The Impact of Social responsibility on Organizations Organizational Performance: A Literature review Abstract Since its genesis in 1979, corporate

social responsibility has been an aspect of the Bladrige Criteria for Performance Excellence. The Baldrige Criteria provides an outline for the creation and enhancing of high-performing organizations. Seemingly, social responsibility is a vital composite for accomplishing performance excellence. Corporate social responsibility has gained special attention from researchers over the past several years, with many hypothesis and theories focusing on if socially responsible organizations are more likely to be financially successful. This paper examines the inherent corporate social responsibility value proposition within the Milton Friedman and Archie Caroll Criteria in equivalence with current academic thought. In this review, corporate social responsibility is framed in respect to the implicit theories of firm management and current academic thoughts and research. Conclusions are drawn based on the relevance of

corporate social responsibility for performance excellence in the Baldrige criteria. It can be concluded that even without guided,

measurable empirical evidence, there is reinforcement in the literature

that participating in corporate social responsibility has an important impact on performance.

Introduction For decades, there are have been many academic debates and criticism about corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its effect on an organizations overall success. Supporters of CSR contend that organizations can benefit in more than one way by seeking long term perspectives that focus on short-term profits as well as the community they operate in. However, critics of CSR argue that the role of an organization is to make money and remain profitable. Some critics even argue that CSR is a program that was created by proponents to serve as a watchdog over successful organizations. According to McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright (2010), Theodore Levitt is responsible the current corporate social responsibility debate in the academic literature. Farmer (1964) saw CSR from a religious perspective. In his argument, he stated that some business philosophies gave rise to the necessity of CSR while others did not. In 1968,

Hopkinson provided a political and cultural view of CSR. In his statement, he explained CSR in terms of changes that took place in the 1960s. By the early part of the 1970s, the role of CSR in business had sparked a healthy debate (Breitweiser, 1971; Drotning, 1972; Blumberg, Goldston, & Gibson, 1973; Dierkes & Coppock, 1973; Kelso & Hetter,

1973). During the middle of the 1970s, researchers were starting to come up with a criteria for measuring CSR (Sethi, 1975; Abbott & Monsen, 1979). By the end of the decade, models of CSR had been formed (Carroll, 1979; Zenisek, 1979; Tuzzolino & Armandi, 1981). While proponents had been successful on the theoretical front, CSR continued to be a highly debated topic (Sohn, 1982; Walton, 1982; Mintzberg, 1983; Chrisman & Carroll, 1984). Analysis of the financial performance of organizations and their CSR endeavors were conducted (Cochran & Wood, 1984; Weissman, 1984; Aupperle, Carroll, & Hatfield, 1985), with mixed results. Indeed, CSR became part of corporate strategy (Murray & Montanari, 1985; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988), as well as a part of other aspects of business such as the legislative environment (Hemphill, 1997), and financial policy (Powell & Weaver, 1995; Burke & Logsdon, 1996; Pava & Krausz, 1996; McWilliams & Siegel, 1997). Since its inception, the disparity between organizations stated CSR practices and the perceptions of the public has become increasingly pronounced. Porter and Kramer (2010) described many occurrences throughout the1990s that prove that the public had a positive perception of CSR whether the academic literature had extensively proven its

utility or not. For instance, in the early 1990s when the media reported abusive labor practices by Nike, the organization was faced with an extensive consumer boycott. Another example is the Greenpeace protest of 1995 against Shell Oils decision to sink the Brent Spar, an old oil rig in the North Sea. There are many Pharmaceutical companies attending to AIDS pandemic in South Africa even though it does not have a direct link to their product line. Fast food corporations such as McDonalds are being proactive about adding caloric content after being held liable for obesity and poor nutrition. For this reason, CSR initiatives are likened to media campaigns. Also, 64% of the top multinational organizations published CSR reports in 2009, mostly within their annual report or in separate sustainability reports but this type of reports do not offer strategic CSR activities. Instead, these reports are offered as a list of the organizations social sensitivity (Porter & Kramer, 2010). As an academic field today, CSR has become an extensive research area. Since Carroll and Friedman, the quantity of research produced has soared quite greatly and it has become a part of every business theory. Global scandals such as that of Enron and WorldCom have since heightened the debate about corporate governance and corporate social performance.

Academic support for CSR To test the authenticity of these underlying claims, CSR initiatives will be examined in terms of three common theories of organizational management. Thought on how corporate social responsibility aligns with corporate strategy, and how an organizations social responsibility policy can meet the needs of its key communities are also assessed. Agency theory According to Stephen Rosss agency theory, it is recommended that during a transaction, the principal designates an agent to act on his or her behalf. This step demands that the principal trust the agent under imperfect information and uncertain outcomes (Dybvig, 2010, p. 134). Friedman (1970) references agency theory in his criticism of CSR. According to Friedman, managers are agents of shareholders of a firm, and as such should act in the best interest of the owners. According to Dybvig, to do anything else is to be abusive towards the owners of the firm. However, Carroll (2011) argues that organizational goals and profits are in alignment with societal benefits. He cites an example of product safety. While product safety might seem like a societal issue, it is also an economic issue he says. If the society is endangered, the

company profit will likely be affect. For this reason, CSR is also in the economic best interest of the organization. Stakeholder theory Many theories have considered the effect of social

responsibilities on shareholders. However, according to a theory developed by Freeman and Reed (1983) other stakeholders must be considered when making decisions. Donaldson and Preston (2011), included employees, customers, and society at large in this list of stakeholders (p. 89). This theory is justified from the descriptive, normative and instrumental perspective. As such, if employees, customers and society at large are stakeholders in a firm, then CSR is justified. The resource-based view of the firm In 1994, Barney and Zajac declared a two-part theory that resources are not equally distributed to all firms and firms can capitalize on their strengths as competitive advantage. McWilliams and Siegel (Makadok et al., 2011) explain that CSR is useful for profit-maximizing firms for the creation of strategic advantages. McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright (2011) expand on this further, adding that CSR efforts are like scarce resources and cannot be replace by any other initiatives.

CSR and corporate strategy In their 2010 article, Porter and Kramer explain that CSR is at the forefront of business managers all over the world because government agencies, activists, and the media have become more aggressive when it comes to holding organizations accountable for their actions. The underlying issues is that most CSR initiatives are not developed to be productive. As Porter and Kramer see it, organizations are not looking for a point of interdependence, instead they put their business interest against societal interest. Many firms are adopting the idea of social responsibility because of external pressure and are not thinking about CSR in a strategic advantageous way. Companies participate in CSR for four different reasons: moral obligation - their duty as good citizens, sustainability stewardship from the environment and community, operational license approval of stakeholders, and reputation the image or branding of the firm. According to Porter and Kramer (2010). All four of these reason are dependent on tensions between organizations and societal issues. For this reason, it becomes public relations rather than CSR initiatives for organizational performance. If organizations viewed CSR as an opportunity and incorporated

the same principles that guided their core business choices, they would realize that CSR is not just a cost of doing business. It is a potent avenue of doing business. It carries that benefits of innovation and competitive advantage. To dismiss the idea that CSR is a zero-sum game, Porter and Kramer (2010) describe a new way to view the relationship between organizations and the society they serve. In their framework, they explain that by strengthening the competitive context in which it works in, an organization can discover opportunities to benefit society and identify the consequences of their actions. Husted and de Jesus Salazar (2010) propose that altruistic purpose should be dismissed. Firms should aim for strategically chosen CSR projects, and by doing so they can maximize their overall social output. In their research, the focus was on the point of view that organizations meet their CSR goals because of altruism, coerced egoism or strategy. Using microeconomic tools, the researchers assessed the social output level that should be produced in each case. They concluded that it is in the best interest of an organization to act strategically than to be coerced into making investments. Using a multi-level theoretical model, Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, and Ganapathi (2011) set out to understand why CSR initiatives are

