csr reflective essay

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

We're Hiring!
Help Center

A reflection on Corporate Social Responsibility

Related Papers

International Journal of Social Science Studies

Pier Luigi Sacco

Ezedioramma Rtc

ABSTRACT Social responsibility is an idea that has been of concern to mankind for many years. Over the last two decades, however, it has become of increasing concern to the business world. This has resulted in growing interaction between governments, businesses and society as a whole. In the past, businesses primarily concerned themselves with the economic results of their decisions. “Today, however, businesses must also reflect on the legal, ethical, moral and social consequences of their decisions”. This paper will discuss the concept of corporate social responsibility. It will give the definition of the phrase, and identify some of the global factors that necessitate corporate social responsibility. It will discuss the importance of corporations setting up corporate social responsibility projects, and the impact these have on society. Social corporate responsibility and the maintenance of high ethical standards is not an option but an obligation for all businesses.

ERN: Non-Pecuniary Motivation & Incentives (Topic)

Vijay Vishwakarma

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not a new term. Previously only few companies use to do something for the betterment of the society. As they feel all the stakeholders are the integral part of any business organization. If they being served in a better way, definitely it will help the organization to sustain. The aim of this paper is to understand the importance of CSR for the economic development of the society.

International Research Journal Commerce arts science

There is so much debate these days on the role of the company. So I decided to go back to the beginning – the definition of a company. The Webster dictionary defines a company as “an association of persons for the purpose of carrying on some commercial or industrial enterprise or business.” But today no one would agree to this narrow definition as it is seen as an integral part of the society as according to one research customers too are switching brands in favor of socially responsible companies .The traditional governance model places management as solely accountable to investors. But a growing number of corporations accept that constituents other than shareholders are affected by the corporate activity, and therefore it must be answerable to them. Such other constituents are known as stakeholders which includes- employees, trade unions, customers, shareholders and investors, suppliers, competitors, local communities, government. In order to enhance the profitability, the corporations must take cares the needs of all its stakeholders

Social Responsibility of Business Enterprieses (ABD Publishers, Jaipur) ISBN: 978-81-8376-203-8

Prof. Himanshu Agarwal

“The Customer who comes to us is very important for us. He is not because of us but we are because of him.” These words of Mahatma Gandhi are simple in first reading but they are not in further readings. These words place deepest impressions of responsibility. Responsibility towards our customers; Responsibility towards the place from where he is coming; Responsibility towards the surroundings he lives in ….. the Society. We all are social animals. If we will not feel any sense of responsibility to our society, our society will also become neutral to us. And, for a business organization, society matters more. Business organizations can not exist in isolation. Business and society co- exist. They are the tow sides of the same coin. Every business has some obligations towards society. Haward Bowever has rightly said that “Social responsibility of business includes high level of employment, high standard of living, swift economic progress, economic stability and national security.” The concept of CSR bears both pros and cons. Where on a ground of theoretical evidences, this concept is really remarkable and puts our economic development in the chair of welfare state. But, if read between the lines, business houses are playing the game with CSR. Moreover, even the political parties in run to achieve high success during elections and to register high performance during their regimes in states and centre are using the wonder word. They have slightly tilted it as “Social Engineering”. Mayawati – the mighty Chief Minister of UP used successfully this technique for registering the both high success and high performance.

Organization

Christina Garsten

This introduction to the special issue aims to contextualize and critically comment on the current trajectory of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in both scholarly inquiry and business practice. It suggests that we must place it within the milieu of the ongoing economic crisis and the failure of a number of important opportunities to make business ethical (e.g. the 2012 Rio + 20 Earth Summit). It then suggests possible future terrain for tenable CSR research (and practice), especially in the context of widespread cynicism and disbelief regarding the claims of business ethicists in industry and the academy.

Journal of New Business Ideas and Trends

Lestyo Wijito

kena kebede

Corporate Social Responsibility

Laura Spence

Organizational Dynamics

ARCHIE B CARROLL

In its modern formulation, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a product of the post-World War II period. Given impetus by the changes in social consciousness that came to a crescendo in the 1960s, especially the civil rights, women’s, consumer’s and environmental movements, CSR has grown in relevance and stature ever since. Today, CSR is a global concept that has progressed from the interplay of thought and practice. CSR represents a language and a perspective that is known the world over and has become increasingly vital as stakeholders have communicated that modern businesses are expected to do more than make money and obey the law. Today, ethics and philanthropy help to round out the socially responsible expectations placed on modern organizations striving to be sustainable in a competitive, dynamic, global marketplace. Socially responsible firms make a special effort to integrate a concern for other stakeholders in their policies, decisions and operations. Other related co...

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

Hildegunn Mellesmo Aslaksen 1 ,
Clare Hildebrandt 1 &
Hans Chr. Garmann Johnsen 1

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility volume 6 , Article number: 11 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

19 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

This article adds to the discussion of the long-term transformation of CSR, presenting a perspective on the interplay between CSR debate and public discourse on business responsibility. 50 years after Milton Friedman’s provoking claim that the only responsibility for business is to seek profit, a broader debate has emerged aligning CSR with an increasingly comprehensive concept of sustainability. We trace this evolution of the concept during the last three decades focusing on the intersection of economic, social, and environmental responsibility. Based on discourse analysis of news articles and opinion pieces in the largest public newspaper in Norway from 1990 until 2018, the study confirms that discussions on CSR, sustainability and the social model often approach the same challenges. We argue that sustainability has become the dominating term in popular usage for describing the relationship between business and society. Based on our analysis of the public debate, CSR has become a more comprehensive term, transformed from being a term mainly related to internal business affairs to part of a broader societal discussion about sustainability.

Introduction

Corporate Social responsibility (CSR) has been in the focus for several decades, making it a natural object of reflection and review. Lately, a growing literature has emphasised the long-term transformation of the concept (Carroll, 2021 ; Idowu et al., 2017 ; Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019 ; Matten & Moon, 2020 ; Windsor, 2021 ). In a recent review of the historical change in the CSR discourse, Carroll ( 2021 ) identifies environmental concern as one of the main themes already in the 1960s. Referring back to Rachel Carson’s, 1962 book Silent Spring, both society and business has been addressing common challenges facing society. However, more than half a century on, the debate about the impending ecological crisis and how we should organise our societies is still raging. There is increasing consensus that a further transformation of the business/society relationship is necessary, however, there is little agreement on what such a transformation should look like (Farla et al., 2012 ; Haberl et al., 2011 ; Westley et al., 2011 ). While accepted as a vital part of the complex modern society, business is depicted both as the reason for the crisis and the solution to it (van den Broek, 2020 ). In this climate of diverging opinions some argue that CSR should shift its focus to a stronger emphasis on sustainability (e.g., Carroll, 2021 ; Rank & Contreras, 2021 ; Trollman & Colwill, 2021 ; Windsor, 2021 ) and that today’s corporations are conceived as vehicles for change (Matten & Moon, 2020 ).

Despite the recent focus on the long-term transformation of CSR in academic debate, few have studied the transformation in the public debate. We agree with the claim put forward by Latapí Agudelo et al. ( 2019 ) that the evolution of the CSR concept cannot be linked to academic contributions only. As social expectations of corporate behaviour have changed, so has the concept of CSR. Therefore, logically, CSR discourse should be seen in relation to socio-political context and other prominent and related discourses (Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019 ; Mark-Ungericht & Weiskopf, 2007 ; Matten & Moon, 2008 , 2020 ; Wehrmeyer et al., 2019 ). Using Norway as a case, we therefore analyse discourse within CSR, the social model and sustainability, the aim being to capture important intersection between economic, social and environmental responsibility expectations and discussions.

The goals of this study is to 1) examine the transformation of the CSR discourse in the public sphere and 2) interpret how and to what extent the concept of CSR has been influenced by the changing understandings of sustainability and the Norwegian social model during the last three decades. Since our empirical study focuses on public, not academic discourse, the term CSR refers to a wider set of discussions on social responsibility of business. Our main finding is that in the long-term transformation of CSR, sustainability and environmental concerns have become more central to CSR, and that CSR discourse is increasingly merged into the sustainability discourse. This has led to the somewhat paradoxical situation, the discussion on CSR in the public has faded during the last decade, but expectations of business to be responsible have not.

Positioning our argument in the CSR debate

A substantial number of contributions have critically proposed that the way CSR is framed contributes to enhancing problems rather than solving them. Frequently cited, Banerjee ( 2008 ) claims that the CSR discourse is defined by narrow business interests and an emancipatory rhetoric. In the same vein, a noticeable number of authors find that CSR discourse is pervaded by focus on profit, performance and economic values (e.g., Allen & Craig, 2016 ; Baden, 2016 ; Brei & Böhm, 2014 ; Brooks, 2010 ), shaped by increasingly narrow managerialist perspectives (Marens, 2010 ), global corporate power (Gilberthorpe & Banks, 2012 ; Sklair & Miller, 2010 ) and embedded in a global neo-liberal discourse (Mark-Ungericht & Weiskopf, 2007 ). Other critical contributions have tended to focus on the academic discourse or business communication and reporting (e.g., Brei & Böhm, 2014 ; Ellerup Nielsen & Thomsen, 2007 ; Fuller, 2018 ; Nwagbara & Belal, 2019 ; O’Connor & Gronewold, 2013 ), bringing CSR discourse analysis closer to ‘greenwash’ literature (Gatti et al., 2019 ) or toward a more general critique of the current economic system. In a more positive strand of CSR scholarship, discourse is given a central role in providing CSR a moral legitimacy (e.g., Christensen et al., 2013 ; Reynolds & Yuthas, 2008 ; Seele & Lock, 2015 ).

In our study, we use media texts to analyse CSR transformation. Resent research suggests that media is an important country-level determinant of CSR activities and a component of national social context (El Ghoul et al., 2019 ; Hartmann & Uhlenbruck, 2015 ). Media is considered an important third party that forms and reflects public opinion about business responsibility (Burke, 2021 ). Nevertheless, research on CSR discourse in traditional news media is rare and varied in method and context (Buhr & Grafström, 2007 ; Carroll, 2011 ; Dickson & Eckman, 2008 ; Herzig & Moon, 2013 ; Lee & Riffe, 2019 ; Lunenberg et al., 2016 ; Madsen & Stenheim, 2014 ; Tang, 2012 ).

Summing up, literature on CSR discourse and transformation has tended to assess the discourse from the business perspective. By exploring CSR discourse transformation from the public perspective, our research advances the literature and contributes to current conversations on how CSR is constructed in a socio-political context. Given its social orientation, CSR is influenced by wider movements in the social realm. In the context of Norway, where implicit (Matten & Moon, 2008 ) and intrinsic (Wehrmeyer et al., 2019 ) CSR is anticipated, effort is wisely applied by trying to understand the nature and nurture of such implicit-ness and intrinsic-ness. We argue that seeing CSR from the social rather than the business perspective makes even more sense in such a context. By including adjacent and sometimes overlapping discussions on the social model and sustainability, we believe that important public sentiments and expectations towards business are attended to. To our knowledge, no one has performed a qualitative longitudinal study of the transformation of CSR which also takes the formative effects of the far-reaching discourses on the social model and sustainability into account. The originality of the paper thus lies in its wide scope and public perspective.

Our analysis suggests an increasingly comprehensive public CSR thinking. In order to demonstrate this, we divide the discussions into three dimensions, depth, width and level. The depth discussion is illustrated by Archie Carroll’s ( 1991 ) pyramid model, where the minimum requirement is for business to follow legislation. In later reflections, Carroll ( 2016 , 2021 ) argues for extending the discussion of the pyramid. The width discussion is illustrated by John Elkington ( 1994 ) and the concept of Trippel Bottom-line (TBL). Elkington argued that corporate and society interests could be mediated when business incorporated society standards in their own governance perspectives. Thus, social, environmental, and economic concerns should be balanced at business level. Recent research on TBK and integrated reporting has problematised the possibility of balancing these concerns, and rather call for stronger emphasis on certain concerns (Idowu & Del Baldo, 2019 ). The level of analysis discussion can be illustrated by the fact that CSR discussions are referring to United Nations (UN) commission on the common future in the 1980’s, the Paris agreement in 2015 and to the current European Union (EU) initiative, Green Deal. However, when referring to a higher level, our intention is not to shift the debate from business to society or to the political system, it is to refer the business discussion and its integration with social and political discussions. It implies that businesses acknowledge their impact and responsibility, both as individual businesses and as business communities, on the development of society and legislation, what we in the continuation will refer to as the social model. Carroll ( 2021 ) refers to this as political CSR.

These three aspects of CSR can be traced back to the discussion of Milton Friedman’s seminal 1970 article in The New York Times Magazine A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits (Friedman, 1970 ). In a recent discussion marking 50 years since the article (Sorkin, 2020 ; Strine & Zwillinger, 2020 ), several commentators addressed the different dimensions of Friedman’s argument. Friedman’s main point was that business should concentrate on what they do best, which is to produce products and services in an effective way to a market adjusted price. Under fair conditions, profit will be a good proxy for their contribution to social wellbeing. The fairness of the marked conditions is then left to the political system as the regulatory power. Even if logical, this argument neglects several issues.

Firstly, the border between business and political authority is not as sharp as Friedman assumes. Businesses lobby in policy issues and are consulted when new regulations are discussed. Furthermore, business exploit common goods, like air, water, land, and people. History can be used as an indicator that political regulations have not been able to curb these exploitations. Perhaps even more important is the fact that in order to solve the sustainability challenge, a dialogue between business, society and the political system is needed (Strine & Zwillinger, 2020 ). Still, we acknowledge that different socio-political contexts play into these discussions, exemplified with the term liberal marked economy versus coordinated market economy (Banerjee, 2008 ; Freeman & Dmytriyev, 2017 ; Looser, 2019 ). The table below tries to identify some positions on the discussion.

The table shows the gradual development from a restrictive view of CSR towards a more comprehensive view. Table 1 takes the Friedman doctrine (the upper left) as the minimum position of CSR, as we move downwards and towards the right, more width, and more levels as well as a deeper understanding of CSR are added. The left-hand column is a discussion within what Banerjee ( 2008 ) describe as the economic paradigm. Here, CSR is discussed from the perspective of business. It is therefore marked by what has been termed extrinsic CSR (Wehrmeyer et al., 2019 ). In the right-hand column, the context is more in direction of a coordinated market economy (Looser, 2019 ) At the same time, we are likely to find more intrinsic CSR in this context (Wehrmeyer et al., 2019 ). Acknowledging the proposal that there are different national interpretations of CSR (Idowu & Filho, 2009 ) we utilise the features of our case to contribute to the general debate on CSR in context. Furthermore, in the right column the CSR discourse is shifted from business perspective to business environment and society. Our study of the Norwegian discourse confirms a transformation towards the comprehensive understanding of CSR in the bottom right corner, indicating that society’s expectations towards the business community are far from Friedman’s, making CSR an ambitious guiding principle. Furthermore, we argue that there is a development over time, which shows how the concept of CSR has been transformed and increasingly aligned with the larger societal debate on sustainability.

CSR, sustainability, and the Norwegian socio-political context

As an exponent of a coordinated market economy, Norway is a case of a country that embraces a comprehensive discussion of CSR, including a recognition of the interrelatedness of business and society . Since CSR discourse is analysed in relation to discourses on the social model and sustainability, the following section briefly presents the theoretical foundation for these concepts. Our analytical focus on transformation and on depth, width, and level purports that we see the concepts as dynamic terms that can reflect different meanings and values, and that these change over time.

Analysing CSR in Norway

That the concept of CSR is dynamic is well described in Latapí Agudelo et al. ( 2019 ). CSR must not be understood as a singular, static concept, but as an ensemble of practices that differ across nations and business systems (Maon et al., 2017 ). These practices are dependent on historical institutional set-ups, and socio-political drivers contribute to shaping the CSR concept. In the Nordic countries, CSR has been introduced to the context of advanced welfare states emphasising universal rights and duties, extensive state engagement in negotiations and agreements on labour relationships. This model contrasts with fundamental principles of the neoliberal Anglo-American emphasis on corporate discretion, voluntarism, and market-based solutions (Midttun, 2018 ; Strine & Zwillinger, 2020 ) and represents an illustrative example of a context for intrinsic CSR. Matten and Moon ( 2008 ) introduced the distinction between explicit and implicit CSR, where the implicit form has been the most common in European countries, also in Norway. The implicit form describes corporations´ roles within the wider formal and informal institutions for society’s interests and concerns. It consists of values, norms and rules that often result in codified and mandatory obligations and is motivated by the societal consensus on what is legitimate to expect from all major groups in society. Simplified, the implicit CSR is not so much the articulated voluntary decision of a company, but a tacit reflection of norms and expectations in their social surroundings, implying a more comprehensive view of CSR. The explicit form describes voluntary corporate strategies and programs that are motivated by the perceived expectations of different stakeholders of the corporation.

It can be proposed that CSR, as a managerial concept has been somewhat considered ‘old news’ in Norway. Footnote 1 The corporate structure, dominated by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) has implied little distance between managers and employees and between companies and society, encouraging a stakeholder orientation without necessarily labelling it CSR or any other equivalent term (Ihlen & Hoivik, 2015 ). Strand et al. ( 2015 ) point to such deep-seated traditions of stakeholder engagement when claiming that the concept of ‘creating shared value’ originates in Scandinavia. Thus, we assume that a more implicit CSR implies a more intrinsic CSR. This means that it is likely that CSR is imbedded as tacit understanding in the context (Looser, 2019 ), thereby posing a challenge when we are to analyse the public discourse on CSR.

However, even if there is this dominance of a coordinated context in the Nordic countries, we do not believe that the divide between a liberal marked economy and a coordinated marked economy is a sharp one. There is also continuous development of these contexts. In example, Maon et al. ( 2017 ) find that even though the Nordic (Denmark, Netherlands, Footnote 2 Norway and Sweden) way of doing CSR is still characterised by consensus and participation, where CSR issues and social concerns are grafted onto the roots of business activities and involving a broad range of stakeholders, CSR is becoming increasingly explicit. In contrast, Tench et al. ( 2018 ) suggest that explicit CSR within Europe has become more implicit. Other research has suggested that explicit or implicit CSR has more to do with company size (Kumar et al., 2021 ). This shows that dual typologies come with limitations. Footnote 3 Thus, the newly proposed extension to include explicitisation and implicitisation of CSR (Matten & Moon, 2020 ) may serve better to explain the dynamic and complex properties of the business/society relationship. However, a transformation into more explicit CSR is not necessarily accompanied by change in practice (Mette Morsing & Spence, 2019 ). Consequently, we take an open-ended approach to CSR discourse in the public sphere. As such, we do not aim to explain CSR better, but to reveal how it has been understood and presented.

The Norwegian socio-political context

Considering the relevance of the institutional context when studying the CSR perspective (Wehrmeyer et al., 2019 ), it is necessary to look more closely at the public discourse within the specific institutional context of Nordic capitalism. The “Norwegian social model” is a term that points to formal institutions and agreements alongside more informal and intangible traits. As a term and the concept is dynamic and as resonant as it is inaccurate (Witoszek & Midttun, 2018 ). Originally in the development of the Norwegian social model, there were three main components influencing the debate; the first being a political desire for a democratic work-life, the second being a social culture for egalitarian structures and mutual participation and thirdly the desire for a competitive advantage which could be accomplished through employee participation (Johnsen & Ennals, 2012 ). In line with the main features of social models of the other Nordic countries, the Norwegian social model is founded on a tripartite collaboration between the State, labour unions and an employer representative council, where employee representation and national economic and political intervention create an institutionalised intertwining between the business world and social welfare. It has been proposed that founding CSR principles of shared value and industrial democracy originate in the institutional culture of the Nordic countries (Olkkonen & Quarshie, 2019 ). Contemporary CSR has been introduced to the context of advanced welfare states emphasising universal rights and duties, extensive state engagement and negotiations and agreements in labour relationships. There is a clear contrast to the neoliberal Anglo-American emphasis on corporate discretion, voluntarism and market-based solutions (Midttun, 2018 ). The model also involves a tendency to focus on competitive advantage through collaboration (Strand & Freeman, 2015 ). When Norwegian work-life is analysed in relation to the conditions for change, observations depict a cultural inclination towards egalitarian organisational structures and institutionalised employee participation, creating a foundation that is contributary to industrial relations (Gjølberg, 2010 ; Morsing et al., 2007 ). Witoszek and Midttun ( 2018 ) set out to explain this cultural inclination and its role in the evolution of the model, emphasising the dynamic between cooperation and competition. This has created a cooperative ethos making sure that capitalist profit-seeking agents are always counterbalanced by strong ideals stressing public-mindedness and social cooperation. Thus, the model places several CSR related issues outside the boundaries of the firm. This homogenic picture of ethical harmony is however seen to be somewhat nuanced when the Nordic countries participate on an international level, Kinderman ( 2020 ) proposes that the competitive advantage of CSR is the overriding criteria for SME’s and the heterogeneity of Nordic countries materialized in their cautious support of supranational EU regulation.

That which makes the case especially interesting is the complex and often paradoxical interplay between welfare, a well-performing business sector and care for the environment. The Norwegian wealth and welfare system has been mainly funded by the income from the oil and gas industry, which means that welfare in Norway is dependent on fossil fuels. A large number of Norwegian companies are engaged in the fossil industry since the 1970s, in fact, 98% of Norwegian municipalities are home to an oil and gas worker (Statistics Norway 2017), and the industry represents 42% of total export revenue (Statistics Norway 2018). The oil and gas industry has made Norway one of the top five richest countries in the world by Gross domestic product (GDP) (nominal) per capita (The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank). The tax revenues from the fossil industry have contributed to the building up of the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund with a market value over 1000 billion United States (US) dollars in 2020, in popular called the Oil Fund. Footnote 4

Obviously, oil and gas does not represent a single explanation to the Norwegian wealth and welfare, as all Nordic countries Footnote 5 rank among the world’s wealthiest nations with high levels of welfare without notable fossil industries. Common characteristics of the countries´ national histories, cultures and values has made the entire region a highly competitive periphery, making the Nordic version a specific and successful form of capitalism (Jes Iversen & Thue, 2008 ) and a nucleus of strong CSR and sustainability performances (Strand et al., 2015 ). From these descriptions, a more comprehensive CSR thinking can be expected. However, some of the same institutional traits that seem to make a good foundation for combining economic wealth and social welfare with CSR and sustainability, are presented to prevent radical environmental transformation (Dryzek et al., 2002 ; Midttun & Olsson, 2018 ; Midttun & Witoszek, 2018 ). In pursuing sustainable development in ‘the land of Brundtland’, Lafferty et al. ( 2007 ) concluded that the Norwegian profile on sustainable development was “long on promise” and “short on delivery” and attributed this to the political competition over economic and welfare benefits fostered by the exceptional growth in public revenues from the oil and gas industry.

Sustainability

The term sustainability is a contested term that has shifted in meaning before and during the period we study. Kuhlman and Farrington ( 2010 ) traces the origin of the concept to forestry, meaning that one should not harvest more than the forest could yield in new growth. The call for a ‘sustainable global society’ was probably first expressed in the 1970s by the World Council of Churches, coupling justice, by correcting maldistribution, and ecology, pointing at humanities dependence upon the Earth (Langhelle, 2000 ). Du Pisani ( 2006 ) traces environmental sustainability to the idea of progress itself, and Dryzek ( 2013 ) links the concept to industrialisation, arguing that all environmental discourses embody a dissociation from industrial society in more or less radical ways. As a policy concept, it has its origin in the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) report ‘Our Common Future’ (Brundtland, 1987 ). In the Brundtland report, sustainable development is defined as development that: “meets the needs of the current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987 , p.15). Already a decade after the report, the term sustainable development had been deemed ‘dangerously vague’, ‘elusive’, ‘an oxymoron’ and ‘a cliché’. Footnote 6 It has recently been criticised for being an ‘empty signifier’, which means that while appearing to address fundamental concerns, it means very little in particular and is subject to radically different interpretations (Brown, 2016 ). Nevertheless, the concept soon became the dominant expression of ecological concern (Dryzek, 2013 ). Sustainability is a concept that embraces social, economic and physical dimensions and the framing of the concept has centred more around three pillars, a development that Kuhlman and Farrington ( 2010 ) trace to Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line concept, indicating tightened relations between the ideas of sustainability and CSR. The three-pillar approach to is now embedded both in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) framework (Strange & Bayley, 2008 ) and by the UN. The Agenda 2030, where 17 sustainable development goals are launched, is promoted as a plan for action for people, planet and prosperity, adding peace and partnership (United Nations, 2015 ).

The transformation of the CSR discourse in the public sphere

The discursive approach.

Discourses are always embedded in specific socio-political environments, and the main topics of CSR have altered in the course of time (Mark-Ungericht & Weiskopf, 2007 ). Plausible analysis of the discursive construction and transformation of CSR should therefore consider topics that has been vital for the debate on the business-society relationship in the period studied. The discussions on sustainability and the social model (the social organisation of work and welfare) are seen as particularly significant in this context. The aim of this study is to 1) examine the transformation of the CSR discourse in the public sphere and 2) interpret how and to what extent the concept of CSR has been influenced by the changing understanding of sustainability and the Norwegian social model during the last three decades. Thus, we are interested in understanding how CSR thinking has transformed in perspective of the discourse of the social model and the increased attention to sustainability. With this in mind, we focus not merely on interpreting the transformation of the CSR concept in itself, but also on the intersection between CSR and the concepts of sustainability and the Norwegian social model. Guiding our investigation is the general assumption that when discourses align over time, they can represent a formative power. It is, then, important to understand the force and direction of this formative power.

We see discourse as “an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices.” (Hajer, 1995 , p. 44) This is a definition that emphasises that although meaning construction through discourse is a continuous affair and seemingly intangible, discourses are also material and possible to identify by tracing linguistic regularities or patterns of argument.

Three crucial assumptions guide our investigation. First, we presuppose that media has a role in the formation of public discourses and that media plays a role in the debates around CSR (Buhr & Grafström, 2007 ; Carroll, 2011 ; Schultz et al., 2013 ; Tang, 2012 ) Second, we see corporations and business communities as reality-shaping actors that contribute to social meaning, like any other communicating entity (Hajer & Laws, 2006 ; Schultz et al., 2013 ). By participating in public debate, representatives from the business community contribute to the emergence of certain world views, as do politicians and researchers. However, and this is the third point, such engagement must not be reduced to an expression of strategic behaviour or individual agency alone. Discourse analysis deals with larger meaning structures that emerges from the interaction of elements of discourse, as an ongoing play of contrasts and consonances (Wagenaar, 2011 ). Thus, shared meanings emerge partly by happenstance, partly on purpose and partly by convenience. Often, this goes on unnoticed by the people involved (Hajer & Versteeg, 2005 ). CSR is therefore making sense and giving sense to different actors in a dynamic and ongoing continuum of different and even competing meanings and narrations (Schultz et al., 2013 ).

Method for searching the changing patterns in the public discourse

Data collection.

The source for our data collection is the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. Aftenposten is the largest printed newspaper by circulation in 2018 and has been one of the top two dailies in Norway during the period of our study. It has positioned itself as rather conservative, leaning to the political centre-right (Nohrstedt et al., 2000 ). The newspaper is a non-tabloid, covering national and international news and regarded the most important arena for discussions on complex but popular issues covering all sectors. Other CSR scholars have used financial papers to construct their research database (Buhr & Grafström, 2007 ; Grafström & Windell, 2011 ; Herzig & Moon, 2013 ). However, our focus is on public opinion, not restricted to those with a devoted interest in the world of business. A broadsheet of high circulation is also more likely to represent general discussions on our two other themes, the social model and sustainability. As online papers had few readers in initial years, we focused on paper press.

