Business social responsibility: how are
SMEs doing in Gauteng, South Africa?
Mmboswobeni Watson Ladzani and Solly Matshonisa Seeletse
Mmboswobeni Watson
Ladzani is an Associate
Professor of
Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management at
the Department of Business
Management, University of
South AfricA, Pretoria,
South Africa.
Solly Matshonisa Seeletse
is a Senior Lecturer at the
Department of Statistics
and Operations Research
at the University of
Limpopo, Medunsa
campus, Pretoria, South
Africa.
DOI 10.1108/17471111211196593
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to establish the extent to which small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
in Gauteng, South Africa involve business social responsibility (BSR) in their practices. It also aims to
bring awareness of the importance that BSR has amongst SMEs. The objectives are to measure the
involvement of SMEs BSR on management performance, identify strengths and areas that need
improvement of BSR and expose the potential usefulness of BSR in South African SMEs.
Design/methodology/approach A quantitative comparative design was used to collect primary data
from 326 respondents from 64 randomly selected SMEs in the study area. Structured interviews were
used.
Findings The findings revealed that SMEs in Gauteng had performed worst in the area of BSR out of
the ten management performance scores measured. The study further found that most owner-managers
of the sampled businesses had university qualifications and most of these businesses had passed the
survival stage.
Research limitations/implications The study excluded major components of BSR, and cannot be
generalized to the remaining eight provinces.
Practical implications It is recommended that SMEs in the study area strengthen BSR as a marketing
tool to grow their businesses. Furthermore, SMEs researchers should focus on bringing the benefits of
BSR to SMEs operations.
Originality/value Many SMEs seem to understand that BSR is to be carried out only by large
enterprises. This study exposes Gauteng SMEs to BSR since those that incorporated BSR in their
operations were not doing enough.
Keywords Business social responsibility, Job creation, Management performance,
Small to medium-sized enterprises
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Henry Ford said: A business that makes nothing but money is a poor kind of business (The
CSI Handbook, 2006, p. 5). This statement seems to be true to many small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in South Africa as well. These enterprises seem to
understand that business social responsibility (BSR) is to be carried out only by large
enterprises. Hence the phrase, corporate social responsibility (CSR), is commonly used in
many studies when BSR is undertaken by large enterprises. This is evidenced by some
studies that stated that the concept of social responsibility was originally formulated and
applied in large enterprises (Narbaiza et al., 2009, p. 62; Niehm et al., 2008, p. 333).
BSR, however, demands that organisations shift from focusing solely on making a profit to
including financial, environmental and social responsibility in their core business strategies.
Despite what the CSR suggests, the concept is not restricted to corporations (or large
enterprises) anymore, it has evolved to envelope all business types. Due to its modern
development, CSR is intended for most types of organizations, such as associations, labour
unions, organizations that serve the community for scientific, educational, artistic, public
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012, pp. 87-99, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 87
 health or charitable purposes, and governmental agencies (Bhyuian, 2009, p. 1; Colvin,
2001, p. 60; Frankish et al., 1998, p. 288).
Worldwide, companies and their human resource (HR) leadership are coming to grips with
the desirable BSR goals in their organizations and the approaches to strategically include
BSR within business goals and objectives. There is growing evidence pointing to the validity
of and the demand for BSR (Lockwood, 2004, p. 2; Waring and Lewer, 2004, p. 101).
Low and Kalafut (2002, p. 1) point that there are ample benefits contained in BSR for any
kind of business, including the SMEs. They maintain that in SMEs, BSR can help in the
setting and maintaining of standards due to constant feedback obtainable from outside
dealings with society. However, they counsel that SMEs may be misled into thinking that BSR
does not carry any benefits because the benefits coming through BSR are essentially
intangibly accumulated, and are principally concealed. These were echoed by Vershoor
(2001). Vershoor (2001, p. 21) emphasise that BSR in SMEs have potential to benefit
business, especially when it is coupled with ethical business behaviour.
BSR can also help SMEs to align with recent times. For example, as corporate citizenship is
required in the twenty-first century, the benefits of BSR include accountability, transparency
and global stakeholder engagement (Muirhead et al., 2002, p. 3). The initiatives of BSR when
applied in SMEs, as implied in Prahalad (2004, p. 54), may enhance profitability of the SMEs
and also help in addressing poverty in the local society of the SME operations. Furthermore,
Fukuyama (1995, p. 17) and Unilever (2004, p. 3) emphasise that BSR is appropriate in the
twenty-first century, and is a tool to rebuild trust in business. The relevance of BSR in SMEs is
also emphasised by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (2002, p. 1) points out that the implications for
SMEs in developing countries include a contribution to the economies of those countries.
The implications of BSR include that SMEs are able to meet the changing market
expectations for the SMEs, making good business sense by increasing SME business value,
help the SMEs to follow their values, and help them in communicating the strategic
importance of company citizenship to investors. European Union (2002, p. 3) agrees with
these implications by explaining that BSR is a business contribution to sustainable
development.
Due to the recency of BSR, there are still many gaps between BSR theory and management
practice, especially in small business. This problem is exacerbated by limited information on
managing BSR in small businesses. Several factors have contributed to the shallow
understanding of small business social responsibility (SBSR) (McWilliams et al., 2006,
pp. 1-4). Therefore, SBSR is BSR of SMEs. First, orientation persists in the BSR literature on
large business and only limited research and discussion have focused on BSR in SMEs.
Second, it is perceived that small businesses lack sufficient influence or resources to
adequately address social issues. Third, small businesses are encouraged to overlook
social activism and to concentrate instead on avoiding irresponsible behaviour.
The tendency for BSR research to be conducted primarily in large-scale corporation ignores
the fact that in many countries, especially the developed ones, the largest proportion of the
work force is employed by SMEs (Jenkins, 2006, p. 243). The need for focusing BSR to SMEs
is also triggered by the fact that developing and undeveloped nations can improve their
economies by incorporating BSR practices in their SMEs.
The advances made in BSR theory are impressive. However, its positive impact is restricted
by the fact that BSR is primarily understood from the perspective of large corporations. BSR
seems to be less visible among SMEs. Therefore, it is appropriate to search for information to
reach a better understanding of BSR in small business. The big business orientation of
previous BSR research limits its usefulness and applicability to the majority of businesses.
Further evolution of theory and empirical research that includes small businesses would
greatly enhance the usefulness of BSR concepts for practitioners (Merrifield, 2003, pp. 2-8)
SMEs are increasingly considering the need to also incorporate the BSR concept in their
operations. This is mainly due to the benefits that BSR has to the growth and sustainability of
small enterprises and value adding to their local communities. These benefits range from job
creation, inducing economic growth, and introducing innovations to attracting clients and

j j
PAGE 88 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012
employees in these communities (Dunphy et al., 2003, p. 2; Lepoutre and Heene, 2006,
p. 258; SustainAbility, 2004, p. ii).
Job creation helps to solve some of the pressing socio-economic problems such as
unemployment, poverty and crime (Ladzani and Netswera, 2009, p. 225; Dzansi, 2004,
pp. 5-6). A study conducted at Harvard University found that stakeholder-based
companies showed four times the growth rate and eight times the employment growth when
compared to companies that are focused on shareholders only (Dzansi, 2004, p. 5). This
indicates that job creation curbs unemployment in many communities.
Perrini (2006, p. 307) has, however, reported that SMEs BSR has received relatively little
attention. Further, there is limited literature on SME experiences in industrialised countries
and even less in developing countries. More research is needed to further the development
of BSR in SMEs of South Africa.
The question that this paper asks, therefore, is: how are SMEs doing in the Gauteng Province
of South Africa as far as BSR is concerned. The empirical study (Ladzani, 2009) that was
done reveal some startling results.

2. The BSR concept

The business for social responsibility, a US-based global business organisation, defines
corporate social responsibility (CSR) as operating a business enterprise in a manner that
consistently meets or exceeds the ethical, legal, commercial, and public expectations
society has of business (Perrini, 2006, p. 307).
Lepoutre and Heene (2006, p. 257) refer to small businesses that are involved with business
social responsibility activities as small business social responsibility (SBSR) while Perrini
(2006, p. 308) refers to them as SMEs with CSR.
According to Dzansi (2004, p. 82), BSR is used to describe small businesses that are
involved on impacting positively on society in their operations.
Consequently, the three approaches, namely; SMEs with CSR, SBSR and BSR, refer to the
same concept. Hereinafter, this study uses only the term BSR. For the purpose of the
article, BSR refers to operating SMEs in such a way that, they positively affect their local
communities and are responsive to their views and feelings.

3. Aim and objectives

The aim of the paper was to establish the extent to which SMEs in Gauteng, South Africa are
involving business social responsibility, and to bring awareness and the importance that
BSR has amongst SMEs. The objectives were to measure the involvement of SMEs BSR on
management performance, to identify strengths and areas that need improvement of BSR
and to expose the potential usefulness of BSR in South African SMEs.

4. Global outlook of SMEs business social responsibility

Connor (2009, p. 2) reports that in many developed countries approximately 99 percent of
registered businesses are SMEs. Geldenhuys (2009, p. 201) reveals similar findings by
stating that SMEs constitute 99 percent of all firms in both industrialised and developing
countries. This indicates the important role that SMEs play as well as their contribution to
both the industrialised and the developing economies.
Geldenhuys (2009, p. 201) further states that approximately 50 percent of productive
employment emanates from SMEs. These SMEs are reported to contribute between 30 and
60 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).
Countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia owe their
improved level of development to the SMEs. In the US and Canada SMEs have contributed
significantly towards new job creation, resulting in employment growth (Dzansi, 2004, p. 58).

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 89
 Half of European SMEs are involved, in some way or another, in external social responsibility
causes (Perrini, 2006, p. 309). In Italy, there is a limited degree of commitment amongst the
majority of SMEs to formalise social responsibility. Lepoutre and Heene (2006, p. 259)
found that in Latin America only 5 percent of small businesses remained ideal with respect to
internal SBSR. On the other hand, inactivity with regard to external stakeholders and the
environment was much higher in Latin America, at 39 and 52 percent respectively.
In most African countries, similarly, the SMEs are widely acknowledged as major
contributors to national economies (Dzansi, 2004, pp. 54-56).
Global values in the business environment promote social responsibility for various reasons.
Two of these reasons are marketing and sustainability of the business. When businesses
contribute money to the wellbeing of their communities, they are promoting themselves as
well as attracting potential customers to their businesses. Given the importance of the SME
sector, social responsibility should be taken seriously, especially for the benefit of growing
this sector in developing economies (like the South Africa economy) (Zadek, 2001, p. 2).

5. SMEs business social responsibility in South Africa

In South Africa, BSR is often viewed as an unnecessary burden for small enterprises due to
their limited resources. Difficulties in attaining access to finance, a lack of time and expertise
and the associated additional administrative burdens create a barrier to launching any
programmes that do not contribute directly to their core functions (Geldenhuys, 2009,
p. 211). Efforts of SMEs that started with BSR projects did not receive recognition and market
rewards (Raynard and Forstater, 2002, p. 6). The Codes of Good Practice of black economic
empowerment further exclude SMEs from receiving any rewards for participating in BSR
activities.
In South Africa, SMEs seem to have remained non-committed to BSR involvement for many
years. Visagie (1997, p. 666) has reported that individual managers and the SMEs in which
they work are often neutral to social change even though they cannot afford to be.
Competitiveness and growth require a supportive social and political climate. The policy
implications of an environment characterised by heightened uncertainty, economic
stagnation and political upheaval create profound challenges. Economic growth and the
creation of employment require a climate of confidence, hope and steady economic
progress. SMEs have a vital role to play in all of these areas. Societal changes have become
commonplace, but the uncertainty and lack of direction accompanying such change is
problematic for SMEs. Strategic and visionary leadership is required during these times.
Currently, the SMEs do not show this trend.
South Africas SME sector is expected to contribute to poverty alleviation, employment
creation and international competitiveness (Berry et al., 2002, p. 1). These are
complementary policy objectives. The policy instruments introduced to meet these
objectives, however, are different. They range from literacy training to technological advice.
It has become urgent to determine clear priority groups in the targeting of more efficient
promotion activities towards the more productive SMEs. One difficulty in confronting policy
makers (at political or regulatory level) is how best to develop an approach to SMEs that
would achieve a sufficient degree of co-ordination between supply-side effort and demand
potential. There is the risk of investing resources in improving supply potential where
demand constraints are high. The question arises as to whether supply-side incentives have
frequently been ineffective because of such demand problems or whether ambiguous
supply policies and deficient service delivery are the real causes of lack of success.
Ultimately, however, it is the generation of detailed information about the functioning and
working of the SME sector that decides, first and foremost, the success or failure of a
redesigned SME policy framework.
Consequently, South African SMEs are not productive enough in terms of BSR. Moreover,
policies on SBSR in this regard are deficient. Even though there are indications of political
will to design useful policy that would ensure desirable practice amongst SMEs, there has
not been visible evidence of SMEs involvement BSR.

