Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholders: Review of The Last Decade (2006-2015)

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 14

Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No.

1 | 2017

Corporate social responsibility and


stakeholders: Review of the last decade
(2006-2015)
Andrija Barić
KONČAR – Power Plant and Electric Traction Engineering Inc., Zagreb, Croatia

Abstract
Background: Globalization, strong development of information-communication
technologies and the emergence of new burning challenges for the global
communities enabled the concept of corporate social responsibility to be perceived
as a business model that allows for successful differentiation of companies, as well
creating sustainable competitive advantage. Objective: The goal of the paper is to
offer a short overview of the role of internal and external stakeholders within the
concept of corporate social responsibility and point out the importance of quality
relationships between the company and its stakeholders with the aim of improving
the standard of living of all community members. Methods/approach: The paper is
based on a systematic analysis of previously published relevant international
scientific papers in the field of corporate social responsibility, stakeholder theory and
information-communication technologies. Results: This paper demonstrates that the
concept of corporate social responsibility has gone, in its several decades of
existence, from the "unnecessary dependency" phase to the critical business model
phase. Conclusions: As there is a natural connection between the concept of
corporate social responsibility and the stakeholders, it can be concluded that the
quality of the relationship between the company and its stakeholders represents a
key factor that affects the success of the company in its notion of differentiating itself
from competitors and creating sustainable competitive advantage.
Keywords: corporate social responsibility, stakeholders, information-communication
technologies, differentiation
JEL classification: M14
Paper type: Research article
Received: Jan 04, 2017
Accepted: Mar 18, 2017
Citation: Baric, A. (2017), “Corporate social responsibility and stakeholders: Review of
the last decade (2006-2015)”, Business Systems Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 133-146.
DOI: 10.1515/bsrj-2017-0011

Introduction
The modern world presents many different and burning challenges to the entire
population of the world, as well as profit and non-profit organizations every day. The
neglect of set challenges can lead to societal, economic, ecological and cultural
catastrophes and change the global picture of society as we know it. In everyday

133
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

life of undeveloped, but also developed economies, demands of community


members, non-governmental organizations and government and regulative bodies
for individual and organizational corporate social responsibility in the context of
finding solutions to present challenges, but also to the heavy inequality of distribution
of goods which developed as a consequence of the exclusive effects of market
forces, are increasingly present (Bird et al., 2007). The increase of stakeholder
concern for societal and environmental challenges has caused the emergence of
the concept of corporate social responsibility in the 1950s as well as its strong
development within scientific and business circles from 1960 onwards. As strong
development continues even to this day, the complexity of the concept itself
increases with equal dynamic (Brammer et al., 2012). Carroll and Shabana (2010)
point out that the concept of corporate social responsibility represents an
encompassing framework of different concepts that study the relationship of
companies and the community in which the company operates, regardless of
whether the community is local, national or global. Because the concept is highly
complex, there is no unanimously accepted definition of the concept of corporate
social responsibility to this day, so it is interpreted differently within the global
economic network, and often by different groups of stakeholders (Dahlsrud, 2010).
Even though the concept is highly complex, it also undoubtedly possesses a clear
strategic determinant and represents an inseparable part of the business model of
modern global corporations throughout the world today (Nielsen, Thomson, 2009).
By adequate governance of the concept of corporate social responsibility, the
management can achieve better financial results and at the same time improve the
community in which it operates by increasing the standard of living of the company's
internal and external stakeholders (Du et al., 2011). In the late 1970s, Carroll (1979),
one of the pioneers and leading global theorists of corporate social responsibility,
presented the concept of corporate social responsibility that is based on: (i)
economic responsibility; (ii) legal responsibility; (iii) ethical responsibility and (iiii)
philanthropic responsibility. By implementing the concept of corporate social
responsibility, management can ensure that business operations adhere to legal
regulations and economic standards, all with the goal of building higher quality
relationships with stakeholders (Piacentini et al., 2000). As it is in the nature of the
concept of corporate social responsibility to conduct business within legal
regulations, it can be concluded that conducting and communicating the concept
of corporate social responsibility is mostly of voluntary character (Wettstein, 2009). All
presented definitions of corporate social responsibility are based on the idea that
emphasizes the fact that management of the company should take into account all
internal and external stakeholder expectations while developing the corporate
social responsibility strategy and the strategy of the company (Saeidi et al., 2015).
In the context of the connection between the concept of corporate social
responsibility and the company stakeholders, it can be concluded that the concept
of corporate social responsibility developed from stakeholder theory (Pirsch et al.,
2007). Even though Freeman developed the foundations of the theory, Ansoff was
the first to use the term stakeholder theory in 1965 (Roberts, 1992). Stakeholder theory
rests on the idea that sustainability and success of a business depend on the success
of the organization's management in achieving economic and societal goals
through fulfilling the needs of key groups of internal and external company
stakeholders (Pirsch et al., 2007). As per the stakeholder theory, Freeman (1984)
described the company stakeholders as groups or individuals who are under the
influence of business activities or who can influence the business operations of a

