OBJECTIVES OF CSR STRATEGY- THE EXAMPLE OF

POLISH COMPANIES
Marzanna Katarzyna WITEK-HAJDUK

Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, Institute of International

Management and Marketing

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework to explain objectives of CSR
management and to identify the objectives of the CSR initiatives undertaken by Polish medium
and large companies, focusing on the following questions: 1) What objectives are important
to Polish medium and large companies that are engaged in CSR initiatives?; 2) How do
objectives of CSR initiatives of Polish companies compare to objectives of CSR that have been
studied in previous research?
The paper is organized into four sections. The first section provides the definitions and
models of CSR. The second section addresses the literature review on the key objectives of
CSR management. The third section details the survey methodology, and the fourth part
presents and discusses the main findings.
According to the empirical study, Polish companies declare diverse objectives of the CSR
activity, but, the most important is the creation of a brand/company image. Polish companies
treat the corporate social responsibility mainly as a tool to create a company/brand image,
but the following objectives of the CSR management are also found as important: a long-term
growth of the company and a creation of the positive relationships with customers.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, CSR objectives, Polish companies.

Introduction

According to the resource-based concept, companies compete by creating a sustainable

competitive advantage. The importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in
maintaining and developing the company's competitive advantage is emphasized. A long
debate took place on the definition of corporate social responsibility. The literature on the
topic presents many studies identifying the models of CSR, but there are only few studies on
the objectives of CSR (e.g., Ditlev-Simonsen and Midttun, 2011, pp. 25-38; Gardberg and
Fombrun, 2006, pp. 329-346). There is a lack of papers examining the goals of CSR strategy
and there is a need for better understanding of these mechanisms. The knowledge on
objectives of CSR initiatives and CSR practices of Polish firms is also very limited. The
purpose of this paper is to fill this gap.
The paper is based on the literature review and the results of CATI interviews held in 2012
with 385 medium and large Polish companies from the following industries: a food industry
(manufacturers of food products, manufacturers of beverages, manufacturers of tobacco
products), a chemical industry (manufacturers of chemicals and chemical products,
manufacturers of basic pharmaceutical products and medicines and other pharmaceutical
products), and a wholesale and retail trade (wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and

1170
motorcycles, retail trade, except of motor vehicles). The study was nationwide, and the
respondents were: owners or co-owners, directors, general directors, presidents or vice
presidents or marketing directors / managers, communication managers, CSR managers.

A definition and models of corporate social responsibility (CSR) – a literature review

A long debate took place on the definition of corporate social responsibility and numerous
concepts explaining CSR were developed by scholars. First definitions of CSR come from
1950s, when Bowen (1953, p. 6) defined corporate social responsibility as the obligation of
businessmen “to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of
action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society”. It was stated
that social responsibility is an attribute of an entrepreneur. According to Friedman (1970),
the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits by legal means, since only
people can have responsibilities, not businesses. Davis and Blomstrom (1966, p. 16)
assumed that the essence of CSR stems from the concern about the ethical implications of
the company's activities and their impact on the social system. According to Davis (1967, p.
46), in the long run, socially responsible decisions may prove to be economically beneficial
to the organization. Many scholars have stated that socially responsible activities are those
that go beyond economic and legal obligations of a company. Johnson (1971, p. 50) has
stated that a socially responsible is an enterprise whose managers are focused not only on
increasing the shareholder value but also take into account the diverse interests of other
groups of stakeholders (employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities, etc.). From the
beginning of 1990s, standards such as ISO 26000, ISO 14001 and SA 8000, guidelines for
social reporting GRI, corporate governance codes and CSR codes have been implemented
and there has been the institutionalization of CSR.

