OSH 3001, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Healt.docx

OSH 3001, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VI
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
4. Explain the integration of key processes necessary for the
control of occupational injuries and
illnesses.
4.1 Identify methodologies used to recognize workplace
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).
4.2 Approximate musculoskeletal forces generated by incorrect
lifting.
5. Recommend strategies for the control of common workplace
hazards.
5.1 Determine control measures to prevent MSDs in a given
workplace.
Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes
Learning Activity
4.1
Unit VI Lesson

Chapter 8
Unit VI Assessment
4.2
Unit VI Lesson
Chapter 8
Unit VI Assessment
5.1
Chapter 8
Unit VI Assessment
Reading Assignment
Chapter 8: Ergonomic Hazards: Musculoskeletal Disorders
(MSDS) and Cumulative Trauma Disorders
(CTDS)
Unit Lesson
Musculoskeletal Disorders
According to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA, n.d.-a), one-third of all worker injury
and illness cases were musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). MSDs
are those injuries and illnesses that affect
the muscles, nerves, ligaments, tendons, and blood vessels
within the body. In the workplace, these are
oftentimes caused by ergonomic issues. However, what is
ergonomics? Ergonomics is the science of fitting
the job to the worker, not the worker to the job. By
incorporating ergonomics into the workplace, we can

lessen the possibility of musculoskeletal disorders (OSHA, n.d.-
a).
The following are some examples of work-related MSDs:
condylitis,
UNIT VI STUDY GUIDE
Ergonomic Hazards
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title

Although the proposed ergonomics standard was rescinded,
OSHA does have ergonomic guidelines to help
protect employees from workplace MSDs. Employers are
required to provide a safe and healthy workplace for
employees; however, incorporating ergonomic programs in the
workplace not only benefits the worker, it
benefits the business as well. As humans, when we do not feel
well or are uncomfortable, we may not put
forth our best efforts at work. In fact, if the pain or discomfort
becomes too severe, we may call in sick to work.
Increased absenteeism may cause work to fall behind, resulting
in a profit loss for the company. This pain or
discomfort also decreases the worker’s quality of life outside of
the workplace. If a worker calls in ill, the
company may have to pay another employee overtime to
perform the work. If the employee is permanently
unable to perform the assigned tasks, the employer will have to
hire another individual and train them, which
can be an expensive and time-consuming process.
Work-related MSDs are covered by workers’ compensation. If a
company has a higher number of claims, it
will negatively affect its experience modification rate (EMR),
which will, in turn, raise workers’ compensation
insurance premiums. On the other hand, if workers feel well,
they are less likely to call in and are able to work
and produce a quality product. Therefore, a company that takes
the initiative to correct potential issues in the
workplace that may result in worker MSDs may experience the
production of a higher-quality product,
decreased absenteeism, and a higher profit margin. Safety pays!
Back and shoulder injuries are among the most common MSDs
and are often related to manual material

handling (OSHA, n.d.-a). Efforts should be made to reduce the
amount of manual lifting needed in the
workplace. This can be accomplished by providing mechanical
material handling devices and designing
workplaces to reduce the need for lifting. However, it is not
likely that all manual lifting can be eliminated, so
workers need to understand the mechanics of lifting and the
limitations of the human body. Training in proper
lifting should include the why as well as the how. Workers are
told to lift with their legs and not their backs and
to hold the load close to their bodies, but do they really
understand why this is the best way to lift? Not
following these two lifting rules puts excessive strain on the
lower back, and using hands-on demonstrations
can increase worker understanding and compliance (NIOSH,
2011). For example, have workers lift a five-
pound box from the floor while holding the box close to the
body, and then have the worker repeat the lift
while holding the box at arm’s length. The box weighs the same
five pounds but will feel much heavier.
Increasing the distance from the body increases the load
moment, also known as torque. As the moment
increases, additional forces and stress are placed on the back
muscles and spine. We can calculate the load
moment using a simple formula:
Load Moment = Weight x Distance
Distance is expressed in feet (ft.), and the weight is expressed
in pounds (lbs.). The unit for load moment is
foot-pounds (ft-lbs.) and describes the force required to lift or
hold the load. If we hold a five-pound box close
to the body, the force to hold the box equals the weight of the
box (5 lbs. x 0 ft. = 0 ft.-lbs., so the formula

does not apply). If we hold the box two feet away from the body
and apply the formula, we get 5 lbs. x 2 ft. =
10 ft.-lbs. The force required to hold the box has doubled.
Lifting a 5-pound box directly up has the effect of lifting 5
pounds. Lifting a 5-pound box away
has the effect of lifting 12 pounds on your shoulder
(OSHA, n.d.-b; OSHA, n.d.-c)
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
If there is one thing that you will need to drive home to
employers and employees, it is the need for early
reporting of signs/symptoms of MSDs. Pain is the body’s early
warning system. It tells us when something
has been injured or is being injured, is under stress, or is
diseased. All too often, we ignore that early warning
system. For example, how many times at work have you noticed
that your lower back hurts, or that your neck
is extremely tense? What did you do? Most people will take
some ibuprofen, aspirin, or Tylenol to take the
edge off and then go back to work, in most cases continuing the
same actions that are causing them
discomfort to begin with. If the employee continues to self-
medicate and does not change the behavior
causing the problem, it will get worse and possibly lead to an
injury. This is why it is imperative that

employees are taught to spot the early warning signs of
potential MSDs and to report them. Early reporting
allows the occupational safety and health (OSH) professional or
members of the safety team to intervene and
evaluate the employee’s workstation or work tasks to determine
what is causing the problem and how it can
be remedied.
Cumulative Trauma Disorder
Cumulative trauma disorder (CTD) is a wide-ranging category
of ergonomic-related injuries or illnesses that
affect muscles, tendons, and ligaments. CTD is not an actual
disease, but rather a concept used by medical
professionals to understand or describe what caused or
contributed to the condition (Orthopod, 2015).
Included in this category are repetitive stress injuries (RSI),
overuse strain (OS), and occupational overuse
syndrome (OOS). There are many factors that contribute to
CTDs:

Consider for a moment a stone cutter. He or she hits a stone 100
times and there is no visible damage to the
stone; however, on the 101st time that the stone is hit, it splits
in two. It is not that the 101st hit was any
harder than the previous 100; rather, the stress from all the
hitting accumulated and caused the stone to
finally fracture. This is exactly how CTDs occur. Each exposure
to the hazard increases the stress on the
body, ultimately resulting in injury. Our bodies are like a
spring; if you continue to wind the spring and never
take the tension off, the spring will break. So, unwind the
spring. Relieving the tension does not take
significant time out of the workday; taking micro-breaks
throughout the day greatly decreases the stress on
the body. Rotate the joints, stretch, and do not forget your eyes.
Did you know that increased eye strain also
affects the neck and back? If you do a considerable amount of
work in which your eyes must focus close-up,
take a minute or so to focus your eyes in the distance and look
back and forth. The effort costs nothing, and
the results can save you from suffering pain and discomfort all
while saving the company money in lost time
and workers’ compensation costs.
Employers often cringe when the OSH professional brings up
the possibility of making ergonomic
improvements to a workplace. The general belief is that
purchasing ergonomic tools, workstations, etc., will
be a costly venture. Ironically, not only do ergonomic
interventions not have to be costly, but they can result in
thousands of dollars of savings. For example, a large hospital
laundry service was experiencing a significant

amount of work-related lower back injuries. The injuries were a
result of removing laundry from the very
bottom of the large wheeled laundry totes that they used. These
totes were approximately 3 feet high. The
employees did not have a problem taking the laundry from the
top of the cart, but as they got down to the last
pieces in the bottom of the tote, they had to bend over deeply to
reach them and lift primarily with their backs.
The OSH professional easily identified what the problem was,
but there was no money in the budget for a tote
tipping device. One of the laundry workers came up with an
idea. The worker took a large piece of rigid plastic
and cut it to the size of the inside of the tote. He then drilled a
hole in each corner of the plastic and ran a
bungee cord from each corner to the corner of the tote. When
the laundry was put into the tote, the plastic
went down with the weight of the load. As the worker removed
laundry from the tote, the bungee cords would
bring the platform up, allowing them to remove the laundry
without having to bend over. The improvement
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
costs a mere $24 to make. The hospital incorporated these self-
rising platforms into all of their totes for a
minimal cost. Over a year’s time, they saved over $10,000 in

workers’ compensation claims. More
importantly, the laundry workers were no longer being injured.
Although the ergonomic innovation applied in the example
above was a huge success, not all are. As an OSH
professional, you must ensure that your so-called fix does not
create a new problem. For example, prior to the
1980s, many grocery store cashiers spent several hours per day
typing numbers into their cash registers as
they were checking out customers. As a result, many full-time
cashiers experienced a repetitive stress injury
(RSI), called carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). In an effort to
reduce these injuries, barcode scanners were
introduced. The cashier would now take the item and run it
across a surface that had a laser device that
would read the barcode and automatically input the price. The
incidence of CTS dropped drastically within the
first year; however, the industry then saw an influx of
epicondylitis and shoulder injuries. When they did an
ergonomic evaluation of the cashiers’ stations once again, the
problem quickly became evident. Cashiers
were now taking the item, picking it up from the conveyer belt,
and running it across the barcode scanner.
They were performing this motion thousands of times per day,
causing excessive stress on the elbow and
shoulder. The new answer was barcode guns and self-checkout
lanes.
Occupational safety and health is a work in progress. As an
OSH professional, you must realize that you will
never get to a point in the field where everything is as safe as it
can be and no changes are required. You
must be vigilant, continue to assess, reassess, improvise, adapt,
and overcome. You are not going to have all
of the answers. Utilize your resources. Talk to the people on the
front line who work at that machine or task

every day. They are the subject matter experts for that particular
job. Why would you not involve them in the
safety aspects for it? Set yourself up for success, and do not
forget to think outside the box.
References
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. (2011).
Practical demonstrations of ergonomic principles
(Publication No. NIOSH RI 9684). Retrieved from:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/2011-
191.pdf
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.-a).
Ergonomics. Retrieved from
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.-b). Figure
5. Lifting a 5 lb box directly up has the effect
of lifting 5 lbs [Image]. Retrieved from
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/pit/images/box_lift1.gif
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.-c). Figure
5. As the distance increases from the
shoulder, the moment, or apparent weight increases so that a 5
pound box seems to weigh 12
pounds [Image]. Retrieved from
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/pit/images/box_lift_lastfram
e.gif

Orthopod. (2015). Cumulative trauma disorder. Retrieved from
https://eorthopod.com/cumulative-trauma-
disorder/
Suggested Reading
In order to access the following resources, click the links
below:
Access the resources below for additional information that is
specific to ergonomics (training and principles).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.).
Ergonomics. Retrieved from
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/index.html
Med Trainer. (2014, June 3). Ergonomics training—the OSHA
standard [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDn1Y27Pb18
The transcript for this video can be found by clicking here.
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDn1Y27Pb18
https://online.waldorf.edu/CSU_Content/Waldorf_Content/ZUL
U/EmergencyServices/OSH/OSH3001/W18Dc/UnitVI_Ergonomi
csTrainingTheOSHAStandard.pdf

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. (2011).
Practical demonstrations of ergonomic principles
(Publication No. NIOSH RI 9684). Retrieved from
191.pdf
191.pdf
Corporate social responsibility
Perception, practices and performance of
listed companies of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Nisar Ahamad Nalband and Mohammed S. Al-Amri
College of Business Administration, King Saud University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
Purpose – The world is becoming global, digital, health

conscious and spiritual. In this new and
evolving international environment with a large private sector
and global integration of world capital
markets, Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become the
prominent topic of institutional reform.
This issue of CSR is of great importance as the Saudi economy
is opening up and the government is
trying to diversify its investments and reduce its reliance on the
petroleum sector. The proposed
research study is aimed at identifying perceptions of managers,
company practices and performance of
companies concerning CSR practices of 21 listed companies in
Saudi Arabia.
Design/methodology/approach – From each company, ten
managers were chosen randomly
totaling two hundred and ten respondents. Primary and
secondary data was collected for the study.
Primary data were collected by conducting interviews and
discussions with management respondents
through questionnaires structured for the purpose.
Findings – The empirical findings in the KSA study support the
applicability of Carroll’s Pyramid of
CSR constructs and Lawrence et al.’s charity and stewardship
principles.
Research limitations/implications – There is excellent scope for
future research on the current
topic and in improving the instruments, measures and
constituent concepts of CSR constructs in order
to provide better guidance to policy makers and managers, as
well as academic interest.
Originality/value – Saudi Arabia is known for its charity and
stewardship principles, but not much

empirical work based on CSR constructs has been done. Hence,
this study attempts to measure
perception and construct validity.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Perception, Practices,
Performance, Saudi Arabia,
Listed companies
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The world is becoming global, digital, health conscious and
spiritual. If the nineteenth
century was about entrepreneurs laying the foundations of
modern corporations
and the twentieth century was about management and
management techniques,
then the twenty-first century is about legitimacy. As the focus
swings to the issues
of legitimacy and the use and abuse of power by countries and
corporations,
stakeholders will increasingly look for evidence of good
stewardship by the directors of
enterprises.
In this new and evolving international environment with a large
private sector and
global integration of world capital markets, CSR has become the
prominent topic of
institutional reform. For governments, encouraging better
corporate governance and
ethical practices in policy making enables firms to raise more
domestic as well as
foreign capital. For firms, an efficient market will differentiate
between the firms that
embrace best corporate ethics and governance practices.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1059-5422.htm
Competitiveness Review: An
International Business Journal
Vol. 23 No. 3, 2013
pp. 284-295
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1059-5422
DOI 10.1108/10595421311319843
CR
23,3
284
The practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is also
quickly gaining ground
among Saudi Arabian businesses. However, CSR is a novelty
mostly in terminology.
“Nobody in Saudi Arabia, I think still to this very day, can
clearly tell the difference
between charity or philanthropy and CSR,” says Dr Nadia
Baeshen, General Manager of
the CSR division of the Dallah Albaraka Group, “although they
practice both.”
Companies indeed tend to have long traditions of investing in
socially responsible
activities, but have only started labeling and planning these as
CSR activities in recent
years. Indeed, charitable giving, or zakat, is an integral part of

the Muslim belief system.
Zakat is the idea that those who are able should give to those in
need, either in money or
in kind. So firmly is this rooted in society that Saudi Arabia has
institutionalized zakat,
by levying a tax on individuals and businesses, corresponding to
2.5 percent of one’s
annual income. In addition, Saudi Arabia also embraces the
concept of sadaqa, or
voluntary giving. The Kingdom’s wealth supports a widely
shared sentiment of
responsibility toward those less fortunate. Individual
contributions can be sizeable, such
as the $130 million donation made by a Saudi national last year
in support of cyclone-hit
areas in Bangladesh. The donor, however, chose to remain
anonymous. And this is not
unusual; many Saudi Arabian individuals and businesses would
find it immodest to
advertise the extent of their philanthropic commitment (Foreign
Affairs, 2009).
Increasingly, companies are finding that corporate values,
economic success and
greater communal good go hand in hand.
In the world of globalization, environment pollution and
shortage of resources,
corporations are experiencing massive pressures to accomplish
business in a more
socially responsible manner. CSR is internal to a corporation; it
dictates the way in
which it has to plan the courses of action it has to carry out with
respect to the civil
society. According to a famous definition, the social
responsibility of business includes

the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that
society has of
organizations at a given point in time (Carroll, 1979, p. 500).
This term basically deals
with an organization’s set of operations that it carries out for
the benefit of the society,
while existing within itself. It helps humanity in more than one
way; to train and
educate them and to consider issues which can really change the
fate of a future civil
society.
CSR definitions describe a phenomenon, but fail to present any
guidance on how to
manage the challenges within this phenomenon. Therefore, the
challenge for
businesses is not so much to define CSR, as it is to understand
how CSR is socially
constructed in a specific context and how to take this into
account when business
strategies are developed.
In examining the background of Saudi Arabian businesses, the
authors made an
attempt to find whether there is an awareness among employees
of corporate CSR
practices, how CSR practices are presented and to find out if
there is any distinct
method of CSR evaluation in respondents’ companies. The KSA
is known for its
charity and stewardship principles, but there is not much
empirical work based on CSR
constructs. Hence, this study attempts to measure perception
and construct validity of
the charity and stewardship principles.

Objectives of the research study
(1) To study the respondent’s perception about CSR.
(2) To study the respondent companies practices of CSR.
Corporate social
responsibility
285
(3) To study the method of evaluation of CSR in respondents’
companies.
(4) To examine the relationships between CSR perceptions of
managers about the
performance of the respondent companies.
Scope of study
Advanced western economies are giving more attention in
recent years to CSR.
Correspondingly, most studies on CSR and corporate social
performance (CSP) concentrate
on Western countries, while very little is known of the practice
of CSR/CSP in developing
countries (Gao, 2009). Also, Belal (2001) reveals that most of
the CSR/CSP studies are
conducted from the perspective of developed countries such as
in Western Europe, the
USA, Australia and certain developing countries.
Saudi Arabia has a completely different culture and political
economy from the
West. CSR/CSP in Saudi Arabia may be quite different from its

Western counterparts.
This study will be a valuable contribution to the topic of
CSR/CSP in Saudi Arabia, as
there is not much literature available regarding the issue in a
local context. Regulations
are still in the developmental phase and the environment for
implementing these
regulations is still young. The study covers perceptions,
practices and performance of
CSR in listed companies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, including
conceptual clarification
about CSR and implementation/practices of CSR. The
information collected relating to
these areas is used to supplement information about the primary
areas of CSR.
Significance of the research study
The proposed research study is aimed at identifying whether
there is a significant
relationship between CSR, perceptions of managers, company
practices and
performance of companies. In the past few years, CSR has
become an important
aspect of Saudi Arabia’s corporate field. The government is also
playing a role in finding
out better ways in which it can benefit society. This issue is of
great importance in
Saudi Arabia as the Saudi economy is opening up and the
government is trying to
diversify its investments and reduce its reliance on the
petroleum sector. The country
has invested in various sectors like food, telecommunications
and financial institutions
to change the situation from being a major importer to becoming
self sufficient or even
an exporter of many products. Moreover, Saudi companies are

expanding their activities
and businesses around the region and across the globe.
The honorable King Abdullah has urged an ongoing partnership
between public
and private sectors to boost social responsibility in Saudi
Arabia. This message came
from the King, at the opening of a three day CSR conference.
During the conference, he
also emphasized that the time had come to make social
responsibility a reality “not just
rhetoric by the (business) elite.” A new forum is to be created
which will look at
practical steps for developing the practice of social
responsibility and to act as a
platform for studying some of society’s most imperative issues.
The government has
said that standards would be set through which it could evaluate
progress made by
businesses in this field.
Extensive research in other countries has found that corporate
responsibility is
becoming an essential part of any company’s day-to-day
undertakings. Thus, the
responsibility played by the government and corporations, as
well as the citizens in
this regard, should be on-going and effective. Moreover, CSR
can play a significant role
in attracting foreign direct investment and mobilizing greater
savings through capital.
CR
23,3
286