134
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

company and fulfilment strategic goals. He pointed out that the shareholders,
employees, consumers, suppliers, financial institutions, non-government groups and
government institutions were the most important stakeholders of an organization
(Freeman, 1984). Ullmann (1985) highlights three key factors that affect the
relationship between a company and a certain group of stakeholders: (i) the power
of the stakeholders, (ii) strategic orientation of management towards the concept of
corporate social responsibility and (iii) former and present financial results of the
company. The importance of certain groups of internal and external stakeholders for
the business operations of the company changes frequently and depends on the
phases of the business operations, as well as characteristics of the market and the
community (Jawahar, McLaughlin, 2001).
The concept of corporate social responsibility, in times when social values change
rapidly, can present the means of bringing together organizational values and
values of the stakeholders. The prerequisite for the success of such a process of
convergence is including the interest of the stakeholders in the socially responsible
strategy that presents a key segment of the business strategy of an ever-greater
number of companies (Saeed, Arshad, 2012). Within the concept of corporate social
responsibility, stakeholders are portrayed as groups of persons towards whom the
company's business and socially responsible activities are oriented. Today, it is almost
impossible to discuss the concept of corporate social responsibility without taking
note of the stakeholders of the company (Sun et al., 2010). A quality and strong
relationship with stakeholders increases competitiveness because it directly improves
the reputation of the company through perception of the stakeholders. Key
stakeholders determine the conditions in which the company does business by
creating opportunities and threats for survival and growth. For this reason, while
developing strategy the management must encompass the needs, interests and
motives of key stakeholders as per the concept of corporate social responsibility
(Rosinka-Bukowska, Penc-Pietrzak, 2015). The quality of the corporate social
responsibility strategy, and as a consequence the generation of financial and non-
financial benefits from conducting and communicating socially responsible
activities, depends directly on the success of filtering ideas and guidelines geared
towards the company by the key groups of stakeholders in the communication
process (Frostenson et al. 2011). Based on the aforementioned, it is concluded that
there is a link between the idea of socially responsible business operations and the
stakeholders of every company (Godfrey et al., 2009).

Literature review
Corporate social responsibility
Today, more so than ever before, companies implement socially responsible
activities in order to ensure the survival of the global society as we know it today, all
the while ensuring the sustainability and prosperity of their own business operations
(Skarmeas, Leonidou, 2013). Even though the concept of corporate social
responsibility originated in the developed Western democracies, today the concept
itself is considered a global movement that encompasses and unifies different
aspects of society, from legislative and non-governmental to the cultural and
business aspects (Sriramesh et al., 2007). The rapid spread of the concept of
corporate social responsibility from Western countries to countries in transition and
other countries throughout the world stimulated the creation of a new dimension of
corporate social responsibility, the increase in complexity, as well as further

135
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

popularization of the concept itself (Brammer et al, 2012). It can be concluded that
the concept of corporate social responsibility in the past seventy years
encompassed the key problems of the global community and created perhaps the
most important link between society and the business world. Besides spreading the
concept on a global level and the emergence of new dimensions of corporate
social responsibility, new burning problems and challenges of the global
communities are additional reasons for the increasing complexity of the concept of
corporate social responsibility (Moura-Leite, Padgett, 2011). In accordance with the
continual increasing of complexity and ever-increasing pressure by various groups of
internal and external stakeholders, achieving and sustaining responsibility towards
the community is becoming an increasingly difficult process for the company's
management (Carroll, Shabana, 2010).
Positioning of the company on the market, as a socially responsible organization,
demands detailed knowledge of the concept of corporate social responsibility and
adequate models of digital communication by the management, but also by the
rest of the internal stakeholders, who are a key, reliable and transparent
communication channel towards external stakeholders (Polonsky, Jevons, 2006). The
success and efficacy of conducting socially responsible activities also depend on
adapting the strategy of corporate communication to the rapid development of
information-communication technologies as well as to the development of social
networks and the Internet (Dutot et al., 2016). Digital transformation in
communicating social responsibility started in the middle of the 1990s (Isenmann,
2006), and enabled the stakeholders with computer skills to easily find timely and
prompt information about corporate social responsibility, but also the overall
business operations of the company (Cho et al., 2009).
Apart from the simpler discovery of information related to the company's
corporate social responsibility, strong development of information-communication
technologies and the emergence of social networks allowed for a continuing and
two-way exchange of information between individual and profit and non-profit
organizations throughout the world (Bicen, Cavus, 2011). As the nature of the
Internet is unpredictable and allows for a speedy transfer of information within the
global community, the consequences of such two-way communication are
impossible to predict or control, therefore management and internal stakeholders
must be very careful in expressing personal attitudes on websites and social
networks. It can be concluded that digital transformation, and consequently the
emergence of websites and social networks, significantly changed the power
structure in communicating corporate social responsibility between profit and non-
profit organizations and their stakeholders (Fieseler et al, 2010). Successful
communication of socially responsible activities towards stakeholders enables the
creation of a more positive reputation of the company. Companies with a more
positive reputation achieve better results than their competition that offers products
and services of similar quality and price. Positive reputation, which presents valuable
immaterial assets of a company, is almost impossible to completely copy from
competitors, because it is a result of a whole array of different activities, the key
activities being socially responsible activities (Boyd et al., 2010).
In order for companies on domestic or global markets to successfully establish a
positive reputation, it is necessary to ensure that the entire supply chain of the
company operates in accordance with social and environmental standards so the
stakeholders, by communicating with the company, could successfully differentiate
the company from its competition (Boehe, Barin Cruz, 2010). The result of the

136
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

differentiation of companies based on corporate social responsibility is created by


building positive perception, trust and awareness in stakeholders and that process of
differentiation can take several years (Barin Cruz, Boehe, 2008). For that reason, it is
very difficult for competitor companies in the industry to effectively imitate the
process of differentiation of a successful socially responsible company (Johansen,
Ellerup Nielsen, 2012). Differentiation based on corporate social responsibility is also
appropriate for smaller companies, because it does not require investing of
significant financial and non-financial resources (Boulouta, Pitelis, 2014). The benefits
of differentiation, based on socially responsible activities, are created directly
because of the readiness of consumers to pay more for products and services that
are placed on the market by socially responsible companies (Bhattacharya et al.,
2008). Regardless of whether the differentiation of a company based on corporate
social responsibility is achieved on organizational or lower production and service
levels, the company will be able to obtain a competitive advantage and ensure
stability and growth of its business operations by being a market leader (Boehe, Barin
Cruz, Ogasavara, 2010).
Lee (2008) assumes that the development of the concept of corporate social
responsibility, from its emergence in the 1950s until today, created two main
changes within the concept itself: (i) the impact of corporate social responsibility is
less often analysed on a macroeconomic level, while the analyses of the impact of
socially responsible activities on the company's processes and its business operations
are increasing in frequency and (ii) the concept of corporate social responsibility
shifted from a distinctly ethical and philanthropic to a more business and results-
oriented approach.
Even though there are discrepancies in defining desirable levels of corporate
social responsibility in business operations between the industries on the global
market, corporate social responsibility is considered an imperative on the developed
global market today, regardless of whether business operations of powerful
corporations or small family businesses are observed. Both century-old corporations
and small companies in the making are currently doing their best to satisfy the wants
and needs of all key groups of stakeholders, not just shareholders, in order to
maximize the triple bottom line of sustainable business (Carvalho et al., 2010).

Stakeholders and their role in business


As the interest of consumers, government bodies, non-government organizations and
other groups of stakeholders for potential company contributions to the
development of the community has been increasing for decades, so is the concept
of corporate social responsibility gaining significance within managerial circles
throughout the global economic network by the day (Skarmeas, Leonidou, 2013).
Aside from the increase in the popularity of the concept in managerial circles, more
and more reputable scientific institutions are including classes in their programs,
which observe and research the issues of corporate social responsibility in business.
Educating young people of different cultures in scientific institutions throughout the
world gives additional momentum in increasing the need for socially responsible
behavior of companies as well as continual care for the interests of all groups of
stakeholders, not just owners (Smith, 2007). Actively tracking the interests of
stakeholders and satisfying the needs of key internal and external stakeholders
enables greater sustainability of business operations, greater competitive advantage
and an increase in loyalty of employees and consumers (Pirsch et al., 2007).

137
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

It can be concluded that corporate social responsibility is a concept that most


thoroughly describes the connection between company and society, and within
which stakeholders represent a key and unavoidable determinant (Castello Branco
et al., 2014). Therefore, corporate social responsibility is described as a stakeholder-
focused concept that transcends the borders of an organization, and is based on an
ethical understanding of organizational responsibilities towards the influence of
business activities on the society and environment (Maon et al., 2009). The concept
itself consists of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility, which
encompass activities geared towards different types of stakeholders (McWilliams et
al., 2006). The stakeholders of a company form their perception of the company
depending on their individual attitudes of corporate social responsibility and their
degree of awareness of socially responsible activities conducted as part of the
business processes (Pomering, Dolnicar, 2009). Freeman and coauthors (2008) divide
stakeholders into primary and secondary. Primary stakeholders are the ones whose
actions are of key importance to the business operations of the company, while the
secondary are the stakeholders who have the possibility of influencing the
perception and attitudes of primary stakeholders. Besides the aforementioned,
primary stakeholders have the power and means that enable them to influence the
management of the company, while secondary stakeholders do not possess the
ability to approach the management as directly.
The management of an ever-increasing number of global companies is oriented
on continual conducting and communicating of socially responsible activities to the
local, national and global communities (Blomback, Wigren, 2009). In order for the
management to obtain benefits through the differentiation achieved by a greater
level of corporate social responsibility, socially responsible activities have to be
adequately communicated to internal and external stakeholders through various
communication channels (Bittner, Leimeister, 2011). Corporate social responsibility
reports, websites, social networks and advertising all represent key communication
channels of today's corporate social responsibility (Birth et al., 2008). Modern global
environment and rapid development of information-communication technologies
allow for less and less use of exclusive traditional channels for communicating
corporate social responsibility, and demand that the management create
communication strategies that encompass a combination of digital and traditional
communication (Morsing, Schultz, 2006). The possibility of two-way and direct
communication with internal and external stakeholders, as well as significantly lower
costs than communicating by using traditional channels, urged the management to
include websites and social media into the communication strategy of corporate
social responsibility. Aside from profit organizations, communicating corporate social
responsibility using social media and websites is also appropriate for non-
governmental organizations, consumers and various other groups of stakeholders
who, by using such a communication model, can share their own thoughts and
ideas with other stakeholders within a very short timeframe (Kaplan, Haenlein, 2010).
Communication using social media enabled passive stakeholders to become
powerful creators and transferors of information, who can now affect the reputation
of the company, which in turn allows them to co-create the policy of corporate
social responsibility and indirectly affect the company's business strategy (Lee et al.,
2013). The rise of social media enabled an exchange of information between an
individual and organizations in real time, and the popularity of using social media is
rapidly increasing in all parts of the world every day. Aside from popularizing existing
social media platforms, new specialized social networks that create an array of new

138
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

possibilities for profit and non-profit organizations and stakeholders are emerging
daily (Bicen, Cavus, 2011).
Besides the financial inability of certain groups of stakeholders in underdeveloped
countries to reward socially responsible businesses, the increase of skepticism in
certain stakeholders presents an increasingly big problem for management
(Carvalho et al., 2010). In order for management to successfully prevent the
appearance of skepticism in stakeholders and achieve sustainable competitive
advantage through differentiation based on socially responsible activities, it is
necessary to know the characteristics of key stakeholders as well as design an
adequate communication strategy towards them. Sometimes a decade-long
process of building a positive reputation can be destroyed in a matter of days,
especially in situations where management neglects the interests of key stakeholders
and thus motivates them to disclose negative attitudes towards other stakeholders in
a digital global network (Vanhamme, Grobben, 2009).

Methodology
This paper functions as a brief overview of the concept of corporate social
responsibility, as well as the role of the stakeholders within the concept itself, for the
period between 2006 and 2015. Special attention was paid to the importance of
corporate social activities that enable differentiation from competitors and creating
sustainable competitive advantage. Stakeholders are viewed as key and
inseparable determinants of the concept of corporate social responsibility, with a
separate review of the connection between socially responsible activities and
internal and external stakeholders. The paper is based on the systematic analysis of
previously published relevant international scientific papers from the fields of
corporate social responsibility, stakeholder theories and information-communication
technologies. In the theoretical part of the paper, methods of analysis and
compilation have been used in order to present the importance of the concept of
corporate social responsibility within the global business and social community, as
well as the influence of corporate social responsibility on the development of quality
relationships with primary and secondary stakeholders. The method of deduction has
been used in order to reach conclusions about the importance of the concept of
corporate social responsibility for the business result of the company, and in order to
ascertain the importance of stakeholders within the concept itself.

Results
External stakeholders
Socially responsible and sustainable business operations create a series of benefits
for the community and the environment, but also for the company's business
operations (Carvalho et al., 2010). The company, which is perceived within the
community as socially responsible, has the potential to create positive reputation,
more possibilities in retaining quality employees, continuing protection against risk
from bad managerial governance and the ability to use new types of differentiation
from the competition. Conducting, as well as adequate and transparent
communicating of socially responsible activities, positively affects the satisfaction
and trust of consumers, which allows them to identify with the values nurtured by the
company (Martinez, del Bosque, 2013). Partial or complete adherence to the
company's values and a high level of loyalty affect the willingness of the consumer
to pay a higher price for the company's products and services, and therefore

139
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

enable the generation of direct financial benefits for the company (Pirsch et al.,
2007).
Peloza (2006) conducted a research according to which he points out that
corporate social responsibility in business has an increasingly positive effect on the
company's reputation with its stakeholders; and that such a positive reputation
ensures stability and sustainability of business operations by the day, and sometimes
even generates certain financial benefits. Of similar opinions are Lin and coauthors
(2009), who present results through which they point out that the differentiation
based on corporate social responsibility may not always increase profitability in the
short them, but that it will positively affect protection from risks of bad managerial
decisions, and thereby ensure existing profitability or even increase it in the long
term. Therefore, an ever-increasing number of companies in the world are
implementing socially responsible activities in order to obtain certain benefits and
improve their reputation with external stakeholders. Besides, the vehemence of
media and non-government organizations for uncovering socially irresponsible
business operations has significantly increased in recent years, turning the degree of
corporate social responsibility more and more into a means of positive or negative
differentiation from the competition in the industry. As media coverage of socially
irresponsible business operations increases, so does the number of external
stakeholders who are skeptic towards conducting socially corporate activities
(Skarmeas, Leonidou, 2013). Modern technology, development of the Internet and
easily accessible global media space allowed the external stakeholders to not have
to rely only on the media and non-government organizations when expressing
attitudes about corporate social responsibility of companies, but by using websites
and social media they can send short informative posts which can set off an
avalanche of events that can shake the company to its core, as well as society in
general (Lyon, Montgomery, 2012). Dissatisfaction of key external stakeholders in one
of the markets in which the company operates can rapidly spread onto other
markets, and thus endanger the business operations in markets in which the
company was perceived as successful and socially responsible (Bhattacharya et al.,
2008).

Internal stakeholders
Even though the concept of corporate social responsibility is primarily oriented
towards external stakeholders, the organization's management must not neglect the
effect of socially responsible activities on the internal stakeholders and their role in
the concept. The efficacy of conducting socially responsible activities equally
depends on external and internal stakeholders (Waddock, Googins, 2011). Palmer
(2012) points out that the key task of the management, in the context of
implementing the concept of corporate social responsibility and generating
benefits, is to achieve a balance in the complex network of relationships towards
stakeholders. That is not a simple task, seeing as the management is faced with the
oftentimes incompatible interests of internal and external stakeholders, which
sometimes makes it very hard to choose activities that will satisfy all key stakeholders
(Pedersen, 2006). Aside from the positive effect on profitability and economic
growth, it has been proven that the concept of corporate social responsibility
positively affects the satisfaction, motivation and loyalty of employees, while
allowing the management to extract the best qualities from every employee, which
directly contributes to the creation of positive business trends (Torugsa et al., 2012).
Ali and coauthors (2010) come to a similar conclusion, stating that a higher level of

140
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

corporate social responsibility positively affects the loyalty of employees which


significantly improves the efficacy of business processes. A greater level of
motivation, loyalty and satisfaction caused by socially responsible business
operations allows the employees and other internal stakeholders to identify with
organizational values (Kim et al., 2010).
It can be concluded that the effects of socially responsible activities are aimed at
not only the external stakeholders, but internal stakeholders of the company who act
as a trustworthy communication channel towards external groups of stakeholders as
well (Collier, Esteban, 2007). The concept of corporate social responsibility can be
seen as an efficient tool for human resource management by using trust, satisfaction
and employee motivation. It is simpler for the management to achieve sustainable
competitive advantage when they are in the position to retain highly educated and
motivated employees, and the concept of corporate social responsibility represents
the very business model that positively contributes to a lower fluctuation of
employees (Lee et al., 2013). As an increasing number of profit and non-profit
organizations decides to implement socially responsible activities, situations in which
partnerships are formed between entities from the profit and non-profit sectors are
more and more frequent. Such partnerships, formed in order to conduct socially
responsible activities between companies and non-government organizations, but
other groups of stakeholders as well, enable transfer of knowledge and skills that
directly improves the employees and the management (Seitanidi, Crane, 2009).
To successfully implement the concept of corporate social responsibility within an
organization, it is necessary for all internal stakeholders to proactively take part in the
process, both on individual and collective levels, in order for such success to improve
the relationships with external stakeholders and society as well as enable the
generation of financial and non-financial benefits for the company (Basu, Palazzo,
2008). Although investing in socially responsible activities most often requires initial
investment of financial resources, the company has the possibility, by proper
communication with its stakeholders, to achieve financial returns on investment and
thus increase the value of proprietary interests in the long term (Smith, 2007). It can
therefore be pointed out that the concept of corporate social responsibility has
reached the phase of a critical business model in the 21st century (Palmer, 2012).

Conclusion
Summary of research
Implementation, conducting and communicating of the concept of corporate
social responsibility is becoming a topic that is more and more important for the
management of modern global companies. The number of internal and external
stakeholders who are influenced by the level of corporate social responsibility of the
company when making decisions about using their products or services is constantly
increasing. For that reason, many companies use differentiation based on corporate
social responsibility to obtain a sustainable competitive advantage and generate
certain benefits. For the process of differentiation to be successful, the management
must identify the needs and interests of key stakeholders and adapt the choice and
communication of corporate social responsibility activities towards the stakeholders.
It can be concluded that socially responsible business operations positively affect
the company's reputation, employee motivation, consumer loyalty, protection from
bad managerial decisions and long-term profitability.

141
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

Research gaps and future research recommendations


As corporate social responsibility has been developing within the scientific world
since the middle of the last century, it has become, although multi-dimensional and
complex, a very elaborate concept. Seeing as there is a natural connection
between the stakeholders of a company and the concept of corporate social
responsibility, as well as the fact that the concept of corporate social responsibility
itself developed from the stakeholder theory, the role of internal and external
stakeholders within the concept has also been meticulously researched. On the
other hand, it is noticeable that the analysis of the effect of corporate social
responsibility on export activity and relationships with stakeholders in foreign markets
is not as elaborate as it is on the domestic market. In an increasingly globalized
market, in which the importance of international trade increases by the day, it would
be very interesting to discover in which way the degree of corporate social
responsibility affects the elimination of entry barriers in export markets, as well as
export processes in general.

Research limitations
This paper is based exclusively on secondary data and available international
scientific literature. Quality of the research would be much greater if the research
had been conducted by using a questionnaire or interview with persons in
companies who are familiar with overall business operations and the aspect of
corporate social responsibilities in business. By using the primary research approach it
would be possible to generate higher quality results and a more complete image for
the reader.

References
1. Ali, I., Rehman, K.U., Ali, S.I., Yousaf, J., Zia, M. (2010), “Corporate social
responsibility influences, employee commitment and organizational
performance”, African journal of Business management, Vol. 4 No. 13, pp. 2796.
2. Barin Cruz, L., Boehe, D. M. (2008), “CSR in the global market place: Towards
sustainable global value chains”, Management Decision, Vol. 8 No. 46, pp.1187-
1209.
3. Basu, K., Palazzo, G. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility: A process model of
sensemaking”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 122-136.
4. Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., Korschun, D. (2008). Using Corporate Social
Responsibility to Win the War for Talent.
5. Bicen, H., Cavus, N. (2011), “Social Network Sites Usage Habits of Undergraduate
Students: Case Study of Facebook”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 28, pp. 943- 947.
6. Bird, R., Hall, A. D., Momente, F., Reggiani, F. (2007), “What corporate social
responsibility activities are valued by the market?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
76 No. 2, pp. 189-206.
7. Birth, G., Illia, L., Lurati, F., Zamparini, A. (2008), “Communicating CSR: practices
among Switzerland's top 300 companies”, Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 182 – 196.
8. Bittner, E. A. C., Leimeister, J. M. (2011). Towards CSR 2.0-Potentials and
Challenges of Web 2.0 for Corporate Social Responsibility Communication.

142
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

9. Blomback, A., Wigren, C. (2009), “Challenging the importance of size as


determinant for CSR activities”, Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 256-270.
10. Boehe, D. M., Cruz, L. B. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility, product
differentiation strategy and export performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
91, pp. 325-346.
11. Boehe, D. M., Cruz, L. B., Ogasavara, M. H. (2010). How can Firms from Emerging
Economies Enhance their CSR-Supported Export Strategies? Insper, Ibmec, São
Paulo.
12. Boulouta, I., Pitelis, C.N. (2014), “Who needs CSR? The impact of corporate social
responsibility on national competitiveness”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 119 No.
3, pp. 349-364.
13. Boyd, B. K., Bergh, D. D., Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2010), “Reconsidering the reputation—
performance relationship: A resource-based view”, Journal of management, Vol.
36 No. 3, pp. 588-609.
14. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., Matten, D. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility and
institutional theory: new perspectives on private governance”, Socio-Economic
Review, Vol.10 No. 1, pp. 3–28.
15. Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate
performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
16. 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, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 85–105.
17. Carvalho, S.W., Sen, S., de Oliveira Mota, M., de Lima, R.C. (2010), “Consumer
reactions to CSR: A Brazilian perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 91, pp.
291-310.
18. Castelo Branco, M., Delgado, C., Sá, M., Sousa, C. (2014), “Comparing CSR
communication on corporate web sites in Sweden and Spain”, Baltic Journal of
Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 231-50.
19. Cho, C. H., Phillips, J. R., Hageman, A. M., Patten, D. M. (2009), “Media richness,
user trust, and perceptions of corporate social responsibility”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 933-952.
20. Collier, J., Esteban, R. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility and employee
commitment”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19–33.
21. Dahlsrud, A. (2008), “How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of
37 definitions”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1–13.
22. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility and
competitive advantage: Overcoming the trust barrier”, Management Science,
Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 1528-1545.
23. Dutot, V., Lacalle Galvez, E., Versailles, D. W. (2016), “CSR communications
strategies through social media and influence on e-reputation”, Management
Decision, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 363-389.
24. Fieseler, C., Fleck, M., Meckel, M. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility in the
blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 599-614.
25. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Marshall,
MA/Pitman.
26. Freeman R. E., Harrison J. S., Wicks A. (2008). Managing for Stakeholders: Survival,
Reputation, and Success. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.

143
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

27. Frostenson M, Helin S, Sandström J. (2011), “Organising Corporate Responsibility


Communication Through Filtration: A Study of Web Communication Patterns in
Swedish Retail”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 31-43.
28. Godfrey, P.C., Merrill, C.B., Hansen, J.M. (2009), “The relationship between
corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk
management hypothesis”, Strategic management journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp.425-
445.
29. Isenmann, R. (2006), “Internet-based communication”, in Jonkor, J., de Witte, M.
(eds). Management Models for CSR, Berlin: Springer, pp. 247-256.
30. Jawahar, I. M., McLaughlin, G.L. (2001), “Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder
Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 397–415.
31. Johansen, T. S., Ellerup Nielsen, A. (2012), “CSR in corporate self-storying–
legitimacy as a question of differentiation and conformity”, Corporate
communications: an international journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp.434-448.
32. Kaplan, A. M., Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59–68.
33. Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T., Kim, N.M. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility and
employee–company identification”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp.
557-569.
34. Lee, K., Oh, W., Kim, N. (2013), “Social media for socially responsible firms. Analysis
of Fortune 500's Twitter profiles and their CSR/CSIR ratings”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 118 No. 4, pp. 791–806.
35. Lee, M.P. (2008), “A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: its
evolutionary path and the road ahead”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 53-73.
36. Lin, C.H., Yang, H.L., Liou, D.Y. (2009), “The impact of corporate social
responsibility on financial performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan”,
Technology in Society, Vol. 31 No.1, pp.56-63.
37. Lyon, T. P., Montgomery, A. W. (2012). Tweetjacked: The impact of social media
on corporate Greenwash. Working paper. University of Michigan.
38. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. (2010), “Organizational stages and cultural
phases: A critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social
responsibility development”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol.12 No. 1, pp. 20-38.
39. Martínez, P., del Bosque, I.R. (2013), “CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust,
customer identification with the company and satisfaction”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 35, pp. 89-99.
40. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., Wright, P.M. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility:
strategic implications”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 2–17.
41. Morsing, M., Schultz, M. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility communication:
stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies”, Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 323-338.
42. Moura-Leite, R. C., Padgett, R. C. (2011), “Historical background of corporate
social responsibility”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 528-539.
43. Nielsen, A. E., Thomson, C. (2009), “Investigating CSR communication in SMEs: a
case study among Danish middle managers”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 83–93.

144
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

44. Palmer, J. H. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance:


Does it Pay to Be Good? Claremont McKenna College, CMC Senior Theses, Paper
529.
45. Pedersen, E. R. (2006), “Making Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Operable:
How Companies Translate Stakeholder Dialogue into Practice”, Business and
Society Review, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 137–163.
46. Peloza, J. (2006), “Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for financial
performance”, California Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 52-72.
47. Piacentini, M. G., MacFadyen L., Eadie D. R. (2000), “Corporate social
responsibility in food retailing”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 459–469.
48. Pirsch, J., Gupta, S., Grau, S. L. (2007), “A framework for understanding corporate
social responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study”, Journal of
business ethics, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp.125-140.
49. Polonsky, M. J., Jevons, C. (2006), “Understanding issue complexity when building
a socially responsible brand”, European Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 340-
349.
50. Pomering, A., Dolnicar, S. (2009), “Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR
implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives?”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 85, pp. 295–301.
51. Roberts, R.W. (1992), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-612.
52. Rosińska-Bukowska, M., Penc-Pietrzak, I. (2015), “Corporate social responsibility in
corporate strategy in the globalised economy”, Administracja i Zarządzanie, Vol.
33 No. 106, pp. 195-208.
53. Saeed, M., Arshad, F. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility as a source of
competitive advantage: The mediating role of social capital and reputational
capital”, Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 219–232.
54. Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., Saeaeidi, S. A. (2015), “How does
corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The
mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer
satisfaction”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 341–350.
55. Seitanidi, M. M., Crane, A. (2009), “Implementing CSR through partnerships:
Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business
partnerships”, Journal of business ethics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp.413-429.
56. Skarmeas, D., Leonidou, C. N. (2013), “When consumers doubt, watch out! The
role of CSR scepticism”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 10, pp.1831-
1838.
57. Smith, A.D. (2007), “Making the case for the competitive advantage of corporate
social responsibility”, Business Strategy Series, Vol 8. No. 3, pp. 186 – 195.
58. Sriramesh, K., Ng, C. W., Soh, T. T., Luo, W. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility
and public relations: Perceptions and practices in Singapore”, in May, S., Cheney,
G. Roper, J. (eds). The debate over corporate social responsibility, New York:
Oxford University Press, pp. 119–134.
59. Sun, N., Salama, A., Hussainey, K., Habbash, M. (2010), “Corporate environmental
disclosure, corporate governance and earnings management”, Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 679-700.
60. Torugsa, N. A., O’Donohue, W., Hecker, R. (2012), “Capabilities, proactive CSR
and financial performance in SMEs: Empirical evidence from an Australian

145
Business Systems Research | Vol. 8 No. 1 | 2017

manufacturing industry sector”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp.483-
500.
61. Ullmann, A. A. (1985), “Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the
relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic
performance of US firms”, Academy of management review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp.
540-557.
62. Vanhamme, J., Grobben, B. (2009), ““Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of
CSR history in countering negative publicity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85,
pp. 273-283.
63. Waddock, S., Googins, B. K. (2011), “The paradoxes of communicating corporate
social responsibility”, in Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J. L., May, S. (eds). The Handbook of
Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility, New York: Wiley, pp. 23-43.
64. Wettstein, F. (2009), “Beyond voluntariness, beyond CSR: Making a case for
human rights and justice”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp.125-
152.

About the author


Andrija Baric graduated from the Faculty of Economics and Business in Zagreb,
Republic of Croatia, with master degree in finance. He is currently working
in KONČAR – Power Plant and Electric Traction Engineering Inc. as head of
department, and is currently a doctoral student at Faculty of Economics and
Business, Zagreb, Republic of Croatia. His main research is corporate social
responsibility in export process. Author can be contacted at andrija.baric@koncar-
ket.hr

146

You might also like