benefits of corporate social responsibility case study

• Contributors

The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility

Matteo Tonello is Director of Corporate Governance for The Conference Board, Inc. This post is based on a Conference Board Director Note by Archie B. Carroll and Kareem M. Shabana , and relates to a paper by these authors, titled “The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice,” published in the International Journal of Management Reviews .

In the last decade, in particular, empirical research has brought evidence of the measurable payoff of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to companies as well as their stakeholders. Companies have a variety of reasons for being attentive to CSR. This report documents some of the potential bottomline benefits: reducing cost and risk, gaining competitive advantage, developing and maintaining legitimacy and reputational capital, and achieving win-win outcomes through synergistic value creation.

The term “corporate social responsibility” is still widely used even though related concepts, such as sustainability, corporate citizenship, business ethics, stakeholder management, corporate responsibility, and corporate social performance, are vying to replace it. In different ways, these expressions refer to the ensemble of policies, practices, investments, and concrete results deployed and achieved by a business corporation in the pursuit of its stakeholders’ interests.

This report discusses the business case for CSR—that is, what justifies the allocation of resources by the business community to advance a certain socially responsible cause. The business case is concerned with the following question: what tangible benefits do business organizations reap from engaging in CSR initiatives? This report reviews the most notable research on the topic and provides practical examples of CSR initiatives that are also good for the business and its bottom line.

The Search for a Business Case: A Shift in Perspective

Business management scholars have been searching for a business case for CSR since the origins of the concept in the 1960s. [1]

An impetus for the research questions for this report was philosophical. It had to do with the long-standing divide between those who, like the late economist Milton Friedman, believed that the corporation should pursue only its shareholders’ economic interests and those who conceive the business organization as a nexus of relations involving a variety of stakeholders (employees, suppliers, customers, and the community where the company operates) without which durable shareholder value creation is impossible. If it could be demonstrated that businesses actually benefited financially from a CSR program designed to cultivate such a range of stakeholder relations, the thinking of the latter school went, then Friedman’s arguments would somewhat be neutralized.

Another impetus to research on the business case of CSR was more pragmatic. Even though CSR came about because of concerns about businesses’ detrimental impacts on society, the theme of making money by improving society has also always been in the minds of early thinkers and practitioners: with the passage of time and the increase in resources being dedicated to CSR pursuits, it was only natural that questions would begin to be raised about whether CSR was making economic sense.

Obviously, corporate boards, CEOs, CFOs, and upper echelon business executives care. They are the guardians of companies’ financial well-being and, ultimately, must bear responsibility for the impact of CSR on the bottom line. At multiple levels, executives need to justify that CSR is consistent with the firm’s strategies and that it is financially sustainable. [a]

However, other groups care as well. Shareholders are acutely concerned with financial performance and sensitive to possible threats to management’s priorities. Social activists care because it is in their long-term best interests if companies can sustain the types of social initiatives that they are advocating. Governmental bodies care because they desire to see whether companies can deliver social and environmental benefits more cost effectively than they can through regulatory approaches. [b] Consumers care as well, as they want to pass on a better world to their children, and many want their purchasing to reflect their values.

[a] K. O’Sullivan, “Virtue rewarded: companies are suddenly discovering the profit potential of social responsibility.” CFO , October 2006, pp. 47–52.

[b] Simon Zadek. Doing Good and Doing Well: Making the Business Case for Corporate Citizenship . New York: The Conference Board Research Report, 2000, 1282-00-RR.

The socially responsible investment movement Establishing a positive relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) has been a long-standing pursuit of researchers. This endeavor has been described as a “30-year quest for an empirical relationship between a corporation’s social initiatives and its financial performance.” [2] One comprehensive review and assessment of studies exploring the CSP-CFP relationship concludes that there is a positive relationship between CSP and CFP. [3]

In response to this empirical evidence, in the last decade the investment community, in particular, has witnessed the growth of a cadre of socially responsible investment funds (SRI), whose dedicated investment strategy is focused on businesses with a solid track record of CSR-oriented initiatives. Today, the debate on the business case for CSR is clearly influenced by these new market trends: to raise capital, these players promote the belief of a strong correlation between social and financial performance. [4]

As the SRI movement becomes more influential, CSR theories are shifting away from an orientation on ethics (or altruistic rationale) and embracing a performance-driven orientation. In addition, analysis of the value generated by CSR has moved from the macro to the organizational level, where the effects of CSR on firm financial performance are directly experienced. [5]

The CSR of the 1960s and 1970s was motivated by social considerations, not economic ones. “While there was substantial peer pressure among corporations to become more philanthropic, no one claimed that such firms were likely to be more profitable than their less generous competitors.” In contrast, the essence of the new world of CSR is “doing good to do well.” [6]

CSR is evolving into a core business function, central to the firm’s overall strategy and vital to its success. [7] Specifically, CSR addresses the question: “can companies perform better financially by addressing both their core business operations as well as their responsibilities to the broader society?” [8]

One Business Case Just Won’t Do

There is no single CSR business case—no single rationalization for how CSR improves the bottom line. Over the years, researchers have developed many arguments. In general, these arguments can be grouped based on approach, topics addressed, and underlying assumptions about how value is created and defined. According to this categorization, CSR is a viable business choice as it is a tool to:

• implement cost and risk reductions;
• gain competitive advantage;
• develop corporate reputation and legitimacy; and
• seek win-win outcomes through synergistic value creation. [9]

Other widely accepted approaches substantiating the business case include focusing on the empirical research linking CSR with corporate social performance (CSP) and identifying values brought to different stakeholder groups that directly or indirectly benefit the company’s bottom lines.

Broad versus narrow views Some researchers have examined the integration of CSR considerations in the day-to-day business agenda of organizations. The “mainstreaming” of CSR follows from one of three rationales:

• the social values-led model, in which organizations adopt CSR initiatives regarding specific issues for non-economic reasons;
• the business-case model, in which CSR initiatives are primarily assessed in an economic manner and pursued only when there is a clear link to firm financial performance [10] ; and
• the syncretic stewardship model, which combines the social values-led and the business-case models.

The business case model and the syncretic models may be seen as two perspectives of the business case for CSR: one narrow and one broad. The business case model represents the narrow view: CSR is only recognized when there is a clear link to firm financial performance. The syncretic model is broad because it recognizes both direct and indirect relationships between CSR and firm financial performance. The advantage of the broad view is that it enables the firm to identify and exploit opportunities beyond the financial, opportunities that the narrow view would not be able to recognize or justify.

Another advantage of the broad view of the business case, which is illustrated by the syncretic model, is its recognition of the interdependence between business and society. [11]

The failure to recognize such interdependence in favor of pitting business against society leads to reducing the productivity of CSR initiatives. “The prevailing approaches to CSR are so fragmented and so disconnected from business and strategy as to obscure many of the greatest opportunities for companies to benefit society.” [12] The adoption of CSR practices, their integration with firm strategy, and their mainstreaming in the day-to-day business agenda should not be done in a generic manner. Rather, they should be pursued “in the way most appropriate to each firm’s strategy.” [13]

In support of the business case for CSR, the next sections of the report discuss examples of the effect of CSR on firm performance. The discussion is organized according to the framework referenced earlier, which identifies four categories of benefits that firms may attain from engaging in CSR activities. [14]

Reducing Costs and Risks

Cost and risk reduction justifications contend that engaging in certain CSR activities will reduce the firm’s inefficient capital expenditures and exposure to risks. “[T]he primary view is that the demands of stakeholders present potential threats to the viability of the organization, and that corporate economic interests are served by mitigating the threats through a threshold level of social or environmental performance.” [15]

Equal employment opportunity policies and practices CSR activities in the form of equal employment opportunity (EEO) policies and practices enhance long-term shareholder value by reducing costs and risks. The argument is that explicit EEO statements are necessary to illustrate an inclusive policy that reduces employee turnover through improving morale. [16] This argument is consistent with those who observe that “[l]ack of diversity may cause higher turnover and absenteeism from disgruntled employees.” [17]

Energy-saving and other environmentally sound production practices Cost and risk reduction may also be achieved through CSR activities directed at the natural environment. Empirical research shows that being environmentally proactive results in cost and risk reduction. Specifically, data shows hat “being proactive on environmental issues can lower the costs of complying with present and future environmental regulations … [and] … enhance firm efficiencies and drive down operating costs.” [18]

Community relations management Finally, CSR activities directed at managing community relations may also result in cost and risk reductions. [19] For example, building positive community relationships may contribute to the firm’s attaining tax advantages offered by city and county governments to further local investments. In addition, positive community relationships decrease the number of regulations imposed on the firm because the firm is perceived as a sanctioned member of society.

Cost and risk reduction arguments for CSR have been gaining wide acceptance among managers and executives. In a survey of business executives by PricewaterhouseCoopers, 73 percent of the respondents indicated that “cost savings” was one of the top three reasons companies are becoming more socially responsible. [20]

Gaining Competitive Advantage

As used in this section of the report, the term “competitive advantage” is best understood in the context of a differentiation strategy; in other words, the focus is on how firms may use CSR practices to set themselves apart from their competitors. The previous section, which focused on cost and risk reduction, illustrated how CSR practices may be thought of in terms of building a competitive advantage through a cost management strategy. “Competitive advantages” was cited as one of the top two justifications for CSR in a survey of business executives reported in a Fortune survey. [21] In this context, stakeholder demands are seen as opportunities rather than constraints. Firms strategically manage their resources to meet these demands and exploit the opportunities associated with them for the benefit of the firm. [22] This approach to CSR requires firms to integrate their social responsibility initiatives with their broader business strategies.

Reducing costs and risks • Equal employment opportunity policies and practices • Energy-saving and other environmentally sound production practices • Community relations management

Gaining competitive advantage • EEO policies • Customer relations program • Corporate philanthropy

Developing reputation and legitimacy • Corporate philanthropy • Corporate disclosure and transparency practices

Seeking win-win outcomes through synergistic value creation • Charitable giving to education • Stakeholder engagement

EEO policies Companies that build their competitive advantage through unique CSR strategies may have a superior advantage, as the uniqueness of their CSR strategies may serve as a basis for setting the firm apart from its competitors. [23] For example, an explicit statement of EEO policies would have additional benefits to the cost and risk reduction discussed earlier in this report. Such policies would provide the firm with a competitive advantage because “[c]ompanies without inclusive policies may be at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting and retaining employees from the widest talent pool.” [24]

Customer and investor relations programs CSR initiatives can contribute to strengthening a firm’s competitive advantage, its brand loyalty, and its consumer patronage. CSR initiatives also have a positive impact on attracting investment. Many institutional investors “avoid companies or industries that violate their organizational mission, values, or principles… [They also] seek companies with good records on employee relations, environmental stewardship, community involvement, and corporate governance.” [25]

Corporate philanthropy Companies may align their philanthropic activities with their capabilities and core competencies. “In so doing, they avoid distractions from the core business, enhance the efficiency of their charitable activities and assure unique value creation for the beneficiaries.” [26] For example, McKinsey & Co. offers free consulting services to nonprofit organizations in social, cultural, and educational fields. Beneficiaries include public art galleries, colleges, and charitable institutions. [27] Home Depot Inc. provided rebuilding knowhow to the communities victimized by Hurricane Katrina. Strategic philanthropy helps companies gain a competitive advantage and in turn boosts its bottom line. [28]

CSR initiatives enhance a firm’s competitive advantage to the extent that they influence the decisions of the firm’s stakeholders in its favor. Stakeholders may prefer a firm over its competitors specifically due to the firm’s engagement in such CSR initiatives.

Developing Reputation and Legitimacy

Companies may also justify their CSR initiatives on the basis of creating, defending, and sustaining their legitimacy and strong reputations. A business is perceived as legitimate when its activities are congruent with the goals and values of the society in which the business operates. In other words, a business is perceived as legitimate when it fulfills its social responsibilities. [29]

As firms demonstrate their ability to fit in with the communities and cultures in which they operate, they are able to build mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders. Firms “focus on value creation by leveraging gains in reputation and legitimacy made through aligning stakeholder interests.” [30] Strong reputation and legitimacy sanction the firm to operate in society. CSR activities enhance the ability of a firm to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of consumers, investors, and employees. Time and again, consumers, employees, and investors have shown a distinct preference for companies that take their social responsibilities seriously. A Center for Corporate Citizenship study found that 66 percent of executives thought their social responsibility strategies resulted in improving corporate reputation and saw this as a business benefit. [31]

Corporate philanthropy Corporate philanthropy may be a tool of legitimization. Firms that have negative social performance in the areas of environmental issues and product safety use charitable contributions as a means for building their legitimacy. [32]

Corporate disclosure and transparency practices Corporations have also enhanced their legitimacy and reputation through the disclosure of information regarding their performance on different social and environmental issues, sometimes referred to as sustainability reporting. Corporate social reporting refers to stand-alone reports that provide information regarding a company’s economic, environmental, and social performance. The practice of corporate social reporting has been encouraged by the launch of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 1997-1998 and the introduction of the United Nations Global Compact in 1999. Through social reporting, firms can document that their operations are consistent with social norms and expectations, and, therefore, are perceived as legitimate.

Seeking Win-Win Outcomes through Synergistic Value Creation

Synergistic value creation arguments focus on exploiting opportunities that reconcile differing stakeholder demands. Firms do this by “connecting stakeholder interests, and creating pluralistic definitions of value for multiple stakeholders simultaneously.” [33] In other words, with a cause big enough, they can unite many potential interest groups.

Charitable giving to education When companies get the “where” and the “how” right, philanthropic activities and competitive advantage become mutually reinforcing and create a virtuous circle. Corporate philanthropy may be used to influence the competitive context of an organization, which allows the organization to improve its competitiveness and at the same time fulfill the needs of some of its stakeholders. For example, in the long run, charitable giving to education improves the quality of human resources available to the firm. Similarly, charitable contributions to community causes eventually result in the creation and preservation of a higher quality of life, which may sustain “sophisticated and demanding local customers.” [34]

The notion of creating win-win outcomes through CSR activities has been raised before. Management expert Peter Drucker argues that “the proper ‘social responsibility’ of business is to … turn a social problem into economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into well-paid jobs, and into wealth.” [35] It has been argued that, “it will not be too long before we can begin to assert that the business of business is the creation of sustainable value— economic, social and ecological.” [36]

An example: the win-win perspective adopted by the life sciences firm Novo Group allowed it to pursue its business “[which] is deeply involved in genetic modification and yet maintains highly interactive and constructive relationships with stakeholders and publishes a highly rated environmental and social report each year.” [37]

Stakeholder engagement The win-win perspective on CSR practices aims to satisfy stakeholders’ demands while allowing the firm to pursue financial success. By engaging its stakeholders and satisfying their demands, the firm finds opportunities for profit with the consent and support of its stakeholder environment.

The business case for corporate social responsibility can be made. While it is valuable for a company to engage in CSR for altruistic and ethical justifications, the highly competitive business world in which we live requires that, in allocating resources to socially responsible initiatives, firms continue to consider their own business needs.

In the last decade, in particular, empirical research has brought evidence of the measurable payoff of CSR initiatives on firms as well as their stakeholders. Firms have a variety of reasons for being CSR-attentive. But beyond the many bottom-line benefits outlined here, businesses that adopt CSR practices also benefit our society at large.

[1] See Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach , 1984, which traces the roots of CSR to the 1960s and 1970s, when many multinationals were formed. (go back)

[2] J. D. Margolis and Walsh, J.P. “Misery loves companies: social initiatives by business.” Administrative Science Quarterly , 48, 2003, pp. 268–305. (go back)

[3] J. F. Mahon and Griffin, J .J. “Painting a portrait: a reply.” Business and Society , 38, 1999, 126–133. (go back)

[4] See, for an overview, Stephen Gates, Jon Lukomnik, and David Pitt- Watson, The New Capitalists: How Citizen Investors Are Reshaping The Business Agenda , Harvard Business School Press, 2006. (go back)

[5] M.P. Lee, “A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: its evolutionary path and the road ahead”. International Journal of Management Reviews , 10, 2008, 53–73. (go back)

[6] D.J. Vogel, “Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility.” California Management Review , 47, 2005, pp. 19–45. (go back)

[7] Ibid. (go back)

[8] Elizabeth Kurucz; Colbert, Barry; and Wheeler, David “The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility.” Chapter 4 in Crane, A.; McWilliams, A.; Matten, D.; Moon, J. and Siegel, D. The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 83-112 (go back)

[9] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler , 85-92. (go back)

[10] Berger,I.E., Cunningham, P. and Drumwright, M.E. “Mainstreaming corporate and social responsibility: developing markets for virtue,” California Management Review , 49, 2007, 132-157. (go back)

[11] Ibid. (go back)

[12] M.E. Porter and Kramer, M.R. “Strategy & society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.” Harvard Business Review , 84, 2006,pp. 78–92. (go back)

[13] Ibid. (go back)

[14] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler, 85-92. (go back)

[15] Ibid., 88. (go back)

[16] T. Smith, “Institutional and social investors find common ground. Journal of Investing , 14, 2005, 57–65. (go back)

[17] S. L. Berman, Wicks, A.C., Kotha, S. and Jones, T.M. “Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance.” Academy of Management Journal , 42, 1999, 490. (go back)

[18] Ibid. (go back)

[19] Ibid. (go back)

[20] Top 10 Reasons, PricewaterhouseCoopers 2002 Sustainability Survey Report, reported in “Corporate America’s Social Conscience,” Fortune , May 26, 2003, 58. (go back)

[21] Top 10 Reasons . (go back)

[22] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler (go back)

[23] N. Smith, 2003, 67. (go back)

[24] T. Smith, 2005, 60. (go back)

[25] Ibid., 64. (go back)

[26] Heike Bruch and Walter, Frank (2005). “The Keys to Rethinking Corporate Philanthropy.” MIT Sloan Management Review , 47(1): 48-56 (go back)

[27] Ibid., 50. (go back)

[28] Bruce Seifert, Morris, Sara A.; and Bartkus, Barbara R. (2003). “Comparing Big Givers and Small Givers: Financial Correlates of Corporate Philanthropy.” Journal of Business Ethics , 45(3): 195-211. (go back)

[29] Archie B. Carroll and Ann K. Buchholtz, Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability and Stakeholder Management , 8th Edition, Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012, 305. (go back)

[30] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler, 90. (go back)

[31] “Managing Corporate Citizenship as a Business Strategy,” Boston: Center for Corporate Citizenship, 2010. (go back)

[32] Jennifer C. Chen, Dennis M.; & Roberts, Robin. “Corporate Charitable Contributions: A Corporate Social Performance or Legitimacy Strategy?” Journal of Business Ethics , 2008, 131-144. (go back)

[33] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler , 91. (go back)

[34] Porter and Kramer, 60-65. (go back)

[35] Peter F. Drucker, “The New Meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility.” California Management Review , 1984, 26: 53-63 (go back)

[36] C. Wheeler, B. Colbert, and R. E. Freeman. “Focusing on Value: Reconciling Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability and a Stakeholder Approach in a Network World.” Journal of General Management , (28)3, 2003, 1-28. (go back)

[37] Ibid. (go back)

Nice blog. CSR has become something very important to all the corporate houses today. However, with the rising growth of CSR activities. It is very important to have an effective software that helps to keep a track of the entire exercise.

Interesting article! Perhaps nice to give Mr. Stephen ‘Gates’ his real name back? After all “The New Capitalists: How Citizen Investors Are Reshaping The Business Agenda” was written by Stephen DAVIS. I think he would like the recognition ;)

5 Trackbacks

[…] original here: The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility — The … This entry was posted in Internet and tagged corporate, corporate-governance, corporate-social, […]

[…] For the entire article, read it here. […]

[…] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2011/06/26/the-business-case-for-corporate-social-responsibilit … […]

[…] (CSR) and the behavior change awareness/advertising campaigns associated with them. Here is a terrific article in the Harvard Law School Forum that outlines the business benefits gained from CSR initiatives. […]

[…] guru Peter Drucker agreed that business has to make enough profit to secure its future, but insisted that its proper […]

Supported By:

Subscribe or Follow

Program on corporate governance advisory board.

• William Ackman
• Peter Atkins
• Kerry E. Berchem
• Richard Brand
• Daniel Burch
• Arthur B. Crozier
• Renata J. Ferrari
• John Finley
• Carolyn Frantz
• Andrew Freedman
• Byron Georgiou
• Joseph Hall
• Jason M. Halper
• David Millstone
• Theodore Mirvis
• Maria Moats
• Erika Moore
• Morton Pierce
• Philip Richter
• Marc Trevino
• Steven J. Williams
• Daniel Wolf

HLS Faculty & Senior Fellows

• Lucian Bebchuk
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Stephen M. Davis
• Allen Ferrell
• Jesse Fried
• Oliver Hart
• Howell Jackson
• Kobi Kastiel
• Reinier Kraakman
• Mark Ramseyer
• Robert Sitkoff
• Holger Spamann
• Leo E. Strine, Jr.
• Guhan Subramanian
• Roberto Tallarita

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

CorporateSocialResponsibilityandImpact →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Creating a Corporate Social Responsibility Program with Real Impact

• Emilio Marti,
• David Risi,
• Eva Schlindwein,
• Andromachi Athanasopoulou

Lessons from multinational companies that adapted their CSR practices based on local feedback and knowledge.

Exploring the critical role of experimentation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), research on four multinational companies reveals a stark difference in CSR effectiveness. Successful companies integrate an experimental approach, constantly adapting their CSR practices based on local feedback and knowledge. This strategy fosters genuine community engagement and responsive initiatives, as seen in a mining company’s impactful HIV/AIDS program. Conversely, companies that rely on standardized, inflexible CSR methods often fail to achieve their goals, demonstrated by a failed partnership due to local corruption in another mining company. The study recommends encouraging broad employee participation in CSR and fostering a culture that values CSR’s long-term business benefits. It also suggests that sustainable investors and ESG rating agencies should focus on assessing companies’ experimental approaches to CSR, going beyond current practices to examine the involvement of diverse employees in both developing and adapting CSR initiatives. Overall, embracing a dynamic, data-driven approach to CSR is essential for meaningful social and environmental impact.

By now, almost all large companies are engaged in corporate social responsibility (CSR): they have CSR policies, employ CSR staff, engage in activities that aim to have a positive impact on the environment and society, and write CSR reports. However, the evolution of CSR has brought forth new challenges. A stark contrast to two decades ago, when the primary concern was the sheer neglect of CSR, the current issue lies in the ineffective execution of these practices. Why do some companies implement CSR in ways that create a positive impact on the environment and society, while others fail to do so? Our research reveals that experimentation is critical for impactful CSR, which has implications for both companies that implement CSR and companies that externally monitor these CSR activities, such as sustainable investors and ESG rating agencies.

• EM Emilio Marti is an associate professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. His research focuses on corporate sustainability with a specific focus on sustainable investing.
• DR David Risi is a professor at the Bern University of Applied Sciences and a habilitated lecturer at the University of St. Gallen. His research focuses on how companies organize CSR and sustainability.
• ES Eva Schlindwein is a professor at the Bern University of Applied Sciences and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on how organizations navigate tensions between business and society.
• AA Andromachi Athanasopoulou is an associate professor at Queen Mary University of London and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on how individuals manage their leadership careers and make ethically charged decisions.

Partner Center

• Data, AI, & Machine Learning
• Managing Technology
• Social Responsibility
• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• AI & Machine Learning
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Big ideas Research Projects
• Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy
• Responsible AI
• Future of the Workforce
• Future of Leadership
• All Research Projects
• AI in Action
• Most Popular
• The Truth Behind the Nursing Crisis
• Work/23: The Big Shift
• Coaching for the Future-Forward Leader
• Measuring Culture

The spring 2024 issue’s special report looks at how to take advantage of market opportunities in the digital space, and provides advice on building culture and friendships at work; maximizing the benefits of LLMs, corporate venture capital initiatives, and innovation contests; and scaling automation and digital health platform.

• Past Issues
• Upcoming Events
• Video Archive
• Me, Myself, and AI
• Three Big Points

Why Companies Practice Corporate Social Responsibility

A meta-analysis of 200 surveys over 20 years finds that CSR is often embraced as a “halo” strategy.

• Corporate Social Responsibility

For two decades now, the question of why companies practice corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gripped practitioners, policy makers, and academics alike. Strong interest in this question has been driven by the increasing engagement of companies worldwide in all manner of CSR activities, from reducing carbon emissions to increasing the gender and racial diversity of boards of directors.

The breadth of almost 200 surveys that have queried business leaders in over 70 countries on their CSR motivations offers evidence of the high level of interest in this topic. Research has been conducted by nearly every blue-chip consultancy, including McKinsey, EY, BCG, PwC, KPMG, Deloitte, and Accenture, as well as by major political bodies, such as the United Nations, the European Commission, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Get Updates on Transformative Leadership

Evidence-based resources that can help you lead your team more effectively, delivered to your inbox monthly.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up

Privacy Policy

What can be learned about companies’ CSR motivations from these high-profile surveys? Emerging from our recent meta-analysis is a picture of CSR as a halo strategy : By presenting themselves as true believers in CSR (saints), businesses seek to improve the overall corporate image (the halo) and expect broad benefits from diverse stakeholders to follow (the warm glow). Below, we discuss in turn each of these three features using this religious metaphor.

Figuratively speaking, businesses have joined the church and now sing in the choir with activists and governments about the goodness of CSR. Surveys of CSR motivations, at least, support this metaphor. The motivations that businesses are most likely to select in these surveys are those that portray CSR as a matter of the company’s own values, ethics, morality, or culture — normative motivations . This finding is apparent in surveys of industries as diverse as electric power in India and fishing in Norway .

Internally driven normative motivations rank higher in surveys than another abstract type: political motivations , which position CSR as an effort to manage power relations — for example, by avoiding fines or reducing activist pressure. In fact, any given normative motivation, when appearing in the same survey with any given political one, is expected to rank higher about 83% of the time. In other words, no one is making companies practice CSR; they claim to value CSR themselves. The glow of virtue emanates from within.

Likewise, normative motivations win against abstract instrumental motivations , which position CSR as bringing rewards to companies themselves, such as lower capital costs and higher employee morale. Normative motivations rank higher in this scenario 73% of the time.

The preeminence of normative motivations is robust: In all regions of the world, businesses ascribe their CSR efforts mostly to their own desire to benefit society and the planet. CSR is one of the great consensus movements of our time, not only among the citizenry, but also among companies — globally, across industries, and throughout the corporate hierarchy.

CSR is not pure altruism, however. Companies generally do expect rewards from their good deeds. These rewards, importantly, may even depend on noble motivations. Consumers, for example, crave authenticity and want to buy products from companies whose hearts are in the right place. Consumers may even research companies to discern which ones are saints and which ones are bearing false witness.

As for the strategic benefits of CSR, a very different finding emerges when we peer beneath the surface of normative, political, and instrumental motivations. When we examine concrete examples of these abstract types, we see that the most-reported CSR motivation is actually an instrumental one: burnishing the company image, brand, or reputation. When stripped from other instrumental motivations, image motivations beat even normative ones almost two out of three times. They are the most selected motivation in all subsamples — across time (2003-2020), geography (developed versus developing countries), company size (multinationals versus small and medium-sized enterprises), survey respondents (senior managers versus lower-level workers), and types of survey producers (academics versus practitioners).

The Warm Glow

The halo of CSR bathes the entire enterprise in a favorable light and anoints it as having good character. According to experimental research, when companies are considered virtuous, they are also thought to be competent — even though these qualities are distinct. Similarly, companies that practice CSR are punished less by consumers for scandals , because consumers impute good intentions to these companies, despite any unfortunate events that may have transpired.

This perception that a company has good character can deliver many benefits. Studies of CSR, considered holistically, portray it as an almost miraculous strategy whose rewards are myriad — including improved customer satisfaction, brand loyalty, and purchase intent; higher worker morale, company identification, and productivity; greater access to funding; lower risk; reduced regulatory burdens; and enhanced trust from suppliers.

The surveys we analyzed suggest three ways that CSR advances many stakeholders’ objectives simultaneously. First, across all of the surveys, their designers presented no fewer than 40 distinct benefits to respondents as options to select as plausible CSR motivations. In the imaginations of survey designers, at least, the possibilities seem almost endless. Second, companies rank more highly those CSR motivations that mention aggregate rather than specific stakeholders; compare “improve stakeholder relations,” for instance, with “improve investor relations.” Lastly, companies more highly rank CSR motivations that express broad rather than concrete benefits; compare “competitive advantages” with “supplier access.” The halo, in other words, is not a targeted beam but a diffuse radiance.

The Implications

Related articles.

An army of researchers has toiled for two decades to survey companies’ CSR motivations because they provide valuable information: They tell us why companies practice CSR and can help us predict and influence company behavior. In the end, the surveys tell us that companies practice CSR mainly because they want to burnish their own images.

This motivation presents a lever of change. Companies’ intentions to use CSR to bolster their own images can be exploited to increase social welfare: Company images are potential targets for activists who want to punish CSR laggards. Indeed, our findings suggest a converse dynamic: By creating satirical greenwashing awards and subverting companies’ own brand identities to name and shame them, for instance, concerned stakeholders can threaten companies with a range of negative outcomes, such as higher capital costs and a reduction in consumer purchases. By harnessing company motivations, stakeholders can gain the traction to further advance the CSR field.

About the Authors

Shawn Pope works at Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Research Center, and is an instructor at Stanford University. Alwyn Lim is associate professor of sociology at Singapore Management University.

More Like This

Add a comment cancel reply.

You must sign in to post a comment. First time here? Sign up for a free account : Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

Making the most of corporate social responsibility

Too often, executives have viewed corporate social responsibility (CSR) as just another source of pressure or passing fad. But as customers, employees, and suppliers—and, indeed, society more broadly—place increasing importance on CSR, some leaders have started to look at it as a creative opportunity to fundamentally strengthen their businesses while contributing to society at the same time. They view CSR as central to their overall strategies, helping them to creatively address key business issues.

The big challenge for executives is how to develop an approach that can truly deliver on these lofty ambitions—and, as of yet, few have found the way. However, some innovative companies have managed to overcome this hurdle, with smart partnering emerging as one way to create value for both the business and society simultaneously. Smart partnering focuses on key areas of impact between business and society and develops creative solutions that draw on the complementary capabilities of both to address major challenges that affect each partner. In this article, we build on lessons from smart partnering to provide a practical way forward for leaders to assess the true opportunities of CSR.

Mapping the CSR space

There is no single accepted definition of CSR, which leads to plenty of confusion about what constitutes a CSR activity. We can begin to develop a working definition of CSR by thinking about its dual objectives—benefiting business and society—and the range of potential benefits in each case (Exhibit 1).

Corporate social responsibility: The landscape

Many businesses pursue CSR activities that can best be termed pet projects, as they reflect the personal interests of individual senior executives. While these activities may be presented with much noise and fanfare, they usually offer minimal benefits to either business or society. In the middle are efforts that can make both sides feel good but that generate limited and often one-sided benefits. With philanthropy, for example, corporate donations confer the majority of benefits on society (with potential but often questionable reputational benefits to the business). Similarly, in what’s best referred to as propaganda, CSR activities are focused primarily on building a company’s reputation with little real benefit to society. Some cynics suggest that this form of CSR is at best a form of advertising—and potentially dangerous if it exposes a gap between the company’s words and actions.

None of these approaches realize the opportunities for significant shared value creation that have been achieved through smart partnering. In such ventures, the focus of the business moves beyond avoiding risks or enhancing reputation and toward improving its core value creation ability by addressing major strategic issues or challenges. For society, the focus shifts from maintaining minimum standards or seeking funding to improving employment, the overall quality of life, and living standards. The key is for each party to tap into the resources and expertise of the other, finding creative solutions to critical social and businesses challenges.

Addressing rural distribution challenges in India

More than 70 percent of India’s population resides in rural villages scattered over large geographic areas with very low per capita consumption rates. For multinationals, the cost of reaching and serving these rural markets is significant, as typical urban distribution approaches do not work. Hindustan Unilever Limited’s Project Shakti overcame these challenges by actively understanding critical societal and organizational needs. HUL partnered with three self-help groups, whose members were appointed as Shakti entrepreneurs in chosen villages. These entrepreneurs were women, since a key aim for the partnership was to help the rural female population develop independence and self-esteem. The entrepreneurs received extensive training and borrowed money from their self-help groups to purchase HUL products, which they then sold in their villages. By 2008, Shakti provided employment for 42,000 women entrepreneurs covering nearly 130,000 villages and 3 million households every month. In the same year, HUL sales through the project approached $100 million. Dalip Sehgal, then executive director of New Ventures at HUL, noted: “Shakti is a quintessential win-win initiative and overcame challenges on a number of fronts. It is a sales and distribution initiative that delivers growth, a communication initiative that builds brands, a micro-enterprise initiative that creates livelihoods, a social initiative that improves the standard of life, and catalyzes affluence in rural India. What makes Shakti uniquely scalable and sustainable is the fact that it contributes not only to HUL but also to the community it is a part of.” 1 1. V. Kasturi Rangan and Rohithari Rajan, “Unilever in India: Hindustan Lever’s Project Shakti,” Harvard Business School case 9-505-056, June 27, 2007.

So how does this work? The examples in the two accompanying sidebars (see “Addressing rural distribution challenges in India” and “Ensuring sustainable supplies of critical raw materials”) illustrate smart partnering initiatives at Unilever. Both address long-term strategic challenges facing the company and help to build creative partnerships that accrue significant benefits to both sides.

Initial questions for any leader should be, “Where have you focused CSR activities in the past?” and, more important, “Where should you focus them for the future?” All organizations have to balance limited resources and effort, so the challenge is how best to deploy yours to maximize the benefits to your business (and your shareholders and stakeholders), as well as to society. Start by mapping your current portfolio of CSR initiatives on the framework shown in Exhibit 1 and ask: What are the objectives of our current initiatives? What benefits are being created, and who realizes these? Which of these initiatives helps us to address our key strategic challenges and opportunities?

Ensuring sustainable supplies of critical raw materials

Unilever’s Lipton unit is the world’s largest buyer of tea. In 1999, Unilever Tea Kenya started a pilot program in Kericho, in southwestern Kenya, to apply company sustainability principles to the production of tea. The initiative focused on improving productivity, sustainability, and environmental management, as well as energy and habitat conservation. For Unilever, growing pressure on natural resources means that securing high-quality supplies of critical raw materials in the long term is of paramount strategic importance.

The Kericho initiative had a direct impact on the company’s ability to control the supply of tea not just today but also into the future, while simultaneously enhancing Unilever’s corporate reputation with both consumers and employees. Company leadership felt that higher short-term costs were far outweighed by the long-term strategic edge Unilever gained for its raw-materials supplies and brands. In 2008, as a signal of its commitment, Unilever expanded the scope of its sustainable-agriculture program, pursuing certification from the Rainforest Alliance for all Lipton tea farms by 2015.

For society, the initiative increased farmer revenue through a 10 to 15 percent premium paid above market prices. Additionally, it focused on topics of significant concern for governments and farmers alike, including improving farmer skills, environmental protection, and sustainable production methods (such as developing a self-sufficient ecosystem), as well as enhancing local associated jobs. All these factors contributed to strengthened rural income, skills, and living standards.

Focusing CSR choices: Guiding principles

Companies are likely to have activities scattered across the map, but that’s not where they have to stay—nor is it how the benefits of CSR are maximized. Many companies start with pet projects, philanthropy, or propaganda because these activities are quick and easy to decide on and implement. The question is how to move toward CSR strategies that focus on truly cocreating value for the business and society. The accompanying examples suggest three principles for moving toward this goal.

• Concentrate your CSR efforts. Management time and resources are limited, so the greatest opportunities will come from areas where the business significantly interacts with—and thus can have the greatest impact on—society. These are areas where the business not only can gain a deeper understanding of the mutual dependencies but also in which the highest potential for mutual benefit exists.
• Build a deep understanding of the benefits. Even after selecting your chosen areas of opportunity, finding the potential for mutual value creation is not always straightforward. The key is finding symmetry between the two sides and being open enough to understand issues both from a business and a societal perspective.
• Find the right partners. These will be those that benefit from your core business activities and capabilities—and that you can benefit from in turn. Partnering is difficult, but when both sides see win–win potential there is greater motivation to realize the substantial benefits. Relationships—particularly long-term ones that are built on a realistic understanding of the true strengths on both sides—have a greater opportunity of being successful and sustainable.

Applying these principles to choosing the appropriate CSR opportunities prompts additional questions—namely: What are the one or two critical areas in our business where we interface with and have an impact on society and where significant opportunities exist for both sides if we can creatively adjust the relationship? What are the core long-term needs for us and for society that can be addressed as a result? What resources or capabilities do we need, and what do we have to offer in realizing the opportunities?

Building the business case

In smart partnering, mutual benefit is not only a reasonable objective, it is also required to ensure long-term success. But this commitment must be grounded in value-creation potential, just like any other strategic initiative. Each is an investment that should be evaluated with the same rigor in prioritization, planning, resourcing, and monitoring.

Now you need to define the array of potential benefits for both the business and for society. This will not always be easy, but a clear business case and story is important if you are to get the company, its shareholders, and its stakeholders on board.

You can assess the benefits across the following three dimensions:

• Time frame. Be clear on both the short-term immediate objectives and the long-term benefits. In smart partnering, the time frame is important, as initiatives can be complex and take time to realize their full potential.
• Nature of benefits. Some benefits will be tangible, such as revenue from gaining access to a new market. Others will be equally significant, but intangible, such as developing a new capability or enhancing employee morale.
• Benefit split. Be clear about how benefits are to be shared between the business and society. If they are one-sided, be careful you are not moving into the philanthropy or propaganda arena. Remember that if the aim is to create more value from partnering than you could do apart, then benefits must be shared appropriately.

Exhibit 2 outlines two contrasting benefit arrays for the Unilever examples discussed in the accompanying sidebars. With Project Shakti, the short-term tangible benefits are extremely clear and powerful, while in the case of Kericho the long-term intangible benefits are strategically critical for both the business and the communities in which it operates. Remember that it is not essential to have benefits in every section of the matrix. However, if you are struggling with any of the dimensions—for example, there are no long-term or tangible benefits or if most of the benefits are one-sided—go back and ask if this is a real partnering opportunity where significant mutual value creation is possible.

Plotting the benefits

As you develop a clear array of benefits, a business case, and a story to communicate to all stakeholders, ask: Do we have a clear understanding of the entire array of benefits and the associated business case, on which we can focus, assess, and manage the potential CSR activity? Does the activity focus on fundamental value creation opportunities where we can really partner with society to realize simultaneous benefits? Are the opportunities significant, scalable, and supportive of our overall strategic priorities?

Implementing CSR with consistency and determination

Partnering, as we all know, can be challenging. It requires planning and hard work to assess potential mutual benefits, establish trust, and build and manage the activities, internally as well as externally. But is it worth it? Companies at the forefront of such partnering suggest the answer is a resounding yes, but an additional two principles need to be followed to ensure success:

Go in with a long-term commitment. Having a positive impact on societal issues such as living standards is not a “quick fix” project. Leaders who want to partner therefore need to have a long-term mind-set backed up by solid promises and measurable commitments and actions. Your initiative must demonstrate added value to both shareholders and stakeholders over time.

Engage the entire workforce and lead by example. Your workforce can be one of your greatest assets and beneficiaries when it comes to CSR activities. Increasingly, employees are choosing to work for organizations whose values resonate with their own. Attracting and retaining talent will be a growing challenge in the future, so activities that build on core values and inspire employees are key. Unilever, along with other leaders in smart partnering, actively engages its employees in such initiatives, seeing improved motivation, loyalty, and ability to attract and retain talent as a result. Engaging the workforce starts at the top. Leaders must be prepared to make a personal commitment if the activities are to realize their full potential.

This is the tough bit of the process: taking action, rather than speaking about it, and keeping up the momentum even when targets are far in the future. As you plan the implementation of your chosen initiatives and follow through, ask: Can we build the commitment we need across the organization to make this happen—and are we as leaders willing to lead by example? Have we planned effectively to ensure that implementation is successful, with resources, milestones, measurement, and accountability? How can we manage the initiative, focusing on the total array of benefits sought, not just the short-term financials?

What’s a leader to do?

When it comes to CSR, there are no easy answers on what to do or how to do it. A company’s interactions and interdependencies with society are many and complex. However, it is clear that approaching CSR as a feel-good or quick-fix exercise runs the risk of missing huge opportunities for both the business and society. Taking a step-by-step approach and following the principles outlined here offers leaders a way to identify and drive mutual value creation. But it will demand a shift in mind-set: the smart partnering view is that CSR is about doing good business and creatively addressing significant issues that face business and society, not simply feeling good. And smart partnering is not for the faint of heart. It requires greater focus, work, and long-term commitment than do many standard CSR pet projects, philanthropic activities, and propaganda campaigns, but the rewards are potentially much greater for both sides.

Continuing the conversation—Authors’ response to reader comments

In January 2010, the authors reviewed our readers’ comments on their original article and weighed in on the conversation with new insights and suggestions.

Many thanks to those who read and considered the ideas in our article “Making the most of corporate social responsibility”—and particularly to those who shared their thoughts and experiences on smart partnering. As many rightly pointed out, there has been a groundswell of interest in CSR, as well as a growing number of powerful examples of smart partnering. This momentum reflects an improved understanding of the potential benefits to companies and the increasing maturity of social organizations. Both see the potential for mutually creating value.

Our aim was to advance the debate on how to make CSR an integral part of core strategic thinking rather than a feel-good add-on to it. Where should we take this conversation? Many of the responses came from academics or from executives responsible for CSR activities in their firms. While this is natural, it raises the question of how best to engage (or help these executives to engage) senior business leaders who make strategic choices and set the direction of companies—particularly the next generation of leaders, who face more pressing global and societal issues than ever before.

Three challenges

Our work, that of others in this field, and the input of McKinsey Quarterly readers suggest that there are three basic challenges to making smart partnering a strategic imperative and opportunity for companies. They also suggest ways to overcome those challenges.

1. Get CSR on the strategy table

For CSR to achieve its potential, it must focus on key areas of interaction between a firm and its environment and address value creation activities at the center of the strategic agenda. The challenge is to get innovative CSR thinking on the table when business strategies are being explored and decided. How can we make CSR approaches an integral part of the strategic toolbox for business unit leaders?

First, the potential benefits of CSR, notably smart partnering, need to be demonstrated in practice if mainstream senior business leaders are to recognize the significant opportunities it offers. That is why sharing your and our examples is so important. Next, key CSR executives must be part of core strategy processes. Ultimately, CSR must cease to be a separate function and become part of the skill set of all business leaders as an innovative way to solve critical problems.

2. Stretch your strategic ambition for CSR

Several readers spoke of favorably received CSR activities within their organizations in the realms of philanthropy and partnering. As we suggested, the starting point in any CSR strategy should be to outline the CSR activities a company already undertakes and to be clear on their intent and fit within the overall portfolio. Where CSR activities are primarily philanthropic in nature, they can create a strong base for building a company’s reputation and engaging employees. Philanthropy also has other obvious advantages: it is relatively easy to undertake, can often be set off against tax, and requires less effort and commitment across the organization.

The questions with this approach are: What benefits are being left on the table, both for society and the business? What opportunities are being missed? The challenge is to stretch strategic ambitions for CSR and to move actively toward smart partnering, where the biggest opportunities are to be found. Stretching means going beyond common practice. While it is extremely encouraging to see a growing recognition of the benefits of CSR for building employee engagement, this is only the tip of the iceberg. In the examples we described, the benefits matrices set out much broader ambitions and arrays of benefits (short and long term, tangible and intangible) for both society and core business strategies. How can you stretch your company’s ambitions in a similar way? Whom do you need to involve, particularly among mainstream business leaders, to gain new perspectives and challenge conventional wisdom?

3. Reinforce your core values, internally and externally

When corporate visions and strategies are described, there is often a reference to core values, which shape individual behavior and expectations about how we work and interact together. But we often limit discussions about values to internal behavior and actions. As several readers noted, shouldn’t senior executives also be held accountable for how companies live core values in their interactions with all stakeholders?

Businesses have an impact on societies, and vice versa, so there is a need to recognize the mutual responsibilities that this entails. Within societies, trust in businesses is low, public scrutiny of firms is constant, customer choice criteria include the reputations and values of suppliers, and the next generation of leaders will choose employers whose values match their own. For businesses, one potential challenge is whether the way they operate externally—not just internally—will ultimately have an impact on their “license to operate.” Many companies that approach CSR strategically recognize this symbiosis and build on strong values, living them internally and externally.

Clearly, we do not advocate smart-partnering initiatives solely because they reinforce a company’s core values; this is heading into the realm of propaganda. But as you consider the benefits of a potential initiative, do explicitly consider its impact on your corporate values. If you cannot see a direct link to them, think about how you could create one—for example, reinforcing values through employee involvement or building additional external relationships based on the initiative.

Moving forward

What’s your next step? First, engage with key senior business leaders to identify two or three critical interactions with society. Then for each, map out what you have to offer in capabilities, knowledge, resources, relationships, and so on that would make a difference in addressing the challenges you have identified, both for your business and society. Consider what ideal partners could offer to complement the things you bring to these challenges. For the Unilever–Kericho example in our original article, a critical interaction with society involved raw materials (in particular, tea). Mapping the possible complementary strengths of a partnership could produce a kind of balance sheet.

Use the balance sheets you have developed as a starting point in identifying issues and discussing them with key internal stakeholders and potential external partners. In a world of burgeoning technology, we may even one day see some type of CSR “dating agency” where potential partners could share their balance sheets. As discussions progress, a balance sheet can also help you and your partners construct the benefits array and business case for your smart-partnering initiative.

In this sort of process, experienced CSR executives can really start to move CSR onto the strategic agenda by engaging executives on real business challenges. That means helping these executives to identify the opportunities, share concrete examples, think more broadly about solutions, and move forward.

Smart partnering is good business. Our readers’ experiences and ideas confirm that momentum is building toward a time when CSR will be absorbed into core strategy and business activities rather than treated as an orphan in need of a special label. With your help, this momentum will build. Share your experiences, shape your activity portfolios, develop your balance sheets and benefits matrices, and challenge the business community to keep changing mind-sets for the better.

Thomas Malnight is a professor of strategy and general management at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD), in Lausanne, Switzerland, where Tracey Keys is a program manager. Kees van der Graaf is Executive-in-Residence at IMD, following his retirement from the board of Unilever, where he was also president of the European business.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Valuing social responsibility programs

Valuing corporate social responsibility

Rebuilding corporate reputations

Advertisement

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  

89k Accesses

113 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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review

Carroll’s pyramid of csr: taking another look.

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

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

• 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 Change and Organizational Renewal
• 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

What Is a CSR Report & Why Is It Important?

• 20 Apr 2021

Over the past decade, corporate social responsibility reports—also called CSR reports, impact reports, or sustainability reports—have become more common, a trend that’s predicted to continue . In fact, 90 percent of companies on the S&P 500 index published CSR reports in 2019—up from 86 percent in 2018, 75 percent in 2014, and only 20 percent in 2011.

So, what is a CSR report? What do quality CSR reports look like, and why do they matter for businesses and society? Here are the answers to these questions and ways you can help craft a CSR report for your organization.

What Is a CSR Report?

According to the online course Sustainable Business Strategy , corporate social responsibility is the idea that a business has a responsibility to the society and environment in which it operates. Many businesses striving to be socially responsible use the triple bottom line —an organization’s impact on people and the planet, in addition to its profits—to determine strategic priorities.

A corporate social responsibility (CSR) report is an internal- and external-facing document companies use to communicate CSR efforts and their impact on the environment and community. An organization’s CRS efforts can fall into four categories : environmental, ethical, philanthropic, and economic.

In some countries, it’s mandatory for corporations to publish CSR reports annually. Although not yet required of companies based in the United States, some predict it will be in the not-so-distant future.

Currently, there isn’t a common set of CSR reporting standards in the US. This provides organizations the freedom to report on CSR efforts in whatever format they choose and highlight whatever information they wish. The lack of standards can, however, make it difficult to compare reports across companies. It also enables firms to leave out areas where their efforts failed or harmed people or the environment.

CSR reports are typically presented in a digital format for easy distribution, but they can also be printed and presented to stakeholders in person. A CSR report’s layout can range from a straightforward text document to a designed, visually stimulating packet.

Access your free e-book today.

Examples of CSR Reports

To help you envision what your organization’s CSR report could look like, here are several examples of recent CSR reports from well-known companies:

• The Walt Disney Company’s 2019 Corporate Social Responsibility Update
• Cisco’s 2020 Corporate Social Responsibility Impact Report
• General Motors’ 2019 Sustainability Report
• IBM’s 2019 Corporate Responsibility Report
• Warby Parker’s 2018 Impact Report

Each example begins with a letter from a corporate executive, such as the president, chief executive officer, or chief sustainability officer, has a table of contents, and is visually appealing. These examples range from 42 pages to nearly 180 pages long—a testament to the flexibility of CSR reporting standards.

You may notice that the examples have different wording in the titles. Once again, because there’s no set structure for CSR reports, the framing is up to the individual company and what it would like to highlight.

Many companies create specific branding strategies for CSR efforts and reports. For instance, note Warby Parker’s clean, personal aesthetic throughout, or General Motors’ clever slogan on its report’s front page: “driving sustainable value.” As seen in Cisco’s report, using infographics is an effective way to visualize company data to highlight trends and changes made over time.

Each CSR report is different and highlights the company’s strong suits, goals, and plans. Dig into each example to see what aspects you may incorporate in your company’s report.

Related : 5 Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility That Were Successful

Why Are CSR Reports Important?

CSR reports are a way for an organization to communicate its mission, efforts, and outcomes to external and internal stakeholders. In addition to employees, decision-makers, and shareholders, these include customers, the local community, and society at large.

If a company has been bold and successful in its CSR efforts, the release of its CSR report is as much a communication tool as it is a marketing and public relations event. Especially because of the lack of mandatory guidelines, you can use these reports to highlight your organization’s achievements and build social responsibility into your brand’s identity.

Releasing a CSR report on an annual basis can also create accountability. For example, if your organization publishes its goal to be carbon neutral by 2025 in its 2021 CSR report, chances are employees will feel driven to accomplish that goal so its completion can be noted in the 2025 report. If a goal isn’t reached in its intended time frame, the CSR reporting process can prompt an examination of how the project went off track and what can be done to realign and accomplish the goal in a realistic timeframe.

Improving Your Company’s CSR Efforts

CSR reports are an effective way to communicate your business’s efforts, goals, and plans to help the environment and community, along with the impact it’s had so far. If, however, your business hasn’t started its social responsibility efforts yet, it’s never too late.

In the online course Sustainable Business Strategy , Harvard Business School Professor Rebecca Henderson implores professionals to start with purpose and build the business case from there. What’s an issue that impacts your business, customers, or community? Start by identifying a cause that’s important to members of your organization, and then brainstorm a quantifiable goal you can set that would help that cause.

To make the business case to skeptical members of your team, consider the publicity value, customer and employee loyalty, and return on investment of committing to a sustainable or socially impactful cause.

If you or your colleagues are looking for a formal foundation in sustainable capitalism and how to be a socially responsible business, explore Sustainable Business Strategy to build the necessary skills to do well as a business while doing good in the world.

Once the ball is rolling, design a CSR report outlining your company’s efforts. Even if it’s just a few pages long, explaining your efforts, impact, and plans is worth the time. If you’re driven by purpose and a clear plan, others may read about it and support your business on its journey toward corporate social responsibility.

Are you interested in making an impact on your community and the planet? Explore our three-week online course Sustainable Business Strategy and other Business in Society courses to learn how to be a purpose-driven professional. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2018

Mapping meanings of corporate social responsibility – an Australian case study

• Anne Elizabeth Fordham 1 &
• Guy M. Robinson 2  

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility volume  3 , Article number:  14 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

49k Accesses

21 Citations

Metrics details

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an evolving concept that reflects various views and approaches regarding corporate relationships with broader society. This study examines the meanings and values attached to CSR within the Australian resource sector where various interests shape the implementation of CSR programs. The study was based on in-depth interviews with industry practitioners, business leaders, environmental and social specialists, government representatives and community leaders, including representatives from Indigenous groups.

CSR was found to be a complex, multi-dimensional concept that was highly individualised with a variety of aspects highlighted during interviews. To make sense of this complexity, meanings of CSR were mapped according to Carroll’s four dimensions, namely Corporate, Legal, Ethical, and Philanthropic. However, a further CSR dimension was also required to capture the full spectrum of meanings. Referred to as ‘CSR interaction’, this dimension focuses on CSR meanings that align with the concept of CSR creating social change and improving the dynamics between companies and local communities and stakeholders.

This study also identified some key social processes or drivers which helped explain how and why CSR meanings and approaches are adopted and delivered. These drivers also increased understanding of the wide diversity of CSR meanings and their distribution across the different stakeholder groups. Drivers included not only individual-level influences such as background, life experience, cultural and ethical values, but also broader influences such as organisational and institutional context. The implications of this for CSR practice were explored.

The study sought to provide guidance for developing a working definition of CSR within the given context, through identifying the key integral requirements for CSR incorporating different perspectives and interests. The intent is that this can help support evaluation of the future success of CSR programs within the Australian resource sector.

Introduction

CSR is a concept that captures the responsibility of business to the environment, its stakeholders and to the broader society (Blowfield 2005 ). It can be applied as a theory, research agenda, corporate practice or even ideal (Bice 2011 ). It is an open concept that has changed and evolved in light of altered circumstances and changing expectations of society (Lee 2008 ). The concept began to emerge in the 1950’s as a philosophy of business doing good for society, including incorporating notions of corporate philanthropy (Bowen 1953 ). It then expanded in the 1960’s to place broader expectations on companies in terms of wider social concerns (e.g. environment, human rights) as driven by social rights’ agendas and legislative change (Carroll and Shabana 2010 ). However, it was not fully adopted as a business discourse and managerial strategy until the 1990’s and 2000’s, when there was a focus on business practice accounting for and meeting stakeholder needs (Bice 2015 ; Lee 2008 ).

In the 2000’s, CSR was viewed as the critical linkage between business strategy and sustainable development (Steurer et al. 2005 ). This included companies utilising CSR to align with relevant international and industry standards (e.g. United Nations Development goals, United Nations Global Compact and International Financing Standards). Such a connection of CSR from the local to the global was most relevant to large-scale global companies which had high public profiles and were cognisant of the need to gain reputational currency through CSR. This also occurred during a period of greater scrutiny of companies through social media, improved communication and the exchange of knowledge and information (Allen and Craig 2016 ; McDonald 2011 ). In the past decade, with the emergence of critical global-scale challenges such as climate change, scholars are advocating that CSR needs to shift from a discretionary or voluntary activity to an immediate and integrated response thereby acknowledging the major role and impact of business (Allen and Craig 2016 ). Thus, today CSR involves a complex agenda including managing localised impacts, e.g. water and biodiversity impacts but also contributing to solving broader-scale issues such as national-level prosperity and international-scale problems including climate change.

In exploring CSR and its capacity to meet societal needs, including sustainability, Okoye ( 2009 ) describes CSR as a ‘contested concept’ which attracts continual debate and argument about its actual meaning. He discusses how this is similar to other broad concepts of importance in society such as democracy and sustainable development, which are also shaped by society’s needs at the time.

For CSR, this contestation involves a range of viewpoints and interests including civil society, local community, managers, government, investors and consumers, thereby incorporating multiple and diverse agendas. CSR is relevant to many groups and organisations given the substantial impact of business activities on society, including on development trajectories and community-level outcomes within the vicinity of the development Footnote 1 (Bendell 2010 ). Therefore, various stakeholders wish to engage in the CSR debate and influence the direction of corporations and how the resources generated from development are utilised. This includes stakeholders placing a higher level of responsibility on companies to go beyond legislative compliance to address broader society goals and objectives (Carroll 2016 ).

The study seeks to explore these issues through examining the key meanings that different agents and stakeholders place on CSR which act to guide CSR practice in the Australian context, including linkages to broader societal goals. Meanings in this context refer not only to guiding principles or values for CSR but also mechanisms, processes and outcomes which are perceived to be integral and important in defining CSR.

This research approach aims to provide new understanding of stakeholder theory, which is concerned with how stakeholder interests are incorporated into CSR. Following a corporate-centric view, the theory considers stakeholder interests to be incorporated into CSR by the decisions and actions of corporate managers, who identify which stakeholders are relevant and then decide on how their views and interests can be included (Steurer et al. 2005 ). In this study, stakeholders directly introduce a range of meanings into CSR based on their own socio-political views and ideological positions. This is consistent with models of stakeholder engagement in CSR where stakeholders become directly involved in company/CSR decision making and the outcomes generated (Fordham and Robinson 2018 ; Manetti 2011 ).

The study scope was based on a multi-level perspective of CSR, which can assist in understanding the drivers and mechanisms of CSR and how social change can be created (Aguilera et al. 2007 ). The multi-level perspective acknowledges that there are individual (e.g. personal), organisational (e.g. corporate) and institutional (e.g. regulatory) levels of influence over CSR (Aguinis and Glavas 2012 ). The initial focus is on the individual-level scale of CSR, i.e. how CSR is interpreted and delivered through key agents that are directly involved and engaged with CSR. CSR research has primarily focused on the organisational or institutional level rather than individual level of analysis (Aguinis and Glavas 2012 ). However, multi-level perspectives were also captured by examining the primary drivers occurring across a range of scales (e.g. background of individuals) (individual scale) (Hur et al. 2016 ), company culture (organisational scale) (Black 2006 ), which explain why specific values and issues are important.

A major challenge of this study was how to place and frame a complex array of CSR meanings and values to help interpret and understand CSR practices. To achieve this the study drew upon Carroll’s four dimensions of CSR (corporate, ethical, legal, and philanthropic,) which together define CSR and have been empirically tested in various contexts (Carroll 2016 ). The framework also involves trade-offs and tensions between the different elements and a balancing of different aspects to define CSR. For example, the integration of ethical interests across the other dimensions is an important aspect of defining responsibility.

The study also provides an opportunity to test Carroll’s framework empirically at the level of individual CSR practice across various company and stakeholder interests. This provides scope to examine whether the framework captures all the elements considered salient by CSR practitioners from diverse perspectives.

Given this, the goals of the study reported in this paper are as follows:

To map the meanings of CSR across a range of agents (both within companies and externally) who are involved with CSR. This provides understanding of the dynamics and mechanisms of CSR, including its capacity to incorporate a range of societal values.

To identify the principal drivers that explain why specific meanings of CSR are important, through drawing upon multi-level perspectives of CSR.

To utilise these findings to derive practical and theoretical insights into CSR practices.

These goals were examined within the Australian context, specifically the resource sector where a wide range of stakeholders contributes towards and has an interest in CSR. This includes government agencies and statutory organisations, local communities, Indigenous Footnote 2 groups, non-government organisations (NGO’s) and business leaders. Their inclusion is facilitated by institutional arrangements such as regulatory and legal frameworks, company policies and active citizen/organisation participation in issues. Footnote 3

Developing a framework for mapping meanings of CSR

As an over-arching CSR theory, Carroll’s four-part definition of CSR (comprising economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic dimensions) provides the scaffolding for identifying and mapping meanings of CSR within the resource sector in Australia: ‘The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary [later referred to as philanthropic] expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time’ (synthesis of Carroll 1979 , p. 500; 1991, p. 283).

The economic dimensions of CSR reflect a company’s economic responsibilities to broader society including how the company ensures it has a viable business model (Carroll 2016 ). Following a minimalist economic approach, a relevant CSR meaning is ‘shareholder value’ or companies orientating themselves towards generating profits in order to meet shareholder and investor interests (Friedman, 1970 ). This can be associated with a view that corporations have steered CSR towards profit making and financial interests at the expense of impacted communities and the environment (Banerjee 2008 ).

The business case for CSR is a justification that involves a variety of company approaches which go beyond a shareholder value perspective (Boso et al. 2017 ; Carroll and Shabana 2010 ). This includes a ‘shared value’ approach to CSR to meet both business and local community interests, eliciting community cooperation and buy-in to company operations (Porter and Kramer 2006 ). Within this approach, business is considered to have the knowledge and resources to help solve ‘problems’ related to its expertise and business model and thus add value to society (Garriga and Melé 2004 ). Driven by a more altruistic business case is a corporate citizenship approach which aligns CSR to broader social, economic and environmental needs including no or limited direct business benefit to companies (Waddock 2008 ). This is typically seen in the case of globally-driven companies linked closely to industry/sustainability goals.

In operation of the business case, CSR can be regarded as an extension of corporate values including linking to broader industry mandates and wider stakeholder expectations (Basu and Palazzo 2008 ). This can include the creation of operating principles for CSR which guide how the organisation functions, including CSR policies which guide company operations (Bondy 2008 ).

Legislative dimensions of CSR involve establishing legal ground-rules under which corporations operate, capturing some minimum standards of practice (Carroll 2016 ). This includes abiding by national and state laws regarding operational practices, e.g. labour, Indigenous rights and environmental standards, while also voluntarily aligning to broader international/industry standards (Cramer 2005 ; Michell and McManus 2013 ). Footnote 4 Regulatory frameworks can be considered integral to CSR as they influence company behaviour and the type of CSR delivered (Söderholm and Svahn 2015 ).

Ethical dimensions reflect an expectation that business behaves in a manner that is consistent with societal mores and ethical norms by going beyond legal compliance, including recognising and respecting new or evolving ethical norms (Garriga and Melé 2004 ). A key ethical aspect of CSR is stakeholder theory that espouses the requirement for a company to account for a range of stakeholder needs (Esteves and Barclay 2011 ). If business accepts this obligation the scope of CSR is expanded, for example the ISO on CSR contains a complex array of human rights, and social, environmental and community objectives albeit as a voluntary standard (Asif et al. 2013 ). However, the capacity for corporations to meet stakeholder requirements has been challenged, with examples provided of where stakeholders with little power, e.g. local communities, are not acknowledged and their interests are ignored by corporations Footnote 5 (Gilberthorpe and Banks 2012 ).

In lieu of stakeholder theory, CSR ‘meanings’ incorporate broader ethical themes reflecting stakeholder perspectives, including linking CSR to sustainability and to human rights agendas. For sustainability, typically this includes following a triple bottom line approach, that is maximising or balancing economic, social and environmental contributions of the company (Dahlsrud 2008 ; Pesmatzoglou et al. 2014 ).

Human rights are also taken as a basis for CSR particularly in the global market place (Garriga and Melé 2004 ). Most relevant CSR strategies e.g. human rights policies as espoused by global companies, align with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly resolution 217a, 10 December 1948) and cover strategies such as civil and social rights and resolving community grievances. Finally, ethical CSR meanings can include companies behaving in an intrinsically moral fashion through a common good ethic, and showing the capacity to address wider society expectations and the general well-being of society (Garriga and Melé 2004 ).

Philanthropic dimensions of CSR capture voluntary or discretionary activity of giving back to society, i.e. businesses with the capacity to contribute financial, physical and human resources (Baden 2016 ; Carroll 2016 ; Masoud 2017 ). Philanthropic activities pursued by companies include gifts of monetary resources, product and service donations, volunteerism by employees and management, community development and any other discretionary contribution to the community or stakeholder groups comprising the community. Companies undertaking voluntary activities that contribute to society represent an integral aspect of CSR (Dahlsrud 2008 ) and this integrates with economic and ethical dimensions of CSR. This voluntary activity contributes to either creating benefits for the immediate locality or strategies that generate broader benefits to the region, state or nation (Söderholm and Svahn 2015 ).

Methodology

Study scope.

To capture views of CSR across different contexts, the study included multiple jurisdictions in Australia, namely the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. These jurisdictions have different regulatory arrangements, legislative frameworks and resource mining sites with different environmental and social characteristics (Fig. 1 ). To gain broad representation of resource companies practicing CSR, twenty-five were selected based on stratified sampling involving company size, operational stages of development, commodity types (mining, oil and gas) and location including prominence within jurisdictions. Sites of resource development were located within rural contexts where rural is defined as non-metropolitan and is classified here according to the level of remoteness (Fig. 1 ). Footnote 6 Resource companies were selected that possessed active CSR programs and interactions with either local communities or broader stakeholder groups.

Map of key sites of resource companies participating in the study. (Source: Prepared by Kate Rampellini, Curtin University, Perth, 2016)

Representatives of key stakeholders directly interacting with these companies were also interviewed. These included business consultants (engaged by companies to undertake CSR activities), NGO’s (who work collaboratively with companies on CSR or have interests to do so), government (which regulates or participates in CSR processes), and communities (who are divested CSR activities or are impacted by CSR locally).

Use of semi-structured interviews

Interviewees within the participant groups were selected using non-probability-based purposive sampling in which key informants were approached on the basis of their relevance to the study, as detailed by Sarantakos ( 2005 ). Relevance meant that they either worked for one of the selected resource companies and their prime focus was on CSR or that they represented a stakeholder group involved in CSR at relevant sites. Stakeholders were selected who had expertise, leadership and knowledge across areas crucial to CSR, such as community consultation, economic and business development, environmental management, Indigenous affairs and social and human rights. As a result, community representatives were leaders within the community or for the other groups. Individuals selected held influential and/or leadership positions within the organisation.

Interviewees were selected using Snowball sampling (Vogt 1999 ), or sourced through referencing media sources, social media and consultation of lists of participating organisations in CSR. Snowball sampling is where interviewee participants identify further potential participants and, in this case, inform the researchers about existing and relevant stakeholders, i.e. stakeholders considered of importance within the given context or identifying company employees with specific interest and/or appropriate CSR roles.

This resulted in 28 resource company employees being interviewed across the 25 companies who engaged with CSR and communities across various work roles and levels of responsibility. In relation to stakeholders interviewed, this included 15 business consultants, 14 NGO’s, 16 government employees, 20 local community leaders and 20 Indigenous owner groups, capturing stakeholder activity across various sites and contexts.

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken, with some key questions identified which were then pursued further with associated questions to enable clarification and further exploration. This included asking interview participants how they defined and understood CSR and what was important in relation to CSR practice. Secondly, they were asked to reflect on relevant CSR activities and processes with which they were involved or affected including describing the CSR outcomes. Footnote 7 For stakeholders, this included reflecting on company performance from their own knowledge and experience, either about a single company or group of companies within their locality or a broad range of companies for those that worked at a regional, state or national level. They were also asked about the capacity for CSR to connect to wider community agendas.

Mapping meanings of CSR

The data were analysed using an abductive research technique based on a hierarchical theme-based coding technique (Lewins and Silver 2014 ). Footnote 8 An initial hierarchy, including categories, themes and sub-themes initially comprised Carroll’s four dimensions of CSR with relevant CSR themes grouped under these in a hierarchy (see Section “ Developing a Framework for Mapping Meanings of CSR ”). Footnote 9 This hierarchical framework then provided the initial guidance/template for theme-based coding of the transcript material.

Consistent with an abductive research technique, new CSR themes were also identified during coding. The criterion for determining a new theme was that it was identified by an interviewee as being critical and integral to their interpretation of CSR or it was a strong and re-current theme emerging from CSR practitioners’ discussions of how CSR was implemented. Footnote 10 The identified CSR meanings reflected individual/personal meanings/views of CSR, although these were often aligned with broader organisational values. The requirement to code new themes led to the need to develop a new dimension or category of CSR, which was unrelated to Carroll’s four dimensions and was called ‘CSR interaction’, with six themes coded underneath this category.

The theme-based coding was conducted through Max-QDA (Verbi 2015 ) where categories, codes and sub-codes were constructed and transcripts coded to these. From this various themes and reports were generated including the analysis of the frequency of themes across and within transcripts according to a range of variables. The latter included gender, culture, locality and the participant’s stakeholder group. These reports enabled analysis of statistical differences between stakeholder groups in terms of CSR meanings.

Given the large number of CSR meanings identified through the coding, including multiple meanings within a single interview, initial themes coded for each participant were downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet and ranked. The ranking involved evaluating the relative weighting or importance given to a specific CSR meaning including consideration of the following:

Was the CSR meaning identified initially when participants were asked to define CSR? These CSR meanings were given higher preference than those identified through interviewees’ discussion of their experiences of implementing CSR.

How often was the CSR meaning mentioned by the participant during the interview? Meanings that were consistently referred to and emphasized as important gained a higher ranking.

How important was the CSR meaning to the overall approach to CSR? A CSR meaning which was only a small component of a CSR approach (lower on the hierarchy), tended to attract a lower ranking.

This analysis enabled further examination of variables impacting on CSR meanings, for example, focusing on the top five CSR meanings across different stakeholder groups.

The key meanings that were considered integral to CSR in this context were identified, i.e. those themes considered by a significant number of participants Footnote 11 to be essential for implementing CSR within the context of the Australian resource industry. As such the definition has validity within the specific context of the study, i.e. the resource sector in rural and remote communities within Australia.

Results and discussion

A wide range of CSR meanings were mapped ( n  = 38) across the dimensions of CSR, consistent with the idea that CSR is contested, variable in nature and integrates societal values and interests Footnote 12 (Tables  1 and  2 ).

There was large variation in the expression of these meanings across participants, including which were high priority meanings. Each participant had a multi-dimensional perspective of CSR, which involved integrating different CSR themes in a unique way. Footnote 13 This indicates that individual-level influences are important in determining how CSR ideologies are combined to form CSR approaches. Drivers helped explain this diversity including not only those at an individual level but also those related to organisational or broader institutional influences (see Section “ Working Definition of CSR ”). Diversity was also created because, according to the study participants, there was no institutional mechanism or frameworks available for them to decide collectively on what CSR means. Footnote 14

Mapping themes against the key dimensions of CSR

Economic dimension of csr.

The economic dimension directed CSR towards meeting corporate and economic agendas, Footnote 15 particularly for company employees. That is, the economic dimension aligned CSR with various business approaches, thereby providing employees and, to a lesser extent, external stakeholders with guidance for CSR. For example, 75% of company employees had at least one business case approach within their top five CSR themes, going beyond purely focusing on shareholder value. This contrasts to findings in Ghana where shareholder value was a key driver of CSR for company managers (Boso et al. 2017 ).

The most important business case identified was incorporating social license Footnote 16 interests into CSR (82% employees, 46% of employees in top five meanings). Social license means local communities and stakeholders approve of companies operating within their locality and either do not hinder their activities or actively support them (Boutilier and Thomson 2011 ). In this context, social license meant CSR services local and regional communities impacted by development, including direct engagement with communities, e.g. via face-to-face interaction (grass-roots approach) and developing collaborative CSR strategies to meet community needs consistent with the findings of Boso et al. ( 2017 ). However, companies may focus social license interests on short-term community needs or supporting the immediate interests of certain community members (Bice 2014 ). Footnote 17 The economic dimension also included business-case approaches that went beyond social license, including expressing corporate values (43%) or involving a shared-value approach (46%). These provide a more complex approach to CSR and broaden its scope by facilitating a greater range of ethical and philanthropic meanings.

This dimension also contained company processes which provided a framework for CSR and had relevance for all stakeholder groups. The most important was identifying and mitigating risks (social, environmental, economic) and improving opportunities from resource development. Within this, external stakeholders typically had broader definitions of risk than company employees, integrating aspects such as cumulative-level impacts, land-use conflicts and identifying social and human rights impacts. They also looked to align the opportunities from resource development to local needs, including strategies which support community livelihoods and ongoing community viability.

The need to have robust CSR policies in place to guide company practice and enable transparency was also a major theme found in the economic dimension. According to participants (NGO’s, Indigenous leaders, company employees) this helped facilitate sufficient structure, transparency and accountability around CSR. Footnote 18 Robust CSR policy can reduce the possibility that corporate rhetoric at company headquarters is not translated to the site-level (Bice 2015 ). In this study resource companies deploying such policy frameworks were medium- to large-sized companies, with their CSR employees describing how they designed and deployed policy across the organisation.

Legal dimension of CSR

The legal dimension of CSR Footnote 19 captured the influence of legal frameworks at a range of scales, e.g. state, national, international, consistent with a multi-level approach to CSR (Aguilera et al. 2007 ). These frameworks guided and injected selective parameters into CSR practice, thereby enabling stakeholder interests and public interest elements to be incorporated. Voluntary legal standards Footnote 20 were identified as important guiding approaches for a sub-section of company employees, NGO’s and business consultants. These standards connect CSR to industry or international-level standards based on broad consensus and typically align with issues such as sustainable development, poverty alleviation or human rights. For 28% of company employees, these frameworks provided a guiding approach to CSR rather than direct company values or business case approaches, illustrating the importance of institutional-level influence on CSR, particularly for global-scale companies. Footnote 21

State-based regulatory frameworks were also integral to CSR for stakeholders, including government representatives (50%), NGO’s (63%) and community leaders (35%), as they enabled protection of natural assets and incorporated public interest elements including triple bottom line approaches, heritage protection, and economic and community development. Footnote 22 In Australia regulatory frameworks at the state level control the resource development process and focus on environmental risk mitigation and protection, but there is an increasing emphasis on sustainable development and the need to engage and consult with communities (Government of South Australia 2014 ; EPA South Australia 2018 ).

In relation to CSR involving land with Indigenous interests, legal rights given to Indigenous people through land ownership or proving cultural connection to land Footnote 23 were critical to CSR, particularly for Indigenous leaders who are afforded the legal privileges Footnote 24 and their direct supporters (key business consultants, government statutory bodies). These legal interests enable Indigenous communities to derive direct financial benefits from CSR which can be instrumental in creating long-term community benefits (Fordham et al. 2018 ). This includes providing these communities with a mechanism to engage and become involved in CSR implementation including allowing them to hold companies to account.

Finally, regional government policy was viewed as an essential component of CSR by key local government, business consultant and local government and community representatives. This enables CSR to be addressed within a broader regional context, including tackling potential conflicts in land use and ensuring that regions can adapt to the impacts of resource development. However, the general sentiment was that government frameworks were currently inadequate to address the challenges of competing land uses.

Ethical dimension of CSR

The ethical dimension of CSR was found to be of primary importance in shaping CSR, thereby confirming the findings of Carroll ( 2016 ). This also reflects the implementation of CSR within a developed country context where legal frameworks and stakeholder needs help ground ethical values within CSR (Masoud 2017 ). This connected CSR to wider society concerns relating to sustainability and human rights discourses and it also accorded strongly with personal ethical values which included place/locality/community attachment. Footnote 25 Ethical values were prominent across all stakeholder groups and were equally as significant for company employees as other stakeholder groups. However, external stakeholders introduced a wider set of ethical values into CSR. For example, NGO’s introduced climate change and human rights ethics; Indigenous leaders cultural heritage protection; government and Indigenous leaders the need to restore mine-sites, and non-Indigenous communities stressed the need for ethical behaviour by companies.

The most common ethical value related to a weak sustainability approach, which allows the conversion of key capitals/assets from one form to another including natural capital to other forms of capital (Coulson et al. 2015 ). In this context this involves the conversion of key assets such as mineral and natural resources into other asset types, e.g. financial, human, social, built and other forms of natural asset (Davies et al. 2012 ). This was expressed through the notion of creating enduring value, that is ensuring something tangible and lasting is created by resource development. Footnote 26 This meaning resonated across all stakeholder groups and was particularly important for company employees (89%) and for locally impacted communities (70%). Such a value was expressed by a range of philanthropic approaches and, as shown by Fordham et al. ( 2018 ), can lead to considerable community benefits when it is utilised to guide CSR implementation.

External stakeholders also emphasized ‘strong sustainability’ perspectives in their meanings of CSR, that is the importance of protecting key natural assets from degradation, including NGO’s, leaders, and government leaders. For example, preventing the loss of irreplaceable natural assets through addressing cumulative-scale impacts, Footnote 27 ensuring adequate mine-site rehabilitation Footnote 28 and seeking to protect other productive land-use types such as agricultural lands.

Incorporating human rights aspects into CSR, e.g. protecting Indigenous interests and rights, was seen as an essential CSR requirement for key external stakeholders (NGOs, business consultants, company employees) with human rights expertise, or for community leaders who were prepared to assert their own rights, e.g. 65% of Indigenous leaders described CSR approaches which involved the assertion and recognition of Indigenous rights.

For a small group of participants, the human rights value of Free and Informed Prior Consent (FIPC), that is, communities having the right to say 'no' to development, was considered integral to CSR. At a company level this included employees whose companies had adopted FIPC as an operating principle or employees who believed it was essential to social license. In the case of external stakeholders, it was pertinent for those from strong human rights backgrounds or those representing and looking to protect Indigenous interests within resource development. Footnote 29 FIPC acknowledges that resource development has profound and often deleterious impacts on Indigenous people (Owen and Kemp 2014 ; Oxfam 2015 ).

Philanthropic dimension of CSR

The philanthropic dimension of CSR Footnote 30 was primarily orientated towards providing benefit to local and regional communities through community development approaches and via strategic environmental and social programs. The concept of CSR facilitating community development was strongly held by Indigenous leaders (85%) and business consultants (60%) but less so by company employees (29%). This dimension requires strong engagement with communities to understand their needs and preferences and to improve community empowerment through participation in CSR (Kemp and Owen 2013 ). The main focus of a community development approach was also different between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous communities interviewed. In the case of Indigenous communities the focus was on creating a social change to communities to lift their socio-economic circumstances including the importance of education (55%). Whereas for locally-based communities it involved maintaining community viability despite rural decline and was exemplified by initiatives to generate income and prosperity (65%). Specific CSR strategies were also highlighted that contribute to a community development focus involving education and skills development, employment and business development. Footnote 31

Ensuring strategic CSR to achieve environmental and social objectives was also a key philanthropic approach (20% coded themes). This was primarily driven by stakeholder involvement in CSR (NGO, government, community leaders), typically through collaborative CSR strategies with companies. Strategic CSR approaches were adopted by companies possessing corporate values contributing to wider society and connected to broader stakeholder and community processes. Typically, these were resource companies that are medium to large in size and possess a substantial degree of CSR capacity. These approaches are important for maximising the benefits of resource development and mitigating against negative impacts, as they contribute to landscape-scale benefit and/or address important social issues within the locality (Eberhard et al. 2013 ).

Finally, for companies to support philanthropic aspects at a local level, a major CSR approach involved companies becoming an integral part of the community (e.g. 50% company employees). The employees and stakeholders supporting this view were those well-grounded in the locality, that is living amidst local communities and closely connected to community issues. This resonated well with local community leaders, e.g. CEO’s of local government bodies.

A new dimension of CSR: CSR interaction

A new CSR dimension called CSR interaction was also identified through the coding which was in addition to Carroll’s four dimensions of CSR. This captured CSR approaches relating to interpersonal Footnote 32 behaviours which acknowledged the need to share power across CSR and facilitate new approaches and institutional frameworks. This supports the ideal of CSR as a social change mechanism as suggested by Gond and Matten ( 2010 ). Integral to this was how companies and stakeholders interact through CSR, including two-way communication, engagement and consultation between stakeholders and companies (68% participants). This extends CSR to involving stakeholders in an active and meaningful manner, including involving them in decision-making (Moratis and Brandt 2017 ). Closely aligned to this was the need for relationship building and trust within CSR, with this being viewed by many as a precursor for implementing CSR, consistent with the findings of an allied study of the oil and gas industry in Queensland (Walton et al. 2017 ). Participatory approaches to CSR were also highlighted as necessary to CSR and extended to the use of multi-stakeholder forums on CSR. This mirrors international studies which show the importance of multi-stakeholder collaborations for state, company and civil society to achieve CSR and link companies to community livelihoods (Buitrago-Franco and Ali 2017 ).

This dimension also included the need to incorporate mechanisms of accountability Footnote 33 into CSR to facilitate the required outcomes. This mirrors broader debates occurring regarding the need for greater levels of transparency and accountability through corporate practice, such as aligning corporations to initiatives like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) (Pesmatzoglou et al. 2014 ). These views were held by stakeholders external to corporations including those impacted by resource development and those who are seeking to protect their interests and have the power to directly participate in CSR, e.g. NGO’s (64%), business consultants (53%), government (50%) and Indigenous leaders (50%).

‘Through CSR, you have to identify your impacts, disclose impacts and mitigate impacts’ (NGO Representative). This approach was able to improve the quality of CSR outcomes, not only in terms of reducing the risks of resource development, e.g. environmental impacts, but also building positive community-based programs, e.g. business development (Fordham et al. 2018 ).

Harnessing of innovation for developing CSR practices was also recognised as important, e.g. the adoption of new technologies or new governance approaches, such as multi-stakeholder forums involving challenges to institutional norms. Innovation has been recognised as a critical aspect to facilitate development in regions that are resource rich as it can leverage human and economic resources to their best effect (Kinnear and Ogden 2014 ). This theme emerged through discussions across all stakeholder groups, but business consultants and Indigenous representatives had the highest ability to initiate innovative practices within CSR.

Finally, a significant element was to create empowerment and give self-determination to communities. The theme was highly significant for Indigenous people (80%), and also for those working to represent their interests in CSR. However, these aspirations were generally only met in cases where significant resources and governance capacity are given through CSR, being primarily enabled through native title and company agreements with Indigenous communities. This CSR meaning aligns with recognised industry rhetoric and expectations of Indigenous academics seeking ways to improve development outcomes for Indigenous people (Langton 2014 ). However, broader research suggests these opportunities are unevenly distributed and rely on legal protections to give communities sufficient power (Langton 2014 ).

Drivers impacting on the meanings of CSR

In un-packing these CSR themes it is important to understand the specific social mechanisms enabling their adoption and impacting on how they are delivered within the specific context. Several drivers have been identified which help explain how and why CSR meanings/approaches were adopted and then delivered. These drivers also help explain and predict the reasons for the high diversity of meanings found across participant groups. However, it is clear that multiple drivers impact on a single CSR participant’s understanding of CSR.

Background and experience of the participant

The background and experience of a CSR practitioner was a strong driver in influencing which meanings they attributed to CSR and how they delivered CSR in practice. During the interviews participants described how their own background and skill-set were instrumental to their understanding of CSR and the approaches taken. Participants effectively drew upon their own strengths and capabilities to operationalise CSR Footnote 34 and were active in shaping CSR to their own preferences and directions.

The high diversity of backgrounds, skills-sets and educational profiles of CSR practitioners, both within Footnote 35 and external to companies created diverse CSR meanings and approaches. External stakeholders, for example, were important in introducing new aspects and foci to CSR based on their specific skills, capability and background. For example, a group of anthropologists sought to ensure that the rights of Indigenous people were upheld and that company CSR resources were spent on genealogical research to provide the basis for a land rights claim.

Participants’ approaches to CSR were affected by their life experiences, especially practical knowledge gained from working within the industry. This included experiences of difficulties in hosting resource development in remote regions. For example, a senior manager in the oil and gas industry experienced the death of a colleague in remote Australia from a heart attack. In response he steered the company’s CSR program to incorporate a quick-response remote outback health service including access to a helicopter and four-wheel-drive service.

Participants also drew upon their experience of working within the industry and then applied this knowledge to developing regulatory frameworks. For example, a government employee directly experienced a major explosion on an oil and gas rig and consequently orientated his CSR approach around a strong risk and mitigation strategy which developed the capacity to influence regulatory frameworks for the oil and gas industry.

Personal ethics values

Personal ethical values were important for shaping the meanings of CSR that participants considered important and which shaped active participation in CSR. These personal ethics contributed to ethical meanings becoming cross-cutting themes across participant groups. For example, in the case of environmental values participants across different participant groups had genuine concern for the environment, including appreciating landscape values and natural systems. This meant that they emphasized environmental protection as a core aspect of CSR. This included those with a sense of place attachment, which affected how they responded to direct resource impacts within their locality, such as cumulative impacts on water resources or examples of poor mine-site rehabilitation. These ethics helped motivate some stakeholders to initiate or be involved in CSR programs such as landscape restoration and management, mine-site rehabilitation, and technological and engineering solutions to off-site impacts, e.g. wastewater recycling solutions.

Similarly, some participants had personal ethical values to improve the conditions of locally impacted communities, particularly those socio-economically disadvantaged by their remote location. This was motivated not only by genuine personal concern but also because of insight and capacity in how to improve communities’ circumstances. In the case of key company employees, NGO’s and business consultants this often involved applying an entrepreneurial approach, leading to these participants focusing on creating community development, social change, empowerment, and fostering business and employment opportunities. They took personal responsibility for designing CSR programs which bolstered community livelihoods and prospects, and they could challenge corporate practices. Company employees often regarded themselves as working for the community rather than the company. In one example, a community leader was concerned regarding his Indigenous community and its future prospects, so was active in developing a relationship with a local resource company to secure future business opportunities.

Cultural background of participants

The cultural background of participants influenced which CSR meanings were deemed important. This was most evident in the case of Indigenous people, who regardless of the participant group from which they originated, emphasized the need to embed cultural values into meanings and approaches to CSR. These were cultural heritage protection, environmental preservation and community development. Each Indigenous participant described CSR in relation to one or more of these cultural values, with CSR regarded as an opportunity to both protect and enhance these values. That is they possessed a personal responsibility to care for the land, its heritage and improve their own communities.

Aligning CSR strongly with cultural values also meant that they viewed CSR holistically, including looking at broad-scale collaborative solutions to address impacts and opportunities. For example, an Indigenous leader sought cooperation with other landowners and the resource company to improve management of a particular river catchment. They focused CSR on protecting certain values Footnote 36 rather than being orientated towards organisational agendas. This included possessing the capacity to identify new and innovative approaches to CSR, such as adopting new CSR policy frameworks:

‘Imagine a company that goes in to create a mine. In the location, they know what the implications are for community so they apply the principle of social return on investment. So, if they have found a particular problem then their money would be contributing to improving the community life’ (Indigenous community leader/business consultant).

By strongly aligning CSR to cultural values, Indigenous stakeholders could make significant personal commitments to CSR and strongly connect CSR to cultural outcomes of empowerment and self-determination. However, Indigenous leaders generally had insufficient power within the CSR space to put their ideas into practice except within their own sphere of CSR, as when CSR resources were directly divested to their communities through gaining legal rights.

Organisational context

Participants’ meanings of CSR were shaped by their organisational setting, including the organisation’s culture, values, structures and processes. Resource companies as primary host organisations for the delivery of CSR were shown to have significant influence over employees’ meanings of CSR. Employees were required to align CSR to a corporate business case to justify their strategies. They were required to navigate between corporate demands/requirements and meeting broader society needs.

The alignment of CSR to social license arguments was a primary requirement and influenced the scope of CSR, including its spatial extent and the type of strategies supported. This determined which communities were targeted, with CSR being designed to meet the community’s perceived needs. However, concepts such as shared value were also influential in the case of companies with more sophisticated approaches to CSR. For example, an employee of a gold-mining company used a shared-value approach as a guiding philosophy for developing his CSR programs across multiple sites:

‘CSR is creating an enabling environment, a legacy focusing on the company’s strengths and the community’s interests’ (resource employee, global resource company)

Company values were influential for companies where values were well-defined, typically pertaining to medium- to large-sized companies. For example, in the case of company employees situated within global companies where corporate values aligned with international objectives, this expanded the scope of CSR meanings, which involved broadening ethical aspects such as human and Indigenous rights. For example, six company employees with 15 or more meanings of CSR came from large-scale global companies. The importance of corporate influences for company employees was moderated by the impact of ethical and legal factors similar to discussions in Baden ( 2016 ). That is, company employees generally had a range of CSR themes across the five dimensions, unless the company’s business model was very simplistic.

Interestingly, stakeholders viewed companies’ business cases as largely motivated by an economic bottom line and they frequently portrayed a cynical, distrustful view of companies’ ‘morals’, showing that in some contexts, the companies’ social license was compromised. There were only a few select cases where stakeholders articulated more sophisticated business-models in their meanings of CSR, such as shared-value or corporate-citizen approaches (Table  2 ). This may represent a missed opportunity to understand and then work with corporate approaches to CSR. For example, despite the importance of social license to company employees, community leaders, including those from Indigenous groups, were largely unfamiliar or not conversant with the concept of social license. This supports other studies which found social license was of minimal relevance to communities (Lacey et al. 2012 ).

Stakeholder organisations were capable of influencing meanings of CSR but generally only in cases where they had clearly defined values and processes that informed approaches to CSR and possessed sufficient power to have influence over CSR. This included all the NGO organisations interviewed and some government organisations whose values provided guidance to CSR, e.g. over environmental and human rights approaches and standards. This was valuable as it helped introduce suitable frameworks and processes into CSR for resolving issues such as human rights, natural resource management, Indigenous reconciliation and FIPC.

Institutional setting

Generally, for participants embedded in large-scale organisations including companies and government agencies, CSR was focused on expressing organisational values and structured around developing related systems and processes, e.g. company policy/industry standards or key legislation. This reflects a command and control approach to CSR relying on policy frameworks and in some cases restricting the participant’s ability to view CSR holistically and think beyond organisational mandates. Participants could become virtual agents of the organisation rather than thinking as individuals. In some cases this led to a narrowing of the definition of CSR and restricted the ability to apply flexibility, innovation and creativity within CSR. For example, government employees involved in regulation within a state government department focused CSR concepts on risk mitigation and found it difficult to conceptualise CSR as including positive opportunities from resource extraction. In the case of resource companies, this command and control approach could also restrict capacity for grass-roots activity and linking to local needs and aspirations. However, it could also create the capacity to deploy CSR approaches across a range of sites and contexts.

In contrast, for those participants in settings where there were no strong organisational values and guidance for CSR, meanings were moulded around personal understanding, insight and drawing upon professional standards and personal ethical values. Within this environment, participants, particularly business consultants and Indigenous leaders, demonstrated the capacity to develop new, innovative approaches to CSR and ‘push the boundaries’ by creating changes to existing institutional or organisational processes:

‘CSR is about being entrepreneurial - that is - “thinking outside the square” and developing innovative solutions that satisfy both parties’ (business consultant) .

This accords with the concept of individual agency introducing new opportunities into CSR (Painter-Morland and Ten Bos 2011 ).

Working definition of CSR

The aim of a working definition is to develop an agreed definition of CSR based on a range of employee and stakeholder needs for CSR. If this is conducted early in the resource development life-cycle it can improve the capacity to achieve long-term outcomes and satisfy local requirements. Critical to this is incorporating sufficient detail regarding mechanisms of accountability and transparency (Banerjee 2008 ), but not in a way that creates rigid views of CSR and prevents innovation and new approaches to CSR.

In order to develop a working definition of CSR here, key CSR meanings were identified which were considered by participants to be integral to achieving CSR. This incorporates different perspectives:

Economic: Align to an agreed business case (e.g. shared value, corporate citizen, value-driven), incorporate risk and opportunity (including stakeholder needs), formulate transparent CSR policy articulating the intent of CSR and how it will be delivered.

Legal: Identify and develop legal protection/mechanisms for environment, cultural heritage and Indigenous rights; support this with a specific agreement between company and community; draw upon/integrate CSR with broader international standards and guidelines.

Ethical: Create enduring community value for communities (according to community needs) including support for sustainable livelihoods; identify and protect prime natural assets including addressing issues such as cumulative impacts, mine-site rehabilitation; incorporate mechanisms which protect human and Indigenous rights; consider/acknowledge the validity of FIPC.

Philanthropic: Develop CSR from a community development approach, including integrating strategies such as education and skills development, employment, and business development. Facilitate this by integrating company within the wider community. Align where possible with broader strategic environmental, social and economic programs, and regional development needs.

CSR Interaction : Support CSR through two-way communication and engagement and where possible integrate stakeholders and communities into CSR decision-making; promote multi-stakeholder and broader participatory approaches to leverage greater value; acknowledge importance of relationship building and trust as basis for CSR; build in mechanisms of accountability and transparency; value innovation and creation of empowerment and self-determination through CSR.

Identifying these key criteria for CSR is also useful in helping communities and stakeholders to recognise current gaps in CSR programs and areas where they can advocate for more structure and direction with respect to CSR. These requirements can then provide guidance for formulating a detailed working definition Footnote 37 which is mutually agreed between companies and stakeholders, with communities acknowledging that this may involve considerable debate and negotiation. However, by doing so, this improves accountability, transparency and defining mutual value and benefit within CSR. Furthermore, if working definitions were captured in a central repository they would form an interesting point of comparison regarding the scope of CSR and its capacity to meet defined requirements.

This study examined the concept of stakeholder theory in the Australian context where stakeholders held a range of values on and meanings of CSR that broadened its scope and potential capacity to meet societal interests. This included aligning CSR to ethical values such as sustainability (protection of key natural assets), Indigenous rights, and approaches to local communities and economic development. These values aligned CSR to critical environmental and social issues in government, business and community contexts, such as mine-site rehabilitation. Stakeholders also sought to embed higher levels of accountability within CSR practice. Company employees could be considered a form of ‘stakeholder’ capable of diffusing values and meanings based on their own ideologies, personal interests and experiences. This included shifting CSR past corporate economic interests to consider wider society mandates. The study also found cases where stakeholders, despite having legitimate claims, e.g. representing certain societal interests, were not able to engage or influence CSR due to a lack of power, resulting from the specific dynamics with companies and due to broader institutional influences.

The multi-level foci of the study, with a specific focus on individual perspectives, was found to be valuable for understanding the dynamics of CSR, including producing new perspectives on how CSR programs are formed and on relationships between ideologies and behaviours. CSR was found to be a multi-dimensional concept integrating various elements (across different dimensions) and capturing CSR values, approaches, processes and outcomes. These were highly individualised and diverse in nature, leading to different CSR meanings being captured. Many of these reflected different developmental stages of CSR, which continue to have relevance today. The focus on understanding individual perspectives on CSR also enabled significant drivers to be identified, which gave understanding to why specific CSR meanings were important and to the dynamics of how these were delivered. CSR was found to be a socially-driven phenomenon, highly influenced by participants’ life experiences, background, culture and personal values but impacted by organisational and institutional arrangements.

In seeking to analyse CSR within the resource sector context, the study utilised Carroll’s four dimensions of CSR as a framework to map CSR meanings. The framework was useful for identifying, mapping (including grouping hierarchically) and understanding the dynamics and interdependencies between the different meanings of CSR. This included for example, the importance of legal and economic approaches and frameworks enabling ethical values and philanthropic approaches to be introduced into CSR. The framework also clearly elucidated differences between company employees and different stakeholder groups in how they valued different aspects of CSR and the reasons for this. For example, legal frameworks were significant to Indigenous groups to protect their environmental and cultural interests.

The study enhanced the understanding of the scope of CSR by identifying an additional dimension, termed CSR interaction, needed to produce an overall model of CSR. The dimension emerged from understanding individuals’ perspectives, including external stakeholders as well as company employees. The dimension was highly salient to defining responsibilities. It reflected opportunities and incorporated stakeholder needs and universal requirements, such as two-way communication and engagement. This dimension also reflected the need for CSR to create social change, challenge institutional arrangements and provide a basis for accountability, cooperation and power sharing between companies and the broader community and stakeholders.

Practical implications

This study provided a basis for developing a working definition of CSR in the Australian context by capturing various CSR elements that informed the implementation of practical CSR programs. This can be applied for planning of CSR, including developing approaches that facilitate cooperation and for design of evaluation tools to benchmark future performances. To date there have been few examples of where normative definitions of CSR have been made within a given context, including being based on multiple stakeholder views. Footnote 38 The intent of this study was that by developing such a definition, this would also provide stimulus for discussion and resolution on what CSR means and involves, within a specific context. This should assist external stakeholders and communities to challenge corporations regarding the meaning and program directions of CSR in a specific context because they have a broader understanding of CSR.

From a pragmatic perspective, prior to instigating a CSR program involving diverse stakeholders and interests, it would be worth determining an understanding of perspectives and values regarding CSR. This would help to establish where joint programs could be developed with common values, even if parties possess disparate viewpoints. It may also reveal where stakeholders can introduce new values and meanings to CSR that could add value. There may be merit in developing a common agreed aspiration for CSR which can then help benchmark CSR performance, both at the program or project level but also potentially at local and regional scales.

The study also demonstrated at a practical level how CSR can operate at different scales and scopes beyond corporate practice. Overall, it was found that engaging a diverse array of company employees and stakeholders into CSR in varied institutional settings drove plurality in CSR practice, which extended the outcomes and linkage to societal benefit. Future management of CSR within the sector needs to seek to preserve this plurality while improving CSR practice through examining and learning from best practice at both company and broader institutional levels. This also needs consideration of the capacity and influence of each of the various stakeholders to make effective representation and ensure that key stakeholder interests are fairly and reasonably integrated within the working CSR program.

This reflects the increasing power of corporations in society, including economic and political power.

The term ‘Indigenous’ is used throughout this article to help communicate succinctly with this journal’s audience. However, it is acknowledged that the correct and respectful term for Indigenous Australians is ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ and no disrespect is meant through the use of ‘Indigenous’.

Thus, understanding CSR in this context requires the incorporation of government perspectives, corporate views from different company values and operational models, as well as the views of business and civil society groups and communities being impacted by or directly engaged with CSR.

Government regulation seeks to protect the public/government from having to pay costs for environmental damage and remediation. This is an externality that is generally not factored into economic markets (Aguilera et al. 2007 ).

This can lead to the phenomenon of ‘greenwashing’, i.e. presenting positive CSR strategies to gain good publicity whilst masking poor underlying corporate practices which impact negatively on stakeholders (Watts 2005 ).

The localities of resource development were classified by the Australian Standard Geographical Classification of Remoteness Areas (ASGC-RA) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013 ). The ASGC-RA employs five categories: major cities, inner regional, outer regional, remote and very remote, utilising the ‘level of remoteness’ as a major approach to classify communities (Fig.  1 ). Remoteness considers distance and access to services as a key determinant, considering that these factors can be an impediment to community and economic wellbeing (Taylor, Carson, Ensign, Huskey, & Rasmussen, 2016 ).

When participants reflected on CSR processes they were better able to convey key CSR meanings of relevance to them.

Theme-based coding involves identifying, pinpointing, examining and recording patterns (or “themes”) within data. Themes are patterns across data sets that are important to the description of a phenomenon and are associated with a specific research question.

This hierarchy comprised two levels: themes and sub-themes. Sub-themes were a sub-category or specific aspect of a broader theme. For example, a business case for CSR was a major theme but branched into sub-themes reflecting different CSR approaches to achieving a business case, e.g. social license to operate.

For example, Indigenous interviewees consistently reflected on the importance of building relationships and trust for CSR when recalling their involvement and experience in CSR.

This includes considering views of both company employees and broader stakeholders.

The number of CSR meanings ranged from five for the legal dimension through to fourteen for the ethical dimension.

Participants’ views on CSR included a blend of CSR meanings with synthesis across the five dimensions, and involving a combination of values, processes and outcomes.

Multi-stakeholder forums were the key means through which views and perspectives on what CSR means within this context were discussed.

The dimension comprised eight themes, 14% of overall themes coded and 14% of high priority themes.

Communities of interest were defined on a company by company basis.

See footnote 5.

Key stakeholders, such as Indigenous leaders, were also looking to improve the capacity of CSR policy frameworks to contribute to providing community benefits.

The legal dimension comprised five CSR themes, with 6% of all themes coded to this dimension and 7.5% of high priority themes.

In relation to industry standards at an international level, prominent mining companies align with the ten principles of sustainable development as set by the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM 2014 ). These companies are typically global players with significant market capitalisations. However, industry principles then cascade down to national-level industry approaches and so impact on a broader range of companies. Also, at a local level, jurisdictionally-based industry codes of practice provide guidance, including for small companies who do not have their own CSR policies and frameworks (Brereton 2002 ).

Industry-led standards were highly meaningful for employees from multi-national, global companies seeking legitimacy and alignment with broader standards.

For example, for Indigenous groups heritage legislation was critical to protect cultural heritage values through CSR.

See O'Faircheallaigh 2008 .

This entitles them to legal compensation for resource development either through direct financial compensation or via specific agreements/commitments (O'Faircheallaigh 2004 ).

The ethical dimension of CSR comprised 14 themes, accounting for 35% of themes coded and 36% of high priority themes.

For example see, Minerals Council of Australia, 2015, Enduring Value – The Australian Minerals Industry Framework for Sustainable Development, https://www.minerals.org.au/enduring-value-framework . Accessed August 25th 2018.

Refer to Franks et al. ( 2010 ) for cumulative impacts in Australia.

To prevent long-term environmental impacts and mitigate the loss of environmental assets due to land clearance (Lamb et al. 2015 ).

In the Australian context FIPC is implemented through legislation, notably for Indigenous people with land rights and/or global companies adhering to global standards.

The philanthropic dimension consisted of seven elements with 22% of total CSR themes and 20% of high priority ranked themes.

This is achieved through specific company programs, cooperative projects with community/stakeholders or by divesting resources to communities through community investment programs.

This theme comprised 20% of total themes and 15% of high priority ones. From a company perspective these aspects helped to achieve a company business case and ensured that there was adequate engagement and consultation with stakeholders and the community regarding CSR. For stakeholders, the dimension defined their requirements for CSR via links to their personal and community aspirations.

This included measuring CSR outcomes, monitoring environmental impact, having transparent CSR policies in place and aligning corporate policy to wider international mechanisms and standards.

For participants with a business background, CSR was regarded as an opportunity to create economic development for communities, expressed through the creation of new enterprises.

For example, a company employee with a social work background perceived CSR as a mechanism to address social issues, leading him to develop a prisoner rehabilitation program, rural employment adjustment program and mental health calendar as part of his CSR approach. In contrast, for an employee with a community development background, CSR meant ensuring communities could diversify away from mining, leading to the support of a broad range of community development initiatives.

This was particularly the case for Indigenous leaders who were not highly institutionalised and therefore not beholden to organisational values.

A working definition at a broader context could include:

Companies or responsible entities develop transparent CSR policies articulating agreed values and approaches in connecting CSR to the specific context and creating value. This includes policies that address the risks and opportunities of resource development, include mechanisms of accountability inclusive of community and stakeholder input, and integrate with legislative requirements.

CSR involves participatory approaches that can deliver long-term value to communities within the limits of available resources and it integrates community development principles with a focus on education and skills, employment, and business development. CSR is also related to strategic social and environmental programs through various regional processes.

CSR is delivered through mechanisms of collaboration, with clear engagement, two-way communication and transparency in practice, facilitating relationship building and trust. Where possible innovation and new approaches to practice are incorporated including multi-stakeholder forums.

The assumption is that a wide variety of stakeholders is important for protecting vital assets and interests in society.

Abbreviations

Corporate Social Responsibility

Non-Government Organisation

Social License to Operate

Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 836–863.

Article   Google Scholar  

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.

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.

Asif, M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A., & Fisscher, O. A. M. (2013). An integrated management systems approach to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56 , 7–17.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011. Australian Statistical Geography Standard: Remoteness Structure. Cat 1270.0.55.005.

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), 8.

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

Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. The Academy of Management Review, 33 (1), 122–136.

Bendell, J. (2010). World review: July-September 2010. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 40 (6), 7-23.

Bice, S. (2014). What gives you a social Licence? An exploration of the social Licence to operate in the Australian mining industry. Resources, 3 , 62–80.

Bice, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility as institution: A social mechanisms framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 143 (1), 1–18.

Bice, S. J. 2011. Beyond the business case: A new institutional analysis of corporate social responsibility in Australian mining, University of Melbourne, School of Social and Political Sciences.

Black, L. D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as capability: The case of BHP Billiton. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 23 , 25–38.

Blowfield, M. (2005). Corporate social responsibility-the failing discipline and why it matters for international relations. International Relations, 19 (2), 173–191.

Bondy, K. (2008). Institutions and agency in CSR strategy: An empirical investigation of development and implementation . Nottingham: University of Nottingham.

Boso, R. K., Afrane, S. K., & Inkoom, D. K. B. (2017). Motivations for providing CSR-mediated initiatives in mining communities of Ghana: A multiple-case study. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2 (1), 7.

Boutilier, R., & Thomson, I. 2011. Modelling and measuring the social license to operate: Fruits of a dialogue between theory and practice. Retrieved from socialicense.com/publications website: http://socialicense.com/publications/Modelling%20and%20Measuring%20the%20SLO.pdf .

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities and the businessman . New York: US, Harper.

Brereton, D. 2002. The role of self-regulation in improving corporate social performance: The case of the mining industry. Proceedings the current issues in regulation: Enforcement and compliance conference, Australian in-food safety and the role of the government: Implications for CSR policies in China.

Buitrago-Franco, I., & Ali, S. (2017). Decentralization, corporate community development and resource governance: A comparative analysis of two mining regions in Colombia. The Extractive Industries and Society, 4 (1), 111–119.

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

Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1 (1), 3.

Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (1), 85–105.

Coulson, A. B., Adams, C. A., Nugent, M. N., & Haynes, K. (2015). Exploring metaphors of capitals and the framing of multiple capitals: Challenges and opportunities for< IR>. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6 (3), 290–314.

Cramer, J. (2005). Applying international standards and guidelines on corporate social responsibility: An action plan. Environmental Quality Management, 14 (3), 71–77.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15 (1), 1–13.

Davies, J., Maru, Y., & May, T. (2012). Enduring community value from mining: conceptual framework: CRCRep Working Paper CW007 . Alice Springs, Northern Territory: Ninti One Limited.

Eberhard, R., Johnston, N., & Everingham, J. (2013). A collaborative approach to address the cumulative impacts of mine-water discharge: Negotiating a cross-sectoral waterway partnership in the Bowen Basin, Australia. Resources Policy, 38 (4), 678–687.

EPA South Australia (2018). Public Register. https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/our_work/public_register . Accessed August 25th 2018.

Esteves, A. M. (2008). Mining and social development: Refocusing community investment using multi-criteria decision analysis. Resources Policy, 33 (1), 39–47.

Esteves, A. M., & Barclay, M.-A. (2011). New approaches to evaluating the performance of corporate–community partnerships: A case study from the minerals sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 103 (2), 189–202.

Fordham, A. E., & Robinson, G. M. (2018). Mechanisms of change: Stakeholder engagement in the Australian resource sector through CSR. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25 (4), 674–689.

Fordham, A. E., Robinson, G. M., & Blackwell, B. D. (2017). Corporate social responsibility in resource companies–Opportunities for developing positive benefits and lasting legacies. Resources Policy, 52 , 366–376.

Fordham, A. E., Robinson, G. M., & Van Leeuwen, J. (2018). Developing community based models of corporate social responsibility. The Extractive Industries and Society, 5 (1), 131–143.

Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C. J. (2010). Managing the cumulative impacts of coal mining on regional communities and environments in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28 (4), 299–312.

Franks, D. M., Parra, C., & Schleger, A. (2013). Approaches to understanding development outcomes from mining . London, UK: International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM).

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Boston: Pitman.

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits (pp. 122–124). New York Times Magazine, September 13.

Gamu, J., Le Billon, P., & Spiegel, S. (2015). Extractive industries and poverty: A review of recent findings and linkage mechanisms. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2 (1), 162–176.

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (1–2), 51–71.

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.

Gond, J.-P., & Matten, D. (2010). Rethinking the business-society Interface: Beyond the functionalist trap. Research paper series . Nottingham: University of Nottingham 47-2007.

Government of South Australia (2014). Legislation and Compliance: Environmental Register. Retrieved 13th September, 2016.

Hur, W.-M., Kim, H., & Jang, J. H. (2016). The role of gender differences in the impact of CSR perceptions on corporate marketing outcomes. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23 (6), 345–357.

International Council on Mining and Minerals (ICMM) 2010. ICCM 10 Principles. https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/about-us/member-commitments/icmm-10-principles .

International Organisation for Standardisation 2010. License for ISO 26000 Guidance on CSR. https://www.iso.org/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html

Kemp, D., & Owen, J. R. (2013). Community relations and mining: Core to business but not “core business”. Resources Policy, 38 (4), 523–531.

Kinnear, S., & Ogden, I. (2014). Planning the innovation agenda for sustainable development in resource regions: A Central Queensland case study. Resources Policy, 39 , 42–53.

Lacey, J., Parsons, R., & Moffat, K. (2012). Exploring the concept of a social Licence to operate in the Australian minerals industry: Results from interviews with industry representatives. EP125553 . Brisbane: CSIRO.

Lamb, D., Erskine, P. D., & Fletcher, A. (2015). Widening gap between expectations and practice in Australian minesite rehabilitation. Ecological Management & Restoration, 16 (3), 186–195.

Langton, M. (2014). From conflict to co-operation: Transformations and challenges in the engagement between the Australian minerals industry and Australian indigenous peoples . Forest: ACT, Australian Minerals Council.

Lee, M. D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10 (1), 53–73.

Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2014). Using software in qualitative analysis: A step-by-step guide . Los Angeles: Sage.

Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18 (2), 110–122.

Masoud, N. (2017). How to win the battle of ideas in corporate social responsibility: The international pyramid model of CSR. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2 (1), 4.

McDonald, C. (2011). Social responsibility in the mining and metals sector in developing countries . Canberra: Australian Government.

Michell, G., & McManus, P. (2013). Engaging communities for success: Social impact assessment and social licence to operate at Northparkes mines, NSW. Australian Geographer, 44 (4), 435–459.

Moran, C., Franks, D., & Sonter, L. (2013). Using the multiple capitals framework to connect indicators of regional cumulative impacts of mining and pastoralism in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia. Resources Policy, 38 (4), 733–744.

Moratis, L., & Brandt, S. (2017). Corporate stakeholder responsiveness? Exploring the state and quality of GRI-based stakeholder engagement disclosures of European firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24 (4), 312–325.

O'Faircheallaigh, C. (2008). Understanding corporate–Aboriginal agreements on mineral development. Earth Matters: Indigenous Peoples, the Extractive Industries and Corporate Social Responsibility, 1 (20), 67–82.

O'Faircheallaigh, C. (2004). Evaluating agreements between Indigenous peoples and resource developers. In: M. Langton, L. Palmer, M. Tehan, and K. Shain (eds), Honour Among Nations?: Treaties and Agreements with Indigenous People . Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, pp. 303-323.

Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89 (4), 613–627.

Owen, J. R., & Kemp, D. (2012). Assets, Capitals, and Resources Frameworks for Corporate Community Development in Mining. Business & Society, 51 (3), 382–408.

Owen, J. R., & Kemp, D. (2014). ‘Free prior and informed consent’, social complexity and the mining industry: Establishing a knowledge base. Resources Policy, 41 , 91–100.

Oxfam. (2015). Community consent index: Oil, gas, and mining company public positions on free, prior, and informed consent 207 Oxfam briefing paper . Melbourne: Oxfam.

Painter-Morland, M., & Ten Bos, R. (2011). Business ethics and continental philosophy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pesmatzoglou, D., Nikolaou, I. E., Evangelinos, K. I., & Allan, S. (2014). Extractive multinationals and corporate social responsibility: A commitment towards acheiving the goals of sustainable development or only a management strategy? Journal of International Development, 26 (2), 187–206.

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

Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Education.

Söderholm, P., & Svahn, N. (2015). Mining, regional development and benefit-sharing in developed countries. Resources Policy, 45 , 78–91.

Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., & Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development: A theoretical exploration of business–society relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 61 (3), 263–281.

Taylor, A., Carson, D. B., Ensign, P. C., Huskey, L., & Rasmussen, R. O. (2016). Settlements at the Edge: Remote Human Settlements in Developed Nations . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Verbi. (2015). Max-QDA: The Art of Data Analysis . Berlin: Gmbh Standard 12.

Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences . London: Sage.

Waddock, S. (2008). The development of corporate responsibility/corporate citizenship. Organization Management Journal, 5 (1), 29–39.

Walton, A., Williams, R., & Leonard, R. (2017). Community perspectives of coal seam gas development during two phases of industry activity: Construction and post-construction. Rural Society, 26 (1), 85–101.

Walton, A. M., McCrea, R., Leonard, R., & Williams, R. (2013). Resilience in a changing community landscape of coal seam gas: Chinchilla in Southern Queensland. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 15 (3), 2.

Watts, M. J. (2005). Righteous oil? Human rights, the oil complex, and corporate social responsibility. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30 , 373–407.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Boyd Blackwell, University of New England, and Dr. John Van Leeuwen, University of South Australia for their comments on the manuscript.

The work reported in this publication was supported by funding from the Australian Government Cooperative Research Centres Program through the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation (CRC-REP). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the CRC-REP or Ninti One Limited or its participants (e.g. University of South Australia and University of New England).

This study was funded by the CRC of Remote Economic Participation (grant number H1.201).

Availability of data and materials

The data cannot be shared due to the ethics requirements which required that the data and its sources remain confidential.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Natural and Built Environment, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 5095, Australia

Anne Elizabeth Fordham

Department of Geography, Environment and Population, School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 5005, South Australia

Guy M. Robinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AEF: Data collection, analysis, results, interpretation and preparing the first draft. GMR been involved in the research design and revising the document critically for important intellectual content and clarity of expression. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Elizabeth Fordham .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent for publication

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

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 distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fordham, A.E., Robinson, G.M. Mapping meanings of corporate social responsibility – an Australian case study. Int J Corporate Soc Responsibility 3 , 14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0036-1

Download citation

Received : 26 April 2018

Accepted : 06 August 2018

Published : 18 September 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0036-1

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
• Sustainable development
• Resource development
• Stakeholder engagement
• Community development

MBA Knowledge Base

Business • Management • Technology

Home » Business Ethics » Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility at The Body Shop

Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility at The Body Shop

The Body Shop (TBS) has developed 2500 stores in 60 countries with a range of over 1,200 products in approximately 30 years, and is the second largest cosmetic franchise in the world. After the first TBS’s outlet founded in 1976, the company has experienced rapid growth and with expanding rate of 50% annually. When its stock first obtained a full listing on the London Stock Exchange, its price increased by more than 500%. In 1999, TBS was even voted as the second most trusted brand in UK by the Consumers Association. The founder, Anita Roddick had received numerous awards including Dame Commander of the British Empire for her contributions. TBS’s success is hard to observe from the extrinsic value but the ethical value which make the success of TBS so legendary and inspiring.

Anita Roddick, founder of TBS first entered the industry by using £4,000 to open a small stand-alone shop of natural ingredient cosmetics and skincare products. Through her early travel experience, she had seen the potential of those natural ingredients being produced as cosmetic and skincare products commercially. Due to the budget constraint, Roddick used the urine sample containers purchased from local hospital as the containers of her products. The shop’s walls are painted with dark green to cover the damp. To save cost on advertisement, Roddick spread aroma in front of her shop to gain attention of the patrons. The strategy pursued was a huge success and another shop was able to be opened before the first year ended. In its second year, the company started to franchise the operation and by 1984 TBS already had 138 stores while 87 of them were located outside UK. The development of the company continued to soar when it went public in 1984. At the same time, Roddick started her efforts to encourage and contribute to social and environmental problems such as campaign of issues against animal testing in cosmetic and recycling.

In 1987, TBS’s Trade Not Aid program started. It was aimed to help sustaining third countries’ people livelihood. Besides, TBS’s charitable activities included aiding communities close to home and various donations. Roddick was strongly persistent with her own singular vision, that business could be a force for good, and that profits could be made without compromising principles which corresponding with TBS’s mission statement, “To dedicate our business to the pursuit of social and environmental change.” In 1990, TBS Foundation was launched to give financial support to pioneering and frontline organizations that aim to achieve progress in the areas of human and civil rights, environmental and animal protection. The website of TBS was launched in 1995 to keep pace with IT revolution. In 2002, Roddick stepped down as the co-chairperson of TBS International PLC but remained back as non-executive director. In 2006, TBS was purchased by Loreal which is not against animal testing. This move has raised a huge controversy around the supporters of TBS, however the company clarified that it is operated independently within the Loreal Group. Until now, TBS is still the icon of ethics business for many people.

These are three well-known policies that TBS taken as their core values of products:

• Against Animal Testing: TBS is approved by the internationally recognized Humane Cosmetic Standard which is against conducting or commission cruel tests on animal for cosmetic ingredients and products. In 1980, animal tests were popular among cosmetics brand. Later, these numbers dropped gradually and companies bowed to public opinion and in 1999 there were none in Britain. While TBS is among one of the leading forces to object these not humane experiments, they always emphasized that they have never and will never test their cosmetic products or commission others to do it.
• Support Community Trade: Most multinational corporate are just searching for cheap labor force in undeveloped countries while TBS has pioneered a program called ‘community trade’, not only about charity trade, but to achieve economic development and empowerment which provides opportunities for disadvantaged producers, especially women and indigenous people. The value chain to the advantage of producers is reconfigured, often via reducing multiple mark-up inefficiencies and cutting out exploitative middleman. TBS realized that without development of the community, any development in the community will be ineffective. As a result, the company introduces fair trade by buying the ingredients and resources they demand in the production of their products from those people with higher than market price. One of the examples is the purchase of cocoa beans from Kuapa Kokoo Company in Ghana, which is a fair trade cooperative with over 30,000 small-scale farmers.
• Protect Our Planet: The 3R concept which represents reuse, recycle, refill has been utilized well in TBS. The company encourages the consumers to return the containers of their products after use to their outlets. From early 2008 onwards, 100% recycled plastic bottles and paper bags were introduced. TBS organized campaigns to raise conscious of people about the responsibility being a citizen of earth to protect the environment.

Benefits to The Body Shop by Corporate Social Responsibility Activities

TBS saves a huge amount of money by not advertising but to put more efforts in social activities than other mainstream cosmetic brands, which gives it a same effect of publicity. It is an alternative way to generate mass publicity for the company without throwing big money to capture rosy commercial advertisement. A very good example of this is TBS’s first major campaign in 1986 which is alliance with Greenpeace in UK, ‘Save the Whale’. This campaign has helped to promote the new product line of TBS which is using jojoba oil as the ingredient to substitute the whale spermaceti.

In the cosmetics market that time, the business models are already standardized. TBS has focused on the business level strategy to obtain and sustain differentiation and advantage on competitors in the same industries. Not like other cosmetic brands which highly advertised the artificially created beauty and expensive ingredients, the products it offered provided no miracle effects other than cleaning and protecting. The usual finely designed bottles were also replaced with simple containers which are made from recyclable materials. The company also set up its own store while most of the cosmetics brands were locating them inside the shopping centre. TBS has highly concentrated on developing a drastically different image which is more focused on the ethical value and natural quality in it. The company has succeeded in challenging the accepted value curve of luxury cosmetics and beauty products to create one based on more ethical values. The social activism approach that taken by TBS has created a whole new group of consumer which is ethical living oriented. This is a very smart step taken by TBS, not only building customer loyalty based on distinctive ethical values, the company itself also benefits from gaining a high reputation and fame for environment friendly and contribution to the public. This unique positioning of TBS also made itself more invulnerable from price cutting wars. The company has presented such a distinct motive compared to other profit oriented corporations. Consumers choose products of TBS based on the conscience that generate naturally by their own judgments.

Related posts:

• Case Study: British Petroleum and Corporate Social Responsibility
• Case Study: The Body Shop’s Ruby Ad Campaign
• Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility of Starbucks
• The Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility in Business
• Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility
• Aligning Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
• Corporate Social Responsibility as a Source of Competitive Advantage
• Stakeholders Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
• Stakeholder Expectations and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *