Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is one of the most prominent concepts in the literature and, in short, indicates the positive impacts of businesses on their stakeholders. Despite the growing body of literature on this concept, the measurement of CSR is still problematic. Although the literature provides several methods for measuring corporate social activities, almost all of them have some limitations. The purpose of this study is to provide an original, valid, and reliable measure of CSR reflecting the responsibilities of a business to various stakeholders. Based on a proposed conceptual framework of CSR, a scale was developed through a systematic scale development process. In the study, exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine the underlying factorial structure of the scale. Data was collected from 269 business professionals working in Turkey. The results of the analysis provided a four-dimensional structure of CSR, including CSR to social and nonsocial stakeholders, employees, customers, and government.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CEP:

Council of Economic Priorities

CSID:

Canadian Social Investment Database

CSR:

Corporate social responsibility

EU:

European Union

KLD:

Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini

NGO:

Nongovernmental organization

PRESOR:

Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility

WCED:

World Commission on Environment and Development

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ararat, M.: 2004, ‹Social Responsibility in a State Dependent System’, in A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe (Springer-Verlag, Berlin), Chapter 19, pp. 247–261

  • Ararat, M.: 2005, ‹Drivers for Corporate Social Responsibility, Case of Turkey’, Working Paper. (Available at: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/mdfdb/docs/WP_UJRC5.pdf)

  • Ararat, M.: 2006, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility Across Middle East and North Africa’, Working Paper. (Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1015925)

  • Aupperle K. E.: 1984. An Empirical Measure of Corporate Social Orientation. In L. E. Preston (Eds.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy Vol. 6, pp. 27–54. Greenwich, CT: JAI

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi R. P., Y. Yi, L. W. Phillips: 1991. Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayiksel, S. Ö.: 2007, ‹Hızlı Büyüyen Daha Çok Begeniliyor’, Capital Magazine. (Available at: http://www.capital.com.tr/haber.aspx?HBR_KOD=%204509)

  • Baucus M. S., D. A. Baucus: 1997. Paying the Piper: An Empirical Examination of Longer-Term Financial Consequences of Illegal Corporate Behavior. Academy of Management Journal 40(1). 129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bragdon J. H., J. A. Marlin: 1972. Is Pollution Profitable?. Risk Management, 19, 9–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen H. R.: 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugra A.: 2003. The Place of the Economy in Turkish Society. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 102(2/3), 453–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A. B.: 1979. A Three Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A. B.: 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A. B.: 2000. A Commentary and an Overview of Key Questions on Corporate Social Performance Measurement. Business & Society, 39(4), 466–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charkham J.: 1994. Keeping Good Company: A Study of Corporate Governance in Five Countries. Claredon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen K. H., R. W. Metcalf: 1984, The Relationship Between Pollution Control Record and Financial Indicators Revisited. The Accounting Review, 55, 168–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1994. ‹A Risk Based Model of Stakeholder Theory’, in Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory (Centre for Corporate Social Performance & Ethics University of Toronto, Toronto)

  • Clarkson M. B. E.: 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina J. M.: 1993, What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft R. L.: 2003, Management. Thomson South-Western, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, W. N. and D. L. Worrell: 1990, ‹A Comparison and Test of the Use of Accounting and Stock Market Data in Relating Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance’, Akron Business and Economic Review 21, 7–19. (Cited in Maignan and Ferrell, 2000)

  • Davis K.: 1960. Can Business Afford to Ignore Social Responsibilities? California Management Review, 2(3), 70–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis K.: 1973. The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins D., S. Lewis: 2003. CSR in Stakeholder Expectations: and Their Implication for Company Strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 185–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eells R., C. Walton: 1974, Conceptual Foundations of Business (3rd ed.). Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Etheredge J. M.: 1999. The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: An Alternative Scale Structure. Journal of Business Ethics 18, 51–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman N., B. Jaggi: 1982, Pollution Disclosures, Pollution Performance, and Economic Performance. The International Journal of Management Science, 10, 167–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman M., C. Wasley: 1990. The Association Between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure in Annual Reports and 10-Ks. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 183–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray R., R. Kouhy, S. Lavers: 1995. Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting: A Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair J. F., W. C. Black R. E. Anderson R L. Tatham: 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosftede G.: 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram R., K. Frazier: 1980. Environmental Performance and Corporate Disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(2), 614–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kongar, E.: 1999. 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye: 2000li Yıllarda Türkiye’nin Toplumsal Yapısı. Remzi Kitabı, Istanbul

  • Mahoney L. S., L. Thorne: 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility and Long-Term Compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(3), 241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan I., O. C. Ferrell: 2000. Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan I., O. C. Ferrell: 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire J. W.: 1963. Business and Society. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire J. B., A. Sundgren, T. Schneeweis: 1988. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orpen C.: 1987. The Attitudes of United States and South African Managers to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2), 89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostlund L. E.: 1977. Attitudes of Managers Towards Corporate Social Responsibility. California Management Review, 19(4), 35–49

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quazi A. M., D. O’Brien: 2000, An Empirical Test of a Cross-National Model of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 33–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockness J. W. 1985, An Assessment of the Relationship Between US Corporate Environmental Performance and Disclosure. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 12(3), 339–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruf B. M., K. Muralidhar, K. Paul: 1998. The Development of a Systematic, Aggregate Measure of Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Management, 24(1), 119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims R. R.: 2003. Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants Fall. Praeger, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi A., S. J. Vitell, K. C. Rallapalli, K. L. Kraft: 1996. The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: A Scale Development. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1131–1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith D. 1993. The Frankenstein Syndrome: Corporate Responsibility and the Environment. In: D. Smith (ed) Business and the Environment: Implications of the New Environmentalism. Paul Chapman, London, pp. 172–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. J. and R. S. Blackburn: 1988, ‹CSR: A Psychometric Examination of A Measurement Instrument’, Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, 293–295

  • Votaw D.: 1972 Genius Became Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility. California Management Review, 15(2):25–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdeyen V., J. Put, B. V. Buggenhout: 2004. A Social Stakeholder Model. International Journal of Social Welfare, 13, 325–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock S. A., Graves S. B.: 1997. The Corporate Social Performance – Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler D., M. Sillanpaa: 1997. The Stakeholder Corporation: A Blueprint for Maximazing Stakeholder Value. Pitman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler D., M. Sillanpaa: 1998, Including the Stakeholders: The Business Case. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 201–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wherther W. B., D. Chandler: 2006. Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment. Sage, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman J.: 1982. An Evaluation of Environmental Disclosures Made in Corporate Annual Reports’, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 7(l), 53–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R. and K. Aupperle: 1991, ‹Introduction to Corporate Social Performance: Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct’, in J. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 12 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 265–268

  • Wood D. J., R. E. Jones: 1995. Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 229–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This article is mainly based on the unpublished master dissertation of the author. The author is grateful to Prof. Ömür N. Timurcanday Özmen, Dokuz Eylül University, for her constant support and advice throughout this process and Dr. Oyvind Ihlen, University of Oslo, for his valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vocational School, Yasar University, Kazim Dirik Mah., 364 Sok., No. 5, Bornova, Izmir, 35500, Turkey

    Duygu Turker

Authors
  1. Duygu Turker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duygu Turker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turker, D. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. J Bus Ethics 85, 411–427 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation