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

net/publication/294428397

Corporate Social Responsibility in European Context

Chapter · January 2014

CITATIONS READS
4 16,288

2 authors:

Ayselin Yildiz Mehmet Gokay OZERIM

Yasar University Yasar University
29 PUBLICATIONS   200 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wellbeing, Housing, and Infrastructure in Turkey View project

Inclusion in or Exclusion from Turkish Labour Market? An Ethnographic Analysis on Syrian refugees in İzmir View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayselin Yildiz on 20 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Yıldız, A., Ozerim, G. (2014) “Corporate Social Responsibility in European Context”. in Turker,
D., Toker, H., Altuntaş, C. (Ed.). Contemporary Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility.
Lexington Books, USA pp.43-55

Yıldız, Ayselin; Yasar University, International Relations, ayselin.yildiz@yasar.edu.tr

Ozerim, Gokay; Yasar University, International Relations, gokay.ozerim@yasar.edu.tr

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been a vital tool for the European Union (EU)
in terms of its pioneering role to foster sustainable development, innovation and competitiveness
in EU’s social market economy. In this context, sustainable and responsible European enterprises
are strongly promoted by the European Commission (EC) through CSR (EC, 2008). Moreover,
CSR is indicated as to reinforce the development of new markets and opportunities for growth
and innovation since it requires enterprises to carefully follow changing social expectations and
ensure the consumer trust through adopting new sustainable business models (EC, 2011, 3).  

Since the 1990s, the EU has been aware of the importance of CSR as part of its
sustainable development strategy (SDS) and as an attempt to improve companies’ accountability
to public institutions and citizens. In this regard, it strongly encourages the effective
implementation of CSR in European enterprises as a crucial push factor that contributes to the
EU’s Europe 2020 strategy, aiming for sustainable development through smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth. Apart from the controversial concepts of the CSR in the literature, the EC- a
very active actor in the development of public policy to promote CSR- in its 2001
Communication defines CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (EC, 2001). As Türker and Altuntaş (2012, 461) state, through
this definition EU identifies CSR as a voluntary action rather than a compulsory framework.  

In 2011, referring to the need for a modern understanding of CSR and a new agenda for
action, the EU updated its definition of CSR by including new elements with a focus on creating

  1  
a value based system and increased impact. Accordingly, CSR is defined as “the responsibility of
enterprises for their impacts on society”. It is more precisely described as follows:  

To fully meet their corporate social responsibility, enterprises should have in place a
process to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer
concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with
their stakeholders, with the aim of:

– maximising the creation of shared value for their owners/shareholders and for their
other stakeholders and society at large;

– identifying, preventing and mitigating their possible adverse impacts (EC, 2011, 6).

Recognizing the importance of all these aspects of CSR, this article aims to provide a
descriptive analysis of how the EU perceives CSR and how the EU’s policy on CSR is evolving.
In this context, it tries to focus on the divergences and commonalities of CSR practices occurring
in different EU countries within the context of the EU’s attempts to formulate a European
framework for its CSR policy. It also tries to provide a concise comparison between the
understanding and implementation of CSR in European companies and U.S. companies in order
to demonstrate the differing impacts and implications of CSR in different contexts.

Development of European Policy on Corporate Social Responsibility

Since its Green Paper of 2001, the European Commission has strongly promoted the
importance of CSR as a route to sustainable development that should be embedded in EU policy
and action. It states that “CSR can contribute to sustainable development, while enhancing
Europe’s innovative potential and competitiveness, thereby also contributing to employability
and job creation” (EC, 2006). The Commission expects European companies and businesses to
demonstrate their commitment to CSR through accountable, transparent and responsible business
behaviour. The promotion of CSR as part of European policies was followed by the establishment
of the European Multistakeholder Forum on CSR in 2002. Hosted and facilitated by the EC, the
forum aims to provide a space for dialogue between European stakeholders about the
developments in CSR and evolving European policy on CSR. It brings together European

  2  
representative organisations of employers, business networks, trade unions and NGOs to
exchange good practices, encourage innovation, convergence and transparency in existing CSR
practices and tools. The forum has been successful in terms of achieving a measure of consensus
among participants, while also highlighting the significant differences of opinion between
business and non-business (EC, 2006). It has confirmed a common European understanding of
CSR and explored its scope and boundaries. However, issues of company reporting requirements
and the need for European standards on CSR remain as topics of which no consensus could be
reached.

In 2003, the Directive of the European Council called for the member states to require
business to inform the public about their environmental and social impacts in their annual reports,
known as non-financial reporting1. However, as the directive did not provide a specific
framework for the reporting mechanisms of this information, member states interpreted it in
different ways. As a result, non-financial reporting still remains a voluntary exercise in most
European countries, and articulated in a weak manner (Bizarri, 2013, 3) since reports lack
comparability and consistency. Tschopp mentions that these reports are more likely to be
“greenwash” or a strategic marketing strategy than reflecting the company’s actual position
(2005, 56).

Another main initiative to promote CSR as European policy was the launch of the
European Alliance for CSR in 2006, which have invited enterprises of all sizes to express their
support and act as a political umbrella for new or existing CSR initiatives (EC, 2006). The
Commission aims to encourage the further take-up of CSR amongst European enterprises through
this alliance, which is not a legal instrument but more likely a vehicle for mobilising the
resources and capacities of European enterprises and their stakeholders. The Alliance is intended
to contribute to the eight new priority areas for EU action in promoting CSR: awareness-raising
and best practice exchange; support to multi-stakeholder initiatives; cooperation with member
states; provision of consumer information and transparency; research; education; support for
small and medium-sized enterprises; and the international dimension of CSR (EC, 2006). The
policy initiative was successful in terms of reinforcing progress in the field of CSR among
European enterprises through a number of actions taken that promoted CSR (EC, 2011, 4-5).

  3  
 Since 2000s, triggered by the changing economic conditions, weakening of the European
welfare models and the global external factors, such as increasing awareness on global
environmental problems, the European Commission has become more active in encouraging the
CSR activities of European businesses by stating that CSR “can play a key role in contributing to
sustainable development while enhancing Europe’s innovative potential and competitiveness”
(EC, 2006). In this regard, it has attempted to provide a fuller legal and institutional set up by
creating a model of corporate social responsibility based on European values.

However, there were remaining important challenges against the development EU’s CSR
policy and its expected broad impact in member states. Firstly, the rapid transition of new Central
and Eastern European member states from a socialist economy to a competitive market economy
has pushed the unplanned growth of many companies and business organizations, which has
casued several societal and environmental problems (Türker and Altuntaş, 2012, 460). In
addition, adapting the highly demanding EU framework of economic, environmental and social
standards has been a challenging task for businesses in the enlarged, highly competitive Europe.
Thus, the understanding and involvement of businesses in new member states to the CSR policy
of the EU, as a part of the EU’s integrated sustainable development principle, have lagged behind
of their counterparts in older member states. This has created a huge divergence in the
implementation and understanding of CSR among European companies, which has made the
development of EU policy on CSR slower and more difficult.

Secondly, the global economic crises since 2008 have created serious economic and social
problems in many European countries which have weakened the effective functioning of
European welfare systems. In this context, the active participation of business is addressed as
crucial to compensate the lack of resources of the weakened European welfare states. Besides, it
seems that the current slow recovery process from economic stagnation period will result in long-
range tightly controlled solutions, which leaves new members states to perform more by
themselves to close the gap between their economic development level and older member states
in order to satisfy the economic criteria and standards of the EU. This eventually increase the
pressure on business community in Europe to develop and implement more innovative and
growth oriented strategies in a competitive market without expecting strong economic support
from the EU. Moreover, EU’s growth model on the principle of sustainable development puts

  4  
more pressure on the firms to achieve their economic growth while integrating themselves into
the EU’s sustainable growth strategy against indicated seven key fields; climate change and clean
energy, sustainable transport, sustainable consumption and production, conservation and
management of natural resources, public health, social inclusion, demography and migration, and
global poverty (Türker and Altuntaş, 2012, 463-64).

Thirdly, the economic crisis and its social consequences have also diverted the focus of
citizens to the social and ethical performance of enterprises as result of the loss of trust and
consumer confidence in businesses (EC, 2011). The increasing environmental and societal
concern of people put the firms under the pressure to satisfy the expectations of its consumers
concerning the companies’ contributions in solving ethical, social and environmental problems.
However, many European companies have not yet integrated social and environmental concerns
into their operations and core strategy. Besides, failure to respect core labour standards and
human rights harm has been persisting in small scale of European enterprises (EC, 2011).

As a result, the EC underlined the need for a new policy on CSR in its communication on
industrial policy issued in 2010 (EC, 2010). Concerning the need for a best possible legislative
framework, many multi-stakeholder workshops were arranged and participated by the
representatives from business, trade unions, governments, civil society and consumer
organizations. In October 2011, the EC adopted a new strategy that marked an important
milestone in the development of EU’s CSR policy. In this context, CSR is perceived as an
important tool to build and improve more sustainable organizations in Europe where the
companies function on a new form of value based model addressing societal challenges with
increased consumer trust in them. The new strategy puts a strong focus on a core set of
internationally recognized CSR guidelines and principles as part of an evolving and strengthened
global framework. These internationally recognized principles and guidelines include OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the ten principles of the United Nations Global
Compact, the ISO 26000 Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility, the ILO Tri-partite
Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, and the United
Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. As part of this strategy, the European
Commission has invited all large European enterprises to make a commitment by 2014 to take
account of at least one of these sets of instruments while developing their own policies on CSR.

  5  
 The EU’s action agenda for 2011-2014 highlights eight priority areas concerning the
revision of its CSR policy: enhancing the visibility of CSR and disseminating good practices;
improving and tracking levels of trust in business; improving self- and co-regulation processes;
enhancing market reward for CSR; improving company disclosure of social and environmental
information; further integrating CSR into education, training and research; emphasising the
importance of national and sub-national CSR policies; and better aligning European and global
approaches to CSR. Through this agenda, the Commission expects European businesses to make
an open and accountable commitment to promote CSR, in close cooperation with public
authorities and their other stakeholders, with clear targets for 2015 and 2020.

As one of the main features of this strategy that addresses the EU policy on CSR, it
strongly pushes for the mandatory reporting system for social and environmental information
however it is mostly resisted by the large companies which favors for voluntary reporting by
highlighting the voluntary nature of CSR. In particular, large companies have insisted on having
the flexibility to consider which international frameworks are most appropriate for their business
and which information they should disclose (Bizzarri, 2013, 7). As a result, the strategy brought
the requirement that companies operating within the EU with more than 1,000 employees should
report on their social and environmental impacts. While this has strongly welcomed by the human
rights and environmental campaigners, it has been resisted by some sectors of the conservative
business communities who support a laissez-faire approach to CSR, favoring voluntary action
rather than binding rules (Bizzarri, 2013, 2)2. The EuroChambers, a lobby group representing the
interests of Europe’s national chambers of commerce, stressed that pushing the social and
environmental impact reporting as mandatory would put additional administrative and financial
burdens on companies. They underlined that the burden would be even bigger for the small and
medium sized firms (SMEs) many of which operate as subsidiaries or subcontractors of large
multinational companies.

As another main feature of the new strategy, it has promoted a further increase in
government activity around corporate transparency. It encouraged the public authorities to take
steps to improve company disclosure of social and environmental performance and assigned an
important role to the governments to get involved with a clear and direct interest in sustainability
reporting. In these terms, the strategy marked a promising progress in implementing a policy for

  6  
CSR as part of the EU’s agenda. However, a recent study prepared for the EC demonstrates that
the EU’s policy on CSR needs to be supported and improved more in order to reach its targets
(Schimnaski, 2013). According to this study, only 33 percent sampled EU companies refer to at
least one of the UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines or ISO 26000, although 75 percent of
the Danish companies and more than half of Spanish and Swedish companies refer to
internationally recognized CSR instruments more often than the average EU company. Dutch,
French and Italian companies were about average in the sample, whereas only less than 15
percent of Czech, German, and Polish companies in the sample refer to CSR instruments
(Schimnaski, 2013, 6). The number of companies referring to the UN Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights was also found be very low, with only 23 percent referring to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Divergent Implementation of CSR within EU member states: One size does not fit all

The divergences concerning the implementation of CSR in Europe stems not only from
the lack of common global definition but the different contexts and understandings that shape the
perception and practices of CSR. As Dahlsrud (2006) puts it, “the confusion is not so much
about how CSR is defined, as about how CSR is socially constructed in a specific context”. In
this framework, different historical, economic and social backgrounds in different EU countries
lead to companies having different understandings of CSR perceptions and implementation.
Thus, in order to understand divergences among the CSR practices in different countries, one
should ask whether (1) there is a common conceptualization of CSR, (2) if corporate social
involvement is driven by the same principles across borders, and (3) if CSR principles and
guidelines translate into similar initiatives and practices (Maignan and Ralston, 2002).

There is an absence of consensus on a single, unique and precise definition of CSR in the
literature. According to the Caroll’s well-known definition (1979, 500), “the social responsibility
of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society
has of organizations at a given point in time”. However, while Carroll’s practical categorization
(1979) of three types of responsibility- economic, social and environmental- helps to provide a
basis for identifying CSR, it does not properly represent what CSR can entail in its wider terms
(Argandona and Hoivik, 2009:1). Matten and Moon (2008, 405) precisely highlight the

  7  
heterogeneity of the definitions of CSR: “CSR is an umbrella term overlapping with some, and
being synonymous with other, conceptions of business-society relation”.

According to the International Chamber of Commerce (2002) CSR is a “ commitment by

businesses to manage their roles in society”. European Commission (2001) expresses CSR as “to
contribute to a better society and a cleaner environment”. Departing from this moral aspect, CSR
is indeed an ethical duty of a firm, which must be formulated as an outcome of the reflection of
its owners, managers and all other stakeholders (Argandona and Hoivik, 2009). Caroll (1979)
formulates it as the response by the firm to the society’s demands and expectations by putting the
emphasis on the role of the society in defining the firms’ CSR. In this sense, CSR develops as a
consequence of community dialogue between the firm and its internal and external stakeholders.
This makes CSR’s interpretation and perception conditional and relative since it develops over
time, in different contexts and diverges from one community to another (Argandona and Hoivik,
2009).

A common European framework or a definition on CSR is lacking since the developments

and implementation in the member states are diversified depending upon the different historical,
cultural, political and socio-economic factors which play a decisive role in conceptualization of
CSR (Argandona and Hoivik, 2009, 2). Furthermore, differences in the institutionalization of
welfare states have also significantly shaped the individual countries’ approaches to defining the
responsibilities and duties of the public and private sector. Through this perspective, it should be
underlined that there is not a single European social model but several, with significant
contextual differences; Anglo-Saxon, Central-European, Scandinavian, Mediterranean, Central
and Eastern European (Argandona and Hoivik, 2009, 9). As a result, national models for
promoting and implementing CSR activities develop upon the different settings of dialogue
structures in each country between companies and other social actors.

For example, the traditional Swedish model is based on the provision of the welfare
services by the state and the companies postulate their main responsibility as financing of those
services through taxation (De Geer, 2009). Therefore, issues and problems that do not exist in
Sweden such as human rights, environment, or deregulation, do not constitute a priority in
company’s CSR agenda, which are more focused on responding the needs and interests of their
welfare state’s traditional actors (Argandona and Hoivik, 2009). In contrast, CSR in Germany is

  8  
defined more as a result of discussions and negotiations between relevant actors of power rather
than the direct exercise of power. Thus, CSR activities in Germany are implicitly a matter of
firms’ perceptions, which have been established on a historical cultural consensus that private
interests can be held responsible for promoting common good.

