Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Keeping at Arm’s Length or Searching for Social Proximity? Corporate Social Responsibility as a Reciprocal Process Between Small Businesses and the Local Community

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between corporate social responsibility and locality in the small business context. This issue is addressed by studying the interplay between small businesses and local community based on the embeddedness literature and using the concept of social proximity. On the basis of 25 thematic interviews with owner-managers a typology is constructed which illustrates the owner-managers’ perceptions of the relationship between the business and the local community. The findings emphasize the importance of reciprocity as it is suggested that corporate social responsibility in relation to locality is constructed as a response to the interpretations of reciprocal community support between small business owner-managers and local community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alba, R. D., & Kadushin, C. (1976). The intersection of social circles. Sociological Methods & Research, 5(1), 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bathelt, H., & Glückler, J. (2003). Toward a relational economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(2), 117–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. C. (1986). Reciprocity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besser, T. L. (1998). The significance of community to business social responsibility. Rural Sociology, 63(3), 412–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besser, T. L. (1999). Community involvement and the perception of success among small business operators in small towns. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(4), 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besser, T. L., & Miller, N. (2001). Is the good corporation dead? The community social responsibility of small business operators. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(3), 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besser, T. L., Miller, N., & Perkins, R. K. (2006). For the greater good: Business networks and business social responsibility to communities. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18, 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boggs, J. S., & Rantisi, N. M. (2003). The ‘relational turn’ in economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(2), 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma R. A. (2004, June). ‘Does Geographical Proximity Favour Innovation?’, Paper presented at the 4th Congress on Proximity Economics, Marseilles, France.

  • Boschma, R. A. (2005a). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A. (2005b). Editorial. Role of proximity in interaction and performance: Conceptual and empirical challenges. Regional Studies, 39(1), 41–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A., Lambooy, J., & Schutjens, V. (2002). Embeddedness and innovation. In M. Taylor & S. Leonard (Eds.), Embedded enterprise and social capital. International perspectives (pp. 19–35). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. J., & King, J. B. (1982). Small business ethics: Influences and perceptions. Journal of Small Business Management, 20(1), 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management, 32(3), 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castka, P., Balzarova, M. A., Bamber, C. J., & Sharp, J. M. (2004). How can SMEs effectively implement the CSR agenda? An UK case study perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(3), 140–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (1990). Localities. London: Unwin Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courrent, J.-M., & Gundolf, K. (2009). Proximity and micro-enterprise manager’s ethics: A French empirical study of responsible business attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 749–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, K. (1998). Locality and community: Some conceptual issues. European Planning Studies, 6(1), 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, K. R., & Mair, A. (1988). Locality and community in the politics of local economic development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78(2), 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. (1994). Small firms and local economic networks. The death of the local economy?. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, J., Rutherfoord, R., & Smith, S. L. (2000). Is there a local business community? Explaining the non-participation of small business in local economic development. Local Economy, 15(2), 128–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (2002). Alliance constellations: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 445–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2003, ‘Recommendation 2003/361/EC’. July 29, 2004, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/index_en.htm.

  • Freeman, R. E. (1998). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In M. B. E. Clarkson (Ed.), The corporation and its stakeholders. Classic and contemporary readings (pp. 125–138). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M. (1970, September). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times, 122–126.

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure. The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25–56). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grotz, R., & Braun, B. (1997). Territorial or trans-territorial networking: Spatial aspects of technology-oriented co-operation within German mechanical engineering industry. Regional Studies, 31(6), 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. (1965). The great wheel of wealth. A reflection of social reciprocity. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 24(3), 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. (2003). Fuzzy concepts and sloppy thinking: Reflections on recent developments in critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 37(6), 741–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannisson, B., & Mönsted, M. (1997). Contextualising entrepreneurial networking—The case of scandinavia. International Studies of Management and Organisations, 27(3), 109–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilkenny, M., Nalbarte, L., & Besser, T. (1999). Reciprocated community support and small town–small business success. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(3), 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaborations: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepoutre, J., & Heene, A. (2006). Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social responsibility: A critical review. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S. (1999). The discourse of control. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 109–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinen, P., Kytölä L., Keränen H. & Keränen R. (2006). Suomen Maaseututyypit 2006 Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö 7/2006, Helsinki.

  • McMahon, J. M., & Harvey, R. J. (2006). An analysis of the factor structure of Jones’ moral intensity construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 381–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N. J., & Besser, T. L. (2000). The importance of community values in small business strategy formation: Evidence from rural Iowa. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1), 68–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niehm, L. S., Swinney, J., & Miller, N. J. (2008). Community social responsibility and its consequences for family business performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Observatory of European SMEs. (2002). ‘European SMEs and Social and Environmental Responsibility Enterprise Publications’, (European Commission, 2002/No. 4).

  • Oinas P. (1998). The Embedded Firm? Predule for a Revived Geography of Enterprise. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration.

  • Oinas, P. (2002). Competition and collaboration in interconnected places: Towards a research agenda. Geografiska Annaler B, 84(2), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F. (2006). SMEs and CSR theory: Evidence and implications from an italian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F., Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2007). CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A., Albaum, G., & Kozmetsky, G. (1986). The public’s definition of small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 24, 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. J. (1997). Personal ethics and business ethics: The ethical attitudes of owner/managers of small business. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(2), 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rallet, A., & Torre, A. (1999). Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? GeoJournal, 49(4), 373–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serwinek, P. J. (1992). Demographic related differences in ethical views among small businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(7), 555–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonsen, K. (2001). Space, culture and economy—A question of practice. Geografiska Annaler B, 83(1), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Oakley, E. F. (1994). A study of the ethical values of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan small business owners. Journal of Small Business Management, 32(4), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer G. (2005). ‘Connecting cognitive diversity in space: Towards a geographic theory of creativity, Innovation systems research network conference, Toronto, May 5–7. February 26, 2008 http://www.utoronto.ca/isrn/publications/WorkingPapers/Working05/Spencer05_Cognitive.pdf.

  • Steyaert, C. (1997). A qualitative methodology for process studies of entrepreneurship. Creating local knowledge through stories. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(3), 13–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torre, A., & Gilly, J.-P. (2000). On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies, 34(2), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vyakarnam, S., Bailey, A., Myers, A., & Burnett, D. (1997). Towards an understanding of ethical behavior in small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(15), 1625–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis. Methods and applications. Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, A., & Spence, L. J. (2004). Literature review: Social capital and SMEs. In L. J. Spence, A. Habisch, & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Responsibility and social capital: The world of small and medium sized enterprises (pp. 7–24). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute, Kampusranta 9 C, 60320, Seinäjoki, Finland

    Merja Lähdesmäki & Timo Suutari

Authors
  1. Merja Lähdesmäki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timo Suutari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merja Lähdesmäki.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 1.

Table 1 Description of the interviewed small business owner-managers
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lähdesmäki, M., Suutari, T. Keeping at Arm’s Length or Searching for Social Proximity? Corporate Social Responsibility as a Reciprocal Process Between Small Businesses and the Local Community. J Bus Ethics 108, 481–493 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1104-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1104-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation