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

net/publication/349476663

Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights from Literature Review

Article · February 2021

DOI: 10.52228/JRUA.2019-25-1-4

CITATIONS READS

0 163

3 authors, including:

Gopal Krishna Deshmukh Asha Sahu

Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Bank of India
59 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Asha Sahu on 21 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights from Literature Review

Dr. G.K. Deshmukh1, Dr. Sanskrity Joseph2 and Asha Sahu3

Assistant Professor 1, 2, Research Scholar 3
Institute of Management, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (C.G.)

Abstract

Corporate social Responsibility has become a buzz word in recent times. Its worldwide acceptance due
to the social consciousness of enterprises coupled with legal orientation in developing countries like India has
made it one of the most researched issue for researchers across continents. This paper is an attempt to review
the development in the core concepts and theories which have been put forwarded by different researchers
during the time period of 2010-2018. The paper undergoes a time series analysis for the selected period
evaluating the evolution and impact assessment of CSR on core managerial concepts like marketing, finance and
Human Resource management. The researchers after time series analysis have concluded that CSR is age long
practice which has changed its orientation with the changes in objectives of business. It can be easily classified
in three conceptual eras on the basis of its objectives. In the initial era it was a self-driven practice mainly
influenced by the values of promoters of business. In the later stages it can be related with a business strategy of
gaining goodwill. In the present era corporates have understood the value of societal obligation and it has again
become a self-driven exercise. Further the impact of CSR has coupled with almost all functions of management
which can be easily understood from the host of studies conducted during the selected period. The selected
studies indicate that CSR has been instrumental in increasing net worth, customer satisfaction and employee
retention.

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, discretionary practices, philanthropy, sustainable development

(SD)

INTRODUCTION
According to Hill et al. (2007) “Corporate social responsibility is the economic, legal, moral
benevolent actions taken by the firms to improve the living standards of all its stakeholders.” The concept of
corporate social responsibility has become an instrumental tool in developing corporate mind-set and practices
for sustainable development. The societal renaissance of business enterprises which was earlier evident in small
glimpses have now become the centre and front runner of almost every activity. Corporate social responsibility
coupled with corporate consciousness of their social obligations is bringing about wide spread changes in the
ways and means the enterprise conduct the affairs of business. Caroll (2015) indicated that CSR is an age old
practise which came into existence after the World War II when the industries contributed actively in saving the
world economy from the great depression by increasing production and generating employment. Therefore the
practice of CSR by enterprises has spanned over a century and has undergone sea changers with respect to
conceptual development and implementation. The wide time span has given a host of definition to corporate
social responsibility. Therefore the researchers over the years have used various constructs to define the practice
of CSR. Various researchers like Silberhorn and Warren (2007) and Weber (2008) have openly cited that it is
very difficult to describe the concept of CSR as the objectives of corporates practising CSR has changed over
the years which ultimately changed the conceptual definition. The researchers have made an attempt to analyse
the various constructs used by researchers over the years to define the concept of CSR. Table 1.1 presents a
snapshot of various constructs used by researchers to define CSR over various decades beginning from 1950.

Table 1.1 Construct of CSR

Decade Constructs Used by Researchers Researcher
1950-1959 Social responsibility- Obligatory policies desirable by society Bowen (1953)
Selekman‟s (1959)
Eells‟ (1956)
1960-1969 Managerial context of CSR – long run economic gain of business Davis (1960)
Compete socio-economic welfare of society Frederick (1960)
CSR as extension of economic and legal obligation McGuire (1963)
Social system approach of CSR Davis & Blomstrom (1966)
Ethical consequences of one‟s Act Davis (1967)
 Liaison of corporation & society & CSR as a continuum ranging from Walton (1967)
minimum responsibility to maximum responsibility

