Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study

Author(s): Duygu Turker


Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 4 (Apr., 2009), pp. 411-427
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40294805
Accessed: 15-04-2016 08:37 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40294805?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business
Ethics

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 85:411-427 Springer 2008

DOI 10. 1007/s 1055 1-008-9780-6

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility:


A Scale Development Study

Duygu Turker

ABSTRACT. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is

communities expect more responsible use of

one of the most prominent concepts in the literature and,

increased business power. Corporate social respon-

in short, indicates the positive impacts of businesses on

sibility (CSR) may provide a general framework to


structure the responsible use of corporate power and
social involvement. Although the expanding litera-

their stakeholders. Despite the growing body of literature

on this concept, the measurement of CSR is still problematic. Although the literature provides several methods

for measuring corporate social activities, almost all of


them have some limitations. The purpose of this study is
to provide an original, valid, and reliable measure of CSR

reflecting the responsibilities of a business to various


stakeholders. Based on a proposed conceptual framework
of CSR, a scale was developed through a systematic scale
development process. In the study, exploratory factor
analysis was conducted to determine the underlying factorial structure of the scale. Data was collected from 269

ture on this issue has provided a clearer understanding, it is still problematic to find a commonly
accepted definition of CSR. Another problem is to
measure CSR based on its links with the stakeholder

concept. Despite the existence of various measurement methods in the literature, almost all of them
have some limitations. In order to better understand
and measure how CSR relates with stakeholders, a

new measurement of CSR is needed. The purpose

business professionals working in Turkey. The results of


the analysis provided a four-dimensional structure of

of the current study is to fill this void by providing a

CSR, including CSR to social and nonsocial stakehold-

tations of various stakeholders.

ers, employees, customers, and government.

KEY WORDS: Corporate social responsibility, employees, scale development, stakeholders, Turkey

ABBREVIATIONS: CEP: Council of Economic Priorities; CSID: Canadian Social Investment Database;
CSR: Corporate social responsibility; EU: European
Union; KLD: Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini; NGO:
Nongovernmental organization; PRESOR: Perceived

new scale to measure CSR in terms of the expecThe data for this study was collected from business

professionals in Turkey. Although Turkey has historically shared some social characteristics of collectivist Middle Eastern societies, the modernization
process has changed economic, political, social, and
cultural dimensions of the society to a great extent

since the beginning of the 1920s (Kongar, 1999).


In the 1980s, in parallel with other countries

Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility; WCED: World


Commission on Environment and Development

similarly situated in the world economy, Turkey


changed its economic strategy from a protectionist
model characterized by heavy state intervention to a
more outward-looking and market-oriented model

Introduction

(Bugra, 2003). This export-oriented policy regime


has backed up the gradually liberalizing economic
context in Turkey and today, in spite of its unique

The role of business in society has been a matter of


discussion since the middle of the last century. The
increasing pressures of businesses on humanity and
the natural environment have raised concerns among

people all around the world considerably. Today,

the various stakeholders in national and international

historical development path, Turkish companies


share some basic perspectives with the global business community.

The first CSR practices in Turkey were conducted by multinational companies (Ararat, 2004,
p. 255). However, since the Ottoman era, there has

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

412

Duygu

Turker

been a strong tradition of corporate philanthropy

tion with Europe affected the social values" (Ararat,

through an institutional mechanism called 'waqf

2005, p. 19). The relations between the Turkish

(foundation). Today, most family-owned companies


have associated waqfs and allocate a percentage of

business community and European countries are also

their profits to these foundations for the creation of

important trading partner for Turkey for a long time

social benefits. Educational institutions, hospitals,


and artistic or cultural centres are the most popular
fields of activity for these foundations (Ararat, 2005,

long-standing and the EU has been the most


(Flam, 2004, p. 179). Therefore, Turkish companies have already focused on the European market
and complied with most EU regulations in order to

p. 12). Despite the existence of a strong philan-

market their products. Based on these trading

thropic tradition in the business community and


society at large, until recently CSR efforts have not
been particularly diverse. According to Ararat (2005,

relations, the candidacy process also increased the


integration of the Turkish business culture with a

2006), this was partly because of some cultural

Turkey provides a reliable source of information in

characteristics aligned with some characteristics of

broader European cultural context. Therefore,


order to develop an understanding and create a

the 'predominantly Muslim countries' cluster in

measure of CSR.

Hosftede's analytical framework (1980). However,


recent changes in the political, economic, and social
context of the country have offset these cultural

The study contributes to the literature by providing a new, valid, and reliable scale of CSR. Based

characteristics and increased the attention paid to

reflects the corresponding responsibilities of a busi-

CSR in Turkish society considerably (Ararat,

on the proposed conceptual framework, the scale

ness to various stakeholders. The paper contains

2005, 2006). Today, the large-scale CSR projects


of Turkish companies reflect the change in the
understanding of CSR of the Turkish business
community. The annual CSR awards of Capital

three main sections. In the first section, a conceptual


framework is drawn to form a structural base of the

Magazine, a leading business magazine in Turkey,


also prove the interest of media and society in CSR
issues. One of the managers of Trend Group, the

Based on the theoretical framework, a scale is

company that organizes the event together with


Capital Magazine, evaluated the historical development of the event and commented that CSR has

study. In the second section, the existing measurement methods and their limitations are reviewed.

developed for measuring CSR. Finally, in the last


section, the limitations and findings of the study are
discussed.

Conceptual framework for corporate social

been one of the most significant values in Turkey


(Bayiksel, 2007).
According to Ararat (2005), macroeconomic sta-

responsibility

bility and economic development accompanied by

Despite the fact that CSR is one of the most

opening up to international competition have

prominent concepts in the literature, it is still diffi-

accelerated the convergence of the Turkish business


culture. The changing pattern of the business con-

cult to give a precise and commonly accepted defi-

text has also been strengthened by the candidacy

process to the European Union (EU). Although


relations between Turkey and the EU began in 1963

with the signing of the Ankara Agreement, the


candidacy process has increased the level of inte-

gration in the European context. During recent


years, Turkey has harmonized its legislation for
EU accession. As a result of this harmonization,
"Turkish markets have become more competitive,
civil rights are better respected, legal system has been

improved, juridical system is under improvement,


and the intensified political and economic integra-

nition. As stated by Votaw (1972), CSR "means


something, but not always the same thing, to
everybody" (p. 25). According to Bowen (1953),
one of the first scholars to define the concept, CSR
is the obligations of businessmen "to pursue those
policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those
lines of action which are desirable in terms of the

objectives and values of our society" (p. 6). Since


this definition of CSR, the literature has provided
contradictory definitions of the concept. The elab-

orate review of Carroll (1999), which traces the


evolution of the CSR construct since the 1950s,
clearly indicated that one of the main problems in

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility 413


the literature is to sketch out a conceptual framework of CSR.

According to Sims (2003), for instance, "../social


responsibility' and 'legality' are not one and the same

thing. CSR is often seen as acts that go beyond what

is prescribed by the law" (p. 46). The definitions of


McGuire (1963) and Davis (1973) distinguished the

social responsibilities of a business from its economic, technical, and legal obligations. Although
Carroll (1999) described the definition of Davis as a

Although there is no consensus regarding the definition and scope of stakeholder in the literature, it

can be briefly defined as others with which the


organization interacts while pursuing their goals
(Wherther and Chandler, 2006, p. 4). In a broader
understanding, which can be attributed to the famous definition of Freeman (1984), stakeholders are
"those groups or individuals who can affect or are
affected by the achievement of the organization's
objectives or are those actors with a direct or indirect

restricted version of CSR, he also distinguished


between the economic component and the non-

interest in the company" (Verdeyen et al, 2004, pp.

economic components of CSR; the former is what

stakeholder concept, scholars have provided various

326-327). In order to clarify the scope of the

the business does for itself, while the latter are what

classifications. Some of the most useful of these

the business does for others (Carroll, 1999). Despite


his attractive distinction, Carroll (1999) stated that

classify these groups or individuals as external and


internal stakeholders (Verdeyen et al., 2004); contracting and public stakeholders (Charkham, 1994);
voluntary and involuntary stakeholders (Clarkson,
1994); primary and secondary stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984); primary social, second-

"economic viability is something business does for


society as well" (p. 284) and described the economic

component as "a responsibility to produce goods


and services that society wants and to sell them at a

profit" (1979, p. 500). However, this definition of


the economic component might indicate the basic
function of business in the society. According to
Daft (2003), a business is an economic unit which
produces goods and services in a society (p. 153) and
gains a profit in return for this function. Therefore,

economic concern is the fundamental reason for the

ary social, primary nonsocial, and secondary


nonsocial stakeholders (Wheeler and Sillanpaa, 1997,

1998); and internal, external, and societal stakeholders (Wherther and Chandler, 2006, p. 4).

The classification proposed by Wheeler and


Sillanpaa (1997) is obviously the most elaborate of
these alternatives. In this typology, stakeholders that

existence of a business, and profit is surely the pri-

have direct impacts on relationships and involve

mary motive for owners. In this case, it might be

better to consider the economic component as a

human entities are defined as primary social stakeholders. On the other hand, stakeholders that have

reason for the existence of a business, rather than a

less direct impacts are secondary social stakeholders,

responsibility to society. A similar understanding can

representing civil society, business at large, and

be found in the definition of Davis (1960) as well. In


this definition, CSR is "...businessmen's decisions

various interest groups. According to the authors,

and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond

this group can sometimes be extremely influential on

the business. The authors indicated that the nonso-

the firm's direct economic or technical interest"

cial stakeholders do not involve human relationships

(Davis, 1960, p. 70). According to Eells and Walton

and divided them further into primary (direct) and

(1974), "In its broadest sense, corporate social

secondary (indirect) categories, including the natural


environment, nonhuman species, future generations,

responsibility represents a concern with the needs


and goals of society which goes beyond the merely
economic" (p. 247). In the current study, the economic component is excluded from the definition of

CSR. Therefore, CSR is defined as corporate

behaviors that aims to affect stakeholders positively

and that go beyond its economic interest.

The given definition of CSR is closely interrelated with the concept of 'stakeholder'. According to
Carroll (1991), there is a natural fit between the idea

of CSR and an organization's stakeholders (p. 43).

and their defenders in pressure groups (Wheeler and

Sillanpaa, 1998, p. 205). It can be noted that the

consideration of nonsocial stakeholders has been a

significant advancement in the understanding of the


concept and has likely increased the recognition of
these stakeholders in the business community.

In the current study, this four-dimensional classification provides a useful means of conceptualization. Taking this understanding into account, CSR
can be further defined as corporate behaviors which

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

414

Duygu

Turker

aim to affect primary social, secondary social, pri-

mary nonsocial, and secondary nonsocial stakeholders positively and goes beyond its economic
interest. In order to find the most appropriate way of

measuring CSR based on this conceptual framework, the related literature should be examined
carefully. In the next section, the pros and cons of

popular examples of this method. KLD rates companies, traded on the US stock exchange, based on
eight attributes of social activities (community relations, employee relations, environment, product,
treatment of women and minorities, military contracts, nuclear power, and South Africa). Fortune's
reputation index also offers a systematic tool for

the existing methods in the literature are discussed in

evaluating socially responsible behaviors from a

detail.

managerial point of view. A reputation index can also


be used to derive new scales for measuring corporate

Literature review: existing methods


of measuring CSR

social activities (Abbott and Monsen, 1979). Ruf et


al. (1998) developed a scale to evaluate the relative
importance of KLD's eight dimensions by using an
analytical hierarchy process. According to these au-

In his study, Carroll (2000) answered the question of

thors, the attributes of KLD coincided with the legal,

whether corporate social performance should be

ethical, and discretionary dimensions of Carroll's


model (1979). However, Maignan and Ferrell (2000)
found these indices inadequate to evaluate all busi-

measured and, if so, why. According to him, the


brief answer to this question is 'yes', because "it is an

important topic to business and to society, and


measurement is one part dealing seriously with an
important matter... The real question is whether

valid and reliable measures can be developed"

(Carroll, 2000, p. 473). In fact, considerable attempts


have been made to measure the socially responsible
activities of organizations both in the academic and
business communities. However, as Wolfe and Au-

pperle (1991) indicated, there is no single best way


to measure corporate social activities. Waddock and

Graves (1997) also pointed out the difficulties of


measuring corporate social performance and assessed

nesses and stated that both KLD and Fortune index


"...suffer from the fact that their items are not based

on theoretical arguments" (p. 285).


Another well-known database is CSID, which

measures the sum of the average of a firm's net


strength and weakness for each of seven dimensions

(Mahoney and Thorne, 2005, p. 244): community,


diversity, employee relations, environment, international operations, product and business practices,
and corporate governance. Although this database
reflects some key stakeholder relationships, it only
details companies traded on the Canadian stock exchange. Apparently, besides other limitations, the

the alternative methods, including forced-choice


survey instruments, reputation indices and scales,
content analysis of document, behavioral and per-

limited area of assessment; they are only designed to

ceptional measures, and case study. Maignan and

evaluate companies in some countries.

