• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

The social impact of corporate social responsibility: A case study

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Dissertation
Author: Brooke E Forester
Abstract:
With increasing attention being given to corporate social responsibility (CSR) by scholars, it has become apparent that the focus has been somewhat one sided in nature, with the bulk of attention going to the corporate motives, processes, and outcomes of such efforts. Less prevalent has been a focus on the beneficiaries of CSR, and thus lost in the conversation has been the critical aspect of "social impact" of such activities (Porter & Kramer, 2006). The purpose of the current study was to explore the idea of social impact, by qualitatively assessing the outcomes of a golf management company CSR initiative within the elementary school system. Through a series of interviews with program stakeholders, secondary document analysis, and personal observations, the researchers were able to assess the impact on participants (N=23), make suggestions for improvement for the future, and ascertain the degree of strategic congruence between the program and the overall corporate mission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. viii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................................. 7 Significance of Study .......................................................................................................... 7 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................................................... 8 Corporate Social Responsibility ......................................................................................... 8 CSR – Historical and Definitional Evolution ..................................................................... 8 Corporate Social Responsibility Defined............................................................................ 9 CSR - The 1960‘s............................................................................................ 10 CSR – The 1970‘s ........................................................................................... 11 CSR – The 1980‘s ........................................................................................... 13 CSR – The 1990‘s ........................................................................................... 15 Contemporary CSR ......................................................................................... 16 CSR Practices.................................................................................................................... 19 Summary ......................................................................................................... 20 CSR - Theoretical Approaches ......................................................................................... 21 CSR Research ................................................................................................................... 23 Legal Implications .......................................................................................... 25 Financial Implications ..................................................................................... 27 Stakeholders .................................................................................................... 33 Employee Reactions to CSR ........................................................................... 35 Consumer Reactions to CSR ........................................................................... 38 Society and the Environment as Stakeholders ................................................ 44 Social Impact .................................................................................................................... 46

v

Social Impact Defined..................................................................................... 48 Social Impact – Measurement Challenges ...................................................... 49 CSR in the Sport Industry ................................................................................................. 51 Philanthropy .................................................................................................... 51 Business Ethics/Codes of Conduct ................................................................. 53 Cause Related Marketing ................................................................................ 54 Volunteerism ................................................................................................... 57 Environmental Concerns ................................................................................. 58 Human Rights ................................................................................................. 59 Community Economic Development .............................................................. 60 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 61 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 62 Research Design................................................................................................................ 62 Reflexivity....................................................................................................... 64 Unit of Analysis .............................................................................................. 64 Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 65 XYZ Golf Management Corporation .............................................................. 65 The Introductory Golf Program ...................................................................... 66 Participants ...................................................................................................... 67 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 67 Interview Guide Rationale .............................................................................. 68 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 70 Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 72 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 73 Sample............................................................................................................................... 73 Observations ..................................................................................................................... 76 Rural Elementary School – Golf Program Observation ................................................... 76 Rural Elementary – Physical Education Observation ....................................................... 79 Rural Middle School – Golf Program Observation .......................................................... 80 Rural Middle School – Physical Education Observation .................................................. 83

vi

Charter Middle School – Physical Education Observation............................................... 85 Synthesis of Findings ........................................................................................................ 87 Student Interviews ............................................................................................................ 93 Physical Education Teacher Interviews .......................................................................... 111 Golf Instructor Interview ................................................................................................ 112 Corporate Owner Interview ............................................................................................ 115 Document Analysis ......................................................................................................... 117 Descriptive Themes ........................................................................................................ 119 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 121 Summary of Results ........................................................................................................ 121 Discussion of Results ...................................................................................................... 123 Implications..................................................................................................................... 133 Limitation and Delimitations .......................................................................................... 136 Future Research .............................................................................................................. 136 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 138 APPENDIX A – Human Subjects Approval Letter .................................................................... 140 APPENDIX B – Parental Consent Form .................................................................................... 140 APPENDIX C – Child Assent Form ........................................................................................... 146 APPENDIX D – Student Interview Protocol .............................................................................. 148 APPENDIX E – XYZ Golf Management Owner Interview Protocol ........................................ 151 APPENDIX F – Golf Instruction Interview Protocol ................................................................. 153 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 155 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................................................................... 1531