Another study on the practices of CSR in different EU countries also concludes that the
governments and businesses in Europe have different perceptions on CSR and in fact European
Union is characterized by a high diversity of combinations of CSR models such as CSR model
based on shareholder strategy, altruistic strategy, reciprocal strategy and citizenship strategy
(Iamandi, 2011). In this context, the study mainly identifies two different sub-models in the EU;
(1) CSR integrated sub-model (CSR integrated in different national public policies) which is
observed in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Portugal and Sweden and (2)
CSR voluntary sub-model (CSR freely assumed by the European companies and just supported
by public authorities) which is mostly observed in Estonia, Greece, Ireland, UK, Netherlands and
Slovenia.

Among the EU member states, United Kingdom is considered to be the leader in CSR due
to several reasons such as being home to a number of big global enterprises, having strong
awareness and NGOs on environmental engagement with business, experience on privatization
processes and industrial revolution (Mullerat, 2013, 7). The government also enforces companies
to improve disclosure and produce social and environmental reports. It even appointed a minister
for CSR and published several laws and regulations to complement voluntary initiatives to
encourage CSR.

France is also observed to perform a moderate development on CSR issues since the state
regulations governing labour relations are strong in France. It is seen that, many important
developments in managing the legal aspect of CSR is taking place together with the voluntary
initiatives of the French cooperations. France has also launched several actions to support SMEs’
CSR initiatives. SMEs are also important actors in Italy, which drives the CSR movement
together with the financial and banking sectors.

The perception, understanding and practices of CSR are also very different in the old and
new member states, which drive the companies to follow diverse CSR strategies. For example,

  9  
CSR in the new member states of Central and Eastern Europe is generally perceived as corporate
philanthropy, sponsorship or marketing rather than a responsibility to stakeholders (Elms, 2006,
204). Referring to the socialist heritage in the new member countries, social responsibility and
welfare is more likely perceived as the primary role of government (Line and Braun, 2007).
According to the survey of World Bank on the private sector views and practices of CSR the
business executives in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania perceive the social responsibility as ethical
conduct, environmental protection, transparency in operations and compliance with regulations
rather than stakeholder partnership, or public relations. (Mazurkiewicz, Crown and Bartelli,
2005).

Comparison of CSR implementation between Europe and the United States

As Argandona and Hoivik (2009, 13) argue “there is no set of universal best practices in
CSR”. There are commonalities and also unique differences between Anglo-Saxon and European
approaches in addressing CSR issues. The development and vision of CSR in United States and
in Europe has been different due to the diversity of conditions, distinct features and perception of
firms’ “responsibility” for social and environmental issues.

In a comparative manner, CSR in the EU is addressed to be developed and implemented

in a stronger and regulated manner than in the US although the idea of CSR was born on the
American continent in the middle of last century (Tschopp, 2005). This points out that while EU
is seeking for a standardization of the corporate social implication through a more regulated and
legislative way, CSR policies of United States remain more as voluntary action and strategies.
The firms in United States perceive CSR as a voluntary action in an unregulated market whereas
in Europe, firms consider CSR more as also employed by laws and government polices
(Argandona and Hoivik, 2009). However, it should be underlined that CSR has traditionally been
framed in voluntary terms within EU policy as well being an integral part of a European
company’s strategy and competitiveness. In these terms, European companies can be considered
to demonstrate more of a commitment to CSR than U.S. companies by embedding CSR in their
corporate strategy (Hurst, 2004, 2). As Hurst indicates in his study, 50 percent of the European
companies had CSR embedded in their corporate strategy while only 20 percent of U.S.
companies did.

  10  
 To an extent, this is also related with the fact that while American culture might be
described as more individualistic, pragmatist and perceives rights as freedom from state
intervention, continental European culture is more community-oriented and perceives rights as
freedom to participate in social goods and decisions (Argandona and Hoivik, 2009, 9) Therefore,
as Hurst mentions “European companies and government systems seem to be quicker to adopt
CSR policies and take the necessary steps to accept them into their culture” (2004, 36).