To perform our search in Aftenposten we used the web-based database Atekst, which is the largest media database in the Nordic countries. To capture the transformation of the concepts during three formative decades, data was collected from 1.1.1990–31.12.2020. For an investigation of the three discourses, search has been conducted as suitable for each term. As an indication of the implicit nature of CSR in Norway and due to language issues, the English term CSR is rare in Norwegian vernacular, while social responsibility (“samfunnsansvar”) is common. To capture the understandings of social responsibility related to business, we used the Boolean operator AND for the words ‘social responsibility’ in combination with the word ‘business’ with truncation to include stemmed words, in Norwegian: samfunnsansvar AND bedrift * . This search brings 593 texts. Phrase search with quotation marks is performed for ‘the Norwegian social model’, “ den norske modellen ” , as the term employs this specific combination of words. The search brings 625 texts. The term ‘sustainability’ needs truncation in Norwegian. By searching for bærekraft * we capture the necessary discussions on sustainability, what is sustainable (or not), and also on the crucial concept of ‘sustainable development’. This search brings 8298 texts in Aftenposten. In total 9516 texts compose the material collected. We recognise that not all aspects and nuances of the individual discourses are captured by this selection. However, we believe it to be sufficient for our purpose. An overview of the frequency over time is presented in Fig. 1 .

Graphical representation of search results. Database: Atekst. Data is collected using searches samfunnsansvar AND bedrift* , “den norske modellen” , and bærekraft* specified to the period 1.1.1990–31.12.2020 in the newspaper Aftenposten

Data coding and analysis

Since our focus is on the formative process and transformation of the discourse, a quantitative assessment would not suffice. By reading and re-reading the texts, we were able to identify meaningful patterns and nuances and to eliminate data that was irrelevant to the study. Due to a large sample but nevertheless in accordance with the longitudinal approach, in-depth readings were concentrated to the years 1990 2000 2008 and 2018. The year 2008 was assumed to be of interest as this was the year of the financial crisis which posed a threat to the business system and possible changes in discourses (Herzig & Moon, 2013 ). The data were analysed using abductive research techniques based on thematic coding with adapted use of software support (Silver & Lewins, 2014 ). Theme-based coding involves identifying and examining patterns or themes within data that are important to the description of a phenomenon.

The in-dept reading and coding was split between the three authors. The first author read and coded the data concerning sustainability, the second author read and coded the data concerning the social model and the third author read and coded the data concerning CSR. Consistent with an abductive research technique, new themes were identified as they emerged. A criterion for determining a new theme can be described as the use of the term within a new social field or sector, e.g., the introduction and recurrent application of the word “sustainable” in connection with discussions on tourism or energy supply. No categories were produced in advance or common template made, as this would risk setting boundaries for coding and interpretation. Due to the large number of texts in the sustainability sample, coding for this material was performed using the software Nvivo. In addition, authors wrote short memos during in-depth reading and documented arguments and key concepts in summarised form, as well as insights and preliminary interpretations. After the completion of in-depth reading and coding summaries, categories and memos were revisited by each individual author to identify recurrent themes, repetitive traits or trends that provide understanding of discourse transformation. The analysis of the transformation within the three discourses will be presented separately in section Examining the discourse - Specified to CSR–Examining the discourse - Specified to Sustainability.

As the final step, the results of the three separate inquiries have been compared and discussed with specific emphasis on similarities and overlap and on differences and tensions. To remind the reader, our goal was not to study CSR discourse in isolation but also to unwrap the suppositional influence of the social model and sustainability discourses into the CSR discourse. These influences were discussed in terms of what they imply for the width, depth and level of CSR discourse, as introduced in Table 1 in the introduction, to better understand the comprehensiveness of the transformation that has taken place. This final analytical step confirms that discussions on CSR, sustainability and the social model often approach the same challenges and that the public discourse of CSR has transformed to become part of a broader societal discussion about sustainability. Our reflections on this will be further elaborated in section The Long-term Transformation of the Concept of CSR?.

The long-term transformation of CSR discourse

Search results.

In statistical terms, sustainability is referred in the media substantially more often than the other two concepts, and this has been the case throughout the whole period studied. Through in-depth reading, it was established that a notable number of the early texts on sustainability did not fall within the subject matter of the study and were therefore irrelevant for our research question. As an example, sustainability is a word often used in the culture sections or obituaries in the beginning of the 1990s. Thus, a purely quantitative assessment does not suffice, however, the results suggest that there is reason to examine in what way the sustainability discourse in popular usage influences discussions on corporate responsibility and the relationship between business and society.

Examining the discourse - specified to CSR

We find that CSR and the social responsibility of companies got little attendance in the public debate in the 1990’s. This changes during the space of the 2000’s, but after a sharp increase around 2008, the attendance in recent years has again declined.

In the initial year studied, 1990, the understanding of CSR was eclectic and shows no coherent trend. The discussion varies from leadership, sports, maritime operation, rule of law and taxing regime, to mention some. In some articles there is a call for more responsible businesses in general, however, these articles do not define what is meant by ‘responsible’. In terms of depth, it looks as if we are at the bottom of Carroll’s pyramid. The tendency of low attention and little thematic consistency continues in 2000. When discussed, CSR is mainly referring to ethical behaviour. However, in 2000 we see the wake of an increasingly critical focus on business activities abroad. In particular, state-owned multinational companies are scrutinised for their operations in developing countries. Now, environmental sustainability issues are discussed, like activities in the rainforest, how sustainable food supply is, and more generally how companies behave in the global economy.

The strong presence of these discussions is noticeble in 2008, many even before the financial crisis, which materialised in the fall. At this point of time, the global telecommunication company Telenor was involved in a corruption scandal in India and Statoil Hydro’s operations in Brazil are debated. These events initiated a large discussion about leadership ethics and management judgement. A discussion about the teaching of ethics in business schools followed. The financial crisis caused a widening of this debate. As the severity of the event was recognised, several articles over the winter 2008 and 2009 call for a rethinking of global capitalism. However, interesting enough, to avoid recession, the Norwegian Minister of Finance asked people to increase consumption as part of showing individual responsibility.

The volume of articles displaying discussions on CSR increased considerably from the beginning of our study and peaked in 2008. After, the general public attention decreased towards 2018. CSR is again mentioned in relation to discussion of several and unrelated topics like culture, sport, construction industry, Trump presidency, media, shipping, Chinese intellectuals, and aviation. The concept is used mainly as a reference to being responsible in relation to ethics and to the larger society. Still, the wrongdoings of multinational companies abroad are a recurrent theme, set off by for example Hydro’s closing down of three production facilities in Brazil because of pollution. The debate reached a new level when a Professor of Economy at the University of Oslo, questioned the future of capitalism. In this discussion, the perspective has been system change towards a more socially sustainable future, rather than ethical responsibility by the individual firm. Also, the UN sustainability goals were now in focus. As for the new discussion, the #Me-too movement led to a shift where responsibility was taken in-house to all kinds of companies and organisations, not primarily the large, global ones.

Overall, the public understanding of CSR is not far from government policy application, where CSR has been interpreted as global and non-domestic, assimilated to Norwegian internationalist and humanitarian ambitions and traditions (Gjølberg, 2010 ). As a concept, it is fragmented and the attention shifts throughout the period studied, perhaps due to the implicit form and tacit norms that characterises CSR in some contexts (Looser, 2019 ; Matten & Moon, 2008 ). Even though the concept has no strong explicit position in Norwegian newspaper discussions, we argue that the understanding has become deeper and wider. Business is expected to do what is just and fair and to avoid harm, but also to actively display a broad social engagement for the common good, which implies a near maximum position of CSR according to Table 1 , and CSR, as we will show below, is increasingly used interchangeably with sustainability.

Examining the discourse - specified to the social model

When considering CSR in the context of Norway, many of the elements associated with social responsibility, such as a focus on distribution of power, widespread employee participation, sustained employment, equality of income, and working conditions are subjects already attended to by the Norwegian model and institutionalised in national regulations. In order to encompass the public discourse regarding these themes, it is therefore relevant to also analyse the media discussions related to the ‘Norwegian social model’.

The subject has maintained a constant presence at a stable hushed level from 1990 until 2018 and peaks regularly in the year prior to general elections. The increased globalisation in the 1990’s as well as privatisation of public services, created a constant call for persevering the Norwegian social model. Thus, the subject matter approaches the themes of national economy, social development and welfare, and was often formulated as a commentary on political solutions to these subjects. The subjects of tripartite collaboration, the economic contribution of employees compared to the cost of publicly funded benefits and also business ethics in Norway compared to international business, are all themes related to social responsibility that appear to provoke references to the Norwegian social model.

In advance of the general election of 2009, the media discussion of 2008 was influenced by the political debate, where political ideology and the support of social benefits and welfare invoke recur as main themes. The number of articles featuring the subject of the Norwegian social model rises to 28 in this period and the discussions are dominated by welfare, economy and political policy, as well as ideology and ethics in work-life. An article that resulted in many follow-up articles and debate was titled ‘Den Norske Modellen’ (The Norwegian social model), written by a politician, sparking discussion regarding policy and ideology in a welfare state. This presence of the Norwegian social model in a political debate reiterates the suggestion that social responsibility is highly institutionalised in Norwegian society. The absence of a public conversation on corporate social responsibility regarding these issues reinforces the suggestion that CSR in a Norwegian context is somewhat unnecessary. Instead of voluntary business initiatives of CSR, the advanced Nordic welfare states presuppose social and environmental concerns to be the concerns of government (Brejning, 2016 ).

The most notable development in the discussions on the Norwegian social model is the increasing overlap in the subject of social responsibility and economic and social sustainability in the discussion regarding immigration and welfare. Environmental sustainability is not included in the debates, indicating that the social model is primarily expected to secure economic and social development without considering ecological limits or concerns. The fact that in the wake of the financial crisis the debate on the social model has not increased, will by us be interpreted as a partly due to the fact that the broader debate on sustainability has incorporated this social dimension.

Examining the discourse - specified to sustainability

The data on sustainability includes 150 articles and opinion pieces in 1990, 158 texts in 2000, 339 in 2008 and in 2018 the number has increased to 390. In quantitative numbers the use of the word ‘sustainable’ has increased throughout the whole period. There are noticeable changes in the way the term is used and a marked expansion in topics incorporated or related to the discourse.

In 1990 the dominant discourse was the discourse of sustainable development, combining concerns for economy and the environment. The discussion at large encompassed questions of development, first and foremost in developing countries, in a combination with concerns on a variety of environmental problems, like pollution, the ozone layer, biodiversity, energy consumption and climate change. The tone was distanced and impersonal, relying on experts and collective units. There were no references to CSR or the responsibility of individual firms in these debates, as sustainability was seen as the duty of governments, entire business sectors and international organisations. The positive atmosphere of global cooperation withered during the 90’s and in 2000 sustainability was mostly discussed in relation to national resource management of fish, forests, and animal populations. Government and its agencies, not firms, were still expected to be responsible for finding a proper balance between exploitation and conservation. However, implicit in the discussions were the business perspective, where natural resources were seen as a pool from which private actors can profit, which again will increase national wealth and competitiveness. Another form of resource management entered the stage in 2000; that of waste management and recycling. The field of economics had at this time adopted the term: sustainable economy was increasingly used as a synonym for a healthy economy, which in essence meant a growing economy. Sustainable economy has since often been used in relation to the stock market or the survival of business sectors or firms. In 2008 there was a noticeable turn towards climate change and related issues. This meant that energy, transport, and carbon emissions became central. Biofuel, environmental technology, cities, ‘sustainable architecture’ and ‘sustainable tourism’ were related, new themes. A larger debate on the future of the Norwegian oil and gas industry spread. At this point, focus also moved to some extent from the authorities and onto the producer and the consumer, where Fairtrade or other certificates and labels, ecological food and sustainable consumption were interpreted as examples of a trend of individualising and nationalising the sustainability discourse.

Another new theme involved the rapidly expanding industry of salmon farming. When Marine Harvest fired 1.000 workers in Chile because of diseases in salmon farms, CSR and environmental aspects clashed: environmental damage caused bad economic results for the company, which again lead to social costs for the Chilean workers. Seeing the economy and the environment as two sides of the same coin came to characterise the discussions on climate mitigation and an Ecological Modernisation discourse (Dryzek, 2013 ; M. Hajer, 1995 ) gradually succeeded the sustainable development discourse in the material studied. This discourse promotes the ‘green economy’ and technological optimism where environmental problems become the burden of bureaucrats, technicians, and business. This shift relates to the CSR concept, as it gradually established the idea that the private sector will solve environmental problems by inventing new things and profit at the same time.

It must be remarked that critique against ‘non-sustainable’ behaviour has been stronger and more frequent since 2008. In the data we observed increased accusations of greenwashing; that is, the allegation that companies´ claims on environmental or social issues diverges from actual practice (Gatti et al., 2019 ).

To be noted, starting in 2008 and continuing with strength in 2018 there was a marked turn towards using the term sustainability in relation to social issues. ‘Sustainable welfare’ was made a central part of the centre-right government political platform. Here, economic growth, inclusive working life, poverty reduction, welfare arrangements, integration of minorities and climate crisis are main points, showing a melting pot of themes that makes the foundation for a sustainable welfare state. At the end of the study period there are recurrent references to social sustainability . These are themes that connects with parallel discussions on the Norwegian social model.

In 2018 plastic pollution and marine life has an upturn in attention alongside the almost all-encompassing focus on climate change and low carbon futures. Norwegian companies in oil and gas, fisheries, salmon farming and sea transport are portrayed as vital contributors to saving the sea by doing business responsibly helped by knowledge and new technical solutions. The EAT initiative couple food and climate and follows logically the idea of ethical consumption and change in eating habits, primarily reducing meat consumption. The international perspective which characterised the 90’s is reduced to single case stories and obedient and superficial references to the UN goals. A more critical counter-discourse gain strength towards the end of the period, mostly addressing environmental concerns and disbelief in current policies, both as case-to-case engagements and as critique of the socio-economic structures that encourages un-sustainable actions.

Overall, the sustainability discourse is amplified but progressively fragmented throughout the last three decades. Climate change, urban solutions, consumer and producer responsibility, technological ‘green’ innovation, robust financial markets, and a marked concern for the social welfare system can form a very brief summary of the contemporary stage in the evolution of the concept. This forms a contrast to the discourse of sustainable development in the 90’s and suggests a move in public attention from intergovernmental cooperation, foreign aid and fair distribution toward company and consumer.

The long-term transformation of the concept of CSR?

In this article we use Norway as a case to elucidate the long-term transformation of the concept of CSR in public debate in a context where implicit and intrinsic CSR is assumed to characterise the business-society relationship. Our concern has not been the CSR concept itself, but rather the phenomenon of corporate social responsibility and the understanding of the business-society relationship in the public sphere. Norway is a market economy marked by strong social institutions and a collaborative structure between Government, business, and social partners. Therefore, CSR has been seen as an inherent aspect of Norwegian business-life. Referring to Table 1 , CSR studies suggest that Norway has never embraced the marked economic thinking inherent in the Friedman doctrine. It has always been emphasised that business responsibility goes beyond maximising profit. The default position has been to engage with the social and political regime, and at the same time consider social and environmental aspect beyond profit. This means that the investigation of CSR discourse cannot logically be isolated from discourses on social and environmental aspects. However, from our analysis of the public discourse we observe that in the early phase; that is, in the 1990s, the CSR concept was to a large extent referred as an international and American debate. In the 2000, the concept more and more became flavoured by the Norwegian context. We argue that potential for change is heightened when separate discourses come together over time, under the premise that they share some common ideas. In our analysis of the discourses concerning CSR, the social model and sustainability, we see parallels and entanglements between discourses. The inference being that the long-term transformation of CSR discourse is influenced, making it increasingly comprehensive in level, width, and depth the last three decades. This reinforces a position in the right column in Table 1 where business is expected to engage in improving the social and political regime, in addition the increased focus on sustainability has encouraged a shift towards becoming agents of sustainability transformation.

It is this movement that forms the foundation for the argument that CSR has been subject to a long-term transformation in public discourse. When the term was used in the early 1990’s and early 2000’s, it was mainly to emphasise unethical behaviour and non-compliance with established norms. Business was supposed to comply with social norms and rules. When it came to the few examples of international corporations breaking norms, such as social dumping, corruption, or other aspects of globalisation, these were not generally treated as internal corporate problems, but problems that should be addressed through additional government regulation.

The discourse changes towards 2018, in this respect. Now it is the social and political regime itself that is in focus and the future of the socio-economic system and global capitalism is debated in addition to the social responsibility of individual firms. In the public sphere, the concept of CSR is somewhat absent in the subjects related to the social model. On face value, this could be taken to mean a public disinterest in the connection between business and social structure. Rather, the opposite is the case; with regard to typically CSR related subjects as employment, working conditions and welfare, the social model is taken for granted as a stable structure that deals with social concerns in harmony with business. The findings are consistent with the idea of business in society, juxtaposed to business and society (Freeman, 2013 ; Siltaoja & Onkila, 2013 ), and literature on CSR in Scandinavia. Some may argue that this conclusion seems to contradict other recent testimonies of CSR becoming more explicit in Norway and Scandinavia (e.g., Carson et al., 2015 ; Tengblad & Ohlsson, 2010 ). In our opinion it does not, since these studies concentrate on business reporting and company self-representation, not public discourse. Our study simply proposes that the proposition of a more explicit CSR practice and self-representation in Norwegian companies seems not to have affected the public discourse in our material to a noticeable degree. The exception is in cases of greenwash accusations, where the explicit accounts of firms are met by critical voices. Such tensions are pointed out to likely occur when the implicit Nordic approach is confronted with the demands to more explicit approaches (Morsing & Strand, 2014 ). Furthermore, we think that the discourse on the social model seems to follow some of the same pattern as CSR, namely, to be integrated into the larger discourse on sustainability. This, we argue, indicates that the pattern we see is more general. Subsequently we will expect that the Norwegian case points to a more general trend where responsibility of business must be seen in a larger perspective of society’s sustainability challenges.

Our data gives support for arguing that the increased attention to sustainability has challenged business behaviour. In line with development in the sustainability discourse, businesses are increasingly envisioned as drivers of the green transformation. Considering environmental sustainability, businesses are seen as both a part of the problem and as part of the solution. This recognition has gained momentum after the Paris agreement. Critique of unsustainable business conduct constitute the most tangible aspect of problematisation within the sustainability discourse and is articulated alongside an increasingly comprehensive and complex range of sustainability concerns. From a long-term perspective, sustainability discourse has emerged from a marginal position in the public debate to become a major factor in setting the agenda for business policy and strategy. The sustainability discourse can thus be interpreted to make explicit a wide range of responsibilities and concerns on behalf of business actors which the CSR discourse does not articulate with equal clarity. In this regard, the sustainability discourse both influences the transformation of the CSR discourse and to some extent outrivals it.

In this paper we have investigated the long-term transformation of the public CSR discourse in Norway as it has been articulated in media texts from 1990 to 2020. Through thematic categorisation and in-depth reading of texts that discuss CSR, the social model and sustainability, we have shown that discourse on the subject matters have evolved from relatively dispersed discussions in the 1990s to increasingly entangled over the three decades, aligning CSR with an increasingly comprehensive concept of sustainability. In the Norwegian media, the sustainability discourse has progressively permeated discussions on the business-society relationship. Although there is an increased attention to CSR in the academic literature (Carroll, 2021 ; Fernández-Gago et al., 2020 ), it is interesting to observe a decreased reference to the term in public discourse over the last decade. However, even if discussions on CSR and the social responsibility of business have declined since 2008 in our data set from the newspaper Aftenposten, we argue that the concept of CSR has become more ambitious as a result of inherent premises in the sustainability discourse, meaning that the public understanding of the role of business in society envisions a wide and deep engagement where business actors are expected to be proactive agents of social and environmental change. The study empirically confirms the intuitive presupposition that how we think about CSR is increasingly affected by the sustainability discourse. The implication of this is that the discussions on corporate social responsibility should not construct a divide between business and society as the Friedman doctrine proposes but allow a broader debate. Our study adds to the discussion of the long-term transformation of the concept of CSR. The main conclusion we draw from our study is that in public discourse, the increased attention to sustainability has become an overriding concern that has changed the way CSR is discussed. At least in an integrated CSR, it has reduced the split between business and society, paving the way for new, integrated dialogue. How this will affect the practices of business in relation to CSR is yet to be seen.

The limitations of our study are found in that we attempted to gain overview, which means that some details and perspectives are omitted. For instance, we have not identified the main actors that has contributed to discursive changes, neither have we studied whether changes in public discourse have had impact on motivation, behaviour, self-representation, or other aspects of corporate culture. This could be suggestions for further research. In addition, since discourses are open, there are other important contextual changes which may have influenced the transformation of CSR discourse but which we did not include in our analysis. The Covid 19 pandemic represents an enormous contextual alteration that may have important influence that could be subject for a future study. In addition, the qualitative method applied involves interpretation which means rendering the data meaningful in certain ways and not others (Gee, 2010 ). In order to secure validity to the interpretations, findings have been compared and discussed repeatedly by the three authors.

A similar study can be performed in other countries to expand knowledge on public CSR discourses in relation to sustainability and the socio-political system. It would be interesting to see if there are similar changes of patterns in the public discourse in other countries. Also, it would be interesting to know of the general trend in such changes deviate between contexts of varieties of capitalism. Thus, a key question for further research that our study might have provoked, is whether the increased attention to sustainability have widened the gap between intrinsic CRS thinking in coordinated economies, in comparison with more extrinsic CSR in liberal marked economies.

Availability of data and materials

Texts analysed is retrieved from the electronic database Atekst, which is a newspaper archive for Norwegian and Swedish newspapers. It is a paid service, and subscription is handled by the University of Agder. Link to atekst: https://web.retriever-info.com/services/archive

This general picture is supported by the study of Madsen and Stenheim ( 2014 ).

The Netherlands being included in the Nordic regional cluster due to the observed similarities in adopting co-responsibility and partnerships (Maon et al., 2017 ).

This was acknowledged by Matten and Moon in the 2008 contribution.

The formal name is Norwegian Government Pension Fund. For continuously updated fund rankings see: http://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/ .

The use of the geographical term “Nordic” normally refers to the five countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark. The term “Scandinavia” normally refers to the three countries of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. For an elaborated description see Strand et al. ( 2015 )

For a summary of early critique, see Mebratu ( 1998 ).

Abbreviations

Corporate social responsibility

European Union

Gross domestic product

International Monetary Fund

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

United Nations

United States

World Commission on Environment and Development

Allen, M. W., & Craig, C. A. (2016). Rethinking corporate social responsibility in the age of climate change: A communication perspective. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 1 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0002-8 .

Article Google Scholar

Baden, D. (2016). A reconstruction of Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social responsibility for the 21st century. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 1 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0008-2 .

Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology , 34 (1), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920507084623 .

Brei, V., & Böhm, S. (2014). ‘1L=10L for Africa’: Corporate social responsibility and the transformation of bottled water into a 'consumer activist' commodity. Discourse & Society , 25 (1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513503536 .

Brejning, J. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and the welfare state: The historical and contemporary role of CSR in the mixed economy of welfare : Taylor and Francis.

Brooks, S. B. (2010). CSR and the strait-jacket of economic rationality. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 30 (11/12), 604–617. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443331011085213 .

Brown, T. (2016). Sustainability as empty signifier: Its rise, fall, and radical potential. Antipode , 48 (1), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12164 .

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future . Oxford University Press.

Buhr, H., & Grafström, M. (2007). The making of meaning in the media: The case of corporate social responsibility in the financial times. In F. d. Bakker (Ed.), Managing orporate social responsibility in action: talkin, doing and measuring (pp. 29-46): Routledge.

Burke, J. J. (2021). Do boards take environmental, social, and governance issues seriously? Evidence from Media Coverage and CEO Dismissals. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04715-x .

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons , 34 (4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G .

Carroll, C. (2011). Corporate Reputation and the News Media. Agenda-setting within Business News Coverage in Developed, Emerging, and Frontier Markets (C. Carroll Ed.): Routledge.

Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 1 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6 .

Carroll. (2021). Corporate social responsibility: Perspectives on the CSR construct’s development and future. Business & Society . https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211001765

Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Greenwich, Conn.

Carson, S. G., Hagen, Ø., & Sethi, S. P. (2015). From implicit to explicit CSR in a Scandinavian context: The cases of HÅG and hydro. Journal of Business Ethics , 127 (1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1791-2 .

Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization (London, England) , 20 (3), 372–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478310 .

Dickson, M. A., & Eckman, M. (2008). Media portrayal of voluntary public reporting about corporate social responsibility performance: Does coverage encourage or discourage ethical management? Journal of Business Ethics , 83 (4), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9661-z .

Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the earth : environmental discourses (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Dryzek, J. S., Hunold, C., Schlosberg, D., Downes, D., & Hernes, H.-K. (2002). Environmental transformation of the state: The USA, Norway, Germany and the UK. Political Studies , 50 (4), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00001 .

Du Pisani, J. A. (2006). Sustainable development - historical roots of the concept. Environmental Sciences , 3 (2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430600688831 .

El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Nash, R., & Patel, A. (2019). New evidence on the role of the media in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics , 154 (4), 1051–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3354-9 .

Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review , 36 (2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165746 .

Ellerup Nielsen, A., & Thomsen, C. (2007). Reporting CSR - what and how to say it? Corporate Communications , 12 (1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710723732 .

Farla, J. C. M., Markard, J., Raven, R., & Coenen, L. E. (2012). Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources.

Fernández-Gago, R., Cabeza-García, L., & Godos-Díez, J. L. (2020). How significant is corporate social responsibility to business research? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 27 (4), 1809–1817. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1927 .

Freeman, E. R. (2013). Foreword. In A. Midttun (Ed.), CSR and beyond. A nordic perspective (pp. 15-16): Cappelen Damm akademisk.

Freeman, R. E., & Dmytriyev, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management , 1 (1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.4468/2017.1.02freeman.dmytriyev .

Friedman, M. (1970). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html

Fuller, M. (2018). Letters from the top: A comparative control group study of CEO letters to stakeholders. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 3 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0034-3 .

Gatti, L., Seele, P., & Rademacher, L. (2019). Grey zone in – Greenwash out. A review of greenwashing research and implications for the voluntary-mandatory transition of CSR. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 4 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-019-0044-9 .

Gee, J. P. (2010). An introduction to discourse analysis : theory and method (3rd ed.). Routledge, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847886 .

Gilberthorpe, E., & Banks, G. (2012). Development on whose terms?: CSR discourse and social realities in Papua New Guinea’s extractive industries sector. Resources Policy , 37 (2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.09.005 .

Gjølberg, M. (2010). Varieties of corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR meets the “Nordic model”. Regulation & Governance , 4 (2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01080.x .

Grafström, M., & Windell, K. (2011). The role of infomediaries: CSR in the business press during 2000-2009. Journal of Business Ethics , 103 (2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0862-5 .

Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Martinez-Alier, J., & Winiwarter, V. (2011). A socio-metabolic transition towards sustainability? Challenges for another great transformation. Sustainable development (Bradford, West Yorkshire, England) , 19 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.410 .

Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse : Ecological modernization and the policy process . Clarendon Press.

Hajer, M., & Laws, D. (2006). Ordering through discourse. In (pp. s. 251–268). Oxford University Press, 2006.

Hajer, & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 7 (3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080500339646 .

Hartmann, J., & Uhlenbruck, K. (2015). National institutional antecedents to corporate environmental performance. Journal of World Business : JWB , 50 (4), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.02.001 .

Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2013). Discourses on corporate social ir/responsibility in the financial sector. Journal of Business Research , 66 (10), 1870–1880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.008 .

Idowu, & Del Baldo, M. (2019). The impact of triple bottom dispersal of actions on integrated reporting: A critical perspective (S. O. Idowu & M. Del Baldo Eds.): Springer Nature Switzerland.

Idowu, S. O., & Filho, W. L. (2009). Global practices of CSR in context (S. O. Idowu & W. Leal Filho Eds.): Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Idowu, S. O., Vertigans, S., & Schiopoiu Burlea, A. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility in Times of Crisis: Practices and Cases from Europe, Africa and the World . Springer International Publishing AG.

Ihlen, Ø., & Hoivik, H.v. W. (2015). Ye Olde CSR: The historic roots of corporate social responsibility in Norway. Journal of Business Ethics , 127 (1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1671-9 .

Jes Iversen, M., & Thue, L. (2008). Creating Nordic capitalism : The business history of a competitive periphery. In (pp. S: 1–19). Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Johnsen, Hans Christian Garmann, & Ennals, Richard. (2012). Creating Collaborative Advantage. In Creating Collaborative Advantage (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315574585 .

Kinderman, D. (2020). The tenuous link between CSR performance and support for regulation: Business associations and Nordic regulatory preferences regarding the corporate transparency law 2014/95/EU. Business & Politics , 22 (3), 413–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2019.19 .

Kuhlman, J. W., & Farrington, J. (2010). What is sustainability? Sustainability , 2 (11), 3436–3448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436 .

Kumar, K., Batra, R., & Boesso, G. (2021). Difference in stakeholder engagement approach of small & medium enterprises and large companies and its performance implications. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 28 (3), 992–1001. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2100 .

Lafferty, W. M., Knudsen, J., & Larsen, O. M. (2007). Pursuing sustainable development in Norway: The challenge of living up to Brundtland at home. European Environment , 17 (3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.451 .

Langhelle, O. (2000). Why ecological modernization and sustainable development should not be conflated. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 2 (4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/714038563 .

Latapí Agudelo, M. A., Jóhannsdóttir, L., & Davídsdóttir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 4 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0039-y .

Lee, T. H., & Riffe, D. (2019). Business news framing of corporate social responsibility in the United States and the United Kingdom: Insights from the implicit and explicit CSR framework. Business & Society , 58 (4), 683–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317696314 .

Looser, S. (2019). Overview: Intrinsic CSR across Europe. In W. Wehrmeyer, S. Looser, & M. Del Baldo (Eds.), Intrinsic CSR and competition. Doing well amongst European SMEs (1 ed., pp. 323-342): Palgrave Macmillan.

Lunenberg, K., Gosselt, J. F., & De Jong, M. D. T. (2016). Framing CSR fit: How corporate social responsibility activities are covered by news media. Public Relations Review , 42 (5), 943–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.016 .

Madsen, D. Ø., & Stenheim, T. (2014). Is corporate social responsibility a management fashion in Norway? Some preliminary evidence. European Journal of Business Research , 14 (1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.18374/EJBR-14-1.7 .

Maon, F., Swaen, V., & Lindgreen, A. (2017). One vision, different paths: An investigation of corporate social responsibility initiatives in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics , 143 (2), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2810-2 .

Marens, R. (2010). Destroying the village to save it: Corporate social responsibility, labour relations, and the rise and fall of American hegemony. Organization (London, England) , 17 (6), 743–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410368875 .

Mark-Ungericht, B., & Weiskopf, R. (2007). Filling the empty shell. The public debate on CSR in Austria as a paradigmatic example of a political discourse. Journal of Business Ethics , 70 (3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9111-8 .

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review , 33 (2), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458 .

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2020). Reflections on the 2018 decade award: The meaning and dynamics of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review , 45 (1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0348 .

Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 18 (6), 493–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00019-5 .

Midttun, A. (2018). Civilising global capitalism: Aligning CSR and the welfare state 1 (1 ed. Vol. 1): Routledge.

Midttun, A., & Olsson, L. (2018). Eco-modernity Nordic style: The challenge of aligning ecological and socio-economic sustainability. In (1 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 204-228): Routledge.

Midttun, A., & Witoszek, N. (2018). Sustainable modernity . Taylor & Francis.

Morsing, & Strand, R. (2014). CSR and beyond. A Nordic perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal , 19 (3), 318–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2014-0029 .

Morsing, M., & Spence, L. J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and small and medium sized enterprises: The governmentality dilemma of explicit and implicit CSR communication. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences , 72 (12), 1920–1947. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718804306 .

Morsing, M., Midttun, A., & Palmås, K. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Scandinavia: A turn toward the business case? In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility , (pp. 87–104). Oxford University Press.

Nations, U. (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). Retrieved from sustainable development.un.org https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf .

Nohrstedt, S. A., Kaitatzi-Whitlock, S., Ottosen, R., & Riegert, K. (2000). From the Persian Gulf to Kosovo — War journalism and propaganda. European Journal of Communication , 15 (3), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323100015003007 .

Nwagbara, U., & Belal, A. (2019). Persuasive language of responsible organisation? A critical discourse analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports of Nigerian oil companies. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability , 32 (8), 2395–2420. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2016-2485 .

O’Connor, A., & Gronewold, K. L. (2013). Black gold, green earth: An analysis of the petroleum industry’s CSR environmental sustainability discourse. Management Communication Quarterly , 27 (2), 210–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318912465189 .

Olkkonen, L., & Quarshie, A. (2019). The Dawn of stakeholder thinking in Nordic countries. In Corporate social responsibility in Finland: Origins, characteristics, and trends , (pp. 25–33). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17435-4_4 .

Rank, S., & Contreras, F. (2021). Do millennials pay attention to corporate social responsibility in comparison to previous generations? Are they motivated to lead in times of transformation? A qualitative review of generations, CSR and work motivation. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 6 (1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-020-00058-y .

Reynolds, M. A., & Yuthas, K. (2008). Moral discourse and corporate social responsibility reporting. Journal of Business Ethics , 78 (1/2), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9316-x .

Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics , 115 (4), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1826-8 .

Seele, P., & Lock, I. (2015). Instrumental and/or deliberative? A typology of CSR communication tools. Journal of Business Ethics , 131 (2), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2282-9 .

Siltaoja, M. E., & Onkila, T. J. (2013). Business in society or business and society: The construction of business–society relations in responsibility reports from a critical discursive perspective. Business Ethics (Oxford, England) , 22 (4), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12028 .

Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research : a step-by-step guide (2nd edition. ed.).

Sklair, L., & Miller, D. (2010). Capitalist globalization, corporate social responsibility and social policy. Critical Social Policy , 30 (4), 472–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018310376804 .

Sorkin, A. R. (2020). A free market manifesto that changed the world, reconsidered. Yhe New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/business/dealbook/milton-friedman-doctrine-social-responsibility-of-business.html

Strand, R., & Freeman, E. R. (2015). Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics , 127 (1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1792-1 .

Strand, R., Freeman, R., & Hockerts, K. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability in Scandinavia: An overview. Journal of Business Ethics , 127 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2224-6 .

Strange, T., & Bayley, A. (2008). Sustainable development : Linking economy, society, environment . Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264055742-en .

Book Google Scholar

Strine, L. E., & Zwillinger, J. (2020). What Milton Friedman missed about social inequality. The New York Times .

Tang, L. (2012). Media discourse of corporate social responsibility in China: A content analysis of newspapers. Asian Journal of Communication , 22 (3), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2012.662515 .

Tench, R., Jones, B., & Sun, W. (2018). The critical state of corporate social responsibility in Europe. Bingley: Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited .

Tengblad, S., & Ohlsson, C. (2010). The framing of corporate social responsibility and the globalization of National Business Systems: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Business Ethics , 93 (4), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0246-2 .

Trollman, H., & Colwill, J. (2021). The imperative of embedding sustainability in business: A model for transformational sustainable development. Sustainable development ( Bradford, . doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2188

van den Broek, O. (2020). Narrative fidelity: Making the UN sustainable development goals fit. Corporate communications: An International Journal, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2020-0032

Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action : interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis . M.E. Sharpe.

Wehrmeyer, W., Looser, S., & Del Baldo, M. (2019). Intrinsic CSR and competition. Doing well amongst European SMEs (1 ed., pp. 396). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21037-3 .

Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., Leeuw, S.v. D. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio , 40 (7), 762–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9 .

Windsor, D. (2021). Political and ethical challenges of 2025: Utopian and dystopian views. In S. H. Park, M. A. Gonzalez-Perez, & D. Floriani (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in the Digital Era (pp. 13-236): Palgrave Macmillan.

Witoszek, N., & Midttun, A. (2018). Sustainable modernity and the architecture of the “well-being society”: Interdisciplinary perspectives (1 ed. Vol. 1): Routledge.

Download references

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgements. Not applicable.

No funding. Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Working Life and Innovation, University of Agder, Jon Lilletunsvei 9, 4879, Grimstad, Norway

Hildegunn Mellesmo Aslaksen, Clare Hildebrandt & Hans Chr. Garmann Johnsen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Each author has made substantial contributions to the design, analysis and interpretation of data. HCGJ performed analysis of CSR discourse data, CH performed analysis of social model discourse data and HMA performed analysis of sustainability discourse data. All authors have approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hildegunn Mellesmo Aslaksen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Aslaksen, H.M., Hildebrandt, C. & Johnsen, H.C.G. The long-term transformation of the concept of CSR: towards a more comprehensive emphasis on sustainability. Int J Corporate Soc Responsibility 6 , 11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-021-00063-9

Download citation

Received : 03 February 2021

Accepted : 30 May 2021

Published : 11 August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-021-00063-9

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Social model
Business-society relationship

Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a form of corporate self-regulation incorporated into the business, which functions as an instrument by which a corporation examines and ensures its active conformity with the provisions of the law, ethical norms, and global practices.

The main role of social initiatives is to uphold responsibility and promote a positive impact through its conduct towards the environment, customers, staff, the immediate community, and all members of the public domain (Pearce & Robinson, 2011). In addition, CSR actively promotes the community’s growth and development, and eradicates norms that harm the public, irrespective of legality.

Although there is no single universally accepted definition of CSR, it can be summarized as the intentional inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making processes, and the honoring of the three corporate pillars: people, planet, and profit.

CSR ensures that a corporation goes beyond its normal requirements so as to handle staff with dignity, operate with integrity and ethics, respect human rights, sustain the environment for future generations, and be responsible in the community (be a good ‘corporate citizen’).

A study conducted by the Fleishman –Hillard in association with the National consumers League came up with the following results regarding the importance of CSR:

From the table, it is evident that CSR programs are very important towards communities and the corporation’s staff.

On the other hand, corporate governance generally refers to the rules, processes, or laws by which corporations are managed, regulated and controlled, and can refer to the internal processes agreed upon by the officers, stockholders or constitution of a corporation, as well as external forces such as consumer groups, customers, and government directives (Brown and Dacin, 1997, pp. 81).

A fundamental theme of corporate governance is the nature and extent of responsibility and accountability of specific individuals in the corporation’s hierarchy, and mechanisms that attempt to eliminate or mitigate the problems that arise due to a lack of corporate governance (Freeman and Jeannen, 1991, pp. 122).

A clearly defined and implemented corporate governance provides a structure that benefits all stakeholders and ensures that the corporation holds onto standard ethical norms and best practices in addition to the formal laws.

Their has been a recent focus on corporate governance among international firms due to the high-profile scandals involving misuse of corporate power that have at times led to the collapse of these corporations. Some of these corporate scandals include the Enron Corporation scandal of 2001 and MCI Inc (previously WorldCom) scandal.

The scandals led to the collapse of these corporations and reminded governments and corporations of the significance or corporate governance. A primary element of corporate governance includes provisions for civil or criminal prosecution of staff who are found guilty of unethical and/or illegal activities due to the power bestowed upon them by the corporation (Gobe, 2002, pp. 12).

Both corporate governance and corporate social responsibility are becoming increasingly important to organizations, governments, and service providers as they strive to meet the challenges of social and economic problems while altering welfare environments and this can be attributed to a number of factors, economic, social, cultural, and legal, and so on.

However, progress in these two areas is often hampered by the fact that the fields are under researched even as corporations face new demands to improve their accountability, transparency, integrity and ethical behavior while observing the interests of its staff and that of the general public (Pearce & Robinson, 2011, pp. 5).

The paper will present a critical analysis of factors that have led many international firms to focus on corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in recent years.

Factors that have led to the increase of Interest in corporate social responsibility and corporate governance

Economic factors.

The importance of corporate governance lies in its contribution both to the success of the business and to accountability. Companies that have embraced corporate governance, mostly public companies, are today regarded as the most accountable companies.

They make their trading results public, and they are required to disclose as much information as possible about their dealings, relationships, remuneration and government arrangements. The importance of accountability was evident in the prosperity made by Cadbury Inc.

However, business prosperity cannot be forced or commanded, it requires the collective contribution of people through teamwork, effective leadership, enterprise, experience and skills (Cochran and Wood, 1984, pp. 43).

There is no single strategy for bringing these elements together, and it is risky to encourage the notion that rules and regulations on structure will automatically deliver success. On the other hand, accountability must be accompanied by rules and regulations, in which disclosure is the central facet.

Therefore, since corporate governance emphasizes on accountability, an international corporation or business will be able to bring together the above-mentioned elements to ensure prosperity in its operations in various locations around the world (Pearce & Robinson, 2011, pp. 122).

Rules and regulations instituted by the committee at the home country are relayed across all divisions, branches and franchises around the world and this results in success in these individual locations, and of the international organization in general.

Besides, good corporate governance can considerably reduce malpractice and fraud in an organization, although it cannot totally eliminate them.This reduces financial losses incurred by the organization whenever such malpractices occur.

A final economic factor that has made international organization increase their interest in corporate governance is related to confidence among investors.

Logically, a very small number of investors will be attracted to an organization that offers weak investor protection, however, for an organization that embraces corporate governance, investor confidence levels are up and this has the potential of attracting investors and raising extra cash through activities such as public listing, sale of shares, stocks, debentures, and so on (Cooper, 2004, pp. 76).

In a similar fashion CSR is of great importance to the economic success of any business organization, be it local or international. CSR not only involves doing the right thing(s), it entails responsible conduct, and also dealing with suppliers, distributors and other constituents of the supply chain network who do the same.

When a corporation implements CSR programs, then this can become known by the customers, suppliers and the local community.

This publicity can contribute significantly to the business in terms of winning contracts. Besides, customers often want to buy from corporations and businesses that are responsible in the way they treat them and in general those corporations that conduct their activities in in an ethical manner as dictated by the CSR policies.

Some clients do not only prefer to deal with responsible corporations, they insist on it (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000, pp. 608). For instance, the Co-operative Group, a consumer co-operative in the UK, attaches a significant importance on its CSR and publishes in depth reports on its performance on a wide range of measures, from animal welfare to the quantities of salt in its pizzas.

And in a study conducted in 2001 by Hill & Knowlton/Harris Interactive showed that 79 per cent of US citizens take into account CSR practices in their decision to buy from a given company. Overall, 36 per cent of those interviewed believe that CSR is a primary factor in deciding to buy a product.

Indeed, 91 per cent of the respondents said that they will switch loyalty to another company if the company has a negative image (Gobe, 2002, pp. 96). In another study conducted by The Aspen Institute Initiative for Social Innovation through Business among students, more than 50 per cent of the respondents said that they would quit their positions if the corporation did not support their values.

In conclusion, CSR programs increase a company’s sales turnover and thereby increases the returns on investments (ROI) besides improving cash flows. Therefore, corporations that implement CSR programs achieve more economic growth and become more competitive in the rapidly changing international business environment (Herremans et al. 1993, pp. 689).

Social factors

The importance of effective CSR strategies and corporate governance in the social spheres cannot be overemphasized. The role that businesses can play in the development of society is very important, and has been underestimated at times.

In fact, the activist community has been very instrumental in pushing organizations to implement CSR programs and corporate governance, and most of these programs are implemented with an aim of improving the organization’s image in the eyes of the public.

In other words, businesses and organizations introduced CSR reports and programs to reduce the damage inflicted on their activities and reputation by attacks from activist social groups who benefitted from 24-hour news media that mainly focus on corporate misconducts.

While, on one hand, this makes a captivating news item, it puts pressure on corporations to give back part of their wealth to society in return for what they have obtained from it (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000, pp. 608). Hence, it not just important for organizations to make profits, the way the profit is made and how it is used is a deep concern for social activists and the general public (Pearce & Robinson, 2011, pp. 75).

An organization must not be seen to be engaging in unethical or illegal practices in any area of its operations such as market conduct, trade policies, staff relations, obtaining raw materials, human rights, and environmental laws.

Whenever any of these offences are detected or observed in any organization, the activists put pressure on them through various forms of media and other channels such as boycotts, sabotage, and protests (Burke and Logsdon, 1996, pp. 501).

Therefore, in implementing CSR programs, a company aims to improve its image and this results into numerous advantages such as increase in sales of the organization’s products and the ability to attract and retain competent staff.

Indeed, a study conducted in 2008 by the Grant Thornton Grant Thornton International Business Report (IBR) revealed the desire to recruit and retain staff is one of the major drivers of CSR as shown below.

CSR also help a corporation differentiate itself by creating a strong corporate brand through CSR programs. Even among competitors, CSR can be significant in helping a corporation stand out. For instance, Wal-Mart, an international corporation, is famous as a business owned by its workers. Its CSR activities are directed to customer service, sales and profits.

Corporate governance also has a similar effect of improving the company’s image in the eyes of the public. The primary role of corporate governance is its transparency and accountability principles. An advantage of corporate governance is that its benefits, or the outcome of failing to implement it, can be assessed and measured by the public.

For instance, when Enron Corporation failed to fix poor financial reporting and a lack of conformation to standard accounting principles, the outcome was evident to all: the bankruptcy of the corporation. On the positive end, companies such as Coca Cola have continued to win public support due to their strong corporate governance policies (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000, pp. 607).

Legal Factors

Another reason for the increasing interest of international corporations in corporate governance and CSR is the need to conform to legal provisions and requirements. Central and state labor offices investigate compliance with all matters pertaining to employment such as wages, working conditions, working hours, discrimination, child labor and other human rights violations, and so on (Linton et al, 2004, pp. 230).

Other authorities also investigate issues pertaining to the environment with respect to the operations of the operations such as environmental pollution and degradation, use of toxic substances in the manufacture of products meant for human consumption, use of non-biodegradable materials, and so on.

These organization fine companies found to be flouting any rules, and in serious situations, such organizations can be shut down temporarily or permanently (Herremans et al. 1993, pp. 704). Other punishments may include profit disgorgement from firms found to be selling goods obtained from corporations that do not comply with the legal requirements.

However, implementing and monitoring CSR programs and corporate governance policies can be significant in helping a corporation comply with the various regulatory requirements, especially in an international market where the management may not have adequate information regarding the requirements.

Implementing a CSR aimed at ensuring that staff works in humane conditions and the wages equal or exceed the minimum wage requirements. Such a move can ensure that the firm does not violate legal requirements relating to these issues (Pearce & Robinson, 2011, pp. 56).

Other business processes that may lead to legal action against the corporation include the failure to have an effective Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance program and this may result into investigation and if found guilty, the corporation may be fined millions of dollars.

Insufficient knowledge of the corporation’s supply chain may result in the use of an unauthorized contractor, leading to hefty fines. Besides, corporations that do not sufficiently monitor suppliers’ product safety systems can be sued (Brown and Dacin, 1997, pp. 75).

With a strong CSR program that is employee focused in place, legal actions relating to staff discrimination, abuse, or issues relating to wages can be mitigated.

A customer and environment oriented CSR program can lead to an improvement of product safety and use of green technologies in manufacturing processes that ensure environmental protection and compliance to environmental laws both at home and in international locations.

Similarly, corporate governance policies can result in transparency regarding the corporation’s handling of issues relating to staff, production methods, supply chain processes, and so on.

This may result in a review and evaluation of these policies by external persons and bodies and this may assist a corporation in identifying areas that have not conformed to the legal provisions in the country of operation (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000, pp. 607).

Cultural Factors

The influence of culture in setting CSR programs and corporate governance policies is considerable. International corporations such as Bayer AG are known for having a culture of corporate citizenship dating back more that a century ago.

For example, the company has supported community sporting activities since the early 20 th century, the most evident of these activities is its supporting of Bayer 04 Leverkusen soccer club, which it has supported since 1904 to date. Bayer AG has continued with its corporate citizenship activities through the support of disabled athletes, evident during the Beijing Olympics in 2008 (Bayer, 2011, para. 3).

Cultural influence to implementing corporate citizenship policies are seen when a corporation moves into a country or community where specific aspects of business operations and values are observed.

For example, when Coca Cola began production of its products in the Saudi Arabian market in 1988, it had to conform to the Muslim ways of doing business and in the process, embraced CSR activities aimed at fulfilling its corporate citizenship objectives (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000, pp. 605).

These shifts included the use of decently dressed persons in its advertisements to reflect the Muslim tradition and use of halaal materials in its production processes. Incidentally, these activities represented people-directed CSR activities in respect of their tradition and culture. The company also embraced corporate governance principles such as ethical and transparent accounting procedures.

Both corporate governance and corporate social responsibility are very important towards the overall success of a business entity operating in numerous countries. These two aspects of large organizations are important in a number of business processes and can be used as marketing, tools.

Economically, corporate governance enables firms to bring together elements of business success such as teamwork, effective leadership, enterprise, experience and skills. Besides, good corporate governance can considerably reduce malpractice and fraud in an organization and improve investor confidence. Customers other groups in the supply chain network prefer to deal with companies that embrace CSR.

Socially, in implementing CSR programs and embracing corporate governance, a company can improve its public image and this results into numerous advantages such as increase in sales of the organization’s products and the ability to attract and retain competent staff.

CSR and corporate governance are important in legal spheres as they ensure that a corporation conforms to the legal requirements in the country if operation regarding wages, workplace conditions, discrimination, environmental issues, product manufacturing processes, and supply chain networks, among others.

CSR and corporate governance can also be of importance in conforming to the culture and traditions of a community, or the country in general.

Bayer. (2011). Social Initiatives: Working on behalf of a better life . Web.

Brown, T. J., and Dacin,. P. A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations And Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing , Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 68-84.

Burke, L., and Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off. Long Range Planning , Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 495- 502.

Cochran, P. L., and Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance . The Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 42-56.

Cooper, S. (2004). Corporate Social Performance: A Stakeholder Approach . Ashgate: Burlington.

Freeman, R. E., and Jeannen, L. (1991). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach . OH: Business Horizons.

Gobe, M. (2002). Citizen Brands . New York: Allworth Press.

Herremans, I. M., Akathaporn, P. and McInnes, M. (1993). An Investigation of Corporate Social Responsibility Reputation and Economic Performance. Accounting Organizations and Society , Vol. 18, No. 7/8, pp. 687-705.

Linton, A., Liou, C. C. and Shaw, K. A. A (2004). Taste of Trade Justice: Marketing Global Social Responsibility via Fair Trade Coffee. Globalizations, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 223-246.

McWilliams, A., and Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification? Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 603-609.

Pearce, J. A., & Robinson, R. B. (2011). Strategic management: Formulation, implementation, and control. (12th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 20). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-governance-and-corporate-social-responsibility-critical-writing/

"Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility." IvyPanda , 20 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-governance-and-corporate-social-responsibility-critical-writing/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility'. 20 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility." December 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-governance-and-corporate-social-responsibility-critical-writing/.

1. IvyPanda . "Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility." December 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-governance-and-corporate-social-responsibility-critical-writing/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility." December 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corporate-governance-and-corporate-social-responsibility-critical-writing/.

CSR in the Telecommunications Industry
Technological Challenges in Managing CSR
The CSR Models for Toyota, Nissan, and Honda
Milton Friedman’s Critique of CSR
CSR in Jordan Construction Industry
Business Ethics, CSR, and Corporation Governance
CSR and Strategic Management Concepts
A Problem in Implementation of CSR in the U.S. Banking Industry
Uber: Poor CSR Performance Index
Sony CSR Review
UK Corporate Governance Code
Governance Competence Exhibited by Sidney Waters
Board of Directors Competence
Corporate Governance Statements: BHP Billiton and National Australia Bank
Eminence Green: Patagonia Corporation

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework

Review Paper
Published: 02 February 2022
Volume 183 , pages 105–121, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

Tahniyath Fatima ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2383-3390 1 &
Said Elbanna ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5891-8258 1

83k Accesses

100 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In spite of accruing concerted scholarly and managerial interest since the 1950s in corporate social responsibility (CSR), its implementation is still a growing topic as most of it remains academically unexplored. As CSR continues to establish a stronger foothold in organizational strategies, understanding its implementation is needed for both academia and industry. In an attempt to respond to this need, we carry out a systematic review of 122 empirical studies on CSR implementation to provide a status quo of the literature and inform future scholars. We develop a research agenda in the form of an integrated framework of CSR implementation that pronounces its multi-dimensional and multi-level nature and provides a snapshot of the current literature status of CSR implementation. Future research avenues relating to multi-level studies, theoretically supported research models, developing economy settings, and more are recommended. Practitioners can also benefit through utilizing the holistic framework to attain a bird’s eye view and proactively formulate and implement CSR strategies that can be facilitated by collaborations with CSR scholars and experts.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of Government in promoting CSR

Asan Vernyuy Wirba

Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review

Hans B. Christensen, Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz

Meta-analyses on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): a literature review

Patrick Velte

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Advocates of corporate social responsibility (hereafter referred to as CSR) propose devising and implementing CSR strategies as an opportunity for organizations. When CSR is looked at from a strategic perspective, it emanates from top management’s vision and values and is not considered an expense but a strategic initiative readily adopted by organizations to differentiate themselves from their competition (Beji et al., 2021 ; Porter & Kramer, 2006 ; Serra-Cantallops et al., 2018 ). The organization’s ulterior motive to receive something in return for going out of its way to do better for the direct and indirect stakeholders indicates extrinsic CSR practices, i.e., strategic CSR (Story & Neves, 2015 ). Currently, CSR is predominantly being viewed as a strategic issue (Zerbini, 2017 ), and such a strategic interest of organizations towards CSR needs to be addressed by scholars when we take into consideration the significant time and resources invested in implementing CSR strategically within the organization (Bansal et al., 2015 ). While CSR has been under the limelight in the academic as well as the industrial sectors since the 1950s, its implementation, however, had not received as much attention (Klettner et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, implementation of CSR like any other strategy implementation is of crucial importance to ensure the successful attainment of one’s goals. Accordingly, an increasing number of academicians, over the past decade, have started focusing on how CSR is implemented in organizations, thereby paving a way for future research (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Du & Vieira, 2012 ).

CSR implementation as indicated by Lindgreen, Swaen, et al. ( 2009 ) is a budding field of research and has seen profound growth since they called attention to it in the special issue of Journal of Business Ethics. Although, various empirical papers have proposed CSR implementation frameworks to assist practitioners in implementing and formulating CSR strategies (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Ingham & Havard, 2017 ; Lindgreen et al., 2011 ), none of the review studies exclusively looked at CSR implementation from a multi-level and a multi-dimensional perspective. In this study, we define CSR implementation as the process that an organization undertakes to increase the awareness levels of CSR issues and CSR strategies, embed CSR values within the organization, communicate CSR initiatives internally and externally, and evaluate the progress of CSR strategies. The very few scholars who have produced reviews on CSR implementation look at specific dimensions of CSR implementation such as communication (Crane & Glozer, 2016 ) or ways of CSR implementation such as CSR washing (Pope & Wæraas, 2016 ). Therefore, conducting a review such as ours at this stage would allow researchers to attain a better idea on the overall progress of research in CSR implementation literature and provide a clearer perspective on future prospects, thereby filling in an important knowledge gap. In regard to facilitating this main research objective, this review paper proposes an integrative framework for CSR implementation and answers the call for a two-stage systematic review on CSR implementation (Lattemann et al., 2009 ; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010 ). Hence, through the integrative framework, we illustrate what has been done in CSR implementation literature and how can it be enhanced further.

This review study is guided by three developments: (1) the growing amount of time and efforts organizations are putting in towards implementing CSR, (2) an upsurge in organizations’ interests towards strategic CSR, and (3) recognition among CSR scholars of the need to understand how strategies are implemented (Elbanna et al., 2016 ). The structure of this review study is as follows: “ Defining CSR Implementation ” section begins with the theoretical development of the constructs under study and is followed by “ Review Methodology ” section on methodology that outlines the steps taken to initiate the systematic review and sets the stage for this review study. “ Trends in CSR Implementation Research ” section proceeds to discuss the trends discovered through descriptively analyzing the sampled studies. It also portrays the findings of reviewing the CSR implementation literature in six established categories, namely, level of analysis, research methods, theories being used, geographical focus, journal distribution with years of publication, and time lapse of CSR implementation topics. “ Thematic Analysis: An Integrative Framework of CSR Implementation ” section introduces an integrative CSR implementation framework that thematically distributes the CSR implementation literature and proposes a future research agenda. We conclude with “ Conclusion ” section that provides a summarized overview on theoretical and practical implications of this study.

Defining CSR Implementation

The first step of a systematic review entertains a repetitive process of defining, clarifying, and refining (Tranfield et al., 2003 ). As such, we scoured the CSR implementation literature to find any existing conceptual definitions that can support our review process. In our search for what it means to implement CSR, we found two empirical studies which developed CSR implementation frameworks. We used these studies as the foundation to build our own CSR implementation definition, which is supported with the theory of business citizenship as discussed later in this section. The first study was carried out by Maon et al. ( 2009 ), where a nine-stage integrative framework was developed, based on data collected from case studies and theoretically grounded on Lewin’s change model. The second study of Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ) regarded the process nature of CSR implementation construct, but generalized it into three separate dimensions; (1) commitment to CSR, (2) internal structures and procedures, and (3) external collaboration. Accordingly, these two frameworks were analyzed to procure specific lenses that can entail a better understanding of CSR implementation process. This phase contributed towards attaining richer and micro-level insights on CSR implementation. In addition, we theoretically based our dimensions of CSR implementation on the theory of business citizenship proposed by Logsdon and Wood ( 2002 ). This theory looks into the ethical, social, and political issues surrounding organizations. According to this theory, an organization can be viewed as a citizen such that there exists moral and structural ties among business organizations, humans, and social institutions where social control is exercised by the society on organizations, thereby protecting and enhancing public welfare and private interests.

As such, we identified four distinct dimensions of CSR implementation that concisely portray the CSR implementation process outlined in the two frameworks proposed by Maon et al. ( 2009 ) and Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ) and are based on the theory of business citizenship that views a corporation as a citizen, where the responsibilities associated with such citizenship towards society and environment come into play. According to Maon et al. ( 2009 ), CSR design and implementation constitute of nine steps. These are (1) raising CSR awareness, (2) assessing organizational purpose in a societal context, (3) establishing a CSR definition and vision, (4) assessing current status of CSR, (5) developing a CSR strategy, (6) implementing the CSR strategy, (7) communicating about CSR strategy, (8) evaluating CSR strategy, and (9) institutionalizing CSR policy. However, Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ) consider CSR implementation to comprise three dimensions, namely, commitment to CSR, embedding CSR, and external collaboration.

Of the nine steps proposed by Maon et al. ( 2009 ), we considered steps 1 (raising CSR awareness), 5 (embedding CSR), 6 (implementing CSR activities), 7 (communicating about CSR), and 8 (evaluating CSR) for inclusion in CSR implementation. It is worth noting that though step 5 dealt with formulating CSR strategy, a sub-part of this step (5.2) constituted of embedding CSR in the organization, which is also proposed as a CSR implementation dimension by Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ). Hence, we included step 5 in our typology of CSR implementation dimensions. Similarly, the commitment to CSR dimension proposed by Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ) takes into consideration the awareness that organizational members show towards CSR as included in step 1 of Maon et al. ( 2009 ). Although, CSR evaluation (step 8) is primarily not a constituent of strategy implementation process, scholars have begun to indicate its importance in the implementation process, where managers monitor strategy progress and take relevant steps for further improvements in CSR implementation (Graafland & Smid, 2019 ; Laguir et al., 2019 ; Rama et al., 2009 ). Steps 2, 3, and 4 are not considered in this study as they represent a part of CSR design, while step 9 identifies with post-implementation. Hence, the four dimensions relate to the need for an organization to accrue sufficient (1) CSR awareness which manifests itself in the form of organization’s commitment to CSR through (2) communicating and (3) embedding CSR , and placing systematic processes in place to (4) evaluate CSR . Overall, these dimensions entail interactions with various external stakeholders and are not restricted to interorganizational dynamics (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ).

CSR awareness includes the act of raising sensitivity of an organization and its members towards CSR issues, where it may be initiated by managers (top-down approach) or employees (bottom-up approach) for strategic or altruistic reasons and includes commitment to CSR through integrating it into policy documents (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Maon et al., 2009 ). Further, CSR communication is directed towards both internal and external stakeholders, where the means or nature of communication and its content need to be identified (Maon et al., 2009 ). The different ways of communication include meetings, corporate internal newsletters, and trainings for internal stakeholders such as employees and board members, while the social and environmental performance of an organization may be disclosed in the form of annual reports or CSR reports and advertisements to external stakeholders.

Embedding CSR entails instilling CSR values among organizational members using tools such as CSR policies, procedures, mission, and vision to reinforce a CSR compliant behavior in operational functions (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Maon et al., 2009 ). Lastly, CSR evaluation includes the measurement of how well the CSR objectives have been met, monitoring the progress of these CSR objectives, and exploring ways to improve CSR performance (Maon et al., 2009 ).

Review Methodology

We utilized a systematic literature approach to accomplish our research goal of surveying the literature on CSR implementation. Systematic reviews are commonly used to ensure transparency and replicability in the review process (Hossain, 2018 ). Given that it is imperative to outline the scope of one’s search prior to ensuing the data collection process (George et al., 2019 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ), we restricted our range to any research study that exclusively focused on the concept of CSR implementation or its four dimensions, namely, CSR awareness, CSR communication, CSR embedding, and CSR evaluation. The concept of CSR has taken various titular forms in literature, where overlapping constructs like corporate sustainability, corporate social performance, and corporate citizenship have been proposed and are now interchangeably used by researchers (Albinger & Freeman, 2000 ; Evans & Davis, 2014 ; Matten & Crane, 2005 ; Pedersen et al., 2018 ; Wood, 1991 ). However, the terminology of CSR had been most widely used by researchers (Matten & Crane, 2005 ), and as such is adopted in this study. Furthermore, we do not include research examining the concept of sustainability or corporate sustainability as it is an overarching concept that incorporates two different topics of CSR and corporate responsibility (see Fig. 1 ). As such, CSR acts as an intermediary tool that examines the efforts of organizations aimed at balancing the triple bottom line (van Marrewijk, 2003 ).

Mapping of corporate sustainability, CSR, and corporate responsibility (adapted from van Marrewijk, 2003 )

Three databases, namely, EBSCO, Science Direct, and ABI/Inform (ProQuest), were searched with the following set of keywords: “CSR awareness,” “CSR implementation,” “CSR sensitiveness,” “commitment to CSR,” “CSR integration,” “initiating CSR,” “CSR issues,” “CSR communication,” “CSR disclosure,” “CSR report,” “CSR value,” “embedding CSR,” “CSR policies,” “CSR procedure,” “CSR vision,” “CSR mission,” “evaluating CSR,” and “monitoring CSR.” We also took into account different occurrences of the keywords such as “implementing CSR,” “sensitivity to CSR,” and “CSR policy.” Further, our inclusion criteria did not include any time restriction as this would have limited our analysis and inferences of understanding the literature conducted so far on CSR implementation. However, in order to ensure quality of our findings and development of a relevant agenda for future research, we included peer-reviewed journal articles that were published in journals with a rating of at least B and above as per the 2019 ABDC ranking and 3 and above for the 2021 AJG ranking (Hoque, 2014 ). Imposition of the above strict criteria led to collection of 168 research articles. These papers were further analyzed to assess if the focus of their study was related to our research objective. Thus, the selection of the studies was contingent on the main topic of the study in question being either CSR implementation or one of the four dimensions (CSR awareness, CSR communication, CSR embedding, and CSR evaluation). In applying this criteria, we were able to shortlist 140 research studies.

Of the total 140 identified studies, we analyzed the nature of their research and found 18 papers were theoretical in nature. One of the theoretical papers was an editorial and was excluded. The remaining 122 empirical studies Footnote 1 are considered for further review, while the 17 theoretical papers are used to supplement the analysis and findings attained from this systematic review. We now discuss the findings attained from conducting our two-staged narrative synthesis analysis that provides the reader with a descriptive and thematic outlook of CSR implementation literature. In utilizing a narrative synthesis approach, we are able to efficiently provide a narrative on the CSR implementation literature through the use of statistical data (Popay et al., 2006 ). The first stage detailed in Sect. Trends in CSR Implementation Research analyzes the entire empirical literature descriptively (123 studies) and discusses the underlying trends on the basis of the (1) level of analysis, (2) research methods, (3) theories being used, (4) geographical focus, (5) journal distribution with years of publication, and (6) time lapse of CSR implementation topics. The second stage brings a more nuanced understanding of the empirical literature where the literature is analyzed with respect to a comprehensive outlook of CSR implementation in Sect. Thematic Analysis: An Integrative Framework of CSR Implementation .

Trends in CSR Implementation Research

Upon analyzing the empirical literature on CSR implementation, we were able to make several inferences that would shed light on research gaps not yet covered in the CSR implementation literature. We followed established review studies in CSR literature (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012 ; Pisani et al., 2017 ) and focused on six aspects to attain a general purview of CSR implementation research conducted to date. First, with respect to the level of analysis , CSR implementation literature, unlike the general CSR literature, does not seem to suffer from lack of focus on individual-level research. However, majority of the empirical research conducted on CSR implementation is at the firm level (refer to Table 1 ). In addition to that, multi-level studies are quite rare with only 8 papers analyzing CSR implementation at multiple levels, e.g., a combination of individual, firm, institutional, industry, and country levels with a combination of at most three levels (Ettinger et al., 2021 ; Helmig et al., 2016 ; Lattemann et al., 2009 ; Lindgreen, Antioco, et al., 2009 a; Lu & Wang, 2021 ; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009 ; Shen & Benson, 2016 ; Zamir & Saeed, 2020 ). In spite of acknowledging the multi-dimensional nature of CSR implementation (Lindgreen, Swaen, et al., 2009 b), majority of the scholars have failed to conceptualize and operationalize CSR implementation at a multi-dimensional basis. Accordingly, future research needs to take into consideration the multi-dimensional nature of CSR implementation and conduct scientific research that is not limited to a single level of analysis. Other empirical studies looked at various levels of analyses such as advertisement level (Green & Peloza, 2015 ), project level (Rama et al., 2009 ), activity level (Jong & Meer, 2017 ), and interaction level (Muthuri et al., 2009 ).

Second, the CSR implementation literature uses a wide variety of research methods . 36% of the research studies used qualitative research methods, 53% used quantitative methods, and only 11% of the studies have used mixed methods. The use of qualitative methods can be explained by the exploratory nature of the studies, which accounted for 49% of the empirical research, while a majority of 51% studies were explanatory in nature. However, given the growing adoption of CSR by different organizations across industries and countries, scholars have delved into examining implementation of CSR from a more explanatory nature as the trend line shows in Fig. 2 . Further, scholars can utilize mixed method studies in future to attain an insightful and a holistic empirical understanding of their research topic. This would allow the research findings to have both theoretical and geographical validity.

Trend of CSR implementation studies’ nature

Third, the theoretical underpinning of research on CSR implementation is still emergent, where a considerable proportion of the empirical literature, approximately 45%, was missing a theoretical foundation. Having a proper theory is quite essential to easily illustrate complex concepts (Frynas & Yamahaki, 2016 ), thereby indicating scope for future research to have richer theoretical support. Of the remaining 67 research studies that had theoretical support (54% of total empirical literature), a considerable proportion of research (42%) resorted to the use of multiple theories to substantiate their proposed frameworks. The most commonly used theory was stakeholder theory inclusive of its use in research studies with multiple theories (28%, 19 out of 67 papers) (e.g., Ettinger et al., 2018 ; Lindgreen et al., 2011 ; Park & Ghauri, 2015 ; Zheng et al., 2015 ). Lastly, as depicted in Fig. 3 , the remaining 31 research studies (46%) used a diverse range of theories from other disciplines like psychology (theory of planned behavior, balance theory, attribution theory, and social identity theory), communications (diffusion theory, inoculation theory), sociology (systems theory, social exchange theory, social identity theory), and biology (signaling theory).

Theoretical orientations in CSR implementation literature

Fourth, in terms of geographical locations being studied, majority of empirical studies were based on samples obtained from European (37%) and North American regions (22%) with only a small portion of research (16%) constituting samples from Asian countries. Further, only few studies examined other regions, such as Oceania (4%), United Kingdom (3%), Africa (1%), and South America (1%). However, the proportion of studies using samples from multiple regions was comparatively higher at around 16%. Hence, future research needs to study the less researched regions to better understand the role of context in CSR implementation. Further, given the emerging nature of cross-country research in CSR implementation (Lattemann et al., 2009 ), an additional scope exists for researchers to compare different regions in their future research.

Fifth, CSR implementation research, since the special issue in Journal of Business Ethics (Lindgreen, Swaen, et al., 2009 b) has been under the research limelight. The first empirical research conducted on CSR implementation in our collection of articles appeared in 2004, however, focus on CSR implementation has drastically improved since 2009 such that approximately 81% of CSR implementation literature has been published in 2010 and onwards. Moreover, Journal of Business Ethics is the highest contributing journal with a major share of 49% of the research studies. This was closely followed by Journal of Business Research (7%), Business Ethics: A European Review (5%), Business and Society (3%), and Business Strategy and the Environment (3%) while the remaining 32% was distributed among 28 journals. Interestingly, other top journals in the field of business ethics and CSR, such as Business Ethics Quarterly and Corporate Social Responsibility and Management were not reflected in our list of reviewed studies. This could be explained due to the absence of studies relevant to our research topic of CSR implementation and the inability of the journal to meet our selection criteria. While, other journals exclusively focusing on ethics and CSR constituted majority of the CSR implementation research, however, this topic seems relatively unexplored and under-published in general management and accounting focused journals.

Lastly, the ingrained analysis of empirical research concerning CSR implementation has shed the much needed light on how this research has changed over the years. For example, we find that while CSR communication has seen constant growth over the years, other dimensions of CSR implementation have experienced uneven growth and decline in research attention (see Fig. 4 ). The comparatively high focus placed on CSR communication brings into question the negligence of other crucial facets of CSR implementation such as CSR embedding and CSR evaluation. Overall, CSR implementation literature that covered either the entire process of CSR implementation in general or more than one dimension of CSR implementation has been gradually on the rise since 2009–2013. While the latest year indicates low publication rates, this may be attributed to the incompleteness of the time period. Upon learning from the insights gained in this descriptive analysis, we proposed a comprehensive framework to better portray the current status of CSR implementation literature and highlight more nuanced directions for future research.

CSR implementation trends over the years

Thematic Analysis: An Integrative Framework of CSR Implementation

The question that comes to mind at this moment in time is: What can we learn more about CSR implementation? We adapt an approach similar to that taken up by researchers who developed various integrative CSR implementation frameworks based on empirical data (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Maon et al., 2009 ; Yin & Jamali, 2016 ). However, our integrative framework is built upon the analytical insights attained from the selected 140 research studies and keeping in mind our purpose of aiding academicians and practitioners in understanding the complex multi-level nature of CSR implementation. Hence, this review tries to learn from the findings attained in descriptively analyzing the 122 empirical studies in the previous section and proposes directions for future research using a macroscopic lens with the aid of an integrative multi-level CSR implementation framework (see Fig. 5 ) that can have both research and practical implications.

An integrative multi-level CSR implementation framework

The remaining of this section will discuss the four components of our proposed framework: (1) CSR implementation, (2) CSR formulation, (3) CSR outcomes, and (4) CSR context. The main focus is placed on CSR implementation, as it is the main core of this review paper. We discuss the inherent complexity of the CSR implementation construct and how extant literature has conceptualized it, setting the stage to examine two distinct attributes of CSR implementation, namely, its multi-dimensional and multi-level nature. Given the capacity and scope of this study, which is centered on CSR implementation, we lightly touch on the other three components, namely, formulation, outcomes, and context to provide an overview on the whole CSR implementation framework. In discussing CSR formulation, we unravel its absence in studies that have examined CSR implementation and illustrate different ways that future scholars can incorporate it henceforth given the strong link that exists between strategy formulation and implementation. Additionally, the next sub-section on the effect of CSR implementation provides a snapshot on how the CSR implementation literature has heavily examined organizational outcomes, particularly, non-financial, and explains the potential of studying organizational performance comprehensively along with macro-level outcomes. We then conclude this section by extrapolating on the importance of identifying and accounting for contextual variables when studying CSR implementation that may inhibit or drive the implementation process and even potentially moderate the relationship of CSR implementation with CSR formulation and CSR outcomes.

CSR Implementation Construct

CSR implementation is characterized by complexity, where the organization has to deal with different stakeholders, internally and externally. Further, this complexity of CSR implementation is pronounced with its contextual nature across industries, countries, time, and pool of stakeholders (Kleine & Hauff, 2009 ). In spite of CSR implementation experiencing complexity in these varied manners, research studies have so far neglected this aspect (Dobele et al., 2014 ). For example, Luo et al. ( 2017 ) indicate how organizations vary in their CSR disclosure based on their linkages to the central government, highlighting the underlying institutional complexity. On the other hand, Marano and Kostova ( 2016 ) examine how various countries’ institutional forces affect the adoption of CSR practices by various multi-national corporations (MNCs) indicating the presence of transnational complexity (refer to Fig. 5 , link 1-3). Similarly, Polonsky and Jevons ( 2009 ) assert that global brands face three different kinds of complexity when implementing CSR, namely, social issue complexity, organizational complexity, and communication complexity. Communication complexity is the complexity that arises regarding the type of information that needs to be communicated, the consistency that needs to be maintained across the messages and in ensuring that the organizations are also walking the walk and not just talking the talk (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Brunton et al., 2017 ). Along these lines, a series of research articles have examined the concepts of CSR walk and CSR talk, where the former represents actual CSR implementation while the latter focuses on CSR communication (Graafland & Smid, 2019 ; Schoeneborn et al., 2020 ; Wickert et al., 2016 ). Further, Graafland and Smid ( 2019 ) found that the overall impact of CSR implementation on the society and environment is dampened in the presence of incongruency between CSR activities being communicated and CSR activities actually being implemented.

Adding to its complex nature, CSR implementation has escaped conceptualization by most of the studies under review (Klettner et al., 2014 ; Peloza et al., 2009 ; Risi & Wickert, 2017 ; Skouloudis & Evangelinos, 2014 ). On the other hand, researchers who did attempt to conceptualize the construct of CSR implementation either did so from a limited perspective of how CSR implementation occurred in the presence of stakeholder management (Osagie et al., 2016 ; Subramaniam et al., 2017 ), capacity development (Rama et al., 2009 ), social partnerships (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009 ), and employee participation (Bolton et al., 2011 ; Kim et al., 2010 ) or examined CSR implementation on the basis of the different types of CSR activities implemented by organizations (Khan et al., 2015 ; Quintana-García et al., 2018 ; Russo & Tencati, 2009 ). Although extant research has identified CSR implementation as a process comprising various stages (Farmaki, 2019 ), it falls short in operationalizing CSR implementation in a similar manner; rather, the studies were found to resort to using existing CSR scales for measuring CSR implementation (Helmig et al., 2016 ). Similar lack in exploring and discussing the process of CSR implementation was also observed among organizations (Klettner et al., 2014 ; Skouloudis & Evangelinos, 2014 ). Hence, as we acknowledge the existence of complexity in CSR implementation and the prevalent absence in conceptualizing CSR implementation, we need to understand the factors that contribute towards the aforesaid complexity of CSR implementation and how can we deal with these factors. To do so, we try to explain the inherent complexity of CSR implementation by exploring its multi-dimensional and multi-level facets that can assist future studies in better conceptualizing CSR implementation.

Multi-dimensional Nature

First and foremost, much of complexity in CSR implementation arises due to its multi-dimensional nature. Multi-dimensionality refers to information that is distributed over multiple dimensions due to its inability to align together in a single dimension such that the information is uniquely sorted into these various dimensions (Bucaro et al., 2020 ; Spalding & Murphy, 1996 ). Although extant research acknowledges the multi-dimensional nature of CSR implementation (Lindgreen, Swaen, et al., 2009 b), many have failed to conceptualize and operationalize it in such a manner, except for a few scholars. Primarily, these authors have assessed CSR implementation on the basis of the traditional classification of stakeholder theory, i.e., implementing CSR strategies directed towards society, environment, and employees (Muller & Kolk, 2009 ; Reimer et al., 2018 ; Shen & Benson, 2016 ) or as per the triple bottom line approach of economy, ecology, and society (Quintana-García et al., 2018 ; Stekelorum et al., 2019 ). However, the above conceptualizations of CSR implementation resonate with the conceptualization of the generic CSR concept itself, where CSR has been conceptualized in terms of stakeholders being targeted at or the nature of responsibility an organization holds towards its society such as economic, ethical, legal, and discretionary (Maignan & Ferrell, 2000 ; Turker, 2009 ). In the same vein, Frynas and Yamahaki ( 2016 ) suggest that CSR scholars need to diversify their usage of theories and restrict themselves from focusing only on the stakeholder view. Hence, researchers need to properly distinguish between the CSR strategy and its implementation.

Accordingly, our proposed conceptualization of CSR implementation can aid scholars and organizations in perceiving the multi-dimensional nature of CSR implementation by focusing on the four dimensions proposed in Sect. 2 . Future research can also test whether these four dimensions are practiced with equal fervor across and within organizations and industries (Walters & Anagnostopoulos, 2012 ). This will enable CSR implementation research to extend beyond CSR communication, which majority of identified empirical research in this study focused exclusively on with very little focus being placed on other CSR implementation dimensions or the construct as a whole. While CSR communication plays an important role in the implementation process, it, however, does not necessarily ensure that these practices are in fact carried out in reality (Arvidsson, 2010 ; Fassin, 2008 ).

CSR communication literature has seen a rich growth over the years (see Fig. 4 ) and as such has diversified into various sub-topics, with CSR disclosure or reporting being the most researched form of CSR communication, particularly in the accounting literature (Gödker & Mertins, 2018 ). Scholars have extensively examined the antecedents and outcomes of CSR disclosure on various fronts: individual, organizational, and country levels (Bucaro et al., 2020 ; DeTienne & Lewis, 2005 ; Lu & Wang, 2021 ; Tan et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2021 ). Further, CSR communication has now diversified into the arena of social media where direct and frequent interactions with customers have heightened (Chu et al., 2020 ; Saxton et al., 2021 ). In addition to customers, CSR communication research seems to have predominantly focused on external stakeholders in general, including investors (Bucaro et al., 2020 ; Hockerts & Moir, 2004 ). Consequently, no research in our shortlisted set of studies examined CSR communication from an internal perspective. A study by Schaefer et al. ( 2019 ) does examine the impact of CSR advertisements on embedding CSR values in employees of an European energy provider, however, the CSR communication under assessment is targeted at external stakeholders. Given the strong inter-relations that exist among actions and communication of CSR activities, examining CSR communication from an interorganizational perspective can tap into the unexplored avenue of its effect on employee involvement in the CSR implementation process (Schoeneborn et al., 2020 ; Sendlhofer, 2020 ; Tourky et al., 2020 ).

Multi-level Nature

Second, while examining different dimensions of CSR implementation surely gives one the wholesome picture, one cannot ignore the multiple levels involved as the above four dimensions of CSR implementation are considered. However, as per our review only a small fraction of the empirical research on CSR implementation (6%) had conducted multi-level research. Hence, academicians have not managed to pay attention to the multiple levels that are in-built when implementing CSR. In referring to the concept of multi level, we propose that CSR implementation involves actors and characteristics at various levels in its environment such that employees, customers, and managers form individual level, while organizational characteristics such as firm size, age, ownership constitute organizational level, and so on. The conceptualization of CSR implementation in our study as discussed in Sect. 2 shows its inherent multi-level nature, where for instance, CSR values may be embedded in the form of CSR vision and mission at organizational level, while CSR awareness initiated by managers or employees occurs at individual level.

The multi-level studies under examination in this review examined CSR implementation at different levels, namely, country, institutional, industry, organizational, and individual. These studies examined (1) drivers of CSR implementation (refer Fig. 5 , link 1-3) like corporate governance and culture background (Lu & Wang, 2021 ), organizational location and distribution of country income (Zamir & Saeed, 2020 ), stakeholders and their pressures (Helmig et al., 2016 ; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009 ), country governance, industry effect, and organizational characteristics (Lattemann et al., 2009 ); and (2) outcomes of CSR implementation including market performance (Helmig et al., 2016 ), customer attitudes (Ettinger et al., 2021 ), customer perceptions (Lindgreen, Antioco, et al., 2009 a), and employee work behavior (Shen & Benson, 2016 ). Hence, our integrative multi-level framework of CSR implementation considers the five levels discussed above as shown in Fig. 5 .

While researchers have used institutional-level interchangeably with country level due to institutionalized practices of governments or economies (Pisani et al., 2017 ), institutionalization can occur at an industry level as well (O'Connor & Shumate, 2010 ) indicating the need to distinguish institutional level of analysis. While country-level perspective pertains to factors such as government regulations and policies (Pisani et al., 2017 ), institutional-level factors, on the other hand, include institutionalized practices in the economy or corporations (O'Connor & Shumate, 2010 ). Conclusively, industry-level perspective consists of factors such as industry type (Lattemann et al., 2009 ), organizational-level perspective pertains to firm characteristics (Lattemann et al., 2009 ), and individual level refers to employees and managers (Graafland & Zhang, 2014 ; Helmig et al., 2016 ).

CSR Formulation: An Overlooked Antecedent of CSR Implementation

CSR strategy implementation is preceded by its formulation, which consists of decision making upon attaining and interpreting information (Khan, 2018 ). Given the integrative nature of this multi-level framework of CSR implementation, it becomes crucial to consider its critical antecedent, i.e., CSR formulation. Maon et al. ( 2009 ), in their CSR design and implementation framework, identified various steps involved in the formulation of CSR strategies; understanding organization’s societal purpose, identifying its stakeholders, defining CSR vision and mission, assessing current CSR practices, benchmarking with competition and developing the CSR strategy. Additionally, higher CSR orientation of board members also ensures higher proactivity in forming and implementing firm’s CSR strategy, as we identify through the links 1-2 and 1-3 in Fig. 5 (Shaukat et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, various researchers have focused on the sense making concept and linked it to how managers make sense of CSR (as opposed to having planned goals) and accordingly formulate CSR strategies, thereby dictating their implementation as depicted in links 1-2 and 2-3 in Fig. 5 (Hanke & Stark, 2009 ; Jiang et al., 2018 ; Khan, 2018 ). While the presence of stakeholders in CSR strategy formulation was found to positively influence CSR implementation (van Tulder et al., 2009 ), their real world presence in CSR formulation seems to be minimal (Trapp, 2014 ). Accordingly, future research can examine the barriers to stakeholder involvement in CSR formulation and propose ways in which organizations can enhance their involvement (link 1-2, Fig. 5 ). Moreover, scholars can also run comparative studies through collecting field data to test the difference in effectiveness of CSR implementation among organizations that involved stakeholders in formulating CSR versus organizations that had no stakeholder involvement.

Furthermore, very few researchers consider the formulation of CSR as an antecedent or control for its effect in their research studies when studying CSR implementation (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Maon et al., 2009 ). Instead several researchers have focused directly on examining various other antecedents of CSR implementation. Accordingly, one can examine if the mediation of CSR formulation can change the impact of certain antecedents like lack of top management commitment, lack of CSR knowledge and skills, and uncertain government regulations (Graafland & Zhang, 2014 ; Luo et al., 2019 ) on CSR implementation from negative to positive. Hence, linking CSR formulation with its implementation can provide a richer feedback as it gives deeper insights into the successful execution of the formulated strategy, where successful CSR implementation can be treated as a dependent variable.

The Impact of CSR Implementation

The outcomes in CSR research have prominently focused on organizational outcomes with special attention being given to financial performance, thereby ignoring the appropriate assessment of the success of a CSR strategy by looking at its non-financial performance indicators such as employees’ extra-role behavior, consumer’s perceptions, and social and environmental performance impact (Fatima & Elbanna, 2020 ). On the other end, CSR implementation, the subset of CSR research literature, has focused exclusively on the non-financial indicators including corporate reputation (Axjonow et al., 2018 ; Kim, 2019 ), consumer purchase intentions (Bartikowski & Berens, 2021 ; Groza et al., 2011 ), and various stakeholder satisfaction such as consumers (Cantrell et al., 2015 ) and employees (Brunton et al., 2017 ; Peloza et al., 2009 ). Comparatively, only four research papers by Helmig et al. ( 2016 ), Rhou et al. ( 2016 ), Pham and Tran ( 2020 ), and Platonova et al. ( 2018 ) have looked at financial indicators. Further, the measurement of CSR performance in CSR literature has been used interchangeably to reflect the construct of CSR (Beji et al., 2021 ; Ge & Li, 2021 ; Öberseder et al., 2014 ), thereby creating a conundrum when it comes to assessing the comprehensive impact of CSR implementation strategies. Consequently, CSR implementation research requires clarification in understanding the nature of its impact on organizational performance, where it may also act as a mediator between CSR formulation and CSR impact (Graafland & Smid, 2019 ).