constantly on the rise in organizations. According to the researchers, CSR must have the potential to exert positive social change. Their framework incorporated several theories of organizational justice and corporate governance. At the individual, national, organizational and transnational level, they examined the interrelationship of moral, instrumental and relational motivations. Although the authors are unable to draw a precise conclusion from this study, they highlight the complexity of the strain on organizations to be actively involved in CSR. For this reason, this study offers the logic that CSR is best when all drivers of an initiative are understood. Accordingly, by being aware of relevant motivators, an organization will be able to act strategically. CSR and the environment As mentioned earlier, stakeholder theory states that there are people outside of the firm that are considered stakeholders. These stakeholders have expectations and they expect that their requirements will be met. For example, an organization that takes the initiative of making environmentally friendly products is meeting the expectations of key communities. In truth, the usual motivation that organizations have to be environmentally friendly is reputation. Equally, when a firm builds reputation, it has increased financial performance.

Gilley, Worrell, Davidson, and El-Jelly (2011) researched the relationship between reputation and shareholders. Using an event study methology, their study investigated the influence of environmental initiatives on organizations foreseen economic performance. Although the authors believed that environmental initiatives will cause positive shareholders reaction, they found that the announcement did not cause any overall effect on stock returns. This study is not comprehensive however. While shareholder value is significant, it is only one of many measures of success. For this reason, the study dos not exclude reputation from improving financial performance in other ways such as revenue. Bansal and Roth (2011) conducted a quantitative study of the drivers and situational factors that affect corporate environmental responsiveness. Data was collected from 53 companies in the United Kingdom and Japan. The authors found three go green drivers: competitiveness improvement of long-term profitability, legitimation improvement of the appropriateness of its actions within an established set of regulations, norms, values, or beliefs, and ecological responsibility - the concern that a firm has for its society. These drivers were a product of three situational conditions: field cohesion - the

magnitude and depth of methodical and informal network ties between principals in an organizational field, issue salience - the extremity of a specific ecological issue in relation to organization principals, and individual concern the value and discretion organization principals place on environmental issues. The authors concluded that a mixture of these motivations and situational elements made a difference in how ecologically responsive a firm is, but supports the idea that meeting a key communitys expectation is rewarding. CSR relationship to improved performance: A lack of consensus Over the course of decades, proponents and critics have formed several theories revolving around positive, negative and neutral impacts of CSR on financial performance. McWilliams and Siegel (2010) designate this inconsistency as a result of flawed empirical analysis. The authors contend that control variables are not taken into account in many of these studies. For example, a control variable, research and development investments have been shown to be a determinant when it comes to financial performance. The authors concluded that when done correctly, study will show that CSR has a neutral impact on financial performance. McWilliams and Siegel (2010) rearticulate this finding in a separate study.

Mackey, Mackey, and Barney (2011) constructed a theoretical model in which responsible investment opportunities were analyzed in reference to supply and demand to make certain of which activities would impact a companys market value. While the model shows that companies may invest in socially responsible activities that do not maximize profit, it showed a positive correlation between market value and socially responsible investments. This positive correlation between CSR and organizational value suggests that CSR can improve organizational performance. Deckop, Merriman, and Gupta (2010) conducted a supporting empirical research which also indicated that CSR was positively related to corporate financial performance. In their 2010 article, Harrison and Freeman investigate the relationship between stakeholder management and the view that an organization is socially responsible, and the performance significance of stakeholder management and social responsibility. An important finding in this review was the idea that there is a theoretical issue in verifying if a CSR program enhances corporate performance because economic effects are also social, and social effects are also economic. This article sheds light on a common concept that claims the true effect of CSR can frequently not be determined because the benefits are long-

term and surreptitious. What this indicates is that a firm that makes an investment in CSR today may not necessary reap its benefits immediately or directly. CSR initiatives can however payoff through subtle consumer loyalty. The lack of consensus on the impact of CSR is a direct result of an unclear definition of corporate social responsibility, unclear CSR metric, and the impact of situational elements. Difficulty defining CSR Although CSR has gained much attention from academic researchers over the past several years, the definitions of CSR are many and not frequently similar. Dahlsrud (2012) analyzed 37 definitions of CSR and found only five dimensions of CSR that were common across all the definitions that were referenced. Most important amongst the dimensions were the stakeholder and societal dimensions, closely followed by the economic dimension. Fourth in the rank was the degree to which CSR was voluntary was and the environmental dimension was found as the least important. Subsequently, without a proper definition of what elements are essential to CSR, it is tasking for researchers to conduct a thorough analysis. The lack of definition also limits the ability to initiate a CSR management tool to precisely capture a CSR initiatives effect.

Measuring CSR or corporate social performance According to Ruf, Muralidhar, and Paul (2012), Corporate Social Performance (CSP) can be defined as an organizations framework of social responsibility, course of social responsiveness, and discernible results as they interact with the firms societal relationships (p.120). Measurement of a companys CSP has been a topic of much debate because having a valid measure is vital for researchers to measure the outcomes of CSR initiatives. In their 2012 article, Ruf et al. propose an aggregate measure of CSP which integrates independent assessment of actual performance and stakeholder value judgment. The measurement was reached using the following steps: (1) Select dimensions of corporate social responsibility. (2) Examine the pertinent importance of these dimensions. (3) Analyze the organizations performance on each of these dimensions. (4) Combine the results of the pertinent importance and performance evaluation scores. This systematic measure was developed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a multiple criteria decision making technique

that permits the substitution of a multidimensional scale with a onedimensional scale, allowing assessment and analysis of organizations within and across industries. The authors did a test analysis of their configuration to see if they were able to secure all the vital elements ideal for measurement. The initial results were positive. Basu and Palazzos (2012) sense-making model sheds light on how managers ponder, reasn, and act with respect to their key stakeholders and the society at large. The model allows for sequence of interrelationships among several internal dimensions of a company and how those dimensions affect the effectiveness of certain CSR initiatives. If conclusions in the two articles are indeed correct, then determining an effective CSR effort for organizational performance should be possible. Contextual nature of CSR As with most corporate activity, situational elements play a vital role in why and how CSR programs are undertaken, and how productive those initiatives are in excelling organizational performance. In a recent article by Campbell (2011), the author explores the role that the economic health of an organization plays in its CSR commitment level. Furthermore, he explores many institutional conditions that affect how and why firms undertake CSR initiatives, including public and private,

the presence of independent organizations who monitor corporate behavior, institutionalized believes about proper corporate behavior, associative behavior among organizations themselves, and organized dialogues among organizations and their stakeholders. The differences in these institutional elements are more obvious across countries. Using neo-institutional and stakeholder theory, Doh and Guay (2010) show how the controlled environment of Europe and the United States influenced expectations about a corporations duty to society. The authors identify the key drivers of why and how organizations practice CSR to be government policy, corporate strategy, and non-governmental activism. The causal change in organizations over time and their peculiar history creates organizational personalities. Barnett (2011) explains that how a companys CSR program is received by the community and how effective it is depends on what the community knows about the company and the role that its products or services have played in everyday life (p. 794). For example, a corporation like McDonalds has long been known for unhealthy foods will not benefit from a CSR campaign to curb adult obesity and as such will not have any performance enhancement. Situational elements can develop through

each institutions peculiar history. For this reason, the predicted payoff of a particular CSR initiative cannot be correctly predicted across all organizations. Conclusion In reviewing the validity of the underlying propositions of corporate social performance, mixed evidence of its link to enhanced performance has been found. In looking at theoretical perspectives, Agency theory, Stakeholder theory, and RBV offer valid explanations as to the benefit of CSR activities. In order to use Agency theory to support CSR, it must be assumed that economic and societal interests are mutually involved that it is an economic importance to meet societal expectations. The argument for Stakeholder theorys support of CSR is more luminous as it unfolds managements accountability past shareholder to employees and other stakeholder outside of the firm. Finally, RBVs support of CSR evolves from the idea that it can lead to precise uniqueness that brings forth a competitive advantage. What is clear from the academic literature is that there is evidence that CSR activities should be channeled aggressively and strategically. These statement is traced from the idea that CSR, whether it has financial benefit or not, is a necessary evil. Since stakeholders,

both within the firm and outside of the firm, expect the firm to be socially responsible, it is in the best interest of the organization to do as expected. Otherwise, they may face the dreaded ridicule of being punished by the consumers who might stop purchasing their products or services. Evidently, most literature suggest strategic CSR as advantageous, whether for public relations or other reasons. However, in order for an organization to fully gain advantage, it must be sincere in its reasons for engaging in CSR and approach the initiative like other business decisions. The lack of a measuring metric makes it difficult to link empirical evidence to CSR in relation to organizational performance. Situational factors and the companys unique history and strategy have also been identified as influences on how an organization approaches CSR activities. According to McWilliams and Siegel (2010), there may be an ideal level of CSR for a given organization. However, this will be dependent on the factors such as organizations size, diversity, R&D, marketing, government sales, consumer income, labor market conditions, and stage in the industry life cycle . Academically, the benefits of CSR are still unknown the history of CSR. Evidence in academic literature show that society at large and

firms have been ahead of the academic research. As the field changes toward the idea that CSR is more beneficial than hurtful, even without direct, quantifiable, dependable empirical evidence, there is support in the academic literature that CSR activities will enhance the quality of a firm and its success. The case of British Petroleum BP is one of the biggest organizations in the world, with a turnover overshadowing some corporations. In recent years, BP has been linked with major environmental challenges on a global scale. As a matter of fact, no corporation has been on a bigger campaign to reinstate its reputation and re-orientate business to adapt to the sustainable needs of society. Its controversial rebranding and commitment to sustainable energy rather than oil has impressed many, yet annoyed some. In truth, there are some aspects of a company that shows that it is a corporate citizen. These elements usually do not apply to big corporations like British Petroleum. Most significant is the impact on environment. BPs oil extraction and energy consumption alone is much, but in addition to that, it provides these resources to its end-users who cause environmental pollution as well. The state of current scientific evidence emphasizes the need for protecting and environment and minimizing

climate change. However, environmental issues seem to not be the only issue this company needs to deal with. For a company that operates extensively in many countries, it needs to be aware of ethical guidelines across the globe. Furthermore, BP need to approach the topic of human rights carefully and strategically. Investment in the community and further research to reduce carbon emissions should be sought. As an employee, it is important to mention that BP recognizes the importance of dealing with environmental and social challenges that we face today. Also, the company realizes that it should play an even bigger role in addressing and resolving many sustainability issues. It is important to note that government agencies and environmental agencies need to be a part of this solution. Currently, BP reports its own greenhouse gas and other emissions, oil spillages, employee satisfaction, days lost through injury at work, and community investment across the world. With its policy statement, BP commits to responsible business principles. The organization should focus on improving personal safety and environmental impact.

References Abbott, W.F., & Monsen, R.J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501515. Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A., & Ganapathi, J. (2011). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836863. Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B., & Hatfield, J.D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446463. Badaracco, C.H. (1996). Public opinion and corporate expression: In search of the common good.Public Relations Quarterly, 41(3), 14 19. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2011). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness.Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717736. Barnett, M.L. (2011). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability

of financial returns to corpporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794816. Barney, J.B., & Zajac, E.J. (1994). Competitive organizational behavior: Toward an organization-ally-based theory of competitive

advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(8), 59. Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122136. Blumberg, P.I., Goldston, E., & Gibson, G.D. (1973). Corporate social responsibility panel: The constituencies of the organization and the role of the institutional investor. Business Lawyer, 28(2), 177. Breitweiser, S.D. (1971). Do fundamentals of management really change? SAM Advanced Management Journal (00360805), 36(4), 11. Brown, T.J., & Dacin, P.A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 6884. Burke, L., & Logsdon, J.M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 495502. Campbell, J.L. (2011). Why would organizations behave in socially

responsible ways? An insti-tutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946967. Carroll, A.B. (2011). The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497505. Cheit, E.F. (1964). Why managers cultivate social responsibility. California Management Review, 7(1), 322. Chrisman, J.J., & Carroll, A.B. (1984). SMR forum: Corporate responsibility reconciling economic and social goals. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 5965. Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 747760. Clark, C.E. (2011). Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 363. Cochran, P.L., & Wood, R.A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 4256. Dahlsrud, A. (2012). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility &

Environmental Management, 15(1), 113. Deckop, J.R., Merriman, K.K., & Gupta, S. (2010). The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 32(3), 329342. Dierkes, M., & Coppock, R. (1973). Corporate responsibility does not depend on public pressure. Business & Society Review/Innovation, 2(6), 8289. Doh, J.P., & Guay, T.R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 4773. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the organization: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 6591. Drotning, P.T. (1972). Why nobody takes corporate social responsibility seriously. Business & Society Review (08934398), 1(3), 6872. Dybvig, P. (2010). Collected Works of Stephen A. Ross: Some Highlights. American Economic Review, 63(2), 134139. Farmer, R.N. (1964). The ethical dilemma of American capitalism. California Management Review, 6(4), 4758.

Freeman, R.E., & Reed, D.L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88106. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 173178. http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedma n-soc-resp-business.htm. Gilley, K.M., Worrell, D.L., Davidson, W.N., III, & El-Jelly, A. (2011). Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated firm

performance: The differential effects of process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1199. Harrison, J.S., & Freeman, R.E. (2010). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 479485. Hemphill, T.A. (1997). Legislating corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 40(2), 53. Hopkinson, T.M. (1968). What is the business of business? Public Relations Quarterly, 12(4), 519.

Husted, B.W., & De Jesus Salazar, J. (2010). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 7591. Kelso, L.O., & Hetter, P. (1973). Corporate social responsibility without corporate suicide. Challenge (05775132), 16(3), 52. Mackey, A., Mackey, T.B., & Barney, J.B. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and firm perform-ance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817 835. Makadok, R., Priem, R.L., Bowman, C., Ambrosini, V.r., Windsor, D., McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2011). Dialogue. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 498505. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2012). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a com-parative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404424. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (1997). The role of money managers in assessing corporate social. Journal of Investing, 6(4), 98. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?

Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspec-tive. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117127. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., & Wright, P.M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 118. Mintzberg, H. (1983). The case for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Strategy, 4(2), 3. Murray, K.B., & Montanari, J.B. (1986). Strategic management of the socially responsible firm: Integrating management and marketing theory. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 815827. Neubaum, D.O., & Zahra, S.A. (2010). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of

investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32(1), 108131. Pava, M.L., & Krausz, J. (1996). The association between corporate social responsibility and finan-cial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 321357. Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2010). Strategy and society. Harvard

Business Review, 84(12), 7892. Powell, G.E., & Weaver, D.G. (1995). Do investors price social responsibility? Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 14(3), 61. Ruf, B.M., Muralidhar, K., & Paul, K. (2012). The development of a systematic, aggregate measure of corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 24(1), 119133. Sethi, S.P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58 64. Sohn, H.F. (1982). Prevailing rationales in the corporate social responsibility debate. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(2), 139144. Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B.R. (1981). A need-hierarchy framework for assessing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 2128. Varadarajan, P.R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strat-egy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58. Walton, C.C. (1982). Corporate social responsibility: The debate revisited. Journal of Economics & Business, 34(2), 173. Weissman, G. (1984). Social responsibility and corporate success.

Business & Society Review (00453609), 13(51), 6768.

Zenisek, T.J. (1979). Corporate social responsibility: A conceptualization based on organizational literature. Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 35936.