Citation Download PDF

International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development
Volume 9, Issue 5, December 2023, Pages 7-15

---

Portuguese Corporate Social Responsibility: Features and Stakeholder Views

DOI: 10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.95.2001
URL: https://doi.org/10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.95.2001

Teresa Dieguez, Paula Loureiro, Isabel Ferreira

Polytechnic University of Cávado and Ave (IPCA), Portugal

Abstract: Social responsibility has become a key factor in business success, as it can lead to competitive advantages, positive stakeholder relations, and employee satisfaction. This study explores the characteristics of companies that adopt social practices, evaluates innovative social responsibility initiatives in Portuguese companies, and examines the motivations, benefits, and challenges associated with these practices. The study found that most respondents recognize the relevance of social responsibility to company growth, particularly in terms of human capital development. The primary motivations for adopting social practices are to improve employee well-being and satisfaction. The main benefits include proactive positioning in the market, strategic integration of social concerns, and decision-making that aligns with social values. However, challenges such as the absence of direct financial returns, resistance from older workers, resource limitations, and a lack of participation can hinder the implementation of social responsibility initiatives. The article concludes by discussing the study’s limitations and suggesting directions for future research on social responsibility in business.

Keywords: Social Responsibility, Corporative Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Innovation, Stakeholders, Innovation, Leadership

1. Introduction

Social responsibility is increasingly significant in both public and private contexts (Wenqi et al., 2022). Its growing prominence can be attributed to its presence as a cultural phenomenon (Marchi, 2022) and within the business domain (Chandler, 2022) as socially responsible practices become more prevalent (Liang and Renneboog, 2017; Yan et al., 2019). Companies are voluntarily adhering to legislation aimed at training and qualifying individuals, promoting gender equality, enhancing workplace quality of life and mental health (Singh and Misra, 2022), and addressing issues related to social inclusion, health and safety, volunteering, and various psychosocial matters within organisations (Gangadharan, 2006; Osieranski et al., 2023).

Evaluating the social dimension involves examining the global impact, such as dignified and participatory work relationships, elimination of child labor, employability, human rights, gender equality, and combating discriminatory practices (Rixom et al., 2023; Tejedo-Romero and Araujo, 2022). Similar expectations extend to partners, including suppliers (Księżak, 2016; Shang et al., 2014).

Envisioning a socially responsible organisation entails viewing the company as a dynamic organism, constantly evolving concerning people, the environment, and stakeholders, and offering innovative solutions that positively impact its reputation in the marketplace (Banerjee, 2008; Kotler and Maon, 2016; McWilliams et al., 2006). Europe, notably the United Kingdom, stands out as a leader in social responsibility, contributing to developing values, norms, and perceptions that align more closely with the theme (Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Matten et al., 2005; Voltan, 2017). In the past two decades, the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become increasingly linked to the creation of shared value (CSV) and the emergence of hybrid organisations.

This paper aims to investigate the characteristics of companies that adopt social practices and evaluate the innovative social responsibility practices implemented by Portuguese companies. Additionally, it explores the perceptions of social responsibility among both companies and stakeholders, examines the motivations behind implementing these practices, analyses the benefits of their inclusion, and identifies the primary challenges faced in their implementation. Quantitative research of a descriptive nature was used, and a questionnaire was conducted at the Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave (IPCA) in Portugal. After the introduction, Section 2 deals with Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Innovation concepts. Section 3 presents the methodology, Section 4 shows the results and conclusions, and directions for future research.

2. Literature Review

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a well-established and integral concept in contemporary research within the field of Business and Society, closely tied to business ethics (De Bakker et al., 2005; Singh and Misra, 2022). The academic roots of CSR can be traced back to the 1950s, particularly with the influential work of Bowen (1953), which introduced the notion of social responsibilities that extend beyond market boundaries and emphasise values beyond mere profit. Subsequent publications, including those by Carrol (1999), Swanson (1999), Windsor (2006), and the theoretical framework developed by Garriga and Melé (2004), have provided comprehensive and supported reviews of CSR. Furthermore, works by Maignan and Ralston (2002) and Matten and Moon (2004) have explored cultural perceptions and the significance of CSR. The concept of Organisational Social Performance (DSO) has also been expanded upon (Swanson, 1999; Wood, 1991), while Corporate Citizenship has been included (Matten and Crane, 2005).

Corporate social responsibility entails a company’s dedication to sustainable economic development by enhancing the quality of life for employees, their families, the local community, and society (Watts, 2000; Dieguez and Melo, 2023). This concept has evolved as individuals become more aware of their social rights and responsibilities and have become less tolerant of unethical practices (Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019). Consequently, companies are increasingly embracing socially responsible practices, not solely as a pragmatic response to the environment but also as a reflection of shifting societal values (Matten and Moon, 2020; Wang, 2016).

The European Commission has played a prominent role in advocating for social responsibility, urging Member States and other countries to engage in discussions and initiatives related to this theme. Examples of these efforts include the publication of the Green Paper “Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility” in 2001, the establishment of the High-Level Group on Social Responsibility in 2002, the formation of the European Alliance on CSR in 2006, and the presentation of a Compendium on National Public Policies in 2004 and 2007, among other initiatives. Additionally, international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Labour Organisation (IOL), and European Union (EU) have also been actively promoting corporate social responsibility.

In Portugal, companies are increasingly inclined to embrace social responsibility as a core component of their corporate identities. This trend is evident in the increasing number of awards that acknowledge exemplary internal social responsibility practices. Such progress is encouraging, and merits enhanced visibility and recognition (Gonçalves et al., 2020). While the adoption of Portuguese and international standards for corporate social responsibility is not mandatory, their implementation can bring added value to organisations. Certification in these standards can increase recognition and competitive advantage, mainly when dealing with multinational clients. Notable international standards in this realm include ISO 26000:2011, which provides guidelines for social responsibility; the SA 8000:2008 standard, which mandates certification; and the AA 1000:2008 standard, which offers advisory and consultative guidelines for corporate responsibility (as outlined in Table 1).

Table 1: International and Portuguese Standards for Corporate Social Responsibility

Standard	Type	Subject
IS0 26000:2011	Certifiable International Standard	Social Responsibility Guideline
SA 8000:2008	Consultative International Standard	Standard on Social Responsibility
AA 1000:2008	National Consultative Standard	Corporate Responsibility (accounting, auditing, social and ethical reporting)
NP 4460 –1:2007	National Consultative Standard	Ethics in Organisations
NP 4460 –2:2010	National Consultative Standard	Ethics in Organisations
NP 4469 –2:2008	National Consultative Standard	Social Responsibility Management System
NP 4469 –2:2010	National Consultative Standard	Social Responsibility Management System
NP 4522:2013	National Consultative Standard	Family Responsible Organisations

 

The progression of organisational innovation gives rise to a dedicated unit or department focused on novel practices and ideas, which contributes to the emergence of a sustainable strategy field. Within the corporate context, this innovative system is called Corporate Social Innovation (CSI). CSI goes beyond solely pursuing outcomes for shareholders, as it also generates social advancements, including enhanced employee motivation and improved organisational adaptation and interaction (Dionisio and de Vargas, 2020). These transformations extend beyond corporate identity and strategies to gain a competitive advantage (Du et al., 2011; Herrera, 2015).

When companies embrace both Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Social Innovation (CSI), they achieve improved market performance and enhance their corporate reputation, a highly discussed and sought-after objective in today’s business landscape. Corporate reputation encompasses a set of principles ascribed to an organisation, reflecting its past actions and potential for future endeavors. These principles encompass financial stability, product and service quality, commitment and performance of top management, transparency, ethics, and market competitiveness (Maaloul et al., 2023).

To foster innovative organisations, it is essential to undertake actions that can generate more significant benefits for the innovation process. These actions include fostering a shared vision, having leadership that possesses a strong inclination towards innovation, establishing an appropriate organisational structure, identifying key individuals who can support training and development efforts, and cultivating a workforce that is dedicated to embracing new approaches. Additionally, effective teamwork plays a crucial role in facilitating the innovation process (Allal-Chérif et al., 2023).

Socially responsible companies adopt good practices to generate greater competitive strength in problem-solving, optimising results, and clearly perceive the constant changes and innovations within their organisation. They recognise that learning and fostering good relationships contribute to the results and strategies of the organisation, creating space for policies that promote quality of life at work, beyond allowing workers to perform their jobs but also generating positive results in their lives (Carayannis et al., 2015).

However, CSR consciousness involves raising the mindset of an organisation and its members concerning these concerns. The approach may be top-down or bottom-up for strategic or altruistic reasons (Fatima and Elbanna, 2023), including a commitment to CSR by adding it to statement documents (Drempetic et al., 2020) and communicating goals to both internal and external stakeholders while accounting them for their actions (Marques-Mendes and Santos, 2016). Promoting social awareness among leaders can foster a positive impact on employee motivation and organizational success (Dieguez et al., 2020).

3. Research Methodology

This study aims to identify the key characteristics of companies that have already adopted social practices and evaluate the leading innovative Social Responsibility (SR) practices in Portuguese companies. Additionally, the specific objectives of this study are to i) analyse the understanding of these companies and their stakeholders regarding SR, ii) identify the primary motivations for companies to engage in socially oriented practices, iii) analyse the primary benefits associated with the inclusion of these practices, and iv) identify the main challenges in implementing these practices.

A questionnaire-based approach was employed to achieve these objectives. The questionnaires were distributed using the Google Forms platform, and data was collected from both companies and stakeholders. The questionnaire was developed based on a review of the existing literature. It consisted of items designed to explore understanding social responsibility, motivations for adoption, and perceived benefits and challenges associated with implementing social responsibility practices. The questionnaire was divided into three main sections: sociodemographic data, company profile, and social responsibility. The sociodemographic data section included questions about the age, gender, and position of the respondents within their respective companies. The company profile section collected information on the number of employees, the source of social capital, the sector of activity, and any certifications already obtained. The focus of the study, social responsibility, was assessed using a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions. The closed-ended questions utilized a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 – “Strongly disagree” to 5 – “Strongly agree.” These questions aimed to understand how companies perceive the concept of social responsibility and their positioning of it and society.

Data were collected by administering the questionnaires to students enrolled in the first and second years of the master’s degree program in Integrated Quality, Environment, and Safety Management Systems (SIGQAS) at the Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave (IPCA). All 47 students included in the study were already employed by companies actively engaged in socially responsible activities, as evidenced by their sustainability reports and CSR disclosures. The data collection time occurred in May and June 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic.

4. Data Analysis and Interpretation

4.1. Sociodemographic

Considering gender, respondents were mainly female (76.8%), as can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Gender of the respondents

Concerning age, the range belonging to 28 – 37 years old represents 28.6%, followed by the 23 – 27 years range, with 14.7%. The respondents are engineers and directors of the Department of Quality and Safety in the companies they are working on. They all are qualified and are taking a master’s degree in areas where these themes are studied and emphasized.

4.2. Company Profile

The companies are all from the North of Portugal. They are the majority of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), representing 83% of the sample. 50% of the companies belong to the manufacturing industry, 43% to extractive industries, and the other respondents are from agriculture, hunting, and fishing, representing 7%.

Most companies have no certification in Social Responsibility (64%), 28% have the SA 8000 international certification, and 7% have the ISO 26000 certification (figure 2).

Figure 2: Certifications obtained in Social Responsibility

Regarding the origin of the Capital, 50 % of the companies are Portuguese, 7% are foreign, and 43% are Portuguese, as can be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Origin of Capital 

4.3. Social Responsibility

The study aimed to gain insights into the respondents’ perspectives (master’s students) regarding the topic of Social Responsibility (SR). Most participants viewed SR as significant and vital for the growth and development of companies. However, one participant expressed that although the theme is increasingly important, companies need to be adequately prepared for it.

A series of predetermined questions aligned with the literature review was administered to explore the understanding of SR among companies. The summarised responses are presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2: How Social Responsibility is applied/understood.

35.7%	respect for human, environmental, and ethical rights
21.4%	strategy leading to profit and shareholder satisfaction
21.4%	strategy whose objective is to give greater social emphasis to the company
14.3%	a business practice that contemplates respect for society and the community in which it is inserted
7.1%	commitment tending to develop the quality of life and the environment

 

Furthermore, an effort was made to determine the extent to which respondents identified with specific questions that had been formulated. The summarised results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: How the company positions itself about Social Responsibility

42.9%	Through social, Corporate, and Environmental Responsibility, the company positions itself as a proactive actor, integrating these concerns into the strategy and decision-making process.
28.6%	Through social Responsibility, the company communicates its standards of behavior to stakeholders, who influence its values, culture, integrity, strategy, and operation.
21.4%	Through social Responsibility, the company engages in public policies that are conducive to promoting an inclusive and responsible green economy in its sector of activity
7.1%	through Social Responsibility, the company generates a new business model that aims to reconcile profit with social inclusion and impacts

 

Regarding the presence of a Code of Conduct within the companies, most respondents (78.6%) indicated that their respective companies have such a code. However, only 35.7% of the companies prepare a Social Responsibility Report.

Table 4 provides a summary of the main motivations expressed by the respondents for implementing social responsibility actions, with the well-being and satisfaction of employees emerging as primary drivers.

Table 4: Motivations for Actions of Social Responsibility

28.6%	the welfare and satisfaction of workers, as they are the company’s greatest asset
21.4%	the challenges of globalization
14.3%	the positive market image
14.3%%	increased competitiveness
7.1%	transparency in social activities
7.1%	defense of the environment and human rights of the business quality benchmark
7.1%	access to financial support

When respondents were asked about the prioritisation of specific issues in their company’s Social Responsibility practices, such as older workers, individuals with disabilities or disadvantages in the job market, women, and the inclusion of ethnic minorities, their summarised responses are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Privileged practice in the company

14.3%	women
7.1%	people with limitations and disadvantages in the market
7.1%	inclusion of people from ethnic minorities
71.4%	none of the previous situations

 

Regarding the inquiry about the primary challenges associated with implementing Social Responsibility practices, the responses varied. Except for two respondents who did not provide an opinion, all others expressed their views. The collected answers have been categorised and are presented in Table 5.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

This study aims to identify the main characteristics of companies adopting social practices and evaluate the main innovative Social Responsibilities (SR) practices in Portuguese companies. It also intends to analyze the understanding that these companies and stakeholders have of Social Responsibility, to identify the main motivations of these companies to employ these practices aimed at society, to analyze the main benefits with the inclusion of these practices, and to determine the main entropies for the application of these practices.

The companies questioned are all from the North region, are all small and medium sizes (SME), with national or majority national capital, and most of them are not certified in SR, and when they do, the certification chosen is the SA 8000. The leading innovative SR practices in Portuguese companies are related to the Code of Conduct, women, people with limitations and disadvantages in the market, and the inclusion of people from ethnic minorities. However, the low percentage of companies preparing SR reports suggests a potential gap in transparent reporting. When analyzing the understanding that these companies and stakeholders have of Social Responsibility, most of them understand it as relevant, essential for the growth and development of the company, and sustained in human capital as one of the organization’s most important assets. When identifying the primary motivations of these companies to employ these practices aimed at society, the welfare and satisfaction of its workers, since they are the company’s most significant differential, seems to be the principal factor. Analyzing the main benefits of including these practices, companies position themselves as proactive actors, integrating these concerns into the strategy and decision-making process. Finally, the main obstacles to the application of these practices are the indirect profit, lack of sensitivity on the part of the company’s older employees who are not always collaborative, time for actions and innovations, lack of participation, mistrust on the part of employees, resources, and inactive mentality/mindset. Overall, the findings emphasize the importance of SR in organizational strategies and decision-making. They provide valuable insights for companies seeking to enhance their SR practices, address challenges, and align their actions with societal expectations. Businesses must prioritize collaboration and cooperation with stakeholders, adapt to changing market conditions, design scalable and sustainable solutions, consider long-term ethical implications, maintain transparency, and embrace social responsibility. These factors are essential for organizations to remain successful and thrive in the ever-evolving business landscape.

The main limitations of this study are related to the fact that it is a convenience sample of small size associated with a specific geographical area. For future studies, it would be interesting to replicate it in a more significant number of companies, possibly in different countries and sizes. A complementary qualitative approach would bring a more extraordinary richness to the results found. Another suggestion is more linked to the relationship between leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility, as the inclusion of all stakeholders (internal and external) should be a priority to promote some social good. In this sense, leadership is mandatory not only to gather the demands of shareholders but also to consider and balance the expectations of all stakeholders to accomplish the best interests in the long term.

References

• Allal-Chérif, O.; Climent, J.C.; Berenguer, K.J.U. Born to be sustainable: How to combine strategic disruption, open innovation, and process digitization to create a sustainable business, Journal of Business Research, 2023, p. 154, 113379. CrossRef
• Banerjee, S.B. Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly, Critical Sociology, 2008, 34(1), pp. 51-79. CrossRef
• Bowen, H.R. (1953), Graduate education in economics, The American Economic Review, 1953, 43(4), iv-223.
• Carayannis, E.G., Sindakis, S.; Walter, C. Business model innovation as a lever of organisational sustainability, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2015, 40, pp. 85-104.
• Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct, Business & Society, 1999, 38(3), pp.268-295. CrossRef
• Carroll, A.B.; Shabana, K.M. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research, and practice, International Journal of Management Reviews, 2010, 12(1), pp. 85-105. CrossRef
• Chandler, D. Strategic corporate social responsibility: Sustainable value creation, 6^th ed; Sage Publications, 2022.
• De Bakker, F.G., Groenewegen, P.; Den Hond, F. A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance, Business & Society, 2005, 44(3), pp. 283-317.
• Dieguez, T., Ferreira, L. P., Silva, F. J.; Tjahjono, B. Open innovation and sustainable development through industry-academia collaboration: A case study of the automotive sector, Procedia Manufacturing, 2020, 51, pp. 1773-1778.
• Dieguez, T.; Melo, L. Digital Health Challenges in Social Entrepreneurship: Insights and Best Practices. In Proceedings of European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance, London, 23^rd of November 2023, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 541-548. CrossRef
• Dionisio, M.; de Vargas, E.R. Corporate social innovation: A systematic literature review, International Business Review, 2020, 29(2), 101641.
• Drempetic, S., Klein, C.; Swergel, B. The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review, Journal of Business Ethics, 2020, 167, pp. 333-360. CrossRef
• Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage: Overcoming the trust barrier, Management Science, 2011, 57(9), pp.1528-1545. CrossRef
• Fatima, T. and Elbanna, S. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) implementation: A review and a research agenda towards an integrative framework, Journal of Business Ethics, 2023, 183(1), pp. 105-121.
• Gangadharan, L. Environmental compliance by firms in the manufacturing sector in Mexico, Ecological Economics, 2006, 59(4), pp. 477-486.
• Garriga, E.; Melé, D. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory, Journal of Business Ethics, 2004, 53(1-2), pp. 51-71.
• Gonçalves, T., Gaio, C.; Costa, E. Committed vs opportunistic corporate and social responsibility reporting, Journal of Business Research, 2020, 115, pp. 417-427.
• Herrera, M.E.B. Creating competitive advantage by institutionalising corporate social innovation, Journal of business research, 2015, 68(7), pp. 1468-1474. CrossRef
• Kotler, P.; Maon, F. A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: Pressures, conflicts, and reconciliation. 1^sted, Routledge: London, 2016.
• KsiężaK, P. The Benefits from CSR for a Company and Society, Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, 2016, 3(4), pp. 53-65. CrossRef
• Latapí Agudelo, M.A., Jóhannsdóttir, L.; Davídsdóttir, B. A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility, International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2019, 4(1), pp.1-23.
• Liang, H.; Renneboog, L. (2017) On the foundations of corporate social responsibility, The Journal of Finance, 2017, 72(2), pp. 853-910. CrossRef
• Maignan, I.; Ralston, D.A. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations, Journal of International Business Studies, 2022, 33, 497-514. CrossRef
• Maaloul, A., Séghal, D., Ben Amar, W.; Mansour, S. The effect of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and disclosure on cost of debt: The mediating effect of corporate reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, 2023, 26(1), pp.1-18.
• Marques-Mendes, A.; Santos, M.J. Strategic CSR: an integrative model for analysis, Social Responsibility Journal, 2016, 12(2), pp. 363-381.
• Matten, D.; Crane, A. What is stakeholder democracy? Perspectives and issues, Business Ethics: A European Review, 2005, 14(1), pp. 6-13.
• Matten, D. & Moon, J. Reflections on the 2018 decade award: The meaning and dynamics of corporate social responsibility, 2020, Academy of Management Review, 2020, 45(1), pp. 7-28.
• Matten, D. and Moon, J. Corporate social responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, 2004, 54, pp. 323-337.
• Matten, D., Moon, J.; Habisch, A. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility across Europe, Springer, 2005.
• McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S.; Wright, P.M. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications, Journal of management studies, 2006, 43(1), pp.1-18. CrossRef
• Marchi, R.M. Day of the Dead in the USA: The Migration and Transformation of a Cultural Phenomenon, Rutgers University Press, 2022. CrossRef
• Osieranski, P., Saito, H., Rickard, E., Mulinari, S.; Osaki, A. International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency, Globalisation and Health, 2023, 19(1), 1-42 CrossRef
• Rixom, J.M., Jackson, M.; Rixom, B.A. Mandating diversity on the board of directors: Do investors feel that gender quotas result in tokenism or added value for firms? Journal of Business Ethics, 2023, 182(3), pp. 679-697.
• Singh, K.; Misra, M. The evolving path of CSR: toward business and society relationship, Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 2022, 38(2), pp. 304-
• Swanson, D.L. (1999) Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance, Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(3), pp. 506-521. CrossRef
• Tejedo-Romero, F.; Araujo, J.F.F.E. The influence of corporate governance characteristics on human capital disclosure: the moderating role of managerial ownership, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2022, 23(2), pp. 342-374. CrossRef
• Voltan, A., Hervieux, C.; Mills, A. Examining the win‐win proposition of shared value across contexts: Implications for future application, Business Ethics: A European Review, 2017, 26(4), pp. 347-368. CrossRef
• Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R.; George, G. Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions: Thematic issue on corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management journal, 2016, 59(2), pp. 534-544.
• Watts, P. Corporate social responsibility: making good business sense. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2000.
• Wenqi, D., Khurshid, A., Rauf, A.; Calin, A.C. Government subsidies’ influence on corporate social responsibility of private firms in a competitive environment, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2022, 7(2), 100189. CrossRef
• Windsor, D. Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches, Journal of management studies, 2006, 43(1), pp. 93-114.
• Wood, D.J. Social issues in management: Theory and research in corporate social performance, Journal of Management, 1991, 17(2), pp. 383-406.
• Yan, S., Ferraro, F.; Almandos, J. The rise of socially responsible investment funds: The paradoxical role of the financial logic, Administrative Science Quarterly, 2019, 64(2), pp. 466-501. CrossRef
• Shang, M., Ma, L., Su, J.; Shang, W. Do suppliers applaud corporate social performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 2014, 121, pp. 543-557. CrossRef