Future research, hence, needs to consider both financial and non-financial indicators when examining the organizational performance outcome of CSR implementation. This can be achieved, for example, through adopting the sustainability balanced scorecard perspective when measuring organizational outcomes of CSR implementation (Elbanna et al., 2015 ; Fatima & Elbanna, 2020 ). In doing so, organizations can effectively assess the overall impact of CSR implementation on CSR performance constituting social, environmental, and financial performance. In addition to examining these micro-level and meso-level (industry level, institutional level) outcomes, future research can also explore how implementation of CSR strategies within organizations and industries can lead to a macro-level sustainability impact such as the country’s economic and sustainable development (Verk et al., 2021 ) through improvement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) index (a standard indicator of country’s sustainability performance developed by United Nations ( 2020 )) (refer to link 3-4, Fig. 5 ).

The Context Matters

Referring to the integrative multi-level framework shown in Fig. 5 , we can clearly see how various factors interact with each other at several levels during CSR formulation and implementation. This framework provides a multi-dimensional view of CSR implementation, examines the nature of interconnectivity among the antecedents and consequences of CSR implementation, and presents CSR implementation in a multi-level manner. While, we do not push for the scholarly need to examine and account for all the variables depicted in Fig. 5 , however, we do aim to bring forth the need for future scholars to consider the context of their study and account for the impact of certain variables that may confound their results when studying CSR implementation. The various perspectives under contextual variables relate to five different levels of analysis highlighted previously in Sect. 5.1.2 (individual, firm, industry, institutional, and country levels). The categorization of these various levels has been done based on the context as per the extant literature review on CSR implementation (Helmig et al., 2016 ; Lattemann et al., 2009 ; Lindgreen, Antioco, et al., 2009 a; Shen & Benson, 2016 ). For ease of understanding, each level is listed under a stand-alone perspective that portrays various items CSR implementation scholars can explore. For instance, items such as pressure from or involvement of stakeholders like customers, employees, managers, board members, etc., relate to individual-level characteristics.

As per our earlier discussion, CSR formulation has been neglected to a certain extent by CSR implementation scholars, where significant research scope also exists in understanding if certain situations or characteristics can impact the CSR formulation–CSR implementation relationship (link 2-1-3 in Fig. 5 ). For example, to what extent organizational size or industry type and stakeholder pressures (Helmig et al., 2016 ) strengthen or weaken this relationship? Our knowledge of extant theories such as institutional theory and stakeholder theory posit for the prevalence of a positive moderation effect. The institutional theory leads to the process of ‘isomorphism’ which can be defined as a process that constrains a unit in a particular set of environmental conditions to resonate with other units existing in similar situations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983 ). As leading organizations in controversial industries such as oil and mining respond to concerns on their societal and environmental impact (Dobele et al., 2014 ; Du & Vieira, 2012 ), other organizations are complied to follow suit to maintain legitimacy, thereby eliciting the potential role of industry type in moderating the relationship between CSR formulation and implementation. Additionally, Miska et al. ( 2016 ) found that home country characteristics played a pivotal role in shaping the type of CSR strategy that MNCs engaged in. Thus, the effect of institutional level of indicators need to be accounted for when examining the link between CSR formulation and implementation.

Similarly, stakeholder theory emphasizes an organization’s relationships with other stakeholders consisting of employees, customers, suppliers, society, and others by stressing on the importance of satisfying relevant stakeholders (Jamali, 2008 ; Zerbini, 2017 ). As organizations in the current century face rising pressures from various stakeholders to depict socially responsible behavior (Erdiaw-Kwasie et al., 2017 ; Shahzad & Sharfman, 2017 ), they are bound by normative pressure as per institutional theory to comply with these stakeholder needs to establish a sense of legitimacy among their stakeholders. Thus, through building upon the interplay of these three theories, namely, institutional theory, legitimacy theory, and stakeholder theory, future research can probe into the following research question: Are larger organizations or manufacturing industries or higher stakeholder pressures more prone to having a stronger CSR formulation–implementation relationship, in comparison to smaller organizations or service industries or lower stakeholder pressures?

Figure 5 portrays various variables under each of the five perspectives or levels that can either act as drivers or inhibitors towards implementation of CSR. Scholars can accordingly utilize this framework to attain a holistic view and empirically examine how these contextual variables may impact CSR implementation strategies of their sample under study and control for the relevant contextual variables. For instance, CSR scholars have found top managerial characteristics played a significant role towards implementation (Rodríguez Bolívar et al., 2015 ). Scholars can further extend this finding to examine if top management characteristics have a differential impact on CSR implementation dimensions, where the type of leadership may have an effect on the nature of CSR values (strategic or normative) being embedded in the organization’s employees (link 2-1-3). The upper echelons theory which states that an organization is a function of its leaders’ beliefs and thoughts as these leaders make most of the important organizational strategic decisions (Quintana-García et al., 2018 ) finds support for the above proposed moderating impact. Ethical leadership style, for instance, can instill a sense of ethical behavior among employees (Hansen et al., 2016 ) through posing as social learning models and establishing a reward system for ethically appropriate behavior (Fatima, 2020 ).

Further, as per our findings from reviewing the CSR implementation literature, some industries have rarely been studied with respect to their CSR implementation strategies such as the sports and gaming industry (link 1-3). Accordingly, future research can actively collaborate with practitioners to conduct field studies and longitudinal studies, where practitioners can execute and examine CSR implementation, while CSR scholars can act as consultants and conduct quality research. Additionally, with the influx of COVID-19 pandemic, the topical nature of CSR implementation has heightened such that organizations are now actively focusing towards building their social performance to build a safe and healthy organizational work environment and image (Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020 ; He & Harris, 2020 ). This reaction of organizations also finds theoretical support in literature as per the environmental contingency theory that asserts the influence of environment on various characteristics of the organization, such as strategy, task uncertainty, size, and technology (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013 , p. 98). Hence, scholars can effectively conduct prospective research as opposed to the retrospective research by studying the actions taken by organizations towards their CSR implementation strategies in response to such environmental changes in real time.

Considerable number of studies have managed to study the contextual nature of CSR implementation by examining the presence of mediating and moderating variables (Eberle et al., 2013 ; Ginder et al., 2021 ; Karaosmanoglu et al., 2016 ; Lecuyer et al., 2017 ; Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014 ; Vlachos et al., 2009 ). It is worthy to note that all of these research studies have examined mediators and moderators only at individual level and firm level, with an exception of Thorne et al. ( 2017 ) who carried out a cross-country comparison on CSR disclosures. Our framework indicates that multiple perspectives can have a moderating impact on the relationship between CSR implementation and outcomes (refer to link 3-1-4 in Fig. 5 ). For instance, referring to our earlier discussion of stakeholder and institutional theories, future researchers can also examine whether the presence of stakeholder pressures in the form of governmental regulations, active NGOs, and media positively strengthen the relationship between CSR implementation dimensions like CSR awareness, CSR embedding, CSR communication, and outcomes like organizational legitimacy, customer’s perceptions, and organizational performance (Du & Vieira, 2012 ; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009 ; Rhou et al., 2016 ).

Moreover, given the relatively low level of research being conducted in developing regions such as South America, Asia, and Africa, future research can study whether uncertain regulations weaken the relationship between CSR embedding in suppliers and supplier loyalty or supplier compliance through weakening the coercive pressures felt by organizations in compliance with institutional theory (Boyd et al., 2007 ; Lim & Phillips, 2008 ). Further research ideas can also be attained through scrutinizing our proposed framework where CSR implementation researchers can expand their theoretical support from merely focusing on stakeholder and legitimacy theory to other theories such as structural contingency theory for industry perspective, leadership contingency theory for individual perspective, intergroup theory for CSR embedding, population ecology for institutional perspective, agency theory for the relationship between CSR formulation and CSR implementation in SMEs and so on.

While it is difficult to ensure that one research study covers various levels as depicted in the CSR implementation framework, it, however, becomes easier to realize the presence of multiple factors that may affect CSR implementation–outcomes relationship. With this knowledge at hand, academicians can account and control for the factors, when applicable. Similarly, practitioners can also utilize this framework to get an overarching purview of CSR implementation and better understand the various factors that may positively or adversely impact the different outcomes of CSR implementation, and accordingly, take the necessary proactive decisions.

Upon analyzing the empirical literature trends on CSR implementation in Sect. 4 , several suggestions for future research were made pertaining to the nature of research, level of analysis, theoretical support, and geographical expansion. Further insights were gained through the depiction of an integrative multi-level CSR implementation framework developed in the previous section of thematic analysis. In doing so, this research study has made several theoretical and practical implications, as discussed below.

In terms of theoretical implications, first, we found that scholars have placed a considerable amount of focus towards examining the factors impacting implementation of CSR (antecedents, mediators, and moderators) and the organizational-level consequences of CSR implementation. In comparison, fewer studies have looked at non-organizational consequences or carried out field studies or longitudinal case studies to examine the implementation of complete CSR strategies. Hence, one of the prime insights for future research involve attaining deeper insights into how organizations implement CSR with respect to CSR awareness, CSR embedding, CSR communication, and CSR evaluation. In doing so, researchers would be able to examine CSR implementation from multi-dimensional and multi-level perspectives.

Second, one of the prominent difficulties encountered by organizations when implementing CSR relates to prioritizing stakeholders’ interests (Lee, 2011 ; Porter & Kramer, 2006 ). Different organizations place importance on different stakeholders and as such, a universal solution to prioritize stakeholders becomes difficult. We attempt to resolve this dilemma by proposing a CSR implementation definition (outlined in Sect. 2 ) that indicates the process of CSR implementation as an integrated and a comprehensive process which entails coordinated involvement of all stakeholders at different degrees throughout the four dimensions of CSR implementation.

Third, enhancing from the above research agenda, scholars could also link how multiple dimensions of CSR implementation relate to each other. For instance, Pomering and Dolnicar ( 2009 ) examined whether CSR communication by organizations leads to higher CSR awareness of customers. Furthermore, within the field of CSR implementation, some of its dimensions have not been as heavily researched as the rest; CSR communication has been of prime focus for several academicians. However, only three studies were found to study CSR evaluation as a part of the implementation process (Cowper-Smith & de Grosbois, 2011 ; Schaefer et al., 2019 ; Vlachos et al., 2009 ). Evaluating CSR in the implementation phase resonates with assessing the extent to which CSR objectives are met. However, CSR evaluation has mostly focused on assessing CSR performance using secondary databases like Kinder, Lyndenberg, and Domini (Rhou et al., 2016 ). Thus, to examine CSR evaluation as a part of the implementation phase, researchers need to study other internal stakeholders in addition to employees, such as way of monitoring CSR strategies by both board members and top managements. Accordingly, examining other CSR implementation dimensions in detail, specifically perceiving them from a different lens would enrich the extant knowledge on CSR implementation.

Fourth, most of the CSR implementation–performance literature has looked at organizational and individual-level outcomes. Given the very nature of an organization is to ensure profitability, the prime focus has been placed by researchers in identifying how CSR implementation impacts organizational outcomes such as organizational reputation and CSR performance. Similarly, customers are deemed as the most important stakeholder given their direct impact on organization’s profitability, and thereby, its sustenance. Accordingly, most prior studies have examined the impact of CSR strategy implementation on customer perceptions and behaviors. However, a research gap exists with regard to studying the impact on other external stakeholders like suppliers’ loyalty and suppliers’ compliance. Moreover, the impact of organization’s CSR implementation has been restricted to micro-level and meso-level, where country-level impacts such as on economic improvement and increase in sustainability index have not yet been studied. Therefore, researchers need to examine meso-level and macro-level impacts of implementing CSR strategies. Understandably, the absence of studies examining macro-level outcomes of CSR maybe due to the exclusion of sustainability construct from our literature search which is more prominently linked with country-level outcomes like sustainable development goals. Future reviews can, as such, consider the prospect of examining implementation of sustainability strategies as opposed to the concept of CSR which was the focus in this review.

The restrictive journal criteria used in this systematic review pose a constricted presentation of the CSR implementation literature. However, we followed the standard journal selection criteria used widely across general business and management reviews. Further, we aimed to examine high-quality research on CSR implementation, thereby justifying our usage of a restricted journal criteria. In order to attain a more general view and to better understand the research trends of a vast literature of CSR implementation that includes research in established ethics and CSR focused journals like Journal of Cleaner Production and Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, future scholars can conduct bibliometric analysis or meta-analysis with a more relaxed journal criteria.

This research study also produces various implications for practitioners regarding CSR implementation. First, practitioners can make use of the proposed CSR implementation dimensions that stresses on its multi-level and multi-dimensional nature and identifies it as a process that is not restricted to a stakeholder view. Accordingly, managers can make appropriate decisions to ensure CSR strategies are properly implemented in their organizations and are not solely restricted to financial investments. Second, top management and policy makers can utilize the CSR implementation framework for a bird’s eye view on the potential factors that can impact CSR implementation and the possible outcomes of CSR implementation. In doing so, organizations can pay heed to contextual factors that may impede or promote implementation of CSR and its relationship with different outcomes. Third, practitioners, upon realizing the multi-level impact of CSR implementation, which goes beyond the individual and organizational levels, can reflect upon their current organizational CSR strategies and accordingly, revise or formulate better versions.

To sum, CSR implementation has come a long way in the past decade and still has a long way to go. This review paper attempts to enlighten the research community with insights on the progress of CSR implementation research and how it can be further improved to enrich our understanding of the concept of CSR implementation. With the proposition of CSR implementation dimensions that facilitate the review of literature, an integrative multi-level CSR implementation framework has been developed to assist future research on CSR implementation in getting closer to reality by portraying the interconnectivity in implementing any organizational strategic decision. With the above research contributions, this study attempted to set the stage for future research to build upon by conducting richer and deeper empirical studies that examine CSR implementation in the right light.

A table reviewing the literature on CSR implementation has been submitted as supplementary material due to paper length considerations and is also available from the authors upon request.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 932–968.

Article Google Scholar

Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28 (3), 243–253.

Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 96 (3), 339–354.

Axjonow, A., Ernstberger, J., & Pott, C. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on corporate reputation: A non-professional stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 151 (2), 429–450.

Bansal, P., Jiang, G. F., & Jung, J. C. (2015). Managing responsibly in tough economic times: Strategic and tactical CSR during the 2008–2009 global recession. Long Range Planning, 48 (2), 69–79.

Bartikowski, B., & Berens, G. (2021). Attribute framing in CSR communication: Doing good and spreading the word – But how? Journal of Business Research, 131 , 700–708.

Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L., & Scherer, A. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 115 (4), 693–705.

Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N., & Omri, A. (2021). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 173 (1), 133–155.

Bolton, S., Kim, R., & O’Gorman, K. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a dynamic internal organizational process: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 101 , 61–74.

Boyd, D. E., Spekman, R. E., Kamauff, J. W., & Werhane, P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains: A procedural justice perspective. Long Range Planning, 40 (3), 341–356.

Brunton, M., Eweje, G., & Taskin, N. (2017). Communicating corporate social responsibility to internal stakeholders: Walking the walk or just talking the talk? Business Strategy & the Environment, 26 (1), 31–48.

Bucaro, A. C., Jackson, K. E., & Lill, J. B. (2020). The influence of corporate social responsibility measures on investors’ judgments when integrated in a financial report versus presented in a separate report. Contemporary Accounting Research, 37 (2), 665–695.

Cantrell, J., Kyriazis, E., & Noble, G. (2015). Developing CSR giving as a dynamic capability for salient stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 130 (2), 403–421.

Chu, S.-C., Chen, H.-T., & Gan, C. (2020). Consumers’ engagement with corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication in social media: Evidence from China and the United States. Journal of Business Research, 110 , 260–271.

Cowper-Smith, A., & de Grosbois, D. (2011). The adoption of corporate social responsibility practices in the airline industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (1), 59–77.

Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53 (7), 1223–1252.

DeTienne, K. B., & Lewis, L. W. (2005). The pragmatic and ethical barriers to corporate social responsibility disclosure: The Nike case. Journal of Business Ethics, 60 (4), 359–376.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147–160.

Dobele, A. R., Westberg, K., Steel, M., & Flowers, K. (2014). An examination of corporate social responsibility implementation and stakeholder engagement: A case study in the Australian mining industry. Business Strategy & the Environment, 23 (3), 145–159.

Donthu, N., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on business and research. Journal of Business Research, 117 , 284–289.

Du, S., & Vieira, E. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110 (4), 413–427.

Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118 (4), 731–746.

Elbanna, S., Andrews, R., & Pollanen, R. (2016). Strategic planning and implementation success in public service organizations: Evidence from Canada. Public Management Review , 18 (7), 1017–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1051576

Elbanna, S., Eid, R., & Kamel, H. (2015). Measuring hotel performance using the balanced scorecard: A theoretical construct development and its empirical validation. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 51 , 105–114.

Erdiaw-Kwasie, M. O., Alam, K., & Shahiduzzaman, M. (2017). Towards understanding stakeholder salience transition and relational approach to ‘better’ corporate social responsibility: A case for a proposed model in practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 144 (1), 85–101.

Ettinger, A., Grabner-Kräuter, S., Okazaki, S., & Terlutter, R. (2021). The desirability of CSR communication versus greenhushing in the hospitality industry: The customers’ perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 60 (3), 618–638.

Ettinger, A., Grabner-Kräuter, S., & Terlutter, R. (2018). Online CSR communication in the hotel industry: Evidence from small hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68 , 94–104.

Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. (2014). Corporate citizenship and the employee: An organizational identification perspective. Human Performance, 27 (2), 129–146.

Farmaki, A. (2019). Corporate social responsibility in hotels: A stakeholder approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31 (6), 2297–2320.

Fassin, Y. (2008). SMEs and the fallacy of formalising CSR. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17 (4), 364–378.

Fatima, T. (2020). Impact of employees’ perceived corporate social responsibility on organizational citizenship behavior: A proposed theoretical model. International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management , 11 (3), 25–38.

Fatima, T., & Elbanna, S. (2020). Balanced scorecard in the hospitality and tourism industry: Past, present and future. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 91 , 102656.

Frynas, J. G., & Yamahaki, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: Review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25 (3), 258–285.

Ge, Q., & Li, T. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder wealth: New insights from information spillovers. Financial Review , p. 1.

George, B., Walker, R. M., & Monster, J. (2019). Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 79 (6), 810–819.

Ginder, W., Kwon, W.-S., & Byun, S.-E. (2021). Effects of internal–external congruence-based CSR positioning: An attribution theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 169 (2), 355–369.

Gödker, K., & Mertins, L. (2018). CSR disclosure and investor behavior: A proposed framework and research agenda. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30 (2), 37–53.

Graafland, J., & Smid, H. (2019). Decoupling among CSR policies, programs, and impacts: An empirical study. Business & Society, 58 (2), 231–267.

Graafland, J., & Zhang, L. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in China: Implementation and challenges. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23 (1), 34–49.

Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2015). How did the recession change the communication of corporate social responsibility activities? Long Range Planning, 48 (2), 108–122.

Groza, M., Pronschinske, M., & Walker, M. (2011). Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (4), 639–652.

Hanke, T., & Stark, W. (2009). Strategy development: Conceptual framework on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (3), 507.

Hansen, D. S., Dunford, B. B., Alge, B. J., & Jackson, C. L. (2016). Corporate social responsibility, ethical leadership, and trust propensity: A multi-experience model of perceived ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 137 (4), 649–662.

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives . OUP.

Google Scholar

He, H., & Harris, L. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. Journal of Business Research, 116 , 176–182.

Helmig, B., Spraul, K., & Ingenhoff, D. (2016). Under positive pressure: How stakeholder pressure affects corporate social responsibility implementation. Business & Society, 55 (2), 151–187.

Hockerts, K., & Moir, L. (2004). Communicating corporate responsibility to investors: The changing role of the investor relations function. Journal of Business Ethics, 52 (1), 85–98.

Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review, 46 (1), 33–59.

Hossain, M. (2018). Frugal innovation: A review and research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182 , 926–936.

Ingham, M., & Havard, C. (2017). CSR as strategic and organizational change at ‘Groupe La Poste.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 146 (3), 563–589.

Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82 (1), 213–231.

Jiang, F., Zalan, T., Tse, H. H. M., & Shen, J. (2018). Mapping the relationship among political ideology, CSR mindset, and CSR strategy: A contingency perspective applied to Chinese managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 147 (2), 419–444.

Jong, M., & Meer, M. (2017). How does it fit? Exploring the congruence between organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 143 (1), 71–83.

Karaosmanoglu, E., Altinigne, N., & Isiksal, D. G. (2016). CSR motivation and customer extra-role behavior: Moderation of ethical corporate identity. Journal of Business Research, 69 (10), 4161–4167.

Khan, S. N. (2018). Making sense of the black box: An empirical analysis investigating strategic cognition of CSR strategists in a transitional market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196 , 916–926.

Khan, Z., Lew, Y. K., & Park, B. I. (2015). Institutional legitimacy and norms-based CSR marketing practices. International Marketing Review, 32 (5), 463–491.

Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee, H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95 (4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2

Kim, S. (2019). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154 (4), 1143–1159.

Kleine, A., & Hauff, M. (2009). Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 517–533.

Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122 (1), 145–165.

Laguir, L., Laguir, I., & Tchemeni, E. (2019). Implementing CSR activities through management control systems: A formal and informal control perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32 (2), 531–555.

Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Shaomin, L., & Schneider, A.-M. (2009). CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17 (4), 426–442.

Lecuyer, C., Capelli, S., & Sabadie, W. (2017). Corporate social responsibility communication effects: A comparison between investor-owned banks and member-owned banks. Journal of Advertising Research, 57 (4), 436–446.

Lee, M.-D. (2011). Configuration of external influences: The combined effects of institutions and stakeholders on corporate social responsibility strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (2), 281–298.

Lim, S.-J., & Phillips, J. (2008). Embedding CSR values: The global footwear industry’s evolving governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 81 (1), 143–156.

Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D., & Sloot, R. (2009a). Purchasing and marketing of social and environmental sustainability for high-tech medical equipment. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 445–462.

Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility, Editorial. International Journal of Management Reviews, 112 (1), 1–7.

Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., Harness, D., & Hoffmann, M. (2011). The role of ‘high potentials’ in integrating and implementing corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 99 , 73–91.

Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Maon, F. (2009b). Introduction: Corporate social responsibility implementation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 251–256.

Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12 (2), 155–187.

Lu, J., & Wang, J. (2021). Corporate governance, law, culture, environmental performance and CSR disclosure: A global perspective. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 70 , 101264.

Luo, J. M., Huang, G. Q., & Lam, C. F. (2019). Barriers to the implementation of corporate social responsibility in gaming industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 20 (5), 528–551.

Luo, X. R., Wang, D., & Zhang, J. (2017). Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, 60 (1), 321–344.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23 (3), 283–297.

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87 , 71–89.

Marano, V., & Kostova, T. (2016). Unpacking the institutional complexity in adoption of CSR practices in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 53 (1), 28–54.

Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30 (1), 166–179.

Miska, C., Witt, M. A., & Stahl, G. K. (2016). Drivers of global CSR integration and local CSR responsiveness: Evidence from Chinese MNEs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26 (3), 317–345.

Muller, A., & Kolk, A. (2009). CSR performance in emerging markets evidence from Mexico. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 325–337.

Muthuri, J., Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2009). An integrated approach to implementing community participation’ in corporate community involvement: Lessons from Magadi soda company in Kenya. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 431–444.

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B., Murphy, P., & Gruber, V. (2014). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 124 (1), 101–115.

O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 24 (4), 529–551.

Osagie, E., Wesselink, R., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Mulder, M. (2016). Individual competencies for corporate social responsibility: A literature and practice perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 135 (2), 233–252.

Park, B. I., & Ghauri, P. N. (2015). Determinants influencing CSR practices in small and medium sized MNE subsidiaries: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of World Business, 50 (1), 192–204.

Pedersen, E. R. G., Gwozdz, W., & Hvass, K. K. (2018). Exploring the relationship between business model innovation, corporate sustainability, and organisational values within the fashion industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 149 (2), 267–284.

Peloza, J., Hudson, S., & Hassay, D. (2009). The marketing of employee volunteerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 371–386.

Pham, H. S. T., & Tran, H. T. (2020). CSR disclosure and firm performance: The mediating role of corporate reputation and moderating role of CEO integrity. Journal of Business Research, 120 , 127–136.

Pisani, N., Kourula, A., Kolk, A., & Meijer, R. (2017). How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. Journal of World Business, 52 (5), 591–614.

Platonova, E., Asutay, M., Dixon, R., & Mohammad, S. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance: Evidence from the GCC Islamic banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 151 (2), 451–471.

Polonsky, M., & Jevons, C. (2009). Global branding and strategic CSR: An overview of three types of complexity. International Marketing Review, 26 (3), 327–347.

Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 285–301.

Popay, J., Roberts, H. M., Sowden, A. J., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., & Britten, N. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme . Version 1.

Pope, S., & Wæraas, A. (2016). CSR-washing is rare: A conceptual framework, literature review, and critique. Journal of Business Ethics, 137 (1), 173–193.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), 78–92.

Quintana-García, C., Marchante-Lara, M., & Benavides-Chicón, C. G. (2018). Social responsibility and total quality in the hospitality industry: Does gender matter? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26 (5), 722–739.

Rama, D., Milano, B., Salas, S., & Liu, C.-H. (2009). CSR implementation: Developing the capacity for collective action. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 463–477.

Reimer, M., Van Doorn, S., & Heyden, M. L. M. (2018). Unpacking functional experience complementarities in senior leaders’ influences on CSR strategy: A CEO-Top Management Team Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 151 (4), 977–995.

Rhou, Y., Singal, M., & Koh, Y. (2016). CSR and financial performance: The role of CSR awareness in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57 , 30–39.

Risi, D., & Wickert, C. (2017). Reconsidering the ‘symmetry’ between institutionalization and professionalization: The case of corporate social responsibility managers. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (5), 613–646.

Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., Garde Sánchez, R., & López Hernández, A. M. (2015). Managers as drivers of CSR in state-owned enterprises. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 58 (5), 777–801.

Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2009). Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 339–353.

Saxton, G. D., Ren, C., & Guo, C. (2021). Responding to diffused stakeholders on social media: Connective power and firm reactions to CSR-related Twitter messages. Journal of Business Ethics, 172 (2), 229–252.

Schaefer, S. D., Terlutter, R., & Diehl, S. (2019). Is my company really doing good? Factors influencing employees’ evaluation of the authenticity of their company’s corporate social responsibility engagement. Journal of Business Research, 101 , 128–143.

Schoeneborn, D., Morsing, M., & Crane, A. (2020). Formative perspectives on the relation between CSR communication and CSR practices: Pathways for walking, talking, and t(w)alking. Business & Society, 59 (1), 5–33.

Seitanidi, M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 413–429.

Sendlhofer, T. (2020). Decoupling from moral responsibility for CSR: Employees’ visionary procrastination at a SME. Journal of Business Ethics, 167 (2), 361–378.

Serra-Cantallops, A., Peña-Miranda, D. D., Ramón-Cardona, J., & Martorell-Cunill, O. (2018). Progress in research on CSR and the hotel industry (2006–2015). Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 59 (1), 15–38.

Shahzad, A. M., & Sharfman, M. P. (2017). Corporate social performance and financial performance: Sample-selection issues. Business & Society, 56 (6), 889–918.

Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135 (3), 569–585.

Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work Behavior. Journal of Management, 42 (6), 1723–1746.

Skard, S., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2014). Is publicity always better than advertising? The role of brand reputation in communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124 (1), 149–160.

Skouloudis, A., & Evangelinos, K. (2014). Exogenously driven CSR: Insights from the consultants’ perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23 (3), 258–271.

Spalding, T. L., & Murphy, G. L. (1996). Effects of background knowledge on category construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22 (2), 525–538.

Stekelorum, R., Laguir, I., & Elbaz, J. (2019). Transmission of CSR requirements in supply chains: Investigating the multiple mediating effects of CSR activities in SMEs. Applied Economics, 51 (42), 4642–4657.

Story, J., & Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: Exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24 (2), 111–124.

Subramaniam, N., Kansal, M., & Babu, S. (2017). Governance of mandated corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Indian government-owned firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 143 (3), 543–563.

Tan, W., Tsang, A., Wang, W., & Zhang, W. (2020). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure and the choice between bank debt and public debt. Accounting Horizons, 34 (1), 151–173.

Thorne, L., Mahoney, L., Gregory, K., & Convery, S. (2017). A comparison of Canadian and U.S. CSR strategic alliances, CSR reporting, and CSR performance: Insights into implicit-explicit CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 143 (1), 85–98.

Tourky, M., Kitchen, P., & Shaalan, A. (2020). The role of corporate identity in CSR implementation: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Research, 117 , 694–706.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207–222.

Trapp, N. L. (2014). Stakeholder involvement in CSR strategy-making? Clues from sixteen Danish companies. Public Relations Review, 40 (1), 42–49.

Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (4), 411–427.

United Nations. (2020). The sustainable development goals report 2020 . United Nations.

van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44 (2), 95–105.

van Tulder, R., van Wijk, J., & Kolk, A. (2009). From chain liability to chain responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (2), 399–412.

Verk, N., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2021). A dynamic review of the emergence of corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 168 (3), 491–515.

Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (2), 170–180.

Walters, G., & Anagnostopoulos, C. (2012). Implementing corporate social responsibility through social partnerships. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21 (4), 417–433.

Wickert, C., Scherer, A. G., & Spence, L. J. (2016). Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organizational cost. Journal of Management Studies, 53 (7), 1169–1196.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4), 691–718.

Yin, J., & Jamali, D. (2016). Strategic corporate social responsibility of multinational companies subsidiaries in emerging markets: Evidence from China. Long Range Planning, 49 (5), 541–558.

Zamir, F., & Saeed, A. (2020). Location matters: Impact of geographical proximity to financial centers on corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in emerging economies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37 (1), 263–295.

Zerbini, F. (2017). CSR initiatives as market signals: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 146 (1), 1–23.

Zhang, L., Shan, Y. G., & Chang, M. (2021). Can CSR disclosure protect firm reputation during financial restatements? Journal of Business Ethics, 173 (1), 157–184.

Zheng, Q., Luo, Y., & Maksimov, V. (2015). Achieving legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: The case of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 50 (3), 389–403.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar

Tahniyath Fatima & Said Elbanna

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Said Elbanna .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 140 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fatima, T., Elbanna, S. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework. J Bus Ethics 183 , 105–121 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05047-8

Download citation

Received : 25 May 2021

Accepted : 20 January 2022

Published : 02 February 2022

Issue Date : February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05047-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Corporate social responsibility implementation
CSR strategy
CSR complexity
CSR formulation
CSR implementation framework
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

The Role of Reflection in CSR

This blog is part of the learning experience of the Kent Business School students at the University of Kent for the Corporate Social Responsibility module. The aim of the module is to develop an understanding of corporate social responsibility informed by ethical theory and stakeholder perspectives.

Students have the opportunity to familiarise with essential readings and cases in CSR in order to be able to recognise key issues that are raised by the different stakeholder groups. The module contributes to building an understanding of contemporary social issues in business by highlighting the importance of a collaborative approach with internal and external stakeholder groups.

To deliver the necessary content, the module employs flipped learning as a pedagogical approach. In flipped learning, direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter.” (The Flipped Learning Network). Every lecture features a guest speaker from the industry with who the students interact by asking critical questions. Guest speakers also always pose an in-class question, which is made available to students before the presentation, so that they can answer it in their own time. The answers are then discussed during the lecture, first in small groups and then between the entire class.

An important element of the module is the integration of reflection, in order to enhance the opportunities for deeper learning. The aim of the reflections is to bring together theory and practice, in a practice known as thexis . The purpose of this blog is to encourage and guide students to share their reflections and offer constructive feedback.

We hope that this blog will inspire academics to use the flipped learning approach and integrate reflection to the design of their CSR modules and students to deepen their appreciation of these methods for enhancing their learning experiences and developing their skills.

by Dr M. May Seitanidi

Reflections on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Author: RMSED class of 2011

Originally Published at Peace and Conflict Monitor on: 05/18/2011

In my argument, businesses should embed profits and responsibility in their primary motivation of profit accumulation. This can be done through their contribution to socio-economic development of their workforce, families and communities, either nationally or internationally, producing products and services that are environmentally friendly, paying taxes that are used in welfare promotion, promoting health and safety in the working environment, etc. This understanding is what should be embedded in all company’s businesses. Elly Musafiri, Rwanda.

It is my opinion that one of the most popular mechanisms for organizing CSR is to let one member of the board be answerable to ethical questions in order to keep creating needed awareness on the use of formal codes of conduct so as to foster responsible behavior within the organization. Charles Ekulide, Nigeria.

[…] CSR is the harmonious relationship of a firm or organization with its different stakeholders in order to maximize its potential and bring forth quantitative benefits with win-win results. […] CSR should be entrenched into a company’s day-to-day business and strategies, so they should most likely aim for an integrated and even more holistic approach in order to contribute to sustainable development. Angela A. Willis, Costa Rica.

CSR is a concept that is needed today more than ever in order for a sustainable future to occur. Proper approaches to apply and embed CSR within an Organization can undoubtedly lead to sustainable development if organizations are willing to look beyond short term profit and realizing their goals with the greater good of the community. By bringing businesses and society back together, significant progress can be made. The impacts irresponsible acts have had on the world do not have to continue, it is up to present generations, including organizations, to stop the cycle from progressing. Alex Liccione, USA.

CSR […] is not a matter of choice anymore, but it’s a vital strategy for companies to keep their businesses running and sustainable. […]Therefore, the most appropriate approach to CSR would be sharing the same vision and mission within the company, as well as being responsible to bring happiness upon their employees and the society. Eun Seon, Yun. South Korea.

Personally, I am skeptical of CSR, at least as it has been conceived by business traditionally…the integral approach to CSR is relevant since the complexity of reality requires that all the major dimensions of it are considered in problem solving to achieve long-lasting results. Paola Espin, Ecuador.

If society accepts social responsibility as a voluntary commitment made by organizations expecting return of their investment, then it shouldn’t be called responsibility at all. If society decided to demand companies to be accountable of their real costs, then there wouldn’t be a need for their good will, and when it happened, it would really be a reason to be proud of. Alonso Munoz, Costa Rica.

[In general], Japanese companies are not willing to put gender balance on the CSR agenda, but put emphasis on environmental efforts or public comments about their companies. There is a need of discussion on how to evaluate performance of companies in different cultures. Natsuko Fukuda, Japan.

Businesses benefit societies when they act in their own interests. Therefore, more than CSR, it is the pressure from the stakeholders for sustainable growth in profitability of businesses that will have a bigger impact. […] CSR will truly be accepted by businesses which are smart enough to see that doing the right thing is a consequence of their quest for profits’. Mayuri Misra, India.

In a nutshell, CSR is at a crossroads. Whether it will take the path of sustainable development depends on the creation of momentum as well as people like us, constantly working to make CSR conducive to sustainable development. Marietta Agathe, Mauritius.

Real winners only have two paths to survive: win always or let others win. The first option can be, from human perspectives, very rewarding, but at the same point, overwhelming. The second one at least could embrace the hope that when others win you can feel part of that victory. Marco Castro, Costa Rica.

So far, most CSR models address the collective internal and external interactions of organizations. But the question remains: how can an organization fully integrate CSR in the long run if individual mindsets are not aligned with the needed changes of the collective? Marcela Pang, Panama.

CSR, in my view, is the consideration of public interest into the decision making process at the core of all activities conducted by a company or a firm. Manuel R. Davila, USA/Honduras.

I have to be realistic in the idea that people are driven by motivation, and having a clear goal or target helps in creating corporate or individual strategies to attain them. Karen Visona, Costa Rica.

We cannot deny the fact that corporations play a significant role in our society. The time is now for corporations to change their way, not only for our present wellbeing, but for our future as well. Jin Kin, South Korea.

The impact of our socially responsible thinking and actions as individual members of more complex social organizations can really make the difference and help to spread the concept of social responsibility worldwide. As individuals, we have in our hands the power to make sustainable development the motor that moves our 3BL world. Rocio Torres, Spain.

I believe that each CSR initiative must be understood and implemented based on the corporation’s individual characteristics, not on one standard requirement for what CVSR should embody. It requires a concrete analysis of a corporation’s context and both the internal and external impacts of its operations and production. Only then can an effective CSR plan be drawn and strategically embedded in a way that will sustain itself into an integral part of the future business plan, and provide full coverage of both its current impacts, and those to come. Sunny Alley, USA.

Companies need to look beyond their ability to turn ethics into profits and learn to be ethical for the simple moral value of their initiatives. […] I am skeptical about handing the responsibility to businesses alone in order to tackle all of today’s problems, but I do believe they should start by addressing their own impacts. Olivia Caldwell, USA/France.

This is exactly what we are discussing; a corporation cannot really be responsible if you are hiring suppliers known to be deeply irresponsible in their practices. Monica Morales, USA/Mexico.

Anyone who is influenced by a company’s action, either directly or indirectly could be a stakeholder. Moreover, a company where stakeholders are interconnected in a multicultural environment, CSR should be carried with ethical approaches of management, and the impact of each part of the community should be deeply considered. Maximizing shareholders’ profits is not an efficient way to pursue social responsibility. Naomi Inoue, Japan.

So far, I argue that the importance of considering CSR in every company operation is based on the understanding and recognition of CSR among all employees for mature CSR activities in Korea. Again, mature CSR cannot be completed without sound understanding of all stakeholders of the business and their assertive application of social responsibility to their every work. Keuntae Kim, South Korea.

[…] this indicates that CSR should start from the corporation without any force, but only driven by the self-realization as a ‘responsible’ actor in society’. Hyojin Ahn, South Korea.

As students of Social Responsibility, we must also hold ourselves responsible to do the right thing in our careers. Although the perfect company does not yet exist, we can use our talents and education to find our role in working to enhance employment standards, quality of business, and the way powerful companies and governments treat our earth. Heidi Resetarits, USA.

From my point of view, […] for CSR to be embedded in an organization, it has to be accepted by the top executives and communicated to the rest of the organization before the organization goes ahead to carry out engaged learning to discover the needs of the community and align it to its priorities. Frank Omona, Uganda.

[CSR] this has been and will continue to be a challenge and worthwhile goal for everyone. We need to help move ‘CSR’ from a buzz word to a common global household term. Only then, will organizations really be starting to make a big enough splash. Erica Giljohann, USA

+ - Font Size

Corporate Social Responsibility Reflection

Companies are under increasing pressure to put the needs of the communities in which they operate ahead of their own. For centuries, the idea that businesses have a duty to society beyond simply making money for shareholders has been widely accepted. This is because businesses operate in a society that expects them to take responsibility for certain aspects of their operations. Businesses and corporations can no longer prosper in isolation from their immediate and wider communities and the environment (Chaklader, and Gautam, 2013). A company’s ability to succeed depends on the quality of the relationships it has with the people who work for it and the other key stakeholders (such as customers, investors and suppliers, and elected officials and community activists).

Overview of Coca-Cola and its CSR

Coca-Cola company was established in the year 1886 and a beverage manufacturer. The company was located initially in Atlanta US, and afterwards it grew as a multinational The company began exporting its products to the Caribbean and Canadian markets and to other parts of the world. Nearly every country in the world was selling the company’s products by the turn of the century.

From production and packaging to distribution, Coca-sustainability Cola’s framework, Live Positively, was introduced in 2007. Companies can set measurable goals to improve sustainability practices in seven key areas in their CSR policy, Live Positively. Among the most important focuses are the health benefits of beverages, active and healthy lifestyles, neighbourhood involvement, the environment, renewable energy, environmentally friendly packaging, water conservation, and the workplace. The company has a Code of Business Conduct provides employees with guidelines on anti-corruption and competition issues. There is a lack of integration between the company’s Code of Business and the international CSR guidelines it has adopted, such as Ruggie’s Protect, Respect, and Remedy Framework (Karnani, 2014). The CSR initiatives of the Coca Cola company are incorporated into its policies to ensure there is easy execution.

The which is published yearly has a section that highlights the activities of the previous years . Through this the company is able to give a brief review of its efforts in social economic development such as water conservation strategies. There has been an annual report titled on “Sustainability Review” since 2001 that is solely dedicated to CSR. A third party, the sustainability rating companies, verifies and assures the accuracy of these reports, which are released every two years. Coca-information Cola has been given “moderate assurance” by this verification. The company has adopted the GRI G3 guidelines to prepare its annual review and sustainability reports (Karnani, 2014). The water stewardship program’s goals are important to Coca-business Cola’s, so the company reports on the program’s progress every year.

Overview of conflicts

The Coca-Cola company was first accused by the Indian government of its beverages containing a huge amount of pesticide residues. To conduct its own tests on the drinks, the government formed a Joint Committee. Pesticides that didn’t meet European standards were found in the samples, but they were still considered safe under local regulations. As a result, no national laws were broken by Coca-Cola. Indian officials have acknowledged the necessity of enacting regulations on carbonated beverages that are both fair and enforceable.

It was also claimed that Coca-Cola was responsible for causing water shortages in the Kerala community of Plachimada. Coke has been charged with water pollution for dumping wastewater into fields and rivers near its plants in the same neighbourhood. India’s public health authorities had to put up warning signs around wells and hand pumps because groundwater and soil were so polluted that it was unsafe for human consumption.

Analysis of Coca-Cola’s strategy in CSR

The company has adopted the use of Global Reporting Initiatives developed in 2002 which helps it to give a report on its sustainability measures. There had already been a few clashes over CSR in other parts of the world but did not come into the limelight as they were handled internally by the company (Lasaliesanti,2019). According to Rini et al., (2022), Coca never accepted the presence of pesticides in in its beverages. However, the company quickly developed integrity and damage control measures that would be used in addressing such incidences. For instance, for its goof corporate reputation the company, the company has devised way of collecting, storing and efficiently utilizing local water conservations.

Coca-Cola was demonized in India as a greedy corporation that was more concerned with its bottom line than the health of its consumers. Because it incorporated stakeholder engagement into its strategy, prior conflicts in the US and Belgium were more successfully resolved. After a couple of years, it appears that the company realized it had made a mistake and acknowledged that they hadn’t done enough to address the controversy on the goodwill in the community, acknowledging that the public’s perception of their operation matters.by accepting their mistakes the company restored its trust to the consumers in the public image.

Additionally, the company has continued to provide evidence to back up the company’s good practices and water management in India. However, this declaration did little to stem the tide of dwindling sales and mounting losses relative to the sums invested. Slowly but surely, Coca-Cola began to implement damage-control measures that addressed the concerns of Indian communities.

From 2004 onwards, a report was published on its environmental performance for its operations in India. As part of its efforts to address the country’s water issues, the Coca-Cola India Foundation, was established as a notable shift in strategy was the launch of numerous water projects to address water scarcity and depleting groundwater levels. To effectively use and conserve rainwater, these methods primarily involve collecting and storing it while also preventing evaporation and runoff. Capturing water that would otherwise be wasted is the goal of this project(Lasaliesanti,2019). By harvesting the water used in its operations in India and returning it to the ecosystem, the company hoped to achieve a ‘net zero’ groundwater use.

In spite of the fact that Coca-Cola has battled for more than a decade against allegations of product safety and health, illegal competition, racial discrimination, and employee intimidation, the company appears to have recovered and is making strides toward improving its image under current leadership. For the company to approach its issues differently, it has to put emphasis on environmental stewardship. The company has to bank on the strength of its current leadership to steer the company away from its current emphasis on ethics and toward a profitable start to the new century.

Chaklader, B. and Gautam, N., 2013. Efficient water management through public-private partnership model: An experiment in CSR by Coca-Cola India. Vikalpa , 38 (4), pp.97-104.

Karnani, A., 2014. Corporate social responsibility does not avert the tragedy of the commons. Case study: Coca-Cola India. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets , 9 (3), pp.11-23.

Lasaliesanti, P., 2019. Implementasi program Bali beach clean up sebagai corporate social responsibility (CSR) oleh perusahaan Coca-Cola Amatil Indonesia di Pantai Kuta Bali. Aspirasi: Jurnal Ilmiah Administrasi Negara , 4 (1), pp.5-8.

Rini, I.G.A.I.S., Dewi, N.L.G.R. and Trisnadewi, A.A.A.E., 2022. FAKTOR-FAKTOR PENENTU CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) PT COCA COLA TIRTA LINA BOTTLING MENGWI BADUNG BALI. KRISNA: Kumpulan Riset Akuntansi , 13 (2), pp.316-334.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Hilton hotels corporation, the benefits of flexible spending accounts for employers and employees, fuel costs and air travel dynamics, the microsoft corporation – financial analysis, doing business in brics nations, characteristics of the reforms and developments of china’s state-owned enterprises, popular essay topics.

American Dream
Artificial Intelligence
Black Lives Matter
Bullying Essay
Career Goals Essay
Causes of the Civil War
Child Abusing
Civil Rights Movement
Community Service
Cultural Identity
Cyber Bullying
Death Penalty
Depression Essay
Domestic Violence
Freedom of Speech
Global Warming
Gun Control
Human Trafficking
I Believe Essay
Immigration
Importance of Education
Israel and Palestine Conflict
Leadership Essay
Legalizing Marijuanas
Mental Health
National Honor Society
Police Brutality
Pollution Essay
Racism Essay
Romeo and Juliet
Same Sex Marriages
Social Media
The Great Gatsby
The Yellow Wallpaper
Time Management
To Kill a Mockingbird
Violent Video Games
What Makes You Unique
Why I Want to Be a Nurse
Send us an e-mail

Business Essentials
Leadership & Management
Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
Entrepreneurship & Innovation
Digital Transformation
Finance & Accounting
Business in Society
For Organizations
Support Portal
Media Coverage
Founding Donors
Leadership Team

Harvard Business School →
HBS Online →
Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

Career Development
Communication
Decision-Making
Earning Your MBA
Negotiation
News & Events
Productivity
Staff Spotlight
Student Profiles
Work-Life Balance
AI Essentials for Business
Alternative Investments
Business Analytics
Business Strategy
Business and Climate Change
Design Thinking and Innovation
Digital Marketing Strategy
Disruptive Strategy
Economics for Managers
Entrepreneurship Essentials
Financial Accounting
Global Business
Launching Tech Ventures
Leadership Principles
Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
Leading with Finance
Management Essentials
Negotiation Mastery
Organizational Leadership
Power and Influence for Positive Impact
Strategy Execution
Sustainable Business Strategy
Sustainable Investing
Winning with Digital Platforms

5 Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility That Were Successful

06 Jun 2019

Business is about more than just making a profit. Climate change, economic inequality, and other global challenges that impact communities worldwide have compelled companies to be purpose-driven and contribute to the greater good .

In a recent study by Deloitte , 93 percent of business leaders said they believe companies aren't just employers, but stewards of society. In addition, 95 percent reported they’re planning to take a stronger stance on large-scale issues in the coming years and devote significant resources to socially responsible initiatives. With more CEOs turning their focus to the long term, it’s important to consider what you can do in your career to make an impact .

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Corporate Social Responsibility?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a business model in which for-profit companies seek ways to create social and environmental benefits while pursuing organizational goals, like revenue growth and maximizing shareholder value .

Today’s organizations are implementing extensive corporate social responsibility programs, with many companies dedicating C-level executive roles and entire departments to social and environmental initiatives. These executives are commonly referred to as a chief officer of corporate social responsibility or chief sustainability officer (CSO).

There are many types of corporate social responsibility and CSR might look different for each organization, but the end goal is always the same: Do well by doing good . Companies that embrace corporate social responsibility aim to maintain profitability while supporting a larger purpose.

Rather than simply focusing on generating profit, or the bottom line, socially responsible companies are concerned with the triple bottom line , which considers the impact that business decisions have on profit, people, and the planet.

It’s no coincidence that some of today’s most profitable organizations are also socially responsible. Here are five examples of successful corporate social responsibility you can use to drive social change at your organization.

5 Corporate Social Responsibility Examples

1. lego’s commitment to sustainability.

As one of the most reputable companies in the world, Lego aims to not only help children develop through creative play, but foster a healthy planet.

Lego is the first, and only, toy company to be named a World Wildlife Fund Climate Savers Partner , marking its pledge to reduce its carbon impact. And its commitment to sustainability extends beyond its partnerships.

By 2030, the toymaker plans to use environmentally friendly materials to produce all of its core products and packaging—and it’s already taken key steps to achieve that goal.

Over the course of 2013 and 2014, Lego shrunk its box sizes by 14 percent , saving approximately 7,000 tons of cardboard. Then, in 2018, the company introduced 150 botanical pieces made from sustainably sourced sugarcane —a break from the petroleum-based plastic typically used to produce the company’s signature building blocks. The company has also recently committed to removing all single-use plastic packaging from its materials by 2025, among other initiatives .

Along with these changes, the toymaker has committed to investing $164 million into its Sustainable Materials Center , where researchers are experimenting with bio-based materials that can be implemented into the production process.

Through all of these initiatives, Lego is well on its way to tackling pressing environmental challenges and furthering its mission to help build a more sustainable future.

Related : What Does "Sustainability" Mean in Business?

2. Salesforce’s 1-1-1 Philanthropic Model

Beyond being a leader in the technology space, cloud-based software giant Salesforce is a trailblazer in the realm of corporate philanthropy.

Since its outset, the company has championed its 1-1-1 philanthropic model , which involves giving one percent of product, one percent of equity, and one percent of employees’ time to communities and the nonprofit sector.

To date, Salesforce employees have logged more than 5 million volunteer hours . Not only that, but the company has awarded upwards of $406 million in grants and donated to more than 40,000 nonprofit organizations and educational institutions.

In addition, through its work with San Francisco Unified and Oakland Unified School Districts, Salesforce has helped reduce algebra repeat rates and contributed to a high percentage of students receiving A’s or B’s in computer science classes.

As the company’s revenue continues to grow, Salesforce stands as a prime example of the idea that profit-making and social impact initiatives don’t have to be at odds with one another.

3. Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission

At Ben & Jerry’s, positively impacting society is just as important as producing premium ice cream.

In 2012, the company became a certified B Corporation , a business that balances purpose and profit by meeting the highest standards of social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability.

As part of its overarching commitment to leading with progressive values, the ice cream maker established the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation in 1985, an organization dedicated to supporting grassroots movements that drive social change.

Each year, the foundation awards approximately $2.5 million in grants to organizations in Vermont and across the United States. Grant recipients have included the United Workers Association, a human rights group striving to end poverty, and the Clean Air Coalition, an environmental health and justice organization based in New York.

The foundation’s work earned it a National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy Award in 2014, and it continues to sponsor efforts to find solutions to systemic problems at both local and national levels.

Related : How to Create Social Change: 4 Business Strategies

4. Levi Strauss’s Social Impact

In addition to being one of the most successful fashion brands in history, Levi’s is also one of the first to push for a more ethical and sustainable supply chain.

In 1991, the brand created its Terms of Engagement , which established its global code of conduct regarding its supply chain and set standards for workers’ rights, a safe work environment, and an environmentally-friendly production process.

To maintain its commitment in a changing world, Levi’s regularly updates its Terms of Engagement. In 2011, on the 20th anniversary of its code of conduct, Levi’s announced its Worker Well-being initiative to implement further programs focused on the health and well-being of supply chain workers.

Since 2011, the Worker Well-being initiative has been expanded to 12 countries and more than 100,000 workers have benefited from it. In 2016, the brand scaled up the initiative, vowing to expand the program to more than 300,000 workers and produce more than 80 percent of its product in Worker Well-being factories by 2025.

For its continued efforts to maintain the well-being of its people and the environment, Levi’s was named one of Engage for Good’s 2020 Golden Halo Award winners, which is the highest honor reserved for socially responsible companies.

5. Starbucks’s Commitment to Ethical Sourcing

Starbucks launched its first corporate social responsibility report in 2002 with the goal of becoming as well-known for its CSR initiatives as for its products. One of the ways the brand has fulfilled this goal is through ethical sourcing.

In 2015, Starbucks verified that 99 percent of its coffee supply chain is ethically sourced , and it seeks to boost that figure to 100 percent through continued efforts and partnerships with local coffee farmers and organizations.

The brand bases its approach on Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) Practices , one of the coffee industry’s first set of ethical sourcing standards created in collaboration with Conservation International . CAFE assesses coffee farms against specific economic, social, and environmental standards, ensuring Starbucks can source its product while maintaining a positive social impact.

For its work, Starbucks was named one of the world’s most ethical companies in 2021 by Ethisphere.

Which HBS Online Business in Society Course is Right for You? | Download Your Free Flowchart

The Value of Being Socially Responsible

As these firms demonstrate , a deep and abiding commitment to corporate social responsibility can pay dividends. By learning from these initiatives and taking a values-driven approach to business, you can help your organization thrive and grow, even as it confronts global challenges.

Do you want to gain a deeper understanding of the broader social and political landscape in which your organization operates? Explore our three-week Sustainable Business Strategy course and other online courses regarding business in society to learn more about how business can be a catalyst for system-level change.

This post was updated on April 15, 2022. It was originally published on June 6, 2019.

About the Author

1(877)219-7556 1(877)733-3925

Fully unique works only

Your privacy is our concern

Writing that is plagiarism free

Free Ethics and CSR Reflection Essay Sample

Reflection on ethics and corporate social responsibility.

Ethical issues and corporate social responsibility (CSR) have become critical in business as stakeholders expectations evolve. Companies that wish to remain sustainable and profitable for the long haul must accept CSR and ethics as essential parts of their operations. This paper will reflect on the various concepts and activities covered in the course, their impact on my understanding of ethics and CSR and the differences among CSR, legality, and ethics in business.

CSR is a business approach that encourages organizations to consider their impact on the society and the environment within which they operate. It encompasses variables such as economic, environmental, and social benefits. As such, CSR focuses on how enterprises affect their environment and ways through which they can limit their negative consequences. Legality, on the other hand, refers to the laws and regulations that each nation creates to guide enterprises on how to conduct business. Ethics refer to the principles and moral problems that emerge in the corporate environment. Week one activities set the foundation for my understanding of ethics, especially when I participated in the creation of the class code of ethics. The complexities that emerged as the students attempted to include various contributions outlined the issues people in corporations face when making ethical decisions. Although CSR, ethics and the legality have become pivotal to corporations strategies, only the legality is a must to observe.CSR and ethics are optional because there is no external body to enforce them in case companies decide not to incorporate them into their operations. Despite the CSR and ethics being optional, the failure to observe them leads to the demise of businesses. After several scandals rocked companies that violated ethical standards, the line between ethics and legality has become thin as the enactment of laws that demand the establishment of ethical codes of ethics has taken place. The case of Enron in week two is a superb example of unethical decisions that led to strict legal requirements for corporations to strengthen their corporate governance structures. I realized that although unethical conduct may offer short-term gains, such benefits are not sustainable and may eventually transform into failures. Such a lesson is vital because it will empower me in my future endeavors in business to ensure the application of ethics in every aspect.

At the beginning of the course, my understanding of CSR was narrow. I thought that CSR was providing finances to communities to improve the livelihoods of the citizens. However, after going through the classes, I realized that it was difficult in practice than it sounded in theory. One crucial takeaway lesson from week three is the holistic approach that companies should take when it comes to CSR. As such, corporations should go beyond legal compliance and deal with ethical values as well.

When I started the lessons, ethical decision-making seemed like an easy task. However, after week four readings and activities, I learned that it requires various considerations and a structured approach. It dawned on me that the complexities surrounding ethical decision-making in organizations necessitate the use of a framework to ensure that the outcome is accommodative of all the concerns and reflect an objective process. The ideal process involves the consideration all facts, the identification of ethical issues, the effects of decisions on all stakeholders, and the determination of the appropriate action.

Initially, I thought ethics in business meant doing the right thing, which was easy to accomplish. However, I realized that there exist ethical dilemmas that are tedious to solve and require rigorous decision-making processes. For example, in week five, I learned about the existence of many ethical theories that seems to contradict each other, which complicate ethical choices. As such, my lesson at the end was that combining various ethical approaches can help make an inclusive moral decision.

Another vital lesson from the coursework was that groups could compromise personal ethical decisions. For instance, the line experiment in week six revealed that although individuals had made the right choice, they later changed their views because the majority of their group members had different perspectives.

Our features

300 words per page instead of 280

Free revision (on demand)

Discount system

Affiliate program

VIP services

Round-the-clock support

In week seven, the coursework enlightened me that CSR entails social issues affecting communities, their economic well-being, and environmental conservation. However, corporations may choose all, two or one of these elements of CSR. The knowledge about the choices impacted me the most because it will help me identify the most committed firms. Those with more components of CSR are likely to have serious commitments than those with one or two.

Week eight learning taught me a valuable lesson that being fair, diverse, and non-discriminatory is part of the process to ensure the workplace is ethical. Additionally, it became evident that ethics and CSR do not only apply to external stakeholders but also internal ones such as employees.

One of the activities in week nine was the social responsibility project. While participating in it, I improved my understanding of how CSR connects to business objectives. It became clear that corporations with a robust CSR program have motivated and loyal employees who are less likely to leave. Such companies also become favorite work destinations for the best talent.

Week ten lessons enlightened me on the privacy issues the use of technology can create when monitoring employees. I realized that although it is right for employers to monitor their workers to ensure appropriate use of resources and optimal performance, some of the technological use violates their rights privacy. For example, tracking heart rate, sleep patterns, and alcohol consumption while not at work is unethical.

In week 11, I learned unethical aspects that can emerge in marketing include selling faulty products, inflating prices, targeting vulnerable populations and using false advertisements. Such lessons are invaluable in my preparation for future work as I strive to promote ethics in the organizations for which I will work.

I also learned that CSR is not just a requirement to satisfy stakeholders welfare. For instance, companies that benefit most from implementing CSR are those that go beyond the expectation and make CSR a measurable business outcome. Such an approach shows a genuine concern to impact the society positively. One of the companies that I learned about in my week 12 activities was the Laughing Man Coffee. The company exemplifies the ideals of CSR. The founder, Hugh Jackson views giving back to the society as a vital part of his business. He has aligned his personal values with the companys CSR, which ensures that the existence of the company is the embodiment of the values that drive his life. Consequently, the genuine concern for CSR is likely to result in customer satisfaction, loyalty, and high profitability. The lesson from the company is that for CSR to work, it must genuinely attempt to solve societal problems.

In conclusion, the coursework improved my understanding of CSR, ethics, and legality tremendously. Case studies such as that concerning Enron highlighted the impact of ethical decisions on organizations. Additionally, I gained new insights on how embracing the totality of CSR can be beneficial. Exposure to a decision-making model was another lesson from the semesters work. The complexities of ethical theories, their impact on decisions, group impact on the individual decision and various components of CSR became apparent by the end of the coursework. Consideration for internal stakeholders, the connection between CSR and business outcomes, the impact of technology on ethics, ethical issues in marketing and genuine implementation of CSR were some of the lessons that improved by knowledge of the course concepts.

Have NO Inspiration to write your essay?

Ask for Professional help

Search Free Essay

Please note!

Some text in the modal.

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.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Performance Feedback on Corporate Social Responsibility Performance

Jae-eun lee.

1 Department of International Trade, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, South Korea

Young Soo Yang

2 Department of Global Business, Hanshin University, Osan, South Korea

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

This study empirically analyzes how corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance feedback impacts CSR performance, focusing on the performance feedback perspective of behavioral theory of the firm (BTOF). By performing generalized least squares (GLS) regression analysis based on Korean company data from 2012 to 2019, we presented evidence that positive social and historical performance feedback had a positive effect on CSR performance. Our results provide evidence that firms with higher social and historical CSR performance than CSR aspiration may have higher CSR performance than those that do not.

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be defined as a firm’s core strategy for voluntarily reflecting social and environmental concerns in the operation of the business to interact with various stakeholders ( Wang et al., 2018 , p. 68). CSR has attracted scholarly attention, and CSR has increased gradually owing to the growing, recent perception that sustainability is crucial for a firm’s long-term growth and survival ( Bahta et al., 2021 ). Many researchers and managers are prioritizing CSR to create a sustainable competitive advantage ( Lee and Lee, 2019 ; Kim and Kim, 2020 ; Matten and Moon, 2020 ). However, the degree and pattern of CSR activities performed by firms vary greatly among firms, and CSR performance due to CSR activities also vary greatly from firm to firm. Therefore, many scholars have attempted to identify corporate decisions to participate in CSR activities and determinants of CSR performance ( Kim and Kim, 2020 ; Yuan et al., 2020 ; Ben-Amar et al., 2021 ). The previous studies have stressed that firms participate in CSR activities to increase stakeholder value based on the stakeholder theory, arguing that firm CSR performance is eventually related to the financial firm performance ( Hillman and Keim, 2001 ; Kim et al., 2019 ). Conversely, based on the trade-off theory, other scholars emphasize that CSR activities negatively affect financial performance as they force firms to spend unnecessary money and eventually worsen profitability ( McWilliams and Siegel, 2001 ; Moore, 2001 ; López et al., 2007 ).

Meanwhile, many scholars in the field of organizational theory and strategic management have used the performance feedback perspective based on the behavioral theory of the firm (hereafter, BTOF), which has been presented as a major theoretical basis for explaining corporate performance ( Cyert and March, 1963 ). From the BTOF aspect, the difference between a firm’s actual performance and aspiration level of performance, that is, attainment discrepancy, affects firm strategy or behavior ( Cyert and March, 1963 ). Attainment discrepancy is crucial in the performance feedback model of the BTOF. Moreover, the performance feedback model is considered to evaluate one’s performance based on the level of performance that firms aspire to Cyert and March (1963) and Alessandri and Pattit (2014) . Essentially, based on the actual firm performance compared and evaluated based on the performance of the aspiration level, the CEO determines the effectiveness of the current firm strategy ( Audia and Greve, 2006 ; Lu and Wong, 2019 ). Applying these discussions to the CSR context, the strategic behaviors that firms can choose may vary depending on whether CSR performance is high or low compared to aspiration level. However, previous studies that have sufficiently discussed this are scarce. Additionally, the difference between CSR aspiration level and actual CSR performance, that is, the effect of attainment discrepancy on CSR performance, remains unclear.

As Nason et al. (2018) highlighted the discussion on social performance feedback compared to financial performance feedback is lacking and attempts to examine how a firm’s strategic behavior changes according to corporate non-financial social performance feedback have been relatively insufficient. Few studies have attempted to apply the performance feedback perspective of BTOF to the CSR context ( Arora and Dharwadkar, 2011 ). For example, Arora and Dharwadkar (2011) found that attainment discrepancy moderates the relationship between corporate governance and CSR based on the BTOF perspective. However, in the study of Arora and Dharwadkar (2011) , since attainment discrepancy was measured based on the financial performance, there is a big difference from our study that measures attainment discrepancy based on the CSR performance. Additionally, Xu and Zeng (2020) are similar to this study in that it investigates the relationship between CSR’s attainment discrepancy and CSR performance, not financial performance. However, their study considers only the social corporate social performance (CSP) aspiration level, while ours study includes both social and historical CSP aspiration levels.

To fill this research gap, this study investigates the impact of CSR performance feedback on future CSR performance. We present the following research questions. First, how does positive CSR performance feedback (positive attainment discrepancy wherein CSR performance exceeds CSR aspiration levels) affect future CSR performance? Second, how does negative CSR performance feedback (negative attainment discrepancy in which CSR performance is below CSR aspiration levels) affect future CSR performance?

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

Performance feedback and corporate social responsibility performance.

One of the main theories explaining firm CSR performance is the perspective of performance feedback of BTOF. In the BTOF perspective, organizations form levels of aspiration for their goals and choose courses of their actions that can help them to achieve that level of aspiration ( Cyert and March, 1963 ; Kotiloglu et al., 2020 ). The BTOF emphasizes organizational processes such as performance evaluation, search, and decision-making ( Cyert and March, 1963 ; Greve, 2003 ). Considering performance feedback from the BTOF, as organizations are considered a goal-directed system ( Chen and Miller, 2007 ) using simple decision-making rules to change their activities, the firm will evaluate their performance based on aspiration levels and respond differently depending on whether performance is higher or lower ( Cyert and March, 1963 ; Greve, 2003 ). According to the perspective of performance feedback, aspiration levels are the reference point for evaluating the organizational performance ( Kotiloglu et al., 2020 ). In other words, the aspiration level becomes the criterion for decision makers to judge satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their strategic results ( Simon, 1955 ). By evaluating one’s performance using aspiration level as a reference point, organizations that recognize its success or failure can change the direction and scope of organizational search to enhance performance ( Greve, 2003 ). Aspiration level can be divided into the historical and social aspiration levels. The former is formed through past experience organizational experience and latter through comparison with the reference group ( Cyert and March, 1963 ; Greve, 1998 ). Historical aspiration (HA) level considers the organization’s past experience as a major reference point, mainly by comparing current performance with the organization’s past performance ( Greve, 2003 ). Conversely, the social aspiration level is determined by comparing the performance of the reference group with that of the firm. Studies have emphasized that both historical and social aspiration level should be considered ( Bromiley, 1991 ; Greve, 1998 ). Hence, this study considers both historical and social aspiration levels. The decision maker determines the type of search, such as problemistic or slack search, through the process of comparing aspiration level and one’s performance. If firm performance does not reach the aspiration level, this signals the decision maker that a problem has occurred in the current organization and prompts a problemistic search that makes efforts to compensate for the current performance that falls short of expectations. In this problemistic search process, decision makers make decisions to take more risks and actively solve problems. Conversely, if a firm’s performance exceeds its aspiration level, decision makers feel no need to change because they see the current situation as profitable and tend to maintain or wait and monitor the current situation ( Cyert and March, 1963 ). When a firm’s performance exceeds its aspiration level, it conducts slack search even if it conducts search, and firms hope that the current situation will be maintained ( Cyert and March, 1963 ; Greve, 2003 ). We attempt to apply this discussion to the CSR context in this study. In this study, CSR performance feedback was considered a major antecedent factor in CSR performance as decision makers can make different decisions related to CSR depending on whether a firm’s CSR performance is high (positive) or low (negative) compare with their CRS aspiration level.

Research Hypotheses

In this study, the difference in the CSR performance compared to the CSR aspiration level of a firm (positive or negative attainment discrepancy) influences the firm’s strategy or behaviors related to CSR according to the BTOF’s performance feedback perspective. Particularly, when a firm’s CSR performance is low compared to CSR aspiration level (negative CSR performance feedback), firm decision-makers may recognize low CSR performance as an important problem and conduct problemistic search to improve it ( Zhong and Ren, 2021 ). Here, CSR aspiration level can be divided into historical and social CSR aspiration level. Decision makers with bounded rationality can make appropriate decisions by comparing past and present CSR performance. Hence, this CSR aspiration level can consider the historical CSR aspiration level. Additionally, decision makers with bounded rationality can make CSR-related decisions by comparing the CSR performance of their reference groups with their CSR performance. Hence, the CSR aspiration level simultaneously becomes the social CSR aspiration level. Many previous studies emphasize that negative performance feedback generates the problemistic search ( Cyert and March, 1963 ). The problemistic search can be considered a solution for firms having lower performance relative to aspiration level ( Iyer and Miller, 2008 ; Posen et al., 2018 ; Choi J. et al., 2019 ). In addition, performance below the aspiration level tends to cause firms to solve problems faced by encouraging more innovative activities ( Lu and Wong, 2019 ). If the CSR performance is low as compared to the CSR aspiration levels, firms may be threatened with legitimacy for CSR, and the need to secure legitimate CSR for sustainable growth and survival increases ( DiMaggio and Powell, 1983 ; Du and Vieira, 2012 ). Receiving negative performance feedback may reduce external stakeholders’ trust in the corporate decision makers. Additionally, receiving negative feedback can further strengthen external pressure requiring stakeholders to achieve their goals, limiting management autonomy ( Arora and Dharwadkar, 2011 ). Therefore, receiving negative CSR performance feedback may motivate firms to spend more CSR costs to minimize the negative impact and restore legitimacy and trust from stakeholders. In the end, the negative CSR performance feedback could have a positive effect on CSR performance ( Park, 2007 ; Kim et al., 2015 ; Xu and Zeng, 2020 ). Hence, the following hypothesis was derived.

H1 : Negative CSR performance feedback (in that as CSR performance falls below CSR aspiration level) is positively related to CSR performance.

Conversely, according to the performance feedback perspective of BTOF, when a firm’s financial performance exceeds aspiration level, decision-makers feel no need to change because they see the current situation as profits ( Lu and Fang, 2013 ). As firms have already achieved their high level of financial performance they aspire to, decision-makers are unaware of the need for additional search to take additional risks and further enhance financial performance ( Audia et al., 2000 ). Managers do not perceive their financial performance as a problem if their financial performance exceeds their aspiration level. Hence, even if they conduct a search, they will attempt to maintain the current situation by mainly conducting a slack search. These conservative tendencies of decision-makers have been confirmed in many previous studies. For example, Greve (1998) emphasized that as a result of conducting an empirical analysis on the US radio industry, if firm performance is higher than the aspiration level, the probability of strategic change becomes exceedingly lower. Basically, when financial performance is generally higher than the aspiration level, firms will tend to maintain the phenomenon without making additional efforts to improve financial performance ( Lucas et al., 2018 ). However, considering that CSR requires fulfilling a non-financial aspect of a firm, a slightly different discussion is possible in the CSR context. CSR needs to consider a wide range of stakeholders who have relationships with firms as it goes beyond the general responsibility that firms must legally comply with and includes ethical and moral responsibilities. When firm CSR performance is high compared to the CSR aspiration level, stakeholders related to the firm can show trust in firm decision makers. This provides decision makers with more discretion over resource allocation ( Arora and Dharwadkar, 2011 ). If firm decision makers are satisfied with the current situation and reduce the budget or expenditure required for CSR activities, stakeholders may doubt the authenticity of the activities. As CSR is related to the perceptions of various stakeholders, including consumers, even if CSR performance is higher than CSR aspiration levels, firm decision makers can have a positive impact on CSR performance by continuously spending CSR costs to ensure legitimacy without reducing CSR commitment. This argument can also be confirmed in the previous empirical studies. Xu and Zeng (2020) conducted empirical analysis on Japanese companies in anticipation of a negative impact on philanthropic/environmental expenditure if they performed higher than the level of philanthropic/environmental aspirations of firms. However, owing to empirical analysis, and contrary to the authors’ expectations, empirical analysis results were presented wherein positive attainment discrepancy in corporate philanthropic/environmental performance had positive effect on philanthropic/environmental expenditure, respectively. Additionally, when a slack search is performed compared to a problematic search, slack resources will likely be formed because of the additional room for resource utilization. Firms with abundant organizational slack resources can enable more experimentation and organizational change than those that do not ( March, 1981 ). If a firm receives positive CSR performance feedback, it can secure authenticity and legitimacy for CSR activities from stakeholders, including consumers, and can perform more experimental and active CSR activities to strengthen their positive corporate image. Therefore, positive CSR performance feedback could have a positive effect on CSR performance. We propose the following hypothesis:

H2 : Positive CSR performance feedback (in that as CSR performance rises above CSR aspiration level) is positively related to CSR performance.

Research Methods

Sample and data.

In this study, we matched the Korea Economic Justice Research Institute (KEJI) index and firm-level information to those firms selected in the top 200 selected by the KEJI ( Oh et al., 2019 ). Data were collected from archival data sources such as KIS-Value, TS2000, DART as an electronic disclosure system, and KEJI for KEJI index. Our initial sample was obtained from KEJI for 2012 to 2019 and merged these firms with financial data using KIS-Value and TS2000. Our final dataset comprises 1091 observations for 8 years of publicly listed firms on Korea Stock Exchange (KSE) from 2012 to 2019. We employed a 1-year lagged structure between dependent and independent variables and control variables to avoid any reverse causality ( Oh et al., 2019 ).

Variables and Measurement

Dependent variable.

CSR performance was measured in various ways in previous studies, using scores announced by specific organizations ( Jung and Kim, 2016 ; Jeong et al., 2018 ) or the donation amount or donation ratios ( Choi Y. K. et al., 2019 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). Following earlier studies ( Jung and Kim, 2016 ; Chang et al., 2017 ; Jeong et al., 2018 ; Oh et al., 2019 ), as the proxy for the social corporate responsibility performance for this study, we used the KEJI index, which is announced annually. The KEJI index is one of the representative CSR performance indicators used in Korean studies ( Oh et al., 2019 ) and is similar to the index such as Kinder, Lydenberg which evaluate the CSR index of S&P 500 ( Jung and Kim, 2016 ).

Since 1991, the KEJI has developed its own evaluation model. CSR performance is quantitatively calculated using accounting information data for KOSPI-listed companies. KEJI has evaluated various aspects and characteristics for selecting the 200 largest companies in Korea ( Jung and Kim, 2016 ). The KEJI index consists of six criteria with a total score of 100 points: soundness (25 points), fairness (20 points), contribution to social service (15 points), consumer protection satisfaction (15 points), environmental protection satisfaction (10 points), and employee satisfaction (15 points). Until 2011, contribution to economic development was included in the KEJI index. However, in 2012, the corresponding item was removed from the index. This study measured the CSR performance as the dependent variable by using the total score of KEJI ( Jung and Kim, 2016 ; Jeong et al., 2018 ; Oh et al., 2019 ).

Independent Variables

Corporate social responsibility performance feedback: We analyzed CSR performance feedback using CSR performance instead of corporate financial performance to measure corporate CSR performance feedback ( Xu and Zeng, 2020 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). The amount of donation was widely used to proxy CSR performance in earlier studies ( Choi Y. K. et al., 2019 ; Wang et al., 2021 ), we used each firm’s donation amount to measure CSR performance aspiration. In this study, performance feedback was classified into two types, HA level and social aspiration level. Both effects were analyzed accordingly ( Manzaneque et al., 2020 ).

Social aspiration (SA) was measured as the average donation expenditure of firms in the same industry except for the focal firm based on two-digit level of the KSIC codes ( Greve, 2003 ; Manzaneque et al., 2020 ; Xu and Zeng, 2020 ; Ye et al., 2021 ). Following previous studies ( Manzaneque et al., 2020 ; Ye et al., 2021 ), HA was measured by the difference between a firm’s CSR performance and past aspiration level and is measured as each firm’s amount of donation in year t-1.

Based on the previous research on the performance feedback formulas ( Xu and Zeng, 2020 ), we measured the positive CSR performance feedback and negative CSR performance feedback for both social and historical CSR performance feedback.

Positive CSR Performance Feedback i
=CSR Performance i − Aspiration i if CSR Performance i > Aspiration i
= 0 if CSR Performance i ≤ Aspiration i
Negative CSR Performance Feedback i
= Aspiration i − CSR Performance i if CSR Performance i < Aspiration i
= 0 if CSR Performance i ≥ Aspiration i
; where i = focal firm

Control Variables

We controlled for firm- and industry-level factors that could affect a CSR. Generally, large-size firms receive most of the social attention, increasing stakeholder pressure, and imposing high expectations for socially responsible behavior ( Xu and Zeng, 2020 ). Therefore, in this study, firm size was included as a control variable, and firm size was measured as a log value of total sales ( Attig et al., 2016 ; Chang et al., 2017 ; Xu and Zeng, 2020 ).

The previous studies have reported that firm age has a positive or negative relationship with corporate CSR performance ( Chang et al., 2017 ). Hence, to control for the age of the firm, we included firm age as the control variable by measuring the number of years since the firm establishment ( Xu and Zeng, 2020 ).

The previous studies argued that firm financial status has great influence on the CSR performance ( Chang et al., 2017 ). Therefore, return on asset (ROA), a representative measure of firm financial performance, was included as a control variable ( Xu and Zeng, 2020 ). ROA was measured by dividing net income by total assets ( Chang et al., 2017 ; Jeong et al., 2018 ).

Slack influences the search behavior of the behavioral theory of the firm ( Greve, 2003 ; Chen, 2008 ). To control for the effect of potential slack on CSR performance of financial position, the debt-to-equity ratio of the firm was controlled ( Chen, 2008 ).

Tobin’s Q was included as a proxy for corporate value ( Jeong et al., 2018 ; Wang et al., 2021 ), and Tobin’s Q is a representative proxy for market value, reflecting the firm’s future profits ( Cho et al., 2019 ). Tobin’s Q was calculated as follows.

Since the degree of the internationalization of the firm acts as a pressure to improve corporate CSR ( Attig et al., 2016 ; Xu and Zeng, 2020 ), the degree of internationalization of a firm was included as a control variable. Hence, we measured the level of internationalization by the ratio of foreign to total sales (FSTS), the most representative indicator of the degree of the internationalization ( Attig et al., 2016 ).

In this study, the industry rivalry, the industry annual sales growth rate and the industry dummy were included in the analysis to control for industry differences owing to the different characteristics of each industry ( Chen, 2008 ). To control for the rivalry within an industry, the degree of competition within the industry was measured by a number of firms in each industry according to previous studies ( Lee et al., 2009 ; Ye et al., 2021 ). The industry dummy was controlled by making each industry a dummy variable based on the three-digit level (middle-level) of the KSIC code.

Statistical Analysis

Since data for this study are panel data, and both cross-sectional and time series analysis are required. Additionally, because of potential heteroskedasticity and serial correlation problem in panel data, generalized least squares (GLS) regression analysis is suitable for this study ( Lee et al., 2009 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). The Hausman Test was conducted to select an accurate analysis method. The analysis shows that the random-effect model was considered a more efficient estimating equation than fixed-effect model. Thus, we ran random-effects GLS regression to test our hypotheses.

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of our study. To test for multicollinearity, we calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) ( Oh et al., 2019 ). The result shows that the VIF value was less than 2 in all models, indicating that there is no multicollinearity problem ( Chatterjee et al., 2000 ).

Descriptive statistics and correlations.

1. KEJI score, 2. firm size, 3. firm age, 4. roa, 5. slack, 6. Tobin’s Q, 7. fsts, 8. industry sales growth, 9. industry rivalry, 10. negative social CSR performance feedback, 11. negative historical social CSR performance feedback, 12. positive social CSR performance feedback, 13. positive historical social CSR performance feedback.

Table 2 shows the results of random effect GLS analysis performed for testing the hypothesis which anticipates the effect of performance feedback on CSR performance. Before examining the hypothesis test results, among the control variables, the variables confirmed to have a statistically significant influence on the CSR performance were firm size, slack, Tobin’s Q, industry sales growth, and industry rivalry.

Random effects GLS model (full sample).

Robust standard errors are in parentheses;

† p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Industry dummy variables are included, but not reported to save space.

According to Model 1 in Table 2 , firm size had a positive impact on CSR performance ( p ≤ 0.001). This implies that large-size firms receive most of the social attention, which, in turn, increases stakeholder pressure. Therefore, those firms are highly expected to exhibit socially responsible behavior (Choi et al., 2018; Xu and Zeng, 2020 ). The corporate value measured as Tobin’s Q was found to be a positive effect on the CSR performance ( p ≤ 0.05). This may attributable to visibility and can be explained as similar to the logic of the effect of the firm size on the CRS performance.

Conversely, firm slack resource was found to have a negative (-) impact on CSR performance ( p ≤ 0.01). As we measured the slack resource as a debt ratio, a high debt ratio may represent the perception of resource which, in turn, may discourage firms to invest in CSR towing to resource constraints. This result remains consistent with that of Attig et al. (2016) , wherein the negative relationship between slack and CSR performance and potential slack calculated as the ratio of total debt to total equity was demonstrated to represent that situation, as the more debt the firm has, the less money they can borrow. Also, the control variables for industry, among industry sales growth had a positive (+) effect on the CSR performance ( p ≤ 0.01). This result shows that the higher industry sales growth means firms in this industry participate more in CSR.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that negative CSR performance feedback in that CSR performance falling below CSR aspiration level is positively related to CSR performance. Hypothesis 2 predicted that positive CSR performance feedback in that as CSR performance rises above the CSR aspiration level is positively related to CSR performance. Our results in Model 2 of Table 2 showed that both positive social performance and historical performance feedbacks were confirmed to have a statistically significant positive effect on the CSR performance ( p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively). However, both negative historical and social performance feedback are not statistically significant to CSR performance. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported, and Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Additional Analysis

We performed additional analysis to confirm our empirical results. The sample of this study includes both manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries because 200 companies with excellent CSR activities selected by the Economic Justice Research Institute were targeted. Considering the claims of previous studies that manufacturing is a core industry in Korea and the influence of CSR in manufacturing is stronger in manufacturing ( Chung et al., 2018 ), an additional analysis was conducted only on manufacturing to confirm the result of the entire sample.

Table 3 shows the results of testing the hypothesis by classifying samples of firms in the manufacturing industry. The results of analyzing only firms in the manufacturing industry showed that both the positive social performance feedback and the historical performance feedback had a positive (+) effect on the CSR performance ( p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively).

Random effects GLS model (manufacturing industry).

Discussion and Conclusion

Considering the growing social interest in CSR, this study contributes to CSR literature by analyzing the CSR determinants from the BTOF perspective. Based on the perspective of the BTOF and RBV, this study empirically analyzed the CSR performance feedback on CSR performance. To test the hypotheses, we performed GLS regression analysis based on 2012–2019 Korean company data. We found that positive social and historical performance feedback had a positive effect on CSR performance. Our results showed that positive social and historical performance feedback have positive impact on the CSR performance. These results imply that the difference in CSR performance compared to a firm’s CSR aspiration level (positive or negative attainment discrepancy) influences the firm’s strategy or behavior related to CSR according to the performance feedback perspective of BTOF. Especially, if a firm receives positive CSR performance feedback, they increase their efforts in CSR activities to secure authenticity and legitimacy for CSR activities from stakeholders. This includes consumers and can perform more experimental and active CSR activities to strengthen their positive corporate image ( Jeong et al., 2018 ; Vogler and Eisenegger, 2021 ).

This study provides the following theoretical and empirical contributions to CSR and BTOF research fields. First, this study contributes to CSR literature by applying BTOF discussions to the CSR context by theorizing the performance feedback as the significant determinants to CSR performance and empirically testing the relationship between two variables. Specifically, this study showed that the strategic behaviors that firms choose may vary depending on whether CSR performance is high or low compared to aspiration level. Additionally, we examined both the historical and social aspirations of CSR performance feedback on CSR performance. By doing so, this research empirically confirms both the historical and social aspirations of CSR attainment on CSR performance.

Second, our study expands BTOF literature by examining the CSR aspiration of both historical and social aspiration level and its performance implication. According to a recent study, it is argued that it is not advisable to use a combination of the two variables because historical aspirations and social aspirations are fundamentally different in terms of their characteristics and influence ( Deb et al., 2019 ). The previous studies have not sufficiently addressed the effect of the CSR performance feedback and the difference between CSR aspiration level and actual CSR performance. Thus, we answer a recent call for more research examining the CSR performance feedback research. As Nason et al. (2018) highlighted the discussion on the social performance feedback compared to financial performance feedback is considerably lacking. Attempts to examine how a firm’s strategic behavior changes according to corporate non-financial social performance feedback have been relatively insufficient so far.

