Defining CSR

Defining corporate socialresponsibility

A view from big companies in Germanyand the UK

Daniel SilberhornBurston-Marsteller, Frankfurt, Germany, and

Richard C. WarrenManchester Metropolitan University Business School,

Manchester, United Kingdom

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this comparative study is to explore how large German and Britishcompanies publicly define corporate social responsibility (CSR), as well as why and how the respectivenotion of CSR was developed.

Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a qualitative content analysis of the CSRweb sites of 40 British and German companies, and on a series of interviews with senior managers.

Findings – The main findings are that CSR is now presented as a comprehensive business strategy,arising mainly from performance considerations and stakeholder pressure. Companies focus on howthey interact with stakeholders and how business activities impact on society. Most CSR policiesaddressed community, employee and customer issues. Increasingly, “quality of life” topics areemphasised. CSR policies varied with turnover, industry sector and nationality. In developing theirnotions of CSR, firms emphasized the primacy of reactive pragmatism and experience. Corporateculture also emerged as an influence, with institutionalised CSR functions and communicationsdepartments driving initiatives. The study concludes that business and CSR strategy appear to be on aconvergent path, making business and CSR integration across the company the norm in future.

Research limitations/implications – Owing to the study’s exploratory character, the samples arenot representative for the British and German economies.

Practical implications – The study suggests that especially German companies could benefit morefrom demonstrating a broad, business-driven understanding of CSR.

Originality/value – Contributing to a deeper understanding of notions, rationales and influences,the study provides both science and practice with a more solid foundation for discussing andimplementing CSR. It also broadens the perspective by looking at Germany and the UK.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Economic sustainability, Corporate strategy, Germany,United Kingdom

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe first decade of the new millennium seems to be the one where corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) is coming of age after so many false dawns in past decades.Perhaps, the shock of business scandals such as Enron, WorldCom and Parmalat,together with the impact of climate change on the environment, have been the tippingpoints that have pushed many businesses into a fundamental rethink about theirresponsibilities towards their various stakeholders. The new conversation about CSR in

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0955-534X.htm

EBR19,5

352

European Business ReviewVol. 19 No. 5, 2007pp. 352-372q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0955-534XDOI 10.1108/09555340710818950

business suggests that it is a normative, multi-level concept, whose meaning dependson various perspectives and relationships, and, that it changes in response to socialtrends. While earlier notions of CSR often had a regional, person-centred philanthropicfocus, recent conceptions of CSR are inclusive, broad and diverse. The European Union,for instance, has defined CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social andenvironmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with theirstakeholders on a voluntary basis” (European Commission, 2002).

CSR is now a well-known expression for what, in the past, has been a collection ofdifferent and yet related terms: corporate philanthropy, corporate citizenship, businessethics, stakeholding, community involvement, corporate responsibility, sociallyresponsible investment, sustainability, triple-bottom line, corporate accountabilityand corporate social performance. Some of these terms have a family resemblance toeach other, but many of these expressions have other connotations as well. This lack ofconsensus seriously hampers theoretical development as well as research into theimplementation of these policies (Goebbels, 2002). One starting point in terms of CSRresearch is to explore how corporations are themselves defining and interpreting CSR.Most empirical studies of CSR have been focused on firms in the USA, Canada and theUK, but few have attempted to assess whether definitions of CSR differ betweencountries (Hopkins, 2004).

This study examines how CSR is defined from a corporate perspective by looking atthe actual notions of CSR that large companies publish on their web sites, it alsoexplores the thinking and definitional influences that informed these notions. Thestudy also seeks to compare the perspectives on CSR across British and Germancompanies, as these are the leading countries in CSR developments in Europe. Thestudy will first review the literature on corporate perspectives on CSR and thendescribe the methodology that underpinned this comparative analysis. The findings ofthe comparative content analysis and interviews will then be presented and discussed,and finally, the implications and conclusions for the future of CSR will be assessed.

Research literature on corporate perspectives of CSRThe early studies of how companies define CSR were made in the USA in the 1970s,using topical or issues-related approaches (Holmes, 1976; Bowman and Haire, 1975).Aupperle et al. (1985) conducted one of the first studies that used a definitionalconstruct of CSR, operationalizing Carroll’s (1979) well-documented four-part CSRdefinition. A sample of executives confirmed economic responsibility as their highestpriority, followed by the legal, ethical and the discretionary CSR components. Insubsequent years, a limited number of European studies suggested that theorganisations’ perceptions of their social responsibilities changed internationally.Moore and Richardson (1988) and Cowton (1987) found that the economic componentcontinued to be stressed in the UK, with the main responsibilities being seen asproducing goods and services and obeying the law. However, they observed a shiftaway from philanthropy. In Germany, Dierkes (1980) and Longnecker (1985) similarlyreported that, while quality, profit and growth remained the top priority, “quality oflife” issues were gaining importance. Pinkston (1991) found that legal responsibilitieshad become the highest-ranking CSR component in Germany and Sweden. In the USA,Pinkston (1991) also reported an increased significance of the legal and ethicalcomponents of CSR. His findings were supported by Pinkston and Carroll (1996).

Defining CSR

353

They observed that economic and legal responsibilities were perceived as almostequally important, and that ethical responsibilities had become more important at theexpense of philanthropic responsibilities.

With economic and legal responsibilities thus converging to form a minimumthreshold of CSR and ethical responsibilities gaining importance, the adequacy ofCarroll’s (1979) four-part definition has been questioned. The framework appearsunable to capture the direction of change within the now more prominent ethical andphilanthropic components – into which the “greatest magnitude of a corporation’ssocial responsibility” falls (Pinkston and Carroll, 1996, p. 205). While Carroll’s (1979)conceptualisation is still occasionally used today (Joyner and Payne, 2002), O’Dwyer(2003) exemplifies the change in the way recent studies investigate the notion of CSR:examining qualitatively the corporate understanding of CSR, O’Dwyer chooses anormative, broad societal approach. He observes a tendency to interpret CSR in a waythat is consistent with corporate goals of shareholder wealth maximisation. He alsoidentifies three partially overlapping rationales which underpin the acceptance ofcorporate responsibilities, which he calls proactive enlightened self-interest, reactiveenlightened self-interest and obligations/duties.

Other scholars have recently investigated the public presentation of CSR, similarlychoosing a more grounded approach and taking advantage of the world wide web(Esrock and Leichty, 1998; Esrock and Leichty, 2000; Maignan and Ralston, 2002;Snider et al., 2003). They focused on the number of CSR statements, the stakeholdergroups addressed, and the variations between companies or countries. Maignan andRalston (2002), for instance, conceptualize CSR in terms of principles, processes andstakeholder issues. They report differences in the extent and choice of means in CSRreporting across four countries, as well as in the underlying motivations, which theycategorise as performance-driven, stakeholder-driven and value-driven. Viewing CSRas a construct describing “the relationship between business and the larger society”Snider et al. (2003, p. 175) found that similar CSR messages are sent to similarstakeholder groups, irrespective of the company’s nationality.

Factors influencing corporate definitions of CSRThis research evidence tends to suggest that CSR notions develop in interactionsbetween organisationally framed values and external influences. Here, a small numberof researchers have highlighted specific areas on the individual, organisational andinstitutional levels of CSR, as identified by Wood (1991). On the individual level,Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) argue that managers’ personal values stronglyinfluence CSR policies. On the organisational level of CSR, studies have examined theinfluence of directorial type, the public relations function, and particularly financialresources and performance. Ibrahim et al. (2003) suggest that a company’s directorialtype affects CSR decisions, as outside directors appear more concerned about thediscretionary components of CSR. With respect to the public relations function, Heathand Ryan (1989) found that a large number of practitioners were not involved in thecreation of corporate codes of behaviour. Rather, as Miles (1987) already argued,top-level management philosophy appeared to be critical for the take-up of CSR.Finally, corporate resources were found to principally influence the range ofphilanthropic activities (Pinkston and Carroll, 1996), with larger companies devotingmore money (Levy and Shatto, 1980). On a more general level, McGuire et al. (1988)

EBR19,5

354

discovered that firms with a high-financial performance were better equipped to act ina socially responsible way. Larger companies were also found to have a broader scopeof CSR reporting on their web sites (Esrock and Leichty, 1998). On the institutionallevel of CSR, several researchers have suggested that the company’s industry sectorinfluences the attitudes and behaviours associated with CSR (Bhambri and Sonnenfeld,1988; Lerner and Fryxell, 1988; L’Etang, 1994).

However, several authors suggest that, despite these internal factors, companies areprimarily reactive with respect to CSR, responding to external pressures rather thanproactively defining CSR (L’Etang, 1994; Vogel, 2005). Here, industry-specific issues aswell as public visibility play a role. O’Dwyer (2003) and Esrock and Leichty (1998)found that companies from sectors with a high-environmental impact had to respondmore to external pressures and emphasized environmental preservation more thanothers. In addition, societal developments appear to force businesses to evolve theirnotion of CSR (Carroll, 1999; Wilson, 2000; Zadek, 2004). Such pressure is said toincrease when codified by legislation (Pinkston and Carroll, 1996; O’Dwyer, 2003). Inthis context, the mass media are seen to exert control by making company behaviourpublic (Pinkston and Carroll, 1996). Maignan and Ralston (2002) also point toincreasingly questioning investors as transmission belts of public opinion.

Despite the recent tendency to take a more grounded approach to researching thenotion of CSR and first attempts to uncover the rationale behind corporate definitions,the thinking behind CSR and the definitional process’s internal and external influencesremain under-researched. Research activities also largely focused on the Anglo-Saxonregions. Therefore, this study was designed to try to understand how CSR is defined inmajor German and British companies, both in terms of conceptualisation as well as theguiding rationale and factors that influenced its formation.

MethodologyThe study began with a content analysis of 40 corporate web sites’ CSR statements soas to examine how German and British companies publicly define CSR. This wasfollowed up by eight semi-structured telephone interviews with senior CSR managersfrom major German and British companies in order to explore the rationale behindtheir CSR notions and investigate the definitional influences.

For the content analysis, a stratified systematic sample of 20 companies was takenfrom each country’s 2004 Handelsblatt turnover ranking, choosing every second caseafter a random start. Firms were excluded if their or their parent company’s web sitedid not address CSR, or if cross-referencing with a CSR report available online revealeda significantly narrower scope of reporting on the web site. In such cases, the followingcompany on the list was examined. The content analysis’s coding scheme wasdeveloped using a combination of techniques suggested by Neuendorf (2002),modifying an existing CSR conceptualization advanced by Maignan and Ralston(2002). Based on Wood (1991), their approach conceptualizes CSR as a configuration ofprinciples and processes that minimize a firm’s negative impact and maximize itspositive impact on specific stakeholder issues. For the content analysis, sections of thecorporate web sites were examined that explicitly referred to the business/societyrelationship. Annual reports were referred to online in order to validate the data. Astatistical analysis then explored the CSR dimensions’ frequencies and relationshipswith organisational characteristics (Table I).

Defining CSR

355

Ind

ust

ryse

ctor

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Tec

hn

olog

yS

erv

ice

Wh

oles

ale

and

reta

ilC

hem

ical

and

ph

arm

aceu

tica

lE

nv

iron

-men

tall

yor

ien

ted

Foo

dan

dag

ricu

ltu

reO

ther

Tot

al

Ger

man

32

52

32

03

20B

riti

sh1

25

32

31

320

Tot

al4

410

55

51

640

Table I.Content analysis sampleby industry sector

EBR19,5

356

For the interviews, a purposive sample of eight companies was chosen from theFTSE4Good UK and FTSE4Good Europe indices (Table II). This CSR index series iscompiled by an independent research institute and measures the performance ofcompanies that meet a recognised basic standard of corporate responsibility. Theindices therefore provide information-rich cases with regard to the research questions(Patton, 2002). The interview sample covers different high-impact business sectors, infour cases it was possible to realize interviews with firms that were part of the contentanalysis. Within the companies, senior CSR managers with on average eight years ofexperience were interviewed.

The interview guide’s structure followed generally accepted standards forinterviews (Flick, 2002). It was mainly used as a guideline to ensure all areas arecovered while allowing flexible reactions and probing. The telephone interviews weretape-recorded and transcribed using a simplified version of Drew’s (1995) transcriptionconventions. The interview transcripts were analyzed using a hierarchical templateanalysis, which produces a list of codes representing themes identified in thetranscripts (King, 1999). This provided the basis for a thematic discussion structuredaround the main themes.

It is to be acknowledged that owing to the study’s exploratory character, thesamples are not representative for the British and German economies, particularly notfor smaller companies, and that the findings’ generalizability is therefore limited.However, while only a small range of industry sectors could be covered in theinterviews, all companies examined represent high-impact companies with a longtradition in CSR.

Findings: how CSR is understood in UK and German companiesThe content analysis and interviews indicated that performance considerations werethe most prominent motivating principle behind CSR, followed by corporate values,and lastly response to stakeholder pressures (Table III). All principles, and inparticular the stakeholder-driven one, are presented more frequently on German websites. While both German and British companies cite a variety of combinations,German companies offer a slightly more differentiated set of motivations with morecompanies citing two or even three motivating principles. Combinations withstakeholder-driven CSR are more frequent on German web sites (Figure 1).

Both nations favour the performance-driven perspective over the value-driven andstakeholder-driven ones (Figure 2). However, German companies still emphasize thevalue-driven perspective slightly stronger than their British counterparts, while moreBritish than German companies put performance first.

CSR processes designate the managerial procedures and instruments employed bybusinesses to bring their motivational principles into practice. On average, the sampledcompanies discuss 11 CSR processes (mean ¼ 11.28, s ¼ 2.460). German companiesmention slightly fewer processes with a higher variation (mean ¼ 10.30, s ¼ 3.045)than their British counterparts (mean ¼ 12.25, s ¼ 1.070). While all CSR processes arementioned by at least half of the companies and the gaps between successive processesare minimal, stakeholder engagement and communication (40 mentions), managementof environmental impact (39), code of ethics and business conduct (38), andphilanthropic programmes (38) lead the table (Table III).

Defining CSR

357

Com

pan

yT

urn

over

(bil

lion

£)

Em

plo

yee

s(t

hou

san

d)

Ori

gin

Inte

rvie

wee

job

titl

eIn

terv

iew

eeC

SR

exp

erie

nce

(yea

rs)

Inte

rvie

wco

de

Wor

ldw

ide

ban

kin

gan

dfi

nan

cial

serv

ices

gro

up

2221

9U

KS

enio

rm

anag

erb

ank

inso

ciet

y9

UK

Ba0

1

Glo

bal

oil

and

gas

gro

up

129

108

UK

Vic

e-p

resi

den

tof

CS

R21

UK

En

02G

lob

alin

sura

nce

gro

up

6017

4G

erm

any

Sen

ior

spok

esp

erso

ng

rou

pco

mm

un

icat

ion

s4

GE

In03

Wor

ldw

ide

ban

kin

gan

dfi

nan

cial

serv

ices

gro

up

4167

Ger

man

yD

irec

tor

ofcu

ltu

ral

affa

irs

6G

EB

a04

Glo

bal

car

man

ufa

ctu

rer

2910

4G

erm

any

Cor

por

ate

affa

irs

man

ager

4G

EC

a05

Ret

aili

ng

and

fin

anci

alse

rvic

es8

70U

KS

ust

ain

able

dev

elop

men

tm

anag

er16

UK

Re0

6

Inte

rnat

ion

alh

ealt

hca

rean

dp

har

mac

euti

cal

hol

din

gco

mp

any

1160

UK

Glo

bal

CR

man

ager

þ5

UK

Ph

07

Mer

chan

dis

ean

dlu

xu

ryg

ood

sre

tail

gro

up

855

UK

Sen

ior

exte

rnal

CS

Rad

vis

or8

UK

RG

08

Sources:

For

com

pan

yd

ata

–F

ame

Dat

abas

ean

dD

atam

onit

or(N

ovem

ber

2004

);fi

gu

res

rou

nd

ed

Table II.Interview sample

EBR19,5

358

Differences between the two nationalities are most noticeable for the processescorporate governance and compliance with law, risk management, health and safetymanagement, corporate benchmarking, and employee community involvement. Britishcompanies mention these processes more often than their German counterparts.Sponsorships are the only process German companies present more often.

Companies mentioning All UK Germany Difference test

Principles motivating CSR1. Performance-driven CSR 31 15 16 X 2 ¼ 0.143, df ¼ 1, p . 0.052. Value-driven CSR 25 12 13 X 2 ¼ 0.107, df ¼ 1, p . 0.053. Stakeholder-driven CSR 21 9 12 X 2 ¼ 0.902, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05CSR processes

1. Stakeholder engagement and communication 40 20 20 –2. Management of environmental impact 39 20 19 X 2 ¼ 1.026, df ¼ 1, p . 0.053. Code of ethics and business conduct 38 20 18 X 2 ¼ 2.105, df ¼ 1, p . 0.054. Philanthropic programmes 38 19 19 X 2 ¼ 0.000, df ¼ 1, p . 0.055. Business operation 36 19 17 X 2 ¼ 1.111, df ¼ 1, p . 0.056. Corporate governance and compliance with law 35 20 15 X 2 ¼ 5.714, df ¼ 1, p , 0.057. Human resources processes 34 17 17 X 2 ¼ 0.000, df ¼ 1, p . 0.058. Risk management 33 19 14 X 2 ¼ 4.329, df ¼ 1, p , 0.059. Health and safety programmes 32 20 12 X 2 ¼ 10.00, df ¼ 1, p , 0.05

10. Supply chain management 29 17 12 X 2 ¼ 3.135, df ¼ 1, p . 0.0511. Employee community involvement 26 17 9 X 2 ¼ 7.033, df ¼ 1, p , 0.0112. Corporate benchmarking 25 15 10 X 2 ¼ 2.667, df ¼ 1, p . 0.0513. Sponsorships 25 11 14 X 2 ¼ 0.960, df ¼ 1, p . 0.0514. Quality programmes 21 11 10 X 2 ¼ 0.100, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05Stakeholder issues

1. Community stakeholdersa. Quality of life 40 20 20 –b. Protection of the environment 39 19 20 X 2 ¼ 1.026, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05c. Education 33 18 15 X 2 ¼ 1.558, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05d. Human rights 24 13 11 X 2 ¼ 0.417, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05e. Arts and culture 21 6 15 X 2 ¼ 8.120, df ¼ 1, p , 0.01f. Cultural diversity 12 4 8 X 2 ¼ 1.905, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05g. Safety 11 6 5 X 2 ¼ 0.125, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05h. Animal welfare 7 5 2 X 2 ¼ 1.558, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05

2. Customer stakeholdersa. Quality 22 12 10 X 2 ¼ 0.404, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05b. Safety/health 21 13 8 X 2 ¼ 2.506, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05c. Data protection 3 2 1 X 2 ¼ 0.360, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05

3. Employee stakeholdersa. Health and safety 34 20 14 X 2 ¼ 7.059, df ¼ 1, p , 0.01b. Equal opportunity 31 17 14 X 2 ¼ 1.290, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05c. Learning and development 31 15 16 X 2 ¼ 0.143, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05d. Employee care 28 12 16 X 2 ¼ 1.905, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05

4. Shareholders/investorsa. Inclusion 8 5 3 X 2 ¼ 0.625, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05b. Shareholder value 8 6 2 X 2 ¼ 2.500, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05

5. Suppliers 9 8 1 X 2 ¼ 7.025, df ¼ 1, p , 0.01Additional CSR themes

1. Transparency 39 20 19 X 2 ¼ 1.026, df ¼ 1, p . 0.052. Sustainability 38 18 20 X 2 ¼ 2.105, df ¼ 1, p . 0.053. Responsiveness 31 18 13 X 2 ¼ 3.584, df ¼ 1, p . 0.054. Accountability 31 19 12 X 2 ¼ 7.025, df ¼ 1, p , 0.01

Table III.CSR principles, processes,

stakeholder issues, andadditional CSR themespresented on corporate

web sites (n ¼ 40)

Defining CSR

359

CSR issues are CSR-related concerns of importance to the stakeholders that directly orindirectly affect a company’s activities. On average, the sampled companies discuss tenissues on their web sites (mean ¼ 9.55, s ¼ 2.470). German companies (mean ¼ 9.00,s ¼ 2.636) display greater variance, and refer to slightly fewer issues than the British(mean ¼ 10.10, s ¼ 2.220).

As shown in Table III, community stakeholders (mean ¼ 4.68) are by far the mostfrequently referred to group, followed by employees (mean ¼ 3.1) and customers

Figure 1.Combination of CSRprinciples (No. of firms)

2

5

4 1

25

1

2

3

3 3

61

2

Germany UK

Value-driven Value-driven

Performance-driven

Performance-driven

Stakeholder-driven

Figure 2.Primary CSR principles

Value-driven Performance-driven

Stakeholder-driven

Primary CSR Principle

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Cou

nt

NationalityGermanBritish

EBR19,5

360

(mean ¼ 1.15). Shareholder (mean ¼ 0.4) or supplier issues (mean ¼ 0.23) are hardlybrought up. Overall, quality of life (40 mentions), protection of the environment (39),employee health and safety (34), and education (33) are the most common issues.

The frequencies vary noticeably between the nations. While there is cross-nationalagreement with respect to the importance of quality of life issues and environmentalprotection, British companies emphasize education, human rights and animal welfaremore often than German firms. In contrast, German companies emphasize culturaldiversity and especially arts and culture significantly more. While the Britishcompanies discuss all three customer issues more often than the German firms, theemployee stakeholder issues present a more varied picture. Whereas British companiesspeak about equal opportunity and especially about health and safety significantlymore often, German firms refer more recurrently to learning and development andemployee care issues. Companies in both countries scarcely refer to either shareholderor supplier issues. However, British companies still pay clearly more attention to thesestakeholder groups than German firms (Table III).

Furthermore, most CSR sections refer to additional themes that describe aspects ofcorporate behaviour in relation to CSR. Specifically, “Transparency” is presented aspart of CSR by 39 (98 per cent) companies, “Sustainability” by 38 (95 per cent), and“Accountability” and “Responsiveness” by 31 (78 per cent) (Table III).

German and British companies hardly differ with respect to “Transparency” and“Sustainability”. However, only 12 (60 per cent) German companies mention“Accountability” and 13 (65 per cent) “Responsiveness” as opposed to 19 (95 per cent)and 18 (90 per cent), respectively, of the British (Figure 3).

Figure 3.Additional CSR themes on

corporate web sitesGerman BritishNationality

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Mea

n

SustainabilityAccountabilityTransparencyResponsiveness

Defining CSR

361

The underlying rationale and thinking behind corporate CSR definitionsThe eight respondents had observed a growth in stakeholder expectations and publicscrutiny with respect to corporate behaviour since the late 1990s, attributing it mainlyto a general loss of trust in businesses that was accelerated by a series of food scaresand major business scandals:

What we find (. . .) is a much more questioning society. Consumers expect from us that wedemonstrate that we are dealing with all the substantive social, environmental issues that wemay cause (UKRe06).

As a result, companies were required to communicate their social performance moreclearly and to organise all CSR-related areas more coherently. This increasinglyextends to global issues, as corporations are moving towards “a broader sense ofcommunity” (UKBa02).

