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

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

EBR
19,5 Defining corporate social
responsibility
A view from big companies in Germany
352 and the UK
Daniel Silberhorn
Burston-Marsteller, Frankfurt, Germany, and
Richard C. Warren
Manchester Metropolitan University Business School,
Manchester, United Kingdom

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this comparative study is to explore how large German and British
companies publicly define corporate social responsibility (CSR), as well as why and how the respective
notion of CSR was developed.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a qualitative content analysis of the CSR
web sites of 40 British and German companies, and on a series of interviews with senior managers.
Findings – The main findings are that CSR is now presented as a comprehensive business strategy,
arising mainly from performance considerations and stakeholder pressure. Companies focus on how
they interact with stakeholders and how business activities impact on society. Most CSR policies
addressed community, employee and customer issues. Increasingly, “quality of life” topics are
emphasised. CSR policies varied with turnover, industry sector and nationality. In developing their
notions of CSR, firms emphasized the primacy of reactive pragmatism and experience. Corporate
culture also emerged as an influence, with institutionalised CSR functions and communications
departments driving initiatives. The study concludes that business and CSR strategy appear to be on a
convergent path, making business and CSR integration across the company the norm in future.
Research limitations/implications – Owing to the study’s exploratory character, the samples are
not representative for the British and German economies.
Practical implications – The study suggests that especially German companies could benefit more
from demonstrating a broad, business-driven understanding of CSR.
Originality/value – Contributing to a deeper understanding of notions, rationales and influences,
the study provides both science and practice with a more solid foundation for discussing and
implementing CSR. It also broadens the perspective by looking at Germany and the UK.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Economic sustainability, Corporate strategy, Germany,
United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper

European Business Review
Vol. 19 No. 5, 2007
pp. 352-372
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0955-534X
DOI 10.1108/09555340710818950
Introduction
The first decade of the new millennium seems to be the one where corporate social
responsibility (CSR) is coming of age after so many false dawns in past decades.
Perhaps, the shock of business scandals such as Enron, WorldCom and Parmalat,
together with the impact of climate change on the environment, have been the tipping
points that have pushed many businesses into a fundamental rethink about their
responsibilities towards their various stakeholders. The new conversation about CSR in
business suggests that it is a normative, multi-level concept, whose meaning depends Defining CSR
on various perspectives and relationships, and, that it changes in response to social
trends. While earlier notions of CSR often had a regional, person-centred philanthropic
focus, recent conceptions of CSR are inclusive, broad and diverse. The European Union,
for instance, has defined CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (European Commission, 2002). 353
CSR is now a well-known expression for what, in the past, has been a collection of
different and yet related terms: corporate philanthropy, corporate citizenship, business
ethics, stakeholding, community involvement, corporate responsibility, socially
responsible investment, sustainability, triple-bottom line, corporate accountability
and corporate social performance. Some of these terms have a family resemblance to
each other, but many of these expressions have other connotations as well. This lack of
consensus seriously hampers theoretical development as well as research into the
implementation of these policies (Goebbels, 2002). One starting point in terms of CSR
research is to explore how corporations are themselves defining and interpreting CSR.
Most empirical studies of CSR have been focused on firms in the USA, Canada and the
UK, but few have attempted to assess whether definitions of CSR differ between
countries (Hopkins, 2004).
This study examines how CSR is defined from a corporate perspective by looking at
the actual notions of CSR that large companies publish on their web sites, it also
explores the thinking and definitional influences that informed these notions. The
study also seeks to compare the perspectives on CSR across British and German
companies, as these are the leading countries in CSR developments in Europe. The
study will first review the literature on corporate perspectives on CSR and then
describe the methodology that underpinned this comparative analysis. The findings of
the comparative content analysis and interviews will then be presented and discussed,
and finally, the implications and conclusions for the future of CSR will be assessed.

Research literature on corporate perspectives of CSR

The early studies of how companies define CSR were made in the USA in the 1970s,
using topical or issues-related approaches (Holmes, 1976; Bowman and Haire, 1975).
Aupperle et al. (1985) conducted one of the first studies that used a definitional
construct of CSR, operationalizing Carroll’s (1979) well-documented four-part CSR
definition. A sample of executives confirmed economic responsibility as their highest
priority, followed by the legal, ethical and the discretionary CSR components. In
subsequent years, a limited number of European studies suggested that the
organisations’ perceptions of their social responsibilities changed internationally.
Moore and Richardson (1988) and Cowton (1987) found that the economic component
continued to be stressed in the UK, with the main responsibilities being seen as
producing goods and services and obeying the law. However, they observed a shift
away from philanthropy. In Germany, Dierkes (1980) and Longnecker (1985) similarly
reported that, while quality, profit and growth remained the top priority, “quality of
life” issues were gaining importance. Pinkston (1991) found that legal responsibilities
had become the highest-ranking CSR component in Germany and Sweden. In the USA,
Pinkston (1991) also reported an increased significance of the legal and ethical
components of CSR. His findings were supported by Pinkston and Carroll (1996).
EBR They observed that economic and legal responsibilities were perceived as almost
19,5 equally important, and that ethical responsibilities had become more important at the
expense of philanthropic responsibilities.
With economic and legal responsibilities thus converging to form a minimum
threshold of CSR and ethical responsibilities gaining importance, the adequacy of
Carroll’s (1979) four-part definition has been questioned. The framework appears
354 unable to capture the direction of change within the now more prominent ethical and
philanthropic components – into which the “greatest magnitude of a corporation’s
social responsibility” falls (Pinkston and Carroll, 1996, p. 205). While Carroll’s (1979)
conceptualisation is still occasionally used today (Joyner and Payne, 2002), O’Dwyer
(2003) exemplifies the change in the way recent studies investigate the notion of CSR:
examining qualitatively the corporate understanding of CSR, O’Dwyer chooses a
normative, broad societal approach. He observes a tendency to interpret CSR in a way
that is consistent with corporate goals of shareholder wealth maximisation. He also
identifies three partially overlapping rationales which underpin the acceptance of
corporate responsibilities, which he calls proactive enlightened self-interest, reactive
enlightened self-interest and obligations/duties.
Other scholars have recently investigated the public presentation of CSR, similarly
choosing a more grounded approach and taking advantage of the world wide web
(Esrock and Leichty, 1998; Esrock and Leichty, 2000; Maignan and Ralston, 2002;
Snider et al., 2003). They focused on the number of CSR statements, the stakeholder
groups addressed, and the variations between companies or countries. Maignan and
Ralston (2002), for instance, conceptualize CSR in terms of principles, processes and
stakeholder issues. They report differences in the extent and choice of means in CSR
reporting across four countries, as well as in the underlying motivations, which they
categorise as performance-driven, stakeholder-driven and value-driven. Viewing CSR
as a construct describing “the relationship between business and the larger society”
Snider et al. (2003, p. 175) found that similar CSR messages are sent to similar
stakeholder groups, irrespective of the company’s nationality.

Factors influencing corporate definitions of CSR

This research evidence tends to suggest that CSR notions develop in interactions
between organisationally framed values and external influences. Here, a small number
of researchers have highlighted specific areas on the individual, organisational and
institutional levels of CSR, as identified by Wood (1991). On the individual level,
Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) argue that managers’ personal values strongly
influence CSR policies. On the organisational level of CSR, studies have examined the
influence of directorial type, the public relations function, and particularly financial
resources and performance. Ibrahim et al. (2003) suggest that a company’s directorial
type affects CSR decisions, as outside directors appear more concerned about the
discretionary components of CSR. With respect to the public relations function, Heath
and Ryan (1989) found that a large number of practitioners were not involved in the
creation of corporate codes of behaviour. Rather, as Miles (1987) already argued,
top-level management philosophy appeared to be critical for the take-up of CSR.
Finally, corporate resources were found to principally influence the range of
philanthropic activities (Pinkston and Carroll, 1996), with larger companies devoting
more money (Levy and Shatto, 1980). On a more general level, McGuire et al. (1988)
discovered that firms with a high-financial performance were better equipped to act in Defining CSR
a socially responsible way. Larger companies were also found to have a broader scope
of CSR reporting on their web sites (Esrock and Leichty, 1998). On the institutional
level of CSR, several researchers have suggested that the company’s industry sector
influences the attitudes and behaviours associated with CSR (Bhambri and Sonnenfeld,
1988; Lerner and Fryxell, 1988; L’Etang, 1994).
However, several authors suggest that, despite these internal factors, companies are 355
primarily reactive with respect to CSR, responding to external pressures rather than
proactively defining CSR (L’Etang, 1994; Vogel, 2005). Here, industry-specific issues as
well as public visibility play a role. O’Dwyer (2003) and Esrock and Leichty (1998)
found that companies from sectors with a high-environmental impact had to respond
more to external pressures and emphasized environmental preservation more than
others. In addition, societal developments appear to force businesses to evolve their
notion of CSR (Carroll, 1999; Wilson, 2000; Zadek, 2004). Such pressure is said to
increase when codified by legislation (Pinkston and Carroll, 1996; O’Dwyer, 2003). In
this context, the mass media are seen to exert control by making company behaviour
public (Pinkston and Carroll, 1996). Maignan and Ralston (2002) also point to
increasingly questioning investors as transmission belts of public opinion.
Despite the recent tendency to take a more grounded approach to researching the
notion of CSR and first attempts to uncover the rationale behind corporate definitions,
the thinking behind CSR and the definitional process’s internal and external influences
remain under-researched. Research activities also largely focused on the Anglo-Saxon
regions. Therefore, this study was designed to try to understand how CSR is defined in
major German and British companies, both in terms of conceptualisation as well as the
guiding rationale and factors that influenced its formation.

Methodology
The study began with a content analysis of 40 corporate web sites’ CSR statements so
as to examine how German and British companies publicly define CSR. This was
followed up by eight semi-structured telephone interviews with senior CSR managers
from major German and British companies in order to explore the rationale behind
their CSR notions and investigate the definitional influences.
For the content analysis, a stratified systematic sample of 20 companies was taken
from each country’s 2004 Handelsblatt turnover ranking, choosing every second case
after a random start. Firms were excluded if their or their parent company’s web site
did not address CSR, or if cross-referencing with a CSR report available online revealed
a significantly narrower scope of reporting on the web site. In such cases, the following
company on the list was examined. The content analysis’s coding scheme was
developed using a combination of techniques suggested by Neuendorf (2002),
modifying an existing CSR conceptualization advanced by Maignan and Ralston
(2002). Based on Wood (1991), their approach conceptualizes CSR as a configuration of
principles and processes that minimize a firm’s negative impact and maximize its
positive impact on specific stakeholder issues. For the content analysis, sections of the
corporate web sites were examined that explicitly referred to the business/society
relationship. Annual reports were referred to online in order to validate the data. A
statistical analysis then explored the CSR dimensions’ frequencies and relationships
with organisational characteristics (Table I).
 19,5

356
EBR

Table I.

by industry sector
Content analysis sample
Industry sector
Wholesale Chemical and Environ-mentally Food and
Transportation Technology Service and retail pharmaceutical oriented agriculture Other Total