Literature review
A review of the literature indicates that most studies have
focused on various aspects
of CSR in different countries, both developed and under
developed, through surveys.
There are a few studies on perception including perception of
managers on CSR
(Quazi, 2003), applying consumer perceptual measures of CSR
(Rugimbana et al., 2008),
Chinese consumers’ perception of CSR (Ramasamy and Yeung,
2009; Beckmann, 2007),
Public perception of CSR relating to mining industries
(Hutchins et al., 2005), CSR of
large Mexican firms – perceptions of outsiders of Mexico’s
economy (Logsdon et al.,
2006), perceptions of young urban managerial groups in India
(Balasubramanian et al.,
2005), perceptions of CSR activities on trust toward the
company (Swaen, 2008),
alternative stakeholder perspectives leading to differing
perceptions of the process and
content of responsible reporting (Reynolds and Yuthas, 2008),
differing media
interpretations, perceptions and perspectives of CSR in the UK
(Tench et al., 2007),
perceptions surrounding CSR in SMEs (Murillo and Lozano,
2006), exploring
managerial perceptions of motives for CSR initiatives, methods
of stakeholder
engagement, organizational integration of CSR and its impact
on managerial work
(Murillo and Lozano, 2009), the role of NGOs in CSR

perceptions of stake holders
(Arenas et al., 2009) and how Chinese executives and managers
perceive and interpret
CSR (Zu and Song, 2009).
There are also studies on practices of CSR concerning CSR
practices in Turkey
(Ararat, 2008), CSR practices in MNCs’ subsidiaries (Yang and
Rivers, 2009),
communication of practice of CSR (Birth and Illia, 2008), CSR
in Latvia (Petersons,
2009), environmentally responsible behavior and impact on
their performance on the
case of the united nations global compact (Cetindamar and
Husoy, 2007), congruence
between actual practices of CSR and further development of
CSR in US organizations
(Lindgreen et al., 2009), CSR policy orientations in the
European Union (EU) focusing
on the specific case of the French legislation on compulsory
sustainability reporting for
publicly-listed companies (Delbard, 2008), CSR disclosure
practices of Spanish listed
firms (Reverte, 2008) and perceptions and practices of CSR in
Pakistan (Ahmad, 2006).
On performance of CSR, there are also studies on CSP in China
(Gao, 2009), CSR
performance driven by TQM implementation (Robson and
Mitchell, 2007), CSR
performance in Mexico’s auto industry (Muller and Kolk, 2008),
relationships between
corporate value orientations and various performance indexes in
Japan’s electric
companies (Wang, 2009), raising from CSR to CSP (Rundle,
2008) and strategies for

managing CSR performance (Bansal et al., 2008).
Though research has been done on CSR perception, practices
and performance,
considerable study has yet to be done on the historical
background of CSR in the KSA.
As such, the CSR concept is young; the literature on CSR is
mainly in the form of books,
annual reports, and web-based reports. Management and other
journals also publish
articles on the subject, but a great amount of research work has
to be carried out in the
country. There is one sole paper on the perceived social role of
MNCs in the USA and
Saudi Arabia by Maghrabi (2008).
The analyses of the above literature on CSR reveal that the
scope of almost all the
papers is narrow and limited to a particular aspect of CSR or a
company or an industry.
There is obviously a need for the study of CSR perceptions,
practices and performance
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Corporate social
responsibility
287
Research methodology
Primary and secondary data were collected for the study. The
primary data was
collected by conducting interviews and discussions, with
management respondents

through schedules/questionnaires structured for the purpose.
Various appropriate
statistical techniques were employed for analyzing the data. The
statistical analysis
and data were supplemented by information collected through
interviews and personal
observations, so as to derive effective and meaningful
conclusions.
The secondary data was collected from various sources. Factual
data were collected
from the annual reports of sample companies, corporate offices,
in-house magazines
and other records of the companies. Companies’ web sites and
other related web sites
were browsed.
Opinions of respondents were solicited on a five point scale
with scale values 5, 4, 3,
2 and 1; opinions which fell under scale 3 were not considered
as the respondents
wanted to be silent on those issues for presentation and
calculation purposes.
Sampling and data collection
Data for this study was collected based on the “stratified
convenient sampling”
technique. Total companies were segregated into different
sectors listed in the KSA
Stock Exchange. 21 companies were selected from listed
companies. The total size of
the sample was 21 companies.
For manager’s opinions of each company, ten respondents were
chosen. The total
number of employee samples was 210. Hence, the total size of

samples undertaken for
this study was 210, which is not unwieldy.
In this study, the unit of analysis was the individual. Companies
were represented
by individuals such as managers.
Tools for analysis
To analyze the data, the following statistical tools were used.
ANNOVA, factor analysis
and averages were used according to necessity and
compatibility. Table bar diagrams
were used to represent the data. Scaling techniques were used to
analyze the opinions of
managers.
Limitation of the study
As companies were chosen based on sector, the study was
limited to listed companies
in the city of Riyadh only, because Riyadh, being the capital of
the KSA, has
become the hub of business activities; almost all the companies’
corporate offices are
situated there and thousands of professionals work in Riyadh.
Findings cannot be
generalized to all companies. Further the study was limited to
Riyadh only, despite the
presence of respondent companies across the globe. Because
data was collected
through sampling, there may be deviations in generalizing the
opinions of
professionals.
Background of concept
The pyramid model of corporate responsibility by Carroll (1979,
1991) identifies a

range of obligations that companies have toward society. It
serves as a framework
which places primary emphasis on economic results but argues
for legal, ethical and
philanthropic behavior.
CR
23,3
288
In a recent conceptualization, he terms this as “the four faces of
corporate citizenship”
(Carroll, 1998). Economic responsibilities pertain to the
necessity for corporations to be
profitable. Legal responsibilities require business to operate
within the boundaries of
laws and national policies. Ethical responsibilities demand that
firms operate morally,
fairly and justly. Philanthropic responsibilities oblige
companies to contribute financial
and other resources for the welfare and betterment of society
and the community.
The another conceptualization of CSR is that of Principles of
Charity and
Stewardship which are developed by Lawrence et al. (2005).
Under the charity
principle, companies make voluntary contributions to less
fortunate members of
society. It is a fact in the KSA that royalty has provided for
poor citizens. There are also
wealthy individuals in KSA who have contributed immeasurably
to the social and

economic development of KSA and across the globe, besides the
zakat (religious
obligation) money distribution among the poor.
The KSA is known for its charity and stewardship principles,
but there is not much
empirical work based on these CSR constructs. Hence, this
study attempts to measure
perception an construct validity of the charity and stewardship
principles.
This research also examines the extent to which demographic
factors influence CSR
perceptions in the KSA. The demographic factors include age,
gender, education level
and length of working experience.
Analysis
Table I presents the mean, standard deviation, inter-correlations
and alpha coefficients
on Carroll’s pyramid of CSR, charity principle, stewardship
principle, environmental
friendliness and the perceptions of managers of the respondent
companies and the
evaluations of CSR in the respective respondents’ companies.
Respondents have rated environmental friendliness (mean ¼
1.17) highest, which
suggests high importance caring for the natural environment.
Among the four social responsibilities in Carroll’s pyramid
framework, respondents
rated legal responsibility (mean ¼ 1.1071) highest, followed by
economical responsibility
(mean ¼ 1.0647), philanthropic responsibility (0.9310) and
ethical responsibility

(mean ¼ 0.6635). Despite an obvious focus on social
responsibilities, the respondents
were in agreement with Carroll’s CSR model that organizations
must also fulfill economic
and legal responsibilities.
The perception of respondents in the KSA is that they are more
likely to subscribe
to the charity as well stewardship principle.
Mean SD
Economic 1.0647 0.54192
Legal 1.1071 0.47843
Ethical 0.6635 0.65133
Philanthropy 0.9310 0.57144
Charity 1.0929 0.67310
Steward 1.0798 0.68555
Environment 1.1738 0.71687
Performance 1.0190 0.73505
Valid N (listwise)
Table I.
Perceptions of
respondents on Carroll’s
pyramid of CSR
Corporate social
responsibility
289
As per the above Table II, it can be concluded that although the

correlations among the
variables are significant, their correlations are not high (lower
than 0.70). This suggests
that the questionnaire items in the variables are not measuring
the same construct.
In support of the above result, Table III presents the adequacy
of the sample and Table IV
presents the reliability test which gives us a fair enough opinion
of non construct of
variables.
An attempt is made to prove the contention that length of
working experience,
educational backgrounds and age of the respondents influence
the perceptions of
respondents about CSR. ANNOVA test results which are
presented in Table V shows
that respondents who have less than five to ten years experience
place the highest
importance on all responsibilities except ethics, philanthropy
and stewardship.
Economic Legal Ethical Philtoro Chirty Stweard Environment
Perform
Economic 1.000 0.167 0.071 0.118 0.039 0.180 0.079 0.026
Legal 0.167 1.000 0.381 0.295 0.301 0.308 0.235 0.368
Ethical 0.071 0.381 1.000 0.356 0.308 0.317 0.181 0.400
Philanthropic 0.118 0.295 0.356 1.000 0.509 0.513 0.380 0.472
Charity 0.039 0.301 0.308 0.509 1.000 0.602 0.379 0.499
Steward 0.180 0.308 0.317 0.513 0.602 1.000 0.447 0.488
Environment 0.079 0.235 0.181 0.380 0.379 0.447 1.000 0.470
Performance 0.026 0.368 0.400 0.472 0.499 0.488 0.470 1.000
Table II.
Inter-item correlation

matrix
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.821
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. x2 1.764 £ 103
df 351
Sig. 0.000
Table III.
KMO and Bartlett’s test
Cronbach’s a Cronbach’s a based on standardized items Number
of items
0.793 0.788 8
Table IV.
Reliability statistics
Mean
Experience Economic Legal Ethical Philanthropy Charity
Steward Environment Performance
,5 1.1563 1.1797 0.8542 0.9297 1.2227 1.2422 1.1562 1.2109
6 to 10 1.1019 1.0278 0.6420 0.8704 1.0648 0.9583 1.0926
0.9630
11 to 15 0.8952 1.0887 0.5376 0.7823 0.9597 0.9597 1.0645
0.8871
16 to 20 0.8674 0.9659 0.5758 1.1477 1.1364 1.2841 1.3409
1.2273
21 to 25 1.2794 1.2206 0.3922 0.9853 0.9706 1.0441 1.2353
0.5882
26 to 30 0.9773 1.1705 0.6364 1.0341 1.0227 0.8977 1.3636
0.9091
F 2.326 1.260 2.069 1.360 0.914 2.005 0.860 2.878
Table V.

Perceptions according
to experience
CR
23,3
290
Respondents who have 11 to 15 years experience place the
highest importance on legal
and environmental responsibility. And those with 16-20 years of
experience place the
highest importance on philanthropy, charity, stewardship and
environmental
friendliness. Surprisingly, those with 21-25 years of experience
did not consider
philanthropy, charity and ethics, and the group with 26-30 years
experience put highest
importance on environment, legal, philanthropy and charity.
When the researchers
interacted with some of the respondents, they opined that
ethical and charity
responsibilities are built into the KSA, so there was no need to
answer affirmatively.
Corporations do not need to look at these aspects as, according
to the religious tenant,
individuals have to take care of these.
Table VI presents the perceptions of the respondents according
to education. It is
clear that the secondary school qualified place high importance
on all the factors except
ethics; high diploma respondents place high importance on all
except ethics and

philanthropy; and post graduates who are young establish that
corporations should
consider all or most of all the responsibilities except ethics.
Here we can draw a
conclusion that ethics are considered part of the KSA’s
individuals’ walk of life.
Table VII and the bar diagram (Figure 1) D1 shows different
CSR practices in the
KSA.
Conclusion
The empirical findings in the KSA study support the
applicability of Carroll’s Pyramid
of CSR constructs, and Lawrence et al.’s charity and
stewardship principles. For
example, environmental friendliness, legal responsibility and
ethical responsibility are
scored highly.
Managers of respondent companies might be aware that even
though CSR primarily
suggests social and ethical concerns, many also place
importance on legal responsibility.
To be philanthropic is easy because it involves donations. This
is not so with the case
of the stewardship function, which is sometimes viewed as a
narrower aspect of CSR.
It should be recognized that the stewardship duty has a broader
agenda as it
compels business to be “trustees,” an obligation to function in
the general interest of
the public. In fact, this fits neatly with the contemporary
emphasis of stakeholder

management which goes beyond the shareholder to include
employees, consumers, the
public, the government and activists.
Based on two separate questions, it is found that respondents in
the KSA are in
agreement with the fact that good CSR practices pave the way
for the positive
performance of the company and there should a system of CSR
evaluation.
Though there are many CSR practices in listed companies in the
KSA, the government
of the KSA and corporations started taking an interest in
creating awareness.
Mean
Education Economic Legal Ethical Philanthropy Charity
Steward Environment Performance
Secondary 1.3534 1.2414 0.8046 1.0517 1.3362 1.2241 1.2586
1.2414
Bachelor 1.0318 1.1038 0.6497 0.8877 0.9809 1.0254 1.1398
0.9110
Intermediate 1.0000 1.0500 0.6952 0.9357 1.2929 1.1143
1.1714 1.1286
Post graduate 0.9846 1.0278 0.5062 0.9444 1.0278 1.0833
1.2037 1.0741
F 3.347 1.182 1.023 0.662 3.607 0.703 0.235 2.080
Table VI.
Perceptions according
to education
Corporate social

responsibility
291
The need to be more socially responsible in a professional
corporate way is a recent
one. The findings here are consistent with idea that the CSR
philosophy is not new. The
practices of CSR are different from one company to another and
the reporting system of
CSR practices to the government would be appreciated in the
future. The data collected
for this study was from 210 managers of listed companies in
Riyadh, hence the
opinions cannot be generalized. There is an excellent scope for
future researchers on
the current topic and in improving the instruments, measures
and constituent concepts
of CSR constructs in order to provide better guidance to policy
makers and managers,
as well as for the academic interest.
References
Ahmad, S.J. (2006), “From principles to practice: exploring
corporate social responsibility in
Pakistan”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 24,
Winter, p. 115.
Practices Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid
Environment 9 4.3 4.3 4.3
Child care 1 0.5 0.5 4.8

Education 8 3.8 3.8 8.6
Financing small project 1 0.5 0.5 9.0
Others 147 70.0 70.0 79.0
1 to 8 and others 44 21.0 21.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
D1
Table VII.
CSR practices
Figure 1.
Environment
150
100
50
0
Child Care Education Financing
Small Project
Others 1 to 8 &
Others
Practices
F
re
q
u
e

n
c
y
CR
23,3
292
Ararat, M. (2008), “A development perspective for ‘corporate
social responsibility’: case of
Turkey”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 271-285.
Arenas, D., Lozano, J.M. and Albareda, L. (2009), “The role of
NGOs in CSR: mutual perceptions
among stakeholders”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88,
Springer, pp. 175-197.
Balasubramanian, N.K., Kimber, D. and Siemensma, F. (2005),
“Emerging opportunities or
traditions reinforced? An analysis of the attitudes towards CSR,
and trend of thinking
about CSR in India”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol.
17, Spring, p. 79.
Bansal, P., Maurer, C. and Slawinski, N. (2008), “Beyond good
intentions: strategies for managing
your CSR performance”, Ivey Business Journal Online, Vol. 72
No. 1, p. 1.
Beckmann, S.C. (2007), “Consumers and corporate social
responsibility: matching the
unmatchable?”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1,

p. 27.
Belal, A. (2001), “A study of corporate social disclosures in
Bangladesh”, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 274-289.
Birth, G. and Illia, L. (2008), “Communicating CSR: practices
among Switzerland’s top 300
companies”, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 182-196.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three dimensional conceptual model of
corporate social performance”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social
responsibility: toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders”, Business
Horizons, July/August, p. 42.
Carroll, A.B. (1998), “The four faces of corporate citizenship”,
Business and Society Review,
Vol. 100, pp. 1-7.
Cetindamar, D. and Husoy, K. (2007), “Corporate social
responsibility practices and
environmentally responsible behavior: the case of the United
Nations global compact”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76, Springer, pp. 163-176.
Delbard, O. (2008), “CSR legislation in France and the
European regulatory paradox: an analysis
of EU CSR policy and sustainability reporting practice”,
Corporate Governance, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 397-405.

Foreign Affairs (2009), Vol. 88 No. 5, September/October, New
York, NY, p. P1 and 6 pp.
Gao, Y. (2009), “Corporate social performance in China:
evidence from large companies”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 89, pp. 23-35.
Hutchins, M.J., Walck, C.L., Sterk, D.P. and Campbell, G.A.
(2005), “Corporate social
responsibility: a unifying discourse for the mining industry?”,
Greener Management
International, Vol. 52, Winter, p. 17.
Lawrence, A.T., Weber, J. and Post, J.E. (2005), Business and
Society: Stakeholders, Ethics,
Public Policy, 11th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and Johnston, W.J. (2009), “Corporate
social responsibility: an empirical
investigation of USA organizations”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 85, Springer,
pp. 303-323.
Logsdon, J.M., Thomas, O.E. and Van Buren, H.J. III (2006),
“Corporate social responsibility in
large Mexican firms”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship,
Vol. 21, Spring, p. 51.
Maghrabi, A.S. (2008), “The perceived social role of
multinational corporations: a study in the
United States and Saudi Arabia”, International Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
p. 578.
Muller, A. and Kolk, A. (2008), “CSR performance in emerging

markets evidence from Mexico”,
Corporate social
responsibility
293
Murillo, D. and Lozano, J.M. (2006), “SMEs and CSR: an
approach to CSR in their own words”,
Murillo, D. and Lozano, J.M. (2009), “Society is out there,
organisation is in here: on the
perceptions of corporate social responsibility held by different
managerial groups”,
Petersons, A. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility in Latvia:
a benchmark study”,
Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 106-118.
Quazi, A.M. (2003), “Identifying the determinants of corporate
managers perceived social
obligations”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 9.
Ramasamy, B. and Yeung, M. (2009), “Chinese consumers’
perception of corporate social
responsibility (CSR)”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88,
Reverte, C. (2008), “Determinants of corporate social
responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish
listed firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88, Springer, pp.

351-366.
Reynolds, M. and Yuthas, K. (2008), “Moral discourse and
corporate social responsibility
reporting”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 78, Springer, pp.
47-64.
Robson, A. and Mitchell, E. (2007), “CSR performance: driven
by TQM implementation, size,
sector?”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
pp. 722-737.
Rugimbana, R., Quazi, A. and Keating, B. (2008), “Applying a
consumer perceptual measure of
corporate social responsibility”, The Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, Vol. 29, Spring, p. 61.
Rundle, S. (2008), “Raising the bar: from corporate social
responsibility to corporate social
performance”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 245-253.
Swaen, V. (2008), “Impact of corporate social responsibility on
consumer trust”, Recherche et
Applications en Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4.
Tench, R., Bowd, R. and Jones, B. (2007), “Perceptions and
perspectives: corporate social
responsibility and the media”, Journal of Communication
pp. 348-370.
Wang, Y. (2009), “Examination on philosophy-based
management of contemporary Japanese
corporations: philosophy, value orientation and performance”,

Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 85, Springer, pp. 1-12.
Yang, X. and Rivers, C. (2009), “Antecedents of CSR practices
in MNCs’ subsidiaries:
a stakeholder and institutional perspective”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 86, Springer,
pp. 155-169.
Zu, L. and Song, L. (2009), “Determinants of managerial values
on corporate social responsibility:
evidence from China”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88,
Further reading
Mittal, R.K., Sinha, N. and Singh, A. (2008), “An analysis of
linkage between economic value
added and corporate social responsibility”, Management
Decision, Vol. 46 No. 9,
pp. 1437-1443.
CR
23,3
294
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Appendix
S

.
n
o
.
S
ta
te
m
en
t
1
T
h
e
p
ri
m
a
ry
g
o
a
l
o
f

co
m
p
a
n
ie
s
is
to
m
a
k
e
a
s
m
u
ch
p
ro
fi
t
a
s
p

o
ss
ib
le
2
S
o
ci
a
ll
y
re
sp
o
n
si
b
le
co
m
p
a
n
ie
s

st
ri
v
e
to
lo
w
er
th
ei
r
o
p
er
a
ti
o
n
a
l
co
st
s
3

C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s
sh
o
u
ld
st
ri
v
e
fo
r
th
e
h
ig
h
es
t

re
tu
rn
s
to
th
ei
r
sh
a
re
h
o
ld
er
s
4
C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s

sh
o
u
ld
n
o
t
b
e
d
is
tr
a
ct
ed
fr
o
m
th
ei
r
ec
o
n
o

m
ic
fu
n
ct
io
n
s
b
y
so
lv
in
g
so
ci
a
l
p
ro
b
le
m
s

5
W
el
l
ru
n
co
m
p
a
n
ie
s
st
ri
v
e
to
co
m
p
ly
w
it
h

a
ll
th
e
st
a
te
la
w
s
a
n
d
re
g
u
la
ti
o
n
s
6
It
is

so
m
et
im
e
ex
p
ed
ie
n
t
fo
r
co
m
p
a
n
ie
s
to
v
io
la

te
so
m
e
la
w
s
a
n
d
re
g
u
la
ti
o
n
s
7
C
o
m
p
a
n

ie
s
h
a
v
e
to
a
d
h
er
e
to
a
ll
st
a
te
ru
le
s
a
n
d
re

g
u
la
ti
o
n
s
ev
en
th
o
u
g
h
it
m
a
y
b
e
co
st
ly
fo

r
th
em
8
P
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
o
f
th
e
co
m
p
a
n
y
w
il
l
im

p
ro
v
e
b
y
p
ra
ct
ic
in
g
C
S
R
9
S
o
ci
a
ll
y
re
sp

o
n
si
b
le
co
m
p
a
n
ie
s
a
lw
a
y
s
d
o
w
h
a
t
is
ri

g
h
t,
fa
ir
a
n
d
ju
st
1
0
C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s
sh
o
u
ld
a
v

o
id
d
o
in
g
h
a
rm
a
t
a
ll
co
st
1
1
It
is
so
m
et
im
e

ex
p
ed
ie
n
t
fo
r
co
m
p
a
n
ie
s
to
en
g
a
g
e
in
q
u

es
ti
o
n
a
b
le
p
ra
ct
ic
es
fo
r
ec
o
n
o
m
ic
g
a
in
s
1

2
C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s
sh
o
u
ld
co
n
tr
ib
u
te
re
so
u
rc
es
to

th
e
co
m
m
u
n
it
y
1
3
S
o
ci
a
ll
y
re
sp
o
n
si
b
le
co

m
p
a
n
ie
s
st
ri
v
e
to
p
ro
v
id
e
fo
r
co
m
m
u
n
it

y
b
et
te
rm
en
t
1
4
C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s
sh
o
u
ld
a
ct
iv
el

y
p
ro
m
o
te
v
o
lu
n
te
er
is
m
1
5
C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s
h
a

v
e
to
co
m
m
it
re
so
u
rc
es
to
su
p
p
o
rt
cu
lt
u
re
a
n

d
a
rt
s
1
6
B
u
si
n
es
s
h
a
s
a
n
o
b
li
g
a
ti
o
n

to
n
ee
d
y
p
er
so
n
s
in
th
e
so
ci
et
y
1
7
B
u
si
n
es
s

sh
o
u
ld
b
e
ch
a
ri
ta
b
le
to
w
a
rd
th
e
le
ss
fo
rt
u
n

a
te
in
th
e
so
ci
et
y
1
8
C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s
sh
o
u
ld
ta
k
e

v
o
lu
n
ta
ry
a
ct
io
n
s
to
p
ro
m
o
te
so
ci
a
l
g
o
o
d

1
9
S
o
ci
a
ll
y
re
sp
o
n
si
b
le
co
m
p
a
n
ie
s
co
n
tr

ib
u
te
to
ch
a
ri
ta
b
le
o
rg
a
n
iz
a
ti
o
n
s
2
0
B
u
si

n
es
s
h
a
s
a
n
o
b
li
g
a
ti
o
n
to
se
e
th
a
t
ev
er

y
o
n
e
in
th
e
so
ci
et
y
b
en
efi
ts
fr
o
m
it
s
a
ct
io
n
s

2
1
B
u
si
n
es
s
sh
o
u
ld
co
n
si
d
er
th
e
in
te
re
st
s
o

f
a
ll
w
h
o
a
re
a
ff
ec
te
d
b
y
it
s
d
ec
is
io
n
s
a
n

d
a
ct
io
n
s
2
2
B
u
si
n
es
s
sh
o
u
ld
b
a
la
n
ce
th
e

in
te
re
st
s
a
n
d
n
ee
d
s
o
f
d
if
fe
re
n
t
g
ro
u
p

s
in
th
e
so
ci
et
y
2
3
B
u
si
n
es
s
a
n
d
so
ci
et
y
a
re

in
te
rd
ep
en
d
en
t
2
4
C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s
sh
o
u
ld
co
n
tr

ib
u
te
to
th
e
u
p
k
ee
p
o
f
th
e
n
a
tu
ra
l
en
v
ir
o
n

m
en
t
2
5
C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s
sh
o
u
ld
h
a
v
e
w
a
st
e

m
in
im
iz
a
ti
o
n
a
n
d
re
cy
cl
in
g
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
2
6

P
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
o
f
th
e
co
m
p
a
n
y
w
il
l
im
p
ro
v
e

b
y
p
ra
ct
ic
in
g
C
S
R
2
7
C
S
R
ev
a
lu
a
ti
o
n
sy

st
em
sh
o
u
ld
b
e
p
re
se
n
t
in
th
e
co
m
p
a
n
y
Table AI.

Corporate social
responsibility
295
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Corporate Social Responsibilityijmr_277 1..7
Adam Lindgreen and Valérie Swaen1
Professor of Marketing at Hull University Business School and
Research Fellow at BEM Bordeaux Management
School, c/o Hull University, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX,
UK, and 1Louvain School of Management,
Université catholique de Louvain, Place des Doyens 1, 1348
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, and IESEG
School of Management, rue de la Digue 3, 59000 Lille, France
Corresponding author email: [email protected]
Context of the special issue
The high ranking of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) on research agendas (Greenfield 2004;
Maignan and Ralston 2002; McWilliams et al. 2006;
Pearce and Doh 2005) appears to be reflected in
theoretical and managerial discussions that argue
‘not only is doing good the right thing to do, but it

also leads to doing better’ (Bhattacharya and Sen
2004, p. 9; see also Dunphy et al. 2003; Kotler and
Lee 2005). As a result, CSR has moved from ideol-
ogy to reality, and many consider it necessary for
organizations to define their roles in society and
apply social and ethical standards to their businesses
(Lichtenstein et al. 2004). Although organizations
increasingly adhere and demonstrate their commit-
ment to CSR (Pinkston and Carroll 1994), many
struggle with this effort (Lindgreen et al. 2009).
The current state of affairs may be the result of
how CSR has developed; this development reflects
the influence of various theories, including agency
theory, institutional theory, the resource-based view
of the firm, stakeholder theory, stewardship theory
and the theory of the firm (for a review, see McWil-
liams et al. 2002; also refer to Carroll 1979; Wartick
and Cochran 1985; Windsor 2006), which results in
various conceptualizations of CSR (Pinkston and
Carroll 1996; Snider et al. 2003). The best concep-
tualizations remain in their – to use a strong word –
embryonic stages, and prescribed approaches to CSR
seem perplexing to theorists and completely elude
practitioners. This state of affairs probably impedes a
full understanding among managers of what CSR
should comprise and hinders further theoretical
development of CSR.
Some studies examine important research in CSR
literature and identify critical research gaps (Carroll
1999; Garriga and Melé 2004; Lee 2008; Secchi
2007). A recent International Journal of Management
Reviews paper argues that conceptualizations of and
research on CSR have evolved along two avenues

(Lee 2008): In terms of the level of analysis, research-
ers have moved from a discussion of the macro social
effects to an organizational-level analysis of CSR and
its impact on organizational processes and perfor-
mance. In terms of the theoretical orientation of this
field, researchers have shifted from explicitly norma-
tive and ethics-oriented arguments to implicitly nor-
mative and performance-oriented managerial studies.
We take this opportunity to thank first all those who have
contributed towards this special issue of International
Journal of Management Reviews. The reviewing was a
double-blind process; we greatly appreciate the work of the
reviewers who have taken time to provide timely feedback to
the authors, thereby helping the authors to improve their
manuscripts: Ralf Barkemeyer, Debra Basil, Guido Berens,
Oana Branzei, Sally Gunz, Ans Kolk, John Peloza, Maria
May Seitanidi, Tage Skjøtt-Larsen, Joëlle Vanhamme and
David Walters.
We also extend special thanks to the Editors, Steve Arm-
strong and Adrian Wilkinson, for giving us the opportunity
to guest edit this special issue of International Journal of
Management Reviews. Last but not least, we warmly thank
all the authors who submitted their manuscripts for consid-
eration in International Journal of Management Reviews.
We appreciate and are grateful for the authors’ desire to
share their knowledge and experience with the journal’s
readers – and for having their views put forward for possible
challenge by their peers. We are confident that the papers in
this special issue contribute to a greater, more detailed
understanding of CSR. We also hope that the selected papers
will generate the kind of dialogue that is necessary to further
understanding in this important area.
International Journal of Management Reviews (2010)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00277.x
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of
Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600
Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA
Despite the well-accepted belief that CSR enables
organizations to meet their stakeholder obligations,
various unresolved issues remain. The main purpose
of this special issue is to offer high-quality literature
surveys of five important CSR topics, focusing pre-
dominantly on organizational and managerial levels
of analysis. Together, the five literature surveys
enclosed draw timely, reasoned and authoritative
conclusions about questions that have been left unan-
swered, as this introduction discusses in more detail
in the following sections.
Communication
Organizations increasingly use CSR activities to
position their corporate brand in the eyes of consum-
ers and other stakeholders, such as through their
annual reports (Sweeney and Coughlan 2008) and
websites (Maignan and Ralston 2002; Wanderley
et al. 2008). At the same time, literature debates
whether organizations should communicate about
their CSR initiatives and, if organizations choose to
communicate, whether traditional marketing tools
are appropriate (Van de Ven 2008). Yet, according to
recent research, communicating about social activi-
ties does not always benefit the communicating orga-
nization, notably because CSR communication may

trigger stakeholders’ scepticism and cynicism (Mohr
et al. 2001; Schlegelmilch and Pollach 2005) A sys-
tematic, interdisciplinary examination of CSR com-
munication could offer an essential definition of the
field of CSR communication which emphasizes the
role of such communication and outlines key CSR
communications tactics, such as social and environ-
mental reporting, internationally recognized CSR
frameworks, and different means to involve stake-
holders in two-way communication processes. Key
questions include what to say – and then how to say
it – about an organization’s CSR programs and
achievements, without appearing self-serving or
risking stakeholder cynicism.
Implementation
Although CSR now appears as an important dimen-
sion of contemporary business activities (Kotler and
Keller 2008), the dynamic and practical aspects of
developing a CSR orientation within an organization
have emerged only recently in the literature (Jonker
and de Witte 2006; Lindgreen et al. 2009). Imple-
menting a CSR orientation most likely represents a
determinant event for any organization, yet existing
guidelines for implementing CSR and the verifiable
criteria for its success still lack theoretical or empiri-
cal support, especially from a dynamic perspective.
The models and suggestions available to managers
are unclear (Porter and Kramer 2006), and, to the
best of our knowledge, studies into developing and
implementing a CSR orientation focus on relatively
limited aspects and dimensions (Maignan et al.
2006; Matten et al. 2003). For example, whereas
some authors argue that CSR implementation hap-

pening through either incremental or transforma-
tional organizational change processes (Dunphy
et al. 2003), others argue that changes come by
radical, transformational approaches (Doppelt
2003), in which ‘managers must fundamentally
rethink their prevailing views about strategy, technol-
ogy and markets’ (Hart and Milstein 1999, p. 32).
Such studies illustrate the lack of resolution about
CSR integration and development and which
approaches will ensure the integration of CSR into
the organization’s culture and strategy (‘corporate
DNA’). The need for a systematic, interdisciplinary
literature review on CSR implementation and change
models thus is clear.
Stakeholder engagement
At issue for CSR are the ‘societal expectations of
corporate behavior; a behavior that is alleged by a
stakeholder to be expected by society or morally
required and is therefore justifiably demanded of a
business’ (Whetten et al. 2002, p. 374). As a
stakeholder-oriented concept, CSR holds that orga-
nizations exist within networks of stakeholders,
face the potentially conflicting demands of these
stakeholders, and translate the demands into CSR
objectives and policies. In some cases though,
organizations attempt to change stakeholders’ expec-
tations (Lamberg et al. 2003). To achieve the suc-
cessful implementation of CSR, managers must
build bridges with their stakeholders – through
formal and informal dialogues and engagement
practices – in the pursuit of common goals, and
convince them to support the organization’s chosen
strategic course (Andriof and Waddock 2002). Busi-
ness leaders must address the moral complexities

that result from the multitude of stakeholder claims
and build enduring, mutually beneficial relationships
with relevant stakeholders (Maak 2007). Stakeholder
engagement then becomes ‘CSR in action’. Yet the
way in which organizations choose to manage their
stakeholder relationships in practice varies consider-
2 A. Lindgreen and V. Swaen
Management
ably, such that stakeholder engagement can represent
different features and various theoretical perspec-
tives. Inconsistencies, equivocalness and practical
implications related to the role of stakeholder
engagement in CSR therefore still need synthesis and
resolution.
Measurement
Which business practices can really count as respon-
sible CSR behaviour? We might start to answer this
question by noting that CSR generally represents a
continuing commitment by an organization to behave
ethically and contribute to economic development,
while also improving the quality of life of its employ-
ees (and their families), the local community, and
society at large (Watts and Holme 1999). Organiza-
tions’ efforts to address a wider variety of social and
environmental problems also are CSR. It thus
appears natural that CSR be conceived of as multi-
dimensional; its initiatives vary from voluntary pro-
grams and partnerships to mitigate the environmental

impact of industrial plants and production methods
(Rondinelli and Berry 2000) to the development of
sourcing and marketing initiatives that protect social
welfare and commit to environmental benefits
(Roberts 2003; Szmigin et al. 2007). The impact of
corporate practices in developing countries (Eweje
2006; Jeppesen and Hansen 2004) and their implica-
tions for human rights (Cragg 2000; Ratner 2001)
also remain key concerns for internationally and
CSR-oriented organizations. Rather than a single,
comprehensive activity, CSR comprises many differ-
ent activities from which an organization can choose
(Lindgreen et al. 2009). Accordingly, relevant ques-
tions include the following: How should the level of
an organization’s CSR activity be measured? What
are the different criteria and indicators that may
assess the level of CSR effectively? A critical review
of existing scales and indicators would aid further
research that seeks to assess the degree of CSR and
measure its impact on the different dimensions of
business performance and society’s well-being.
Business case
There are, as Vogel (2005, p. 2) argues, ‘many
reasons why some companies choose to behave more
responsibly in the absence of legal requirements.
Some are strategic, others are defensive, and still
others may be altruistic’. The basic belief that CSR
can be good for business clearly drives corporate
interest in CSR (Kotler and Lee 2005), based on the
reasoning that organizations create a competitive
advantage by integrating non-economic factors
(Porter and Kramer 2006), differentiating themselves
from competitors and building a better image and

reputation (Fombrun and Shanley 1990), and creat-
ing consumer goodwill and positive employee atti-
tudes and behaviour (Brammer et al. 2007; Maignan
et al. 1999; Rupp et al. 2006; Valentine and Fleis-
chman 2008). From these considerations, companies
realize that the development and implementation of
CSR programs offers a ‘win–win’ scenario for the
organization and its community. A systematic and
interdisciplinary examination of the business case
for CSR should detail different studies which iden-
tify potential positive and negative effects of CSR on
business performance in its broadest conception, not
just in financial terms.
This special issue of International Journal of
Management Reviews on CSR addresses some of the
above research lacunae. The issue aims to provide
academics with greater insights into some of the
more subtle areas of CSR and give practitioners
some guiding principles for implementing CSR
initiatives.
Structure of the special issue
With a fresh perspective, ‘Maximizing business
returns to corporate social responsibility: the role of
CSR communication’, by Shuili Du, C.B. Bhatta-
charya, and Sankar Sen, argues that stakeholders’
low awareness and unfavorable attributions of corpo-
rate CSR activities impede efforts to maximize busi-
ness benefits from those activities. In this setting,
stakeholders may perceive predominantly extrinsic
motives in companies’ social initiatives in which the
companies are seen as attempting to increase their
profits, which creates a backlash against CSR com-
munication. On the basis of their conceptual frame-

work of CSR communication, these authors assess
what to communicate (i.e. message content), where
to communicate (i.e. message channels), as well as
company- and stakeholder-specific factors that
impact the effectiveness of CSR communication.
In a context in which CSR literature tends to be
segmented by various aspects of the CSR develop-
ment process, François Maon, Adam Lindgreen and
Valérie Swaen, in ‘Organizational stages and cultural
phases: a critical review and a consolidative model
of CSR development’, propose an integrative frame-
Corporate Social Responsibility 3
Management
work that links moral, cultural, strategic and organi-
zational aspects and implications of CSR in order to
provide a more comprehensive perspective of the
CSR phenomenon. Based on a critical review of
existing stage models of CSR development and the
morally based stakeholder culture continuum by
Jones et al. (2007), these authors propose a seven-
stage developmental path that is articulated around
three cultural phases (CSR reluctance, CSR grasp
and CSR embedment phases). The proposed consoli-
dative model differs from other models mainly
through the importance given to cultural implications
of the evolution along the CSR path and, in particu-
lar, the integration of stakeholder relationships. This
paper reinforces the viewpoint that changes required
to progress toward CSR demand shifts in organiza-

tional culture (Doppelt 2003).
In ‘Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and
strategic management’, James Noland and Robert A.
Phillips cite two significant – and significantly differ-
ent – lines of thought on the matter of stakeholder
engagement. The first line, ‘Habermasian’, distin-
guishes between ‘strategic’ and ‘moral’ action. Spe-
cifically, strategic action pursues personal or
corporate ends; moral action instead attempts to
achieve genuine understanding through communica-
tion. In the second line of thought, researchers, whom
the authors call ‘strategists’, deny the viability of the
Habermasian distinction and the insistence on ethics
and strategy necessarily constituting each other.
Noland and Phillips generally prefer the Habermasian
emphasis on legitimate, good-faith communication
with stakeholders and recognition of the implications
of power imbalances; they argue that distinguishing
between moral and strategic action tends to under-
mine rather than enhance arguments for the just
engagement of stakeholders. Yet if business and ethics
are separate realms, or strategy and morality must be
kept independent of each other, there can be no
method of addressing the multitude of responsibilities
that companies confront. Therefore, understanding
how and why ethics may be inextricable from good
strategy offers a more promising route. To achieve a
coherent thought framework, the authors argue, ethics
must be part of strategy – more accurately, business
strategy must be a part of a broader ethics.
Donna J. Wood attempts to fill the knowledge gap
about political will for measuring and tracking cor-
porate social performance in general. In ‘Measuring
corporate social performance: a review’, she main-

tains that we lack a good understanding of how to
develop corporate social performance measures.
Without significant methodological developments,
advances in corporate social performance measure-
ment have stalled. The theory that does exist tends to
be weak and largely unverified; extant data are,
according to Wood, too often ‘perceptual, reputa-
tional, second-hand, self-reported, indirect, grossly
incomplete, distorted, or simply false’. Finally, where
‘methods are applied, they are unable to overcome
the deficiencies of theory and data’. This sorry state
of affairs hinders theory development, methodology
applications and strong results. Businesses may be
able to do well even without exercising social respon-
sibility, because social responsibility requirements
derive from society’s guiding political philosophy.
Despite these seemingly dire predictions, the paper
remains optimistic, because identifying the signifi-
cant outcomes and impacts of corporate actions and
then finding a meaningful categorization may not
be that difficult. Furthermore, a social indicators
approach suggests the possibility of measuring con-
sequences of corporate actions for society as a
whole. Again though, it remains up to society to
demand such information, generally through
increased regulation.
Finally, in ‘The business case for corporate social
responsibility: a review of concepts, research and
practice’, Archie B. Carroll and Kareem M. Shabana
investigate the business case for CSR: In the end,
why should the business community jump on the
CSR bandwagon? How do companies benefit tangi-
bly from engaging in CSR policies, activities and
practices? The authors provide some historical back-

ground and perspective, as well as a portrait of how
understanding of CSR has evolved and a summary of
some long-established, traditional arguments both
for and against the idea. The business case for CSR
may be categorized into four arguments, they say: (1)
reducing cost and risk (2) strengthening legitimacy
and reputation (3) building competitive advantage,
and (4) creating win–win situations through syner-
gistic value creation. Therefore, from a narrow view,
the business case justifies CSR initiatives only when
they produce direct and clear links to firm financial
performance. In contrast, a broad view would note
that CSR initiatives produce direct and indirect links
to firm performance, which enables the company to
benefit from CSR opportunities. Effective CSR
requires developing appropriate CSR strategies, and
effective CSR activities are those directed at improv-
ing both stakeholder relations and social welfare. In
turn, the right CSR strategy achieves convergence
between economic and social goals, though, to for-
Management
mulate a successful CSR strategy, companies must
understand that its benefits will depend on both
mediating variables and situational contingencies,
which means that the impact of CSR will not always
be to enhance firm financial performance. Finally, a
contingency perspective could explicate the lack of a
positive relationship between CSR and firm financial
performance in certain circumstances, as well as

defend the business case for CSR in environments in
which the business case appears to have failed. Only
when companies pursue CSR activities with support
from stakeholders can there be a market for virtue
and a true business case for CSR.
Further research avenues
As the selected papers reveal, issues surrounding
CSR constitute a rich area of inquiry for both aca-
demics and practitioners. The research findings
enclosed in this special, informative issue illustrate
the myriad ways in which organizations design and
implement their CSR initiatives, as well as measure
the performance outcomes of these initiatives, com-
municate about their engagement in CSR to stake-
holders, and attempt to build a business case for
CSR. As such, this special issue offers key insights
into the conditions for successful CSR implementa-
tion, which clearly requires sensitivity to the norms
and values of the host communities, as well as open
conversations with representatives from multiple
communities. This issue may help to guide managers
in determining the types of CSR initiatives to under-
take, the resources on which they should attempt to
draw, the way to communicate their CSR involve-
ment to various stakeholder groups, and ways of
integrating stakeholders actively in the process.
Finally, we hope sincerely that this special issue leads
to continued, ongoing and additional research on
CSR fields that remain under researched.
One field for example, the emphasis to date on
characterizing and justifying CSR actions has left
unexplored the antecedents of CSR, such as the soci-
etal level values or leadership behaviours that trigger

or shape corporate responses in this domain (Basu
and Palazzo 2008; Waldman et al. 2006). Empirical
studies of CSR have largely ignored the place of the
corporate leader in implementing CSR initiatives.
What, however, are the effects of leader values, ethics
and style in regard to CSR? Some recent research has
attempted to address this question and a wide variety
of leadership styles have been associated directly or
indirectly with CSR (e.g. Campbell 2006; Waldman
and Siegel 2008). However, more cross-level
research is needed to clarify links between leadership
behaviours, leadership styles and CSR (Waldman
and Siegel 2008).
Furthermore, Lee’s (2008) observation that the
vast majority of CSR research focuses almost exclu-
sively on large publicly traded corporations is still
relevant. Little is known about what CSR means and
how CSR is implemented in small and medium-size
enterprises (SMEs) and enterprises with different
ownership structure. Some recent research highlights
that SMEs have nurtured ‘peculiar’ CSR orientations
revolving around intimate and personalized stake-
holder relationships and moderate innovation,
limited institutionalization of CSR processes, and
limited identification with the business case for CSR
(cf. Jamali et al. 2008). More research is needed in
order to identify the peculiarities of practising CSR
in SMEs and to emphasize the business case for CSR
among SMEs.
Finally, with the expansion of the global economy,
CSR has also gone global. However, research in CSR
still remains largely local (Lee 2008). Further
empirical investigation of CSR practices should

examine how CSR is conceived and practised in
diverse institutional contexts.
References
Andriof, J. and Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder
engagement. In Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B. and
Sutherland Rahman, S. (eds), Unfolding Stakeholder
Thinking: Theory, Responsibility and Engagement. Shef-
field: Greenleaf Publishing, pp. 19–42.
Basu, K. and Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social respon-
sibility: a process model of sensemaking. Academy of
Management Review, 33, pp. 122–136.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing
good: when, why, and how consumers respond to corpo-
rate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47,
pp. 9–24.
Brammer, S., Millington, A. and Rayton, B. (2007). The
contribution of corporate social responsibility to organi-
zational commitment. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18, pp. 1701–1719.
Campbell, J.L. (2006). Institutional analysis and the paradox
of corporate social responsibility. American Behavioral
Scientist, 49, pp. 925–938.
Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model
of corporate performance. Academy of Management
Review, 4, pp. 497–505.
Carroll, A.B. (1999). CSR: Evolution of a definitional con-
struct. Business & Society, 38, pp. 268–295.

Management
Cragg, W. (2000). Human rights and business ethics: fash-
ioning a new social contract. Journal of Business Ethics,
27, pp. 205–214.
Doppelt, B. (2003). Leading Change Toward Sustainability.
Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A. and Benn, S. (2003). Organiza-
tional Change for Corporate Sustainability. London:
Routledge.
Eweje, G. (2006). Environmental costs and responsibilities
resulting from oil exploitation in developing countries:
the case of the Niger Delta of Nigeria. Journal of Business
Ethics, 69, pp. 27–56.
Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name?
Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of
Management Journal, 3, pp. 233–258.
Garriga, E. and Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsi-
bility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business
Ethics, 53, pp. 51–71.
Greenfield, W.M. (2004). In the name of corporate social
responsibility. Business Horizons, 47, pp. 19–28.
Hart, S.L. and Milstein, M. (1999). Global sustainability and
the creative destruction of industries. Sloan Management

Review, 41, pp. 23–33.
Jamali, D., Zanhour, M. and Keshishian, T. (2008). Peculiar
strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context
of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, pp. 355–377.
Jeppesen, S. and Hansen, M.W. (2004). Environmental
upgrading of Third World enterprises through linkages to
transnational corporations: theoretical perspectives and
preliminary evidence. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment, 13, pp. 261–274.
Jones, T.M., Felps, W. and Bigley, G. (2007). Ethical theory
and stakeholder-related decisions: the role of stakeholder
culture. Academy of Management Review, 32, pp. 137–
155.
Jonker, J. and de Witte, M. (2006). Conclusion: the real
challenges of organising and implementing CSR. In
Jonker, J. and De Witte, M. (eds), The Challenge of Orga-
nising and Implementing Corporate Social Responsibil-
ity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 237–247.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2008). Marketing Management,
13th international edn. London: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. and Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Social Responsi-
bility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your
Cause. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Lamberg, J., Savage, G. and Pajunen, K. (2003). Strategic
stakeholder perspective to ESOP negotiations: the case of
United Airlines. Management Decision, 41, pp. 383–393.
Lee, M.-D. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate
social responsibility: its evolutionary path and the road

ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10,
pp. 53–73.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M.
(2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on
customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits.
Journal of Marketing, 68, pp. 16–32.
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and Johnston, W.J. (2009). Corpo-
rate social responsibility: An empirical investigation of
U.S. organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(Suppl.
2), pp. 303–323.
Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder
engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal
of Business Ethics, 74, pp. 329–343.
Maignan, I. and Ralston, D. (2002). Corporate social respon-
sibility in Europe and the U.S.: insights from businesses’
self-presentations. Journal of International Business
Studies, 33, pp. 497–514.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Hult, T. (1999). Corporate
citizenship: cultural antecedents and business benefits.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27,
pp. 455–469.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2006). A stake-
holder model for implementing social responsibility in
marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39, pp. 956–
976.
Matten, D., Crane, A. and Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the
mask: revealing the true face of corporate citizenship.
Journal of Business Ethics, 45, pp. 109–120.

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, P.M. (2006). Cor-
porate social responsibility: strategic implications.
Journal of Management Studies, 43, pp. 1–18.
McWilliams, A., Van Fleet, D.D. and Cory, K. (2002).
Raising rivals’ costs through political strategy: an exten-
sion of the resource-based theory. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 39, pp. 707–723.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. and Harris, K.E. (2001). Do con-
sumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The
impact of corporate social responsibility on buying
behaviour. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35, pp. 45–72.
Pearce, J.A. and Doh, J.P. (2005). High-impact collaborative
social initiatives. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46,
pp. 30–39.
Pinkston, T.S. and Carroll, A.B. (1994). Corporate citizen-
ship perspectives and foreign direct investment in the U.S.
Journal of Business Ethics, 13, pp. 157–169.
Pinkston, T.S. and Carroll, A.B. (1996). A retrospective
examination of CSR orientations: have they changed?
Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 199–206.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy and society:
the link between competitive advantage and corporate
social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84,
pp. 78–92.
Ratner, S.R. (2001). Corporations and human rights: a
theory of legal responsibility. The Yale Law Journal, 111,
pp. 443–545.
Roberts, S. (2003). Supply chain specific? Understanding

the patchy success of ethical sourcing initiatives. Journal
of Business Ethics, 44, pp. 159–170.
Rondinelli, D.A. and Berry, M.A. (2000). Environmental
citizenship in multinational corporations: social responsi-
bility and sustainable development. European Manage-
ment Journal, 18, pp. 70–84.
Management
Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R.V. and Williams, C.A.
(2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsi-
bility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, pp. 537–543.
Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Pollach, I. (2005). The perils and
opportunities of communicating corporate ethics. Journal
of Marketing Management, 21, pp. 267–290.
Secchi, D. (2007). Utilitarian, managerial and relational
theories of corporate social responsibility. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 9, pp. 347–373.
Snider, J., Hill, R.P. and Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social
responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the
world’s most successful firms. Journal of Business Ethics,
48, pp. 175–187.
Sweeney, L. and Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries
report corporate social responsibility differently? An
investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory.

Journal of Marketing Communications, 14, pp. 113–
124.
Szmigin, I., Carrigan, M. and O’Loughlin, D. (2007). Inte-
grating ethical brands into our consumption lives. Journal
of Brand Management, 14, pp. 396–409.
Valentine, S. and Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs,
perceived corporate social responsibility and job satis-
faction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, pp. 159–
172.
Van de Ven, B. (2008). An ethical framework for the
marketing of corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 82, pp. 339–352.
Vogel, D. (2005). The Market for Virtue: The Potential and
Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Waldman, D.A. and Siegel, D.S. (2008). Defining the socially
responsible leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, pp. 117–
131.
Waldman, D.A., Siegel, D.S. and Javidan, M. (2006). Com-
ponents of CEO transformational leadership and corpo-
rate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies,
43, pp. 1703–1725.
Wanderley, L.S.O., Lucian, R., Farache, F. and de Sousa
Filho J.M. (2008). CSR information disclosure on the
web: a context-based approach analyzing the influence of
country of origin and industry sector. Journal of Business
Ethics, 82, pp. 369–378.
Wartick, S.L. and Cochran, P.L. (1985). The evolution of the

corporate social performance model. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 10, pp. 758–769.
Watts, P. and Holme, R. (1999). Meeting Changing Expec-
tations. Corporate Social Responsibility. Geneva:
WBCSD, Available from URL: http://www.wbcsd.org
(accessed 15 January 2007).
Whetten, D.A., Rands, G. and Godfrey, P. (2002). What are
the responsibilities of business to society? In Pettigrew,
A., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (eds), Handbook of
Strategy and Management. London: Sage, pp. 373–408.
Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: three
key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43,
pp. 93–114.
Adam Lindgreen is Professor of Strategic Marketing at Hull
University Business School. He received his
PhD from Cranfield University. Dr Lindgreen has published in
Business Horizons, Industrial Marketing
Management, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Business
Ethics, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of
Product and Innovation Management, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, and Psychology &
Marketing, among others. His most recent books are
Managing Market Relationships, Market Orientation,
Memorable Customer Experiences, The Crisis of
Food Brands and The New Cultures of Food. His research
interests include business and industrial
marketing, experiential marketing and CSR. He serves on the
boards of many journals.
Valérie Swaen is Associate Professor of Marketing and
Corporate Social Responsibility at the Louvain

School of Management at the Université catholique de Louvain,
and a part-time Assistant Professor with the
IESEG School of Management. She is an active member of the
Center of Excellence on Consumers,
Markets and Society and the Head of the Louvain CSR Network
at the Louvain School of Management. She
has published in Corporate Reputation Review, International
Review of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer
Research, Journal of Business Ethics, Recherche et Applications
en Marketing and Revue Française du
Marketing. Her research interests include relationship
marketing, consumer behaviour, CSR implementa-
tion and CSR communication.
Management
Copyright of International Journal of Management Reviews is
the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
What Is Organizational

Culture? And Why Should
We Care?
by Michael D. Watkins
MAY 15, 2013
If you want to provoke a vigorous debate, start a conversation
on organizational culture. While there
is universal agreement that (1) it exists, and (2) that it plays a
crucial role in shaping behavior in
organizations, there is little consensus on what organizational
culture actually is, never mind how it
influences behavior and whether it is something leaders can
change.
This is a problem, because without a reasonable definition (or
definitions) of culture, we cannot hope
to understand its connections to other key elements of the
organization, such as structure and
incentive systems. Nor can we develop good approaches to
analyzing, preserving and transforming
cultures. If we can define what organizational culture is, it
gives us a handle on how to diagnose
problems and even to design and develop better cultures.
Beginning May 1, 2013, I facilitated a discussion around this
question on LinkedIn. The more than 300
responses included rich and varied perspectives and opinions on
organizational culture, its meaning
and importance. I include several distinctive views below,
illustrated by direct quotes from the
LinkedIn discussion thread — and then I offer my own synthesis
of these views. (There often were
multiple postings with similar themes, so these are simply early
selections; unfortunately it was not
possible to acknowledge everyone who made helpful
contributions.)

“Culture is how organizations ‘do things’.” — Robbie Katanga
Culture is consistent, observable patterns of behavior in
organizations. Aristotle said, “We are what
we repeatedly do.” This view elevates repeated behavior or
habits as the core of culture and
deemphasizes what people feel, think or believe. It also focuses
our attention on the forces that
2COPYRIGHT © 2013 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
http://lnkd.in/JatAvU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
shape behavior in organizations, and so highlights an important
question: are all those forces
(including structure, processes, and incentives) “culture” or is
culture simply the behavioral outputs?
“In large part, culture is a product of compensation.” — Alec
Haverstick
Culture is powerfully shaped by incentives. The best predictor
of what people will do is what they are
incentivized to do. By incentives, we mean here the full set of
incentives — monetary rewards, non-
monetary rewards such as status, recognition and advancement,
and sanctions — to which members
of the organization are subject. But where do incentives come
from? As with the previous definition,
there are potential chicken-and-egg issues. Are patterns of
behavior the product of incentives, or
have incentives been shaped in fundamental ways by beliefs and

values that underpin the culture?
“Organizational culture defines a jointly shared description of
an organization from within.” —
Bruce Perron
Culture is a process of “sense-making” in organizations. Sense-
making has been defined as “a
collaborative process of creating shared awareness and
understanding out of different individuals’
perspectives and varied interests.” Note that this moves the
definition of culture beyond patterns of
behavior into the realm of jointly-held beliefs and
interpretations about “what is.” It says that a
crucial purpose of culture is to help orient its members to
“reality” in ways that provide a basis for
alignment of purpose and shared action.
“Organizational culture is the sum of values and rituals which
serve as ‘glue’ to integrate the
members of the organization.” — Richard Perrin
Culture is a carrier of meaning. Cultures provide not only a
shared view of “what is” but also of “why
is.” In this view, culture is about “the story” in which people in
the organization are embedded, and
the values and rituals that reinforce that narrative. It also
focuses attention on the importance of
symbols and the need to understand them — including the
idiosyncratic languages used in
organizations — in order to understand culture.
“Organizational culture is civilization in the workplace.” —
Alan Adler
Culture is a social control system. Here the focus is the role of

culture in promoting and reinforcing
“right” thinking and behaving, and sanctioning “wrong”
thinking and behaving. Key in this
definition of culture is the idea of behavioral “norms” that must
be upheld, and associated social
sanctions that are imposed on those who don’t “stay within the
lines.” This view also focuses
attention on how the evolution of the organization shaped the
culture. That is, how have the existing
norms promoted the survival of the organization in the past?
Note: implicit in this evolutionary view
is the idea that established cultures can become impediments to
survival when there are substantial
environmental changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking
“Culture is the organization’s immune system.” — Michael
Watkins
Culture is a form of protection that has evolved from situational
pressures. It prevents “wrong
thinking” and “wrong people” from entering the organization in
the first place. It says that
organizational culture functions much like the human immune
system in preventing viruses and
bacteria from taking hold and damaging the body. The problem,
of course, is that organizational
immune systems also can attack agents of needed change, and
this has important implications for on-
boarding and integrating people into organizations.

In the discussion, there were also some important observations
pushing against the view of culture as
something that it is unitary and static, and toward a view that
cultures are multiple, overlapping, and
dynamic.
“Organizational culture [is shaped by] the main culture of the
society we live in, albeit with greater
emphasis on particular parts of it.” — Elizabeth Skringar
Organizational culture is shaped by and overlaps with other
cultures — especially the broader culture
of the societies in which it operates. This observation highlights
the challenges that global
organizations face in establishing and maintaining a unified
culture when operating in the context of
multiple national, regional and local cultures. How should
leaders strike the right balance between
promoting “one culture” in the organization, while still allowing
for influences of local cultures?
“It over simplifies the situation in large organizations to assume
there is only one culture… and it’s
risky for new leaders to ignore the sub-cultures.” — Rolf
Winkler
The cultures of organizations are never monolithic. There are
many factors that drive internal
variations in the culture of business functions (e.g. finance vs.
marketing) and units (e.g. a fast-
moving consumer products division vs. a pharmaceuticals
division of a diversified firm). A
company’s history of acquisition also figures importantly in
defining its culture and sub-cultures.
Depending on how acquisition and integration are managed, the
legacy cultures of acquired units can

persist for surprisingly long periods of time.
“An organization [is] a living culture… that can adapt to the
reality as fast as possible.” — Abdi
Osman Jama
Finally, cultures are dynamic. They shift, incrementally and
constantly, in response to external and
internal changes. So, trying to assess organizational culture is
complicated by the reality that you are
trying to hit a moving target. But it also opens the possibility
that culture change can be managed as a
continuous process rather than through big shifts (often in
response to crises). Likewise, it highlights
the idea that a stable “destination” may never — indeed should
never — be reached. The culture of
the organization should always be learning and developing.
These perspectives provide the kind of holistic, nuanced view of
organizational culture that is
needed by leaders in order to truly understand their
organizations — and to have any hope of
changing them for the better.
Michael D. Watkins is a professor at IMD, a cofounder of
Genesis Advisers, and the author of The First 90 Days (Harvard
Business Review Press, 2013).

http://www.imd.org/
http://genesisadvisers.com
http://www.amazon.com/The-First-90-Days-
Strategies/dp/1422188612
Copyright of Harvard Business Review Digital Articles is the
property of Harvard Business
School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Question 1
In 2001, Congress overturned the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) extensive ergonomics rules that
required virtually all employers to create programs to protect
employees against repetitive stress disorders. In your opinion,
was this the right or wrong thing to do? Explain your
answer/reasoning.
QUESTION 2
The Waldorf Widget Factory has been experiencing an increase
in back and shoulder injuries due to manual lifting of boxes in
the warehouse. You have observed that the workers may not
understand the importance of body mechanics when lifting a
load. Prepare a paragraph that explains how to lift a load
properly, including a discussion of the forces on various parts
of the body when lifting is done incorrectly. As an additional
illustration, calculate and compare the load moment for lifting a
12-pound electrical motor held close to the body with the load
moment for lifting the same motor held 20 inches from the
body. Show all calculations.

Your response should be a minimum of 200 words in length.
QUESTION 3
Based on your recent analysis of injuries related to
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) at the Waldorf Widget
Factory, your boss wants to try to reduce the amount of manual
material handling, especially in the warehouse. Using the
hierarchy of controls, propose at least five control measures that
would help reduce the amount of manual lifting and/or reduce
the likelihood of injuries caused by manual lifting. Explain
clearly how each of these proposed controls would reduce the
risk of injury, the advantages and disadvantages of each, and
what new hazards, if any, might be created if the control is
implemented.
QUESTION 4
Your analysis of injuries at the Waldorf Widget Factory has
revealed that 98 employees were required to take time off last
year due to issues related to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs),
mostly back and shoulder injuries. Discuss a variety of
strategies that can be used to identify operations or processes
with the potential to create or aggravate MSDs. Keep in mind
that employees do not always recognize MSD symptoms as
work-related, and may also be reluctant to report symptoms.
There is no need to propose solutions—we are just trying to
identify the sources of the problems.

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit V
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
5. Recommend strategies for the control of common workplace
hazards.
5.1 Develop a plan for the recognition, evaluation, and control
of workplace health hazards.
6. Apply hazard assessment tools as they relate to industrial
hazards.
6.1 Select methodologies to identify and evaluate workplace
health hazards.
Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes
Learning Activity
5.1
Chapter 16
Chapter 18
Unit V Scholarly Activity
6.1

OSH 3001, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Healt.docx

OSH 3001, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Healt.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to OSH 3001, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Healt.docx

Similar to OSH 3001, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Healt.docx (16)

More from gertrudebellgrove

More from gertrudebellgrove (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

OSH 3001, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Healt.docx