Theoretical concepts explaining corporate social responsibility include among others:

 Stakeholders theory (Freeman, 1984),
 Corporate social performance model (Wartrick, Cochran, 1985, pp. 758-769),
 The pyramid of corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 1991, pp. 39-48),
 Before-profit social responsibility model (Kang, Wood, 1995, pp. 408-418),
 Triple Bottom Line model- TBL (Elkington, 1999, p. 18),
 Corporate sustainability model (Aras, Crowther, 2009, p. 41),
 CSR 2.0 model (Visser, 2011, pp. 7-22),
 Dichotomous model CSI-CSR (Jones, Bowd, Tench, 2009, pp. 300-310).
 Consumer-driven CSR model (Claydon, 2011, pp. 405-420),

Scholars indicate two basic groups of CSR models: 1) “profit after obligation” models,
including, e.g., the pyramid of corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 1991, pp. 39-48) and
2) “profit before obligation” models, including, e.g., corporate social performance model
(Wartrick, Cochran, 1985, pp. 758-769).

According to the pyramid of CSR (Carroll, 1991, pp. 39-48; 1993, p. 31), there are four
dimensions of corporate social responsibility listed: 1) economic responsibilities: an
obligation of a company is to generate a profit for its owners, 2) legal responsibilities:
decisions and actions undertaken by the company should be consistent with the legal
regulations including regulations on the environmental protection, consumer-protection
rights, workers’ rights and should be in accordance with the agreements concluded by the
company, 3) ethical responsibilities: the company should act in accordance with social
expectations, ethically and honestly in relations with different groups of stakeholders and

1171
avoid undesirable behaviors, 4) philanthropic responsibilities: the company should be a
“good citizen", and dedicate part of its resources for the desired public programs, including
actions for the local community as well as volunteering. The pyramid model of CSR was
modified, also by Caroll and Schwartz (2003, pp. 503-530), who proposed a non-hierarchical
model consisting of three areas of corporate social responsibility: economic, legal and
ethical, while philanthropic activity was incorporated into the economic and ethical
responsibility because it could be seen as an activity motivated ethically or economically. A
characteristic feature of “profit before obligation” models is a recognition of the primacy of
moral (ethics) values before other values, it is the primacy of the moral responsibility of the
company’s managers and employees for enforcement of legal and moral norms (Kang,
Wood, 1995, p. 408-418).

An author of TBL model (triple bottom line) points out the necessity of shaping a balance
between social, environmental and economic dimensions of a company’s activity. According
to that concept, company performance should be evaluated by using both financial and social
and environmental activities’ indicators (Elkington, 1999, p. 18).

Claydon (2011, pp. 405-4020) has presented a model of consumer-driven corporate

responsibility and has stated that, in order to obtain profits, company must meet customer
needs for corporate social responsibility. By improving a company's image, its customer
base will steadily increase, and a growing number of customers will expect from a company
to be socially responsible. This will encourage the company to strengthen CSR activity and
to aim at improving its profitability and maintaining customers. As Claydon has stated,
model of consumer-driven corporate responsibility presents a “win-win" situation because
winners are both, the company obtaining higher profits as well as various groups of
stakeholders and the natural environment in respect of which socially responsible actions
shall be undertaken.

Referring to the review of concepts of CSR as well as to ISO 26 000 standards, Chen and
Wongsurawat (2011, pp. 47-61) have developed a CSR model consisting of the following
elements: 1) competitiveness: willingness of a company to establish cooperation
relationships with stakeholders in order to create the firm or brand reputation as a
competitive advantage of a company; 2) transparency: eliminating barriers to the free and
easy public access to corporate information in order to provide the public with information
about corporate strategy in accordance with legal regulations and disclose information
quickly and in ways allowing it to be easily found and used by stakeholders; 3)
responsibility: compliance with legal regulations in relation with different groups of
stakeholders, including employees; 4) accountability: justification of business operations
undertaken by the company and taking into the account opinions of stakeholders. According
to Chen and Wongsurawat (2011, pp. 47-61), a higher degree of accountability and
transparency contributes to improving the competitiveness of the company, which in turn
stimulates the growth of its responsibility.

As a result of the literature review, the author of this paper has developed a non-hierarchical
model of corporate social responsibility, consisting of the following five areas of CSR:
1) Competitiveness: corporate social responsibility is an element of the corporate strategy
and a source of a competitive advantage,
2) Legal responsibility: corporate operations that comply with the legal regulations and
customs,

1172
 3) Pro-social activity: corporate activities that are consistent with social expectations of
various stakeholder groups and accepted by them,
4) Transparency: transparency of the company,
5) Pro-ecological activity: corporate activities serving the environmental protection.

Objectives of CSR strategy- a literature review

Although CSR practices have drawn substantial interest from both, practitioners and
scholars, the objectives of CSR initiatives have received little attention in the academic
literature - particularly from an empirical perspective. There is a lack of papers examining
the goals of CSR strategy and there is a need for better understanding these mechanisms. As
Coda (1984) has stated, the inclusion of CSR objectives in the corporate goal hierarchy is the
starting point for integrating CSR into corporate strategy.

Different motivations may lead to corporate social responsibility and thereby determine the
purposes of CSR strategy. Following theoretical roots of motives for CSR are indicated:
 Theory of competitive advantage (Porter, 1985), resource-based approach (Barney, 1991,
pp. 99-120) and stakeholders theory (Freeman, 1984) provide theoretical background of
instrumental, proactive motivations for CSR,
 Institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell 1983, pp. 147-160; Scott, 1995) underlines
instrumental, defensive motivations for CSR (CSR as a tool to preserve a company’s
legitimization),
 Business ethicists approach (Carroll, 1979, pp. 479-505; Margolis and Walsh, 2003, pp.
268-305) underlines the normative motivations for CSR,
 Strategic management approach aiming at explaining how CSR can be integrated in
corporate strategy (e.g. Coda, 1984) underlines the hedonic motivation.

Companies have various motives when engaging in CSR. A lot of scholars distinguish two
types of motives for CSR: instrumental and normative (e.g., Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 3-15;
Smith, 2003, pp. 52-76; Gardber and Fombrun, 2006, pp. 329-346). According to Brønn and
Vidaver-Cohen (2009, pp. 91-109), CSR motives can be classified into: 1) ethical vs.
instrumental and 2) internally vs. externally pushed; however, scholars underline difficulties
in understanding whether CSR initiatives are driven by moral values or strategic concerns.
Brønn and Vidaver-Cohen (2009, pp. 91-109) have developed distinction of CSR motives
according to two perspectives: the strategic perspective (a company perceives strong
commitment to undertake social activities) and the moral perspective (the business has an
ethical duty to pay back to the society). The strategic perspective includes two types of
motives: 1) instrumental: decision makers believe that CSR can provide company competitive
advantage (McWilliams, Siegel, Wright, 2006, pp. 603-609), new business opportunities,
support for the satisfaction of company shareholders’ interests or reducing costs (Graafland &
van de Ven, 2006, pp.111-123), and 2) institutional: an increase in a firm/brand reputation is a
function of changes in the institutional environment. On the other hand, the moral perspective
(Graafland and van de Ven, 2006, pp.111-123) includes the following types of motives: 1)
strategic motives relating to the win-win relationship between corporate social initiatives and
the company’s financial performance (Orlitzky, Schmidt, Rynes, 2003, pp. 403-441), and 2)
moral motives, it is a moral obligation to behave in a definite way. According to Gardberg
and Fombrun (2006, pp. 329-346), the normative motives are behaviors and practices, which
are driven by the desire for creating an ethical relationship between the institution and
stakeholders. In this case, the purpose of engaging into CSR is the compliance to moral norms

