Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to operating a business in a manner that meets or exceeds the ethical, legal, and commercial expectations of customers, shareholders, employees, and the communities where the firm does business. Companies that practice CSR aim to do more for the betterment of the others than is required by laws, regulations, or special interest groups. Incorporating corporate citizenship, which is a focus on building and engaging with the community, CSR emphasizes the development of shared value for both shareholders and stakeholders, creating a double- win scenario. [10]

To engage in CSR means that, in the ordinary course of business, a company is making a conscious effort to operate in a way that enhances society and the environment. Through CSR programs, philanthropy, and volunteer efforts, businesses can benefit society while boosting their brands. For a company to be socially responsible, it first needs to be accountable to itself and its shareholders. Companies that adopt CSR programs have often grown their business to the point where they can give back to society. [19]

Other definitions refereeing CSR:

The European Commission from 2011: 

“The responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society. To fully meet their corporate social responsibility, enterprises should have in place a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders, with the aim of: maximizing the creation of shared value for their owners/ shareholders and for their other stakeholders and society at large; identifying, preventing and mitigating their possible adverse impacts”. 

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development in its publication Making Good Business Sense by Lord Holmes and Richard Watts, used the following definition:

“Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large”. [18]

The concept of CSR evolved mainly in the Western countries, most notably the United States of America. The roots of the concept of CSR as it is known today have a long history which indicates that businesspeople have paid increasing attention to the concerns of society.

According to ESCAP (2011), in the late nineteenth century, businesses raised concerns on the welfare of their employees and their impact on society in general. Corporate social responsibility has become an objective reality of our day.

Most companies are publishing social reports and voluntarily adhering to the international non-financial reporting standards over the years there has been a significant increase in the popularity of CSR ideas leading to a surge in the number of programmes and funding allocated by companies to implement them.

For half a century, the CSR concept has gone from one-time events of individual companies to an integral part of modern management of any reputable company.

The reason for this increased attention was two counter trends:

1. On one hand, businesses were seeking new ways to improve efficiency in a rapidly changing world.

2. On the other hand, society has been placing a growing demand for social responsibility in businesses across all sectors. [18]

Development of CSR

1950’s: the early days of the modern era of social responsibility

Howard Bowen is considered the founder of the CSR theory. In 1953, he published the famous book "The Social Responsibility of a Businessman".  It gives the following definition of CSR: "CSR consists in implementing that policy, making such decisions or following such a line that would be desirable for the goals and values of society."  Having outlined the general need for socially responsible behavior, Bowen initiated the formation of various branches from the original idea and the emergence of many clarifying definitions.[18]

After Bowen, other authors were concerned with corporate behaviour and its response to the social context of the time. For example:

• In the book Corporation Giving in a Free Society published in 1956, Eells argued that the large corporations of the time were not living up to their responsibility in a time of generalized inflation.

• Keith Davis, who explained that the important social, economic and political changes taking place represented a reason for businessmen to re-examine their role in society and their social responsibility. [33]

1960’s : Another theory is proposed

1960: Frederick proposed a new theory of business responsibility based on five requirements:

1.      to have a criteria of value (in this case for economic production and distribution),

2.      to be based on the latest concepts of management and administration,

3.      to acknowledge the historical and cultural traditions behind the current social context,

4.      to recognize that the behaviour of an individual businessmen is a function of its role within society and its social context,

5.      to recognize that responsible business behaviour does not happen automatically but on the contrary, it is the result of deliberate and conscious efforts.[33]

The 1970’s: CSR and management

1971: Committee for Economic Development acknowledged that the social contract between business and society was evolving in substantial and important ways and specifically noted that: “Business is being asked to assume broader responsibilities to society than ever before and to serve a wider range of human values. Business enterprises, in effect, are being asked to contribute more to the quality of American life than just supplying quantities of goods and services. Inasmuch as business exists to serve society, its future will depend on the quality of management’s response to the changing expectations of the public”.

1972: Publishing The Club of Rome, (formed in 1968 by a group of researchers that included scientists, economists and business leaders from 25 different countries), which questioned the viability of continued growth and its ecological footprint. The report brought the attention towards the impact of population growth, resource depletion and pollution, and pointed out the need of responsible business practices and new regulatory frameworks.

1975: Preston and Post are saying that corporations have a public responsibility that is limited by clear boundaries, meaning that anything outside is not an obligation for the firm and explained that going beyond those limits offers no clear direction for achieving the company’s main goals and can translate into an inefficient re-orientation of activities.

1979: Carroll proposed what is arguably the first unified definition of Corporate Social Responsibility stating that: “The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time”. 

The 1980’s: the operationalization of CSR

1980: Thomas M. Jones was arguably the first author to consider CSR as a decision making process that influence corporate behavior. Jones’ contribution gave way to a new area of debate around CSR which focused more on its operationalization than on the concept itself. This translated into the creation of new frameworks, models, and methods aimed at evaluating CSR from an operational perspective.[33]

The 1990’s: Globalization, recognition and implementation of CSR

As Carroll explained, during the 1990’s, the globalization process increased the operations of multinational corporations which now faced diverse business environments abroad, some of them with weak regulatory frameworks.

Many multinational corporations understood that being socially responsible had the potential to be a safe pathway to balance the challenges and opportunities of the globalization process they were experiencing and as a result, the institutionalization of CSR became stronger.

1991: Wood defined three dimensions of CSP:

1. The principles of Corporate Social Responsibility, which include legitimacy (institutional level), public responsibility (organizational level), and managerial discretion (individual level).

2. She defined the processes of corporate social responsiveness as environmental assessment, stakeholder management, and issues management.

3. She specified the outcomes of corporate behaviour as social impacts, social programs, and social policies. 

Carroll presented the “Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility”, in 1991, with the aim of providing a useful approach to CSR for the executives that needed to balance their commitments to the shareholders with their obligations to a wider set of stakeholders.

1994: Concept of “The Triple Bottom Line”, first conceived by Elkington as a sustainability framework that balances the company’s social, environmental and economic impact.

1995: The European Commission also played a relevant role in encouraging the implementation of CSR and begun promoting it when 20 business leaders adopted the European Business Declaration against Social Exclusion in response to the EC’s call to combat social exclusion and unemployment.

This resulted 1 year later, in the launch of the European Business Network for Social Cohesion (later renamed CSR Europe) which gathered business leaders with the aim of enhancing CSR within their organizations.

1996: Burke and Logsdon identified five dimensions of strategic CSR which, for them, are essential for achieving the business objectives as well as for value creation:

1)    Centrality, which represents how close or fit is CSR to the company’s mission and objectives;

2)    Specificity, which represents the ability to gain specific benefits for the firm;

3)    Proactivity, in terms of being able to create policies in anticipation of social trends;

4)    Voluntarism, explained as the discretionary decision making process that is not influenced by external compliance requirements,

5)    Visibility, which refers to the relevance of the observable and recognizable CSR for internal and external stakeholders. [6]

1999: The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) was launched on July 2000 gathering 44 global companies, 6 business associations, and 2 labor and 12 civil society organizations (United Nations Global Compact). 

2000's: CSR keep growing:

2000: the United Nations adopted the Millennium Declaration with its eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and set the international agenda for the following 15 years. Even when the MDGs and the debate around them was not directly linked to CSR, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) pointed it out as a framework for the UN – private sector cooperation with the aim of achieving its goals and as a result the global recognition of the concept became stronger.

2001-2004: The EC held a series of conferences for discussing CSR in Brussels, Helsinki and Venice, which resulted in its adoption as a strategic element for the Plan of the General Direction of Business of the European Commission.

2010’s: CSR and the creation of shared value 

2011: The concept of creating shared value was further developed by Porter and Kramer who explained it as a necessary step in the evolution of business and defined it as: “policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates. Shared value creation focuses on identifying and expanding the connections between societal and economic progress”. 

2011: the EC published the renewed European Union (EU) strategy for CSR for the years 2011–2014 followed by a public consultation in 2014 with regards to its achievements, shortcomings, and future challenges.

2013: Chandler and Werther defined SCSR as: “The incorporation of a holistic CSR perspective within a firm’s strategic planning and core operations so that the firm is managed in the interests of a broad set of stakeholders to achieve maximum economic and social value over the medium to long term.”

2015: CSR Europe launched the Enterprise 2020 Manifesto which aimed to set the direction of businesses in Europe and play a leading role in developing an inclusive sustainable economy. The Manifesto focuses on the generation of value on five key areas:

1. Societal impact through the promotion of responsible and sustainable business practices;

2. Membership engagement and satisfaction which is meant to guarantee the continuity in the work of CSR Europe to achieve its mission and societal impact;

3. Financial stability;

4. Employee engagement focused on the investment of individual development as well as organizational capacity, and;

5. Environmental impact assessment to determine areas of improvement. [33]

2016: The new component of SCSR, the optimization of value, reinforces Chandler’s updated perspective in which the maximization of profit, or trade offs, is no longer an acceptable objective. Instead, companies should aim at optimizing value over the long term by focusing on their areas of expertise and by doing so there would be a reorientation of efforts towards the creation of shared value instead of profit maximization. This reflects Chandler’s belief that SCSR should be part of the day-to-day operations in order for it to be successful. [7]

The concept of CSR evolved mainly in the Western countries, most notably the United States of America. The roots of the concept of CSR as it is known today have a long history which indicates that businesspeople have paid increasing attention to the concerns of society. According to ESCAP (2011), in the late nineteenth century, businesses raised concerns on the welfare of their employees and their impact on society in general. Corporate social responsibility has become an objective reality of our day. Most companies are publishing social reports and voluntarily adhering to the international non-financial reporting standards over the years there has been a significant increase in the popularity of CSR ideas leading to a surge in the number of programmes and funding allocated by companies to implement them. For half a century, the CSR concept has gone from one-time events of individual companies to an integral part of modern management of any reputable company. the reason for this increased attention was two counter trends. On one hand, businesses were seeking new ways to improve efficiency in a rapidly changing world. On the other hand, society has been placing a growing demand for social responsibility in businesses across all sectors.[18]

Development of CSR 

1950’s and 1960’s: the early days of the modern era of social responsibility

Howard Bowen is considered the founder of the CSR theory. In 1953, he published the famous book "The Social Responsibility of a Businessman".  It gives the following definition of CSR. "CSR consists in implementing that policy, making such decisions or following such a line that would be desirable for the goals and values of society."  Having outlined the general need for socially responsible behavior, Bowen initiated the formation of various branches from the original idea and the emergence of many clarifying definitions.[18]

After Bowen, other authors were concerned with corporate behavior and its response to the social context of the time. For example, in the book Corporation Giving in a Free Society published in 1956, Eells argued that the large corporations of the time were not living up to their responsibility in a time of generalized inflation. A notable example of this period was Keith Davis, who explained that the important social, economic and political changes taking place represented a pressure for businessmen to re-examine their role in society and their social responsibility. The significance of Davis’ ideas is that he indicated that the “social responsibilities of businessmen need to be commensurate with their social power” and that the avoidance of such would lead to a decrease of the firm’s social power.[33]

1960: Frederick proposed a new theory of business responsibility based on five requirements:

1. to have a criteria of value (in this case for economic production and distribution),

2. to be based on the latest concepts of management and administration,

3. to acknowledge the historical and cultural traditions behind the current social context,

4. to recognize that the behavior of an individual businessmen is a function of its role within society and its social context,

5. to recognize that responsible business behavior does not happen automatically but on the contrary, it is the result of deliberate and conscious efforts.[33]

The 1970’s: CSR and management

1971: Committee for Economic Development acknowledged that the social contract between business and society was evolving in substantial and important ways and specifically noted that: “Business is being asked to assume broader responsibilities to society than ever before and to serve a wider range of human values. Business enterprises, in effect, are being asked to contribute more to the quality of American life than just supplying quantities of goods and services. Inasmuch as business exists to serve society, its future will depend on the quality of management’s response to the changing expectations of the public”.

1972: Publishing The Club of Rome, formed in 1968 by a group of researchers that included scientists, economists and business leaders from 25 different countries, which questioned the viability of continued growth and its ecological footprint. The report became of relevance for the international community because it brought the attention towards the impact of population growth, resource depletion and pollution, and pointed out the need of responsible business practices and new regulatory frameworks.

1975: Preston and Post are saying that corporations have a public responsibility that is limited by clear boundaries, meaning that anything outside is not an obligation for the firm and explained that going beyond those limits offers no clear direction for achieving the company’s main goals and can translate into an inefficient re-orientation of activities.

1979: Carroll proposed what is arguably the first unified definition of Corporate Social Responsibility stating that: “The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time”.  Carroll built the famous model, later called the „Carroll pyramid“

The 1980’s: the operationalization of CSR

1980: Thomas M. Jones was arguably the first author to consider CSR as a decision making process that influence corporate behavior. Jones’ contribution gave way to a new area of debate around CSR which focused more on its operationalization than on the concept itself. This translated into the creation of new frameworks, models, and methods aimed at evaluating CSR from an operational perspective.[33]

The 1990’s and 2000's: Globalization, recognition and implementation of CSR

As Carroll explained, during the 1990’s the globalization process increased the operations of multinational corporations which now faced diverse business environments abroad, some of them with weak regulatory frameworks. Many multinational corporations understood that being socially responsible had the potential to be a safe pathway to balance the challenges and opportunities of the globalization process they were experiencing and as a result, the institutionalization of CSR became stronger.

1991: Wood defined three dimensions of CSP: first, the principles of Corporate Social Responsibility, which include legitimacy (institutional level), public responsibility (organizational level), and managerial discretion (individual level). Second, she defined the processes of corporate social responsiveness as environmental assessment, stakeholder management, and issues management. Third, she specified the outcomes of corporate behavior as social impacts, social programs, and social policies.  Carroll presented the “Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility” with the aim of providing a useful approach to CSR for the executives that needed to balance their commitments to the shareholders with their obligations to a wider set of stakeholders.

1992: Foundation of the association Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) which initially included 51 companies.

1994: Concept of “The Triple Bottom Line”, first conceived by Elkington as a sustainability framework that balances the company’s social, environmental and economic impact.

1995: The European Commission also played a relevant role in encouraging the implementation of CSR and begun promoting it when 20 business leaders adopted the European Business Declaration against Social Exclusion in response to the EC’s call to combat social exclusion and unemployment. This resulted 1 year later, in the launch of the European Business Network for Social Cohesion (later renamed CSR Europe) which gathered business leaders with the aim of enhancing CSR within their organizations.

1996: Burke and Logsdon identified five dimensions of strategic CSR which, for them, are essential for achieving the business objectives as well as for value creation: 1. centrality, which represents how close or fit is CSR to the company’s mission and objectives; 2. specificity, which represents the ability to gain specific benefits for the firm; 3. proactivity, in terms of being able to create policies in anticipation of social trends; 4. voluntarism, explained as the discretionary decision making process that is not influenced by external compliance requirements, and; 5. visibility, which refers to the relevance of the observable and recognizable CSR for internal and external stakeholders. [6]

1999: World Economic Forum, Kofi Annan said: “I propose that you, the business leaders gathered in Davos, and we, the United Nations, initiate a global compact of shared values and principles, which will give a human face to the global market” (United Nations Global Compact). As a result, the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) was launched on July 2000 gathering 44 global companies, 6 business associations, and 2 labor and 12 civil society organizations (United Nations Global Compact). 

2000: the United Nations adopted the Millennium Declaration with its eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and set the international agenda for the following 15 years. Even when the MDGs and the debate around them was not directly linked to CSR, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) pointed it out as a framework for the UN – private sector cooperation with the aim of achieving its goals and as a result the global recognition of the concept became stronger.

Between 2001 and 2004 the EC held a series of conferences for discussing CSR (“What is CSR” in Brussels, “Why CSR” in Helsinki, and “How to promote and implement CSR” in Venice) which resulted in its adoption as a strategic element for the Plan of the General Direction of Business of the European Commission.

2011: the EC published the renewed European Union (EU) strategy for CSR for the years 2011–2014 followed by a public consultation in 2014 with regards to its achievements, shortcomings, and future challenges.

2015: CSR Europe launched the Enterprise 2020 Manifesto which aimed to set the direction of businesses in Europe and play a leading role in developing an inclusive sustainable economy and can be understood as a response to the EU Strategy on CSR as well as to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. 

The Manifesto focuses on the generation of value on five key areas:

1. societal impact through the promotion of responsible and sustainable business practices;

2. membership engagement and satisfaction which is meant to guarantee the continuity in the work of CSR Europe to achieve its mission and societal impact;

3. financial stability;

4. employee engagement focused on the investment of individual development as well as organizational capacity, and;

5. environmental impact assessment to determine areas of improvement. [33]

2010’s: CSR and the creation of shared value 

2011: The concept of creating shared value was further developed by Porter and Kramer who explained it as a necessary step in the evolution of business and defined it as: “policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates. Shared value creation focuses on identifying and expanding the connections between societal and economic progress”. 

2012: Trapp exemplified the third generation of CSR through a case study of Vattenfall, the Swedish state-owned energy company that in 2008 launched a CSR-backed stakeholder engagement campaign focused on climate change mitigation.

2013: Chandler and Werther defined SCSR as: “The incorporation of a holistic CSR perspective within a firm’s strategic planning and core operations so that the firm is managed in the interests of a broad set of stakeholders to achieve maximum economic and social value over the medium to long term.”

2016: The new component of SCSR, the optimization of value, reinforces Chandler’s updated perspective in which the maximization of profit, or tradeoffs, is no longer an acceptable objective. Instead, companies should aim at optimizing value over the long term by focusing on their areas of expertise and by doing so there would be a reorientation of efforts towards the creation of shared value instead of profit maximization. This reflects Chandler’s belief that SCSR should be part of the day-to-day operations in order for it to be successful, a notion constantly highlighted by him through his articles and books. Then, the explicit call for the full immersion of SCSR into a company’s corporate culture, decision making process, and day-to-day operations is yet another relevant contribution from Chandler and Werther’s work.[7]

We will not be able to provide an ultimate solution to this problem, but we would like to identify certain key elements of CSR. 

• CSR is the liability of business to act in accordance to the overall goals of society, and is therefore linked to sustainable development as a guiding vision.

• CSR depends on the political, institutional, and cultural context and environment, as it is dependent on the relationship between business and society. 

• CSR is beyond compliance: being compliant to laws or regulation are prerequisites of responsible corporate behaviour.

• CSR is voluntary (otherwise it would be part of compliance), but it is still perceived as a moral, ethical, or philanthropic obligation of business. However, many NGOs and labour unions tend to question the idea of CSR as a voluntary concept.

• Making profits out of CSR: There is a lengthy debate on whether corporate measures that lead to profit can be perceived as CSR (e.g. “is it moral to make money out of being moral?”) or – the other way round – if measures which do not lead to indirect profit at all, might be categorized as CSR (i.e. if philanthropy is part of CSR or not). 

Sustainability from an HR standpoint

Sustainable or 'green' HRM promises to encourage greater acknowledgement and understanding of long-term issues relating to value creation and value capture. The sustainable HRM perspective looks to challenge the dominance of 'maximising shareholder value' strategies and business models and instead align with meeting the interests of many stakeholders over the long term. Sustainable HRM recognises performance outcomes, which are broader than financial outcomes (for example, by including environmental and social outcomes) and assumes that in working towards multiple goals there are likely to be contradictory outcomes that must be resolved. In addition to this, sustainable HRM creates and captures value over the longer term and recognises that to be truly sustainable HRM must be able to deal with the internal and external environment and the changing context in which the business is operating (for example rapidly changing economic environment).

Characteristics of Sustainable HRM

• Long-term orientation: Workforce planning; assessing needs of future employees

• Care of employees: Health, safety, wellbeing management; work-life balance

• Care of environment: Fostering 'eco-career'; rewarding against environmentally sustainable behaviour

• Profitability: Share programmes

• Employee participation and social dialogue: Different forms of employee voice and employee participation

• Employee development: Job rotation; training for skills development; employability

• External partnership: Cooperation with key stakeholders

• Flexibility: Flexible working arrangements; job rotation

• Compliance beyond labour regulations: Involve employee representatives in decision-making where participation is a statutory requirement; financial and non-financial support

• Employee cooperation: Teamwork; good relationships of managers and employees

• Fairness and equality: Fostering diversity; respectful relationships; fairness as regards as remuneration; career.

HR sustainability refers to a set of activities that organisations must perform to have sustainable access to trained workforce, where the aims are their ethical obligations and responsibilities to employees or society. Leaders now view well-being not just as an employee benefit but as an opportunity to support employees in all aspects of their personal and work lives.

The popularity of CSR among consumers, employees, and other stakeholder groups increased over the past few decades. Several studies, indicating the increasing importance of CSR, proclaim that businesses can be seen in a favorable light if they practiced social responsibility. This can also happen the other way around, since social irresponsibility can lead to negative repercussions.[57]

Among the most notable findings disclosed in the 2016 Aflac survey on CSR and the research reports of Harvard Business School, analyzing consumer behavior in relation to CSR, were the following:

Stakeholder Engagement 

What is a Stakeholder?

A Stakeholder is an individual, community or organisation that affects, or is affected by, the operations of a company. 

Stakeholders may be internal (e.g. employees) or external (e.g. customers, suppliers, shareholders, financiers, the local community). [22] Stakeholders play an important part in both the decision-making process and the final output.Stakeholder engagement offers insight into the innovation agenda of a company, as it lays bare the priority areas to tackle. It can help optimize the stakeholder experience and, as such, improve the business offering.[35]

Stakeholder engagement has three major advantages:

Companies can design a program that helps identify appropriate standards and approaches to CSR management by engaging stakeholders consistently and from the start, acknowledging that some stakeholders are extremely knowledgeable and may even be involved in the development of these standards and codes. This is particularly useful when evaluating the options for a CSR project.

One of the difficulties faced by researchers is the ability to properly classify corporations and their activities within a CSR construct. The new model is intended to provide a more appropriate means and theoretical framework by which to categorize CSR activities. 

It is anticipated that as corporate managers and business students reflect on corporate actions and where they should be classified within the three-domain model, an improved understanding of the relationship between business and society and more specifically between economics, law, and ethics, might take place.

Economic Domain

For the purposes of the three-domain model, the economic domain captures those activities which are intended to have either a direct or indirect positive economic impact on the corporation :

• Examples of direct economic activities include actions intended to increase sales or avoid litigation.

• Examples of possible indirect economic activities include activities that are designed to improve employee morale or the company’s public image.

The positive impact is based on two distinct but related criteria: the maximization of profits and/or the maximization of share value. [31]

Legal Domain

The legal category of CSR pertains to the business firm’s responsiveness to legal expectations mandated and expected by society in the form of federal, state, and local jurisdictions, or through legal principles as developed in case law. w. In this context, legality may be viewed in terms of three general categories:

• Avoidance of civil litigation

• Anticipation of the law.

• Compliance:

  • • Passive : If the motivations of the corporation are being analyzed by the newly proposed model, passive compliance by the corporation, due to its unintentional nature, would place it outside of the legal domain. This would be the case despite such motives being potentially labeled as legal under Carroll’s Pyramid Model. If outcomes were being analyzed, the corporation would fall within the legal domain even if it passively or accidentally complied with the law.

    • Restrictive compliance, occurs when a corporation is legally compelled to do something that it would not otherwise want to do. The payment of taxes, tariffs, or duties is often done reluctantly and, therefore, restrictively. Although a company may want to pollute at higher levels or sell goods with fewer safety warnings, the law may prohibit it from doing so, leading to restrictive compliance. The adjective restrictive is used to reflect the idea that the legal system is limiting, constraining, or modifying otherwise intended behavior in a restrictive fashion.

    • Opportunistic compliance. There are two general modes of opportunistic compliance:

      • 1. A corporation may actively seek out and take advantage of loopholes in the legislation to be able to engage in certain activities. 

        2. A corporation may choose to operate in a particular jurisdiction because of its weaker legal standards. [31]

Ethical Domain
The ethical domain of the three-domain model refers to the ethical responsibilities of business as expected by the general population and relevant stakeholders. This domain includes responsiveness to both domestic and global ethical imperatives. Three general ethical standards:

• Conventional standard: The standard of conventions can be explained by the moral philosophy known as ethical relativism

• Consequential standard: The consequential standard (sometimes referred to as “teleological”) focuses on ends or consequences. “The morally right thing to do is to promote the good of persons”.

• Deontological standard: The deontological standard, as opposed to focusing on consequences, is defined as embodying those activities which reflect a consideration of one’s duty or obligation. [31]

Aguains and Glaves identified six new research mainstreams that fall within the scope of CSR:

• Political CSR: „focuses on the political role of business, given the sociopolitical and institutional infrastructures of various countries and the “regulatory vacuum” in global governance“

• The CSP-CFP Relationship and the business case for CSR: focuses on the problem of determining correlation and causality between corporate sustainability performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) of companies.

• Upstream/Downstream CSR: With a social connection approach to CSR, researchers can focus on „both the upstream and downstream ethical implications of corporate supply chains and the CSR demands that are posed on multinational corporations.“

• CSR in emerging economies: focuses on „MNE practices from strategic, altruistic, and sustainable development orientations, providing insight into the more nuanced stakeholder approaches taken by MNEs in emerging economies“.

• Corporate activism and CSR: focuses on how activists (e.g. stakeholders, like unions or other employee activist groups, environmental groups, community activists, religious groups, shareholder activists, NGOs) shape CSR.

• CSiR: focuses on „what motivates a company to be socially irresponsible and how CSiR might affect its various stakeholders“, including corporate scandals and CSR failures, such as corruption, trust repair and crisis management. [2]

What are companies obliged to observe?

Affected businesses must meet their responsibilities to conduct corporate due diligence along the supply chain with respect to human rights and the environment. The actions listed below must be taken in order to do that:

1. Identify actual or potential negative impacts on human rights and the environment. Then take appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate and remedy them.

2. Due diligence must be integrated into company policies and management systems.

3. Companies must establish a procedure for complaints and ensure everyone along the supply chain can access it.

4. Transparent and public information on the fulfillment, including an annual report.

5. Businesses must outline in a transformation plan.

The need to take all appropriate measures extends beyond an organization's own operations and those of its subsidiaries to include both direct and indirect suppliers (as long as there is an ongoing or established business relationship), as well as the use and disposal of the products generated.

Why should CSR be implemented ?

Corporate Social Responsibility has an important place in today’s society and business world. A company's CSR strategy represents and has different meanings for the company’s employees and the outside world. To be able to consider those effects, the question ‘Why should CSR be implemented?’ can be asked.

According to Chastity Heyward, Forbes Councils Member there are main five reasons showing the importance of CSR [26]:

Implementation’s top 10 checklist

According to Raps creating an integrated view of the implementation process is the most important task for a successful implementation process. It's also necessary to keep in mind that CSR implementation is a long-term process that demands innovation and proper planning. 

Milliman, Ferguson, Sylvester and Raps compiled a checklist of 10 key factors to overcome and enhance the obstacles in the implementation context [45]:

1. Commitment of top management

2. Involve middle manager’s valuable knowledge

3. Communication is what implementation is all about

4. Integrate point of view

5. Clear assignment of responsibilities

6. Preventive measures against barriers

7. Emphasize teamwork activities

8. Respect the individuals ́ different characteristics

9. Take advantage of supportive implementation instruments

10. Calculate buffer time for unexpected incidents

Specific CSR Implementation Theories

1. Engage employees

Employees play a critical part in the implementation process, according to Hohnen (2007), and knowing as much as possible about the company's approach to implementation is critical for motivating and engaging them. 

They should be aware of the CSR approach, the history of why it is being adopted, its significance to the organization, progress, and other ramifications. 

According to Hohnen (2007), there are numerous strategies to boost employees’ commitment to the implementation process:

• Incorporating CSR performance elements into job descriptions and performance evaluations; 

• Providing regular updates on progress (in meetings or the company newsletter) 

• Developing incentives (such as monetary and other rewards for best suggestions) 

• Removing or reducing disincentives (e.g., competing interests such as premature deadlines)

• Offering incentives and recognition for good ideas. [10]

2. Appropriate metrics

In businesses, what gets measured is what gets done. Making fundamental shifts in measuring systems is one of the first steps toward strategic CSR. In the process of achieving CSR goals, quality measurements tend to provide both financial and non-financial indicators. [16]

3.  Reward systems

It is necessary to acknowledge and reward commitment and initiatives taken to improve the CSR implementation process. Employees will be more willing to participate in ways that will assist the company to achieve its strategic CSR goals if such activities are rewarded. [16]

How to implement CSR ?

The Danish Presidency

Denmark assumed the Presidency at a time when the EU is traversing a period of turbulence. The task for the Danish Presidency will be to bring together and strengthen the EU through concrete results that will bring the EU forward and prove the value and necessity of European cooperation to citizens of Europe. At the Summit on 8–9 December, important decisions were taken to stabilize the euro, including the agreement on a “fiscal compact”. The enhanced discipline which the “fiscal compact” aims at is well in line with the priority of the Danish Presidency regarding “A responsible Europe”. By working for a responsible, dynamic, green and safer Europe, the Presidency will prepare Europe for the future economically, socially and environmentally. The Danish Presidency has four priorities:

1. A more responsible Europe. To bring Europe out of the crisis, prevent new crises and focus on strengthening growth and job creation in the time ahead.

2. A more dynamic Europe. To create a more dynamic European economy by further developing the unexploited potential of the Single Market through efforts regarding the 12 key priorities of the Single Market Act. The Single Market is to be brought into the digital age by making it easier and safer to trade on-line and by lowering roaming prices across borders. 

3. A greener Europe. The aim is to create growth without increased resource and energy consumption. 

4. A safer Europe. To ensure a more effective fight against international crime and terrorism as well as a well-functioning Common European Asylum System and stronger Schengen cooperation, thereby achieving more secure control at the EU’s external borders. [25]

Events to be highlighted 

i. The Lisbon European Summit 2006. 

ii. The EC Green Paper “Promoting a European Framework for CSR” of July 2001.

iii. The EC Communication of 2 July 2002 concerning CSR: A business contribution to sustainable development9 [COM (2002) 347 final. 

iv. The EC Communication “Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: Making Europe a pole of excellence on CSR” 200610.

v. The EC policy of October 2011 for enterprises to fully meet their social responsibility to have in place a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical and human rights concerns into their business.

Despite the interest in CSR in the EU among businesses and governments, a clear divide between opposite positions has existed. Essentially, the EC took a position of rejecting regulation and putting the emphasis on voluntary measures for business, while the European Parliament, together with NGOs and trade unions, has been demanding mandatory regulation and reporting of corporations’ social and environmental impacts and transparency. However, CSR, as viewed by the EC, remained a voluntary initiative for European businesses to practice that goes beyond what is required by law. Since 2001, there have been several initiatives around CSR led by various EC Directorates Generals to raise awareness and understanding among stakeholders and the general public. [22]

Over the recent decades, economic and socio-political factors in many Western European countries have led to a partial redefinition of the boundaries between the public and the private sector as well as their respective roles in society. 

In this context, growing attention is paid to the voluntary actions that companies take as part of their CSR strategies to manage their economic, social and environmental impacts and to contribute to wider societal development. 

In post-communist Central and Eastern Europe, environmental and social concerns have tended to receive less attention than the significant economic challenges associated with the transition to the market economy. However, CSR awareness and implementation in the region are advancing rapidly. 

In contrast to Western Europe, it is mainly companies themselves – often multinational corporations – that are the pillar agents of change. Pressure from civil society, media and public authorities has been low.

However, since CSR is relatively new for most EU Member States (with the exceptions of the UK and Denmark), raising awareness for CSR also helps to enhance a common understanding of what CSR is about across the EU.[10]

The increasing interest in business opportunities associated with innovative CSR approaches, together with the growing stakeholder expectations for corporate accountability and responsible business practices both within and outside Europe, continue to push the CSR agenda forward. 

Furthermore, as a result of the financial and economic crisis, the level of public trust in business has fallen in many European countries. In this context, companies of all sizes must contribute to rebuilding trust in business and shaping a more responsible and sustainable economy in Europe and globally.

The Republic of Austria’s social market economy is a fertile ground for CSR. Labour issues and industry-society relations have been addressed through Austria’s political tradition of ‘social partnership’ since the end of World War II. This partnership calls for a constant dialogue between employers and employees on economic and social policy issues, resolving disputes and engaging in collective bargaining.

CSR and Regulation

Austria is a highly regulated state. There are numerous environmental, labor and social protection laws setting minimum standards for business. 

Even the Companies Act dating back to 1966 states that a corporation must be managed in a way, which benefits not only shareholders and employees but also the wider public. 

In 2002, the Austrian government adopted a joint Sustainability Strategy with the aim of integrating the economic, social and environmental spheres. 

The strategy targets a variety of stakeholders, including the private sector, and is currently being extended to the provincial governments. CSR, regarded as a strategic factor of success for companies, forms part of the action plan. 

The government expresses its commitment to provide a framework that fosters business responsibility.

Ressources

Eco-efficiency and sustainable consumption remain the most important drivers. 

Sustainability measures with immediate cost effects, like reduction of wastage or efficient use of resources, are particularly popular among SMEs which represent 99.7% of all Austrian companies.

Degree of Public Awareness on CSR

Consumer awareness on the concept of CSR is rather low and in this sense the pressure on businesses to act responsibly is limited. 

Representatives of only 18% of CSR “leading” companies serving domestic markets think that CSR matters to consumers. 

It has furthermore been found that a low degree of consumer awareness discourages companies from acting socially responsible on a broader basis.

Media Coverage

The concept of CSR was broadly discussed over the last few years and coverage has moved beyond the interpretation of CSR as sponsoring activities.

Environment

Austria’s biggest environmental concerns are its great energy demand which cannot be satisfied from the country’s own resources, and the high level of CO2 emissions. 

Austria’s ecological footprint is in line with the EU average, whereby women exhibit a higher degree of awareness on issues like climate change.

Supply Chain

Companies are increasingly aware of social and environmental issues in their supply chains.

Human rights

It can generally be regarded as fulfilled in Austrian businesses.

However, much work remains to be done concerning human rights in third country supply chains. Corporate shouldn't stop trying to improve their social behavior and respect human rights aroud the world.

Equal Opportunities

Despite a number of regulations on equal opportunity, salary differentials between male and female employees are among the highest in the EU. [1]

The concept of CSR in the United Kingdom originated in the ethical approach to business of a number of prominent firms, which ran their business in an ethical manner, in particular looking to the welfare of their employees. 

This philanthropic approach laid the foundations for the situation today where the need for companies to manage in a responsible manner across the various sectors of their activity is generally, if not universally, understood.

Degree of Public Awareness on CSR

The UK public is becoming more aware of the concept of CSR as companies are marketing their ethical business programs more effectively. There has also been an increase of consumer awareness in recent years as companies are becoming more accountable for their business practices. 

For example, research in 2005, by Mori said that “78% of the general public wants to hear about companies’ responsibilities to their customers, employees, communities and the environment.” 

In general, the media is less critical of business than other European countries. This may be due to media being owned by business conglomerates, but in general the approach is an educated one.

Environment

1. National action plan: 

The new coalition government will continue their ambitious plan to develop a low carbon economy, create green jobs, invest in carbon capture and storage and develop alternative sources of energy. The government will also create a green investment bank. 

2. Environmental challenges: 

The main environmental challenges in the UK are meeting ambitious carbon reduction targets, water conservation, promoting behavior change in waste and recycling and biodiversity protection. 

3. Energy and eco-efficiency: 

The government and energy companies in the UK encourage the public to reduce their carbon footprint by highlighting the cost benefits of using less energy. There is a big focus on behavior change at home, home insulation and business efficiency measures. 

4. Public awareness on environment: 

Public awareness on environmental issues continues to grow but large sectors of the population remain very skeptical, particularly on climate change post-Copenhagen. 'Mainstreaming' environmental issues continues to be a challenge.

Supply Chain

In the UK, many companies are grappling with how to develop and use policies, questionnaires, and audit processes to improve sustainability in their supply chains. 

Some leading companies are developing more innovative responses to issues such as low wages and child labor, working in partnership with other businesses, governments and NGOs to address underlying causes.

There is concern, however, that these processes do not always get to the root of the problem and drive improvement beyond minimum standards. 

Human Rights

Businesses are increasingly accepting their obligation to respect human rights. 

Many companies now have corporate policies setting out their commitment to a range of specific human rights, referring directly to recognized international standards. 

Whilst businesses providing public services in the UK are bound to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act, governance mechanisms for protecting human rights overseas are often weaker. 

Equal Opportunities

Equality legislation exists for age, race, gender, disability, religion and belief, sexual orientation. New equality legislation includes a potential requirement for employers to report on their gender pay gap, promotion of positive action, use of procurement to promote diversity in employment and the extension of public sector duties to promote equality. 

