Corporate social responsibility is an integral part of large-scale organization and philanthropic efforts. Organizations reflect their commitment to developing society and protecting the environment in addition to cultivating the best settings for community expansion with their resources. These are fundamentally necessary for the beneficence of global environments and technology innovation. Further, this is a way that customers can attain high-quality products and respond to the expectation and needs of communities through business activities. In these ways it is possible for sustained corporate development to bear intentions of social responsibility (Jones et al., 1980). The principles behind this type of endeavor have long been identified and incorporated throughout meaningful business practices. Philanthropic duties reflect the immediate and long term investment a corporation makes in the society that often fuels their success. It has come to be expected by consumers and is highly pertinent to the way company’s portray themselves through media and self representation. Therefore, the value of corporate social responsibility and philanthropic actions is integral to business success in all industries.
Corporate social responsibility allows companies to integrate social and environmental aspects of value into business operations. This is furthered through interactions with stakeholders and is continued on a voluntary basis. The exercise of social responsibility allows resources to engage within activities and to increase their overall profile amongst consumers at large. Such mechanisms allow businesses to convert social dilemmas into economic opportunities for growth and mutual benefits. Such decisions allow for human competence and abilities to be transformed into wealth and jobs (Crowther et al., 2008). By serving as a driving model for economic development and fiscal growth the corporate social responsibility business function adds value and motivates innovative service experiences. Since society and the work environment that these organizations exist through are interrelated and highly reflective of positive changes, it is possible for corporate social philanthropy and related principles to benefit all people involved with the business process.
Historically, corporate social responsibility has gained meaning and value over the past several decades. It is prominent in academia as well as amongst the business world, affecting all aspects of economic progression. Several trends that have contributed to the rising importance of corporate social responsibility include previously poor business sense in regards to customer service and the unfair treatment of employees. On a larger level, ignoring the environment and consequences of the organization change has resulted in greater dilemmas throughout the business world. Corporate social responsibility is a topic of increasing importance for companies because it is now necessary for long-term success and strategy. It has been seen that a positive sense of corporate social responsibility is beneficial to business and stakeholders. This is conducive to ethical practices and behavior amongst managers and other business executives leading towards the best practices in research and performance (Crowther et al., 2008). Not only is it demanded and often necessary to the long term success of all types of corporations, but it creates a sense of value and strategy that is beneficial and regarded as exhibiting fairness from a moral sense. These ethical decisions are integral in the determining of beneficial social value in the eyes of customers and contributors alike.
In a greater sense, corporate social responsibility adheres to the standards set by society. Business must take into account the responsibilities they have towards society in terms of decision making towards standards that community integration. The term ‘social responsibility’ allows for well intentioned and objective addressing of the needs that society sets for businesses operating within their economy. This means restraining destructive performance and activities in favor of those business decisions that relate to the positive conditions and betterment of the human condition (Cadbury, 2006). The mitigation of these risks is beneficial from a preemptive business sense. It allows for responsibility and community value that is based on the well-being of employees and the customers and businesses they serve. These are useful and well-set standards that members of the community adhere to in their individual actions and respect in corporate decision making as well.
The definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) relates to the way an organization performs particular actions and decisions in favor of creating the best standards within society. A corporation can be understood as a device for obtaining individual profits without separated responsibility. Since many businesses are incorporated, this alludes to a legal protection mechanism that allows personal liabilities to be forgone. CSR is then explained as a concept through which companies voluntarily benefit stakeholder groups and contribute to the betterment of society and their environment. This is done through operational processes and incorporation of specified needs and values. Those who advocate the best practices in CSR content those businesses should not only maximize profits but work towards CSR activities that contribute to imperative business objectives. This creates a standard of citizenship that addresses economic value and ethics. In this way a sense of philanthropic corporate social responsibility (PCSR) is cultivated (Cadbury, 2006). The legal nature of representation and resolution is one that creates different types of responses. Since there are significant values of CSR that can be practiced through communication with the public and through legal procedures it is in the best interest of the organization that all measures reflect the highest integrity in social and community responsibility. Such influential ethical regard creates quality organizations and a greater public image, ultimately leading to more sales from customers who trust their provider.
In examining the attitude of corporate responsibility and social values in Malaysia several trends have been noted for managers and executive within large corporations. The degree of commitment executives have towards social activities, corporate disclosure and principles guiding their actions contribute to the overall way business ethics are interpreted in this country. One study found that most corporate executives believed that business involvement in community betterment allows for the improvement of long-term profitability and performance. Nearly 65% of those surveyed also agreed that socially responsible philanthropic activities provide a positive public image. In Malaysia there are notable differences between the attitudes of executives in different industries such as banking, manufacturing, telecommunications and construction. Nevertheless, all those surveyed found that company involvement in socially responsible activities agreed to the need for customer service and maintenance of quality products and communication. There is room for improvement within each sector regarding the practices of corporate information regarding social responsibility towards the community as well as in integrating traditional beliefs amongst common business practices. Many of these differences are contingent to the consumer beliefs and attitudes that demonstrate adherence to traditional ideas and systems of evaluation. Customary morals or ethical values are also integrated into the consumer mindset and affect their perception of corporate social responsibility (Abdul, 2002). In defining this market the subtle differences across industries are highly diverse and yield a unique marketplace that reflects constant change. These institutionalized decisions and governing forces play a critical role in the flow and trends within corporate social responsibility. Still, the city of Kuala Lumpur is highly valuable because of the great scope of ethical conduct and types of demonstrations that were prompted by PCSR core values and exemplified actions.
Throughout Asia, there have been rising trends of customer awareness in corporate social responsibility and philanthropic activities. Research has found a greater deal of social disclosure and indications of development in Malaysia and other developing countries throughout Asia. These rising trends are related to the disclosure that is used to inform stakeholders and employees. Presently employees have relatively low levels of awareness for PCSR in local organizations within Malaysia. This is notable because there is a consistent trend for this tacit unawareness regardless of company size and sector. Since this is prevalent, it may be beneficial for greater emphasis and education regarding CSR and financial performance in Malaysia (Ramasamy et al., 2004). There are great values of PCSR that relate to the impact of economic and cultural significant throughout Malaysia. These phenomena are consistent with the best practices of corporate responsibility in their ability to meet the demands and needs of a consumer demographic. Since many individuals are not familiar with standards for this type of care, it has been less of a challenge for organizations to address. This trend is changing with more education and social integration of mass media and exposure to CSR standards from other countries.
Presently there is a burgeoning impact of philanthropic corporate social responsibility toward customer attitudes of mobile phone network providers in Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia on a whole. The telecommunications industry has unique facets within Malaysia because of restrictions created by the Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). Since the number of corporations allowed in this sector is limited it is unique from other groups or systems of business within Kuala Lumpur. The industry has also reflected more than one hundred million in Malaysia. A number of corporate social responsibility actions have related to environmental concerns, welfare, community involvement and the development of quality products and services. Some examples of CSR activities created by telecommunications companies include pollution control; ensuring products comply with environmental conditions and telecast frequencies that promote the recycling of mobile devices. Welfare is supported through contributions of money and community involvement through infrastructure development such as buildings, libraries and schools. Comprehensive insurance coverage and contributions or donations as well as conducting the necessary tests to create community health and safety are further performed by mobile service providers in Kuala Lumpur and overall in Malaysia (Mohammed et al., 2007). The scope and context of this investigation allows for a better understanding of trends and stipulations in PCSR within the microcosm of Kuala Lumpur’s telecommunications industry. Since the players are limited within this service production the comprehensive attention of support allows for development within the immediate community for meaningful transitions towards betterment and sustained PCSR. These are applicable within a broader context of consumer electronic industries in Malaysia and Asia on a whole.
Academic Research Theories
Philanthropic Corporate Social Responsibility is a subset of Corporate Social Responsibility. It is divided into areas regarded as economical, ethical, legal and philanthropic. As much of the literature has been expanded to impact the CSR and overall customer attitude, it is important the future research designate the impact of philanthropic CSR throughout customer attitudes.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s the constructs of CSR began to change. Unique aspects of change as well as the overall performance standards that have resulted in unique and pertinent themes in corporate analysis and interest within the past half-century delineated these. Such changes create a balanced scope and view of important transitions internationally, and specifically within Kuala Lumpur (Carroll 1999).
In defining the role and responsibility of corporations to philanthropic activities throughout societies there are numerous paradigms for assessing the variables and related ideas behind systematic change and progress. These are based on the obligations that a corporation has towards the community and economy in which they are successful. Since a variety of the resources contributing to their success involve consumers and the environment there are four framework that relate to the way they maximize their value and duty towards national beneficence (Brusseau, James 2015). The use of academic frameworks and conceptual models is useful to make the maximum impact on theory and implementation standards within PCSR. It is further necessary to create a useful strategy and plan for engagement with consumers at a public relations level. Economic success lends itself to better philanthropy that can be gauged through a universal framework of social responsibility and corporate syndication.
Economic Responsibility: The greatest need that corporations have is towards making money and generating revenue. This is a matter of economics and is the obligation a business has towards survival. Whether an endeavor is for profit, public or private, there are contingent needs for businesses to create profit in order to sustain development and continue to grow. In turn, the means for providing valuable services and presence within the economy is beneficial (Brusseau, James 2015). This aspect of academic and philosophical clarity illustrate the way that human resources, employees, stakeholder opinions and profits can be monitored through economic stimulation of job and labor production as well as best practices in management. These business decisions affect the way that a company is able to perform and fulfill economic obligations for the best impacts in macro and micro marketplace related performance. It has been seen that the impact of enterprises is meant to be had on consumers. Since their targets and implementation standards for each goal will be delineated based on burgeoning performance measurements and economic requirements, the general trend will be towards social responsibility as quantifiable through consumer experience. Overall, those firms that are strongly motivated by profit will engage in a greater deal of socially responsible activities or behavior (Caroll, 1999).
Legal Responsibility: The rules and regulations that a business asserts and maintains are further important and have been noted through controversial extents based on the particular scheme or implications of business ethic. This obligation with respect to PCSR is defined as a proactive duty within basic operations and practices. Responsible organizations are able to accept rules and mandate their implementation for social good and good faith. This is contrary to skirting existing policies and attempting to benefit profits at the expense of citizens. Corporate social responsibilities exist when businesses affirm legal limitations and obey them regardless of the monetary outcome (Brusseau, James 2015). This aspect of theory and frameworks assess the way that legal action can be taken or avoided in order to create the best ethical standards of implementation and problem resolution. These factors are more essentially integrated in the way that a company standardizes their care and the better implementation of business ethics than the specific problems that arise. Therefore sound logistics for legal proceedings must be utilized in order to gain momentum and for organization’s dependent aspects of success to be fulfilled.
Ethical Responsibility: This is an imperative to what employees and executives consider to be right whether or not the specific actions are syndicated by legal proceedings. This implies that corporate culture inherently understands itself as a service to society with obligations that membership within a community requires. The application of this framework asserts the moral value of life and well being that implies its practice within business decisions and consequences. This is seen in a commitment to environmental, individual, and community welfare and can be measured outside of profitable actions (Brusseau, James 2015). An underlying ethical responsibility towards the society and communities that benefit corporate success is inherent in all models of theoretical analysis. The best practices in legal, societal and infrastructure development can culminate within certain aspects of society on a regular basis. These intersections are demonstrative of thoughtful ethical standards that lend themselves to the best practices of PCSR inherently. When businesses are asked to create broader services in response to consumer satisfaction, broad responsibilities and human values must be addressed through philanthropic activity. The obligation towards improving social environments and assuming the best practices in responsibility are aligned with an outer circle of objectives (Carroll, 1999).
Philanthropic Responsibility: This paradigm contributes to a society’s project and includes moral guidance independent of the specific business needs. Actions of this variety involve generosity and contribute to the views of business. These obligations towards welfare are determined by the community and create an understanding. Such responsibilities come into question in light of profitability decisions and the way that businesses handle potential disputes. This model allows for an overall adherence to community standards to be gauged in light of clarity and empathy or respect in business community involvement. Variables that create diversity amongst these paradigms include corporate earnings, feasibility of socially responsible actions, and engagement with corporate resources (Brusseau, James 2015). Such flexibility and diversity are tools to create the maximum value for success amongst individuals and economic systems on a whole. These meaningful approaches and strategies create a diversified approach to major and minor problems that arise within corporate social responsibility. The ways that disputes are mitigated and potential good resources are made available is evident to consumers and are often a basis of product or service comparison. Therefore philanthropic duty promotes profits and the most suitable practices to remain competitive amongst existing and new clientele. In addition to the social responsibility of performing basic economic value as well as towards a general sense of economic function within the society, businesses have a duty towards allowing society to reach its greater goals. There have been implementations of this throughout time and the affect of consumer satisfaction allows diversification in this area (Carroll, 1999).
It is possible for businesses to demonstrate implementation and responsible behaviors towards the way that profit-making activities are formed. This illustrates the way that sustainability and responsibility are supported through theories evident in social science and the humanities as well as overall business performance. In assessing these findings, there is a clear link between corporate social performance and financial performance. Authors have demonstrated several concepts with respect to stakeholder engagement to show the value and perception of business activities in these ways. The benefits of such progress are evident because of the differentiation that CSR practices have between competing organizations. It is another way that social responsibility can help businesses have a competitive advantage long term. The best application of concepts underlying academic theory in ethics and social responsibility are used to form the maximum corporate sustainability. This is contingent to the adaptive approach for attaining competitive advantages as well as in orienting strategy to meet the perceived demands of stakeholders and organizational constraints to benefit the firm and society (Camilleri, 2015).
Social performance can be characterized by the continued success of public image generating and facilitating practices. Examples of this are found throughout the field of public relations and create a standard for delivery and presentation within the planning and implementation of PCSR. There are further benefits to this image being cultivated that include an overall sense of trust that drives employees and consumers alike to the goods and services provided by an organization. This type of reputation is essential to the meaningful expansion that organizations can endure provided businesses practices are optimized.
The conceptual framework used in this investigation will pertain to the underlying impact of CSR on customer attitudes. This will be in relation to the efficacy of contributions within the telecommunication industry of Malaysia. Based on differentiating changes, the framework allows for clear evidence of the relationship between changes within the customer service and technology industry and the overall attitude customers reflect towards the corporate social responsibility measure taken by the company. The assessment of these outcomes provides a universal and broad scope of reason in the paradigm of direct relationships between variables in social responsibility.
Since there are significant values associated with environmental sustainability, community welfare and engagement in infrastructure development, these aspects will be addressed. Economic responsibility will be gauged in terms of the profitability of endeavors and the consequences of financial dispositions asserted through integrated activities and circumstances. In light of the legal and economic exchange from federal policies in Malaysia the unique nature of the telecommunication industry will be integrated into a research perspective that addresses legal frameworks of rationalization and standards. Ethical responsibility will be measured in terms of the major decisions of engagement that mobile providers create and adhere through throughout the recent decades. Since the standards of telecommunications can be quantified in terms of social and moral integrity, this framework will analyze the way that these results are significant and evident throughout society. Finally, the philanthropic dimension of sustainable PCSR practices are identified throughout specific actions and contributions from mobile service providers. This analysis will include the assets, socially responsible business decisions, and philanthropic public relations that are evident throughout the implementation of ethics and standards throughout Malaysia. In order to set the standard for such practices a discussion of international ethics for PCSR are described in this documentation.
Key Terms in Conceptual Frameworks
Every variable or component shown in the conceptual framework should be defined briefly. Profits are one term that illustrates integral means necessary for promoting ethically sound and valuable decisions within an organization. This is contingent to costs and benefits, the related entities that furnish businesses with their subsequent financial success. There is an optimum standard of PCSR that contributes to profit maximization and allows for revenue increases to balance with the practical use of resources for consumer satisfaction and respect. Meeting this threshold through the various aspects of conceptual design allow the stake holders demands as well as those of consumers, employees and the community to be equivocal and unanimously favorable for the business endeavor (Camilleri, 2015). Since profits are of critical importance towards the best functions of PCSR and related business activities these decisions must be made with a great degree of caution. They are further useful to benefiting funds and cultivation of standards for the longterm success of businesses and employees. By receiving more revenue, philanthropic decisions can increase in scope and number, allowing for a useful strategy to be designed and implemented with great impact. The host of variables contingent to this successful process can be delineated through previously accomplished social and business research. Standards that influence the decisions corporations make on a regular basis are also relevant to this discussion in terms of standards that are set and met to create strong values and core ethics within the business.
An important result of these actions is the value that consumers place on social responsibility and ethical marketing practices. Since consumers who are satisfied with the public image and philanthropic activities of an organization may see their products and services in a better light, they are then more likely to engage and participate in the best value and continued marketing initiatives. The customer base is increased through this same modality and lends itself to the development of strategic corporate social responsibility as well as greater revenue. Additional to the consumer benefits of these practices, more employees are attracted to organizations that share values and acknowledge the need for responsible entrepreneurship. Internal efficiency and value contributes to the way that savings are generated as well as the management of challenges within specified business environments. The knowledge of this performance is indispensible and is dependent on the CSR communication an organization provides and promotes (Camilleri, 2015). This type of identification principles is guided by the value that consumer satisfaction has on the way that corporate responsibility is measured and carried out. By performing tasks that are meaningful to the customer and to the business, the chance of repeated services is integral to the way that practices are endured and cultivated. It also demonstrates the candor and rigor that a corporation is willing to implement for the safety and value of their consumers.
Overall, the greatest implication for corporate social responsibility will be delineated through customer satisfaction. With regards to the implications provided by changes in company policy or culture, there are significant differences in terms of real-world application and decimation of resources within social norms. The results of integrated changes will have an affect on the overall customer satisfaction with products, services, and company public image (Carroll, 1999).
There are diversified variables that apply to the way that this analysis will be conducted. These involve both dependent and independent variables pertaining to PCSR and its qualifications. Independent variables in this analysis are those that are controlled by the corporation and can be defined regardless of the circumstance of business practice or ethics. These include PCSR communication, budgetary allocation, Ethical standards and Profit maximization strategies. The communication methods are integral to success for PCSR since they relate to the community the principles and activities that a corporation supports. Further, the budgetary standards that are integrated into a company’s image of social responsibility can create a lasting impression amongst stakeholders and employees about the organizations dedication to social responsibility and fundamental tenants that indicate moral and ethical integrity. This is a complex variable since it is a function of the available resources and necessary standards imposed by the society. However, it is independent of business functions and profits since the allocations and policies adopted are initial, and acted upon by the business executives. This is contrary to standards being a result of available resources (Camilleri, 2015). While public image and relations are highly valuable aspects ot beneficial corporate policy, they are only perfunctory to the best practices of PCSR. The philanthropic gestures that an organization chooses must be implanted in such a way that they can create a meaningful and lasting impact within society without changing policies or bending the organizational resources beyond the scope of beneficence and utilitarian significance.
Dependent variables are those that can provide evidence of proper implementation of CSR standards include increased profit and revenue. These concepts are contingent to the efficacy of community involvement as well as perceived public image. Another variable involves stakeholder satisfaction. When the PCSR standards are maintained through independent assertion and business ethics, it becomes possible for greater profits and revenue to arise within the business process on a whole. This is because of the way that implementation standards are perceived by employees, consumers, and stakeholders simultaneously. When the favorable interpretation of independent corporate angles is available, it becomes possible for the maximization of dependent attributes within the management cycle such as greater funds and resources as well as revenue (Camilleri, 2015). These strategies can be used for augmenting existing protocol as well as for the enhancement of profitable standards. This is done in a tasteful way and is not counterproductive to the efficiency of business modeling and practices. By strengthening these strategies and modalities of public image creation, the inherent value of CSR is recognized and created on a consistent basis. The most relevant dependent variable to the process of further investigation is consumer satisfaction. This is measured through standardized tools that reflect changes that consumers note in policy and implementation standards. These are relevant to the overall benefit of societal and ethical standards, as well as the economic requirements for best practices in business function (Carroll, 1999). The overall score and rating of consumer satisfaction is beneficial to an understanding of how each corporation or mobile service provider is viewed and perceived throughout the communities they serve.
Overall these variables are connected through the best practices of corporate responsibility and indoctrinate the way that their internal and external environments can value organizations. By providing the best services and quality in human resources and other management policies, it is in the best interest of the business to create individualized plans for the success and longevity of their organization. These standards can be measured through the described conceptual framework as well as in reference to the particular attributes of community responsibility that varies based on each company and industry. With respect to mobile cellular providers within Malaysia, the telecommunications industry allows for a variegated plane of interpretation and public value. It also creates a lasting impression of the success standards that create beneficence for companies, individuals, and related ideologies. In this application of traditional theories and conceptual expertise it will become possible to see the connections of PCSR in evidence and case study, as well as through the interpretive results of dependent and independent variables.
The literature explains a variegated set of principles that govern analysis within this aspect of corporate social responsibility. Since there are variegated needs that consumers have throughout the economy and society, a truly beneficial PCSR policy will address multidimensional aspects of the maximum success for the most people throughout their endeavors. Such methods are useful for the integrated role of consumerism within the marketplace and promote social responsibility amongst the private and public sector through ethical demands and societal principles. In discerning the ethical and academic significance of these elements is useful in understanding the broad scope of PCSR practice and theory. The bridge between these two aspects of corporate interest can be bridged to form a unique and meaningful association between societal values and business ethics. The case study of Malaysia and mobile service providers is integral to this analysis because it demonstrates care ethics and core principles that are inherent in an emerging market within Asia, that further reflects trends throughout the world.
Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of management journal, 22(3), 501-515.
Abdul, Z., & Ibrahim, S. (2002). Executive and management attitudes towards corporate social responsibility in Malaysia. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 2(4), 10-16.
Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51-79.
Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. G. (2005). Editorial Setting new agendas: critical perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the developing world.International Affairs, 81(3), 499-513.
Bronn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: an overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20(2), 207-222.
Brusseau, James (2015). The Business Ethics Workshop 1.0 | Flat World Education . Retrieved 22 February 2015, from http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/1695?e=brusseau-ch13_s02#brusseau-chab
Cadbury, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility. Twenty-First Century Society, 1(1), 5-21.
Camilleri, Mark (2015). CSR 2.0 – A Conceptual Framework for Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility . Retrieved 22 February 2015, from http://www.academia.edu/5225299/CSR_2.0_-_A_Conceptual_Framework_for_Corporate_Sustainability_and_Responsibility
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 32(3), 946-967.
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., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Council, E. B., & Toze, M. (2012). Corporate social responsibility.
Crowther, D., & Aras, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility. Bookboon.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 15(1), 1-13.
Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59-100.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the united states: An Institutional‐Stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47-73.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication.International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19.
Dubielzig, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2005). Corporate social responsibility.Handlexikon Public Affairs. Münster: Lit Verlag, 240-243.
Frankental, P. (2001). Corporate social responsibility-a PR invention?.Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 18-23.
GOAL, C., & Goal, W. S. (1987). Corporate social responsibility.
Jenkins, R. (2005). Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty.International affairs, 81(3), 525-540.
Jones, T. M., Indexes, S., Register, E. I., & Socially, M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 22(2).
KEITH, N. (2008). Corporate social responsibility.
Lantos, G. P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of consumer marketing, 18(7), 595-632.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of marketing, 68(4), 16-32.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of marketing, 70(4), 1-18.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing science, 32(1), 3-19.
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497-514.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility.Academy of management review, 33(2), 404-424.
McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications*. Journal of management studies, 43(1), 1-18.
Mohamed, M. B., & Sawandi, N. B. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities in mobile telecommunication industry: case study of Malaysia. In European Critical Accounting Conference, Scotland, UK.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies.Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323-338.
Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of-effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus nonfinancial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38(2), 141-159.
Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1996). The association between corporate social-responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of business Ethics, 15(3), 321-357.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92.
Prasad, C. A. I. S., Sharada, C. S. S. C., & Kumar, C. A. S. (2001). Corporate social responsibility.
Ramasamy, B., & Woan Ting, H. (2004). A comparative analysis of corporate social responsibility awareness. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2004(13), 109-123.
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 503-530.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world’s most successful firms. Journal of Business ethics, 48(2), 175-187.