MAKE-UP MID ETIKA BISNIS TENTANG MEMBANDINGKAN 2 JURNAL

INTERNASIONAL

Disusun Untuk Memenuhi Tugas Make-Up Nilai Mid Etika Bisnis

Dosen Pembimbing : Dr. P. Erianto Hasibuan

Oleh : Ahmad Nabil Makarim (7311420051)

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI SEMARANG

2021

1
 Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility – Is there a dividing
line?

Dr. Mridula Goela *, Ms. Preeti E. Ramanathanb

Associate Professor, HoD Dept. of Economics, BITS
a

Pilani KK Goa Campus, Goa bResearch Scholar, Dept.

of Economics, BITS Pilani KK Goa Campus, Goa

Abstract

There is growing research in all areas of ethics and CSR that govern the activities of a
firm and the value systems that underlie their business activities. In our paper we have
explored the concepts of Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility with a
perspective that meaningfully CSR should be seen in the context of an overall paradigm
of Business Ethics. We have studied CSR through the framework of the stakeholder
theory of the firm and posit that CSR as practiced today is a subset of Business Ethics
with other dimensions of an overall ethics framework still uncovered.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. This is an open

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Symbiosis Institute of Management
Studies. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Symbiosis Institute
of Management Studies. Keywords: CSR; Business Ethics;
stakeholders

1. Introduction

Business Ethics covers the areas of moral principles and decision making, governance
issues and codes of conduct for a business. Beverungen and Case (2011) argue that “ We
might find that ethics in business involves a basic dislocation relating to phenomenal
experiences arising when things are out of place” (Beverungen and Case, 2011

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-

0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 . E-mail
address: mridula@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in

2
2212-5671 © 2014 Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Symbiosis Institute of Management
Studies.
doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00175-0
pp229).
When identifying practices that reflect business ethics, we find ourselves in the territory of
morality and a definition of what constitutes morality. Business actions will then be judged
by not that which is efficient or effective but by that which is “morally defensible”
(Wozniak 2011 pp 304). We understand that business ethics as a concept is mutating,
changing in the context of new technologies, new ways of resource mobilisation and
utilisation, evolving societal practices and growing towards a perpetually connected global
business network. Growing universal awareness of the finiteness of natural resources, the
growing wealth divide, and the pervasive presence of businesses in the individual citizen's
life through technologies such as big data and cloud computing, bring forth business ethics
to the forefront of the conversation on societal norms.
However, is it easy to identify the business ethics as a set of norms practiced by a firm? Is it
an amorphous concept difficult to codify or is it a translatable theory with the ability to be
taught as a discipline in business schools? (Beverungen and Case 2011). If the norms are
followed to ensure legal compliance, will it in reality reflect the day to day practices
followed by the firm? (Painter-Morland 2010).
In our paper, we aim to explore Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the context of
business ethics. The paper studies CSR as a concept and also as a set of actions embedded
in the ethicality of the business. Our paper draws inspiration from the interpretation of
Freeman's (1984) normative stakeholder theory as cited in Parmar et al (2010) and the
concept that organisations are “embedded” in the social and biological environment around
them (Bjerregaard and Lauring 2013 pp134). Business organisations are an integral part of
the social, economic and environmental systems around them. Therefore, their activities ,
structure and processes need to take responsibility for the impact they have on stakeholders
and on the society which supports their existence .It is not sufficient to define CSR as
limited to business efforts that reach out to people or other aspects of the environment as
beneficiaries defined by the company. The fall out effects that a company has on the wider
community, today and tomorrow need to be incorporated in CSR sensitization for ethics
and CSR to be treated interchangeably.
1.1. CSR in the context of Business Ethics

The normative stakeholder theory in CSR which draws its philosophy from Ethics,
affirms that business corporations are “morally” responsible to look after the
concerns of a larger group of stake holders which could include owners, customers,
vendors, employees and community rather than its stockholders i.e. the owners of the
business alone (Rodin 2005 pp561). The concepts of business ethics and social
responsibility have distinct identities. Yet, they are often used to refer to the same
argument or code. The term business ethics is supposed to be “a combination of two
very familiar words, namely business and ethics” (Dimitriades 2007 pp1).

3
Entrepreneurs may come close to the edge of, or cross over conventional norms of morality,
in the pursuit of Schumpterian 'creative destruction', chasing a goal that could be a “version
of ‘the end justifies the means’” (Fuller 2013 pp122). CSR is then considered to be a fee
charged on the returns derived from the wrongs committed by entrepreneurship to pay for
some of the rights. Thus “the revenues collected by taxes associated with sin and
exploitation are often earmarked for restoring health and the environment, if not offering
outright incentives for the manufacture of more salutary products” (Fuller 2013 pp123).

Freeman (1984, as cited in Parmar et al2010) refers to a definition of a stakeholder

from an internal memo from the Stanford Research Institute in 1963. The memo
defines stakeholders as “those groups without whose support the organisation would
cease to exist” (Fontaine, Harmaan & Schmidt 2006). The concept of an organisation
as an entity that is merely a creator and “converter” of resources through its existing
relationships with vendors, employees and customers does not hold valid in
understanding of the universe as a large eco system. The organisation as a legal entity
and as a collective of individuals is seen as part of a larger context of living systems
(Freeman 1984 as cited in Parmar et al 2010).
One of the main basis of the normative stakeholder theory is the concept that an
organisation's internal processes affects its identified stakeholders and must be based
on moral philosophy and ethics. All decision making has to take into account the
impact on all its stake holders and must have moral worthiness of its own outside of
the firm's financial profits (Donaldson and Preston 1995 as cited in Parmar et al
2010).
1.2. Current Relevance of CSR

CSR has been part of ethical and responsible business practices for long. However,
the concept has gained added traction in the wake of the globalised nature of the
economic environment today ( Jamail & Mirshak 2007). CSR operates on the
principle that corporates are obliged to meet their responsibilities to a larger array of
stakeholders than its shareholders. Corporate Social Responsibility should not be an
add on policy by a company, but be integrated into its governance structure and
strategy. Goel et al (2013) cites the global accounting and consulting firm major
Grant Thornton's report based on data collected in 2010 and early 2011, that CSR
activities across the world have increased dramatically in recent years as “businesses
realize their value not only commercially, but also in terms of boosting employee
value, attracting staff and cutting costs ( Goel, Sanghvi, Dahiya 2013).
CSR has also been defined through the perspective of religion. Suthisak
Kraisornsuthasinee states “Corporate social responsibility (CSR), as a concept,
addresses that profitability from business for some may come at the expense of
others. Such a causal relationship could be grounded on the relativistic view of
dependent origination and the law of conditionality” ( Kraisornsuthasinee 2012
Pp191).

4
Jamail and Mirshak (2007) state , “Heightened interest in CSR in recent years has
stemmed from the advent of globalization and international trade, which have reflected
in increased business complexity and new demands for enhanced transparency and
corporate citizenship. Moreover, while governments have traditionally assumed sole
responsibility for the improvement of the living conditions of the population, society’s
needs have exceeded the capabilities of governments to fulfil them. In this context, the
spotlight is increasingly turning to focus on the role of business in society and
progressive companies are seeking to differentiate themselves through engagement in
CSR. The findings suggest the lack of a systematic, focused, and institutionalized
approach to CSR and that the understanding and practice of CSR in Lebanon are still
grounded in the context of philanthropic action”(Jamail & Mirshak 2007 pp 243).

The felt need for Business Ethics in the form of CSR has become so pervasive that
even in the traditional and what is perceived as an anti-environmental sector such as
the fossil fuel industry, in a paper written by staff at the International Petroleum
Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), the authors affirm the
need for a “good human rights policy and practice” (Owen and Sykes 2009 pp 131).
The concept is now gaining importance in the communities in which the industry
operates, for fostering the global credibility of the oil and gas companies and also to
help them to continue to exist and engage in business. (Owens & Sykes 2009).
In India, recognising the concerns of the ever increasing divide between the vast
majority of the masses and the increasingly powerful and endowed corporations, the
government has today legislated CSR as mandatory with provisions for the
corporations to report the reasons, in the event of non compliance. The mandatory
limits have been defined by an amendment to the Companies Bill 2011 that was
passed in the Lok Sabha in December 2012. Public sector companies and private
companies earning over Rs.5 crores in net profit must spend a minimum of two
percentage of their profits on CSR or report the reasons for their failure to do so
(Goel, Sanghvi, Dahiya 2013).
Bigger corporates have the wherewithal to invest in the local communities they are
engaged in and hence, can initiate and support the development of these communities
who are increasingly being recognised as stakeholders in the corporates activities.
(Russo & Perrini 2010). The Small and Medium Enterprise sector (SME) however,
have a more direct connection with the local community. The accessibility of SMEs
to the local community possibly makes it difficult for them to violate ethical
expectations. They benefit from being recognised as an embedded part of the
community in which they do business, and therefore they have to work to improve
their reputation, trust, legitimacy, and consensus within and among citizens
(Vyakarnam et al., 1997, Russo & Perrini 2010). The accountability for the SMEs
appears to be ensured by the immediate stake holder and community. It is in case of

5
 the big corporate that CSR can provide a beautiful curtain to cover business ethics, or
its absence.

1.3. Do good CSR practices equate with ethics?

However, would compliance with all the norms and regulations of CSR practice
necessarily mean that the business entity is also following sound business ethics
practices? Are the activities of the firm in the context of CSR and business ethics
necessarily correlated? There are leading examples of companies that complied with
CSR and governance norms on the face of it, but were they also ethical? Mallen
Baker, a CSR specialist states “CSR is no longer defined—if it ever really was—by
the process of how much money a business gives away, but by how that business
makes its money in the first place. Ӡ

The scam led collapse of the famed energy major Enron in 2001, a major proponent
of CSR, was a wakeup call to observers of the CSR process to look deeper into
corporate claims of CSR and the firm's compliance with legal processes, in reality.
The company which grew to be the United States America’s seventh largest company
in just in 15 years, was benchmarked as the new success story which was later
exposed as a false narrative. Enron's financial statements indicating profitability were
proved to be false with the company’s doctored accounts concealing overwhelming
debts that toppled the company over into a massive collapse‡.

Enron's debacle deepened the belief among communities that big corporations’ goals
for success may be at cross purposes with that of the communities§. In Enron’s social
and environmental report which listed its efforts in the areas of CSR including
environmental impact, CEO Kenneth Lay , detailed the company’s vision and values
as mutual respect, integrity and excellence**. Masterresource.org†† website cites
Bradley(2009) while referring to
Enron’s last Environmental, Health, and Safety Management Conference in late 2001
that “Enron’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) task force listed its
‘Accomplishments to Date’, as:

x Secured board oversight of social/environmental performance x Expressed

support for Universal Declaration of Human Rights x Completed corporate
responsibility task force x Developed and pilot-tested human rights audit x
Developed security and human rights guidelines x Established formal partnerships
with WBCSD [World Business Council on Sustainable Development], IBLF
[International Business Leaders Forum], and CI [Conservation International] x
Identified language to strengthen code of ethics
x Responding to stakeholder concerns on an ongoing basis”

†
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/XGqcWX3joEdciKcoD3c4TJ/Lessons-from-
Satyam.html

6
‡
http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/enron.html
§
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/12/remembering-green-enron-part-ii-corporate-
social-responsibility/ http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2682
**
http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/enron.html
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/12/remembering-green-enron-part-ii-corporate-
††

social-responsibility/
The irony of these claims in the light of what transpired in the days to come is
shocking to say the least. Corporate giants such as Enron and Satyam turn up as rude
shocks when the scams are unearthed overnight. No prior tell tale signs of unethical
practices are visible till the ‘house of cards’ collapses.
India's ‘Enron’‡‡, Satyam's CSR efforts were lauded universally. The company that
collapsed due to its management's defrauding the company and its stock holders
financially§§received many awards including the Golden Peacock Global Award for
Excellence in Corporate Governance, the Citizenship Partner of the Year Award
2007 from Microsoft, Corporate Social Responsibility from Business World,
Forbes’ Top Asian Company, was listed among the top 13 Best-Managed
Companies in India by Business Today, and was declared one among the 100
Leading Pioneering Technology Companies by the World Economic Forum***.
These awards belied the reality behind the probity of the company’s conduct
including falsification of accounts and showing large cash and fixed deposit balances
in their balance sheets when the company in reality had no such balances†††.The
financial fraud included overstating the company’s cash balances by over 1 billion
dollars, overstating of employee numbers by over 13,000and withdrawal of the ghost
employee salaries by the firm’s founders, inflating revenues by falsifying invoices
and forging of the company’s bank fixed deposit
receipts‡‡‡,§§§.

The iconic company Apple and other smartphone manufacturers seem to apply old
world industrial norms for its supply chain processes****,††††.The ongoing scam of the
National Stock Exchange Limited (NSEL) in India highlights the need for inbuilt
mechanisms for rewarding corporate governance and punishing those violating these
norms‡‡‡‡.

If companies such as Satyam and Enron and more recently NSEL, cutting edge
technology companies, who have been leaders in their industry sectors and in the
forefront on CSR activities, have failed in their ethical norms

‡‡

7
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28539

007/#.Uke3xSdY4xw §§

http://www.indianexpress.com/fullcove

rage/satyam-scam/187/ ***

http://infochangeindia.org/corporate-responsibility/

analysis/satyam-and-the-truth-about-csr.html †††

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/mWrIvxWkfQqIKjv10BjnBK/The-three-phases-
of-the-Satyam-scam.html ‡‡‡ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-
business/Satyam-fudged-FDs-has-40000-employees-Public-
prosecutor/articleshow/4015830.cms?
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-01-27/news/
28454265_1_astd-golden-peacock-global-award-corporate-governance
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/satyam-fraud-not-an-
accounting-failure-icai-111012500023_1.html §§§

http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/international-

reform/world-bank/satyam-scandal ****

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/09/

23/apple-turnover/ ††††

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/s

earch-smartphone-soaked-blood ‡‡‡‡

http://capitalmind.in/2013/09/nsel-the-5500-crore-scam-no-one-wants-to-deal-with/
deeply, would there be a better process to identify the ethical embeddedness in the
actions of corporates? At the same time, mishaps and disasters such as these
galvanise the community's attempts to find more effective tools to relate CSR to the
business ethicality of the firm. Movements such as the International Right to Know
Campaign and the CORE Coalition in the UK, who campaign for enforceable rules
that the corporates must follow, as opposed to good faith that the corporate are
meeting volunteer guidelines, become important§§§§.The Organisation for Economic

8
 Co-operation and Development’s guide book, ‘OECD Due Diligence Guidance for
Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk
Areas’ tries to codify processes that ensure ethical procurement of raw materials
especially as many of these materials are sourced from conflict
areas*****.

2. Our posit:

Viewing CSR through Freeman's (as cited in Parmar et al 2010) normative stakeholder
theory, we propose that CSR is a subset of business ethics. Freeman et al (2004) state
“Stakeholder theory begins with the assumption that values are necessarily and
explicitly a part of doing business” (Freeman et al 2004). Corporate social responsibility
is limited in its definition of the mandate and responsibilities of the business towards its
identified stake holders. The rights of a legal entity enjoyed by the firm, carries with it
duties and obligations to the environment of which it is a subset. These duties must be
part of the norms and code of conduct and be made part of institutional design (Singer
2013). The resource pool and the environment that a business operates in, have a stake
in its operations. The business has duties and reciprocity towards that environment for a
continued sustainable existence for itself and the environment. Stakeholder theory
involves looking at the organisational systems and process design as a whole (Freeman
1984 as cited in Parmar et al 2010).
In this context, CSR practice will not be sufficient. CSR becomes mere recognition of
these duties and the implicit relationship between the business and the environment that
facilitates its existence. Economic criteria as calculated by financial accounting
standards cannot alone be the basis of the relationship between the firm and its stake
holders that includes the environmental ecosystem. A more dynamic and inclusive
approach that surpasses the monetary valuation of the firms activities is required.
Fulfilling the ethical norms would need to be the framework within which the firm
pursues profits.

§§§§
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2682
*****
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/oecd-due-diligence-guidance-for-
responsible-supply-chains-of-minerals-from-conflict-affected-andhigh-risk-
areas_9789264185050-en
2.1. Identifying indicators for CSR and Business Ethics

In an attempt to understand the process of identifying and monitoring the ethicality of

organisational processes and the relationship to its CSR activities, we have identified
a survey report 'CR's 100 Best Corporate Citizens 2013', by a leading magazine in the

9
 CSR space, the Corporate Responsibility (CR) magazine, for studying and classifying
the prevailing markers for CSR and business ethics.

The CR magazine published by the Corporate Responsibility Officers Association

(CROA), generates content and covers corporate social responsibility with case
studies, study of best practices, and by monitoring trends in the core areas of CSR.
Since 2009, the CR Magazine, CROAand NYSE Euronext conduct an annual survey
on the state of practice in corporate responsibility (CR) among companies around the
world. As per their website, in 2010, the CR Magazine, the CROA and NYSE
Euronext together developed a “data instrument” to collect a “baseline data set” (CR
Magazine 2011). The survey group sent surveys to every firm traded on the NYSE
Euronext Indices and the database of the CR Magazine as per their December 2011
report†††††.
The magazine has identified the areas of “a) governance, risk, compliance, b)
environmental sustainability c) corporate social responsibility, d) philanthropy, and e)
workforce/diversity” as their focus areas for monitoring a corporate's engagement
with CSR practices and compliance with mandatory regulations in this area (CR
magazine 2011).TheirCR magazine study used a data instrument with 298 data
elements‡‡‡‡‡ which were divided into seven categories of Climate change, Employee
Relations, Environmental, Financial, Human Rights, Governance and Philanthropy
for purposes of analysis by them.
Though all of CSR will necessarily be in the realm of Business Ethics, the questions
asked in this survey do suggest that this is their perception as well. However, our
worry is that many practices related to ethics may not be obvious or quantifiable. If a
company subscribes to political associations is it ethical? What if the financial data is
audited and covers good CSR practices but in reality is so smartly fudged or the
auditors are in the loop: such issues cannot be measured and do not therefore appear
in the CSR survey. But there can be no argument that they are outside Ethics.
Surveys such as that referred to by the CR Magazine are important in getting
accolades for high CSR corporates but they cannot be a commentary on business
ethics , as the latter concept is related to values and is a normative

December 2011 report Corporate responsibility Best Practices CR practices among

†††††

global corporations

http://www.thecro.com/content/cr-magazine-corporate-citizenship-lists-methodology
‡‡‡‡‡

subject and also the fact that violation of ethical practices is not likely to be
documented. We thus, propose that ethics in business remains a topic of debate that
cannot be defined or resolved through measuring or enforcing CSR. Current trends
appear to focus upfront on CSR and while ethics is undoubtedly expected and

10
 desirable, it remains an area that is ‘not definable’. It appears to come to the fore only
when explicit violations of the norm, on a large scale come to light.

People generally tend to follow social norms unless it become too cost ineffective
to do so (Engelen 2011). As there is a growing realisation that existing institutional
designs for corporate business structures are proving to be expensive for the larger
community, there is growing pressure for a change in the structuring of these norms.
We do find that CSR activities are one of the vehicles to actualize the reshaping of
these norms. Other business processes such as corporate governance, corporate
outreach and politics, business process redesign, and corporate strategy are also tools
and strategies that need to be adopted by firms, to reconcile with the ethicality of
doing business.

References

Beverungen,A.,Dunne,S.,Hoedemaekers,C. (2013).The financialisation of Business

ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review. Volume 22 Number 1.

Beverungen, A., Case,P. (2011). Editorial introduction: where isbusiness ethics?.

Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 20 Number.

Bjerregaard,T.,Lauring,J. (2013).Managing contradictions of corporate social

responsibility: the sustainability of diversity in a frontrunner firm. Business Ethics: A
European Review Volume 22 Number 2.

Bolaji, A.B. (2011). Problems And Prospects Of Corporate Social Responsibility In

National Development. Continental Journal of Sustainable Development , Vol. 2, No. 2,
19-25. Retrieved from
http://www.wiloludjournal.com/ojs/index.php/cjsd/article/viewArticle/578 Bradley,
R.L. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility and Energy. Culture and Civilisation Vol
1.

Bradley, R.L. (2009). Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy pp. 309–
310.

Carroll, A.B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Towards the
Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons. Retrieved from
http://www.csrquest.net/default.aspx?articleID=12770&heading=

Corporate Responsibility Best practices CR Practices Among Global Corporations

(2011). Corporate Responsibility magazine, NY Euronext, Corporate Responsibility
Officer Association. Retrieved from http://www.croassociation.org/files/CR%20Best
%20Practices%202011%20%20executive%20summary.pdf

Corporate Responsibility(CR) magazine. Retrieved from www.thecro.com

11
 CR's 100 Best Corporate Citizens 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.thecro.com/files/100Best2013_web.pdf

CR Magazine Corporate Citizenship lists methodology. Retrieved from

http://www.thecro.com/content/cr-magazine-corporate-citizenship-listsmethodology

Dimitriades, Z.S. (2007). Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in the e-
Economy: A Commentary. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organisation
Studies. Vol. 12, No. 2 ISSN 1239-2685 .

Engelen.B. (2011). Beyond markets and states:the importance of communities. UNESCO,

Blackwell Publishing Oxford Pp489-500.
Fontaine, C., Haarman, A., Schmid, S. (2006). Stakeholder Theory.Retrieved from C
Fontaine, A Haarman… - Edlays …, 2006 diseniosesparragos.googlecode.

Freeman, R., E. (1999). Response: Divergent Stakeholder Theory. The Academy of

Management Review , Vol. 24, No. 2 pp. 233-236.

Freeman, R.E., McVea, J. (n.d.)A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. Darden

Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia. Working Paper No.
01-02.
Fuller,S. (2013). Never let a good crisis go to waste’: moral entrepreneurship, or the fine
art of recycling evil into good.Business Ethics: A European Review. Volume 22 Number 1.

Goel, M., Sanghvi, T., Dahiya, K. (2013). Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in
Entrepreneurship Development. Unpublished.

Jamali, D., Mirshak, R. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and
Practice in a Developing Country Context. Journal of Business Ethics.72:243–262.

Kraisornsuthasinee, S. (2012). CSR through the heart of the Bodhi tree. Social
Responsibility Journal. Vol. 8 NO. 2. pp. 186-198.

Mitcnick, B.M. (1995). Systematics and CSR: The theory and processes of normative
Referencing. Business and Society.34, 1. pp5.

Munter, Dan. (2013), Business Ethics: A European Review. Volume 22 Number 2.

Owens,J., Richard Sykes, R. (2009). Paper by The International Petroleum Industry

Environmental Conservation Association social responsibility working group and human
rights. UNESCO. Pp131-141.

Painter-Morland, M. (2010).Questioning corporate codes of ethics. Business Ethics: A

European Review. Volume 19 Number 3.

12
Parmar , B.L., Freeman , R,E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks ,A.C., Purnell, L., Colle, S.d. (2010).
Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art , The Academy of Management Annals, 4:1, 403-
445, DOI:10.1080/19416520.2010.495581.

Rodin, D. (2005). What’s wrong with business ethics. UNESCO. Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford.
Russo, A., Perrini, F.( 2010). Investigating Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate
Objective Revisited”. Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 91:207–221.

Singer, A. E. (2013). Corporate political activity, Social responsibility, and competitive

strategy: an integrative model. Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 22 Number
3.

Social Capital: CSR in Large Firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics 91:207–221.

UNESCO. Association social responsibility working group and human rights.

Vyakarnam,S.,Bailey,A.,Myers,A.,Burnett,D.(1997). Towards an Understanding of Ethical

Behaviours in Small Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 16. 1625-1636.

Wozniak,A. (2011). The missing subject found inthe subject who does the thinking:
Kierkegaard, the ethical and the subjectivity of the critical theorists. Business Ethics: A
European Review Volume 20 Number 3 July 2011.

Weblinks:
x http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/how_to_obtain_docs.html
x

http://usequities.nyx.com/mkt-equities-regulation/listed-
company-compliance/public-disclosure x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory x
http://www.fsu.edu/~pea/Stakeholder_Theory.html
x

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2008-07-04/news/28387032_1_a
nniversary-celebrations-vizag-visakhapatnam x
http://infochangeindia.org/corporate-responsibility/analysis/satyam-and-
the-truth-about-csr.html
x http://www.karmayog.org/csr501to1000/csr501to1000_21711.htm
x

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-01-08/news/27657896_
1_golden-peacock-global-award-chairman-bramalinga-raju-spirited-
discussion x http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28539007/#.Uke3xSdY4xw

13
 Business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and brand attitudes: An exploratory
study
O.C. Ferrella,⁎, Dana E. Harrisonb, Linda Ferrellc, Joe F. Haird
a
James T. Pursell Sr. Eminent Scholar in Ethics, Department of Marketing, Raymond J.
Harbert College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA b Department of
Management and Marketing, College of Business and Technology, East Tennessee State
University, Johnson City, TN, USA c Department of Marketing, Raymond J. Harbert
College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA d Department of Marketing,
Mitchell College of Business, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA

ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: It is important to understand the relative importance of business ethics
Brand attitude and social responsibility in determining brand attitudes. However, there
Expectations of customer social has been a failure in prior research to differentiate between attitudes
responsibility toward business ethics and CSR. This research reviews customer-brand
Expectations of business ethics research related to business ethics and social responsibility and conducts
a study to evaluate customer attitudes. Four scenarios offer variations in
company behaviors related to positive and negative conduct of customer
social responsibility and business ethics. Study findings from a panel of
351 respondents provide new insights related to a customer's expectations
and perceptions of company CSR and business ethics behavior. We
conclude that although CSR attitudes remain important, customers value
business ethics as a critical behavior in their perceptions of brand
attitudes.

14
1. Introduction
The relationship between ethics and social
responsibility in customer-brand relationships is
important in understanding brand attitudes (Kumar
& Reinartz, 2016). Many types of brands and brand
relationships have been associated with customer-
company identification (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
Research results are often conflicting and
incomplete on how consumers define business
ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Ethics is often defined as “doing good” and
interrelated with CSR (Schwartz & Carroll, 2008).
Moreover, researchers have not differentiated
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Marketing, Harbert College of
Business, Auburn University, USA. E-mail address:
OCF0003@auburn.edu (O.C. Ferrell).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.039
Received 31 January 2018; Received in revised form 6 July 2018; Accepted 24 July 2018
0148-2963/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Ferrell, O.C., Journal of Business Research (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.039
attitudes toward business ethics and CSR, especially 1985).
in the development of scales to measure these two
constructs. Most consumer research blends business
ethics and CSR together (Brunk, 2012), whereas
consumer ethics scales typically measure personal
ethical perspectives about firm behavior related to
both business ethics and CSR (Vitell & Muncy,
2005).
While academic research often combines business
ethics and CSR as one overlapping concept, Weller
(2017) discovered that in practice the concepts are
socially negotiated, contextual with different
meanings and relationships. While Weller's (2017)
research involved senior managers, there have been
no studies to determine if CSR and business ethics
are viewed as different constructs by customers.
This research addresses this gap in knowledge by
investigating customer brand attitudes related to
business ethics and CSR.
A number of complementary frameworks appear to
be in competition for preeminence including
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and business
ethics and stakeholder management (Schwartz &
Carroll, 2008). Social responsibility has been
defined as corporate social performance,
stakeholder theory and even business ethics theory
(Carroll, 1999). Therefore, the academic
community has often combined the constructs of
business ethics and CSR. Business ethics is often
limited to philosophical theories related to right or
wrong decisions. A survey of definitions found
rules, standards and moral principles were
mentioned most often for business ethics (Lewis,
Ethical brands have been explored from the
perspective of social responsibility issues such as
sustainability, fair trade, or helping to improve
customer welfare. Studies have explored brands
being positioned using ethical attributes (Peloza,
White, & Shang, 2013; White, MacDonnell, &
Ellard, 2012). In addition, studies have specifically
addressed the effects of CSR on corporate
reputation and brand equity (Hsu, 2012). However,
research has not clearly defined the difference
between business ethics and CSR. For example,
White et al. (2012) defines ethical brands as fair
trade while Sierra, Iglesias, Markovic, and Singh
(2017) assess ethical brand image using social
responsibility indicators. For example, statements
such as environmentally responsible, beneficial to
the welfare of society, socially responsible brand,
and creates new jobs are used. These
15
inconsistencies are typical of many studies that treat
business ethics and CSR as one and the same. This
research represents an initial effort to assess if there
is a difference between business ethics and CSR as
they relate to brand attitudes.
Previous research has identified consumer
responses to unethical consumption and unethical
organization behavior (Bian, Wang, Smith, &
Yannopoulou, 2016; Lindenmeier, Schleer, & Pricl,
2012). For example, research has examined
individual values and brand attitudes, but the focus
is primarily on moral philosophies or values that
guide individual behavior (Brunk, 2010). Very little
research has focused on organizational behavior,
business ethics and CSR from a customer
perspective (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Thus, there
is a need to explore the relationship between
business ethics, CSR, branding and organizational
behavior. Specifically, we will focus on the
business ethics and CSR issues related to decision-
making and behavior of the organization.
Examining this descriptive approach to general
customer expectations toward how a company
should act (CSR, ethics behavior), will guide a
deeper understanding of attitudes toward the brand
when the firm engages in either positive or negative
behavior.
Business ethics (Ferrell, Crittenden, Ferrell, &
Crittenden, 2013) and social responsibility can be
evaluated from both a normative and descriptive
perspective. Descriptive or positive perspectives
describe, explain, and/or predict that a phenomenon
exists (Hunt, 1991). Normative perspectives explain
what ought to be in evaluating and improving ethics
(Laczniak & Kennedy, 2011). Business ethics from
a normative perspective relates to principles, values,
and norms for organizational decisions. From a
descriptive perspective, business ethics in an
organization refers to codes, standards of conduct,
and compliance systems and typically relate to
decisions that can be judged right or wrong by
customers. Therefore, ethical decision-making is
typically associated with internal organizational
decisions by individuals or social units about
appropriate conduct. These decisions can impact
internal stakeholders and external stakeholders.
CSR from a normative perspective focuses on
values and principles for fulfilling economic, legal,
ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll,
1991). Therefore, CSR issues are associated with
evaluations of concepts such as social issues,
sustainability, consumer protection, corporate
governance, legal, and regulatory (Ferrell,
Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2017). From a descriptive
perspective, social responsibility issues can be
legalized through laws and regulations. CSR
activities can be observed from a descriptive
perspective. Therefore, social responsibility is
associated with positive or negative impact on
stakeholders. Organizational leaders can make
decisions about how to deal with stakeholders
which have both CSR and ethical outcomes. In this
research we define the difference between these two
concepts based on how business ethics and CSR
(perceived by customers) relate to brand attitudes.
We use the artifacts of business ethics and CSR
observations, structure and decisions to develop our
research approach.
The purpose of this research is to determine the
relative importance of business ethics and CSR in
determining brand attitudes. Four scenarios (Fig. 2)
measure different company behaviors that identify
(1) negative business ethics and negative social
responsibility, (2) negative business ethics and
positive social responsibility, (3) positive social
responsibility and positive business ethics, and (4)
positive business ethics and negative social
responsibility. This unique contribution collectively
examines both CSR and business ethics where
brand attitudes can be evaluated relative to both
constructs.
The following contributions of this research relate
to improving and understanding the importance of
business ethics and CSR in customerbrand
relationships.
16
(1) Independent measures of general consumer
expectations of business ethics and CSR are
extended from prior scales.
(2) Consumer expectations of business ethics and
social responsibility are used to evaluate both
negative and positive firm behavior.
First, we review the literature covering past
research and knowledge about consumer-brand
relationships. Next, we specify hypotheses and a
conceptual model, followed by the methodology
and statistical analysis. The results provide critical
findings related to a customer's expectations of
company CSR and business ethics behavior
involving different scenarios. The relationship of
business ethics and CSR in developing brand
attitudes provides strategic guidance for brand
management. The prioritization of business ethics
vs. CSR in determining brand attitudes provides
new insights for future research.
2. Review of literature
There is significant research evaluating business
ethics and CSR in terms of definitions and the
relationship to brand attitudes. While much of the
scholarly work on business ethics and CSR
definitions is conflicting, there is agreement that
business ethics relates more to individual and social
unit decision making and CSR relates more to the
impact on stakeholders. While business ethics and
CSR are usually defined as interrelated in research
related to brand attitudes, positive behavior or
stakeholder outcomes are supportive of positive
brand attitudes (Brunk, 2012).
2.1. Business ethics and CSR form a descriptive
perspective
There is evidence that practitioners and academic
researchers have different perspectives on the
relationship of business ethics and CSR. Research
on how practitioners implement these constructs
provides important insights and descriptive
understanding of business ethics and CSR in
practice. Using communities of practice theoretical
perspective provides insights that are important to
understanding business ethics and CSR activities in
the context of a business organization. Using
interviews with senior managers found that business
ethics and CSR have only informal relationships
and diverse meaning in practice (Weller, 2017).
This is in contrast to many academic scholars
interpreting business ethics and CSR as similar and
interrelated (Fassin, Van Rossem, & Buelens,
2011).
Fisher's (2004) review of textbooks across the
management and business ethics disciplines found
that in many that the two constructs are the same,
just applied to different levels of analysis. Davidson
and Griffin (2000) and Joyner and Payne (2002)
explicitly state that the two constructs are the same
thing. To compound the confusion, Carroll (1991)
states that business ethics is one part of CSR or
vice-versa. Finally Epstein (1987) argues that
business ethics and CSR are related but distinct. In
the academic community there is no clear resolution
about the relationships of business ethics and CSR.
To state that the definitions of business ethics and
CSR have been widely discussed and resolved
would not be correct. Our research is the first to
explore the definitions of business ethics and CSR
from a descriptive customer perspective.
Comparing our findings with Weller's (2017)
findings from senior manager should bring new
insights on how the constructs are viewed by two
key stakeholders outside the academic community.
Weller (2017) concludes that managers believe
“CSR is a part of business ethics and reject those
that believe business ethics and CSR are
interchangeable” (p 20). Boundaries exist in
organizations between business ethics and CSR
activities. Distinct communities exist with few
formal organizational and only a few informal
relationships. Our research answers Weller's (2017)
call for more research to explore the relationship
between business ethics and CSR, both
conceptually and in practice. Customer perceptions
of these two constructs makes a significant
contribution to advancing knowledge related to
improved understanding of how the two constructs
contribute to value and stakeholder satisfaction. If
17
managers and customers can draw distinction
between the two constructs then academic scholars
need to reexamine their belief that the constructs are
interchangeable.
2.2. Business ethics and CSR relationship to brand
attitudes Existing research on relationship
business ethics and CSR related to brands is
based on several different perspectives. First,
there is research about attitudes toward ethical
products (Peloza et al., 2013) and ethical
consumption (Davies & Gutsche, 2016). This
stream of research can examine the preference
for brands that are promoted through appeals to
social responsibility and business ethics. To date,
most research about ethical brands is associated
with social responsibility (White et al., 2012).
Ethical brands are usually identified as doing
something good for society or the consumer such
as, organic ingredients, fair trade, or in some way
addressing the needs and desires of stakeholders.
Fan (2005) defines an ethical brand as promoting
the public good with attributes such as honesty,
integrity, quality, respect, and accountability.
Results are mixed in assessing the impact of ethical
brand perceptions. Peloza et al. (2013) found that
ethical product attributes are not as important as
product performance. Singh, Iglesias, and Batista-
Foguet (2012) found that perceived ethicality of a
brand has a positive effect on brand trust, and in
turn brand trust is positively related to brand
loyalty. The consumer perceived ethicality (CPE)
scale (Brunk, 2012) is mainly based on CSR items
and used to measure consumer perceptions of an
ethical brand.
Muncy and Vitell (1992) and Vitell and Muncy
(1992) developed a consumer ethics scale to
evaluate consumer attitudes toward ethical
misconduct. This scale was updated by Vitell and
Muncy (2005) to address additional consumer
attitudes toward issues such as buying counterfeit
goods, recycling, and doing the right thing.
Numerous studies have used this scale, but it is
about consumers exhibiting ethical attitudes, not
business ethics or CSR of firm behavior related to
the brand.
Another stream of research focuses on customer
brand perspectives of business ethics as they relate
to company/brand perceptions. This research
evaluates positive ethical behavior or ethical
transgressions (Cohn, 2010). Moderating factors
that may influence emotions, reasoning, and
judgments in consumer-brand relationships has
been explored, but not in the context of determining
the impact of business ethics vs. social
responsibility in making judgments about brand
relationships (Schwartz, 2016).
Brand misconduct research focuses on negative
brand actions (Trump, 2014). Brand misconduct is
associated with negative consequences in brand
attitudes and repurchase intentions (Huber,
Vollhardt, Matthes, & Vogel, 2010) and brand
behavior related to satisfaction has a positive impact
of brand attitude. Hsiao, Shen, and Chao (2015)
found that brand misconduct displayed a lower
response on marketing relationships. In addition,
communications such as advertising can be
effective in mitigating the negative impact of brand
misconduct. There is adequate evidence that
measuring negative vs. positive conduct related to
business ethics and CSR will have an impact on
brand attitudes.
18
A widely used scale to measure consumer perceived
ethicality (CPE) of a company or brand does not
provide a clear distinction between social
responsibility and ethics (Brunk, 2012). Scale
indicators include law, social responsibility, and
being a good company. The scale does not clearly
define behaviors that evaluate ethical decision
making in an organization. The ethical attitude
questions are associated with applying one's
personal moral philosophies of deontology and
teleology, in most cases to CSR activities. The scale
is based on being a market actor, being socially
responsible, avoiding damaging behavior, and
evaluating positive vs negative consequences
(Brunk, 2012). Furthermore, the scale does not
relate to specific organizational ethical behaviors,
such as codes of ethics, deception, fairness,
transparency, and avoiding bribery, etc.
There are a number of other issues related to the
CPE scale. The 36 unethical behaviors are from 20
participants in the United Kingdom and Germany.
These countries rank high in business ethics
conduct and with so few respondents, it is
questionable whether the participants are aware of
the many important business ethics issues (Shea,
2010). In addition, as Brunk (2012) points out
“nothing is known about the meaning the consumer
ascribes to the term ‘ethical’.” Finally, Brunk
(2012) described being ethical as being socially
responsible, and concluded “being ethical is almost
synonymous to abiding by the law.”
This research examines consumer attitudes toward
organizational artifacts in business ethics and CSR
identifying artifacts in organizational behavior not
customer normative evaluations related to personal
philosophies. Brunk (2012) concludes that
consumers are not able to use their own knowledge
to differentiate between business ethics and CSR.
Therefore, we identify behavioral artifacts related to
ethical decision making and CSR activities to
develop measures of business ethics and CSR. We
use the artifacts of how business ethics and CSR are
implemented and outcomes in practice to determine
if customers differentiate the constructs.
3. Conceptual framework
An artifact approach is used to identify and
differentiate business ethics and social
responsibility. The National Business Ethics Survey
(2018) identifies ethical decisions related to risk
areas and issues that are typical for U.S. employees.
Similarly, the Ethics Compliance Officer
Association (ECOA) identifies ethical decision
making topics at their annual program. These two
sources provide artifacts for refining scale items on
topics that organizations typically face in making
ethical decisions.
To extend measures used in current research,
stakeholder issues associated with social issues,
corporate governance, consumer protection,
philanthropy, legal responsibilities, sustainability,
and employee well-being from a stakeholder's
perspective were identified (Ferrell et al., 2017).
These issues are well documented and relate more
to artifacts or outcomes of decision making. The
items selected for business ethics represent
decisions that could be made by individuals or
social units about right or wrong behavior, and the
CSR items relate to stakeholder concerns about
negative or positive impacts on stakeholders.
Academic research typically view business ethics
and social responsibility as a generalized concept of
doing good, doing the right thing, or from positive
or negative outcomes perspective. This research is a
conceptualization of business ethics and social
responsibility as independent constructs from a
customer perspective based on documented artifacts
from business outcomes.
Four scenarios were developed with each scenario
consisting of both business ethics and CSR
components. The scenarios were based on real
world organizations that had both positive and
negative outcomes from their business conduct and
CSR activities. The scenarios disguise the real
organizations but recognize that both positive and
negative possibilities exist as outcomes for
activities. Respondents could use their judgement or
perceptions to evaluate the behavior. The
hypotheses were developed to measure reactions to
19
positive and negative behavior or outcomes in the
scenarios. The scenarios require a response to
perceptions of business ethics and CSR behavior as
positive or negative. Each scenario facilitates
comparison of both business ethics and CSR
behavior.
4. Hypothesis development
The hypotheses were developed based on a review
of research which establishes that negative and
positive brand attitudes can develop based on
observations related to business ethics or CSR
(Folkes & Kamins, 1999; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore,
& Hill, 2006). In addition, it has been found that
attitudes can be negative or positive. Negative
behavior can be more important to customers than
positive behavior (Rivers & Sanford, 2018).
Customers can have a deep emotional involvement
with brands and can be seen as congruent or
connected as a part of or a relationship with
themselves (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017). Therefore
customer's expectations of how a company should
act (business ethics and CSR), and the perception of
a company's positive or negative behavior can affect
attitude toward the brand. While previous research
establishes relationships between business ethics
and CSR as a single construct our hypotheses are
unique in that they evaluate business ethics and
CSR as distinct constructs.
Customers maintain personally held expectations
toward companies CSR and business ethics
practices. Preconceived attitudes of how companies
should act have the potential to impact the
customer's perception of a company's actual
behavior. Hypotheses 1–4 examine the extent that
personally held attitudes toward CSR or business
ethics are positive or negative CSR or business
ethics behavior.
Hypothesis 1 is based on previous research that
expectations of CSR will have a positive effect
when the company's behavior is positive (Kang &
Hustvedt, 2014). On the other hand, there should be
a less favorable effect when there is negative CSR
or a combination of negative CSR or business ethics
behavior. When CSR and business ethics scales are
combined, attitudes are strongly influenced either
positively or negatively by customer response to
company behaviors (Brunk, 2010).
Hypothesis 2 is based on the research that would
suggest positive CSR behavior would have an effect
on perceived positive business ethics behavior but
less favorable effect with any combination of
negative business ethics or CSR behavior. This is
supported by multiple attribute attitude models that
indicate there is considerable potential to change
values consumers attached to brands (Lutz, 1975).
Hypotheses 3 and 4 follow the same logic as H1
and H2 as it relates to business ethics. Positive
business ethics as a distinct construct will have a
positive effect on perceived CSR Negative
combinations of business ethics and CSR will have
a negative effect on business ethics. This again is
based on constructs that combine business ethics
and CSR (Vitell & Muncy, 2005). H4 is parallel to
H1 related to CSR but examines whether
expectations of business ethics will have a positive
effect on perceived business ethics behavior. Any
negative combination of business ethics and CSR
will have a less favorable effect. The following
hypotheses examine the extent that personally held
attitudes toward CSR (business ethics) has on a
company's CSR (business ethics) in the midst of
positive or negative CSR (business ethics) behavior.
Accordingly, we anticipate that:
Customer expectations of CSR
H1. A customer's expectation of CSR will have a
positive effect on perceived CSR behavior when the
company's behavior is positive but will have a less
favorable effect when the company presents any
negative combination of CSR or ethics behavior.
H2. A customer's expectation of CSR will have a
positive effect on perceived business ethics
behavior when the company's behavior is positive
but will have a less favorable effect when the
company presents any negative combination of
CSR or ethics behavior.
Customer expectations of business ethics
20
H3. A customer's expectation of business ethics will
have a positive effect on perceived CSR behavior
when the company's behavior is positive but will
have a less favorable effect when the company
presents any negative combination of CSR or ethics
behavior.
H4. A customer's expectation of business ethics will
have a positive effect on perceived business ethics
behavior when the company's behavior is positive
but will have a less favorable effect when the
company presents any negative combination of
CSR or ethics behavior.
H5 and H6 are parallel and straight forward to
determine whether CSR (business ethics) behavior
will have an effect on the brand. A company's
questionable behavior often causes negative
consumer perceptions which in turn damage the
brand and weaken a company's reputation (Brunk,
2010). These results have been found in a number
of studies where CSR (Anguinis & Glavas, 2012;
Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) and business ethics are
expected to have an effect toward the brand (Fan,
2005; Peloza et al., 2013; Trump, 2014). Therefore,
we expect that:
The role of a company's CSR and ethical behavior
in brand attitudes
H5. A customer's response to the perception of a
company's CSR behavior will have an effect on
their attitude toward the brand.
H6. A customer's response to the perception of a
company's business ethics behavior will have an
effect on their attitude toward the brand.
4.1. Scenarios
Although companies are fictitious, scenarios were
based upon authentic occurrences of CSR and
business ethics behavior (Fig. 2). Following
development of the scenarios, pre-study interviews
were conducted with college students to examine
whether the situations were realistic (Dabholkar &
Bagozzi, 2002; Groza, Pronschinske, & Walker,
2011; Hess, Ganesan, & Klein, 2003; Vlachos,
Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos, & Avramidis, 2009), the
magnitude of the scenarios were fairly consistent
and the perceptions of each scenario direction (e.g.,
positive, negative) were appropriately identified.
Appendix A provides the four scenarios.
This study consists of evaluating the impact of
consumer attitudes toward corporate social
responsibility and ethical behavior through four
different scenarios, with each scenario representing
a fictitious brand. The first scenario illustrated
positive corporate social responsibility and ethical
behavior. The second scenario described negative
corporate social responsibility and ethical behavior.
The third scenario characterized a brand that
exhibited negative corporate social responsibility
but positive ethical behavior. Finally, the fourth
scenario revealed a brand that portrayed positive
corporate social responsibility but negative ethical
behavior. Respondents evaluated the behavior of
only a single brand.
4.2. Measures
The scales used in this study were adapted from
existing ones while others, general expectations
toward a company's corporate social responsibility
and ethical behavior, were extensions from prior
scales. The scales measuring the consumer's general
expectations of a company's CSR and business
ethics were based upon established, theoretical
conceptualizations and then extended from prior
research (Choi & La, 2013; Creyer, 1997; Hess et
al., 2003; Kang & Hustvedt, 2014; Skarmeas &
Leonidou, 2013; Vlachos et al., 2009). Brand
attitude was measured on a 10 pt. scale using 4
items adapted from Wagner, Lutz, and Weitz
(2009). Perceived response to the brand's corporate
social responsibility and ethical behavior, as
presented in each scenario, was measured on a 10
pt. scale with single items adapted from Grappi,
Romani, and Bagozzi (2013). All constructs
contained a minimum of three items, with the
exception of questions on perceived response to
CSR and ethical behavior, which were measured
using a single item from previous research
21
evaluating a company's behavior (Grappi et al., 4.3. Data collection and sampling
2013). For a complete list of items, see Table 1.
A pilot study of 48 consumers was conducted to
identify any confusion with the survey instrument.
Following minor revisions to the instrument, the
final questionnaire was administered through use of
a Qualtrics panel. Participants consisted of
consumers over the age of 18 years old and located
within the United States. In total, the sample
consisted of 400 respondents. Following the
examination of data, removal of outliers and
straight liners, the useable sample size was 351
respondents and can be described as follows: 76%
females, 24% males,
31.3% between the ages of 18–35, 23.6% between
the ages of 36–51,
37.3% between the ages of 52–70 and 7.7% were >
70 years old, 8.8%

22
Table 1
Outer loadings.
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
1 2 3 4
General perception of CSR
I believe companies should ____________.
Support their communities 0.843 0.790 0.563 0.719
Support employee diversity 0.816 0.736 0.845 0.806
Contribute to solving social issues 0.780 0.733 0.841 0.669
Support employee inclusion 0.849 0.822 0.881 0.776
Provide adequate benefits to employees 0.812 0.820 0.618 0.846
Make charitable contributions 0.823 0.782 0.666 0.734
Provide fair return to investors 0.741 0.813 0.582 0.748
Address social issues 0.752 0.755 0.710 0.685
Incorporate sustainability information for all stakeholders 0.801 0.799 0.721 0.845
General perception of business ethics
Companies should have a code of ethics 0.898 0.888 0.760 0.913
I believe companies should not engage in bribery 0.861 0.809 0.728 0.752
companies should not be involved in communication that 0.780 0.786 0.655 0.776
deceives facts
I do not want to do business with companies that damage 0.931 0.915 0.848 0.894
customers
I feel that it is important for companies to be transparent in 0.877 0.770 0.643 0.872
engaging stakeholders
I do not want to do business with companies that deceive 0.899 0.937 0.736 0.821
customers
Managers should avoid conflicts of interest by not advancing 0.774 0.894 0.687 0.671
their own interests over those of the firm
I feel that it is important for companies to be honest in 0.915 0.891 0.741 0.894
engaging stakeholders
Response to CSR behavior
Ethics please rate (company in the scenario) on their ethical
behavior. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Response to business ethics behavior
The company (represented in the scenario) is undoubtedly
socially responsible. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Brand attitude
In general, my feelings toward (company represented in the
scenario) are ____________.
Very unfavorable–very favorable 0.983 0.981 0.986 0.985
Very bad–very good 0.970 0.993 0.988 0.987
Very unpleasant–very pleasant 0.980 0.977 0.988 0.983
23
reported an income of < $10,000, 45.2% earned
$10,000–$39,000, 38.5% earned $40,000–$99,999,
and 7.4% earned > $100,000.
Responses to exogenous and endogenous constructs
were collected using a single questionnaire. To
minimize the likelihood of common methods
variance (CMV), the questionnaire followed
guidelines recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). To assess the presence
of CMV we applied Harmon's single factor method
that has been deemed a good measure of CMV
(Babin, Griffin, & Hair, 2016; Fuller, Simmering,
Atinc, Atinc, & Babin, 2016). This test indicated
the variance did not exhibit common methods bias.
5. Analysis and results
5.1. Method of analysis
The SmartPLS 3 software (Ringle, Wende, &
Becker, 2015) was used for analysis. PLS-SEM is
widely accepted across disciplines as a robust
technique (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, &
Kuppelwieser, 2014; Hair, Sarstedt, Pieper, &
Ringle, 2012; Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena,
2012). PLS-SEM is most appropriate in studies
where theory is underdeveloped and prediction and
explanation of endogenous constructs is the primary
objective (Hair, Hollingsworth, Randolph, &
Chong, 2017; Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Hair,
Sarstedt, Ringle, & Gudergan, 2018). Since this
study focuses on prediction, PLS-SEM is the
appropriate choice for analysis (Hair, Matthews,
Matthews, & Sarstedt, 2017).
Measurement and structural models were examined
separately for each of the four scenarios. Outer
loadings in scenarios 1 and 2 exceed 0.70 and are
significant, while in scenarios 2 and 3 several items
were below 0.70 but still met recommended
guidelines (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2019;
Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017). Composite
reliability and average variance extracted exceeded
recommended guidelines (Hair et al., 2019) for all
groups. Thus, convergent validity was demonstrated
(Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015).
Discriminant validity was evaluated
based upon recommended guidelines
(Hair, Hult, et al., 2017). Following the Fornell and
Larcker (1981) criteria, the square roots of the
AVEs for the five constructs were higher than the
interconstruct correlations. The HTMT approach for
assessing discriminant validity was also examined,
and construct correlation values were all below 0.90
(Hair, Hult, et al., 2017; Henseler et al., 2015; Hair,
Hult, et al., 2017), providing further support for
discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015).
5.2. Hypothesis testing
The following section examines the hypothesized
relationships (Fig. 1). The results are reported and
evaluated by examining critical relationships to
understand how a consumer's general expectations
of both CSR and business ethics impacts brand
attitudes within different scenarios. In general,
Hypotheses 1 and 2 examine the impact of a
consumer's expectations of a company's CSR with
consumers perceptions of the actual company's CSR
and ethical behavior. Hypotheses 3 and 4 explores
the impact of a consumer's expectations of a
company's business ethics and the consumer's
perceptions of the company's actual CSR and ethics
behavior. Finally, Hypotheses 5 and 6 investigates
the impact of the customer's response to the actual
company's CSR and ethical behavior and brand
attitude.
In scenario 1 (+CSR/+BE), Hypotheses 1 and 2 (see
Table 2) propose that general customer expectations
of CSR exhibit a positive effect on the perception of
a brand's CSR and business ethics behavior when a
company's overall behavior is positive. In settings
where the company portrays positive CSR and
business ethics simultaneously, the company meets
the customer expectations and they respond
positively in their perception. The path relationship
between CSR expectations and the actual
perception of a brand's CSR behavior is positive
and significant (β = 0.263; p ≤ .10). Therefore, H1,
scenario 1 is supported. Contrary to the
hypothesized relationship, however, the path
24
between the customer's expectations of CSR and
perception of the actual brand's business ethics
behavior is not supported (β = 0.084; p > .10).
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
In scenarios 2 (−CSR/−BE), 3 (−CSR/+BE) and 4
(+CSR/−BE), Hypotheses 1 and 2 (see Table 2)
propose that due to inconsistent behavior, responses
to brands that portray any negative behavior will
create skepticism with any positive behavior,
increasing a customer's negative perception of both
corporate social responsibility and business ethics
(Wagner et al., 2009). Although the path
relationships for H1, scenario 2 (β = −0.028; p
> .10), H1, scenario 3 (β = −0.100; p > .10), H1,
scenario 4 (β = −0.179; p < .05) H2, scenario 2 (β =
−0.130; p > .10) and H2, scenario 4 (β = −0.168; p
> .10) are consistent with the hypothesized
direction, only, H1, scenario 4 (β = −0.179; p < .05)
and H2, scenario 3 (β = −0.179; p < .10) are
significant.
In scenario 1(+CSR/+BE), Hypotheses 3 and 4 (see
Table 2) posit that general customer expectations of
business ethics have a positive effect on the
perception of a brand's CSR and ethical behavior
when a company's overall behavior is completely
positive. That is when a customer expects a
company to maintain high business ethics, they
respond positively in their perception of a company.
H3,
scenario 1 (β = 0.300; p < .10) and H4,
scenario 1 (β = 0.629; p < .01) are
supported.
In scenarios 2 (−CSR/−BE), 3 (−CSR/+BE) and 4
(+CSR/−BE), Hypotheses 3 and 4 propose that due
to inconsistent behavior, response to brands that
portray any negative behavior will create skepticism
with any positive behavior, increasing their negative
perception of both corporate social responsibility
and business ethics. The direction of the
relationships is consistent as posed by the
hypotheses and all relationships are significant, with
the exception of H4, scenario 3 (β = −0.018; p
> .10). In sum, H3, scenario 2 (β = −0.563; p < .01),
H3, scenario 3 (β = −0.285; p < .01), H3, scenario 4
(β = −0.173; p < .05), H4, scenario 2 (β = −0.432; p
< .01) and H4, scenario 4 (β = −0.275; p < .05) are
supported.
Hypotheses 5 and 6 (see Table 3) propose that if
customers perceive a company's CSR and business
ethics in any scenario to be exceptional, they will in
turn exhibit a more favorable attitude toward the
25
brand. H5, scenario 1 (β = 0.561; p < .01), H5, scenario 3 (β = 0.384; p < .01), H5, scenario 4 (β =
0.423; p < .01), H6, scenario 1

Fig. 2. Scenario description.

Table 2
Path coefficient, t-value.
Independent variables Dependent variables

Response to CSR behavior Response to ethics behavior

CSR expectations
Scenario 1 0.263⁎/1.427
(+CSR/+BE)
Scenario 2 −0.028/0.240
(−CSR/−BE)
Scenario 3 −0.100/0.839
(−CSR/+BE)
Scenario 4 −0.179⁎⁎/1.768
(+CSR/−BE)
CSR expectations
Scenario 1 0.084/0.581
(+CSR/+BE)
Scenario 2 −0.130/0.934
(−CSR/−BE)
Scenario 3 −0.179⁎/1.332
(−CSR/+BE)
Scenario 4 −0.168/1.257
(+CSR/−BE)
Business ethics
expectations
Scenario 1 0.300⁎/1.537
(+CSR/+BE)
Scenario 2 −0.5634⁎⁎⁎/04.102
(−CSR/−BE)
Scenario 3 −0.285⁎⁎⁎/3.297
26
(−CSR/+BE)
Scenario 4 −0.173⁎⁎/1.695
(+CSR/−BE)
Business ethics
expectations
Scenario 1 0.629⁎⁎⁎/4.563
(+CSR/+BE)
Scenario 2 −0.432⁎⁎⁎/2.666
(−CSR/−BE)
Scenario 3 −0.018/0.160
(−CSR/+BE)
Scenario 4 −0.275⁎⁎/2.313
(+CSR/−BE)

⁎
p < .10. ⁎⁎⁎
p < .01 (one-tailed).
⁎⁎
p < .05.
(β = 0.308; p < .01), H6, scenario 2 (β = 0.763; p
⁎⁎⁎
p < .01 (one-tailed).
< .01), H6, scenario 3 (β = 0.515; p < .01) and H6,
Table 3 scenario 4 (β = 0.389; p < .01) are supported.
Path coefficient, t-value.
Independent variables Dependent variable Tables 4 and 5 shows the impact of exogenous
Brand attitude constructs on endogenous constructs. General
expectations that customers have with a company's
Response to CSR
CSR and ethical behavior explains between 10%
behavior
and 34% of their perceptions regarding the
Scenario 1 0.561⁎⁎⁎/5.605
company's CSR behavior and between 4% and 49%
(+CSR/+BE)
of their perceptions of the company's business
Scenario 2 0.138/1.183
ethics behavior. Customers' responses to the
(−CSR/−BE)
company's CSR and business ethics behavior
Scenario 3 0.384⁎⁎⁎/4.001
explain between 57% and 70% of their attitudes
(−CSR/+BE)
toward the brand. While prior ethics, CSR and
Scenario 4 0.423⁎⁎⁎/3.208
brand attitude research has not examined
(+CSR/−BE)
demographic controls, for this study, two control
Response to ethics variables
behavior
Scenario 1 0.308⁎⁎⁎/3.177
Table 4
(+CSR/+BE)
R2.
Scenario 2 0.763⁎⁎⁎/7.157
(−CSR/−BE) R2 -
R2 - S1 R2 - S2 R2 - S3
Scenario 3 0.515⁎⁎⁎/5.370 S4
(−CSR/+BE) Brand 0.659 0.754 0.645 0.568
Scenario 4 0.389 /2.998
⁎⁎⁎ attitude
(+CSR/−BE) RespCSR 0.280 0.342 0.124 0.100
RespEthics 0.485 0.291 0.036 0.161
27
(age, income) were evaluated. Following the that customers value both of these behaviors. While
examination of the control variables within all customers value both behaviors, when descriptive
scenarios, results indicated the impact of control constructs were developed from organizational
variables with brand attitude was not meaningful. practice, ethics had more impact on brand attitudes
For example, when they were3 examined with than CSR.
scenarios 2 and 3 one of the controls were
The four scenarios examined represent typical
significant. At the same time, for scenarios 1 and 4,
behavior associated
age was significant but the R2 values were minimal
(0.069/0.058). The results (Table 5) for f2 indicate
the effect size of the exogenous constructs on the
three endogenous constructs. Across the four
scenarios, general expectations of CSR have a small
effect in 4 of the 8 hypothesized relationships on the
response to a company's CSR and business ethics
behavior. Customers' general expectations of
business ethics have small and medium effects on
how customer's perceive a company's CSR and
business ethics behavior in 7 of the 8 hypothesized
relationships. Although responses to a company's
CSR and ethics behaviors exhibit small to large
effects on their perceptions of the brand, overall the
customer's response to business ethics behavior has
a larger effect on brand attitudes.
The Q2 results (Table 7) of the three endogenous
constructs are above 0 and provide support for the
model's predictive relevance of the endogenous
latent variables. In all 4 scenarios, brand attitude
has the highest Q2 values. In scenarios 1 and 4,
brand attitude is followed by response to a
company's ethical behavior and then response to a
company's CSR behavior. In scenarios 2 and 3,
brand attitude is followed by response to a
company's CSR behavior and then response to a
company's ethical behavior.

6. Findings and discussion

This research provides new insights about customer

expectations of business ethics and CSR and how
they likely influence attitudes toward brands. We
compare attitudes toward both positive and negative
conduct for business ethics and CSR activities as
observed in practice. When asked to review
descriptions of business ethics and CSR, 74.9% of
respondents suggested that both ethics and social
responsibility are equally important. This suggests
28
O.C. Ferrell et al.
Table
5 f2.
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Bran RespC RespEt
d SR hics
attitu
de
GCSR 0.040 0.006
GEthic 0.052 0.318
s
RespC 0.44 0.03
SR 2 7
RespEt 0.13 1.12
hics 3 8
with artifacts of organizations. In the
positive business ethics and positive CSR
scenario, the firm focused on long-term
relationships with customers and truthful,
transparent communication. In addition,
the firm was involved with philanthropic
and sustainability initiatives. In contrast,
the negative business ethics and negative
CSR scenario involved in false claims
about sustainability, covering up
regulatory violations, gender
discrimination, and large fines for
environmental violations. Firms exhibiting
major legal misconduct are associated with
negative perceptions of CSR and business
ethics, especially when management
covers up misconduct. This may be
because the unethical behaviors more
directly relate to brand and product
attitudes that could impact performance.
The negative CSR scenario addresses
issues related to being deficient in
sustainability, oil spills, and failing to
engage in philanthropic activities, but at
the same time the firm has a strong ethics
and compliance program with a reputation
of zero-tolerance on bribery and conflicts
of interest. The positive CSR and negative
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Bran RespC RespEt Bran RespC RespEt Bran RespC RespEt
d SR hics d SR hics d SR hics
attitu attitu attitu
de de de
0.000 0.010 0.008 0.022 0.022 0.021
0.194 0.106 0.062 0.000 0.021 0.056
0.27 0.19
1 8
0.49 0.16
0 7
ethics scenario has socially responsible
activities including philanthropic activities,
but in combination major misconduct
related to deceptive sales, taking advantage
of customers and not being truthful and
transparent.
When presented with a company scenario
that simultaneously displays both positive
CSR and ethical behavior, results indicate
that customer CSR expectations have a
greater positive effect on the company's
CSR behavior, but do not impact how
customers respond to the company's
ethical behavior. At the same time,
expectations of business ethics strongly
influence customer perceptions of both
CSR and ethical behavior. Overall, results
suggest that the impact of a customer's
expectations of business ethics has a
stronger relationship with how a customer
responds to the company's CSR and ethical
behavior. Interestingly, customer
responses to the company's CSR behavior
have a greater impact on brand attitudes. In
contrast, customer responses to the
company's CSR behavior have a greater
impact than the ethical behavior
perceptions on attitudes toward the brand.
29
O.C. Ferrell et al.
This suggests that when evaluating the
most favorable company, customers value
CSR behavior more favorably. This result
may be due to customer's emotional
engagement with general CSR
expectations (e.g., well-being of society) in
situations where there are no
transgressions by the company.
These results confirm that three fourths of
the respondents thought business ethics
and CSR were equally important when
asked directly. CSR is often more visible
and more often communicated to
customers than ethical behavior.
Customers cannot see good ethical
decisions made on a daily basis. They are
more likely to see mass media reports of
negative ethical behavior. This explains
why CSR has a greater impact on attitudes
toward the brand.
When evaluating a company that displays
both negative CSR and negative ethical
behavior, results indicate that how a
customer perceives both a company's CSR
and ethical behavior is a consequence of
the customer's business ethics
expectations. That is, the impact of a
customer's expectations of business ethics
has a stronger relationship with how a
customer responds to the company's CSR
and ethical behavior. For example, when
customer expectations are unfavorable,
this further motivates a customer's
negative perception of the company's
unacceptable behavior. In this scenario, the
concern appears to be with business ethics
behavior where customers would
potentially anticipate a direct breach that
would impact them through the poor
quality of products or services.
Negative ethical behavior has a stronger
relationship because this conduct probably
overwhelms even negative CSR activities.
Negative ethics may destroy trust and put a
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
negative image on all the firm's activities.
Negative CSR would be viewed as
possibly expected from a firm that engages
in negative ethical behavior. Also,
negative ethical behavior may be viewed
as posing direct harm to the customer with
CSR posing indirect harm.
When confronted with a scenario that
includes negative CSR but positive ethical
behavior, customer CSR expectations have
a greater negative effect on perceptions of
the company's ethical behavior, on the
other hand CSR expectations do not
impact how a customer responds to the
company's negative CSR behavior.
Therefore, customer expectations of CSR
perhaps creates skepticism about the
authenticity or consistency of the
company's positive ethical behavior;
creating a less trusting response. A
customer's response to the company's
negative CSR behavior is an outcome of
the extent to which a customer expects the
company to perform on business ethics but
does not impact how a customer responds
to the company's positive ethical behavior.
When a customer expects a company to
behave ethically, it increases the strength
of the negative perception that a customer
has with the lapse in CSR behavior making
it even more unacceptable. The
relationship between the customer's
response to the company's CSR and ethical
behavior and brand attitude are both
meaningful, but ultimately the impression
of the company's ethical behavior has a
stronger impact on the attitude toward the
brand than expectations of CSR. There is a
more favorable brand attitude among
customers that feel companies are
achieving a high level of ethical behavior.
These results confirm the importance of
ethical behavior. Indeed, this positive
30
O.C. Ferrell et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

behavior can overwhelm the negative CSR business ethics have the strongest total
activities related to brand attitude. effect. Although previous research
Table 6
Total effects.
Total effectsScenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Brand p value Brand p value Brand p value Brand p

attitude attitude attitude attitude value
GCSR 0.173 0.123 −0.103 0.182 −0.131 0.097 −0.141 0.050
GEthics 0.362 0.008 −0.407 0.002 −0.119 0.077 −0.180 0.017
emphasizes the importance of CSR
When encountering a company scenario behavior, the current findings indicate that
that includes positive CSR and negative companies should also consider focusing
ethical behavior, customer CSR on highlighting their efforts to maintain
expectations have an effect on perceptions positive ethical behavior. In addition, the
of the company's positive CSR behavior, contrasting responses (e.g., strength of
but do not impact how a customer relationships) between scenarios that
responds to the company's negative ethical impact
behavior. Expectations of business ethics
acts as the authority by which a customer Table 7 Q2.
perceives both a company's positive CSR Total Q2 -
Q2 - S1 Q2 - S2 Q2 - S3
and negative ethical behavior. Results S4
suggest that the impact of a customer's Brand 0.587 0.690 0.595 0.519
expectations of business ethics has a attitude
stronger relationship with how a customer RespCSR 0.218 0.296 0.098 0.050
responds to the company's CSR and ethical RespEthics 0.443 0.264 0.003 0.117
behavior. The customer's response to the both a customer's response to behavior and
company's CSR and ethical behavior both brand attitude is perhaps contextual in
significantly impact attitude toward the nature. That is, the egregious level of
brand. However, the customer's response failure by the company generates
to the company's CSR behavior has a differentiated responses. The negative
slightly stronger impact on how the conduct related to business ethics had a
customer feels about the brand. Therefore, strong total effect on brand attitude.
when there is negative ethical behavior is
exhibited, CSR can be a driver to develop 6.1. Theoretical and managerial
positive attitudes toward the brand. implications
Overall, the findings indicate the customer Unlike most prior research, this
expectations of a company's ethical exploratory research concurrently
behavior primarily influence the examined the expectations and perceived
perception of a company's CSR and ethical response to a company's CSR and ethics.
perceptions. In addition, the total effects This research should encourage both
(see Table 6) indicate that in regard to the theoretical development and empirical
ultimate endogenous construct brand testing of the role of business ethics and
attitude, customer's general expectations of CSR related to brand attitudes. Future

31
O.C. Ferrell et al.
research should consider a framework
developed by Schwartz (2016) to explore
moderators that may influence brand
attitude. While most consumers do not
think of business and CSR as different
constructs (Brunk, 2012), this research
indicates that when presented with
different organizational behavior
scenarios, consumers can differentiate
their attitudes toward brands. This is
consistent with Weller's (2017) finding
that senior managers see the constructs as
different in practice, if there are no ethical
issues that are visible, CSR becomes more
visible and can relate to a positive brand
image. This should stimulate more
research into why behaviors associated
with business ethics have more impact on
brand attitude.
CSR activities are more visible than ethical
decision making, since often ethics
decisions only become visible when there
is misconduct. The finding that business
ethics has more influence on brand
attitudes hopefully will encourage more
research to determine if business ethics has
more influence that CSR on reputation as
well as other attitudes toward the
organization. For example, does business
ethics have more influence on reputation,
product quality, loyalty, or satisfaction?
From a managerial perspective, firms
should recognize the need to determine
behaviors that consumers consider positive
business ethics and positive CSR. Because
risk areas are different for each firm, this
will require an audit to determine positive
behavior and risk areas to monitor and take
corrective actions for when behavior is
seen as questionable. Positive ethical
behaviors need to be identified that relate
to brand attitudes. These positive ethical
behaviors should be communicated to
customers to support positive brand
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
attitudes. Therefore, development of
additional corporate ethics and compliance
programs should be a top priority, and the
benefits of ethical behavior should be
linked to brand attitude and financial
value.
CSR should be seen as important, not
isolated, and integrated with corporate
strategy. Cause related marketing could
link organizations with a nonprofit to
collaborate with on social issues. Strategic
philanthropy can link charitable activities
with a cause that will support strategic
business objectives (Becker-Olsen & Hill,
2006). More research into the effectiveness
of cause related marketing and strategic
philanthropy should access the impact of
these activities on brand attitudes.
Finally the business ethics and CSR
constructs developed in this exploratory
research should provide opportunities for
testing, revision and improvement of the
scales. This in turn can provide more
opportunities to investigate the relative
importance and role of business ethics and
CSR on brand attitudes.
One limitation of this research is that
moderators may impact the relationship
between business ethics, CSR and brand
attitudes. Future research should test
moderators that potentially affect the
direction and strength of relationships. For
example, personal moral philosophies
could be useful in classifying how these
personal, moral perspectives relate to
attitudes toward the brand related to
negative and positive business ethics and
CSR attitudes. Customer's view of the
importance of business ethics and CSR
could also affect their attitudes toward the
brand.
While this research uses a descriptive
approach and the artifacts of existing
32
O.C. Ferrell et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

behavior, there is an opportunity for (2013) found that consumers were more
additional research using a normative concerned with performance of the brand
perspective. Customer's normative values than CSR. Possible business ethics
and moral philosophies may be important transgressions could decrease expectations
in forming attitudes toward business ethics related to brand performance. CSR may be
and CSR defined from a descriptive viewed as incremental and not required,
perspective. In addition, previous research but business ethics is required by
indicates that moral philosophies can established rules that are mandatory or
influence broad attitudes with scales that essential before purchasing the brand.
combine business ethics and CSR (Brunk,
Future research should focus on
2012). Comparing our findings with
moderators that can explain the strength of
distinct business ethics and CSR scales
the relationship between expectations of
with normative expectations should
business ethics and CSR related to band
provide additional insights related to brand
attitude. How does loyalty, trust, and
attitudes. Laczniak and Murphy (2012)
experience with a brand influence
emphasize normative approaches to a
reactions to business ethics conduct and
societal grounded license for performance
CSR activities? This research provides a
outcomes. The use of normative approach
solid foundation for a new direction in
to CSR in organizations should create the
business ethics and CSR research. Viewing
artifacts of business ethics and CSR used
these two areas as different related to
in this study.
attitudes toward brands can extend and
6.2. Conclusions change the direction of academic research
and managerial focus. The opportunity to
Business ethics and CSR are often defined expand insights and knowledge in this
as “doing good” and not damaging others. important topic is compelling.
This research has examined scenarios of
business ethics and CSR that are used to
measure consumer attitudes toward brands.
The results provide evidence that business
ethics has more impact on brand attitude
than CSR activities. This finding should
not diminish the value of CSR, because
CSR is important to firms and society
beyond its impact on brand attitudes. CSR
has been related to the reputation of the
firm and can influence hiring
opportunities, employee loyalty, as well as
relationships with regulatory groups
(Russell, Russell, & Honea, 2016). Our
findings are that ethical conduct is more
aligned with brand attitude, thus
suggesting an opportunity for future
research to determine why consumers are
more concerned about business ethics as it
relates to brand attitudes. Peloza et al.