At the same time, businesses had to recognise the potential impact of corporatebehaviour on reputation, with the implication that a bad reputation may lead to a lossof trust and ultimately the company’s “Lizenz zum Wirtschaften” (licence to operate)(GEIn03). Therefore, developing the CSR notion is at least partly motivated “by theneed to defend our reputation” (UKPh07). Accepting responsibility, on the other hand,was understood to strengthen the reputation, also with employees, fostering “pride andloyalty” (UKPh07). Behaving in a socially responsible way, most respondents found, iscrucial to achieve sustainable business success: “Long-term we cannot be successfulunless we also address the wider issues around us, in the environment and in societygenerally” (UKBa02). Such a profit focus is usually justified by arguing that acompany’s failure would be “catastrophic for all its stakeholders, investors andemployees particularly” (UKBa02).

Several respondents argued that daily business activities constitute the mainimpact on society, highlighting the necessity of a comprehensive, business-focusedCSR notion. Any supplementary social investment has to be “directly relevant to ourbusiness and connected things that we can do” (UKEn01).

Consequently, while half of the respondents referred to reputation measurement aspart of gauging success, most acknowledged that there is “no overall benchmark ofsuccess” (UKRG08). One respondent even claimed to consider overall societal progressand development the “ultimate measure” (UKEn01). In fact, this company emphasizedthat any narrow CSR notion would always be perceived as a mere “green wash” by thepublic:

You can open as many schools and hospitals as you like, but if your core business is rotten,you’re going to be found out by society pretty quickly. The first and foremost action ofcorporate responsibility is getting the business done right (UKEn01).

Five respondents furthermore indicated that their concept of CSR enables them to “geton with the purpose of business, which is doing business” (UKEn01). This was seen ascrucial, as the respondents felt it is impossible to satisfy every interest involved inbusiness decisions and found that “opinions change very fast”(UKRG08) with respectto ethics. Especially, by means of transparency and stakeholder engagement, thepresent CSR notions allow internally and externally justifiable decisions.

Explaining his company’s strong stakeholder-orientation, one respondent arguedthat trying to reflect a societal consensus was the only way to avoid mistakes andpunishment. Accordingly, six of the eight respondents admitted that their company’s

EBR19,5

362

CSR approach is based more on practice and experience than on a theoretical basis.Here, some respondents refer to a “more instinctive” (UKBa02), evolutionary approachthat is “to some extent subjective and has to do with your gut feeling” (UKPh07). Themain guiding principle appears to be the notion of sustainable development, which sixcompanies referred to. In addition, all respondents mentioned stakeholder theory atleast implicitly.

Most respondents pointed to what they presented as a long tradition ofresponsibility, suggesting that the present CSR notion is the result and part of a“continuing learning process” (UKEn01). This evolution appears to be driven by anetwork of mutually interacting external and internal factors, which had recentlytriggered major conscious advancements within four companies.

Industry sector emerged as major external factor. With respect to CSR principles,environmentally-oriented companies exclusively focus on the performance aspect.Technology companies also favour that perspective. The transportation sectorhighlights the value-driven one, chemical and pharmaceutical businesses emphasizeboth the value-driven and the performance principle. The service industry displays thegreatest variance across all three principles (Figure 4).

Food and agriculture (mean ¼ 14.00), followed by wholesale/retail (mean ¼ 13.00,s ¼ 1.000) and chemical and pharmaceutical (mean ¼ 12.00, s ¼ 1.000), discuss thelargest number of CSR processes (Figure 5). The transportation sector mentions thefewest (mean ¼ 9.50, s ¼ 2.380). Companies with a low-environmental impact presentnoticeably fewer than average, and display a high-variance (mean ¼ 9.25, s ¼ 5.500).

As Figure 6 shows, the number of CSR issues varies as well. While the sectorswholesale/retail ðmean ¼ 11:00; s ¼ 3:000Þ and chemical and pharmaceutical ðmean ¼10:60; s ¼ 1:637Þ discuss the highest number of issues, transportation ðmean ¼ 7:75;s ¼ 2:217Þ and service ðmean ¼ 8:50; s ¼ 2:579Þ mention the least. Low-impactindustries mention the lowest average number with the greatest variance ðmean ¼ 8:50;s ¼ 4:933Þ; high-impact industries discuss the most ðmean ¼ 9:90; s ¼ 2:143Þ:

Figure 4.Industry sector and

primary CSR principleValue-driven Performance-driven Stakeholder-driven

Primary CSR Principle

0

1

2

3

4

5

Cou

nt

Industry Sector

Transportation

Technology

Service

Wholesale/ retail

Chemical & Pharmaceutical

Environmentally oriented

Food and agriculture

Other

Defining CSR

363

Figure 5.Industry sector andnumber of CSR processes

Industry Sector

Transportation

Technology

Service

Wholesale / retail

Chemical & Pharmaceutical

Environmentally oriented

Food and agriculture

Other

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Mea

n N

umbe

r Pr

oces

ses

Average:11.28

Figure 6.Industry sector andnumber of CSR issues

Industry Sector

Transportation

Technology

Service

Wholesale / retail

Chemical & Pharmaceutical

Environmentally oriented

Food and agriculture

Other

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Mea

n N

umbe

r of

CSR

Iss

ues

Average: 9.55

EBR19,5

364

Beyond frequencies, all respondents indicated that the respective industry sectorgenerates specific issues:

One company of the group handles an enormous amount of private information onindividuals. For that company, handling data protection and privacy and treating thatinformation properly is a critical business issue (UKRG08).

The transportation and the technology industries and the “other” category mention“Accountability” the least often (25, 75 and 50 per cent). “Responsiveness” is onlymentioned by 50 per cent of the companies in the technology, 60 per cent in thechemical and pharmaceutical, and 50 per cent in the “other” sector (Figure 7).

One-time events had a stronger influence among the British sample than for theGerman companies, usually involving public criticism of what stakeholders perceivedas socially irresponsible behaviour. In one instance, a succession of three incidentstriggered a substantial effort to consciously re-define CSR. As one respondentsummarized: “Business issues arise and are dealt with, we learn from them, we builtthem in and we move forward” (UKEn01).