j j
PAGE 90 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012
 Given the economic status of BSR amongst SMEs in South Africa, it has become even more
important to investigate its potential. The economic status of South Africas SMEs is that they
account for 62.2 percent of all businesses, contribute 36.1 percent to the gross domestic
product (GDP) and 55.9 percent to the total private sector employment (Nieman, 2006,
pp. 13-14). These contributions, however small compared to their counterparts in the
developing economies like Brazil, India and Mexico, need to be nurtured and grown.

6. Research methodology
This section presents the research methods used in the study on which this paper is based.
The research instrument, the research approach and the sample and responses are
discussed. Tables and calculations are used to explain the research approach and clarify
the discussions in the sample and responses subsection.

6.1 Research instrument

The research instrument was the validated and standardised performance excellence
self-assessment questionnaire (PESQ). PESQ is a computer-aided matrix questionnaire
research instrument (see Table AI under Appendices). This instrument was based on the
South African excellence model which deals with 11 core management performance
functions, including social responsibility. The advantage of PESQ lies in the immediate
availability of preliminary results. Primary quantitative data were collected through
face-to-face structured interviews using the. These data were used to investigate the
impact of social responsibility on the management performance of the provinces SMEs in
the construction industry. They were also used to identify the strengths and areas for
improvement and to recommend action plans for areas that needed improvement.

6.2 Research approach

A quantitative comparative research design was used for data analysis (Hofstee, 2006,
pp. 124-6; Neuman, 2006, pp. 33-5). The researcher described and compared the scores of
management performance functions with world-class and SADC best practices. A social
responsibility management performance function was also ranked.
In line with the approach of the Southern African Initiative of German Business (Southern
African Initiative of German Business, 2004, p. 5), the management performance of SMEs
was scored on a five-point Likert scale of zero to four. SMEs that scored zero and one in
management performance were regarded as being weak in management performance,
those that scored two were regarded as having made good progress, those that scored
three were considered best in SADC (substantial progress) and those that scored four were
considered world-class best on practice (fully achieved).
Table I presents a summary of the representation and interpretation of the scale code of
scores and their corresponding percentages as explained above.
The data analyses were done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS
package) and an electronic self-assessment programme (Batlisisa[1]).

6.3 Sample and responses

Two sub-populations (strata) of building construction SMEs in Gauteng were used for the
study, namely the Gauteng Master Builders Association (GMBA) and the Construction
Industry Development Board (CIDB). Sampling was done from the GMBA and the CIDB

Table I Representation and interpretation of scale code

Scale code

Scores 0 1 2 3 4
Percentages 0 ,25 ,50 ,75 ,100
Interpretation Not started Some progress Good progress Substantial progress Fully achieved

Source: Own construction

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 91
 populations because these organisations contain registers of leading role players in the
industry. Thus, the GMBA and the CIDB formed the strata for sampling purposes. The
population size of the GMBA was 557 SMEs, while that of the CIDB was 532 SMEs. The study
population was, therefore, based on 1,089 SMEs.
Proportional, stratified random sampling was used to select a representative sample of
these SMEs. The sampling method was used to ensure that the different strata were
represented in the sample to obtain a representative sample. The study followed a sampling
ratio of 10 percent as guided by Neuman (2006, p. 241). The population and the sampling
size were, therefore, calculated as follows:
The total population isN 557 532
1; 089

The sample size is n N 0:10

n N sampling ratio
1; 089 0:1
< 109
Table II summarises the population, sample, response and employees interviewed in the
GMBA and the CIDB.
A stratified random sample of 64 SMEs responded from a possible 109. This amounts to an
average response rate of 59 percent. The distribution was 54 percent from the GMBA and
64 percent from the CIDB. A total of 326 employees were interviewed to answer questions
about the sampled SMEs. These employees were purposively selected, based on the total
number of employees in a business and their availability at the time of the interview. They
represented staff at all levels, namely top management, middle management, lower
management and labourers. The number of employees interviewed per business varied from
1-21 employees. The reason for this variation was that some businesses employ fewer
employees than others.
Equality of variance tests were conducted to determine the variations in responses where
only one respondent represented an SME compared to where the SMEs were represented
by several respondents. Levenes test of variances was used for this purpose. The Levenes
test revealed that the requirement of homogeneity was met on the basis of standard
deviations in samples as small as one employee to several employees.

7. Findings
The section reports on the findings of the sampled SMEs. These findings include the
qualifications of the owner-managers, the number of years that the sampled SMEs had
existed and the overall performance of the responding SMEs. Relevant tables and figures
aided the findings.

7.1 Educational qualification of owner-managers

The educational qualifications of the owner-managers were as follows: 21 (32.8 percent)
held a first degree/diploma; 20 (31.3 percent) had completed Grade 12 (N3); nine
(14.1 percent) held a B Tech/Honours degree; six (9.4 percent) had completed Grade 8 to
11; five (7.8 percent) held the Masters/M Tech; one (1.6 percent) had Grade 1 to 7 (further

Table II SMEs population, sample, response and employees interviewed

Population size Sample population Response rate No. of employees
Study area N n % No. % interviewed

GMBA 557 56 10 30 54 229

CIDB 532 53 10 34 64 97
Total 1,089 109 10 64 59 326

Notes: GMBA: Gauteng Master Builders Association; CIDB: Construction Industrial Development Board

j j
PAGE 92 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012
 education and training) (FET); general education and training (GET); and one (1.6 percent)
had no formal qualification.

7.2 Duration in business of sampled SMEs

Of the 64 sampled SMEs, 16 (25.0 percent) had existed for three to five years; 15
(23.4 percent) had existed for more than 11 years; followed by 12 (18.8 percent) that had
existed for 7 to 9 years; 10 (15.6 percent) that had existed for 5 to 7 years; five (7.7 percent)
that had existed for 9 to 11 years; four (6.3 percent) that had existed for 1 to 3 years; and two
(3.1 percent) had existed for less than a year.
Figure 1 summarises the duration in business of the sampled businesses.

7.3 Measurement of management performance of SMEs

Table III and Figure 2 reflect the self-assessment scores of the SME respondents using the
Batlisisa computer-aided matrix programme.
Table III shows the overall performance of the responding SMEs. The criteria points
(maximum possible points) and the points scored by participating SMEs are shown in the
labelled columns of Table III. Columns five, six and seven show the differences (gap between
maximum and scored points), criteria priority scores (where the lowest number indicates

Figure 1 Duration in business

Table III Overall performance of responding SMEs

Criteria Criteria points Points scored Difference Criteria priority Achievement (%)

Enabler criteria
1 Leadership 25 18 7 10 72.0
2 Planning and strategy 17 2 15 3 11.8
3 Customer and market focus 15 10 5 8 66.7
4 People management 23 7 16 5 30.4
5 Resource and information management. 15 10 5 9 66.7
6 Business processes 30 13 17 7 43.3
Total for enabler criteria 125 60 65 48.5

Results/achievements criteria
7 Social responsibility 15 0 15 1 0.0
8 Customer satisfaction 43 32 11 11 74.4
9 People satisfaction 22 7 15 6 31.8
10 Supplier and partnership performance 7 2 5 4 28.6
11 Business results 38 3 35 2 7.9
Total for results criteria 125 44 81 28.5
Total scores 250 104 146 38.5