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Prioritizing Social Issues ............................................................................................... 5

Table 4.1 Participant Information ................................................................................................ 73

Table 4.2 Observation Data Coding............................................................................................. 87

Table 4.3 Student Interview Data Coding.................................................................................... 93

viii

ABSTRACT

With increasing attention being given to corporate social responsibility (CSR) by scholars, it has become apparent that the focus has been somewhat one sided in nature, with the bulk of attention going to the corporate motives, processes, and outcomes of such efforts. Less prevalent has been a focus on the beneficiaries of CSR, and thus lost in the conversation has been the critical aspect of ―social impact‖ of such activities (Porter & Kramer, 2006). The purpose of the current study was to explore the idea of social impact, by qualitatively assessing the outcomes of a golf management company CSR initiative within the elementary school system. Through a series of interviews with program stakeholders, secondary document analysis, and personal observations, the researchers were able to assess the impact on participants (N=23), make suggestions for improvement for the future, and ascertain the degree of strategic congruence between the program and the overall corporate mission.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a common practice for businesses across all industries. From the largest oil companies such as Exxon Mobile to home improvement stores including Home Depot and Lowes, it seems all corporations are increasingly supporting socially responsible practices. In all business sectors there are countless examples of social responsibility and corporate giving. For example, Hewlett Packard (HP) has contributed more than $44 million in HP Technology for Teaching for over 850 schools worldwide, and in the last 20 years HP has also given over $1 billion in cash and equipment to schools, universities and many other nonprofits around the globe (Hewlett Packard, 2006). More recently, in the last five years, Hewlett Packard has invested over $277 million in education, e-inclusion, and communities all over the world (Hewlett Packard, 2006). Toyota is concerned with its environmental impact and has created five goals to guide the company: (1) improve fuel efficiency, (2) promote fuel diversification, (3) develop advanced vehicle technologies, (4) promote advanced vehicle transportation solutions, and (5) reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions across the company‘s operations (Toyota, 2007). Seemingly all companies are interested in various philanthropic and corporate responsibility endeavors including General Mills with their goal of ―nourishing communities,‖ IBM who wants to provide ―innovative use of technology to solve problems,‖ and Wachovia with their desire to help foster ―stronger communities‖ (The Center on Philanthropy, 2007). Sport organizations have also committed a great amount of time and resources to CSR initiatives. Extejt (2004) reported 66% of all sport teams in the four major leagues host some type of charitable fund. Examples of other socially responsible activities sponsored by the leagues include Major League Baseball‘s (MLB) Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities (RBI) which exists to provide disadvantaged youth an opportunity to learn and play baseball (Minnesota Twins, 2008). Another example is the National Football League‘s ―Recharge! Energizing After- School‖ program for youth which is designed to help children learn and practice good nutrition and also adopt healthy physical activity habits (Join the Team, 2008). Sport product organizations also engage in CSR activities. Adidas sponsors a variety of socially responsible

2

initiatives, one of which includes the funding of the Sudhaar Education and school infrastructure program where parents are motivated to keep their children in school and better education is provided for all children. Nike invested over $100 million in product and cash donations in 2003 and 2004. Further, they have pledged an additional $315 million in community programs through 2011. The sentiments of Nike‘s CEO, Mark Parker, echo those of other sport and non- sport corporate leaders. He stated, ―We [Nike] see corporate responsibility as a catalyst for growth and innovation, an integral part of how we can use the power of our brand, the energy and passion of our people, and the scale of our business to create meaningful change‖ (Nike, 2006, p. 4).

Overview of the Problem In summer, 2007, the Journal of Sport Management editors issued a call for papers on CSR in sport. They mentioned how CSR is one of the most important topics in management academia and also in business settings, but to date, the study of CSR within sport has been largely neglected. With such a great emphasis placed on CSR, practically and academically, it stands to reason that Sport Management as a discipline should devote considerable attention to the study of this important construct. The objective of this special issue in the Journal of Sport Management, is consistent with objectives in beginning a new CSR research agenda: ―To improve the theoretical and applied knowledge and understanding of CSR relative to sport‖ (Journal of Sport Management, p. 1). The goal of this study is to provide both theoretical and practical contributions to the study of CSR in sport and more specifically, to explore social outcomes associated with sport related CSR initiatives. As noted, CSR has become a common component of the corporate environment, with a variety of practices employed by organizations across all industries. However, the impact (or lack thereof) of these various programs has yet to be studied within the sport context. In the general management literature there are a substantial number of articles published concerning CSR, most of which are conceptual in nature. A large portion of the empirical research has focused on the outcomes of CSR, including legal implications, stakeholder outcomes/benefits, and financial outcomes. Overwhelmingly, most of the research on CSR has

3

been associated with financial outcomes such as return on investment (ROI) and changes in share prices (Rowley & Berman, 2000; Walsh, Weber, & Margolis, 2003). Certainly the financial implications of CSR are of great importance, but the social outcomes of these programs could arguably be of equal importance. As CSR research becomes more popular, researchers have begun to suggest new agendas for a better understanding of the construct and its potential impacts. Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, and Ganapathi (2007) discussed the many studies which found a positive link between CSR and CFP (corporate financial performance) should allow researchers to move forward and focus on how CSR efforts can foster positive social change. In fact, Aguilera et al. (2007) suggested researchers should no longer focus on whether CSR works, but should instead seek to determine how organizations may impart social change. Aguilera et al. (2007) are not alone in their suggestions of this new CSR research agenda. McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright (2006) highlighted the need to understand how provisions of social goods, through CSR, affect society. Companies worldwide provide various goods to society through socially responsible initiatives. Consequently, researchers have begun to emphasize the need to understand what effects, if any, social goods are having on society. Specific companies themselves indicated they too have an interest in this idea of social impact. In Nike‘s 2005 CSR report, one of the company‘s long term goals was to begin to measure social impact qualitatively. An excerpt of the report shows the company‘s concern regarding social impact: A critical task in these last two years was to focus on impact and develop a systematic approach to measure it. We‘re still working hard at this. How do we know if a worker‘s experience on the contract factory floor has improved, or if our community investments helped improve a young person‘s life? We‘re not sure anyone has cornered the market in assessing real, qualitative social impact. We are grappling with those challenges now. In FY07-08, we will continue working with key stakeholders to determine the best measures. We aim to have a simple set of agreed upon indicators that form a baseline and then to measure in sample areas around the world (p.11). Implementing a CSR agenda with a focus on social impact will no doubt require a complete restructuring of the traditional philanthropy model most companies use, and Nike recognizes this

4

challenge. It was also noted in Nike‘s 2005 CSR report the company believed measuring CSR impact by dollar amounts kept them ―locked into a traditional philanthropy model‖ (p. 79). The idea of restructuring traditional philanthropy programs is the foundation of a framework proposed by Harvard scholars, Porter and Kramer (2006). Their model of strategic philanthropy is like none ever proposed before. According to Porter and Kramer (2006), there are two main reasons why many CSR efforts are not as productive as they possibly could be. First, they argue most companies often pit business against society when clearly (or perhaps not so clearly), neither can exist without the other. This seems like such an elementary concept, yet at the same time is easily overlooked. The second major problem stressing the unproductive CSR efforts is companies‘ generic take on CSR instead of focusing strategic philanthropic activities. Porter and Kramer (2006) placed a great deal of emphasis on the notion of social impact and purported that before a corporation engages in CSR activities, it must first be determined which social issues should be addressed. In order for both society and the corporation to gain maximum benefit from the activities, the corporation must select socially responsible activities which are in alignment with the particular business (Porter & Kramer, 2002; 2006). Porter and Kramer (2006) provided a simplistic categorization of determining which social issues are in the best interests of a corporation and society, divided into three categories: general social issues, value chain social impacts, and social dimensions of competitive context. Generic social issues are important to society but are not significantly affected by a company‘s operations and have no impact on the long-term competitiveness of the company. Value chain social impacts are significantly affected by a company‘s activities through the everyday course of business but this is still not the most important category. What is most beneficial to the company and to society are social dimensions of competitive context. Social dimensions of competitive context are defined as ―factors in the external environment that significantly affect the underlying drivers of competitiveness in those places where the company operates (Porter & Kramer, 2006, p.8). The table below provides a summary of Porter and Kramer‘s (2006) conceptualization.

5

Table 1.1 Prioritizing Social Issues Generic Social Issues

Value Chain Social Impacts

Social Dimensions of Competitive Context

Social issues that are not significantly affected by a company‘s operations nor materially affect its long - term competitiveness

Social issues that are significantly affected by a company‘s activities in the ordinary course of business.

Social issues in the external environment that significantly affect the underlying drivers of a company‘s competitiveness in the location where it operates.

Source: Porter & Kramer, 2006, p. 85 The authors suggested every company should group social issues into these categories and then rank them in terms of potential impact. This three category classification of social issues provides the conceptual framework for the present study. As mentioned earlier, one of Nike‘s goals written in the CSR report indicates that the corporation has a direct interest in better understanding the social impact of their CSR initiatives. This is where the framework proposed by Porter and Kramer (2006) may be useful. Potentially, Nike would be able to determine if their CSR efforts are indeed improving conditions for factory employees, and subsequently, if those improvements are providing a competitive advantage. Not only could Nike benefit from the framework and ideas proposed by Porter and Kramer, but so could non-sport corporations such as Wal-Mart. Although it is not explicitly stated in Wal- Mart‘s CSR report, they do hint at the ideas proposed by Porter and Kramer emphasizing the need to match companies‘ unique attributes with CSR efforts. In Wal-Mart‘s CSR report it was written that one of their future goals is to, ―increase internal alignment between social and commercial objectives, factoring labor compliance and social responsibility into purchasing decisions‖ (Wal-Mart, 2007, p. 5). Internal alignment is precisely what Porter and Kramer emphasize as being key to the success of any CSR program.

6

Major for-profit corporations are not the only organizations which are facing challenges concerning the effectiveness of their CSR initiatives. Professional athletes who have decided to create charitable organizations are also faced with similar challenges. A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted the problems with professional athletes spending too much on administrative costs instead of giving directly to the causes they wish to support (Knecht, 2007). In line with Porter and Kramer‘s (2006) assertions, Knecht mentioned how athletes‘ charitable organizations often emphasize how donors should not be concerned with the expenses associated with the organization but instead, be more concerned with the actual mission – or social impact – of the organization. Knecht (2007) wrote, ―They [charitable organizations] also say finances aren‘t the only measure worth watching; donors should also consider how effective a charity is at its mission‖ (p.1). Again, this highlights the basic tenets of Porter and Kramer‘s (2006) framework in which they emphasized focusing on social impact rather than solely focusing on financial outcomes. In 1999, Porter and Kramer presented a new agenda for philanthropy which was structured to create value. They provided four ways foundations in particular would be able to make a greater positive impact on society and wrote, ―Foundations create value when their activities generate social benefits that go beyond the mere purchasing value of their grants‖ (p.3). The main point of this article, like the more recent articles written by the authors in 2002 and 2006, is that foundations must use some type of performance appraisals as a means to evaluate their social impact. While this piece was written almost 10 years ago, there seems to be little change in the way foundations and other CSR programs evaluate their efforts. This is evident in the Wall Street Journal article written by Knecht in 2007. It is time both researchers and corporations begin to take a more emphatic approach to assessing if their CSR efforts are indeed positively affecting society to the greatest extent possible. CSR has become one of the most important topics in management academia and also in business settings. With such a great emphasis placed on CSR, practically and academically, it stands to reason that Sport Management as a discipline should devote considerable attention to the study of this important practice. In doing so, researchers will be able to improve both theoretical and applied understanding of CSR in the sport context. There are many avenues

7

which have yet to be pursued concerning sport related CSR, and there is great potential for further development and empirical studies.

Purpose of Study The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the relationship between a sport organization‘s CSR activities and social impact. Also, the study sought to allow the researcher to understand if and how the alignment of a sport organization‘s core business principles and CSR activities influenced this relationship.

This study sought to: 1. Understand and explore the relationship between CSR activities and social impact. 2. Understand how the alignment of a company‘s core business principles and CSR activities influence the relationship of CSR and social impact.

Significance of Study The increase of and demand for CSR to create positive social change is evident across all industries, including sport. Previous studies have focused on ROI, stakeholder demands, environmental impacts, and even legal implications associated with CSR. Unfortunately, most of the past research was conducted in areas other than sport. Additionally, while all of these areas of study are certainly important to better understand CSR as whole, arguably the most important issue of social impact has been barely researched within the general literature and virtually non- existent in the sport literature. Studies such as the current one may provide a significant missing link in the complete understanding of CSR and offer meaningful insight to practitioners in both sport and non-sport related industries.

8

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

It has often been said that change is the only constant. Nowhere is this idea truer than in the business world. What has changed considerably over the past decade are the demands placed on corporations by society to do more than just make profits. These societal demands represent a shift in what is considered CSR and mark a growing emphasis on social impact. This literature review will discuss the evolution and definitional history of CSR, and those terms which fall under the broad heading of CSR. Theories of CSR, provide an overview of the scholarly work of the construct, and discuss motives for engaging in CSR initiatives. Also, examples of CSR activities in both sport and non-sport industries will be highlighted. Lastly, the gap in the sport management literature on CSR will be addressed.

Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a common term in today‘s business world. A search of ―corporate social responsibility‖ on Google Scholar yields more than 466,000 hits on the construct. Furthermore, an identical search on Google reveals more than 37 million hits. The copious amount of literature and research on this subject is apparent from these brief searches. It seems all companies around the globe are familiar with CSR and in recent years, most have begun to engage in some type of CSR activity. However, the notion of being socially responsible is nothing new. It was prior to the 1900‘s when corporate social responsibility first emerged in the business setting (May, Chaney, & Roper, 2007). CSR – Historical and Definitional Evolution The roots of CSR can be traced back to the medieval era. According to May et al. (2007), various questions regarding organizations‘ impact on society have been present for centuries. In fact, the corporate form and modern labor union were derived from the early medieval guild (May et al., 2007). Large U.S. companies most of today‘s society is familiar with emerged back in the 1870‘s. It was also during this time that large corporations began to have a significant impact on different aspects of society, including the environment, employees, customers, and the public as a whole. May et al. (2007) mentioned that as petroleum, railroad,

9

and other companies began to reach monopoly status, the public began to question the appropriateness of their actions. As a result, the U.S. government passed a series of laws to curtail the power these major corporations seemed to possess. The U.S. government also was forced to pass legislation regarding the fair treatment of employees, use of child labor, workplace safety, and the formation of trusts (Farmer, 1985). It was around this time in 1906 that Upton Sinclair published his famous book, The Jungle, which highlighted the scandalous working conditions at major meat factories in the US. As a result of the book, the public essentially demanded corporate social responsibility regarding the working conditions for factory employees and the cleanliness of food processing activities. The public outrage eventually led to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration which serves to ensure corporations are in fact looking out for the best interests of their public. Essentially, CSR is a result of industrialization (May et al., 2007). During the times of the Great Depression and World War II (WWII), further interests in social controls continued to arise in the forefront of American business. Labor protection, banking reform, and public utility controls were just a few of the social reforms of the time (May et al., 2007). American business however, was not alone in their CSR endeavors. Legislation in the US and Europe from 1870 to World War I was passed, which enforced CSR behaviors (May et al., 2007). It was also during this time that economic globalization was at its peak, thereby making CSR a transcontinental phenomenon. Shortly after WWII, academia was first introduced to the notion of CSR, as proposed by an economics professor, Howard R. Bowen (May et al., 2007). This would mark the beginning of a long and varied period of CSR definitions – one that is yet to be resolved. Corporate Social Responsibility Defined Throughout the literature a variety of definitions are presented for CSR. This highlights the points made by Locke (2003) on the need for consistent, objective definitions. Wood (1991) described the field of CSR as ―data looking for a theory.‖ This still can be argued today with the many definitions, conceptualizations, and theories associated with CSR. It is here where confusion within the literature begins. Oosterhout and Pursey (2006), in a rather controversial paper, argued CSR should be done away with altogether because it supposedly contributes nothing to existing frameworks in the field of management and organization. As will be shown

10

through this literature review, most researchers and practitioners alike do not agree with this assertion. Archie Carroll (1999) provided an excellent article tracing the definitional history of CSR. He takes readers on a journey from past researchers‘ 1950‘s ideas of CSR and then finishes his analysis in the 1990‘s time period. First, Carroll (1999) began in 1953, with Howard R. Bowen‘s presentation of a definition of CSR. Bowen discussed how CSR referred to ―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). This definition is over 50 years old but could still be applied to our society today. Undoubtedly society‘s values and objectives have changed since the time this was written but still today, socially responsible corporations seek to meet the demands placed on them by their stakeholders. CSR - The 1960’s In the 1960‘s, Carroll (1999) then discussed the explosion of literature focusing on what exactly CSR is. Keith Davis was one of the prominent researchers of CSR during this time period (Carroll, 1999). Davis (1960) argued CSR referred to ―businessmen‘s decisions and action taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm‘s direct economic or technical interest‖ (p. 60). He was also one of the first to admit CSR was a rather vague construct but still argued it should be seen within the managerial context. Carroll was impressed with the work of Davis and argued he could be seen as the ―runner-up‖ to Bowen for the Father of CSR. Davis is well known for his ―Iron Law of Responsibility‖ which stated the social power of businessmen should be equal to their social responsibilities. Essentially, Davis believed the more socially responsible businesspeople were, the more social power they would have. Other definitions were provided by William Frederick and Joseph W. McGuire. Frederick‘s (1960) definition echoed that of Davis (1960). He asserted businesses and firms should not focus on simply meeting their needs and interests but should also be concerned with using their resources for broad social ends. Later in 1963, McGuire wrote: ―The idea of social responsibilities supposes that the corporation has not only economic and legal obligations but also certain obligations to society which extend beyond these observations‖ (p. 144). Carroll (1999) highlighted how this definition is more specific than any of the others previously provided. McGuire specifically stated firms must be aware of the welfare of the community,

11

education, and the happiness of employees. Like Bowen‘s (1953) definition, this too could be used to represent CSR in today‘s society. Corporations all over the world have begun to implement programs for employees to hopefully keep them happy and in turn, more productive. Also, countless numbers of corporations have community outreach programs which serve to educate the public on various topics. These are all examples of what McGuire meant when he said the duties of corporations extend beyond economic and legal obligations. During the 1950‘s and 60‘s it may have seemed like scholars and businesspeople alike viewed CSR as a necessity for all businesses. Milton Friedman‘s views on the other hand, greatly differed from what mainstream society believed CSR to be. Friedman (1962) very passionately stated, ―Few trends would so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their shareholders as they possibly can (p. 133).‖ This was not one of the more popular ideas of 1960‘s, as evident from the many other definitions of CSR. A final definition Carroll (1999) believed to be influential in the study of CSR was presented by Clarence C. Walton (1967). In his fundamental definition, Walton viewed CSR as a recognition of the intimate link between firms and society. He further went on to write how managers must keep this link in mind as the firms and related stakeholders pursuing their respective goals. While he did not mention the term ―stakeholders,‖ this is basically what he was indicating. A component Walton included in his discussion of CSR which was not mentioned in previous definitions was the idea that CSR is voluntary and costs may be involved which may be measureable directly to determine any economic return. As mentioned by Carroll, this is a significant contribution to the study of CSR. Often times it is difficult for companies to truly determine whether their efforts to be socially responsible are indeed producing any economic benefit. The link between economic benefit and CSR will be further discussed in following sections of this paper. CSR – The 1970’s The 1970‘s study of CSR began with a book written by Morrell Heald, titled The Social Responsibilities of Business: Company and Community, 1900-1960. Carroll (1999) believed the book was a good synopsis of the history of CSR but the author did not provide a succinct

Full document contains 179 pages
Abstract: With increasing attention being given to corporate social responsibility (CSR) by scholars, it has become apparent that the focus has been somewhat one sided in nature, with the bulk of attention going to the corporate motives, processes, and outcomes of such efforts. Less prevalent has been a focus on the beneficiaries of CSR, and thus lost in the conversation has been the critical aspect of "social impact" of such activities (Porter & Kramer, 2006). The purpose of the current study was to explore the idea of social impact, by qualitatively assessing the outcomes of a golf management company CSR initiative within the elementary school system. Through a series of interviews with program stakeholders, secondary document analysis, and personal observations, the researchers were able to assess the impact on participants (N=23), make suggestions for improvement for the future, and ascertain the degree of strategic congruence between the program and the overall corporate mission.