Study variables
Independent variables | Conceptual indicators |
---|---|
Adopt societal responsibility (x1) | Availability of environmental awareness |
Clear vision on the impact of societal responsibility on financial performance | |
Managers inform employees about developments in societal responsibility programs | |
Managers respond to employees about their CSR proposals | |
Disclose societal responsibility as an annual report | |
The company's role towards societal responsibility supports the members of the community in the success of the objectives of the company | |
The company's management encourages employees to participate collectively in societal responsibility programs | |
Dimensions of the power of societal responsibility (x2) | The strength of the social dimension |
The strength of the economic dimension | |
The strength of moral dimension | |
The strength of the legal dimension | |
The strength of the cultural dimension | |
dependent variables | Conceptual indicators |
Protecting the Environment from Pollution (y) | Prepare reports on pollution control and industrial waste |
Develop plans for environmental improvement of industrial processes | |
A record of hazardous waste | |
The existence of standards for the prevention of major industrial accidents | |
Prepare reports on environmental auditing and programs for environmentally educating and training workers | |
Awareness of local and international environmental requirements and standards for the protection of the environment |
Distributed and retrieved lists and response rate
Statement | No. of distributed lists | No. of recovered and sound lists | Response rate(%) |
---|---|---|---|
Petrochemical companies | 120 | 100 | 83 |
The degree of stability of the measurements used to measure the variables studied
Dimensions | Phrase numbers in the survey list | No. of phrases | Stability (α)(%) | Honesty(%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Adopt societal responsibility (x ) | (1–7) | 7 | 71 | 84 |
2 | Dimensions of societal responsibility (x ) | (8–12) | 5 | 68 | 82 |
3 | Environmental Protection from Pollution (y ) | (13–18) | 6 | 82 |
Order of the importance of study variables
Variables | SMA | Standard deviation | Coefficient of variation(%) | Ranking | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Adopt societal responsibility (x ) | 3.9 | 0.288 | 5.85 | The first |
2 | Dimensions of societal responsibility (x ) | 4.3 | 0.446 | 10.37 | The second |
3 | Environmental protection from pollution (y) | 3.34 | 0.825 | 24.70 | The third |
Simple regression analysis results of the effect of societal responsibility on protecting the environment from pollution
Statement | F test | Sig | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Regression coefficient | |||||
Protecting the environment from pollution (y) | 0.92 | 0.85 | 545.36 | 0.000 | Constant | 1.004 |
0.000 | Adopt societal responsibility (x ) | 0.763 |
Statement | F test | Sig | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Regression coefficient | |||||
Protecting the environment from pollution (y) | 0.85 | 0.72 | 267.99 | 0.000 | Constant | 1.004 |
0.000 | Dimensions of societal responsibility (x ) | 0.763 |
N | Phrases Agree or disagree scores | I absolutely disagree | Disagree | Neutral | I agree | I fully agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The degree of adoption of the concept of societal responsibility (CSR) at the company comes through: | ||||||
1 | Availability of environmental awareness | |||||
2 | Clear vision on the impact of societal responsibility on financial performance | |||||
3 | Managers inform employees about developments in societal responsibility programs | |||||
4 | Managers respond to employees about their CSR proposals | |||||
5 | Disclose societal responsibility as an annual report | |||||
6 | The company's role towards societal responsibility supports the members of the community in the success of the objectives of the company | |||||
7 | The company's management encourages employees to participate collectively in societal responsibility programs | |||||
The strength of CSR programs depends on: | ||||||
1 | The strength of the social dimension. When the company performs its business and services with high quality and energy efficiency through the use of modern technology in product design, providing raw materials, reducing pollution and waste and maintaining environmental balance | |||||
2 | The strength of the economic dimension. When the company preserves natural resources and rationalizes their consumption by setting a clear environmental policy and linking the analysis of environmental and social role and the proper environmental contribution to production processes | |||||
3 | The strength of moral dimension. When the company maintains the rights of the community through a clear vision of the concept of societal responsibility and the dissemination of environmental culture among its employees of the company and protection of the environment from the effects of industrial waste and committed to honesty in all business dealings in ways that are clear and non-twisted | |||||
4 | The strength of the legal dimension. When the company's commitment to local laws in the course of its activities through the dissemination of a culture of adherence to the laws and regulations in the society, support and respect for human rights declared globally and the establishment of legal entities (units, departments) whose task is to work according to the system of institutions sponsoring the concept of societal responsibility | |||||
5 | The strength of the cultural dimension. When the company develops environmental and social awareness among customers and suppliers by organizing awareness campaigns on the importance of the environment and implementing programs to protect and preserve the environment | |||||
The company protects the environment from pollution when: | ||||||
1 | Prepare reports on pollution control and industrial waste | |||||
2 | Develop plans for environmental improvement of industrial processes | |||||
3 | A record of hazardous waste | |||||
4 | The existence of standards for the prevention of major industrial accidents | |||||
5 | Prepare reports on environmental auditing and programs for environmentally educating and training workers | |||||
6 | Awareness of local and international environmental requirements and standards for the protection of the environment |
Please read each of the following statements carefully to determine the degree of your agreement or disagree of any of them by marking in a position that largely reflects your personal opinion of the term.
Abu-Halaqan , E.S. ( 2014 ), “ The impact of the organization on the concept of social responsibility on the degree of customer satisfaction – applied study ”, M. Thesis, Sadat academy for administrative sciences, Faculty of administrative sciences , Alexandria , p. 133 .
Agresti , A. and Finlay , B. ( 2002 ), Statistical Methods for Social Sciences , 2nd ed. , Palgrave Macmillan , New York, NY , p. 148 .
Al-Maazawy , A.F. ( 2004 ), “ The role of EEAA in solving administrative and legal problems in Egypt - an analytical study in managing environmental problems ”, M. thesis, Sadat Academy for Administrative Sciences , Alexandria , p. 8 .
Al-Tira , K. ( 2012 ), “ The impact of management and employees' awareness of the social responsibility of the organization on the competitive advantages of applied industry in libya ”, Ph. D. thesis, Ain Shams University, Faculty of Commerce .
Amaeshi , K. , Adegbite , E. and Rajwani , T. ( 2016 ), “ Corporate social responsibility in challenging and non-enabling institutional contexts: do institutional voids matter? ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 134 No. 1 , pp. 135 - 153 .
Andrei , J. , Panait , M. and Ene , C. ( 2014 ), “ Environmental protection between social responsibility, green investments and cultural values ”, Faculty of Economic Sciences , Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti, Romania, MPRA Paper No. 60189 , pp. 2 - 8 .
Arafa , A.M. ( 2015 ), “ Ethical responsibility and its role in empowering Employees – a field study on application to international industrial companies in 10th of ramadan city ”, Supplementary Research , Suez Canal University, Faculty of Commerce .
Alexandria ( 2019 ), National Refining and Petrochemicals Company (ANRPC) available at: www.anrpc.com
Alexandria Specialty Petroleum Products Company (ASPPC) available at: www.asppc.com.eg
Barrow , C.J. ( 2000 ), Developing the Environment: problems and Management , Longman Limited , New York, NY , p. 25 .
Berger-Walliser , G. and Scott , I. ( 2018 ), “ Redefining corporate social responsibility in an era of globalization and regulatory hardening ”, American Business Law Journal , Vol. 55 No. 1 , pp. 167 - 218 .
Bhagwat , P. ( 2011 ), “ Corporate social responsibility and sustainable development ”, Conference on Inclusive and Sustainable, Growth Role of Industry, Government and Society Conference Proceedings , pp. 1 - 13 .
Cameron , R. ( 2009 ), “ Community and government effect on CSR: Case studies of mining on bolivia's altiplano ”, M. thesis, Saint Mary's University , p. 1 .
Carroll , A.B. ( 1999 ), “ Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct ”, Business and Society , Vol. 38 No. 3 , p. 70 .
Currás‐Pérez , R. , Dolz‐Dolz , C. , Miquel‐Romero , M.J. and Sánchez‐García , I. ( 2017 ), “ How social, environmental, and economic CSR affects consumer‐perceived value: does perceived consumer effectiveness make a difference ?”, Faculty of Economics, Department of Marketing, University of Valencia , Valencia , pp. 733 - 744 .
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, Law No. 4 ( 1994 ), “ On the protection of the environment and its executive regulations, general provisions of the egyptian environmental law ”, p. 3 .
Egyptian Linear Alkyl Benzene (ELAB) ( 2019 ), available at: www.elab-eg.com
Elmore , T. ( 2011 ), “ Promoting ethical behavior among local government employees the role of ethical leadership, ethics code training and audits ”, PH. D thesis, KS City, MO , pp. 162 - 165 .
Environmental Protection Agency ( 2013 ), “ Environmental protection through research ”, An Ghníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil , p. 11 .
Egyptian Petrochemical Company (EPC) ( 2019 ), available at: www.egy-petrochem.com
Egyptian Styrenics Company (EStyrenics) ( 2019 ), available at: http://estyrenics.com
The Egyptian Ethylene and Derivatives Company (ETHYDCO) >available at: www.ethydco-eg.com
Freeman , R.E. ( 1984 ), Strategic Management a Stakeholder Approach , Pitman , Boston .
Frynas , J.G. and Yamahaki , C. ( 2016 ), “ Corporate social responsibility: review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives ”, Business Ethics: A European Review , Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 258 - 285 .
Halkos , G. and Skouloudis , A. ( 2016 ), “ Cultural dimensions and corporate social responsibility: a cross-country analysis ”, Centre for Environmental Policy and Strategic Environmental Management, Department of Environment, University of the Aegean , MPRA Paper No. 69222 , pp. 7 - 15 .
Hamilton , C. and Bastianoni , S. ( 2019 ), “ Environmental protection and ecology ”, Encyclopedia of Ecology, Vol. 4 , 2nd ed. , pp. 319 - 326 .
Hawrysz , L. and Foltys , J. ( 2015 ), Environmental Aspects of Social Responsibility of Public Sector Organizations , Department of Organization and Management, Faculty of Economy and Management, Opole University of Technology , Opole , pp. 1 - 8 .
ISO 26000 ( 2007 ), “ Working group on social responsibility: working definition ”, Sydney , available at: www.afnor.org (accessed 1 October 2015 ).
Jamali , D. , Lund-Thomsen , P. and Jeppesen , S. ( 2017 ), “ SMEs and CSR in developing countries ”, Business and Society , Vol. 56 No. 1 , pp. 11 - 22 .
Jammulamadaka , N. ( 2018 ), “ Reading institutional logics of CSR in India from a post-colonial location ”, Journal of Business Ethics , pp. 1 - 19 .
Jensen , M.C. and Meckling , W.H. ( 1976 ), “ Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure ”, Journal of Financial Economics , Vol. 3 No. 4 , pp. 305 - 360 .
Kolk , A. and Lenfant , F. ( 2010 ), “ MNC reporting on CSR and conflict in Central Africa ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 93 No. S2 , pp. 241 - 255 .
Letmathe , P. and El-Bassiouny , D. ( 2019 ), “ Political instability and corporate social responsibility: the case of Egypt ”, Social Responsibility Journal , pp. 6 - 14 .
Lockett , A. and Thompson , S. ( 2004 ), “ Edith penrose’s contributions to the resource-based view: an alternative perspective ”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 41 No. 1 , pp. 193 - 203 .
McWilliams , A. and Siegel , D. ( 2011 ), “ Creating and capturing value: strategic corporate social responsibility: resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 37 No. 5 , pp. 1480 - 1495 .
Marquis , C. and Raynard , M. ( 2015 ), “ Institutional strategies in emerging markets ”, Academy of Management Annals , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 291 - 335 .
Mohammed , A. and Rashid , B. ( 2018 ), “ A conceptual model of corporate social responsibility dimensions, brand image, and customer satisfaction in Malaysian hotel industry ”, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences , Vol. 39 , pp. 358 - 364 .
Muller , A. and Kolk , A. ( 2012 ), “ Responsible tax as corporate social responsibility: the case of multinational enterprises and effective tax in India ”, Business and Society , pp. 21 - 23 .
Mustafa , M.A. ( 2013 ), “ Social responsibility and its impact on corporate financial performance ”, M. Thesis, Cairo University, Faculty of Economics and Political Science , p. 120 .
Othman , A.I. ( 1999 ), “ Disclosure of social responsibility information for economic Unity ”, Journal of the Faculty of Commerce for Scientific Research , Vol. 36 No. 2 , pp. 9 .
Pfeffer , J. and Salancik , G.R. ( 1978 ), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective , Harper and Row , New York, NY .
Platonova , E. , Asutay , M. , Dixon , R. and Mohammad , S. ( 2018 ), “ The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance: evidence from the GCC Islamic banking sector ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 151 No. 2 , pp. 451 - 471 .
Reverte , C. ( 2009 ), “ Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 88 No. 2 , pp. 351 - 366 .
Rugman , A.M. and Verbeke , A. ( 2002 ), “ Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 23 No. 8 , pp. 769 - 780 .
Sajib , Q.U. , Rajib , S.U. and Alam , S. ( 2011 ), An Assessment on the Adaptation of ISO 14000 in the Fertilizer Industry of Bangladesh for the Sustainable Development , Wuhan University of Technology, School of Management , pp. 2480 - 2488 .
Sekaran , U. ( 2003 ), Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach , 4th ed. , John Wiley and Sons, Macmillan , New York, NY , p. 245 .
Scott , R.W. ( 2001 ), Institutional and Organizations , 2nd ed ., Sage Publications , Thousand Oaks .
Sidi Kerir Petrochemicals Company (SIDPEC) ( 2019 ), available at: ar.sidpec.com
Stojanović , A. , Mihajlović , I. and Schulte , P. ( 2016 ), “ Corporate social responsibility: Environmental aspects ”, International May Conference on Strategic Management , Bor , PP. 1 - 14 .
Suchman , M.C. ( 1995 ), “ Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches ”, The Academy of Management Review , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 571 - 610 .
The Egyptian Environmental Protection Law ( 2009 ), available at: www.eeaa.gov.eg
The Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) ( 2005 ), “ Material ”, p. 301 . published by Company Secretaries of India .
Tiwari , N. ( 2010 ), Environment Protection and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critique from Legal Perspective , Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University , Varanasi , PP. 1 - 7 .
Trevino , L. and Nelson , K. ( 1999 ), Managing Business Ethics, Straight Talk about How to Do It Right , 2nd ed. , John Wiley and Sons , New York, NY .
Wagner , T.P. ( 1994 ), A Guide to Understanding Pollution and Its Effect , Thomson Publishing Inc ., Canada , P. 20 .
Zanat , S. ( 2016 ), “ The role of environmental taxes and fees in guiding the environmental behavior of the economic institution in Algeria ”, M. Thesis, University of Mohamed Boudeif Bamsila, Faculty of economic and commercial sciences and management sciences .
Zhang , J. , Cheng , M. , Wei , X. , Gong , X. and Zhang , S. ( 2019 ), “ Internet use and the satisfaction with government environmental protection: evidence from China ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 212 , pp. 1025 - 1035 . Volume P.
Daibis , M.Y. ( 1997 ), “ Environmental pollution and the challenges of survival: an anthropological perspective ”, Series of Anthropology and Community Issues , Alexandria , p. 15 .
World Bank Group ( 2015 ), “ Egypt, Arab rep ”, available at: http://data.worldbank.org
Related articles, all feedback is valuable.
Please share your general feedback
Contact Customer Support
Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Global Citizen — Protection of the Environment: It is the Responsibility of Citizens
About this sample
Words: 552 |
Updated: 29 March, 2024
Words: 552 | Page: 1 | 3 min read
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
Let us write you an essay from scratch
Get high-quality help
Prof Ernest (PhD)
Verified writer
+ 120 experts online
By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email
No need to pay just yet!
2 pages / 1128 words
2 pages / 745 words
2 pages / 742 words
1 pages / 540 words
Remember! This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.
121 writers online
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled
Global citizenship encompasses a set of values and attitudes that promote understanding, empathy, and action for a better world. It implies a deep commitment to social justice, environmental sustainability, and active civic [...]
In an increasingly interconnected world, the concept of global citizenship has gained prominence. But what does it truly mean to be a global citizen? Is it merely about having a passport that allows you to travel the world, or [...]
Nature and the environment are two intrinsically linked concepts that form the foundation of life on Earth. The term 'nature' encompasses the physical world and the living organisms that inhabit it, whereas the 'environment' [...]
We are often caught up in our academic and personal pursuits. Our busy schedules and individualistic mindset often make us forget the importance of being a good citizen in our communities. However, being an active and [...]
In a rapidly evolving world where borders seem to blur and cultures intermingle, the concept of global citizenship has gained immense importance. Hugh Evans eloquently defines a global citizen as someone who identifies primarily [...]
Do we really understand why the world emerged concerning about the Environment issue that make some of us volunteering promotes about the important of sustainable development? The answer is the existing of the global citizen. [...]
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Where do you want us to send this sample?
By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
Be careful. This essay is not unique
This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before
Download this Sample
Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts
Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.
Please check your inbox.
We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!
We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .
The importance of sociological theories.
Social responsibility is a modern philosophy that states that all individuals and organizations are obligated to help the community at large. This is typically an active effort involving acting against a social issue or prevention of committing harmful acts to the environment. Many companies and individuals engage in social responsibility because of its benefits on their immediate community as well as their business and profitability. It is an ongoing topic in society with many questions available for discussion.
Social responsibility is an ideal topic for debate; there have been mixed results for companies and individuals who have pursued social responsibility. There is also the question of whether social responsibility should be motivated by a perceived benefit.This type of essay is based on philosophical theories on the necessity of social responsibility backed up with facts about previous social responsibility efforts. For example, an essay could be about how giving support to disaster victims can significantly boost an entity's professional image.
Social responsibility is a broad field of study; there are numerous factors to analyze in determining which mix of factors will have the highest chance of a successful social responsibility effort. For example, an author can look into the different types of philanthropy that address a social injustice, including: giving monetary gifts, hosting social awareness events and starting a sub-organization which addresses the issue at hand. Each type of social effort may have varying levels of effectiveness depending on the people’s acceptance and the complexity of the issue itself.
There are an abundant number of social responsibility campaigns enacted by different companies and individuals. Authors choose a particular entity and write a case study about that entity’s social responsibility efforts. This includes researching the motivation behind the effort, analyzing the program execution and judging the overall social impact of the campaign. Moreover, the essay can also highlight how the social responsibility effort directly affected the entity itself. Some common methods include doing a profitability comparison before and after the social responsibility campaign and conducting a qualitative study of how the campaign improves the entity’s image and reputation.
Social responsibility is a highly evolving topic. Given the reported indirect benefits of social responsibility, there is a growing argument of how it should become a new form of business. Based on the original philosophy of social responsibility, this type of essay discusses the outlook on the integration of social responsibility in the work force. Some topics include the feasibility of a pure social responsibility company, ways for a single company to efficiently help macro audiences such as third world countries, or the possibility of legally enforcing social responsibility efforts from all companies.
Common methods used in social science research.
How to write a rebuttal speech.
Raleigh Kung has been a social-media specialist and copywriter since 2010. He has worked with various companies on their online marketing campaigns and keeps a blog about social-media platforms. Now, he mainly writes about online media and education for various websites. Kung holds a master's degree in management and entrepreneurship from the University of San Francisco.
International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility volume 1 , Article number: 2 ( 2016 ) Cite this article
108k Accesses
50 Citations
2 Altmetric
Metrics details
There has, in recent times, been an increasing interest in understanding corporate social (and environmental) responsibility (CSR) and, in particular, CSR reporting in developing countries. However, many of these studies fail to investigate fully the contextual factors that influence CSR and reporting in those countries, preferring to rely on theories and hypotheses developed from studies undertaken in the West, particularly the US, UK and Australasia.
It may be argued that this is appropriate as many emerging economies are experiencing growth and moving towards having a more market-based orientation. Notwithstanding this, a large number of these countries have an entirely different socio-political environment, with different political regimes, legal systems and cultural influences. These factors have a significant effect on the applicability of theories such as stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and accountability theory, which are commonly used to explain the phenomenon of reporting.
In State Capitalist countries, such as China, an important influence on companies is the political ideology that underpins the nation’s government. The nature and impact of ideology and hegemony in China has been under-studied and, therefore, investigating how the ideology, and competing forces that may mitigate its influence, manifest themselves in Chinese reporting are essential. In the Middle East, countries such as Saudi Arabia have no free press, are ruled by a royal family, have a market dominated by the oil industry, and potential religious influences. Such socio-cultural differences mean societies develop different understandings of concepts such as sustainability and social responsibility. Finally, countries such as Sri Lanka have some similarities to other developing countries, but their economy is set against a background of a recent civil war – operating in a post-conflict economy is a factor rarely considered in social and environmental disclosure, yet has important influence on policy in these areas.
This paper discusses three contextual issues that warrant more and improved consideration in CSR research, with particular emphasis on CSR reporting research.
More and more corporations worldwide are involved in corporate social responsibility activities, and as a result are providing more social and environmental information to the public. Following from this, CSR disclosure, or reporting, has become one of the major fields of investigation by accounting scholars (Deegan 2009 ; Mathews 1997 ; Tilt 2001 ). Research that considers both CSR activity and CSR reporting has traditionally focused on companies in more developed economies, predominantly the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand (Burritt and Schaltegger 2010 ; Frost et al. 2005 ; Gray 2006 ; Gurvitsh and Sidorova 2012 ; Othman and Ameer 2009 ; Patten 2002 ; Sahay 2004 ), but recently there has been increasing interest in understanding the phenomenon in developing countries particularly as they experience growth and move towards a more capitalist orientation (Sumiani et al. 2007 ). Of the research that does exist, a number of papers suggest that ‘country’ is a determinant for CSR involvement and for the level of disclosure, but do not go much further.
Many of the studies of developing countries however, choose a framework for their investigation based on those shown to be meaningful for explaining disclosure in developed, capitalist economies. That is, they fail to investigate fully the contextual factors that influence firms and their reporting in those countries that have a different social, political, legal and/or cultural context.
It may be argued that this is appropriate as many emerging economies are experiencing growth and moving towards having a more market-based orientation. However, this is rarely acknowledged or questioned in these papers. Yet, it is reasonable to suggest that these factors have a significant effect on the applicability of theories such as stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and accountability theory, which are commonly used to explain the phenomenon of reporting.
The majority of the world’s population lives in developing countries and each country experiences its own unique social, political and environmental issues (United Nations 2013 ). These countries are in the process of industrialisation and are often characterised by unstable governments, higher levels of unemployment, limited technological capacity, unequal distribution of income, unreliable water supplies and underutilised factors of production. As a result of rapid industrial development, policies are pursued that aim to attract greater foreign investment, and the investors are often keen to start benefitting from fiscal incentives and cheap labour. While these strategies make economic sense, they have adverse social and environmental effects, including the use of child labour, low or unpaid wages, unequal career opportunities, occupational health and safety concerns, and increased pollution.
In a review of the literature on determinants of CSR reporting (Morhardt 2010 ), reports that research on the impact of different variables in different regions is inconclusive due to the lack of enough studies. Factors that may influence CSR disclosure practices fall broadly into internal and external (Fifka 2013 ; Morhardt 2010 ), but are commonly classified further as (Adams 2002 : p224):
Corporate characteristics, such as size, industry group, financial/economic performance and share trading volume, price and risk;
General contextual factors, such as country of origin, time, specific events, media pressure, stakeholders and social, political, cultural and economic context; and
Internal contextual factors, including different aspects of corporate governance.
While CSR reporting has been studied by a large number of scholars, only a few fall into the second of the categories above, and consider context in detail. This is particularly relevant when considering developing countries. A few papers have specifically reviewed studies on developing countries. For example, (Belal and Momin 2009 ) categorise the work on developing countries into three groups: studies of the volume or extent of reporting; studies of the perceptions of CSR reporting by managers; and studies of the perception of CSR reporting by stakeholders. In all the studies reviewed there is little discussion of the context, other than a description of the country, and no real thought about the theoretical assumptions being made.
This paper presents a discussion of the different contextual issues or factors that show some evidence or potential to influence CSR and reporting in developing countries. It focusses on three specific issues and provides a research agenda for future consideration of the influence of context in CSR reporting research. The paper is structured as follows. The next section introduces some broad contextual factors that warrant consideration in the literature on CSR reporting. Next, three specific contextual issues are examined: the role of political ideology and hegemony; the influence of cultural understandings; and the impact of historical economic context. Finally, by way of conclusion, some recommended areas for further research are suggested.
Adams ( 2002 ) talks about the social, political, cultural and economic context, so some consideration of what this might mean is needed as each of these concepts themselves cover a variety of aspects, and indeed overlap. While papers may talk about the ‘social context’ in which the companies being examined operate, this is not well defined and little consideration is given to what this means. Some things that could be more explicitly considered include, inter alia : the role of the press; the status of women; the legal/justice system; the level of corruption; the level of government control, cultural understandings; and so on. This paper chooses to highlight three of these areas, and these are discussed briefly below in broad terms, followed by a discussion of some specific aspects of each identified as providing fertile grounds for future research.
Assumptions are often made about capitalist systems, whether explicit or implicit, as the vast majority of work on CSR reporting has been done in the Western context. However, there is little research looking at CSR reporting in socialist or communist countries. Some work has been undertaken on China (Dong et al. 2014 ; Gao 2011 ; Situ and Tilt 2012 ), but this work often applies the same conceptual frameworks as Western studies. What about the influence of ideology, and hegemony?
Human beings have “distinctive cultural (learned) characteristics, histories and responses to their environment” and the term ‘sociocultural’ is commonly used in anthropological research to describe these and the “interactions and processes” that this involves (Garbarino 1983 : p1). Some general studies of culture and CSR using Hofstede exist (Silvia and Belen 2013 ), but an in-depth analysis of different understandings and conceptions of terms such as CSR as a result of sociocultural influences is lacking. The work that does examine specific factors often suggests that the Western concept of CSR does not fit these contexts (Wang and Juslin 2009 ).
The majority of work that considers sociocultural factors has looked mainly at religious aspects of CSR, most commonly by reviewing reporting by Islamic organisation, such as Islamic banks (Maali et al. 2006 ; Siwar and Hossain 2009 ; Sudarma et al. 2010 ). The teachings of many religions focus on social responsibility, the relationship with the natural environment, treatment of others, fairness, justice, etc., so there is a natural expectation that religion-based organisations may be more likely to engage in CSR and CSR reporting. A more nuanced consideration of how this manifests itself in different societies would improve understanding of the drivers and motivations of these activities. Similarly, other sociocultural factors, such as national identity, values, social organisation and language, could be incorporated.
The emerging literature on CSR reporting outside the Western world examines countries that are ‘developing’ (Belal and Momin 2009 ; Momin and Parker 2013 ), but little depth is included about where they are in their development journey and how the potential conflict between economic and social goals impacts CSR or CSR reporting. Rostow’s ( 1962 ) Stages of Economic Growth model suggests there are five stages (traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take-off, drive to maturity, and age of high or mass consumption), yet most literature on CSR classifies countries only into developed or developing. The ‘developing’ classification potentially includes countries that are in Rostow’s first, second or third stage which may have an impact on their response to CSR issues. In addition to economic variables however, the United Nations also produces a Human Development Index (HDI) which considers life expectancy, education and income to measure how social, as well as economic, development (UNDP 2015 ). Both these concepts are important for consideration of CSR.
Importantly, consideration of just one or two aspects of these three broader contextual issues may result in misinterpretation of the results. Often these things interact, for example, social issues often cross over with cultural and religious impacts, or even with political influence where the regime is more hegemonic. It is thus important to consider, or at least acknowledge, the holistic nature of the context of the phenomenon being examined.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all of the issues raised here although this would be an important part of a larger research program. Therefore, three particular contextual issues, and three specific contexts, are the focus of this paper: the role of political ideology and hegemony (China); the influence of cultural understandings (Middle East); and the impact of historical economic context (Sri Lanka).
Ideology is a set of common beliefs that are shared by a group of people, and is “the fundamental social beliefs that organize and control the social representations of groups and their members” (Van Dijk 2009 : p78). Countries such as China provide a fertile research setting to examine the influence of ideology, and hegemonic approaches of influencing CSR, which have been missing from most CSR research in the region.
The Chinese political model has some unique characteristics. Among these is the dominance of ‘the party state’, which exercises control in different forms over most aspects of the economy that is unmatched when compared to other state capitalist economies. Political leaders use a variety of tools (Bremmer 2010 ) and it is the combination of three particular tools that sets apart the Chinese system: the exercise of control as a dominant shareholder, the ability to appoint key positions in major firms, and the means to influence decision-making via ideology. First, the party exerts shareholder power over state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Chinese SOEs play an instrumental role in society (Du and Wang 2013 ) and make up around 80 % of the stock market (Economist T 2012 ). As protecting the environment is a major part of the guiding ideology and the nation’s policy, SOEs are likely to be keen to provide CER. Second, the party exercises power over the appointment of the senior leadership in SOEs (Landry 2008 ). This has resulted in control as they are “cadres first and company men second. They care more about pleasing their party bosses than about the global market” (Economist T 2012 : p6). Third, party control is exercised through ideology. The party has cells in most larger firms, whether private or state-owned, which influence business decisions made at board meetings. Given that China considers the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology as crucial this distinguishes it most significantly from other varieties of state capitalism that have a more liberal-democratic flavour.
There is some evidence that the first form of party control has been declining in recent times with the number of SOEs under the SASAC’s control halving over the last decade (Mattlin 2009 ). Similarly, since 1999, the share of SOEs in the economy has declined from 37 % to less than 5 %. This results in greater use of regulation and ideological hegemony to achieve its aims, yet most CSR research still uses state-ownership as a proxy for all types of state control.
Even after economic reform, ideology in China was still pervasive (Lieber 2013 ). Lieber ( 2013 ) argues that ideology is widely used to signal loyalty and the government is good at using ideology to “control and direct key vocabularies… (and) vague ideological language can create a climate of uncertainty thus increasing the range of a control regime” (Lieber 2013 : p346). However, the prevailing ideological themes in China are dynamic. In particular, most recently, new ideological themes have developed to respond to the changes in society. When economic reform began, “building up a socialist market economy with specific Chinese characteristics” was the guiding ideology (Zhang 2012 : p25). As such, economic growth was the country’s priority, but in 2005, “building up a harmonious society became the prevailing ideology” (and CSR is a key element of this resolution).
Ideology is used by the Chinese government to exert control over businesses. Traditionally, the government has “been considered a source of moral authority, official legitimacy and political stability…and …political language has been vested with an intrinsic instrumental value: its control represents the most suitable and effective way first to codify, and then widely convey, the orthodox state ideology” (Marinellin 2012 : p26). The language “developed and used by party officials … consists of ‘correct’ formulation, aims to teach the ‘enlarged masses’ how to speak and, how to think” (Marinellin 2012 : p26). The idea of the importance of a ‘Harmonious Society’ is the “re-contextualized discourse in response to the emergent issues in the changing social stratification order” (Zhang 2012 : p33). As a result, Chinese companies have been noticeably adopting the language of social concern and environmental protection.
It may therefore be suggested that CSR reporting in China is directly a response to the government’s ideological hegemony. However, the story is not as straightforward as it may first appear, for two reasons. First, despite a great deal of commitment to social and environmental regulation in China, implementation of these regulations has been limited. Second, as China enters a phase of continued economic development, Western influences may begin to have a moderating effect on the strength of the ideology.
The Chinese economy has grown rapidly in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) (World Bank 2016 ). The economic reforms that took place over the past decades were motivated substantially by the Chinese central government, and recent scholars have noted the positive role that ideology played in driving those reforms, notwithstanding that economists historically view ideology as “distorting… knowledge, judgment and decision making” (Lieber 2013 : p344).
With economic reform however, has come substantial environmental degradation which in turn has led to poor health outcomes for much of society generally. This led to a high level of commitment to environmental regulation in particular from as early as the 1990, followed by the release of even more rigorous regulations on environmental protection in the 2000s. However, despite the high commitment made by the Chinese central government, implementation of these policies is quite poor (Bina 2010 ). In terms of environmental regulation, for example, the implementation problems stem from a number of areas, including: the position of environmental protection agencies in the political framework; conflict between central and local governments; and supervision issues. The system of supervision of local environmental departments is a key problem (Bina 2010 ). When an environmental department is set up in the central government, corresponding environmental departments are set up in local governments. Ideally, these local departments should be agencies of the central department, deliver the central environmental department’s strategies, and supervise local environmental protection implementation. In reality, the local environmental departments are subservient to the local rather than central governments. All their financial support and staff appointments come from local governments. Therefore, rather than supervising local environmental protection implementation, the local environmental departments become “rubber stamps” for local governments (Zheng 2010 ). Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be efficient enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies at the local level (Bina 2010 ; Zheng 2010 ).
Finally, as China heads towards a market economy, government intervention becomes a policy choice, and markets function as a tool of national interest (Zhao 2011 ). However, as Chinese firms become more involved with foreign trading partners and markets, their reporting activity is also influenced by foreign and global organisations, leading to potential tension between demonstrating commitment to state ideological goals and meeting the requirements of global stakeholders.
Given the complexity of the context, research into CSR reporting in China needs to take into account the specific aspects of Chinese politics and culture in order to provide a nuanced understanding, and ultimately an improvement, of CSR reporting activities. However, a review done of the literature on CSR in by Chinese showed that it is very descriptive with little depth and much of the CSR literature is conceptual, descriptive, or argumentative in nature (Guan and Noronha 2013 ). The authors noted proper research methodologies are not systematically applied in some studies, and supporting theories are lacking. In the non-Chinese studies on China, there is also a predominance of papers on determinants and volume of reporting (Situ and Tilt 2012 ), with very few considering broader contextual factors, other than a few that look at specific cultural attributes (e.g., Rowe & Guthrie 2009 ).
Notwithstanding a move towards a market orientation of many developing countries, such as in China as outlined above, conceptions of CSR by management of companies in these countries may be quite different to those in the West (Wang and Juslin 2009 ). These differing conceptions may be a result of differing values and attitudes, language, religion or identity. Even specific elements of CSR are conceived of differently, for example in China, the main understanding of sustainability is in terms of environmental protection (Situ et al. 2013 , 2015 ). These socioculturally derived understandings are inevitably reflected in their reporting.
In another example, in the Middle East, the predominant perception of CSR is that it simply means philanthropic donations. In this region, the issue of social responsibility is relatively new, and as such the number of studies of CSR and CSR reporting in the Gulf region is growing (Al-Khatar and Naser 2003 ; AlNaimi et al. 2012 ; Emtairah et al. 2009 ; Mandurah et al. 2012 ; Marios and Tor 2007 ; Minnee et al. 2013 ; Nalband and Al-Amri 2013 ; Naser et al. 2006 ; Naser and Hassan 2013 ; Qasim et al. 2011 ; Sangeetha and Pria 2012 ). Many of these studies do not consider the cultural context to a very great extent as the research is emerging and focusses on perceptions. For example, Mandurah et al. ( 2012 ) and Emtairah et al. ( 2009 ) explored managerial perceptions of the concept of CSR in Saudi Arabia and found that managers are aware of the concept, but there is little connection between the managerial level perceptions and firms’ workforce. The authors describe CSR as being in its infancy phase, which limits the understanding of the concept to the view that CSR simply means being philanthropic. This indicates a different, and perhaps less developed, understanding of the concept in the region compared with the West, but the reasons for this, and the consequences for CSR reporting, are under-explored. Some authors suggest the narrow use of the term is because of the religious obligations towards society, (Visser 2008 ). There is only minimal evidence of any CSR practices other than philanthropy-based or any strategic approaches to CSR for long-term benefits (Visser 2008 ), but the trend is increasing and the forms that philanthropy takes is expanding.
It has also been argued that politics plays a significant role in increasing the awareness of CSR in the Arab world. Avina ( 2013 ) suggests that the perception of CSR in the Middle East changed after the Arab spring event, for both local and international firms. The term CSR more than a decade ago had little meaning to the public (Visser 2008 ) but since the Arab spring, the sense of social responsibility among civil society and the corporate sector has increased Avina 2013 ). Firms realised that they play a role in social responsibility, not just governments, and recognised that CSR should go beyond just donations to charitable causes (Avina 2013 ). Ronnegard ( 2013 ), however, predicts that CSR in the Middle East will not mimic the Western concept because of the strong influence of culture and religion in the region. Moreover, the influence of stakeholders in the Middle East is considered to be limited due to there being a lack of free press, few lobby groups and the different cultural attributes of employees and consumers. Some studies in Gulf countries have however, suggested that stakeholders, such as government and charitable organisations, may have an impact on firms’ behaviour (Emtairah et al. 2009 ; Naser et al. 2006 ). Others suggest that CSR may have developed as a concept due to the increase of foreign direct investment into Arab countries, the trend of shifting family and government owned firms into the public domain, and the globalisation of the region’s large national firms.
From the limited studies that have been undertaken, there is evidence of CSR reporting by Gulf country companies, with human resources and community involvement being the dominant themes in may reports Abu-Baker and Naser 2000 ). Thus, understanding of motivations for CSR reporting is not yet well developed and few existing studies consider the different level of stakeholder pressure in the region. This suggests that more research is needed on the formation of notions of CSR within specific contexts. This region is of particular interest because, according to the Human Development Report (HDI 2013 ), countries in the region are classified as high, or very high, in human development. That is, they are not only trying to develop and improve their economy, but are also trying to improve the quality of life of their citizens (Ramady 2010 ). The overall outlook of these countries indicates that they are performing well, however, Fadaak ( 2010 ) notes that identifying poverty lines is a challenge because of a lack of a clear definition of poverty in the region. There are no official reports considering poverty or other social problems and no GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries were found in the list of the World Bank Database in relation to the poverty rate.
Similarly, in other developing countries the importance of local economic, cultural, and religious factors that shape the business environment, and understandings of charity and philanthropy, need to be taken into account. Empirical work in this area is lacking (Lund-Thomsen et al. 2016 ). In Sri Lanka, for example, “the most common arguments used to ‘sell’ the business case for CSR and CP [Corporate Philanthropy], for example an improved brand image, increased market or customer share, employee retention, mitigated regulatory risks, and reduced tax burden, are considered mostly irrelevant” (Global Insights 2013 : p1). Business leaders engage in CSR for a range of business, humanitarian, social, religious, and political reasons. Key amongst them is a belief that ‘giving back’ to society discharges religious obligations to the poor, and an awareness that being seen to contribute to national development goals is important (Global Insights 2013 ). Hence, the conception of CSR in this region is culturally determined, but also shaped by the economic environment.
As well as government control, culture and political factors, the stage of economic development a country is in is also an important contextual factor that may impact CSR reporting. In China, as discussed above, the drive for economic reform led directly to environmental impacts which needed to be addressed. A number of other developing countries have been examined for their reporting on CSR issues, particularly from the Asian region (Andrew et al. 1989 ; Elijido-Ten et al. 2010 ), India (Mishra and Suar 2010 ; Raman 2006 ; Sahay 2004 ), and Bangladesh (Belal and Owen 2007 ; Belal and Roberts 2010 ; Khan 2010 ; Muttakin et al. 2015 ).
While these countries are classified as developing (IMF 2015 ), Bangladesh and India score only medium for human development. Another country in the region, Sri Lanka, has a high rating on the HDI, and has been exhibiting extensive growth since the end of a 30-year war (WPR 2015 ). Thus, exhibiting both economic and social growth aspects makes it an interesting case for studying CSR.
Sri Lanka has a population of over 20 million and foreign companies have increased their investments with one billion US dollars in direct foreign investments in 2013 alone ( BOI ). Classified as a middle income developing country, the challenge for Sri Lanka is to achieve high economic growth without causing irreversible damage to the environment and while continuing to eliminating social issues such as poverty, malnutrition and poor workplace ethics (Goger 2013 ). In addition, Sri Lanka also has a long history of corporate philanthropy, largely led by individuals whose values and actions stem from religious and cultural views (Beddewela and Herzig 2013 ) but has recently seen an increase in private firms offering development-related initiatives. Public infrastructure projects have been the main element of post-war economic planning, but there still remains rural poverty in the country. Thus, the primary motivation for CSR and philanthropy in Sri Lanka is poverty reduction, particularly for children and youth, social welfare organisations like orphanages and elderly homes, hospitals and health services, and veterans’ charities (Global Insights 2013 ). Thus, the economic, cultural, and political context means that these poverty rates have fallen (data indicates that the rate went from approximately 20 % in 2000 to under 9 % in 2013) and that inflation has slowed (Wijesinha 2014 ), so opportunities for private businesses to contribute to infrastructure abound. However, these private, development-orientated, CSR initiatives have often failed to deliver their aims and there is considered to be a danger that they may in fact perpetuate the causes of poverty and ethnic and religious conflict given their ties to particular ethnic groups (Global Insights 2013 ).
Notwithstanding this environment, the topic of CSR reporting in Sri Lanka has received relatively little research attention compared to other parts of the world (see Belal and Momin 2009 , for a review). In terms of motivations for CSR, there is some evidence that firms in which senior management have a positive outlook towards social and environmental practices tend to disclose more on these aspects, as compared to other firms (Fernando and Pandey 2012 ). However, reporting on CSR initiatives is not mandatory thus it is likely that any voluntary reporting by Sri Lankan firms will vary significantly. One study of reporting was conducted by Senaratne and Liyanagedara ( 2012 ) who examined the level of compliance with Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines in the disclosures of publicly listed companies, selected from seven business sectors. The authors conclude that the level of compliance with the GRI is low and that disclosures vary significantly amongst the companies, potentially reflecting varying commitment to CSR. Similarly, a longitudinal study across five years (2005–2010) was carried out by Wijesinghe ( 2012 ) to identify trends in CSR reporting in Sri Lanka and the study identified an increasingly positive trend, predicting similar levels of disclosures provided by companies in developed countries. The few studies that have been conducted examining the predominance of reporting in Sri Lanka, mostly examining multinational companies, conclude that CSR reporting is gaining momentum in Sri Lanka but is still emerging as the concept of CSR itself emerges (Beddewela and Herzig 2012 ; Hunter and Van Wassenhove 2011 ).
As more and more research on CSR in developing countries emerges in the academic literature, it is important to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the context in which the research takes place. Examination of CSR and CSR reporting practices without contextualisation could perpetuate flawed understandings that are based on evidence from research in the developed world. Different political, social, cultural and economic environments impact on the both the development of, and reporting of, CSR activities and consequently impact on the value of these activities to benefit society and the natural environment.
A suggested agenda for future research, that considers context in more depth, includes:
Consideration of ideological and hegemonic regimes and their attitude towards CSR. This research would consider potential positive and negative impacts of the political and governance system. In China, for example, the potential for Communist Party ideology to increase environmental protection and improve social conditions is vast, and is starting to be seen to have a strong impact on firm behaviour. Examination of this over time will provide an important contribution to understanding the role of government beyond the more common analysis of environmental protection regulation.
Greater examination of sociocultural variables in different countries, beyond analysis of religious influence, and beyond the use of Hofstede. Understandings of concepts such as CSR in countries in Asia, the Middle East and the Asian sub-continent, are known to differ from those in the West, so understanding their potential to lead to better (worse) CSR outcomes is important. The variety of variables that could be included is vast, but some clearly important issues include: language, secularism, freedom of the press, access to information, homogeneity of values and attitudes, and the existence of a national figurehead or identity.
Longitudinal examination of the process of economic development. Countries where the economy is developing rapidly, such as China and the Middle East; and countries where the historical economic context differs dramatically, such as in Sri Lanka where the need for development is borne out of conflict, provide rich backgrounds to consider how CSR is developing alongside economic developments.
A comprehensive framework for examining these, and other, potential factors that influence CSR and CSR reporting in developing countries does not exist, but Table 1 attempts to provide a preliminary outline of some factors that could comprise such a framework, and be used to guide future research. As mentioned earlier, it is important to note, however, that these variables are not discreet and are likely to interact with each other. This is noted in the table as a reminder that the classifications are somewhat artificial and that acknowledgement of a more holistic consideration is important.
These are clearly only a selection of opportunities for CSR research on developing nations and emerging economies. Calls for more work on these factors have continued since Adams’ ( 2002 ) original call, but there is still vast scope to improve our understanding of CSR practice throughout the world (Fifka 2013 ), where much of the social and environmental damage is taking place.
Importantly, research of this kind must be transdisciplinary as perspectives from areas such as political science, philosophy and economics are essential. Only with in-depth, contextualised understandings can improvements to the nature of CSR activity be implemented.
Abu-Baker, N., & Naser, K. (2000). Empirical evidence on corporate social disclosure (CSD) practices in Jordan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 10 (3/4), 18–34.
Article Google Scholar
Adams, C. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: beyond current theorising. Accounting Auditing Account Journal, 15 (2), 223–50.
Al-Khatar, K., & Naser, K. (2003). User’s perceptions of corporate social responsibility and accountability: evidence from an emerging economy. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18 (6/7), 538–48.
AlNaimi, H. A., Mohammed, H., & Momin, M. A. (2012). Corporate social responsibility reporting in Qatar: a descriptive analysis. Social Responsibility Journal, 8 (4), 511–26.
Andrew, B. H., Gul, F. A., Guthrie, J., & Teoh, H. Y. (1989). A note of corporate social disclosure practices in developing countries: the case of Malaysia and Singapore. The British Accounting Review, 21 (01), 371–76.
Avina, J. (2013). The evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Arab Spring. The Middle East Journal, 67 (1), 77–92.
Beddewela, E., Herzig, C. (2012). Corporate social reporting by mncs’ subsidiaries in Sri Lanka. Paper presented at Accounting Forum.
Beddewela, E., & Herzig, C. (2013). Corporate social reporting by MNCs’ subsidiaries in Sri Lanka. Accounting Forum, 37 (2), 135–49.
Belal, A., & Momin, M. (2009). Corporate social reporting in emerging economies: a review and future direction. Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies, 9 , 119–45.
Google Scholar
Belal, A. R., & Owen, D. L. (2007). The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh: an engagement-based study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20 (3), 472–94.
Belal, A. R., & Roberts, R. W. (2010). ‘Stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate social reporting in Bangladesh. Journal of Business Ethics, 97 (2), 311–11-24.
Bina, O. (2010). Environmental governance in China: weakness and potential from an environmental policy integration perspective*. The China Review, 10 (1), 207–40.
BOI. Why Sri Lanka Now?. http://www.investsrilanka.com/ : Board of investment of Sri Lanka. nd. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
Bremmer, I. (2010). The end of the free market: who wins the war between states and corporations. European View, 9 (2), 249–52.
Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23 (7), 829–46.
Deegan, C. (2009). Extended systems of accounting - the incorporation of social and environmental factors within external reporting. In Financial accounting theory (pp. 378–425). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Dong, S., Burritt, R., & Qian, W. (2014). Salient stakeholders in corporate social responsibility reporting by Chinese mining and minerals companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84 , 59–69.
Du, J., Wang, Y. (2013). Reforming SOEs under China’s State Capitalism, Unfinished Reforms in the Chinese Economy . p. 1–38.
Economist, T. (2012). State capitalism , The economist . p. 1–14.
Elijido-Ten, E., Kloot, L., & Clarkson, P. (2010). Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: An exploratory study from a developing country. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23 (8), 1032–59.
Emtairah, T., Al-Ashaikh, A., & Al-Badr, A. (2009). Contexts and corporate social responsibility: the case of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 1 (4), 325–46.
Fadaak, T. (2010). Poverty in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: an exploratory study of poverty and female-headed households in Jeddah City. Social Policy and Administration, 44 (6), 689–707.
Fernando, A., & Pandey, I. (2012). Corporate social responsibility reporting: a survey of listed Sri Lankan companies. Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 6 (2), 172–87.
Fifka, M. S. (2013). Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective – a review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22 (1), 1–35.
Frost, G., Jones, S., Loftus, J., & Van Der Laan, S. (2005). A survey of sustainability reporting practices of Australian reporting entities. Australian Accounting Review, 15 (1), 89–96.
Gao, Y. (2011). CSR in an emerging country: a content analysis of CSR reports of listed companies. Baltic Journal of Management, 6 (2), 263–91.
Garbarino, M. S. (1983). Sociocultural theory in anthropology. A short history . Long Grove: Waveland Press Inc.
Global Insights. Corporate responsibility, philanthropy and development, Policy Brief 08, 2016:13 January. 2013. [online at https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=corporate-responsibility-and-development-global-insights-08-web.pdf&site=11 ].
Goger, A. (2013). The making of a ‘business case’ for environmental upgrading: Sri Lanka’s eco-factories. Geoforum, 47 , 73–83.
Gray, R. (2006). Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour?: Wrong question? Right time? Accounting and Business Research, 36 (sup1), 65–88.
Guan, J., & Noronha, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility reporting research in the Chinese academia: a critical review. Social Responsibility Journal, 9 (1), 35–55.
Gurvitsh, N., & Sidorova, I. (2012). Environmental and social accounting disclosures as a vital component of sustainability reporting integrated into annual reports of the Baltic companies for the Years 2007–2011: Based on companies listed on NASDAQ OMX Baltic Main List as of June 2012. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 2 (1), 38–44.
HDI. Human Development Report 2013. United Nations Development Programm; 2013. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2013_EN_complete.pdf
Hunter, M. L., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2011). Hayleys PLC: corporate responsibility as stakeholder relations. The Journal of Management Development, 30 (10), 968–84.
IMF. (2015). World economic outlook, April 2015 . Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Khan, M. H. U. Z. (2010). The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: Empirical evidence from private commercial banks of Bangladesh. International Journal of Law and Management, 52 (2), 82–109.
Landry, P. F. (2008). Decentralized authoritarianism in China . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Lieber, A. (2013). The Chinese ideology: reconciling the politics with the economics of contemporary reform. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 18 (4), 335–53.
Lund-Thomsen, P., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2016). Industrial clusters and corporate social responsibility in developing countries: what we know, what we do not know, and what we need to know. Journal of Business Ethics, 133 (1), 9–24.
Maali, B., Casson, P., & Napier, C. (2006). Social reporting by islamic banks. Abacus, 42 (2), 266–89.
Mandurah, S., Khatib, J., & Al-Sabaan, S. (2012). Corporate social responsibility among Saudi Arabian Firms: an empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 28 (5), 1049–57.
Marinellin, M. (2012). Disembodied Words: The Ritualistic quality of political discourse in the era of Jiang Zemin. In P. Chilton, H. Tian, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Discourse and Socio-political Transformations in Contemporary China . Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Marios, I. K., & Tor, B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: an exploratory study in the United Arab Emirates. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 72 (4), 9–20,2.
Mathews, M. R. (1997). Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research - Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10 (4), 481–531.
Mattlin, M. (2009). Chinese Strategic state-owned enterprises and ownership control. BICCS Asia Paper, 4 (6), 1–28.
Minnee, F., Shanka, T., Taylor, R., & Handley, B. (2013). Exploring corporate responsibility in Oman – social expectations and practice. Social Responsibility Journal, 9 (2), 326–39.
Mishra, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95 (4), 571–601.
Momin, M. A., & Parker, L. D. (2013). Motivations for corporate social responsibility reporting by MNC subsidiaries in an emerging country: The case of Bangladesh. The British Accounting Review, 45 (3), 215–28.
Morhardt, J. E. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the internet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19 , 436–52.
Muttakin, M. B., Khan, A., & Subramaniam, N. (2015). Firm characteristics, board diversity and corporate social responsibility: evidence from Bangladesh. Pacific Accounting Review, 27 (3), 353–72.
Nalband, N. A., & Al-Amri, M. S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility–perception, practices and performance of listed companies of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Business Journal incorporating Journal of Global Competitiveness, 23 (3), 5–5.
Naser, K., Al-Hussaini, A., Al-Kwari, D., & Nuseibeh, R. (2006). Determinants of corporate social disclosure in developing countries: the case of Qatar. Advances in International Accounting, 19 (6), 1–23.
Naser, K., & Hassan, Y. (2013). Determinants of corporate social responsibility reporting: evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business Research, 3 (2), 56–74.
Othman, R., & Ameer, R. (2009). Corporate social and environmental reporting: Where are we heading? A survey of the literature. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 6 (4), 298–320.
Patten, D. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: a research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27 (8), 763–73.
Qasim, Z., Muralidharan, P., Ramaswamy, G. 2011. Corporate social responsibility and impact of CSR Practices in the United Arab Emirates. Paper presented at International Conference on Technology and Business Management March.
Ramady, M. A. (2010). The Saudi Arabian economy: policies, achievements and challenges . New York: Springer.
Raman, S. R. (2006). Corporate social reporting in India—a view from the top. Global Business Review, 7 (2), 313–24.
Ronnegard, D. (2013). CSR in Saudi Arabia: Far behind or another path? Fountainebleau: INSEAD.
Rostow, W. W. (1962). The stages of economic growth . London: Cambridge University Press.
Rowe, A. L., & Guthrie, J. (2009). 'Institutional Cultural Norms of Chinese Corporate Environmental Reporting.' Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference . Austria: University Innsbruck.
Sahay, A. (2004). Environmental reporting by Indian corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11 (1), 12–22.
Sangeetha, K., & Pria, S. (2012). Resources affecting banks’ CSR in sultanate of Oman: a stakeholders’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 17 (1), 31–40.
Senaratne, S., Liyanagedara, K. (2012). Corporate sustainability reporting in Sri Lanka . Paper presented at International Conference on Business Management.
Silvia, R., & Belen, F.-F. (2013). Effect of Hofstede’s cultural differences in corporate social responsibility disclosure. International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change (IJISSC), 4 (1), 68–84.
Situ, H., & Tilt, C. A. (2012). Chinese government as a determinant of corporate environmental reporting: a study of large Chinese listed companies. Journal of the Asia Pacific Centre for Environmental Accountability, 18 (4), 251–86.
Situ, H., Tilt, C. A., Seet, P. S., & Max, S. (2013). Understanding the impact of Chinese government and other stakeholders on Corporate Environmental Reporting in China . Kobe, Japan: 7th Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference (APIRA). Available at: http://www.apira2013.org/proceedings/ .
Situ, H., Tilt, CA., Seet, PS. (2015). Corporate Environmental Reporting (CER) in China: A Stakeholder Perspective . Paper presented at Australasian Conference on Social and Environmental Accounting Research.
Siwar, C., & Hossain, M. (2009). An analysis of Islamic CSR concept and the opinions of Malaysian managers. Management of Environmental Quality, 20 (3), 290–98.
Sudarma, M., Triyuwono, I., Ludigdo, U., Meutia, I. (2010). Qualitative approach to build the concept of social responsibility disclosures based on Shari’ah Enterprise Theory.
Sumiani, Y., Haslinda, Y., & Lehman, G. (2007). Environmental reporting in a developing country: a case study on status and implementation in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (10), 895–901.
Tilt, C. A. (2001). The content and disclosure of Australian corporate environmental policies. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14 (2), 190–212.
UNDP. Human Development Report (DHR). 2015. [online at http://hdr.undp.org/en ]. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
United Nations, D. o. E. a. S. A. Population Trends. 2013. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/trends/index.shtml : United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: A Sociocognitive Approach. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62–86). Los Angeles: SAGE Publication Ltd.
Visser, W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries . The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. p. 473–79
Wang, L., & Juslin, H. (2009). The impact of Chinese culture on corporate social responsibility: the harmony approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 , 433–51.
Wijesinghe, KN. (2012). Current context of disclosure of corporate social responsibility in Sri Lanka.
World Bank. Macroeconomics & Economic Growth in South Asia. nd. http://go.worldbank.org/6GS5XVH1O0 . Accessed 5 Feb 2016.
Wijesinha A. 'Can Sri Lanka build a prosperous post-war future?', 2014; [online at http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/06/10/can-sri-lanka-build-a-prosperous-post-warfuture/ ]. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
WPR 2015. Sri Lanka Population 2015. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/sri-lanka-population/ : World Population Review. Accessed 20 Jan 2016.
Zhang, Q. (2012). The discursive construction of the social stratification order in reforming China. In P. Chilton, H. Tian, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Discourse and socio-political transformations in Contemporary China (pp. 19–37). Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Chapter Google Scholar
Zhao J. Funding energy industry: International Finance Corporation invest in Chinese Green Energy (为能源业提供融资动力:国际金融公司投资中国绿色能源), China WTO Tribune. 2011. p. 10.
Zheng, Y. (2010). China model: experience and dilemma (中国模式:经验与困局) . Zhengzhou, China: Zhengzhou People Publishing House.
Download references
It is important to acknowledge that this paper provides an overview of a larger research program currently being undertaken by a team of doctoral students at Flinders University and the University of South Australia. Credit must be given to Ms Hui Situ (Flinders University) who is researching environmental reporting in China, Mr Abdullah Silawi (Flinders University) who is researching social responsibility reporting in the Gulf region, and Ms Dinithi Dissanayake (University of SA), who is researching environmental disclosure in Sri Lanka.
Authors and affiliations.
School of Commerce, University of South Australia Business School, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia
Carol A. Tilt
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Carol A. Tilt .
Competing interests.
The author declares that she has no competing interests.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided 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.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Tilt, C.A. Corporate social responsibility research: the importance of context. Int J Corporate Soc Responsibility 1 , 2 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0003-7
Download citation
Received : 14 March 2016
Accepted : 18 May 2016
Published : 05 July 2016
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0003-7
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
Despite the widely accepted ideal of “shared value,” research led by Harvard Business School’s Kasturi Rangan suggests that this is not the norm—and that’s OK. Most companies practice a multifaceted version of CSR that spans theaters ranging from pure philanthropy to environmental sustainability to the explicitly strategic. To maximize their impact, companies must ensure that initiatives in the various theaters form a unified platform. Four steps can help them do so:
Pruning and aligning programs within theaters. Companies must examine their existing programs in each theater, reducing or eliminating those that do not address an important social or environmental problem in keeping with the firm’s business purpose and values.
Developing metrics to gauge performance. Just as the goals of programs vary from theater to theater, so do the definitions of success.
Coordinating programs across theaters. This does not mean that all initiatives necessarily address the same problem; it means that they are mutually reinforcing and form a cogent whole.
Developing an interdisciplinary CSR strategy. The range of purposes underlying initiatives in different theaters and the variation in how those initiatives are managed pose major barriers for many firms. Strategy development can be top-down or bottom-up, but ongoing communication is key.
These practices have helped companies including PNC Bank, IKEA, and Ambuja Cements bring discipline and coherence to their CSR portfolios.
Most of these programs aren’t strategic—and that’s OK.
The problem.
Many companies’ CSR initiatives are disparate and uncoordinated, run by a variety of managers without the active engagement of the CEO. Such firms cannot maximize their positive impact on the social and environmental systems in which they operate.
Firms must develop coherent CSR strategies, with activities typically divided among three theaters of practice. Theater one focuses on philanthropy, theater two on improving operational effectiveness, and theater three on transforming the business model to create shared value.
Companies must prune existing programs in each theater to align them with the firm’s purpose and values; develop ways of measuring initiatives’ success; coordinate programs across theaters; and create an interdisciplinary management team to drive CSR strategy.
Most companies have long practiced some form of corporate social and environmental responsibility with the broad goal, simply, of contributing to the well-being of the communities and society they affect and on which they depend. But there is increasing pressure to dress up CSR as a business discipline and demand that every initiative deliver business results. That is asking too much of CSR and distracts from what must be its main goal: to align a company’s social and environmental activities with its business purpose and values. If in doing so CSR activities mitigate risks, enhance reputation, and contribute to business results, that is all to the good. But for many CSR programs, those outcomes should be a spillover, not their reason for being. This article explains why firms must refocus their CSR activities on this fundamental goal and provides a systematic process for bringing coherence and discipline to CSR strategies.
Since the acronym “ESG” (environmental, social, and governance) was coined in 2005, and until recently, its fortunes were steadily growing. To take one example, there has been a fivefold growth in internet searches for ESG since 2019, even as searches for “CSR” (corporate social responsibility)—an earlier area of focus more reflective of corporate engagement than changes to a core business model—have declined. Across industries, geographies, and company sizes, organizations have been allocating more resources toward improving ESG. More than 90 percent of S&P 500 companies now publish ESG reports in some form, as do approximately 70 percent of Russell 1000 companies. 1 Sustainability reporting in focus , G&A Institute, 2021. In a number of jurisdictions, reporting ESG elements is either mandatory or under active consideration. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is considering new rules that would require more detailed disclosure of climate-related risks and greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. 2 Release Nos. 33-11042, 34-94478, File No. S7-10-22, US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), March 21, 2022. The proposed rule would not come into effect until fiscal year 2023 and could face legal challenges; “We are not the Securities and Environment Commission—At least not yet,” statement of Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, SEC, March 21, 2022; Dan Papscun, “SEC’s climate proposal tees up test of ‘material’ info standard,” Bloomberg Law, March 23, 2022. Additional SEC regulations on other facets of ESG have also been proposed or are pending. 3 See “SEC response to climate and ESG risks and opportunities,” SEC, modified April 11, 2022; “SEC proposes to enhance disclosures by certain investment advisers and investment companies about ESG investment practices,” SEC press release, May 25, 2022.
The rising profile of ESG has also been plainly evident in investments, even while the rate of new investments has recently been falling. Inflows into sustainable funds, for example, rose from $5 billion in 2018 to more than $50 billion in 2020—and then to nearly $70 billion in 2021; these funds gained $87 billion of net new money in the first quarter of 2022, followed by $33 billion in the second quarter. 4 “Global Sustainable Fund Flows: Q2 2022 in Review,” Morningstar Manager Research, July 28, 2022; Cathy Curtis, “Op-ed: While green investments are underperforming, investors need to remain patient,” CNBC, March 28, 2022. Midway through 2022, global sustainable assets are about $2.5 trillion. This represents a 13.3 percent fall from the end of Q1 2022 but is less than the 14.6 percent decline over the same period for the broader market. 5 “Global Sustainable Fund Flows: Q2 2022 in Review,” Morningstar Manager Research, July 28, 2022; Cathy Curtis, “Op-ed: While green investments are underperforming, investors need to remain patient,” CNBC, March 28, 2022.
A major part of ESG growth has been driven by the environmental component of ESG and responses to climate change. But other components of ESG, in particular the social dimension, have also been gaining prominence. One analysis found that social-related shareholder proposals rose 37 percent in the 2021 proxy season compared with the previous year. 6 Richard Vanderford, “Shareholder voices poised to grow louder with SEC’s help,” Wall Street Journal , February 11, 2022.
In the wake of the war in Ukraine and the ensuing human tragedy, as well as the cumulative geopolitical, economic, and societal effects, critics have argued that the importance of ESG has peaked. 7 Simon Jessop and Patturaja Murugaboopathy, “Demand for sustainable funds wanes as Ukraine war puts focus on oil and gas,” Reuters, March 17, 2022; Peggy Hollinger, “Ukraine war prompts investor rethink of ESG and the defence sector,” Financial Times , March 9, 2022. Attention, they contend, will shift increasingly to the more foundational elements of a Maslow-type hierarchy of public- and private-sector needs, 8 Bérengère Sim, “Ukraine war ‘bankrupts’ ESG case, says BlackRock’s former sustainable investing boss,” Financial News , March 14, 2022. and in the future, today’s preoccupation with ESG may be remembered as merely a fad and go the way of similar acronyms that have been used in the past. 9 Charles Gasparino, “Russian invasion sheds light on hypocrisy of Gary Gensler, woke investment,” New York Post , March 5, 2022; James Mackintosh, “Why the sustainable investment craze is flawed,” Wall Street Journal , January 23, 2022; David L. Bahnsen, “Praying that ESG goes MIA,” National Review , March 17, 2022. Others have argued that ESG represents an odd and unstable combination of elements and that attention should be only focused on environmental sustainability. 10 See, for example, “ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions,” Economist , July 21, 2022. In parallel, challenges to the integrity of ESG investing have been multiplying. While some of these arguments have also been directed to policy makers, analysts, and investment funds, the analysis presented in this article (and in the accompanying piece “ How to make ESG real ”) is focused at the level of the individual company. In other words: Does ESG really matter to companies ? What is the business-grounded, strategic rationale?
Criticisms of ESG are not new. As ESG has gone mainstream and gained support and traction, it has consistently encountered doubt and criticism as well. The main objections fall into four main categories.
Perhaps the most prominent objection to ESG has been that it gets in the way of what critics see as the substance of what businesses are supposed to do: “make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society,” as Milton Friedman phrased it more than a half-century ago.” 11 Milton Friedman, “The social responsibility of business to increase its profits,” New York Times Magazine , September 13, 1970. Viewed in this perspective, ESG can be presented as something of a sideshow—a public-relations move, or even a means to cash in on the higher motives of customers, investors, or employees. ESG is something “good for the brand” but not foundational to company strategy. It is additive and occasional. ESG ratings and score provider MSCI, for example, found that nearly 60 percent of “say on climate” votes 12 Say-on-climate votes are generally nonbinding resolutions submitted to shareholders (similar to “say-on-pay” resolutions), which seek shareholder backing for emissions reductions initiatives. See, for example, John Galloway, “Vanguard insights on evaluating say on climate proposals,” Harvard Law School Forum of Corporate Governance, June 14, 2021. in 2021 were only one-time events; fewer than one in four of these votes were scheduled to have annual follow-ups. 13 “Say on climate: Investor distraction or climate action?,” blog post by Florian Sommer and Harlan Tufford, MSCI, February 15, 2022. Other critics have cast ESG efforts as “greenwashing,” “purpose washing,” 14 Laurie Hays, et al., “Why ESG can no longer be a PR exercise,” Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, January 20, 2021. or “woke washing.” 15 See Owen Jones, “Woke-washing: How brands are cashing in on the culture wars,” Guardian , May 23, 2019; Vivek Ramaswamy, Woke Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam , New York, NY: Hachette Book Group, 2021. One Edelman survey, for example, reported that nearly three out of four institutional investors do not trust companies to achieve their stated sustainability, ESG, or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commitments. 16 Special report: Institutional investors , Edelman Trust Barometer, 2021.
A second critique of ESG is that, beyond meeting the technical requirements of each of the E, S, and G components, striking the balance required to implement ESG in a way that resonates among multiple stakeholders is simply too hard. When solving for a financial return, the objective is clear: to maximize value for the corporation and its shareholders. But what if the remit is broader and the feasible solutions vastly more complex? Solving for multiple stakeholders can be fraught with trade-offs and may even be impossible. To whom should a manager pay the incremental ESG dollar? To the customer, by way of lower prices? To the employees, through increased benefits or higher wages? To suppliers? Toward environmental issues, perhaps by means of an internal carbon tax? An optimal choice is not always clear. And even if such a choice existed, it is not certain that a company would have a clear mandate from its shareholders to make it.
A third objection is that ESG, particularly as reflected in ESG scores, cannot be accurately measured. While individual E, S, and G dimensions can be assessed if the required, auditable data are captured, some critics argue that aggregate ESG scores have little meaning. The deficiency is further compounded by differences of weighting and methodology across ESG ratings and scores providers. For example, while credit scores of S&P and Moody’s correlated at 99 percent, ESG scores across six of the most prominent ESG ratings and scores providers correlate on average by only 54 percent and range from 38 percent to 71 percent. 17 Florian Berg, Julian Kölbel, and Roberto Rigobon, “Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings,” Review of Finance , forthcoming, updated April 26, 2022. Moreover, organizations such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) can measure the same phenomena differently; for example, GRI considers employee training, in part, by amounts invested in training, while SASB measures by training hours. It is to be expected, therefore, that different ratings and scores providers—which incorporate their own analyses and weightings—would provide diverging scores. Moreover, major investors often use their own proprietary methodologies that draw from a variety of inputs (including ESG scores), which these investors have honed over the years.
The fourth objection to ESG is that positive correlations with outperformance, when they exist, could be explained by other factors and, in any event, are not causative. It would indeed challenge reason if ESG ratings across ratings and scores providers, measuring different industries, using distinct methodologies, weighting metrics differently, and examining a range of companies that operate in various geographies, all produced a near-identical score that almost perfectly matched company performance. Correlations with performance could be explained by multiple factors (for example, industry headwinds or tailwinds) and are subject to change. 18 See, for example, James Mackintosh, “Credit Suisse shows flaws of trying to quantify ESG risks,” Wall Street Journal , January 17, 2022. Several studies have questioned any causal link between ESG performance and financial performance. 19 See, for example, Chart of the Week , “Does ESG outperform? It’s a challenging question to answer,” blog post by Raymond Fu, Penn Mutual, September 23, 2021; Gregor Dorfleitner and Gerhard Halbritter, “The wages of social responsibility—where are they? A critical review of ESG investing,” Review of Financial Economics , Volume 26, Issue 1, September 2015. While, according to a recent metastudy, the majority of ESG-focused investment funds do outperform the broader market, 20 Ulrich Atz, Casey Clark, and Tensie Whelan, ESG and financial performance: Uncovering the relationship by aggregating evidence from 1,000 plus studies published between 2015 – 2020 , NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business, 2021. some ESG funds do not, and even those companies and funds that have outperformed could well have an alternative explanation for their outperformance. (For example, technology and asset-light companies are often among broader market leaders in ESG ratings; because they have a relatively low carbon footprint, they tend to merit higher ESG scores.) The director of one recent study 21 Giovanni Bruno, Mikheil Esakia, and Felix Goltz, “‘Honey, I shrunk the ESG alpha’: Risk-adjusting ESG portfolio returns,” Journal of Investing , April 2022. proclaimed starkly: “There is no ESG alpha.” 22 Steve Johnson, “ESG outperformance narrative ‘is flawed,’ new research shows,” Financial Times , May 3, 2021.
In addition to these four objections, recent events and roiled markets have led some to call into question the applicability of ESG ratings at this point. 23 See James Mackintosh, “War in Ukraine reveals flaws in sustainable investing,” Wall Street Journal , March 27, 2022. It is true that the recognized, pressing need to strengthen energy security in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine may lead to more fossil-fuel extraction and usage in the immediate term, and the global collaboration required for a more orderly net-zero transition may be jeopardized by the war and its aftermath. It is also likely that patience for what may be called “performative ESG,” as opposed to what may be called true ESG, will likely wear thin. True ESG is consistent with a judicious, well-considered strategy that advances a company’s purpose and business model (exhibit).
Yet, many companies today are making major decisions, such as discontinuing operations in Russia, protecting employees in at-risk countries, organizing relief to an unprecedented degree, and doing so in response to societal concerns. They also continue to commit to science-based targets and to define and execute plans for realizing these commitments. That indicates that ESG considerations are becoming more —not less—important in companies’ decision making.
The fundamental issue that underlies each of the four ESG critiques is a failure to take adequate account of social license—that is, the perception by stakeholders that a business or industry is acting in a way that is fair, appropriate, and deserving of trust. 24 “‘Corporate diplomacy’: Why firms need to build ties with external stakeholders,” Knowledge at Wharton , May 5, 2014; and Witold J. Henisz, Corporate Diplomacy: Building Reputations and Relationships with External Stakeholders , first edition, London, UK: Routledge, 2014; see also Robert G. Boutilier, “Frequently asked questions about the social license to operate,” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , Volume 32, Issue 4, 2014. It has become dogma to state that businesses exist to create value in the long term. If a business does something to destroy value (for example, misallocating resources on “virtue signaling,” or trying to measure with precision what can only be imperfectly estimated, at least to date, through external scores), we would expect that criticisms of ESG could resonate, particularly when one is applying a long-term, value-creating lens.
But what some critics overlook is that a precondition for sustaining long-term value is to manage, and address, massive, paradigm-shifting externalities . Companies can conduct their operations in a seemingly rational way, aspire to deliver returns quarter to quarter, and determine their strategy over a span of five or more years. But if they assume that the base case does not include externalities or the erosion of social license by failing to take externalities into account, their forecasts—and indeed, their core strategies—may not be achievable at all. Amid a thicket of metrics, estimates, targets, and benchmarks, managers can miss the very point of why they are measuring in the first place: to ensure that their business endures, with societal support, in a sustainable, environmentally viable way.
Among the most sharply debated questions about environmental, social, and governance (ESG) is the extent to which ESG, as measured by ratings, can offer meaningful insights about future financial or TSR performance—particularly when ratings and scores providers use different, and sometimes mutually inconsistent, methodologies. A number of studies find a positive relationship between ESG ratings and financial performance. 1 Florian Berg, Julian Kölbel, and Roberto Rigobon, “Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings,” Review of Finance, forthcoming, updated April 2022; Ulrich Atz, Casey Clark, and Tensie Whelan, ESG and financial performance: Uncovering the relationship by aggregating evidence from 1,000 plus studies published between 2015–2020 , NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business, 2021. Other research suggests that while scoring well in ESG does not destroy financial value, the relationship between ESG ratings at any given time, and value creation at the identical time, can be tenuous or nonexistent. 2 See Chart of the Week , “Does ESG outperform? It’s a challenging question to answer,” blog post by Raymond Fu, Penn Mutual, September 23, 2021; Giovanni Bruno, Mikheil Esakia, and Felix Goltz, “‘Honey, I shrunk the ESG alpha’: Risk-adjusting ESG portfolio returns,” Journal of Investing , April 2022. Because of the short time frame over which the topic has been studied, and the resulting lack of robust analyses, conclusions from the analyses should be tempered. 3 When the ESG characteristic of a company changes, based on MSCI ESG data, it may be a useful financial indicator for generating alpha. Guido Giese et al., “Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance,” Journal of Portfolio Management , July 2019, Volume 45, Number 5.
In exploring the connection between ESG ratings and financial performance, another approach is to look at the effect of a change in ESG ratings. This approach mitigates issues deriving from differences among various ESG rating methodologies (assuming the methodologies are relatively consistent over time). It stands to reason that demonstrating real improvement—if reflected in the scores—could, in turn, drive TSR outperformance for multiple reasons, including those we explore in this article. Our initial research indicates, however, that it is too soon to tell. We found that on average companies that show an improvement in ESG ratings over multiyear time periods may exhibit higher shareholder returns compared with industry peers in the period after the improvement in ESG scores. We found, too, that the effect of this result has increased in recent years (exhibit). This initial finding is in line with some of the recent academic research and was also generally consistent across data from multiple ratings and scores providers.
Still, the findings are not yet conclusive. For example, only 54 percent of the companies we categorize as “improvers” and less than one-half of those categorized as “slight improvers” demonstrated a positive excess TSR. The research also does not prove causation. It is important to bear in mind that ESG scores are still evolving, observations in the aggregate may be less applicable to companies considered individually, and exogenous factors such as headwinds and tailwinds in industries and individual companies cannot be fully controlled for.
Most important, this research does not explain the mechanism of TSR outperformance and whether the outperformance is sustainable. We know from decades of research that companies with a higher expected return on capital and growth are ultimately TSR outperformers and that there is clear, statistically significant correlation. Are ESG ratings a sign of greater expected resilience of margins in the transition, an indication of higher growth through green portfolios—or do they suggest something else? Will these increased expectations relative to peers ultimately materialize, or will they revert to the mean? ESG ratings are very new compared with financial ratings, and therefore, it will take time for them to evolve. We will continue to research these questions as data sets increase and refinements to ESG scores continue to be refined.
Regardless of current ratings scores, many companies are already advancing in ESG to improve their long-term financial performance. High performers consider and seek to learn from ESG ratings, but they do not get unduly distracted or make superficial changes merely to score higher. Companies should focus on ESG improvements that matter most to their business models, even if the improvements do not directly translate to higher ratings.
Since conclusions about the relationship between ESG ratings and financial performance are not yet certain, they might not be compelling enough, on their own, to persuade executives to invest significant resources in ESG. But there is a tangible cost to waiting. In fact, companies should adopt a bias toward focusing on ESG today ; if companies, particularly those with significant externalities (such as high-emitting industries), hold out for perfect data and a “flawless” rating process, they may not have a business in 20 to 30 years.
Accordingly, the responses to ESG critics coalesce on three critical points: the acute reality of externalities, the early success of some organizations, and the improvement of ESG measurements over time. And the case for ESG cannot be dismissed by connections between ESG scores and financial performance and changes in ESG scores over time. (For a discussion about ESG ratings and their relationship to financial performance, see sidebar, “ESG ratings: Does change matter?”)
Company actions can have meaningful consequences for people who are not immediately involved with the company. Externalities such as a company’s GHG emissions, effects on labor markets, and consequences for supplier health and safety are becoming an urgent challenge in our interconnected world. Regulators clearly take notice. 25 See, for example, Sinziana Dorobantu, Witold J. Henisz and Lite J. Nartey, “Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement,” Strategic Management Journal , December 2014, Volume 35, Issue 12. Even if some governments and their agencies demand changes more quickly and more forcefully than others, multinational businesses, in particular, cannot afford to take a wait-and-see approach. To the contrary, their stakeholders expect them to take part now in how the regulatory landscape, and broader societal domain, will likely evolve. More than 5,000 businesses , for example, have made net-zero commitments as part of the United Nations’ “Race to Zero” campaign. Workers are also increasingly prioritizing factors such as belonging and inclusion as they choose whether to remain with their company or join a competing employer. 26 ” ‘Great Attrition’ or ‘Great Attraction’? The choice is yours ,” McKinsey Quarterly , September 8, 2021. Many companies, in turn, are moving aggressively to reallocate resources and operate differently; nearly all are feeling intense pressure to change. Even before the Ukraine war induced dramatic company action, the pandemic had prompted companies to reconsider and change core business operations. Many have embarked on a similar path with respect to climate change. This pressure, visceral and tangible, is an expression of social license—and it has been made more pressing as rising externalities have become more urgent.
Social license is not static, and companies do not earn the continued trust of consumers, employees, suppliers, regulators, and other stakeholders based merely upon prior actions. Indeed, earning social capital is analogous to earning debt or equity capital—those who extend it look to past results for insights about present performance and are most concerned with intermediate and longer-term prospects. Yet unlike traditional sources of capital, where there are often creative financing alternatives, there are ultimately no alternatives for companies that do not meet the societal bar and no prospect of business as usual, or business by workaround, under conditions of catastrophic climate change.
Because ESG efforts are a journey, bumps along the way are to be expected. No company is perfect. Key trends can be overlooked, errors can be made, rogue behaviors can manifest themselves, and actions can have unintended consequences. But since social license is corporate “oxygen”—thus impossible to survive without it—companies cannot just wait and hope that things will all work out. Instead, they need to get ahead of future issues and events by building purpose into their business models and demonstrating that they benefit multiple stakeholders and the broader public. Every firm has an implicit purpose—a unique raison d’être that answers the question, “What would the world lose if this company disappeared?” Companies that embed purpose in their business model not only mitigate risk; they can also create value from their values. For example, Patagonia, a US outdoor-equipment and clothing retailer, has always been purpose driven—and announced boldly that it is “in business to save our home planet.” Natura &Co, a Brazil-based cosmetics and personal-care company in business to “promote the harmonious relationship of the individual with oneself, with others and with nature,” directs its ESG efforts to initiatives such as protecting the Amazon, defending human rights, and embracing circularity. Multiple other companies, across geographies and industries, are using ESG to achieve societal impact and ancillary financial benefits, as well.
While ESG measurements are still a work in progress, it is important to note that there have been advancements. ESG measurements will be further improved over time. They are already changing; there is a trend toward consolidation of ESG reporting and disclosure frameworks (though further consolidation is not inevitable). Private ratings and scores providers such as MSCI, Refinitiv, S&P Global, and Sustainalytics, for their part, are competing to provide insightful, standardized measures of ESG performance.
There is also a trend toward more active regulation with increasingly granular requirements. Despite the differences in assessing ESG, the push longitudinally has been for more accurate and robust disclosure, not fewer data points or less specificity. It is worth bearing in mind, too, that financial accounting arose from stakeholder pull, not from spontaneous regulatory push, and did not materialize, fully formed, along the principles and formats that we see today. Rather, reporting has been the product of a long evolution—and a sometimes sharp, debate. It continues to evolve—and, in the case of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) reporting, continues to have differences. Those differences, reflecting how important these matters are to stakeholders, do not negate the case for rigorous reporting—if anything, they strengthen it.
While the acronym ESG as a construct may have lost some of its luster, its underlying proposition remains essential at the level of principle. Names will come and go (ESG itself arose after CSR, corporate engagement, and similar terms), and these undertakings are by nature difficult and can mature only after many iterations. But we believe that the importance of the underlying ideas has not peaked; indeed, the imperative for companies to earn their social license appears to be rising. Companies must approach externalities as a core strategic challenge, not only to help future-proof their organizations but to deliver meaningful impact over the long term.
Lucy Pérez is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Boston office; Vivian Hunt is a senior partner in the London office; Hamid Samandari is a senior partner in the New York office; Robin Nuttall is a partner in the London office; and Krysta Biniek is a senior expert in the Denver office.
The authors wish to thank Donatela Bellone, Elena Gerasimova, Ashley Gorman, Celine Guo, Pablo Illanes, Conor Kehoe, Tim Koller, Lazar Krstic, Burak Ovali, Werner Rehm, and Sophia Savas for their contributions to this article.
This article was edited by David Schwartz, an executive editor in the Tel Aviv office.
Related articles.
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: .
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.
The effect of corporate social responsibility on environmental performance in china’s manufacturing industry: the mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation.
3. research methodology, 4. research findings, 5. discussions, 5.1. policy implications, 5.2. theoretical implications, 6. conclusions, limitations, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
Items | Statements | Sources |
---|---|---|
CSR for the Community | ||
CSRC1 | Our organization gives adequate financial contributions to charities. | Shahzad et al. [ ] |
CSRC2 | Our organization supports non-governmental organizations working in problematic areas. | |
CSRC3 | Our organization contributes to the campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of society. | |
CSR for the Environment | ||
CSRE1 | Our organization participates in activities which aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment. | Shahzad et al. [ ] |
CSRE2 | Our organization invests in creating a better life for future generations. | |
CSRE3 | Our organization implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment. | |
CSRE4 | Our organization targets sustainable growth, which considers future generations. | |
Green Innovation | ||
GNI1 | The company chooses the materials of the product that produce the least pollution. | Song et al. [ ] |
GNI2 | The company chooses the product’s materials that consume the least energy and resources. | |
GNI3 | The company uses the smallest number of materials to create the product. | |
GNI4 | The company circumspectly deliberates whether the product is easy to recycle, reuse, and decompose. | |
GNI5 | The manufacturing process effectively reduces the emissions of hazardous substances or waste. | |
GNI6 | The manufacturing process recycles waste and emissions to allow them to be treated and reused. | |
GNI7 | The manufacturing process reduces the consumption of water, electricity, coal, or oil. | |
Environmental Strategy | ||
ENS1 | Our firm reduced energy consumption. | Aftab et al. (2023) [ ] |
ENS2 | Our firm reduced waste and emissions from operations. | |
ENS3 | Our firm reduced the impact on animal species and natural habitats. | |
ENS4 | Our firm reduced the environmental impacts of its products/services. | |
ENS5 | Our firm reduced environmental impact by establishing partnerships. | |
Environmental Performance | ||
ENP1 | Our firm sold waste products for revenue. | Aftab et al. (2023) [ ] |
ENP2 | Our firm reduced the costs of inputs for the same level of output. | |
ENP3 | Our firm reduced costs for waste management for the same level of output. | |
ENP4 | Our firm worked with government officials to protect the company’s interests. | |
ENP5 | Our firm created spin-off technologies that could be profitably applied to other business areas. | |
ENP6 | Our firm differentiated the process/product based on the marketing efforts of the process/product’s ENP. |
Constructs | Items | Loadings | Alpha | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSR for the Community | CSRC1 | 0.869 | 0.850 | 0.909 | 0.768 |
CSRC2 | 0.877 | ||||
CSRC3 | 0.884 | ||||
CSR for the Environment | CSRE1 | 0.781 | 0.798 | 0.868 | 0.622 |
CSRE2 | 0.790 | ||||
CSRE3 | 0.798 | ||||
CSRE4 | 0.785 | ||||
Environmental Performance | ENP1 | 0.841 | 0.897 | 0.928 | 0.765 |
ENP3 | 0.912 | ||||
ENP5 | 0.884 | ||||
ENP6 | 0.859 | ||||
Environmental Strategy | ENS1 | 0.900 | 0.923 | 0.942 | 0.764 |
ENS2 | 0.926 | ||||
ENS3 | 0.894 | ||||
ENS4 | 0.805 | ||||
ENS5 | 0.841 | ||||
Green Innovation | GNI1 | 0.905 | 0.878 | 0.908 | 0.626 |
GNI2 | 0.854 | ||||
GNI4 | 0.711 | ||||
GNI5 | 0.660 | ||||
GNI6 | 0.744 | ||||
GNI7 | 0.845 |
CSRC | CSRE | ENP | ENS | GNI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSRC | 0.877 | ||||
CSRE | 0.572 | 0.789 | |||
ENP | 0.504 | 0.637 | 0.874 | ||
ENS | 0.525 | 0.506 | 0.749 | 0.874 | |
GNI | 0.467 | 0.645 | 0.603 | 0.493 | 0.791 |
CSRC | CSRE | ENP | ENS | GNI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSRC1 | 0.869 | 0.538 | 0.467 | 0.499 | 0.400 |
CSRC2 | 0.877 | 0.516 | 0.407 | 0.423 | 0.385 |
CSRC3 | 0.884 | 0.449 | 0.447 | 0.455 | 0.442 |
CSRE1 | 0.419 | 0.781 | 0.561 | 0.453 | 0.529 |
CSRE2 | 0.416 | 0.790 | 0.533 | 0.410 | 0.433 |
CSRE3 | 0.515 | 0.798 | 0.439 | 0.370 | 0.539 |
CSRE4 | 0.457 | 0.785 | 0.467 | 0.357 | 0.531 |
ENP1 | 0.460 | 0.472 | 0.841 | 0.602 | 0.497 |
ENP3 | 0.421 | 0.570 | 0.912 | 0.699 | 0.546 |
ENP5 | 0.408 | 0.603 | 0.884 | 0.672 | 0.536 |
ENP6 | 0.480 | 0.574 | 0.859 | 0.643 | 0.528 |
ENS1 | 0.437 | 0.401 | 0.585 | 0.900 | 0.413 |
ENS2 | 0.469 | 0.439 | 0.660 | 0.926 | 0.442 |
ENS3 | 0.500 | 0.523 | 0.723 | 0.894 | 0.472 |
ENS4 | 0.496 | 0.477 | 0.731 | 0.805 | 0.435 |
ENS5 | 0.361 | 0.329 | 0.520 | 0.841 | 0.369 |
GNI1 | 0.424 | 0.581 | 0.584 | 0.481 | 0.905 |
GNI2 | 0.419 | 0.522 | 0.500 | 0.417 | 0.854 |
GNI4 | 0.300 | 0.394 | 0.339 | 0.309 | 0.711 |
GNI5 | 0.333 | 0.449 | 0.373 | 0.292 | 0.660 |
GNI6 | 0.371 | 0.588 | 0.509 | 0.388 | 0.744 |
GNI7 | 0.351 | 0.488 | 0.502 | 0.415 | 0.845 |
CSRC | CSRE | ENP | ENS | GNI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSRC | |||||
CSRE | 0.696 | ||||
ENP | 0.578 | 0.747 | |||
ENS | 0.582 | 0.575 | 0.808 | ||
GNI | 0.537 | 0.762 | 0.668 | 0.535 |
Relationships | Beta | Standard Deviation | T Statistics | p Values |
---|---|---|---|---|
CSRC -> ENP | −0.006 | 0.044 | 0.141 | 0.888 |
CSRC -> ENS | 0.350 | 0.052 | 6.740 | 0.000 |
CSRC -> GNI | 0.147 | 0.050 | 2.910 | 0.004 |
CSRE -> ENP | 0.254 | 0.045 | 5.703 | 0.000 |
CSRE -> ENS | 0.306 | 0.051 | 5.967 | 0.000 |
CSRE -> GNI | 0.561 | 0.047 | 11.984 | 0.000 |
ENS -> ENP | 0.536 | 0.037 | 14.365 | 0.000 |
GNI -> ENP | 0.178 | 0.050 | 3.535 | 0.000 |
Relationships | Beta | Standard Deviation | T Statistics | p Values |
---|---|---|---|---|
CSRC -> ENS -> ENP | 0.188 | 0.030 | 6.258 | 0.000 |
CSRC -> GNI -> ENP | 0.026 | 0.011 | 2.310 | 0.021 |
CSRE -> GNI -> ENP | 0.100 | 0.030 | 3.326 | 0.001 |
CSRE -> ENS -> ENP | 0.164 | 0.029 | 5.611 | 0.000 |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Khoshnaw, Z.; Ali, K.A.A.; Mousa, K.M. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Environmental Performance in China’s Manufacturing Industry: The Mediating Role of Environmental Strategy and Green Innovation. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167133
Khoshnaw Z, Ali KAA, Mousa KM. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Environmental Performance in China’s Manufacturing Industry: The Mediating Role of Environmental Strategy and Green Innovation. Sustainability . 2024; 16(16):7133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167133
Khoshnaw, Zana, Khairi Ali Auso Ali, and Kawar Mohammed Mousa. 2024. "The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Environmental Performance in China’s Manufacturing Industry: The Mediating Role of Environmental Strategy and Green Innovation" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167133
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
Advertisement
680 Accesses
3 Citations
14 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
Environmental educators face many challenges in university settings, including improving students’ capacity for systems thinking, the effective use of educational technology, and supporting a sense of agency for participation in social change. This article presents a model for teaching “Social Responsibility and the World of Nature,” an undergraduate-level civic engagement course designed to address these challenges in a context of interdisciplinary environmental studies. The model draws upon strategies from the authentic learning sciences to support co-created, collaborative learning, formative evaluation, and a personally relevant, “affective awareness” of environmental issues. These strategies are combined with case studies on environmental ethics, ecological sciences, and social entrepreneurship to inform a social-ecological design project through which students can express a personal definition of environmental citizenship. A key in application is implementing a reflective teaching practice that questions the role of absolute knowledge in the classroom. The analysis draws upon a case study approach, informed by four semesters implementing and refining the model, to illustrate its use in practice while examining student outcomes to elicit insights on effectiveness. The results support trends in the learning sciences that can transform the teaching and learning of environmental studies in higher education, particularly, the role of personally relevant learning experiences in developing a sense of agency for social and environmental change. This study contributes to these trends, while offering forward-looking insights for environmental educators and researchers in a variety of learning settings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Abbott JA (2011) The senior research project at Stetson University. J Environ Stud Sci 1(3):223–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-011-0030-3
Article Google Scholar
Apul D (2010) Ecological design principles and their implications on water infrastructure engineering. J Green Build 5(3):147–164
Arao B, Clemens K (2013) From safe space to brave space. The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators, pp 135–150
Ardoin NM, Clark C, Kelsey E (2013) An exploration of future trends in environmental education research. Environ Educ Res 19(4):499–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.709823
Bacon CM, Mulvaney D, Ball TB, Melanie DuPuis E, Gliessman SR, Lipschutz RD, Shakouri A (2011) The creation of an integrated sustainability curriculum and student praxis projects. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(2):193–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111118237
Ban NC, Boyd E, Cox M, Meek CL, Schoon M, Villamayor-tomas S (2015) Linking classroom learning and research to advance ideas about social-ecological resilience. Ecol Soc 20(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07517-200335
Bang M, Medin DL, Atran S (2007) Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(35):13868–13874. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706627104
Article CAS Google Scholar
Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(4):416–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582
Bell DR (2005) Liberal environmental citizenship. Environmental Politics 14(2):179–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010500054863
Berkowitz AK, Ford ME, Brewer CA (2005) A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics literacy, and environmental citizenship. Environmental education and advocacy: Changing perspectives of ecology and education, pp 227–266
Blizzard JL, Klotz LE (2012) A framework for sustainable whole systems design. Des Stud 33(5):456–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.03.001
Braund M, Reiss M (2006) Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out of school learning. Int J Sci Educ 28(12):1373–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498419
Britto dos Santos N, Gould RK (2018) Can relational values be developed and changed? Investigating relational values in the environmental education literature. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.019
Camill P, Phillips K (2011) Capstones and practica in environmental studies and sciences programs: rationale and lessons learned. J Environ Stud Sci 1(3):181–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-011-0038-8
Carr W, Kemmis S (2009) Educational action research: a critical approach. In: The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research. SAGE Publications Ltd., pp 74–84. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021021.n8
Carson R (2011) The sense of wonder. Open Road Media
Cawthorn M, Leege L, Congdon E (2011) Improving learning outcomes in large environmental science classrooms through short-term service-learning projects. J Environ Stud Sci 1(1):75–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-011-0001-8
Chawla L (2020) Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: a review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss. People and Nature 2(3):619–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10128
Cloud JP (2006) Some systems thinking concepts for environmental educators during the decade of education for sustainable development. Appl Environ Educ Commun 4(3):225–228
Cope B, Kalantzis M (2013) Towards a new learning: the scholar social knowledge workspace, in theory and practice. E-Learning and Digital Media 10(4):332–356
D’Amato LG, Krasny ME (2011) Outdoor adventure education: applying transformative learning theory to understanding instrumental learning and personal growth in environmental education. J Environ Educ 42(4):237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.581313
Delicado A (2012) Environmental education technologies in a social void: the case of ‘Greendrive.’ Environ Educ Res 18(6):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.683849
Derr V (2020) Diverse perspectives on action for positive social and environmental change. Environ Educ Res 26(2):219–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1715925
Disinger JF (1990) Environmental education for sustainable development? J Environ Educ 21(4):3–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.9941931
Dobson A (2007) Environmental citizenship: towards sustainable development. Sustain Dev 15(5):276–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.344
Ellis TJ, Hafner W (2008) Building a framework to support project-based collaborative learning experiences in an asynchronous learning network. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects 4:167–190
Google Scholar
Ferreira JA (2019) The limits of environmental educators’ fashioning of ‘individualized’ environmental citizens. J Environ Educ 50(4–6):321–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2019.1721769
Galt RE, Parr D, van Soelen Kim J, Beckett J, Lickter M, Ballard H (2013) Transformative food systems education in a land-grant college of agriculture: the importance of learner-centered inquiries. Agric Hum Values 30(1):129–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9384-8
Garrison DR, Kanuka H (2004) Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ 7(2):95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Goralnik L, Millenbah KF, Nelson MP, Thorp L (2012) An environmental pedagogy of care: emotion, relationships, and experience in higher education ethics learning. Journal of Experiential Education 35(3):412–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591203500303
Gosselin D, Parnell R, Smith-Sebasto NJ, Vincent S (2013) Integration of sustainability in higher education: three case studies of curricular implementation. J Environ Stud Sci 3(3):316–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0130-3
Gough N (2013) Thinking globally in environmental education: a critical history. In: International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education. Routledge, pp 33–44
Green C, Medina-Jerez W, Bryant C (2016) Cultivating environmental citizenship in teacher education. Teach Educ 27(2):117–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1043121
Hadzigeorgiou YP (2012) Fostering a sense of wonder in the science classroom. Res Sci Educ 42(5):985–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9225-6
Hart P, Nolan K (1999) A critical analysis of research in environmental education. Stud Sci Educ 34(1):1–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269908560148
Hart T (2004) Opening the contemplative mind in the classroom. J Transform Educ 2(1):28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603259311
Hathaway M (2015) The practical wisdom of permaculture: an anthropoharmonic phronesis for moving toward an ecological epoch. Environ Ethics 37(4):445–463
Heikkinen HLT, Huttunen R, Syrjälä L, Pesonen J (2012) Action research and narrative inquiry: five principles for validation revisited. Educational Action Research 20(1):5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2012.647635
Helicke NA (2014) Learning and promoting urban sustainability: environmental service learning in an undergraduate environmental studies curriculum. J Environ Stud Sci 4(4):294–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0194-8
Hempel M (2015) The uses and limitations of film in environmental education. J Environ Stud Sci 5(2):237–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0248-6
Herrington A, Herrington J (2007) What is an authentic learning environment? In: Authentic learning Environments in Higher Education, pp 68–77. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-594-8.ch001
Herrington J, Oliver R, Reeves TC (2003) Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australas J Educ Technol 19(1):59–71. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1701
Herrington J, Parker J (2013) Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. Br J Edu Technol 44(4):607–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12048
Hungerford HR, Volk TL (1990) Changing learner behavior through environmental education. J Environ Educ 21(3):8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743
Jacobson MJ, Wilensky U (2006) Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning Sciences. J Learn Sci 15(1):11–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4
Jensen BB, Schnack K (2006) The action competence approach in environmental education. Environ Educ Res 12(3–4):471–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462970030205
Jickling B, Wals AEJ (2008) Globalization and environmental education: looking beyond sustainable development. J Curric Stud 40(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270701684667
Johnson CM (2001) A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet and Higher Education 4(1):45–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00047-1
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2009) An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ Res 38(5):365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
Johnson E, Mappin M (2005) Environmental education and advocacy: changing perspectives of ecology and education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Johnson KA, Dana G, Jordan NR, Draeger KJ, Kapuscinski A, Schmitt Olabisi LK, Reich PB (2012) Using participatory scenarios to stimulate social learning for collaborative sustainable development. Ecol Soc 17(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04780-170209
Kalantzis M, Cope B (2012) New learning: a charter for change in education. Critical Studies in Education 53(1):83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2012.635669
Keengwe J, Onchwari G, Wachira P (2008) Computer technology integration and student learning: barriers and promise. J Sci Educ Technol 17(6):560–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5
Kinslow AT, Sadler TD, Nguyen HT (2019) Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology class. Environ Educ Res 25(3):388–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1442418
Kleier C (2011) Environmental impact assessment—a capstone course for Environmental Studies and Science majors at Regis University. J Environ Stud Sci 1(3):228–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-011-0029-9
Krasny ME (2009) A response to Scott’s concerns about the relevance of environmental education research: applying social–ecological systems thinking and consilience to defining research goals. Environ Educ Res 15(2):189–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620902770352
Krasny ME, Lee S-K (2010) Social learning as an approach to environmental education: lessons from a program focusing on non-indigenous, invasive species. Environ Educ Res 8(2):101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220128194
Laur D (2013) Authentic learning experiences: A real-world approach to project-based learning. Routledge
Lester T, Rodgers VL (2012) Teaching a cross-disciplinary environmental science, policy, and culture course on Costa Rica’s ecotourism to business students. J Environ Stud Sci 2(3):234–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0079-7
Littledyke M (2008) Science education for environmental awareness: approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains. Environ Educ Res 14(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701843301
Lombardi D, Sinatra GM (2012) College students’ perceptions about the plausibility of human-induced climate change. Res Sci Educ 42(2):201–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9196-z
Lombardi M (2007) Authentic learning for the 21st century: an overview. Educause Learning Initiative , 1 (March), 1–7. http://alicechristie.org/classes/530/EduCause.pdf
Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change 77(1–2):73–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9072-z
Luque E (2005) Researching environmental citizenship and its publics. Environmental Politics 14(2):211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010500054947
Lynch KA, Boulay MC (2011) Promoting civic engagement: the environmental leadership program at the University of Oregon. J Environ Stud Sci 1(3):189–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-011-0028-x
Marcinkowski T (2000) The NAAEE workshop on developing guidelines for qualitative research in environmental education: an analysis of premises, processes, and products. Environ Educ Res 6(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/135046200110467
McBride BB, Brewer CA, Berkowitz AR, Borrie WT (2013) Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: what do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere 4(5):art67. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00075.1
McCombs BL, Marzano RJ (1990) Putting the self in self-regulated learning: the self as agent in integrating Will and Skill. Educational Psychologist 25(1):51–69. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_5
McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Insight, part of a special feature on a framework for analyzing, comparing, and diagnosing social-ecological systems social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2)
McKenney R, O’Brien K, Naasz B, Teska WR (2011) Using an environmental studies capstone to solidify and assess the integration of interdisciplinary learning at Pacific Lutheran University. J Environ Stud Sci 1(3):194–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-011-0037-9
Meadows DH (2009) Thinking in systems: a primer. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2011.589585
Meek D, Lloro-Bidart T (2017) Introduction: synthesizing a political ecology of education. J Environ Educ 48(4):213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1340054
Mezirow J (2003) Transformative learning as discourse. J Transform Educ 1(1):58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172
Millis BJ, Cottell Jr PG (1997) Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Series on Higher Education. Oryx Press, PO Box 33889, Phoenix, AZ 85067-3889
Mogensen F, Schnack K (2010) The action competence approach and the ‘new’ discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environ Educ Res 16(1):59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903504032
Mollison B, Slay RM (1988) Permaculture: a designers’ manual, vol 1. Tagari publications, Tyalgum
Moore J (2005) Is higher education ready for transformative learning?: a question explored in the study of sustainability. J Transform Educ 3(1):76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344604270862
Newmann FM, Wehlage GG (1993) Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership 50:8–12
Newton P, Burgess D (2008) Exploring types of educational action research: implications for research validity. Int J Qual Methods 7(1999):18–30
Nicaise M, Gibney T, Crane M (2000) Toward an understanding of authentic learning: student perceptions of an authentic classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 9(1):79–94. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009477008671
OFI (2021) Home. Open Future Institute. https://openfutureinstitute.org/
Orr DW (1992) Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world. Suny Press, New York
Pace U (2021) Pace University: Undergraduate Student Body Profile. https://www.pace.edu/admissions-aid/undergraduate-admission/freshman/pace-student-body-profile . Accessed 5 Jul 2021
Palmberg IE, Kuru J (2000) Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. J Environ Educ 31(4):32–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960009598649
Palmer J (2002) Environmental education in the 21st century: theory, practice, progress and promise. Routledge
Patel L (2015) Decolonizing educational research: from ownership to answerability. Routledge
Book Google Scholar
Payne PG (2006) Environmental education and curriculum theory. J Environ Educ 37:25–35. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.37.2.25-35
Philip TM, Azevedo FS (2017) Everyday science learning and equity: mapping the contested terrain. Sci Educ 101(4):526–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21286
Pihkala P (2020) Eco-anxiety and environmental education. Sustainability 12(23):10149
Plummer R (2010) Social–ecological resilience and environmental education: synopsis, application, implications. Environ Educ Res 16(5):493–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505423
Pooley JA, Psych M, O’Connor M, Psych M (2000) Environmental education and attitudes: emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environ Dev 32(5):711–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916500325007
Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon 9(5):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Proctor J, Bernstein J (2013) Environmental connections and concept mapping: implementing a new learning technology at Lewis & Clark College. J Environ Stud Sci 3(1):30–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0109-0
Räthzel N, Uzzell D (2009) Transformative environmental education: a collective rehearsal for reality. Environ Educ Res 15(3):263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802567015
Rink B (2020) Mobilizing theory through practice: authentic learning in teaching mobilities. J Geogr High Educ 44(1):108–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1695107
Robertson DR (2005) Generative paradox in learner-centered college teaching. Innov High Educ 29(3):181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-005-1935-0
Rose D, Gravel JW (2010) Universal design for learning. In: International Encyclopedia of Education, pp 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00719-3
Rose D, Harbour W, Johnston C, Daley S, Abarbanell L (2006) Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 19(2):135–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.10.067
Rule AC (2006) Editorial: the components authentic learning overview. Journal of Authentic Learning 3(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510500467866
Russell C, Oakley J (2017) Engaging the emotional dimensions of environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE) 21(2013):13–22
Samuels DR (2014) The culturally inclusive educator: preparing for a multicultural world. Teachers College Press
Schild R (2016) Environmental citizenship: what can political theory contribute to environmental education practice? J Environ Educ 47(1):19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1092417
Schindel Dimick A (2015) Supporting youth to develop environmental citizenship within/against a neoliberal context. Environ Educ Res 21(3):390–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.994164
Scott W (2009) Environmental education research: 30 years on from Tbilisi. Environ Educ Res 15(2):155–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620902814804
Seelos C, Mair J (2005) Social entrepreneurship: creating new business models to serve the poor. Bus Horiz 48(3):241–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.11.006
Shallcross DC (2016) Concept maps for evaluating learning of sustainable development. J Educ Sustain Dev 10(2011):160–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408215625551
Shea P, Sau Li C, Pickett A (2006) A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet High Educ 9(3):175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005
Simmons N (2019) Axial coding. In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, pp 80–82
Smeds P, Jeronen E, Kurppa S (2015) Farm education and the value of learning in an authentic learning environment. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 10(3):381–404
Smith-Sebasto N (2001) Potential guidelines for conducting and reporting environmental education research: qualitative methods of inquiry. J Environ Educ 33(1):21–32
Sobel D (1996) Beyond ecophobia. Orion Society, Great Barrington, MA
Spector JM, Merrill MD, Elen J, Bishop MJ (2014) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: Fourth edition, pp 1–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5
Sterling S (2003) Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education: explorations in the context of sustainability. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bath]. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.413906 . Accessed 20 Aug 2021
Taylor EW (2007) An update of transformative learning theory: a critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). Int J Lifelong Educ 26(2):173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475
UNESCO (1977) The Tbilisi declaration. In: Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education. USSR, Tbilisi, pp 14–26
Verlie B (2019) Bearing worlds: learning to live-with climate change. Environ Educ Res 25(5):751–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1637823
Verlie B (2020) From action to intra-action? Agency, identity and ‘goals’ in a relational approach to climate change education. Environ Educ Res 26(9–10):1266–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1497147
Waldrop MM (2015) The science of teaching sciences. Nature 523(7560):272–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263655704122614
Westley F, Tj O, Schultz L, Olsson P, Folke C, Bodin O, Crona B (2013) A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(3):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072-180327
Willingham DT, Hughes EM, Dobolyi DG (2015) The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teach Psychol 42(3):266–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505
Wukich C, Siciliano MD (2014) Problem solving and creativity in public policy courses: promoting interest and civic engagement. Journal of Political Science Education 10(3):352–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2014.921625
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
Lee Frankel-Goldwater
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Lee Frankel-Goldwater .
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file2 (pdf 375 kb), supplementary file3 (pdf 160 kb), rights and permissions.
Reprints and permissions
Frankel-Goldwater, L. Social Responsibility and the World of Nature: an interdisciplinary environmental studies course for inspiring whole system thinking and environmental citizenship. J Environ Stud Sci 12 , 114–132 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00720-2
Download citation
Accepted : 04 August 2021
Published : 01 September 2021
Issue Date : March 2022
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00720-2
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
Increases employee motivation.
The bottom line.
Companies are increasingly ramping up their focus on social responsibility , whether they are championing women’s rights, protecting the environment, or attempting to obliterate poverty, on local, national, or global levels. From an optics perspective, socially responsible companies project more attractive images to both consumers and shareholders alike, which serves to positively affect their bottom lines.
Embracing socially responsible policies goes a long way toward attracting and retaining customers, which is essential to a company’s long-term success. Furthermore, many individuals who know that part of a company's profits will be channeled toward social causes near and dear to them will gladly pay a premium for goods.
Companies can likewise witness increased foot traffic if they're committed to supporting the local community. For example, banks that dispense loans to low-income households are apt to see an uptick in business as a direct result.
Social responsibility is an effective tool to increase employee engagement. These companies tend to attract employees who are eager to make a difference in the world—in addition to simply collecting a paycheck. With large companies, there is strength in numbers, and collective employee efforts can achieve substantial results, which increases workplace morale and boosts productivity.
According to Harvard Business School, nearly 70% of employees say they would not work for a company without a strong purpose. Ninety percent of employees who work at companies with a strong sense of purpose say they’re more inspired, motivated, and loyal, and 92% of employees who work at a socially responsible company say they would be more likely to recommend their employer to those in their network who are looking for a job.
Research shows that employee engagement translates directly to a company's overall performance and bottom line: engaged employees have a 17% increase in productivity, are 21% more profitable, and can have 41% lower absenteeism .
To sum it all up, even a small investment in corporate social responsibility initiatives can increase employee engagement and have an impact on how profitable the company can be.
Social responsibility works as a platform for companies and consumers alike to make a positive impact on local and global communities. Businesses that implement a social responsibility initiative that’s in line with their values have the opportunity to increase customer retention and loyalty.
Research shows that 87% of American consumers are more likely to buy a product from a company that advocates for an issue they care about, and 76% would refuse to purchase a product if they found out a company supported an issue contrary to their beliefs.
Community-oriented companies often enjoy a leg up on their competition as well, thanks to superior brand imaging. For example, Tesla Inc. ( TSLA ) CEO Elon Musk has successfully attracted environmentally-minded consumers with his line of cutting-edge electric cars and green automotive products.
Lives impacted globally by the socially responsible initiatives and community support enacted by TOMS, the popular shoe brand, in the 15 years since its inception.
Coca-cola company (ko).
In 2010, Coca-Cola started the 5by20 initiative to empower women across the globe. The company stated:
Through 5by20 programs around the world, we equip women entrepreneurs to overcome social and economic barriers by providing business skills training, access to financial services, and assets, and connections with peers and mentors. The women participating in 5by20 work in roles across our value chain include retailers, suppliers, producers, artisans, and more.
Through its financial inclusion program, Visa has developed innovative ways of bringing digital cash to places in the world where the financial infrastructure doesn't exist or for people who don't have access to the financial system, like residents of many developing countries. The company stated:
Today, about half the adult world lives in the informal economy, dealing exclusively in cash. To be one of these estimated 2 billion people is to face financial barriers that make life risky, expensive, and inefficient. Financial inclusion helps put people on a path out of poverty, creates productive, empowered citizens, fosters business opportunities, and fuels economic growth.
Both terms refer to the social responsibilities of businesses. Though corporate social responsibility (CSR) holds businesses accountable for their social commitments in a qualitative manner, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) helps measure or quantify such social efforts. Socially conscious investors use ESG criteria to screen potential investments .
Even the smallest initiative can have an impact on a community. Donating money or resources to charities can make a huge difference, although small companies and startups may not have the ability to do so. Companies can start by organizing small fundraising events, encouraging volunteering, establishing a social mission and clear goals, implementing education programs for employees, or joining efforts with businesses with a similar mentality.
Embracing CSR increases customer retention and loyalty, increases employee engagement, improves brand imaging, attracts investment opportunities and top talent, and makes a difference in bottom-line financials. The non-profit Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) exist to help investors analyze company bottom-line data.
Socially responsible companies cultivate positive brand recognition, increase customer loyalty, and attract top-tier employees. These elements are among the keys to achieving increased profitability and long-term financial success.
Harvard Business School. " 15 Eye-Opening Corporate Social Responsibility Statistics ."
Gallup. " State of the Global Workplace ."
Cone. " AMERICANS WILLING TO BUY OR BOYCOTT COMPANIES BASED ON CORPORATE VALUES, ACCORDING TO NEW RESEARCH BY CONE COMMUNICATIONS ."
Tesla. " Elon Musk ."
TOMS. " Toms Impact Report 2021 ."
The Coca-Cola Company. " 5by20: What We're Doing ."
Coca-Cola. " How Coca-Cola Empowers Women Entrepreneurs ."
Visa. " Financial Inclusion ."
Forbes. " Three Reasons Why CSR And ESG Matter To Businesses ."
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Claudiu george bocean.
1 Department of Management, Marketing and Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Craiova, 13 AI Cuza Street, 200585 Craiova, Romania
2 Doctoral School, University of Craiova, 13 AI Cuza Street, 200585 Craiova, Romania; moc.liamg@nairamleahcimucselocin (M.M.N.); moc.liamg@mbtnairamucazac (M.C.); moc.liamg@9691uirtimudanomis (S.D.)
Simona dumitriu, associated data.
Not applicable.
Social responsibility (SR) is a concept or practice by which organizations take into account the interest of society by taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on all stakeholders. The SR of organizations implies ethical behavior concerning all stakeholders and a company’s commitment to the sustainable economic development of society. Organizational ethics is a set of written and unwritten codes of principles and values that govern decisions and actions within an organization. Ethics has a rather internal perspective, while social responsibility has a rather external perspective. This study examines the impact of social responsibility and organizational ethics on employees’ wellbeing. To perform the empirical analysis, we conducted a survey among 423 employees from Romanian organizations. Using the structural equation modeling, we analyzed the relationships between social responsibility, organizational ethics, and employees’ wellbeing, emphasizing the positive impact of ethical and responsible behavior of the organization on the employees’ wellbeing. The organization’s employees play a dual role: firstly, they are all internal stakeholders, and secondly, they are constituents of an external stakeholder essential for the organization—the community. The results show a significant positive influence of social responsibility and organizational ethics on employees’ wellbeing as a result of a responsible and ethical behavior in relation to the organizational stakeholders.
The modern organization is an entity with a substantial social impact due to its ability to mobilize productive resources and create new wealth. However, the organization’s legitimacy depends not only on success in creating wealth but also on its ability to meet the expectations of the various stakeholders that contribute to its existence and success.
Social responsibility (SR) concerns implementing ethical behavior and attitude in the organization, providing a perspective on core values and organizational culture to promote responsible behavior towards staff. Organizational ethics (OE) influence practices in the field of social responsibility. It is in the interest of every organization to develop and incorporate elements of both OE and SR into its agenda, as the challenges of an increasingly globalized economy with stringent sustainability requirements will require an integrated approach of OE and SR to support the sustainable development of organizations [ 1 , 2 ].
To be sustainable, organizations need to identify innovative ways to balance the social and environmental needs of internal and external stakeholders (employees, unions, community) with the economic (financial) needs of internal and external stakeholders (shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, tax administrations) [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. External SR extends to the community and society, including environmental concerns, while internal SR addresses the organization’s human resources [ 6 ]. In addition, internal SR focuses on strategies and practices to improve employee health and wellbeing (WB) [ 7 ], human rights [ 8 ], training and development [ 9 , 10 ], ensuring equal opportunities in business [ 11 ], and work–life balance [ 12 ].
Although most studies show a significant relationship between SR and OE practices, these relationships are neither universal nor consistent [ 13 ]. Therefore, investigating the different dimensions of SR practices concerning the dimensions of OE is necessary to integrate the two concepts and evaluate the combined effects on the employees’ WB and the community in which the organization operates.
Although the impact of SR and OE on economic, social, and environmental performance has long been analyzed, not many studies examine the effects of SR and OE on employees’ WB. Despite the awareness that employees are a key internal stakeholder whose motivation depends on the organizational success, being at the same time a constituent part of a critical external stakeholder (the community in which the organization operates), there are a few studies in the area.
The research gap that the paper aims to cover comes from the lack of work to study the combined effect of OE and SR on employees’ WB. Since organizational employees are an essential category of internal stakeholders, the organization must pay special attention to SR and OE; these significantly affect employees’ WB. This study’s objectives involve analyzing the direct relationships among employees’ perceptions of SR, OE, and WB, and the mediation effects between the variables considered. By studying these objectives, this study aims to understand better cause-and-effect relationships on how SR and OE can influence employee WB. The paper structure has six sections. The introduction and literature review approach the research topic from a theoretical point of view. Section 3 and Section 4 describe the research design and results. The last two sections provide discussions and conclusions of the research.
2.1. social responsibility.
SR is the moral responsibility of an organization toward the community in which it operates in particular and towards society in general [ 4 , 14 ]. SR is a concept that has received multiple definitions, and there are various classifications of its dimensions: the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic dimensions [ 15 ] and the economic, social, environmental, stakeholder, and volunteer dimensions [ 16 ]. Davis and Blomstrom argue that the substance of SR stems from the ethical “obligation” of the organization to assess the effects of its decisions and actions on the entire social system [ 17 ]. At the same time, [ 18 ] identifies the gap between the concept of SR and practice. Other authors [ 15 , 19 , 20 ] looked at SR in terms of organizational efforts to meet the needs of different categories of stakeholders. For example, McWilliams and Siegel [ 21 ] saw in SR an increase in the social interests of business organizations or a commitment to increase the reputation and improve the image by diminishing the community’s negative perception of the organization [ 22 ]. Matten and Moon considered SR to be a component of the organization’s strategic policy that illustrates its interest in social issues, not just the primary goal of profit maximization [ 13 ]. Aguinis considers that SR represents those actions and policies that meet stakeholders’ expectations to maximize results in three areas: economic, social, and environmental [ 6 ].
An issue increasingly addressed by an employer is employee involvement in SR actions [ 23 ]. Such employer behavior brings social benefits and plays an essential role in ensuring employees’ WB, directly affecting the satisfaction, commitment, and loyalty of current employees and leading to greater motivation, increased productivity, and a greater propensity to innovate [ 24 , 25 ]. In addition, when employees identify the organization’s commitment to socially responsible behavior, they tend to have more responsible attitudes that correlate with better performance due to improved relationships between employees and other stakeholders [ 26 ].
According to [ 27 ], philanthropic responsibilities stem from the philosophical, ethical tradition of concern for what is good for society and justify organizations to help improve the quality of life of different stakeholders and the community. Reich points out that SR is nothing more than intelligent management covered by the language of morality and ethics. Only organizations which aim to adhere to all universally accepted ethical standards can expect a positive attitude and support from society [ 26 , 28 ]. Moreover, solving the problems that affect the community and society leads to competitive advantages for the organization. Nord and Fuller saw corporate SR as a matter of higher-level strategy. They linked it to the conceptualization of organizational change, raising awareness of an alternative model that would complement the strategic vision and add an ethical dimension [ 23 , 24 , 29 ].
At the same time, managers have developed practices related to OE and SR within their organizations. There are many reasons why organizations implement these practices: reducing costs, mitigating risks, gaining legitimacy, gaining a competitive advantage, and creating new value [ 30 ]. In addition, researchers and managers have recommended aligning these practices within organizations [ 23 , 24 , 26 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Still, there is little empirical research exploring the impact of alignment or why it has not become a common practice within organizations. Based on these considerations, we formulated the following research hypothesis:
Employees’ perception of OE directly positively affects employees’ perception of SR.
The community includes individuals in constant interaction in a particular space where they live and work [ 35 ]. In addition to the spatial dimension, a community may be determined by the common interest of its members [ 36 ]. Given that interactions between individuals within the community include several dimensions (psychological, cultural, spiritual, social, economic, and natural) [ 37 ], meeting all the needs of individuals related to these dimensions confers a WB status. Consequently, WB also includes the social, economic, environmental, cultural, and political dimensions [ 38 ].
The concepts of health and WB are often used together and sometimes even interchangeably. However, health refers to an individual’s physiological or psychological indicators [ 39 ], while WB is a more comprehensive concept that aim to describe the individual’s general condition in a social context [ 40 , 41 ]. Therefore, WB consists appropriately of non-contextual measures of life (e.g., life satisfaction, happiness), general considerations (e.g., job satisfaction), and more specific dimensions (e.g., salary satisfaction, good workplace).
WB includes the individual’s general satisfaction regarding privacy, social relationships, work environment, and reduced stress [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Therefore, employers’ concern for ensuring a better job for their employees and a WB status was considered a component of SR, which is part of ethical behavior.
The concept of WB has therefore been approached in the paradigm of the multidimensionality of human, social, and economic capital [ 45 ]; physical, psychological, social, and economic WB [ 46 ]; and social, environmental, economic, health, political, physical, and residential dimensions [ 47 ]. The economic dimension is manifested by providing sufficient income, job stability, and existing opportunities in the labor market [ 47 , 48 ]. The social dimension includes income and profession that offer a certain social status [ 37 , 49 ] and concepts such as security, community spirit, cohesion, trust, reciprocity, involvement, and informal interaction [ 5 , 37 , 47 ].
Employers want to improve employee wellbeing because lowering WB can lead to unhappiness, decreased productivity, and increased stress and anxiety, eventually leading to a high turnover [ 44 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. Therefore, as a dimension of relationships and social status, employees’ WB can be considered an objective of SR concerning its human resources and work environment [ 53 ].
The WB concept integrates employees’ status at and outside the workplace: job satisfaction or dissatisfaction, reward, working relationships, working conditions, friendly work environment, promotion opportunities, care for the environment, and interest in the general health community. WB is a complex and multifaceted construct [ 54 ], balancing between objective indicators (life standards) and subjective measures (psychological, social, and spiritual aspects) [ 55 ].
Other authors have added to the social dimension the interaction between individuals in the family, at home, and in neighborhoods [ 56 ] or education [ 38 ]. The environmental dimension includes the perception of individuals about the place where they live, with a solid psychological load for individuals. McCrea et al. [ 47 ] suggested that environmental satisfaction, green areas, transport, air quality, energy quality, and sustainability are crucial indicators of WB [ 37 , 45 , 47 , 57 , 58 , 59 ].
SR is a social obligation of the organizations to decide and act responsibly following the objectives and values of society [ 60 ]. Currently, SR is perceived as a continuous commitment of organizations to behave ethically and contribute to the economic development of the community and society in which the organization operates by improving the quality of human WB, through involvement in the local community and society. SR is the basis of sustainability, competitiveness, and innovation and is a strategic advantage of any organization [ 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]
Due to the potential impact of organizations on WB employees and the community in which they operate, ethical behavior and SR programs are of great importance for overall WB [ 65 ]. In this context, Chowdhury et al. proposed an SR and OE reporting on stakeholder health and WB [ 66 ], based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reporting standards. Cheng et al. [ 67 ] suggest that if SR activities do not live up to employees’ expectations, they generate mistrust of organizations, leading to reduced commitment [ 34 , 67 , 68 ] and WB and increasing turnover rates [ 67 ]. Various authors [ 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ] have studied the impact of employees’ perceptions regarding CSR and organizational ethics on outcome measures: employee satisfaction, turnover rates, and overall organization sustainability. Consequently, examining and monitoring employees’ perceptions regarding SR and OE is beneficial for the organization’s human resources management and strategic management to meet the expectations of all stakeholders, especially employees [ 67 , 68 , 69 , 72 ].
Based on the relationships between OE, SR, and WB described in the literature, we formulated the following research hypothesis:
Employees’ perception of SR and OE directly positively affects employees’ perception of WB.
Internal stakeholder-oriented SR programs target WB employees by obtaining employee satisfaction based on meeting the expectations of their organizations [ 73 ]. Employees have an ethical expectation towards their organizations in terms of job stability, recognition and appreciation, fairness of rewards, opportunities for professional and personal development, freedom of association in trade unions, work–life balance, involvement in decisions, autonomy, participation in organizational decisions, and involvement of the organization in the community [ 74 ]. In addition, organizations will invest in ethical health and safety management practices that impact the company’s performance [ 75 ].
Occupational health and safety (OHS) promote human resource management, safety, occupational safety, physical and mental health, and in general, an essential part of the WB of human resources [ 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 ]. WB incorporates the employee’s physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing, exerting a significant positive impact on achieving objectives [ 74 , 77 , 80 , 81 ]. However, several authors [ 82 , 83 ] have highlighted the need to see the health and wellbeing of employees beyond the work environment by taking into account other ethical factors related to other areas of human resources: the process of training and development [ 9 , 10 ], ensuring equal opportunities in business [ 11 ], work–life balance [ 12 ], job stability, and existing options in the labor market [ 47 , 48 ].
Researching employees’ perceptions and attitudes towards SR, OE, and WB is important [ 34 , 84 , 85 ] because it can lead to seeking opportunities for better implementation of responsible and ethical social practices and initiatives. In addition, companies are increasingly recognizing the strategic importance of OE and SR in ensuring employees’ WB and the sustainability of their business [ 69 , 84 , 86 ], as well as employee satisfaction in implementing SR programs and ethical conduct.
Based on these considerations, we formulated the following research hypothesis:
Employees’ perception of OE has significant indirect positive effects on their perception of WB, mediating their perceptions of SR.
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of the research on the relations between SR, OE, and WB.
Conceptual model. Source: designed by authors.
3.1. research design.
To study the impact of SR and OE on employees’ WB, we conducted quantitative research in a survey among employees of Romanian companies.
The data collected in a database were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. To determine the intensity and meaning of the relationships between the research variables, we used structural equation modeling and artificial neural network analysis. Finally, the obtained results confirmed the hypotheses’ validity based on the literature. Figure 2 illustrates the research process.
Research process. Source: own construction.
To perform the empirical analysis, we conducted a survey based on a questionnaire filled by 423 employees from Romanian organizations, small and medium enterprises, and large corporations between March 2022 and May 2022. The sampling method chosen was random stratified sampling. The target population of the research is the employees in Romanian private companies, comprising 4,500,000 individuals. The sample of 423 individuals was selected with a level of confidence of 95%, with a margin of error of 4.762%. Table 1 describes the descriptive statistics for the selected sample.
Descriptive statistics.
Min | Max | Mean | Std. Deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic sector | 1 | 4 | 2.81 | 0.981 | −0.239 | −1.048 |
Size | 1 | 3 | 1.80 | 0.748 | 0.345 | −1.146 |
Gender | 1 | 2 | 1.30 | 0.459 | 0.875 | −1.241 |
Age | 1 | 5 | 2.70 | 1.099 | 0.606 | −0.250 |
Education | 1 | 5 | 3.30 | 1.101 | −0.615 | −0.237 |
Experience in work | 1 | 5 | 2.30 | 1.345 | 0.669 | −0.762 |
Experience in organization | 1 | 5 | 2.91 | 1.136 | 0.187 | −0.752 |
Position | 1 | 2 | 1.20 | 0.399 | 1.517 | 0.301 |
Income category | 1 | 5 | 2.91 | 1.512 | −0.012 | −1.443 |
Source: designed by authors using SPSS v.20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Employees were selected in the sample using the economic sector criterion: 9.9% in agriculture, 29.8% in industry, and 60.3% in services (including technology and communications). The sample structure according to the size of the companies from which the employees come is as follows: 40% of the employees come from small and medium companies, 40.2% come from large companies, and 19.8% come from multinational companies. Within the sample, 68.15% are male and 31.85% are female. Regarding the age, 9.95% are under 30 years old, 69.93% are between 31 and 55 years old, and 20.12% are over 55. In addition, 19.8% of respondents have received secondary education, and 80.2% have studied a higher degree. Over 60.3% of respondents have more than ten years of work experience, and over 60.2% have more than ten years of experience in the organization. Most respondents are subordinates, with only 19.81% being managers. Depending on the income category, over 43.32% of respondents have a net income above the average net salary in the economy.
The design of this study involved conducting a survey based on a questionnaire applied to employees of Romanian organizations. The questionnaire contains the socio-economic-demographic variables that characterize SR, OE, and WB. We evaluated the impact of SR and OE on WB empirically by using statistical methods for modeling structural equations (SEMs) in the partial least squares (PLS) variant using a procedure described by [ 87 , 88 ], similarly used by [ 89 , 90 ]. The initial literature review established measures for each construct and the reliability and validity of variables using various statistical tests (Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance Extracted). We built items for SR and OE based on previous research. SR includes five dimensions describing the levels of responsibility: responsibilities to shareholders (increasing the organizational value); responsibilities to employees, unions, customers, and suppliers (societal welfare, organizational SR philosophy); responsibilities to central and local public authorities and the community (organizational citizenship); and responsibilities to society (societal contribution). The items concerning SR, which define the levels of responsibility, were defined based on [ 15 , 91 , 92 , 93 ]. OE includes five dimensions describing the ethical principles in the organization: transparency, fair competition, respect for the customer, employees’ wellness, and sustainability, as stated in other research [ 8 , 15 , 33 , 89 ]. The WB scale was established based on the TINYpulse questionnaire [ 94 ], using the eight dimensions for WB: general WB, emotional WB, environmental wellness, intellectual WB, occupational WB, physical health, and social WB. To measure the variables SR, OE, and WB, we used a five-level Likert scale (5—total agreement, 4—partial agreement, 3—agreement, 2—partial disagreement, 1—total disagreement).
The exogenous variables (the items of the questionnaire) which characterize SR, OE, and WB are presented in Table 2 .
Exogenous variables.
Latent Variables | Exogenous Variables | |
---|---|---|
Code | Description | |
WB | GWB | General WB |
EWB | Emotional WB | |
EW | Environmental wellness | |
IWB | Intellectual WB | |
OWB | Occupational WB | |
PH | Physical health | |
SWB | Social WB | |
SW | Spiritual wellness | |
OE | OE1 | Transparency |
OE2 | Fair competition | |
OE3 | Respect for the customer | |
OE4 | The organization treats employees well | |
OE5 | Sustainability | |
SR | RS1 | Organizational citizenship |
RS2 | Societal contribution | |
RS3 | Societal welfare | |
RS4 | Organizational SR philosophy | |
RS5 | Increasing the organizational value |
Source: designed by authors based on [ 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 ].
The self-administered questionnaire results can be affected by common method bias (CMB) [ 95 ]. We tested all variables using Harman’s single-factor test using principal component analysis. The extracted variance was below 50% (45.329%), attesting to no significant common method bias effects [ 95 ].
We used structural equation modeling (SEM) in the partial least square variant (SmartPLS 3.0 software: SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany) to validate the three hypotheses. The model has three unobservable latent variables: SR, OE, and WB. Each of the three latent variables depends on a series of observable exogenous variables defined by the items in the questionnaire. Figure 3 shows the exogenous variables for each latent variable.
Preliminary model. Source: designed by authors using SmartPLS 3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany).
Following the methodology described by [ 88 ], we eliminated from the model those items that have an outer loading below 0.7, considering the lower influence of these items on the latent determinant variables. Figure 4 presents the resulting model.
Model applied. Source: designed by authors using SmartPLS 3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany).
The validity and reliability of the model were tested following the procedure described in [ 87 , 88 ]. All three indicators, namely Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance Extracted), recorded good values ( Table 3 ). In the model, SRMR recorded a value of 0.048, and NFI recorded a value of 0.934.
Validity and reliability.
Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | AVE | |
---|---|---|---|
Organizational ethics | 0.889 | 0.919 | 0.696 |
Social responsibility | 0.875 | 0.907 | 0.664 |
Wellbeing | 0.879 | 0.910 | 0.670 |
Source: designed by authors using SmartPLS 3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany).
Finally, running a bootstrapping process, we determined the path coefficients and specific indirect effects in our model for assessing the role of SR and OE in ensuring employees’ WB ( Table 4 ).
Path coefficients and specific indirect effects.
Original Sample | Standard Deviation | T Statistics | Values | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Organizational ethics Social responsibility (H1) | 0.812 | 0.011 | 71.746 | 0.000 |
Organizational ethics Wellbeing (H2) | 0.496 | 0.033 | 15.031 | 0.000 |
Social responsibility Wellbeing (H2) | 0.450 | 0.033 | 13.462 | 0.000 |
Organizational ethics Social responsibility Wellbeing (H3) | 0.365 | 0.023 | 15.637 | 0.000 |
Analyzing the path coefficients and specific indirect effects in Table 4 , we affirm that all three hypotheses are valid. The organizations’ ethical practices positively affect SR programs in employees’ perception. The two sustainability constructs (OE and SR) positively impact employees’ WB. In addition to the direct effect on WB, the organization’s ethical behavior has substantial indirect effects on WB, with an SR program based on ethical principles and values as a mediating variable.
The relationship between SR, OE, and WB has not frequently been subject to an evaluation process in the literature on SR and OE. However, there is a recognition that this relationship can contribute to establishing sustainable jobs to ensure WB at the individual level and welfare at the societal level. In recent years, several researchers have conducted empirical studies to determine the impact of SR programs on work results from the perspective of stakeholders (including employees) [ 34 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 ]. Employees are key stakeholders who, once satisfied, can positively influence the implementation of SR programs [ 97 ]. Therefore, employees’ perceptions of SR shape the community’s view of organizations [ 96 ]. In addition, employees with a good level of WB can improve and stimulate SR programs and ethical behavior that promotes all stakeholders’ wellbeing, including employees [ 34 ].
Employers improve employee WB because low WB can produce unhappiness, lower productivity, and increased stress and anxiety, eventually leading to a high turnover rate [ 44 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 67 ]. Therefore, employees’ WB is an objective of SR programs concerning its human resources and work environment [ 53 ], ensuring employee commitment [ 68 ]. Researching the relationships between the variables of the researched model, SR and OE can contribute to increasing economic, social, and environmental performance and the health and wellbeing of employees, as we have demonstrated by confirming the validity of the H2 hypothesis.
The conceptual model in this study, which reveals the relationship between corporate SR and OE, also aims to help integrate and facilitate the implementation of SR activities and tools to ensure ethical conduct in organizations. Various authors have pointed out the need for a unified theory regarding SR and OE because there is much confusion and redundancy between the dimensions of the two concepts [ 27 , 30 , 33 , 89 ]. In our research, we tested the relationship established between SR and OE by confirming the validity of the H1 hypothesis. Combining these two areas can provide sustainability to organizations and ensure employees’ WB and that of the community they operate in [ 20 ].
Many studies have attempted to understand the impact of SR and ethical practices on employees’ satisfaction, a constituent of employees’ WB [ 34 , 84 , 85 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ]. Researching employees’ perceptions and attitudes towards SR, OE, and WB is important [ 34 , 84 , 85 ] because it can lead to seeking opportunities for better implementation of responsible and ethical social practices and initiatives. In addition, employees’ satisfaction provides an insight into the emotional state of work experience and environment [ 108 ], directly contributing to organizational performance [ 73 ]. Although employees’ satisfaction is an essential component of employee WB, it is not just about satisfaction. There are several areas of SR that address job satisfaction aspects: job stability; employee status; fair pay; social benefits; occupational safety and health; work–life balance and employment opportunities; training and personal development; cordial labor relations; and a work environment characterized by communication, transparency and social dialogue, equal treatment, and equal opportunities [ 34 , 75 , 84 , 109 ]. Satisfaction is directly related to work, while WB also covers general aspects of general physical and mental health, relationships in the social environment, social status, care for the environment in which they live, and the individual’s connection to the community and society in general.
Programs in the SR area stimulate the improvement of health, the environment, and involvement in educational activities, acting as an essential mechanism for mediating between the organization’s ethical practices and improving employees’ and communities’ WB [ 110 ], as demonstrated by the confirmation of the validity of Hypothesis H3. Companies are increasingly recognizing the strategic importance of OE and SR in ensuring employees’ WB and the sustainability of their business [ 69 , 84 , 86 ], as well as employee satisfaction in implementing SR programs and ethical conduct. Organizations that promote health and safety management practices and ensure an adequate work environment [ 88 ] benefit from increased employee engagement, as the organization demonstrates an interest in employees’ WB. Rela et al. showed that other factors, such as community capacity and motivation, government policy, and other stakeholders’ contributions, influenced WB [ 5 ].
The results of our research are in line with the results of previous research showing that ethical issues can have a significant impact on physical health and spiritual wellbeing.
The research results indicate that the variables SR and OE have significant and positive influences on WB dimensions, consistent with previous studies showing a significant relationship between these constructs [ 4 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 ]. SR contributes to the satisfaction of employees’ interests related to WB dimensions (health, education, economy) and OE by inducing ethical behavior and attitudes that contribute to increasing WB. Research results confirm that SR programs and ethical behavior contribute to the employees’ wellbeing.
Although OE activities and SR programs target both stakeholders, the present research focused on critical internal stakeholders (employees), given their dual nature. Employees are also constituents of an essential category of external stakeholders—the community. The research results confirmed the importance of SR and OE for improving employee wellbeing, SR being a mediating factor between OE and WB. These results support an essential mechanism by which OE activities and SR programs can increase WB, especially when the organization does not have sufficient resources to motivate employees and ensure job satisfaction. Employee satisfaction with job stability issues, guaranteeing a friendly work environment, caring for the environment in which they live, and organizational involvement in community social causes can all contribute to the overall WB of employees.
Three issues can be highlighted as theoretical implications of this research. First, most studies have focused on external stakeholders [ 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 ], with few focusing on the positive effect of OE activities and SR programs on internal stakeholders. Second, while many types of research have addressed various facets of wellbeing (psychological, health, occupational wellbeing, etc.) [ 118 , 122 , 123 , 124 ], this study aimed at a holistic approach to the concept of WB. Although SR depends on the macroeconomic and organizational context, the main expectations for organizations are reducing poverty in the community and society in general, caring for the environment, improving public health, increasing employee WB, and an increasingly efficient educational process.
The analysis revealed a direct positive effect of SR and OE on employees’ WB. However, organizational ethics have a significant indirect positive impact on WB through SR programs that induce ethical conduct and the attitude of employees. These results should take into account various limitations of the research. First, the research only targets a category of stakeholders (employees) with a dual nature (internal and external) by their presence in the organization’s community. Secondly, the research was carried out only among the employees of some Romanian organizations, making it impossible to consider cultural differences between employees from different countries. Finally, the transversal approach to research provides more information through the results obtained, but does not offer a perspective on the evolutions of perceptions over time as a longitudinal approach.
Future research may address some of these limitations. In addition, future research may focus on studying the effects of moderating factors, such as communication, reputation, and organizational culture. Furthermore, there is a need for a deep investigation of the OE practices’ integration and alignment with SR programs to support a more synergistic impact on WB.
This research received no external funding.
Conceptualization, C.G.B., M.M.N., M.C., and S.D.; methodology, C.G.B.; software, C.G.B.; validation, C.G.B., M.M.N., M.C., and S.D.; formal analysis, C.G.B.; investigation, C.G.B., M.M.N., M.C., and S.D.; writing—original draft preparation, C.G.B., M.M.N., M.C., and S.D.; writing—review and editing, C.G.B., M.M.N., M.C., and S.D.; project administration, C.G.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective
Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here
Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.
Home > Books > Corporate Social Responsibility - A Global Perspective
Submitted: 04 January 2024 Reviewed: 09 February 2024 Published: 18 September 2024
DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1005333
Cite this chapter
There are two ways to cite this chapter:
From the Edited Volume
Muddassar Sarfraz and Kashif Iqbal
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]
Chapter metrics overview
6 Chapter Downloads
Impact of this chapter
Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com
Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com
This chapter discusses the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the sustainability of the environment with the application of eco-friendly practices. The incorporation of CSR in the company activities enables the company to apply ethical practices that achieve economic, social, and environmental sustainability. CSR with eco-friendly activities improves the economy and sustains the environment. The discussion, therefore, is based on how CSR eco-friendly practices contribute positively to the environment and the community in achieving the three sustainable pillars: economic, social, and environmental factors. The methodology used was a semi-systematic review, which used a narrative review approach for topics designed from CSR and environmental responsibility eco-friendly practices main topic from literature written by different groups of researchers within the diverse discipline of CSR. Through some global companies discussed in the chapter, it is known that companies implementing sustainable CSR formulate the policy according to the nature of their ethical and environmental impact and have different strategies for achieving their goals according to their respective environmental impacts. The discussion also found that many organizations globally are implementing CSR to achieve economic, environmental, and social aspects. However, there is a lack of a holistic approach in the implementation of CSR activities and CSR strategic planning.
Joseph chilombe *.
*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) requires companies to do business in an ethical manner and to be responsible to employees, customers, and stakeholders when doing business and contribute to society and social issues [ 1 ]. When companies conduct their activities, their activities release particles and gases into the air, water, and soil, many of which have a negative impact on the environment. Companies need to consider the community and environment in which they operate [ 1 ]. It is when the concept of CSR is needed to provide support to the community and ethical behavior in business for the company’s activities to be done in an ethical manner by using eco-friendly practices. Although the purpose of establishing a company is to generate profit, the company has an obligation to protect the environment and consider social factors. The conceptual underpinning of CSR emanates from a profound concern for human welfare and places explicit emphasis on the social dimensions of business activities, which intricately interconnect with the overall quality of life in society.
Corporate responsibility, within the CSR framework, encapsulates the ethical and societal obligations of companies, delineating their responsibilities toward society in terms of how they address social and ethical concerns, incorporating social and environmental considerations into their business operations, and managing their interactions with stakeholders [ 2 ]. The manifestation of CSR practices by companies signifies not only a commitment to the moral and ethical conduct of their operations but also an acknowledgment of responsibilities toward customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, and society at large, transcending the sole pursuit of profit. Despite the myriad benefits that accrue to companies implementing CSR practices [ 3 ], managers engaged in such endeavors encounter challenges during decision-making processes, including the identification of pertinent social issues, selection of initiatives aligned with those issues, development and implementation of comprehensive plans for projects, and the evaluation of outcomes [ 4 ].
The decision-making process assumes paramount significance in the CSR landscape, serving as the pivotal stage wherein initiatives are adopted, therefore, managers are advised to conduct a strategic plan for CSR activities during the planning stage to align the resources/competencies and the opportunities identified within the external environment to ultimately lead to higher levels of performance [ 5 ]. Strategic planning needs to consider community service, corporate philanthropy, corporate social marketing, and environmental issues [ 1 ]. It is imperative to recognize that CSR is a voluntary undertaking, wherein companies integrate social and environmental considerations into core business strategies and operations while adhering to ethical and legal obligations in their interactions with stakeholders [ 6 ].
This chapter, therefore, highlights the corporate social responsibility theoretical background and the methodology that led to the development of the chapter. The chapter further explains CSR’s positive perspectives and progress and the benefits of CSR philanthropic responsibilities. The chapter also explains the importance of the involvement of employees in the implementation of CSR practices and the relationship between CSR, green shared vision and green human resource management and green innovation and green marketing. Eco-friendly practices by some companies through CSR have been explained by citing five international companies narrating about their similarities and differences in the implementation of their eco-friendly practices. The chapter further explains the strategic implementation and strategic planning of CSR. Finally, the chapter discusses the implications of the study’s findings by the chapter through literature review.
Corporate social responsibility, which is also referred to as corporate citizenship or conscious capitalism, has become one of the major contributors to environmental conservation [ 7 ]. There is a positive relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate governance. Well-administered corporate governance improves corporate environmental performance; in addition, it is also responsible for activities that emerge with negative impacts on the environment [ 8 ]. Research proves that corporate environmental performance enhances performance organization’s good performance [ 9 ]. Nowadays, organizations are taking a leading role in recognizing the significance of environmental sustainability [ 10 ]. In this regard, organizations globally are embracing green efforts to educate employees, customers, and stakeholders about the increasing environmental degradation and climate change [ 11 ]. The paradigm shift of organizations to a green approach has gained much attention and has changed organizations from human resource management to human capital management that focuses on selecting, recruiting, and training employees to accomplish green goals [ 12 ] equipping employees with environmental responsibility. The green human resource management (GHRM) motive enables employees to understand the outcome of green activities [ 11 ]. According to Snyder [ 13 ], the implementation of corporate social responsibility by organizations increases economic, environmental, and social impacts because CSR considers corporate accountability, stakeholders, legitimacy, corporate sustainability, political issues, and justice.
This chapter writing is focused on CSR and environmental responsibility eco-friendly practices with a narrative review approach for topics designed from CSR and environmental responsibility eco-friendly practices [ 14 ]. The partial aim is to highlight the significance of ethical and eco-friendly practices in the implementation of productive CSR in order to promote environmental protection innovation and the company’s economic value. For the purpose of this chapter, CSR literature from various authors has been used to unveil the importance of the application of ethical and eco-friendly practices in the implementation of CSR by companies. The methodology was used to find out the relevance of the implementation of CSR to the environment and eco-friendly practices.
This section discusses positive perspectives and progress of CSR, benefits of CSR philanthropic responsibilities, involvement of employees in CSR implementation, CSR green shared vision and green human resource management, green innovation, and green marketing.
The roots of corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be traced back to the 1930s when deliberations commenced regarding the social obligations of the business sector toward the community [ 15 ]. However, it was not until 1952 that Bowen introduced the formal concept of CSR to the global business sector [ 16 ]. The 1980s marked a pivotal shift, with CSR evolving into a more business-centric concept, as noted by Hoffmann et al. [ 17 ]. Initially, companies implemented CSR primarily to maximize profits, often neglecting the social and environmental dimensions of their operations [ 18 ]. However, a paradigm shift in the business mindset transformed the implementation of CSR, emphasizing the dual objective of economic benefits for businesses and the imperative to consider the improved conditions of customers, stakeholders, and the environment throughout business operations [ 19 ].
Dmytriyev [ 19 ] urges companies to forge relationships with a wide array of stakeholders and should look beyond strategic self-interest and short-term profits, as their behaviors can have an effect on local communities and the natural environment [ 19 ]. Camilleri [ 20 ] expounds that stakeholders may have different needs and expectations, as illustrated in Figure 1 . Positive expectations bring economic improvement to the company.
Stakeholder demands and expectations. Adapted from: (Camilleri [ 20 ], p. 6).
In contemporary business operations, CSR has emerged as a strategic tool providing companies with competitive advantages and yielding positive economic outcomes. Consequently, CSR has garnered attention from industry practitioners, policymakers, and researchers in the field of management [ 21 ]. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), serving as a catalyst for change toward sustainable development, asserts that CSR contributes to economic development while simultaneously enhancing the quality of life for employees, their families, and the broader community and society [ 22 ].
Gutterman [ 23 ] advocates corporate companies to incorporate CSR into their policies, emphasizing the prioritization of the protection of people, communities, and the natural environment. This advocacy stems from the understanding that CSR practices uphold ethical values and demonstrate respect for people, communities, and the environment, all while companies continue to generate profits. Gutterman’s encouragement aligns with a sustainable paradigm that underscores the importance of addressing current needs without compromising the well-being of future generations [ 24 ]. Similarly, Nagaty [ 25 ] encourages companies to focus on the triple-bottom-line—comprising economic development, environmental conservation, and social improvements—while Boccia and Sarnacchiaro [ 26 ] affirm that companies can create value for all stakeholders through CSR initiatives.
The triple-bottom-line represents a shift from an old to a new paradigm, where traditional CSR approaches aimed at achieving singular dimensions [ 27 ]. In contrast, the contemporary implementation encompasses all dimensions to achieve sustainability. Each dimension within this new paradigm reflects implicit corporate ambitions, as elucidated in Table 1 . The table explains that each of the dimensions in the old and new paradigms reflects implicit corporate ambition. This explains that the approach to the implementation of CSR is different from the old paradigm, the new paradigm is for sustainability.
Dimension | Old Paradigm | New Paradigm |
---|---|---|
Markets | Compliance | Competition |
Values | Hard (economic figures) | Soft (additional values) |
Communication | Closed (internal) | Open (wider stakeholder analysis) |
Partnerships | Subvention | Symbiosis (win-win) |
Life cycle technology | Focused on products | Focused on functions |
Time | Wide | Longer |
Corporate governance | Exclusive | Inclusive |
Seven areas of transition.
Adapted from: (Mark-Herbert et al. [ 27 ], p. 2).
The shift of seven areas: markets, values, communication, partnerships, life cycle technology, time, and corporate governance is evident through changes in the concept of CSR, in the business and political world Sustainable Development Agenda adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the Sustainable Development Agenda adopted at the World Summit in Johannesburg in 2002 [ 28 ]. Now sustainable development is recognized as a cornerstone of corporate social responsibility [ 29 ]. Navickas et al. [ 28 ] argue that CSR focus is more on corporate business models and the concept of sustainable development on key changes in the global environment.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) assumes a transformative role in affecting positive societal change through philanthropic initiatives, utilizing resources derived from company profits. The integration of CSR with philanthropy positions CSR as a crucial facet within the business sector’s public perception. CSR engenders a symbiotic relationship, establishing interdependence between the company and the community. Acting as a bridge, CSR fosters connectivity between the business entity and the non-profit sector, exemplified by the community. Embracing a philanthropic approach not only motivates the community but also serves as a testament to the company’s social influence, positive public image, and commitment to societal well-being [ 30 ]. In this light, companies must cultivate trust, project a positive reputation, and nurture robust relationships with employees, communities, targeted customers, and other stakeholders [ 31 ]. Implementing CSR with a focus on philanthropic responsibilities becomes a means for companies to acquire social influence.
Carroll [ 32 ] spurs companies to engage in community service and philanthropic activities that improve the quality of life in the areas they operate. Liu et al. [ 33 ] argue that companies need to implement environmental philanthropy in CSR practices because philanthropic activities are reinforced by business dividends articulated in the form of environmental corporate social responsibilities. However, philanthropy is the most optional and discretionary aspect of corporate social responsibility and has not always been related to bringing losses to companies or firms. Besides, Fedotova et al. [ 34 ] assert that companies engage in environmental philanthropic initiatives to gain a positive image, corporate trust, and enhance reputation, which yields a competitive advantage to the company. Eshra and Beshir [ 35 ] confirm that philanthropic actions are mutually beneficial for businesses and the communities in which the companies operate. However, Abbas and Dogan [ 36 ] and Allui and Pinto [ 37 ] support that companies that prioritize CSR with philanthropic activities gain a positive impact on their sustainable performance. On the contrary, Nagaty [ 25 ] eludes that some companies’ philanthropic responsibilities come as the last priority, which is not good. Mataruka et al. explain that philanthropic CSR cannot work, it needs to be incorporated with other CSR elements. The company needs to align with social, economic, and environmental investments when markets and demand expand, creating stakeholder value [ 38 ]. The study conducted by Mataruka et al. [ 39 ] addresses the mediating role of the philanthropic dimension of CSR in the relationship between other corporate practices and sustainable practices in Zimbabwe’s service-based firm sector, the result suggested that philanthropy is the mediator in the connection between the CSR dimensions of economic, ethical, and environmental responsibilities and the study emphasizes that relying solely on philanthropy is not adequate to maintain sustainability.
Employees, as internal stakeholders, play a pivotal role in enhancing organizational productivity through active engagement in CSR activities [ 40 ]. Serving as key implementers, employees contribute significantly to sustainable practices by reducing waste, sharing information, and participating in the design of new products. Companies, such as Shangri-La hotels and resorts in the National Capital Region of India, exemplify the commitment to CSR by initiating campaigns under the umbrella brand of “Sustainability,” addressing key CSR areas, including environment, health and safety, employees, and the supply chain [ 41 ].
Nowadays, companies are encouraged to initiate green initiatives to produce eco-friendly products and services, which are less harmful to the environment because customers are motivated to buy high prices for eco-friendly products and services. For this reason, it is of great importance that companies need motivated employees to achieve their green objectives [ 42 ]. This can be achieved if companies adopt green policies in their green shared vision that will initiate the implementation of socially responsible activities to gain society’s and stakeholders’ attention. Yang et al. [ 42 ] posit that green shared vision and green human resource management (GHRM) practices are strategies that prompt all members to adopt green behavior in their own capacities. According to Sharabati [ 43 ], literature found that the positive relation of CSR to employees in maintaining the engagement, enthusiasm attitude as well as behavior concerning in workplace the environment, and green shared vision is an approach that encourages each member to undertake environmentally friendly practices in their individual capacity in the workplace. GHRM ensures that companies effectually adopt more ecologically sound practices since it raises employees’ environmental consciousness because employees develop green customer citizenship behavior [ 44 ]. Arguably, results indicate that employees who share a green vision embrace sustainable behaviors [ 45 ]. Yang et al. [ 44 ] argue that both CSR and GSV have a significant impact on voluntary green work behavior (VGWB) in an organization. For example, green customer citizenship behavior for hotel employees includes recycling, choosing environmentally friendly products, and supporting environmentally responsible hotels [ 46 ] that have benefits like the reduction of operating costs by conserving resources, the attraction of environmentally conscious customers willing to pay a premium for sustainable practices and enhancement of company’s responsible businesses [ 47 ].
This section discusses the CSR triple-bottom-line-approach contribution to environmental responsibility eco-friendly practices, green innovation and green market for CSR eco-friendly practices, eco-friendly practices by companies through CSR, strategic implementation for CSR, and environmental responsibility eco-friendly practices.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) adopts a triple-bottom-line (TBL) approach, integrating economic, environmental, and social values to manage sustainable corporate conduct. Initially conceptualized by John Elkington in 1994, the TBL approach seeks to balance these three imperatives, aligning with the economic, social, and environmental responsibilities denoted as profit, people, and planet [ 48 ]. The TBL approach transcends traditional corporate models, emphasizing the importance of managing corporate conduct holistically [ 49 ]. By achieving a balance between economic, environmental, and social imperatives, the TBL approach ensures a comprehensive fulfillment of CSR responsibilities [ 50 ]. This multifaceted approach is essential for fostering sustainability, with economic prosperity, social equity, and environmental responsibility intertwined to achieve corporate objectives [ 49 ].
Various internal factors, such as green innovation (GI) and green market (GM), have been noted to impact the implementation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability, as evidenced by previous researchers [ 51 ].
Green innovation is a means of creating new processes and using technologies that implement new and unique ideas to minimize negative environmental impacts, such as carbon footprint and pollution [ 52 ]. GI consists of green technological practices, such as green product, process, managerial, and marketing innovation and the execution of green human resource management practices, which include green training and development, administrative support and culture, recruitment and selection, compensation, and benefits [ 53 ]. GI is directly linked to CSR and sustainability due to its aspect of environmental protection [ 54 , 55 ]. Go-green is an initiative practiced by organizations to do away with eco-friendly problems. GI is practiced in green products, green marketing, green processes, and green management. GI processes are meant for an eco-friendly environment, decreasing consumption of energy and lean production processes, controlling pollution emission and waste recycling, improving the performance of the organization, and providing a pollution-free environment to society at large scale [ 56 ].
A study conducted by Ilvitskaya and Prihodko [ 57 ] explains that GI includes technology, managerial, and organizational innovations that help to sustain the surrounding environment. In addition, the study conducted by Fernando et al. [ 58 ] showed that GI, regulation, supplier intervention, and technology have a strong influence on sustainable performance mediated by service innovation capabilities.
It is therefore important for companies to use green innovation practices. However, it may be difficult to implement GI practices because of difficulties in developing green technologies due to other barriers [ 59 ]. In addition, the implementation of GI requires researchers to assess the impact of various policy frameworks on environmental sustainability initiatives that needs time and resources [ 60 ]. Importantly, there is a need for a comprehensive SWOT study to understand consumer behaviors and attitudes toward green products and services because consumer choices play is paramount in shaping market demand for sustainable alternatives [ 61 ].
The implementation of CSR sustainable practices often leverages green innovation strategies. Green innovation involves the production of environmentally friendly products using sustainable materials and adhering to ecological product design principles. The application of green innovation attracts a green market, as the emphasis on environmentally responsible products aligns with consumer demands and expectations [ 54 , 62 ]. Green marketing, characterized by environmentally friendly operations and services, extends beyond production methods to include consumption, disposal practices, and ethical business decisions [ 63 ]. Companies adopting green marketing not only reduce negative environmental consequences but also enhance customer health and welfare, contributing to the development of a positive corporate reputation [ 64 ].
According to Deshmukh and Tare [ 65 ], green marketing (GM) refers to the encouragement and an effort to pursue the selling of environmentally friendly goods and services. Therefore, GM is a strategy used by companies to create and promote goods and services that are environmentally friendly and sustainable and do not have any adverse effects on the environment [ 65 ]. The positive effects of GM on the environment are products such as low carbon footprint, energy efficiency, and recyclable nature of products.
There is a significant relationship between CSR and GM in today’s business environment [ 65 ]. Nowadays, customers are very sensitive to the goods and services that they use since they know that the bad products are harmful to them personally or their environment. As such, companies make sure that their products take proactive measures to address social and environmental issues [ 66 ]. Nowadays, customers have grown more environmentally conscious, favoring eco-friendly products, and perceiving socially responsible buying behavior as more appropriate. This is because green marketing and eco-friendly activities are becoming more popular as a strategic endeavor in companies’ production process. Therefore, companies face the challenge of being more environmentally friendly [ 64 ] to meet customer’s and consumer’s needs. In addition to satisfying customer needs, green marketing considers the environment and promotes corporate social responsibility [ 67 ]. The company’s competitive advantage can be complemented by green marketing and CSR through the company’s reputation and brand image [ 65 ]. Research has revealed that adoption of sustainable practices results in cost savings, reduction in resource usage, and long-term business resilience [ 68 ].
In response to the global appeal to companies on the implementation of sustainability and social responsibility, many companies use green marketing and CSR strategies in order to satisfy stakeholders and consumers who are environmentally sensitive [ 65 ]. However, the companies meet challenges in the implementation of green marketing such as greenwashing, experiencing problems in balancing sustainability and profitability goals, and issues with regulation and industry standards [ 65 ]. Greenwashing is deceiving customers into thinking that a company’s goods or services are more environmentally or socially responsible or friendly than they actually are [ 69 ]. This is the reason why the government must have monitoring bodies to assess pro-environmental behavior in the context of close business or one industry [ 69 ]. Another challenge is the strive to balance between a company’s profitability and sustainability objectives when companies implement CSR practices [ 65 ].
Companies are ethically obligated to adopt fair and environmentally responsible practices in their CSR activities. This involves a consideration of major environmental CSR components, such as waste and emission elimination, maximization of energy efficiency, and the reduction of practices detrimental to natural resources [ 70 ]. Eco-friendly practices encompass proper packaging materials, clean energy usage, and the incorporation of sustainable materials in construction.
Companies, while seeking to maximize profits, often contribute to environmental degradation through resource exploitation and pollution. Excavation of rocks, release of industrial effluents, and the use of fossil fuels emit pollutants that adversely affect the environment. CSR practices are instrumental in mitigating the adverse impacts of non-environmentally friendly practices, with companies increasingly integrating environmental considerations into all facets of their operations [ 70 ]. CSR factors, such as the formulation of corporate environmental policies, environmental audits, employee involvement, procurement of sustainable materials, and the use of environmentally friendly processes, are pivotal in addressing the environmental impact of company activities [ 71 ].
To ensure the success of eco-friendly practices in the supply chain, companies adhere to CSR green requirements. This involves selecting green suppliers who provide sustainable materials that meet environmental protection standards. Implementing CSR supply chain practices that prioritize environmental and eco-friendly considerations not only reduces environmental harm but also satisfies the green preferences of customers, enhancing profit-making opportunities [ 71 ].
The adoption of CSR practices, specifically those emphasizing eco-friendly approaches, is crucial in safeguarding the environment, reducing production costs, and minimizing waste [ 72 ]. Companies that prioritize CSR activities not only build a positive reputation but also contribute to global efforts in environmental conservation and sustainable development [ 73 ].
Udomphoch and Pormsila [ 74 ] conducted a study of corporate social responsibility in Thailand on packaging and communicated CSR to evaluate consumer buying decisions using the packaging from coconut fibrin. The company used local material (coconut fibrin) for green packaging, which creates jobs in the community by making paper and packaging from coconut fibrin. The production process is environmentally friendly. Corn starch paper has performed under alkaline conditions coupling a mixture of natural additives consisting of carboxymethyl cellulose and corn starch. The company’s effort of using local waste material (coconut fibrin) for green packaging is beneficial to the environment and job creation in the community by making paper and packaging from coconut fibrin pleased the community and consumers were delighted to buy the packaging.
Supekova and Szwajca [ 75 ] conducted a study in Slovak Republic, they highlighted the significance of green marketing in the modern business and economy and its importance in the future as well. The study involved three companies: Panasonic, DELL, and Samsung.
Panasonic is one of the largest electronic company in Slovakia. It invested in the production automation process, mainly in the manufacturing of loudspeakers. The company concentrates on the increase of the Energy Star brand level as well as components used in divisions. Panasonic through its manufacturing process proves that eco-friendly electronics can be manufactured massively with a minimal loss on process performances with more than 300 Energy Star products. The company improved its manufacturing process in waste recycling through green innovation and in 2013 the company’s factory waste recycling achieved a rate of 99.3%. The company uses lean production because it uses recycled plastic waste in its product manufacturing process. In order to control energy use, the company established its own power and water-saving function. Furthermore, the company ensures that home products are power and water-consumption friendly, using intelligent technologies to save consumption and be more ecologically effective. Although the company uses principles of green marketing are widely implemented in the production process and investment to change the appliances to be eco-friendly and power-efficient.
DELL company sells personal computers (PCs), servers, printers, and other electronic equipment. In terms of green marketing, the company focuses mostly on delivery, packaging, and shipping. The company has a policy called “3Cs”–cube–content–curb. The policy focuses on the package box itself, the product that is being packaged and the way how the product and box itself could be recycled. The company manages to decrease the waste production among the company itself and for the customers through the policy. Based on the policy achieves in the reduction of box sizes, transportation of more products at one time, and reduction in waste. Importantly, the production process is environmentally and eco-friendly because it uses natural materials in their packages, such as bamboo cushions or straw initiative. On the contrary, Slovak consumers may not be clear on green innovation and green market, since the company’s activities are mostly focused on foreign consumers and green marketing activities.
Samsung is a manufacturer of electronic equipment such as LCD and LED panels mobile phones, digital cinema screens, and laptops. The company is a global leader in carbon management. Slovakia-based LED panel factory in Voderady (SDSK) introduced technologies that reduce gases from LCD screens. The objective was to significantly reduce CO 2 production during the manufacturing process, as well as using the products. The effort made it possible to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions per sale by 20% from the 2017 levels and expanded eco-friendly products in their portfolio. The products are packed into recyclable and eco-friendly packages that can be reused or recycled. For example, ecological refrigerators are being packed into polypropylene packages that can be used more than 40 times instead of paper and polystyrene. However, KPMG survey [ 76 ] argues that CSR principles and actions applied in the manufacturing processes in the world’s 250 largest companies are not unified and hard to compare.
Unilever: Unilever is a company that uses agricultural raw materials such as palm oil, soy, and tea, from sustainable sources. The company’s stand on its “Sustainable Agriculture Code” (ethical sourcing and sustainable processing) of businesses encourages farmers to adopt eco-friendly practices [ 65 ].
Nestlé: Nestlé is the world’s leading nutrition, health, and wellness company. Nestlé emphasizes on the ethical sourcing of important goods such as cocoa and coffee. Using “Nestlé Cocoa Plan” and the “Nescafé Plan” the company encourages sustainable cultivation and conservation of natural resources such as farmers adopting regenerative practices and more than 15% of Nestlé key ingredients are grown in more regenerative ways [ 77 ]. In 2023, reduction of emissions was reduced by 33.19% due to the increase of renewable energy established in manufacturing facilities that were combined with energy efficiency measures [ 78 ].
Green marketing, characterized by environmentally friendly operations and services, extends beyond production methods to include consumption, disposal practices, and ethical business decisions [ 63 ]. Companies adopting green marketing not only reduce negative environmental consequences but also enhance customer health and welfare, contributing to the development of a positive corporate reputation [ 64 ]. In the supply chain, companies embrace CSR green requirements to implement eco-friendly practices, choosing sustainable suppliers and materials to reduce environmental harm and increase profitability [ 71 ].
Companies that implement CSR have the same goal when using eco-friendly practices in their operations and production of their products. In this regard, companies are there to meet social activities in their operations. Marijana et al. [ 79 ] state that social activities, as a rule are useful and are there to achieve certain social goals. The similarity of companies in their ambition of using eco-friendly practices is that each company develops a policy according to their nature of ethical and environmental impact in order to achieve their sustainable objective. The contrast is observed when the companies want to achieve their objectives. The companies target areas that affect their environment, customers, consumers, or society. For example, Panasonic concentrates on the increase of Energy Star brand level in order to control energy use, DELL focuses mostly on sustainability practices on delivery, packaging, and shipping, Samsung concentrates on the reduction of gases from LCD screens, Unilever is a company that focuses at ethical sourcing and sustainable processing while Nestlé, which is a world’s leading nutrition, health and wellness company, encourages sustainable cultivation and conservation of natural resources.
The implementation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a multifaceted process governed by several critical factors, such as accountability, transparency, ethical behavior, stakeholder consideration, legality, human rights, and adherence to international standards, rooted in the stakeholder theory [ 80 ]. Scholars like Chiappetta et al. [ 81 ] underscore the importance of integrating CSR practices into the planning phase of company projects or operations. Emphasizing the significance of strategic implementation, [ 13 ] asserts that a well-designed and strategic approach is essential for achieving positive CSR outcomes. Consequently, the implementation of CSR demands a strategically-steered approach, ensuring systematic, efficient, effective, and practical management of CSR initiatives [ 82 ].
However, considerations of strategy choice in CSR implementation are contingent upon the size and structure of the company and its targeted objectives, as argued by Fet et al. [ 82 ]. For effective implementation, Maccarrone and Contri [ 83 ] advocate for the integration of CSR into the strategic management processes of an organization. The integrated management system (IMS), as presented by Anholonet et al. [ 80 ], serves as a framework for integrating individual management systems that address stakeholder needs and requirements [ 13 ]. The adoption of an IMS aligns company objectives uniquely, facilitating effective management [ 84 ].
Proposing a systematic approach to CSR strategy implementation, Fet and Knudson [ 82 ] introduced a four-step model that can be adapted for companies of varying sizes. The model encompasses (1) CSR planning, (2) CSR analysis, (3) CSR plan of action, and (4) CSR implementation. This four-step model offers a systemic guide for companies to formulate initial CSR strategy plans, analyze pertinent values and aspects to be incorporated, decide on the operationalization of aspects, and execute the implementation process. Fet and Knudson [ 82 ] contend that this model provides a structured framework that enables companies to monitor and enhance CSR activities systematically, ensuring adaptability to diverse organizational contexts ( Figure 2 ).
Systematic approach to implement CSR strategies in a company. Source: (Fet and Knudson [ 82 ], p. 126).
The effectiveness of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives hinges on sustainable planning and management that incorporates social and environmental dimensions to mitigate the carbon footprint, as asserted by Chiappetta et al. [ 81 ]. Acknowledging the pivotal role of well-planned strategies, Fet and Knudson [ 82 ] underscore that a meticulously crafted CSR strategy significantly enhances the successful implementation of CSR activities. In line with this perspective, Heikkurinen [ 85 ] introduced the concept of strategic corporate social responsibility (SCSR), signifying a deliberate integration of CSR within an overarching strategic framework [ 85 ].
Companies of varying sizes and across diverse industries are increasingly championing CSR in their operations. Notably, research indicates a growing recognition among companies regarding the imperative of integrating CSR into their business models to ensure productivity, competitiveness, and relevance in the swiftly evolving global business landscape [ 86 ]. Despite this widespread adoption of CSR, substantial variations persist in the planning and implementation of CSR activities across companies and the global spectrum.
By emphasizing a holistic approach, the planning of CSR activities must be seamlessly integrated into a company’s strategic planning and core operations. This integration is crucial to ensuring that the company aligns with the interests of stakeholders and maximizes economic and social value through sustainable means [ 87 ]. The planning and analysis stages, as highlighted by Latapí et al. [ 14 ], play a pivotal role in projecting how a company implements its CSR strategy, emphasizing the need for foresight and meticulous examination in the formulation and execution of CSR plans. Although many organizations and companies are implementing CSR, they do not approach CSR holistically and they lack strategic planning before the implementation.
The chapter provides valuable insights for policymakers, companies, businessmen, and stakeholders interested in promoting the implementation of successful and meaningful CSR that is environmentally responsible by using eco-friendly practices in their activities. It encourages the companies to improve CSR regulation to guarantee companies adhere to ethical standards that efficiently address environmental issues by not just focusing on the economic benefits of their companies. It also encourages the companies to use eco-friendly practices in order to invest in sustainable technology in the implementation of CSR in order to promote environmental protection and innovation, at the same time making economic benefits. The chapter also provides examples of some global reputable companies that implement ethical and eco-friendly practices that other companies can borrow a leaf. Bashir et al. [ 88 ] assert that companies need to utilize green/eco-friendly initiatives because it is as an effective CSR tool to gain a competitive advantage because they reflect a favorable picture of the company and demonstrate the company’s ability toward society.
This chapter discussed the importance of CSR on the sustainability of the environment with the application of eco-friendly practices. Corporate social responsibility is a widely adopted and implemented concept in companies around the world. For this reason, companies need to implement CSR in an ethical manner through the use of eco-friendly practices. Companies produce waste during the production of products and offering services. Therefore, using ethical and eco-friendly practices with CSR minimizes environmental degradation. Eco-friendly practices bring a competitive advantage to companies. The use of ethical and eco-friendly practices results in a low carbon footprint, energy efficiency, and recyclable nature of products. For CSR to be effective, employees must be well trained in order to be acquainted with green shared vision, which will assist them in the implementation of ethical and eco-friendly voluntarily. CSR strategic planning and implementation of CSR activities will result in effective CSR that brings sustainability to the environment and community.
© The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corporate social responsibility.
Edited by Muddassar Sarfraz
Published: 18 September 2024
By Jamlaa Almawi
31 downloads
By Prince Yao Amu, Raphael Odoom, Iddrisu Mohammed an...
25 downloads
By Tarik Batti and Lahsen El Madi
47 downloads
IntechOpen Author/Editor? To get your discount, log in .
Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates
Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.
Support: [email protected]
Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility volume 2 , pages 59–74 ( 2017 ) Cite this article
92k Accesses
95 Citations
8 Altmetric
Metrics details
Today’s corporations are increasingly implementing responsible behaviours as they pursue profit-making activities. A thorosugh literature review suggests that there is a link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate social performance (CSP) and financial performance. In addition, there are relevant theoretical underpinnings and empirical studies that have often used other concepts, including corporate citizenship, stakeholder management and business ethics. In this light, this contribution reports on how CSR is continuously evolving to reflect contemporary societal realities. At the same time, it critically analyses some of the latest value-based CSR constructs. This review paper puts forward a conceptual framework for corporate sustainability and responsibility. It suggests that responsible business practices create economic and societal value by re-aligning their corporate objectives with stakeholder management and environmental responsibility.
This research builds on the previous theoretical underpinnings of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) agenda, including corporate social performance (Waddock and Graves 1997 , Griffin and Mahon 1997 , Wang and Choi 2013 ), stakeholder management (Freeman 1984 , Berman et al. 1999 , Carroll and Buchholtz 2014 ), corporate citizenship (Carroll 1998 , Maignan et al. 1999 , Fombrun et al. 2000 , Matten and Crane 2005 ), strategic CSR (Burke and Logsdon 1996 , Lantos 2001 , McWilliams et al. 2006 , Falck and Heblich 2007 ) and creating shared value (Camilleri 2017 , Porter and Kramer 2011 , 2014 , European Union 2011 , Elkington 2012 , Crane et al. 2014 ). Moreover, it reviews the corporate sustainability and responsibility perspectives (Van Marrewijk and Werre 2003 , Salzmann et al. 2005 , Montiel 2008 , Visser 2011 , Benn et al. 2014 ). Corporate sustainability and responsibility is increasingly being recognised as a concept that offers ways of thinking and behaving. This approach toward sustainable business has potential to deliver significant benefits to business, society and the environment.
The subject of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has continuously been challenged by those who want corporations to move beyond transparency, ethical behaviour and stakeholder engagement. Today, responsible behaviours are increasingly being embedded into new sustainable business models that are designed to meet environmental, societal and governance deficits. Although there are numerous theories and empirical analyses on CSR constructs (Carroll 1979 , Margolis and Walsh 2001 , McWilliams and Siegel 2001 , Fombrun 2005 , Wang and Choi 2013 , Strand et al. 2015 ), there is still scant theoretical research that links corporate sustainability with corporate social responsibility and environmental management. Therefore, this contribution aims at filling this academic gap by examining the conceptual developments of the “corporate sustainability and responsibility” notion. This review paper reiterates that that there is a business case for CSR as organizations can pursue profit-making activities (i.e. corporate sustainability). Businesses are encouraged to strategically re-align their products, services, and operations with responsible behaviors (Husted and Allen 2009 ). Strategic CSR outcomes may include responsible management of internal practices and forging relationships with external stakeholders. It is in the organizations’ interest to forge closer ties with the regulatory authorities and with their neighbouring communities. Responsible behaviours add value to the firm, society and the environment (Camilleri 2017 ). Therefore, businesses ought to utilize their skills, resources, and management capability that lead to social progress (see Beschorner 2014 , Porter and Kramer 2011 : 77). This is consistent with the expectation that much of CSR is developed in order to improve the firm’s image and reputation, possibly allowing it to differentiate its products in the market (Fombrun 2005 ).
The underlying objective of this research is to advance the corporate sustainability and responsibility concept. Hence, this contribution provides a critical analysis of the literature that has inevitably led to the conceptual development of this value-based construct. This research elaborates on the business case for CSR and the related stakeholder theory. It provides a logical link between them. Following relevant theoretical underpinnings, this review article also puts forward a conceptual model representing a graphical illustration of ‘corporate sustainability and responsibility’.
The discussion on social responsibility grew in popularity and took shape during the 60s. Many authors have indicated that the CSR notion was a fertile ground for theory development and empirical analysis (McWilliams et al. 2006 ). However, the businesses’ way of thinking has changed dramatically since Levitt in 1958 (and Friedman in 1962) held that the companies’ only responsibility was to maximise their owners’ and shareholders’ wealth, rather than looking after societal (and environmental protection) issues. At the time, these corporations had considerable bargaining power, and their power called for responsibility (Davis 1960 ). Arguably, these businesses had responsibilities towards society beyond their economic and legal duties. In the 60s and 70s, the most important social movements included civil rights, women’s rights, consumers’ rights as well as environmental movements. The period was characterised as an issue era, where companies began noticing specific societal problems arising from social, environmental and community issues. There was a focus on philanthropy and a noticeable manifestation in charitable donations. The gifts in-kind have expanded to the groups representing the health and social services, culture, arts, and the community at large. In a book entitled, ‘Corporate Social Responsibilities’, Walton ( 1967 ) addressed many facets of CSR in society. He came up with several models for social responsibility as he underlined that CSR involved a degree of voluntarism, as opposed to coercion. Moreover, back then, the corporations were incurring discretionary costs for their CSR engagement (Walton 1967 ). Without doubt, the clarification of CSR’s meaning is a significant strand within the research agenda. Table 1 reports a list of concepts that have emerged from the CSR paradigm:
The CSR notion has developed as a rather vague concept of moral good or normative behaviour (Carroll 1991 ). This construct was described as a relativistic measure of ‘the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that society had of organizations at a given point of time’ (Carroll 1979 ). CSR tackled ‘social problem(s)’ to engender positive ‘economic benefit(s)’ to ensure ‘well paid jobs, and ... wealth’ (Drucker 1984 ). This was consistent with academia’s call toward corporate social performance (CSP). The CSP theory had evolved from previous theoretical approaches. CSP reconciled the importance of both corporate social responsibility and corporate social responsiveness (Carroll 1979 ). It also placed an emphasis on achieving better performance out of the socially-responsible initiatives. Many researchers have used the corporate social performance (CSP) construct to establish a definitive causal relationship between the firms that were doing good (CSP) and those doing well (Corporate Financial Performance, i.e. CFP) (Waddock and Graves 1997 , Orlitzky et al. 2003 , Margolis and Walsh 2001 ).
There were several unresolved theoretical debates about whether there was a clear link between CSP and financial performance. Despite certain controversies regarding the validity of some empirical findings, most studies have reported a positive relationship between the two (Waddock and Graves 1997 , Preston and O'bannon 1997 ). The working assumption of CSP research was that corporate social and financial performance were universally related. Yet, it may prove hard for businesses and academia to demonstrate how CSR could lead to tangible improvements in the firms’ bottom lines.
It may appear that there was no explicit statement that describes how socially responsible practices could possibly translate into specific results that affect the profit and loss account (Murillo and Lozano 2006 ). At times, the empirical research did not yield the desired results as the findings were mixed (McWilliams and Siegel 2001 ). Alternatively, they yielded inconsistent evidence (Vogel 2005 ). Some authors have argued that the CSP-CFP link was pointless, as they were unable to find a positive relationship between the responsible business and the firms’ performance. Alternatively, another pertinent research question was to determine whether corporate profitability could be a sufficient motive for the avoidance of irresponsible behaviours (Vogel 2005 ).
CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed. It is ‘a source of opportunity, innovation and competitive advantage’ (Porter and Kramer 2006 ). However, its successful implementation could be influenced by a variety of factors including the firm’s size, diversification, research and development and market conditions (McWilliams and Siegel 2001 ). Very often academic research tried to follow and capture trends in the broader societal debate on the businesses’ social responsibilities. For instance, CSR’s domains often include, commercial responsibility, ethical responsibility and social responsibility (Singh and Del Bosque 2008 ). One of the businesses’ commercial responsibilities is their continuous development of high quality products or services. Companies are also expected to be fair and truthful in their marketing communications, whist they promote their offerings to customers (Singh and Del Bosque 2008 ). Secondly, the ethical responsibility is concerned with the corporations fulfilling their obligations towards their shareholders, suppliers, distributors and other agents with whom they make their dealings. Their ethical responsibility includes safeguarding the human rights and the norms that are (not necessarily) defined in the law when carrying out business activities. The ethical principles in business relationships could have more priority over achieving superior economic performance for some responsible corporations (Singh and Del Bosque 2008 ). Hence, the other social responsibility domain focuses on philanthropic behaviours. In this case, businesses could allocate part of their budget to the natural environment, or toward social issues that favour the most vulnerable in society. This form of social responsibility supports the development of financing stewardship principles including corporate donations to charitable institutions, religious, sports, cultural and heritage activities. This latter perspective is concerned with improving societal well-being.
Other scholars examined innovation and the level of differentiation in the industry as moderators in the relationship between corporate social performance and financial performance (Hull and Rothenberg 2008 ). A study reported that corporate social performance strongly affected financial performance in low-innovation firms and in industries with little differentiation (Hull and Rothenberg 2008 ). Ideally, social performance ought to be consistent over time and across stakeholder domains (Waddock and Graves 1997 , Johnson and Greening 1999 ). For example, job seekers are attracted by CSP and organizational ethics that mirror their own values (Turban and Greening 1997 , Jones et al. 2014 ). Hence, there is an opportunity that socially-responsible businesses could differentiate themselves from other companies. They may leverage their firm’s image relative to other organizations. Lozano ( 2015 ) held that external drivers for CSR include reputation, customer demands and their expectations, as well as regulation and legislation. His findings suggest that one of the CSP outcomes is to communicate the corporations’ commitment to socially-responsible and sustainability values that stakeholders share.
CSR can help to build reputational benefits, it enhances the firms’ image among external stakeholders and could lead to a favourable climate of trust and cooperation within the company (Camilleri 2014 ). The expenditures on CSR activities are typically intended as long- term investments that are likely to yield financial returns. Corporations “give back” to their constituencies because they believe it to be in their best financial interests to do so. Many authors held that CSR is a driver for innovation and economic growth. They believed that it will help the company to achieve a competitive advantage (Burke and Logsdon 1996 , Lantos 2001 , Sen et al. 2006 ) by deriving positive benefits for both societal stakeholders and for the responsible firms. Therefore, companies should devote their attention to CSR strategies which add value to the business and disregard others’ activities which do not add value to the business (Camilleri 2017 ). In this context, the corporate philanthropy should be deeply rooted in the firm’s competences and linked to its business environment (Porter and Kramer 2002 ). Thus, strategic CSR behaviours may lead to the creation of value for both business and society (Burke and Logsdon 1996 , Lantos 2001 , McWilliams et al. 2006 , Porter and Kramer 2011 ). Strategic CSR could increase the financial performance of businesses, it minimises their costs through better operational efficiencies, boosts the employee morale, creates job satisfaction and reduces the staff turnover, along with other benefits (Camilleri 2017 ).
CSR can bring a competitive advantage if there are appropriate relationships with multiple stakeholders. Therefore, it is in the interest of business to engage in ongoing communications and dialogue with employees, customers, marketplace and societal groups (Morsing and Schultz 2006 , Union 2016 , Bhattacharya et al. 2009 ). Businesses may also need to recognise the potential of building fruitful networks with key marketplace stakeholders, including suppliers, regulatory authorities and the community at large. These stakeholder relationships are needed to bring external knowledge sources, which may in turn enhance organizational skills and performance. Acquiring new knowledge must be accompanied by mechanisms for dissemination. Arguably, there is scope in sharing best practices, even with rival firms. It is necessary for the responsible businesses to realise that they need to work in tandem with other organizations to move the CSR agenda forward.
In the past, the stakeholder theory has demonstrated how businesses could develop long-term mutual relationships, with a wide array of stakeholders. The businesses’ closer interactions with stakeholders could be based on relational and process-oriented views (Godfrey 2005 ). Thus, many firms are already forging strategic alliances in their value chain to run their businesses profitably. Many multinational corporations including Nestlé, Google, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever, and Wal-Mart have embraced the ‘shared value’ approach (Porter and Kramer 2011 , Union 2011 , Camilleri 2017 ). In many cases, they are building partnership and collaborative agreements with external stakeholders (including suppliers) hailing from different markets. The most successful businesses are increasingly promoting the right conditions of employment within their supply chains. They are instrumental in improving the lives of their suppliers (Porter and Kramer 2011 ). They do this as they would like to enhance the quality and attributes of their products, which are ultimately delivered to customers and consumers. They have economic responsibilities toward their owners and shareholders (Godfrey et al. 2009 , Desai and Dharmapala 2009 ). Many businesses do not always pay their fair share of taxes to government. Alternatively, they may be accused of not providing the right conditions of employment, or they may even pay lousy wages to their employees (Trejo 1997 ).
Some commentators on the subject of CSR often suggested that the factors that should contribute towards creating value in business and society are often qualitative in nature, and that there are variables that may prove very difficult to measure and quantify, such as, employee morale, corporate image, reputation, public relations, goodwill, and popular opinion (Maignan et al. 1999 , Fombrun et al. 2000 ). Therefore, any discretionary expenditure on altruistic or strategic CSR activities may be regarded as long-term investments that are likely to yield financial returns (McWilliams et al. 2006 , Falck and Heblich 2007 ). Hence, corporate philanthropy, stewardship and cause-related marketing could be re-aligned with the businesses’ profit motives (Camilleri 2017 ). This perspective resonates very well with the agency theory (Eisenhardt 1989 ). In the past, scholars argued that the companies’ only responsibility was to maximise their owners’ and shareholders’ wealth (Levitt 1958 , Friedman 1970 ). Hence, companies were often encouraged to undertake CSR strategies which add value to their business and to disregard other activities which were fruitless. Moreover, at times, the fulfilment of philanthropic responsibilities could simultaneously benefit the bottom line (Lantos 2002 ). Although, it could be difficult to quantify the returns of responsible behaviours, relevant research has shown that those companies that practiced social and environmental responsibility did well by doing good, in the long run (Falck and Heblich 2007 , Porter and Kramer 2011 ). However, other research has shown that it was also possible to overspend on CSR activities (Camilleri 2017 , McWilliams and Siegel 2001 , Lantos 2001 ).
The corporate social responsibility, environmental and ethical behaviours could be triggered by genuine altruism and self-preservation (Hemingway and Maclagan 2004 , Van Marrewijk 2003 ). Some of the contributions on this topic suggest that corporate philanthropy should be deeply rooted in the firms’ competences and linked to their business environment (Porter and Kramer 2002 , Godfrey 2005 ). Many authors often referred to CSR’s core domains (economic, legal and ethical responsibilities) that were compatible and consistent with the relentless call for the business case of CSR (Carroll and Shabana 2010 , Vogel 2005 ). The ethical responsibilities demand that businesses ought to abide by moral rules that define appropriate behaviours within a particular society. Another category of corporate responsibility is related to discretionary, voluntary or philanthropic issues. Corporate philanthropy is a direct contribution by a corporation to a charity or cause, most often in the form of cash grants, donations and/or in-kind services (Kotler and Lee 2008 ). This category of social responsibility is totally dictated at the “discretion” of the organization as there are no laws or codified expectations that guide the corporations’ activities (Rasche et al. 2013 ).
Discretionary responsibilities include those business activities that are not mandated by law, and they are not expected from businesses in an ethical sense (Carroll 1979 ). Practically, some examples where organizations meet their discretionary responsibilities include, when they provide day-care centres for working mothers, by committing themselves to philanthropic donations, or by creating pleasant work place aesthetics (Carroll 1979 ). Evidently, the CSR approach had established a new way of doing business that has led to the creation of value (Porter and Kramer 2011 , Union 2011 , Wheeler et al. 2003 ) with a respectful and proactive attitude towards stakeholders (Freeman 1984 , Lantos 2001 ). The stakeholder theory provides opportunities to align business practices with societal expectations and sustainable environmental needs. The stakeholder relationships support the principle of inclusivity, as the business practitioners ought to strike a balance between the conflicting demands of different stakeholders. Inevitably, businesses need to reconcile disparate stakeholders’ wants and needs (e.g. employees, customers, investors, government, suppliers et cetera).
The CSR’s responsibilities include the obligations toward customers. The businesses maintain economic growth, and meet the consumption requirements in the market. This economic component of CSR represents the fundamental responsibility of businesses. Many firms produce goods and services and sell them at fair prices to customers (including other businesses). This will in turn allow them to make a legitimate profit and to pursue growth and competitiveness. The legal responsibilities of businesses imply that these entities must fulfil their economic mission within the extant framework of rules and regulatory parameters. This legal component recognises the firms’ obligations to obey the relevant laws in the countries where they are trading. Of course, it could prove hard to define and interpret the ethical responsibilities of businesses. This component is often referred to as a “grey area”, as it involves activities that are not necessarily mandated by law but may still entail certain organizational behaviours that are expected by society (Carroll 1979 ).
The economic, legal and ethical responsibilities of corporations are compatible with the business case for CSR (Carroll and Shabana 2010 ), as firms create value to society in the long term with a respectful and proactive attitude towards different stakeholders, including their human resources (Carroll 1991 ). Many commentators argued that the CSR agenda had potential to bring a new wave of social benefits as well as gains for the businesses themselves (Fombrun et al. 2000 , Porter and Kramer 2011 ) rather than merely acting on well-intentioned impulses or by reacting to outside pressures (Van Marrewijk 2003 ). Lozano ( 2015 ) indicated that leadership and the business case are the most important internal drivers for responsible companies. Thus, proper incentives may encourage managers ‘to do well by doing good’ (Falck and Heblich 2007 ). If it is a company’s goal to survive and prosper, it can do nothing better than to take a long-term view and understand that if it treats society well, society will return the favour. Companies could direct their discretionary investments to areas (and cost centres) that are relevant to them (Jamali 2007 , Gupta and Sharma 2009 ). The reconciliation of shareholder and other stakeholders addresses the perpetual relationship between business and society, at large.
The legitimate businesses’ response to the demands of stakeholders allow them to meet and even exceed legal, ethical, and public societal expectations (Carroll 1979 ). Therefore, CSR offers prospects for greater credibility and value added as it involves linking altruistic interventions with long-term strategic goals (Jamali 2007 ). Therefore, corporate philanthropic activities, including stewardship programmes could also create social value to the business practitioners themselves (Camilleri 2017 , Baron 2001 , Carroll and Shabana 2010 ). Certain CSR variables including voluntarism, centrality and visibility could possibly relate to value creation (Husted and Allen 2009 ). One would expect that greater voluntarism would lead to greater creation of value, particularly when CSR initiatives arise as the result of industry, tax, or regulatory constraints (Burke and Logsdon 1996 , Husted and Allen 2009 ). In a similar vein, the environmental regulation can also stimulate the innovation and competitiveness among firms (Orlitzky et al. 2011 ). The incorporation of multiple elements of competitive advantage increases the likelihood that a CSR initiative will succeed and create value for the firm (Burke and Logsdon 1996 ). There could be an optimal level of spending on CSR and environmental responsibility, as businesses are expected to continuously balance conflicting stakeholder interests for long term sustainability (Orlitzky et al. 2011 , Camilleri 2017 ).
The term “sustainable development” has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is from “Our Common Future”, also known as the Brundtland Report, that was published way back in 1987. A central contribution of this report was the intermittent link between human development and actions toward environmental responsibility for the benefit of future generations (Camilleri 2014 ). Thirty years ago, the sustainable development agenda necessitated empirical research data. Debatably, today academia is calling for more policy and concrete action. Many governments as well as businesses are changing their stance on sustainability as they are becoming more proactive rather than reactive on social and environmental issues. Porter and Kramer ( 2011 : 74) recommended that national governments could set performance standards to big businesses. They suggested that they should not interfere with the methods to achieve them, “those are left to companies” (2011:74). In this day and age, we are increasingly witnessing a growing consensus on principles and regulatory guidelines. The initial flurry of codes and guidelines seem to have settled around a few core standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, the UN Global Compact and the Sustainable Development Goals, the World Resources Institute’s Greenhouse Gas Protocol and the UN Principles for Responsible Investment. This change toward sustainable and responsible business is a long-term process, but the momentum is important to reach the necessary tipping points in public opinion, policy response and business action. As a matter of fact, most of the largest corporations are continuously re-articulating their codes of conduct, certifiable standards, corporate programmes, industry initiatives, green politicians, triple-bottom-line reports and documentaries about sustainability (Brundtland 1987 ). Nevertheless, many of the global challenges are still present today — be they climate change, water depletion, biodiversity loss, bribery and corruption or income inequality, among others.
The term “sustainability” can mean different things to a variety of constituencies. While there may be no objection to the sentiments expressed by multiple stakeholders on the respective definitions for sustainable business, most of them are far from holistic. The sustainability systems may be too complex and varied, and their applications could be quite diverse. Some authors have attempted to relate sustainability with the corporations’ responsible behaviours: Interestingly, the corporate sustainability construct was also related to a nested system consisting of economic, societal, and ecological systems. These pillars are interconnected to each other where the economy is part of society, which is also a fundamental part of the larger ecological system. Corporate sustainability relies on six criteria: eco-efficiency, socio-efficiency, eco-effectiveness, socio-effectiveness, sufficiency and ecological equity (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002 ). These corporate sustainability imperatives can be structured into value systems that could result in a better financial performance (Salzmann et al. 2005 , Van Marrewijk 2003 ). A few researchers have developed (self)-assessment tools, that could be used to audit, analyse and interpret corporate sustainability (Van Marrewijk 2003 , Clarkson 1995 ). However, corporate sustainability may be contingent on different parameters (e.g. technology, regime and visibility) that could vary across industries, plants and countries (Salzmann et al. 2005 ). Corporate sustainability could reduce the downside operational risk as it comprises relevant measures that are intended to increase eco-efficiency, and health and safety performance among other issues (Porter and Kramer 2002 , Porter and Kramer 2011 , Camilleri 2014 ). This means that the economic value of sustainable business strategies could be materialised in the long-term (Weber 2008 , Guenster et al. 2011 ).
Notwithstanding, there are the long term effects of corporate sustainability on intangible assets (e.g. brand value, employee loyalty) could be difficult to quantify (Salzmann et al. 2005 , Dyllick and Hockerts 2002 ). Although some commentators have voiced their opposition to the normative calls in favour of the “sustainability rhetoric” (Salzmann et al. 2005 , Vogel 2007 ), it may appear that we are witnessing a relentless progression from active antagonism, through indifference, to a strong commitment to actively furthering sustainability values, not only within the organization, but across many industries and in our society as a whole. These recent developments imply that the organizations’ commitment to responsible behaviours may represent a transformation of the corporation into a truly sustainable business that is adding value to the business itself, whilst also adding value to society and the environment. Perhaps, there is scope for more collaboration between CSR and corporate sustainability fields. This synergy could help to increase the impact of social and environmental performance research within the field of strategic management. Ultimately, the corporate sustainability’s strategic goals are economic development, institutional effectiveness, stakeholder orientation and sustainable ecosystems (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002 , Shrivastava 1995 ).
Firms create simultaneous, pluralistic definitions of value whilst targeting their stakeholders. In a similar vein, the resource based view (RBV) theory suggests that the resources of the firm affect its activities and growth, profits and the level of sustained competitive advantage (Barney, 1991 ). Significant areas of study which are synonymous with the corporate sustainability and responsibility approach include, ‘the Virtuous Circles’ (Pava and Krausz 1996 , Preston and O'bannon 1997 , Waddock and Graves 1997 ), ‘The Sustainable Local Enterprise Networks’ (Wheeler et al. 2005 , ‘The Triple Bottom Line Approach’ (Elkington 1998 ), ‘The Supply and Demand Theory of the Firm’ (McWilliams and Siegel 2001 ), ‘The Value Based Networks’ (Wheeler et al. 2003 ), ‘The Base of Pyramid Approaches’ (Anderson and Markides 2007 , Landrum 2007 ), ‘the Win-Win Perspective for CSR practices’ (Falck and Heblich 2007 ), ‘Creating Shared Value’ (Porter and Kramer 2011 , Union 2011 ), ‘Value in Business’ (Lindgreen et al. 2012 ), ‘The Stakeholder Approach to Maximizing Business and Social Value’ (Bhattacharya et al. 2012 ) and ‘Value Creation through Social Strategy’ (Husted et al. 2015 ), among others.
Very often, these value-based theories suggest that businesses should continuously monitor and evaluate their performance in terms of their economic results. It may appear that many of these propositions focus on identifying and expanding the connections between societal and economic progress. Whilst the traditional school of thought for CSR’s had primarily focused on responsibility, Porter and Kramer ( 2011 ) argued that their creating shared value (CSV) approach is inherently different than CSR. Yet, other academics did not view CSV as unrelated to strategic CSR practices (de los Reyes et al. 2016 , Beschorner 2014 ). Porter and Kramer ( 2011 ) contended that their proposed strategy has set out new business opportunities as it creates new markets, improves profitability and strengthens the corporations’ competitive positioning. The reason for this is that the businesses processes in the value chain operate in an environmental setting within their wider community context (Porter 2001 ). It may appear that Porter and Kramer ( 2011 ) had focused on the value chain activities that could bring opportunities for competitive advantage. The authors contended that there is shared value when the organizations’ social value propositions are integrated into their corporate strategies. Therefore, companies could benefit from insights, skills, and resources that cut across profit/non-profit and private/public boundaries. On the other hand, companies will be less successful if they attempt to tackle societal problems on their own.
Porter and Kramer ( 2011 ) maintained that companies could create shared value opportunities by reconceiving products and markets. Hence, new products and services that meet social needs or serve overlooked markets will require new value chain choices in areas such as production, marketing, and distribution. These revised configurations will create demand for equipment and technology that could save energy, conserve resources, and support employees. They argued that their shared value approach redefines productivity in the value chain by enabling local cluster development. They reiterated that their suggested avenues for creating shared value are mutually reinforcing as corporations, their marketplace stakeholders and the governments ought to work together to develop clusters that enable more local procurement and less dispersed supply chains. For example, Nestlé can be considered as a pioneer of the shared value initiative. The multinational organization has accessed new products, reconfigured and secured the value chain by tapping into new or better resources (through partners and cluster development) whilst improving their capabilities (in terms of skills, knowledge and productivity) of its suppliers. Nestlé sources its materials from thousands of farms in developing countries, where it provides training to farmers for sustainable production. This way, the company protects its procurement, raises its standards and maintains a high quality of the raw materials it uses. At the same time, these suppliers run profitable farms, as they offer their children a fairer future through better education. Moreover, both Nestlé and its suppliers are committed to protecting their natural environmental resources for their long-term sustainability. Nestlé’s business principles have incorporated ten United Nations Global Compact Principles on human rights, labour, the environment and corruption. The company maintains that it complies with international regulatory laws and acceptable codes of conduct, as it improves its company’s operations. Firms don’t just need to prepare financial reports. In a lot of countries, they’re legally required to report social and environmental information. And they have to build up accounting systems to do so (Rasche et al. 2013 ). Very often the companies’ responsible management may involve designing business processes and activities in a way that they meet certain social and environmental minimum standards.
Relevant academic literature is indicating that today’s businesses are strategically re-orienting themselves toward corporate sustainability and corporate responsibility whilst focusing on their stakeholders’ needs. Strand et al. ( 2015 ) suggested that CSV necessitates heightened forms of collaboration and stakeholder management as they remarked about the apparent links between creating shared value and stakeholder theory. Strand et al. ( 2015 ) posited that Porter and Kramer’s ( 2011 ) shared value proposition is a response to the competitive, conflict-based view of strategic management that Michael Porter himself helped to create (Strand 2014 ). However, some critics have argued that ‘shared value’ is based on a shallow conception of the corporation’s role in society (de los Reyes et al. 2016 , Crane et al. 2014 , Beschorner 2014 ) For instance, Crane et al. ( 2014 ) held that CSV looks naïve by ignoring the tensions that could exist between social and economic goals. They suggested that this proposition simplifies the role of corporations in society and ignores the challenges arising from business compliance. Their argument was that there are alternative ways to re-invent capitalism (Corazza et al. 2017 ). This strategic approach cannot cure all of society’s ills as not all businesses are good for society, nor would the pursuit of shared value eliminate all injustice (Porter & Kramer, 2014 ). Beschorner ( 2014 ) also noted that the creation of business value and social value may not always go hand in hand. He regarded Porter and Kramer’s ( 2011 ) shared value approach as a reformulation of a classical strategic stakeholder approach that tends to prioritise the relevance of stakeholders according to their influence on the business’ activities. Although shared value seems to address “win-win” business and society issues, it leaves managers ill-equipped to legitimately manage issues where they face the prospect of “win-lose” or “lose-win” social engagements (de los Reyes et al. 2016 ).
In the past, CSR may have been more associated with corporate philanthropy, stewardship principles, contributions-in-kind toward social and environmental causes, environmental protection, employees’ engagement in community works, volunteerism and pro-bono service among other responsible initiatives. Very often, such altruistic CSR activities may have not resulted in financial performance to the business per se. On the contrary, certain discretionary expenses in corporate philanthropy could have usurped the businesses’ slack resources (including financial assets, labour and time) without adding much value (in terms of corporate reputation and goodwill) to the businesses. Nevertheless, this research reported that the contemporary discourses on corporate social responsibility are opening new opportunities for the businesses themselves. The academic discourse about CSR is moving away from ‘nice-to do’ to ‘doing-well-by-doing-good’ mantra. Evidently, the value-based approaches that were discussed in this paper could be considered as guiding principles that will lead tomorrow’s businesses to long term sustainability (in social and economic terms). Debatably, the profit motive (the business case or corporate sustainability concepts) could be linked with the corporate responsibility agenda. This way, the multinational corporations could be better prepared to address their societal and environmental deficits across the globe, whilst adding value to their business.
This review paper has built on the previous theoretical underpinnings of the corporate social responsibility agenda including Stakeholder Management, Corporate Citizenship and Creating Shared Value as it presents the latest Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility perspective. This value-based model reconciles strategic CSR and environmental management with a stakeholder approach to bring long term corporate sustainability, in terms of economic performance for the business, as well as corporate responsibility’s social outcomes. Recently, some international conferences including Humboldt University’s gatherings in 2014 and 2016 have also raised awareness on this proposition. The corporate sustainability and responsibility concept is linked to improvements to the companies’ internal processes including nvironmental management, human resource management, operations management and marketing (i.e. Corporate Sustainability). At the same time, it raises awareness on the businesses’ responsible behaviours (i.e. Corporate Responsibility) toward stakeholders including the government, suppliers, customers and the community, among others. The fundamental motivation behind this approach is the view that creating connections between stakeholders in the value chain will open-up unseen opportunities for the competitive advantage of responsible businesses, as illustrated in Table 2 .
Corporate sustainability and responsibility focuses on exploiting opportunities that reconcile differing stakeholder demands as many corporations out there are investing in corporate sustainability and responsible business practices (Lozano 2015 ). Their active engagement with multiple stakeholders (both internal and external stakeholders) will ultimately create synergistic value for all (Camilleri 2017 ).
Multinational organizations are under increased pressures from stakeholders (particularly customers and consumer associations) to revisit their numerous processes in their value chain activities. Each stage of the company’s production process, from the supply chain to the transformation of resources could add value to their businesses’ operational costs as they produce end-products. However, the businesses are always expected to be responsible in their internal processes toward their employees or toward their suppliers’ labour force. Therefore, this corporate sustainability and responsibility perspective demands that businesses create economic and societal value by re-aligning their corporate objectives with stakeholder management and environmental responsibility. In sum, corporate sustainability and responsibility may only happen when companies demonstrate their genuine willingness to add corporate responsible dimensions and stakeholder engagement to their value propositions. This occurs when businesses opt for responsible managerial practices that are integral to their overall corporate strategy. These strategic behaviours create opportunities for them to improve the well-being of stakeholders as they reduce negative externalities on the environment. The negative externalities can be eliminated by developing integrated approaches that are driven by ethical and sustainability principles. Very often, multinational businesses are in a position to mitigate risk and to avoid inconveniences to third parties. For instance, major accidents including BP’s Deep Horizon oil spill in 2010, or the collapse of Primark’s Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh, back in 2013, could have been prevented if the big businesses were responsible beforehand.
In conclusion, the corporate sustainability and responsibility construct is about embedding sustainability and responsibility by seeking out and connecting with the stakeholders’ varied interests. As firms reap profits and grow, there is a possibility that they generate virtuous circles of positive multiplier effects (Camilleri 2017 ). Therefore, corporate sustainability and responsibility can be considered as strategic in its intents and purposes. Indeed, the businesses are capable of being socially and environmentally responsible ‘citizens’ as they are doing well, economically. This theoretical paper has contributed to academic knowledge as it explained the foundations for corporate sustainability and responsibility. Although this concept is still evolving, the debate among academic commentators is slowly but surely raising awareness on responsible managerial practices and on the skills and competences that are needed to deliver strategic results that create value for businesses, society and the environment.
No research is without limitations. This conceptual paper could not have featured all of the contributions that are related to CSR’s value driven notions. However, the scope of this paper has been reached. The corporate sustainability and responsibility proposition could appeal to business practitioners themselves, as sustainable and responsible behaviours may bring significant improvements to their firms’ bottom lines. Of course, there are diverse contexts across different industry sectors (and jurisdictions) that will surely influence the successful implementation of corporate sustainability and responsibility practices and their reporting mechanisms. Notwithstanding, it may prove difficult to quantify the tangible and intangible benefits of corporate sustainability and responsibility. Future theoretical and empirical research may address these challenging issues, in further detail. Indeed, there is also potential for more conceptual development in this promising area of strategic management.
Anderson J, Markides C (2007) Strategic innovation at the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 49(1):83–88
Google Scholar
Bansal P, Jiang GF, Jung JC (2015) Managing responsibly in tough economic times: strategic and tactical CSR during the 2008–2009 global recession. Long Range Plan 48(2):69–79
Article Google Scholar
Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management 17(1):99–120.
Baron DP (2001) Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 10(1):7–45
Benn S, Dunphy D, Griffiths A (2014) Organizational change for corporate sustainability. Routledge, Oxford, UK
Berman SL, Wicks AC, Kotha S, Jones TM (1999) Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad Manag J 42(5):488–506
Beschorner T (2014) Creating shared value: the one-trick pony approach. Business Ethics Journal Review 1(17):106–112
Bhattacharya CB, Korschun D, Sen S (2009) Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. J Bus Ethics 85(2):257–272
Bhattacharya CB, Sen S, Korschun D (2012) The stakeholder route to maximizing business and social value. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future: report of the 1987 world commission on environment and development. United Nations, Oslo
Burke L, Logsdon JM (1996) How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Plan 29(4):495–502
Camilleri MA (2014) Advancing the sustainable tourism agenda through strategic CSR perspectives. Tourism Planning & Development 11(1):42–56
Camilleri MA (2015) Valuing stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting. Corp Reput Rev 18(3):210–222
Camilleri MA (2017) Corporate sustainability, social responsibility and environmental management: an introduction to theory and practice with case studies. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany
Book Google Scholar
Carroll AB (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad Manag Rev 4(4):497–505
Carroll AB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons 34(4):39–48
Carroll AB (1998) The four faces of corporate citizenship. Bus Soc Rev 100(1):1–7
Carroll AB, Buchholtz, AK (2014). Business and society: ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. Nelson Education
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
Clarkson ME (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):92–117
Corazza L, Scagnelli SD, Mio C (2017) Simulacra and sustainability disclosure: analysis of the interpretative models of creating shared value. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. In press.
Crane A, Palazzo G, Spence LJ, Matten D (2014) Contesting the value of “creating shared value”. Calif Manag Rev 56(2):130–153
Davis K (1960) Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? Calif Manag Rev 2(3):70–76
De Bakker FG, Groenewegen P, Den Hond F (2005) A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society 44(3):283–317
de los Reyes G, Scholz M, Smith NC (2016) Beyond the ‘win-win’: creating shared value requires ethical frameworks. California Management Review, Forthcoming. Forthcoming, INSEAD Working Paper No. 2016/67/ATL/Social Innovation Centre. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2848192
Desai MA, Dharmapala D (2009) Corporate tax avoidance and firm value. Rev Econ Stat 91(3):537–546
Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review 20(1):65–91.
Drucker PF (1984) Converting social problems into business opportunities: the new meaning of corporate social responsibility. Calif Manag Rev 26(2):53–63
Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ 11(2):130–141
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14(1):57–74
Elkington J (1998) Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21stcentury business. Environ Qual Manag 8(1):37–51
Elkington J (2012) Sustainability should not be consigned to history by Shared Value https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainability-with-john-elkington/shared-value-johnelkington-sustainability
European Union (2011) A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for corporate social responsibility. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:en:PDF
European Union (2016) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the EU. European Commission Publications, Brussels, Belgium http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=331
Falck O, Heblich S (2007) Corporate social responsibility: doing well by doing good. Business Horizons 50(3):247–254
Fombrun CJ (2005) A world of reputation research, analysis and thinking—building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: evolving standards. Corp Reput Rev 8(1):7–12
Fombrun CJ, Gardberg NA, Barnett ML (2000) Opportunity platforms and safety nets: corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Bus Soc Rev 105(1):85–106
Freeman RE (1984) Stakeholder management: framework and philosophy. Pitman, Mansfield, MA. USA
Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar BL, De Colle S (2010) Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine 13:32–33
Godfrey PC (2005) The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk management perspective. Acad Manag Rev 30(4):777–798
Godfrey PC, Merrill CB, Hansen JM (2009) The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strateg Manag J 30(4):425–445
Griffin JJ, Mahon JF (1997) The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society 36(1):5–31
Guenster N, Bauer R, Derwall J, Koedijk K (2011) The economic value of corporate ecoefficiency. European Financial Management 17(4):679–704
Gupta S, Sharma N (2009) CSR-A business opportunity. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations:396–401
Harrison JS, Wicks AC (2013) Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Bus Ethics Q 23(1):97–124
Hemingway CA, Maclagan PW (2004) Managers' personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 50(1):33–44
Henisz WJ, Dorobantu S, Nartey LJ (2014) Spinning gold: the financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strateg Manag J 35(12):1727–1748
Hillman AJ, Keim GD (2001) Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line?. Strategic management journal 125–39.
Hull CE, Rothenberg S (2008) Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strateg Manag J 29(7):781–789
Husted BW, Allen DB (2009) Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation. Manag Int Rev 49(6):781–799
Husted BW, Allen DB, Kock N (2015) Value creation through social strategy. Business & Society 54(2):147–186
Jamali D (2007) The case for strategic corporate social responsibility in developing countries. Bus Soc Rev 112(1):1–27
Johnson RA, Greening DW (1999) The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Acad Manag J 42(5):564–576
Jones DA, Willness CR, Madey S (2014) Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Acad Manag J 57(2):383–404
Kotler P, Lee N (2008) Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Landrum NE (2007) Advancing the “base of the pyramid” debate. Strategic Management Review 1(1):1–12
Lantos GP (2001) The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. J Consum Mark 18(7):595–632
Lantos GP (2002) The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility. J Consum Mark 19(3):205–232
Levitt T (1958) The dangers of social-responsibility. Harv Bus Rev 36(5):41–50
Lindgreen A, Hingley MK, Grant DB, Morgan RE (2012) Value in business and industrial marketing: past, present, and future. Ind Mark Manag 41(1):207–214
Lozano R (2015) A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 22(1):32–44
Maignan I, Ferrell OC, Hult GTM (1999) Corporate citizenship: cultural antecedents and business benefits. J Acad Mark Sci 27(4):455–469
Margolis JD, Walsh JP (2001) People and profits?: the search for a link between a company's social and financial performance. Psychology Press, New York, NY, USA
Marques-Mendes A, Santos MJ (2016) Strategic CSR: an integrative model for analysis. Social Responsibility Journal 12(2):363–81.
Matten D, Crane A (2005) Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Acad Manag Rev 30(1):166–179
McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26(1):117–127
McWilliams A, Siegel DS, Wright PM (2006) Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. J Manag Stud 43(1):1–18
Montiel I (2008) Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability separate pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment 21(3):245–269
Morsing M, Schultz M (2006) Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4):323–338
Murillo D, Lozano JM (2006) SMEs and CSR: an approach to CSR in their own words. J Bus Ethics 67(3):227–240
O’Riordan L, Fairbrass J (2014) Managing CSR stakeholder engagement: a new conceptual framework. J Bus Ethics 125(1):121–145
Olsen TD (2017) Political stakeholder theory: the state, legitimacy, and the ethics of microfinance in emerging economies. Bus Ethics Q 27(1)
Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organ Stud 24(3):403–441
Orlitzky M, Siegel DS, Waldman DA (2011) Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Business & society 50(1):6–27
Pava ML, Krausz J (1996) The association between corporate social-responsibility and financial performance: the paradox of social cost. J Bus Ethics 15(3):321–357
Porter ME (2001) The value chain and competitive advantage. Understanding business, Processes, pp 50–66
Porter ME, Kramer MR (2002) The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harv Bus Rev 80(12):56–68
Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006, Dec 2006) The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv Bus Rev:78–92
Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harv Bus Rev 89(1/2):62–77
Porter ME, Kramer MR (2014) A response to Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L.J. and Matten, D http://www.dirkmatten.com/Papers/C/Crane%20et%20al%202014%20in%20CMR.pdf
Porter ME, Kramer M (2014) A response to Andrew Crane et al’.s article by Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L.J. & Matten, D. Contesting the value of “creating shared value" p. 20. http://www.dirkmatten.com/Papers/C/Crane%20et%20al%202014%20in%20CMR.pdf . Accessed 14 Sept 2017.
Preston LE, O'bannon DP (1997) The corporate social-financial performance relationship. Business and society 36(4):419–429
Rasche A, De Bakker FG, Moon J (2013) Complete and partial organizing for corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 115(4):651–663
Salzmann O, Ionescu-Somers A, Steger U (2005) The business case for corporate sustainability:: literature review and research options. Eur Manag J 23(1): 27–36
Sen S, Bhattacharya CB, Korschun D (2006) The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment. J Acad Mark Sci 34(2):158–166
Shrivastava P (1995) The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):936–960
Singh J, Del Bosque IR (2008) Understanding corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: a cross-cultural evaluation. J Bus Ethics 80(3):597–611
Steger U, Ionescu-Somers A, Salzmann O (2007) The economic foundations of corporate sustainability. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 7(2):162–77.
Strand R (2014) Scandinavia can be an inspiration for creating shared value. Financial Times Business Education Soapbox. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/84bbd770-b34d-11e3-b09d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zw0bVEbR
Strand R, Freeman RE, Hockerts K (2015) Corporate social responsibility and sustainability in Scandinavia: an overview. J Bus Ethics 127(1):1–15
Trejo SJ (1997) Why do Mexican Americans earn low wages? J Polit Econ 105(6):1235–1268
Turban DB, Greening DW (1997) Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Acad Manag J 40(3):658–672
Van Marrewijk M (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. J Bus Ethics 44(2):95–105
Van Marrewijk M, Werre M (2003) Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. J Bus Ethics 44(2):107–119
Verbeke A, Tung V (2013) The future of stakeholder management theory: a temporal perspective. J Bus Ethics 112(3):529–543
Visser W (2011) The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, west Sussex, U.K.
Vogel DJ (2005) Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility. Calif Manag Rev 47(4):19–45
Vogel DJ (2007) The market for virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Brookings Institution Press, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA
Waddock SA, Graves SB (1997) The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strateg Manag J 18(4):303–319
Walton CC (1967) Corporate social responsibilities. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, USA
Wang H, Choi J (2013) A new look at the corporate social–financial performance relationship the moderating roles of temporal and interdomain consistency in corporate social performance. J Manag 39(2):416–441
Weber M (2008) The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company-level measurement approach for CSR. Eur Manag J 26(4):247–261
Wheeler D, Colbert B, Freeman RE (2003) Focusing on value: reconciling corporate social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world. J Gen Manag 28(3):1–28
Wheeler D, McKague K, Thomson J, Davies R, Medalye J, Prada M (2005) Creating sustainable local enterprise networks. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 47(1):33–40
Yasser QR, Al Mamun A, Ahmed I (2017) Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity: insights from Asia Pacific. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. In press.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
University of Malta, Msida, Malta
Mark Anthony Camilleri
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Mark Anthony Camilleri .
Competing interests.
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided 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.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Camilleri, M.A. Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating value for business, society and the environment. AJSSR 2 , 59–74 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-017-0016-5
Download citation
Received : 03 March 2017
Accepted : 13 September 2017
Published : 22 September 2017
Issue Date : September 2017
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-017-0016-5
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
Searching for business ethics and social responsibility essay? This reflection paper discusses the importance of corporate ethics and social responsibility.
The importance of business ethics.
Ethics and social responsibility play an important role in business management. Organizations, both public and private, feel the need to incorporate corporate responsibility in their organizational culture. Ethics deals with knowing what is wrong and what is right. Business ethics encompasses analyzing ethical decisions, beliefs, and actions inline with business activities. Organizations are expected to show ethical values and operate socially responsible.
The major issue is that business ethics integrates different sets of ethics. This is the reason as to why organizations should employ good individuals as workers. Social responsibility deals with business conduct in respect to the broader social values. It questions the duties of business to the entire society (Sims, 2003). In this light, this paper discusses the importance of ethics and social responsibility and various practices and theories employed in different organizations.
Businesses operate in such a way that their owners can realize some benefits. Business owners are also known as shareholders. Though, other stakeholders are part of critical components of decision making because businesses have to act in a liable and ethical manner and reflect on the potential effects of any choices made. Stakeholders such as dealers, customers, staff, owners, and communities are the integral part of business operations.
Customers, who are also citizens, require quality products which are affordable. Likewise, other stakeholders expect fair business engagements from organizations. Citizens need to know that right things are being done for the right reasons. This is because organizations target citizens in their plans for making profits and it is imperative that citizens observe the conduct of businesses in order to make the right choices (McNamara, 2010).
Knowing ethical and social norms help citizens to keep organizations in tandem with the society’s expectations. Businesses should work in a way that is lawful, beneficial, ethical, and inline with social commands (Johnson, n.d). Ethics in business enable organizations to maximize profits, utilize business resources, and create support in the market. Ethical values should command what is suitable to pay employees as well as to charge consumers.
An organization is therefore required to have a culture that enhances strong values. This will also attract good employees in the company. For example, companies strive to be included in the list of the top 100 firms in the United States issued frequently in Fortune magazine. The most common criteria used are analyzing profit sharing, bonuses, and stock markets. The list also incorporates policies and rewards that refer to work and enhance social responsibility (Griffin, 2008).
In the health sector, patients are supposed to trust physicians because hospitals are normally governed with good ethical conducts. This trust ensures that good medical care is offered to patients. Studies have found that trust is mostly related to patient satisfaction and therefore vital in selecting and applying treatment that is essential to patients (Thom & Campbell, 1997). Moreover, such trusts are essentials because in many cases patients require long-term or ongoing management in chronic cases.
Social responsibility is an element of ethical conduct. It is improving the community in general. Areas of social responsibility include business giving, ecological and environmental quality, consumerism, government relation, and labor relations. Social responsibility improves the public image of an organization and enhances the local economy.
Trust and excellent reputation are among the most important assets in any business that can only be realized through social responsibility. Social responsibility also attracts and retains employees who are committed to their task, hence improved performance. By doing so, companies can reduce the cost of recruitment.
Moreover, social responsibility increases the customer base and attracts investors. Being a social responsible organization enable a business to gain competitive advantage. Developing products that are friendly to the environment adds value and increases sales in business. Investors prefer social responsible businesses because it is an indication of proper management and a good reputation (The Economist, 2009).
However, if a company produces products that are detrimental to the environment, there is high chance that the company’s image can be destroyed.
The effect of pollution on air, water, and land calls for the need to observe ecological and environmental quality. Companies should clean up the existing pollution, start processes to reduce pollution, control noise, recycle materials, and perform aesthetic improvements. Consequently, social responsibility determines how children behave and thus there is need to educate children about social responsibility in order to put a sustainable investment in the future. Children are the potential business stakeholders in future.
Practicing social responsibility such as training children and improving health and education broadens their view and persuade them to help others. Teenagers can be asked to take part in volunteer programs in nursing homes, heath centers, and schools. This helps to heighten the idea that we are accountable for the state and quality of our societies (Griffins, 2008).
Ethics and social accountability in the context of business have changed over the last decades. This is due to various ethics scandals that have captured the interest of people. It is vital to talk about some of these scandals. The Salmon Brothers, a sponsor of security, defied Treasury policy in 1990s by purchasing more than thirty five percent of a Treasury copy of securities at auction. This business scandal forced three top executives to resign, including other effects.
The crime contributed in the effort of setting the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1991 which was responsible for ensuring that companies are accountable for any unlawful behavior (Brenner, 1992). In the mid 1990, many ethical scandals were inline with sexual harassment and racial prejudice.
Coca-cola, Mitsubishi, and Texaco are some of the companies that received such accusations. At the start of the new century, scandals were persistent in the news. In 2001, Firestone and Ford expressed regret to their customers for a continued tire failures. Business ethics crimes are still common in the present days and therefore there is a possibility of changing ethical and social responsibility practices and theories in the future.
From the inference of public interest in social responsibility during the last forty years, two implications can be made. Attention in social responsibility has increased throughout the past three decades. Consequently, attention in ethics and social responsibility appears to have been driven by business scandals. In essence, the society has constantly changed their view on the issue with different tastes; some take it seriously and others take it lightly.
Because of the increasing ethical missteps, companies have been undergoing an intensive analysis from the public with regards to their performance. Due to many allegations, such as unfavorable care for the customer and environmental degradation, social responsibility has changed dramatically and thus companies are required to offer back to the community. It is believed that individual corporations are like citizens so they should contribute to the society (Henn, 2009).
The current organizations in many aspects are part of the society made up of many persons with different views and expectations. This implies that there is new demand for all stakeholders to reorganize their relationships.
For example, according to the President of McDonald’s, Don Thompson, the enduring success of the company relies on customers’ trust and loyalty – in the value and safety of food, in the business processes, and in the firm’s commitment to solving issues presented by the customers (personal communication, June 13, 2010). Those businesses expected to last for long will be concerned with making certain that the evolving requirements are met.
These companies will need to observe legal, ethical, and social requirements while being able to operate in tandem with changing economic conditions. In the past, social responsibility was seen as a practice that can decrease profits and thus contradicting the reason for the firm’s existence (Griffin, 2008).
Likewise, most organizations applied the utilitarian principle in solving ethical problems. The utilitarian principle argues that an action should be taken if it brings greater value to the whole organization. Modern organizations take into consideration the rights of every individual. This is known as the moral rights principle of solving ethical problems. It is imperative that modern firms observe and preserve the rights of employees, customers, and the whole society.
In future, ethics and social responsibility will have a new meaning in the context of business operations. From the current happenings, it is possible that businesses will be required to be adoptive and interactive. Future organizations will need to observe the changing laws that govern business operations.
As pressure increases from the outside environment, companies will be able to anticipate environmental changes and blend their own goals with those of the society. This is an interactive approach that reduces the difference between society’s viewpoint and business routine.
Social responsibility is part of business ethics that require managers to be open in their business engagements. Observing ethics and social responsibility improves the company’s image and result to profit maximization.
The whole world would benefit from social responsibility because companies are required to take part in the following aspects: improve environmental quality, provide truthful advertisement, start industries in marginal areas, provide equal employment rights, develop quality products, and enable freedom of participation in company’s affairs.
As explained in this paper, ethics and social responsibility requires constant changes in organizational conduct and performance. Since internal and external requirements change, it is imperative that firms likely to survive in future observe the changing needs from the society and regulations imposed by the government. In essence, since businesses create some problems they should help solve them.
Brenner, S. N. (1992). “Ethics Programs and Their Dimensions”. Journal of Business Ethics , 11, 391-399.
Griffin, A. (2008). New Strategies For Reputation Management: Gaining Control of Issues, Crisis & Corporate Social Responsibility. Philadelphia, USA: Kogan Page Limited.
Henn, K. (2009). Business Ethics: A Case Study Approach. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Johnson, K. W. Integrating Applied Ethics and Social Responsibility . Ethical Complexity or Ethical Chaos? . Web.
McNamara, C. (2010). Complete Guide to Ethics Management: An Ethics Toolkit for Managers . Free Management Library. Web.
Oneal, M. (Interviewer) & Thompson, D. (Interviewee). (2010). McDonald’s on a Roll, But Still Not at Top of its Game . Chicago Tribune. Web.
Sims, R. (2003). Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants Fall. United States: Green wood Publishing Group, Inc.
The Economist. (2005). The Importance of Corporate Responsibility . Economist Intelligence Unit. Web.
Thom, D. H. & Campbell, B. (1997). Patient-Physician Trust: An Exploratory Study. BNET. Web.
IvyPanda. (2018, July 16). Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-social-responsibility/
"Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Essay." IvyPanda , 16 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-social-responsibility/.
IvyPanda . (2018) 'Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Essay'. 16 July.
IvyPanda . 2018. "Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Essay." July 16, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-social-responsibility/.
1. IvyPanda . "Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Essay." July 16, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-social-responsibility/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Essay." July 16, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-social-responsibility/.
IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:
Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.
Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.
Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:
Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .
To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.
Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Social Performance Corporate social responsibility is the the obligation of an entity for their actions to align with the interest of their stakeholders, the environment and society in general (Birt 2014). Qantas has eight key business principles and group policies in order to maintain a socially responsible business.
Many times, you will judge that the financial and environmental cost of the trip is far outweighed by the benefits. Those are the times you should travel. My argument here is that it is the thought process, the analysis of environmental costs and benefits, that is at the heart of an individual's responsibility for environmental sustainability.
To help you get started, here are 118 social responsibility essay topic ideas and examples: The importance of corporate social responsibility in today's business world. How companies can promote social responsibility through sustainable practices. The impact of social responsibility on consumer behavior.
The revised Social and Environmental Standards (SES) came into effect on 1 January 2021. The SES underpin UNDP's commitment to mainstream social and environmental sustainability in our Programmes and Projects to support sustainable development. The SES are an integral component of UNDP's quality assurance and risk management approach to ...
The strength of the economic dimension. When the company preserves natural resources and rationalizes their consumption by setting a clear environmental policy and linking the analysis of environmental and social role and the proper environmental contribution to production processes: 3: The strength of moral dimension.
The United Nations has a long history of advocating for environmental and social responsibility: this is now evolving into a unifying platform that will strengthen the sustainability of its administrative and operational choices. For the past two years an inter-agency initiative to advance environmental and social sustainability in the United
In today's world, the concept of environmental stewardship has become an integral part of corporate social responsibility. To thrive in a competitive global landscape, many industrial and corporate entities have embraced environmental sustainability as a cornerstone of their operations.
Writer Bio. Social responsibility is a modern philosophy that states that all individuals and organizations are obligated to help the community at large. This is typically an active effort involving acting against a social issue or prevention of committing harmful acts to the environment. Many companies and individuals engage in ...
These results agree with Consolandi et al. (Citation 2020), which shows that when the business management feels its responsibility to the environmental quality, social well-being of the stakeholders, and the business itself, their form their policies for the attainment of a quality environment both for workers, the establishment of solid ...
social responsibility focus on the integration of the social (people), environment (planet), and economic (profit) goals over the long-term. Shifting focus to justice and rights rather than short ...
There has, in recent times, been an increasing interest in understanding corporate social (and environmental) responsibility (CSR) and, in particular, CSR reporting in developing countries. However, many of these studies fail to investigate fully the contextual factors that influence CSR and reporting in those countries, preferring to rely on theories and hypotheses developed from studies ...
Most companies have long practiced some form of corporate social and environmental responsibility with the broad goal, simply, of contributing to the well-being of the communities and society they ...
Since the acronym "ESG" (environmental, social, and governance) was coined in 2005, and until recently, its fortunes were steadily growing.To take one example, there has been a fivefold growth in internet searches for ESG since 2019, even as searches for "CSR" (corporate social responsibility)—an earlier area of focus more reflective of corporate engagement than changes to a core ...
Within the ever-changing manufacturing landscape of China, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a key factor influencing environmental performance. Knowing the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts and environmental results is crucial as environmental concerns throughout the world grow more pressing. This research explores the complex relationship between CSR ...
Responsibility for health should be a collaborative effort among individuals and the societies in which they live. Individuals should care for their own health and help to pay for their own healthcare, and societies should promote health and help to finance the costs of healthcare. Though access to care tends to dominate discussions of social ...
Environmental educators face many challenges in university settings, including improving students' capacity for systems thinking, the effective use of educational technology, and supporting a sense of agency for participation in social change. This article presents a model for teaching "Social Responsibility and the World of Nature," an undergraduate-level civic engagement course ...
Social responsibility empowers employees to leverage the corporate resources at their disposal to do good. Being a socially responsible company can bolster a company's image and build its brand ...
E environmental, social, and Governance (ESG) is the set of standards designed to evaluate and regulate the environmental, social, and corporate performance of business firms. It is the way to evaluate the firms' conscientiousness or sense of responsibility towards social welfare, environmental protection, and economic progress (Escrig-Olmedo ...
2.1. Social Responsibility . SR is the moral responsibility of an organization toward the community in which it operates in particular and towards society in general [4,14].SR is a concept that has received multiple definitions, and there are various classifications of its dimensions: the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic dimensions [] and the economic, social, environmental ...
1. Introduction. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) requires companies to do business in an ethical manner and to be responsible to employees, customers, and stakeholders when doing business and contribute to society and social issues [].When companies conduct their activities, their activities release particles and gases into the air, water, and soil, many of which have a negative impact ...
Today's corporations are increasingly implementing responsible behaviours as they pursue profit-making activities. A thorosugh literature review suggests that there is a link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate social performance (CSP) and financial performance. In addition, there are relevant theoretical underpinnings and empirical studies that have often used other ...
The fact that calls are being made for more research into the relationship between corporate social responsibility, environmental strategy, and environmental outcomes should not come as a surprise, since, while research has certainly begun to pay greater attention to this connection, a more comprehensive examination of the relationship between ...
Ethics and social responsibility play an important role in business management. Organizations, both public and private, feel the need to incorporate corporate responsibility in their organizational culture. Ethics deals with knowing what is wrong and what is right. Business ethics encompasses analyzing ethical decisions, beliefs, and actions ...
Abstract Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is gaining significance in the business world. ... Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at workplace: The role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. ... Search for more papers by this author. Waheed Ali Umrani, Waheed Ali Umrani.