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 93
 Figure 2 Respondents position in terms of performance criteria

higher priority) and achievement in percentage form. Priority number 1 in this table
indicates highest priority; priority number 2 indicates the second highest priority and so
on. Achievement given as a percentage is the ratio of point scored to corresponding criteria
point (column four to column three in the table) multiplied by 100.
These criteria points are adapted from the international management performance
excellence models and scaled down for the South African and SADC region (South African
Excellence Foundation, 2000, p. 14). The criteria points were used as benchmarks for
world-class and SADC best practice.
The weakest achievement of the SMEs in the study was social responsibility (achievement of
0.0 percent) and the strongest achievement was customer satisfaction (achievement of 74.4
percent).
Figure 2 is a graphical representation of the results in Table III.
Figure 2 shows the respondents position in terms of performance criteria. The criteria points
(highest points per criterion) are the world-class best practice points. Below each grid
(highest point per criterion) are the average points scored by all the sampled SMEs.
Implications of the findings are:
B The findings show that the respondents educational level was generally adequate,
however, it lacked focus and content on social responsibility for SME development
B Given the long duration of sampled SMEs existence, lack of social responsibility
involvement is a concern that SME practitioners should address. This is confirmed by
social responsibility aspect scoring zero in the study.
B The results on measuring social responsibility show that social responsibility is a high
priority in SME development.

8. Limitations of the study

Limitations exist in the standardised questionnaire and the empirical study sections.

j j
PAGE 94 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012
8.1 Standardised questionnaire limitation
The specific components contributing to management performance are not addressed in
the questionnaire. For example, job creation and poverty alleviation are major components
of BSR that all SMEs are involved in, but the questionnaire does not address them. The
findings therefore compromise these components.

8.2 Empirical study limitation

The approach used in the study limited the scope to only one province, the Gauteng Province.
This is despite South Africa having nine provinces in total, and the remaining eight are inferior
(in terms of development and overall prosperity) to Gauteng. Hence, the sample size of
provinces was just 11.1 percent (1 out of 9) of the entire count of provinces. Moreover, the
study cannot be generalised to these other provinces because of being a too small sample
(i.e. not representative) and the differences in dynamics of the various provinces. However, an
improvement of this study could serve as a benchmark for similar studies in other provinces.

9. Discussions of business social responsibility in Gauteng

Regarding BSR, the findings revealed that SMEs in Gauteng had performed very poorly. BSR
was the only management performance criterion that had an average of zero scores, which
meant that on average, SMEs did not incorporate BSR in their business dealings. The zero BSR
performance could mean that there is very little or no information on the benefits of
incorporating BSR amongst SMEs in the area. Since most of the owner-managers
(<55 percent) had university degrees, the perception is rife that BSR is only regarded for
large enterprises. The fact that the majority (<91 percent) of the sampled businesses had been
in existence for three years and more proves that these businesses had passed the critical
stage of survival. These businesses are at the growth and maturity stages of their life cycle.
Businesses at these stages are supposed to impact their communities in a more visible way.
Table III and Figure 2 show their different scores compared to other ten management
performance measurement criteria. These criteria included leadership, strategy and
planning, customer and market focus, and customer satisfaction amongst others. Given that
other management performance measurement criteria scored relatively well (e.g. customer
satisfaction scored 74.4 percent, leadership 72.0 percent, and customer and market focus
66.7 percent) shows that much is still required to incorporate BSR amongst SMEs in the
study area.

10. Conclusions and recommendations

10.1 Conclusions
The aim of this paper was to establish the manner in which the SMEs in Gauteng, South
Africa were using BSR in their operations. The main findings of this study revealed that SMEs
in the study area have hardly started implementing social responsibility activities. These
results are however, only based on the ten focus areas that the respondents were asked
about. These areas included whether views of local society were proactively canvassed and
results of these views fed back into the SMEs policies, regardless of whether impact on
society targets were being met and whether local community perceptions and needs were
set for improvement. These results confirm literature reviewed that revealed that many SMEs
do not focus on BSR. The study however, did not ask the respondents issues of job creation
and reduction of unemployment, poverty and crime in these societies.
The study shows that Gauteng SMEs were below the benchmarks set for SADC and the
worlds best practice in social responsibility (refer to Table III and Figure 2). Intervention is
therefore imperative to Gauteng SME practitioners in the area of social responsibility.

10.2 Recommendations
The results of this study suggest that SMEs should be conscientized on the benefits of
incorporating social responsibility activities in their operations. This is a vital tool for
marketing and sustaining SMEs. It is also recommended that these businesses embrace

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 95
 BSR as a marketing tool in order to take these businesses to a higher level (from small to
medium-sized and from medium-sized to large enterprises).
It was further revealed that there are limited studies on SMEs BSR, especially in South Africa. It
is recommended that SMEs researchers should incorporate BSR in their scope of business to
bring awareness of societal needs and issues that may be used to create as well as advance
business-boosting and poverty alleviation relationships between society and the SMEs.

11. Areas for further research

Since the study covered only one province of South Africa, areas that could still be explored
are the other eight provinces of South Africa, as well as the whole of South Africa. Other
areas of possible research focus on SBSR are the South African Development Community
(SADC) countries. Also, a comparative study of developing nations is another open area for
research. In order to expose the differences between developed and developing nations, a
comparative study may also be undertaken to compare these two groups of nations.

Note
1. Batlisisa is a South African electronic self-assessment programme, developed in 2003 by Ideas
Management Southern Africa cc (now operating as the Centre for Excellence). This programme was
based on the South African Excellence Model and the management performance excellence criteria.

References
Berry, A., Von Blottnitz, A.-B.M., Cassim, R., Kesper, A., Rajaratnam, B. and Van Seventer, D.E. (2002),
The economics of SMMES in South Africa, Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies, available at: www.
tips.org.za/node/204.
Bhyuian, D.H. (2009), Dynamics of corporate social responsibility, The Financial Express, 9 July, p. 1.
Colvin, G. (2001), Should companies care?, Fortune, Vol. 143, June, p. 60.
Connor, D. (2009), Corporate social responsibility, talk about the good work being done by firms in
touch with their triple bottom line, CSR for Smaller Businesses, No. 5, October.
(The) CSI Handbook (2006), The state of CSI, 9th ed., Trialogue, Kenilworth.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A. and Benn, S. (2003), Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Dzansi, D.Y. (2004), Social responsibility of SMMEs in rural communities, unpublished doctoral thesis,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
European Union (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable
Development, European Union, Brussels.
Frankish, J., Milligan, D. and Reid, C. (1998), A review of relationships between active living and
determinants of health, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 287-301.
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, The Free Press, New York,
NY.
Geldenhuys, J. (2009), Corporate social responsibility in small business and medium enterprises in
South Africa, in Aras, G., Crowther, D. and Vettori, S. (Eds), Corporate Social Responsibility in SMEs.
Research Series: Issues in Corporate Behavior and Sustainability, Social Responsibility Research
Network, Leicester.
Hofstee, E. (2006), Constructing a Good Dissertation: A Practical Guide in Finishing a Masters, MBA or
PhD on Schedule, EPE, Johannesburg.
Jenkins, H. (2006), Small business champions for corporate social responsibility, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 241-56.
Ladzani, M.W. (2009), Evaluation of small and medium-sized enterprises performance in the built
environment, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg.
Ladzani, W. and Netswera, G. (2009), Support for rural small business in Limpopo Province, South
Africa, Development Southern Africa, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 225-39.

j j
PAGE 96 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012
Lepoutre, J. and Heene, A. (2006), Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social
responsibility: a critical review, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 257-73.
Lockwood, N.R. (2004), Corporate social responsibility: HRs leadership role, HR Magazine, pp. 1-25,
1 December.
Low, J. and Kalafut, P.C. (2002), Invisible Advantage: How Intangibles Are Driving Business
Performance, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, P.M. (2006), Corporate social responsibility: strategic
implications, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Merrifield, M. (2003), Corporate Americas latest act: juggling corporate social responsibility, Baylor
Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Muirhead, S.A., Bennett, C.J., Berenbeim, R.E., Kao, A. and Vidal, D.J. (2002), Corporate Citizenship in
the New Century: Accountability, Transparency, and Global Stakeholder Engagement, The Conference
Board, New York, NY.
Narbaiza, L., Ibanez, A., Aragon, C. and Iturrioz, C. (2009), A proposal for measuring social
responsibility activities in SMEs, in Aras, G., Crowther, D. and Vettori, S. (Eds), Corporate Social
Responsibility in SMEs. Research Series: Issues in Corporate Behavior and Sustainability, Social
Responsibility Reserch Network, Leicester.
Niehm, L.S., Swinney, J. and Miller, N.J. (2008), Community social responsibility andits consequences
for family business performance, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 331-50.
Nieman, G. (Ed.) (2006), Small Business Management: A South African Approach, Van Schaik, Pretoria.
Neuman, W.L. (2006), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6th Ed.,
Pearson Education, Whitewater, WI.
Perrini, F. (2006), SMEs and CSR theory: evidence and implications from an Italian perspective,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 305-16.
Prahalad, C.K. (2004), Face value: profits and poverty, The Economist, p. 54, 21 August.
Raynard, P. and Forstater, M. (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility. Implications for Small and Medium
Enterprises in Developing Countries, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna.
South African Excellence Foundation (SAEF) (2000), SME Criteria for Small and Medium Enterprise
Performance Excellence, K&M Print, Pretoria.
Southern African Initiative of German Business (2004), In Pursuit of Entrepreneurial Excellence in SADC
Self-assessment Using the SADC Quality Model Questionnaire and Workbook, DaimlerChrysler,
Pretoria.
SustainAbility (2004), Gearing up: From Corporate Responsibility to Good Governance and Scalable
Solutions, SustainAbility, London.
Unilever (2004), A Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century, CSR: Rebuilding
Trust in Business, London Business School, Unilever, London.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility:
Implications for Small and Medium Enterprises in Developing Countries, United Nations Industrial
Development Organization, Vienna.
Vershoor, C.C. (2001), Ethical behavior brings tangible benefits to organizations, Strategic Finance,
Vol. 82 No. 11, pp. 20-2.
Visagie, J.C. (1997), SMMEs challenges in reconstructing South Africa, Management Decision,
Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 660-7.
Waring, P. and Lewer, J. (2004), The impact of socially responsible investment on human resource
management: a conceptual framework, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 99-108.
Zadek, S. (2001), The Civil Corporation: The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship, Earthscan,
London.

Appendix
Table AI shows the scores of social responsibility questionnaire. Ten questions were asked.
These questions appear in the first column of the table. The table also shows the

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 97
j
Table AI Social responsibility questionnaire and responses

j
Scores obtained
0 1 2 3 4
Substantial
Not started Some progress Good progress progress Fully achieved Total
Questions/focus areas Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

PAGE 98 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012

1. Views of local society are proactively
canvassed. Results are fed back into the
organizations policies 133 40.9 63 19.4 72 22.2 32 9.8 25 7.7 325 100.0
2. Benchmarking has started for 25 percent of
the impact on society targets 136 41.8 64 19.7 70 21.5 35 10.8 20 6.2 325 100.0
3. 50 percent of impact on society targets are
being met 134 41.2 60 18.5 64 19.7 46 14.2 21 6.5 325 100.0
4. Results are linked to environmental and
social policy. Policy is reviewed 130 40.0 60 18.5 76 23.4 44 13.5 15 4.6 325 100.0
5. There is an increased public awareness of
policies 136 41.8 68 20.9 59 18.2 44 13.5 18 5.5 325 100.0
6. There are consistently improving trends in
relevant result areas 115 35.4 69 21.2 66 20.3 53 16.3 22 6.8 325 100.0
7. Local community perceptions and needs are
set for improvement 120 36.9 65 20.0 59 18.2 44 13.5 37 11.4 325 100.0
8. Employees awareness of relevant result
areas are measured 126 38.8 68 20.9 61 18.8 50 15.4 20 6.2 325 100.0
9. Trends are established, and a process is in
place to track progress 124 38.2 58 17.8 73 22.5 46 14.2 24 7.4 325 100.0
10. Result areas have been identified 112 34.6 73 22.5 67 20.7 41 12.7 31 9.6 324 100.0
Consolidated scores 1,266 39.0 648 19.9 667 20.5 435 13.4 233 7.2 3249 100.0
Figure A1 South African Excellence Model

respondents scores for the different focus areas and their corresponding consolidated
scores (totals).
Figure AI shows the South African Excellence Model and its weighted management
performance points. The model is the result of a researched combination of the USA
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award model and the European Foundation for Quality
Management model.

Corresponding author
Mmboswobeni Watson Ladzani can be contacted at:wladzani@unisa.ac.za

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.