measuring corporate social responsibility as a psychosocial construct: a new multidimensional scale

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibilityas a Psychosocial Construct: A NewMultidimensional Scale

Gianvito D’Aprile & Cosimo Talò

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract To date, the discussion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has consistentlyaddressed organizational activities, which are the focus of measures that are able to evaluateCSR in enterprises. However, the psychosocial characteristics of CSR have remained relativelyunexplored. Indeed, some scholars have recently proposed that both the perspective-taking (as acognitive dimension of CSR) and propensity to take care (as an affective dimension of CSR) ofdifferent stakeholders are related to sustainable and socially responsible organizational behav-iors (as the behavioral dimension of CSR), thus fostering the development of CSR withinenterprises that take a multi-stakeholder approach. According to this psychosocial perspective,we propose and test a multidimensional Psychosocial CSR (P-CSR) scale to measure organi-zational engagement in corporate social responsibility with regard to multiple stakeholders. Bylinking the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of CSR to the propensity of businessprofessionals to enhance their environmental and social ethics, we offer a more completedescription of how CSR involving multiple stakeholders arises in enterprises. A survey of345 business professionals—including both employers and employees—of Italian Small andMedium Enterprises (SMEs) completed a self-reported questionnaire. Based on the psychoso-cial perspective, we found that multi-stakeholder-oriented perspective-taking, propensity totake care, and socially responsible behaviors are part of the same construct, leading to anexhaustive explanation of CSR at the organizational level. Moreover, we developed boththeoretical and practical implications for the promotion of CSR in organizational contexts,especially among SMEs.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility . Psychosocial multidimensional measure .

Perspective-taking .Care taking . Socially responsible practices .Multiple stakeholders . SMEs

Introduction

The increasing impact of business with regard to both social and environmental issues hasraised considerable concern among people from all around the world. This increased concern

Employ Respons Rights JDOI 10.1007/s10672-013-9228-8

G. D’Aprile (*) : C. TalòDepartment of Education, University of Salento, Via Stampacchia 45, 73100 Lecce, Italye-mail: [email protected]

is because of the slow and irreversible environmental degradation and the depletion of socialcapital that are occurring in a globalized and globalizing context and are characterized byincreasing complexity (Giddens 2007). To address these concerns, Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR) represents a new development model that is able to combine economicgrowth with the conservation of limited natural resources and the equitable distribution ofsocial resources (Wempe and Kaptein 2002). CSR involves conducting business accordingto the so-called Triple Bottom Line principle (Elkington 1997), in which the economic(Profit), social (People), and environmental (Planet) dimensions are conceived as beingstrictly linked to social responsibility (Corporate Social Responsibility) (Wempe andKaptein 2002). Companies are involved in directly managing these dimensions (BottomLine) to enhance sustainable development. That is, companies are involved in the pursuit ofthese three types of results while considering the expectations of their stakeholders. First,economic results encompass the ability of companies to generate wealth and growth asnecessary conditions to ensure their own survival and development (Waddock 2004).Second, the social results refer to the ability of companies to satisfy the needs andexpectations of their stakeholders (Van Marrewijk 2003). Finally, the environmental resultsconsist of the capacity of companies to support the various dimensions of environmentalbalance (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987).

Although the academic literature on CSR has provided a clearer understanding of thisconcept, it is still difficult to find a commonly accepted definition of CSR. Moreover,another problem is related to measuring CSR based on its links with the stakeholder concepton the one hand and considering the interaction of CSR’s behavioral components with itscognitive and affective components on the other hand (D’Aprile and Mannarini 2012a, b;Turker 2009a). A new CSR scale is needed to better understand and measure how CSRrelates to stakeholders as a multidimensional psychosocial construct by incorporating thecognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. The present study aims to fill these gaps byproviding a new scale to measure CSR as a multidimensional psychosocial concept and interms of the expectations of various stakeholders.

The data for this study were collected from business professionals, including bothemployers and employees, from Italian Small and Medium Enterprises, which are companieswith fewer than 250 employees. In Italy, a country in which ethical issues faced bybusinesses are closely interconnected with the policies of the European Union (EU), Smalland Medium Enterprises (SMEs) account for 99.9 % of all enterprises and contribute to81.3 % of employment (Commission of the European Communities 2001).

According to Molteni (2006), the Italian culture of sustainable development and corpo-rate philanthropy may be conceived in relation to the changing business context as aconsequence of EU regulations. Indeed, the European Union’s Green Paper and theCommunication from the Commission of the European Communities have organicallycreated the CSR agenda of all EU countries, including Italy (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities 2001, 2002). As a result, the tendency of the Italian Republic to adhere tointernational standards—specifically, EU standards—can be noted, and a boost to lawmaking at the regional level has been registered on a national scale. As highlighted in theReport of an investigation on “Monitoring of Regional Policies on Corporate SocialResponsibility” (De Silvio and Lanzaro 2010, p. 8–9) carried out on behalf of theMinistry of Labor and Social Policy, fifteen regions and Italian autonomous provinces (withthe exception of Friuli Venezia Giulia, Umbria, Abruzzo, Molise, Campania and Calabria)are politically active in CSR. In fact, issues such as health and safety at work, equalopportunities, protection and promotion of the disadvantaged, and the prohibition of childlabor have been areas for which the commitment of public and private institutions is

Employ Respons Rights J

encouraged by regulations and forms of self-regulation or incentives as part of coherent CSRmanagement systems (Grigoryan 2011; Molteni and Devigili 2004).

Thus, Italy provides a reliable environmental source of information for the constructionand development of a CSR measure that is able to combine the studied socio-behavioraldimension (Maignan and Ferrell 2000; Turker 2009a) with the unexplored psychosocial one.

The study contributes to the literature by providing a new, valid, and reliable CSR scale basedon the psychosocial perspective. Furthermore, based on the proposed conceptual framework, thescale reflects the corresponding responsibilities of businesses to their various stakeholders.

The paper contains three main sections. In the first section, a conceptual framework isprovided as the structural foundation of the study. In the second section, the existingmeasurement methods and their limitations are reviewed. Based on the theoretical frame-work, a psychosocial scale is developed to measure CSR. Finally, in the last section, thelimitations and findings of the quantitative study are discussed.

A Conceptual Framework to Explore Corporate Social Responsibility

In the academic literature, CSR has many meanings and approaches, frequently without aprecise definition (Aguinis 2011; Dahlsrud 2006; Grit 2004; Matten et al. 2003; Sharma2004; Verschoor 2006; Waddock 2004). Indeed, scholars have proposed a plethora ofexpressions to refer to CSR. Some of these include corporate sustainability, corporatecitizenship, sustainable entrepreneurship, corporate ethics, business ethics and corporatesocial performance (Aguinis 2011; Dahlsrud 2006; Van Marrewijk 2003).

According to the considerations of Aguinis (2011), the polysemic nature of the concept isconsistent with its evolution over time. This positions CSR on two continua: (1) from socio-philanthropic actions and charitable programs involving the voluntary restraint of profitmaximization (Andrews 1973; Buehler and Shetty 1976) to actions affecting the company’scompetitive advantage and long-term sustainability (Hollender 2004); and (2) from a legalapproach of complying with rules and regulations to a legitimacy approach involving actionsbeyond the minimum legal requirements (Pierce and Aguinis 2009).

Despite CSR’s polysemy, the concept of CSR is a clearly identifiable and empiricallyresearchable construct (Carroll 1979, 1999; Maignan et al. 1999; Pinkston and Carroll 1994)whose operationalization relates to clusters of organizational behaviors able to describe howand whether enterprises behave socially responsible and sustainable (Carroll 1979, 1991;Carroll and Shabana 2010; Wood 2010).

Such a theoretical stance, that is, companies’ orientation to taking on responsibility, providesnormative prescriptions regarding social responsibilities. These must extend beyond generatingprofits and obeying the law and are based on the assumption that stakeholders have specificexpectations regarding a company’s morality and its participation in social affairs. From thispoint of view, CSR is “the extent to which businesses meet the economic, legal, ethical anddiscretionary responsibilities placed on them by their various stakeholders” (Maignan et al.1999, p. 457). As Carroll (1979) stated in his hierarchical pyramid model, economic respon-sibilities refer to a company’s fundamental responsibility to be profitable and grow; legalresponsibilities require companies to pursue their economic missions within the prescriptionsof the law; ethical responsibilities refer to respecting the rights of others; and discretionaryresponsibilities involve the engagement of companies in philanthropic activities that supporttheir communities as well as society.

Thus, in contrast with Friedman’s conceptualizations about general CSR theories (1962),which argued that the only social responsibility of businesses is to increase profits through


legal means, Carroll (1979, 1999, 2010) and other relevant researchers (Cannon 1994; Davis2001; Fonbrum 1997; Moir 2001) have claimed that businesses exist to serve their commu-nities as well as the direct beneficiaries of their operations, thereby going beyond theireconomic interests. Therefore, in addition to the performance dimension, these authors haverecognized the moral dimension to CSR, which involves “[…] building systems of corporateethics and values into the enterprise, tackling questions of compliance and governance,meeting the need of the economically and socially disadvantaged, thus satisfying responsi-bilities to the environment” (Cannon 1994, p. 52).

According to D’Aprile and Mannarini (2012b), the following relevant commonalities maybe highlighted among the different definitions of CSR. First, CSR implies a socio-temporaldimension; indeed, CSR does not comprise the additional ability to meet the needs of futurestakeholders (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). Second, CSR encompasses a relational dimensionsuch that CSR could accordingly be defined as meeting the needs of a company’s direct andindirect stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees, clients, pressure groups, communities,etc.) (Dyllick andHockerts 2002). Third, CSR has a behavioral dimension in that it is associatedwith ethical and responsible behaviors by companies with regard to environmental and socialissues in addition to economic considerations (Aguinis 2011; Bansal 2005).

This brief summary suggests a certain alignment among scholars in considering CSR tobe a construct that describes the relationship between companies and society as a whole(Wood 1991; Snider et al. 2003). More specifically, CSR has been conceptualized ascontext-specific corporate behaviors and policies that affect the expectations of stakeholders(Aguinis 2011; Wood 2010), either by influencing the Triple Bottom Line of economic,social, and environmental performance (Aguinis 2011), or going beyond the economicinterests of businesses (Turker 2009b).

Beyond the concept of organizational behaviors, the given definition of CSR is closelyinterrelated with the concept of stakeholders. According to stakeholder management theorists(Agle et al. 1999; Boal and Peery 1985; Clarkson 1995; Freeman 1984; Grunig 1979; Sharmaand Henriques 2005; Stevens et al. 2005; Verdeyen et al. 2004), stakeholders are individualsand groups who influence or are influenced by corporate activities. In the current literature,there is no consensus regarding the definition or role of stakeholders (Werther and Chandler2006). To clarify the stakeholder concept, studies have distinguished among a series ofclassifications, such as external and internal stakeholders (Verdeyen et al. 2004) rather thaninternal, external, and societal stakeholders; voluntary and involuntary stakeholders or primaryand secondary stakeholders (Clarkson 1995), rather than primary social as well as non-social orsecondary social as well as non-social stakeholders (Wheeler and Sillanpaa 1997).

Based on Turker (2009a), Wheeler and Sillanpaa (1997, 1998) have proposed a moreelaborate alternative consisting of a four-dimensional classification, which provides a usefulmeans to describe the CSR concept. In this typology, primary stakeholders are social actors whohave a direct impact on relationships and involve human entities; secondary stakeholders arethose who have less direct impact, representing civil society, business at large, and variousinterest groups, which may be extremely influential on the business. Moreover, non-socialstakeholders do not involve human relationships and are further divided into primary (direct)and secondary (indirect) categories. These categories include the natural environment,nonhuman species, and future generations as well as their defenders in pressure groups.

A combination of these two categories (primary vs. secondary; social vs. non-social)provides us with a clear understanding of the stakeholders involved in corporate socialnetworks. Thus, employees, shareholders, and customers have been categorized as primarysocial stakeholders; future generations and territorial communities have been classified asprimary non-social stakeholders; civil society, public institutions, and competitors have been


conceived as secondary social stakeholders; and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)and the natural environment have been categorized as secondary non-social stakeholders(Wheeler and Sillanpaa 1997, 1998).

Although such a classification has represented a significant advancement in the understandingof the CSR concept, thus likely increasing the recognition of these stakeholders in the businesscommunity, little has been said about the advancement of CSR in organizational contexts.

Indeed, D’Aprile and Mannarini (2012a, b) have recently criticized this mainstreamtheoretical framework of CSR, sustaining that solely focusing on the behavioral dimensionand the stakeholder classification have limited the explanation of how CSR could actually beimplemented in organizational contexts. Thus, from a socio-cognitive perspective (Fiske andTaylor 1991), social behaviors may be conceived as interacting with both the cognitive andaffective processes elicited by the social context on the one hand (Lewin 1951) and with theprocesses of social categorization on the other hand (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Tajfel 1972;Tajfel and Turner 1985, 1986; Turner 1985; Turner et al. 1987).

The findings of recent theoretical and empirical research have assumed that specificpsychosocial processes are involved in the activation of CSR in organizations (Cardona andFrieze 2000; Dief and Font 2010; Fassin et al. 2010; Ferdous 2010), especially in SMEs.Accordingly, through a qualitative and Grounded Theory-based study involving employersand employees in Italian SMEs, D’Aprile and Mannarini (2012b) found that cognitive andaffective processes complemented the behavioral dimension of CSR. In fact, CSR has beenconceptualized as a three-dimensional construct including the following dimensions: (1) thecognitive dimension, which referred to the corporate capacity for perspective-taking from aset of multiple stakeholders, including employees, other companies, the environment, andthe community as a whole; (2) the affective dimension, which involved the corporate valueof care taking of a different prospect of stakeholders; and (3) the behavioral dimension,which was linked to sustainable and socially responsible practices that were actually orpotentially performed by SMEs oriented to a set of multiple stakeholders. Therefore, theprospect of stakeholders that the authors referred to was in line with the classification ofWheeler and Sillanpaa mentioned above.

In the current study, this three-dimensional psychosocial conceptualization of CSR providesa useful means for explaining how CSRmay be fostered in organizational contexts. Taking thisconceptualization into account, this paper does not conceive of CSR as a stakeholder-orientedpattern of organizational behaviors (i.e., Aguinis 2011; Bansal 2005; Maignan and Ferrell 2000;Turker 2009a); rather, CSR is further defined as the cognitive and affective propensities oforganizations to behave in socially responsible ways toward a set of multiple stakeholdersbeyond their economic interests. The proposed conceptualization has been used as the basis forthe development of a psychosocial measure of corporate social responsibility in SMEs. In thenext section, the related literature on CSR measures is examined, providing a detailed discus-sion of the pros and cons of the methods existing in the literature.

The Existing Methods of Measuring CSR: A Brief Review

Because corporate social responsibility has been studied within relevant theoretical researchstreams, Carroll (1999) and Waddock (2004) have explored how to operationalize it as wellas how to differentiate among CSR and similar constructs. Thus, how to develop reliable andvalid methods to measure CSR—not only whether to measure it—is a relevant issue. Todate, a number of CSR measures have been developed, which appears to be consistent withthe polysemy of the concept. This demonstrates the complexity of the CSR concept, which


has been continuously altered by specific business interests because of its context-specificnature (Aguinis 2011; Dahlsrud 2006), thus impeding the development and implementationof CSR in organizational contexts, in terms of its application (Dahlsrud 2006; van Marrewijk2003), as well as in academic contexts, in terms of its measurement.

In line with these considerations, scholars have created methods to measure CSR inorganizations both in the academic and business fields. As a result, different measures ofcorporate social activities have been developed (Wolfe and Aupperle 1991), includingcontent analysis of documents and corporate publications, case studies, forced-choice surveyinstruments, reputation indices and databases, and behavioral and perceptional scales(Waddock and Graves 1997).

By integrating Maignan and Ferrell’s (2000) three-approach categorization (i.e., expertevaluations, single- and multiple-issue indicators, and surveys of managers) of thesemethods, this paper positioned them on two continua that are simultaneously interconnected.This is why they are able to explain both the methodological choice (qualitative vs.quantitative) and the level of analysis (individual vs. organizational).

Content analysis of corporate social and environmental reports and case studies (i.e., Abbott andMonsen 1979; Epstein et al. 1976; Rey 1980; Spadaro et al. 2011; Stanwick and Stanwick 2006)should be positioned among the qualitative methods at the individual and organizational levels ofanalysis. In contrast, reputation indices and databases, forced-choice survey instruments, andbehavioral and perceptional scales should be categorized as quantitative methods at the individualand organizational levels of analysis (i.e., Aupperle 1984; Baucus and Baucus 1997; Davidson andWorrell 1990; Graves and Waddock 1994; Greening and Turban 2000; Maignan and Ferrell 2000;Quazi and O’Brien 2000; Ruf et al. 1998; Singhapakdi et al. 1996; Turker 2009a).