The study of Echo Research Inc. indicates significant findings concerning the comparison
of CSR practices between United States and European firms. As one of the findings it illustrates
that U.S. investment firms give less attention to socially responsible investment criteria than their
counterparts in Australia, Europe and South Africa. It reports that 88 percent of U.S. financial
institutions do not consider CSR activities as a factor in analysing company performance and
value, and only one-third believe that CSR contributes to stronger risk management (Business for
Social Responsibility, 2004). However, as reflecting a big difference, 68 percent of European
investment firms believe CSR can improve a company’s risk management. Another comparative
study analyzing the introduction of CSR in companies’ strategies notes that European firms tended to
introduce CSR as a response to stakeholders' scrutiny through stakeholder-driven perspective,
whereas only 11.3 percent of the U.S. firms considers the stakeholder perspective. (Maignan and
Ralston, 2002, 507) It is observed that while the value-driven approach dominates in the United
States, the performance-driven perspective (sometimes mixed with the stakeholder-driven view)
prevails in the EU.

Concerning the reporting of their environmental and social programs and impacts, both in
the U.S. and in the EU, the reporting of CSR remains voluntary (Tschoop, 2005, 57). However,
although the GDP of the US exceeds that of the combined EU, individual EU countries perform
more in numbers than the US in terms environmental and social reporting (Tschoop, 2005). A
survey of PriceWaterHouseCoopers (2003) conducted to top executives from large multinational
businesses demonstrated that businesses based in Europe are just far more aggressive in reporting
their CSR practices (Hurst, 2004). However, there is there is a significant difference between
companies actions to prioritise environmental and social performance. It is observed that
European companies are more eager to act and increase funding for environmental and social
impacts than their counterparts in the United States.

  11  
 As the last remark, the U.S. companies are also observed to implement the internationally
accepted standards slower and at lower rates than the EU companies, which supports the fact that
corporate environmental and social responsibility is taken more seriously by EU companies. The
study of Sotorrio & Sanchez (2008) also confirms this observation by indicating that European
firms have a higher level of CSR.

Conclusion

CSR is addressed as a crucial tool to encourage and push European firms to contribute to
the EU’s sustainable economic growth as it is denoted by the European Commission: “CSR
offers a set of values on which to build a more cohesive society and on which to base the
transition to a sustainable economic system” (European Commission, 2011, 3). In this regard, the
effective use of CSR would allow the EU to better pursue its 2020 strategy of “smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth”, and create conditions that help shape a more transparent and better
functioning economy.

In comparison to other areas of the world, along its history in fact the European
corporations have been traditionally more aware and consistent with CSR values, norms and
perceptions (Mullerat, 2013). However, eventually it is observed that the conceptualization,
understandings and practices on CSR differ among EU member states as the scope and content of
CSR changes with time and context. Referring to these divergent implementations on CSR
activities, the EU attempts to provide an overall European framework aiming at promoting
quality and coherence of corporate social responsibility practices. In this context, it tries to
develop broad principles, approaches and tools, and promote best practice.

The development of a European framework on CSR actions seems more progressive since
the strong initiatives of the EC contributes to the institutionalization of the CSR policy at EU
level by putting its emphasis on voluntary measures for business. On the other hand, European
Parliament, NGOs and trade unions push for mandatory regulation and seek for the legislative
initiatives in promoting CSR. However, the contribution of various sectors to build a
collaborative context has not seemed to achieve a satisfactory level yet.

As one of the challenges, although the European firms are relatively addressed to perform
better in terms of their increasing awareness and actions on CSR practices, in particularly when

  12  
compared to U.S. companies, the main problem remains in disclosing information and reporting
of the companies of their environmental and social impact. The EU has several mandatory
instruments for all member states, such as the Modernisation Directive, the European Pollutant
Release and Transfer Register, the EU Emission Trading Scheme and the Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control Directive. However, there is no consensus on the common format and
content for reporting on non-financial information. The implementation of a harmonized CSR
policy within a European framework might increase the consistency and comparability of
reporting between member nations and having an EU standard practice could have a positive
impact.