The current UK government is keen to ensure the profile of the UK workforce better represents the profile of the working age population and has extended the right to request flexible working. 

An extension of paternity leave for fathers of children due on or after 3 April 2011 (or matched for adoption on or after that date) providing up to 26 weeks to care for the child if the mother returns to work before using her full entitlement to maternity leave. This effectively gives mothers the right to transfer a proportion of their paid leave to their partner and offers a new system of flexible paternal leave.

Community Engagement

Dating back to the origins of CSR in the UK, businesses have positioned themselves as key actors within local communities, and leading companies ensure that core operations as well as community investment can contribute positively to local development. 

By working well with local community groups, business can have a very positive impact on the communities where they are located across a whole range of social issues. These include raising the achievement of young people, improving basic skills for employability, removing barriers to work and helping disadvantaged individuals and groups to find employment.

In the UK, employee volunteering is very common and widespread. Employers ask their employees to actively support their community investment efforts. 

CSR actors: Business In The Community (BITC)

In the United Kingdom, there exist a network of progressive businesses who wants to help change society, this is Business In The Community or BITC. 

BITC works with companies in the UK and internationally, who are committed to improving their impact on society. The networks seeks to positively shape business impact on the environment, in the marketplace, in the workplace and in the community. 

They work with business to build a sustainable future for people and planet. Business in the Community encourages its members to work with rule-makers and operate with consistent standards wherever they have operations. 

Sustainable Products and Services

Sustainable products and services are designed to balance impact on people, planet and profit. 

While sales of ‘ethical’ and ‘green’ products have grown strongly in the UK over recent years, what is perhaps more significant is the growing acceptance within the business community of a need to build sustainability into mainstream brands as standard. 

A number have embraced sustainability as a new source of competitive advantage, and marketed themselves accordingly; however, too many disingenuous claims and the rise of ‘greenwash’ have created considerable confusion and skepticism among the public.

Several CSR challenges still remain. These include achieving understanding in the business world that the focus in responsible business practice and not philanthropy. 

In the current context of 'austerity Britain', with cost saving and financial cuts being made by both the private and public sectors, it is important responsible business practice is not set aside. [49]

References

         1.    Aflac 2019, 2019 Corporate Social Responsibility Survey Report, Aflac,  viewed 15 May 2023. 

2.    Aguinis, H & Glavas, A 2012, 'What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A Review and research agenda', Journal of Management, vol. 38, no. 4.

3.    Alexander, LD 1985, 'Successfully Implementing Strategic Decisions', Long Range Planning, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 91-97.

4.    Austin, L & Gaither, B 2016, 'Examining Public Response to Corporate Social Initiative Types: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Coca-Colas Social Media', Social Marketing Quarterly, vol. 22, viewed 15 May 2023. 

5.    Benevity 2021, How to Develop a Corporate Social Responsibility Program, Benevity, viewed 15 May 2023.

6.    Bowen, HR 1953, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper & Brothers, New York.

7.    Carroll AB 1979, 'A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance', Academy of Management Review, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 497-505.

8.    Carroll, AB & Brown, J 2018, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Current Concepts, Research, and Issues', Emerald Publishing, pp. 39–69. 

9.    Carroll, AB 1991, 'The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders', Business Horizons, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 39-48.

10. Cavusgil, ST, Knight, G & Riesenberger, JR 2017, International business: The new realities, 5th edn, Pearson, pp. 135. 

11. Chakraborty, UK 2015, 'Developments in the Concept of CSR', The Researchers', vol. 1, no. 1, chapter II.

12. CMI (n.d.), Knowledge and insights: Management research, viewed 31 December 2023.

13. Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2016, Everyone has the power to do good, Aflac, viewed 15 May 2023.

14. CSR Europe 2010, 'A Guide to CSR in Europe', Fudacion Seres, pp. 4-5, viewed 15 May 2023.

15. CSR Europe 2010, 'A Guide to CSR in Europe', Fudacion Seres, pp. 84-86, viewed 15 May 2023.

16. CSR Europe 2022, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR Europe, viewed 15 May 2023. 

17. Dahlsrud, A 2008, 'How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions', Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 1, no. 13.

18. Dudovskiy, J 2013, CSR Definition. Business Research Methodology, viewed 15 April 2023.

19. Fernando, J 2022 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) explained with examples, Investopedia. Investopedia, viewed 31 December 2023.

20. Freeman, R, Harrison, J, Wicks, A, Parmar, B, de Colle, S 2010, Stakeholder Theory: the State of Art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

21. Glasdoor Team 2019, The Job & Hiring Trends You'll See in 2020 & Beyond, Glassdoor, viewed 15 May 2023.

22. Green Paper: Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility 2001, Commission of the European Communities, viewed 1 January 2023.

23.  Henderson, D 2001, ‘The Case Against ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’’, Policy, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 28-32. 

24. Hermansson, N & Olofsson, O 2008, The CSR Implementation process, Kristianstad University, Helsingborg.

25. Heslin, P & Ochoa J 2008, 'Understanding and developing strategic corporate social responsibility', Orgabnizational Dynamics, vol. 37, viewed 15 May 2023. 

26. Heyward, C 2020, The Growing Importance Of Social Responsibility In Business, Forbes, viewed 15 May 2023.

27. Heyward, C 2020, The Growing Importance Of Social Responsibility In Business, Forbes, viewed 15 May 2023.

28. Hohnen, P 2007, Corporate Social Responsibility – An implementation Guide for Business. International Institute for Sustainable Development, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.

29. Houghton, E 2019, 'Sustainable HR: A 'green' fad, or a realistic model for change?', CIPD, viewed 31 December 2023. 

30. International Training Centre of the ILO 2015, A Guide on CSR and Human Rights – what does it mean for companies in supply chains?, International Training Centre of the International Labour Organization, Turin.

31. Jhawar, N, Gupta, S 2017, 'Understanding CSR- Its History and the Recent Developments', IOSR Journal of Business and Management, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 105-109.

32. Khuong, MN, Truong, MK & Hang TTT 2021, 'Stakeholders and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme as key sustainable development strategies to promote corporate reputation—evidence from vietnam', Cogent Business & Management, vol. 8, no. 1. 