Despite the above-mentioned contributions, this study has several limitations as follows. First, as this study examined CSR aspiration level on the CSR performance of Korean firms, generalization in interpreting the results may be difficult. Therefore, future research should investigate whether this study’s results can be generalized to countries other than Korea. Particularly, as the degree of social interest by country in corporate CSR—along with the pressure received by firms—may vary, future research should examine the relationship between CSR aspiration based on the BTOF on CSR performance using a more diverse sample of countries. Second, the sample of this study is 200 companies with excellent CSR activities selected by the Economic Justice Research Institute. We used the sample that matched the KEJI index and firm-level information to those firms selected in the top 200 selected by KEJI, there may be a problem of a sample selection bias ( Oh et al., 2019 ). Third, CSR activities are related to the use of significant resources. The type of slack resource is highly likely to affect CSR results from the BTOF perspective ( Greve, 2003 ). Although this study could not consider the moderating role of these slack resources, analyzing the moderating role of various types of slack resources on this research context in future studies will be promising. Fourth, corporate reputation can be considered the strategic assets held by firms that are a source of a sustainable competitive advantage ( Wernerfelt, 1984 ; Barney, 1991 ; Roberts and Dowling, 2002 ; Eberl and Schwaiger, 2005 ), which, in turn, may have impact on CSR performance. Therefore, future research should examine the impact of corporate reputation on CSR performance. Finally, this study could not consider the impact of corporate governance as a control variable. Hence, we recommend exploring corporate governance as a control variable in future research.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

J-EL and YY contributed to conception and design of the study, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. YY organized the database, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote “Research Methods” and “Discussion and Conclusion” sections of the manuscript. J-EL wrote “Introduction” and “Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development” sections of the manuscript. Both authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

This work was supported by the Hanshin University Research Grant.

Alessandri T. M., Pattit J. M. (2014). Drivers of R&D investment: the interaction of behavioral theory and managerial incentives. J. Bus. Res. 67 151–158. [ Google Scholar ]
Arora P., Dharwadkar R. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): the moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corp. Gov. 19 136–152. 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00843.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Attig N., Boubakri N., El Ghoul S., Guedhami O. (2016). Firm internationalization and corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 134 171–197. 10.1007/s10551-014-2410-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Audia P. G., Greve H. R. (2006). Less likely to fail: low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Manage. Sci. 52 83–94. 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0446 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Audia P. G., Locke E. A., Smith K. G. (2000). The paradox of success: an archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Acad. Manage. J. 43 837–853. 10.5465/1556413 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bahta D., Yun J., Islam M. R., Bikanyi K. J. (2021). How does CSR enhance the financial performance of SMEs? The mediating role of firm reputation. Econ. Res. Istraživanja 34 1428–1451. 10.1080/1331677x.2020.1828130 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barney J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manage. 17 99–120. 10.1177/014920639101700108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ben-Amar W., Francoeur C., Marsat S., Sijamic Wahid A. (2021). How do firms achieve corporate social performance? An integrated perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 28 1078–1090. 10.1002/csr.2107 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bromiley P. (1991). Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Acad. Manage. J. 34 37–59. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.0580 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chang Y. K., Oh W.-Y., Park J. H., Jang M. G. (2017). Exploring the relationship between board characteristics and CSR: empirical evidence from Korea. J. Bus. Ethics 140 225–242. 10.1007/s10551-015-2651-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chatterjee S., Hadi A. S., Price B. (2000). Regression Analysis by Example. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
Chen W., Miller K. D. (2007). Situational and institutional determinants of firms’ R&D search intensity. Strateg. Manage. J. 28 369–381. 10.1002/smj.594 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chen W.-R. (2008). Determinants of firms’ backward-and forward-looking R&D search behavior. Organ. Sci. 19 609–622. 10.1287/orsc.1070.0320 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cho S. J., Chung C. Y., Young J. (2019). Study on the relationship between CSR and financial performance. Sustainability 11 : 343 . 10.3390/su11020343 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Choi J., Rhee M., Kim Y. (2019). Performance feedback and problemistic search: the moderating effects of managerial and board outsiderness. J. Bus. Res. 102 21–33. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Choi J. H., Kim S., Yang D.-H. (2018). Small and medium enterprises and the relation between social performance and financial performance: empirical evidence from Korea . Sustainability 10 : 1816 . 10.3390/su10061816 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Choi Y. K., Han S. H., Kwon Y. (2019). CSR activities and internal capital markets: evidence from Korean business groups. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 55 283–298. 10.1016/j.pacfin.2019.04.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chung C. Y., Jung S., Young J. (2018). Do CSR activities increase firm value? Evidence from the Korean market. Sustainability 10 : 3164 . 10.3390/su10093164 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cyert R. M., March J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
Deb P., David P., O’Brien J. P., Duru A. (2019). Attainment discrepancy and investment: effects on firm performance. J. Bus. Res. 99 186–196. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.047 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
DiMaggio P. J., Powell W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 147–160. 10.2307/2095101 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Du S., Vieira E. T. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: insights from oil companies. J. Bus. Ethics 110 413–427. 10.1007/s10551-012-1490-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Eberl M., Schwaiger M. (2005). Corporate reputation: disentangling the effects on financial performance. Eur. J. Mark. 39 838–854. 10.1108/03090560510601798 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greve H. R. (1998). Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Adm. Sci. Q. 43 58–86. 10.2307/2393591 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greve H. R. (2003). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: evidence from shipbuilding. Acad. Manage. J. 46 685–702. [ Google Scholar ]
Hillman A. J., Keim G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line? Strateg. Manage. J. 22 125–139. 10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:2<125::aid-smj150>3.0.co;2-h [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Iyer D. N., Miller K. D. (2008). Performance feedback, slack, and the timing of acquisitions. Acad. Manage. J. 51 808–822. 10.5465/amj.2008.33666024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jeong K. H., Jeong S. W., Lee W. J., Bae S. H. (2018). Permanency of CSR activities and firm value. J. Bus. Ethics 152 207–223. 10.1007/s10551-016-3273-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jung H.-J., Kim D.-O. (2016). Good neighbors but bad employers: two faces of corporate social responsibility programs. J. Bus. Ethics 138 295–310. 10.1007/s10551-015-2587-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kim J., Cho K., Park C. K. (2019). Does CSR assurance affect the relationship between CSR performance and financial performance? Sustainability 11 : 5682 . 10.3390/su11205682 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kim J.-Y., Finkelstein S., Haleblian J. (2015). All aspirations are not created equal: the differential effects of historical and social aspirations on acquisition behavior. Acad. Manage. J. 58 1361–1388. 10.5465/amj.2012.1102 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kim M., Kim T. (2020). When do CEOs engage in CSR activities? Performance feedback, CEO ownership, and CSR. Sustainability 12 : 8195 . 10.3390/su12198195 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kotiloglu S., Chen Y., Lechler T. (2020). Organizational responses to performance feedback: a meta-analytic review. Strateg. Organ. 19 285–311. 10.1177/1476127019883361 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lee K., Lee H. (2019). How does CSR activity affect sustainable growth and value of corporations? Evidence from Korea. Sustainability 11 : 508 . 10.3390/su11020508 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lee S. H., Beamish P. W., Lee H. U., Park J. H. (2009). Strategic choice during economic crisis: domestic market position, organizational capabilities and export flexibility. J. World Bus. 44 1–15. 10.1016/j.jwb.2008.03.015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
López M., Garcia A., Rodriguez L. (2007). Sustainable development and corporate performance: a study based on the Dow Jones sustainability index. J. Bus. Ethics 75 285–300. 10.1007/s10551-006-9253-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lu L., Fang S. (2013). Problematic search, slack search and institutional logic in corporate R&D strategy: an empirical analysis of Taiwanese electronics firms. J. Manage. Organ. 19 659–678. 10.1017/jmo.2014.11 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lu L., Wong P. (2019). Performance feedback, financial slack and the innovation behavior of firms. Asia Pac. J. Manage. 36 1079–1109. 10.1007/s10490-018-9634-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lucas G. J., Knoben J., Meeus M. T. (2018). Contradictory yet coherent? Inconsistency in performance feedback and R&D investment change. J. Manage. 44 658–681. 10.1177/0149206315584821 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Manzaneque M., Rojo-Ramírez A. A., Diéguez-Soto J., Martínez-Romero M. J. (2020). How negative aspiration performance gaps affect innovation efficiency. Small Bus. Econ. 54 209–233. 10.1007/s11187-018-0091-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
March J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Adm. Sci. Q. 26 563–577. 10.2307/2392340 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Matten D., Moon J. (2020). Reflections on the 2018 decade award: the meaning and dynamics of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manage. Rev. 45 7–28. 10.5465/amr.2019.0348 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McWilliams A., Siegel D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26 117–127. 10.5465/amr.2001.4011987 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moore G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: an investigation in the UK supermarket industry. J. Bus. Ethics 34 299–315. [ Google Scholar ]
Nason R. S., Bacq S., Gras D. (2018). A behavioral theory of social performance: social identity and stakeholder expectations. Acad. Manage. Rev. 43 259–283. 10.5465/amr.2015.0081 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Oh W.-Y., Chang Y. K., Jung R. (2019). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: does family involvement in management matter? J. Bus. Res. 103 23–33. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Park K. M. (2007). Antecedents of convergence and divergence in strategic positioning: the effects of performance and aspiration on the direction of strategic change. Organ. Sci. 18 386–402. 10.1287/orsc.1060.0240 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Posen H. E., Keil T., Kim S., Meissner F. D. (2018). Renewing research on problemistic search: a review and research agenda. Acad. Manage. Ann. 12 208–251. 10.5465/annals.2016.0018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roberts P. W., Dowling G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 23 1077–1093. 10.1002/smj.274 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Simon H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69 99–118. 10.1007/s40614-017-0110-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Vogler D., Eisenegger M. (2021). CSR communication, corporate reputation, and the role of the news media as an agenda-setter in the digital age. Bus. Soc. 60 1957–1986. 10.1177/0007650320928969 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wang H., Jia M., Xiang Y., Lan Y. (2021). Social performance feedback and firm communication strategy. J. Manage. 01492063211042266. 10.1177/01492063211042266 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wang H., Jia M., Xiang Y., Lan Y. (2021). Social performance feedback and firm communication strategy. J. Manage. 01492063211042266 . [ Google Scholar ]
Wang Z., Hsieh T., Sarkis J. (2018). CSR performance and the readability of CSR reports: too good to be true? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 25 66–79. 10.1002/csr.1440 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wernerfelt B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manage. J. 5 171–180. [ Google Scholar ]
Xu Y., Zeng G. (2020). Corporate social performance aspiration and its effects. Asia Pac. J. Manage. 38 1181–1207. 10.1007/s10490-020-09706-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ye Y., Yu W., Nason R. (2021). Performance feedback persistence: comparative effects of historical versus peer performance feedback on innovative search. J. Manage. 47 1053–1081. 10.1177/0149206320916225 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yuan Y., Lu L. Y., Tian G., Yu Y. (2020). Business strategy and corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 162 359–377. [ Google Scholar ]
Zhong X., Ren L. (2021). Beyond market strategies: how multiple decision-maker groups jointly influence underperforming firms’ corporate social (Ir)responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 1–19. 10.1007/s10551-021-04796-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Essay on Corporate Social Responsibility

This report provides information on whether the benefits of CSR outweigh the drawbacks. The report shows that the benefits of CSR are more than the drawbacks and managers should consider implementing the strategy. The research utilizes the use of secondary resources to conclude. Most of the authors used in this report show that CSR has more advantages such as consumer satisfaction, financial performance, productivity, and promotes relationships among the companies, the stakeholders, and society. This research informs the managers on the benefits of executing CSR in their companies. More so, it provides information on few drawbacks that the managers should be prepared to experience. The study adds new information concerning the comparison of advantages and disadvantages of CSR which makes it easier to determine if the strategy should be implemented in companies.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a self-controlling model of business that helps business organizations to be socially accountable to the public, stakeholders, and self. Through CSR, companies have conscious of how that affects society environmentally, socially, and economically as they do their businesses (Basuony et al., 2014). Engaging in CSR means that companies are operating in ways that improve society and its environment. As much as CSR influences companies to translate the principles into practical activities, some of the researchers show that CSR may harm companies, stakeholders, and consumers.

Research Questions

Do the positive impacts outweigh the negative effects of CSR among the companies?

Despite some of the researchers revealing the negative impacts of CSR, there are many positive influences that companies, stakeholders, and consumers experience. Companies should ensure that they are responsible for themselves, society, stakeholders, and consumers. This promotes the positive impact of business in society without other people suffering the implications of unethical business activities. However, it is linked to few drawbacks such as costs, conflicts in the profit motive, and “green washing” of customers.

Methodology

This report will utilize secondary sources for review to come up with conclusions. Articles that are less than 10 years old will be used to develop conclusions on whether CSR is effective among companies and if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Literature Review

Based on a substantiation from Mena country, Basuony et al. (2014) state that CSR promotes the performance of business organizations. The stakeholder theory suggests that organizations have to manage relationships with other groups and stakeholders which influences the effectiveness of business decisions. Despite making entrepreneurship progress, businesses that pay attention to the needs of society are successful. For example, branding is effective when a business organization protects the environment and takes part in social activities such as the construction of schools. Most of the researches in this article show that CSR influences business performance through market orientation and consumer satisfaction and financial performance. In research done by Newman et al. (2018), shows that CSR has an independent positive influence on the level of firms efficacy- increased productivity influenced by high effective business engagement. Increased company involvement in community initiatives is a great influence for success in business due to customers’ and stakeholders’ trust.

The concept of the future of CSR presented by Archie Caroll shows that as companies continue to apply CSR, benefits such as stakeholders engagement, increased productivity due to employees being the driving force of business and the enhancement of power among ethically sensitive customers and the client will be experienced (Agudelo et al., 2019). The concept influences effective governance criteria, environmental responsibility, corporate citizenship, the establishment of shared business values, and social performance. However, CSR is linked to various negative impacts. Mahmood et al. (2020) suggest that CSR influences negativity through abusive supervision while valuing employees’ conducts. As much as CSR influences minimization of negative employees’ behavior, it also influences negative conduct when there is abusive supervision. More so, the implementation of CSR needs money. Especially for small businesses, CSR is not affordable to be allocated in the budget. The conflict of the profit motive is also established in CSR as the focus on societal benefits may influence losses to companies. Greenwashing of consumers is linked to CSR. For example, labeling products to be organic to attract consumers.

Implications

This exploration has implications for both bodies of knowledge and management. The research used in this report shows that as much as CSR may have various drawbacks, the benefits outweighs the disadvantages. It contributes to the existing body of knowledge by showing that CSR has more benefits and companies should consider its application in business. The limitations of the current study are the use of secondary sources and few articles to provide more evidence. More so, the articles used in this report do not include cultural factors such as religion which are significant in understanding CSR and the involved activities in the society. The discussion concerning the link between CSR and corporate governance is not provided. Therefore, further research should be done to evaluate this link and its impact on the performance of the company and the experiences of the stakeholders and customers. More so, the research provides a key takeaway for managers which is mainly the benefits of executing CSR in companies to influence performance. The managers should know that despite the presence of drawbacks linked to CSR, there are many advantages such as consumer satisfaction, effective branding, establishing trust, and financial performance.

Based on the previous research used in this report, it is evident that CSR has many advantages. These pros include consumer satisfaction, productivity, good relationships with society and stakeholders, financial performance, and effective branding. These advantages overpower the drawbacks which include costs, conflicts in the profit motive, and “green washing” of customers. However, the limitations of the research include the inclusion of fewer articles and a lack of cultural factors in the research. Therefore, this study concludes that the benefits of CSR outweigh the disadvantages. The implication of the literature is informing managers to execute CSR which promotes productivity and financial performance.

Agudelo, M. A. L., Jóhannsdóttir, L., & Davídsdóttir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 4 (1), 1-23.

Basuony, M. A., Elseidi, R. I., & Mohamed, E. K. (2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm performance: Evidence from a MENA country. Corporate Ownership & Control , 12 (1-9), 761-774.

Mahmood, F., Qadeer, F., Abbas, Z., Hussain, I., Saleem, M., Hussain, A., & Aman, J. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and employees’ negative behaviors under abusive supervision: A multilevel insight. Sustainability , 12 (7), 2647.

Newman, C., Rand, J., Tarp, F., & Trifkovic, N. (2020). Corporate social responsibility in a competitive business environment. The Journal of Development Studies , 56 (8), 1455-1472.

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

Biocompatibility – Cell Responses to Surface Chemistry
Essay on How To Ensure the Group Works Cohesively and Inclusively
Essay on Critical Path Analysis (CPA)
Essay on Slavery in the Americas in the 19th Century
Essay on the Geography of Scotland
Socrates’ Decision Not to Attempt an Escape from Prison

Home — Essay Samples — Business — Corporate Social Responsibility — Individual Sorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Company Analysis: Reflective Journal

Individual Sorporate Social Responsibility (csr) Company Analysis: Reflective Journal

Categories: Corporate Culture Corporate Social Responsibility

About this sample

Words: 2498 |

13 min read

Published: Aug 30, 2022

Words: 2498 | Pages: 5 | 13 min read

Argenti, P. A. (2009). Corporate communication. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Balmer, J. M., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing , 40 (7/8), 730-471.
Cater, C. (2019). History of Space Tourism. Space Tourism , 51-66.
Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice. Sage.
Fynes, M. M. (2019). Radiologists as Changemakers: The Last Straw. Journal of the American College of Radiology , 16 (2), 257.
Heckscher, C., Bernier, C., Gong, H., Dimaggio, P., & Mimno, D. (2017). Driving change by consensus: Dialogue and culture change at IBM. Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 16121). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
Howie, K. M., Yang, L., Vitell, S. J., Bush, V., & Vorhies, D. (2018). Consumer participation in cause-related marketing: An examination of effort demands and defensive denial. Journal of Business Ethics , 147 (3), 679-692.
Ihator, A. S. (2004). Corporate communication: reflections on twentieth century change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal , 9 (3), 243-253.
Jaques, T. (2007). Issue management and crisis management : An integrated, non-linear, relational construct. Public Relations Review , 33 (2), 147-157.
Lattimore, D. (2007). Public relations: the profession and the practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miklós, A. (2019). Exploiting injustice in mutually beneficial market exchange: The case of sweatshop labor. Journal of Business Ethics , 156 (1), 59-69.
Roper, S., & Fill, C. (2012). Corporate reputation: brand and communication. Harlow, England; New York: Pearson.
Wagner, A. F. (2020). What the stock market tells us about the post-COVID-19 world. Nature Human Behaviour .
Woolworths Group. (2019). Better Together. Bella Vista: Woolworths.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Business

+ 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!

Related Essays

1 pages / 415 words

1 pages / 535 words

2 pages / 1121 words

2 pages / 742 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Corporate Social Responsibility

Walmart, the world's largest retailer, has a unique business philosophy that has helped the company achieve remarkable success. This essay will explore Walmart's business philosophy and its impact on the company's operations and [...]

Pfizer, one of the world's leading biopharmaceutical companies, has been at the forefront of developing innovative treatments for a wide range of diseases and health conditions. With a strong focus on research and development, [...]

Google, as one of the world's leading technology companies, has a wide range of stakeholders who have a significant impact on the company's operations, performance, and overall success. In this essay, we will conduct a [...]

Carlson Company, a leading manufacturer of industrial equipment, has been facing several challenges in recent years. This case study aims to analyze the issues faced by Carlson Company and provide recommendations for their [...]

The key stakeholders of P&G can be identified as their customers’ present worldwide, the suppliers, the governments of countries they are present in, the pressure groups around and the employees who work for them. Hence, [...]

The Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. Mission and Vision Statements are as follows: Mission Statement: "To attract and attain customers with outstanding products and services and the most satisfying ownership experience in [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

IMAGES

How to Write a Reflective Essay
50 Best Reflective Essay Examples (+Topic Samples) ᐅ TemplateLab
Communication Reflective Essay
50 Best Reflective Essay Examples (+Topic Samples) ᐅ TemplateLab
50 Best Reflective Essay Examples (+Topic Samples) ᐅ TemplateLab
Extended reflective essay 322b

VIDEO

Application For Leave Of Absence
10 Lines Essay On My Brother In English
Scholarly sources in a reflective essay
Patagonia’s CSR Reflective Video Presentation by Angelina Hickey
PATHFIT 2- REFLECTIVE ESSAY
Reflection

COMMENTS

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Free Essay Example
Chapter 1 Introduction. Corporate Social Responsibility is a rapidly developing, key business issue. It is a concept that has attracted worldwide attention. Due to the demands for enhanced transparency and corporate citizenship, CSR started to embrace social, ethical as well as environmental challenges. Today, companies are aware of the social ...
(PDF) Reflection of Corporate Social Responsibility Implementation
The article focuses on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the importance of reports within communication of CSR. 1953 is considered to be a breakthrough year, when it was first referred to ...
A reflection on Corporate Social Responsibility
In its modern formulation, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a product of the post-World War II period. Given impetus by the changes in social consciousness that came to a crescendo in the 1960s, especially the civil rights, women's, consumer's and environmental movements, CSR has grown in relevance and stature ever since.
Reflection On Corporate Social Responsibility
Reflection On Corporate Social Responsibility. Satisfactory Essays. 1643 Words. 7 Pages. Open Document. From the beginning of Fall semester BUAD 3111, I was not sure exactly which topic would provide a key learning experience in this class. I must point out the fact that learning of the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has and ...
The long-term transformation of the concept of CSR ...
Corporate Social responsibility (CSR) has been in the focus for several decades, making it a natural object of reflection and review. Lately, a growing literature has emphasised the long-term transformation of the concept (Carroll, 2021; Idowu et al., 2017; Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019; Matten & Moon, 2020; Windsor, 2021).In a recent review of the historical change in the CSR discourse ...
Essays on Corporate Social Responsibility
Writing an essay on Corporate Social Responsibility provides an opportunity to delve into a wide range of important and timely topics. CSR is an increasingly important aspect of modern business practices, with implications for the environment, society, and the economy. ... Reflective Entry 1. The Scope of Corporate Reputation Made-to-order ...
Getting Personal About Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR ...
Why are some companies socially responsible while others are not? Researchers have devoted considerable time to understanding this dilemma (Walls and Berrone 2015).Efforts, both academic and applied, have tended to focus on corporate governance to explain irresponsibility (Erakoviç and Overall 2010; Filatotchev and Nakajima 2014; Harjoto and Jo 2014; L'Huillier 2014; Merry et al. 2012; Ntim ...
Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Essay
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a form of corporate self-regulation incorporated into the business, which functions as an instrument by which a corporation examines and ensures its active conformity with the provisions of the law, ethical norms, and global practices. We will write a custom essay on your topic. 809 writers online.
PDF Corporate social responsibility: a personal reflection on Clover Mama
Corporate social responsibility: a personal reflection on Clover Mama Afrika 300 Koers 74(1 & 2) 2009:299-304 • improve the quality of life of a company's workforce, their families, local communities and society at large; • contribute to development; and • be extraneous to regular business activities.
Reflective Essay On CSR
Reflective essay on CSR - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. REflective essay on CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a
In spite of accruing concerted scholarly and managerial interest since the 1950s in corporate social responsibility (CSR), its implementation is still a growing topic as most of it remains academically unexplored. As CSR continues to establish a stronger foothold in organizational strategies, understanding its implementation is needed for both academia and industry. In an attempt to respond to ...
Critical Reflection On Corporate Social Responsibility ...
Critical Reflection On Corporate Social Responsibility Projects Accounting Essay. The aim of this paper is to provide a critical reflection considering the ethical point of view of the CSR projects which companies are increasingly launching with the global emerging trend of corporate social responsibility in the business world today.
The Role of Reflection in CSR
An important element of the module is the integration of reflection, in order to enhance the opportunities for deeper learning. The aim of the reflections is to bring together theory and practice, in a practice known as thexis. The purpose of this blog is to encourage and guide students to share their reflections and offer constructive feedback.
Reflections on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Reflections on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Author: RMSED class of 2011. Originally Published at Peace and Conflict Monitor on: 05/18/2011. In my argument, businesses should embed profits and responsibility in their primary motivation of profit accumulation. This can be done through their contribution to socio-economic development of ...
Corporate Social Responsibility Reflection
Corporate Social Responsibility Reflection. Companies are under increasing pressure to put the needs of the communities in which they operate ahead of their own. For centuries, the idea that businesses have a duty to society beyond simply making money for shareholders has been widely accepted. This is because businesses operate in a society ...
5 Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility
5 Corporate Social Responsibility Examples. 1. Lego's Commitment to Sustainability. As one of the most reputable companies in the world, Lego aims to not only help children develop through creative play, but foster a healthy planet. Lego is the first, and only, toy company to be named a World Wildlife Fund Climate Savers Partner, marking its ...
Ethics and CSR Reflection
Impact of ethics and CSR on business operations in this reflective paper. Insights into ethical decision-making and corporate social responsibility practices. Logo. Menu Home Process Order Now ... About Our Service Guarantees Free Essays FAQ Contact Us Order now; 1(877) 219-7556 1(877)733-3925; Home How ...
The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Performance Feedback on
Introduction. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be defined as a firm's core strategy for voluntarily reflecting social and environmental concerns in the operation of the business to interact with various stakeholders (Wang et al., 2018, p. 68).CSR has attracted scholarly attention, and CSR has increased gradually owing to the growing, recent perception that sustainability is crucial ...
Essay on Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility. Introduction. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a self-controlling model of business that helps business organizations to be socially accountable to the public, stakeholders, and self. Through CSR, companies have conscious of how that affects society environmentally, socially, and economically as they do ...
Individual Sorporate Social Responsibility (csr) Company Analysis
An important aspect of the business that is often highlighted primarily by using a host of communication tools is CSR. CSR communication has become a vital issue in building and sustaining the legitimacy of a company in the eyes of stakeholders. CSR is a way for companies to pay forward their due to the society that accepts them.
Reflective Essay On Corporate Governance
The main aim of this reflective essay is to shed light on my personal experience and what I learnt from Corporate Governance and Risk Management. With the implication of good Corporate Governance, organizations try to increase their productivity and at the same time promote growth of the organization. Apart from this, through Enterprise Risk ...
Reflection: Human Resources and CSR
Reflection: Human Resources and CSR. This essay would cover three major aspects of human resource management in my previous employment. Human resource management can be described as an approach to management that consider people as its key resources. For every organization their employees are the key resource for success.

A reflection on Corporate Social Responsibility

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

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

Introduction

Positioning our argument in the CSR debate

CSR, sustainability, and the Norwegian socio-political context

Analysing CSR in Norway

The Norwegian socio-political context

The transformation of the CSR discourse in the public sphere

Method for searching the changing patterns in the public discourse

Data coding and analysis

The long-term transformation of CSR discourse

Examining the discourse - specified to CSR

Examining the discourse - specified to the social model

Examining the discourse - specified to sustainability

The long-term transformation of the concept of CSR?

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Essay (Critical Writing)

Factors that have led to the increase of Interest in corporate social responsibility and corporate governance

Social factors

Legal Factors

Cultural Factors

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of Government in promoting CSR

Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review

Meta-analyses on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): a literature review

Introduction

Defining CSR Implementation

Review Methodology

Trends in CSR Implementation Research

Thematic Analysis: An Integrative Framework of CSR Implementation

CSR Implementation Construct

Multi-dimensional Nature

Multi-level Nature

CSR Formulation: An Overlooked Antecedent of CSR Implementation

The Impact of CSR Implementation

The Context Matters

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 140 kb)

About this article

Share this article

The Role of Reflection in CSR

Reflections on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Corporate Social Responsibility Reflection

Overview of Coca-Cola and its CSR

Overview of conflicts

Analysis of Coca-Cola’s strategy in CSR

Cite This Work

Related Essays

Business Insights

5 Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility That Were Successful

What Is Corporate Social Responsibility?

5 Corporate Social Responsibility Examples

2. Salesforce’s 1-1-1 Philanthropic Model

3. Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission

4. Levi Strauss’s Social Impact

5. Starbucks’s Commitment to Ethical Sourcing

The Value of Being Socially Responsible

About the Author

Free Ethics and CSR Reflection Essay Sample

Our features

Please note!

The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Performance Feedback on Corporate Social Responsibility Performance