Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
Duygu Turker
on this concept, the measurement of CSR is still problematic. Although the literature provides several methods
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
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
Introduction
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
measure of CSR.
The study contributes to the literature by providing a new, valid, and reliable scale of CSR. Based
study. In the second section, the existing measurement methods and their limitations are reviewed.
responsibility
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
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
the business does for itself, while the latter are what
1998); and internal, external, and societal stakeholders (Wherther and Chandler, 2006, p. 4).
human entities are defined as primary social stakeholders. On the other hand, stakeholders that have
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
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
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
detail.
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
not be helpful for assessing organizational performance by employees who view their work organization as highly responsible on all four CSR domains
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-
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-
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
Research methodology
Literature Review |
Conceptualization of the Scale |
I
Exploratory Survey:
Item generation through exploratory survey
"~
Pilot Survey:
Item selection and examination of validity of
7-point scale through pilot survey (n=30)
i
Assessment- 1 : Item extraction through
Scale design
1991). The first step in the process was the conceptualization of the scale according to the proposed
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were selected from the fourth group. After this selection
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
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
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
data collection method, a self-administered questionnaire was sent via e-mail to management and
business-related mailing groups. These mailing groups
terms of sectors, companies, departments, job positions, and so on. The e-mail included a cover letter
In the next step, the standard validity and reliability of the scale were analyzed through a pilot
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.
Our
Our
Our
Our
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.
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
Items
Factor
Commonalities
28. Our company cooperates with its competi- 0.748 0.401 0.814
tors in social responsibility projects.
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 analyses
had 6-10 years, 5.2% had 1 1-15 years, 7.8% had more
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
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
(eigenvalue 7.230), factor 2 for 13.40%, etc. However, the table shows that there is a cross-loading
70.782% to 71.683%.
The structure of the scale based on factor analysis
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
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.
21. Our company contributes to campaigns and projects that 0.672 0.607
promote the well-being of the society.
19. Our company emphasizes the importance of its social 0.564 0.502 0.635
responsibilities to the society.
9. The managerial decisions related with the employees are 0.728 0.685
usually fair.
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
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
Reliability analysis
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
it can be estimated that the responsibilities to competitors will be more significant in the near future.
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
Acknowledgement
This article is mainly based on the unpublished master
Carroll, A. B.: 1999, 'Corporate Social Responsibility Evolution of a Definitional Construct', Business &
Society 38(3), 268-295.
References
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.
Toronto).
Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, 'A Stakeholder Framework for
http://info.worldbank.org/ etools/mdfdb/docs/WP_
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,
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
Ferrell, 2000).
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
Flam, H.: 2004, Turkey and the EU: Politics and Economics of Accession', CESifo Economic Studies 50(1),
171-210.
New York).
McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988,
'Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial
Performance', Academy of Management Journal 31, 854872.
Peterson, D. K.: 2004, The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational
Commitment', Business and Society 43(3), 296-319.
Greenwood, M. R.: 2001, The Importance of Stakeholders According to Business Leaders', Business and
Society Review 106(1), 29-49.
tionship Between US Corporate Environmental Performance and Disclosure', Journal of Business Finance &
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
Oaks, CA).
Ingram, R. and K. Frazier: 1980, 'Environmental Performance and Corporate Disclosure', Journal of
Accounting Research 18(2), 614-622.
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.
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
Vocational School,
Yasar University,
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