German 3 2 5 2 3 2 0 3 20
British 1 2 5 3 2 3 1 3 20
Total 4 4 10 5 5 5 1 6 40
For the interviews, a purposive sample of eight companies was chosen from the Defining CSR
FTSE4Good UK and FTSE4Good Europe indices (Table II). This CSR index series is
compiled by an independent research institute and measures the performance of
companies that meet a recognised basic standard of corporate responsibility. The
indices therefore provide information-rich cases with regard to the research questions
(Patton, 2002). The interview sample covers different high-impact business sectors, in
four cases it was possible to realize interviews with firms that were part of the content 357
analysis. Within the companies, senior CSR managers with on average eight years of
experience were interviewed.
The interview guide’s structure followed generally accepted standards for
interviews (Flick, 2002). It was mainly used as a guideline to ensure all areas are
covered while allowing flexible reactions and probing. The telephone interviews were
tape-recorded and transcribed using a simplified version of Drew’s (1995) transcription
conventions. The interview transcripts were analyzed using a hierarchical template
analysis, which produces a list of codes representing themes identified in the
transcripts (King, 1999). This provided the basis for a thematic discussion structured
around the main themes.
It is to be acknowledged that owing to the study’s exploratory character, the
samples are not representative for the British and German economies, particularly not
for smaller companies, and that the findings’ generalizability is therefore limited.
However, while only a small range of industry sectors could be covered in the
interviews, all companies examined represent high-impact companies with a long
tradition in CSR.

Findings: how CSR is understood in UK and German companies

The content analysis and interviews indicated that performance considerations were
the most prominent motivating principle behind CSR, followed by corporate values,
and lastly response to stakeholder pressures (Table III). All principles, and in
particular the stakeholder-driven one, are presented more frequently on German web
sites. While both German and British companies cite a variety of combinations,
German companies offer a slightly more differentiated set of motivations with more
companies citing two or even three motivating principles. Combinations with
stakeholder-driven CSR are more frequent on German web sites (Figure 1).
Both nations favour the performance-driven perspective over the value-driven and
stakeholder-driven ones (Figure 2). However, German companies still emphasize the
value-driven perspective slightly stronger than their British counterparts, while more
British than German companies put performance first.
CSR processes designate the managerial procedures and instruments employed by
businesses to bring their motivational principles into practice. On average, the sampled
companies discuss 11 CSR processes (mean ¼ 11.28, s ¼ 2.460). German companies
mention slightly fewer processes with a higher variation (mean ¼ 10.30, s ¼ 3.045)
than their British counterparts (mean ¼ 12.25, s ¼ 1.070). While all CSR processes are
mentioned by at least half of the companies and the gaps between successive processes
are minimal, stakeholder engagement and communication (40 mentions), management
of environmental impact (39), code of ethics and business conduct (38), and
philanthropic programmes (38) lead the table (Table III).
 19,5

358
EBR

Table II.
Interview sample
Turnover Employees Interviewee CSR Interview
Company (billion £) (thousand) Origin Interviewee job title experience (years) code

Worldwide banking and financial 22 219 UK Senior manager bank in 9 UKBa01

services group society
Global oil and gas group 129 108 UK Vice-president of CSR 21 UKEn02
Global insurance group 60 174 Germany Senior spokesperson group 4 GEIn03
communications
Worldwide banking and financial 41 67 Germany Director of cultural affairs 6 GEBa04
services group
Global car manufacturer 29 104 Germany Corporate affairs manager 4 GECa05
Retailing and financial services 8 70 UK Sustainable development 16 UKRe06
manager
International healthcare and 11 60 UK Global CR manager þ5 UKPh07
pharmaceutical holding company
Merchandise and luxury goods retail 8 55 UK Senior external CSR advisor 8 UKRG08
group
Sources: For company data – Fame Database and Datamonitor (November 2004); figures rounded
 Defining CSR
Companies mentioning All UK Germany Difference test

Principles motivating CSR

1. Performance-driven CSR 31 15 16 X 2 ¼ 0.143, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
2. Value-driven CSR 25 12 13 X 2 ¼ 0.107, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
3. Stakeholder-driven CSR 21 9 12 X 2 ¼ 0.902, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
CSR processes
1. Stakeholder engagement and communication 40 20 20 – 359
2. Management of environmental impact 39 20 19 X 2 ¼ 1.026, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
3. Code of ethics and business conduct 38 20 18 X 2 ¼ 2.105, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
4. Philanthropic programmes 38 19 19 X 2 ¼ 0.000, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
5. Business operation 36 19 17 X 2 ¼ 1.111, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
6. Corporate governance and compliance with law 35 20 15 X 2 ¼ 5.714, df ¼ 1, p , 0.05
7. Human resources processes 34 17 17 X 2 ¼ 0.000, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
8. Risk management 33 19 14 X 2 ¼ 4.329, df ¼ 1, p , 0.05
9. Health and safety programmes 32 20 12 X 2 ¼ 10.00, df ¼ 1, p , 0.05
10. Supply chain management 29 17 12 X 2 ¼ 3.135, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
11. Employee community involvement 26 17 9 X 2 ¼ 7.033, df ¼ 1, p , 0.01
12. Corporate benchmarking 25 15 10 X 2 ¼ 2.667, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
13. Sponsorships 25 11 14 X 2 ¼ 0.960, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
14. Quality programmes 21 11 10 X 2 ¼ 0.100, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
Stakeholder issues
1. Community stakeholders
a. Quality of life 40 20 20 –
b. Protection of the environment 39 19 20 X 2 ¼ 1.026, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
c. Education 33 18 15 X 2 ¼ 1.558, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
d. Human rights 24 13 11 X 2 ¼ 0.417, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
e. Arts and culture 21 6 15 X 2 ¼ 8.120, df ¼ 1, p , 0.01
f. Cultural diversity 12 4 8 X 2 ¼ 1.905, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
g. Safety 11 6 5 X 2 ¼ 0.125, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
h. Animal welfare 7 5 2 X 2 ¼ 1.558, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
2. Customer stakeholders
a. Quality 22 12 10 X 2 ¼ 0.404, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
b. Safety/health 21 13 8 X 2 ¼ 2.506, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
c. Data protection 3 2 1 X 2 ¼ 0.360, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
3. Employee stakeholders
a. Health and safety 34 20 14 X 2 ¼ 7.059, df ¼ 1, p , 0.01
b. Equal opportunity 31 17 14 X 2 ¼ 1.290, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
c. Learning and development 31 15 16 X 2 ¼ 0.143, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
d. Employee care 28 12 16 X 2 ¼ 1.905, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
4. Shareholders/investors
a. Inclusion 8 5 3 X 2 ¼ 0.625, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
b. Shareholder value 8 6 2 X 2 ¼ 2.500, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05
5. Suppliers 9 8 1 X 2 ¼ 7.025, df ¼ 1, p , 0.01 Table III.
Additional CSR themes CSR principles, processes,
1. Transparency 39 20 19 X 2 ¼ 1.026, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05 stakeholder issues, and
2. Sustainability 38 18 20 X 2 ¼ 2.105, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05 additional CSR themes
3. Responsiveness 31 18 13 X 2 ¼ 3.584, df ¼ 1, p . 0.05 presented on corporate
4. Accountability 31 19 12 X 2 ¼ 7.025, df ¼ 1, p , 0.01 web sites (n ¼ 40)

Differences between the two nationalities are most noticeable for the processes
corporate governance and compliance with law, risk management, health and safety
management, corporate benchmarking, and employee community involvement. British
companies mention these processes more often than their German counterparts.
Sponsorships are the only process German companies present more often.
EBR Performance- Stakeholder- Performance-
driven driven driven
19,5
2 4 1 2 3 3

5 3
360 5 2 1 6

1 2
Figure 1. Value-driven Value-driven
Combination of CSR
principles (No. of firms)
Germany UK

CSR issues are CSR-related concerns of importance to the stakeholders that directly or
indirectly affect a company’s activities. On average, the sampled companies discuss ten
issues on their web sites (mean ¼ 9.55, s ¼ 2.470). German companies (mean ¼ 9.00,
s ¼ 2.636) display greater variance, and refer to slightly fewer issues than the British
(mean ¼ 10.10, s ¼ 2.220).
As shown in Table III, community stakeholders (mean ¼ 4.68) are by far the most
frequently referred to group, followed by employees (mean ¼ 3.1) and customers

Nationality
12
German
British

10

8
Count

0
Value-driven Performance- Stakeholder-driven
Figure 2. driven
Primary CSR principles
Primary CSR Principle
(mean ¼ 1.15). Shareholder (mean ¼ 0.4) or supplier issues (mean ¼ 0.23) are hardly Defining CSR
brought up. Overall, quality of life (40 mentions), protection of the environment (39),
employee health and safety (34), and education (33) are the most common issues.
The frequencies vary noticeably between the nations. While there is cross-national
agreement with respect to the importance of quality of life issues and environmental
protection, British companies emphasize education, human rights and animal welfare
more often than German firms. In contrast, German companies emphasize cultural 361
diversity and especially arts and culture significantly more. While the British
companies discuss all three customer issues more often than the German firms, the
employee stakeholder issues present a more varied picture. Whereas British companies
speak about equal opportunity and especially about health and safety significantly
more often, German firms refer more recurrently to learning and development and
employee care issues. Companies in both countries scarcely refer to either shareholder
or supplier issues. However, British companies still pay clearly more attention to these
stakeholder groups than German firms (Table III).
Furthermore, most CSR sections refer to additional themes that describe aspects of
corporate behaviour in relation to CSR. Specifically, “Transparency” is presented as
part of CSR by 39 (98 per cent) companies, “Sustainability” by 38 (95 per cent), and
“Accountability” and “Responsiveness” by 31 (78 per cent) (Table III).
German and British companies hardly differ with respect to “Transparency” and
“Sustainability”. However, only 12 (60 per cent) German companies mention
“Accountability” and 13 (65 per cent) “Responsiveness” as opposed to 19 (95 per cent)
and 18 (90 per cent), respectively, of the British (Figure 3).

1 Sustainability
Accountability
Transparency
Responsiveness
0.8

0.6
Mean

0.4

0.2

Figure 3.
0
Additional CSR themes on
German British corporate web sites
Nationality
EBR The underlying rationale and thinking behind corporate CSR definitions
19,5 The eight respondents had observed a growth in stakeholder expectations and public
scrutiny with respect to corporate behaviour since the late 1990s, attributing it mainly
to a general loss of trust in businesses that was accelerated by a series of food scares
and major business scandals:
What we find (. . .) is a much more questioning society. Consumers expect from us that we
362 demonstrate that we are dealing with all the substantive social, environmental issues that we
may cause (UKRe06).
As a result, companies were required to communicate their social performance more
clearly and to organise all CSR-related areas more coherently. This increasingly
extends to global issues, as corporations are moving towards “a broader sense of
community” (UKBa02).
At the same time, businesses had to recognise the potential impact of corporate
behaviour on reputation, with the implication that a bad reputation may lead to a loss
of trust and ultimately the company’s “Lizenz zum Wirtschaften” (licence to operate)
(GEIn03). Therefore, developing the CSR notion is at least partly motivated “by the
need to defend our reputation” (UKPh07). Accepting responsibility, on the other hand,
was understood to strengthen the reputation, also with employees, fostering “pride and
loyalty” (UKPh07). Behaving in a socially responsible way, most respondents found, is
crucial to achieve sustainable business success: “Long-term we cannot be successful
unless we also address the wider issues around us, in the environment and in society
generally” (UKBa02). Such a profit focus is usually justified by arguing that a
company’s failure would be “catastrophic for all its stakeholders, investors and
employees particularly” (UKBa02).
Several respondents argued that daily business activities constitute the main
impact on society, highlighting the necessity of a comprehensive, business-focused
CSR notion. Any supplementary social investment has to be “directly relevant to our
business and connected things that we can do” (UKEn01).
Consequently, while half of the respondents referred to reputation measurement as
part of gauging success, most acknowledged that there is “no overall benchmark of
success” (UKRG08). One respondent even claimed to consider overall societal progress
and development the “ultimate measure” (UKEn01). In fact, this company emphasized
that any narrow CSR notion would always be perceived as a mere “green wash” by the
public:
You can open as many schools and hospitals as you like, but if your core business is rotten,
you’re going to be found out by society pretty quickly. The first and foremost action of
corporate responsibility is getting the business done right (UKEn01).
Five respondents furthermore indicated that their concept of CSR enables them to “get
on with the purpose of business, which is doing business” (UKEn01). This was seen as
crucial, as the respondents felt it is impossible to satisfy every interest involved in
business decisions and found that “opinions change very fast”(UKRG08) with respect
to ethics. Especially, by means of transparency and stakeholder engagement, the
present CSR notions allow internally and externally justifiable decisions.
Explaining his company’s strong stakeholder-orientation, one respondent argued
that trying to reflect a societal consensus was the only way to avoid mistakes and
punishment. Accordingly, six of the eight respondents admitted that their company’s
CSR approach is based more on practice and experience than on a theoretical basis. Defining CSR
Here, some respondents refer to a “more instinctive” (UKBa02), evolutionary approach
that is “to some extent subjective and has to do with your gut feeling” (UKPh07). The
main guiding principle appears to be the notion of sustainable development, which six
companies referred to. In addition, all respondents mentioned stakeholder theory at
least implicitly.
Most respondents pointed to what they presented as a long tradition of 363
responsibility, suggesting that the present CSR notion is the result and part of a
“continuing learning process” (UKEn01). This evolution appears to be driven by a
network of mutually interacting external and internal factors, which had recently
triggered major conscious advancements within four companies.
Industry sector emerged as major external factor. With respect to CSR principles,
environmentally-oriented companies exclusively focus on the performance aspect.
Technology companies also favour that perspective. The transportation sector
highlights the value-driven one, chemical and pharmaceutical businesses emphasize
both the value-driven and the performance principle. The service industry displays the
greatest variance across all three principles (Figure 4).
Food and agriculture (mean ¼ 14.00), followed by wholesale/retail (mean ¼ 13.00,
s ¼ 1.000) and chemical and pharmaceutical (mean ¼ 12.00, s ¼ 1.000), discuss the
largest number of CSR processes (Figure 5). The transportation sector mentions the
fewest (mean ¼ 9.50, s ¼ 2.380). Companies with a low-environmental impact present
noticeably fewer than average, and display a high-variance (mean ¼ 9.25, s ¼ 5.500).
As Figure 6 shows, the number of CSR issues varies as well. While the sectors
wholesale/retail ðmean ¼ 11:00; s ¼ 3:000Þ and chemical and pharmaceutical ðmean ¼
10:60; s ¼ 1:637Þ discuss the highest number of issues, transportation ðmean ¼ 7:75;
s ¼ 2:217Þ and service ðmean ¼ 8:50; s ¼ 2:579Þ mention the least. Low-impact
industries mention the lowest average number with the greatest variance ðmean ¼ 8:50;
s ¼ 4:933Þ; high-impact industries discuss the most ðmean ¼ 9:90; s ¼ 2:143Þ:

5 Industry Sector
Transportation
Technology
4
Service
Wholesale/
retail
3
Count

Chemical &
Pharmaceutical
2 Environmentally
oriented
Food and
1 agriculture
Other

0 Figure 4.
Value-driven Performance-driven Stakeholder-driven Industry sector and
primary CSR principle
Primary CSR Principle
 re
Average: 9.55

re er ltu
th u
Average:
11.28

tu ric
er ul O
ag ed
th ric ed d nt
O ag ent an r ie
d i o
an or od
od lly al Fo lly al
a tic ta tic
Fo en
t
eu en eu
nm ac nm ac
ro m ro m
vi ar vi ar
En Ph En Ph
& &
al al
ic l ic
em ai em ai
l
Industry Sector
et

Industry Sector
Ch /r Ch et
le /r
sa le
le sa
ho le
W ho
W
e
ic ic
e
rv rv
Se Se
gy
lo
no gy
ch lo
Te n no
tio ch
ta Te n
or tio
sp ta
an or
Tr sp
an
Tr
14

12

10

0
Mean Number Processes

12

10

0
Mean Number of CSR Issues

number of CSR processes

number of CSR issues

Industry sector and

Industry sector and

Figure 5.

Figure 6.
EBR

364
19,5
Beyond frequencies, all respondents indicated that the respective industry sector Defining CSR
generates specific issues:
One company of the group handles an enormous amount of private information on
individuals. For that company, handling data protection and privacy and treating that
information properly is a critical business issue (UKRG08).
The transportation and the technology industries and the “other” category mention 365
“Accountability” the least often (25, 75 and 50 per cent). “Responsiveness” is only
mentioned by 50 per cent of the companies in the technology, 60 per cent in the
chemical and pharmaceutical, and 50 per cent in the “other” sector (Figure 7).
One-time events had a stronger influence among the British sample than for the
German companies, usually involving public criticism of what stakeholders perceived
as socially irresponsible behaviour. In one instance, a succession of three incidents
triggered a substantial effort to consciously re-define CSR. As one respondent
summarized: “Business issues arise and are dealt with, we learn from them, we built
them in and we move forward” (UKEn01).
This reactive, evolutionary process involves a wide stakeholder network,
suggesting that the respondents view and experience CSR strongly as a
“Dialogthema” (diolog topic)(GECa05).
Here, the business community emerged as a major factor, providing orientation in
terms of developments and best practice, advancing the notion and exercising control
through business initiatives. One British respondent cited a Business in the
Community (BITC) CSR framework as his company’s notion’s basis.

1 Sustainability
Accountability
Transparency
0.8 Responsiveness

0.6
Mean

0.4

0.2

0
Tr

Te

Se

Ch ale

En al & l

Fo

O
th
a

ho
ch

rv

od
vi
em / re
ns

er
ic

ro
no

le
po

an
ic
e

nm
lo

d
rta

gy

en mac

ag orie
tio

ta

ric
Ph
n

lly euti
ta

ul
ar
i

Figure 7.
tu
re

Industry sector and

nt
ed

additional CSR themes

ca
l

Industry Sector
EBR For all respondents, NGOs play a major role that goes beyond an external control
19,5 function and actually informs strategic direction. Two British respondents
acknowledged that NGOs, who generally adopt a broad view on CSR, are often
“more in keeping with the expectations of our customers than think tanks or policy
makers” (UKRe06). Additionally, as co-formers of public opinion, NGOs are seen to
provide “some element of forward-looking, forward projection” (UKRG08): “If you
366 understand what Greenpeace are campaigning on now, it might tell you, in ten years
time, what’s going to be the socially acceptable norm” (UKRG08).
Media scrutiny, which was mentioned by four British and one German respondent,
was identified as posing serious reputation risks if irresponsible behaviour is exposed.
Already a small failure was felt to potentially “destroy everything you’ve worked for
such a long time” (UKPh07). This risk requires companies to control their CSR
standards and be transparent about them in every activity.
For half of the respondents, the financial community’s broadening perspective on
risk was perceived as an important impulse to widen the CSR perspective, particularly
in the UK: “They started all of a sudden to switch from asking only environmentally
related questions to broaden their interests to human rights and employee issues, etc.”
(UKPh07).
The influence of governments and regulations was generally perceived as low, and
more often referred to by the German respondents.
Internally, the evolution of CSR is linked to corporate culture. Most respondents
indicated that the respective notion had to be “something that works for our
management, for our company, for our culture, for our history” (UKEn01). Accordingly,
there is a high-degree of variance with respect to which groups or people are most
involved in developing the CSR notion. All respondents reported that their company has
charged specialised committees with responsibilities to “oversee the CSR work”
(UKBa02), providing “an overall direction, a long-term vision” (UKEn01). However, half
of the respondents said that their notion has developed within a cross-functional
network of both strategic and business units, which are confronted with CSR issues, and
had varying degrees of responsibility. In two British companies, the development was
led from the top, in three cases the respondents themselves claim to have a significant
influence on the development.
Within these company-specific networks, the public relations function generally
played a significant role. Six respondents indicated that their public relations functions
are involved in two-way boundary-spanning communication, relating messages to
internal and external audiences, but also “working very closely” with stakeholders to
“understand what their expectations” (UKRe06) are, and then advising management
and influencing the company’s strategic direction in terms of CSR. In two companies,
the public relations function assumed a “coordinating role” (UKBa02) or
“Klammerfunktion” (bracket function)(GECa05):
Sie kennen und koordinieren alle nachhaltigkeitsbezogenen Vorgänge und Aktivitäten im
Unternehmen und sind letztendlich Sprachrohr nach außen [...] und nehmen auch eine
sensitive Stellung zur Außenwelt wahr, und tragen sie auch wieder nach innen
(GECa05).(Translation: “They know and coordinate all sustainability-related procedures
and activities within the company and ultimately are the external mouthpiece [. . .] and are
also sensitive towards the environment and feed that back into the company.”)
While all British respondents indicated that the role of public relations exceeds that of Defining CSR
a communicator, one German respondent insisted that the public relations function
exists exclusively to send messages out.
Lastly, the results suggest that turnover plays a role. While the top 20 companies
emphasize the value-driven and performance CSR principle, the lower-half of the
sampled top 40 companies presents a more varied picture. The third-quartile has the
largest number of companies citing the stakeholder perspective as main motivating 367
principle (Figure 8).
Turnover rank hardly appears to influence the number of processes. Variation is
highest in the fourth-quartile (Table IV). The number of CSR issues decreases slightly
from the second to the fourth turnover quartile.

Discussion and conclusion

This study provides some evidence that CSR has come a long way from its early
regional, person-centred, philanthropic focus. While the sample does not allow
generalizations about German and British companies as a whole, the findings suggest
that the largest corporations are projecting CSR as a comprehensive sustainable
business strategy, based on transparency, accountability and responsiveness, which

8 Turnover Rank
1. Quartile
2. Quartile
3. Quartile
6
4. Quartile
Count

0
Value-driven Performance- Stakeholder- Figure 8.
driven driven Turnover rank and
primary CSR principle
Primary CSR Principle

Turnover rank Mean N Std deviation

1. Quartile 11.30 10 2.946

2. Quartile 11.18 11 2.401 Table IV.
3. Quartile 11.45 11 1.635 Turnover rank and
4. Quartile 11.13 8 3.227 average number of CSR
Total 11.27 40 2.460 processes
EBR recognizes the business-society interdependence and constantly evolves in interactions
19,5 between the company and its increasingly global environment.
While supporting earlier findings that self-interest and performance considerations
are major drivers of CSR, the study challenges O’Dwyer’s (2003) conclusions that
companies act mostly proactively. Within a more questioning society and faced with
fast changing views on CSR issues, most companies have adopted a reactive approach,
368 making responsiveness and stakeholder engagement central themes within their CSR
notions. The study also found a shift within the British sample from performance to
values as a motivational principle, compared to Maignan and Ralston’s (2002) findings,
suggesting that companies increasingly present CSR as a part of their corporate
culture.
The findings also reflect a significant increase in the number of CSR processes,
which has indeed quadrupled in comparison with Maignan and Ralston (2002). The
emphasis has shifted to processes that determine how the company interacts with
stakeholders and how it may achieve a positive impact through its regular business
activities, confirming the tendency of a broadening CSR notion and a growing
importance of ethical aspects observed by Pinkston (1991) and Pinkston and Carroll
(1996). In contrast, philanthropic programmes and especially sponsorships have
continued to lose prominence. At the same time, companies now present their regular
business activities as an important means of fulfilling their responsibility.
Accordingly, both the overall number and mentions of individual CSR issues have
significantly increased, accompanied by a shift concerning which issues are addressed
most often. While protection of the environment and education remain a top priority for
a large majority of companies, these issues are overtaken by “quality of life” issues.
The most significant change, however, can be observed with respect to employee
issues. Their number has doubled compared to Maignan and Ralston’s (2002) findings,
and each is also mentioned more often. The respondents suggested that this might be
due to the recognition of the employees’ importance for business success. However,
some statements clearly suggest that long-term sustainability and profitability retain
precedence in case of a conflict of interests.
All in all, external pressures and an increasing awareness among companies of their
regular business activities’ impact is the major driver for large companies to
communicate a considerably broader CSR notion. In fact, CSR and business appear to
be converging into what is often presented as a sustainable business strategy.
While the underdeveloped theoretical foundations of the CSR notions generally
provide decision makers with little guidance and make CSR vulnerable to criticism, the
idea of sustainability, strongly rooted in the objective of long-term profitability, offers
at least some direction. In accordance with Moir (2001) and Robertson and
Schlegelmilch (1993), stakeholder theory emerged as the most widely used framework,
helping to identify and communicate areas and issues of responsibility.
The similarities between large German and British companies generally support
Snider et al.’s (2003) observation that global companies act similarly in their
development and dissemination of CSR messages. The slight differences found in this
study, however, support Hopkins’s (2004) argument that CSR differs from country to
country. These differences may be due to different starting points for CSR in Germany
and the UK. In Germany, the welfare state had already introduced stricter legislation in
areas such as employee rights and green issues, whereas in the UK a more laissez-faire
state passed on the responsibilities to the market. In the UK, a large number of Defining CSR
institutions and networks therefore developed to monitor businesses’ social
performance, subjecting business to greater scrutiny. Consequently, UK companies
were driven to launch broader CSR initiatives to improve their legitimacy and social
acceptance, including the areas companies in Germany already had to cater for by law.
In Germany, the lower influence of investors and ethical investment may be due to a
traditional unwillingness of German investors to criticise companies publicly as a 369
result of a “Deutschland AG” (German Inc.)(GEIn03) culture of traditionally strongly
intertwined interests within the German economy.
Conceptions of CSR are evolving constantly in interaction with internal and external
influences. Supporting Bhambri and Sonnenfeld (1988) and Esrock and Leichty (1998),
the location of the firm in a particular industry sector emerged as an important factor
in the development of CSR policies, with different industries exhibiting diverse
patterns of motivational principles and discussing differing numbers of CSR processes
and issues. That high-impact companies generally present a broader CSR notion
appears to be due to the wider range of critical issues they face and to the stricter public
scrutiny such companies experience.
In accordance with L’Etang (1994), who argues that companies are primarily
reactive in terms of CSR issues, the study found support for Pinkston and Carroll’s
(1996) argument that CSR notions evolve in response to newly emerging issues. Eager
to avoid potential conflicts and ensuing damage to their reputation should they not
reflect societal consensus, the companies developed CSR notions that emphasize
stakeholder engagement, transparency and responsiveness. Moreover, while the
findings support earlier works by Pinkston and Carroll (1996) and Maignan and
Ralston (2002) with respect to the roles of the media and investors, the significant
influence of the business community and NGOs in shaping the CSR notion still has to
be recognized.
In terms of internal influences, corporate culture appears to determine the general
attitude towards CSR and how the notion is advanced. As clear criteria increasingly
guide CSR-related work and large companies strive to develop objective measures to
gauge success, it can generally be observed that CSR positions and functions are more
and more institutionalised. Challenging Heath and Ryan’s (1989) conclusion that they
are often hardly involved in defining CSR, the study also found that communications
practitioners played a significant internal and external role, which may be due to the
general direction which the notion of CSR has taken. As cornerstone of transparency
and responsiveness, the public relations function is increasingly realizing its potential
as a strategic business function identified by scholars such as Grunig et al. (1992) or
Cutlip et al. (2000). Generally, such organisational factors limit the power of
individuals, challenging Hemingway and Maclagan’s (2004) conclusion that CSR is
mainly the result of individual values and action.
However, the study supports earlier findings that company size and turnover
influence the presented CSR notion. As Esrock and Leichty (1998) argue, the larger
companies’ slightly broader notion could be seen as a response to greater demands
placed on big firms. It may also be influenced by a generally more extensive corporate
disclosure in comparison with companies that have fewer resources, as suggested
already by Cowen et al. (1987).
EBR The findings suggest that especially German companies, focusing more than British
19,5 firms on classic value-driven corporate citizenship, may feel obliged to embrace and
communicate a clearer and broader notion of CSR in the future. Especially, as the
present demise of the welfare state and high-unemployment figures increase the
pressure to demonstrate socially responsible behaviour. Here, a proactive stance may
help firms to avoid some painful experiences the British sample reported, and could
370 reduce risks and even improve reputation and relationships. Tighter regulation can be
expected if the private sector fails to embrace CSR principles. Yet companies should
not search for “off the shelf” solutions, as appropriateness and believability are
industry- and business-specific. Here, CSR highlights the public relations function’s
strategic value as a boundary-spanning function.
CSR has come a long way from its early philanthropic roots, and has moved beyond
the tipping point to become a wide-spread strategic business practice. Full CSR
integration across the company is becoming the norm for large firms. The long-term
question is whether this trend will lead to the development of a sustainable capitalism,
in which present niche products such as organic food, renewable energy and fair trade
products can play a more prominent role. Social welfare and long-term business
success may well depend upon these changing notions of sustainability. For the future,
the categorical imperative of CSR is societal sustainability.