Consistent with the topic of this paper, some of the quantitative methods that measureCSR at the individual and organizational levels—such as reputation indices and databases,single- and multiple-issue indicators, and perceptional and behavioral scales—should bebriefly described, highlighting their pros and cons.

Reputation indices and databases are the methods that were previously developed toevaluate corporate social activities (Abbott and Monsen 1979). Among these, the Fortunereputation index; the Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini (KLD) Database; and the CanadianSocial Investment Database (CSID) are the most commonly used examples (Wood 1995).First, the Fortune reputation index asked executives to evaluate companies that behave insocially responsible and sustainable ways with regard to the community and the environment(McGuire et al. 1988). Second, the KLD Database evaluated socially responsible businesseson nine dimensions, including community relations, military contracts, employee relations,the treatment of women and minorities, nuclear power, the environment, products, and thedevelopment of South Africa (Sharfman 1993). Third, the Canadian Social InvestmentDatabase (CSID) provided environmental, social, and governance performance ratings forapproximately 300 Canadian companies and income trusts on seven dimensions such ascommunity, diversity, employee relations, the environment, international operations, prod-ucts and business activities, and corporate governance (Mahoney and Thorne 2005).Although these reputation indices and databases have been adopted by most studies, somecritical points concerning both the theoretical and methodological aspects should be noted.On the one hand, these methods are not based on theoretical frameworks; on the other hand,in referring to the dimensions that these methods evaluated, they have a limited area ofmeasurement because they are culturally rooted in the countries in which they have beendeveloped (Maignan and Ferrell 2000; Turker 2009a).

Single- and multiple-issue indicators are consistent with more objective measures thanthe subjective evaluation of experts included in previous reputation indices and databases.


For example, the Council of Economic Priorities published pollution control performance asa single-issue indicator that measured sustainable corporate activities to reduce environmen-tal waste (Bragdon and Marlin 1972). Scholars have adopted corporate criminality as asingle-issue indicator of corporate citizenship (Baucus and Baucus 1997; Davidson andWorrell 1990). This has led to the emergence of the unidimensionality of corporate socialactivities, in contrast with the theoretical models of CSR that evoke the multi-dimensionalityof the construct (Carroll 1979; Maignan and Ferrell 2000).

Among the methods described above, scholars have also developed CSR measures thatare consistent with both the individual and organizational levels of analysis. The amount ofproduced scales may be related to the salience attributed by researchers to two differentsemantic fields: (1) the relevance of organizational values on the one hand and (2) thecentrality of organizational behaviors on the other hand.

Scales that measure the CSR perceptions of individuals, especially those of executives,have been built on to the individual level. In 1984, Aupperle developed the Corporate SocialOrientation scale to evaluate managerial values related to corporate social responsibilitybased on Carroll’s hierarchical pyramid model (1979). Then, Singhapakdi et al. (1996)constructed the Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility (PRESOR) scale, andQuazi and O’Brien (2000) empirically tested a cross-national model of CSR to evaluate boththe managerial perceptions of the role of ethics in corporate effectiveness and the organiza-tional values of managers. With a focus on their critical points, Peterson (2004) hashighlighted that these perceptional methods do not adhere to the mainstream frameworkmodel on CSR on the one hand and have only been tested on executives without consideringthe perceptions and values of employees on the other hand. Thus, the perceptional scalesreveal their non-exhaustive nature with regard to the analysis of corporate social responsi-bility as an organizational process.

At the organizational level, two main scales have been constructed in the academic fieldto measure the organizational behaviors related to corporate citizenship (Maignan and Ferrell2000) and corporate social responsibility (Turker 2009a). First, Maignan and Ferrell (2000)designed a behavioral Corporate Citizenship scale based on Carroll’s hierarchy of respon-sibilities and stakeholder management theory that involves three main stakeholders: em-ployees, customers, and the public. As a result, they developed a four-dimensional measureincluding the four correlated factors of economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary citizenshipthat was empirically tested on executives in two different countries, the United States andFrance. Because of the limited number of stakeholders involved in Maignan and Ferrell’sscale, Turker (2009a) has recently developed a Corporate Social Responsibility scale thatevaluated socially responsible corporate behaviors in relation to a varied and broad prospectof stakeholders that is coherent with Wheeler and Sillanpaa’s classification (1997, 1998). Anexploratory factor analysis on a 17-item scale revealed a four-dimensional construct struc-tured as follows: (1) CSR in relation to social and non-social stakeholders; (2) CSR inrelation to employees; (3) CSR in relation to customers; and (4) CSR in relation togovernments. However, Turker’s scale was built only on the behavioral dimension and hasbeen tested on employees, excluding the perceptions of executives; therefore, its exploratorystructure has to be confirmed.

Nevertheless, the behavioral and perceptional scales have been the first serious attempts tograsp the multidimensional nature of CSR based on relevant theoretical frameworks. Because oftheir theoretical and methodological insights, such scales have allowed scholars to study CSRnot only at the individual level of analysis; the organizational level has also been explored,considering the relations of corporate social responsibility with other organizational variables.Thus, scholars have explored the relationships between CSR and the organizational commitment


of employees (Brammer et al. 2007; Maignan et al. 1999; Peterson 2004; Riordan et al. 1997;Turker 2009b), counterproductive organizational behaviors (Viswesvaran et al. 1998), organi-zational reputations (Greening and Turban 2000; Turban and Greening 1996), and the organi-zational agency of employers and executives in SMEs (Albinger and Freeman 2000; Jenkins2004; Murillo and Lozano 2006; Perrini 2006; Perrini et al. 2006; Russo and Tencati 2009;Spence 1999, 2004, 2007; Spence and Lozano 2000).

In summary, despite the growing academic interest in the study of CSR at the organiza-tional level of analysis, the literature has emphasized the behavioral dimension of corporatesocial responsibility and its social nature, being closely interconnected with the differentstakeholders that affect and are affected by corporate activities. Therefore, research has notoffered an organizational measure of CSR that has been validated on both executives andemployees. Finally, research has not considered the psychosocial features that are able toexplain how CSR should be advanced in organizations. In short, the existing developmentstudies appear to be useful for obtaining descriptive information about the socially respon-sible behaviors of organizations without considering the cognitive and affective componentshelpful in fostering corporate behaviors. Finally, the brief review of the existing CSRmeasures reveals that scholars have developed different methods to analyze corporate socialactivities, most of which have some epistemological and methodological limitations. Inparticular, none of the measures described above have incorporated the psychosocialperspective to explain CSR. Thus, in this study, CSR has been conceptualized as a three-dimensional psychosocial construct whose cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors arestrictly interconnected with a set of multiple stakeholders and extended beyond economicconsiderations. In line with the proposed conceptual framework, a new psychosocial CSRscale should be developed according to the proposed theoretical psychosocial framework.

Research Methodology

Scale Design

The Psychosocial Corporate Social Responsibility (P-CSR) scale was designed through arevised scale development process (DeVellis 2003), coherent to the following steps:

i. Analysis of the literature and identification of the theoretical framework;ii. Definition of the scale items;iii. Verification of the items’ content validity through expert judgment;iv. Implementation of the final version of the scale.

First, an analysis of the literature was undertaken from a psychosocial perspective toidentify important references to theoretical and empirical studies on CSR. The review of theliterature revealed that there was a growing tendency on the part of scholars (Maignan andFerrell 2000, 2004; Turker 2009a, b) to investigate the behavioral aspect of CSR, thusobtaining measures of CSR that can be easily implemented in organizational contexts. TheseCSR measures were based on conceptualizations of stakeholder management (Freeman1984), thereby highlighting that CSR behaviors were intended to respond to the rights,needs and interests of a variety of stakeholders (Dawkins and Lewis 2003; Greenwood2001). In general, these methods were validated on representative samples of eitheremployers/executives or employees; therefore, such measures were considered to be reliableand generalizable to specific social categories. In addition, it was found that scholars were


not implementing CSR measures that integrated the behavioral dimension of CSR with itscognitive and affective dimensions (D’Aprile and Mannarini 2012a, b). Such a result appearto mirror the relative lack of studies that had used the conceptual framework of socialcognition (Fiske and Taylor 1991) to investigate psychological processes related to sustain-able and socially responsible behaviors (Cardona and Frieze 2000; Dief and Font 2010;Fassin et al. 2010; Ferdous 2010). Therefore, the studies with a behavioral CSR orientationrepresented the starting point for the development of the P-CSR scale. In particular, Turker’scorporate social responsibility scale (2009a) was conceived as being an exhaustive methodfor measuring organizational behaviors toward a composite prospect of stakeholders includ-ing not only customers, employees, and public institutions but also the natural environment,future generations, NGOs and civil society, as highlighted in the literature (Smith 1993;World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). With the behavioral dimen-sion based on Turker’s measure, the items related to the cognitive and affective componentsof CSR were designed considering Turker’s prospect of stakeholders, adding territorialcommunity as a relevant stakeholder, as found by D’Aprile and Mannarini in their studies(2012a; b). As a result, an eight-stakeholder classification was established, specificallyincluding (1) employees, (2) consumers, (3) public institutions, (4) future generations, (5)NGOs, (6) the natural environment, (7) civil society, and (8) the community.

Second, the items of the P-CSR scale were defined; that is, its behavioral, cognitive, andaffective sub-scales. Specifically, the items representing socially responsible behaviors(behavioral CSR dimension), organizational perspective-taking (cognitive CSR dimension),and care taking (affective CSR dimension) of all the stakeholders identified in the analysis ofthe literature were defined. The Corporate Social Responsibility scale of Turker (2009a) wasadopted as a useful base for the selection of the behavioral P-CSR items. In line with thetheoretical conceptualizations presented above and the methodological findings shown in theAnalyses section below, a partial version of Turker’s scale was used rather than the entiremeasure. In particular, one item representing each stakeholder in the theoretical classificationwas selected, to which an item about the CSR behavior toward the territorial community wasadded. Additionally, the cognitive and affective sub-scale items were formulated to becoherent with the theoretical model elaborated by D’Aprile and Mannarini (2012a, b).Consequently, the cognitive and affective CSR items reflected the multi-stakeholder per-spective of previous behavioral CSR approaches. Thus, a 33-item scale evaluating thepsychosocial dimensions was created with eleven items allocated to each sub-scale.

Third, after the formulation and selection of items, findings from two independent judgeswere compared to ensure the clarity of the content of the items as well as their consistencyand lack of ambiguity. The judges then reviewed the content of the formulated items toevaluate the clarity of each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’to ‘strongly disagree’. Thus, some items were eliminated or modified to balance themeasurement of CSR according to positive/negative aspects (reverse items). Therefore, theobtained items were randomly distruibuted among positive/negative measures (ManganelliRattazzi 1990).

Finally, the item generation process resulted in a measurement tool including 24 items,with eight items each for the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of CSR.Specifically, the 24 items of the P-CSR scale were distributed as shown below (Table 1).

Sample Selection, Data Collection, and Analyses

To validate the new psychosocial model of CSR, a survey was conducted on a sample ofbusiness professionals—including both employers and employees—working in Southern


Italian SMEs. SMEswere selected for socio-economic reasons; in Italy, SMEs represent 99.9%of all businesses and contribute to 81.3 % of employment (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities 2001). In this study, every attempt was made to exclude large enterprises, not-for-profit organizations, schools, and other public institutions. Additionally, to enhance theexternal validity of the research findings, for each enterprise, an employer and at least twoemployees were included in the sample.

Table 1 Psychosocial Corporate Social Responsibility Scale (P-CSR) items. Primary social (PS), secondarysocial (SS), primary non-social (PNS) and secondary non-social (SNS) stakeholders

Dimension Stakeholder

Behavioral P-CSR

Our company participates in activities that aim to protect and improve the quality of thenatural environmenta

PNS

Our company targets sustainable growth that considers future generationsa SNS

Our company supports nongovernmental organizations working in problematic areasa PNS

Our company contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of societya SS

Our company contributes to the enhancement of our community SNS

Our company policies encourage employees to develop their skills and careersa PS

Our company respects consumer rights beyond the legal requirementsa PS

Our company cooperates with institutions in social responsibility projectsa SS

Cognitive P-CSR

Our company tries to understand the needs and demands of our community SNS

In our company, people hardly ever put themselves in the shoes of others (employers/employees) when they make organizational decisions(R)

PS

In our company, it is important to reflect on the needs of society SS

Our company does not consider it essential to take the perspective of the customer to acteffectively and efficiently(R)

PS

Our company believes it is important to understand the requirements of non-governmentalorganizations

PNS

In our company, we reflect on the needs and expectations of future generations SNS

In our company, we try to understand issues relating to environmental conditions PNS

In our company, we try to take the point of view of public institutions into account SS

Affective P-CSR

In our company, employers and/or managers take the employees’ needs into account tosupport their professional paths

PS

Our company does not feel responsible to society(R) SS

Our company believes it is relevant to take care of the requirements of non-governmentalorganizations

PNS

Our company does not consider it is useful to meet the needs of customers(R) PS

Our company believes it is important to protect the environment and adopt eco-friendlybusiness policies

PNS

Our company considers the country to be a resource to be protected SNS

Our company does not feel responsible for future generations(R) SNS

Our company takes the requests of public institutions into consideration SS

(R) Item reversea Item selected from the Corporate Social Responsibility Scale (Turker 2009a)

In italics, changes to the items of the Corporate Social Responsibility Scale (Turker 2009a)


These business professionals were involved in the study in two ways: on the one hand,through the online procedure; on the other hand, through directly administered question-naires. With regard to the online procedure, contact was made through a series of e-mails toindustry associations or companies. The e-mails included a cover letter, which brieflyexplained the purpose of the study, as well as a hyperlink to the questionnaire to becompleted online. A total of 139 subjects (40.3 % of the sample) completed the onlineversion of the questionnaire. The other part of the sample consisted of subjects who werecontacted directly and asked to complete a paper version of questionnaire (206 subjects,59.7 % of the sample; response rate=41.2 %). In both cases, no personal identifyinginformation was requested from the respondents to guarantee their anonymity.

In addition to the P-CSR scale, data were collected through a self-reported questionnaire alsoincluding the following measures as independent variables, to analyze the construct validity.

Community Organization Sense of Community (COSOC) This measure was an Italianadaptation of the 8-item scale of Peterson et al. (2008). The items were hypothesized torepresent the four components conceptualized in the framework of Hughey et al. (1999): (1)relationship to the organization (RO), (2) organization as mediator (OM), (3) influence of theorganization (IO), and (4) bond with the community (BC). Respondents answered theCOSOC-R items using a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘stronglydisagree’.

Organizational Commitment (OC) Organizational commitment was measured using a 9-item shortened version (Mowday et al. 1982) of the 15-item Organizational CommitmentQuestionnaire (Mowday et al. 1979). Items were hypothesized to represent emotionalattachment as well as identification with and involvement in the organization, that is, theaffective commitment. According to Brammer and colleagues (2007), since the implicationof affective commitment encompass job behaviors and a set of underlying outcomes thatinclude attendance, job performance, stress, and health, the Mowday’s shortened version ofOC questionnaire was adopted because of its suitable and reliable measure of affectivecommitment in organizational contexts. Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert-typescale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

Psychological Sense of Community (SOC). The sense of community was measured usingthe Multidimensional Territorial Sense of Community (MTSOC) Scale (Prezza et al. 2009),which was a validated measure of psychological sense of community in local Italiancommunities. This 19-item scale has five response modalities (ranging from 1=stronglydisagree to 5=strongly agree) to measure five first-order factors (i.e., membership, sharedinfluence, help in case of need, social climate and bonds, and fulfillment of needs) and onesecond-order factor (i.e., territorial sense of community).

Socio Demographics Participants were asked to provide demographic information specify-ing their age, gender, level of education, employment status (employer vs. employee), yearsof work experience (working age), and the type (production vs. service) and size (small vs.medium) of the company they work for.

Descriptive statistics, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), reliability analysis,ANOVA, and correlation analysis methods were used to analyze the scale’s structure,content validity, its attempt to differentiate among the socio-demographic variables,and construct validity, respectively. The main results of the conducted analyses aredescribed below.


Analyses

Descriptive Statistics

The 345 participants (58.3 % female) were distributed among employers (100, 29 %) andemployees (245, 71 %) and members of small (11.3 %) and medium-sized (87.8 %) Italianenterprises; the ages of the participants ranged from 19 to 65 (Mean=33.81, SD=9.26). Mostof the participants were high school graduates (60 %) with a mean working age of 9.9 years(SD=9.36). No difference was found between the sub-samples involved through onlineprocedure and paper-based procedure. Specifically, ANOVA and Levene’s test for equalityof variances did not show differences for gender, age, level of education, working age, typeand size of the company in the two sub-samples.

