporate memberl responsibility in tourism:
Development and validation of ton Efficient measurement
scayou in tI have hos- pitality industry. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 30 (4), 365-385.
Mercadé-Melé, P., grinder, S. & Fernández-Morales, A. (2017). The
influence of the types of media on the formation of per- ceived CSR.
Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, 21, Supplement 1, 54-64. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjme.2017.04.003
Morioka, S. N., Evans, S. & carvalho, M. M. d. (2016). Sustainable
Business model inNovation: Formerploring evidences in
sustain- Ability repOrting. Procedia CIRP, 40 659-667.
Nazari, JA, Hrazdil, K. & Mahmoudian, F. (2017). Assessing social and
environmental performance through narrative complexity in CSR
reports. JCAE Journal of Contemporary Ac- counting & Economics,
13 (2), 166-178.
Pairdo Herrasti, E., Paredes Gázquez, JD & Gon Zalez the Cuesta, M.
(2015). Identification of relevant performance indicators CSR using
techniques multicri- tery. Innovating, 25 (55), 75-88.
Paˇ ornescu, C. (2014). Current trends in social innovation re- search:
social capital, social corporate responsibility, impact measurement.
Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society,
9, 102-118.
Perestelo-Perez, L. (2013 ) . Standards on how t or Develop t ond
re- port Systematic reviews in psychology and health. Inter-
national Journal of Clinical Psychology and Health, 13 (1), 49-57.
Pérez PiNeda, J. TO. (2012). Lto resprvice memberl business and
itss alternatives of measurement. TO NAHUAC jour NAL, 12(one),
5.290.
pinto-Ferreira, L., OrtIgueira, S. TO., GOmez, AND. TO., LI ourido,
G. P. & Areal, J. J. (2015). Index of economic tond functional
efficiency of to sustainable production line. Procedia Engineering,
one32, 39- 45. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.477
Rahman, N. & Post, C. (2012). Measurement issues in mind Envi-
corporate social responsibility (ECSR): Toward a transparent,
reliable, and valid instrument construct. Journal of Business Ethics,
105 (3), 307-319.
Razeg, F. C. (2010). Entrand andl concept Y lto prActica:
responsabili- dad corporate social. ESTGER Management Studies,
26 (117), 119-130.
SáSanchez-Hernandez, M. I. & Mainardes, AND. W. (2016).
Universit And social responsibility: TO student basand analysis in
Brazil. Inter- national Review on public tond Nonprofit Marketing, 13(two),
151-169. Strandberg, L. (2010). Lto measurement Y lto
cOMMUNICATION of lto RSE: indicators and standards. Notebooks
of the Chair "la Caixa" Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance, 9,
23.
yourRKER, D. (2009). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A
scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (4), 411- 427.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2008).
Guidance on corporate responsibility indicators in annual
reports. New York, Geneva: United Nations Publication.
United Nations, GC (2018). Global Compact 100. Retrieved May 9
2018de https: //www.unglobalcompact.org/ take-action /
action / global-compact-100
Vitezic, N. (2010). TO measurement system of corporate memberl
re- sponsibilityin the pharmaceutical industry of the region. In-
ternational Journal of Management & Information Systems - Fourth
Quarter 2010, 14.
Wuttichindanon, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility dis-
closure-choices of report and Its determinants: Empirical evidence
from firms listed on the stock exchange of Thai- land. Kasetsart
Journal of Social Sciences, 38 (2), 156-162.