Ferrell (2000) categorized these alternative methods

most important problem with these databases is their

The second alternative method is the use of sin-

into three main approaches: expert evaluations,

gle- and multiple-issue indicators. The pollution

single- and multiple-issue indicators, and surveys of


managers. Expanding on the latter classification, the

control performance, reported by the Council of


Economic Priorities (CEP), is an example of such a
single-issue indicator and has been used by several
scholars (e.g., Bragdon and Marlin, 1972; Chen and
Metcalf, 1984; Freedman and Jaggi, 1982). Corpo-

following approaches are suggested as viable to


measure CSR: reputation indices or databases, single- and multiple-issue indicators, content analysis of
corporate publications, scales measuring CSR at the
individual level, and scales measuring CSR at the
organizational level.
Reputation indices and databases are among the
most widely used methods for evaluating corporate

rate crime is another indicator of socially responsible

behaviors used by scholars (Baucus and Baucus,


1997; Davidson and Worrell, 1990). As can be

Domini (KLD) Database, the Fortune Index, and the

noticed, the unidimensionality of this method is a


significant limitation (Maignan and Ferrell, 2000).
Therefore, scholars may prefer to use a combination
of these indicators. However, even with the use of

Canadian Social Investment Database (CSID) are

a multiple-issue indicator, this approach still has

social activities. The Kinder, Lydenberg, and

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility 415


limited ability to delineate the entire structure of
CSR. Moreover, these indicators are not globally
focused and only report the activities of companies
in a limited number of countries, which also limits
the use of this method by researchers.
Another method used in the literature is content

stated that "this instrument would not be useful for

assessing an organization's performance in the four


domains independently; that is, the instrument would

not be helpful for assessing organizational performance by employees who view their work organization as highly responsible on all four CSR domains

analysis of corporate publications. This method may

or highly irresponsible on all four domains." (p. 306).

also provide the possibility to derive new measures


for corporate social activities (Abbott and Monsen,
1979). Especially in recent years, information about
CSR has become more readily accessible due to the

In order to measure the managerial attitudes


towards social responsibility, Quazi and O'Brien
(2000) also provided a scale based on the relevant

increasing attention that companies pay to social


disclosure, that is, information companies provide on
their practices regarding environmental, community,

previous studies (Davis, 1973; Orpen, 1987; Ostlund,


1977). In this study, the authors constructed a scale

based on a two-dimensional model, including the


span of corporate responsibility and the range of

employee, and consumer issues (Gray et al., 1995).


The growing body of literature on corporate social

outcomes of corporate social commitments. Although

reporting has increased the use of content analysis as

managers in different cultural and economic contexts,

this scale is useful to test the CSR perceptions of

a method of measuring CSR. According to Ruf

it is not designed to measure the organizational

et al. (1998), this method has an "objective rating of

involvement with socially responsible activities.


Another well-known scale is the Perceived Role

companies since once the social attributes are


selected, the process of rating is standardized"

of Ethics and Social Responsibility (PRESOR)

(p. 121). However, the information given in a cor-

which aims to measure managerial perceptions about

porate report can be different from the actual cor-

the role of ethics and social responsibility in achieving

porate actions (McGuire et al., 1988). Companies

organizational effectiveness (Singhapakdi et al.,

may mislead the potential readers of these reports in

1996). Like the scales of Aupperle (1984) and Quazi

order to create a more favorable image. Therefore,

and O'Brien (2000), PRESOR also focuses on

the reliability of company reports may represent a


significant limitation. Previous studies that focus on

measuring individual values, rather than measuring


socially responsible activities of businesses. Additionally, in his study, Etheredge (1999) provided a
constructive replication of PRESOR and the results

the reliability of corporate environmental disclosures

have provided empirical evidence that there is no


significant association between the content of these

reports and actual performance (Freedman and


Wasley, 1990; Ingram and Frazier, 1980; Rockness,
1985; Wiseman, 1982). Ironically, poor performers
provided longer environmental disclosures (Ingram
and Frazier, 1980).
The fourth method is to use scales that measure the

CSR perception of individuals. One of the most


widely used scales (Smith and Blackburn, 1988) was
developed by Aupperle (1984) to measure the individual CSR values of managers according to Carroll's
four-dimensional model. This scale is the first serious

did not confirm the original factorial structure of the


instruments.

Despite the proliferation of scales to measure


individual perception of CSR, the literature has not
provided an adequate number of scales for measuring
CSR at the organizational level. The most important
scale of the literature in this category was developed

by Maignan and Ferrell (2000) based on the concept


of corporate citizenship. In this study, corporate

citizenship was defined as the extent to which


businesses meet the economic, legal, ethical, and
discretionary responsibilities imposed on them by

attempt to grasp the multidimensional nature of CSR

their stakeholders (Maignan and Ferrell, 2000,

(Rufet al., 1998). Although the scale is suitable for


investigating the socially responsible values of man-

p. 284). The study incorporated both the conceptual

agers, it is not a useful way for obtaining information

about socially responsible behaviors of organizations.


Additionally, the forced-choice instruments of the

scale also appear as a limitation. Peterson (2004)

contribution of Carroll's model (1979) and stakeholder management theory. According to the
proposed conceptualization, the authors developed
a scale of corporate citizenship and tested it empiri-

cally in two dissimilar cultural settings. Certainly,

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

416

Duygu

Turker

the development of this scale is a significant contribution to the literature. However, the main limita-

tion of the scale is that it considers only three


primary stakeholders (customers, employees, and
public). Maignan and Ferrell (2000) emphasized that
"these stakeholders are not the only ones who can

impose responsibilities on businesses and whose


welfare can be directly affected" (p. 295).
In summary, a review of the literature shows that
there are several methods to measure corporate social
activities. Although these methods have contributed a
lot to the CSR literature, almost all of them have some

limitations. Second, and more importantly, none of


these methods addresses the issue of CSR from the

perspective of the current study. As mentioned previously, this study conceptualizes CSR based on the

exclusion of the economic component, while incorporating the stakeholder concept. Therefore, there is a

need to develop a new scale which articulates CSR


according to the proposed conceptual framework.

Research methodology

Literature Review |
Conceptualization of the Scale |
I

Item generationthrou gh Literature Review


I

Exploratory Survey:
Item generation through exploratory survey

with open-ended 8 questions (n=21)

"~

Group Discussion- 1: Item generation


through group discussion / 55 items
Group Discussion-2: Item generation through
group discussion / 42 items

Pilot Survey:
Item selection and examination of validity of
7-point scale through pilot survey (n=30)

i
Assessment- 1 : Item extraction through

Assessment-2: Item extraction through


Exploratory Factor Analysis / 21 items
I

Final version of scale/ 18 items |


1

Scale design

Main Survev (n=269

As Fig. 1 indicates, the scale was designed through a


standard scale development process (Bagozzi et al.,

Figure 1. Scale design process.

1991). The first step in the process was the conceptualization of the scale according to the proposed

process, the corresponding responsibilities for these

definition of CSR. In this process, Wheeler and

stakeholders were derived from the literature.

Sillanpaa's typology (1997) was selected as the most


suitable classification to categorize stakeholders. It
should be noted that this typology, one of the most
comprehensive in the literature, was only used to

Stakeholder management theorists have focused


on the rights, needs, and interests of stakeholders

build a ground for the concept of stakeholder.

literature, it is easy to find which responsibilities a


business has to key stakeholders. In his book, Sims

Therefore, this study had an exploratory structure,


and did not attempt to confirm the Wheeler and
Sillanpaa typology (1997).
Since it was practically impossible to include all the

stakeholders of Wheeler and Sillanpaa's typology


(1997) in the scale, only some of them were selected to

represent each group. Therefore, employees and


customers were selected from the first group; society,
government, and competitors were selected from the

second group; the natural environment and future


generations were selected from the third group; and

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were selected from the fourth group. After this selection

pawkins and Lewis, 2003; Greenwood, 2001;


Maignan and Ferrell, 2004). When reviewing the

(2003) portrayed the general framework of responsibilities to stakeholders, including shareholders,


employees, customers, creditors, suppliers, unions,
competitors, governments, local communities, and
general public (p. 41). However, the responsibilities
to the primary nonsocial stakeholders are not easily
captured in the literature. Especially in recent dec-

ades, there has been rapidly increasing pressure on


the business community to behave more responsibly
to these stakeholders. Therefore, the responsibilities
to these stakeholders were integrated into the scale
development process of the current study.

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility 417


A historical review of the literature shows that the

notion of CSR starts with the increasing concerns of

people about environmental degradation. The roots


of CSR can be found in the early environmental
concerns of the 18th century (Smith, 1993, p. 172).

survey. Since it was conducted on a limited number

of respondents, this step was only seen as a preliminary analysis of the scale. In this stage, two
assessments were applied to the collected data. In the

Today, the responsibility of a business to the natural

first assessment, highly intercorrelated items were


excluded from the scale according to the correlation

environment is not only to avoid environmental


harm, but also to protect and improve the natural

items was tested through Bartlett's test of sphericity.

environment. The rights of future generations


is another important dimension in stakeholder
management. The conceptual background for these

responsibilities can be traced from the notion of

analysis. The sufficiency of the correlations among

Bartlett's test proved that the correlations, when


taken collectively, were significant at the 0.0001
level. In the next assessment, factor analysis was

performed to eliminate unrelated items. Table II

'sustainable development', which is defined as

shows the obtained factorial structure of the scale. In

"development that meets the needs of the present


without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED, 1987). The

data set. Factor analysis revealed five distinct factors

responsibilities of corporations to the natural environment and future generations are closely interrelated with each other. Therefore, it seems reasonable
to categorize these two stakeholders under the primary nonsocial stakeholders in Wheeler and Sillanpaa's typology (1997).
In order to create an initial item pool, a list of
statements was derived from the previous scales in

order to understand how variance could be partitioned, component analysis was performed to the

with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining


83.191% of the variance. Double-barreled items (the
22nd, 28th, and 30th items) were excluded from the
scale. The current factorial structure of the scale did
not change after the elimination of these items. As a

result of this process, a preliminary version of the


CSR scale including 18 items was obtained to use in
the main survey.

the literature (Aupperle, 1984; Carroll, 1979; Mai-

gnan and Ferrell, 2000; Quazi and O'Brien, 2000;


Wood and Jones, 1995). In the third stage, an
exploratory survey was conducted to create new

Sample selection, data collection, and analyses

items. A form which consisted of eight open-ended

The population consisted of business professionals in

questions concerning the selected eight stakeholders

for-profit organizations in Turkey. In the study, as a

was used in the survey. The survey included 30


respondents, working in different organizations in
Turkey. The data was analyzed to generate a list of

data collection method, a self-administered questionnaire was sent via e-mail to management and
business-related mailing groups. These mailing groups

items for each dimension. This process was per-

included a variety of business professions who were

formed by a group of academics to eliminate the


perceptual distortions of the researcher. In order to
select new items that could be classified as 'CSR to

active in the business life in Turkey and different in

terms of sectors, companies, departments, job positions, and so on. The e-mail included a cover letter

stakeholders', three main criteria were used: to be an

which briefly explained the purpose of the study as

outcome of organizational decision, to have a posi-

well as a questionnaire form. As a rule of thumb, it was

tive effect on the stakeholders, and to go beyond the

aimed to reach 300 questionnaires within a prespeci-

monetary goals of the organization. Together with


an exploratory study, this process led to an enlarged
item pool including 55 items. In order to eliminate

fied time period, the first 2 weeks of April 2006. From

the unrelated items from the pool, these were


reviewed through a second group discussion. Finally,

a scale including 42 items was constructed. This

version of the scale is shown in Table I.

In the next step, the standard validity and reliability of the scale were analyzed through a pilot

the target sample of 300 questionnaires, only 280


completed questionnaires were returned; 11 were
discarded as incomplete. Hence, the final number of
usable questionnaires was 269 - a response rate of
89.6%. In order to guarantee anonymity, no personal
identifying information was requested from the
respondents. After downloading and numbering them

according to the receiving sequence, the collected

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

418

Duygu

Turker
TABLE I

CSR Scale
No.

Items

1. Our company provides a wide range of indirect benefits to improve the quality of employees* lives.
2. The employees in our company receive a reasonable salary to maintain an acceptable quality of life.
3. Our company policies provide a safe and healthy working environment to all its employees.

4. Our company supports employees who want to acquire additional education.


5. There are sufficient numbers of opportunities to develop my skills in my current job.
6. Our company policies encourage the employees to develop their skills and careers.
7. Our company implements flexible policies to provide a good work & life balance for its employees.
8. The management of our company is primarily concerned with employees' needs and wants.
9. The managerial decisions related with the employees are usually fair.
10. I believe that our company provides equal opportunities to all its employees.
11. One of the main principles of our company is to provide high-quality products to its customers.
12. Our products comply with the national and international standards.
13. The guarantee extension of our products is the most advantageous choice in the market.
14. Our company provides full and accurate information about its products to its customers.
15. Our company respects consumer rights beyond the legal requirements.
16. Customer satisfaction is highly important for our company.
17. Our company is responsive to the complaints of its customers.
18. Our company is known as a respected and trustworthy company.
19. Our company emphasizes the importance of its social responsibilities to the society.
20. Our company contributes to schools, hospitals, and parks according to the needs of the society.
21. Our company contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of the society.
22. Our company endeavors to create employment opportunities.
23. Our company always pays its taxes on a regular and continuing basis.
24. Our company complies with legal regulations completely and promptly.
25. Our company tries to help the government in solving social problems.
26. Our company acts legally on all matters.
27.
28.
29.
30.

Our
Our
Our
Our

company's main principle is honesty in every business dealing.


company cooperates with its competitors in social responsibility projects.
company competes with its rivals in an ethical framework.
company always avoids unfair competition.

31. Our company implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment.
32. Our company participates in activities which aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment.

33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

Our company has the necessary equipment to reduce its negative environmental impact.
Our company makes well-planned investments to avoid environmental degradation.
Our company targets sustainable growth which considers future generations.
Our company makes investment to create a better life for future generations.
Our company makes investments to create employment opportunities for future generations.
Our company conducts research & development projects to improve the well-being of society in the future.
Our company makes sufficient monetary contributions to charities.

40. Our company encourages its employees to participate in voluntarily activities.


41. Our company supports nongovernmental organizations working in problematic areas.
42. Our company considers every warning of nongovernmental organizations.

questionnaires were deleted from the system in order

SPSS and Minitab. In addition to descriptive statistics,

to keep the e-mail addresses of the respondents con-

exploratory factor analysis and reliability assessment

fidential. The collected data were analyzed by using

were used to analyze the scale structure.

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility 419


TABLE II

Total variance explained and rotated factor loading matrix (VARIMAX)


No.

Items

Factor

Commonalities

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

4. Our company supports employees who want 0.803 0.767


to acquire additional education.

6. Our company policies encourage the 0.735 0.884


employees to develop their skills and careers.

7. Our company implements flexible policies to 0.724 0.757


provide a good work & life balance for its
employees.

8. The management of our company is pri- 0.808 0.790


marily concerned with employees' needs and
wants.

9. The managerial decisions related with 0.698 0.736


the employees are usually fair.

14. Our company provides full and accurate 0.797 0.788


information about its products to its
customers.

15. Our company respects consumer rights 0.791 0.817


beyond the legal requirements.

16. Customer satisfaction is highly important for 0.890 0.905


our company.

19. Our company emphasizes the importance of 0.617 0.798


its social responsibilities to the society.

21. Our company contributes to campaigns and 0.646 0.892


projects that promote the well-being of
the society.

22. Our company endeavors to create employ- 0.731 0.443 0.795


ment opportunities.

23. Our company always pays its taxes on a 0.872 0.919


regular and continuing basis.

24. Our company complies with legal regulations 0.704 0.796


completely and promptly.

28. Our company cooperates with its competi- 0.748 0.401 0.814
tors in social responsibility projects.

30. Our company always avoids unfair 0.764 0.479 0.913


competition.

31. Our company implements special programs 0.828 0.871


to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment.

32. Our company participates in activities which 0.790 0.830


aim to protect and improve the quality of the
natural environment.

35. Our company targets sustainable growth 0.774 0.876


which considers future generations.

36. Our company makes investment to create a 0.680 0.870


better life for future generations.

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

420

Duygu

Turker
TABLE II

continued

No.

Items

Factor

Commonalities

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

40. Our company encourages its 0.699 0.730


employees to participate in
voluntarily activities.

41. Our company supports non- 0.831 0.921


governmental organizations
working in problematic areas.
Total

Sum of squares (eigenvalues) 10.906 2.050 1.995 1.484 1.035 17.47


Percentage of trace 51.934 9.761 9.499 7.069 4.929 83,192
Note: Factor loadings less than 0.40 have not been reproduced and items have been sorted by loadings on each factor.
Descriptive statistics

to analyze the size of the organizations, a classifica-

The respondents in this study were 269 business

tion based on the number of the employees in the


organizations was used in the study. More than half

professionals working in different for-profit organi-

of the respondents (51.7%) were working in large-

zations and sectors in Turkey. In terms of gender, 127

scale organizations and 48.1% were working in

of them (47.2%) were female, 140 of them (52%) were

smaller than mid-scale organizations. Moreover, the

male, and 2% had this data missing. The age range of

respondents' organizations were geographically dispersed in Turkey.

the respondents was 19-61 years with a mean of 31.23


years. Agewise, 17% were aged 18-25 years, 41% were

26-30 years, 19% were 31-35 years, 13% were 36-40

years, and 10% were above 41 years. Among all

Factor analyses

respondents, 66.2% had a bachelor degree, 22.7% had


a master degree, and 5.9% had a PhD degree. Based on
this higher education level, 261 of all the respondents

(97%) had white-collar jobs, 7 (2.6%) of them had a


blue-collar job, and this data was missing for 1 (0.4%).

According to the general experience level of the


respondents, 18.2% had less than 2 years, 28.3% had 35 years, 25.3% had 6-10 years, 14.1% had 1 1-15 years,

and 14.1% had more than 16 years experience.

Factor analysis was performed within the six-stage


model-building framework introduced by Hair et al.
(2006). Table III presents the correlation matrix for
18 items of the scale. A review of the correlation
matrix reveals that 141 of the 153 correlations
(approximately 93%) are significant at the 0.01 level,
which provide adequate basis to perform a factor
analysis for each item and for the overall basis. To

According to the seniority of the respondents, 38.3%

evaluate the overall significance of the correlation

of them had less than 2 years experience in their


organizations, 30.9% of them had 3-5 years, 17.5%

matrix, the Bartlett's test was used again. The


Bartlett's test found that the correlations, when taken

had 6-10 years, 5.2% had 1 1-15 years, 7.8% had more

collectively, were significant at the 0.0001 level.

than 16 years experience, and 0.4% of them did not


provide any information.

Most of the respondents (61.3%) were working in


the service sector. The manufacturing and agricultural sectors represented 33.1% and 4.1%, respectively. Additionally, while 204 respondents (75.8%)
were working in domestic companies, only 31 (11.5)
were working in multinational companies. In order

The data gathered from the main survey were


analyzed through principal components factor analy-

sis. Table IV shows the information regarding the 18


possible factors and their relative explanatory powers.
In the table, it is possible to assess the importance of
each component and select the ideal number of factors
while using the eigenvalues at the same time. The four

factors capture 70.782% of the variance of the 18

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility 421


TABLE III

Correlation matrix of the CSR scale

Item no. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 14. 15. 16. 19. 21. 23. 24. 31. 32. 35. 36. 40.
4.

6. 0.718
7. 0.475 0.629
8. 0.521 0.698 0.702

9. 0.400 0.566 0.587 0.722


14. 0.259 0.340 0.363 0.446 0.495

15. 0.232 0.351 0.353 0.388 0.397 0.689


16. 0.273 0.351 0.302 0.389 0.422 0.657 0.633
19. 0.328 0.452 0.410 0.426 0.373 0.438 0.460 0.464
21. 0.416 0.477 0.380 0.418 0.316 0.283 0.288 0.293 0.692
23 0.144 0.088 0.105 0.091 0.125 0.350 0.343 0.406 0.243 0.156
24 0.205 0.138 0.140 0.142 0.162 0.353 0.338 0.395 0.282 0.217 0.868
31 0.303 0.289 0.230 0.230 0.152 0.285 0.298 0.217 0.423 0.418 0.261 0.310
32 0 290 0.268 0.222 0.232 0.080 0.173 0.180 0.127 0.381 0.455 0.164 0.207 0.735
35 0 359 0 387 0.307 0.298 0.242 0.272 0.195 0.234 0.449 0.490 0.250 0.310 0.540 0.577
36 0 405 0 440 0 307 0.343 0.251 0.180 0.179 0.174 0.509 0.598 0.145 0.205 0.500 0.578 0.707
40 0392 0 432 0 416 0.412 0.324 0.194 0.192 0.160 0.458 0.546 0.098 0.170 0.427 0.480 0.451 0.635
41. 0.424 0.414 0.363 0.343 0.291 0.163 0.154 0.108 0.473 0.551 0.127 0.173 0.432 0.466 0.430 0.622 0.726
Note: Bold-face values indicate correlations significant at the 0.01 level.

items, which can be deemed sufficient in terms of


explained total variance. As seen from the table, factor

Second factor: including CSR to employees


(4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th items)

1 accounts for approximately 40% of the variance

Third factor: including CSR to customers

(eigenvalue 7.230), factor 2 for 13.40%, etc. However, the table shows that there is a cross-loading

Fourth factor: including CSR to government

problem in the 19th item; this item cross-loads on two


factors (factor 1 and 3) at the same time.

After assessing other possible options (decreasing


the number of factors and using another rotation
technique) for the 19th item, it was decided to delete

this item in order to eliminate the cross-loading

problem. The rotated factor matrix for the reduced


set of 17 items showed a similar result and pattern,
and almost the same values for the loadings. The
amount of explained variance increased slightly from

70.782% to 71.683%.
The structure of the scale based on factor analysis

had changed from the pilot survey to main survey.


The result of the main survey revealed more different results than the pilot survey:

First factor: including CSR to society (21st


item), natural environment (31st and 32nd
items), future generations (35th and 36th
items), and NGOs (40th and 41st items)

(14th, 15th, and 16th items)


(23rd and 24th items)

When considering the related literature and the


items included in these factors, the factors can be la-

beled as CSR to social and nonsocial stakeholders,


employees, customers, and government, respectively.

Validation of factor analysis

In this stage, the degree of generalizability of the

results to the population was assessed. In fact,


the direct approach to this assessment is to apply the

same scale to new samples from the population.


However, it could be somewhat difficult to repeat
the analysis on an entirely new sample due to time

limitations. Therefore, split sample analysis was


chosen for the validation assessment. The main
sample was split into two samples (134 respondents

in each) and the factor analysis procedure was

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

422

Duygu

Turker
TABLE IV

Total variance explained and rotated factor loading matrix (VARIMAX)


No.

Items

Factor

Commonalities
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

32. Our company participates in activities which aim to protect 0.819 0.684
and improve the quality of the natural environment.

36. Our company makes investment to create a better life for 0.815 0.732
future generations.

31. Our company implements special programs to minimize its 0.745 0.634
negative impact on the natural environment.

35. Our company targets sustainable growth which considers 0.723 0.603
future generations.

41. Our company supports nongovernmental organizations 0.703 0.632


working in problematic areas.

21. Our company contributes to campaigns and projects that 0.672 0.607
promote the well-being of the society.

40. Our company encourages its employees to participate in 0.694 0.633


voluntarily activities.

19. Our company emphasizes the importance of its social 0.564 0.502 0.635
responsibilities to the society.

6. Our company policies encourage the employees to develop 0.806 0.762


their skills and careers.

8. The management of our company is primarily concerned 0.806 0.778


with employees' needs and wants.

7. Our company implements flexible policies to provide a good 0.760 0.663


work & life balance for its employees.

9. The managerial decisions related with the employees are 0.728 0.685
usually fair.

4. Our company supports employees who want to acquire 0.708 0.628


additional education.

15. Our company respects consumer rights beyond the legal 0.824 0.748
requirements.

14. Our company provides full and accurate information about 0.814 0.761
its products to its customers.

16. Customer satisfaction is highly important for our company. 0.775 0.720
23. Our company always pays its taxes on a regular and 0.921 0.918
continuing basis.

24. Our company complies with legal regulations completely 0.915 0.918
and promptly.
Total

Sum of squares (eigenvalues) 7.230 2.412 2.048 1.050 12.74


Percentage of trace 40.169 13.400 11.378 5.835 70.782
Note: Factor loadings less than 0.40 have not been reproduced and items have been sorted by loadings on each factor.

applied to compare the results. The two VARIMAX


rotations were quite similar to each other in terms of

loadings and commonalities for all of the items.


Based on these results, it can be said that the results

are stable within the two samples. Further studies

will be required to confirm the generalizability of


this result across the population.
On the other hand, the sample's demographics
also support the generalizability of the scale. As stated previously, almost half of 269 respondents were

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility 423


women and the construct reflected the perceptions

of women as well. Although the age range of the

than this suggested alpha value. The Cronbach alpha


values for the four factors were calculated as 0.8915,

respondents was 18-61 years, the mean age for the


sample was 31.23 years. Therefore, the sample included a relatively young group of people and their

0.8836, 0.8554, and 0.9279.

thoughts shaped the construct. This result can be


explained by the majority of young people in the
population. Although the application of the scale in
an aging society may give different results, it currently reflects the ideas of young business professionals about CSR. Therefore, the respondents may

Limitations of the study

present a modern point of view about CSR. Based


on the respondents' relatively higher level of education, it can be stated that the construct is also

previously, only some representative stakeholders


were selected at the beginning of the process. After

reflecting the ideas of well-educated people. This


result may also support the generalizability of the
scale in the well-educated populations of developed
countries. The analysis of respondents' organizations
shows that most of them were working in service

and manufacturing industry, 61.3% and 33.1%,


respectively. This result also shows a similarity with
other modern societies.

There are some limitations of the current study and

these should be considered when generalizing the


validity of the scale. First of all, the scale does not
cover every stakeholder of a business. As explained

the analyses, some items were also eliminated from


the scale. However, the scale still has a combination
of various stakeholders in a balanced manner and

provides a useful tool to measure CSR.


Depending on the selected sample, the current
study reflects only the perceptions of employees, the

internal stakeholders of a business. Although it was

assumed that the respondents give accurate and

reliable information about the CSR involvement of


their organizations, it is possible that they might

provide incorrect or incomplete information. In fact,

item correlations of each scale were computed and

this is a common problem of every empirical study


based on individual perceptions. Since this limitation
was foreseen at the beginning of the study, the data
collection method was designed to overcome, or at
least minimize, this risk. During the data collection

interpreted. As a rule of thumb, the item-to-total


correlations should exceed 0.50 and the inter-item

dentiality of their responses. Under these conditions,

Reliability analysis

In the reliability assessment, two commonly used


methods were chosen for each scale. Firstly, the inter-

process, the respondents were assured the confi-

cludes 17 items, after the deletion of 19th item. There

it was expected that they could provide more


accurate information about their organizations.
However, the perceptions of other stakeholders

are 136 different item pairings or correlations and the

might also be assessed in further studies.

correlations should exceed 0.30 (Hair et al., 2006, p.


137). Table II shows that the correlation matrix in-

average inter-item correlation is 0.35, higher than the


suggested threshold value of 0.30.

In the second method, the internal consistencies


of each scale were assessed by computing Cronbach's

alpha. Although the generally agreed upon lower


limit for Cronbach's alpha is 0.70, the decisions were
taken based on the number of items, number of

dimensions, and average inter-item correlations


(Cortina, 1993). Therefore, as computed above, the
inter-item correlation is 0.35, and the scale includes
17 items in four dimensions. The suggested alpha for

similar conditions (r = 0.30/18 items/3 dimensions)

described by Cortina is 0.64 (1993). The Cronbach's

alpha of the CSR scale (0.9013) was much higher

Additionally, since the data was collected from a


sample which was drawn from only one country, the

results can be generalized only in this country.


However, as mentioned previously, the selected
country has a unique position between Eastern and
Western cultures. Still, given the increased convergence of the cultural values of the business communities in Turkey to a European context, a scale
developed in Turkey can provide insight into the
understanding of CSR in modern societies. Additionally, the demographics of respondents also supported the generalizability of the study. However,
there is a need for further studies to confirm the
current structure of the scale.

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

424

^uygu

Turker

Conclusion

more aware of their surroundings and the well-being

of these stakeholders. Therefore, the result of the

According to Carroll (2000), since it is difficult to

current study may reflect the increasing responsive-

gather actual measures, there is a tendency to rely on


stakeholders' opinions or assessments of performance

ness of respondents. Especially, considering some


demographic characteristics of respondents (for in-

in the literature. However, developing comprehen-

stance, age and education level), the results presented a

sive measures of corporate social activities that really

modern perspective on CSR, as older generations or


less-educated people may have fewer concerns about

address social performance is a challenge. Because,


"if we do less than this, we should not call it social

the protection of the natural environment or the rights

performance" (Carroll, 2000, p. 474). In spite of this

of future generations. On the other hand, the

apparent risk, relying on stakeholders' views can be a

changing natures of CSR and stakeholder concepts

more reliable way of measuring corporate social

may reveal a somewhat different structure in further

activities compared to alternative methods. In the


current study, a new measure of CSR was obtained
based on the views of employees. After an elaborate
scale development process, the current structure of
the scale provides some important implications.

studies. Although it is impossible to predict the exact

In the study, the typology of Wheeler and Sillanpaa

(1997) provided a base to build a framework for


stakeholders. Although these scholars theoretically
defined the concept in a broader sense, some of the
selected stakeholders were eliminated during the scale

development process. At the beginning of the study,


employees, customers, society, government, competitors, natural environment, future generations, and

structures of the scale in further studies, it might be


expected that the responsibilities to future generations
or the natural environment will be perceived as more

important in the future and that these items may


construct an entirely new subscale.

The other three components of the scale reason-

ably sequenced according to their degrees of


importance for the respondents. The second subscale
includes the responsibilities to employees. This is a
quite interesting result, considering the fact that the

data was gathered from employees. Based on this


analysis, the respondents seemed to ignore their self-

NGOs were selected to represent each dimension of

interest and perceived that the CSR to society,

the typology. However, as a result of the scale


development process, the responsibilities to compet-

natural environment, future generations, and NGOs


are more important than CSR related to themselves.

itors were eliminated from the factorial structure. The

This perspective of the respondents may also support

possible reason for this result may be the dual meaning

their objectiveness when assessing the social

of some statements. Alternatively, the respondents

involvement of their organizations. The third sub-

may think that a business does not have a responsibility

scale of the structure is CSR to customers. It is

to their competitors. However, in the light of the

known that customers are critically important for

discussions on fair competition and corporate spying,

the survival and growth of business. The result of the

it can be estimated that the responsibilities to competitors will be more significant in the near future.

analysis confirms that the respondents are also aware

Therefore, as a suggestion, this stakeholder should be


reconsidered in further studies.

Based on the legal dimension of Carroll's model,


CSR to government appeared in the final subscale of
the structure. However, this component has the

One of the interesting results in the study is the


stakeholder combination and explanatory strength of
the first factorial subscale which includes CSR to

of the importance of customers as stakeholders.

weakest explanatory power in the structure. As


mentioned in the previous part of the study, the

society, natural environment, future generations, and


NGOs. It can be noticed that this subscale includes

existence of a legal dimension, similar to an economic

more than one stakeholder and they are closely

Therefore, these scholars exclude legal responsibilities

interrelated with each other. As discussed previously,

from their CSR definitions. In the current study, legal

dimension, is also questioned by some scholars.

these stakeholders are generally considered as having a

responsibilities were considered among the dimen-

secondary or less direct impact on business operations.

sions of CSR in order to avoid narrowing the concept.

However, especially in recent decades, increasing


concerns about global problems have made people

However, the place and weakness of this component


in the factorial structure somewhat supports the

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility 425


sceptical approaches of these scholars. Thus, this result
of the study may stimulate new discussions and analyses of the legal dimension of CSR definitions in future studies.

In conclusion, although the results of the current

study presented a plausible structure for the scale,


there is surely a need for more research in order to
confirm these results. In particular, studies conducted in different sectors (for instance, NGOs) or
different countries will be useful in this sense.

Baucus, M. S. and D. A. Baucus: 1997, 'Paying the Piper:


An Empirical Examination of Longer-Term Financial
Consequences of Illegal Corporate Behavior', Academy
of Management Journal 40(1), 129-151.

Bragdon, J. H. and J. A. Marlin: 1972, 'Is Pollution


Profitable?', Risk Management 19, 9-18.
Bowen, H. R.: 1953, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Harper & Row, New York).
Bugra, A.: 2003, 'The Place of the Economy in Turkish
Society', Tlte South Atlantic Quarterly 102(2/3), 453470.

Carroll, A. B.: 1979, 'A Three Dimensional Conceptual


Model of Corporate Social Performance', Academy of
Management Review 4(4), 497-505.

Acknowledgement
This article is mainly based on the unpublished master

dissertation of the author. The author is grateful to


Prof. mr N. Timurcanday zmen, Dokuz Eyll

University, for her constant support and advice


throughout this process and Dr. Oyvind Ihlen, University of Oslo, for his valuable comments and suggestions.

Carroll, A. B.: 1991, The Pyramid of Corporate Social


Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of
Organizational Stakeholders', Business Horizons 34(4),
39-48.

Carroll, A. B.: 1999, 'Corporate Social Responsibility Evolution of a Definitional Construct', Business &
Society 38(3), 268-295.

Carroll, A. B.: 2000, 'A Commentary and an Overview


of Key Questions on Corporate Social Performance
Measurement', Business & Society 39(4), 466-478.

References

Charkham, J.: 1994, Keeping Good Company: A Study of

Abbott, W. F. and R. J. Monsen: 1979, 'On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: SelfReported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring
Corporate Social Involvement', Academy of Management Journal 22(3), 501-515.

Ararat, M.: 2004, 'Social Responsibility in a State


Dependent System', in A. Habisch, J. jonker, M.

Corporate Governance in Five Countries (Claredon,


Oxford).
Chen, K. H. and R. W. Metcalf: 1984, 'The Relationship
Between Pollution Control Record and Financial
Indicators Revisited', The Accounting Review 55, 168177.

Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1994. 'A Risk Based Model of


Stakeholder Theory', in Proceedings of the Second Toronto

Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.), Corporate Social

Conference on Stakeholder Theory (Centre for Corporate

Responsibility Across Europe (Springer- Verlag, Berlin),

Social Performance & Ethics University of Toronto,

Chapter 19, pp. 247-261.


Ararat, M.: 2005, 'Drivers for Corporate Social Respon-

Toronto).
Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, 'A Stakeholder Framework for

sibility, Case of Turkey', Working Paper. (Available at:

Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Perfor-

http://info.worldbank.org/ etools/mdfdb/docs/WP_

mance', Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92-117.

UJRC5.pdf).
Ararat, M.: 2006, 'Corporate Social Responsibility Across
Middle East and North Africa', Working Paper. (Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract= 101 5925).

Aupperle, K. E.: 1984, 'An Empirical Measure of Corporate Social Orientation', in L. E. Preston (ed.), Research
in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 6 (JAI,

Greenwich, CT), pp. 27-54.


Bagozzi, R. P., Y. Yi and L. W. Phillips: 1991, 'Assessing

Cortina, J. M.: 1993, 'What is Coefficient Alpha? An


Examination of Theory and Applications', Journal of
Applied Psychology 78(1), 98-104.
Daft, R. L.: 2003, Management (Thomson South- Western,

USA).
Davidson, W. N. and D. L. Worrell: 1990, 'A Comparison and Test of the Use of Accounting and Stock
Market Data in Relating Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance', Akron Business and

Construct Validity in Organizational Research',

Economic Review 21, 7-19. (Cited in Maignan and

Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3), 421-458.

Ferrell, 2000).

Bayiksel, S. .: 2007, 'Hizli Byyen Daha ok Bege-

Davis, K.: 1960, 'Can Business Afford to Ignore Social

niliyor', Capital Magazine. (Available at: http://www.

Responsibilities?', California Management Review 2(3),

capitd.com.tr/haber.aspx?HBR_KOD=%204509).

70-76.

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

426

Duygu

Turker

Davis, K.: 1973, The Case for and Against Business


Assumption of Social Responsibilities', Academy of
Management Journal 16(2), 312-322.

Dawkins, D. and S. Lewis: 2003, 'CSR in Stakeholder


Expectations: and Their Implication for Company
Strategy', Journal of Business Ethics 44(2/3), 185-193.
Eells, R. and C. Walton: 1974, Conceptual Foundations of
Business, 3rd Edition (Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL).

Etheredge, J. M.: 1999, The Perceived Role of Ethics

and Social Responsibility: An Alternative Scale


Structure', Journal of Business Ethics 18, 51-64.

Flam, H.: 2004, Turkey and the EU: Politics and Economics of Accession', CESifo Economic Studies 50(1),
171-210.

Freedman, N. and B. Jaggi: 1982, 'Pollution Disclosures,


Pollution Performance, and Economic Performance',
The International Journal of Management Science 10, 167176.

Freedman, M. and C. Wasley: 1990, The Association

work', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32(1),


3-19.

McGuire, J. W.: 1963, Business and Society (McGraw-Hill,

New York).
McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988,
'Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial
Performance', Academy of Management Journal 31, 854872.

Orpen, C. : 1 987, The Attitudes of United States and South

African Managers to Corporate Social Responsibility',


Journal of Business Ethics 6(2), 89-96.

Ostlund, L. E.: 1977, 'Attitudes of Managers Towards


Corporate Social Responsibility', California Management Review 19(4), 35-49.

Peterson, D. K.: 2004, The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational
Commitment', Business and Society 43(3), 296-319.

Quazi, A. M. and D. O'Brien: 2000, 'An Empirical Test


of a Cross-National Model of Corporate Social

Between Environmental Performance and Environ-

Responsibility', Journal of Business Ethics 25, 33-51.

mental Disclosure in Annual Reports and 10-Ks',

Rockness, J. W.: 1985, 'An Assessment of the Rela-

Advances in Public Interest Accounting 3, 183-193.

Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder

Approach (Pitman, Boston).


Gray, R., R. Kouhy and S. La vers: 1995, * Corporate Social

and Environmental Reporting: A Review of the Litera-

ture and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure',


Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 8(2), 47-77.

Greenwood, M. R.: 2001, The Importance of Stakeholders According to Business Leaders', Business and
Society Review 106(1), 29-49.

Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, R. E. Anderson and R. L.

tionship Between US Corporate Environmental Performance and Disclosure', Journal of Business Finance &

Accounting 12(3), 339-354.


Ruf, B. M., K. Muralidhar and K. Paul: 1998, The

Development of a Systematic, Aggregate Measure of


Corporate Social Performance', Journal of Management

24(1), 119-133.
Sims, R. R.: 2003, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants Fall (Praeger, USA).
Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell, K. C. Rallapalli and K. L.
Kraft: 1996, The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social

Tatham: 2006, Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th Edition


(Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey).
Hosftede, G.: 1980, Culture's Consequences: International

Smith, D.: 1993, The Frankenstein Syndrome: Corpo-

Differences in Work-Related Values (Sage, Thousand

rate Responsibility and the Environment', in D. Smith

Oaks, CA).
Ingram, R. and K. Frazier: 1980, 'Environmental Performance and Corporate Disclosure', Journal of
Accounting Research 18(2), 614-622.

Kongar, E.: 1999. 21. Yzyilda Trkiye: 2000H Yillarda


Tiirkiye'nin Toplumsal Yapisi. Remzi Kitabi, Istanbul.

Mahoney, L. S. and L. Thorne: 2005, 'Corporate Social


Responsibility and Long-Term Compensation: Evidence from Canada', Journal of Business Ethics 57(3),
241-253.

Responsibility: A Scale Development', Journal of


Business Ethics 15, 1131-1140.

(ed.), Business and the Environment: Implications of the

New Environmentalism (Paul Chapman, London), pp.


172-189.

Smith, W. J. and R. S. Blackburn: 1988, 'CSR: A Psychometric Examination of A Measurement Instrument',


Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, 293295.

Votaw, D.: 1972, 'Genius Became Rare: A Comment on

the Doctrine of Social Responsibility', California


Management Review 15(2), 25-31.

Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2000, 'Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the
United States and France', Journal of Business Ethics

23(3), 283-297.

Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2004, 'Corporate Social


Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Frame-

Verdeyen, V., J. Put and B. V. Buggenhout: 2004, 'A


Social Stakeholder Model', International Journal of Social

Welfare 13, 325-331.

Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, The Corporate


Social Performance - Financial Performance Link',
Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303-319.

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility 427


Wheeler, D. and M. Sillanpaa: 1997, Tlte Stakeholder
Corporation: A Blueprint for Maximazing Stakeholder
Value (Pitman, London).

Wheeler, D. and M. Sillanpaa: 1998, 'Including the


Stakeholders: The Business Case', Long Range Planning
31(2), 201-210.

Wherther, W. B. and D. Chandler: 2006, Responsibility:

Wood, D. J. and R. E. Jones: 1995, 'Stakeholder


Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical
Research on Corporate Social Performance', Internationaljournal of Organizational Analysis 3, 229-267.
World Commission on Environment and Development

(WCED): 1987, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

Stakeholders in a Global Environment (Sage, USA).

Vocational School,

Wiseman, J.: 1982, 'An Evaluation of Environmental


Disclosures Made in Corporate Annual Reports',
Accounting, Organizations, and Society 7(1), 53-63.

Wolfe, R. and K. Aupperle: 1991, 'Introduction to


Corporate Social Performance: Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct', in J. E. Post (ed.), Research in

Yasar University,

Kazim Dirik Malt., 364 Sok., No. 5, Bornova,


Izmir 35500, Turkey
E-mail: duygu.turker@yasar.edu. tr

Corporate Social Performance and Policy ; Vol. 12 (JAI


Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 265-268.

This content downloaded from 196.12.203.132 on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Potrebbero piacerti anche