The examined SMEs were production and utilities companies carrying out different typesof activities. Some of them produced goods – such as business management software,furniture, waste disposal equipment, construction equipment, etc.—(11.3 %), whereas othersprovided services—such as organizing theater events, consulting services for communica-tion and environmental management, telecommunications services, etc. (87.8 %).

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Before analyzing the psychosocial CSR model, the CFAwas preliminarily employed on theexploratory four-dimensional structure of the Corporate Social Responsibility scale ofTurker (2009a). The CFA showed that the original structure of the Turker’s CSR model,here conceived and applied as a Principle Factor (Reflective) model (Bollen and Lennox1991), did not get satisfactory fit indices, even adding the correlations among the residues ofsome items (χ2 [109, 340]=269.59, p=.00, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation[RMSEA]=.06 [.05 .08], p=.01; Comparative Fit Index [CFI]=.92; Tucker Lewis Index[TLI]=.90; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR]=.07). Indeed, the correlationsbetween residuals are rather high and statistically significant: r1,3=.49 (p<.01); r9,13=.26(p<.01); r11,12=.24 (p<.01); r12,15=.24 (p<.01); r13,14=.25 (p<.01). These findings allowed usto first evaluate the methodological properties of Turker’s measure and subsequently tosupport its partial use in the P-CSR scale.

Then, the CFA was conducted to test the P-CSR model, which was also conceivedand applied as a Principle Factor (Reflective) model (Bollen and Lennox 1991). Giventhe large number of items proposed for the P-CSR scale, an item aggregationprocedure was used (Pierro et al. 1995). Briefly, because each latent factor (η) couldinfluence at least two observed variables (χ) in making measurement models, we usedthree indicators for each of the three P-CSR sub-scales, randomly dividing the itemsof each scale into three sub-scales. This type of procedure, which is widely used andrecommended in many studies (for similar methods, see Brooke et al. 1988; Evansand Fisher 1993), was adopted for several reasons. First, models with many param-eters to be estimated (generally greater than 20) rarely showed a good fit to theempirical data (Bentler and Chou 1987). Second, to make reliable estimates of theparameters, Bentler and Chou (1987) recommended keeping in mind that there mustbe a ratio of 1:5 between the parameters to be estimated and the number of producedsubjects. Therefore, because a model based on 30 items, for example, required theestimation of approximately 75 parameters, we constructed three indicators for each ofthe three dimensions of the P-CSR to reduce the number of variables and increase theratio of subjects to parameters to be estimated. In accordance with this procedure, the


items were combined with respect to the stakeholder classification presented abovewithin the three P-CSR sub-scales. Finally, we proposed a two-level factorial analysiswith three first-order variables (Behavioral, Cognitive and Affective CSR) and onesecond-order variable (Psychosocial CSR).

The indices of fit of the overall model (Fig. 1) demonstrated the validity of the theoreticalP-CSR model (χ2 [51, 342]=313.87, p=.00; RMSEA=.06 [.05 .09], p=.05; CFI=.97;TLI=.96; SRMR=.04).

Additionally, to examine structural invariance, the model was tested differentlyfor employers and employees. The indices demonstrated good model fit forboth the employer model (χ2 [51, 98]=201.23, p=.00; RMSEA=.09 [.06 .12], p=.00;CFI=.92; TLI=.91; SRMR=.08) and the employee model (χ2 [51, 243]=236.54, p=.00;RMSEA=.07 [.05 .12], p=.00; CFI=.95; TLI=.91; SRMR=.06). The structural invari-ance was also confirmed for the sub-sample involved through online procedure (χ2

[51, 136]=162.24, p=.00; RMSEA=.08 [.06 .13], p=.00; CFI=.95; TLI=.94;SRMR=.09) and paper-based procedure (χ2 [51, 205]=204.38, p=.00; RMSEA=.07[.05 .14], p=.00; CFI=.94; TLI=.94; SRMR=.08).

Finally, some alternative models were tested. The model with a single first-order factordid not obtain a proper fit (χ2 [54, 342]=436.29, p=.00; RMSEA=.14 [.13 .16], p=.00;CFI=.78; TLI=.73; SRMR=.09), nor did the model that included only three first-orderfactors (cognitive, affective and behavioral) that were correlated to each other (χ2 [51,342]=313.87, p=.00; RMSEA=.12 [.11 .17], p=.00; CFI=.84; TLI=.80; SRMR=.09).

P-CSR

behavioralCSR

cognitiveCSR

affectiveCSR

seco

ndar

y so

cial

prim

ary

non -

soci

al

seco

ndar

y no

n-so

cial

prim

ary

soci

al

seco

ndar

y so

cial

prim

ary

non-

soci

al

prim

ary

soci

al

seco

ndar

y so

cial

prim

ary

non-

soci

al

.43.01

.27

.75 .85.97

.46 .83 .77 .40 .78 .80 .68 .66 .78

.78 .31 .41 .84 .40 .36 .54 .57 .39

prim

ary

soci

al

seco

ndar

y no

n-so

cial

seco

ndar

y no

n-so

cial

.79

.38 .57.96

.19 .66

Fig. 1 Confirmatory factor analysis of P-CSR. Note: all parameters are significant p<.01


ANOVA: Differences Between Individual and Socio-Organizational Categories

Table 2 showed the differences estimated for P-CSR with regard to the socio-demographicfactors (i.e., gender, occupation, age, type of business, and company size).

As seen in the table, the difference between males and females was not statisticallysignificant (Fbeh [1, 342]=.38, sig=.54; Fcog [1, 342]=.15, sig.=.70; Faff [1, 341]=.20,sig.=.65; FP-CSR [1, 339]=.33, sig. = .56). In contrast, the job role revealed significantdifferences: employers obtained higher scores for the three dimensions of P-CSR than em-ployees (Fbeh [1, 342]=31.48, sig=.00; Fcog [1, 342]=27.03, sig.=.00; Faff [1, 341]=35.61,sig.=.00; FP-CSR [1, 339]=39.40, sig.=.00). The scores also indicted a significant differencebetween two age cohorts (Fbeh [2, 341]=12.52, sig=.00; Fcog [2, 341]=7.57, sig.=.00; Faff [2,340]=7.86, sig.=.00; FP-CSR [2, 338]=11.34, sig.=.00): those between 31 and 55 years of agepresented higher scores than younger subjects. With regard to business type, productioncompanies had higher scores than service companies (Fbeh [1, 339]=19.10, sig=.00; Fcog [1,339]=9.88, sig.=.00; Faff [1, 338]=13.58, sig.=.00; FP-CSR [1, 336]=17.60, sig.=.00). Finally,with regard to company size, small companies had higher scores than medium-sized companies(Fbeh [1, 334]=4.44, sig=.03; Fcog [1, 339]=6.67, sig.=.01; Faff [1, 338]=9.74, sig.=.00; FP-CSR[1, 332]=8.56, sig.=.00).

Reliability and Validity Analyses

In order to deepen the analysis of validity and reliability of measures, in addition toCronbach’s Alpha, the Composite Reliability (CR), the Average Variance Extracted(AVE), the Maximum Shared Squared Variance (MSV), and the Average Shared SquaredVariance (ASV) were calculated (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Hair et al. 2009) (Table 3).

Table 2 Differences of P-CSRmean scores for gender, occupa-tion, age, type of business and sizeof the company (ANOVA)

*Significant difference p<.05**Bonferroni post hoc p<.05

N Behavior Cognition Affect P-CSR

Gender

Female 201 33.19 32.62 34.75 100.54

Male 144 32.85 32.40 34.51 99.69

Occupation

Employers 100 35.29* 34.68* 37.01* 1006.99*

Employees 245 32.14* 31.64* 33.69* 97.44*

Age

19–30 162 31.70** 31.41** 33.58** 96.63**

31–55 178 34.20** 33.53** 35.55** 103.26**

56–65 5 35.80 32.80 37.65 105.19

Type of business

Production 39 36.10* 34.85* 37.23* 108.18*

Service 303 32.57* 32.16* 34.24* 98.92*

Company size

Small 205 33.48* 33.12* 35.33* 101.92*

Medium 132 32.32* 31.66* 33.65* 97.58*


According to the estimates provided in Table 3, each construct sufficiently differed fromthe other constructs. Based on the strong evidence for reliability, convergent and discrimi-nant validity, the measurement model was deemed acceptable.

Table 4 shows the values of Tolerance index and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), usefulto analyze for the presence of multicollinearity.

Both Tolerance index and VIF did not show the presence of a relevant multicollinearityamong the three first-order factors (behavior, cognition, and affect) analyzed (Pedhazur 1997).

Correlation Analyses

The construct validity for the 24-item model was established by examining the correlationanalyses among P-CSR and other individual and socio-organizational variables. Table 5presents the correlations among the three dimensions of CSR, the total scores of ages,working ages, territorial sense of community (MTSOC), community organization sense ofcommunity (COSOC) and organizational commitment (OC). Confirmatory Factor Analysisconfirmed the structure of the three psychosocial variables, mentioned above. MTSOC: χ2

[132, 340]=285.78, p=.00; RMSEA=.06 [.05 .17], p=.07; CFI=.94; TLI=.92; SRMR=.08.COSOC: χ2 [16, 340]=31.51, p=.01; RMSEA=.05 [.04 .08], p=.39; CFI=.98; TLI=.97;SRMR=.04. CO: χ2 [21, 340]=52.84, p=.00; RMSEA=.06 [.04 .08], p=.11; CFI=.98;TLI=.96; SRMR=.03.

The results showed that the three dimensions of CSR were highly correlated with eachother (with ‘r’ values between .66 and .78). In addition, both age and years of workingexperience (working age in Table 3) were positively correlated with the three dimensions(with ‘r’ values ranging from .22 to .24) and with the total psychosocial CSR score (r=.28).Behavior, cognition and affect were positively correlated with territorial sense of community(with ‘r’ values between .35 and .40), community organization sense of community (with ‘r’values between .52 and .61) and organizational commitment (with ‘r’ values between .48and .68). Finally, P-CSR was also positively correlated with the three analyzed psychosocialvariables (with ‘r’ values ranging from .42 to .65).

Table 3 Convergent, discriminant validity, and reliability tests

CR AVE MSV ASV Cronbach’s α

Thresholds > 0.7 > 0.5 MSV<AVE ASV<AVE > 0.7

Factor

Behavior .76 .52 .19 .03 .80

Cognition .78 .53 .21 .03 .81

Affect .73 .50 .18 .02 .79

P-CSR .80 .57 .22 .04 .91

Table 4 Collinearity statisticsTolerance VIF

Behavior ,65 1,54

Cognition ,42 2,37

Affect ,47 2,15


Discussion and Conclusion

Theoretical and Managerial Implications

Based on a socio-cognitive perspective, the present study aimed to conceptualize CSR as arenewed multidimensional psychosocial construct. In line with the research goals, we tested aPsychosocial CSR scale that is able to measure three dimensions: cognitive, affective andbehavioral CSR. According to D’Aprile and Mannarini (2012a, b), organizational perspectivetaking from a multi-stakeholder perspective represents the cognitive dimension; organizationalinvolvement as well as sharing corporate values and orienting business professionals to takecare of different stakeholders represents the affective dimension; and sustainable and sociallyresponsible corporate behaviors affecting various stakeholders represent the behavioral dimen-sion. As the findings of the correlation analysis and the test of multicollinearity showed, thethree psychosocial dimensions of CSR were homogeneously correlated to each other, withoutevidence of relevant indices of collinearity. These results further confirm the appropriateness ofthe model and indicate a progressive circularity among the three factors; that is, each factorconstantly influences and is influenced by the other two factors.

Through an overview of the main results, it is possible to note relevant theoretical andpractical implications for the management of CSR in organizational contexts.

First, consistent with the confirmatory factor analysis, reliability and validity analyses,and structural invariance of the theoretical model, the findings of the present study con-firmed that CSR could be conceived as a three-dimensional psychosocial model. Therefore,despite claims made in earlier theoretical and empirical studies, CSR is not solely capturedby its behavioral component (Aguinis 2011; Bansal 2005; Maignan and Ferrell 2000;Molteni 2006; Peterson 2004; Turker 2009a). Rather, CSR could be re-conceptualized asthe cognitive and affective propensities of business professionals to behave in sociallyresponsible manners with regard to different stakeholders (i.e., employees, customers, publicinstitutions, future generations, civil society, the natural environment, NGOs, and commu-nities), as classified by Wheeler and Sillanpaa (1997, 1998).

Second, the Psychosocial CSR scale allowed for relevant differences consistent withANOVA findings on some social demographics to be highlighted.

Table 5 Correlations among the three dimensions of CSR, the total score, age working age, sense of community(MTSOC), community organization sense of community (COSOC) and organizational commitment (OC)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age −2. Working age .75** −3. MTSOC .07 .04 −4. COSOC .18** .23** .44** −5. OC .21** .22** .29** .68** −6. Behavior .28** .28** .35** .52** .48** −7. Cognition .24** .23** .40** .57** .60** .66** −8. Affect .22** .24** .37** .61** .68** .68** .78** −9. P-CSR .28** .28** .42** .63** .65** .87** .91** .91** −Mean 33.81 9.91 66.73 29.26 34.86 33.05 32.53 34.65 100.19

Std. Dev. 9.26 9.36 10.20 4.32 5.68 4.93 5.10 4.90 13.41

**Correlation statistically significant p<.01


With regard to the P-CSR scores of production and service companies, the businessprofessionals working in production SMEs obtained higher scores. This result could beexplained by the business-specific nature of CSR (Dahlsrud 2006; van Marrewijk 2003).Indeed, business professionals in production companies are constantly oriented to recognizetheir impact on the region, which is connected to their businesses. This differs from businessprofessionals working in service companies, who must implicitly identify and evaluate theirsocially responsible and environmental impact. Additionally, this difference in awarenesscould be linked to challenging legal regulations that direct companies to comply withenvironmental protection standards, which are easier to regulate and measure relative tosocial standards (Donaldson 1993; Grigoryan 2011; Minus 1993).

Furthermore, it was remarkable that the group comprising individuals between the ages of 31and 55 showed more responsibility than the group of younger individuals. It could be arguedthat age reflects the length of employment of business professionals; this implies that olderindividuals have a deep identification with the policies and corporate governance of thecompanies in which they work, thereby allowing them to engage in psychosocial CSR(Brammer et al. 2007; Meyer et al. 2002). In addition, age is related to the business experiencesof professionals, allowing older individuals to have a different awareness of the significance ofwork activities and organizational dynamics such that they gradually orientate their cognitive,affective, and behavioral efforts toward CSR.

Moreover, the differences between employers and employees as well as that between small-andmedium-size enterprises were also significant. Indeed, employers of small enterprises had agreater perception of psychosocial CSR. According to the academic literature, it could beclaimed that because employers are primarily responsible for business activities, they involvetheir personal motivations and values, thus developing a management system that includescorporate social performance (Jenkins 2004; Spence 2007). In doing so, employers implicitlyperformed CSR in organizational contexts without engaging employees in their “silent CSR”(Jenkins 2004, 2006; Perrini 2006; Perrini et al. 2006; Russo and Tencati 2009).Moreover, withregard to the size of enterprises, small enterprises are embedded in local communities, whichaffects their orientation towards socially responsible and sustainable impact (Spence 2004).Given the social context that small enterprises operate in, it seems reasonable to argue that smallbusinesses exert more cognitive, affective, and behavioral effort to sustain their own businessesand developmutually beneficial relationships with the stakeholders that affect or are affected bytheir businesses.

Third, beyond the important features of the structural model of psychosocial constructs, thefindings of the correlation analysis provided insights with regard to social participation in CSRwithin organizations. These findings appeared to support the ‘social lens’ adopted to interpretthe previous ANOVA results. Indeed, the positive correlations among P-CSR, territorial senseof community, community organization sense of community, and organizational commitmentallowed for it to be argued that both extra-organizational (such as territorial sense of commu-nity) and intra-organizational (such as organizational sense of community and commitment)variables could impact psychosocial CSR. In reference to social psychology studies thatanalyzed the relationships between sense of community and participation in neighboringpolitical and territorial communities (Brodsky and Marx 2001; Catano et al. 1993; Chavisand Wandersman 1990; Mannarini and Fedi 2009; McMillan and Chavis 1986; Obst et al.2002a, b, c; Pretty and McCarthy 1991), it could be claimed that such social variables mayrepresent the strategic levers to foster CSR participation in organizational contexts.

In summary, from the theoretical point of view, the empirical assessment allowed for theconcept of CSR to be rethought. Indeed, far from being a pattern of corporate behaviorsmainly describing corporate social responsibility (Aguinis 2011; Bansal 2005; Turker


2009b), CSR emerges as an organizational psychosocial attitude whose cognitive (in theform perspective-taking), affective (in the form of care taking), and behavioral (in the formof performing socially responsible activities) dimensions are closely correlated.

This helps to explain how CSR could be developed and managed in organizations ratherthan only whether it exists in them.

In practice, the P-CSR model highlights a set of integrated components, in whichcorporate social responsibility efforts have to be empowered. For example, consistent withthe cognitive CSR component, the present psychosocial measure emphasizes the role oforganizational perspective-taking toward a set of multiple stakeholders, which could befostered during professional training interventions. Consistent with the affective component,the P-CSR measure also underlines the relevant role of taking care as being based oncorporate values, which could be promoted in the construction of a sustainable corporateculture through discussions, socializing, and the sharing of corporate values and normsduring meetings involving both employers and employees.

Furthermore, the psychosocial conceptualization and operationalization of CSR provideuseful support for researchers, employers, and executives interested in analyzing organiza-tional involvement in CSR. The present study first offers a measurement tool that theoret-ically integrates different organizational and psychosocial frameworks that are oftenevaluated separately or not considered. Second, this research delivers a powerful andpractical measure of CSR that is able to evaluate CSR at the organizational level of analysis.Specifically, both the exhaustive stakeholder classification used to implement the P-CSRscale and the involvement of employers as well as employees in its testing guarantee theorganizational appropriateness of the proposed measure.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although this research study has been designed to fill both theoretical and empirical gaps inthe academic literature, we acknowledge that it has some limitations, which could beovercome in future research.

First, the data were collected from a relatively small sample of business professionalsfrom Italian SMEs. Therefore, we underlined the specificity of the analysis with regard to thesize of enterprises and the social and cultural aspects specific to Italy. Future research mightevaluate the P-CSR in large companies. In addition, to overcome the cultural bias associatedwith the Italian social, political and economic contexts, the analysis might be extended toother countries to test the scale’s applicability in different cultures. As proposed by Maignanand Ferrell (2000), countries from different continents could be involved. This wouldconsequently allow for the evaluation of the P-CSR scale on a larger sample. Moreover,such enlargement of sample could be also a possible solution to manage the multicollinearity(Grewal et al. 2004), thus obtaining additional data that might allow to retesting the indicesof collinearity among the first-order variables of the P-CSR model.

Second, based on social and community theory, future research should more thoroughlyinvestigate psychosocial CSR in relation to other social variables. Indeed, the literaturereview reveals that there are no studies that enhance the understanding of psychosocialmodels of collective participation in CSR. In particular, the analysis of the relationshipsamong P-CSR, territorial and organizational communities and organizational commitmentcould explain the participatory dynamics of CSR in organizational contexts.

To conclude, the findings of the present study show that CSR may be viewed as a multidi-mensional psychosocial construct that is shaped by cognitive, affective, and behavioral compo-nents as correlated dimensions, especially in SMEs. Specifically, organizational perspective-


taking and the corporate propensity to take care of various stakeholders help to explain how CSRmay be implemented and enhanced in organizational contexts. This psychosocial model presentsnew theoretical suggestions as well as some practical implications and limitations that can orientfurther investigations of the analyzed psychosocial model to develop a relevant model for CSRparticipation based on community and social theoretical frameworks.

References

Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-reporteddisclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal,22(3), 501–515.

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation ofstakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of ManagementJournal, 42(5), 507–525.

Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In S. Zedek (Ed.), APAhandbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 855–879). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer todifferent job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243–253.

Andrews, K. R. (1973). Can the best corporations be made moral? Harvard Business Review, 51(3), 57–64.Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management

Review, 14(1), 20–39.Aupperle, K. E. (1984). An empirical measure of corporate social orientation. In L. E. Preston (Ed.), Research

in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 6, pp. 27–54). Greenwich: JAI.Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic

Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.Baucus, M. S., & Baucus, D. A. (1997). Paying the piper: an empirical examination of longer-term financial

consequences of illegal corporate behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 129–151.Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods &

Research, 16(1), 78–117.Boal, K. B., & Peery, N. (1985). The cognitive structure of corporate social responsibility. Journal of

Management, 11(3), 71–82.Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective.

Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314.Bragdon, J. H., & Marlin, J. A. (1972). Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19, 9–18.Brammer, S., Millington, A. I., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to

organisational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701–1719.Brodsky, A., & Marx, C. (2001). Layers of identity: multiple psychological senses of community within a

community setting. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 161–178.Brooke, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of Job satisfaction,

job involvement and organization commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 139–145.Buehler, V. M., & Shetty, Y. K. (1976). Managerial response to social responsibility challenge. Academy of

Managerial Journal, 19(1), 66–78.Cannon, T. (1994). Corporate responsibility: A textbook on business ethics, governance, environment, roles

and responsibilities. London: Pitnam.Cardona, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of US environmental managers: applying

Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 627–641.Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of

Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of

organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct. Business &

Society, 38(3), 268–295.Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of

concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.


Catano, V., Pretty, G., Southwell, R., & Cole, G. (1993). Sense of community and union participation.Psychological Reports, 72, 333–334.

Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: a catalyst forparticipation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1, 55–81.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social perfor-mance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

Commission of the European Communities (2001). Promoting an European Framework for CorporateSocial Responsibilities. COM (2001) 366 final, Brussels. Resource document. European Union.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0366en01.pdf. Accessed 26 October2011.

Commission of the European Communities (2002). Communication: Corporate Social Responsibility: A businesscontribution to sustainable development. Resource document. European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0347:FIN:en:PDF. Accessed 26 October 2011.

D’Aprile, G., & Mannarini, T. (2012a). The psycho-social dimensions and correlates of Corporate SocialResponsibility. In G. Mininni & A. Manuti (Eds.), Applied psycholinguistic. Positive effects and ethicaldimensions, vol. I (pp. 206–216). Milano: FrancoAngeli.

D’Aprile, G., & Mannarini, T. (2012b). Corporate social responsibility: a psychosocial multidimensionalconstruct. Journal of Global Responsibility, 3(1), 48–65.

Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.

Davidson, W. N., & Worrell, D. L. (1990). A comparison and test of the use of accounting and stock market data inrelating corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Akron Business and Economic Review, 21, 7–19.

Davis, L. A. (2001). The social responsibility of corporations, the corporate citizen. Corporate CitizenshipResearch, 1(4), 2–8.

Dawkins, D., & Lewis, S. (2003). CSR in stakeholder expectations: and their implication for companystrategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 185–193.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development. Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.De Silvio, S., & Lanzaro, S. (2010). Monitoraggio delle Politiche Regionali in materia di Responsabilità

Sociale d’Impresa. Resource document. Ministero del Lavoro e delle politiche Sociali. http://www.cliclavoro.gov.it/news/Documents/Monitoraggiopoliticheregionali_dicembre2010.pdf. Accessed20 December 2012.

Dief, M. E., & Font, X. (2010). The determinants of hotels’ marketing managers’ green marketing behavior.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), 157–174.

Donaldson, T. (1993). When in Rome, do… what? International business and cultural relativism. In P. M. Minus(Ed.), The ethics of business in a global economy (pp. 79–95). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategyand the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21th Century Business. Oxford:Capstone Publishing.

Epstein, M., Flamholtz, E., & McDonough, J. J. (1976). Corporate social accounting in the UnitedStates of America: state of the art and future prospects. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1(1), 23–42.

Evans, B. K., & Fisher, D. G. (1993). The nature of burnout: A study of the three-factor model of burnout inhuman service and non-human service samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,66, 29–38.

Fassin, Y., Van Rossem, A., & Buelens, M. (2010). Small-business owner-managers’ perceptions of businessethics and CSR-related concepts. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 425–453.

Ferdous, A. S. (2010). Applying the theory of planned behavior to explain marketing managers’ perspectiveson sustainable marketing. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 22, 313–325.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Fonbrum, C. J. (1997). Three pillars of corporate citizenship: Ethics, social benefit, profitability. In N. Tichy, A. R.

McGill, & L. S. Clair (Eds.),Corporate global citizenship: Doing business in the public eye (pp. 27–42). SanFrancisco: New Lexington Press.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables andmeasurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University Chicago Press.Giddens, A. (2007). Europe in the global age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of

Management, 37(4), 1034–1046.


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0366en01.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0347:FIN:en:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0347:FIN:en:PDF

http://www.cliclavoro.gov.it/news/Documents/Monitoraggiopoliticheregionali_dicembre2010.pdf

http://www.cliclavoro.gov.it/news/Documents/Monitoraggiopoliticheregionali_dicembre2010.pdf

Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage inattracting a quality work force. Business & Society, 39(3), 254–280.

Greenwood, M. R. (2001). The importance of stakeholders according to business leaders. Business andSociety Review, 106(1), 29–49.

Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement error in structuralequation models: implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23(4), 519–529.

Grigoryan, A. A. (2011). Legal, economic and business insight of corporate social responsibility. BusinessIntelligence Journal, 4(1), 37–58.

Grit, K. (2004). Corporate citizenship: how to strengthen the social responsibility of managers? Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 53, 97–106.

Grunig, J. E. (1979). A new measure of public opinions on corporate social responsibility. Academy ofManagement Journal, 22, 738–764.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hollender, L. (2004). What matters most: corporate value and social responsibility. Californian ManagementReview, 46(4), 111–119.

Hughey, J., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (1999). Sense of community in community organizations:structure and evidence of validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 97–113.

Jenkins, H. (2004). A critique of conventional CSR theory: an SME Perspective. Journal of GeneralManagement, 29(4), 37–57.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,67(3), 241–256.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.Mahoney, L. S., & Thorne, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and long-term compensation: evidence

from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(3), 241–253.Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: the case of the united

states and france. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283–297.Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an integrative framework

framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19.Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. (1999). Corporate citizenship: cultural antecedents and business

benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 455–469.Manganelli Rattazzi, A. M. (1990). Il questionario. Aspetti teorici e pratici. Padova: Cleup.Mannarini, T., & Fedi, A. (2009). The multiple senses of community: the experience and meaning of

community. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(2), 211–227.Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: revealing the true face of corporate

citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1), 109–120.McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneewiess, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial

performance. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 854–872.McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: a definition and theory. Journal of

Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative

commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

Minus, P. M. (1993). The ethics of business in a global economy. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Moir, L. (2001). What we do mean by corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance, 1(2), 16–22.Molteni, M. (2006). The socio-competitive innovative pyramid. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 516–526.Molteni, M., & Devigili, D. (2004). Il cause related marketing nella strategia d’impresa. Milano:

FrancoAngeli.Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee organization linkages: The psychology of

commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic.Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.Murillo, D., & Lozano, J. (2006). SMEs and CSR: an approach to CSR in their own words. Journal of

Business Ethics, 67(3), 227–240.Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. (2002a). An exploration of sense of community, Part 3: dimensions and

predictors of psychological sense of community in geographical communities. Journal of CommunityPsychology, 30(1), 119–133.

Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. (2002b). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 1:understanding sense of community in an international community of interest. Journal of CommunityPsychology, 30(1), 87–103.


Obst, P., Smith, S., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2002c). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 2:comparing neighborhood and interest group sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology,30(1), 105–117.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.Perrini, F. (2006). SMEs and CSR theory: evidence and implications from an Italian perspective. Journal of

Business Ethics, 67(3), 305–316.Perrini, F., Pogutz, S., & Tencati, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in Italy: state of the art. Journal of

Business Strategies, 23(1), 65–91.Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational

commitment. Business & Society, 43(3), 296–319.Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W., Hughey, J., Armstead, T. L., Schneider, J. E., & Sheffer, M. A. (2008).

Community organization and sense of community: further development in theory and measurement.Journal of Community Psychology, 36(6), 798–813.

Pierce, C. A., & Aguinis, H. (2009). Moving beyond a legal-centric approach to managing workplaceromances: organizationally sensible recommendations for HR leaders. Human Resource Management,48(3), 447–464.

Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Converso, D., Garsia, V., Miglietta, A. M., Ravenna, M., et al. (1995). Caratteristichestrutturali della versione italiana della scala di bisogno di chiusura cognitiva (di Webster e Kruglanski).TPM-Testing Psicometria Metodologia, 3(4), 125–141.

Pinkston, T. S., & Carroll, A. B. (1994). Corporate citizenship perspectives and foreign direct investment inthe US. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 157–169.

Pretty, G., & McCarthy, M. (1991). Exploring psychological sense of community among men and women ofthe corporation. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 351–361.

Prezza, M., Pacilli, M. G., Barbaranelli, C., & Zampatti, E. (2009). The MTSOCS: a multidimensional senseof community scale for local communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(3), 305–326.

Quazi, A. M., & O’Brien, D. O. (2000). An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate socialresponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(1), 33–51.

Rey, F. (1980). Corporate social performance and reporting in France. In L. E. Preston (Ed.), Research incorporate social performance and policy (Vol. 2, pp. 291–325). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Bill, J. B. (1997). Corporate image: employee reactions and implicationsfor managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(4), 401–412.

Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., & Paul, K. (1998). The development of a systematic, aggregate measure ofcorporate social performance. Journal of Management, 24(1), 119–133.

Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2009). Formal vs informal CSR strategies. Evidence from Italian micro, small,medium-sized, and large firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 339–353.

Sharfman, M. (1993). A construct validity study of the KLD social performance data. In D. Collins (Ed.),Proceedings of the international association of business and society (pp. 551–556). Hilton Head: IABS.

Sharma, S. (2004). Living corporate citizenship: strategic routes to socially responsible business. Journal ofCorporate Citizenship, 14, 116–118.

Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forestproducts industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.

Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: ascale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 245–255.

Smith, D. (1993). The Frankenstein syndrome: Corporate responsibility and the environment. In D. Smith(Ed.), Business and the environment: Implications of the new environmentalism (pp. 172–189). London:Paul Chapman.

Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: a view from theWorld’s most successful firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(2), 175–187.

Spadaro, P. F., D’Aprile, G., Ligorio, M. B., & Schwartz, N. (2011). Identity and externality towardsustainability. In H. Rahman & I. Ramos (Eds.), SMEs and open innovation: Cases and initiatives (pp.100–125). Hershey: IGI Global.

Spence, L. J. (1999). Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics. Business Ethics: AEuropean Review, 8(3), 163–174.

Spence, L. J. (2004). Small firm accountability and integrity. In G. Brenkert (Ed.), Corporate integrity andaccountability (pp. 115–128). London: Sage.

Spence, L. J. (2007). CSR and small business in a European policy context: the five ‘C’s of CSR and SmallBusiness Research Agenda 2007. Business and Society Review, 112(4), 533–552.

Spence, L. J., & Lozano, J. F. (2000). Communicating about ethics with small firms: experiences from the UKand Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1), 43–53.


Stanwick, P., & Stanwick, S. (2006). Corporate environmental disclosures: a longitudinal study of Japanesefirms. Journal of American Academy of Business, 9(1), 1–7.

Stevens, J. M., Steensma, H. K., Harrison, D. A., & Cochran, P. L. (2005). Symbolic or substantive document?The influence of ethics codes on financial executives' decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2),181–195.

Tajfel, H. (1972). La categorisation sociale. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la psychologie sociale, Vol.2 (pp. 272–302). Paris: Larousse.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of group behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The socialdimension: European developments in social psychology (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W.Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness toprospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.

Turker, D. (2009a). Measuring corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 411–427.Turker, D. (2009b). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of

Business Ethics, 89, 189–204.Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and self-concept: Social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. E.

Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (pp. 77–122). Greenwich: JAI.Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social

group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concept and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and

communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 95–105.Verdeyen, V., Put, J., & Buggenhout, B. V. (2004). A social stakeholder model. International Journal of

Social Welfare, 13(4), 325–331.Verschoor, C. C. (2006). Good corporate citizenship is a fundamental business practice. Strategic Finance,

87(9), 21–22.Viswesvaran, C., Deshpande, S. P., & Milman, C. (1998). The effect of corporate social responsibility on

employee counterproductive behavior. Cross Cultural Management, 5(4), 5–12.Waddock, S. (2004). Creating corporate accountability: foundational principles to make corporate citizenship

real. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 313–327.Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance—financial performance link.

Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.Wempe, J., & Kaptein, M. (2002). The balanced company. A theory of corporate integrity. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Wheeler, D., & Sillanpaa, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation: A blueprint for maximizing stakeholder

value. London: Pitman.Wheeler, D., & Sillanpaa, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: the business case. Long Range Planning,

31(2), 201–210.Werther, W. D., & Chandler, D. (2006). Responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. USA: Sage.Wolfe, R., & Aupperle, K. (1991). Introduction to corporate social performance: Methods for evaluating an

elusive construct. In J. E. Post (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 12, pp.265–268). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 691–718.Wood, D. J. (1995). The fortune database as a CSP measure. Business & Society, 34, 197–198.Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: a review. International Journal of Management

Review, 12(1), 50–84.World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
