LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Iatridis, Konstantinos
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: N611
This study explores the influence of CSR on business practice. To succeed in its aim, the dissertation employs International Certifiable Management Standards (ICMS), as proxy-indicators of CSR related practices and draws on an inter-disciplinary approach. In contrast to previous research suffered from narrow analytical insights and lack of empirical evidence, this study contributes to existing knowledge by adopting a more holistic approach and focusing on the breadth, depth and context of ICMS adoption. The research draws on a mixed-methods approach and its analysis is based on 211 responses from small, medium and large companies from services, commerce and manufacture collected through a survey (21.4% response rate), and on eighteen (18) semi-structured interviews. The results reveal that CSR practices fail to influence business practice; firms do not adopt such practices in order to improve their CSR performance but they do it due to competitiveness and legitimacy reasons. The study shows that companies use CSR practices to convince or even mislead stakeholders that the activities of the firm are carried out within the framework set by society. The findings also indicate that the context of implementation of CSR practices is lax failing to secure the integration of these practices in firms’ everyday activities.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. 2002. An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: A test of legitimacy theory.
    • Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3): 312-43.
    • Deephouse, D. L. 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 1024-39.
    • Delmas, M. A. 2001. Stakeholders and competitive advantage: The case of ISO 14001.
    • Production and Operations Management, 10(3): 343-58.
    • Delmas, M. A. 2002. The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and in the United States: An institutional perspective. Policy Sciences, 35(1): 91-119.
    • Delmas, M. A. 2003. In search of ISO: An institutional perspective on the adoption of international management standards. Working Paper No. 1784, Stanford: University of Stanford.
    • Delmas, M. A. 2004. Environmental management standards and globalization. In: Vogel, D. & Kagan, R. A. (eds), How globalization affects national regulatory policies: 202-26. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    • Delmas, M. A. & Montes-Sancho, M. J. 2007. Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: Are late joiners the free riders? Working Paper 07, Santa Barbara: University of California.
    • Delmas, M. A. & Montes-Sancho, M. J. 2011. An institutional perspective on the diffusion of international management system standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1): 1052-81.
    • Delmas, M. A. & Toffel, M. W. 2003. Institutional pressure and environmental management practices, 11th International Conference of the Greening of Industry Network. San Francisco State University, San Francisco: University of Berkeley.
    • Deming, E. W. 1982. Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT Center for Advanced Educational Services.
    • Denzin, N. K. 1970. The research act in sociology. Chicago: Aldine.
    • Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 2005. The handbook of qualitative research 3rd ed.
    • Detomasi, D. 2008. The political roots of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4): 807-19.
    • Diener, E. & Crandall, R. 1978. Ethics in social and behavioral research. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    • Diller, J. 1999. A social conscience in the global marketplace? Labour dimensions of codes of conduct, social labelling and investor initiatives. International Labour Review, 138(2): 99-130.
    • Europa. 2009a. The EU eco-management and audit scheme.
    • http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/about/summary_en.htm. Accessed 7 November 2009.
    • Europa. 2009b. EU register of EMAS organisations.
    • http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/about/participate/sites_en.htm. Accessed 3 November 2009.
    • FAO & WHO. 1999. Codex alimentarius. Food hygience basic texts. 2nd ed. Rome: FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.
    • Field, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage.
    • Fink, A. 2003. The survey handbook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Folta, T. B. & Janney, J. J. 2004. Strategic benefits to firms issuing private equity placements. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3): 223-42.
    • Fombrun, C. 2005. Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1): 7-11.
    • Fombrun, C. & Shanley, M. 1990. What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 233-58.
    • Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. 2005. The interview. From neutral stance to political involvement. In: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds), The sage handbook of qualitative research: 695-727. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Fowler, F. 1995. Improving survey questions. Design and evaluation. London: Sage.
    • Frederick, W. C. 2006. Corporation be good! The story of corporate social responsibility. Indianapolis: Dog Ear Publishing.
    • Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pittman.
    • Friedman, M. & Friedman, R. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 191-205.
    • Gabel, L. H. 2009. Corporate responsibility in economics. In: Smith, C. & Lenssen, G.
    • (eds), Mainstreaming corporate responsibility: 249-63. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
    • Galaskiewicz, J. & Wasserman, S. 1989. Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3): 454-79.
    • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. 1995. Multivariate data analysis. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    • Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W. 2002. The next wave of corporate community involvement: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2): 110- 25.
    • Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., Kaptein, M., & Oosterhout, J. v. 2008. Contracts to communities: A processual model of organizational virtue. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1): 100-21.
    • Hodgson, D. & Cicmil, S. 2007. The politics of standards in modern management: Making 'the project' a reality. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3): 431-50.
    • Hoffman, A., J. 2001. Linking organizational and field-level analyses: The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14(2): 133-56.
    • Hofstede, G. H. 2001. Culture's consequencies: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations accross nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J., Nath, L., & Wood, D. 2009. The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among US Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4): 497-527.
    • Jackson, N. & Carter, P. 1991. In defense of paradigm incommensurability.
    • Organization Studies, 12(1): 109-27.
    • Jamali, D., Zanhour, M., & Keshishian, T. 2009. Peculiar strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3): 355-77.
    • Jenkins, H. 2006. Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3): 241-56.
    • Jenkins, H. 2009. A business opportunity model of corporate social responsibility for small and medium-sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1): 21-36.
    • Jenkins, R. 2005. Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty.
    • International Affairs, 81(3): 525-40.
    • Jiang, R. J. & Bansal, P. 2003. Seeing the need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4): 1047-67.
    • Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 2006. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14-26.
    • Jones, O. & Macpherson, A. 2006. Inter-organizational learning and strategic renewal in SMEs. Extending the 4I framework. Long Range Planning, 39: 155-75.
    • Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404-37.
    • Jørgensen, T. H., Mellado, M. D., & Remmen, A. 2004. Integrated management systems. Working Paper 7, Aalborg: Aalborg University.
    • Kaptein, M. 2004. Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1): 13-33.
    • Ki, E. & Kim, S. 2010. Ethics statements of public relations firms: What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2): 223-36.
    • Kimerling, J. 2001. Corporate ethics in the era of globalization: The promise and peril of international environmental standards. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(4): 425-55.
    • King, A. & Baerwald, S. 1998. "Greening" arguments: Opportunities for the strategic management of public opinion. In: Sexton, K., Marcus, A. A., & Easter, K. (eds), Better environmental decisions:Strategies for governments, business and communities: 309-28.
    • King, A. A. & Lenox, M. J. 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry's responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 698-716.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    40
    40%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article