This reactive, evolutionary process involves a wide stakeholder network,suggesting that the respondents view and experience CSR strongly as a“Dialogthema” (diolog topic)(GECa05).

Here, the business community emerged as a major factor, providing orientation interms of developments and best practice, advancing the notion and exercising controlthrough business initiatives. One British respondent cited a Business in theCommunity (BITC) CSR framework as his company’s notion’s basis.

Figure 7.Industry sector and

additional CSR themes

Transportation

Technology

Service

Wholesale / retail

Chemical & Pharmaceutical

Environmentally oriented

Food and agriculture

Other

Industry Sector

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Mea

n

SustainabilityAccountabilityTransparencyResponsiveness

Defining CSR

365

For all respondents, NGOs play a major role that goes beyond an external controlfunction and actually informs strategic direction. Two British respondentsacknowledged that NGOs, who generally adopt a broad view on CSR, are often“more in keeping with the expectations of our customers than think tanks or policymakers” (UKRe06). Additionally, as co-formers of public opinion, NGOs are seen toprovide “some element of forward-looking, forward projection” (UKRG08): “If youunderstand what Greenpeace are campaigning on now, it might tell you, in ten yearstime, what’s going to be the socially acceptable norm” (UKRG08).

Media scrutiny, which was mentioned by four British and one German respondent,was identified as posing serious reputation risks if irresponsible behaviour is exposed.Already a small failure was felt to potentially “destroy everything you’ve worked forsuch a long time” (UKPh07). This risk requires companies to control their CSRstandards and be transparent about them in every activity.

For half of the respondents, the financial community’s broadening perspective onrisk was perceived as an important impulse to widen the CSR perspective, particularlyin the UK: “They started all of a sudden to switch from asking only environmentallyrelated questions to broaden their interests to human rights and employee issues, etc.”(UKPh07).

The influence of governments and regulations was generally perceived as low, andmore often referred to by the German respondents.

Internally, the evolution of CSR is linked to corporate culture. Most respondentsindicated that the respective notion had to be “something that works for ourmanagement, for our company, for our culture, for our history” (UKEn01). Accordingly,there is a high-degree of variance with respect to which groups or people are mostinvolved in developing the CSR notion. All respondents reported that their company hascharged specialised committees with responsibilities to “oversee the CSR work”(UKBa02), providing “an overall direction, a long-term vision” (UKEn01). However, halfof the respondents said that their notion has developed within a cross-functionalnetwork of both strategic and business units, which are confronted with CSR issues, andhad varying degrees of responsibility. In two British companies, the development wasled from the top, in three cases the respondents themselves claim to have a significantinfluence on the development.

Within these company-specific networks, the public relations function generallyplayed a significant role. Six respondents indicated that their public relations functionsare involved in two-way boundary-spanning communication, relating messages tointernal and external audiences, but also “working very closely” with stakeholders to“understand what their expectations” (UKRe06) are, and then advising managementand influencing the company’s strategic direction in terms of CSR. In two companies,the public relations function assumed a “coordinating role” (UKBa02) or“Klammerfunktion” (bracket function)(GECa05):

Sie kennen und koordinieren alle nachhaltigkeitsbezogenen Vorgange und Aktivitaten imUnternehmen und sind letztendlich Sprachrohr nach außen [...] und nehmen auch einesensitive Stellung zur Außenwelt wahr, und tragen sie auch wieder nach innen(GECa05).(Translation: “They know and coordinate all sustainability-related proceduresand activities within the company and ultimately are the external mouthpiece [. . .] and arealso sensitive towards the environment and feed that back into the company.”)

EBR19,5

366

While all British respondents indicated that the role of public relations exceeds that ofa communicator, one German respondent insisted that the public relations functionexists exclusively to send messages out.

Lastly, the results suggest that turnover plays a role. While the top 20 companiesemphasize the value-driven and performance CSR principle, the lower-half of thesampled top 40 companies presents a more varied picture. The third-quartile has thelargest number of companies citing the stakeholder perspective as main motivatingprinciple (Figure 8).

Turnover rank hardly appears to influence the number of processes. Variation ishighest in the fourth-quartile (Table IV). The number of CSR issues decreases slightlyfrom the second to the fourth turnover quartile.

Discussion and conclusionThis study provides some evidence that CSR has come a long way from its earlyregional, person-centred, philanthropic focus. While the sample does not allowgeneralizations about German and British companies as a whole, the findings suggestthat the largest corporations are projecting CSR as a comprehensive sustainablebusiness strategy, based on transparency, accountability and responsiveness, which

Turnover rank Mean N Std deviation

1. Quartile 11.30 10 2.9462. Quartile 11.18 11 2.4013. Quartile 11.45 11 1.6354. Quartile 11.13 8 3.227Total 11.27 40 2.460

Table IV.Turnover rank and

average number of CSRprocesses

Figure 8.Turnover rank and

primary CSR principle

Value-driven Performance-driven

Stakeholder-driven

Primary CSR Principle

0

2

4

6

8

Cou

nt

Turnover Rank

1. Quartile

2. Quartile

3. Quartile

4. Quartile

Defining CSR

367

recognizes the business-society interdependence and constantly evolves in interactionsbetween the company and its increasingly global environment.

While supporting earlier findings that self-interest and performance considerationsare major drivers of CSR, the study challenges O’Dwyer’s (2003) conclusions thatcompanies act mostly proactively. Within a more questioning society and faced withfast changing views on CSR issues, most companies have adopted a reactive approach,making responsiveness and stakeholder engagement central themes within their CSRnotions. The study also found a shift within the British sample from performance tovalues as a motivational principle, compared to Maignan and Ralston’s (2002) findings,suggesting that companies increasingly present CSR as a part of their corporateculture.