33. Kline, M n.d., How Corporate Responsibility Can Deliver ROI, Inc, viewed 15 May 2023.

34. Latapí Agudelo, MA, Jóhannsdóttir, L & Davídsdóttir, B 2019, 'A literature review of the history and evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility',  International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-23.

35. Le Roy, D 2022, Stakeholder engagement: an essential part of sustainable development, Sustenuto, viewed 15 May 2023.

36. Leisering, K 2022, EU Supply Chain Law Obliges Companies to Operate in a Fair and Sustainable Manner, EQS Group, viewed 1 January 2023. 

37. Martinuzzi, A, Krumay B & Pisano, U 2011, Focus CSR: The New Communication of the EU Commission on CSR and National CSR Strategies and Action Plans, European Sustainable Development Network, Vienna, pp. 7.

38. Matten, D & Moon, J 2008, '“Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility', Academy of Management Review, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 404–424.

39. Mullerat, R 2013, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: A European Perspective', Miami-Florida European Union Center of Excellence, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 6-7.

40. Mullerat, R 2013, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: A European Perspective', Miami-Florida European Union Center of Excellence, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 22.

41. Nielseniq 2015, The Sustainability Imperative, Nielseniq, viewed 15 May 2023.

42.  Okoye, A 2009, ‘Theorising Corporate Social Responsibility as an Essentially Contested Concept: Is a Definition Necessary?’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 613-627. 

43. Organ, M 2017, Cause Marketing definition.../ Twitter, 21 April, viewed 15 May 2023. 

44. Prospect Law 2015, Different approaches to corporate social responsibility, Prospect Law, viewed 1 January 2023.

45. Raps, A 2005, 'Strategy Implementation – an Insurmountable Obstacle?', Handbook of Business Strategy vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 141-146. *

46. Retall Week 2013, Analysis: Top 10 UK retailers revealed, Web. Archive, viewed 15 May 2023.

47. Schwartz, MS, Carroll, AB 2003, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three Domain Approach', Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 503 - 512.

48. Schwartz, MW & Carroll, AB 2008, 'Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complementary Frameworks', Business & Society, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 148–186. 

49. Sojitz, G 2017, Supply chain CSR, Sojitz Corporation, p.19, viewed 15 May 2023. 

50. Steurer, R, Sharon, M & Berger, G 2008, Public policies on CSR in EU Member States: Overview of government initiatives and selected cases on Awareness Raising for CSR, Sustainable Public Procurement and Socially Responsible Investment, ESDN, viewed 15 May 2023. 

51. Stobierski, T 2021, 15 Eye Opening Corporate Social Responsibility Statistics, Harvard Business School Online, viewed 15 May 2023.

52. Swaen, V 2003, Consumers' Perceptions, Evaluations and Reactiona to CSR Activities, Louvain-la-Neuve.

53. Swatishree R n.d., Corporate Social Responsibility, Business Management Ideas, viewed 15 May 2023.

54. Switch to Green (n.d.), EU Strategy on Corporate Social Responsibility, Switch to Green, viewed 1 January 2023.

55. V skills certified 2018, CSR approaches - Tutorial, V skilla certified, viewed 1 January 2023.

56. Votaw, D 1972, 'Genius Became Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility', California Management Review, vol. 15, 25-31. 

57. Weber, J & Wasieleski, DM 2018, Corporate Social Responsibility, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley.

58.  ACCP, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Brief History

59. Heiko Spitzeck, Normative Versus Instrumental Corporate Responsibility

60.  Susith Fernando & Stewart Lawrence , A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR CSR PRACTICES: INTEGRATING LEGITIMACY THEORY, STAKEHOLDER THEORY AND INSTITUTIONAL THEORY 

61. Sajan PK, How can you use stakeholder theory to improve Corporate Social Responsibility ?

62. Wikipedia, Business in the community 

62. Katarzyna Piela, Nestlé Corporate Social Responsibility CSR

Tables

Table 1: Adapted from Schwartz, M. W. & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complementary Frameworks. Business & Society, 148–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650306297942

Table 2: Adapted from Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132

Table 3: Adapted from Matten, D. & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 404–424. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458

Table 4: Rules for Nestle, which relates to human rights, enviromental protection, corruption and labor law

Figures

Figure 1: Carroll's (1991) Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility

Figure 2: EU Member States covered in the survey (green: covered; grey: not covered) 

Figure 3: CSR awareness raising initiatives grouped along the different public policy instruments 

Figure 4: Source Zhang, Yukuo & Wang, Teng & Wang, Chunbao & Changgao, Cheng & Quantitative,. (2023). Citation. Sustainability. 15. 10.3390/su15097194. 

Figure "Graphic Designed by: Yashi Samrenda", Source: https://businessreview.berkeley.edu/consumer-involvement-in-corporate-social-responsibilitycsr/

Figure 5: Retrieved from https://de.freepik.com/fotos-kostenlos/standard-qualitaetssicherungskonzept-m_36027725.htm#query=MANAGEMENT%20SYSTEM&position=8&from_view=search&track=ais&uuid=82031747-8235-44a2-8a03-0e1abe4b89c5

Figure 6: Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/close-up-digital-tablet-with-bar-graphs_855108.htm#query=Management%20reporting&position=5&from_view=search&track=ais&uuid=2d49e461-c60f-4fb4-9e7d-ddfc0c240ca0

Figure 7: Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/team-sitting-desk-checking-reports-talking-top-view_14446764.htm#query=Management%20team&position=23&from_view=search&track=ais&uuid=87d0d3d4-8b8c-43e5-94a1-2c6d5231e585

Figure 8: Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/de/illustrations/gehirn-brainstorming-birne-geschäft-4260689/

Figure 9: Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/de/vectors/netzwerk-menschen-gesch%C3%A4ft-symbol-5508173/

Figure 10: Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/de/vectors/risiko-management-bewertung-sicher-7628950/

Figure 11: Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/de/vectors/gesetz-recht-gerechtigkeit-paragraf-1898974/

Figure 12: Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/de/vectors/gesch%C3%A4ft-ziel-erreichen-ziehen-um-6827797/

Figure 13: Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/de/vectors/kurve-liniendiagramm-diagramm-trend-148256/

Figure 14: Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/de/vectors/buchhaltung-finanzen-gesch%C3%A4ft-6063321/

Figure 15: Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/de/vectors/brieftasche-geld-finanzen-kasse-3721156/