1173
(Wiener, 1982, p. 419). Wiener (1982, p. 419) has stated, that the instrumental motives are the
company’s or person’s attitude toward performing a particular act and are a function of beliefs
in the consequences of the act and their value. A few scholars (e.g., Moon, 2001, pp. 385-408;
Fang, Huang and Huang, 2010, pp. 120-132) distinguish between two types of the
instrumental motives for CSR: proactive (which are driven by the desire of obtaining
additional resources, promoting good reputation and increasing the shareholders’ value) and
defensive motives (that are driven by the desire to avoid loss of resources). According to
Porter and Kramer (2006, pp. 78-93), in the case of proactive motives, CSR is perceived as a
tool for creating a competitive advantage. On the other hand, in the case of defensive motives,
the purpose of engaging into CSR is to increase shareholders value and to preserve company’s
legitimization in front of the stakeholders. The results of a survey conducted by Brønn and
Vidaver-Cohen (2009, pp. 91-109) among a sample of Norwegian companies shows, that top-
three CSR motives are: 1) to improve the firm’s image, 2) to be recognized for moral
leadership, and 3) to serve long-term company’s interests. Other researches in this area
pointed out another type of motives for CSR– hedonic ones (Lindenberg, 2001, pp. 317-342;
Deci and Ryan, 1985). Scholars have stated that in some cases, desirable intrinsic
characteristics of socially responsible behaviours motivates individuals to behave responsibly,
so hedonic motivation can be defined as the behaviors and practices that aim at improving the
well-being of all stakeholders. In this case, the purpose of engaging into CSR is satisfying the
will of the company to benefit itself and its stakeholders (Lindenberg, 2001, pp. 317-342).

According to the survey conducted in the late 1970s, up to 64% of respondents said that the
most important in the corporate goal hierarchy were financial goals, and for most of the
examined, goals related to the social responsibility were marginally significant (Abouzeid,
Weaver, 1978, p. 33). Survey conducted by Hofstede, Van Deusen, Mueller and Charles
(2002, p. 791) on the sample of MBA students has indicated that growth or survival of the
company and generating profits in the short-term were the most important in hierarchy of
goals. Personal goals, including wealth, power and reputation were slightly less significant.
Much less important were also goals related to ethical responsibility and philanthropy (10th
place among the 15 objectives). Small significance of goals related with philanthropic
responsibility was confirmed by a survey conducted by Pinkston and Carroll (1996, p. 203):
philanthropic responsibility was considered as the least important, and economic goals as the
most important area of corporate social responsibility. On the other hand, according to
Bennett (1998, p. 458–460), since 1990s spending on philanthropy increased, but Gan (2006,
pp. 217-236) stated that the share of expenditures on philanthropic initiatives accomplished
by firms in the company revenues was not significant. According to Ditlev-Simonsen and
Midttun 2011, pp. 25-38), the following ten perspectives on CSR and adequate purposes
(motivators) of CSR initiatives are listed: 1) profit maximization, 2) value maximization (to
create long-term value for shareholders), 3) stakeholdership (to satisfy different
stakeholders), 4) cluster-building (to build a cluster with an aim to create a favorable
business context), 5) branding (to build a positive brand/firm image), 6) innovation (to
develop new products and business concepts), 7) imitating (to resemble other companies), 8)
ethics/moral (to do the “right thing’’), 9) managerial discretion (to fulfill the personal
preferences and interests), 10) sustainability (to contribute to the long-term sustainable
development). Surveys conducted by Ditlev-Simonsen and Midttun (2011, pp. 25-38)
indicate that branding, stakeholders, and value maximization are assumed to be key
motivators of CSR activities.

By presenting a picture of purposes for engaging in CSR and integration of CSR with the
corporate strategy, scholars have stated that CSR can positively affect shareholders’ value by

1174
 reducing company risk, improving reputation, enhancing employee’s commitment and
productivity (Gardberg and Fombrun, 2006, pp. 329-346). Several empirical surveys also
demonstrate that CSR initiatives enhance corporate financial performance (e.g., Margolis
and Walsh, 2003, pp. 268–305; Waddock and Graves, 1997, pp. 303-3019; Orlitsky et al.,
2003, pp. 403-441). Only a few researches have focused on the realities of managerial
decision-making (Hahn and Scheermesser, 2006, pp. 150-165; Engle, 2007, pp. 16-27;
Sarkar, 2008, pp. 281-297) and stakeholders’ views of managers’ social responsibility
motivations (Welford, Chan, Man, 2008, pp. 52-62).

Taking the above into consideration, the author of this paper has distinguished the following
objectives of CSR initiatives, which were divided into three groups:
1) Compliance to standards and legal regulations:
 Compliance with standards (e.g. ISO 26 000, ISO 14 001 and SA 8 000, guidelines for
social reporting GRI),
 Adapting to the legal regulations,
2) Increase in shareholders’ value:
 Reducing the cost of operations through effective use of resources, avoiding losses, low-
cost marketing,
 Reducing the risk,
 Reducing the negative effects of company market operations,
 Creating positive image of the firm or brand,
 Changing the organizational culture of the company,
 Long-term increase in firm’s/brand’s value,
 Attracting new customers,
3) Increase in social value
 Creating positive relationships with customers,
 Creating positive relationships with suppliers,
 Creating positive relationships with regulatory groups,
 Integrating employees of the company,
 Creating positive relationships with NGOs.

Research questions and methodology

As mentioned above, the knowledge on objectives of CSR initiatives and CSR practices of
Polish firms is very limited. The purpose of this paper is inter alia answering the following
questions:

1) What objectives are important to Polish medium and large companies that engage in CSR
initiatives?
2) How do objectives of CSR initiatives of Polish companies compare to objectives of CSR
that have been studied in previous researches?

This paper is based on the results of the quantitative empirical research held in 2012 and
conducted on a random, representative sample of 385 medium (75.3%) and large (24.7%)
Polish companies from the following industries: the food industry (31.7%): manufacturers of
food products, manufacturers of beverages, manufacturers of tobacco products; the chemical
industry (31.2%): manufacturers of chemicals and chemical products, manufacturers of basic
pharmaceutical products and medicines and other pharmaceutical products, and wholesale and

1175
retail trade (37.1%): the wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles, retail
trade, except of motor vehicles. In order to gather the data for quantitative research, Computer
Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) method of phone interviews was employed. For the
purpose of the research a standardized questionnaire was used. Research had Poland as its
scope, and respondents were: owners or co-owners, directors, general directors, presidents or
vice presidents or marketing directors/managers, communication managers, CSR managers.
Data gathered via the process were analyzed statistically with the use of the SPSS software
package. The primary objective of the survey was to identify orientation of Polish companies
towards the corporate social responsibility. Declarations pertaining to the purposes of CSR
initiatives were one of a few elements of the assessment of the orientation of Polish
companies towards the CSR.

Results and discussion

Data analysis indicates that these executives of Polish medium and large companies that are
responsible for decision-making regarding corporate social responsibility management,
consider multiple objectives for engaging in CSR, but primarily creation of the brand’s/
company’s image (Table 1).

As the data presented in Table 1 suggests, 16.9% of respondents declare that the most
important goal of CSR initiatives undertaken by the company is creating a positive
firm’s/brand’s image, while 40.8% executives indicate this goal as one of the three most
important. A significant proportion of the respondents declares also that important goals of
CSR initiatives are: long-term increase in firm’s/brand’s value (15.3% - the most important
goal, 32.7% - one of the three most important goals), attracting new customers (13.0% - the
most important goal, 30.1% - one of the three most important goals). The above-mentioned
top three goals of CSR initiatives in the opinion of Polish managers are classified into the
group of objectives oriented on the increase in shareholders’ value. It should be noted that two
other objectives included in this group are also rated as one of the top three by a significant
proportion of respondents: reducing the cost of operations through the effective use of
resources, avoiding losses or low-cost marketing (25.2% - one of the three most important
goals, and 10.4% - the most important goal) and improving the company’s competitiveness
(22.1% - one of the three most important goals, but only 6.2% - the most important goal).
Other objectives for CSR included in the group of goals that focused on the increase in
shareholders’ value (reducing the risk, reducing the negative effects of company market
operations, changing the organizational culture of the company) are important for only a small
portion of Polish companies.

Research findings also reveal, that a lot of respondents consider the following objectives as
the top three most important goals of CSR initiatives undertaken by companies: creating
positive relationships with customers (36.6%, and 11.2% - as the most important goal),
creating positive relationships with suppliers (27.0%, but only 6.2% - as the most important
goal), and integrating employees of the company (20.5%, but only 4.7% - as the most
important goal). These three objectives of CSR strategies are classified into groups of
objectives oriented on the increase in social value (stakeholdership). The two other objectives
included in the group of goals that focused on the increase in social value (creating positive
relationships with regulatory groups and creating positive relationships with NGOs) are
important for only a small portion of Polish companies.

1176
Research findings also show that the objectives oriented on the compliance to standards and
legal regulations are the most important goals of CSR initiatives only for a few percent of
Polish companies (compliance with standards - 3.1%; adapting to the legal regulations -
5.7%), although more respondents indicates these goals as one of the three most important
ones (compliance with standards - 13.5%; adapting to the legal regulations - 16.6%).

Table 1: Declarations on the Polish companies’ objectives of the CSR initiatives (N=385)
(1st, 2nd, 3rd in order of importance; one of the three most important)

1st,2nd, 3rd, in
Top three
order of
objectives
importance
Objectives of CSR initiatives n % N %
Compliance to standards and legal
regulations:
Compliance with standards (e.g. ISO 26 000, 1st 12 3,1
ISO 14 001, SA 8000, guidelines for social 2nd 21 5,5 52 13,5
reporting GRI) 3rd 19 4,9
Adapting to the legal regulations 1st 22 5,7
2nd 21 5,5 64 16,6
3rd 21 5,5
Increase in shareholders’ value:
Reducing the cost of operations through 1st 40 10,4
2nd
effective use of resources, avoiding losses, low- 26 6,8 97 25,2
cost marketing 3rd 31 8,1
Improve the company’s competitiveness 1st 24 6,2
2nd 31 8,1 85 22,1
3rd 33 8,6
Creating a positive firm’s/brand’s image 1st 65 16,9
2nd 52 13,5 157 40,8
3rd 40 10,4
Reducing the negative effects of company’s 1st 10 2,6
market operations 2nd 11 2,9 31 8,1
3rd 10 2,6
Changing the organizational culture of the 1st 9 2,3
company 2nd 8 2,1 28 7,4
3rd 11 2,9
Reducing the risk 1st 11 2,9
2nd 12 3,1 40 10,4
3rd 17 4,4
Long-term increase in firm’s/brand’s value 1st 59 15,3
2nd 39 10,1 126 32,7
3rd 28 7,3
Attracting new customers 1st 50 13,0
2nd 30 7,8 116 30,1
3rd 36 9,4
Increase in social value (stakeholdership):
Creating positive relationships with customers 1st 43 11,2
141 36,6
2nd 54 14,0
1177
 3rd 44 11,4
Creating positive relationships with suppliers 1st 24 6,2
2nd 37 9,6 104 27,0
3rd 43 11,2
1st 6 1,6
Creating positive relationships with regulatory 2nd 9 2,3 24 6,2
groups 3rd 9 2,3
Integrating employees of the company, 1st 18 4,7
2nd 27 7,0 79 20,5
3rd 34 8,8
Creating positive relationships with NGOs. 1st 2 0,5
2nd 9 2,3 20 5,2
3rd 9 2,3
Source: Author’s own table based on the results of a survey conducted by: M.K. Witek-
Hajduk, T. Dudzik, A. Sznajder, The concept of sustainable enterprise development and
business models, Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, 2012.

Conclusions

Survey’s results indicate that the increase in shareholders’ value, but particularly creating a
positive firm’s/brand’s image and the long-term increase in firm’s/brand’s value are assumed
to be key objectives of CSR strategies of Polish medium and large companies. Research
findings also reveal that increases in social value by creating positive relationships with
different groups of stakeholders (stakeholdership), but especially with customers, suppliers
and employees, are assumed to be important goals of CSR initiatives undertaken by Polish
firms. The hierarchy of objectives of CSR initiatives undertaken by the Polish companies
shows that they are focused more on creating relationships with customers, suppliers and
employees than other stakeholder groups, including non-governmental organizations and
regulatory groups. Survey’s results indicate also that compliance with standards and legal
requirements seems to be a less important goal of CSR activities. Only few respondents
identified reducing the negative effects of company’s market operations as an important
objective, despite the fact that the sample included representatives of “sinful” industries, such
as: alcohol and tobacco manufacturers.

Similarly to a survey conducted by Brønn and Vidaver-Cohen (2009, pp. 91-109) among a
sample of Norwegian companies and a survey conducted by Ditlev-Simonsen and Midttun
(2011, pp. 25-38) on a sample of MBA students, the results of the survey on a sample of
Polish medium and large firms indicate that shareholder’s value maximization by improving a
firm’s/brand’s image and an increase in social value by creating relationships with
stakeholders are assumed to be the key objectives of CSR activities.

References

Abouzeid, K.M., Weaver, C.N., (1978), Social Responsibility in the Corporate Goal
Hierarchy, Business Horizons, vol. 21, no. 3, 29-35.
Aras, G., Crowther, D., (2009), The Durable Corporation: strategies for sustainable
development, Gower Publishing, Farnham.
Barney, J. B., (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, no. 17, 99–120.

1178
Bennett, R., (1998),Corporate Philanthropy in France, Germany and the UK, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 15, no. 6, 458–460.
Bowen, H.R., (1953), Social Responsibility of the Businessman, Harper and Borthers, New
York.
Brønn, P.S., Vidaver-Cohen, D., (2009), Corporate Motives For Social Iniative: Legitamcy,
Sustainability Or The Bottom Line?, Journal of Business Ethics, no. 87, 91-109.
Carroll, A.B., (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, no. 4, 497–505.
Carroll, A.B., (1991), The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral
management of organisational stakeholders, Business Horizons, Vol. 34, no. 4, 39-48.
Carroll, A.B., (1993), Business and Society, Ethics and Stakeholder Management, Cincinnati,
South-Western,
Chen, Ch. H., Wongsurawat W., (2011), Core constructs of corporate social responsibility: a
path analysis, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 47 – 61.
Claydon, J., (2011), A new direction for CSR: the shortcomings of previous CSR models and
the rationale for a new model, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7, no 3, 405 – 420.
Coda, V., (1984), La valutazione della formula imprenditoriale, Sviluppo e Organizzazione,
no. 82, March – April.
Davis, K., (1967), Understanding the social responsibility puzzle: What does the businessman
owe to society? , Business Horizons, Vol. 10, pp. 45-50.
Davis, K., Blomstrom, R.L., (1966), Business and its environment, McGraw- Hill, New York.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., (1985), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior, New York, Plenum Press.
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell W.W., (1983), The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, no. 48, 147-
160.
Ditlev-Simonsen, C. D., Midttun, A. (2011), What motivates managers to pursue corporate
responsibility? A survey among key stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, no. 18, 25–38.
Elkington, D.J., (1999), Triple bottom-line reporting: Looking for balance, Australian CPA,
Vol. 69, no. 2, 18-21.
Engle, R.L., (2007), Corporate Social Responsibility in Host Countries: A Perspective from
American Managers, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, no.
14, 16–27.
Fang, S.-R., Huang, C.-Y., Huang, S.W.-L., (2010), Corporate social responsibility strategies,
dynamic, capability and organizational performance: Cases of top Taiwan-selected
benchmark enterprises, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4, no. 1, 120-132.
Freeman R.E., (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman Publishing,
London.
Friedman, M., (1970),The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, New
York Times Magazine, September 13.
Gan A., (2006), The Impact of Public Scrutiny on Corporate Philanthropy, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 69, no. 3, 217-236.
Gardberg, N.A., Fombrun, C.J., (2006), Corporate Citizenship: Creating Intangible Assets
across Institutional Environments, Academy of Management Review, no. 31, 329-346.
Graafland, J.J., Ven, B.W. van de, (2006), Strategic and Moral Motivation for Corporate
Social Responsibility, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, no. 22 (summer), 111-123.
Hahn, T., Scheermesser, M. (2006), Approaches to corporate sustainability among German
companies, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 13, no. 3,
150–165.

1179
Hofstede G., Van Deusen C.A., Mueller C.B., Charles T.A., (2002), What Goal Do Business
Leaders Pursue? A Study in Fifteen Countries, Journal of International Business Studies, Vlo.
33, Issue: 4, 785-803.
Johnson H., (1971), Business in Contemporary Society, Framework and Issues, Belmont.
Jones, B., Bowd, R., Tench R., (2009),Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social
responsibility: competing realities, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5, Iss: 3, 300 – 310.
Joshua, D. Margolis, James P. Walsh, (2003), Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social
Initiatives by Business, Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 48, 268–305.
Kang, Y.-C., Wood, D.J., (1995), Before-Profit Social Responsibility: Turning the Economic
Paradigm Upside Down, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the International
Association for Business and Society (IABS), 408-418.
Lindenberg, S., (2001), Intrinsic Motivation in a New Light, Kyklos, Vol. 54, no. 2/3, 317-
342.
Margolis, J.D., Walsh, J.P., (2003), Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives by
business? Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 48, 268-305.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., (2001), Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance: Correlation or misspecification?, Strategic Management Journal, no. 21, 603-
609.
Mintzberg, H., (1983), The case for corporate social responsibility, The Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 4., no. 2, 3-15.
Moon, J., (2001), Business Social Responsibility: A Source of Social Capital? Reason in
Practice, Journal of Philosophy of Management, Vol. 1, no.3, 385-408.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., Rynes, S.L., (2003), Corporate social and financial performance:
A meta-analysis, Organization Studies, no. 24, 403-441.
Pinkston, T.S., Carroll, A.B., (1996), A Retrospective Examination of CSR Orientation: Have
They Changed?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15, no. 2, 199-206.
Porter, M.E., (1985), Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., (2006), Strategy and Society, Harvard Business Review,
December, 78-93.
Sarkar, R., (2008), Public policy and corporate environmental behaviour: A broader view,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, no. 15, 281–297.
Schwarz, M.S., Carroll, A.B., (2003), Corporate social responsibility: a three-domain
approach, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 13, no. 4, 503-30.
Scott, W. R., (1995), Institutions and organizations, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Smith, N. C., (2003), Corporate Social Responsibility: whether or how, California
Management Review, Vol 45, no. 4, 52-76.
Visser, W., (2011), The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business, Journal
of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, Vol. 5, no. 3, 7-22.
Waddock, SA, Graves, SB., (1997), The corporate social performance-financial performance
link, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, no. 4, 303–319.
Wartrick, S.L., Cohran, P.L., (1985), The evolution of the Corporate Social Performance
Model, Academy of Managment Review, 1985, Vol. 10., no. 4, 758-769.
Welford, R, Chan C, Man M., (2011), Priorities for corporate social responsibility: a survey of
businesses and their stakeholders, Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental
Management, Vol. 15, no. 1, 52–62.
Wiener, Y., (1982), Commitment in Organizations: A Normative View, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 7, no. 3, 418-428.

1180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.