References

Argandona, A., Hoivik, H.W. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: One size does not fit all
collecting evidence from Europe”. Working Paper 834. IESE Business School

Bizzari, K. (2013). Refusing to be accountable. Corporate Europe Observatory.

http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/refusing_to_be_accountable.pdf ,
accessed on 5.6.2013

Business for Social Responsibility. (2004, March 30). News monitor summary of articles from
ethical corporation. Available at: www.ethicalcorp.com, accessed on 5.6.2013

Caroll, A.B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy
of Management Review, 4 (4), 497-505

De Geer. H., T. Borglund, and M. Frostenson. (2009). Reconciling CSR with the role of the
corporation in welare states-the problematic Swedish example. Journal of Business Ethics. 89
(3), 269-283

Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37

definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15 (1), 1-13.

  13  
Elms, H. (2006). Corporate (and Stakeholder) Responsibility in Central and Eastern Europe.
International Journal of Emerging Markets, 1(3), 203-211.

European Commission (EC). (2001). Green Paper. Promoting a European Framework for
Corporate Social Responsibility. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-01-9_en.pdf
accessed on 7.6.2013

European Commission (EC). (2006). Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs : Making
Europe a pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility. (COM 2006/136) http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0136:FIN:en:PDF accessed on
5.6.2013

European Commission (EC). (2008). European Competitiveness Report 2008. (COM(2008/774).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52008DC0774&from=EN
accessed on 7.6.2013

European Commission (EC). (2010). An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era.
(COM 2010/614) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0614&from=EN accessed on 7.6.2013

European Commission (EC). (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for corporate social
responsibility (COM 2011/681) http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:en:PDF accessed on
4.6.2013

Hurst, N. E. (2004). Corporate ethics, governance and social responsibility: Comparing European
business practices to those in the United States, pp. 1-68
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/hurst/comparitive_study.pdf accessed on
6.6.2013

  14  
Iamandi, I. (2011). The application of corporate social responsibility models in Romania in the
context of the post-accession to the European Union. Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition.
14 (1), 25-46    
 
International Chamber of Commerce. (2002). Business in society: Making a positive and
responsible contribution. ICC Paris. http://www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-
Rules/Document-centre/2002/Business-in-society-Making-a-positive-and-responsible-
contribution/ accessed on 6.6.2013

Line, M. and Braun, R. (2007). Baseline study on CSR practices in the new EU members states
and candidate countries. UNDP and the European Commission.
http://europeandcis.undp.org/uploads/public1/files/BASELINE_STUDY_ON.pdf accessed on
6.6.2013

Maignan, I., and Ralston, D. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.:
Insights from businesses' self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (3),
497-514

Matten, D. and J.Moon. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”. Academy of Management
Review, 33 (2), 404-424

Mazurkiewicz, P., Crown, R., and Bartelli, V. (2005a). What does business think about corporate
social responsibility? Part I: A comparison of attitudes and practices in Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania. World Bank.

Mullerat, R. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: A European perspective. 13 (6), 1-22

www.as.miami.edu/eucenter/papers/Mullerat_CSR%20Europa.pdf accessed on 5.6.2013

Sotorrio, L.L., and Sanchez, J.L.F. (2008). Corporate social responsibility of the most highly
reputed European and North American firms. Journal of Business Ethics. 82 (2), 379-390

  15  
 Tschopp, D. J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: A comparison between the United States
and the European Union”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
12 (1), 55-59, Wiley InterScience, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, UK

Türker, D., Altuntaş, C. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: A framework for the sustainable
future of enlarged”. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute 9 (18), 459-
477

Notes

                                                                                                                       
1
  CSR reporting focuses on a company’s performance on such factors as pollution, health and safety,
human rights, child labour and other social and environmental issues.
2
  The opposition from conservative business communities and powerful industry-government coalition in
Germany have resulted to provide exemption to many of Europe’s major transnational companies in
complying the rules of reporting on social and environmental impacts.
 

  16  

View publication stats