References
Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B. and Hatfield, J.D. (1985), “An empirical investigation between
corporate social responsibility and profitability”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 28, pp. 446-63.
Bhambri, A. and Sonnenfeld, J. (1988), “Organizational structure and corporate social
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 642-62.
Bowman, E.H. and Haire, M. (1975), “A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility”,
California Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 49-58.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. (1999), “Corporate social responsibility”, Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 268-95.
Cowen, S.S., Ferrei, L.B. and Parker, L.D. (1987), “The impact of corporate characteristics on
social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis”, Accounting,
Organisations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 111-22.
Cowton, C. (1987), “Corporate philanthropy in the United Kingdom”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 6, pp. 553-8.
Cutlip, S.M., Center, A.H. and Broom, G.M. (2000), Effective Public Relations, Prentice-Hall,
London.
Dierkes, M. (1980), “Corporate social reporting and performance in Germany”, in Preston, L.E.
(Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy,Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 251-89.
Drew, P. (1995), “Conversation analysis”, in Smith, J.A., Harré, R. and Langenhove, L.v. (Eds),
Rethinking Methods in Psychology, Sage, London.
Esrock, S. and Leichty, G. (1998), “Social responsibility and corporate web pages:
self-presentation or agenda setting?”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 305-19.
Esrock, S. and Leichty, G. (2000), “Organization of corporate web pages: publics and functions”, Defining CSR
Public Relations Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 327-44.
European Commission (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to
Sustainable Development, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
Flick, U. (2002), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Goebbels, M. (2002), “Reframing corporate social responsibility: the contemporary conception of 371
a fuzzy notion”, unpublished article, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Grunig, J.E., Dozier, D.M., Ehling, W.P., Grunig, L.A., Repper, F.C. and White, J. (1992), Excellence
in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
London; Hillsdale, NJ.
Heath, R.L. and Ryan, M.R. (1989), “Public relations role in defining corporate social
responsibility”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Hemingway, Ch.A. and Maclagan, P.W. (2004), “Managers’ personal values as drivers of
corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Holmes, S.L. (1976), “Executive perceptions of corporate social responsibility”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 19, pp. 34-40.
Hopkins, M. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility around the world”, available at: www.
stthom.edu/cbes/corporate.html (accessed June 16, 2004).
Ibrahim, N.A., Howard, D.P. and Angelidis, J.P. (2003), “Board members in the service industry:
an empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility
orientation and directional type”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 393-401.
Joyner, B.E. and Payne, D. (2002), “Evolution and implementation: a study of values, business
ethics and corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 297-311.
King, N. (1999), “The qualitative research interview”, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds),
Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage, London.
L’Etang, J. (1994), “Public relations and corporate social responsibility: some issues arising”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 111-23.
Lerner, L.D. and Fryxell, G.E. (1988), “An empirical study of the predictors of corporate social
performance: a multi-dimensional analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7, pp. 951-9.
Levy, F. and Shatto, G. (1980), “Social responsibility in large electric utility firms: the case of
philanthropy”, in Preston, L.E. (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and
Policy,Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 237-49.
Longnecker, J.G. (1985), “Management priorities and management ethics”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 4, pp. 65-70.
McGuire, J., Sundgren, A. and Schneeweis, T. (1988), “Corporate social responsibility and firm
financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 854-72.
Maignan, I. and Ralston, D. (2002), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US:
insights from businesses’ self presentations”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 497-514.
Miles, R. (1987), Marketing and the Corporate Social Environment, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Moir, L. (2001), “What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?”, Corporate Governance,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 16-22.
EBR Moore, C. and Richardson, J. (1988), “The politics and practices of corporate responsibility in
Great Britain”, in Preston, L.E. (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and
19,5 Policy,Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 267-90.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage, London.
O’Dwyer, B. (2003), “Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial
capture”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 523-57.
372 Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Models, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pinkston, T.S. (1991), “‘Corporate citizenship’: a comparative analysis of foreign affiliates located
in the US and their domestic counterparts”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Georgia, Atlanta, GA.
Pinkston, T.S. and Carroll, A.B. (1996), “A retrospective examination of CSR orientations. Have
they changed?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 199-206.
Robertson, D.C. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1993), “Corporate institutionalization of ethics in the
United States and Great Britain”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 301-12.
Snider, J., Hill, R.P. and Martin, D. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century:
a view from the world’s most successful firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 175-87.
Vogel, D. (2005), The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of CSR, Brookings Institution
Press, Washington, DC.
Wilson, I. (2000), “The new rules. Ethics, social responsibility and strategy”, Strategy &
Leadership, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 12-16.
Wood, D.J. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisited”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 16, pp. 691-718.
Zadek, S. (2004), The Civil Corporation: The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship, Earthscan
Publications, London.

Further reading
Abott, W.F. and Monsen, R.J. (1979), “On the measurement of corporate social responsibility:
self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement”,
Academy of Business Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 501-15.
Friedman, M. (1962), “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”, The
New York Times, September 21, p. 126.
Goebbels, M. (2001), “The contemporary dynamics of corporate social responsibility: untangling
an emerging notion”, unpublished article, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Jones, M.T. (1996), “Missing the forest for the trees: a critique of the social responsibility concept
and discourse”, Business and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 7-41.
Verÿiÿ, D. and Grunig, J.E. (2003), “The origins of public relations theory in economics and
strategic management”, in Moss, D., Verÿiÿ, D. and Warnaby, G. (Eds), Perspectives on
Public Relations Research, Routledge, London, pp. 9-58.

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

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