Three concentric circles definition of social responsibility: Committee for Economic Development
(CED) (1971)
1970-1979 “Multiplicity of Interests” Johnson (1971)
“Long run profit maximization”
“Utility maximization”
“Lexicographic view of social responsibility.”
broader responsibilities to society CED (1971)
social interest and the enlightened self-interest of business over the long run Steiner (1971)
Stressed on 3 basic elements of CSR: (i)Objective setting, (ii)Decision to act, Manne & Wallich (1972)
(iii) financing
Social benefits along with the traditional economic gains Davis (1973)
Active role in eliminating social problems Eilbert & Parket (1973)
Distinguished “social obligation,” “social responsibility,” and “social Sethi (1975)
responsiveness.”
Agency Theory Jensen and Meckling (1976)
Public responsibility Preston and Post (1975)
problem-solving perspective on CSR Fitch (1976)
four-dimensional CSR concept corporate social performance (CSP) the Carroll (1977)
economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations of society.
“social responsibility disclosures,” Abbott and Monsen (1979)
a “fit” between the two components of a “business ethic” and societal Zenisek (1979)
expectations of the private economic sector
Serving groups beyond stockholders without social obligations Jones (1980)
1980-1989 “legal-responsible” cell as CSR strategy Dalton and Cosier (1982)
Organization-environment model Strand (1983)
Stakeholder Theory Freeman (1984)
Conversion of social responsibilities into business opportunities. Drucker (1984)
Definitional construct of CSR Aupperle, Carroll, and Hatfield (1985)
“evolution of the corporate social performance model,” Wartick & Cochran (1985)
“Corporate social policy process.” Epstein (1987)
1990-1999 Corporate citizenship.” Wood (1991)
Stakeholder Theory “fit” with CSR. Carroll (1991)
Pyramid Model of CSR
Stewardship Theory Davis et al. (1997)
Triple Bottom Line Elkington (1998)
2000-2009 positive correlation between an enterprises CSR actions and its competitiveness Porter and Kramer (2011)
Resource-Based View Chan et al. (2005); McWilliams et al.
(2002)
Stakeholder Theory (descriptive) Gilbert and Rasche (2008); Reed
(2002)
Social Contract Theory Cragg (2000); Dunfee (2006); Sacconi
(2006)
Legitimacy Theory Blasio (2007); Cashore et al. (2003)
business-integrated approach Doane, (2005)
CSR as strategic and managerial tool De Bakker et al. (2005)

Five dimensional study of CSR Dahlsrud (2008)

2010- DNA of CSR 2.0 Model Visser et al. (2010)
onwards A Practitioner-Based Model of Societal Responsibilities Pedersen (2010)
Value Creation Model of CSR Gholami (2011)
The Model of Consumer Driven Corporate Responsibility Claydon (2011)
Institutional Theory Detomasi (2007); Kang & Moon
(2012); Ungericht & Hirt (2010)

Source: Prepared by authors

Table 1.1 indicates that the concept of CSR can be largely divided in three era. In the initial era it was a
self-driven practice mainly influenced by the values of promoters of business. In the later stages it can be related
with a business strategy of gaining goodwill. In the present era corporates have understood the value of societal
obligation and it has again become a self-driven exercise for sustainable development.
 In the present scenario the concepts of honesty, transparency, sustainable development, corporate
governance, accountability, ethics etc were propounded by National Voluntary Guidelines on CSR (2011) under
the ministry of corporate affairs, Government of India define the very scope and nature of CSR. CSR is a sense
of „Returning back to society „as the business enterprise is also an integral part of society. No business house
can operate as an island as it will require stakeholder to keep it in the operational stage. Therefore it becomes the
responsibility of the business towards its stakeholders to evolve practices which can help them in contributing
towards the higher goals of sustainable development of society. Sustainable development is an integrated
approach towards the growth and development of society, environmental protection, concern towards consumers
and safeguarding the human rights. Elkington, (1998) used the triple bottom line approach of sustainable
development namely economic, social and environmental wellbeing to discuss the approach that CSR should
take in future to contribute towards society.

The World Bank Council for Sustainable Development (2002) defines CSR as “the persistent allegiance
by business to act in an ethical manner and conducive to economic development by improving the quality of life
of the employee’s family and overall society.” Tthe definition in recent era by researchers openly discusses the
reasons and scope of CSR with respect to policy and practise. McWilliams and Siegel, (2001) defined CSR as
“legal actions that leads to social wellbeing apart from the profitability of the firm. Further Carroll (1979) and
(1990) highlights the scope of CSR by defining CSR as “The social responsibility of business comprises of
economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) prospects of society”
Similarly Kotler and Lee, (2005); Perrini, (2005) identified the broad categories where the practices of
CSR are generally directed in present times. They identified seven broad categories which includes: (1) cause
promotion (increasing awareness and concern for social causes); (2) cause-related marketing (contributing to
causes based on sales); (3) corporate social marketing (behaviour change initiatives); (4) corporate philanthropy
(contributing directly to causes); (5) community volunteering (employees donating time and talents in the
community); and (6) socially responsible business practices (discretionary practices and investment to support
causes). Further Madison (2017) in a blog has summated functions of CSR by identifying the key areas in which
the business houses are making active investments under the banner of CSR. The major activities carried out by
enterprises includes following:

 Responsible sourcing of materials and supplies

 Employee, vendor, customer and community engagement and relations
 Adherence to labour standards
 Environmental protection and management
 Anti-corruption measures
 Upholding social equity, gender equity and other human rights goals
 Conservation of resources, like water and energy, in production

In short CSR can be envisaged as balance between business and society and the extension of firms
responsibilities beyond the self-motive & compatibility with law (Carroll, 1979; Jones, 1980; McWilliams &
Siegel, 2001; see also Davis, 1973). Further the scope of an evolving concept can be understood by its
amalgamation and summation with existing practices of management function. The concept of CSR was
philanthropic in nature during its inception. The further elaboration of the concept intermingled with self-
consciousness of business houses where they fulfilled their societal obligations for developing corporate
goodwill. In recent times the concept of CSR has undertaken its conceptual development by becoming a
necessity for business houses due to constant pressure of stakeholders for fulfilling corporate responsibility.
Genesis of CSR has revealed that with the time being passed corporations have shifted themselves from the
involuntary actions of CSR towards voluntary actions. Corporations have realised the positive effects of the
social responsibility at large and in long run. Many big giants have been engaged in CSR activities to reap long
term benefits of CSR. During the period of 2010-2018, many research studies have been conducted in different
spheres of globe and have concluded that social practices positively affects the business functions. Table 1.2
makes an attempt to understand dimensions used by researchers across functional areas between the periods of
2010- 2018 in relation to studies conducted in field of CSR.
Table1.2 Dimensions related to Researches conducted in fields of CSR between the periods of 2010-2018

Sr. Dimensions Researcher Researcher’s Conclusion Research Insight

No.

Socially responsible practices "sin” industries, namely, tobacco

Cost Of Equity Financing El-Ghoul et al. (2011) have higher valuation and and nuclear power, increases firms‟
1 lower risk. cost of equity.

Role of customer Servaes and Tamayo CSR activities can
awareness (2013) enhance firm value for firms
with high public awareness
communication Du et al. (2010) CSR communication build
corporate image, strengthen
stakeholder–company
relationships, and enhance
stakeholders‟
advocacy behaviours.
Equity market Ioannou & CSR strengths are
Serafeim (2010) perceived as value-creating,
reversing the earlier negative
into a positive impact on
recommendations: analysts are
more likely to recommend a
stock “buy” for CSR-strong
firms
Better CSR performance face
significantly lower capital
Capital constraints Cheng et al. (2014) constraints.
CSR activities can add value to the
firm but only under certain
conditions.
Corporate social responsibility
communication can have a backlash
effect if stakeholders
become suspicious and perceive
predominantly
extrinsic motives in companies‟
social initiatives
positive CSR strategies are more
likely to be perceived as value-
creating for
higher visibility firms
better stakeholder
engagement and transparency
around CSR performance, are
important in reducing capital
constraints

Kolak & Tulder Social responsibility “which  MNEs can implement CSR, and
Sustainability (2010); creates long-term sustainability help enterprises or firms exceed
Tai et al. (2014); for corporate success by their efficiency by focussing on
2 Bogna (2018) meeting the needs of all new scientific innovations.
suppliers, investors and Activities of banks have become
employees” into their symbol of speculation after global
ownership advantage. financial crisis of 2007.

Groves and Larocca Transformational Leadership styles influences ethical

3 Leadership (2011) leadership was associated with values and ultimately the CSR
follower beliefs in the activities
stakeholder view of CSR.
4 CSR and organisation / Petrenko et al. (2016); The study found significantly organizations can enhance their
Firm performance Ali et al. (2010) positive relationship between employee organizational
Mishra and Suar CSR actions and employee commitment through
(2010) organizational commitment, involving themselves in social
CSR and activities.
organizational performance & Responsible business practices
employee organizational towards primary stakeholders can
commitment & organizational be
performance profitable and beneficial to Indian
firms
 Financial performance Wang & Bansal Investors invests more on such Further analysis reveals that
(2012) institutions which focuses more institutional investors, rather than
on CSR leading to high individual investors, are more
financial performance. subject to the influence of CSR.

5 Marketing Hildebrand et al. CSR as an optimal This suggests that CSR activities
Perspective (2011) managerial tool for promoting should
alignment between multiple should be integrated into the
corporate identities (e.g. entire fabric of the company,
internal, external), aligning all areas of the
which ultimately leads to key organisation, from Human
benefits for the company. Resources to Public Relations to
Marketing
6 Value proposition Green & Peloza CSR can provide three forms of value created by one form of CSR
(2011). value to consumers: emotional, can either enhance or diminish other
social, and functional. product attributes.
Source: Prepared by authors

Table 1.2 highlights that the major researches conducted during the period of eight years starting from
2010 to present year of 2018 were majorly related with six areas namely (i) value of Firm, (ii) Sustainability,
(iii) Leadership, (iv) performance of firm (v) Marketing Perspective and (vi) value proposition. The researchers
who concentrated on financial perspectives of CSR were of the opinion that CSR practices can bring down the
operational profits in the short run but can be helpful in increasing the goodwill in the long run which will be
helpful in raising capital from primary markets. Further the researchers who studied the impact of CSR on
sustainability emphasised on innovation and ethical practices to gain the objective of balance between the facets
of triangle of sustainability namely economic, social and environmental development through CSR. The
researchers indicated that indeed it is transformational leadership style which can help in better implementation
of CSR in organisations. The dimension of firm performance was studied from the pointers of financial as well
as from the employees‟ point of view. The study indicated that CSR has the power and capacity to influence the
institutional stakeholder while the take decisions to invest in companies. Further the researchers also linked high
employee organisational commitment to CSR practices. CSR was also examined from the value proposition
point of view. The researchers concluded that CSR can enhance or diminish the value of firms in the eyes of
customer in emotional, social and functional dimensions.
Further a plethora of studies have been conducted to understand and analyse the benefits derived from
the very practise of CSR the researchers analysed the selected research papers to understand the direct and
indirect benefits that can be derived from the practise of CSR. Table 1.3 studies the benefits which were cited
again and again by the research papers over the years.

Table 1.3: Benefits of CSR in Different Functional Areas

Functional Benefits Researchers
Area
High Firm Value Aras et al. (2010); Guenster et al. (2011); Jo and Harjoto, (2011); Kim et al.
(2012); Alafi & Hasoneh (2012)
Reduce risk Jo & Na (2012)
Finance Easier access to finance Cheng, Ioannou, & Serafeim (2014)
Low Cost Of Capital; Equity Capital; Dhaliwal et al. (2012); El Ghoul et al. (2011); Chava (2010); Roberts (2011)
debt
Higher Stock Return Deng et al. (2013)

Increased Profitability Bolanle et al. (2012); Alexander (2012)

Increase In No. Of Investors Dhaliwal et al. (2012); Kim et al. (2012)
Increased shareholder value Deng et al. (2013); Cheng et al. (2014); El Ghoul et al. (2011)
Reduce contracting cost Brammer & Pavelin (2006); Du et al. (2011); Zhang et al. (2014)

Increased financial performance Ditlev-Simonsen (2012); Hofman & Newman (2014); De Roeck & Delobbe
 (2012) De Roeck et al. (2014); Stites & Michael (2011); Aguinis and Glavas
(2012; Coulmont and Berthelot (2015)
Human Reduced Employee Turnover Galbreath (2011)
Resource
Increased Employee Trust & Edmans, (2012)
satisfaction,

Enhanced Employee Participation/ Ditlev-Simonsen, (2012); Hofman & Newman (2014); De Roeck & Delobbe
commitment (2012); De Roeck et al. (2014); Stites & Michael (2011)

Employee Retention, Galbreath (2011)

Attract Top Talents Berger (2004); Bauman and Skitka (2012)

Recruitment Berger (2004)
Job Satisfaction Deltiv-Semonsen (2012); Kwan & Tuuk (2012); De Roeck et al. (2014)

Empoyee‟s attitude and behaviour Ditlev-Simonsen (2012); Johnson, Morgeson, & Hekman (2012)
Employee satisfaction DeRoeck et al.(2014)

Marketing Increased Customer Loyalty, Lev et al. (2010)

Consumer Value proposition,
Increased Sales
Brand image Porter & Kramer (2006, 2011)

Customer satisfaction Galbreath (2010); Mulki & Jaramillo (2011); Alafi and Hasoneh (2012

Attract new customers Lev et al. (2010)

Consumers‟ confidence Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, (2011); Zhang, Ma, Su, & Zhang, (2014)

Overall Better stakeholder engagement Benabou & Tirole (2010); Eccles et al. (2013); Jo and Harjoto (2011, 2012)
Advantage
Enhance Firm‟s Competitive Doh, Lawton, and Rajwani (2012); Flammer (2013); Mulki & Jaramill
Advantage (2011)
Firm reputation Galbreath (2011); Mulki & Jaramillo (2011);
Aguinis and Glavas (2012); Coulmont and Berthelot (2015)
Source: Prepared by authors

The concept of CSR is debatable as the benefits derived from CSR can generally be felt and cannot be
attributed only to CSR. A large number of studies have tried to justify the stand of companies by linking the
benefits that a company can derive from CSR through various empirical and conceptual articles. The researchers
have tried to sum up the benefits which have featured gain and again in the conclusions of papers related with
CSR. The benefits have been arranged as per the functional areas of marketing, finance, Human resources and
others which are termed as overall advantage. The area of finance is the most debated area because it correlates
the benefits with the associated cost. The benefits in financial area were High value to firm, reduced risk, Easier
access to finance, Low Cost of Capital; Equity Capital; debt, Higher Stock Return, Increased Profitability,
Increase in number Of Investors, Increased shareholder value, Reduce contracting cost, Reduce contracting cost,
Increased financial performance were benefits related with financial area.
The benefits related with marketing area by and large were related with the outlook of customers. The
researchers indicate that CSR practices provides Increased Customer Loyalty, Consumer Value proposition,
Increased Sales, brand Image, Customer satisfaction, attraction of new customers, and customer confidence.
Further Reduced Employee Turnover, Increased Employee Trust And Satisfaction, Enhanced Employee
Participation/ commitment, Employee Retention, Attract Top Talents, Employees‟ Social Valuation, social
behaviour (preventing absenteeism), Recruitment, Job Satisfaction, Employee‟s attitude and behaviour,
Employee satisfaction were benefits related with human resource area. The overall benefits of firm had a
strategic over view and dealt with Better stakeholder engagement, Enhance Firm‟s Competitive Advantage and
Firm reputation. In short the table 1.3 is summated below in Figure 1.1
 Finance- high firm value , Easier access to finance
low cost of capital; equity capital higher stock return,
Increased profitability/increase in no. of investors
Increased shareholder value, Access to external capital

HR- reduced employee turnover, increased employee trust and

satisfaction, enhanced employee participation, employee retention,
attract top talents
Effect of CSR on
Business functions
Marketing-increased customer loyalty & consumer value proposition,
increased sales, Brand image, customer satisfaction, Attract new
customers, Consumers‟ confidence, Customer loyalty

Better stakeholder engagement, enhance firm‟s competitive advantage

Figure1.1 Benefits of CSR

(Source: Prepared by authors)

Figure 1.3 was supported by the studies of various scholars whose details have been provided in table 1.4

Table 1.4 Benefits of CSR across research papers

Sr. Benefits of CSR Supported by

1 High valuation and low risks Derwall and Verwijmeren (2007); Chava (2010); El-Ghoul et
al.(2011); Chen et al., (2009)
Consumers :Purchase, Loyalty, Advocacy
Bhhattacharya (2010)
2 Employees: Productivity, Loyalty Citizenship
Behaviour, Advocacy

Investors: Amount of Invested Capital, Loyalty

3 Attract and keep top talent Albinger & Freeman (2000)

4 Better stakeholder engagement, Enhance Firm‟s
Competitive Advantage and Firm reputation
Benabou and Tirole (2010); Eccles et al. (2011); Jo and Harjoto
(2011, 2012); (Doh, Lawton, and Rajwani (2012); Flammer (2013);
Mulki & Jaramillo (2011);Galbreath (2010); Aguinis and Glavas
(2012); Coulmont and Berthelot (2015); Viviani, Revelli and Mallick
(2015)

(Source: Prepared by authors)

CONCLUSION
The selected studies related with CSR during the time span of 2010 to 2108 provided the researchers
the must needed understanding of the concept of CSR. The studies indicate that future researchers can
undertake research in the following dimensions of study:
Area Dimensions
Concept of CSR Awareness of stakeholders, perception and attitude of stakeholders, policies and
practices of CSR, Dimensions of CSR, investment made by companies in the
area of CSR
Relationship Studies Impact of CSR on Functional areas like marketing, finance, Human Resources
and strategic management
Benefits of CSR Implied and direct benefits from the practice of CSR
 CSR is a concept which has come to stay. Many countries are trying to make the practise of CSR
mandatory. There has been a constant debate on part of corporates against the legality of the case. The
enterprises across the world perceive that CSR practices must be voluntary. India has made CSR practise
mandatory by making an amendment in the companies Act 2013. The corporates houses in India have accepted
the law and are trying to adhere and comply by its rules. Rana & Majumdar (2017) indicated that companies are
giving an active contribution to sustainability trends and are pushing towards cleaner environment, green supply
chains, water conservation and conservation of renewable energy. This has again initiated the need across the
world to bring CSR under legal scanner. More research in the fields of CSR can provide the required base to
policy makers to decide a working non objectionable mandate for CSR.

References
 Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: advantage:
Overcoming the trust barrier. Management Science. 1979; 57(9):1528-1545.
 Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. What we know and don‟t know about corporate social responsibility: A
review and research agenda. Journal of Management. 2012; 38:932–968.
 Alafi, Khaled., Sufy, Al Husain., & Jamiel, Fares. Corporate social responsibility associated with
customer satisfaction and financial performance a case study with housing banks in Jordan.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2012; (15):102-115.
 Berger, L.A.; Berger, D.R. The talent management handbook: Creating organisational excellence by
identifying, developing and promoting your best people. McGraw-Hill: New York, USA. 2004
 Bhattacharyya, Somsekhar. Exploring the concept of strategic corporate social responsibility for an
integrated perspective. European Business Review. 2010; 22(1): 82-101.
 Carroll, A. B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of
organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons. 1991; 34 (4): 39-48.
 Chan, Jason Chi-hin & Welford, Richard. assessing corporate environmental risk in china: An
evaluation of reporting activities of hong kong listed enterprises, Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management. 2005;12: 88–104
 Claydon, J. A new direction for CSR: The shortcomings of previous CSR models and the rationale
for a new model. Social Responsibility Journal. 2011; 7(3):405-420.
 Dahlsrud, Alexander. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions.
Corporate social responsibility and environment management, 2008 ; 15 (1) : 1-13.
 Dalton, D. R., & Cosier, R. A. The four faces of social responsibility. Business Horizons, 1982.19-
27.
 Davis, J., Schoorman, F., & Donaldson, L. Toward a stewardship theory of management. The
Academy of Management Review. 1997; 22(1): 20-47.
 Guenster, N., Bauer, R., Derwall, J., & Koedijk, K. The economic value of corporate eco-efficiency.
European Financial Management. 2011; 17 (4) : 679-704.
 Herrera, Alvarado Alejandro., AlcañizBigné Enrique, Pérez Currás Rafael and García Sánchez
Isabel. Epistemological evolution of corporate social responsibility in management: An empirical
analysis of 35 years of research. African Journal of Business Management, 2011; 5(6): 2055-2064.
 Hofman, P. S., & Newman, A. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on
organizational commitment and the moderating role of collectivism and masculinity: Evidence from
China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2014; 25 (5): 631-652.
 Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment
recommendations. Working Paper. London Business School and Harvard Business School. 2010.
 Jamali, Dima & Karam, Charlotte. Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an
emerging field of study. International Journal Of Management Reviews. 2018; 20: 32–61.
 Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hekman, D. R. Cognitive and affective identification: Exploring
the links between different forms of social identification and personality with work attitudes and
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012; 33(8): 1142-1167.
 Jones, T. M. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review.
1980: 59-67.
 Kang, N. & Moon, J. Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate
social responsibility: a comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms. Socio Economic
Review. 2012; 10 : 85–108.
 Kim, Y., Park, M. S. & Wier, B. Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility?
The Accounting Review. 2012 ; 87(3): 761–796.
 Kolk Ans &Tulder Van Rob. Interntional business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable
development. International Business Review. 2010; 19(1).
 Pedersen, E. R. Modelling CSR: How managers understand the responsibilities of business towards
society. Journal of Business Ethics.2010; 91(2): 155-166.
 Perrini, Francesco. Book review of corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your
company and your cause. Academy of Management Perspectives. 2005: 90–3.
 Petrenko, Oleg V., Aime Federico, Ridge Jason, & Hill Aaron. Corporate social responsibility Or
CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal,
2016; 37: 262–279.
 Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review. 2006; 84(12) : 78–92.
 Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. 2011; 89(1/2) :
62-77.
 Reed, D. Employing normative stakeholder theory in developing countries: a critical theory
perspective. Business and Society. 2002; 41: 166–207.
 Sacconi, L. A social contract account for CSR as an extended model of corporate governance (I):
rational bargaining and justification. Journal of Business Ethics. 2006; 68: 259–281.
 Selekman, B. A moral philosophy for business. New York: McGraw-Hill. Self-reported disclosures
as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal. 1959; 22,
501-515.
 Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of
customer awareness. Management Science. 2013; 59(5): 1045-1061.
 Sethi, S. P. Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytic framework. California
Management Review. 1975; 17: 58-64.
 Silberhorn, D. & Warren, R.C. Defining corporate social responsibility: a view from big companies
in Germany and the UK. European Management Review. 2007; 19(5) : 352-72.
 Steiner, G. A. Business and society. New York: Random House. 1971.
 Stites, J. P., & Michael, J. H. Organizational commitment in manufacturing employees:
Relationships with corporate social performance. Business & Society. 2011; 50: 50-70.
 Tai Mei, Fang & Chuang, Hao Shu. Corporate Social Responsibility. iBusiness. 2014; 6: 117-130
 Ungericht, B. & Hirt, C. CSR as a political arena: the struggle for a European framework. Business
and Politics. 2010; 12: 1–24.
 Visser, W., Matten, D., Pohl, M., & Tolhurst, N. The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility:
Wiley. 2010.
 Viviani Jean-Laurent, Revelli Christophe & Fall Malick. The effects of CSR on Risk Dynamics and
Risk Predictability: A Value-At-Risk Perspective, Working paper. 2015; 23.
 Walton, C. C. Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 1967.
 Wang, T., & Bansal, P. Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long-term orientation.
Strategic Management Journal. 2012; 33(10): 1135-1153.
 Weber, M. The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company-level measurement
approach for CSR. European Management Journal. 2008;26(4) : 247-61.
 Wood, D. J. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review. 1991; 16:
691-718.
 Zenisek, T. J. Corporate social responsibility: A conceptualization based on organizational literature.
Academy of Management Review. 1979; 4: 359-368.
  Zhang, M., Fan, D.D., & Zhu, C.J. High-performance work systems, corporate social performance
and employee outcomes: Exploring the missing links. Journal of Business Ethics. 2014; 120: 423-
435.

View publication stats