David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Business Ethics 83 (2):167 - 175 (2008)
Small and medium-sized firms form 90% of the worldwide population of businesses. However, it has been argued that given their smaller scale of operations, resource access constraints and lower visibility, smaller firms are less likely to participate in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. This article examines the different economic motivations of firms with varying combinations of visibility, resource access and scale of operations. Arguments are presented to propose that in terms of visibility, resource access and operating scale, very small and very large firms are equally motivated to participate in CSR. However, the motivational bases for CSR participation are likely to be different. Medium-sized firms are the least motivated. This suggests a U-shaped relationship between firm size and CSR participation. This study contributes towards resolution of the long-standing debate on the effects of firm size on CSR participation, and highlights the importance of considering configurations of firm characteristics in the study of CSR outcomes. In conclusion, cautions are raised against the broad categorization of firms, without adequate attention to the underlying dimensions of such categorizations
|Keywords||Corporate social responsibility Resources Size Visibility Scale of operations|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Brenda E. Joyner & Dinah Payne (2002). Evolution and Implementation: A Study of Values, Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 41 (4):297 - 311.
Reggy Hooghiemstra (2000). Corporate Communication and Impression Management – New Perspectives Why Companies Engage in Corporate Social Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27 (1-2):55 - 68.
Heather Schmidt Albinger & Sarah J. Freeman (2000). Corporate Social Performance and Attractiveness as an Employer to Different Job Seeking Populations. Journal of Business Ethics 28 (3):243 - 253.
David H. Saiia, Archie B. Carroll & Ann K. Buchholtz (2003). Philanthropy as Strategy When Corporate Charity “Begins at Home”. Business and Society 42 (2):169-201.
Stephen Brammer & Andrew Millington (2006). Firm Size, Organizational Visibility and Corporate Philanthropy: An Empirical Analysis. Business Ethics 15 (1):6–18.
Citations of this work BETA
Jacob Brower & Vijay Mahajan (2013). Driven to Be Good: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on the Drivers of Corporate Social Performance. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 117 (2):313-331.
Suman Sen & James Cowley (2013). The Relevance of Stakeholder Theory and Social Capital Theory in the Context of CSR in SMEs: An Australian Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (2):413-427.
Won-Yong Oh, Young Kyun Chang & Zheng Cheng (2016). When CEO Career Horizon Problems Matter for Corporate Social Responsibility: The Moderating Roles of Industry-Level Discretion and Blockholder Ownership. Journal of Business Ethics 133 (2):279-291.
Marion Allet & Marek Hudon (2015). Green Microfinance: Characteristics of Microfinance Institutions Involved in Environmental Management. Journal of Business Ethics 126 (3):395-414.
Riikka Sievänen, Hannu Rita & Bert Scholtens (2013). The Drivers of Responsible Investment: The Case of European Pension Funds. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 117 (1):137-151.
Similar books and articles
Wenjing Li & Ran Zhang (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility, Ownership Structure, and Political Interference: Evidence From China. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 96 (4):631 - 645.
Won Yong Oh, Young Kyun Chang & Aleksey Martynov (2011). The Effect of Ownership Structure on Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence From Korea. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 104 (2):283-297.
Angeloantonio Russo & Antonio Tencati (2009). Formal Vs. Informal CSR Strategies: Evidence From Italian Micro, Small, Medium-Sized, and Large Firms. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2):339-353.
Hoje Jo & Maretno A. Harjoto (2011). Corporate Governance and Firm Value: The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 103 (3):351-383.
Manuel Castelo Branco & Lúcia Lima Rodrigues (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics 69 (2):111 - 132.
Lutz Preuss & Jack Perschke (2010). Slipstreaming the Larger Boats: Social Responsibility in Medium-Sized Businesses. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 92 (4):531 - 551.
Joyce Falkenberg & Petter Brunsæl (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Strategic Advantage or a Strategic Necessity? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 99 (S1):9-16.
Liangrong Zu & Lina Song (2009). Determinants of Managerial Values on Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence From China. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1):105 - 117.
Francesco Perrini, Angeloantonio Russo & Antonio Tencati (2007). CSR Strategies of SMEs and Large Firms. Evidence From Italy. Journal of Business Ethics 74 (3):285 - 300.
Jan Lepoutre & Aimé Heene (2006). Investigating the Impact of Firm Size on Small Business Social Responsibility: A Critical Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 67 (3):257 - 273.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads41 ( #96,602 of 1,790,256 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #123,150 of 1,790,256 )
How can I increase my downloads?