33
O.C. Ferrell et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Appendix A

Scenario 1: Brand exhibiting positive CSR and ethical behaviorScenario 2: Brand exhibiting negative CSR
and ethical behavior

OrangeRiver is an online retailer that focuses on
long term relationships with customers. They
have a 100% satisfaction guaranteed policy in
order to foster customer satisfaction and provide
free shipping and returns. They also commit to
truthful and open communication with customers
and impressive benefits for employees.
The firm is engaged in philanthropic efforts and
most recently donated a generous amount to
hurricane victims. OrangeRiver has a strong
sustainability program and supports diversity as
well as numerous community causes. The
company measures their ‘carbon footprint’ and
negative impact upon the environment and
strives to improve their sustainability and green
business initiatives.
Panther is a global automobile company that,
according to J.D. Power's Initial Quality Study,
makes top ranked quality automobiles. The
company is known for excellence in service and
making high integrity cars.
While Panther claims its cars are environmentally
friendly, more recently it was found that many of its
models were violating environmental regulations in
a number of countries. Top management was aware
of the violations but tried to cover up the issues and
a scandal evolved. A number of executives were
convicted for assisting in the cover up. Panther paid
millions in fines for its environmental violations.
Panther has also been fined for not meeting mileage
requirements on a number of sports cars. In
addition, the company is under investigation for
gender discrimination in their hiring and promotion
processes. Panther continues to sell cars that are
highly desired by consumers and seems to have a
competitive advantage in the industry.

Scenario 3: Brand exhibiting negative CSR and positive ethical behavior Scenario 4: Brand exhibiting
positive CSR and negative ethical behavior

Petrocin is a leading oil company with its

brand of gasoline sold across the U.S.
The firm claims it has the highest
quality products and services along with
clean gas stations. Petrocin has been
criticized for pipeline leaks as well as
fracking activities that have
contaminated the water of ranches close
to oil wells. The firm has not taken a
definitive stance about the impact of
fossil fuels on global warming.

Petrocin makes very minimal

contributions to the local and national
community. The company, however,

34
O.C. Ferrell et al.
fosters a strong ethics and compliance
program in addition to taking a zero-
tolerance stance on bribery and
conflicts of interest. The ethical
leadership of managers insists on
honesty, truthfulness, and transparency
in communications. The firm also has
a positive reputation of being honest
and fair with all consumers.
TurboBank is an international bank that
engages in many charitable initiatives. The
bank tries hard to protect the privacy and
the data of their customers. Employees
receive positive benefits and other
incentives for being productive and
References
Anguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What
we know and don't know about
corporate social responsibility: A review
and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 38(4), 932–968.
Babin, B. J., Griffin, M., & Hair, J. F.
(2016). Heresies and sacred cows in
scholarly marketing publications.
Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
3133–3138.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., &
Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of
perceived corporate social responsibility
on consumer behavior. Journal of
Business Research, 59(1), 46–53.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Hill, R. P. (2006).
The impact of sponsor fit on brand
equity: The case of nonprofit service
providers. Journal of Service Research,
9(1), 73–83.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003).
Consumer-company identification: A
framework for understanding
consumers' relationships with
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
aligning themselves with these values. The
bank also focuses on trust and
transparency with all stakeholders.
Recently it was revealed that the bank
was making subprime loans to auto
buyers that had low credit scores. This
added cost resulted in some consumers
defaulting on their auto loans. In addition,
TurboBank included insurance policies
without the customer's prior knowledge.
There will be an investigation with the
possibility of large fines. The company
has been under investigation in the past
for, potentially, taking advantage of some
of their customer diversity and not being
as truthful and transparent as they should.
companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2),
76–88.
Bian, X., Wang, K. Y., Smith, A., &
Yannopoulou, N. (2016). New insights
into unethical counterfeit consumption.
Journal of Business Research, 69(10),
4249–4258.
Brunk, K. H. (2010). Exploring origins of
ethical company/brand perceptions — A
consumer perspective of corporate
ethics. Journal of Business Research,
63(3), 255–262.
Brunk, K. H. (2012). Un/ethical company
and brand perceptions: Conceptualizing
and operationalizing consumer
meanings. Journal of Business Ethics,
111(4), 551–565.
Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social
responsibility evolution of a definitional
construct.
Business & Society, 38, 268–295.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of
corporate social responsibility: Toward
the moral management of organizational
stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4),
39–48.
35
O.C. Ferrell et al.
Choi, B., & La, S. (2013). The impact of
corporate social responsibility (CSR)
and customer trust on the restoration of
loyalty after service failure and
recovery. Journal of Services
Marketing, 27(3), 223–233.
Cohn, D. Y. (2010, December).
Commentary essay on “Exploring
origins of ethical company/brand
perceptions — A consumer perspective
of corporate ethics”. Journal of Business
Research, 63(12), 1267–1268.
Creyer, E. H. (1997). The influence of firm
behavior on purchase intention: Do
consumers really care about business
ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing,
14(6), 421–432.
Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002).
An attitudinal model of technology-
based selfservice: Moderating effects of
consumer traits and situational factors.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 30(3), 184–201.
Davidson, P., & Griffin, R. (2000).
Management: Australia in a global
context. Brisbane, Australia: Wiley.
Davies, I., & Gutsche, S. (2016).
Consumer motivations for mainstream
“ethical” consumption. European
Journal of Marketing, 50(7), 1326–
1347.
Epstein, E. (1987). The corporate social
policy process: Beyond business ethics,
corporate social responsibility, and
corporate social responsiveness.
California Management Review, 29(3),
99–114.
Fan, Y. (2005). Ethical branding and
corporate reputation. Corporate
Communications: An International
Journal, 10(4), 341–350.
Fassin, Y., Van Rossem, A., & Buelens,
M. (2011). Small-business owner-
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
managers' perceptions of business ethics
and CSR-related concepts. Journal of
Business Ethics, 98(3), 425–453.
Ferrell, O. C., Crittenden, V., Ferrell, L., &
Crittenden, W. (2013). Theoretical
development in ethical marketing
decision making. AMS Review, 3(2),
51–60.
Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L.
(2017). Business Ethics: Ethical
Decision Making and Cases. Boston:
Cengage Learning.
Fisher, J. (2004). Social responsibility and
ethics: Clarifying the concepts. Journal
of Business Ethics, 52(4), 391–400.
Folkes, V. S., & Kamins, M. A. (1999).
Effects of information about firms'
ethical and unethical actions on
consumers' attitudes. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 243–259.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981).
Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G.,
Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016).
Common methods variance detection in
business research. Journal of Business
Research, 69(8), 3192–3198.
36
 Perbandingan Jurnal
Judul : 1. Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility – Is there a dividing line?
2. Business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and brand attitudes: An
exploratory study

Pendahuluan
 Jurnal 1
Etika Bisnis mencakup bidang prinsip moral dan pengambilan keputusan, masalah
tata kelola, dan kode etik bisnis. Beverungen dan Case (2011) berpendapat bahwa
"Kita mungkin menemukan bahwa etika dalam bisnis melibatkan dislokasi dasar yang
berkaitan dengan pengalaman fenomenal yang muncul ketika segala sesuatunya tidak
pada tempatnya" (Beverungen and Case, 2011. Saat mengidentifikasi praktik yang
mencerminkan etika bisnis, kita menemukan diri kita berada di wilayah moralitas dan
definisi tentang apa yang dimaksud dengan moralitas. Tindakan bisnis kemudian akan
dinilai bukan berdasarkan apa yang efisien atau efektif tetapi oleh apa yang “dapat
dipertahankan secara moral” (Wozniak 2011 hlm. 304). Kami memahami bahwa etika
bisnis sebagai sebuah konsep sedang bermutasi, berubah dalam konteks teknologi
baru, cara baru mobilisasi dan pemanfaatan sumber daya, praktik masyarakat yang
berkembang dan tumbuh menuju jaringan bisnis global yang terhubung terus-
menerus. Tumbuhnya kesadaran universal tentang keterbatasan sumber daya alam,
kesenjangan kekayaan yang semakin besar, dan kehadiran bisnis yang meluas dalam
kehidupan individu warga negara melalui teknologi seperti data besar dan komputasi
awan, memunculkan etika bisnis ke garis depan percakapan tentang norma-norma
sosial. 

 Jurnal 2
Penting untuk memahami kepentingan relatif dari etika bisnis dan tanggung jawab
sosial dalam menentukan sikap merek. Namun, ada kegagalan dalam penelitian
sebelumnya untuk membedakan antara sikap terhadap etika bisnis dan CSR.
Penelitian ini mengkaji penelitian merek pelanggan terkait dengan etika bisnis dan
tanggung jawab sosial serta melakukan penelitian untuk mengevaluasi sikap
pelanggan. Empat skenario menawarkan variasi dalam perilaku perusahaan terkait
dengan perilaku positif dan negatif dari tanggung jawab sosial pelanggan dan etika
bisnis. Temuan studi dari panel yang terdiri dari 351 responden memberikan wawasan
baru terkait harapan dan persepsi pelanggan tentang CSR perusahaan dan perilaku
etika bisnis. Kami menyimpulkan bahwa meskipun sikap CSR tetap penting,
pelanggan menghargai etika bisnis sebagai perilaku kritis dalam persepsi mereka
tentang sikap merek. 
Hasil dan Pembahasan
 Jurnal 1
CSR telah menjadi bagian dari praktik bisnis yang etis dan bertanggung jawab sejak
lama. Namun, konsep tersebut telah memperoleh daya tarik tambahan di tengah
lingkungan ekonomi yang mengglobal saat ini (Jamail & Mirshak 2007). CSR

37
 beroperasi pada prinsip bahwa perusahaan berkewajiban untuk memenuhi tanggung
jawab mereka kepada berbagai pemangku kepentingan yang lebih besar daripada
pemegang sahamnya. Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan seharusnya tidak menjadi
kebijakan tambahan oleh perusahaan, tetapi diintegrasikan ke dalam struktur dan
strategi tata kelolanya. Goel et al (2013) mengutip laporan perusahaan akuntansi dan
konsultan global utama Grant Thornton berdasarkan data yang dikumpulkan pada
tahun 2010 dan awal 2011, bahwa kegiatan CSR di seluruh dunia telah meningkat
secara dramatis dalam beberapa tahun terakhir karena “bisnis menyadari nilainya
tidak hanya secara komersial, tetapi juga dalam hal meningkatkan nilai karyawan,
menarik staf, dan memangkas biaya (Goel, Sanghvi, Dahiya 2013). CSR juga telah
didefinisikan melalui perspektif agama. Suthisak Kraisornsuthasinee menyatakan
“Tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan (CSR), sebagai sebuah konsep, membahas bahwa
keuntungan dari bisnis untuk beberapa orang mungkin datang dengan mengorbankan
orang lain. Hubungan sebab akibat seperti itu dapat didasarkan pada pandangan
relativistik tentang asal mula yang bergantungan dan hukum kondisionalitas”
(Kraisornsuthasinee 2012 Pp191). 

 Jurnal 2
yang ada tentang hubungan etika bisnis dan CSR terkait dengan 
merekdidasarkan pada beberapa perspektif yang berbeda. Pertama, ada penelitian
tentang sikap terhadap produk etis (Peloza et al., 2013) dan konsumsi etis (Davies &
Gutsche, 2016). Aliran penelitian ini dapat memeriksa preferensi untuk merek yang
dipromosikan melalui daya tarik tanggung jawab sosial dan etika bisnis. Sampai saat
ini, sebagian besar penelitian tentang merek etis dikaitkan dengan tanggung jawab
sosial (White et al., 2012). Merek yang etis biasanya diidentifikasi sebagai melakukan
sesuatu yang baik untuk masyarakat atau konsumen seperti, bahan organik,
perdagangan yang adil, atau dalam beberapa cara memenuhi kebutuhan dan keinginan
pemangku kepentingan. Fan (2005) mendefinisikan merek etis sebagai
mempromosikan barang publik dengan atribut seperti kejujuran, integritas, kualitas,
rasa hormat, dan akuntabilitas. Hasil beragam dalam menilai dampak persepsi merek
etis. Pelosa dkk. (2013) menemukan bahwa atribut produk etis tidak sepenting kinerja
produk. Singh, Iglesias, dan Batista-Foguet (2012) menemukan bahwa persepsi etika
suatu merek berpengaruh positif terhadap kepercayaan merek, dan pada gilirannya
kepercayaan merek berhubungan positif dengan loyalitas merek. Skala persepsi etika
konsumen (CPE) (Brunk, 2012) terutama didasarkan pada item CSR dan digunakan
untuk mengukur persepsi konsumen terhadap merek etis. Muncy dan Vitell (1992)
dan Vitell dan Muncy (1992) mengembangkan skala etika konsumen untuk
mengevaluasi sikap konsumen terhadap pelanggaran etika. Skala ini diperbarui oleh
Vitell dan Muncy (2005) untuk mengatasi sikap konsumen tambahan terhadap
masalah seperti membeli barang palsu, mendaur ulang, dan melakukan hal yang
benar. Banyak penelitian telah menggunakan skala ini, tetapi ini tentang konsumen
yang menunjukkan sikap etis, bukan etika bisnis atau CSR dari perilaku perusahaan
yang terkait dengan merek. Aliran penelitian lain berfokus pada perspektif merek
pelanggan dari etika bisnis yang berkaitan dengan persepsi perusahaan/merek.
Penelitian ini mengevaluasi perilaku etis positif atau pelanggaran etika (Cohn, 2010).
Faktor moderasi yang dapat mempengaruhi emosi, penalaran, dan penilaian dalam

38
 hubungan konsumen-merek telah dieksplorasi, tetapi tidak dalam konteks menentukan
dampak etika bisnis vs tanggung jawab sosial dalam membuat penilaian tentang
hubungan merek (Schwartz, 2016). Penelitian kesalahan merek berfokus pada
tindakan merek negatif (Trump, 2014). Kesalahan merek dikaitkan dengan
konsekuensi negatif dalam sikap merek dan niat pembelian kembali (Huber,
Vollhardt, Matthes, & Vogel, 2010) dan perilaku merek yang terkait dengan kepuasan
memiliki dampak positif dari sikap merek. Hsiao, Shen, dan Chao (2015) menemukan
bahwa kesalahan merek menunjukkan respons yang lebih rendah pada hubungan
pemasaran. Selain itu, komunikasi seperti iklan dapat efektif dalam mengurangi
dampak negatif dari perilaku merek yang salah. Ada cukup bukti bahwa mengukur
perilaku negatif vs. positif terkait dengan etika bisnis dan CSR akan berdampak pada
sikap merek. Skala yang banyak digunakan untuk mengukur etika yang dirasakan
konsumen (CPE) dari sebuah perusahaan atau merek tidak memberikan perbedaan
yang jelas antara tanggung jawab sosial dan etika (Brunk, 2012). Indikator skala
meliputi hukum, tanggung jawab sosial, dan menjadi perusahaan yang baik. Skala
tidak secara jelas mendefinisikan perilaku yang mengevaluasi pengambilan keputusan
etis dalam suatu organisasi. Pertanyaan sikap etis terkait dengan penerapan filosofi
moral pribadi deontologi dan teleologi, dalam banyak kasus untuk kegiatan CSR.
Skala tersebut didasarkan pada menjadi pelaku pasar, bertanggung jawab secara
sosial, menghindari perilaku merusak, dan mengevaluasi konsekuensi positif vs
negatif (Brunk, 2012). Lebih jauh lagi, skala tersebut tidak berhubungan dengan
perilaku etis organisasi tertentu, seperti kode etik, penipuan, keadilan, transparansi,
dan menghindari suap, dll. Ada sejumlah masalah lain yang terkait dengan skala PPK.
Ke-36 perilaku tidak etis tersebut berasal dari 20 peserta di Inggris dan Jerman.
Negara-negara ini memiliki peringkat tinggi dalam perilaku etika bisnis dan dengan
sedikit responden, patut dipertanyakan apakah para peserta menyadari banyak
masalah etika bisnis yang penting (Shea, 2010)
Kesimpulan
 Jurnal 1
Melihat CSR melalui teori pemangku kepentingan normatif Freeman (sebagaimana
dikutip dalam Parmar et al 2010), kami mengusulkan bahwa CSR adalah bagian dari
etika bisnis. Freeman et al (2004) menyatakan “Teori pemangku kepentingan dimulai
dengan asumsi bahwa nilai-nilai secara eksplisit merupakan bagian dari melakukan
bisnis” (Freeman et al 2004). Tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan terbatas dalam
definisinya tentang mandat dan tanggung jawab bisnis terhadap pemegang saham
yang teridentifikasi. Hak-hak badan hukum yang dinikmati oleh perusahaan, disertai
dengan tugas dan kewajiban terhadap lingkungan yang merupakan bagian darinya.
Tugas-tugas ini harus menjadi bagian dari norma dan kode etik dan menjadi bagian
dari desain kelembagaan (Singer 2013). Kumpulan sumber daya dan lingkungan
tempat bisnis beroperasi, memiliki andil dalam operasinya. Bisnis memiliki tugas dan
timbal balik terhadap lingkungan itu untuk kelangsungan hidup yang berkelanjutan
untuk dirinya sendiri dan lingkungan. Teori pemangku kepentingan melibatkan
melihat sistem organisasi dan desain proses secara keseluruhan (Freeman 1984 seperti
dikutip dalam Parmar et al 2010).  

39
  Jurnal 2
Ada bukti bahwa praktisi dan peneliti akademis memiliki perspektif yang berbeda
tentang hubungan etika bisnis dan CSR. Penelitian tentang bagaimana praktisi
menerapkan konstruksi ini memberikan wawasan penting dan pemahaman deskriptif
tentang etika bisnis dan CSR dalam praktiknya. Menggunakan perspektif teori
komunitas praktik memberikan wawasan yang penting untuk memahami etika bisnis
dan kegiatan CSR dalam konteks organisasi bisnis. Menggunakan dalam wawancara
dengan manajer senior menemukan bahwa etika bisnis dan CSR hanya memiliki
hubungan informal dan makna yang beragam dalam praktiknya (Weller, 2017). Hal
ini berbeda dengan banyak akademisi yang menafsirkan etika bisnis dan CSR sebagai
hal yang serupa dan saling terkait (Fassin, Van Rossem, & Buelens, 2011). Fisher
(2004) Tinjauantentang buku teks di seluruh disiplin manajemen dan etika bisnis
menemukan bahwa dalam banyak hal bahwa kedua konstruksi itu sama, hanya
diterapkan pada tingkat analisis yang berbeda. Davidson dan Griffin (2000) serta
Joyner dan Payne (2002) secara eksplisit menyatakan bahwa kedua konstruk tersebut
adalah hal yang sama. Untuk menambah kebingungan, Carroll (1991) menyatakan
bahwa etika bisnis adalah salah satu bagian dari CSR atau sebaliknya. Akhirnya
Epstein (1987) berpendapat bahwa etika bisnis dan CSR terkait tetapi berbeda. Dalam
civitas akademika tidak ada resolusi yang jelas tentang hubungan etika bisnis dan
CSR. Menyatakan bahwa definisi etika bisnis dan CSR telah dibahas dan diselesaikan
secara luas tidaklah tepat. Penelitian kami adalah yang pertama mengeksplorasi
definisi etika bisnis dan CSR dari perspektif pelanggan yang deskriptif.
Membandingkan temuan kami dengan temuan Weller (2017) dari manajer senior
harus membawa wawasan baru tentang bagaimana konstruksi dilihat oleh dua
pemangku kepentingan utama di luar komunitas akademik. Weller (2017)
menyimpulkan bahwa manajer percaya "CSR adalah bagian dari etika bisnis dan
menolak mereka yang percaya bahwa etika bisnis dan CSR dapat dipertukarkan" (hal
20). Batas-batas ada dalam organisasi antara etika bisnis dan kegiatan CSR.
Komunitas yang berbeda ada dengan sedikit organisasi formal dan hanya sedikit
hubungan informal. Penelitian kami menjawab Weller (2017) panggilanuntuk
penelitian lebih lanjut untuk mengeksplorasi hubungan antara etika bisnis dan CSR,
baik secara konseptual maupun dalam praktik. Persepsi pelanggan dari dua konstruksi
ini memberikan kontribusi yang signifikan untuk memajukan pengetahuan terkait
dengan peningkatan pemahaman tentang bagaimana dua konstruksi berkontribusi
pada nilai dan kepuasan pemangku kepentingan. Jika manajer dan pelanggan dapat
menarik perbedaan antara dua konstruksi maka akademisi perlu menguji kembali
keyakinan mereka bahwa konstruksi dapat dipertukarkan. 
Refferences
 Jurnal 1
Beverungen,A.,Dunne,S.,Hoedemaekers,C. (2013).Finansialisasi etika bisnis. Etika Bisnis: Tinjauan
Eropa. Volume 22 Nomor 1
Beverungen, A., Case,P. (2011). Pengantar editorial: di mana etika bisnis?. Etika Bisnis: Sebuah
Tinjauan Eropa Volume 20 Nomor. 
Bjerregaard,T.,Lauring,J. (2013). Mengelola kontradiksi tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan:
keberlanjutan keragaman di perusahaan terdepan. Etika Bisnis: Sebuah Tinjauan Eropa Volume
22 Nomor 2. 

40
 Bolaji, AB (2011). Permasalahan Dan Prospek Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan Dalam
Pembangunan Nasional. Jurnal Kontinental Pembangunan Berkelanjutan , Vol. 2, No. 2, 19-25.
http://www.wiloludjournal.com/ojs/index.php/cjsd/article/viewArticle/578  
Bradley, RL (2009). Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan dan Energi. Budaya dan Peradaban Vol 1. 
Bradley, RL (2009). Kapitalisme di Tempat Kerja: Bisnis, Pemerintah, dan Energi hlm. 309–310.  
Carroll, AB (1991). Piramida Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan: Menuju Pengelolaan Moral
Pemangku Kepentingan Organisasi. Cakrawala Bisnis. Diperoleh dari
http://www.csrquest.net/default.aspx?articleID=12770&heading= 
Tanggung Jawab Perusahaan Praktik terbaik Praktik CR Di Antara Perusahaan Global (2011). Majalah
Tanggung Jawab Perusahaan, NY Euronext, Asosiasi Pejabat Tanggung Jawab Perusahaan.
Diperoleh dari http://www.croassociation.org/files/CR%20Best%20Practices%202011%20-
%20executive%20summary.pdf majalah 
Corporate Responsibility(CR). Diperoleh dari www.thecro.com 
CR's 100 Best Corporate Citizens 2013. Diperoleh dari
http://www.thecro.com/files/100Best2013_web.pdf  
metodologi daftar Corporate Citizenship Majalah CR. Diperoleh dari
http://www.thecro.com/content/cr-magazine-corporate-citizenship-lists metodologi 
Dimitriades, ZS (2007). Etika Bisnis dan Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan dalam e-Economy:
Sebuah Komentar. Jurnal Elektronik Etika Bisnis dan Studi Organisasi. Jil. 12, No.2 ISSN 1239-
2685 .
Mridula Goel dan Preeti E. Ramanathan / Procedia Ekonomi dan Keuangan 11 ( 2014 ) 49 – 59  
Engelen.B. (2011). Melampaui pasar dan negara: pentingnya komunitas. UNESCO, Penerbitan
Blackwell Oxford Pp489-500. 
Fontaine, C., Haarman, A., Schmid, S. (2006). Teori Pemangku Kepentingan.Diperoleh dari C
Fontaine, A Haarman… - Edlays ..., 2006 diseniosesparragos.googlecode. 
Freeman, R., E. (1999). Tanggapan: Teori Pemangku Kepentingan Divergen. Review Akademi
Manajemen , Vol. 24, No.2 hal.233-236. 

 Jurnal 2

Global Business Benchmark on Workplace Ethics (2018). Ethics and Compliance Initiative.
http://www.ethics.org/ecihome/research/gbes/gbes-maps, Accessed date: 1 May 2018. 
Grappi, S., Romani, S., & Bagozzi, RP (2013). Consumer response to corporate irre sponsible
behavior: Moral emotions and virtues. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1814–1821. 
Groza, M., Pronschinske, M., & Walker, M. (2011). Perceived organizational motives and consumer
responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 639–652. 
Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2019). (8th ed.). London, UK: Multivariate Data
Analysis Cengage Learning. 
Hair, JF, Hollingsworth, CL, Randolph, AB, & Chong, A. (2017). An updated and expanded
assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 3. 
Hair, JF, Hult, GTM, Ringle, CM, & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC: SAGE. 
Hair, JF, Matthews, LM, Matthews, RL, & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated
guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2),
107–123. 
Hair, JF, Ringle, CM, & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. 
Hair, JF, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, VG (2014). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business
Review, 26(2), 106–121. 
Hair, JF, Sarstedt, M., Pieper, TM, & Ringle, CM (2012). The use of partial least squares structural
equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and
recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 320–340. 
Hair, JF, Sarstedt, M., Ringle, CM, & Gudergan, SP (2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares
structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM). CA, Sage: Thousand Oaks. Hair, JF, Sarstedt, M.,
Ringle, CM, & Mena, JA (2012). An assessment of the use of 

41
42