The findings also reflect a significant increase in the number of CSR processes,which has indeed quadrupled in comparison with Maignan and Ralston (2002). Theemphasis has shifted to processes that determine how the company interacts withstakeholders and how it may achieve a positive impact through its regular businessactivities, confirming the tendency of a broadening CSR notion and a growingimportance of ethical aspects observed by Pinkston (1991) and Pinkston and Carroll(1996). In contrast, philanthropic programmes and especially sponsorships havecontinued to lose prominence. At the same time, companies now present their regularbusiness activities as an important means of fulfilling their responsibility.

Accordingly, both the overall number and mentions of individual CSR issues havesignificantly increased, accompanied by a shift concerning which issues are addressedmost often. While protection of the environment and education remain a top priority fora large majority of companies, these issues are overtaken by “quality of life” issues.The most significant change, however, can be observed with respect to employeeissues. Their number has doubled compared to Maignan and Ralston’s (2002) findings,and each is also mentioned more often. The respondents suggested that this might bedue to the recognition of the employees’ importance for business success. However,some statements clearly suggest that long-term sustainability and profitability retainprecedence in case of a conflict of interests.

All in all, external pressures and an increasing awareness among companies of theirregular business activities’ impact is the major driver for large companies tocommunicate a considerably broader CSR notion. In fact, CSR and business appear tobe converging into what is often presented as a sustainable business strategy.

While the underdeveloped theoretical foundations of the CSR notions generallyprovide decision makers with little guidance and make CSR vulnerable to criticism, theidea of sustainability, strongly rooted in the objective of long-term profitability, offersat least some direction. In accordance with Moir (2001) and Robertson andSchlegelmilch (1993), stakeholder theory emerged as the most widely used framework,helping to identify and communicate areas and issues of responsibility.

The similarities between large German and British companies generally supportSnider et al.’s (2003) observation that global companies act similarly in theirdevelopment and dissemination of CSR messages. The slight differences found in thisstudy, however, support Hopkins’s (2004) argument that CSR differs from country tocountry. These differences may be due to different starting points for CSR in Germanyand the UK. In Germany, the welfare state had already introduced stricter legislation inareas such as employee rights and green issues, whereas in the UK a more laissez-faire

EBR19,5

368

state passed on the responsibilities to the market. In the UK, a large number ofinstitutions and networks therefore developed to monitor businesses’ socialperformance, subjecting business to greater scrutiny. Consequently, UK companieswere driven to launch broader CSR initiatives to improve their legitimacy and socialacceptance, including the areas companies in Germany already had to cater for by law.In Germany, the lower influence of investors and ethical investment may be due to atraditional unwillingness of German investors to criticise companies publicly as aresult of a “Deutschland AG” (German Inc.)(GEIn03) culture of traditionally stronglyintertwined interests within the German economy.

Conceptions of CSR are evolving constantly in interaction with internal and externalinfluences. Supporting Bhambri and Sonnenfeld (1988) and Esrock and Leichty (1998),the location of the firm in a particular industry sector emerged as an important factorin the development of CSR policies, with different industries exhibiting diversepatterns of motivational principles and discussing differing numbers of CSR processesand issues. That high-impact companies generally present a broader CSR notionappears to be due to the wider range of critical issues they face and to the stricter publicscrutiny such companies experience.

In accordance with L’Etang (1994), who argues that companies are primarilyreactive in terms of CSR issues, the study found support for Pinkston and Carroll’s(1996) argument that CSR notions evolve in response to newly emerging issues. Eagerto avoid potential conflicts and ensuing damage to their reputation should they notreflect societal consensus, the companies developed CSR notions that emphasizestakeholder engagement, transparency and responsiveness. Moreover, while thefindings support earlier works by Pinkston and Carroll (1996) and Maignan andRalston (2002) with respect to the roles of the media and investors, the significantinfluence of the business community and NGOs in shaping the CSR notion still has tobe recognized.

In terms of internal influences, corporate culture appears to determine the generalattitude towards CSR and how the notion is advanced. As clear criteria increasinglyguide CSR-related work and large companies strive to develop objective measures togauge success, it can generally be observed that CSR positions and functions are moreand more institutionalised. Challenging Heath and Ryan’s (1989) conclusion that theyare often hardly involved in defining CSR, the study also found that communicationspractitioners played a significant internal and external role, which may be due to thegeneral direction which the notion of CSR has taken. As cornerstone of transparencyand responsiveness, the public relations function is increasingly realizing its potentialas a strategic business function identified by scholars such as Grunig et al. (1992) orCutlip et al. (2000). Generally, such organisational factors limit the power ofindividuals, challenging Hemingway and Maclagan’s (2004) conclusion that CSR ismainly the result of individual values and action.

However, the study supports earlier findings that company size and turnoverinfluence the presented CSR notion. As Esrock and Leichty (1998) argue, the largercompanies’ slightly broader notion could be seen as a response to greater demandsplaced on big firms. It may also be influenced by a generally more extensive corporatedisclosure in comparison with companies that have fewer resources, as suggestedalready by Cowen et al. (1987).

Defining CSR

369

The findings suggest that especially German companies, focusing more than Britishfirms on classic value-driven corporate citizenship, may feel obliged to embrace andcommunicate a clearer and broader notion of CSR in the future. Especially, as thepresent demise of the welfare state and high-unemployment figures increase thepressure to demonstrate socially responsible behaviour. Here, a proactive stance mayhelp firms to avoid some painful experiences the British sample reported, and couldreduce risks and even improve reputation and relationships. Tighter regulation can beexpected if the private sector fails to embrace CSR principles. Yet companies shouldnot search for “off the shelf” solutions, as appropriateness and believability areindustry- and business-specific. Here, CSR highlights the public relations function’sstrategic value as a boundary-spanning function.

CSR has come a long way from its early philanthropic roots, and has moved beyondthe tipping point to become a wide-spread strategic business practice. Full CSRintegration across the company is becoming the norm for large firms. The long-termquestion is whether this trend will lead to the development of a sustainable capitalism,in which present niche products such as organic food, renewable energy and fair tradeproducts can play a more prominent role. Social welfare and long-term businesssuccess may well depend upon these changing notions of sustainability. For the future,the categorical imperative of CSR is societal sustainability.

References

Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B. and Hatfield, J.D. (1985), “An empirical investigation betweencorporate social responsibility and profitability”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 28, pp. 446-63.

Bhambri, A. and Sonnenfeld, J. (1988), “Organizational structure and corporate socialperformance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 642-62.

Bowman, E.H. and Haire, M. (1975), “A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility”,California Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 49-58.

Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.

Carroll, A.B. (1999), “Corporate social responsibility”, Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3,pp. 268-95.

Cowen, S.S., Ferrei, L.B. and Parker, L.D. (1987), “The impact of corporate characteristics onsocial responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis”, Accounting,Organisations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 111-22.

Cowton, C. (1987), “Corporate philanthropy in the United Kingdom”, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 6, pp. 553-8.

Cutlip, S.M., Center, A.H. and Broom, G.M. (2000), Effective Public Relations, Prentice-Hall,London.

Dierkes, M. (1980), “Corporate social reporting and performance in Germany”, in Preston, L.E.(Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy,Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich,CT, pp. 251-89.

Drew, P. (1995), “Conversation analysis”, in Smith, J.A., Harre, R. and Langenhove, L.v. (Eds),Rethinking Methods in Psychology, Sage, London.

Esrock, S. and Leichty, G. (1998), “Social responsibility and corporate web pages:self-presentation or agenda setting?”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 305-19.

EBR19,5

370

Esrock, S. and Leichty, G. (2000), “Organization of corporate web pages: publics and functions”,Public Relations Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 327-44.

European Commission (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution toSustainable Development, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,Luxembourg.

Flick, U. (2002), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage, London.

Goebbels, M. (2002), “Reframing corporate social responsibility: the contemporary conception ofa fuzzy notion”, unpublished article, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.

Grunig, J.E., Dozier, D.M., Ehling, W.P., Grunig, L.A., Repper, F.C. and White, J. (1992), Excellencein Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,London; Hillsdale, NJ.

Heath, R.L. and Ryan, M.R. (1989), “Public relations role in defining corporate socialresponsibility”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 21-38.

Hemingway, Ch.A. and Maclagan, P.W. (2004), “Managers’ personal values as drivers ofcorporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 33-44.

Holmes, S.L. (1976), “Executive perceptions of corporate social responsibility”, BusinessHorizons, Vol. 19, pp. 34-40.

Hopkins, M. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility around the world”, available at: www.stthom.edu/cbes/corporate.html (accessed June 16, 2004).

Ibrahim, N.A., Howard, D.P. and Angelidis, J.P. (2003), “Board members in the service industry:an empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibilityorientation and directional type”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 393-401.

Joyner, B.E. and Payne, D. (2002), “Evolution and implementation: a study of values, businessethics and corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41 No. 4,pp. 297-311.

King, N. (1999), “The qualitative research interview”, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds),Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage, London.

L’Etang, J. (1994), “Public relations and corporate social responsibility: some issues arising”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 111-23.

Lerner, L.D. and Fryxell, G.E. (1988), “An empirical study of the predictors of corporate socialperformance: a multi-dimensional analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7, pp. 951-9.

Levy, F. and Shatto, G. (1980), “Social responsibility in large electric utility firms: the case ofphilanthropy”, in Preston, L.E. (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance andPolicy,Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 237-49.

Longnecker, J.G. (1985), “Management priorities and management ethics”, Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 4, pp. 65-70.

McGuire, J., Sundgren, A. and Schneeweis, T. (1988), “Corporate social responsibility and firmfinancial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 854-72.

Maignan, I. and Ralston, D. (2002), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US:insights from businesses’ self presentations”, Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 497-514.

Miles, R. (1987), Marketing and the Corporate Social Environment, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Moir, L. (2001), “What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?”, Corporate Governance,Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 16-22.

Defining CSR

371

Moore, C. and Richardson, J. (1988), “The politics and practices of corporate responsibility inGreat Britain”, in Preston, L.E. (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance andPolicy,Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 267-90.

Neuendorf, K.A. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage, London.

O’Dwyer, B. (2003), “Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerialcapture”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 523-57.

Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Models, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Pinkston, T.S. (1991), “‘Corporate citizenship’: a comparative analysis of foreign affiliates locatedin the US and their domestic counterparts”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Georgia, Atlanta, GA.

Pinkston, T.S. and Carroll, A.B. (1996), “A retrospective examination of CSR orientations. Havethey changed?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 199-206.

Robertson, D.C. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1993), “Corporate institutionalization of ethics in theUnited States and Great Britain”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 301-12.

Snider, J., Hill, R.P. and Martin, D. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century:a view from the world’s most successful firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 48 No. 2,pp. 175-87.

Vogel, D. (2005), The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of CSR, Brookings InstitutionPress, Washington, DC.

Wilson, I. (2000), “The new rules. Ethics, social responsibility and strategy”, Strategy &Leadership, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 12-16.

Wood, D.J. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisited”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 16, pp. 691-718.

Zadek, S. (2004), The Civil Corporation: The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship, EarthscanPublications, London.

Further reading

Abott, W.F. and Monsen, R.J. (1979), “On the measurement of corporate social responsibility:self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement”,Academy of Business Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 501-15.

Friedman, M. (1962), “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”, TheNew York Times, September 21, p. 126.

Goebbels, M. (2001), “The contemporary dynamics of corporate social responsibility: untanglingan emerging notion”, unpublished article, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.

Jones, M.T. (1996), “Missing the forest for the trees: a critique of the social responsibility conceptand discourse”, Business and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 7-41.

Veryiy, D. and Grunig, J.E. (2003), “The origins of public relations theory in economics andstrategic management”, in Moss, D., Veryiy, D. and Warnaby, G. (Eds), Perspectives onPublic Relations Research, Routledge, London, pp. 9-58.

EBR19,5

372

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints