social responsibility of business research paper

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Corporate social responsibility.

• Abagail McWilliams Abagail McWilliams College of Business Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.12
• Published online: 28 February 2020

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a legitimate responsibility to society, based on the principle that corporations should share some of the benefit that accrues from the control of vast resources. CSR goes beyond the legal, ethical, and financial obligations that create profits.

In the research literature, corporate social responsibility is defined in a variety of ways, depending on the aspect of CSR being examined. An inclusive definition is that social responsibility requires the firm to take into account the interests of all stakeholders, where stakeholders are defined as everyone who affects or is affected by the firm’s decisions and actions. A firm-focused definition holds that social responsibility includes actions that further a social goal, beyond what is required by ethics, law, and profitability. A political economy–oriented definition posits that firms have a responsibility to correct market failures such as negative externalities and government failures such as limits to jurisdiction that result in worker rights violations.

When implemented, altruistic CSR implies that firms provide a social good unrelated to the firms’ business that does not benefit the bottom line. Strategic CSR implies that firms are simultaneously profitable and socially responsible. To achieve this, CSR must be a core value of the firm and must be integrated into processes and products. When employed strategically, CSR can be an element of a differentiation strategy, leading to premium prices, enhanced brand and firm reputation, and supportive community relations. Corporate environmental responsibility often takes the form of overcompliance with regulation, improving the environment more than is required. A primary benefit of this is to stave off further regulation.

To capture the benefits of being socially responsible, the firm must make stakeholders aware of its record. This has led to triple bottom line reporting—that is, reporting about firm performance in terms of profits, people, and the planet. Social enterprises go a step further and make social responsibility the primary goal of the organization.

• corporate environmental responsibility (CER)
• corporate social performance (CSP)
• greenwashing
• overcompliance
• political corporate social responsibility
• psychological benefits
• stakeholders
• strategic CSR
• sustainability
• triple bottom line

Historical Perspective

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be thought of as legitimate responsibility to society that goes beyond the legal, ethical, and financial obligations that create profits, based on the principle that corporations should share some of the benefit that accrues from the control of vast resources. Or, more plainly, in market economies corporations can amass great wealth because society protects their right to do so, therefore the corporations owe something back to all of society, not just those engaged in market exchange with the corporations. The world’s resources should benefit the poorest in addition to the wealthiest, and corporations can be the conduit through which resources are befittingly distributed.

When resources are not equitably distributed, the disadvantaged look first to the government for help and support. But when the government hasn’t the resources, the will, or either, it cannot provide adequately for those in need and may engineer public policy to require businesses to be responsible.

The idea that corporations should act responsibly dates back to the inception of industrialization. With industrialization, the poor were often driven off the land and into cities to look for employment. The available employment, however, did not pay a living wage for an individual, let alone a family. This led to crushing poverty, ill health, and short lives for the working poor. Some industries employed young children, and low pay and inhumane working conditions were common (Marx & Engels, 1967 ). In general, governments didn’t have the will to require firms to act responsibly toward exploited groups. However, in 1833 , the English Parliament passed Lord Althorp’s Factory Act, which effectively regulated child labor in the textile industry in England. Responsible behavior was forced upon rich industrialists, but more importantly the act established the right of government to regulate industry for a clear social purpose (Marvel, 1977 ).

A hundred years after the passage of the first effective industrial regulation, the plight of the disadvantaged was not much improved. The Great Depression highlighted the resource disparities inherent in industrialized economies and triggered attention to the lack of social responsibility displayed by wealthy corporations. But World War II intervened, and the focus turned away from social needs and toward supplying the military. After the war ended and throughout the 1950s, economies turned to modernization and, in much of the world, replacement of lost industrial capacity. It was a time of great prosperity in industrial nations, but, as before, the benefits of prosperity were not equally distributed. The politically weak, including women and minorities, didn’t garner much of the benefits.

In the 1960s there was intense focus on social problems, including disparity of opportunity as well as disparity of resources. It was clear that disadvantaged groups did not have equal access to resources, many of which were controlled by corporations for the benefit of their shareholders. As women and minorities gained political power, calls for corporations to be socially responsible became more direct and visible.

Definitions

There are myriad definitions of corporate social responsibility, a few of which follow. In a managerial context, McWilliams and Siegel ( 2001 , p. 117) define corporate social responsibility as “actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law.” From an economic perspective, Lundgren ( 2011 , p. 70) defines corporate social responsibility as “actions that, to some degree, imply corporate beyond-compliance behavior in the social and/or the environmental arena,” and Bénabou and Tirole ( 2010 , p. 2) define corporate social responsibility as “sacrificing profits in the social interest.” From a political economy viewpoint, Heal ( 2005 , p. 387) defines corporate social responsibility as “a programme of actions to reduce externalized costs or to avoid distributional conflicts.” The examples go on, with Dahlsrud examining 37 of them and concluding that “Although they apply different phrases, the definitions are predominantly congruent, making the lack of one universally accepted definition less problematic than it might seem at first glance ( 2008 , p. 6).” In a discussion of why there is no definitive definition of corporate social responsibility, McWilliams, Rupp, Siegel, Stahl, and Waldman ( 2019 , p. 3) speculate that “Targeted definitions allow researchers to focus on an area of study such as the environment or stakeholders, or on processes such as operations or strategy, while broad definitions allow interdisciplinary discourse on the motivations and ramifications of CSR.”

Beyond defining what corporate social responsibility is, it is helpful to clarify related terms that are sometimes confused with corporate social responsibility.

Compliance, Ethics, and the Triple Bottom Line

The terms compliance, ethics, and corporate social responsibility are often used interchangeably, but mistakenly so. Carroll’s pyramid of responsibilities is a good guide for separating the concepts. According to Carroll, compliance is a legal requirement, while ethics is the requirement to do no harm, and corporate social responsibility is the expectation for corporations to go beyond compliance and ethics and do good for society, creating social value (Carroll, 1991 ).

But being socially responsible and being irresponsible are not mirror images of each other. That is, being socially responsible is not just the absence of irresponsibility, and neither is social irresponsibility simply the absence of being responsible. Failing to meet any of the three explicit requirements of fiscal responsibility, laws, and ethics is irresponsible management. But meeting all three of these responsibilities does not rise to being socially responsible. Between irresponsible and socially responsible is the state of meeting fiscal, legal, and ethical responsibilities while not going the extra mile to create social good. This can be called socially neutral.

Corporate social responsibility is sometimes referred to as balancing the triple bottom line: profits, people, and the planet. The triple bottom line incorporates the idea of economic, social, and environmental concerns for which a corporation may have responsibility. A corporation that measures its performance against a triple bottom line explicitly promotes a broader responsibility than that of profit maximization and uses triple bottom line performance to convey to internal and external stakeholders that the corporation is being socially responsible in its decisions and operations.

Theoretical Perspectives

Conventional exclusionary view.

Nobel Prize–winning economist Milton Friedman argued that the responsibility of business is to maximize profits for the benefit of the owners (shareholders), within ethical and legal boundaries. Responsibility for social programs, he argued, rightfully adheres to elected officials (Friedman, 1970 ).

Arrow ( 1973 ) challenged Friedman’s broad conclusion that corporations have no responsibilities beyond profit maximization on two counts. Count one is that production often generates negative externalities (such as air and water pollution) that are not appropriately priced in the market. Count two is that there is asymmetric information between producers and consumers. Producers have more knowledge about the true quality (and therefore true value) of products than do the consumers who purchase them. Arrow concludes these two market imperfections create a social responsibility for corporations because, while externalities are sometimes regulated by government, asymmetric information is not, and both can be addressed more efficiently by corporations than by governments.

Heal ( 2005 ) offers an updated perspective of corporate social responsibility that builds on Arrow, adding the risk of protests, such as Occupy Wall Street, to Arrow’s challenge of Friedman. Heal proposes that corporate social responsibility programs (such as corporate environmentalism) can reduce externalities and also ward off conflicts and demands for distributive justice, such as Black Lives Matter (Schulz, 2017 ). Arrow and Heal’s arguments also provide a basis for stakeholder theory.

Inclusive View

Stakeholder theory challenges the assumption that shareholders have the only valid claim on the resources controlled by corporations. Freeman and Reed ( 1983 ) argue that any group that affects or is affected by the behavior of the corporation is a stakeholder whose interests should be considered in corporate decision-making. As corporations increasingly acknowledged responsibilities beyond profit maximization, stakeholder management became a means of enhancing firms’ reputations and improving community relations, and stakeholder theory became a dominant logic in corporate social responsibility. Incorporating stakeholder theory into strategic management has resulted in stakeholder analysis being directed at helping managers identify stakeholders and prioritize claims on corporate resources (Chandler, 2017 ).

Carroll ( 1991 ) repudiates Friedman’s conclusion that corporations have no social responsibility. He proposes a normative model of corporations as organizations with multiple responsibilities: economic/fiscal, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. The economic responsibility is necessary for survival, legal responsibility is required for legitimacy, ethical responsibility is required to do no harm, and philanthropic responsibilities are expected of a good corporate citizen. Carroll depicts the responsibilities as a pyramid, with profitability as the base, followed by legal, then ethical and finally philanthropic as the pinnacle. Carroll’s characterization of corporate responsibility is that it includes all four categories, including the philanthropic contributions to the community to promote social good. However, philanthropy differs in being expected, but not required.

Economic View

To explain the link between corporate social responsibility and profitability, McWilliams and Siegel ( 2001 ) take a micro-economic–based theory of the firm perspective. From this perspective, they assume that corporate managers seek to maximize profits and ask the question: How can managers determine the optimal amount of investment to make in corporate social responsibility, that is, how can they determine the amount of investment in corporate social responsibility that is consistent with profit maximization? They propose that corporate social responsibility can be a component of a differentiation strategy. Consumers demonstrate a demand for socially responsible products (e.g., LED lights, free trade coffee, hybrid vehicles) and production processes (e.g., animal-free testing, green production, organic farming), and firms respond by adding the demanded socially responsible characteristics, thereby creating a differentiated product. The added costs of differentiating the product lead to premium prices. McWilliams and Siegel ( 2001 ) therefore conclude that, because the investment in corporate social responsibility supports the firm’s differentiation strategy, it should be treated the same as any strategic investment. To maximize profits, the corporation should invest up to the point where the additional cost of corporate social responsibility is equal to the additional revenue generated by corporate social responsibility.

Lundgren ( 2011 ) provides a formal, mathematical model of corporate social responsibility at the firm level based on micro-economic theory. He proposes that the costs of socially responsible programs can be offset by the increased revenues from consumers who value corporate social responsibility and the increased market value generated by investors who value corporate social responsibility. He explicitly models goodwill capital, an intangible asset, as a primary benefit of corporate social responsibility, tying corporate social responsibility explicitly to firm value and potential profitability.

Corporate social responsibility can also be conceptualized as a form of reputation insurance that protects the firm’s reputation when adverse events occur (Minor & Morgan, 2011 ). Adverse events, such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are especially costly because they include both direct cost—such as fines, legal costs, and compensation to injured parties—and the indirect costs associated with loss of corporate reputation (Mejri & DeWolf, 2013 ). Loss of reputation can affect stock price, financing terms, and future revenue far into the future. When an adverse event occurs, external stakeholders will make judgments about what went wrong. They may decide that the adverse event was the result of poor management and downgrade the reputation of the firm or they may decide that the event was just bad luck and not recalibrate the reputation of the firm. Being known for corporate social responsibility can sway external judgments in favor of management and the firm, protecting the firm’s reputation and significantly lowering the indirect costs of such an event.

Political View

Bagnoli and Watts ( 2003 ) characterize corporate social responsibility as the private provision (by the corporation) of a public good (such as pollution abatement). Building on this, Scherer and Palazzo ( 2011 ) propose that globalization of business has resulted in political, rather than normative or economic, corporate social responsibility. They point out that laws and regulations are enforced within national boundaries, while social problems know no boundaries and negative externalities (such as air pollution) cross boundaries. The void in global governance may be (perhaps by necessity) addressed by businesses, especially multinational corporations. According to Scherer and Palazzo ( 2011 ), political corporate social responsibility suggests that corporations will contribute to global regulation (such as sustainability or workplace safety) and provide public goods (such as human rights protections and community wellness programs).

Bénabou and Tirole ( 2010 ) characterize corporate social responsibility as a response to government failure. They discuss three ways in which governments fail: capture by special interest groups, limits to jurisdiction, and poor information and inefficiency.

In addressing the problem of limited jurisdiction, Christmann ( 2004 ) suggested that multinationals will embrace a global strategy so that they can transfer best practices of social responsibility across boundaries, effectively creating global standards. Multinational corporations that enforce the same standards everywhere they operate may be merely complying with regulation in their home country but being socially responsible in countries with lower standards. Implementing the same standards globally allows multinational corporations to be more efficient by taking advantage of scale economies and also benefiting from reputation insurance.

McWilliams and Siegel ( 2011 ) reject Baron’s view that motivation determines what is socially responsible behavior and, in contrast, argue that social responsibility that is motivated by profitability can reconcile Friedman’s view of the profit maximization responsibility of the firm with that of social responsibility. That is, by being socially responsible, firms can attend to the bottom line (profits) while also creating social good. This is known as strategic corporate social responsibility, a term introduced by Burke and Logsdon ( 1996 ). To the extent that corporations are meeting expectations of stakeholders, strategic corporate social responsibility disputes Friedman’s view that social responsibility adheres to public officials. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Strategic behaviour is the general term for actions taken by firms which are intended to influence the market in which they compete. Strategic behavior includes actions to influence rivals to act cooperatively so as to raise joint profits, as well as non-cooperative actions to raise the firm’s profits at the expense of rivals” (OECD, 2007 , p. 751).

McWilliams and Siegel ( 2001 ) concluded that firms can respond to demands for corporate social responsibility by incorporating social responsibility into a differentiation strategy. The firm differentiates its products/services to include CSR attributes, as well as incorporating CSR into firm processes. Differentiation should allow the firm to charge premium prices to cover additional costs of providing the socially responsible attributes.

However, when asymmetric information allows firms that do not engage in corporate social responsibility to position their products as similar to those that do embody corporate social responsibility, the socially responsible firm may face a competitive disadvantage. The socially responsible firm invests in corporate social responsibility but cannot charge more than the firms that do not. In this situation, the socially responsible firms may be forced to lobby their government for legally enforceable standards that apply to all firms in the industry (Heslin & Ochoa, 2008 ). Conversely, some firms will lobby for standards that cost their competitors more to meet than they cost the lobbying firm. The lobbying firm can create a competitive advantage by masking competitive behavior as social responsibility (McWilliams, Van Fleet, & Cory, 2002 ).

An important distinction of strategic corporate social responsibility is that it is embedded in the corporation’s operations, processes, and core competencies (Aguinis & Glavas, 2013 ), regardless of whether it is implicit as was more conventional in European companies or explicit as in U.S. companies (Matten & Moon, 2008 ). Embedding corporate social responsibility allows for synergistic effects, such as when a steel company uses its core competency in plant design and construction to build plants that are more efficient and use less energy (i.e., are environmentally responsible). Linking the corporation’s social responsibility to its core competencies can produce maximum social benefit. Being explicit and transparent about its corporate social responsibility also enables and enhances positive effects on firm reputation (Servaes & Tamayo, 2013 ).

Corporate social responsibility can be a long-term strategic asset that enhances reputation and brand image. As such, it can lead to customer loyalty and repeat sales and, in some industries, premium prices. Originally thought to only support a differentiation strategy, we now see corporate social responsibility prominently reported by low-cost-leader companies in business-to-business and commodity industries (Nucor, 2018 ). This indicates that while corporate social responsibility can support premium pricing, it also can result in lower costs, such as lower financing costs, lower legal costs, or lower turnover costs, as well as a higher-quality, better-motivated workforce (Sprinkle & Maines, 2010 ). Therefore, strategic corporate social responsibility can support a low-cost-leader strategy when embedded in the core competencies that create low-cost advantage.

However, corporate social responsibility activities will create benefits for the corporation only if they are effectively and honestly communicated to internal and external stakeholders (Lee, Oh, & Kim, 2013 ). When the corporation appears to be claiming to do more than it actually does, employees and consumers quickly become jaded and remain skeptical of future corporate social responsibility claims. Therefore, corporations must be forthright about their social responsibility so as to not generate or escalate skepticism.

Environmental

Environmental responsibility is one of the fastest growing areas of corporate social responsibility worldwide. Because compliance with environmental standards is a legal responsibility, being socially responsible means overcompliance. Corporate environmentalism is sometimes referred to as corporate environmental responsibility.

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created by executive order in 1970 and made responsible for enforcing environmental laws. Early regulation was command and control: the EPA set standards and mandated how corporations complied. Over time, more attention was paid to gathering and disseminating information, and corporations moved to design solutions that met standards in more efficient/cost-effective ways, providing a springboard for corporate environmentalism.

Maxwell, Lyon, and Hackett ( 2000 ) couched corporate environmentalism as strategic self-regulation to preempt political action. They find that the threat of increased regulation is sufficient to prompt corporations to overcomply with existing environmental regulation. Because political action is costly for the firm and for the activists, it makes sense for firms to overcomply to fend off political action, benefiting both the corporation and the environment.

Voluntary environmental reporting such as the Global Reporting Initiative of 1997 encourages corporations to overcomply with environmental regulations and to actively engage in corporate environmentalism (Sheehy, 2019 ) to enhance firm reputation and brand. A reputation for environmentalism can result in many benefits, including attracting environmentally conscious consumers and investors (Lyon & Maxwell, 2008 ), the aforementioned preemption of regulation, and lower legal and financing costs. This last is a result of the lower probability that the firm will incur legal costs as a result of violating environmental standards, such as those tied to oil spills and poisonous gas leaks, since the internal target exceeds the legal regulation (Sheehy, 2019 ).

Environmental laws and regulations differ around the globe, requiring firms to be aware of local regulations but also providing them with opportunities to search for favorable (presumably less stringent) standards. However, Dowell, Hart, and Yeung ( 2000 ) found that firms that enforce the most stringent regulations worldwide are most successful. Additionally, Nidumolu, Prahalad, and Rangaswami ( 2009 ) found that corporations that innovate ahead of increasing standards have time to experiment and test new solutions and that corporations that enforce a single standard worldwide can take advantage of scale economies.

Conversely, corporate environmentalism branding can have serious negative consequences if not designed and implemented properly. Firms that fail to deliver on their environmental claims can be charged with “greenwashing,” that is, overstating their environmentalism. A particularly insidious form of “greenwashing” takes place when a corporation masks its true environmental performance by engaging in selective disclosure of benign impacts rather than full disclosure (Marquis, Toffel, & Zhou, 2016 ). In an empirical study of “greenwashing,” Walker and Wan ( 2012 ) demonstrated that claiming to be green (i.e., environmentally responsible) without actual green behavior negatively affects a corporation’s financial performance.

Sustainability

Corporate environmentalism increasingly embraces sustainability, which is a more comprehensive program of environmental stewardship. Sustainability requires attention to global and intergenerational effects of corporate operations.

According to the 1987 UN Brundtland report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987 ), “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” is sustainable. From this, one can extrapolate a definition of corporate environmental sustainability that incorporates a universal dimension—not just a clean environment where the corporation operates now, but a global and intergenerational one. That is, socially responsible corporations must consider the effects of current operations on the environment both now and in the future. They must also balance current and future economic and equity responsibilities.

Sustainability implies more than environmental impact management: all resources must be managed to ensure sustainability. Corporations must be mindful of how they manage farm land, forests, ocean fish stocks, animal and plant breeding, and valuable minerals, as well as how they can support sustainable development in developing economies. Hart ( 2010 ) coined the phrase “sustainable global enterprise” to label multinational enterprises that deliver economic, social, and environmental benefits across all their global operations. An example of a sustainable global enterprise is a multinational food company that “has implemented living wage standards for all of its farm workers in every country in which it harvests fruit, and which has introduced state-of-the-art environmental practices throughout its supply chain” (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007 , p. 838).

Nidumolu et al. ( 2009 ) studied sustainability initiatives of multinational corporations and found that embracing sustainability led to innovation that creates better products and new businesses, increases brand loyalty, and reduces costs—contributing to both the top line (revenue) and bottom line (profitability) of the corporation. Consumers perceive that products that are produced sustainably or have sustainable characteristics are better products and, therefore, worth more. New revenue streams can come from businesses created by recycling and reusing products that have exhausted their original purpose. Additional revenue is generated when consumers develop brand loyalty through their experience with sustainable products. Cost reductions come from using fewer inputs in all parts of the value chain (from raw materials, through production and distribution to final sales). Additionally, firms that anticipate increasing environmental regulation can innovate ahead of their competitors and reap first-mover advantages. All of these increase the bottom line as well as being socially responsible.

Social Enterprise

The simplest type of corporate social responsibility is philanthropy, where a corporation donates part of its profits to programs that address social problems. The inner workings of the firm, its organization, its mission, its strategy, etc., are unaffected by the goals of the programs that receive financial support.

The social goods produced by the financially supported programs can be peripheral to the corporation. Some corporations that engage in strategic corporate social responsibility explicitly align social goods produced with other strategic components of the firm. For example, firms may have “buy one–give one” program where customers buy a branded product (e.g., a pair of shoes) and the firm gives one (pair of shoes) to a child in need. The social mission is less peripheral to profit-making.

Social enterprises go one step further than that and make their social mission part of the firm’s core. Defourny and Nyssens ( 2008 , p. 202) define social enterprises as “not-for-profit private organizations providing goods or services directly related to their explicit aim to benefit the community.”

One type of social enterprise is a benefit corporation, which is a legal business entity that is required to have a social mission at its core (Hiller, 2013 ). In the United States, the need for a new legal form of for-profit that explicitly recognizes a social mission led to laws in some states that allow for benefit corporations. These corporations must declare themselves as such in their articles of incorporation and are required to submit to review by an independent third party to confirm that they are fulfilling their social mission. It should be noted that the independent review of the impact of benefit corporations is holistic—that is, it comprises all of the effects of the corporation on society, not merely its effect on selected areas such as profitability and environmentalism (B Lab Company, 2017 ). This is in contrast to standard corporations, which can legally engage in “greenwashing,” promoting corporate social responsibility activities while simultaneously obfuscating socially irresponsible actions (Marquis et al., 2016 ; Walker & Wan, 2012 ).

Another type of social enterprise is social entrepreneurship, which is an “innovative, social value creating activity that can occur within or across the nonprofit, business, or government sectors” (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2012 , p. 371). While the social mission is always core to social entrepreneurship, it is not always obviously so, because it may be either explicit or implicit. In social entrepreneurship for the disadvantaged the social mission is explicit, that is, benefits (such as jobs) are provided to the disadvantaged. In social entrepreneurship by the disadvantaged, there is an implicit social mission of improving the (disadvantaged) entrepreneur’s circumstances, irrespective of whether there is an explicit social mission, such as providing jobs for others who are disadvantaged (Renko & Freeman, 2019 ).

The implicit social mission of entrepreneurship by the disadvantaged provides a conduit for social good created by corporate social responsibility programs, making support of entrepreneurship an attractive option for firms that engage with disadvantaged populations. For example, multinational corporations in Africa are adding to their corporate social responsibility portfolios the support of entrepreneurship in disadvantaged economies through education, training, and skills development initiatives (DeBerry-Spence, Torres, & Hinson, 2019 ).

The Business Case

The business case for corporate social responsibility refers to the belief that there is a causal link between being socially responsible and achieving profitability. It is argued that firms that do good (for society) will do well (be more profitable and have higher market value). In the context of corporate social responsibility, “doing well” can be the result of many advantages, such as premium pricing, repeat sales, higher employee productivity, lower cost of capital, or lower legal costs, all of which may translate into higher profitability and firm value in either the short run or the long run. Determining if firms “do good” is more problematic but is generally referred to as corporate social performance, which Wood defines as “a business organization’s configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationships” ( 1991 , p. 693). Two widely used measures of corporate social performance are the Fortune Corporate Reputation Index and the Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini (KLD) index of reputation (Fombrun, Gardberg, & Sever, 2000 ).

In the 1990s the business case for corporate social responsibility (doing well by doing good) became a dominant theme in academic research. Countless empirical studies attempted to show a causal link between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance. These studies were hampered by difficulties in defining and measuring corporate social performance, often leading to inconsistent results (Margolis & Walsh, 2003 ) and sometimes suffering from lack of methodological rigor (McWilliams & Siegel, 2000 ). Barnett ( 2007 ) concludes that there is no universal evidence of doing well by doing good, because doing well is contingent upon the corporation, the timing, and the particular socially responsible investment. He suggests that academic research should focus on figuring out when, where, and what type of social responsibility will allow corporations to do well by doing good. Carroll and Shabana ( 2010 , p. 101) support Barnett’s findings and conclude that “the benefits of CSR are not homogeneous, and effective CSR initiatives are not generic.”

Although meta-analyses have been conducted (e.g., Friede, Busch, & Bassen, 2015 ) in an attempt to make sense of the inconsistent results of earlier studies, the inclusion of criticized empirical studies and the bias toward publishing only studies that have statistically significant results makes the results of meta-analyses problematic. Given the inherent difficulties of testing the business case for corporate social responsibility, including, “the inaccessibility, both apparent and actual, of good data” (Wood, 2010 , p. 75) and the lack of consensus on appropriate methodology, academic research has subsequently moved beyond trying to empirically verify a causal link between corporate social responsibility and profitability to accepting that corporations have social responsibilities and examining how such responsibilities can be met to the advantage of the corporation and society, ultimately arriving at the concept of strategic corporate social responsibility.

Non-Pecuniary Benefits

Although it’s difficult to separate out and quantify the effects of corporate social responsibility on firm performance, the effects on individuals can be measured directly by survey methodology. Therefore, we have better evidence of the non-pecuniary effects of corporate social responsibility than we have of corporate social performance. Corporate social responsibility is by definition about the corporation, but it is individuals who make decisions, carry out corporate social responsibility programs, and are affected by corporate actions. Stakeholders such as managers, employees, consumers, investors, and community members can shape and be shaped by corporate social responsibility activity and consequently often receive psychological benefits from their association with socially responsible corporations. The psychological benefits generated by these associations with the corporation are a component of the social value created by corporations that engage in corporate social responsibility.

Internal Stakeholders

Internal stakeholders include managers, employees, and board members, all of whom may affect or be affected by the firm’s social responsibility programs, processes, and reputation. Corporate social responsibility can be initiated by managers for personal reasons, including personal values, religious beliefs, commitment to social causes, professional image building, or a need to feel good about themselves (Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004 ). Manager-initiated corporate social responsibility can be either strategic or philanthropic, depending on the constraints of corporate governance, firm strategic orientation, and the availability of discretionary funds. Managers receive a psychological benefit when they can support their personal values, religious beliefs, or identity. It is common for large corporations to have social responsibility officers who shape the culture and reputation of the firm, maintain corporate social responsibility programs, and communicate to internal and external stakeholders. These executives have more opportunity to reap social and psychological benefits from corporate social responsibility.

In general, people desire to have meaning in their lives and often look for meaning in their work. Aguinis and Glavas ( 2019 ) explored how corporate social responsibility can help employees find meaning in their work. The closer the fit between the corporation’s identity and the employee’s identity, the more meaningful the work will seem. For example, a person who identifies as a caregiver will find meaningfulness in their work in a hospital. Corporate social responsibility programs provide additional information and experience that can help workers find more meaning in their work, that is, they may perceive that their work can serve a greater purpose.

Corporate social responsibility can affect employees’ perceptions and attitudes about their work and workplace. Gavin and Maynard ( 1975 ) tested the relationship between the employee’s perception of the corporation’s concern for the environment and the employee’s general satisfaction with their employment. They found that employees tended to report more satisfaction the greater the perceived corporate concern for the environment. Perhaps more telling, they found that the younger workers in the 1970s were most concerned about corporate environmentalism, which perhaps foretold increasing environmental awareness and activism.

Chong ( 2009 ) examined how participation in corporate social responsibility programs affect employee’s understanding and commitment to the corporation’s identity, where organization identity can be defined as “the set of meanings by which a company allows itself to be known and through which it allows people to describe, remember and relate to it” (Wheeler, Richey, Tokkman, & Sablynski, 2006 , p. 98). Chong found that participation in corporate social responsibility programs feeds off of and reinforces corporate identity, resulting in the employee experiencing higher motivation, satisfaction, and commitment to the corporation.

Mozes, Josman, and Yaniv ( 2011 ) studied the relationship between corporate social responsibility activity and both organizational identification (a driver of loyalty) and motivation to work. Workers in their study were classified as either active participants or non-active participants in volunteerism programs. Active participants demonstrated higher levels of organizational identification and motivation to work. To be most effective for external beneficiaries and most meaningful for the employees, corporate social responsibility must be embedded in the routines and processes of the organization (Aguinis & Glavas, 2013 ).

Meister ( 2012 ) found that 53% of workers surveyed by the nonprofit Net Impact reported that having a job where they can make a difference to society is important to their happiness. Further, 72% of students getting ready to enter the workforce also felt this way. According to Meister, to recruit and retain young top talent, corporations not only have to engage in corporate social responsibility, they must communicate their engagement through social media.

External Stakeholders

External stakeholders may be affected by the firm’s social responsibility programs, processes, or products, but as outsiders they do not affect these. External stakeholders include consumers, suppliers, investors, and community.

Consumers derive psychological value from purchasing socially responsible products. According to Green and Peloza ( 2011 ) there are three categories of benefit: emotional, social, and functional. Buying products from socially responsible companies allows consumers to feel good about themselves. This emotional response can be associated with companies that make charitable contributions to social causes. Consumers feels good about themselves (emotional benefit) for buying from a company that is altruistic. Alternatively, buying products from a socially responsible company can define the consumer as a good person to others and elevate their position in the community (social benefit). This social response can be associated with companies that champion a social cause such as environmental sustainability. Functional benefit comes from purchasing products that function better because of CSR attributes, such as fuel-efficient cars. The three types of benefit can work together and amplify each other. “For example, a hybrid vehicle can provide functional value (lower operating costs), emotional value (joy in saving or environmental stewardship), and social value (meeting relevant norms)” (Green & Peloza, 2011 , p. 52). For consumers to derive value from corporate social responsibility, they must be aware of it. Corporations traditionally used company reports, web pages, and advertising to make consumers aware of their corporate social responsibility but are now feeling pressure to communicate more broadly and often over social media.

Socially responsible investing provides psychological value to investors. According to Beal, Goyen, and Philips ( 2005 ), this value can take the form of “fun of participation” similar to what gamblers experience, or it can take the form of happiness similar to that generated by pleasurable activities. Psychological value augments the financial returns to socially responsible investments and helps explain the decision to invest in screened funds. According to Dam and Scholtens ( 2015 , p. 104), “consumers receive a warm-glow” when they invest responsibly.

Benefits to Investors

Investing in socially responsible firms, commonly referred to as socially responsible investing (SRI), is a way for investors to join their values and their desire for monetary gain. This has become easier for individual and institutional investors with the growth of mutual funds focused on socially responsible investing. At the start of 2018 there was over $30 trillion invested in socially responsible stock, with nearly half this amount held in Europe (Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, 2019 ). In the United States there are mutual funds that filter for social responsibility, allowing individual and institutional investors to encourage socially responsible corporations while withholding support from firms that engage in industries (such as gambling) or activities (such as genetic modification) that are not viewed as socially responsible. Because perceptions of what is socially responsible and what is not can vary, mutual fund managers develop screens to appeal to different viewpoints and choose stock of firms that meet the criteria of the screen but also meet the criteria for firm/stock performance. Several empirical studies comparing the returns to socially responsible funds and unrestricted funds have found that there is no systematic difference (e.g., Bauer, Koedijk, & Otten, 2005 ; Hamilton, Jo, & Statman, 1993 ; Sauer, 1997 ). In a meta-analysis of earlier studies, Revelli and Viviani ( 2015 , p. 158) found that “the consideration of corporate social responsibility in stock market portfolios is neither a weakness nor a strength compared with conventional investments.” On average the returns to SRI funds are the same as the returns to unrestricted funds, making SRI funds attractive to both individual and institutional investors because they combine competitive financial returns with psychological benefits (feeling good about oneself for being socially responsible).

Other avenues for socially responsible investing include individual stocks (with the opportunity to engage directly with the corporation) and community development financial institutions which engage in socially responsible investing by providing loans to small businesses in low-income, at-risk communities who otherwise would not have access to financing (Schueth, 2003 ).

Corporate social responsibility is a well-researched and thoroughly discussed topic. While there is general consensus among researchers and commentators that corporations have responsibilities to society that go beyond profit maximization, what those responsibilities are and how they should be met are still open questions. Stakeholder theory, Carroll’s pyramid of corporate responsibilities, micro-economic theory of the firm, altruistic and strategic corporate social responsibility, corporate self-regulation, political corporate social responsibility, corporate environmentalism, and sustainability all offer insights into the responsibilities of corporations and how those responsibilities may be met.

When viewed from the perspective of the firm, the evidence of corporate social responsibility has generally been about the link between corporate social performance and financial performance or firm value, with mixed results. But financial effects are not the only effects of corporate social responsibility. Individuals experience psychological effects that are also a part of the social good created by socially responsible corporations. Researchers have reported significant effects, including:

Workers find meaning in their work and experience higher motivation, satisfactionm and commitment to the firm.

Consumers feel good about themselves.

Investors get a warm glow from supporting socially responsible firms.

We have abundant information about what is and isn’t corporate social responsibility, how corporate social responsibility benefits corporations and individuals, and how investors can encourage socially responsible corporations and discourage irresponsible corporations. However, we know less about how corporations can address social problems such as human rights, justice, poverty, and environmental sustainability and next to nothing about the record of corporate social responsibility in addressing such social problems.

• Aguilera, R. V. , Rupp, D. E. , Williams, C. A. , & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review , 32 (3), 836–863.
• Aguinis, H. , & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations . Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 6 (04), 314–332.
• Aguinis, H. , & Glavas, A. (2019). On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. Journal of Management , 45 (3), 1057–1086.
• Arrow, K. J. (1973). Social responsibility and economic efficiency. Public Policy , 21 (3), 303–17.
• Austin, J. , Stevenson, H. , & Wei-Skillern, J. (2012). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Revista de Administração , 47 (3), 370–384.
• B Lab Company . (2017). Model benefit corporation legislation (model legislation) .
• Bagnoli, M. , & Watts, S. G. (2003). Selling to socially responsible consumers: Competition and the private provision of public goods . Journal of Economics & Management Strategy , 12 (3), 419–445.
• Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility . Academy of Management Review , 32 (3), 794–816.
• Baron, D. P. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy , 10 (1), 7–45.
• Bauer, R. , Koedijk, K. , & Otten, R. (2005). International evidence on ethical mutual fund performance and investment style . Journal of Banking & Finance , 29 (7), 1751–1767.
• Beal, D. J. , Goyen, M. , & Philips, P. (2005). Why do we invest ethically? Journal of Investing , 14 (3), 66–78.
• Bénabou, R. , & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility . Economica , 77 (305), 1–19.
• Burke, L. , & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off . Long Range Planning , 29 (4), 495–502.
• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders . Business Horizons , 34 (4), 39–48.
• Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look . International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 1 (1), 3.
• Carroll, A. B. , & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice . International Journal of Management Reviews , 12 (1), 85–105.
• Chandler, D. (2017). Strategic corporate social responsibility (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Chong, M. (2009). Employee participation in CSR and corporate identity: Insights from a disaster-response program in the Asia-Pacific . Corporate Reputation Review , 12 (2), 106–119.
• Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardization . Academy of Management Journal , 47 (5), 747–760.
• Dam, L. , & Scholtens, B. (2015). Toward a theory of responsible investing: On the economic foundations of corporate social responsibility . Resource and Energy Economics , 41 , 103–121.
• DeBerry-Spence, B. , Torres, L. T. , & Hinson, R. E. (2019). Bringing together the big and the small: Multinational corporation approaches to corporate social responsibility and entrepreneurship in Africa. In A. McWilliams , D. Rupp , D. Siegel , G. Stahl , & D. Waldman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: Psychological and organizational perspectives (pp. 391–411). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Defourny, J. , & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments . Social Enterprise Journal , 4 (3), 202–228.
• Dowell, G. , Hart, S. , & Yeung, B. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Science , 46 (8), 1059–1074.
• Fombrun, C. J. , Gardberg, N. A. , & Sever, J. M. (2000). The Reputation Quotient SM : A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation . Journal of Brand Management , 7 (4), 241–255.
• Freeman, R. E. , & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review , 25 (3), 88–106.
• Friede, G. , Busch, T. , & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies . Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment , 5 (4), 210–233.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine , September 13, 122–126.
• Gavin, J. F. , & Maynard, W. S. (1975). Perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Personnel Psychology , 28 (3), 377–387.
• Global Sustainable Investment Alliance . (2019). 2018 Global Sustainable Investment Review .
• Green, T. , & Peloza, J. (2011). How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers? Journal of Consumer Marketing , 28 (1), 48–56.
• Hamilton, S. , Jo, H. , & Statman, M. (1993). Doing well while doing good? The investment performance of socially responsible mutual funds. Financial Analysts Journal , 49 (6), 62.
• Hart, S. L. (2010). Capitalism at the crossroads: Next generation business strategies for a post-crisis world . Upper Saddle River, N.J.: FT Press.
• Heal, G. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: An economic and financial framework . Geneva Papers on Risk & Insurance—Issues & Practice , 30 (3), 387–409.
• Hemingway, C. A. , & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility . Journal of Business Ethics , 50 (1), 33–44.
• Heslin, P. A. , & Ochoa, J. D. (2008). Understanding and developing strategic corporate social responsibility. Organizational Dynamics , 37 (2), 125–144.
• Hiller, J. S. (2013). The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility . Journal of Business Ethics , 118 (2), 287–301.
• Lee, K. , Oh, W.-Y. , & Kim, N. (2013). Social media for socially responsible firms: Analysis of fortune 500’s twitter profiles and their CSR/CSIR ratings . Journal of Business Ethics , 118 (4), 791–806.
• Lundgren, T. (2011). A microeconomic model of corporate social responsibility . Metroeconomica , 62 (1), 69–95.
• Lyon, T. P. , & Maxwell, J. W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and the environment: A theoretical perspective . Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 2 (2), 240–260.
• Margolis, J. D. , & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business . Administrative Science Quarterly , 48 (2), 268–305.
• Marquis, C. , Toffel, M. W. , & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science , 27 (2), 483–504.
• Marvel, H. P. (1977). Factory regulation: A reinterpretation of early English experience, Journal of Law & Economics , 20 (2), 379–402.
• Marx, K. , & Engels, F. (1967). Capital: A critique of political economy . New York: International Publishers.
• Matten, D. , & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility . Academy of Management Review , 33 (2), 404–424.
• Maxwell, J. W. , Lyon, T. P. , & Hackett, S. C. (2000). Self-regulation and social welfare: The political economy of corporate environmentalism . The Journal of Law & Economics , 43 (2), 583–618.
• McWilliams, A. , Rupp, D. E. , Siegel, D. S. , Stahl, G. K. , & Waldman, D. A. (2019). New developments in the study of corporate social responsibility. In A. McWilliams , D. Rupp , D. Siegel , G. Stahl , & D. Waldman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: Psychological and organizational perspectives (pp. 3–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• McWilliams, A. , & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal , 21 (5), 603–609.
• McWilliams, A. , & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective . Academy of Management Review , 26 (1), 117–127.
• McWilliams, A. , & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and capturing value, strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage . Journal of Management , 37 (5), 1480–1495.
• McWilliams, A. , Van Fleet, D. D. , & Cory, K. D. (2002). Raising rivals’ costs through political strategy: An extension of resource-based theory . Journal of Management Studies , 39 (5), 707–724.
• Meister, J. (2012, June 7). The future of work: Corporate social responsibility attracts top talent . Forbes .
• Mejri, M. , & De Wolf, D. (2013). Crisis management: Lessons learnt from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill oil . Business Management and Strategy , 4 (2), 67.
• Minor, D. , & Morgan, J. (2011). CSR as reputation insurance: Primum non nocere . California Management Review , 53 (3), 40–59.
• Mozes, M. , Josman, Z. , & Yaniv, E. (2011). Corporate social responsibility organizational identification and motivation . Social Responsibility Journal , 7 (2), 310–325.
• Nucor . (2018). Nucor responsibility .
• Nidumolu, R. , Prahalad, C. K. , & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review , 87 (9), 57–64.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) . (2007). glossary of industrial organisation economics and competition law. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Centre for Co-operation with the European Economies in Transition.
• Renko, M. , & Freeman, M. (2019). Entrepreneurship by and for disadvantaged populations: Global evidence. In A. McWilliams , D. Rupp , D. Siegel , G. Stahl , & D. Waldman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: Psychological and organizational perspectives (pp. 412–429). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Revelli, C. , & Viviani, J.-L. (2015). Financial performance of socially responsible investing (SRI): What have we learned? A meta-analysis . Business Ethics: A European Review , 24 (2), 158–185.
• Sauer, D. A. (1997). The impact of social-responsibility screens on investment performance: Evidence from the Domini 400 social index and Domini Equity Mutual Fund . Review of Financial Economics , 6 (2), 137–149.
• Scherer, A. G. , & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy . Journal of Management Studies , 48 (4), 899–931.
• Schueth, S. (2003). Socially responsible investing in the United States . Journal of Business Ethics , 43 (3), 189–194.
• Schulz, M. (2017). An analysis of corporate responses to the Black Lives Matter movement. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications , 8 (1), 55–65.
• Servaes, H. , & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science , 59 (5), 1035–1061.
• Sheehy, B. (2019). CSR and environmental law: Concepts, intersections and limitations. In A. McWilliams , D. Rupp , D. Siegel , G. Stahl , & D. Waldman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: Psychological and organizational perspectives (pp. 263–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sprinkle, G. B. , & Maines, L. A. (2010). The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility . Business Horizons , 53 (5), 445–453.
• Walker, K. , & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications . Journal of Business Ethics , 109 (2), 227–242.
• Wheeler, A. R. , Richey, R. G. , Tokkman, M. , & Sablynski, C. J. (2006). Retaining employees for service competency: The role of corporate brand identity . Journal of Brand Management , 14 (1/2), 96–113.
• Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited . Academy of Management Review , 16 (4), 6.
• Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review . International Journal of Management Reviews , 12 (1), 50–84.
• World Commission on Environment and Development (Ed.). (1987). Our common future . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Related Articles

• Corporate Ethics
• Corporate Political Strategies
• Corporate Governance in Business and Management
• Social Movements and Their Impact on Business and Management

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 29 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [195.190.12.77]
• 195.190.12.77

Character limit 500 /500

• Search by keyword
• Search by citation

Page 1 of 2

Investigating the potential domino effect of a dazzling fiscal-period on CSR performance: a luxury brand scenario

A consensus and buying pattern regarding luxury brands has endured a paradigm shift from being envied to being questioned or entirely overlooked. The pandemic has led to a fair share of economic implications. ...

• View Full Text

Identifying transitions in corporate sustainability reporting: a content analysis of JSE/FTSE multinational sustainability reports from 2016 to 2021

The dominant practice governing sustainability reporting in the private sector is that of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or Environmental Social Governance (ESG) reporting. CSR has its roots in philanth...

Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Complacency is almost archaic in the knowledge economy, because firms are overwhelmingly confronted with diverse expectations from better informed stakeholders, who pressure on societal issues amid shareholder...

Morality matters: social psychological perspectives on how and why CSR activities and communications affect stakeholders’ support - experimental design evidence for the mediating role of perceived organizational morality comparing WEIRD (UK) and non-WEIRD (Russia) country

Companies’ communications about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have become increasingly prevalent yet psychological reasons for why those communications might lead to positive reactions of the general p...

Bibliometric study on organizational resilience: trends and future research agenda

In an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world, the importance of organizational resilience has grown, yet the scholarly literature on this topic remains fragmented. To address thi...

Developing indicators for the social benefits of university-industry collaborations

This paper focuses on the social benefits of university-industry collaborations (UICs) based on the cases of winners of the Industry-Academia Collaboration Prize presented by the UK Royal Society of Chemistry ...

Board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility

Based on a total of 1,590 listed non-financial firms on the Taiwan Stock Exchange and the Taipei Exchange (formerly the Over The Counter securities market) covering the period of 2007~2020, this study examines...

The role of internal CSR in guiding the digitalisation of work

In the context of the increased use of digital technologies at work and the various reported positive and negative outcomes for workers, this paper deals with the effects of internal corporate social responsib...

Assessing the impact of corporate social responsibility communication on nonprofit organisations in South Africa

The aim of the study was to investigate whether the content of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) messages predicts communication outcomes in South African nonprofit organisations (NPOs). The study found a ...

Corporate social responsibility, sustainable environmental practices and green innovation; perspectives from the Ghanaian manufacturing industry

As the discourse around business ethics and sustainable development intensifies, many organizations are adopting initiatives in corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a strategic tool to satisfy regulatory r...

Assessment of corporate social responsibility practices in selected public libraries in South-West and North-Central, Nigeria

This study explored corporate social responsibility practices in selected public libraries in south-west and north-central Nigeria. The study adopts multiple case-study design, and qualitative research approac...

Navigating the myriad of corporate quality standards: a CSR and stakeholder perspective

Quality standards (QS) (e.g., ISO 9001) play an important role in assuring the quality of goods and services for organizational stakeholders on a global scale. Recent work has highlighted the role of QS in com...

Translating brand reputation into equity from the stakeholder’s theory: an approach to value creation based on consumer’s perception & interactions

This study is to examine the translation of a reputable brand into equity and how consumers’ perceptions can trigger value creation from commitment and pursuit of CSR by an organization and adopting the same a...

Synthesising synergies between CSR and BHR for corporate accountability: an integrated approach

While an emerging literature considers Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as obligatory, voluntarism has dominated the scholarship and policymaking related to CSR. Almost parallel to this literature, the fi...

Corporate social responsibility communication in the ICT sector: digital issues, greenwashing, and materiality

Digitalization brings with it new social and governance issues and heightened responsibility, particularly for corporations. In recent years, society has demanded more transparency from companies about digital...

Responsible government and responsible business: the challenge of harnessing CSR in a new epoch

Much has been written of the implications for government policy on ‘responsible business’ but a comprehensive review of the subject is needed. This literature review will offer an assessment of varied insights...

Is capital structure associated with corporate social responsibility?

Based on a total of 1,590 listed non-financial firms on the Taiwan Stock Exchange and the Taipei Exchanges covering the period of 2007 ~ 2020, this study examines whether a firm's capital structure is affected...

Towards a definition of sustainable banking - a consolidated approach in the context of guidelines and strategies

Sustainable development efforts, initiated by the SDGs and the Paris Agreement on climate change, are bringing banking to the center of the debate, which calls for, among other things, sustainable banking. In ...

Correction: When and where does it pay to be green? – A look into socially responsible investing and the cost of equity capital

The original article was published in International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 2023 8 :1

How Corporate Sociopolitical Activism (CSA) impacts portfolio allocations: an experiment

If a firm signals that they identify on one end of the conservative-liberal spectrum, will political affiliation help predict how an investor will allocate their investment dollars to that firm? Using an exper...

Challenges of CSR in Sub-Saharan Africa: clarifying the gaps between the regulations and human rights issues

This paper discusses the practice of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa. The main purpose is to highlight and clarify the gaps between CSR regulations and human righ...

When and where does it pay to be green? – A look into socially responsible investing and the cost of equity capital

We investigate the circumstances under which socially responsible investing (SRI) enhances firm long-term financial performance, and therefore provides incentives for firms to self-regulate their environmental...

The Correction to this article has been published in International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 2023 8 :4

Corporate social responsibility. A strategy for social and territorial sustainability

Globalization and financial processes have progressively generated an intense and problematic phenomenon of disconnection between companies and their territories. Breaking of the spatial link has often led to ...

“Issues emanating from business impact on climate, environmental sustainability and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility): steps towards pragmatism in extant realities”: “Brand translation to equity from ‘CSR as a potential tool in climate change mitigation and enhancing financial performances in organizations”

The relationship between ‘CSR and Brands to the sustainable business environment coupled with climatic changes and environmental issues; ‘while emphasizing the potentials of ‘CSR from brand reputation translat...

Wheat and chaff: the degree to which strategic management principles are integrated within corporate social responsibility reporting among large Canadian firms

This empirical study examines the degree to which strategic principles are reflected in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting practices among Canada’s largest corporations. In a two-phased approa...

ESG in the boardroom: evidence from the Malaysian market

This study examines the influence of boards’ characteristics with respect to independence, diversity, and diligence on the environment, social, governance (ESG) disclosure among Bursa Malaysia companies. The b...

New corporate social responsibility brand evaluation in a developing country: Uzbekistan

Organizations strive to satisfy salient and unmet consumer needs by providing value through their products and services. If environmentally sustainable “green” brands successfully exist by addressing environme...

Sustainability performance indicator trends: a Canadian industry-based analysis

This study aims to examine the trends in the sustainability performance indicators disclosed in sustainability reports by Canadian companies. Our sample is comprised of eight companies in four sectors and our ...

How does CSR of food company affect customer loyalty in the context of COVID-19: a moderated mediation model

Because of COVID-19 in the world, enterprises and consumers pay more and more attention to environmental protection, food safety and health issues. The purpose of this paper is to take China's food company as ...

Management control systems in response to social and environmental risk in large Nordic companies

This empirical study investigates the relationships between management control systems and social and environmental risks. Building on Simons’ Levers of Control conceptual framework, this study proposes that c...

Corporate social responsibility in international business literature: results from text data mining of the Journal of International Business Studies

Corporate social responsibility has been an important theme in management at least since the 1960s. International business became a recognized subfield in management around the same time. Logically, there migh...

The long-term transformation of the concept of CSR: towards a more comprehensive emphasis on sustainability

This article adds to the discussion of the long-term transformation of CSR, presenting a perspective on the interplay between CSR debate and public discourse on business responsibility. 50 years after Milton F...

Novel CSR & novel coronavirus: corporate social responsibility inside the frame of coronavirus pandemic in Greece

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) becomes popular as big international firms gain more power than states and global issues engender concerns to people from all over the world. The pandemic of novel coronav...

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): motivations and challenges of a Multinational Enterprise (MNE) subsidiary’s engagement with host communities in Ghana

This paper aims to explore the motivations and challenges of engaging host communities in CSR practices within the context of Newmont Ahafo Mines (NAM), a subsidiary of a Multinational Mining Enterprise (MNE) ...

Examining the role of environmental corporate social responsibility in building green corporate image and green competitive advantage

Green concern is making a profound impact on building green competitive advantage (GCA) across the globe. Apparel sector of Bangladesh is at crossroads regarding sustainability of firms. Green initiatives are ...

Cultural influence on innovativeness - links between “The Culture Map” and the “Global Innovation Index”

In the ongoing debate on the relation of cultural differences and national innovativeness this research aims to find out which of the seven cultural dimensions of The Culture Map (communicating, evaluating, leadi...

CSR reporting by Chinese and Western MNEs: patterns combining formal homogenization and substantive differences

In light of the growing economic might and intensification of global activities of Chinese multinational enterprises (MNE), this paper looks into the nature of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) repor...

Microfinance institutions’ operational self-sufficiency in sub-Saharan Africa: empirical evidence

The topic of financial sustainability in microfinance institutions has become more important as an increasing number of Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) seek operational self-sufficiency, which translates into...

Do Millennials pay attention to Corporate Social Responsibility in comparison to previous generations? Are they motivated to lead in times of transformation? A qualitative review of generations, CSR and work motivation

The purpose of this qualitative review is to analyze empirical studies on whether the existing generations differ in their work beliefs, i.e. in their internal CSR perceptions and their leadership motivation, ...

Impact of strategic management, corporate social responsibility on firm performance in the post mandate period: evidence from India

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is like a chameleon, that changes its colour according to the context it is in. In the developed economy, it takes the form of sustainability and/ or philanthropy, whereas...

Green bonds issuance: insights in low- and middle-income countries

Former reports of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) tended to focus on the equity side of investing, and today green bonds also offer and introduce sustainability factors. This paper is about the rele...

Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder engagement in Ghana’s mining sector: a case study of Newmont Ahafo mines

Even though the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been applauded for several decades, the concept of stakeholder engagement is relatively new to the Ghanaian mining sector. This study invest...

Sustainability in the automotive industry, importance of and impact on automobile interior – insights from an empirical survey

Sustainability is currently one of the main issues in all media and in society as a whole and is increasingly discussed in science from different sides and areas. Especially for the automotive industry, sustai...

Implementing part-time leadership as instrument for sustainable HR management

This paper discusses the suitability of part-time leadership as instrument for a sustainable Human Resources Management (HRM) policy. The concept of part-time leadership is introduced and discussed based on a ...

Looking through the African lenses: a critical exploration of the CSR activities of Chinese International Construction Companies (CICCs) in Africa

The importance of Chinese International Construction Companies (CICCs) within the construction sector in Africa can no longer be ignored, as these firms hold a considerable amount of market share within the Af...

Mechanisms for development in corporate citizenship: a multi-level review

Social Responsibility, referred to in this study as Corporate Citizenship (CC) has experienced continued growth in significance among academics and corporate leaders. The absence of a multi-level approach to w...

Competition and microfinance institutions’ performance: evidence from India

This paper empirically examines whether competition (measured by using the new measure of competition, the Boone Indicator) moderates the relationship between Microfinance Institutions’ (MFIs) social and finan...

Optimal growth under socially responsible investment: a dynamic theoretical model of the trade-off between financial gains and emotional rewards

Socially responsible investment (SRI) evolved, along the last two decades, from an almost unexplored topic in science to a recurrent theme of research and debate in Economics and Finance. The growing interest ...

Understanding the purpose of benefit corporations: an empirical study on the Italian case

Rethinking the traditional understanding of organizational purpose appears to be necessary. A teleological paradigm shift seems to be on its way, changing the focus of attention from considering business organ...

Climate change adaptation, coffee, and corporate social responsibility: challenges and opportunities

Climate change is making a profound impact on agricultural production across the globe. Coffee (especially the Arabica variety) is one of the most severely affected crops. Adaptive measures are therefore neede...

• Editorial Board
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal

Annual Journal Metrics

Speed 2023 Submission to first editorial decision (median days): 11 Submission to acceptance (median days): 226

Usage 2023 Downloads: 601,176 Altmetric mentions: 17

• More about our metrics
• ISSN: 2366-0074 (electronic)
• ISSN: 2366-0066 (print)

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2023

Exploring the factors affecting the implementation of corporate social responsibility from a strategic perspective

• Chao-Chan Wu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3891-310X 1 ,
• Fei-Chun Cheng 2 &
• Dong-Yu Sheh 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  179 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management

In general, the objective of a company is to pursue higher returns for its shareholders. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an ethical practice that seems to be contrary to the objectives of companies; as a result, companies lack sufficient motivation to implement CSR. Academics and practitioners have recently begun considering CSR from a strategic perspective. However, the definition and scope of strategic CSR have not been clearly defined or discussed in previous studies. This study uses the strategic triangle perspective as a theoretical basis to explore the key factors affecting the implementation of strategic CSR. Three main factors and ten sub-factors were summarized to form a hierarchical network structure based on a literature review. The weights of each factor and sub-factor were then prioritized using the analytic network process (ANP). The results of this study show that “company” is the most important main factor, while “corporate image”, “innovation ability”, “reputation risk”, “financial capacity”, and “investment intention” are the top five important sub-factors. The hierarchical network structure and critical factors suggested in this study contribute to implementing strategic CSR. The findings of this study will also help the theoretical development in the field of CSR.

Similar content being viewed by others

Corporate social responsibility and individual behaviour

Does national culture influence corporate social responsibility on firm performance?

Value relevance of multifaceted corporate social performance: how do country-specific factors matter?

Introduction.

The purpose of businesses is to produce products or services that meet consumer demand. However, with the depletion of resources and environmental pollution, people have gradually realized the importance of sustainable development. Furthermore, with better living standards, people pay attention to social issues such as health and human rights. Various factors have led to higher expectations regarding the role of businesses in society (Huang, 2014 ). In addition to their growth, companies need to consider the overall well-being of society and make moral contributions beyond economic and legal aspects. Enterprises are not only economic entities that operate for profit but also exist to create an ideal society (Carroll and Shabana, 2010 ). Therefore, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an important research topic in recent years (Yuan et al., 2020 ).

The motivation for CSR implementation changes with the social environment (Bergquist, 2017 ). The goal of an enterprise is to make profits and maximize shareholder value. Thus, it is necessary to establish formal regulations to enforce the implementation of environmental protection and social issues by enterprises. Nevertheless, if CSR is merely a response to legal requirements, companies will not realize the value and benefits of this action. For organizations such as businesses that pursue economic benefits, implementing CSR may be viewed as a cost. This reactive motivation prevents companies from effectively implementing CSR (Bansal, 2022 ).

Social responsibility and corporate benefits do not conflict. This means that companies should not treat CSR as an expense incurred by contributions to fulfill public interest. Instead, companies should transform CSR from an ethical practice to one of their strategies (Porter and Kramer, 2006 ). If CSR is combined with a company’s strengths and strategies, its potential will maximize the benefits to society and the company (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006 ; Yuan et al., 2020 ). A strategic vision of CSR will allow companies to avoid seeing it as a cost or expense when implementing CSR, but will instead consider the relationship between CSR and the company’s core business and how to help the company achieve its strategic goals (Lepoutre and Heene, 2006 ; Manasakis, 2018 ). Strategic CSR can help companies achieve a win-win situation regarding economic benefits and social responsibility.

To implement strategic CSR, companies must identify the capabilities and resources that influence their social responsibility (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006 ). In addition, resources are limited to businesses, so selection and prioritization are important parts of strategic thinking (Porter, 2008 ). Identifying the key factors affecting the implementation of strategic CSR and recognizing the relative importance of these factors will help companies plan their strategic CSR activities. Therefore, it is important to explore the key factors that influence the implementation of strategic CSR. According to the strategic triangle perspective proposed by Ohmae ( 1982 ), the strategic thinking of a business is mainly based on company, customer, and competitor aspects. From the company aspect, the main description is the importance of internal resources in implementing a strategy. The customer aspect focuses on how a company uses its resources to provide attractive products and services to satisfy its customers. The principle of the competitor aspect is that a company should create as much competitive advantage as possible to enable it to compete with its competitors (Ohmae, 1982 ; van Vliet, 2009 ). The strategic triangle perspective can be used to develop a conceptual framework for strategic CSR.

This study aims to explore the key factors affecting the implementation of strategic CSR. Based on a literature review of the CSR concept and the strategic triangle perspective, this study identifies the main factors and sub-factors affecting the implementation of strategic CSR and establishes a hierarchical network structure for these factors. This study then uses the analytic network process (ANP) method to prioritize the relative weights of each factor and sub-factor in the hierarchical network structure. The results of this study contribute to determining the important factors that influence the implementation of strategic CSR to plan relevant strategies.

Literature review

This study examines the key factors influencing companies’ implementation of strategic CSR. In this section, we first review the general altruistic view of CSR. Second, the essence of corporate strategy was discussed within the framework of the strategic triangle. Then, we explain how to incorporate the strategic triangle perspective into the CSR concept to form strategic CSR. Finally, factors affecting the implementation of strategic CSR were selected to build a hierarchical network structure.

The concept of CSR

With the rise in sustainable development, CSR has become a popular topic. CSR means that enterprises are responsible for promoting social interests while pursuing their benefits (Carroll and Shabana, 2010 ; Josiah and Akpuh, 2022 ). The concept of CSR is a company’s response to social welfare and its responsibility to stakeholders affected by its development (Chang et al., 2014 ). CSR is strongly related to customers, investors, the government, and other stakeholders. Companies with social responsibility balance the needs of the company and stakeholders when making decisions so that they can contribute to society and stakeholders while pursuing profits (Hopkins, 2012 ). CSR mainly focuses on the positive actions of enterprises on social and environmental issues while paying attention to the rights and interests of stakeholders. However, it is difficult to link the ethical behavior of these companies to their own operations (Sheh, 2022 ). The traditional concept of CSR focuses on public interest but ignores the necessity of continuous profitability of companies (Matytsin et al., 2023 ). Companies must learn to integrate CSR actions into their operations rather than viewing CSR as additional philanthropy (Zollo, 2004 ). The current meaning of CSR is that companies must voluntarily incorporate social and environmental issues and interactions with stakeholders into their operations (Commission of the European Communities, 2001 ). Therefore, companies must consider both social responsibilities and operational performance, as well as their complementary strengths.

Strategic perspective and CSR

The purpose of strategy is to efficiently achieve the specific goal of an individual or organization, given the resources and capabilities. Strategic thinking integrates internal and external resources to achieve a competitive advantage in an uncertain and high-risk environment (Khalifa, 2020 ). In other words, the execution of strategy considers not only the current state within the company but also the situation of the external environment to choose the most appropriate way to achieve the goal (Hambrick and Fredrickson, 2005 ). Furthermore, Ohmae ( 1982 ) suggests a strategic triangle perspective and indicates that enterprises should focus on three factors when formulating their strategies, including the company, customer, and competitor. Companies must consider their own conditions and customer needs to provide products or services that are consistently better than those of their competitors and consider the interrelationships among the three factors.

In general, companies play a passive role in CSR implementation (Lindgreen et al., 2009 ). The main reason is that companies lack the motivation to implement CSR. The altruistic behavior of a company does not necessarily bring benefits to the company, and even the implementation of CSR conflicts with corporate profitability (Sprinkle and Maines, 2010 ). In this context, CSR is more of a moral act implemented by a company based on social expectations after making a profit. Even when CSR is linked to business operations, companies do not know how to convert it into business value and competitive advantage. If long-term investment in CSR does not give a company a competitive advantage, CSR will likely be seen as the cost of doing business. Companies tend to lack the motivation to implement CSR, which is not conducive to long-term sustainable development. In fact, companies rarely implement social responsibility purely from an altruistic perspective (Wang et al., 2016 ). The core concept of a company is to pursue performance; therefore, companies should rethink CSR through strategic thinking and select social issues or goals that enable them to fully utilize their core competencies to implement CSR (Porter and Kramer, 2006 ). In this way, companies can turn social responsibility issues into business opportunities, creating more benefits and competitive advantages (Drucker, 1984 ; Padgett and Galan, 2010 ; Manasakis, 2018 ).

Previous studies have mentioned that it is necessary to use a strategic perspective to examine CSR (Porter and Kramer, 2006 ; Wang et al., 2016 ). When thinking strategically, companies usually need to consider how they are positioned against their competitors and how they can use their resources and capabilities to achieve their goals (Porter and Kramer, 2002 ). In other words, companies must assess their internal resources and capabilities, evaluate the stakeholders and competitors involved, and develop appropriate strategies to achieve the desired CSR outcomes (Husted and de Jesus Salazar, 2006 ). Nevertheless, strategic CSR remains a relatively abstract concept requiring further exploration of its specific elements and components.

Therefore, the strategic triangle perspective can be used to establish the structure of strategic CSR and to form a precise concept. From a strategic triangle perspective, companies must take stock of their core competencies and resources, and then consider how to meet the needs of their customers. By integrating this perspective into CSR, strategic CSR can impact customers and stakeholders related to the company. Based on the above discussion, this study explicitly focuses the concept of strategic CSR on three main factors, including company, stakeholder, and competitor. The company factor refers to the resources and assets owned by the company, the stakeholder factor refers to stakeholders who interact with the business, and the competitor factor refers to the competitive advantage over competitors (Husted and Allen, 2007 ). The three main factors that affect the implementation of strategic CSR and the sub-factors within these main factors were discussed below.

From a strategic triangle perspective, the resources within a company can be considered the basis for strategy execution. According to the resource-based theory, valuable resources are the main source of a company’s competitive advantage (Barney, 1991 ). Promoting CSR is not only the responsibility of senior management or specific departments but also the recognition and participation of all employees in the company. Hence, human resources play an important role in CSR implementation (Arnaud and Wasieleski, 2014 ). Adequate professional manpower is a condition for companies to implement CSR (Meyer, 1999 ; Cohen et al., 2010 ). It ensures that sustainability-related strategies and proposals are sufficiently driven to help organizations achieve their goals and ultimately improve their effectiveness (Paillé et al., 2014 ; Voegtlin and Greenwood, 2016 ).

In addition to human resources, companies with sufficient financial resources to support the execution of operational strategies can significantly increase their likelihood of achieving their goals. Similarly, CSR implementation requires sufficient financial capacity (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006 ; Lepoutre and Heene, 2006 ). Moreover, the Fortune 500 spent $19.9 billion on CSR-related activities (Business Backs Education, 2015 ). This not only shows the importance that companies attach to CSR but also reflects that the implementation of CSR requires considerable financial resources.

On the other hand, corporate image is more abstract than other tangible resources because it is an overall performance composed of many factors related to a company (Moon, 2007 ). It is most widely defined as the reputation of a company, the overall impression of the company in the public’s minds (Agyei et al., 2014 ; Huang et al., 2014 ; Li et al., 2022 ). A great corporate image can be built based on a company’s ability, that is, the reputation that a company has built by consistently providing high-quality products or services. Thus, corporate image can also be derived from a company’s contribution to CSR (Vo et al., 2019 ). The image formed by CSR refers to the subjective feelings, attitudes, and evaluation of the public towards the social responsibility implemented by the company (Berens et al., 2005 ; Pérez and Rodríguez del Bosque., 2013 ). By engaging in charitable activities, such as protecting the environment, caring for community issues, and making charitable donations, a company can strengthen its public perception. A company’s image can be used as intangible capital for future public relations strategies to help it gain a competitive advantage.

Accordingly, human resources, financial capacity, and corporate image were adopted as sub-factors within the main factor of company in this study.

Stakeholder

In conventional business operations, a company operates by meeting its customers’ needs, and the results are ultimately reflected in its performance. As the external environment becomes more complex, the actual operation of a company will involve not only customers but also individuals or groups such as investors, media, and governments, all of whom will be affected by the company’s actions or influence its decisions (Freeman, 1984 ). In general, business strategy mainly focuses on the customer aspect, but strategic CSR affects a wider group of people than traditional strategies. According to previous studies, CSR has a significant relationship with corporate performance and stakeholder responsiveness (Alniacik et al., 2011 ; Ansu-Mensah et al., 2021 ). This means that companies can communicate with more stakeholders through CSR implementation (Manasakis, 2018 ). Several stakeholders that may influence CSR implementation, such as consumers, inventors, media, and governments, were discussed below.

First, Bhattacharya and Sen ( 2004 ) suggest that consumers consider a company’s actions towards the environment and society when making purchase decisions and state that CSR actions can increase consumers’ willingness to purchase a company’s products or services. When a company focuses on and contributes to a specific issue, consumers will likely translate their support for the issue into a willingness to buy its products (Thi et al., 2020 ; Zhang, 2022 ). Companies can choose to invest in CSR because consumers will respond to their efforts on social and environmental issues with a higher willingness to buy (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004 ; Walker et al., 2021 ).

Second, investors must consider various factors when selecting investment targets. The reason why investors are willing to invest their capital in a company depends mainly on its profitability (Lin et al., 2018 ). Companies that contribute to CSR can manage their relationships with employees, suppliers, and other stakeholders, resulting in more stable operational and financial performance (Platonova et al., 2018 ). Moreover, companies that do not integrate environmental and social issues into their business models have a higher chance of being sanctioned by the government or law, including fines and litigation dilemmas, as well as loss of profits due to revelations of corporate misconduct or the outbreak of major industrial and environmental accidents (Brown, 1997 ). A Company that integrates CSR into its business strategy is less susceptible to negative events, convincing investors that it is a better investment target than its competitors.

Third, with the boom in information technology and media, the public has much faster and easier access to information than in the past, and both positive and negative news can be disclosed at the first opportunity (Dhëmbo et al., 2021 ; Fortunato and Pecoraro, 2022 ). The more prestigious a company, the more likely it is to receive media attention and be maliciously attacked by negative media. Companies that are good at preventing reputation risks use the media as a stakeholder to avoid damaging their reputation and improve their ability to respond to external events by voluntarily implementing CSR (Diageo, 2005 ; Unerman, 2008 ). In addition, by evaluating the results of their investments in social and environmental issues, companies can diagnose the potential risks that may arise in their operations and formulate timely improvement plans to avoid reputational damage (GRI, 2002 ).

Finally, the government is an important stakeholder that can force companies to implement CSR (Zueva and Fairbrass, 2021 ). From a strategic perspective, CSR is more than a passive response to regulatory pressure. By proactively engaging in CSR, companies can build bridges and maintain good relationships with the public sector, thereby increasing their influence on public decision-making. CSR increases trust between businesses and the government; helps companies obtain licenses, permissions, and other official documents faster and more smoothly; and avoids redundant bureaucratic costs (Mathis, 2008 ).

Based on these arguments, this study includes purchase intention, investment intention, reputation risk, and government relations as sub-factors within the main factor stakeholder in the hierarchical network structure.

According to the strategic triangle perspective, companies achieve superior financial performance by leveraging their strengths to satisfy their customers while creating a relative advantage over their competitors (Ohmae, 1982 ). In the competitor aspect, the factor that affects a company’s profitability is the price of product relative to the competitor. CSR is an important evaluation criterion for consumers when making purchases. Companies can make consumers perceive that they are concerned about social issues through CSR, which affects consumers’ perceptions of products (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004 ). Even though not everyone is willing to pay a higher price for the products of companies that implement CSR, for advocates of social and environmental issues, paying a price premium can symbolize their concern and support for a particular issue and serve as a reward for responsible companies (McGoldrick and Freestone, 2008 ). Accordingly, companies can use this feature to set higher product prices (Danko and Nifatova, 2022 ).

Companies that have already established positions in a specific industry must protect themselves from potential competitors and maintain their market share. From a traditional strategic perspective, companies usually adopt cost-cutting strategies to take advantage of price wars to defeat competitors or invest more resources in research and development to build barriers to entry into the industry (Porter, 2008 ). Furthermore, Buccella and Wojna ( 2017 ) suggest that incumbent companies in the industry can regard CSR as a moat against potential competitors and turn it into a weapon to maintain their market position.

On the other hand, a company’s growth is driven by the continuous development of new products or the improvement of existing business models. Innovation ability has become one of the most important strategic considerations in companies’ decisions (Chkir et al., 2021 ). Innovation ability is the driving force behind the implementation of CSR if companies can integrate CSR thinking into their products (Padgett and Galan, 2010 ). Companies that implement CSR are better able than their competitors to use efficient processes for product development and manufacturing (Husted and Allen, 2007 ).

Based on the above points, this study summarizes price premium, entry barrier, and innovation ability as sub-factors within the main factor competitor.

Methodology

The hierarchical network structure.

When applying ANP, the decision problem needs to be clearly structured, and the interrelationships between the factors must be presented in a network manner. The hierarchical network structure can be established mainly through the literature review and the opinions of experts in the field, which contains goal, main factors, and sub-factors (Saaty, 2005 ). This goal indicates that a decision problem must be resolved. The main factors, sub-factors, and interdependencies among factors can be obtained by reviewing the literature and collecting expert opinions on the decision problem (Saaty, 2004 ).

This study aims to identify the factors that may affect the implementation of strategic CSR. Based on the literature review, three main factors and ten sub-factors were obtained to construct the hierarchy. The main factors contain company, stakeholder, and competitor. Company consists of three sub-factors, including financial capacity, human resources, and corporate image. Stakeholder has four sub-factors, including purchase intention, investment intention, reputation risk, and government relations. Competitor has three sub-factors, including entry barrier, price premium, and innovation ability. Then, this study collects expert opinions on the interdependence of factors through questionnaires to form a network structure based on Ngeru et al. ( 2011 ). To ensure that the experts are sufficiently professional and to improve the quality of the data collected, they were selected from among professionals with experience in the field of CSR. A total of twelve experts have an average of 10 years of experience in public relations, consulting, manufacturing, and financial industries, and they are all engaged in CSR-related work in these industries. Twelve questionnaires were distributed and collected, with a 100% return rate. Finally, a hierarchical network structure, including the interrelationships among factors, was established, as shown in Fig. 1 . The operational definitions of the three main factors and ten sub-factors were described in Tables 1 and 2 .

It includes three main factors, ten sub-factors, and the interdependence of factors.

The procedure of ANP

ANP is a scientific approach to decision-making when factors have dependencies and feedbacks, and is an extension of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty, 2004 ). One of the assumptions of AHP is that the factors are independent of each other (Stein and Ahmad, 2009 ). However, in reality, many decision problems cannot be structured hierarchically because elements in the hierarchy involve many interactions and interdependencies. Therefore, the structure of ANP usually includes many networks of elements with interdependent relationships, which makes analysis results more realistic (Lee and Lee, 2012 ). The reason for adopting ANP in this study is that it addresses the complexities of implementing strategic CSR and provides best possible outcome for decision-making. The specific steps of ANP were shown as follows (Chung et al., 2005 ).

Step 1: Constructing the pairwise comparison matrix

In this step, a series of pairwise comparisons were conducted to determine the relative importance of factors. Paired comparisons are two-by-two comparisons of factors based on ANP questionnaire, which uses a scale of one to nine as proposed by Saaty ( 2005 ). As shown in Table 3 , a score of 1 means that two factors are equally important to each other, while a score of 9 means that one factor is extremely important compared to the other. And then, the experts in the given field were asked to judge the relative importance between factors in the questionnaire.

The pairwise comparison matrix was obtained by the judgments of experts using ANP questionnaire. If pairwise comparison matrix M is an n  ×  n matrix, then n ( n  − 1)/2 ratings should be calculated. The matrix M was established as below (Saaty, 2004 ).

where b ij is the comparison value of factor i and factor j for one expert, b ij  > 0; b ji  = 1/ b ij ; i, j  = 1, 2,…, n .

Step 2: Calculating priority vector and eigenvalue

The priority vector (also called eigenvector) and eigenvalue of each pairwise comparison matrix in ANP can be derived as in AHP by solving the following formula (Saaty, 2005 ).

where M represents a pairwise comparison matrix, w is the priority vector (eigenvector), and λ max is the largest eigenvalue of M . The priority vector w and the eigenvalue λ max can be computed by the following sub-steps (Al-Harbi, 2001 ).

Step 2-1: Dividing each comparison value of matrix M by the sum of its column to produce the normalized pairwise comparison matrix.

Step 2-2: The priority vector w can be calculated by dividing the sum of each row in the normalized pairwise comparison matrix by the number of factors in the matrix.

Step 2-3: Firstly, multiplying matrix M by priority vector w to generate the vector Mw . And then, divide the values of the vector Mw by their respective values of priority vector. Finally, the eigenvalue λ max can be calculated by averaging the values generated above.

Step 3: Consistency test

The consistency test must be implemented to ensure that there are no logical fallacies in the judgments. The consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) can be utilized to check the consistency of each matrix. The CI was formulated as follows (Saaty, 2005 ).

where n is the number of factors.

And then, the CR of each matrix can be computed as below (Saaty, 2005 ).

where the random index RI represents the random consistency of various size of matrices. The values of RI were shown as Table 4 . If CR is less than a threshold value, then the matrix has acceptable consistency. The thresholds value proposed by Saaty ( 2005 ) is 0.1.

Step 4: Building the supermatrix

To address the dependencies between factors in the research framework, ANP uses supermatrix to calculate the relative weights of factors. A supermatrix consists of a combination of sub-matrices, each of which contains dependencies of elements within each cluster and is compared cross-cluster with elements from other clusters. If there is no correlation between the elements, the pairwise comparisons in the sub-matrices are equal to zero (Saaty, 2005 ). In this study, the main factors represent clusters and the sub-factors represent elements.

As shown in Eq. ( 5 ), W ij is the eigenvectors generated by comparing the element in cluster i with the element in cluster j . If the cluster j has no effect on the cluster i , the value is equal to zero. The structure of supermatrix is generated based on this logic (Saaty, 2004 ).

The standard form for a supermatrix was shown in Eq. ( 6 ) (Saaty, 2004 ). In general, each column of this matrix is not normalized or equal to one, which makes this matrix an unweighted supermatrix.

where C h is the cluster of a decision system; h  = 1, 2,…, n , and each cluster h has m h elements, denoted by e h 1 , e h 2 ,…, e hmh .

The supermatrix needs to be column-stochastic in order for convergence to occur. To achieve this, the weighted supermatrix W’ was established after the normalization (Saaty, 2004 ). Furthermore, it is necessary to raise the weighted supermatrix to exponential powers in order to reach stabilization or convergence. The resulting matrix is called limit supermatrix W limit , as shown in Eq. ( 7 ) (Saaty, 2005 ). The form of limit supermatrix is the same as the weighted supermatrix, but each column of the limit supermatrix is the same. Finally, the global weight of each factor can be obtained in the limit supermatrix.

where k is an arbitrarily large number.

This study examines the important factors for companies to implement strategic CSR. As companies consider many aspects in practice, and each factor may be related, ANP was used to obtain the relative weight of each factor. The weights of factors in the hierarchical network structure were generated according to the steps proposed in the methodology section.

In step 1, a series of pairwise comparisons were conducted to construct pairwise comparison matrices. Paired comparisons are two-by-two comparisons of factors based on ANP questionnaire using the scale of 1 to 9 shown in Table 3 . The experts were asked to make three levels of pairwise comparisons in the questionnaire, including the comparisons between main factors, comparisons between sub-factors within each main factor, and comparisons of dependencies for main factors or sub-factors. A total of fifteen experts working in the field of CSR were selected to fill out the questionnaire. These experts have an average of 12 years of CSR-related experience, with ten from industry and five from academia, as shown in Table 5 . After collecting fifteen questionnaires, the data were imported into Excel to form the pairwise comparison matrix of each expert. Next, the pairwise comparison matrices of fifteen experts were integrated into the aggregated pairwise comparison matrices using the geometric mean method, and then imported into Super Decisions V3.2 software for subsequent analysis. Table 6 presents the aggregated pairwise comparison matrix of main factors. Table 7 , Table 8 , and Table 9 describe the aggregated pairwise comparison matrices of sub-factors within each main factor, respectively.

In step 2, the priority vector and eigenvalue λ max of each pairwise comparison matrix was computed by Eq. ( 2 ) using Super Decisions V3.2 software. And then, CR value of each matrix was calculated by Eqs. ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) in step 3. The priority vector and CR value for each matrix was also shown in Table 6 , Table 7 , Table 8 , and Table 9 . Since all CR values are less than 0.1, the consistency of each matrix is acceptable (Saaty, 2005 ). Finally, the limit supermatrix was generated based on Eqs. (6) and ( 7 ) in step 4 and shown in Table 10 . Considering the dependencies among factors and sub-factors, the global weights of sub-factors were computed using Super Decisions V3.2 software.

Table 6 shows the relative importance of three main factors without considering dependencies. “Company” has the highest weight (0.4992), “stakeholder” has a weight of 0.3310, and “competitor” has a weight of 0.1698. Tables 7 to 9 present the relative importance of sub-factors within the main factors of company, stakeholder, and competitor, respectively, regardless of the dependencies. In the “company”, the sub-factor “financial capacity” possesses the highest weight (0.4650). Within the main factor “stakeholder”, “purchase intention” is the most important sub-factor (0.4125). In the main factor “competitor”, the most critical sub-factor is “innovation ability” (0.4783).

The global weights of sub-factors were listed in Table 11 . “Corporate image” has the highest weight (0.1779), followed by “innovation ability” at 0.1653, while “reputation risk”, “financial capacity”, and “investment intention” also have higher weights at 0.1282, 0.1264, and 0.1237, respectively. These five sub-factors are key elements that companies need to consider when implementing strategic CSR. In addition, the three sub-factors at the “company” level account for 0.4028 (0.1264 + 0.0985 + 0.1779) of the global weights. The weights of sub-factors in the “stakeholder” adds up to 0.3766 (0.0944 + 0.1237 + 0.1282 + 0.0303). It can be seen that main factors “company” and “stakeholder” account for nearly 80% of the weight, and these two factors have a significant impact on the implementation of strategic CSR.

This study aims to identify the key factors affecting the implementation of strategic CSR. First, the main factors and sub-factors affecting the implementation of strategic CSR were selected based on a literature review. Subsequently, a hierarchical network structure was constructed for these factors. The ANP method was then utilized to prioritize the relative weights of each main factor and sub-factor in the hierarchical network structure. Based on the results of analysis, this section discusses three aspects of company, stakeholder, and competitor.

“Company” has the highest weight among all main factors in this study. In this main factor, “corporate image” and “financial capacity” are among the top five sub-factors with the highest weights. Primary, “corporate image” has the highest weight among all sub-factors. This finding confirms previous research that corporate image is an important factor related to CSR (Arendt and Brettel, 2010 ; Vo et al., 2019 ). The public’s overall opinion of a company is key to its sustainable operation, and intangible assets such as corporate image can provide the basis for strategic planning. Therefore, building a corporate image is an inevitable incentive for operators when planning CSR strategies.

Furthermore, “financial capacity” is ranked fourth in weighting among all sub-factors. This highlights that the financial resources available to companies impact the implementation of strategic CSR. The result is consistent with previous studies that have made similar arguments about CSR, company size, and financial situation (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006 ; Choi et al., 2018 ). Large enterprises typically have more resources, stable financials, and mature business models than start-ups; therefore, they do not need to worry about the impact of implementing CSR on their financial performance, and their solid foundation increases the likelihood that they will invest in CSR (McGuire et al., 1988 ; Brammer and Millington, 2006 ). Companies should reserve appropriate budgets for CSR strategies in advance according to their financial situation and formulate corresponding CSR strategies based on the available resources.

External groups are one of the factors that influence companies when planning CSR strategies. In this study, “stakeholder” is given secondary weight in all main factors. Among all sub-factors, “reputation risk” within the main factor “stakeholders” has the third highest weight, indicating that companies view CSR as a way of risk management. Avoiding reputational damage is one of the main motivations for enterprises to implement CSR (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006 ; Choi et al., 2018 ). The reason is that if a company’s long-established reputation is destroyed by media coverage, it will cause a great loss to the company. The best way to deal with this risk is to review and improve the company’s negligence in business processes through CSR so that the media cannot criticize the company’s reputation.

“Investment intention” has the fifth highest weighting of all sub-factors. This indicates that when a company pursues its CSR outcome, it is expected to be seen by investors as a company with greater growth potential and ultimately creates higher value for shareholders. This feature allows companies to obtain more capital from investors to support their operational activities and strategic planning (Malik, 2015 ). In fact, CSR investment has already made its mark on the financial market. Investors prefer to invest in responsible companies (Brown, 1997 ; Msiska et al., 2021 ).

Corporate strategy aims to gain a competitive advantage. The second highest weight is given to “innovation ability” among all sub-factors. The result supports the idea that a company’s ability to innovate helps implement CSR strategies and develop more business opportunities by considering the connection to environmental and social issues (Husted and Allen, 2007 ; Padgett and Galan, 2010 ). There is already a precedent for companies combining corporate innovation with social responsibility. Toyota launched a range of innovative vehicles with hybrid fuel and electric engines to address growing environmental concerns and vehicle emissions through product innovation (Iyer and Soberman, 2016 ).

Conclusions

This study integrates the strategic triangle perspective with the concept of CSR to generate strategic CSR and identify the key factors that affect the implementation of strategic CSR. The strategic CSR proposed in this study emphasizes that companies should take the initiative to integrate social responsibility with their own goals and core business while considering internal resources, stakeholders, and the competitive environment to formulate the most appropriate strategic plan. This enables companies to achieve their strategic goals while fulfilling CSR.

This study has several important managerial implications. First, by integrating strategic thinking into CSR, the scope of social responsibility is not only to fulfill the civic duties of enterprises to benefit society but also to maintain relationships with stakeholders and gain competitive advantages. Second, the hierarchical network structure proposed in this study can help CSR practitioners think about strategic CSR from a holistic perspective so that the concept of CSR can be better integrated into business strategies and become an issue to be considered when companies conduct strategic planning.

Third, the findings of this study will enable CSR practitioners to understand the relatively important factors that influence the implementation of strategic CSR and to invest resources and effort in areas related to these key factors. This enables strategic CSR to be implemented more efficiently and ultimately has the greatest impact. Finally, these results help companies comprehend how the implementation of CSR relates to their own goals and performance, and the benefits it can bring them. In this way, CSR will no longer be seen as a cost or expense but as a strategy that can help companies achieve their goals. From this perspective, companies will be more motivated than ever to fulfill their CSR, leading to better social and economic development.

Concerning its methodological contributions, the ANP method has some advantages. Primarily, ANP is an appropriate technique for solving multi-criteria decision-making problems in which there are dependencies among factors. This can simplify complex problems and effectively identify the key factors that affect the implementation of strategic CSR. Next, by applying the ANP method, which combines both qualitative and quantitative information, a precise hierarchical network structure was proposed to systematically examine these factors. Finally, because ANP uses pairwise comparisons derived from the judgments of experts, accurate weights of the main factors and sub-factors can be generated based on professional considerations.

Nevertheless, this study has some limitations that should be examined in future research. Primarily, the main factors and sub-factors were selected from the literature review, which may have confined the range of factors that could be selected. Future research could combine a literature review with other methods, such as focus group, nominal group technique, and in-depth interviews, to identify additional factors. Furthermore, this study uses ANP as a single method to establish a hierarchical network structure for determining the key factors influencing strategic CSR implementation. Future research could further consider the ambiguity associated with the judgments of experts and incorporate fuzzy numbers into the ANP method to evaluate the relative weights of factors.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Agyei PM, Kilika JM, Mensah PA (2014) Relationship between corporate image and customer loyalty in the mobile telecommunication market in Kenya. Manag Stud 2(5):299–308

Google Scholar  

Al-Harbi KMAS (2001) Application of the AHP in project management. Int J Proj Manag 19(1):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00038-1

Article   Google Scholar  

Alniacik U, Alniacik E, Genc N (2011) How corporate social responsibility information influences stakeholders’ intentions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 18(4):234–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.245

Ansu-Mensah P, Marfo EO, Awuah LS, Amoako KO (2021) Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder engagement in Ghana’s mining sector: a case study of Newmont Ahafo mines. Int J Corporate Soc Responsib 6:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-020-00054-2

Arendt S, Brettel M (2010) Understanding the influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and firm performance. Manag Decis 48(10):1469–1492. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011090289

Arnaud S, Wasieleski DM (2014) Corporate humanistic responsibility: Social performance through managerial discretion of the HRM. J Bus Ethics 120(3):313–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1652-z

Bansal M (2022) Impact of mandatory CSR spending on strategic brand‐building levers: Evidence from a quasi‐natural experiment in India. Manag Decis Econ 43(8):3620–3633. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3618

Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Berens G, Van Riel CB, Van Bruggen GH (2005) Corporate associations and consumer product responses: the moderating role of corporate brand dominance. J Mark 69(3):35–48. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.35.66357

Bergquist AK (2017) Business and sustainability: new business history perspectives. Harvard Business School General Management Unit Working Paper, No. 18-034. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3055587

Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2004) Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. Calif Manag Rev 47(1):9–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166284

Brammer S, Millington A (2006) Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: an empirical analysis. Bus Ethics: Eur Rev 15(1):6–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00424.x

Branco MC, Rodrigues LL (2006) Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. J Bus Ethics 69(2):111–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9071-z

Brown B (1997) Part IV: how do reputations affect corporate performance?: Stock market valuation of reputation for corporate social performance. Corp Reput Rev 1(1):76–80. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540021

Buccella D, Wojna M (2017) Corporate social responsibility and market entry. In: Vojko P, Pavle K, & Ante V (eds.) Economic and Social Development, 26th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development-Building Resilient Society. pp. 149–159

Business Backs Education (2015) Creating a baseline for corporate CSR spend on global education initiatives. Retrieved from https://www.varkeyfoundation.org/media/3042/bbe-epg-report%C6%92.pdf

Carroll AB, Shabana KM (2010) The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. Int J Manag Rev 12(1):85–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x

Chang K, Kim I, Li Y (2014) The heterogeneous impact of corporate social responsibility activities that target different stakeholders. J Bus Ethics 125(2):211–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1895-8

Chkir I, Hassan BEH, Rjiba H, Saadi S (2021) Does corporate social responsibility influence corporate innovation? International evidence. Emerg Mark Rev 46:100746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100746

Choi JJ, Jo H, Kim J, Kim MS (2018) Business groups and corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 153(4):931–954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3916-0

Chung SH, Lee AH, Pearn WL (2005) Analytic network process (ANP) approach for product mix planning in semiconductor fabricator. Int J Prod Econ 96(1):15–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.02.006

Cohen E, Taylor S, Muller-Camen M (2010) HR’s role in corporate social responsibility and sustainability. SHRM Foundation, Alexandria, VA

Commission of the European Communities (2001) Green paper: Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels

Danko Y, Nifatova O (2022) Agro-sphere determinants of green branding: eco-consumption, loyalty, and price premium. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9:77. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01077-9

Dhëmbo E, Çaro E, Hoxha J (2021) “Our migrant” and “the other migrant”: migration discourse in the Albanian media, 2015–2018. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8:317. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00981-w

Diageo (2005) Corporate Citizenship Report 2005. Retrieved from https://ungc-production.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/attachments/7017/original/Diageo_2005_final.pdf?1282019052

Drucker PF (1984) Converting social problems into business opportunities: The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. Calif Manag Rev 26:53–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165066

Fortunato P, Pecoraro M (2022) Social media, education, and the rise of populist Euroscepticism. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9:301. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01317-y

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press

GRI (2002) Global Reporting Initiative: Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.mas-business.com/docs/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf

Hambrick DC, Fredrickson JW (2005) Are you sure you have a strategy. Acad Manag Perspect 19(4):51–62. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.19417907

Hopkins M (2012) The planetary bargain: Corporate social responsibility matters. Routledge

Huang CC, Yen SW, Liu CY, Huang PC (2014) The relationship among corporate social responsibility, service quality, corporate image and purchase intention. Int J Organ Innov 6(3):68–84

Huang L (2014) Harmonious CSR and sustainability in China: Shoetown Footwear as a case study, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Technology Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Husted BW, Allen DB (2007) Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among large firms: lessons from the Spanish experience. Long Range Plann 40(6):594–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2007.07.001

Husted BW, de Jesus Salazar J (2006) Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. J Manag Stud 43(1):75–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00583.x

Iyer G, Soberman DA (2016) Social responsibility and product innovation. Mark Sci 35(5):727–742. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2015.0975

Josiah UG, Akpuh CC (2022) Multinational oil corporations, policy violation and environmental damage in rivers state of Nigeria: a theistic ethics approach. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9:150. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01146-z

Khalifa AS (2020) Strategy, nonstrategy and no strategy. J Strategy Manag 14(1):35–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-04-2020-0092

Lee YH, Lee YH (2012) Integrated assessment of competitive-strategy selection with an analytical network process. J Bus Econ Manag 13(5):801–831. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.620171

Lepoutre J, Heene A (2006) Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social responsibility: a critical review. J Bus Ethics 67(3):257–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9183-5

Li Z, Feng L, Pan Z, Sohail HM (2022) ESG performance and stock prices: evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9:242. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01259-5

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lin CB, Chou RK, Wang GH (2018) Investor sentiment and price discovery: evidence from the pricing dynamics between the futures and spot markets. J Bank Financ 90:17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.02.014

Lindgreen A, Swaen V, Maon F (2009) Introduction: corporate social responsibility implementation. J Bus Ethics 85(2):251–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9732-1

Malik M (2015) Value-enhancing capabilities of CSR: a brief review of contemporary literature. J Bus Ethics 127(2):419–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2051-9

Manasakis C (2018) Business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Manag Decis Econ 39(4):486–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2921

Mathis A (2008) Corporate social responsibility and public policy-making: perspectives, instruments, and consequences, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

Matytsin DE, Dzedik VA, Makeeva GA, Boldyreva SB (2023) “Smart” outsourcing in support of the humanization of entrepreneurship in the artificial intelligence economy. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01493-x

McGoldrick PJ, Freestone OM (2008) Ethical product premiums: Antecedents and extent of consumers’ willingness to pay. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 18(2):185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593960701868431

McGuire JB, Sundgren A, Schneeweis T (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad Manage J 31(4):854–872. https://doi.org/10.5465/256342

Meyer H (1999) When the cause is just. J Bus Strategy 20(6):27–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb040042

Moon J (2007) Corporate image effects on consumers’ evaluation of brand trust and brand affect. J Glob Acad Mark Sci 17(3):21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/12297119.2007.9707259

Msiska M, Ng A, Kimmel RK (2021) Doing well by doing good with the performance of United Nations Global Compact Climate Change Champions. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8:321. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00989-2

Ngeru JN, Bardhan TK, Pitts Jr RA (2011) Selection of an ideal enterprise integration approach using Delphi-ANP approach. J Manag Eng Integr 4(1):99–109

Ohmae K (1982) The strategic triangle: a new perspective on business unit strategy. Eur Manag J 1(1):38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(82)80016-9

Padgett RC, Galan JI (2010) The effect of R&D intensity on corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 93(3):407–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0230-x

Paillé P, Chen Y, Boiral O, Jin J (2014) The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: an employee-level study. J Bus Ethics 121(3):451–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1732-0

Pérez A, Rodríguez del Bosque I (2013) Measuring CSR image: three studies to develop and to validate a reliable measurement tool. J Bus Ethics 118(2):265–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1588-8

Platonova E, Asutay M, Dixon R, Mohammad S (2018) The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance: Evidence from the GCC Islamic banking sector. J Bus Ethics 151(2):451–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3229-0

Porter ME (2008) The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harv Bus Rev 86(1):25–40

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Porter ME, Kramer MR (2002) The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harv Bus Rev 80(12):56-–68

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv Bus Rev 84(12):78–92

Saaty TL (2004) Fundamentals of the analytic network process—dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13(2):129–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0158-y

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Saaty TL (2005) Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RWS publications

Sheh DY (2022) A study on the key factors of corporate social responsibility, Unpublished master’s thesis. Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Sprinkle GB, Maines LA (2010) The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility. Bus Horiz 53(5):445–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2010.05.006

Stein EW, Ahmad N (2009) Using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to construct a measure of the magnitude of consequences component of moral intensity. J Bus Ethics 89(3):391–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0006-8

Thi H, Thuy H, Minh HH (2020) The impact of CSR on brand image: a survey amongst gen z consumers’ perception toward a supermarket chain in Viet Nam. Bus Trends 10(1):31–44. https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2020.10.1.31_44

Unerman J (2008) Strategic reputation risk management and corporate social responsibility reporting. Account Audit Account J 21(3):362–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810863941

van Vliet V (2009) Strategic Triangle (3C’s). Retrieved from https://www.toolshero.com/strategy/strategic-triangle

Vo TT, Xiao X, Ho SY (2019) How does corporate social responsibility engagement influence word of mouth on Twitter? Evidence from the airline industry. J Bus Ethics 157(2):525–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3679-z

Voegtlin C, Greenwood M (2016) Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: a systematic review and conceptual analysis. Hum Resour Manag Rev 26(3):181–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.12.003

Walker TR, McGuinty E, Charlebois S, Music J (2021) Single-use plastic packaging in the Canadian food industry: consumer behavior and perceptions. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8:80. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00747-4

Wang F, Lam M, Varshney S (2016) Corporate social responsibility: motivation, pressures, and barriers. J Int Bus Ethics 9(1/2):3–15

Yuan Y, Lu LY, Tian G, Yu Y (2020) Business strategy and corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 162(2):359–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3952-9

Zhang N (2022) How does CSR of food company affect customer loyalty in the context of COVID-19: a moderated mediation model. Int J Corporate Soc Responsib 7:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-021-00068-4

Zollo M (2004) Philanthropy or CSR: a strategic choice. In London: European Business Forum. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/download/3250521/Articles_Philanthropy_or_CSR.pdf

Zueva A, Fairbrass J (2021) Politicising government engagement with corporate social responsibility: “CSR” as an empty signifier. J Bus Ethics 170(4):635–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04330-5

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Cooperative Economics and Social Entrepreneurship, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Chao-Chan Wu & Dong-Yu Sheh

Bachelor’s Program of Business, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Fei-Chun Cheng

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

C-CW conceived the study and was responsible for the design and revision of the manuscript. C-CW, F-CC, and D-YS were responsible for collecting data, analyzing data, interpreting results and writing the draft of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chao-Chan Wu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wu, CC., Cheng, FC. & Sheh, DY. Exploring the factors affecting the implementation of corporate social responsibility from a strategic perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 179 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01664-4

Download citation

Received : 15 January 2023

Accepted : 29 March 2023

Published : 26 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01664-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Social Responsibility Journal

• Submit your paper
• Author guidelines
• Editorial team
• Indexing & metrics
• Calls for papers & news

Before you start

For queries relating to the status of your paper pre decision, please contact the Editor or Journal Editorial Office. For queries post acceptance, please contact the Supplier Project Manager. These details can be found in the Editorial Team section.

Author responsibilities

Our goal is to provide you with a professional and courteous experience at each stage of the review and publication process. There are also some responsibilities that sit with you as the author. Our expectation is that you will:

• Respond swiftly to any queries during the publication process.
• Be accountable for all aspects of your work. This includes investigating and resolving any questions about accuracy or research integrity .
• Treat communications between you and the journal editor as confidential until an editorial decision has been made.
• Include anyone who has made a substantial and meaningful contribution to the submission (anyone else involved in the paper should be listed in the acknowledgements).
• Exclude anyone who hasn’t contributed to the paper, or who has chosen not to be associated with the research.
• In accordance with COPE’s position statement on AI tools , Large Language Models cannot be credited with authorship as they are incapable of conceptualising a research design without human direction and cannot be accountable for the integrity, originality, and validity of the published work. The author(s) must describe the content created or modified as well as appropriately cite the name and version of the AI tool used; any additional works drawn on by the AI tool should also be appropriately cited and referenced. Standard tools that are used to improve spelling and grammar are not included within the parameters of this guidance. The Editor and Publisher reserve the right to determine whether the use of an AI tool is permissible.
• If your article involves human participants, you must ensure you have considered whether or not you require ethical approval for your research, and include this information as part of your submission. Find out more about informed consent .

Generative AI usage key principles

• Copywriting any part of an article using a generative AI tool/LLM would not be permissible, including the generation of the abstract or the literature review, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The generation or reporting of results using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the creation and interpretation of their work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The in-text reporting of statistics using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible due to concerns over the authenticity, integrity, and validity of the data produced, although the use of such a tool to aid in the analysis of the work would be permissible.
• Copy-editing an article using a generative AI tool/LLM in order to improve its language and readability would be permissible as this mirrors standard tools already employed to improve spelling and grammar, and uses existing author-created material, rather than generating wholly new content, while the author(s) remains responsible for the original work.
• The submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models is not permitted.

Research and publishing ethics

Our editors and employees work hard to ensure the content we publish is ethically sound. To help us achieve that goal, we closely follow the advice laid out in the guidelines and flowcharts on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) website .

We have also developed our research and publishing ethics guidelines . If you haven’t already read these, we urge you to do so – they will help you avoid the most common publishing ethics issues.

A few key points:

• Any manuscript you submit to this journal should be original. That means it should not have been published before in its current, or similar, form. Exceptions to this rule are outlined in our pre-print and conference paper policies .  If any substantial element of your paper has been previously published, you need to declare this to the journal editor upon submission. Please note, the journal editor may use  Crossref Similarity Check  to check on the originality of submissions received. This service compares submissions against a database of 49 million works from 800 scholarly publishers.
• Your work should not have been submitted elsewhere and should not be under consideration by any other publication.
• If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it upon submission; this allows the editor to decide how they would like to proceed. Read about conflict of interest in our research and publishing ethics guidelines .
• By submitting your work to Emerald, you are guaranteeing that the work is not in infringement of any existing copyright.
• If you have written about a company/individual/organisation in detail using information that is not publicly available, have spent time within that company/organisation, or the work features named/interviewed employees, you will need to clear permission by using the  consent to publish form ; please also see our permissions guidance for full details. If you have to clear permission with the company/individual/organisation, consent must be given either by the named individual in question or their representative, a board member of the company/organisation, or a HR department representative of the company/organisation.
• You have an ethical obligation and responsibility to conduct your research in adherence to national and international research ethics guidelines, as well as the ethical principles outlined by your discipline and any relevant authorities, and to be transparent about your research methods in such a way that all involved in the publication process may fairly and appropriately evaluate your work. For all research involving human participants, you must ensure that you have obtained informed consent, meaning that you must inform all participants in your work (or their legal representative) as to why the research is being conducted, whether their anonymity is protected, how their data will be stored and used, and whether there are any associated risks from participation in the study; the submitted work must confirm that informed consent was obtained and detail how this was addressed in accordance with our policy on informed consent .  
• Where appropriate, you must provide an ethical statement within the submitted work confirming that your research received institutional and national (or international) ethical approval, and that it complies with all relevant guidelines and regulations for studies involving humans, whether that be data, individuals, or samples. Specifically, the statement should contain the name and location of the institutional ethics reviewing committee or review board, the approval number, the date of approval, and the details of the national or international guidelines that were followed, as well as any other relevant information. You should also include details of how the work adheres to relevant consent guidelines along with confirming that informed consent was secured for all participants. The details of these statements should ensure that author and participant anonymity is not compromised. Any work submitted without a suitable ethical statement and details of informed consent for all participants, where required, will be returned to the authors and will not be considered further until appropriate and clear documentation is provided. Emerald reserves the right to reject work without sufficient evidence of informed consent from human participants and ethical approval where required.

Third party copyright permissions

Prior to article submission, you need to ensure you’ve applied for, and received, written permission to use any material in your manuscript that has been created by a third party. Please note, we are unable to publish any article that still has permissions pending. The rights we require are:

• Non-exclusive rights to reproduce the material in the article or book chapter.
• Print and electronic rights.
• Worldwide English-language rights.
• To use the material for the life of the work. That means there should be no time restrictions on its re-use e.g. a one-year licence.

We are a member of the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) and participate in the STM permissions guidelines , a reciprocal free exchange of material with other STM publishers.  In some cases, this may mean that you don’t need permission to re-use content. If so, please highlight this at the submission stage.

Please take a few moments to read our guide to publishing permissions  to ensure you have met all the requirements, so that we can process your submission without delay.

Open access submissions and information

All our journals currently offer two open access (OA) publishing paths; gold open access and green open access.

If you would like to, or are required to, make the branded publisher PDF (also known as the version of record) freely available immediately upon publication, you can select the gold open access route once your paper is accepted. 

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge) . This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

Alternatively, if you would like to, or are required to, publish open access but your funding doesn’t cover the cost of the APC, you can choose the green open access, or self-archiving, route. As soon as your article is published, you can make the author accepted manuscript (the version accepted for publication) openly available, free from payment and embargo periods.

You can find out more about our open access routes, our APCs and waivers and read our FAQs on our open research page. 

Find out about open

Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines

We are a signatory of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines , a framework that supports the reproducibility of research through the adoption of transparent research practices. That means we encourage you to:

• Cite and fully reference all data, program code, and other methods in your article.
• Include persistent identifiers, such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), in references for datasets and program codes. Persistent identifiers ensure future access to unique published digital objects, such as a piece of text or datasets. Persistent identifiers are assigned to datasets by digital archives, such as institutional repositories and partners in the Data Preservation Alliance for the Social Sciences (Data-PASS).
• Follow appropriate international and national procedures with respect to data protection, rights to privacy and other ethical considerations, whenever you cite data. For further guidance please refer to our  research and publishing ethics guidelines . For an example on how to cite datasets, please refer to the references section below.

Prepare your submission

Manuscript support services.

We are pleased to partner with Editage, a platform that connects you with relevant experts in language support, translation, editing, visuals, consulting, and more. After you’ve agreed a fee, they will work with you to enhance your manuscript and get it submission-ready.

This is an optional service for authors who feel they need a little extra support. It does not guarantee your work will be accepted for review or publication.

Visit Editage

Manuscript requirements

Before you submit your manuscript, it’s important you read and follow the guidelines below. You will also find some useful tips in our structure your journal submission how-to guide.

Submit your manuscript

There are a number of key steps you should follow to ensure a smooth and trouble-free submission.

Double check your manuscript

Before submitting your work, it is your responsibility to check that the manuscript is complete, grammatically correct, and without spelling or typographical errors. A few other important points:

• Give the journal aims and scope a final read. Is your manuscript definitely a good fit? If it isn’t, the editor may decline it without peer review.
• Does your manuscript comply with our research and publishing ethics guidelines ?
• Have you cleared any necessary publishing permissions ?
• Have you followed all the formatting requirements laid out in these author guidelines?
• If you need to refer to your own work, use wording such as ‘previous research has demonstrated’ not ‘our previous research has demonstrated’.
• If you need to refer to your own, currently unpublished work, don’t include this work in the reference list.
• Any acknowledgments or author biographies should be uploaded as separate files.
• Carry out a final check to ensure that no author names appear anywhere in the manuscript. This includes in figures or captions.

You will find a helpful submission checklist on the website Think.Check.Submit .

The submission process

All manuscripts should be submitted through our editorial system by the corresponding author.

The only way to submit to the journal is through the journal’s ScholarOne site as accessed via the Emerald website, and not by email or through any third-party agent/company, journal representative, or website. Submissions should be done directly by the author(s) through the ScholarOne site and not via a third-party proxy on their behalf.

A separate author account is required for each journal you submit to. If this is your first time submitting to this journal, please choose the Create an account or Register now option in the editorial system. If you already have an Emerald login, you are welcome to reuse the existing username and password here.

Please note, the next time you log into the system, you will be asked for your username. This will be the email address you entered when you set up your account.

Don't forget to add your  ORCiD ID during the submission process. It will be embedded in your published article, along with a link to the ORCiD registry allowing others to easily match you with your work.

Don’t have one yet? It only takes a few moments to register for a free ORCiD identifier .

Visit the ScholarOne support centre  for further help and guidance.

What you can expect next

You will receive an automated email from the journal editor, confirming your successful submission. It will provide you with a manuscript number, which will be used in all future correspondence about your submission. If you have any reason to suspect the confirmation email you receive might be fraudulent, please contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Post submission

Review and decision process.

Each submission is checked by the editor. At this stage, they may choose to decline or unsubmit your manuscript if it doesn’t fit the journal aims and scope, or they feel the language/manuscript quality is too low.

If they think it might be suitable for the publication, they will send it to at least two independent referees for double anonymous peer review.  Once these reviewers have provided their feedback, the editor may decide to accept your manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or decline your work.

While all journals work to different timescales, the goal is that the editor will inform you of their first decision within 60 days.

During this period, we will send you automated updates on the progress of your manuscript via our submission system, or you can log in to check on the current status of your paper.  Each time we contact you, we will quote the manuscript number you were given at the point of submission. If you receive an email that does not match these criteria, it could be fraudulent and we recommend you contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Manuscript transfer service

Emerald’s manuscript transfer service takes the pain out of the submission process if your manuscript doesn’t fit your initial journal choice. Our team of expert Editors from participating journals work together to identify alternative journals that better align with your research, ensuring your work finds the ideal publication home it deserves. Our dedicated team is committed to supporting authors like you in finding the right home for your research.

If a journal is participating in the manuscript transfer program, the Editor has the option to recommend your paper for transfer. If a transfer decision is made by the Editor, you will receive an email with the details of the recommended journal and the option to accept or reject the transfer. It’s always down to you as the author to decide if you’d like to accept. If you do accept, your paper and any reviewer reports will automatically be transferred to the recommended journals. Authors will then confirm resubmissions in the new journal’s ScholarOne system.

Our Manuscript Transfer Service page has more information on the process.

If your submission is accepted

Open access.

Once your paper is accepted, you will have the opportunity to indicate whether you would like to publish your paper via the gold open access route.

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge).  This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

For UK journal article authors - if you wish to submit your work accepted by Emerald to REF 2021, you must make a ‘closed deposit’ of your accepted manuscript to your respective institutional repository upon acceptance of your article. Articles accepted for publication after 1st April 2018 should be deposited as soon as possible, but no later than three months after the acceptance date. For further information and guidance, please refer to the REF 2021 website.

All accepted authors are sent an email with a link to a licence form.  This should be checked for accuracy, for example whether contact and affiliation details are up to date and your name is spelled correctly, and then returned to us electronically. If there is a reason why you can’t assign copyright to us, you should discuss this with your journal content editor. You will find their contact details on the editorial team section above.

Proofing and typesetting

Once we have received your completed licence form, the article will pass directly into the production process. We will carry out editorial checks, copyediting, and typesetting and then return proofs to you (if you are the corresponding author) for your review. This is your opportunity to correct any typographical errors, grammatical errors or incorrect author details. We can’t accept requests to rewrite texts at this stage.

When the page proofs are finalised, the fully typeset and proofed version of record is published online. This is referred to as the EarlyCite version. While an EarlyCite article has yet to be assigned to a volume or issue, it does have a digital object identifier (DOI) and is fully citable. It will be compiled into an issue according to the journal’s issue schedule, with papers being added by chronological date of publication.

How to share your paper

Visit our author rights page  to find out how you can reuse and share your work.

To find tips on increasing the visibility of your published paper, read about  how to promote your work .

Correcting inaccuracies in your published paper

Sometimes errors are made during the research, writing and publishing processes. When these issues arise, we have the option of withdrawing the paper or introducing a correction notice. Find out more about our  article withdrawal and correction policies .

Need to make a change to the author list? See our frequently asked questions (FAQs) below.

Frequently asked questions

Editor-in-Chief

• Professor David Crowther University of Bedfordshire - UK [email protected]
• Professor Rute Abreu Polytechnic Institute of Guarda - Portugal [email protected]
• Professor Mariana Lima Bandeira Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar and Universidad Estatal de Milagro - Ecuador [email protected]
• Professor Prabir Kumar Bandyopadhyay India [email protected]
• Dr Dianne Bolton University of Western Sydney - Australia
• Dr. Victor Ediagbonya University of Brighton - UK [email protected]
• Professor Raghda El Ebrashi German University - Egypt [email protected]
• Dr. Oana Adriana Gica Babes-Bolyai University - Romania [email protected]
• Dr Miriam Green Icon College of Technology & Management - UK
• Professor Humayun Kabir Sol Plaatje University - South Africa [email protected]
• Professor Dr Kristijan Krkač Zagreb School of Economics and Management - Croatia [email protected]
• Dr Rita Lankauskiene Lithuanian Centre for Social Science - Lithuania [email protected]
• Professor Esther Ortiz Martinez University of Murcia - Spain [email protected]
• Professor Sonia Monteiro Polytechnic Institute of Cavado and Ave - Portugal
• Dr Carlos Noronha University of Macau - China [email protected]
• Professor Jacob Dahl Rendtorff University of Roskilde - Denmark [email protected]
• Professor Rodica Milena Zaharia Bucharest University of Economics - Romania [email protected]
• Joseph Johnson Emerald Publishing - UK [email protected]

Journal Editorial Office (For queries related to pre-acceptance)

• Gauri Naik Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Supplier Project Manager (For queries related to post-acceptance)

• Jahnuvi Chauhan Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Editorial Advisory Board

• Dr. Fulya Akyildiz Usak University - Turkey
• Professor Muneer Al Mubarak Ahlia University - Bahrain
• Professor Anfal Al-Wahaibi Qaboos University - Qaboos University
• Professor Maria Aluchna SGH Warsaw School of Economics - Poland
• Professor Robert B Anderson University of Regina - Canada
• Professor Simplice Asongu University of Johannesburg - South Africa
• Dr Fara Azmat Deakin University - Australia
• Dr Jon Burchell University of Sheffield - UK
• Dr Elaine Conway Loughborough University - UK
• Professor Stuart Cooper University of Bristol - UK
• Dr Caner Dincer Galatasaray University - Turkey
• Professor Jan W Dobrowolski AGH University of Science and Technology - Poland
• Dr Cristian Ducu Independent Researcher - Romania
• Dr. Raysa Geaquinto Roche University of Essex - UK
• Dr. Oana Adriana Gica Babes-Bolyai University - Romania
• Dr Lina Gomez Drury University - USA
• Professor Steve Greenland Charles Darwin University - Australia
• Dr Juniati Gunawan Trisakti University - Indonesia
• Professor Salvador Marin Hernandez COFIDES - Spain
• Dr Jo Ann Ho Universiti Putra Malaysia - Malaysia
• Dr Wang Hong Shanghai University - People's Republic of China
• Professor Bryan Horrigan Monash University - Australia
• Dr. Lan Jiang London Metropolitan University - UK
• Associate Professor Dr Corina Joseph Universiti Teknologi Mara - Malaysia
• Professor Ferhan Kuyucak Sengur Eskisehir Technical University - Turkey
• Professor João Leitão Universidade da Beira Interior - Portugal
• Professor Jintao Lu Taiyuan University of Science and Technology - People's Republic of China
• Dr Natallia Maltsevich Belarusian State University - Belarus
• Dr. Silvia Maluk ESPOL Polytechnic University, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral - Ecuador
• Dr Christine Mclean University of Manchester - UK
• Dr Mahmood Momin Auckland University of Technology - New Zealand
• Dr Mehran Nejati Edith Cowan University - Australia
• Professor Onyeka Osuji University of Essex - UK
• Dr Shuchi Pahuja PGDAV College, University of Delhi - India
• Dr Simone Pizzi Univeristà del Salento - Italy
• Dr Farzana Quoquab University Teknologi Malaysia - Malaysia
• Dr Hajaina Ravoaja ISCAM Business School - Madagascar
• Professor Veronica Ribeiro Polytechnic Institute of Cavado & Ave - Portugal
• Dr. Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues Universoty of Beira Interior - Portugal
• Professor David Russell Independent Scholar - UK
• Professor Leire San Jose University of the Basque Country - Spain
• Dr Maria Joao Santos Technical University of Lisbon - Portugal
• Dr Shahla Seifi Social Responsibility Research Network (SRRNet) - UK
• Professor Julia J.A. Shaw De Montfort University - UK
• Professor Antonio Tencati University of Brescia and Bocconi University - Italy
• Professor Ruchi Tewari MICA - India
• Professor Tony Tinker Baruch College, City University of New York - USA
• Professor Dr Seminur Topal Bahçesehir Üniversitesi - Turkey
• Dr V. G. Venkatesh EM Normandie Business School - France
• Dr Tao Zeng Wilfrid Laurier University - Canada

Citation metrics

CiteScore 2023

Further information

CiteScore is a simple way of measuring the citation impact of sources, such as journals.

Calculating the CiteScore is based on the number of citations to documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, book chapters, and data papers) by a journal over four years, divided by the number of the same document types indexed in Scopus and published in those same four years.

For more information and methodology visit the Scopus definition

CiteScore Tracker 2024

(updated monthly)

CiteScore Tracker is calculated in the same way as CiteScore, but for the current year rather than previous, complete years.

The CiteScore Tracker calculation is updated every month, as a current indication of a title's performance.

2023 Impact Factor

The Journal Impact Factor is published each year by Clarivate Analytics. It is a measure of the number of times an average paper in a particular journal is cited during the preceding two years.

For more information and methodology see Clarivate Analytics

5-year Impact Factor (2023)

A base of five years may be more appropriate for journals in certain fields because the body of citations may not be large enough to make reasonable comparisons, or it may take longer than two years to publish and distribute leading to a longer period before others cite the work.

Actual value is intentionally only displayed for the most recent year. Earlier values are available in the Journal Citation Reports from Clarivate Analytics .

Publication timeline

Time to first decision

Time to first decision , expressed in days, the "first decision" occurs when the journal’s editorial team reviews the peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Based on this feedback, they decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024

Acceptance to publication

Acceptance to publication , expressed in days, is the average time between when the journal’s editorial team decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript and the date of publication in the journal. 

Data is taken from the previous 12 months (Last updated July 2024)

Acceptance rate

The acceptance rate is a measurement of how many manuscripts a journal accepts for publication compared to the total number of manuscripts submitted expressed as a percentage %

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024 .

This figure is the total amount of downloads for all articles published early cite in the last 12 months

(Last updated: July 2024)

This journal is abstracted and indexed by

• Cabell's Directories of Publishing Opportunities
• International Bibliography of Social Sciences (IBSS)
• Emerging Sources Citation Index (Clarivate Analytics)

This journal is ranked by

• ABDC (Australia)
• AIDEA (Italy)
• Australian Research Council (ERA Journal List)
• BFI (Denmark)
• Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS UK)
• NSD (Norway)
• QUALIS (Brazil)
• Scrimago Q1 - "Business Management and Accounting"
• Scrimago Q1 - "Social Sciences"
• The Publication Forum (Finland).
• VHB Publication Media Rating 2024 (Germany) - Level C

Reviewer information

Peer review process.

This journal engages in a double-anonymous peer review process, which strives to match the expertise of a reviewer with the submitted manuscript. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented in the manuscript.

The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigour in scholarly publications and research.

Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse scholarly perspectives to the field.

The journal values diverse perspectives from the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors. Reviewers come from a variety of organizations, careers, and backgrounds from around the world.

All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers’ “comments to author” which are shared with you on decision.

Resources to guide you through the review process

Discover practical tips and guidance on all aspects of peer review in our reviewers' section. See how being a reviewer could benefit your career, and discover what's involved in shaping a review.

More reviewer information

SRRNet’s 22ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND 13TH ORGANISATIONAL GOVERNANCE CONFERENCE

We are pleased to announce that SRRNet 22nd conference in September 2024 will be held in Cairo and hosted by the German University. Here is the Call for Papers and we look forward to you joining us. &n...

Thank you to the 2022 Reviewers of Social Responsibility Journal

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2022 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...

Technological Myopia and Sustainability

The three eminent contributors to this podcast have recently published papers in Technological Sustainability (TechS) addressing various aspects of the re...

21st International Conference on Corporate Social Responsibility & 12th Organisational Governance Conference

Tensions in the theory and practice of Social Responsibility April, 3 to 6, 2024 Quito, Ecuador   In April 2024, we will travel to the very first World Cultural Heritage Sites, declared ...

Sustainability in Action

A new SRRNet venture: Accountability and its constituents:...

20th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (ICCSR) AND 11th ORGANISATIONAL GOVERNANCE CONFERENCE (OGC)

We are pleased to announce that the website for the 2023 conference in Madrid is now live. We look forward to receiving your submissions and t...

Thank you to the 2021 Reviewers of Social Responsibility Journal

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2021 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...

Emerald Podcast with TECHS EiC Shahla Seifi

Emerald Publishing is proud to announce the launch of our latest journal Technological Sustainability (TECHS). Along with its sister journal, ...

Scientific and Technological Contributions to Social Responsibility

The two Special Issues that appeared in the Social Responsibility Journal (SRJ), titled Scientific and Technological Contributions to Sustainability...

Literati awards

Social Responsibility Journal - Literati Award Winners 2023

We are pleased to announce our 2023 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper Putting risk management into the corpora...

Social Responsibility Journal  - Literati Award Winners 2022 

We are pleased to announce our 2022 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper The anatomy of circular econom...

Social Responsibility Journal - Literati Award Winners 2021

We are pleased to announce our 2021 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper Self-help groups in India: cha...

Social Responsibility Journal - Literati Award Winners 2020

We are pleased to announce our 2020 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper Accounting for rhinos – the case of South African Nati...

Social Responsibility Journal is the leading interdisciplinary journal publishing research in the areas of social responsibility, sustainability and governance.

Journal Owners

Aims and scope

Social Responsibility Journal ( SRJ ), an official journal of the  Social Responsibility Research Network , is interdisciplinary in its scope and encourages submissions from any discipline or any part of the world which addresses any element of the journal's aims. The journal encompasses the full range of theoretical, methodological and substantive debates in the area of social responsibility. Contributions which address the link between different disciplines and / or implications for societal, organisational or individual behaviour are especially encouraged. The journal publishes theoretical and empirical papers, speculative essays and review articles. The journal also occasionally publishes special themed issues under the guidance of a guest editor. Coverage is broad and explores the relationship between social responsibility and:

• Accountability
• Sustainability
• Economy and finance
• Stakeholder interactions
• Ecology and environment
• Corporate activity and behaviour
• Ethics and morality
• Governmental and trans-governmental regulation
• Globalisation and disintermediation
• Individuals and corporate citizenship
• Transparency and disclosure
• Consumption and its consequences

Latest articles

These are the latest articles published in this journal (Last updated: July 2024 )

Farming is not a joke: the entrepreneurship ecosystem of agricultural social enterprises

Exploring the drivers of pro-environmental behavioral intentions in an emerging nation, the contributions of green people management to the development of organizational competencies for sustainability, top downloaded articles.

These are the most downloaded articles over the last 12 months for this journal (Last updated: July 2024 )

Unlocking sustainable success: exploring the impact of transformational leadership, organizational culture, and CSR performance on financial performance in the Italian manufacturing sector

Assessing ethics and sustainability standards in corporate practices, financial constraints and carbon emissions: an empirical investigation.

These are the top cited articles for this journal, from the last 12 months according to Crossref (Last updated: July 2024 )

From Words to Action: Unpacking the Real Impact of Sustainability Initiatives on Carbon Emissions Reduction

Factors affecting retailer social responsibility: a pls-sem approach in the context of bangladesh, csr initiatives and stakeholder engagement amidst covid-19 pandemic: insights using content analysis and literature review.

This journal is aligned with our responsible management goal

We aim to champion researchers, practitioners, policymakers and organisations who share our goals of contributing to a more ethical, responsible and sustainable way of working.

Related journals

This journal is part of our Business, management & strategy collection. Explore our Business, management & strategy subject area to find out more.  

See all related journals

Foresight is an international bi-monthly journal concerned with the study of the future.

Strategic Direction

Strategic Direction is an essential management information resource for today's strategic thinkers.

Social Responsibility Journal is the leading interdisciplinary journal publishing research in the areas of social...

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Analysis of Literature Review on Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a central element of modern business practices, integrating ethical and social considerations into governance. Traditionally, businesses focused on maximizing shareholder value, but contemporary CSR emphasizes a broader responsibility to society and the environment. A study reviews existing literature on CSR, revealing both supportive and critical perspectives. Proponents argue that CSR enhances long-term profitability through improved brand reputation, customer loyalty, and employee satisfaction, while also contributing to effective risk management. Critics view CSR initiatives as superficial and question their measurable benefits on financial performance. Future research directions include developing criteria for assessing CSR programs, exploring CSR's impact on financial performance, and investigating stakeholder expectations.

Related Papers

Marius Gavrila, Ph. D.

This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Radu-Marius Gavrila has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made.

Accountability for corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its societal challenges is undetermined, and it is unclear whether business or society should carry these responsibilities. Despite severe criticism from some, many organizations continue to invest in and promote CSR. The purpose of this multiple-case study was to increase the understanding of the phenomenon from the perspective of a purposeful sample of participants who contribute to CSR execution and who were representatives of the 10 organizations identified as active promoters. The participant corporations (case studies), in Europe and North America, were mainly in the telecommunications industry. Study data came from 11 face-to-face, semistructured interviews with chief executive officers (CEOs) and other CSR key participants, a review of corporate archival records, and a review of other sources regarding the effective implementation of CSR in these organizations. The conceptual framework consisted of Carroll’s constructs of CSR based on economic, legal, social, and discretionary elements. The constant comparative method was used to analyze the interview data and identify factors leading corporations to continue to engage in CSR. These factors were economic, social impact, legal compliance, or good reputation, sponsored by transformational or adaptive leaderships and endorsed by visionary CEOs. The findings may enlighten and motivate other organizations to engage in CSR programs and connect stakeholders’ contribution to a broadened positive social change.

Alexandros Garefalakis

Corporate social responsibility can assist in reducing the noise caused by pricing volatility and a lack of energy-efficient business solutions. The study’s objective is twofold: (i) to investigate the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in reducing volatility through the contribution of energy-efficient strategies; (ii) to identify research trends in the field that may indicate future research directions for the development of more dynamic strategies that will help in mitigating the impact of pricing volatility. A five-step bibliometric analysis was applied to address the research question. The findings were visualized by using bibliometric tools such as R Studio, Biblioshiny, and VOSViewer. Chinese academics have been revealed as pioneers in integrating CSR into corporate strategies to reduce volatility and support energy-efficient investments. Moreover, results indicate that financial institutions must embrace a new business model based on both CSR and environmental, so...

Joanna Semeniuk

Some approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) suggest that market goals and the interests of society converge. This essay questions this claim and argues that this convergence is theoretically unstable because CSR shares the neoliberal principle of subjecting stakeholder interests to shareholder interest. In order to support this thesis, I present some areas of concern for CSR where market goals and interests of society diverge: the problem of CSR’s empirical grounds, the issue of public opinion preferences and the risks of free riding mechanisms.

Stephen J Thompson

Does responsible and sustainable business practice result in commercial and financial advancement? Does research illustrate the business/commercial benefits of using responsible business techniques including sustainability standards, sustainability reporting and codes of conduct? Are firms who take action to eradicate human rights abuses more profitable and sustainable? What is the evidence that being a more transparent and responsible business benefits firms in the long term? Where are the key evidence gaps?

dafni sfakaki

Sustainability

Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña

Due to the process of globalization, companies are obligated to observe corporate social responsibility and best practices from a sustainability approach towards their stakeholders and society. The explicit aim is to determine the relevance of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its relationship with sustainability, in order to establish trends and future lines of research. The evolution of global research on this subject has been studied from 2001 to 2018. For this purpose, a bibliometric analysis of 1832 articles has been applied, obtaining results of the scientific productivity of the journals, authors, institutions, and countries that contribute to this research. Evidence shows a growing interest in studying the relationship between socially responsible practices and the dimension of sustainability. The main category is Business, Management, and Accounting. The most productive journals are the Journal of Business Ethics and Sustainability. The authors with the most art...

Albert Mills

Lamin B. Ceesay

There is growing adoption of corporate sustainability practice in both for-profit and notfor-profit organizations. This proliferation is largely due to the increasing concerns for social, environmental and economic factors in which we assume shared responsibility(Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; O‘Dwyer et al., 2010). Forprofit corporation, sustainability practice comes mainly in the form of corporate social responsibilities (CRS) performance and reporting (see Ahmed and Karpik, 1989; Janggu et al., 2014).Several reasons accounts for the adoption of sustainability practices by corporations such as the regulatory pressuresby the General Reporting Initiative (GRI) (Hahn and Kühnen, 2013), pressure from environmental activists, and NGOsactivism (Guay and Doh, 2006;Guay et al., 2017; Crespy and Miller, 2011; Arenas et al., 2009), and as industry best practices or managerial concern towards non-managerial stakeholders(Li et al., 2018;Thijssens, et al., 2016; Janggu et al., 2014).

Gregoire Kokomo

Implementation Variables of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Financial Services Industry by Gregoire Kokomo MBA, Capella University, 2012 BA, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1996 Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Business Administration Walden University December 2017 Abstract Seventy percent of small and medium-sized U.S. companies experience negative performance because of leaders’ lack of knowledge of corporate social responsibility (CSR) program implementation. CSR implementation is complex and requires organizational resources such as expertise, personnel, time, and money. Implementing CSR programs is challenging for many leaders. Research on CSR implementation in the U.S. financial services industry is scarce, and leaders of financial services firms do not have a clear understanding of how to make CSR implementation successful. The purpose of this study was to explore optimal strategies for making...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Fidel Molina-Luque

GIS Business

Shilpa Bendale

Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility

Zulaa Zulaa

Discover Sustainability

Shafic Suleman

Prof. Edward Kweku Nunoo

Int. J. Corporate Strategy and Social Responsibility

Marcos Komodromos

Management Review Quarterly

Ilka Frerichs

Jindal Journal of Business Research

Palak Kanojia

marsela tafa

Dimitrios Kolyperas

The Evolution and Models of Corporate Social Responsibility

Vusumuzi Sibanda

Third World Quarterly

Lisa Ann Richey

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

Alfonso Jesus Diaz Duran

OSMAN ISSAH

Michael Adusei

Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 34, 2011

Antony Page

Silvia Rita Sedita

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

Martha Fani Cahyandito

Susan Saurage-Altenloh

Erasmus Student Journal of Philosophy ESJP

Olga Nosova

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

shital jayantilal

Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal

Gazala Masood

Alzira Maria Ascensão Marques

Journal of Cleaner Production

Bosede Ngozi ADELEYE

Marketing and Branding Research

Charbel Chedrawi

Marco Althaus

Business Process Management Journal

Mohammad Alsaif

Sylvia Boss

Journal of the Knowledge Economy

hagos mesfin

Aladdin Dwekat

Samia Selma

ARCHIE B CARROLL , Jill Brown

Review of International Political Economy

Stefan Fritsch

The Handbook of Financial Communication and Investor Relations

Derek Moscato

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Exploring the Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Entrepreneurial Behavior: The Mediating Role of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and the Moderating Impact of Spirituality

• Published: 28 August 2024

Cite this article

• Guqiang Ni 1  

The present study investigates the influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on entrepreneurial behavior, with a specific focus on the mediating role of ethics in entrepreneurship and the moderating impact of spirituality in the context of emerging markets, namely China and Pakistan. Employing Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) for a multi-sample analysis, the research analyzes data collected from diverse businesses in these two countries. The findings reveal that CSR significantly impacts entrepreneurial behavior, with ethics in entrepreneurship serving as a crucial mediator in this relationship. Furthermore, spirituality was found to have a moderating effect, albeit differently in China and Pakistan, reflecting varied cultural and socio-economic contexts. These results highlight the importance of contextual and cultural factors in understanding the CSR-entrepreneurship nexus. The study’s implications are twofold: it offers a deeper understanding of the dynamics between CSR, ethics, and entrepreneurship in emerging markets, and it provides valuable insights for policymakers and business leaders aiming to foster responsible and ethical entrepreneurial ecosystems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability

The data underpinning the study's conclusions can be requested from the corresponding author.

Adnan, N., Bhatti, O. K., & Farooq, W. (2020). Relating ethical leadership with work engagement: How workplace spirituality mediates? Cogent Business & Management, 7 (1), 1739494.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad, Z., Chao, L., Chao, W., Iqbal, W., Muhammad, S., & Ahmed, S. (2021). Assessing the performance of sustainable entrepreneurship and environmental corporate social responsibility: Revisited environmental nexus from business firms.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17163-5

Ahmad, N., Taiba, S., Kazmi, S. M. A., & Ali, H. N. (2015). Concept and elements of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its Islamic perspective: Mainstream business management concern in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 35 (2), 925–934.

Google Scholar  

Ahsan, M. (2020). Entrepreneurship and ethics in the sharing economy: A critical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 161 (1), 19–33.

Aljanabi, A. R. A. (2023). The impact of economic policy uncertainty, news framing and information overload on panic buying behavior in the time of COVID-19: A conceptual exploration. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18 (7), 1614–1631.

Aman, J., Abbas, J., Mahmood, S., Nurunnabi, M., & Bano, S. (2019). The influence of Islamic religiosity on the perceived socio-cultural impact of sustainable tourism development in Pakistan: A structural equation modeling approach. Sustainability, 11 (11), 3039.

Anwar, M., Clauss, T., & Issah, W. B. (2022). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance in emerging markets: The mediating role of opportunity recognition. Review of Managerial Science, 16 (3), 769–796.

Astrachan, J. H., BinzAstrachan, C., Campopiano, G., & Baù, M. (2020). Values, spirituality and religion: Family business and the roots of sustainable ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 163 , 637–645.

Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28 (2), 446–463.

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4), 717–736.

Belas, J., Škare, M., Gavurova, B., Dvorsky, J., & Kotaskova, A. (2022). The impact of ethical and CSR factors on engineers’ attitudes towards SMEs sustainability. Journal of Business Research, 149 , 589–598.

Biancone, P., Calandra, D., Lanzalonga, F., & Sadraei, R. (2022). Emerging markets and multiple sectors for entrepreneurship: A multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder analysis. In  International entrepreneurship in emerging markets  (pp. 7–28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003218357-3

Biró, K., & SzalmánéCsete, M. (2021). Corporate social responsibility in agribusiness: Climate-related empirical findings from Hungary. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23 (4), 5674–5694.

Bocquet, R., Le Bas, C., Mothe, C., & Poussing, N. (2019). Strategic CSR for innovation in SMEs: Does diversity matter? Long Range Planning, 52 (6), 101913.

Borgerson, J. L. (2023). On the harmony of feminist ethics and business ethics. In G. Leadership (Ed.), and Organization (pp. 37–62). Springer International Publishing.

Bu, X., & Chen, L. (2023). From efficiency to legitimacy: The changing logic of internal CSR in emerging multinationals during internationalization.  Asian Business & Management , 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-022-00213-2

Cai, B., Chen, Y., & Ayub, A. (2023). “Quiet the mind, and the soul will speak”! exploring the boundary effects of green mindfulness and spiritual intelligence on university students’ green entrepreneurial intention–behavior link. Sustainability, 15 (5), 3895.

Camilleri, M. A. (2022). Strategic attributions of corporate social responsibility and environmental management: The business case for doing well by doing good! Sustainable Development, 30 (3), 409–422.

Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., ... & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples.  Journal of research in Nursing ,  25 (8), 652–661.

Cao, Z., & Shi, X. (2021). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 57 , 75–110.

Cezarino, L. O., Liboni, L. B., Hunter, T., Pacheco, L. M., & Martins, F. P. (2022). Corporate social responsibility in emerging markets: Opportunities and challenges for sustainability integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362 , 132224.

Chatting, M., Al-Maslamani, I., Walton, M., Skov, M. W., Kennedy, H., Husrevoglu, Y. S., & Le Vay, L. (2022). Future mangrove carbon storage under climate change and deforestation.  Frontiers in Marine Science ,  9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.781876

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10 (1), 75–87.

Dai, Y., Abdul-Samad, Z., Chupradit, S., Nassani, A. A., Haffar, M., & Michel, M. (2022). Influence of CSR and leadership style on sustainable performance: Moderating impact of sustainable entrepreneurship and mediating role of organizational commitment. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35 (1), 3917–3939.

Dana, L. P., Gurau, C., Light, I., & Muhammad, N. (2020). Family, community, and ethnic capital as entrepreneurial resources: Toward an integrated model. Journal of Small Business Management, 58 (5), 1003–1029.

Dana, L. P., Salamzadeh, A., Mortazavi, S., & Hadizadeh, M. (2022). Investigating the impact of international markets and new digital technologies on business innovation in emerging markets. Sustainability, 14 (2), 983.

Dodd, S., Anderson, A., & Jack, S. (2023). “Let them not make me a stone”—Repositioning entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 61 (4), 1842–1870.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 65–91.

Ferreira-Neto, M. N., de Carvalho Castro, J. L., de Sousa-Filho, J. M., & de Souza Lessa, B. (2023). The role of self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 14 , 1134618.

Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Pitman.

Book   Google Scholar  

Freeman, R. E., & Dmytriyev, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management, 1 , 7–15.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2020). Law and ethics in the business environment . Cengage Learning.

Hartig, F. (2012). Confucius institutes and the rise of China. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 17 , 53–76.

Jamali, D., & Mirshak, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Theory and practice in a developing country context. Journal of Business Ethics, 72 (3), 243–262.

Jia, H., Iqbal, S., & Ayub, A. (2023). “Entrepreneurship” from the lens of enlightenment: Impacts of religiosity and spiritual intelligence on social entrepreneurial intentions. PLoS ONE, 18 (10), e0285140.

Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20 (2), 404–437.

Khan, M. M. (2016). CSR standards and Islamic banknig practice: A case of Meezan Bank of Pakistan. The Journal of Developing Areas, 50 (5), 295–306.

Khan, R. U., Salamzadeh, Y., Shah, S. Z. A., & Hussain, M. (2021). Factors affecting women entrepreneurs’ success: A study of small-and medium-sized enterprises in emerging market of Pakistan. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10 (1), 1–21.

King, D. B., & DeCicco, T. L. (2009). A viable model and self-report measure of spiritual intelligence. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 28 (1), 8.

Li, C., Murad, M., Shahzad, F., Khan, M. A. S., Ashraf, S. F., & Dogbe, C. S. K. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial behavior: Role of entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and proactive personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 1611.

Lozano, J. M. (2021). Spirituality and CSR. The Routledge companion to corporate social responsibility (pp. 88–98). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 135–172.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (5), 429–451.

Luo, W., Zhang, C., & Li, M. (2022). The influence of corporate social responsibilities on sustainable financial performance: Mediating role of shared vision capabilities and moderating role of entrepreneurship. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29 (5), 1266–1282.

Ma, Z., & Bu, M. (2021). A new research horizon for mass entrepreneurship policy and Chinese firms’ CSR: Introduction to the thematic symposium. Journal of Business Ethics, 169 , 603–607.

Mahaputra, M. R., & Saputra, F. (2021). Application of business ethics and business law on economic democracy that impacts business sustainability. Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, 1 (3), 115–125.

Markovic, S., Koporcic, N., Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, M., Kadic-Maglajlic, S., Bagherzadeh, M., & Islam, N. (2021). Business-to-business open innovation: COVID-19 lessons for small and medium-sized enterprises from emerging markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170 , 120883.

Martin, K., Shilton, K., & Smith, J. E. (2022). Business and the ethical implications of technology: Introduction to the symposium. Business and the ethical implications of technology (pp. 1–11). Springer Nature Switzerland.

Moore, C., & de Bruin, A. (2018). Ethical entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: New perspectives in a global age (pp. 43–56). Routledge.

Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (1995). The role of moral intensity in moral judgments: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 14 , 715–726.

Oueghlissi, R. (2013). La RSE et les PME: Analyse descriptive à partir de l’enquête COI 2006. Revue Française De Gestion, 7 , 163–180.

Paul, J. (2019). Marketing in emerging markets: A review, theoretical synthesis and extension. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 15 (3), 446–468.

Peterson, D., Rhoads, A., & Vaught, B. C. (2001). Ethical beliefs of business professionals: A study of gender, age and external factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 31 , 225–232.

Phipps, K. A. (2012). Spirituality and strategic leadership: The influence of spiritual beliefs on strategic decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 106 (2), 177–189.

Pidduck, R. J., Clark, D. R., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2023). Entrepreneurial mindset: Dispositional beliefs, opportunity beliefs, and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Small Business Management, 61 (1), 45–79.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12 , 531–544.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879.

Rahmawati, P. I., Jiang, M., Law, A., Wiranatha, A. S., & DeLacy, T. (2019). Spirituality and corporate social responsibility: An empirical narrative from the Balinese tourism industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27 (1), 156–172.

Randerson, K., Seaman, C., Daspit, J. J., & Barredy, C. (2020). Institutional influences on entrepreneurial behaviours in the family entrepreneurship context: Towards an integrative framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26 (1), 1–13.

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16 (4), 353–385.

Rigdon, E. E. (2012). Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: In praise of simple methods. Long Range Planning, 45 (5–6), 341–358.

Sheldrake, P. (2013). Spirituality: A brief history . Wiley.

Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., Rallapalli, K. C., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 15 , 1131–1140.

Suriyankietkaew, S., & Kantamara, P. (2019). Business ethics and spirituality for corporate sustainability: A Buddhism perspective. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 16 (3), 264–289.

Ugoani, J. (2019). Business ethics and its effect on organizational sustainability. Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 5 (2), 119–131.

Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Lindahl, J. M. M., & Nielsen, A. (2019). Ethics and entrepreneurship: A bibliometric study and literature review. Journal of Business Research, 99 , 226–237.

Van der Walt, F., & Steyn, P. (2019). Workplace spirituality and the ethical behaviour of project managers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45 (1), 1–9.

Waheed, A., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Effect of CSR and ethical practices on sustainable competitive performance: A case of emerging markets from stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 175 (4), 837–855.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). Religion and spirituality. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67 (2), 204–214.

Yi, G. (2021). From green entrepreneurial intentions to green entrepreneurial behaviors: The role of university entrepreneurial support and external institutional support. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17 (2), 963–979.

Zhang, Z., Wang, X., & Jia, M. (2021). Echoes of CEO entrepreneurial orientation: How and when CEO entrepreneurial orientation influences dual CSR activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 169 , 609–629.

Zeng, R., & Greenfield, P. M. (2015). Cultural evolution over the last 40 years in China: Using the Google Ngram Viewer to study implications of social and political change for cultural values. International Journal of Psychology, 50 (1), 47–55.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Accounting, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guqiang Ni .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 18 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ni, G. Exploring the Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Entrepreneurial Behavior: The Mediating Role of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and the Moderating Impact of Spirituality. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02298-w

Download citation

Received : 18 April 2024

Accepted : 10 August 2024

Published : 28 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02298-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurial Behavior
• Ethics in Entrepreneurship
• Spirituality
• Emerging Markets
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Examining the role of organizational culture on citizenship behavior: the mediating effects of environmental knowledge and attitude toward energy savings.

1. Introduction

2. theoretical framework and hypotheses argumentation, 2.1. organizational culture, 2.2. environmental knowledge, 2.3. attitudes toward energy saving, 2.4. organizational citizenship behavior, 3. methodology, 3.1. research area and study population, 3.2. procedure and participants, 3.3. measures, 4.1. data analysis, 4.2. structural model assessment, 4.3. mediation analysis, 5. discussion, 6. conclusions, 6.1. practical implications, 6.2. theoretical implications, 6.3. limitations, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Ahmed, Umair, Mahmoud Radwan Hussein AIZgool, and Syed Mir Muhammad Shah. 2019. The impact of green human resource practices on environmental sustainability. Polish Journal of Management Studies 20: 9–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ajzen, Icek. 2002. Constructing a TPB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. Available online: http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2024).
• Aldrin, Neil, and Kuncomo Teguh Yunanto. 2019. Job Satisfaction as a mediator for the influence of transformational leadership and organizational culture on organizational citizenship behavior. The Open Psychology Journal 12: 129–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Madadha, Amor, Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan, and Fida Amin Zakzouk. 2021. Organizational culture and organizational citizenship behaviour: The dark side of organizational politics. Organization 54: 36–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Swidi, Abdullah Kaid, Hamid Mahmood Gelaidan, and Redhwan Mohammed Saleh. 2021. The joint impact of green human resource management, leadership and organization culture on employees’ green behaviour and organizational performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 316: 128112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ang, Soon, Linn Van Dyne, and Christine Koh. 2006. Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group and Organization Management 31: 100–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arumi, Mira Sekar, Neil Aldrin, and Tri Ratna Murti. 2019. Effect of organizational culture on organizational citizenship with organizational commitment as a mediator. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science 8: 124–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arya, Bhavana, and Shiromi Chaturvedi. 2020. Extending the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Explain Energy Saving Behaviour. Environmental and Climate Technologies 24: 516–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Azmy, Ahmad. 2021. Implications of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational culture on organizational citizenship behaviour in electrical professional organizations in Indonesia. International Journal of Applied Business Research 3: 151–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Badawy, Tarek Aly, Juana Cecilia Trujillo-reyes, and Marian Magdy Hussein. 2017. Exploring the relationship between organizational culture, organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction: A comparative study between Egypt and Mexico. International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences 4: 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belaïd, Fateh, and Haitham Joumni. 2020. Behavioral Attitudes towards Energy Saving: Empirical Evidence from France. Energy Policy 140: 111406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beltrán Gallegos, José David, Mauricio Quintero Ríos, Dahiana López García, and Sandra Ximena Carvajal Quintero. 2021. Challenges and recommendations for the massification of energy management systems in Colombian industry. Scientia et Technica 26: 425–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berki-Kiss, Daniel, and Klaus Menrad. 2022. The role emotions play in consumer intentions to make pro-social purchases in Germany–an augmented theory of planned behavior mode. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29: 79–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bortolotti, Thomas, Stefania Boscari, and Cheng-Yong Xiao. 2024. Leveraging organizational culture to create competitive value from environmental practices. International Journal of Production Economics 272: 109252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brammer, Stephen, Stefan Hoejmose, and Kerry Marchant. 2012. Environmental management in SMEs in the UK: Practices, pressures, and perceived benefits. Business Strategy and The Environment 21: 423–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brick, Cameron, Kristian S. Nielsen, Sebastian Berger, Laura Henn, Kimberly S. Wolske, Florian Lange, Daniel Hanss, Jan M. Bauer, Alaa Aldoh, Maien S. M. Sachisthal, and et al. 2024. Current research practices on pro-environmental behavior: A survey of environmental psychologists. Journal of Environmental Psychology 97: 102375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Camacho, Luis J., Michael Pasco, Moises Banks, Randall Pasco, Marisela Almanzar, Alvin Rodriguez, Akinlawon Amoo, and Nelda Rosima. 2023. Understanding Employees’ Energy Saving in the Workplace: DR and the Philippines’ Realities. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cameron, Kim S., Robert E. Quinn, Jeff Degraff, and Anjan V. Thakor. 2014. Competing Values Leadership: Creating Value in Organizations . San Francisco: British Library. [ Google Scholar ]
• Canova, Luigina, and Anna Maria Manganelli. 2020. Energy-Saving Behaviours in Workplaces: Application of an Extended Model of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 16: 384–400. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carmeli, Abraham, Ari Dothan, and Dev Kumar Boojihawon. 2023. Engagement in Sustainability Behaviors in Normative Social and Utilitarian Economic-Driven Organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 59: 155–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carrico, Amanda R., and Manuel Riemer. 2011. Motivating Energy Conservation in the Workplace: An Evaluation of the Use of Group-Level Feedback and Peer Education. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chams, Nour, and Josep García-Blandón. 2019. On the Importance of Sustainable Human Resource Management for the Adoption of Sustainable Development Goals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 141: 109–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chang, Hsiu-Hua, and Jing-Wen Su. 2021. Sustainable consumption in Taiwan retailing: The impact of product features and price promotion on purchase behaviors toward expiring products. Food Quality and Preference 96: 104452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Chun-Hsi Vivian, and Yu-Cheng Chen. 2021. Assessment of Enhancing Employee Engagement in Energy-Saving Behavior at Workplace: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 13: 2457. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Costantini, Arianna, Evangelia Demerouti, Andrea Ceschi, and Riccardo Sartori. 2022. Implementing Job Crafting Behaviors: Exploring the Effects of a Job Crafting Intervention Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 58: 477–512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daily, Bonnie F., James W. Bishop, and Nalini Govindarajulu. 2009. A conceptual model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior directed toward the environment. Business & Society 48: 243–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fatoki, Olawale. 2023. Antecedents of Workplace Energy Saving Behaviour: An Integration of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Norm Activation Model. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 13: 394–403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gajdzik, Bożena, Radosław Wolniak, Rafał Nagaj, Brigita Žuromskaitė-Nagaj, and Wieslaw Wes Grebski. 2024. The influence of the global energy crisis on energy efficiency: A comprehensive analysis. Energies 17: 947. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, Lan, Shanyong Wang, Jun Li, and Haidong Li. 2017. Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior to Understand Individual’s Energy Saving Behavior in Workplaces. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127: 107–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• García-Sánchez, Isabel-María, Nicola Raimo, and Filippo Vitolla. 2021. Are Environmentally Innovative Companies Inclined towards Integrated Environmental Disclosure Policies? Administrative Sciences 11: 29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gaskin, James, and John Lim. 2016. Model Fit Measures. AMOS Plugin. Gaskination’s Stat Wiki. Available online: https://statwiki.gaskination.com/index.php?title=Main_Page (accessed on 10 July 2024).
• Ghose, Amitabha, and Bibhas Chandra. 2020. Models for predicting sustainable durable products consumption behaviour: A review article. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective 24: 81–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gold, Andrew H., Arvind Malhotra, and Albert H. Segars. 2001. Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 18: 185–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gong, Mengfeng, Yuan Gao, Lenny Koh, Charles Sutcliffe, and John Cullen. 2019. The Role of Customer Awareness in Promoting Firm Sustainability and Sustainable Supply Chain Management. International Journal of Production Economics 217: 88–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graham, Jill W. 1991. An Essay on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 4: 249–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hair, Joe F., G. Tomas, M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2017. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN 9781483377445. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haron, Sharifah A., Laily Paim, and Nurizan Yahaya. 2005. Towards Sustainable Consumption: An Examination of Environmental Knowledge among Malaysians. International Journal of Consumer Studies 29: 426–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henseler, Jörg, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2015. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 115–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hofstede, Geert. 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values . Newbury Park: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibtissem, Mustapha H. 2010. Application of Value Beliefs Norms Theory to the Energy Conservation Behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Development 3: 129–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• International Energy Agency. 2022. Energy Efficiency 2022—Analysis. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/energyefficiency-2022 (accessed on 20 July 2024).
• Ip-Soo-Ching, Jean Marie, and Suzanne Zyngier. 2015. The Rise of “Environmental Sustainability Knowledge” in Business Strategy and Entrepreneurship: An IT-Enabled Knowledge-Based View of Tourism Operators. In Hospitality, Travel, and Tourism: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications . Edited by Information Resources Management Association. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 221–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Isensee, Carmen, Frank Teuteberg, Kai-Michael Griese, and Corrado Topi. 2020. The Relationship between Organizational Culture, Sustainability, and Digitalization in SMEs: A Systematic Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 275: 122944. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joachim, Onuoha Iheanyichukwu, Norhaya Kamarudin, Godwin Uche Aliagha, and Kalu Joseph Ufere. 2015. Theoretical Explanations of Environmental Motivations and Expectations of Clients on Green Building Demand and Investment. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science 23: 12010–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, Naseer Abbas, Ali Nawaz Khan, and Summan Gul. 2019. Relationship between Perception of Organizational Politics and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model. Asian Business & Management 18: 122–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Soo Hyun, and Yoo-Kyoung Seock. 2019. The roles of values and social norm on personal norms and pro-environmentally friendly apparel product purchasing behavior: The mediating role of personal norms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51: 83–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Woo Gon, Sean McGinley, Hyung-Min Choi, and Charoenchai Agmapisarn. 2020. Hotels environmental leadership and employees’ organization citizenship behaviour. International Journal of Hospitality Management 87: 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kline, Rex B. 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling . New York: Guildford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kollmuss, Anja, and Julian Agyeman. 2002. Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to pro-Environmental Behavior? Environmental Education Research 8: 239–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, Bipul, Ajay K. Manrai, and Lalita A. Manrai. 2017. Purchasing Behaviour for Environmentally Sustainable Products: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 34: 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, Kibeom, and Natalie J. Allen. 2002. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Deviance: The Role of Affect and Cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 131–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lee, Stacy H. N., and Jung Ha-Brookshire. 2018. The Effect of Ethical Climate and Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior on U.S. Fashion Retail Organizations’ Sustainability Performance. Corporate Social-Responsibility and Environmental Management 25: 939–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, Yi-Fang, Hoang Bao Ngoc Nguyen, and Hsiu-Te Sung. 2022. Energy Literacy of High School Students in Vietnam and Determinants of Their Energy-Saving Behavior. Environmental Education Research 28: 907–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Da, Xiaojing Xu, Chien-fei Chen, and Carol Menassa. 2019. Understanding Energy-Saving Behaviors in the American Workplace: A Unified Theory of Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability. Energy Research & Social Science 51: 198–209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linnenluecke, Martina K., and Andrew Griffiths. 2010. Corporate Sustainability and Organizational Culture. Journal of World Business 45: 357–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Chinhung, and Yahui Wu. 2020. The Impact of Value-Belief-Norm Theory and Technology Acceptance Model on Use Intention of Green Design Packaging. International Journal of Business and Management 15: 158–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lopes, José Rafael Nascimento, Ricardo de Araújo Kalid, Jorge Laureano Moya Rodríguez, and Salvador Ávila Filho. 2019. A New Model for Assessing Industrial Worker Behavior Regarding Energy Saving Considering the Theory of Planned Behavior, Norm Activation Model and Human Reliability. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 145: 268–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MacCallum, Robert, Taehun Lee, and Michael W. Browne. 2010. The Issue of Isopower in Power Analysis for Tests of Structural Equation Models. Structural Equation Modeling 17: 23–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Malhotra, Naresh K. 2021. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation . London: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manuel, Candida Duarte, Carla Rebelo Magalhães, Claudia Maria Huber, Lukáš Smerek, Artur Fernandes Costa, and José Ribeiro Alves. 2024. Cross-Cultural Adaptation of a Questionnaire Measuring Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards the Environment. Administrative Sciences 14: 57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Molina-Azorín, Jose F., Juan José Tarí, Jorge Pereira-Moliner, María D. López-Gamero, and Eva M. Pertusa-Ortega. 2015. The Effects of Quality and Environmental Management on Competitive Advantage: A Mixed Methods Study in the Hotel Industry. Tourism Management 50: 41–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nauges, Céline, and Sarah Ann Wheeler. 2017. The Complex Relationship Between Households’ Climate Change Concerns and Their Water and Energy Mitigation Behaviour. Ecological Economics 141: 87–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1996. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Long Range Planning 29: 592–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okwata, Phoebe Akoth, Susan Wasike, and Kifleyesus Andemariam. 2022. Effect of Organizational Culture Change on Organizational Performance of Kenya Wildlife Service Nairobi National Park. Administrative Sciences 12: 139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Organ, Dennis W. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome . Lexington: Lexington Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Organ, Dennis W., and Katherine Ryan. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology 48: 775–802. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Organ, Dennis W., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Scott B. MacKenzie. 2006. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paillé, Pascal, and Nicolas Raineri. 2015. Linking Perceived Corporate Environmental Policies and Employees Eco-Initiatives: The Influence of Perceived Organizational Support and Psychological Contract Breach. Journal of Business Research 68: 2404–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panda, Tapan Kumar, Anil Kumar, Suresh Jakhar, Sunil Luthra, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Ipek Kazancoglu, and Sonali Sitoshna Nayak. 2020. Social and environmental sustainability model on consumers’ altruism, green purchase intention, green brand loyalty and evangelism. Journal of Cleaner Production 243: 118575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pardo Martínez, Clara Inés. 2015. Energy and sustainable development in cities: A case study of Bogotá. Energy 92: 612–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patwary, Ataul Karim, Arshian Sharif, Roslizawati Che Aziz, Mohamad Ghozali Bin Hassan, Arsalan Najmi, and Muhammad Khalilur Rahman. 2023. Reducing Environmental Pollution by Organisational Citizenship Behaviour in Hospitality Industry: The Role of Green Employee Involvement, Performance Management and Dynamic Capability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 30: 37105–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Perez, Jhon Jairo, Luis Hernando Correa, Poul Alberg Østergaard, and Pedro Cabrera. 2024. Assessment of energy consumption, environmental effects and fuel costs of the bus rapid transit system in Bogotá (Colombia). Clean Energy 8: 34–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pérez Estébanez, Raquel. 2024. An Approach to Sustainable Enterprise Resource Planning System Implementation in Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Administrative Sciences 14: 91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pham, Nhat Tan, Quyen Phu Thi Phan, Zuzana Tučková, Nga Vo, and Lien H. L Nguyen. 2018. Enhancing the Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: The Roles of Green Training and Organizational Culture. Management & Marketing (Bucharest, Romania) 13: 1174–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Podsakoff, Philip M., Michael Ahearne, and Scott B. MacKenzie. 1997. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Quantity and Quality of Work Group Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 262–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Julie Beth Paine, and Daniel G. Bachrach. 2000. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Management 26: 513–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qalati, Sikandar Ali, Naveed Akhtar Qureshi, Dragana Ostic, and Mohammed Ali Bait Ali Sulaiman. 2022. An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Understand Factors Influencing Pakistani Households’ Energy-Saving Intentions and Behavior: A Mediated–Moderated Model. Energy Efficiency 15: 40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quiceno, Grace, Claudia Álvarez, Raúl Ávila, Óscar Fernández, Carlos Jaime Franco, Martin Kunc, and Isaac Dyner. 2019. Scenario analysis for strategy design: A case study of the Colombian electricity industry. Energy Strategy Reviews 23: 57–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raczyńska, Magdalena, and Krzysztof Krukowski. 2019. Organisational Culture as a Determinant of Business Process Management in the Community Offices in Poland. Administrative Sciences 9: 96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rhoades, Linda, and Robert Eisenberger. 2002. Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 698–714. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sahyoni, Kadek Tira, and Wayan Dge Supartha. 2020. The effect of organizational culture, organizational commitment and job satisfaction on organizational citizenship behaviour. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research 4: 425–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schein, Edgar H. 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scherbaum, Charles A., Paula M. Popovich, and Scott Finlinson. 2008. Exploring Individual-Level Factors Related to Employee Energy-Conservation Behaviors at Work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38: 818–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Si, Hongyun, Ze Yu, Qi Jiang, Yimeng Shu, Wenwen Hua, and Xiaoyan Lv. 2022. Better future with better us: Exploring young people’s energy-saving behavior based on norm activation theory. Frontiers in Public Health 10: 1042325. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sinaga, Hendrik Gomar, Asmawi Moch, Adji Madhakomala, and Adji Suratman. 2018. Effect of change in management, organizational culture and transformational leadership on employee performance PT. AdhyaTirta Batam (PT. ATB). International Review of Management and Marketing 8: 15–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smederevac-Lalic, Marija, David Finger, Imre Kovách, Mirjana Lenhardt, Jesilaveta Petrovic, Vesna Djikanovic, Daniela Conti, and Jelle Boeve-de Pauw. 2020. Knowledge and environmental citizens. In Conceptualizing Environmental Citizenship for 21st Century Education . Edited by Andreas Ch Hadjichambis, Pedro Reis, Jan Činčera, Jelle Boeve-de Pauw, Niklas Gericke and Marie-Christine Knippels. Environmental Discourses in Science Education. Cham: Springer, vol. 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, C. Ann, Dennis W. Organ, and Janet P. Near. 1983. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68: 653–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Steg, Linda. 2008. Promoting household energy conservation. Energy Policy 36: 4449–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Steg, Linda, and Charles Vlek. 2009. Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 309–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, Zhenya, Merrill Warkentin, and Le Wu. 2019. Understanding Employees’ Energy Saving Behavior from the Perspective of Stimulus-Organism-Responses. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 140: 216–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Temminck, Elisha, Kathryn Mearns, and Laura Fruhen. 2015. Motivating Employees towards Sustainable Behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment 24: 402–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tenbült, Petra, Nanne K. Vries, Ellen Dreezens, and Carolinen Martijin. 2008. Intuitive and explicit reactions toward “new” food technologies: Attitude strength and familiarity. British Food Journal 110: 622–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tucker, Leadyard R., and Charles Lewis. 1973. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38: 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ullman, Jodie B. 2006. Structural Equation Modeling: Reviewing the Basics and Moving Forward. Journal of Personality Assessment 87: 35–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van den Berg, Peter T., and Celeste P. M. Wilderom. 2004. Defining, Measuring, and Comparing Organisational Cultures. Applied Psychology 53: 570–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vidal-Salazar, María Dolores, Eulogio Cordón-Pozo, and Vera Ferrón-Vilchez. 2012. Human Resource Management and Developing Proactive Environmental Strategies: The Influence of Environmental Training and Organizational Learning. Human Resource Management 51: 905–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vijayasarathy, Leo R. 2004. Predicting Consumer Intentions to Use On-Line Shopping: The Case for an Augmented Technology Acceptance Model. Information and Management 41: 747–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Qian-Cheng, Ke-Xin Xie, Xuan Liu, Geoffrey Qi Ping Shen, Hsi-Hsien Wei, and Tian-Yi Liu. 2021. Psychological Drivers of Hotel Guests’ Energy-Saving Behaviours—Empirical Research Based on the Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Buildings 11: 401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Sheng, and Raymond A. Noe. 2010. Knowledge Sharing: A Review and Directions for Future Research. Human Resource Management Review 20: 115–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zelezny, Lynnette C., and P. Wesley Schultz. 2000. Psychology of promoting environmentalism: Promoting environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues 56: 365–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, Shuliang, Rui Zhang, and Qingjun Li. 2024. How does organizational culture affect eco-innovation? Empirical evidence from the individual and organizational perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Camacho, L.J.; Litheko, A.; Pasco, M.; Butac, S.R.; Ramírez-Correa, P.; Salazar-Concha, C.; Celine, P.C. Examining the Role of Organizational Culture on Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Effects of Environmental Knowledge and Attitude Toward Energy Savings. Adm. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090193

Camacho LJ, Litheko A, Pasco M, Butac SR, Ramírez-Correa P, Salazar-Concha C, Celine PC. Examining the Role of Organizational Culture on Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Effects of Environmental Knowledge and Attitude Toward Energy Savings. Administrative Sciences . 2024; 14(9):193. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090193

Camacho, Luis J., Alpheaus Litheko, Michael Pasco, Susan R. Butac, Patricio Ramírez-Correa, Cristian Salazar-Concha, and Paula C. Celine. 2024. "Examining the Role of Organizational Culture on Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Effects of Environmental Knowledge and Attitude Toward Energy Savings" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 9: 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090193

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

The Politicization of Social Responsibility

Institutional investors are less likely to support shareholder proposals involving environmental and social issues for firms headquartered in Republican-led states. The lower support concentrates in recent years, when politicians became more vocal about firms’ social responsibility activities, and among larger institutions and firms, which tend to attract more attention from politicians. Investor support also shifts within states following changes in their leadership. Support for such proposals is 10 percentage points lower in the same state when it is led by Republicans instead of Democrats. The findings suggest that state-level politics and the politicization of an issue impacts institutional investors’ votes.

For helpful comments, we thank William Cassidy, Slava Fos, Leonard Kostovetsky, Renping Li, Michelle Lowry, Nadya Malenko, David Matsa, Maarten Meeuwis, Antoinette Schoar, Margarita Tsoutsoura, Nishant Vats, and the seminar participants at Clemson ESG and Policy Research Conference, NBER Summer Institute – Corporate Finance Program, Georgia State University, London Business School, Northwestern Law School, University of Alabama, University of British Columbia, University of Georgia, University of Toronto, Villanova University, and Washington University in St. Louis. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .