The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility On Business Practice: The Case of International Certifiable Management Standards

The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on
Business Practice: The Case of International

Certifiable Management Standards
by
Konstantinos Iatridis
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire
June 2011
To Eleni
Who offered me unconditional love and support throughout the course of this
thesis and kept my spirits up when the muses failed me
i
Student Declaration
I declare that while registered as a candidate for the research degree, I have not been a
registered candidate or enrolled student for another award of the University or other
academic or professional institution. I also declare that no material contained in the
thesis has been used in any other submission for an academic award and is solely my
own work.
Signature of Candidate
Type of Award Doctor of Philosophy
School Lancashire Business School
ii
Abstract
This study explores the influence of CSR on business practice. To succeed in its aim,
the dissertation employs International Certifiable Management Standards (ICMS), as
proxy-indicators of CSR related practices and draws on an inter-disciplinary approach.
In contrast to previous research suffered from narrow analytical insights and lack of
empirical evidence, this study contributes to existing knowledge by adopting a more
holistic approach and focusing on the breadth, depth and context of ICMS adoption. The
research draws on a mixed-methods approach and its analysis is based on 211 responses
from small, medium and large companies from services, commerce and manufacture
collected through a survey (21.4% response rate), and on eighteen (18) semi-structured
interviews. The results reveal that CSR practices fail to influence business practice;
firms do not adopt such practices in order to improve their CSR performance but they
do it due to competitiveness and legitimacy reasons. The study shows that companies
use CSR practices to convince or even mislead stakeholders that the activities of the
firm are carried out within the framework set by society. The findings also indicate that
the context of implementation of CSR practices is lax failing to secure the integration of
these practices in firms’ everyday activities.
iii
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 3

1.2 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE .......................................................................................... 4
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ................................................................................................... 7
2 BACKGROUND TO CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR)........ 9
2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 THE EVOLUTION OF CSR ..................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 CSR PRIOR TO 1950 ........................................................................................................ 10
2.2.2 CSR IN THE 1950S ........................................................................................................... 11
2.2.3 CSR IN THE 1960S AND 1970S ........................................................................................ 13
2.2.4 CSR IN THE 1980S ........................................................................................................... 16
2.2.5 CSR IN THE 1990S ........................................................................................................... 17
2.2.6 CSR IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY............................................................................ 19
2.3 DEFINING CSR .................................................................................................................... 23
2.4 THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF CSR .................................................................................... 28
2.5 THE BUSINESS CASE APPROACH TO CSR ........................................................................... 33
2.6 CRITICISMS OF THE BUSINESS CASE APPROACH TO CSR ................................................... 37
2.7 ANALYSING FIRMS’ MOTIVES FOR ADOPTING CSR PRACTICES......................................... 41
2.7.1 EXTERNAL MOTIVES ....................................................................................................... 41
2.7.2 INTERNAL MOTIVES ........................................................................................................ 43
2.7.3 AMALGAMATING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL MOTIVES .................................................. 45
2.8 EXISTING PROBLEMS IN THE CSR LITERATURE .................................................................. 47
2.9 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 52
3 ANALYSING INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIABLE MANAGEMENT

STANDARDS (ICMS) .................................................................................................. 56
3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 56

3.2 COMMON FEATURES OF ICMS ............................................................................................ 56
3.3 ICMS AND CSR ................................................................................................................... 61
3.4 THE ICMS CERTIFICATION PROCESS .................................................................................. 64
3.5 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 69
4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES ................................... 71
4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 71

4.2 RATIONALE FOR FOCUSING ON THE BREADTH, DEPTH AND CONTEXT OF ICMS ADOPTION
72
4.3 ANALYSING THE BREADTH OF ICMS ADOPTION ................................................................ 73
4.3.1 DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS THEORY ............................................................................ 73
4.4 ANALYSING THE DEPTH OF ICMS ADOPTION..................................................................... 75
4.4.1 INSTITUTIONAL THEORY ................................................................................................. 75
4.4.2 SIGNALLING THEORY ...................................................................................................... 79
4.5 ANALYSING THE CONTEXT OF ICMS ADOPTION ................................................................ 83
4.5.1 SELF-REGULATION THEORY ............................................................................................ 83
4.5.2 STAKEHOLDER THEORY .................................................................................................. 87
4.6 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 90
iv
5 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 93
5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 93

5.2 ABOUT METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 93
5.2.1 RELATIONSHIP OF EPISTEMOLOGY AND ONTOLOGY TO BUSINESS RESEARCH ................ 94
5.2.2 MIXING DIFFERENT PARADIGMS ..................................................................................... 97
5.2.3 EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE STUDY ........... 102
5.3 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................ 103
5.4 RESEARCH SETTING .......................................................................................................... 108
5.5 DATA COLLECTION - SURVEY ........................................................................................... 109
5.5.1 SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................. 109
5.5.2 QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................................ 115
5.5.3 VARIABLES.................................................................................................................... 119
5.6 DATA COLLECTION – INTERVIEWS.................................................................................... 126
5.6.1 SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................. 126
5.6.2 QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................... 129
5.6.3 RESEARCHER’S ROLE DURING INTERVIEWS .................................................................. 130
5.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 132
5.8 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 133
6 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS - DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ..................... 135
6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 135

6.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS .................................................................................................. 136
6.2.1 BREADTH OF ICMS ADOPTION ..................................................................................... 136
6.2.2 DEPTH OF ICMS ADOPTION .......................................................................................... 140
6.2.3 CONTEXT OF ICMS IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................... 147
6.3 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 150
7 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS - INFERENTIAL STATISTICS ..................... 155
7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 155

7.2 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS................................................................................................... 156
7.2.1 ROBUSTNESS CHECKS ................................................................................................... 156
7.2.2 VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 159
7.2.3 CHOOSING STATISTICAL TESTS ..................................................................................... 165
7.2.4 CHECKING THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STATISTICAL TESTS .......................................... 166
7.3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 170
7.3.3 CONTEXT OF ICMS ADOPTION ..................................................................................... 177
7.4 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 179
8 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS................................................................................ 183
8.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 183

8.2 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 184
8.2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 184
8.2.2 COMPANIES INTERVIEWED ............................................................................................ 185
8.2.3 APPROACH .................................................................................................................... 187
8.2.4 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 189
8.3 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 196
v
8.3.3 CONTEXT OF ICMS ADOPTION ...................................................................................... 203
8.4 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 208
9 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 210
9.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 210

9.2 ISSUES RAISED BY USING A MIXED-METHODS APPROACH .............................................. 212
9.3 BREADTH OF ICMS ADOPTION ......................................................................................... 215
9.4 DEPTH OF ICMS ADOPTION .............................................................................................. 217
9.5 CONTEXT OF ICMS ADOPTION ......................................................................................... 222
9.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 228
9.7 IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS AND PRACTITIONERS .............................................. 230
9.8 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ........................................................ 231
10 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 235
List of Tables
TABLE 3-1: SUMMARY OF ICMS REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... 61

TABLE 5-1: MAIN FEATURES OF PRAGMATISM ......................................................................... 100
TABLE 5-2: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEY SAMPLE ......................................................... 115
TABLE 5-3: SUMMARY OF VARIABLES USED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................... 119
TABLE 5-4: COMPANIES PARTICIPATED IN INTERVIEWS .......................................................... 128
TABLE 6-1: SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR VARIABLES DENOTING BREADTH OF ICMS ADOPTION
.......................................................................................................................................... 137
TABLE 6-2: SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR VARIABLES DENOTING DEPTH OF ICMS ADOPTION 141
TABLE 6-3: SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR VARIABLES DENOTING CONTEXT OF ICMS ADOPTION
.......................................................................................................................................... 148
TABLE 7-1: SUMMARY OF VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF BREADTH, DEPTH AND
CONTEXT OF ICMS ADOPTION ........................................................................................ 164
TABLE 7-2: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATION ANALYSIS (N= 211) ...................... 171
TABLE 7-3: LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR BREADTH AND CONTEXT OF ICMS
ADOPTION......................................................................................................................... 174
TABLE 7-4: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND UNIVARIATE ANOVAS FOR EARLY AND
LATE ADOPTERS ON INDICATORS OF DEPTH OF ICMS ADOPTION .................................. 176
TABLE 7-5: SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES-TESTING RESULTS ..................................................... 182
TABLE 8-1: PROFILE OF INTERVIEWED FIRMS .......................................................................... 186
TABLE 8-2: KEY WORDS ........................................................................................................... 190
TABLE 8-3: EXAMPLES OF HOW KEY WORDS WERE USED IN INTERVIEW TEXTS ..................... 193
TABLE 8-4: FIRM SIZE – INDUSTRY SECTOR - MOTIVES ........................................................... 195
TABLE 8-5: FIRM SIZE – INDUSTRY SECTOR – USE OF ICMS ................................................... 195
vi
TABLE 8-6: EVIDENCE OF FIRMS’ MOTIVES FOR ADOPTING ICMS .......................................... 198
TABLE 8-7: EVIDENCE OF USE OF ICMS ................................................................................... 200
TABLE 8-8: EVIDENCE OF USE OF ICMS LOGO ........................................................................ 203
TABLE 8-9: EVIDENCE OF INFLUENCE OF REGULATION AND SANCTIONS ON ICMS
IMPLEMENTATION BY FIRMS ............................................................................................ 205
TABLE 8-10: EVIDENCE OF STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS OF ICMS AND CSR .......................... 207
List of Figures
FIGURE 2-1: EVOLUTION OF CSR PERSPECTIVES ....................................................................... 22

FIGURE 2-2: MAIN POINTS OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 53
FIGURE 3-1: MOST POPULAR ICMS ............................................................................................ 57
FIGURE 3-2: THE DEMING CYCLE ............................................................................................... 58
FIGURE 3-3: THE ICMS CERTIFICATION PROCESS...................................................................... 65
FIGURE 4-1: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSING CSR INFLUENCE ON BUSINESS
PRACTICE............................................................................................................................ 92
FIGURE 5-1: BURRELL AND MORGAN’S FOUR PARADIGMS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL
THEORY .............................................................................................................................. 96
FIGURE 5-2: RESEARCH DESIGN OF THE STUDY ....................................................................... 107
FIGURE 5-3: RANDOM SAMPLING NUMBERS ............................................................................ 127
FIGURE 6-1: NUMBER OF STANDARDS PER INDUSTRY AND FIRM SIZE .................................... 139
FIGURE 6-2: HISTOGRAM – YEARS OF ICMS IMPLEMENTATION .............................................. 143
FIGURE 6-3: PERCENTAGE OF COMPANIES WITH MNCS PER INDUSTRY/ SIZE ......................... 144
FIGURE 6-4: PERCENTAGE OF COMPANIES CHANGING DOCUMENTS’ CONTENT PER INDUSTRY/
SIZE .................................................................................................................................. 145
FIGURE 8-1: SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................ 209
List of Appendices
APPENDIX 3-1: ICMS REQUIREMENS..........................................................................................238

APPENDIX 5-1: SURVEY INFORMATION SHEET...........................................................................248
APPENDIX 5-2: T-TEST RESULTS FOR EARLY AND LATE RESPONDENTS................................249
APPENDIX 5-3: QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................................251
APPENDIX 5-4: CONSENT FORM..................................................................................................255
APPENDIX 6-1: HISTOGRAMS......................................................................................................256
APPENDIX 7-1: TESTING COMMON METHOD BIAS.......................................................................263
APPENDIX 7-2: FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR MOTIVES INFLUENCING FIRMS’ DECISION TO ADOPT
ICMS...........................................................................................................................................265
vii
APPENDIX 7-3: TESTING THE ASSUMPTIONS OF HYPOTHESIS 1..................................................266
APPENDIX 7-4: HYPOTHESIS 1 - HIERARCHICAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS....................268
APPENDIX 7-5: HYPOTHESIS 2A - MANOVA RESULTS..............................................................275
APPENDIX 7-6: HYPOTHESIS 2B - MANOVA RESULTS..............................................................278
APPENDIX 7-7: TESTING THE ASSUMPTIONS OF HYPOTHESIS 3A...............................................282
APPENDIX 7-8: HYPOTHESIS 3A - HIERARCHICAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS................284
APPENDIX 7-9: TESTING THE ASSUMPTIONS OF HYPOTHESIS 3B...............................................291
APPENDIX 7-10: HYPOTHESIS 3B - HIERARCHICAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS...............293
APPENDIX 7-11: TESTING THE ASSUMPTIONS OF HYPOTHESIS 4...............................................300
APPENDIX 7-12: HYPOTHESIS 4 - HIERARCHICAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS.................302
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………............310
viii
Acknowledgements
It would not have been possible to write this doctoral thesis without the help and
support of the kind people around me, to only some of whom it is possible to give
particular mention here.
I am heartily thankful to my main supervisor, Prof. Andrei Kuznetsov whose kind

support, patience, trenchant critiques and probing questions enabled me to develop a
thorough understanding of the subject. Also, I am genuinely grateful of the feedback,
expertise and counsel provided to me by my second supervisor, Prof. Phil Whyman..
I would also like to make a special reference to QPlan plc and especially to Mr Dimitris
Arapatsakos and Dr Christos Tapinos. I am extremely thankful for their advice and
assistance throughout this Thesis. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Maria
Mandaraka for her encouragement and advice prior to embarking on this journey.
I am tremendously grateful for all of my family and their encouragement and support. I
have always felt surrounded by your love and kindness. I am especially appreciative of
my brother Machos’ willingness to be there for me and unconditionally offer me his
expertise and guidance when needed; words cannot express my thankfulness for his
help. I am also indebted to my mother-in-law Tasia for her valuable help during data
collection.
My friends were more important in this process than they realize. I am greatly
appreciative to my good friends in Greece and the UK for letting me whine dissertation
woes and generally for helping to keep me grounded and sane through this long and
arduous journey.
Last but not least, I would like to acknowledge the financial, academic and technical
support of the Lancashire Business School at the University of Central Lancashire,
particularly in the award of a Postgraduate Research Studentship that provided the
necessary financial support for this research.
ix
Abbreviations
CB: Certification Body
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility
CEOs: Chief Executive Officers
CEN: European Committee for Standardization
CMV: Common Method Variance
EU: European Union
ICMS: International Certifiable Management Standards
ISO: International Organization for Standardization
ILO: International Labour Organization
KWIC: Key Words in Context
MANOVA: Multivariate Analysis of Variance
MNCs: Major-Non-Conformances
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
MSMEs: Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
SMEs: Small and Medium Enterprises
SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
UCLAN: University of Central Lancashire
VIF: Variance Inflation Factors
WBCSD: World Business Council for Sustainable Development
x
Chapter 1: Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
The last thirty years have borne witness to a radical change in the private sector’s
relationship with both the state and civil society. Firms have been increasingly called
upon to adopt strategies beyond the financial aspects of their operations and consider
the social and environmental impact of their business activities. In this context, many
companies have modified their policies and activities and engaged into Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR). At the firm level, CSR is implemented through various practices,
which aim to enhance the company’s social and environmental performance and may
cover various topics. Examples of CSR practices are abundant in the relevant literature.
For instance, IKEA requires from its suppliers to prohibit child labour, Vodafone
applies a series of programs for reducing its CO2 emissions, Unilever addresses health
and safety issues in the workplace whereas Shell has adopted a series of policies for
addressing human rights and environmental abuse related to its operations (Business in
the Community, 2010; Vogel, 2005).
At first glance, it may appear that firms eagerly respond to public concerns regarding
their operations and engage in socially responsible practices. Several cases of corporate
misconduct, however, involving firms perceived as paragons of CSR, have unveiled
significant discrepancies between CSR rhetoric and practice. This contradictory
evidence leaves the influence of CSR on business practice1 open to interpretation. On
the one hand, there are indications that firms increasingly seek to realign their business
practices to meet CSR expectations existing in society. On the other hand, the sincerity
1
This Thesis understands business practice as the methods, procedures, processes, and rules employed by
a company in the pursuit of its objectives (Pallister and Law, 2006).
1
and effectiveness of these actions often raises doubts and firms are frequently accused
of using CSR as a public relations ploy.
Current research fails to address these issues as it mostly focuses on speculations
regarding the real and alleged pros and cons of implementing CSR (Frederick, 2006;
Smith, 2003). It is a feature of this literature that the discourse on CSR evolves
predominantly in conceptual, theoretical terms (Frederick, 2006). Moreover, it is a
recognized fact that existing research falls short of providing satisfactory guidance to
the practice of CSR as it suffers from i) the use of context specific and limited in scope
approaches and ii) a focus on rhetoric at the expense of concrete action (King & Lenox,
2000; Muller & Kolk, 2010). CSR practices are often evaluated in a simplified and
superficial manner when pronouncements by business leaders and the formal presence
of, for example, environmental management systems, are equated with actual CSR
activities (Bondy, et al., 2008; Gonzalez-Benito & Gonzalez-Benito, 2005; Holder-
Webb, et al., 2009; Rodriguez & LeMaster, 2007). As a result, our knowledge of the
degree to which CSR practices have penetrated the fabric of business behaviour is still
embryonic.
To enhance our understanding of CSR influence on business practice, research must
focus on the specific policies and activities through which managers try to implement a
theoretical commitment to social, environmental and economical goals (Godfrey &
Hatch, 2007; Wood, 2010). At the moment, there is a recognised shortage of dedicated
studies on this subject (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010).
2
1.1 Research Aim and Objectives
This research intends to address this gap and seeks to investigate how CSR is actually
implemented at the firm level, and on the factors that influence this implementation. To
succeed in its aim, the study investigates the application of International Certifiable
Management Standards (ICMS) as an example of CSR practices. The choice of ICMS is
not incidental; these standards share several features, which make them a sine qua non
in the analysis of CSR implementation. First, they assist the spread of CSR practices as
they require from corporations to reformulate their processes in order to improve their
social and environmental performance (E.C., 2003; Jiang & Bansal, 2003). Second, they
are widely accepted as effective means of applying CSR practices and are promoted as
organizational models to which firms must conform for ensuring their legitimacy and
credibility (Boiral, 2003a). Third, ICMS have become a significant cornerstone for the
CSR efforts of many corporations (Schaefer, 2007). Fourth, they are increasingly
recognized as potential frameworks for regulating CSR implementation (Hodgson &
Cicmil, 2007).
To broaden knowledge on a complex topic such as CSR and obtain a ‘real world’
insight into its operation, this study adopts an inter-disciplinary approach drawing on
diffusion of innovations, institutional, signalling, self-regulation and stakeholder
theories. To this end, it empirically evaluates:
a) Why companies adopt ICMS;
b) How firms apply ICMS; and
c) Under which conditions firms apply ICMS.
3
The empirical study is based on a survey and semi-structured interviews conducted in
Greece. The choice of Greece was motivated by a number of considerations. First,
because most accounts on CSR come from the USA, leading Western European
countries and China, there is a recognised need for the empirical investigation of CSR
practices in other institutional contexts in order to enrich knowledge on the topic (Lee,
2008; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). The relatively unexplored, in terms of CSR,
institutional context of Greece provides firm ground for responding to such calls.
Second, Greece represents a dynamic business environment giving the opportunity to
analyse how firms cope with a changing setting. By taking into account that
implementation of CSR practices takes place within a constantly changing business
environment, especially in the context of globalization, the latter provides valuable
insights into the implementation of CSR. Third, Greece experiences the impacts of the
2008 financial meltdown, providing an interesting empirical setting for analysing firms’
attitude to CSR practices in the current economic climate.
1.2 Contribution to Knowledge
The study makes noticeable contributions to several areas of CSR research. A primary
contribution of this dissertation is to divert scholars’ attention from theoretical to
empirical approaches in the analysis of CSR. By conceptualising CSR as a business-
processes oriented construct, the study makes an important step towards taking the CSR
research in a more practical direction. This is an extension of past research, which has
overwhelmingly treated CSR practices as a means of enhancing financial performance
(Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Vogel, 2005). This dissertation addresses the plight of
scholars, who argue that theory has outweighed both practice and empirical research,
and have emphasised the need to assess the impact of CSR on business practice
4
(Frederick, 2006; Lindgreen, et al., 2009a; Lindgreen, et al., 2009b; McWilliams, et al.,
2006). The study expands the knowledge base in this field by focusing on operations
management and the practices firms employ to manage the social and environmental
impacts of their activities. The results of this study will enable theorists to create a
stronger theoretical and empirical basis on which future research on the topic of CSR
can build.
The study also contributes to the CSR literature by analysing firms’ motives for
adopting CSR practices. Contrary to views that firms engage in CSR practices to
enhance their financial as well as social performance (Bansal & Hunter, 2003; Husted &
Salazar, 2006), or due to altruism (Davis, et al., 1997; Gonzalez-Benito & Gonzalez-
Benito, 2005; Heugens, et al., 2008; Muller & Kolk, 2010), this dissertation provides
evidence that the true reasons are more often negative (i.e. defensive) than positive (i.e.
profit maximization; implementation of CSR practices). This is an important
contribution, as it highlights that external pressures have more influence on firm’s
decision-making than suggested by the most prominent approach to CSR (i.e. the so-
called ‘business case’ for CSR).
Importantly, this dissertation adds to the CSR knowledge base by demonstrating that the
implementation of CSR practices cannot be ensured through self-regulatory approaches.
This is a significant finding in light of existing research in CSR espousing the
implementation of CSR practices in a voluntary self-regulatory context (Kotler & Lee,
2005; Levy & Kaplan, 2008; Sethi, 2002). Advocates of the business case for CSR
support a political and economic climate that rejects all ideas related to firms-
government cooperation and endorses policies strengthening the autonomy of the
5
market as a means of satisfying social goals (Albareda, 2008). This dissertation
advances knowledge by demonstrating that self-regulatory tools may not be as effective
as neo-classical economic theory would suggest.
In addition, the dissertation contributes to knowledge by indicating that companies
employ ICMS as symbolic forms that grant legitimacy to certified firms. In particular,
the study demonstrates that firms get certified by ICMS predominantly because they
want to convince the public that they conform to existing social expectations.
The study also contributes to knowledge by exploring the context of the implementation
of CSR practices. While the literature indicates that in the presence of explicit sanctions
firms will not behave opportunistically (King & Lenox, 2000; Lenox & Nash, 2003;
Prakash & Potoski, 2005), this dissertation acknowledges the importance of monitoring
mechanisms in the way CSR practices are implemented, and argues that explicit
sanctions and regulation are not enough to secure implementation of CSR practices by
firms. In this way, this study advances knowledge regarding the conditions necessary to
secure the implementation of CSR practices.
Finally, the dissertation contributes to the CSR literature by establishing the influence of
market actors on the implementation of CSR practices and the limited role of the state.
Contrary to neo-liberal philosophy eminent in most western countries these days
(Bendell, 2004; Wilkinson, 2007), the study provides evidence that, with reference to
the implementation of CSR practices, the state fails to secure the harmonic operation of
the market. This research demonstrates that the government does not succeed in its
attempts to monitor the application of CSR practices leaving plenty of room for
6
companies to behave opportunistically. This is an important finding for scholars
working on how to build a global governance system for CSR (Albareda, et al., 2008;
O'Rourke, 2003; Vogel, 2008).
1.3 Structure of the Thesis
The Thesis consists of ten chapters and is structured as follows. The second chapter
reviews the literature on CSR pertaining to the topic of the dissertation and offers an
assessment of this literature, highlights existing gaps and the contribution of this
research. Chapter three provides the contextual framework necessary to comprehend
ICMS.
Chapter four introduces the conceptual framework upon which the research analysis is
based namely diffusion of innovations, institutional, authority relationships, self-
regulation and stakeholder theories. Drawing on these theories, six hypotheses are
developed regarding firms’ motives for adopting ICMS, the way they integrate these
standards in their everyday activities and the context in which companies adopt ICMS.
Chapter five discusses the methodology followed in this research. It analyses and
explains the rational followed for adopting the research design, setting and data
collection methods. Also, the chapter discusses issues pertaining to the samples used for
the survey and interviews and ethical considerations taken into account during this
research.
Chapters six and seven focus on quantitative analysis and present the survey’s results.
Chapter six discusses the basic features of the data collected through the survey while
7
chapter seven analyses the use of several statistical techniques employed to enable
prediction and generalization with reference to the hypotheses developed in Chapter 4.
Chapter eight aims at providing a triangulation of the results presented in chapters six
and seven. In so doing, it focuses on qualitative analysis and discusses the results of the
interviews. The penultimate chapter discusses the study’s results coming from both
quantitative and qualitative analysis and places these findings in the context of existing
research. In addition, it analyses the implications of this study for research, policy
makers and practitioners. Also, it discusses the limitations of this study and highlights
avenues for future research. Last but not least, chapter ten presents the conclusions of
this study.
8
Chapter 2: Background to Corporate Social Responsibility
2 BACKGROUND TO CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR)
2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims at justifying the choice of research questions and establish the
importance of the topic. In so doing, the chapter reviews and evaluates the theoretical
and empirical literature that underpins the research theme of this dissertation. In
addition to that, the chapter focuses on three key areas of interest, which conflate the
influence of CSR on business practice: the definition of CSR; CSR characteristics and
firms' motives for engaging in CSR practices.
The chapter begins by analysing the current state of CSR thinking pertaining to this
study. First of all, to assist the reader get an informative insight on CSR, the chapter
discusses the evolutionary pathways of Corporate Social Responsibility. Next, it
analyses the features and working definition of CSR employed in this research. In
continue the chapter discusses certain socio-political developments that have taken
place during the last thirty years or so and account for the main characteristics of CSR
today. Next, the two major theoretical perspectives in CSR research are also discussed:
a) scholars who perceive CSR as a means of enhancing both social and financial issues
(business case supporters) and b) researchers who criticize the business case approach.
Further, the chapter analyses firms’ motives for engaging into CSR practices. Finally,
the chapter critically evaluates the existing problems in the CSR literature; it describes
the approach adopted in this research and explains the novel elements that it contains.
9
2.2 The evolution of CSR
2.2.1 CSR Prior to 1950
The history of CSR is as old as trade and business itself. Commercial logging operations
for example, together with laws to protect forests, can both be traced back almost 5,000
years (BRASS, n.d.). In Ancient Mesopotamia, around 1700 BC, King Hammurabi
introduced a code in which builders, innkeepers or farmers were put to death if their
negligence caused the deaths of others, or major inconvenience to local citizens. In
Ancient Rome, senators complained about the failure of businesses to contribute
sufficient taxes to fund their military campaigns, while in 1622 dissatisfied shareholders
in the Dutch East India Company started issuing pamphlets complaining about
management secrecy and ‘self enrichment’ (BRASS, n.d.).
With industrialisation, the impacts of business on society and the environment assumed
an entirely new dimension. Motivated by criticisms of the factory system as a source of
social problems, including poverty, crime and child labour, several entrepreneurs, in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth century, used part of their wealth to support
philanthropic ventures. Some of these businessmen attempted to strengthen business
community relationships by building clinics and lunch-rooms for their employees,
donating money to orphan asylums and other similar activities (Wren quoted in Carroll,
2008). Others, such as the car manufacturer George Pullman, went even a step further
and created model industrial communities which had many advanced facilities for their
employees.
Regardless of improving employees’ living conditions and being accepted as examples
of enlightened business policies, these practices were also criticized as paternalistic
10
aiming at controlling employees’ lives (Heald, 1970). The suspicion surrounding the
actions of these early entrepreneurs was something that also accompanied CSR during
the first half of the previous century. Businessmen engaging in such activities were
accused of immorality because they were spending shareholders’ money. For example,
when Ford decided to decrease the working hours of his employees and increase their
salary in 1917, he was accused by the Wall Street Journal of blatant immorality (Lewis,
1976). At large, these attitudes were seen as radical ones that could erode the autonomy
of the free-market and this is why they were not welcomed.
Despite the controversies accompanying the topic, CSR continued gaining in
importance. Chester Barnard’s 1938 publication, The Functions of the Executive, J. M.
Clark’s (1939) Social Control of Business and Theodore Krep’s, Measurement of the
Social Performance of Business, published in 1940, are three early references to the
social responsibilities of businesses worth noting (Carroll, 1999). Barnard took a strong
stance on moral leadership and suggested that effective leadership requires both
‘technical’ and ‘responsible’ skills. In turn, Clark argued for greater social control of
business to be exercised on behalf of the larger society as a means of curbing the
excessive individualism promoted by supporters of the free-market. Krep introduced the
term ‘social audit’ for the first time and used it in relation to companies reporting on
their social responsibilities.
2.2.2 CSR in the 1950s
The 1950s witnessed the emergence of a new era for CSR when Bowen published his
seminal work entitled the ‘Social Responsibilities of the Businessman’ in 1953. In his
book, he defined CSR as follows: ‘it refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue
11
those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are
desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society’ (Bowen, 1953, p.6).
Bowen recognised that firms’ engagement into CSR was linked to self-interest best
promoted by demonstrated concern for public demands. Actions like support for
education, conserving natural resources, philanthropy, good human relations at work
and other similar activities were included as aspects of CSR and it was recognised that
these actions had high returns for firms (Frederick, 2006). Bowen argued that firms’
engagement into CSR should be accomplished voluntarily with minimal government
intervention. However, years later he questioned his previous position by arguing that ‘I
have come to the view that voluntary social responsibility cannot be relied upon a
significant form of control over business. The power of business overwhelms the week
reed of voluntary social responsibility’ (cited in Frederick, 2006, p. 10).
Following Bowen’s work, Theodore Levitt saw CSR as a potential danger for the
foundations of the free-market and warned of a threat of obfuscating the role of
businesses and that of the government. His position can be best illustrated by the
following statement: ‘government’s job is not business, and business’s job is not
government’ (Levitt, 1958, p. 47). In reality this danger was not a substantial one since
the onset of welfare policies in the post war era had set a clear line between the
responsibilities of business and those of the state.
Supporters of the free-market ideology, nonetheless, saw CSR as a threat and continued
arguing against it in order to protect the autonomy of the market. Building on Levitt’s
argument Friedman suggested that a company’s sole social responsibility was to pursuit
maximization of returns for their shareholders within the boundaries set by law
12
(Friedman & Friedman, 1962). This view has become one of the most heavily criticised
positions in the CSR literature and even nowadays many scholars aim to prove
Friedman wrong. His approach draws on agency theory and implies that firms’ mere
obligation is to satisfy the shareholders’ interests. Friedman argued that it was not
business but the government who was responsible for taking care of the social and
environmental aspects of businesses through the application of laws. This position treats
CSR as a waste of resources that could be used as returns to shareholders or as means of
internal investment (McWilliams, et al., 2006).
Although it is widely perceived that Bowen’s and Friedman’s approaches differ
significantly in reality they are not. Their underlying assumption is the same, i.e. both
treat firms as profit-maximization organizations which are interested in improving their
financial performance. The difference in these two positions is that Bowen perceived
CSR as an opportunity for companies to increase their benefits whereas Friedman saw it
as a threat.
2.2.3 CSR in the 1960s and 1970s
The social turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s and the gradually increasing significance of
environmental problems broadened the spectrum of the social responsibilities of
businesses. Thus, apart from recognizing firms’ financial motives for engaging in CSR,
scholars like Davis (1960; 1973) suggested that CSR should be analysed from a
different perspective. The new approach included a moral dimension in the argument,
i.e. it was proposed that firms should engage into CSR activities because it is the right
thing to do and not because CSR entails potential benefits for firms.
13
In a similar vein, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) published at the
beginning of the 1970s its ground-breaking declaration on CSR. In it, CED claimed that
corporations should be perceived as organizations operating within the whole of society
rather than just in the market place (cited in Frederick, 2006). This publication
highlights the change in the societal perceptions of businesses. The latter were
anticipated not only to produce products and services and undertake philanthropic
actions, but they were also required to operate in a way that satisfies societal needs and
expectations. The CED explicitly refers to the concept of the social contract, attributing
to CSR an obligatory rather than a voluntary notion. Businesses were expected to
undertake actions in ten major fields: economic growth and efficiency, education,
employment and training, civil rights and equal opportunity, urban renewal and
development, pollution abatement, conservation and recreation, culture and the arts,
medical care, and government relations (Frederick, 2006).
What grabs attention in the CED report is not the issues outlined as CSR topics. The
important thing is that it proposed that in order to succeed in tackling these topics
companies should have cooperated with governments. On top of that, the CED report
was composed by practitioners, implying a willingness on behalf of firms to renegotiate
their relationship to society (Carroll, 2008). This publication moved the agenda beyond
companies’ interests and linked their operations to wider social goals. However, this
trend did not last long; a survey conducted a couple of years later among business
executives revealed a different approach to how CSR should be implemented: the
respondents did not mention anything about cooperating with the government
demonstrating a preference towards protecting the autonomy of the free market (Eilbert
& Parket, 1973).
14
Having adumbrated the CSR topics that were perceived as important, research changed
direction and instead of analysing whether firms should engage in CSR or not, focused
on what businesses can do to respond and satisfy societal demands. The fact that the
CSR research lacked a widely accepted theoretical paradigm and the absence of tangible
results in the process of conceptualization played in this a crucial role (Preston, 1975).
Two contributions of that time provided significant guidance to a more practical
approach to the analysis of CSR. The first one was Ackerman and Bauer’s (1976)
theory of Corporate Social Responsiveness. In their analysis, the scholars attributed
higher priority to defining the procedures of managerial responsiveness to CSR than to
defining CSR per se. They stressed that internal management processes could make
business more flexible in responding to changes in the social environment. The two
scholars argued that the important thing for business was not only to decide what to do,
but also how to implement their strategy in the sense of identifying the needed
procedures for managing their response.
The second contribution was Carroll’s three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate
social performance (Carroll, 1979). In this model, resembling Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs, Carroll argued that the social responsibilities of business should have included
four dimensions: economic, legal, ethical and discretionary or philanthropic. Carroll’s
model made CSR theory more applicable since he proposed a way for assisting firms in
the implementation of CSR practices. The scholar suggested that firms should first
define their social responsibilities, identify the CSR aspects and then decide whether to
respond proactively or reactively. Although the model may look simplistic nowadays, it
outlined for the first time a plain strategy for firms to follow. The topics proposed by
Carroll constitute the three major themes that are still debated in the CSR literature: to
15
whom firms are responsible? what are they responsible for? and how can they be
responsible? (Blowfield & Murray, 2008).
The prevalence of neo-liberal economic views in the 1980s left no room for the ethic
and philanthropic dimensions of CSR. The political and economic climate was not
propitious for any ideas related with firms-government cooperation, attention of
scholars and practitioners had shifted towards economic rather than social matters and
the autonomy of the market was heavily promoted as a means of satisfying social goals.
This resulted in a dramatic change regarding the responsibilities of firms and those of
the state: the responsibilities of the latter shrank and those of the former expanded
resulting in heavy criticism of command and control measures and to the introduction of
market friendly tools like management standards and codes of ethics. The purpose of
these measures was to assist firms to respond to their increased responsibilities as these
were resulted by the gradual privatization of many sectors of the economy which were
previously run by the state.
Scholars’ reaction to these developments was to adopt a managerial approach to the
analysis of CSR (Carroll, 1977). In this context, the prevalence of stakeholder theory
(Freeman, 1984), at the middle of the 1980s, does not come as a surprise. Consistent
with the political and business climate of the era, this approach suggested that, with
reference to CSR policies, firms needed to focus on constituencies other than
stockholders, i.e., customers, suppliers, employees and local communities. Although
this may look as bringing to surface the moral factor once again, in reality it did not.
Stakeholder theory, as it was introduced, did not relate any moral imperative with the
16
application of CSR; on the contrary, it highlighted a necessity for an engagement into
CSR due to its potential for providing benefits for companies. The latter refer to
securing access to resources needed for firms’ operations and support for the firms’
activities by third parties. The assumptions underlying stakeholder theory are rooted in
the concepts of social contract and legitimacy and imply ‘the unavoidability of
normative conformity with the social environment’ (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006, p. 73).
Because corporations operate within the boundaries of society of which they are an
integral part, it is conceptualised that they depend upon society for their continuity and
growth (Sethi, 1975). Hence, the adoption of CSR practices is seen as something that
satisfies both parties these being companies and society.
The wide acceptance of this theory influenced the way CSR began to be seen, i.e. as a
necessity and not as a choice. CSR was seen as promoting firms’ interests by
strengthening the environment in which businesses operated. This perception otherwise
known as enlightened self-interest moved research into a direction which later was
going to be one of the most, if not the most, dominant perspectives in the field, i.e.
proving the existence of a link between financial and social performance.
The moral factor started gaining ground again a bit later due to a growing number of
significant corporate accidents such as Bhopal, Chernobyl and Exxon Valdez. Thus, at
the beginning of the 1990s scholars like Donaldson and Davis (1991) argued once
again that business should engage into CSR practices because it was the right thing to
do and not because of any relations with firms’ financial performance. In a similar vein,
Wood (1991), drawing on the theory of Corporate Social Responsiveness mentioned
17
earlier, proposed the need for tangible results on improving business and community
relations, and suggested that business responsibilities apart from the financial and legal
ones should include ethical and philanthropic actions. Wood attributed great importance
to societal performance and argued that corporate behaviour should change in order to
‘produce less harm and more beneficial outcomes for society and their people’ (Wood,
1991, p. 68). This research gave rise to the concept of Corporate Citizenship that later
was going to become a separate stream in the field. This new term was widely used by
firms which had faced public criticism about their operations, including Shell, Ikea and
Wall-Mart as they sought to promote themselves as good citizens. Although in reality
this is nothing else but a relabeling of CSR, it created a current of thought that focuses
on the political nature of CSR (Matten & Crane, 2005) and helped to provide valuable
insights into the analysis of the CSR phenomenon, representing one of the most
dynamic discussions in the relevant literature (Crane, et al., 2008).
Aside from the above mentioned research, during the 1990s scholars focused on the
topics of environmental responsibility and stakeholder theory. The former was included
as a CSR dimension after the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. Environmental
responsibility was mostly analysed as a resource that could lead to a sustainable
competitive advantage. In this context, Hart (1995) and Russo and Fouts (1997) used
adaptations of the Resource Based View of the firm theory and embarked on proving a
link between CSR and financial profitability. Regarding stakeholder theory, researchers
expanded it by including in it the moral factor and trying to deal with the problem of
defining stakeholders (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jones, 1995; Mitchell, et al., 1997).
More specifically, Jones (1995) and Donaldson and Preston (1995) stressed the moral
and ethical dimensions of CSR and suggested that firms should have behaved ethically
18
towards their stakeholders because the returns from such behaviour were high. Mitchell
et al. (1997), on the other hand, focused on how firms should have prioritized their
constituencies. They suggested that they should have done it on a basis of evaluating
three aspects: stakeholder legitimacy, power and urgency of their claims.
The views prevailing in the 1990s empowered the trend to treat CSR as a topic closely
related to market outcome (Beurden & Gössling, 2008; Brammer & Millington, 2005;
Margolis & Walsh, 2001; McWilliams & Siegel, 2000; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001;
Mill, 2006; Ogden & Watson, 1999; Peloza & Papania, 2008). Until the dawn of 2000
more than 120 studies had adopted this approach, otherwise known as the business case
for CSR (Margolis & Walsh, 2001). Despite contradictory evidence regarding the
existence of a link between corporate responsible practices and financial performance,
this tendency persists to these days influencing CSR research at large.
2.2.6 CSR in the Twenty First Century
The corporate scandals at the dawn of 2000 gave rise to another interesting approach to
the analysis of CSR. The fact that well respected companies (e.g. Enron-Arthur
Andersen, Parmalat-Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and Grant Thornton), were proven to
operate illegally shook stakeholders’ trust and brought to surface the need for more
effective means of corporate governance. Hence, researchers started analysing the
strategic aspects of corporate responsibility focusing on how firms incorporated CSR
into their business strategy and how they used it for their own benefit. Baron (2001)
termed this type of corporate responsibility ‘strategic corporate responsibility’ and
distinguished two forms of CSR: altruistic and strategic. Altruistic CSR refers to actions
19
undertaken by firms in order to satisfy society’s needs, whereas strategic refers to cases
where firms use CSR to capture value.
Apart from the strategic corporate responsibility perspective, the last decade or so
witnessed the emergence of a burgeoning stream of literature focusing on CSR and
Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) (Jamali, et al., 2009; Luetkenhorst, 2004;
Perrini, 2006; Preuss & Perschke, 2010; Sarbutts, 2003; Spence, 2007; Sweeney, 2007;
Udayasankar, 2008). Scholars working on this topic maintain that CSR practices in
SMEs may be different from the ones adopted by larger firms due to SMEs
peculiarities. SMEs tend to be independent and owner managed, stretched by
multitasking and limited cash flows, built on personal relationships, mistrustful of
bureaucracy and controlled by informal mechanisms (Jones & Macpherson, 2006;
Macpherson, et al., 2010; Spence, 1999). Furthermore, some SMEs might already be
involved in the CSR topic, managing a large number of environmental, social and
economic impacts without using the CSR language explicitly (Roberts, et al., 2006).
Thus, SMEs might be engaged in practicing CSR without being fully aware of it.
There might be certain factors that make it easier rather than more difficult for SMEs to
implement CSR practices. Being smaller in size, SMEs might manage their reputation
and risks more effectively as their decision process is significantly shorter than that in
large firms (Sarbutts, 2003). This flexibility of SMEs can also enable them to rapidly
take advantage of new niche markets for products and services that incorporate social
and/or environmental benefits in their value (Jenkins, 2006). In addition, the owner-
manager is closer to the organisation so can more easily influence the values and culture
of the company and champion CSR throughout the company (Jenkins, 2009). At the
20
same time, SMEs may face additional barriers to CSR implementation as, apart from
financial constraints, they might lack human resources and time to identify and involve
main stakeholder (Princic, 2003). Moreover, SMEs might lack the ability to obtain
credit and insurance (UNIDO, 2004) and finally lack the skills and knowledge to
implement modern management techniques and new technologies (Jones &
Macpherson, 2006).
These characteristics create a unique environment in which the implementation of CSR
takes place. There is evidence in the literature, however, that CSR is less size sensitive
than it is sometimes believed. Castka et al. (2004a) revealed that there is a business case
for SMEs and that SMEs can benefit from CSR, improve their business and develop
competitive advantage. The scholars also concluded that business system frameworks,
such as ISO 9001, can serve as a vehicle for CSR integration into day-to-day operation
of the business. Likewise, Cambra-Fierro et al. (2008) concluded that the size of the
firm does not influence the firm’s behaviour towards CSR. Tilley (2003) maintained
that the CSR agenda may not always be a business threat and cost burden to SMEs,
rather it could provide significant scope for competitive advantage. In a similar vein,
Jenkins (2009) suggested that the SMEs characteristics can aid the adoption of CSR and
that SMEs can take advantage of the opportunities presented by CSR, and maximise the
business benefits from making the most of such opportunities.
In addition to research on CSR and SMEs, a cornucopia of other approaches to CSR has
emerged in the last decade including the role of key actors in driving CSR practices
(Auger, et al., 2003; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Moon, 2004b; Swanson, 2008), reviews
on CSR evolution (Carroll, 2008; De Bakker, et al., 2005; Lee, 2008; Moon, 2004a),
21
analyses of the synergies between CSR and corporate governance (Aguilera & Jackson,
2003; Deegan, et al., 2002; Sacconi, 2006), political approaches analyzing the concept
within the lens of globalization (Detomasi, 2008; Gugler & Shi, 2009; Jenkins, 2005;
Scherer, et al., 2009; Sethi, 2009) and attempts to put an order into the vast majority of
CSR theories (Garriga & Melé, 2004; Secchi, 2007; Windsor, 2006). Figure 2-1
illustrates the evolution of CSR perspectives.
Voluntary Debate on CSR, Emergence of Proliferation of Self-Regulatory CSR Need to Refine Existing Theorizing
Nature of CSR, Environmental Problems and Moral tools, Inclusion of Environmental and Include New Approaches in the
Mostly philanthropy, Aspects of CSR, Responsibility, Stakeholder Analysis of CSR
Attention on Businessmen Obligatory Nature of CSR, Management, Corporate Social
Rather than Business Corporate Social Responsiveness Performance, Corporate Citizenship
Pre- 1950s 1960s-1970s 1990s 2010 onwards
1950s 1980s 2000s
Uprising of CSR, Gradual Abandonment of Salience of CSR, Prevalence of

Voluntary Nature of CSR, Definitional Approach, Introduction Economic Rationality Approach,
Welfare State Policies, CSR as a of Self-Regulatory CSR Tools, Shift Emergence of new Approaches e.g.
Threat to Free-Market towards Conceptual Approaches, Strategic CSR, Corporate
Stakeholder Theory, Shift towards Governance, Globalization
Economic Rationality
Figure 2-1: Evolution of CSR Perspectives
At present, research is directed towards focusing on the practical aspects of CSR and
there is a recognised need to refine existing approaches and include new (Wood, 2010).
As a general rule, it can be argued that scholars continue to focus and revise basic
assumptions and concepts in the field and that CSR knowledge is in a continuing state
of emergence (Lockett, et al., 2006). There is a lack of a dominant theoretical approach,
methods and assumptions but for some this is not necessarily a bad thing since it results
in various approaches and theoretical perspectives (Crane, 2008). One certain thing is
that the ambiguity surrounding CSR research has created two opposite perspectives on
22
its potential to influence the way businesses operate. The first one treats CSR as a
development, which can enhance firms’ social and financial performance (Lydenberg
cited in Carroll, 2008). Proponents of this view point to increasing levels of reporting
but tend to confuse reporting with performance (Steger, 2008). The other view holds a
more sceptical position on the potential of CSR to influence business practice.
According to it, CSR has taken a false trajectory since it is mostly used as a resource
that has the potential of increasing firms’ profits (Vogel, 2005). These two views on
CSR are discussed later in the chapter.
2.3 Defining CSR
As it became evident from the previous section, the suggestion that corporations have
responsibilities other than increasing shareholder profit has been systematically
developed in the literature for more than five decades (Frederick, 2006). However,
interest in the topic of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), as this area of research
has been known, has become particularly pronounced in the last twenty years or so
(Muller & Kolk, 2010; Smith, 2003). This surge in interest has made CSR the newest
‘old’ thing in management research (Blowfield and Murray, (2008). Today, CSR
occupies a prominent position on the global corporate agenda and has gained significant
importance as an area of business practice and academic inquiry (Du, et al., 2010; Smith
& Lenssen, 2009).
Illustrative of CSR’s prominence is the fact that nowadays most multinationals have a
senior executive dealing with CSR issues while the literature is swarming with
examples of CSR practices (Kotler & Lee, 2005; Vogel, 2005). On top of that, there is a
plethora of business associations, professional organizations and newsletters aiming to
23
offer guidance to companies on how to apply CSR practices (Crook, 2005). Regarding
academic inquiry, the increased interest in the topic is best depicted by the number of
journals where CSR research is published, the conferences held on the topic, the
affiliated societies and the number of universities teaching CSR (Crane, et al., 2008).
Notwithstanding its elevated position on corporate and research agendas, CSR still
remains an embryonic and widely contested concept (Windsor, 2006). Many argue that
the exact meaning of CSR is not clear (Crane, et al., 2008). In addition, there is little
consensus on other aspects of CSR, including what its outcomes should be or who
should do what to make CSR work (Smith & Halina, 2009). The problem with CSR is
that it means different things to different people (Kuznetsov, 2008; Sethi, 1975; Votaw,
1973). While there is an agreement that CSR deals with the societal obligations of
corporations there is much less certainty about what these obligations might include
(Smith, 2003). Hence, throughout the years various propositions have been made by
academics regarding the possible content of CSR. The existing list of activities is
already very long and includes, inter alia, actions in support of education, employment
and training, health and safety in the workplace, civil rights and equal opportunity,
urban renewal and development, philanthropy, pollution abatement, quality of
products/services, conservation and recreation of natural resources, culture and the arts,
medical care, and so on (Frederick, 2006).
It is evident that defining CSR by compiling a list of relevant activities is problematic.
Yet, formulating a universally acceptable conceptual definition proves to be a difficult
task. One recent study has counted 37 definitions of CSR (Dahlsrud, 2006); number that
Carroll and Shabana (2010) believe to be a wild underestimation. Several of these
24
definitions have adopted a general approach while others attempted to be more specific.
For instance, Friedman (1962) vaguely maintained that a company’s sole social
responsibility was to pursue maximization of returns for their shareholders within the
boundaries set by law. In turn, Carroll (1979, p. 500) argued that ‘the social
responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary
expectations that society has of organizations at a given time’.
Other studies attempted to adopt a more focused approach by proposing that the social
responsibilities of businesses lied on those stakeholders who directly or indirectly affect
or are affected by firms’ operations (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jones, 1995). A
fundamental problem, however, with this approach relates to the fact that it is very
difficult to define the firm’s stakeholders. The definition proposed by McIntosh et al.
(1998) is more specific as they translate CSR into a set of corporate activities in the
following eight areas: corporate governance, environment, human rights and the
workplace, fair trade and ethical investment, arms trade, tobacco, animal welfare and
protection and education.
Apart from academic attempts in defining CSR, different organizations have framed
own definitions. For example, the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) defined CSR as firms’ commitment to contribute to sustainable
economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community
and society at large to improve their quality of life (WBCSD, 1998). The European
Commission (2001) green paper on CSR argued that being socially responsible entails
going beyond fulfilling legal expectations and investing more into human resources,
environment and stakeholder relations.
25
The situation becomes even more complicated as businesses too have provided their
own definitions of the topic. Browsing through the web-sites of major firms reveals that
all of them provide their own unique interpretation of corporate responsibility. As it can
be seen from the examples in Box 2.1, businesses’ definitions refer to activities that
promote local community and employee support, continuous improvement and
mitigation of their business impact.
Unilever: ‘To make a positive impact in many ways: through our brands, our commercial
operations and relationships, through voluntary contributions, and through the various other
ways in which we engage with society’(Unilever, 2009).
Philips: ‘Living up to our heritage of social commitment we use our capabilities to enhance the
lives of our employees and society at large. We believe our responsibility extends to the full
value chain and view supplier sustainability as a matter of taking care of the environment and of
workers’ lives’ (Philips, 2009).
Shell: ‘Our Business Principles and Code of Conduct define our core values of honesty,
integrity and respect for people, and are at the heart of how we manage our business. These are
translated into specific requirements through a set of company-wide commitments and standards
that define how we operate in socially and environmentally responsible ways’ (Shell, 2009).
GAP: ‘We’re dedicated to improving the world around us and lessening our impact on the
planet. Doing what’s right comes naturally to the people who work at Gap, and our employees
are the heart of our company’s commitment to social and environmental good’ (GAP, 2009).
McDonald’s: ‘For McDonald’s, corporate responsibility is about living our values each and
every day. It’s about taking action, achieving results and always maintaining open lines of
communication with our customers and other key stakeholders. We’re determined to
continuously improve our social and environmental performance. We work hard, together with
our suppliers and independent restaurant franchisees, to strive toward a sustainable future – for
our company and the communities in which we operate’ (McDonalds, 2009).
Box 2-1: Examples of How Firms Define Corporate Social Responsibility
Despite the existing variety of views on the essence of CSR, it is possible to identify
certain characteristics of this phenomenon. Most agree that CSR is inherently
26
compatible with profit-making and focuses on fulfilling societal demands (Doane,
2004a). As Vogel (2005, p. 19) argues ‘virtually all contemporary writing on CSR
emphasizes its link to corporate profitability’. On top of that, contemporary notions of
CSR practices emphasize the voluntary component of CSR and typically perceive CSR
practices as actions that go beyond those prescribed by statutory norms (e.g. Carroll,
1979; Davis, 1973; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Additionally, CSR is seen as an
initiative, which promotes self-regulation of business as a substitute for state regulation
(Albareda, 2008; Crane, et al., 2008; Zadek, 2001).
On the one hand, the plurality of approaches is instrumental in comprehending the
broad array of topics that come under the rubric of CSR (Burchell, 2008). On the other
hand, the plethora of definitions and approaches hinders further development in the field
(Lockett, et al., 2006). Practitioners get perplexed rather than enlightened as a result of
the ongoing scholarly debate whereas academics find it difficult to create a pool of
consistent data that will enable them to compare results and comprehend the
implications of CSR practices (Hart, 2010; McWilliams, et al., 2006). It is thus
important when studying such an elusive topic to explicitly determine how the
researcher perceives CSR.
In contrast to scholars who conflate CSR with philanthropy (Atkinson & Galaskiewicz,
1998; Brammer & Millington, 2005; Porter & Kramer, 2003), this study maintains that
CSR goes beyond charitable aid or donations. Philanthropic actions are corporate gifts
and should be treated as such. Although early incarnations of CSR were strongly related
to philanthropic actions (Heald, 1970), in recent years CSR has transformed into a
business practice increasingly treated as a core element of modern strategic
27
management (Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2010). Thus, ‘corporate responsibility is more
than simply the ‘do good’ stuff . . . fluff is not enough’ (Waddock, 2003, p. 114). This
study perceives Corporate Social Responsibility as ‘the continuing commitment by
businesses to undertake actions, beyond philanthropy, to mitigate the negative
externalities of their operations and ensure production/provision of qualitative and safe
products/ services’. A negative externality is an unintended harm that someone
experiences from a third party (Arrow, 1969). In the case of businesses, negative
externalities may rise from the impacts of their activities (Haufler, 2001). Examples
may include polluting emissions, waste production, threats to employees’ integrity and
production of potentially harmful products.
By conceptualizing CSR as a business processes oriented construct, this study focuses
on the social and environmental impacts of operations management, i.e. the impacts of
business processes used for the production of goods and services (Slack & Lewis,
2003). In this way, this research attributes great importance to the tools/ policies
companies apply in order to put into practice a commitment to social and environmental
goals. The intention is to distinguish between the use of CSR by companies as a means
of enhancing their social and environmental performance and the pursuit of CSR as a
public relations ploy (Campbell, 2007; Weaver, et al., 1999). In so doing, the study will
identify the influence of CSR on business practice and enhance our knowledge on the
topic.
2.4 The Voluntary Nature of CSR
The emergence of CSR as a phenomenon that rests on firms’ discretionary will to self-
regulate their activities has been influenced by certain socio-political developments that
28
have taken place during the last thirty years or so. Some of these developments were
previously mentioned. Nonetheless to assist the reader better comprehend CSR, these
socio-political developments need to be further discussed. In the relevant literature the
following four factors have been identified as the most prominent from the point of
view of explaining the voluntary nature of CSR and its eminence to the international
arena.
First, the political shift towards economic liberalism supported the autonomy of the
market in solving problems related to business activities at the expense of governmental
intervention. Corporations were ‘freed’ from any bonds imposed by the government and
deregulation of the market was endorsed as the best way to economic growth and social
prosperity (Wilkinson, 2007). Command and control measures were heavily criticized
and CSR self-regulatory tools were massively promoted as effective means of
controlling business operations (Lenox & Nash, 2003). Voluntary action was being used
to advocate a market-fundamentalism where everything could be left to the workings of
the market (Bendell, 2004; Wilkinson, 2007). Moreover, laws and institutions were seen
as needed to conform to the laws of the market in order not to restraint trade and
economic profitability (Wilkinson, 2007).
Second, the globalisation of the economy downgraded the role of the state as political
sovereignty (Bauman, 2008). In the context of globalisation, the state was expected and
pressed to free capital and corporations from regulation and allow them to operate
unfettered (Bauman, 2002). As a result, the power to define the conditions that affect
economic activities has been taken outside the limits of the state’s sovereign territory
(Bauman, 2002). Some authors have gone as far as arguing that the state no longer
29
functions and that it is thoroughly appropriated by transnational corporations (Miyoshi,
1996; Strange, 1996). Although this statement may be exaggerated, it is undoubtedly
true that the role of the state has been limited ‘to police orderly conditions in localities
that increasingly become little more than transit stations in the world-wide travel of
goods administered by the multinational corporations’ (Bauman, 2007, p. 232). In this
sense, the role of governments has been limited to establishing a minimum legal
framework to ensure the operation of the market (Bauman, 2007; De La Cuesta
Gonzalez & Martinez, 2004).
Many governments, including most European ones, have favoured this position since it
enabled them to minimize the financial and political risks state regulation entails
(O'Rourke, 2003; Vogel, 2005). In many cases, governments have declared their
incapacity in dealing with social issues and have attempted to motivate firms to become
socially responsible through ways other than regulation (Moon & Vogel, 2008). For
instance, governments have tried to increase business’ awareness of how to contribute
to tackling social problems by forming partnerships with businesses, launching
information web-sites and using self-regulatory tools (Moon & Vogel, 2008).
Third, to address the challenges created by the retreat of the state, non-governmental
organizations along with corporations have started participating in tasks that were once
the domain of the government (Albareda, 2008). Thus, new institutional arrangements
involving various forms of non-governmental regulatory action have taken place. In
these, civil society organizations not only try to exert pressures on corporations through
confrontational activism but work collaboratively with companies, business
associations, and governmental and intergovernmental organizations through various
30
types of partnerships (Utting, 2005). Examples of such collaborations, particularly
relevant to the topic of this research, are the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the European Committee for Standardization (CEN).
Fourth, a series of corporate accidents and revelations of business misconduct have
brought corporations to the centre of public attention increasing societal demands for
more responsible business operation. For instance, the severe corporate accidents that
happened in the mid 1980s, including Bhopal and Exxon Valdez, were linked to
irresponsible actions by these companies (Albareda, 2008). Moreover, reports were
published accusing leading companies like IKEA, Nike and Shell of poor working
conditions, bribery and poor environmental practices (Idemudia, 2007). The fact that
these events involved well-known companies implied that successful corporate
strategies may result in social and environmental ills. Additionally, these revelations
highlighted the significance of the impact of business operations on the communities in
which they are embedded and the amount of power that they wield over these
communities (Waddock, 2007). These situations increased critique towards corporations
for not engaging into socially responsible actions and pursuing profit maximization.
Together, globalisation, the demise of the state and societal demands for application of
CSR practices, resulted in promoting voluntary self-regulatory tools as effective means
of regulating corporate social and environmental impacts (Utting, 2005). In this context,
the application of CSR practices became synonymous to the adoption of various self-
regulatory tools that emerged as means of assisting companies in implementing such
practices (Albareda, 2008). These self-regulatory tools neither addressed areas that are
viewed as essential to core economic activities nor did they entirely fit under the
31
heading of philanthropic programs. By contrast, voluntary CSR measures dealt with
negative externalities of corporate activity, i.e. the side-effects of business activities,
and served exactly the same purpose as mandatory laws; they aimed at constraining
self-interest and direct it towards the common interest (Gabel, 2009).
Within the domain of CSR, self-regulatory tools may take the form of management
standards, labelling schemes, transparency guidelines, best practices guides and
reporting systems (Albareda, 2008; E.C., 2001). Their development involves a great
number of stakeholders, including international organizations, consumer and business
associations and standardization organizations. Examples include the UN Global
Compact, Social Accountability 8000, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), ISO9001/
ISO14001 and the European Eco-Label Scheme (Leipziger, 2003).
Self-regulatory instruments have been extremely popular with companies, as they are
cheaper compared to command and control measures (Lenox & Nash, 2003). This can
be seen from the fact that the number of companies that publish CSR related reports
increased from a total of 9 in 1999 to 1,379 in 2009 (GRI, 2010). On top of that, at least
44% of the FTSE 1002 firms have adopted a CSR code of conduct (Preuss, 2009) while
more than 1,000,000 corporations apply at least one CSR management standard (ISO,
2008). Consequently, voluntary self-regulatory initiatives like management standards
have become a major feature of CSR and are largely synonymous to the management of
Corporate Social Responsibility (Albareda, 2008; Blowfield & Murray, 2008).
2
FTSE100: An index of the share prices of the 100 largest companies (by market capitalisation) in the
UK (Kurtz, 2008).
32
2.5 The Business Case Approach to CSR
The perception of CSR as a means of enhancing both social and financial performance
is known in the literature as the business case for CSR or ‘enlightened self-interest’. The
business case is not a new approach to CSR as for many years the management
literature maintained that managers could help their companies to discover win-win
opportunities that improve their social and environmental performance while
simultaneously increasing profits (Hart, 1995). Even in early CSR initiatives, there was
always the premise that by adopting CSR practices firms would enhance the social
environment in which they operated and that such efforts would be in their long-term
financial interest (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
Today, the business case is prominent in many books, articles and reports on CSR,
which herald the linking of financial goals and social purposes (Vogel, 2005). In fact,
the most eminent theories of CSR are based on the assumption of the business case. For
instance, stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Frooman, 1999) implies that companies
need to pay attention to non-financial constituencies such as consumers, employees and
local communities because by doing so firms can secure significant benefits. Similarly,
institutional theory maintains that businesses are motivated to apply credible practices
because the returns to such behaviour are high (Jones, 1995; McWilliams, et al., 2006).
Likewise, the resource-based-view-of-the-firm theory (Hart, 1995; McWilliams &
Siegel, 2001; Russo & Fouts, 1997) claims that the adoption of social practices may
grant the firm an advantage over competition. Furthermore, one of the most widely used
CSR models, Carroll’s (1991) CSR pyramid, is based on the proposition that a socially
responsible company must simultaneously try to make a profit and be a good corporate
citizen.
33
It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that although there are no robust data on
whether CSR contributes or not to profit maximization the business case has dominated
CSR research (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Vogel, 2005). As Blowfield and Murray
(2008) argue, proving a link between CSR and financial performance has become the
Holy Grail for many scholars and other stakeholders. The reason for this is very simple:
finding evidence that the adoption of self-regulatory CSR tools enhances firms’
financial performance is seen as a) assisting the diffusion of CSR practices and b)
attributing legitimacy to social and environmental issues in the world of mainstream
business (Blowfield & Murray, 2008). Consequently, it can be argued that the main aim
of the business case is to make the adoption of CSR practices more alluring to managers
(King & Toffel, 2009). Showing that the adoption of CSR practices may be beneficial
for them, assists managers to understand why they need to pay attention to social and
environmental aspects of their businesses. Moreover, it presents CSR as a topic that can
add to shareholder value, or at least not damage it (Blowfield & Murray, 2008).
Indicative of the eminence of the business case is the fact that numerous researchers
have embarked on proving a link between corporate financial and social performance
(Beurden & Gössling, 2008; Brammer & Millington, 2005; Margolis & Walsh, 2001;
McWilliams & Siegel, 2000; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Mill, 2006; Ogden &
Watson, 1999; Peloza & Papania, 2008). Interestingly, these researchers have
emphasized the need to identify the extent to which socially and environmentally
responsible corporate behaviour affects financial performance - not the other way
around (Campbell, 2007).
34
Examples from the literature suggest that the application of socially responsible
practices and good relationships with stakeholders enhance corporate reputation (Dacin
& Brown, 1997; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990); improve market value (Aupperle, et al.,
1985; McWilliams & Siegel, 2000); boost firm attractiveness to employees (Marin &
Ruiz, 2007; Turban & Greening, 1997); reduce costs and risks to the firm (Carroll &
Shabana, 2010) and enhance the firm’s operational efficiency (Corporate-Watch, 2006) .
What is intriguing with the business case to CSR is that this approach treats the
problems created by business operations as flaws caused not by defects in the existing
institutions but by failures in social insight and perception (King & Toffel, 2009).
Business case supporters maintain that ‘we just need to tweak a few things to make the
market work more effectively’ (Doane, 2004a, p. 217). In this sense, market’s ability to
take care of the negative externalities of business activities is not questioned. On the
contrary, drawing on the wide diffusion of self-regulatory CSR tools as effective means
of managing business activities, there is a view that the market provides the best
incentives for delivering social and environmental objectives (Doane, 2004a).
Advocates of the business case for CSR support the discretionary adoption of CSR
practices and minimum public intervention as they argue that the market can regulate its
impacts through voluntary self-regulatory approaches such as standards, reporting
systems and codes of ethics (Albareda, 2008). It is claimed that each firm must freely
choose how to deal with its social and environmental responsibilities. In this context,
the role of the state in the promotion of corporate responsible practices is to establish a
minimum legal framework, which will ensure the operation of the market (Kotler &
Lee, 2005).
35
Proponents of the business case imply that there is no need to strengthen the role of the
government as the market offers adequate incentives for firms to care for their
stakeholders in the interest of their shareholders (De La Cuesta Gonzalez & Martinez,
2004). State regulation is seen as a constraint on the firm’s discretionary activities and
this is why is not preferred (Brummer, 1991). Furthermore, supporters of the business
case maintain that, within the context of globalisation and the shrinking of the state’s
responsibilities, the self-regulatory approaches to CSR facilitate the implementation of
regulation and the satisfaction of society’s concerns over the impacts of business
activities (Levy & Kaplan, 2008). Moreover, the application of such measures is seen as
a means of translating CSR from an abstract set of norms and expectations into
quantifiable and standardized audit instrument that facilitates objective and consistent
measurement (Levy & Kaplan, 2008; Sethi, 2002).
Thus, from a pragmatic point of view, the voluntary approach to CSR today is closely
related to market outcome. As a corporate report asserts: ‘if we aren’t good corporate
citizens as reflected in the Triple Bottom Line that takes into account social and
environmental responsibilities along with financial ones – eventually our stock price,
our profits and our entire business could suffer’ (cited inVogel, 2005). Therefore, it can
be argued that within the context of the business case, CSR can be understood as a
contemporary movement, which is in accordance with neo-liberal views on the
operation of the market. In particular, the prominence of the business case has made the
application of CSR tools synonymous to broader organizational goals such as reputation
and financial performance (Lee, 2008). In this sense, the contemporary discourse on
corporate social responsibility conceives CSR neither as managers’ moral responsibility
for greater social good nor as executives’ discretionary expenditure that could hinder the
36
firm’s profitability. On the contrary, the adoption of CSR self-regulatory measures is
treated as a strategic resource to be used to improve both the social and financial
performance of the corporation (McWilliams, et al., 2006).
2.6 Criticisms of the Business Case Approach to CSR
Notwithstanding the prevalence of the business case approach to CSR, there is evidence
that this approach is flawed. It can be argued that the flourishing of CSR practices
through the various self-regulatory tools does not mean that these practices have
penetrated the fabric of business behaviour (Vogel, 2005). As Economist (2004, p. 59)
puts it ‘CSR is an industry itself with full-time staff, websites, newsletters, professional
associations and massed armies of consultants’; this however, does not provide any
evidence that CSR practices have become an everyday practical reality for the majority
of firms.
The business case wisdom ‘what’s good for business is good for society’ is
questionable: the short-term profit imperative of the economic system influences the
adoption of CSR self-regulatory measures leaving little room for the application of CSR
practices (Doane, 2004b; Vogel, 2005; Waddock, 2007). Markets’ power over firms is
very strong causing companies’ strategies to reflect a narrow, short-term financial
perspective that prevails nowadays rather than societal demands for CSR practices. In
this context, it can be argued that the adoption of CSR voluntary self-regulatory tools is
driven more by their potential to increase profits and not by their attributes in enhancing
the firm’s social and environmental performance (Zadek, 2001).
37
Cragg (2005, p. 15) maintains that relying on the business case in a self-regulatory
context entails potentially serious consequences and that ‘self-regulation based on
voluntary standards of conduct is not simply bound to be ineffective; it is also
profoundly deceptive. By advocating self-regulation as an effective alternative to
regulation by democratic institutions, corporations are moving the task of setting
standards from the public arena, where motivations and principles are subject to public
scrutiny and debate, to private control, where the dominant and dominating motivation
is governed by private (financial) interest’.
The effectiveness of the business case as a vehicle for CSR is further undermined by
considerations that follow from research into corporate power. Numerous authors (De
La Cuesta Gonzalez & Martinez, 2004; Utting, 2002; Waddock, 2007) argue that the
appearance of corporations with budgets bigger than those of some small countries blurs
business’ role in society. It is argued that due to lack of effective systems of global or
local governance, the accumulation of power on behalf of companies enables them to
command to a large extent market operations and resources in their own interests rather
than for the benefit of the societal good. In other words, it is maintained that corporate
interests dominate over societal interests in the adoption of CSR practices.
There are scholars whose views echo those described in the previous paragraphs, but
who approach the topic from a different angle. Their research focuses on the corporate
scandals at the dawn of this century, such as the collapse of ‘Enron and Co’ (Blowfield
& Murray, 2008; McMillan, 2007; Smith & Lenssen, 2009; Solomon, 2007). They
argue that these scandals highlight the fact that in cases of information asymmetries
firms behave opportunistically prioritising self-interest. Additionally, these scholars
38
take the view that the aforementioned scandals along with the recent financial crisis
demonstrate that the market mechanisms fail to prevent unethical activity by companies
and despite the abundance of voluntary self-regulatory CSR tools, Corporate Social
Responsibility falls short of becoming everyday reality for businesses.
There are good reasons to remain sceptical of the capacity of regulations that rely on
market incentives rather than government mandates to provide a stable foundation for
the application of CSR practices by profit-seeking firms. For instance, Haufler (2001)
provides evidence that the development of CSR as a voluntary framework reflects the
attempts of some transnational corporations to satisfy own interests. In a similar vein,
others maintain that voluntary self-regulatory CSR approaches are an oxymoron as
potential polluters will not make laws and order sanctions that are opposed to self-
interest (Gleckman and Krut cited in Burchell, 2008). On the contrary, it is suggested
that companies will mostly use self-regulatory approaches to CSR as a window-dressing
policy and as a means of adopting a friendlier façade to their constituencies (Doane,
2005).
All in all, critics of the business case claim that self-regulation is problematic as it
enables firms to choose whether or not to engage with the CSR agenda and to what
extent (Burchell, 2008). They hold the view that in order to ensure that companies will
adopt corporate responsible practices traditional regulatory measures (Doane, 2005) or
industry self-regulation schemes (Campbell, 2007) need to be applied. On the one hand,
scholars favouring regulatory approaches claim that by adopting a mandatory
framework to the application of CSR firms’ behaviour becomes more predictable. On
the other hand, researchers who are keen in industry self-regulatory approaches argue
39
that in the context of globalisation and retreat of the state, corporations may engage into
CSR practices when a well organized and effective industrial self-regulatory system is
in place.
It may be concluded that the opponents of the business case tend to see the elements of
voluntarism and self-regulation as CSR’s major flaws claiming that legally mandated
accountability is where attention should really be focused (Crane, et al., 2008). It is
further maintained that the voluntary implementation of CSR through self-regulatory
measures fails in delivering more responsible companies. It is argued that companies
merely pay lip-service to CSR self-regulatory tools and are mainly interested in making
money. In the words of Joel Bakan (2004), companies are in ‘a pathological pursuit of
profit and power’ and they use CSR practices as means to satisfy those ends.
From this angle, the proliferation of CSR tools and measures presents itself as an
exercise in managing public perceptions of a firm rather than as a development in the
implementation of CSR practices (Doane, 2004b). There is a widely spread opinion that
CSR has blossomed as an idea but not as practice (Moskowitz, 2002). As Crook (2005,
p. 4) maintains, ‘CSR is little more than a cosmetic treatment. The human face that CSR
applies to capitalism goes on each morning, get increasingly smeared by day and
washes off at night’. To overcome this problem, scholars maintain that research on CSR
needs to redirect its attention and instead of trying to prove that the adoption of CSR
practices may be profitable for the firm, to focus on the operating behaviour of the firm
(Pettigrew, 2009). Critics of the business case maintain that the adoption of CSR
practices should be treated irrespectively of their potential to enhance the firm’s
40
financial situation. In this way, they highlight the moral dimension of CSR practices and
attribute to it greater importance than to the financial dimension.
2.7 Analysing Firms’ Motives for Adopting CSR Practices
In the presence of conflicting views on the validity of the business case for CSR the
investigation of the reasons behind CSR has acquired considerable imminence. And yet,
despite the existence of a substantial body of literature dealing with the topic (Bansal &
Roth, 2000; Blowfield & Murray, 2008; Campbell, 2007; Corporate-Watch, 2006; Hess,
et al., 2002; Kurtz, 2008; Lenox, 2006; Moon & Vogel, 2008; Smith, 2008; Terlaak,
2007; Vogel, 2005), no firm conclusions have been reached. The literature is largely
split between approaches that consider CSR to be externally driven and those that
consider it to be internally driven while some scholars attempt to integrate the two
approaches conceptually or argue for their parallel existence (Muller & Kolk, 2010).
These approaches are discussed in this section.
2.7.1 External motives
Studies emphasizing the influence of external factors in firms’ decision to engage in
CSR activities attempt to establish a link between external pressures such as shareholder
demands, regulation or peer pressure and adoption of CSR practices (Muller & Kolk,
2010). For instance, Deegan et al. (2002) argue that social and environmental actions
undertaken by firms are associated with the extent of media attention. Their research
indicates a positive relation between media attention given to particular issues and the
attention given to the same issues by companies. The scholars claim that continuing
media attention, particularly negative media coverage, is likely to result in firms’
engagement in CSR. Likewise, Aguilera et al. (2007) have developed a theoretical
41
framework drawing on such theories as organizational justice, corporate governance,
and varieties of capitalism maintaining that companies are driven to adopt CSR
practices by various stakeholders, including employees, consumers, shareholders and
government.
The role of government as a significant driver behind firms’ engagement into CSR has
been also emphasized by other studies, which indicate that governments can motivate
firms to become socially responsible through enforcement, endorsement, guidance and
partnering (Aguilera, et al., 2007; Moon & Vogel, 2008). Enforcement refers to
enacting laws, which support the adoption of CSR practices by companies and
enforcing those laws. Endorsement refers to cases where governments declare their
incapacity in dealing with social issues and attempt to increase business’ awareness on
CSR by using various initiatives such as launching web-sites and publishing informative
leaflets. Also, governments can offer guidance by supporting various self-regulatory
tools such as management standards as a means of facilitating CSR implementation by
firms. Finally, partnering refers to cases where governments try to promote the
application of the concept by formulating partnerships with businesses such as Business
in the Community and the Swedish Partnership for Global Responsibility.
Some scholars have adopted a different approach and highlight the influence of the
institutional environment on companies’ decision to adopt CSR practices (Bartley,
2003; Darnall & Edwards Jr, 2006; Delmas, 2002; Delmas & Toffel, 2003; Jiang &
Bansal, 2003; Waddock, et al., 2002; Weaver, et al., 1999). The argument is that
practices supported by the institutional environment are the ones which are perceived as
legitimate forms of behaviour by society and this is why firms end up adopting them
42
(Glynn & Marquis, 2004). Companies do not want to deviate from what is perceived as
normal behaviour because if they do their legitimacy will be threatened (Deephouse,
1996). This may even threaten the firm’s survival as there is a link between
organizational legitimacy and survival (Brown & Deegan, 1998; Deegan & Rankin,
1996). In particular, failure to secure legitimacy may bring in the imposition of
sanctions, such as fines or boycott of company’s products by society. Firms
acknowledge the significance of maintaining their legitimacy and for that reason they
embody in their strategies the widely accepted practices supported by the institutional
environment (Garriga & Melé, 2004).
Finally, some authors maintain that companies may adopt certain practices due to
competitive pressure by their peers (Hess, et al., 2002). Businesses may end up adopting
policies, which they would not do otherwise, in order to remain competitive. For
example, Merck, the well-known pharmaceutical company, has caused such pressures
on its rivals when it developed and donated a medicine to fight ‘river-blindness’ to poor
African countries. This action established the reputation of the company as a
responsible one and forced its competitors to act likewise (Hess, et al., 2002).
2.7.2 Internal motives
In contrast to the previous one, this approach attributes greater importance to intrinsic
rather than extrinsic factors as drivers of CSR adoption by companies. Some scholars
argue that companies voluntarily adopt CSR practices to facilitate opportunistic rather
than responsible behaviour (Campbell, 2007; Lenox, 2006). Yet, another suggested
reason is that companies adopt CSR practices to send a signal of superior performance
over their competitors that have not adopted such practices (Campbell, 2007; Lenox,
43
2006). This view is shared by those scholars who believe that firms engage in CSR
practices in order to secure legitimacy and competitive differentiation (Bansal &
Hunter, 2003; Waddock & Graves, 1997).
Evidence from the literature (Oliver, 1997; Zukin & DiMaggio, 1990) indicates that
companies use strategies and symbols that enable them to manipulate their environment
in order to increase their freedom from social control and intervention. Businesses do
not passively respond to demands for CSR practices but they employ communication
and self-regulatory tools, such as ICMS and codes of ethics, for convincing their
stakeholders about the legitimacy of their operations. Furthermore, there are studies
that emphasize the view that firms’ policies are always based on a cost-benefit analysis
aiming at profit-maximization (Corporate-Watch, 2006). The literature indicates that
companies engage into CSR practices to be able to satisfy own benefits, including
reputation enhancement; avoid costs stemming from litigation; attract investors;
improve their competitiveness and market positioning; and improve their operational
efficiency.
Finally, some studies lend support to the view that companies do not always follow the
economic rationalization paradigm (Davis, et al., 1997; Heugens, et al., 2008). The
argument is that companies’ motives for behaving altruistically lie in a sense of
obligation and responsibility that firms may develop. It is asserted that some
corporations are truly concerned on the impacts of their activities and develop a sense of
social duty. These companies engage in CSR activities because it is the right thing to
do; they see the adoption of such practices as an opportunity of applying a new
corporate culture and not as means of profit maximization. Due to the fact that they are
44
value-driven, it is expected that they always follow a specific type of operation
embedded in their principles. This behaviour is motivated by a sense of social
rationality and it is in this context that they apply the CSR practices. As one manager
put it ‘just as I do not drive 180 km/h in the town centre, I also do not emit an
unpleasant smell into the environment’ (cited in Cramer, et al., 2006).
The role of managers’ personal values is crucial to corporate altruism. Some researchers
link the ethical conduct to managers’ moral principles (Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004;
Nakamura, et al., 2001; Swanson, 2008; Wood, 1991). The origins of this approach may
be found in Williamson’ argument that when firms’ finances are satisfactory managers
will pursuit their own interests and satisfy their own utility (Williamson, 1964). In this
context, managers may pursuit ethical practices in order to address their moral concerns.
Accordingly managers are presented as heavily influential entities driven by their own
ethical principles, which can change the way business operate. In contrast with agency
theory, this view ascribes to managers a more active role and instead of treating them as
agents responsible for increasing shareholders’ profits, perceives them as initiators of
corporate responsible practices. Some authors, take this argument even further by
claiming that the new generation of managers is well educated, aware of the critical
aspects of their business and thus motivated to do the right thing (Wilson cited in
Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004).
2.7.3 Amalgamating internal and external motives
Although most studies emphasize either the extrinsic or intrinsic drivers of CSR
practices, some researchers endeavour to integrate the two. For instance, Husted and
45
Salazar (2006) identify three categories of motives: a) strategic CSR, when the company
expects financial returns from engaging into CSR practices; b) coerced egoism, when
the firm adopts CSR practices because it is compelled by regulation to do so; and c)
altruism, when the company engages into CSR actions because it believes this is the
right thing to do. On similar grounds, Bansal and Roth (2000) suggest that firms engage
in CSR practices for the reasons of competitiveness, legitimation and ecological
responsibility. Companies motivated by competitiveness recognise that the adoption of
CSR strategies create business opportunities and a competitive advantage. With
reference to legitimation, firms aim at avoiding costs and risks by meeting relevant
standards, but not exceeding them, as long as this would satisfy societal norms. Finally,
firms motivated by ecological responsibility perceive environmental protection as the
right thing to do no matter if environmental strategies are or not profitable.
Other studies adopt a different approach and instead of attempting to integrate intrinsic
and extrinsic motives lend support to their parallel existence. For example, Child and
Tsai (2005) dispute institutional influence as the sole source of pressure for the adoption
of CSR practices and they argue that companies also exert influence over CSR policies.
The scholars argue that it is rather an interactive process; companies, especially the
multinational ones, influence and are influenced by the institutional environment.
Likewise, in the US context, Weaver et al. (1999) argue that socially responsible
corporate processes and outcomes are influenced by both external expectations of
legitimacy and top management commitments to ethics and to financial, operational,
and strategic concerns.
46
2.8 Existing Problems in the CSR literature
Current theorizing fails to provide satisfactory guidance to the influence of CSR on
business practice since it suffers from three significant shortcomings. The first relates to
the lack of a common conceptual approach on the topic. This impedes the study of CSR
and limits the practical implementation of CSR practices. Researchers do not have a
common language, resulting in loose application of the term and general confusion.
Moreover, the absence of a common definition tempts scholars to introduce new
concepts obfuscating further the notion of corporate responsibility (Matten & Crane,
2005).
The second shortcoming concerns the underlying assumption of economic rationality
that exists in major theories in the field, including stakeholder management and
corporate social performance. This neo-classical approach proposes that firms’ pursuit
of profits is justified as long as the firm complies with the rules of the game, meaning as
long as it complies with relevant legislation. However, legal compliance does not
presuppose implementation of CSR practices. Also, complexities stemming from
consumerism, globalisation, and increased business power may shape societal ethical
custom limiting its influence and power and conceal the meaning of corporate
responsibility (Scherer & Palazzo, 2008). Moreover, in the contemporary globalised
world governmental intervention is shrinking, failing to set the conditions for a well
functioning market. Therefore, analysing CSR through the lens of financial performance
and overlooking the aforementioned complexities hardly does any explanatory work. As
Van Oosterhout and Heugens (2008) argue, due to the fact that most studies follow this
trend the explanatory record in CSR is rather poor.
47
The third shortcoming that narrows our understanding of CSR influence on business
practice is the lack of agreement on what drives firms to voluntary engage in CSR
practices. Contradictory evidence creates confusion and leaves the effectiveness of
voluntary self-regulatory CSR tools open to interpretation. On the one hand, there is
evidence that firms rethink the way they do business and they try to correct the excesses
of their operations. On the other hand, it seems that some firms use CSR as a window-
dressing policy: they do not embark on CSR activities for the sake of improving their
social and environmental performance but rather in order to satisfy own interests. Thus,
at the moment, it is not known whether firms use CSR practices as a step change in their
attitude towards more responsible business conduct or as a public relations ploy.
To overcome these limitations and enhance our understanding of how CSR is
implemented at the firm level, some scholars have suggested that research needs go
beyond the underlying assumptions of economic rationality to include new approaches
and refine the existing ones (Blowfield & Murray, 2008; Scherer & Palazzo, 2008). Yet,
though CSR is recognized by companies as central to core business operations, there is
a paucity of studies explaining why businesses adopt CSR practices and how they
integrate them in their everyday activities (Lindgreen, et al., 2009a; Lindgreen, et al.,
2009b). To this end, the need to conduct interviews and surveys to obtain data on these
two topics has been highlighted in the CSR literature (McWilliams, et al., 2006).
Scholars have called for further research on the specific actions, policies, or activities
through which firms concretely execute a philosophical commitment to social goals
(Godfrey & Hatch, 2007). To some extent, these calls have influenced the CSR research
agenda, which has started focusing on the impact of CSR on organizational processes
and performance (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010).
48
Until now, academics have attempted to clarify the degree to which CSR influences
business conduct by using various proxy indicators of CSR practices. By far the most
popular choice is to use codes of ethics (Bondy, et al., 2008; Diller, 1999; Kaptein,
2004; Ki & Kim, 2010; Long & Driscoll, 2008; Paine, et al., 2005; Prakash, 2000;
Preuss, 2009; Sacconi, 1999; Sethi, 2002) and social and environmental disclosures
(Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; Brown & Deegan, 1998; Deegan, 2002; Deegan & Rankin,
1996; Deegan, et al., 2002; Holder-Webb, et al., 2009; Lindblom, 1994; Milne &
Patten, 2002; Othman & Ameer, 2009; Rodriguez & LeMaster, 2007; Tilling & Tilt,
2010). Other choices have been to use CSR web-reporting (Chapple & Moon, 2005;
Coupland, 2005; Wanderley, et al., 2008), socially responsible investment (Avshalom &
Tal, 2008; Kurtz, 2008) and participation in various CSR associations/ initiatives (Dacin
& Brown, 1997; Melé, 2008; Runhaar & Lafferty, 2009).
A common characteristic of the research focusing on codes of ethics, social and
environmental reports and CSR web-reporting is a tendency to analyse data
qualitatively aiming to detect the responsibilities as firms proclaim them. Although this
kind of analysis may offer valuable insights, it falls short of clarifying CSR
implementation because: a) content analysis is a poor basis for understanding how CSR
is applied; b) this analysis is usually context specific and limited in scope; and c)
focusing only on rhetoric and overlooking action limits knowledge on whether CSR has
entered the bloodstream of a company. Likewise, information on socially responsible
investment and participation in CSR associations/ initiatives imply that there is a market
trend towards this type of actions but does little in clarifying firms’ performance in
terms of corporate responsibility.
49
Apart from being weak and unverified, extant data on proxy indicators of CSR practices
are frequently incomplete or simply false as many studies suffer from methodological
inadequacies. For instance, time lags are often not taken into account; self-reported data
are considered as objective indicators of CSR outcomes; small sample sizes are used;
and moderating variables are not taken into account (Wood, 2010). Therefore, the
challenge of finding reliable indicators that can assess the CSR influence on business
practice effectively has not yet been sufficiently addressed (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010).
What comes as a surprise is that the most widely accepted CSR tools, i.e. International
Certifiable Management Standards (ICMS) (Boiral, 2003a), have been overlooked by
the research community. These standards are voluntarily used by more than 1,000,000
firms around the world (ISO, 2008) as a means of applying CSR practices. ICMS focus
on operations management and intend to enhance business’ social and environmental
performance through the implementation of management systems. These systems
provide a set of conditions, which, if met, mitigate the social and environmental impacts
of business activities. ICMS also provide a yardstick by which companies can gauge
their CSR performance as they assist firms to set social and environmental indicators. In
this way, these standards transform CSR practices from being elusive into tangible
targets.
Additionally, ICMS encourage innovation and continuous improvement of CSR
performance and promote engagement between companies and stakeholders
(Christmann & Taylor, 2006; E.C., 2003; Waddock & Bodwell, 2004). These standards
represent the prevalent form of regulation in markets since they are self-regulatory
voluntary measures. Hence, information on their use by companies provides data on
50
how firms use self-regulation at large. Moreover, they encourage companies not only to
meet regulatory requirements but also to go beyond those and meet certain societal
expectations that are not covered by existing regulation. For that reason, they represent
the goodwill of companies to improve their performance on CSR. Additionally, they
refer to such important aspects of CSR and economic activity in general as
environmental protection, health and safety, consumer protection and employee safety.
The aforementioned characteristics of ICMS, along with the ones described in the
introductory chapter, make them a sine qua non in the analysis of CSR. Consequently,
an analysis of these standards as means of application of CSR practices can provide
valuable insights into the influence of CSR on business practice. The fact that these
standards are greatly ignored by researchers is a major drawback in the literature
hindering knowledge on the topic. As Brunsonn et al. argue ICMS are a ‘much
neglected area of social science attracting far less attention than they deserve in view of
their importance to society’ (2005, p. 2).
To fill this gap and enhance our knowledge on the degree to which CSR has penetrated
the fabric of business behaviour, this PhD thesis uses ICMS as indicators of CSR
practices. The study focuses on: firms’ motives for adopting these standards; the manner
firms apply ICMS in their everyday activities; and the context of ICMS implementation.
Analysis of these topics provides valuable insights on the degree to which CSR
practices have become part of the bloodstream of the firm. In particular, if firms are not
motivated by ICMS potential to improve the firm’s CSR performance, and do not use
ICMS as a means of enhancing that performance, this will be evidence that companies
are not influenced by CSR practices. By contrast, if companies comply with the ICMS
51
requirements, and the context of ICMS implementation encourages firms to customize
these standards to their own needs in order to improve their CSR performance, it will be
evidence that CSR practices, in their voluntary self-regulatory context, are on the right
direction for becoming an everyday practical reality. Therefore, such an analysis can
offer an explanatory basis on the influence of CSR on business practice.
2.9 Conclusions
The current chapter aimed at familiarizing the reader with the concept of Corporate
Social Responsibility and discussing the context within which this PhD study lies.
Figure 2-1 illustrates the main points of the literature reviewed in this chapter.
As it was demonstrated at the beginning of the chapter, the importance of CSR has
grown considerably over the last twenty years or so. The expansion of global markets,
the shrinking role of the state, the transformation of the world in to a global village and
the recent corporate scandals have greatly contributed to the prominence of CSR and the
characteristics it bears. The eminence of CSR has resulted in a plethora of approaches
related to corporate social responsibility. However, this cornucopia has not clarified the
topic as many of the concepts introduced are either too general or cover more or less
similar ground as the old ones without contributing to any progress (Matten & Crane,
2005; Van Oosterhout & Heugens, 2008). As a result, CSR remains still an elusive
topic.
52
Figure 2-2: Main Points of the Literature Review
53
There have been arguments in favour and against CSR without reaching an agreement
point. Research community is divided and some argue in favour of CSR and its
potential, as voluntary topic based on self-regulation, to influence business practice
while others adopt a more sceptical approach. This disagreement has also resulted in
various proposals as to what drives firms to voluntary adopt CSR practices. Clearly,
there is a market trend for CSR and this is proved by the vast amounts corporations
invest in self-regulatory CSR tools, including management standards, codes of ethics
and corporate reports. Some companies seem to truly engage in socially responsible
practices as they do not follow the economic rationalizing paradigm. Others however,
are driven by different motives and are mostly interested in serving own interests.
Within such a controversial research topic, scholars face significant challenges in
finding reliable indicators of CSR practices. Existing approaches carry with them
various limitations mostly because researchers tend to focus on rhetoric overlooking
action. Therefore, the literature suffers from paucity of evidence on the degree to which
CSR has penetrated the fabric of business behaviour.
This study argues that in order to enrich our knowledge on this topic one needs to focus
on operations management and analyse the tools/ practices corporations use in their
business practices. Information on this topic will clarify whether CSR is an integral part
of normal everyday business. To carry out such analysis and obtain reliable data on
CSR implementation, research must not only focus on whether companies adopt CSR
practices or not but to evaluate why firms adopt CSR practices, how they implement
them and under which conditions. To assess why companies engage into CSR one needs
to analyse their motives. To analyse how business apply CSR practices one needs to
54
focus on their requirements and evaluate whether companies conform to these or not.
Last but not least, to evaluate under which conditions one needs to focus on the
pressures corporations face for such practices.
This PhD study adopts such an approach and employs one of the most preferable by
firms, and simultaneously greatly ignored by researchers, CSR tools i.e. International
Certifiable Management Standards. To assist the reader comprehend these standards and
their requirements, the next chapter focuses on their analysis.
55
Chapter 3: Analysing International Certifiable Management Standards
3 ANALYSING INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIABLE MANAGEMENT

STANDARDS (ICMS)
3.1 Introduction
There are numerous management standards assisting companies in applying CSR
practices. Yet, there are some ICMS that are by far more popular than others and are
widely used by firms to manage their social responsibilities. These standards deal with
such important aspects of CSR as consumer/ employee protection (ISO9001),
environmental protection (ISO14001, EMAS), employee protection (OHSAS18001),
consumer/ employee protection (ISO22000), and labour rights (SA8000)3.
This dissertation uses the above mentioned ICMS as proxy indicators of CSR practices.
To understand how these ICMS work, this chapter analyses their characteristics and
underlying assumptions. Also, to comprehend the way in which compliance/ non-
compliance to these standards is assessed, the chapter discusses the certification process
and the steps followed in the external audit procedure.
3.2 Common features of ICMS
Internationally, the two most popular management standards are ISO9001 with more
than 980,000 certified firms and ISO14001 with almost 190,000 certifications (BSI,
3
Though an analysis on CSR should also include the newly emerged international management standard
on corporate social responsibility ISO26000, this was not possible due to lack of certified firms at the
time the survey was conducted.
56
2009; Europa, 2009b; ISO, 2008; SAI, 2009). Figure 3-1 illustrates the most widely
diffused ICMS worldwide.
Figure 3-1: Most Popular ICMS
ICMS share seven common characteristics. First, they are subjects to annual external
audits by certification bodies. Second, ICMS are applicable to any organization
regardless of sector or size. Third, they are voluntary. Fourth, they require compliance
with relevant regulations. Fifth, they are process standards and not performance
standards, meaning that they do not require from organizations a specified
environmental or social performance. ICMS require the development and
implementation of a structured framework of policies and procedures, which enable the
firm to identify and manage its social and environmental impacts in a systematic way
(Cragg, 2005). Their basic assumption is that better management and documentation of
a firm’s operational processes and procedures will lead eventually to a better
performance (BSI, 2009; ISO, 2009; TÜV.Hellas, 2008).
57
Sixth, the operating principle underlying these standards is the Deming Cycle otherwise
known as the Plan – Do – Check – Act (PDCA) Cycle (Deming, 1982). This identifies a
certain management strategy for certified firms in order to continuously improve their
performance with respect to the issue addressed by the standard, i.e. environmental
protection, employee right etc. According to this principle, first, firms must analyse
their current position, set objectives and targets and then make plans to achieve them
(Plan); second, they must put these plans into action (Do); third, they have to measure
their performance against the set objectives and targets (Check) and, fourth, they have
to apply the required corrective actions to improve any flaws (Act) (ISO, 2009). Figure
3-2 depicts this cycle.
PLAN
Continuous
ACT Improvement DO
CHECK
Figure 3-2: The Deming Cycle
(Deming, 1982)
Seventh, in order to be effective, ICMS require firms to develop and put into operation a
management system that demonstrates their ability to operate their business activities in
a way that meets societal and applicable regulatory requirements. More specifically,
these standards require the identification of all processes performed during a firm’s
operation and the development of relative documentation for the application of the
management system i.e. depending on the standard it may be a quality management
58
system or environmental management system etc. Furthermore, they require the
allocation of a person or a team responsible for the management of the system (BSI,
2009; Europa, 2009a; ISO, 2009; Leipziger, 2003).
Usually, the management system’s documentation is structured at three levels, i.e.
strategic, operational and functional (Tapinos, 2008; TÜV.Hellas, 2008). The strategic
level describes the management policy with respect to the issue addressed by the
standard and outlines the basic principles of its application by providing a general
description of the management system. The operational level consists of a number of
procedures (see Appendix 3-1) that are required for the description of the functionality
of the processes. As procedure can be described a documented description of the way
certain tasks have to be performed so that the policy and objectives/ targets are
succeeded (ISO, 2009). It is important that these procedures are clear, consistent with
the planned activities and revised so that they stay efficient. Also, procedures have to be
detailed for providing accurate and credible information. In this context, they describe:
The way each work will be executed;
The person in charge for each work;
The means with which each work will be executed;
The location of each work;
The time for the execution of each work; and
The documents needed for the implementation of these action (Tapinos, 2008).
The functional level includes documents that contain information, with which the firm
executes certain works. Examples of such documents include:
• Working instructions (where required);
59
• Job descriptions;
• Internal policies;
• Product specifications; and
• External documents of the management system, including norms, legislative and
regulatory regime (Tapinos, 2008).
The nature and extend of the above described documentation depends on the size and
complexity of organization and can be either in paper or in electronic form so that
documents are easily accessible and understood (ISO, 2009; Leipziger, 2003; Tapinos,
2008; TÜV.Hellas, 2008). Further details on the procedures required by the ICMS
employed in this study can be found in Appendix 3-1. Table 3-1 provides a summary of
the aforementioned standards.
60
ISO9001 ISO14001 OHSAS18001 EMAS ISO22000 SA8000

Health and Labour
Quality Environmental Environmental Food Safety
Focus Safety in the Rights
Management Management Management Management
Workplace Management
Consumer/ Consumer/
Environmental Employee Environmental Employee
CSR topic Employee Employee
Protection Protection Protection Protection
Protection Protection
Requirements
Policy &
x x x x x x
Objectives
Environmental
Manual x - - - -
Statement
Procedures
Management
Procedures
x x x x x x
Resources
Management x x x x x x
Procedures
Procurement
Management x x x x x x
Procedures
Communication
with Customers x - - - - -
Procedures
Design and
Development x - - - - -
Procedures
Products/
Services
Realization
x - - - - -
Procedures
Environmental
Management - x - x - -
Procedures
Health & Safety
Management - - x - - x
Procedures
Food Safety
Management - - - - x -
Procedures
Social
Management - - - - - x
Procedures
Work
Instructions/ x x x x x x
Documents
Records x - - - - x
Table 3-1: Summary of ICMS Requirements
3.3 ICMS and CSR
The ICMS employed in this study contribute to several aspects of Corporate Social
Responsibility. ISO9001 ensures avoidance of consumer abuses in the marketplace and
61
avoidance of threats to the safety and health of employees; issues that many accept as a
proper focus of socially responsible actions (Frederick, 2006). In particular, the
implementation of the standard ensures that the company does not practice price
gouging, make misleading advertising claims and sale ineffective, unreliable and unsafe
products.
Also, the implementation of ISO9001 requires the use of safe equipment, which does
not threat employees integrity at all stages of the company’s operations. Furthermore,
through internal audits and management reviews ISO9001 assists companies in
avoiding questionable practices and promotes transparent and credible operations
(Castka & Balzarova, 2007). In addition, it deals with another two aspects of CSR:
supplier relations and supply chain management (Waddock & Bodwell, 2004). More
specifically, IS09001 ensures protection of the rights of suppliers through fair pricing
and specific delivery schedules. On top of that, it requires the monitoring and evaluation
of all movement and storage of raw materials and finished goods from the point of
origin to the point of consumption.
Quality management has also been indicated by other scholars as a dimension of CSR
(Hazlett, et al., 2007; Waddock & Bodwell, 2004; Zwetsloot, 2003). On top of that, the
KLD database, which is widely used by academics as means of operationalizing CSR,
includes product quality and safety as dimension of CSR (Christmann & Taylor, 2006).
Therefore, adoption of ISO9001 fosters CSR within the firm (Christmann & Taylor,
2006).
62
ISO14001 and EMAS deal with environmental management a topic accepted by many
scholars as a CSR topic (e.g. Bansal & Hunter, 2003; Castka & Balzarova, 2007;
Christmann & Taylor, 2006; Leipziger, 2003; Matten & Moon, 2008; Stenzel, 2000).
The standard establishes criteria of companies’ environmental performance evaluation.
The latter refers to actions taken by companies to minimize the harmful effects they
cause to the environment. Thus, the application of the standard contributes to the
protection of the rights of local communities through the application of pollution control
measures. Also, the standard leads to greater eco-efficiency, sometimes greener
products and more transparency for and acceptance by external stakeholders (Zwetsloot,
2003).
OHSAS 18001 is an international occupational health and safety management standard.
Its aim is to reduce the risks associated with health and safety at work by clarifying
health and safety aspects of the organization’s activities, minimize the risk of accidents
and any violations in legal requirements (BSI, 2009). The application of the standard
contributes to CSR by dealing with employees’ health and safety (Frederick, 2006;
Zwetsloot, 2003). In particular, the implementation of the standard ensures safer and
healthier workplaces and avoidance of negligent practices that may threat the integrity
of employees.
The application of ISO22000 ensures avoidance of consumer abuses in the marketplace
through the sale of unsafe products and the application of health and safety measures for
the protection of employees as well as customers. Moreover, the implementation of
ISO22000 secures a successful supply chain management through continuous oversight
of incoming and outgoing raw materials and products (TÜV.Hellas, 2008). These are
63
identified as CSR topics by scholars (Frederick, 2006; Waddock & Bodwell, 2004);
therefore, the implementation of the standard encourages the implementation of CSR
practices.
Last but not least, SA8000 contributes to CSR by aiming at protecting employees’
rights and securing for them a healthy and safe working environment (Leipziger, 2003).
Also, the standard contributes to achieving greater transparency for companies and their
suppliers (Zwetsloot, 2003). In this way, the adoption of the standard advances the
implementation of CSR practices.
3.4 The ICMS Certification Process
Although the process needed for certifying a company’s ICMS is specified by the
certification body (CB), there are some major steps that a company must follow before
receiving certification. Figure 3-3 illustrates these steps.
64
Pilot
Implementation of
Step 1
Management
System
Document Review/
Step 2
Initial Assessment
Contact
Step 3
Certification Body
External Audit
Step 4
(Main Assessment)
Auditor/s
Step 5 Consultation
Major Non-
Conformances Corrective Actions
?
YES
NO
Step 6
Certification
Step 7
Maintenance
Figure 3-3: The ICMS Certification Process
65
Step 1 – Pilot implementation
Following the creation of the management system (usually by a consultant), a piloting
period follows. Depending on the size of the firm and complexities of its activities this
may last from a couple of weeks until few months. During this period, possible gaps
between the applied management system and the standard’s requirements are identified.
This stage has a five-fold objective:
i. To test the appropriateness of the system to the needs of the company;
ii. To ensure that the system’s culture is diffused in all firm’s departments;
iii. To secure personnel’s awareness on the system’s requirements4;
iv. To ensure that resources are correctly distributed for the next stages of
the assessment process;
v. To collect the necessary information about the company’s processes.
Step 2 – Document Review – Initial Assessment
It follows the pilot stage and aims a) to assure that the management system
documentation (i.e. policy, manual, procedures, etc), the legislative framework
documents (i.e. national laws, normative references etc), as well as other background
information (i.e. site plans, operation permits etc), are properly prepared and fulfil the
standard’s requirements & b) to verify that all requirements are satisfied before the main
assessment is carried out.
At the end of this stage, areas of omission against the standard’s requirements that need
to be addressed are identified and a specific time period is given to the company for
4
Usually, after the completion of the management system a seminar follows aiming at introducing and
explaining the system’s requirements to all employees. This is organized either by the company itself or
by an external consultancy.
66
implementing the necessary actions. Depending on the size of the firm, this stage may
last from several hours until several days.
Step 3 – Contact CB
After any improvements are implemented, the company contacts the preferred CB to
perform the external audit.
Step 4 – External Audit (Main Assessment)
The main assessment process is conducted on company’s facilities and depending on its
size and complexities of its activities may last from few hours to several days. During
this step, the applied management system and its components are thoroughly examined
and compared with the standard’s requirements. Common methods that the auditor/s use
for measuring system’s performance are interviews, onsite inspections, discussions and
examination of documents and records. Having examined all the evidence, the auditors
judge whether the applied system satisfies the standard’s elements or clauses. In case of
any malfunctions or declinations from standard’s requirements, otherwise known as
non-conformances, the following two scenarios may happen:
If the firm does not satisfy a major requirement (major non-conformance), then
the auditor designates a period of time for improvement. If, during this time, no
corrective actions are taken, the certification body cannot issue the certificate.
Major non-conformances are an impediment to a firm’s certification as certified
companies must not have any.
If the non-conformance is secondary, the auditor will make a recommendation,
continue the audit procedure and ask the company to undertake the needed
actions until the next audit. Secondary non-conformances are not an impediment
67
to the firm’s certification as there is no limit on the number of secondary non-
conformances that a company may have.
Step 5-Auditor consultation
Following the audit, the auditor prepares the audit report and makes a decision on the
certification of the company. At the end of this stage, the auditor meets with the
company’s management and announces the results.
Step 6 – Certification/registration
When no gaps in the system are identified and the main assessment is successfully
completed, a certificate is issued to the organization by the CB.
Step 7 – Maintenance
A certification is usually valid for three years. During this time the CB must audit the
maintenance of the management system at a least once per year. These audits are
usually sampling audits: they evaluate only a sample of procedures.
Having completed the process described above, the company can use the standard’s
logo to promote the application of socially responsible practices and to demonstrate the
implementation of a proper management system. These logos explicitly refer to the
standard to which the firm complies and the name of the certification body, which
undertook the external audit and certified the company. Due to the fact that ICMS are
management standards and not product standards, firms are not allowed to use these
logos on their products as signals of product quality. Box 3-1 presents examples of such
logos.
68
Box 3-1: Example of ICMS logos
3.5 Conclusions
This chapter discussed the common features and requirements of the most widely
diffused ICMS. As it was shown, ICMS share several characteristics. First, the audit
procedure followed for the evaluation of their implementation is similar. Second, ICMS
are applicable to all organizations despite size or industry. Third, in contrast with
statutory regulation these standards promote a voluntary approach to CSR
implementation since their adoption is not mandatory and their central authority (e.g.
ISO, BSI etc) does not impose their implementation, monitor their performance or
sanction violations. Fourth, they demand compliance with legislative requirements.
Fifth, they are process standards and not performance ones. Sixth, they follow the
Deming Cycle of continuous improvement to the issue addressed by the standard/s.
69
Seventh, they require from corporations to develop and implement a management
system.
In their current form, ICMS provide valuable guidance to firms into how to engage into
CSR practices. ICMS set clear requirements for various aspects of CSR and define a
certain process for firms for satisfying CSR requirements and demonstrating their
compliance. In addition, these standards provide businesses with the needed directions
for monitoring their activities and constantly improving their performance to the issue
addressed by each ICMS. Furthermore, ICMS set communication procedures between
the company and its stakeholders, providing to the latter insights into how the firm
meets their expectations and demands. In this way, ICMS decode the CSR agenda and
provide guidance for firms into how to apply corporate responsible practices.
70
Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
4.1 Introduction
The review of the CSR literature in Chapter 2 revealed certain gaps in available
knowledge. Thus, there is uncertainty regarding the actual spread of CSR activities;
disagreement on the value of business case for CSR; and controversy over what drives
firms to voluntarily adopt a CSR practice. This situation calls on researchers to
investigate the actual policies and practices used by managers when addressing their
companies’ social and environmental responsibilities (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010;
McWilliams, et al., 2006; Smith, 2003).
Building on the literature reviewed in the previous chapters, this section seeks to
develop a theoretical framework that will enable this study to empirically scrutinize
theory and produce findings that advance existing knowledge on the topic. This is
achieved on the basis of an inter-disciplinary approach, drawing on the theory of
diffusion of innovations, institutional theory, signalling theory, self-regulation and
stakeholder theories. Although these theories may often overlap, they offer a rich
framework for exploring questions pertaining to the influence of CSR on business
practice. Diffusion of innovations theory enables the identification of a firm’s motives
for adopting CSR practices as it analyses what lies behind a firm’s decision to adopt
certain practices. Complementary to this approach, institutional theory sheds light on
how firms adopt CSR practices nowadays compared to the companies that first adopted
such practices. Comparison between early and late adopters of CSR practices is
important, as research has shown that these two groups of adopters may implement
business practices differently (Delmas, 2003). Signalling theories offer additional
71
insights as they discuss whether firms use CSR practices as symbols of conformance to
societal demands. In addition, self-regulation and stakeholder theories elucidate
knowledge on the significance of pressures firms face to adopt CSR practices.
The rationale for choosing an inter-disciplinary approach lies on the fact that a) the
nature of CSR is interdisciplinary; b) single discipline research has encountered a
bottle-neck and more than one discipline is needed to make a breakthrough; and c) the
use of such an approach will enable the researcher to obtain a ‘real world’ insight on the
implementation of CSR practices (Tait & Lyall, 2007).
This chapter introduces a set of testable hypotheses, which create a conceptual
framework for the empirical analysis implemented in the following sections.
4.2 Rationale for focusing on the Breadth, Depth and Context of ICMS
Adoption
The study draws on arguments made in the literature (Corbett & Muthulingam, 2007;
Westphal, et al., 1997) that in order to get a better view of the influence of a practice on
business conduct, one has to analyse both why firms adopt this practice (breadth of
adoption) and how firms use it in their everyday activities, meaning whether they adopt
the practice in its typical form or they adjust it to own specific needs (depth of
adoption). Focusing on ICMS, the breadth of adoption will enable this study to identify
tendencies influencing firms’ decision to adopt these standards. Accordingly, the depth
will reveal the degree to which the firm complies with the ICMS requirements. The
literature indicates that the depth of adoption is closely related to whether adoption
occurred only for signalling reasons or for gaining the intrinsic benefits of the practice
72
(Corbett & Muthulingam, 2007). If the adoption took place due to signalling purposes,
then it is expected that the depth will be the minimum required by the letter of the
standard. By contrast, if the company adopted the practice due to its intrinsic benefits,
the adoption may be more profound.
This research extends the above idea and argues that a holistic approach to the influence
of ICMS on business behaviour cannot be complete without the investigation of the
context in which the implementation of ICMS takes place, because it deeply affects how
the firm will adopt these standards (Muller & Kolk, 2010; Weaver, et al., 1999).
Identifying the context of the adoption of CSR practices will demonstrate the
effectiveness of the monitoring mechanisms in securing implementation of such
practices. It is anticipated that an environment with lax institutional monitoring
mechanisms will not secure application of CSR practices, allowing firms to behave
opportunistically and vice versa. The following sections discuss the breadth, depth and
context of ICMS adoption.
4.3 Analysing the Breadth of ICMS Adoption
4.3.1 Diffusion of innovations theory
Diffusion of innovations theory has been previously used by many CSR scholars (e.g.
Corbett & Muthulingam, 2007; Corbett & Kirsch, 2001; Delmas, 2002; King & Lenox,
2001) in their endeavor to establish whether firms adopt CSR tools, such as ICMS, as a
means of enhancing their CSR performance or for other reasons.
The literature on diffusion of innovations perceives management standards as
managerial innovations (Rogers, 2003). According to this theory, organizations do not
73
all adopt a managerial innovation simultaneously but in an over-time sequence. The
theory suggests that the adoption of an innovation follows an S-shaped curve over time.
During the first years after the introduction of a managerial innovation only few
companies adopt it each year. Then a critical mass of adopters is reached and the
cumulative rate of adoption speeds up. The important point is that at this stage the wide
adoption of the innovation does not take place due to its technical or managerial
effectiveness, but due to pressures from other companies that have already adopted this
innovation (Abrahamson, 1991). This phenomenon, otherwise known as bandwagon,
signifies that a managerial innovation may continue to spread even if the late adopters
do not really gain in terms of organizational efficiency.
Bandwagon pressures occur when there is the threat of losing either legitimacy or
competitive advantage (Abrahamson, 1991). Empirical evidence indicates that any
innovation, even if there is an ambiguity regarding its returns, can diffuse in a
bandwagon way (Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1993). The literature also points out that
when the number of organizations that adopt an innovation increases, this innovation
becomes synonymous of normal business behaviour and firms that do not adopt it are
perceived as illegitimate (Selznick, 1957). Businesses that do not implement a widely
accepted innovation need to justify their choice since their behaviour provokes
questions about their operations. Accordingly, companies may be enticed to imitate the
commonly used practices as a defensive measure, as their adoption allows them a) to
gain acceptance from the government and the public and b) to be perceived as more
legitimate compared to those that deviate from what is perceived as a normal behaviour
(Deephouse, 1996).
74
The concept of bandwagons has great relevance to the proliferation of CSR tools like
ICMS. CSR management standards have been massively promoted over the last twenty
years or so as a means of improving companies’ management of various CSR aspects
(Brunsonn, et al., 2005). Data on certification numbers worldwide chronicles the vast
expansion of ICMS: the number of certified firms increased from about 30,0005 in 1993
(ISO, 1997) to approximately 430,000 in 20006 (Europa, 2009b; ISO, 2003; SAI, 2009)
and to more than 1,200,0007 certifications in 2008 (BSI, 2009; Europa, 2009b; ISO,
2009; SAI, 2009). The limited evidence from the CSR literature on ICMS diffusion
suggests that these standards have widely diffused due to a) EU preference to adopt
them in order to promote a uniform approach in CSR issues (Guller, et al., 2002), b)
customer pressures and supply chain demands (Corbett, 2006), and c) coercive forces
such as regulation (Delmas, 2003; Jiang & Bansal, 2003; King, et al., 2005). This
evidence indicates that most firms adopting ICMS may not be driven by the standards’
potential to enhance their CSR performance but by other reasons. Thus, it is
hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 1: Firms’ motives to adopt ICMS positively relate to a bandwagon effect.
4.4 Analysing the Depth of ICMS Adoption
4.4.1 Institutional theory
Institutional theory has been widely used by CSR scholars (e.g. Aravind & Christmann,
2011; Campbell, 2007; Delmas & Montes-Sancho, 2011; Matten & Moon, 2008;
Schaefer, 2007) as a conceptual framework for understanding the implementation of
CSR. Similarly with diffusion of innovation research, studies in institutional theory are
5
Data on ISO9000 series only as the other standards were not published at that time.
6
Data on: ISO9000 series, ISO14001, EMAS and SA8000; No data on OHSAS as it was published in
1999; ISO2000 was not published until 2005.
7
Data on: ISO9001, ISO14001, OHSAS18001, EMAS, ISO22000.
75
able to shed new light on the topic of this research. This theory also supports the view
that firms may have motives for implementing CSR practices other than their potential
to improve firms’ efficiency in terms of CSR (Cashore, 2002; Delmas, 2003).
Institutional theory proposes that a) organizations’ survival depends on resources
provided by the institutional environment, and b) access to resources needed for their
operations is dependent on organizations’ legitimacy (Baum & Oliver, 1992).
Institutions play an important role establishing norms and values prevalent in societies
and defining the current perception of what is legitimate (Scott, 1987a; 2001).
Therefore, companies’ legitimacy depends on the degree to which their organizational
structure resembles the structure of the institutions pertaining to their business and
social environment.
Institutional theory indicates that because organizations adopt the structure of the same
institutions and face similar conditions they become similar to each other (isomorphic)
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977). DiMaggio and Powell (1983), in their widely quoted article,
term the framework outlined by institutions as an ‘iron cage’, which constraints
organizations’ operations and promotes isomorphism. It is maintained that the latter is
imposed through coercive, normative and cognitive forces to organizations (DiMaggio,
et al., 1983; Scott, 2001). Coercive forces most commonly take the form of regulations
and they influence organizational behaviour through enactment or threat of legal
sanctions. Also, coercive forces may stem from pressures from other organizations on
which the firm is dependent. Normative forces are result of professionalization, where
members of professions receive similar training and interact through professional bodies
(Schaefer, 2007). Finally, cognitive forces include widely accepted symbols and cultural
76
rules that are taken-for-granted, i.e. their connection to social norms, values and beliefs
is not questioned. In the case of ICMS, coercive forces may be driven through the
supply chain where customers will only buy from suppliers who are certified by a
management standard. The training of quality or environmental managers may also
instil a bias towards using a certain management standard and provide in this way a
normative pressure for its adoption (Schaefer, 2007).
CSR scholars who analyse the adoption of ICMS through the lens of institutional theory
suggest that although these standards are labelled as voluntary in reality they are not
since companies, especially the most visible ones, are forced by the above mentioned
institutional pressures to adopt and implement certain strategies (OECD, 2001). As
Bartlett-Foote (1984) asserts, companies are forced to ‘voluntarily’ engage in such
practices as a response to public concerns about their operations. Other studies drawn
from the CSR literature have also supported this view; empirical evidence indicates that
companies’ decision to adopt a management standard may be influenced by a) coercive
pressures exerted in the context of globalisation (Christmann & Taylor, 2001), and by b)
normative pressures, which forced companies to engage into more than one self-
regulatory CSR tools (King & Lenox, 2001). Thus, similarly with what was argued
earlier in the diffusion of innovations theories, a management standard may not be
adopted by companies for its functional benefits but as an attempt to present the
company’s operation in an acceptable way (Jiang & Bansal, 2003).
For the purpose of this research the division by institutional theory of adopters of a
business practice, such as ICMS, into early and late ones is particularly relevant. Theory
argues that these two groups face different pressures from the institutional environment
77
and may adopt the same practice for different reasons. Early adopters are driven mostly
by the technical advantages that such practice offers and for that reason they will apply
it substantially in the sense that they will fully commit to its requirements. By contrast,
late adopters adopt a practice for legitimacy purposes and as a result they will apply this
practice symbolically meaning that they will not genuinely attempt to conform to the
requirements of the practice (Tolbert & Zucker, 1983).
Several empirical studies lend support to institutional insights in the adoption of CSR
tools. For instance, Delmas and Montes-Sancho (2007) focus on voluntary CSR
agreements and argue that early adopters are usually the ones that face great political
pressure, are members of trade associations and are under great scrutiny at large.
Moreover, they suggest that early adopters are more likely to adopt an agreement
substantively whereas late adopters put less effort implementing changes and may join
in for legitimacy reasons. It is asserted that late adopters may also join in for gaining the
benefits of the early adopters without having to cover the costs related with substantive
participation.
This view is also supported by Westphal et al. (1997) who focus on the adoption of total
quality management practices (TQM). They maintain that early adopters of TQM are
seeking efficiency advantages and they customize these practices to their problem
solving needs. By contrast, late adopters will adopt the practice formally to meet certain
external expectations and not because they feel they really need it. Accordingly,
Westphal et al. (1997) indicate that late adopters are unlikely to gain benefits in terms of
efficiency but can benefit in terms of legitimacy. This explains why organizations adopt
TQM practices even when these cannot confer a competitive advantage. This
78
enhancement of legitimacy may be achieved by firms by adopting widely accepted
practices without actually changing their operations (Westphal & Zajac, 1994). In light
of this argumentation, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2a: Late adopters of ICMS will implement them symbolically.
4.4.2 Signalling theory
Signalling theory has been proved very popular among CSR scholars (e.g. Bansal &
Hunter, 2003; Corbett & Muthulingam, 2007; Terlaak, 2007; Turban & Greening, 1997)
who have used it as a tool in their analysis of the motives behind CSR practices.
Echoing the views on late adopters expressed by institutional theorists, this literature
suggests that firms will use CSR practices for gaining their external signalling value.
Jiang and Bansal (2003) assert that certification by a CSR standard is especially
attractive for firms that have visible and complicated operations. Such firms adopt CSR
standards and seek third party certification because the nature of their business evokes
greater stakeholder scrutiny. Firms are getting certified because certification operates as
a signal of good practice and grants legitimacy to the company. In other words, the CSR
standard is used as a transmitter of information intended to convince the stakeholders
that the activities of the firm are carried out within the framework set by society. In this
way, companies achieve to continue their operations ‘without having to explain the
complexities of the activities involved’ (Jiang and Bansal, 2003, p.1063).
The idea of external signalling value of CSR standards as a motivation for adoption is
also advocated by Terlaak (2007) who uses Spence’s signalling model (1973). Spence
argues that a college diploma can be used for discerning productive from non-
productive workers even if this diploma has no actual influence on workers’
79
productivity. Spence’s argument is that when there is asymmetric information,
productive workers will attend a college for differentiating themselves from the non-
productive, as long as the college diploma is perceived by stakeholders as a credible
signal of good performance capabilities. Similarly, Terlaak (2007) proposes that
companies are taking advantage of information asymmetries that exist in the market and
because stakeholders cannot directly assess their performance they use certification as a
signal of superior performance. Companies see CSR standards as tools that facilitate
communication and enable them to gain legitimacy. Because self-declaration is not
perceived by stakeholders as convincing, companies are getting certified by a trusted
and recognized third party to verify to the public their conformance with its
expectations (Brunsonn, et al., 2005).
As an example, Bansal and Hunter (2003) point at firms that are well capable of
building an in-house management system, but prefer to implement the system
recommended by widely accepted international CSR standards instead. Firms may be
particularly motivated to adopt management procedures recommended by a CSR
standard, if they are involved in operation of controversial nature, in an attempt to be
presented as legitimate entities, even if in reality they are not (Scott, 1987b). Companies
can, therefore, distract attention of the key stakeholders from their controversial
activities. Moreover, in order to decrease the reputational risk and increase social
acceptance of their operations, businesses prefer to be certified with a respectable and
prominent certification body (Fombrun, 2005).
In turn, Kimerling (2001) claims that companies are getting certified by internationally
recognized CSR standards in order to gain acceptance and recognition from local
80
communities and be able to continue intact their operations. In her research, she
describes the activities of a large US oil company, certified under ISO14001, operating
in the Amazon forest. Though the company has ISO14001 certification, it continues to
pollute the environment while using its certification for gaining acceptance and
recognition by the local community. Kimerling suggests that international standards
may represent an effective way for companies to respond to environmental challenges,
but they can also be used by companies to avoid corporate responsibility and obstruct
national regulations. The author argues that due to the incapability of stakeholders to
obtain sufficient information, firms can use international CSR standards as symbols of
corporate responsibility to reassure or even mislead their stakeholders about their
operations. Kimerling maintains that though the local community did not know exactly
what the standard requirements were, they all believed that the company successfully
applies environmental protection policies because it was certified by an external third
party.
Habermas’ ideas (1987) on authority relationships provide additional insights in ICMS
adoption by firms. According to these, members of society who possess a specialized
knowledge can issue instructions (and thus exercise authority) upon other members of
society for the realization of a collective goal. Habermas argues that in modern societies
authority relationships are not based on caste, class or age but on effectiveness. The
members who have the knowledge (superiors) claim that something is effective in
managing a situation and the ones who do not have any knowledge (subordinates) trust
them.
81
This trust rests on the basis of the realization of a collective goal and does not
necessarily mean that subordinates fully understand why obedience to superiors will
secure realization of that goal. If superiors justify their claims within the social moral
norms or political-ethical values, which are perceived as acceptable by both categories,
subordinates will trust them (Habermas, 1987). In this sense, authority relationships are
rationally justifiable, and thus legitimate, in cases where subordinates’ trust is warranted
by the specialized knowledge of the superior. The subordinate has good reasons to
believe that compliance with an instruction represents an effective means to a shared
end. He/she believes that a logical connection between action and outcome could be
demonstrated, if required (Cradden, 2005). A chronic problem in this issue, however, is
that in some cases the members who possess the knowledge may disclose it only in a
selective or distorted manner (Williamson, 1985).
There is similarity between the proliferation of CSR tools like ICMS and the concept
outlined in the previous paragraph. Organizations publishing ICMS are well respected
international or national bodies enjoying high prestige. Moreover, they possess specific
knowledge that other members of society do not have. This knowledge enables these
organizations to claim that they are the ones who know what works and what not as far
as ICMS are concerned. In this sense, they play the role of superior members.
Therefore, when they issue CSR standards that respond to social values and
expectations, this is likely to be perceived by society (subordinates) as effective means
in dealing with the social and environmental aspects of business activities. By
extension, firms that subscribe to these standards are likely to be perceived by the public
as more efficient in comparison to firms that have not adopted them. In fact, ICMS have
been promoted as the acceptable and most effective basis for dealing with important
82
CSR issues, including quality assurance of products/ services, environmental protection
and health and safety (Boiral, 2003a). This creates the environment in which firms are
tempted to subscribe to a standard simply because using its logo may send a right signal
to interested parties and, therefore, help them to reduce transaction costs. In this context,
late adopters, apart from being more likely to adopt ICMS symbolically (Hypothesis
2a), can be also expected to emphasise the signalling value of these CSR standards:
Hypothesis 2b. Late adopters of ICMS will use the standards’ logo on their products,
documents and web-site for signalling purposes.
4.5 Analysing the Context of ICMS Adoption
4.5.1 Self-regulation theory
CSR scholars have used self-regulation theory to analyse the conditions necessary for
securing successful implementation of CSR practices (e.g. Albareda, 2008; Christmann
& Taylor, 2006; Hart, 2010; King & Toffel, 2009; Lenox, 2006; Utting, 2005). Some
authors dispute the potential of CSR self-regulatory tools, such as ICMS, to effectively
control for-profit organizations (Cragg, 2005). They suggest that companies will not put
the collective interest above their own and will behave opportunistically when adopting
these measures (Hardin, 1971; Maitland, 1985). They further assert that free-riding, i.e.
non-conformance with the tools’ requirements, is unavoidable (Maitland, 1985).
According to this analysis, companies are not sure if posing stricter rules on their
operations will mean that they will gain an advantage or a disadvantage towards their
competitors. In this context, they choose to free-ride and not implement substantially
the self-regulatory measures (Lenway & Rehbein, 1991).
83
Adherence to various requirements will only succeed when the adoption of a tool
includes some benefits for the firm. As Kollman and Prakash (2002) argue, CSR
measures such as ICMS need to have excludable benefits for firms, i.e. benefits that
cannot be gained by competitors. Otherwise, companies will prefer to serve own
interests and not fully comply to the standards’ requirements (Delmas, 2004). Firms are
interested in differentiating themselves from their competitors and on that basis they
decide to adopt or withdraw a practice (Lenox & Nash, 2003). Given that companies
pursuit increasing own profits, it is rational for them to avoid conforming to any
requirements if such avoidance is compatible with retaining their ICMS certification
(Cradden, 2005). Businesses will attempt to minimize obligations stemming from the
adoption of CSR self-regulatory tools and will only conform to requirements if to refuse
would heavily influence their survival (Cradden, 2005).
There are other CSR scholars whose views echo those described in the previous
paragraphs, but who approach the topic from a different angle. Their research focuses
on the enforcement and auditing mechanisms of ICMS (Biazzo, 2005; Boiral, 2003b;
Christmann & Taylor, 2006). They take the view that when these are weak, companies
may behave opportunistically, meaning with guile to serve own interests (Williamson,
1985). A number of issues have been identified provoking the decoupling of the
standards’ requirements from firms’ everyday operations, including commercial
relations between companies and auditors and insufficient business knowledge by
auditors. There are many examples of auditors’ failures in literature.
For instance, O’Rourke (2003) focuses on PricewaterhouseCoopers’ auditing
procedures with regard to labour standards in Asian countries. He argues that although
84
auditors identified minor violations of health and safety norms they failed to note a
number of serious issues, including the use of hazardous chemicals and wage laws
violations. In turn, Utting (2002) investigates two companies, Dole and Nike, and points
out that they acquired ICMS certification in labour rights despite having very poor
labour practices in reality. There are also examples of firms that are at the forefront of
CSR application, publicly support the implementation of such measures and then breach
their own codes of conduct (Christian Aid, 2004 quoted in De La Cuesta Gonzalez &
Martinez, 2004).
Some scholars claim that this behaviour of businesses can be controlled through
informal mechanisms (Delmas, 2002; Guller, et al., 2002). It is suggested that even in
the absence of appropriate laws there are always conditions coercing firms to comply
with CSR self-regulatory tools. In other words, CSR self-regulatory measures such as
ICMS can be applied without formal sanctions. Examples include exposure of firms that
fail to self-regulate their activities to stakeholders (Gunningham, 1995; King &
Baerwald, 1998), and dissemination and promotion of best practices (O'Hare, 1982).
Empirical evidence, however, demurs this proposition and suggests that the
opportunistic behaviour of companies leads to adverse selection, i.e. poorly performing
firms will adopt CSR self-regulatory measures for gaining benefits such as signalling
and legitimacy enhancement without actually putting them into effect (Lenox & Nash,
2003). For example, a study conducted by King and Lenox (2000) on the Responsible
Care Program establishes that the program attracted firms with low environmental
performance and high emissions.
85
Long and Driscoll (2008) argue that some corporations deliberately adopt CSR self-
regulatory measures because they enable them to enhance their legitimacy and
simultaneously leave intact their operations. Similarly, Meyer and Rowan (1977) allege
that the informal constraints are not always effective and that when they do not go along
with the organizational interests, companies will decouple self-regulatory practices.
They argue that businesses prefer the adoption of easily decoupled practices because
they are effective as communication tools of companies’ ethical performance to
stakeholders and they do not demand the management’s commitment.
Some scholars maintain that unless there are explicit sanctions penalizing malfunction,
voluntary CSR self-regulatory tools are doomed to fail (Grief, 1997; King & Lenox,
2000; King & Toffel, 2009). To evaluate the assumption that in the absence of sanctions
firms will behave opportunistically and will adopt ICMS to create appearances of
legitimate performance, hypotheses 3a and 3b focus on two key issues of ICMS’
implementation: major non-conformances and the illicit use of the standards’ logo.
The choice of these two topics is not incidental. As it was explained in Chapter 3, non-
conformances are malfunctions or declinations from the requirements of the CSR
standard concerned. They may be major or minor and are established in the course of
periodic assessment exercises, during which auditors examine a management system
and its components and compared them to the standard’s requirements. The discovery
of a major non-conformance effectively signifies that the CSR standard has been
defunct and only fulfils a signalling function:
Hypothesis 3a: Major non-conformances positively relate to weak regulation and
sanctions.
86
The placement of ICMS logos provides an additional means of testing whether in the
absence of sanctions firms will adopt ICMS to create appearances of legitimate
performance. ICMS logos should not be used as part of product labelling because
management standards have nothing to do with product features. However, if the
monitoring of standard application is not strict, the logo may be misused and exploited
as a signalling tool. Hence:
Hypothesis 3b: Firms will place the standard’s logo on their products if the regulatory
framework and sanctions are weak.
4.5.2 Stakeholder theory
Stakeholder theory is one of the most widely used theories by CSR scholars. According
to it, business must satisfy a number of constituents, including employees, customers,
local community organizations etc, who can influence company outcomes (Donaldson
& Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Jones, 1995; McWilliams, et al., 2006). It maintains
that apart from trying to maximize returns for their shareholders, corporations need to
take into account other non-financial groups because the returns from such behaviour
may be significant. Also, the theory suggests that by applying a series of CSR policies
for satisfying non-financial constituencies the firm gains the acceptance and support of
these constituencies and thus can continue its operations without facing any objections
(Ogden & Watson, 1999).
A problem that firms often face is to define their constituents. Mitchell et al. (1997)
provide some guidance in this respect, suggesting that companies should value and
prioritize their stakeholders according to their legitimacy and power. The level to which
87
each actor possesses these characteristics defines the degree to which companies will
incorporate in their decision-making this actor.
Constituencies who possess legitimacy and power are considered as very important
stakeholders and for that reason their involvement into formulating firms’ policies is
deemed essential. A study conducted by Post (2002) suggests that the prominence of
each constituency depends on the type of demands they put forward. ‘Not every
stakeholder wish can be granted, but the legitimate concerns of all stakeholders require
consideration, and ultimate decisions conflicting with specific stakeholder viewpoints
need to be explained’ (Post, et al., 2002, p. 245). Evidence from the CSR literature
indicates that in some cases stakeholders have exerted significant influence on business
operations. For instance, six European governments require from companies to publish
social and environmental information about their operations (Vogel, 2005).
Furthermore, stakeholder groups like Greenpeace and WWF, target and publicize
individual firms aiming to influence corporate behaviour and consumer perceptions
(Millington, 2008). Likewise, a study of 25,000 individuals, conducted in 26 countries,
implied that consumers attribute greater importance to CSR issues than brand or
financial reputation (Millington, 2008).
Despite of the recognition of stakeholder importance, there are CSR scholars who argue
that the degree to which companies will take into account non-financial stakeholders
depends on stakeholder awareness (Christmann & Taylor, 2006). For example,
Christmann and Taylor (2006) focus on CSR standards like ICMS and use Transaction
Cost Theory to evaluate whether the adoption of these standards is influenced by
stakeholders. The scholars found that most firms behave opportunistically and that their
88
propensity to symbolically implement a CSR standard is negatively related to the
knowledge of stakeholders about management standards. In other words, low awareness
may result in only a minimal adoption of the CSR standards, just enough to maintain a
desirable public image.
Additionally, Elsbach and Sutton (1992) argue that in many cases companies use
various techniques such as impression management techniques, which can influence
stakeholders’ interpretations. Firms deliberately refer to organizational design features,
which are widely accepted by the institutional environment, for increasing the
credibility of their actions. The level at which stakeholders are influenced by these
strategies depends on their awareness on business operations. Similarly, Terlaak (2007)
maintains that in cases where stakeholders do not have access to sufficient information
on business operations, firms will use widely promoted CSR self-regulatory tools, such
as ICMS, as symbols of corporate responsibility to reassure or even mislead their
stakeholders about their operations.
Interestingly, previous studies have shown that stakeholders have not been proved very
informed on CSR tools like ICMS. In particular, very few studies have supported the
substantial implementation of ICMS practices in companies; most firms use them as a
rhetoric that they conform to institutional expectations (Hackman & Wageman, 1995).
Managers use the rhetorical of these practices to gain legitimacy without affecting
activities at the technical core of the organization (Zbaracki, 1998).
Prior evidence has shown that companies will adopt a CSR management standard in
response to customer requirements and other external pressures rather than out of
89
concern for environmental protection or quality assurance (Boiral, 2003b). The goal of
these managerial practices is to demonstrate to society that companies adhere to its
beliefs and expectations. The adoption of CSR self-regulatory measures enables
companies to achieve that goal since through it firms symbolically become isomorphic
with other companies and thus more acceptable and understandable by their
stakeholders (Glynn & Abzug, 2002). Especially ICMS, play a particular role into that
since they promote the adoption of similar organizational practices, which can be easily
imitated. In this way, businesses, which want to gain/ maintain their legitimacy, claim
that they apply the same practices with the legitimate ones.
As Bartley (2003) argues certification management standards ‘deal in reputation, which
means they have the potential effect of ‘greenwashing’ reality, or cleaning up corporate
images without changing practices on the ground’ (2003, p.441). Stakeholders accept
that situation because in reality their awareness about CSR tools is in its infancy; though
they impel companies to adopt corporate responsible practices at individual level, they
do not take into account corporate social performance in their decisions (Naeem, 2008).
Hence, stakeholder’ awareness on CSR standards’ implementation plays a crucial role.
Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4. The depth of ICMS application positively relates to stakeholders’
awareness.
4.6 Conclusions
In this chapter a number of testable hypotheses have been developed in order to explain
why firms voluntarily adopt CSR tools like ICMS, how they adopt them and in what
context. To determine firms’ motives for adopting ICMS, Hypothesis 1 draws on
90
diffusion of innovations theory. According to it, companies may adopt a business
practice as a result of peer pressures or legitimacy considerations alone. Building on this
theory, hypothesis 1 suggests that companies nowadays may adopt ICMS for reasons
other than to improve their CSR performance.
The next two hypotheses focus on how companies use ICMS. Hypothesis 2a draws on
institutional theory and highlights differences in the way late adopters of ICMS
implement them compared with early adopters. As it was explained, institutional theory
implies that early adopters are usually interested in integrating a practice into their
everyday operations with the objective of gaining operational benefits stemming from
its adoption. By contrast, the theory maintains that late adopters tend not to conform to
the requirements of the practice because they are not interested in gaining any
operational benefits related to it. In light of this argumentation, hypothesis 2a proposes
that late adopters of ICMS will tend to apply them symbolically, meaning that they will
not genuinely attempt to conform to their requirements.
Similarly with the previous hypothesis, hypothesis 2b focuses on early and late
adopters. It aims at analysing the way these two groups use the ICMS logo and draws
on signalling theory. According to this theory, firms may use CSR self-regulatory tools
such as ICMS due to the external signalling value of these tools with the objective to
pacify possible societal concerns over their activities. Building on what it was argued
earlier about the way late adopters implement ICMS, this hypothesis suggests that late
adopters will tend to use the ICMS logo for signalling purposes.
91
Hypotheses 3 and 4 focus on the context of ICMS implementation. Hypotheses 3a and
3b draw on self-regulation theory. As it was explained, firms have a propensity into
serving own interests and not complying with any self-constraining requirements. To
evaluate this argument, hypotheses 3a and 3b focus on the influence of sanctions and
regulation on firms’ behaviour towards ICMS. Finally, hypothesis 4 uses stakeholder
theory and aims to evaluate whether stakeholder awareness influences the way firms
apply ICMS. According to stakeholder theory, it is in companies’ interest to take into
account non-financial constituents as by doing so firms may secure significant benefits.
It was explained, however, that companies do not always take into consideration their
stakeholders. By contrast, they will do so only if stakeholders are aware of firms’
activities and of the impacts of these activities. To evaluate this argument hypothesis 4
focuses on stakeholders’ influence on the way firms apply ICMS. Figure 4-1 illustrates
the theoretical framework of the study.
Figure 4-1: Theoretical Framework for Analysing CSR Influence on Business Practice
(Counter-clockwise presentation)
92
Chapter 5: Methodology
5 METHODOLOGY
5.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the methodology underlying the current dissertation and the
methods used for data collection. Methodology refers to the rationale and the
philosophical assumptions that underlie a particular study whereas method is a specific
technique for data collection under those philosophical assumptions (White, 2000).
The choice of methodology shapes not only what the researcher does but also how
he/she understands the phenomenon under investigation. Deciding on methodology
influences the way data will be collected and how it will enable the research to meet its
aim and objectives (Gill & Johnson, 2010). In this sense, methodology is a major aspect
of a research.
The chapter begins with a brief introduction to the epistemological and ontological
principles used in social sciences and their application in the current thesis. It further
discusses the research design and setting of the study, data collection issues and the
variables used for the empirical analysis of the quantitative data. In conclusion, the
chapter examines the ethical considerations related to this study.
5.2 About Methodology
Research in social sciences is dominated by two separate methodological orientations:
quantitative and qualitative. The first approach dominated social and behavioural
studies for the most part of the previous century. However, in the last quarter of the 20th
century qualitative research gradually began to gain importance (Teddie & Tashakkori,
93
2009). The differences between the two lie on the assumptions made about the nature of
the social world (ontology) and the grounds of knowledge (epistemology).
Ontological assumptions have to do with the nature of the social phenomena. Of
particular concern is whether social reality is external to social actors or constructed by
them (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Researchers who argue that there is an objective reality
to be found in society and that this reality is external to social entities subscribe to what
is known the objectivist approach. On the other side of the spectrum are researchers
who argue that social phenomena are influenced by social actors; this is known as the
constructivist approach. It implies that the meaning of the social phenomena under
investigation is constructed by scholars (Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009).
With reference to epistemology, the assumptions have to do with what can be
considered as acceptable knowledge in a discipline (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Scholars
who adopt the objectivist approach claim that social phenomena can be analysed
scientifically by applying the methods used in natural sciences; this position is widely
known as positivism. In turn, researchers who subscribe to the constructivist approach
argue that social science research is subjective and demands non-positivist methods.
This view is known as interpretivism (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
5.2.1 Relationship of epistemology and ontology to business research
A key influence on comprehending the ontological and epistemological foundations of
business research has been Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) exposition of the four
paradigms that they propose reflect the assumptions that researchers make about the
nature of businesses and how we find out about them. This framework is treated by
94
scholars working on research methods for business studies as particularly helpful in
summarizing and clarifying the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of
management and business research (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Saunders et al., 2007).
Burrell and Morgan offered a categorization of social science paradigms and argued that
each paradigm entails assumptions that can be classified as either:
• Objectivist: businesses consist of certain processes or structures and thus can be
analysed from an external point of view; or
• Subjectivist: businesses are socially constructed and thus can be only analysed
from the point of view of the individuals who are directly involved in their
activities (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).
In addition, they maintained that each paradigm also makes assumptions about the
nature of business research and proposed the following two categories:
• Regulatory: the purpose of business research is to describe what goes on in
organizations, possibly propose minor changes that might improve it but not to
make any judgement of it; and
• Radical: the purpose of business research is to make judgments about the way
organizations ought to be and make suggestions about how this could be
succeeded (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).
Drawing on these assumptions Burrell and Morgan proposed their four paradigm
framework:
95
Radical Change
Radical Humanist Radical Structuralist
Subjectivist Objectivist
Interpretive Functionalist
Regulation
Figure 5-1: Burrell and Morgan’s Four Paradigms for the Analysis of Social
Theory
(Adapted from Saunders et al., 2007)
In the bottom right corner of the rectangle is the Functionalist paradigm, which is
located on the objectivist and regulatory dimensions. Objectivism is the ontological
assumption a scholar is likely to adopt if he/she operates within this paradigm. It is
regulatory in the sense that a researcher will be more concerned with a rational
explanation of why a particular business problem occurs. As Burrell and Morgan (1979,
p. 26) note the functionalist paradigm ‘is often problem-oriented in approach, concerned
to provide practical solutions to practical problems’. In the bottom left corner of figure
5-1, is the Interpretive paradigm. Far from emphasizing rationality, a scholar working
within this paradigm would be preoccupied with understanding any irrationalities
existent in an organization. For instance, concern with studying business strategy may
soon turn to understanding the ways in which management’s intentions become derailed
for completely unseen reasons; reasons which are not apparently related to business
strategy (Saunders, et al., 2007).
In the top left corner, within the subjectivist and radical change dimensions, one might
find the Radical Humanist paradigm. A scholar working within this paradigm would
adopt a subjectivist (constructivist) ontological perspective and attempt to ‘articulate
96
ways in which humans can transcend the spiritual bonds and fetters which tie them into
existing social patterns and thus realise their full potential’ (Burrell and Morgan, 1979,
p. 32). Finally, in the top right corner of the rectangle is the Radical Structuralist
paradigm. Focusing on structural patterns such as hierarchies and reporting
relationships, scholars working here will attempt to achieve a fundamental change on
organizational life. In contrast with the previous paradigm, in which scholars attempt to
understand the meaning of social phenomena from the subjective perspective of
participating social actors, researchers adopting this perspective take on an objectivist
perspective as they deal with objective entities (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Burrell &
Morgan, 1979; Saunders, et al., 2007).
Despite the recognition of Burrell and Morgan’s work, one of the most significant areas
of controversy regarding their model has to do with how fixed the proposed boundaries
are in business research. Burrell and Morgan argued that a synthesis between paradigms
is impossible as these were founded upon a commitment to fundamentally opposing
beliefs (Jackson & Carter, 1991). However, since the research by Burrell and Morgan
was published there have been scholars who claim that the boundaries between
paradigms are not as clear as the two authors suggest (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
5.2.2 Mixing different paradigms
Within business research, it has become more and more common to combine different
paradigms by using ‘whatever methodological tools are required to answer the research
questions under study’ (Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009, p.7). This has opened way for the
so-called ‘triangulation’ of results. The essential idea of triangulation is that the
combined use of various sources, methods, and theories endows the study with
97
substantiation and completeness (Arksey & Knight, 1999; Modell, 2009). Triangulation
may take different forms including:
• Methodological triangulation: refers to the use of a research design that draws
on different methods for data collection and interpretation;
• Data triangulation: denotes the use of diverse sources of data to the analysis of
the same phenomenon;
• Investigator triangulation: implies the use of various researchers, interviewers
or observers in a study;
• Theoretical triangulation: entails approaching a research from various
theoretical perspectives and hypotheses (Arksey & Knight, 1999; Denzin, 1970).
Scholars who acknowledge that the combination of different paradigms is feasible and
that the differences between quantitative and qualitative methods are not fixed and
ineluctable, claim that when used in combination, quantitative and qualitative methods
complement each other and allow for a more robust analysis, taking advantage of the
strengths of each approach (Ivankova, et al., 2006; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Modell,
2009; Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009; Wolfram Cox & Hassard, 2005). Howe (1988)
maintained that quantitative and qualitative methods are compatible and suggested that
‘the compatibility thesis supports the view, beginning to dominate practice, that
combining quantitative and qualitative methods is a good thing and denies that such a
wedding is epistemologically incoherent’ (p.10). Mixed method researchers maintain
that both strands of research are important and useful. The goal of mixed methods
research is not to replace either of these approaches but rather to draw from the
strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both in single research studies and across
studies (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2006).
98
The main criticism of mixed-method research lies on the ontological and
epistemological underpinnings of a study. The ontological critique is that it is
impossible to combine a view of social phenomena as stable and objectively verifiable
with a view of social meanings as mainly constituted by subjective experiences (Ahrens
& Chapman, 2006). Critics argue that scholars who attempt to do that end up with an
eclectic mix of research practices with incompatible ontological points of departure
(Modell, 2009). In turn, the epistemological critique is that researchers are not detached
from the social phenomena they analyse and that it is impossible to ignore ‘the context-
bound and skilful character of social interaction’ (Silverman, 1993, p.158). Drawing on
these two critiques, some scholars have questioned the usefulness of triangulation and
its legitimacy as a validation technique (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006; Llewellyn, 2007).
Mixed-method researchers respond to the above criticisms by positing a different
paradigm: pragmatism (Howe, 1988; Maxcy, 2003; Morgan, 2007). Table 5-1 illustrates
the main points of this paradigm. Pragmatism offers a third alternative to the either-or
choices argued by the incompatibility thesis. With reference to ontology, the pragmatist
point of view regarding reality consists of two parts: on the one hand, pragmatists
concur with positivists’ view of an external independent reality. On the other hand,
pragmatists’ view of reality is not seen as a theory or definition but as the pragmatists’
attempt to say something interesting about the nature of truth (Howe, 1988; Teddie &
Tashakkori, 2009).
General characteristics of Pragmatism
• The project of pragmatism has been to find a middle ground between philosophical dogmatisms
and scepticism and to find a workable solution (sometimes including outright rejection) to many
longstanding philosophical dualisms about which agreement has not been historically
forthcoming.
99
• Rejects traditional dualisms (e.g., rationalism vs. empiricism, facts vs. values, subjectivism vs.
objectivism) and generally prefers more moderate and commonsense versions of philosophical
dualisms based on how well they work in solving problems.
• Recognizes the existence and importance of the natural or physical world as well as the emergent
social and psychological world that includes language, culture, human institutions, and
subjective thoughts.
• Places high regard for the reality of and influence of the inner world of human experience in
action.
• Knowledge is viewed as being both constructed and based on the reality of the world we
experience and live in.
• Replaces the historically popular epistemic distinction between subject and external object with
the naturalistic and process oriented organism-environment transaction.
• Endorses fallibilism (current beliefs and research conclusions are rarely, if ever, viewed as
perfect, certain, or absolute).
• Theories are viewed instrumentally (they become true and they are true to different degrees
based on how well they currently work; workability is judged especially on the criteria of
predictability and applicability).
• Endorses eclecticism and pluralism (e.g., different, even conflicting, theories and perspectives
can be useful; observation, experience, and experiments are all useful ways to gain an
understanding of people and the world).
• Endorses a strong and practical empiricism as the path to determine what works.
• Views current truth, meaning, and knowledge as tentative and as changing over time. What we
obtain on a daily basis in research should be viewed as provisional truths.
• Prefers action to philosophizing (pragmatism is, in a sense, an anti-philosophy).
• Endorses practical theory (theory that informs effective practice; praxis).
• Offers the ‘pragmatic method’ for solving traditional philosophical dualisms as well as for
making methodological choices.
Table 5-1: Main features of Pragmatism
(Adapted from Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2006)
Regarding epistemology, pragmatists challenge the presence of a distinct contrast
between objectivity and subjectivity and argue that epistemological issues exist on a
continuum rather than on two opposite poles (Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009). Thus,
pragmatists choose a more flexible approach and let the research question guide the
choice of theories and methods. At some point, during the research process, the
researcher and the participants may require a highly interactive relationship to answer
100
complex questions. At other points, the researcher might not need interaction with the
participants, such as when testing a priori hypotheses using quantitative data that have
already been collected or when making predictions on the basis of a large-scale survey
(Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009).
In a similar vein, Maxcy (2003) proposes that there might be a middle ground between
scholars working within the functionalist and interpretive paradigms (see figure 5-1).
With reference to ontology, Maxcy (2003) maintains that reality is not strictly based on
subjective views and that there is room for a consensus regarding the nature of the
world. In terms of epistemology, the scholar argues that although researchers are
actively involved in the construction of knowledge, they tend to come to some sort of
agreement regarding the nature of social phenomena. In this sense, the validity of
certain theories and methods used for analysing social phenomena is mainly treated as
‘a matter of arriving at some socially negotiated consensus concerning what ‘works’ in
terms of answering specific research questions in a particular research setting’ (Modell,
2009, p. 211).
Identifying what ‘works’ when answering a research question is vastly important as in
the real world of research it is the continuum of philosophical underpinnings, rather
than dichotomous distinctions, that offers a more accurately depiction of the positions of
most researchers (Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009). As Teddie and Tashakkori (2009) argue,
it is more accurate to say that, for example, scholars’ views about the role of values in
their work range from those who believe that inquiry is value free to those who believe
that inquiry is value bound, with numerous intermediary approaches.
101
5.2.3 Epistemological and ontological issues associated with the study
The purpose of this study is to investigate how CSR is actually implemented at the firm
level, and on the factors that influence this implementation. As it has been explained, to
succeed in its aim the study uses International Certifiable Management Standards as
proxy indicators of CSR practices. Therefore, inherent in this exploration was an
understanding of the following:
• Why firms adopt ICMS;
• How firms implement ICMS; and
• In which context firms implement ICMS.
This researcher shares the view of Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2006) that, although at
the moment mixed method research is not in a position to provide perfect solutions, it is
appropriate to adopt a method and philosophy that bring together the insights provided
by qualitative and quantitative research into a feasible solution. Also, this researcher
agrees with other mixed-method researchers that a pragmatic view on research can be
productive because it offers an immediate and valuable middle position philosophically
and methodologically (Maxcy, 2003; Morgan, 2007; Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009)
The either-or approach was rejected as a means of identifying the influence of CSR on
business practice as the study was based on the following two premises:
a) on the one hand, this research subscribes to an objectivist view on CSR since the
topic is treated as an element of objective reality, which reveals itself through
the implementation by companies of a series of measures for reducing the
environmental impacts of their operations, enhancing health and safety in the
102
workplace, etc. These measures have certain ‘real’ properties independent of
individuals;
b) on the other hand, the research employs a subjectivist view on CSR as it is
acknowledged that the way individual actors respond to CSR measures might
vary and follow less deterministic patterns.
Accordingly, to analyse the topic in the most comprehensive manner a mixed
methodology has been chosen.
5.3 Research Design
In the mixed methods literature, one may find around forty mixed-methods research
designs (Ivankova, et al., 2006). Two of the most well known ones are the parallel
mixed designs and the sequential mixed designs (Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009). In the
former case, the quantitative and qualitative phases of a study occur in a parallel
manner. These phases deal with similar aspects of the same research questions. In
sequential mixed designs, the quantitative and qualitative strands occur in chronological
order and research questions for one phase depend on the previous (Teddie &
Tashakkori, 2009).
Within sequential mixed designs, one of the most popular research designs is the
sequential explanatory design (Ivankova, et al., 2006). This design involves collecting
and analysing first quantitative and then qualitative data in two consecutive phases
within one study (Ivankova, et al., 2006; Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009). The rational for
this approach is that the quantitative data and their subsequent analysis provide a
general comprehension of the research topic. The qualitative data and their analysis
103
refine and explain those statistical results by looking at participants’ views in more
depth (Ivankova, et al., 2006). The strengths of this approach include
straightforwardness and opportunities for the exploration of the quantitative results in
more detail while its weaknesses are lengthy time and feasibility of resources to collect
and analyse both types of data (Ivankova, et al., 2006).
This study adopts the sequential explanatory research design as it initially aims to
develop a general understanding of the research problem through quantitative data, and
then to elaborate on the quantitative results and explain these results by exploring
respondents’ views in more depth through qualitative data. To succeed in its objectives
the study relies on the two methods of data collection most commonly used in social
sciences: surveying and interviewing (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Czaja & Blair, 2005).
Survey has been chosen because it enables the identification of certain typical
characteristics of the subject of research (Czaja & Blair, 2005); in this study, these
characteristics related to the adoption of ICMS by certified firms. On top of that, survey
has been selected due to lack of public data on the variables included in this study
(Christmann & Taylor, 2006; de Andrés-Alonso, et al., 2010). Furthermore, surveys,
through anonymous self-administered questionnaires, facilitate data collection on
potentially embarrassing and sensitive topics; respondents seem to give more truthful
answers as the anonymity of the questionnaire exempts them from any social
imperatives (Czaja & Blair, 2005). In this way, a survey may result in more accurate
depiction of reality.
In addition to a survey, interviews were chosen as a data collection method as they offer
greater flexibility comparing to other methods of data collection (Bryman & Bell, 2007)
104
and facilitate the gathering of more thorough data on the issues identified in the
questionnaires. Additionally, interviews allow for probing and enable the researcher to
pick up nonverbal cues from respondents. For instance, any discomfort, stress and
problems that the respondent may experience can be noticed through frowns, nervous
taping and other body language, unconsciously exhibited by the interviewee (Arksey &
Knight, 1999; Gorden, 1980; Healey & Rawlinson, 1994).
This study achieves (a) methodological triangulation by using different methods of
analysis (b) theoretical triangulation by analysing the research topic from various
theoretical perspectives and (c) data triangulation by tapping different data sources.
With reference to the latter, managers responsible for the implementation of ICMS were
targeted by the survey and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) or General Managers were
approached for the interviews.
The choice of respondents was not incidental. CEOs and General Managers usually
project the company’s will on how things should be done while the managers
responsible for the implementation of ICMS are the ones who provide a more realistic
view as they are the ones who know exactly how the standard has been applied. By
targeting those two groups of people, this study was able to combine different sources
of information and obtain more reliable data.
The use of multiple informants has been suggested by several scholars (e.g. Bagozzi, et
al., 1991; Golden, 1992; Seidler, 1974) who argued that by doing so the validity and
reliability of a study increases. However, some have criticized this approach due to the
possibility of obtaining opposite views on similar issues. Kumar et al. (1993) argue that
105
aggregating responses from two different sources in order to construct a single
organizational response and submitting them for statistical analysis suffers from
significant shortcomings. For this reason, it was not the intension of this study to
statistically analyse responses coming from both sources of informants. Thus, the
survey’s responses were analysed quantitatively while the interview ones qualitatively.
Data obtained through survey combined with data collected through interviews provide
breadth and depth in terms of understanding the use of ICMS by firms. Quantitative
analysis, based on survey results, sheds light on why companies adopt ICMS, how they
implement them and in which context. Additionally, qualitative analysis, based on the
outcomes of semi-structured interviews, makes it possible to add depth and texture to
the account of the issues revealed by the survey. The cross-checking of the quantitative
results improves confidence in findings and enables this research to combine ‘the
specificity and accuracy of quantitative data with the ability to interpret idiosyncrasies
and complex perceptions, provided by qualitative analysis’ (Zamanou & Glaser, 1994,
p. 478). Figure 5-2 illustrates the research design of the study.
106
Figure 5-2: Research Design of the Study
107
5.4 Research Setting
The empirical study of this project is based on a survey and semi-structured interviews
conducted in Greece. Despite preoccupation with Greece these days, the country
provides an interesting research setting for several reasons. First, it mirrors the massive
expansion of management standards in the EU environment where the number of
certificates increased from approximately 5,000 in 1993 (ISO, 1997) to more than
540,000 in 2008 (ISO, 2008). Similarly, the number of certificates in Greece increased
from an estimated 30 in 1993 (Lipovatz, et al., 1999) to more than 8,000 in 2008
(Tapinos, 2008).
Second, due to the fact that most accounts on CSR come from USA, western European
countries and China, researchers have called for further empirical investigation of CSR
practices in other institutional contexts in order to enrich knowledge on the topic (Lee,
2008; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). The relatively unexplored, in terms of CSR,
institutional context of Greece provides firm ground for responding to such calls.
Third, Greece represents a dynamic business environment that provides an opportunity
to analyse how firms cope with a changing setting. By taking into account that the
implementation of CSR practices takes place within a constantly changing business
environment, especially in the context of globalisation, the latter provides valuable
insights into the implementation of CSR.
Fourth, with Greece experiencing the impact of the 2008 financial meltdown more
acutely than most other European states, this offers an interesting empirical setting for
analysing what priority firms allocate to CSR within the current economic climate.
108
5.5 Data Collection - Survey
5.5.1 Sample and data collection
A multi-stage cluster sampling was employed for the identification of the sample. The
sample consisted of certified large, medium and small companies engaged in commerce,
manufacture and services. Moreover, the sample was drawn from the county of Attica
because it is the dominant region of Greece in terms of economic activity, accounting
for half of the Greek GDP (NSSG, 2005). Choosing a geographically limited sampling
frame has the advantage of guaranteeing that all companies sampled share the similar
cultural and institutional context. Thus, all firms contained within the sample are likely
to face similar levels of scrutiny insofar as they conform to the same social and
environmental demands and hence can be analysed alike (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia,
2009; Hoffman, 2001; Long & Driscoll, 2008).
Assuming a response rate of about 10% - common for large-scale mail survey research
(De Pelsmacker & Janssens, 2007; Dillman, 2000) - an estimated total of 1,000
questionnaires was planned to be distributed. This mailing sample was large enough to
obtain a statistically usable dataset but small enough to ensure a manageable, cost-
effective sample, which would allow a follow-up to secure a high response rate. In order
to increase the response rate, respondents were offered the option of answering the
questionnaire via a web-site. This gave the advantages of low cost and the speed of data
collection (Czaja & Blair, 2005).
The electronic version of the instrument was designed using the SurveyMonkey
software, which enabled the creation of attractive professionally looking instruments
and offered many features that simplified summarizing and the initially analysis of the
109
collected data. To insure that the electronic version was completed only once the survey
was locked and it could not be completed twice by the same IP Address. Moreover, to
insure that only the sampled individuals complete the survey, questionnaires were
addressed to the persons responsible for the implementation of ICMS. In all cases,
questionnaires were accompanied by a cover letter, which explained the purpose of the
research and encouraged participation in the study (see Appendix 5-1). The mailing of
questionnaires also included a postage prepaid envelop for return.
As mentioned earlier, respondents were managers responsible for the implementation of
the standards in each surveyed company. These managers have also been surveyed by
other studies involving ICMS as they are the most knowledgeable and appropriate
persons to complete a questionnaire on standards (Christmann & Taylor, 2006). This
approach is consistent with the selection of key informants, well-informed on the issues
considered because of their role within the company (Campbell, 1955; Squire, et al.,
2009). The argument behind the key informant method is that by choosing subjects with
in depth-knowledge of the issues under analysis ensures high quality of responses
(Kumar, et al., 1993).
The identification of the survey sample was very time consuming and difficult because
of the absence of any official database of certified companies in Greece. Although there
are two organizations publishing the names of certified companies, their data did not
meet the requirements of this study since the first one, ICAP, publishes the names of
certified companies only relating to ISO 9000 whilst the database compiled by the
second one, Quality Net, contains too many inaccuracies. Thus, it was decided to
contact the certification bodies directly in order to request access to their client lists.
110
Preliminary meetings with certification bodies’ representatives took place during the
summer of 2008. Due to the fact that certification bodies operating in the Greek market
are very reluctant to reveal the details about their customers, access was limited to only
the names but not the addresses of 3,981 companies (i.e. almost 50% of all certified
companies in Greece). An internet search engine was used to get the addresses of these
companies. Of the total number of companies, 636 did not have a web-site and there
was no other information available about them. Of the rest 3,345 companies, 1,024
firms (30.6%) were found to operate in the county of Attica.
The survey was fielded from the 18th November 2008 until 31st of January 2009 and
included two reminders. The first reminder was sent after 15 days of the original mail
shot. It did not prove very successful as it produced only 3 additional responses.
However, by using a feature of the Survey Monkey software, it was possible to track the
non-respondents. The second reminder proved to be more successful as 21 companies
replied to it. Of the total number, 38 envelopes were not delivered because the
addressees were not found. This reduced the total sample at 986 companies.
By the survey’s closing date, 221 questionnaires were returned securing a response rate
of 22.4%. Of these, 10 responses had to be excluded from analysis as these
questionnaires were only partially completed. In the end, 211 replies were accepted as
valid, reducing the response rate to 21.4%. The latter is above the typical response rate
for large-scale mail survey research (De Pelsmacker & Janssens, 2007; Dillman, 2000).
Furthermore, the final sample of 211 companies represents a sample size consistent with
(and exceeding many) other similar studies (e.g. Christmann & Taylor, 2001, sample of
100 replies; Christmann & Taylor, 2006, sample of 172 responses; Delmas, 2001,
111
sample size of 55; Gonzalez-Benito & Gonzalez-Benito, 2005, sample of 184 firms;
Salomone, 2008, sample size of 103; Weaver, et al., 1999, sample of 128 companies).
Respondents’ preferences on the medium used to answer the questionnaire were almost
equally shared between the electronic and hard copy format. More specifically, 105
participants preferred to answer the instrument electronically whereas 116 favoured the
hard copy format.
To evaluate the representativeness of the mailing sample, it would have been ideal to
compare respondents with non-respondents along several characteristics. Unfortunately,
as it was already mentioned, there are no data on non-respondents making such an
analysis impossible. Following the literature (Armstrong & Overton, 1977; Fowler,
1995; Oppenheim, 1966), it was, however, decided to evaluate the non-response bias by
comparing early and late respondents. This method is widely used (e.g. Datta, et al.,
2005; Escribá-Esteve, et al., 2009; Luo, et al., 2009; Squire, et al., 2009) on the
assumption that late respondents (those who replied after the second reminder) are very
similar to non-respondents, given that they would have fallen into that category had not
the second reminder been mailed (Pérez-Nordtvedt, et al., 2008). To establish the bias,
early versus late respondents were compared along the variables used in hypotheses
testing. T-tests showed no significant differences (see Appendix 5-2), suggesting
sample representativeness and indicating that the survey’s sample does not suffer from a
non-response bias (Aulakh & Gençtürk, 2008; Datta, et al., 2005; Heavey, et al., 2009).
The reliability of self-reported data was assessed by randomly contacting, through
telephone, 10 companies chosen from the survey sample (Lazzarini, et al., 2008).
112
Information was asked on issues raised in the questionnaire. The information collected
was then checked against the responses of the questionnaire. No bias was identified in
the data provided by the respondents.
Of the 211 firms that provided valid responses, 84.4% were micro, small and medium
enterprises (MSMEs), with 12.8% having 0-9 employees, 43.6% employing 10-49 staff
members and 28% having 50-249 employees. Also, another 15.6% percent of
companies can be classified as large having 250-3,000 employees. These results match
official data on the Greek economy, in which MSMEs are reported to have an immense
presence in the national market with the share of 99.55% (EOMMEX, 2009). The
largest group of respondents were engaged in the service sector (37.86%), followed by
commercial (30.81%) and manufacturing firms (30.33%). No mining/ quarrying or
agriculture firms participated in the survey as very few such companies operate in the
county of Attica. The industry distribution of the surveyed companies largely
corresponds with that of the Greek market: service (37.51%), commerce (34.73%), and
manufacturing (22.92%)8 (NSSG, 2008).
Furthermore, the vast majority of the firms that provided valid responses (95.2%) were
ISO9001 certified (consumer/ employee protection). A fourth of them were ISO14001
(21.8%) and EMAS (3.3%) certified (environmental protection), while 14.2% had
adopted ISO22000/ HACCP (consumer/ employee protection). A minority of the
responded companies were certified by OHSAS18001 (9.4%) and SA8000 (2.36%)
(employee protection and labour rights). These results reflect the distribution of
8
The missing 4.84% represents mining/ quarrying and agriculture.
113
certification in Greece overall where ISO9001 is the most popular standard followed by
ISO14001 and ISO22000 (ISO, 2008).
Additionally, the majority of ISO9001 certified firms were in service sector followed by
commerce and manufacture companies. Environmental management standards
(ISO14001, EMAS) and health and safety management standards
(OHSAS18001/ELOT1801) were very popular among manufacture businesses. More
specifically, half of the 14001 and OHSAS18001/ELOT18001 certified companies were
manufacture firms. This is not surprising since these corporations have significant
environmental impacts and their operations entail high risks for their employees. On the
other hand, food standards like ISO22000 seemed to be widespread in the commerce
sector (46.7%) followed by the manufacture sector (36.7%). Table 5-2 presents the
profile of the surveyed firms.
114
Industry
Services Commerce Manufacture TOTAL
Characteristic Percentage Percentage Percentage
Percentage Percentage
within within within
N N N N within each within total
each each each
category sample
category category category
(a) Firm Size9
0-9 employees 14 51.8% 10 37% 3 11.2% 27 100% 12.8%
10-49
37 40.2% 27 29.3% 28 30.5% 92 100% 43.6%
employees
50-249
18 30.5% 21 35.6% 20 33.9% 59 100% 28%
employees
>250 employees 13 39.4% 7 21.2% 13 39.4% 33 100% 15.6%
(b) Standard
ISO9001 81 40.2% 60 29.9% 60 29.9% 201 100% 95.2%
ISO14001 14 30.4% 8 17.4% 24 52.2% 46 100% 21.8%
EMAS 1 14.3% 0 0% 6 85.7% 7 100% 3.3%
OHSAS18001 7 35% 3 15% 10 50% 20 100% 9.4%
ISO22000 5 16.6% 14 46.7% 11 36.7% 30 100% 14.2%
SA8000 4 75% 1 25% 0 0% 5 100% 2.36%
Other 8 50% 5 31.2% 3 18.7% 16 100% 7.5%
Table 5-2: Characteristics of the Survey Sample
5.5.2 Questionnaire
The instrument was designed to collect information on firms’ motivations for adopting
ICMS, on the way companies apply these standards and on the context in which this
implementation takes place. Whenever construct items used in previous studies existed,
these were taken into account. In cases in which the literature was silent, new items
were developed with the help of academics and managers. These two groups also helped
in refining the wording of the survey and checking the overall validity of questions.
9
The categorisation of the firms’ sizes is based on the SME definition of the European Commission.
115
The final instrument consisted of 23 questions, including questions requesting
background information about the firm (e.g. size, year of establishment, etc), questions
requesting answers on rating scales (e.g., 1 to 5 = very significant to not significant;
always to never), list questions (e.g. tick the appropriate box), category questions (e.g.
once, twice, three times or more etc), one ranking question and two open questions.
To increase the effectiveness of the instrument and secure its reliability, several
considerations were taken into account. Special care was taken to make the questions
clear and easily understood by respondents. All questions related to firsthand experience
of respondents and no hypothetical questions were used. The literature on surveying
techniques points at the tendency of respondents to present themselves better in surveys
(Fowler, 1995; Locander, et al., 1976). To address this issue, questions were formulated
in a way that helped to minimise possible distortions. For example, the questions were
not personal and answering them did not expose the personality of respondents since the
respondents were not required to provide either their name or the name of the company.
In this way, respondents could answer freely the questions without having concerns
about what may be interpreted as socially desirable/ acceptable and what not. Some
other issues highlighted in literature (Fowler, 1995) were also taken into account:
- Respondents were asked for information that they had;
- The questions were repeated (differently formulated) to increase the
accuracy of the answers and the validity of the information;
- Respondents were asked questions that could easily remember the answer;
- Questions were designed in such a way that respondents did not feel that
their answers would be used for unfavourable criticism;
116
- The terminology used in the questionnaire was known to all respondents and
there was no need of explaining the terms and providing definitions; and
- All questions referred to a specific period of time i.e. the adoption of the
standard/s and onwards.
Based on Saunders et al. (2007), the questions were put in a particular order. More
straightforward questions, which were obviously relevant to the stated purpose of the
survey, were placed at the beginning of the questionnaire. More complex questions were
placed towards the middle of the instrument whereas more sensitive and personal ones
were placed towards the end of it. In this way, a logical flow of questions for
respondents was assured.
The use of open-ended questions was minimized and inappropriately complex terms
were avoided. The wording of the questions included some terms (e.g. symbolic
implementation) that are widely used by the professional group to which the
questionnaire was addressed. The decision on the length of the instrument was made
after consulting the relevant literature. An average length that is perceived as acceptable
in the literature ranges between four and eight A4 pages (Saunders, et al., 2007).
Therefore, for creating an effective and not time-consuming instrument a length of four
A4 pages was chosen.
Prior to its pilot-testing, the instrument was translated from English into Greek and from
Greek back into English by two academics (one working in the UK and the other in
Greece). Both are Greek native speakers and have excellent command of English. In
117
this way, it was assured that the questions did not lose their meaning during the
translation procedure.
The pilot-test of the instrument took place in October 2008, both in the UK and in
Greece. It aimed at testing the effectiveness of the questionnaire, identifying possible
problems in data collection and setting the stage for the survey (Teddie & Tashakkori,
2009). Through this phase the following issues were clarified:
• The time typically needed for the completion of the instrument;
• Questions which could be unclear to respondents;
• Questions which the respondent did not feel comfortable answering;
• Questions that the respondents felt should be added to the questionnaire;
• The presentation of the instrument; and
• Whether the layout was clear (Bell, 2005).
Following recommendations available in relevant literature (Fink, 2003), the instrument
was pilot-tested with 13 respondents. The testing phase had two stages. First, the
instrument was sent to four academics, three of them working in the UK and one in
Greece. After receiving their comments, regarding the format of the questions and their
potential for data analysis, some necessary amendments were introduced. Next, the
questionnaire was sent to nine Greek companies. To ensure that the pilot sample was
inclusive, the selection of pilot organisations included 3 small companies, 3 medium
companies and 3 large ones. Each subgroup included firms representing services,
commerce and manufacturing. All pilot firms were located in the region of Attica where
the survey sample was drawn from. Fortunately, all nine companies responded, giving
valuable feedback about the content and structure of the instrument. As a consequence,
118
the questionnaire was further amended to include two additional questions on the way
companies implement their standards. Appendix 5-3 presents the survey’s
questionnaire.
5.5.3 Variables
Apart from general background and contextual information, the instrument sought
information that would permit the development of quantitative indicators in the three
areas of interest: (a) breadth of ICMS adoption, (b) depth of ICMS adoption and (c)
context of ICMS implementation. To do so, the instrument used variables that either had
been previously adopted by other studies or were original to this research. Identification
of existing measurement instruments were accomplished through an extensive literature
search. Unless otherwise noted, the survey items were measured on a five-point Likert
scale. All variables are explained in detail in the consecutive sections. Table 5-3 below
provides a summary of the variables used in the questionnaire.
Variable Refers to:

Peer pressures The percentage of certified firms within an industry.
Motives The influence of various motives on firms’ decision to adopt an ICMS.
Early-late adopters The number of years a firm implements an ICMS.
Frequency of internal audits The number of annual internal audits conducted by the firm.
Major non-conformances The number of major non-conformances.
Secondary non-conformances The number of secondary non-conformances.
Daily use of ICMS documents The extent to which companies use the ICMS documents on daily basis.
The extent to which companies’ change the content of their ICMS
Content change of ICMS documents
documents prior to external audits.
Number of persons The number of persons involved in the implementation of an ICMS.
Contribution of standard’s key features to
The contribution of ICMS major-requirements to the firm’s operations.
firms’ operations
Awareness of the objectives, targets and Respondents’ knowledge of the objectives, targets and indicators set
indicators within the context of the ICMS implementation.
Signalling The use of the ICMS logo as a signal of good CSR performance.
Firms’ perceptions of stakeholders’ awareness
Firms’ perceptions of customer and government awareness of ICMS.
of ICMS
The sanctions imposed on the firm in case of non-compliance to the
Sanctions
standard’s requirements.
Institutional environment The influence of EU and National Legislation on the adoption of ICMS.
Table 5-3: Summary of Variables Used in the Questionnaire
119
Breadth of ICMS adoption
• Peer pressures: The literature suggests that companies may adopt an innovation
not because of its effectiveness but due to pressures from other companies that have
already adopted this innovation (Abrahamson, 1996; Bansal & Hunter, 2003; Bansal &
Roth, 2000; Haverman, 1993; Kraatz & Zajac, 1996). Thus, some innovations may
diffuse even if their benefits for some adopters are questionable. To identify peer
pressures, participants were asked to state the percentage of certified firms in their
industry (1=less than 20%, 5=more than 80%) and to rate the degree of competitiveness
in their sector (1=not strict, 5= very strict).
• Motives: The literature suggests that firms adopt CSR practices, such as ICMS,
for a number of external and internal reasons (Anderson, et al., 1999; Bansal & Hunter,
2003; Corbett & Kirsch, 2001; Delmas & Toffel, 2003; Morrow & Rondinelli, 2002).
The most widely quoted motives are:
Improved relations with local community;
Improved relations with governmental authorities;
Fulfilment of EU requirements;
Improved relations with NGOs;
Pressures from other certified companies;
Access to international markets;
Satisfaction of domestic market requirements;
Satisfaction of customer requirements;
Increase in sales;
Cost savings;
Greater productivity;
120
Improved financial performance;
Acknowledging social responsibility.
Participants were asked to rate these items using a Likert scale (1= not important, 5=
very important). In addition, they were asked to rank these items and choose the three
most important ones.
Depth of adoption
• Early-late adopters: According to the literature, early and late adopters of a
practice face different pressures from the institutional environment and may implement
the same practice differently (Oliver, 1991; Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 1987a,
Tolbert & Zucker, 1983; Westphal et al, 1997). It is argued that early adopters are
mainly interested in the technical efficiency of the practice whereas late ones adopt it
for legitimacy purposes. Therefore, early adopters are more like to implement the
practice in a substantial way whereas late adopters to do so in a symbolic way, meaning
that they do not conform to the essential requirements of the practice. To divide
adopters of ICMS into early and late ones, respondents were asked to state the year they
started implementing the standard.
• Frequency of internal audits: Practical experience suggests that for a standard to
work effectively, it is necessary to have more than one audit per year, the minimum
required by the standard itself. A single audit per year does not reveal credible
information on the application of the standard. In order to collect information on its
application, identify areas for improvement and implement any corrective actions the
firm needs to have frequent audits, i.e. two or more (Tapinos, 2008; TÜV.Hellas, 2008).
121
Participants were asked, therefore, how often they internally audit each standard (don’t
know, once, twice, three times or more).
• Major-non-conformances: As it has already been stated (see Chapter 3, § 3.4), in
order to get and maintain a certificate the firm must not have any major non-
conformances. Existence of a major-non-conformance will suggest that the firm does
not apply a major requirement of the standard. The more major-non-conformances the
firm has, the less it adheres to the standard’s requirements. Participants were asked how
many major non-conformances an internal audit reveals on average (none, one, two,
three, four or more).
• Number of secondary non-conformances: This variable was used to distract the
attention of respondents from the topic of interest, which was major-non-conformances.
Secondary non-conformances do not provide any valuable information as there is no
limit for the number that a firm may have. Also, in contrast to major-non-conformances,
the secondary ones are of minor importance. Participants were asked how many
secondary non-conformances an internal audit reveals on average (none, one, two, three,
four or more).
• Daily use of ICMS documents: The literature uses as indicators of substantial
versus symbolic implementation10 the daily use of the standard’s documents
(Christmann & Taylor, 2006; Naveh & Marcus, 2004). This indicator reveals
information on whether the company is truly interested in gaining the benefits related to
the standard by using the documents created in the context of its implementation.
10
Substantial implementation: the firm will fully commit to ICMS requirements. Symbolic
implementation: the firm will not genuinely attempt to conform to ICMS requirements.
122
Participants were asked specify the extent to which they use the standard’s documents
(1=not at all, 5=to a large extent).
• Content change of ICMS documents: This variable has been used by previous
studies (Christmann & Taylor, 2006; Naveh & Marcus, 2004) as an indicator of the way
firms implement a standard. It provides information on the extent to which the firm
manipulates information with the intention to mislead the auditors. Participants were
asked to define the extent to which they change the content of the standard’s documents
prior to external audit (1=not at all, 5=to a large extent).
• Number of persons involved in the management team responsible for the
implementation of the standard: This variable reveals how much the firm is willing to
invest in terms of human resources in the management and monitoring of the
implementation of the standard/s. Depending on the firm’s size, the more persons are
assigned to the management team, the more effectively the standard/s will be applied
(Tapinos, 2008; TÜV.Hellas, 2008). Participants were asked to define the number of
persons involved in the management team of the standard.
• Contribution of standard’s key features to firms’ operations: This variable
provides information on how firms evaluate the contribution of standards’ major
requirements to their operations. It was mostly used to distract respondents’ attention
from the area of interest, i.e. the depth of adoption. Participants were asked to evaluate
the contribution of standards’ key features to the performance of their company (1=not
important, 5=very important).
123
• Awareness of the objectives, targets and indicators set within the context of the
standard’s implementation: This parameter is crucial for the implementation of the
standard since it enables firms to quantify their performance, compare results with
previous years and set targets for improvement. Awareness of this parameter may be
seen as a sign that the standard is implemented substantially. Participants were asked to
indicate whether they were aware of the objectives, targets and indicators their company
has set for the next year in a closed format (yes, no). In the event of positive answer,
they were further asked to state a relevant example.
• Signalling: The literature suggests that firms may use ICMS certification as a
signal of good practice with the objective of improving their societal acceptance (Jiang
& Bansal, 2003; Lenox, 2006; Terlaak, 2007). To investigate the validity of this
argument, four questions were used. Participants were asked to indicate: a) for how long
they use the certification’s logo on their web-site (1= never, 2= 1 year, 3= 2 years, 4= 3
years, 5= 4 years or more), b) the extent to which they use the standard’s logo on their
documents (1=never, 5= always), c) the extent to which they use the standard’s logo on
their products as a signal of good product quality, and d) whether they communicate the
results of the audits to the public (1=never, 5= always).
Context of ICMS implementation
• Firms’ perceptions of stakeholders’ awareness of ICMS: The literature indicates
that stakeholder awareness influences the number of ICMS certificates in the country
and affects the way in which firms apply standards (Castka, et al., 2004b; Corbett &
Kirsch, 2001). It is further argued that firms attribute great importance to stakeholder
124
support since it is this support that grants them legitimacy (Jiang & Bansal, 2003;
Waddock, et al., 2002).
In this study, firms’ perception of stakeholder awareness was measured with the help of
four questions. In accordance with the literature, which argues that customers and
government are the most prominent sources for setting and maintaining standards of
acceptability of corporate practices (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009; Deephouse, 1996;
Galaskiewicz & Wasserman, 1989; Hoffman, 2001; Meyer & Rowan, 1977), the
questions focused on these two groups of stakeholders.
The first one asked respondents to rate whether customers and governments can
distinguish between companies implementing Corporate Social Responsibility
(excluding philanthropy) and ones that do not (1=never, 5=always). The second
question asked respondents to evaluate how well informed customers and government
are about standards’ implementation (1=don’t know, 5=very well informed). The third
question addressed the extent to which customers and the government request
information from firms regarding the implementation of the standard/s (1=not at all,
5=to a large extent). Last, the fourth question asked respondents to indicate how often
customers and government ask for certification to be included in the contracts with them
(1=never, 5=always).
• Sanctions: The literature suggests that the effectiveness of a practice is strongly
influenced by the sanctions imposed in the case of non-compliance (King & Lenox,
2000; Maitland, 1985; OECD, 2001). It is suggested that self-regulatory measures such
as ICMS cannot be effectively applied without sanctions. Lack of sanctions encourages
125
opportunistic behaviour of some companies that can adopt a standard for disguising bad
performance. The literature argues that without sanctions companies may adopt only the
minimum requirements that are needed for improving their image and avoid real efforts.
To address this topic, participants were asked to rate the strictness of the regulatory
framework in case of symbolic implementation of the standard (1=not strict, 5= very
strict). Also, they were asked to evaluate the significance of the consequences, namely
certificate recall and reputation cost, their company may face in the case of non-
compliance with standard’s requirements (1= not significant, 5=very significant).
• Institutional Environment: The institutional environment plays an important role
as a factor influencing the implementation of ICMS (Delmas, 2003; Jiang & Bansal,
2003). More specifically, the institutional environment can enforce the implementation
of a practice through coercive forces such as laws and regulations. These forces
influence heavily the adoption of a practice by firms as the stricter they are the more
companies will adopt the practice. To evaluate the influence of institutional
environment on the adoption of ICMS, two questions were used. One referred to the
influence of national legislation and the other to the influence of EU on the spread of
certification (1=not significant, 5 very significant).
5.6 Data Collection – Interviews
5.6.1 Sample and data collection
The sample for the qualitative component of the study was much smaller than that of the
quantitative one. This phase of the research aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of
the issues covered by the survey. Thus, rather than obtaining a statistically
126
representative sample the goal was to gain a better comprehension of the themes
revealed by the survey.
Due to the fact that the majority of the surveyed companies where ISO9001 certified,
interviews focused on companies that did more than simply acquiring an ISO9001
certificate. Thus, this phase focused on companies with more than one certificates. Of
the firms participating in the survey, 79 (37%) where certified with more than one
standard. However, since the survey was anonymous, it was not possible to obtain
information about all these companies. Identification was feasible only for firms that
completed the questionnaire electronically because the software used had an appropriate
feature.
In the end, 35 firms with more than one certificates were identified. From this
population a random sample of 18 firms was selected for interviews. Following the
recommendation in the literature that the most rigorous selection technique is to use a
random numbers table (Creswell, 2003; Saunders, et al., 2007), each of the 35
companies received a unique number. In order to ensure that each number was created
in exactly the same way, two digit numbers were used; the first firm was numbered 00,
the second 01 and so on. Using a computer aid program (Stat Trek Random Number
Generator), the following random numbers table was produced:
Figure 5-3: Random Sampling Numbers
127
The first number was selected at random (i.e. closing the eyes and pointing with the
finger). Starting with this number, the researcher read off random numbers in a regular
and systematic manner (continuing along the line) until the actual sample size was
reached.
Interviews were held with companies’ CEOs or General Managers and carried out
during April 2010. Table 5-4 presents the profile of the selected companies. Due to
reasons of anonymity their true names cannot be revealed; instead letters are used.
Turnover
Company Industry Employees (in millions
£)
A Lubricants and Fuel 206 224.9
B Bank 3,000 417.56
C Specialized Aviation Services 24 n/a
D Airport Services 700 1,288.26
E Food Trading 75 30.20
Exclusive Imports and Trade of
F 124 10.92
Cars
G Waste Management 28 1.2
Environmental Protection
Services/ Production of Marine
H 24 n/a
and Industrial Equipment
Products
Manufacturing of Aluminum
I 2,275 354.78
Products
J Hotel Services 509 25.87
K Energy, Lubricants and Fuel 310 305.48
Manufacturing of
L 150 21.43
Pharmaceutical Products
M Network Services 25 9.39
N Educational Services 80 n/a
O Paint Industry 265 65.07
P Consultancy Services 11 n/a
Q Manufacturing of Food Products 200 23.82
R Telecommunications 2,641 1,309.22
Table 5-4: Companies Participated in Interviews
Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and followed a semi-structured format.
This type of interviews has been selected because it enabled the researcher to cover
128
specific topics and at the same time to encourage respondents to talk openly and
spontaneously rather than answering questions in a defensive manner. Differently put,
semi-structure interviews have been chosen for their ability to provide a greater breadth
of data in comparison with structured interviews (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Semi-
structured interviews allow researchers to make respondents explain the meanings that
they ascribe to different phenomena (Saunders, et al., 2007). In this way, the interviewer
had a better understanding of the interviewees’ views on CSR practices.
5.6.2 Questions
To ensure that all issues/ questions that required attention were going to be addressed,
an interview guide was prepared in advance. In accordance with existing
recommendations (Arksey & Knight, 1999; Bryman & Bell, 2007; Robson, 1993;
Saunders, et al., 2007), the following issues were taken into account during its
preparation:
• The topics areas to be covered were arranged in a logical order;
• The language used was comprehensible and relevant to interviewees;
• Closed up, multiple or leading questions that limited the interviewees’ freedom
to chose responses were avoided;
• Biased questions that indicated the researcher’s position were avoided;
• Long questions, questions with too may theoretical concepts or questions with
jargon were also avoided;
• Simple and short questions were favoured;
• Questions were designed to provoke reflective discussion so that interviewees
were not lured to simply answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’;
129
• To avoid bias, and where possible, the use of open questions was preferred.
These were followed by probing questions;
• Sensitive questions were placed towards the end of the interview to allow more
time for the researcher to build up trust and confidence with the interviewees.
Prior to interviews respondents received a list of interview themes. These were derived
from the questionnaires used during the 1st phase of this study and referred to the
following topics:
• Motives for adopting ICMS;
• Use of ICMS;
• Use of ICMS logo;
• Influence of regulation and sanctions on ICMS implementation;
• Stakeholders’ awareness of ICMS and CSR.
This procedure promoted validity and reliability as interviewees had the time to
consider the information requested and where appropriate to gather any supporting
organizational documents that they thought would be useful (Fontana & Frey, 2005;
Saunders, et al., 2007). The order of questions varied depending on the flow of
conversation.
5.6.3 Researcher’s role during Interviews
During interviews the researcher avoided interrupting the respondents, expressing any
opinion of their answers or arguing. Also, the interviewer tried for conversational
interaction and maintained a friendly tone in discussing all issues. The researcher made
a special effort to make the respondents feel comfortable and positive about the process
130
of being interviewed. It was explained to all interviewees that they did not have an
obligation to answer all questions.
Throughout the meeting the interviewer paid attention and recorded respondents’ use of
any nonverbal modes of communication. This provided the researcher with additional
insights in the veracity of interviewees’ answers. Additionally, to avoid a biased or
incomplete interpretation and to allow the interviewees to evaluate the adequacy of the
interviewer’s interpretation (Healey & Rawlinson, 1994), the researcher summarized
explanations provided by the interviewees. Occasionally, the researcher misrepresented
what the respondents said to make sure he had understood them accurately. This
misrepresentation was generally followed by corrections from the interviewees to the
misunderstanding and further explanations. At the end of the procedure, any notes taken
were shown to the interviewees for evaluating their accuracy and all participants were
thanked for their cooperation. To minimize any external distortions interviews were
taken in a quite, private setting.
Based on literature’s suggestions on how to control bias and produce reliable data after
an interview (Healey & Rawlinson, 1994; Saunders, et al., 2007), the following
contextual data were recorded:
• Location of the interview;
• Date and time;
• Setting of the interview;
• Background information on the interviewee; and
• The researcher’s immediate impression on how the interview went.
131
5.7 Ethical considerations
The study received ethical approval from the University of Central Lancashire
(UCLAN). This research was undertaken in accordance with UCLAN’s ‘Ethical
Principles for Teaching, Research, Consultancy, Knowledge Transfer and Related
Activities’. Moreover, the researcher conducted his PhD study in agreement with the
University’s ‘Code of Conduct for Research’.
Compliance with ethical boundaries such as informed consent, respect of privacy,
avoidance of harm and deception (Diener & Crandall, 1978; Fontana & Frey, 2005) was
guaranteed to all respondents. More specifically, all participants in the survey were
informed about its purpose, the procedures involved and its sponsor (i.e. UCLAN).
Participants were also informed about the outputs of the project, its aim and objectives.
Furthermore, information was provided regarding the analysis of the data collected:
survey participants received a cover letter informing them about the purpose of the
research and the use of the questionnaire (see Appendix 5-1). On top of that,
questionnaires were anonymous.
Similarly, interviewees received an informed consent form and were asked to read and
sign it (see Appendix 5-4). At the beginning of each interview, the purpose of the
research and its progress up to that time were briefly outlined. Respondents were also
informed about the nature of the study’s outputs and how the data collected will be
managed during and after the project. The right of participants to withdraw from the
study at any time was also mentioned and on top of that their right to anonymity and
confidentiality was highlighted.
132
The execution of this project did not threat the participants’ psychological well being,
health, values or dignity. Confidentiality and anonymity of all participants in both
phases of the study were ensured. Nothing said by participants was attributed to them
without first seeking and obtaining their permission.
Data collected were protected according to the 1998 Data Protection Act. It is not in the
intentions of the researcher to use this data for other purposes without participants’
permission. Data were processed lawfully and fairly. Finally, all participants were
offered to obtain a summary of the project’s findings.
5.8 Conclusions
This study adopted a mixed methods approach and followed a sequential explanatory
research design. To succeed in its objectives, the research was based on two of the most
widely used methods for data collection: survey and semi-structured interviews. Survey
took place in the first phase of this study and resulted in 211 responses from micro,
small, medium and big companies from services, commerce and manufacture. The aim
of the first phase was to identify the prevalent tendencies regarding why firms adopt
ICMS, how they apply them and in which context.
The second phase of this research was devoted to qualitative analysis. This type of
inquiry was chosen in order to provide an in-depth account of the issues identified in
survey. It was also used to verify survey’s findings and thus enhance confidence in the
study’s results. A random sample of 18 companies was chosen from the survey sample.
133
Regarding the ethical considerations underlying this PhD study, the research received
the approval of the Ethical Committee of the University of Central Lancashire and was
conducted in compliance with UCLAN’s ‘Ethical Principles for Teaching, Research,
Consultancy, Knowledge Transfer and Related Activities’ and ‘Code of Conduct for
Research’.
The next two chapters are devoted in the analysis of the survey data while after these,
the analysis of the interview data follows.
134
Chapter 6: Quantitative Analysis - Descriptive Statistics
6 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS - DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
6.1 Introduction
As it was mentioned in the previous chapter, this study utilizes quantitative analysis in
order to obtain a general understanding of the research topic and identify prevalent
tendencies regarding why firms adopt ICMS, how they use them and in which context.
Quantitative analysis equipped this study with two crucial tools: descriptive and
inferential statistics. As Tabachnick and Fidel (2007) argue, the use of descriptive and
inferential statistics is rarely an either-or proposition. Scholars are interested in both
describing and making inferences about a data set as the combination of the two
increases confidence in results. Descriptive statistics enabled the researcher to describe
the basic features of the data collected through the survey while inferential statistics
enabled the use of several techniques to make a prediction and generalization with
reference to the hypotheses developed in Chapter 4.
This chapter focuses on the descriptive statistics of the survey data. Inferential statistics
are discussed in the next chapter. To calculate both the descriptive and inferential
statistics, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. This is the
most widely employed software package for statistical analysis and it is among the best
ones available (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Burns & Burns, 2008). It was chosen because it
is relatively straightforward to use as most data analysis can be undertaken using menus
and dialog boxes.
Due to the fact that the descriptive statistics may be voluminous, the information
presented in this chapter was selected in such a way as to present the data in the clearest
135
and most comprehensible form. The aim of this chapter, therefore, is not to depict every
little detail regarding all variables, but rather to summarize the data gathered and
identify any patterns of some key variables most of which are used later in inferential
statistics.
The chapter is structured in two sections: descriptive statistics and conclusions.
Regarding the former, in line with the structure followed so far, the section is split into
the following three categories: breadth of ICMS adoption; depth of ICMS adoption and
context of ICMS adoption. In relevant sections, the reader can find measures of central
tendency for all variables presented in summary tables plus more detailed information
on certain variables. Moreover, frequency distributions for all variables are shown in
Appendix 6-1. The chapter concludes with a commentary on the descriptive statistics’
results.
6.2 Descriptive Statistics
6.2.1 Breadth of ICMS adoption
Table 6-1 presents descriptive statistics for the variables denoting the breadth of ICMS
adoption. There were no variables with missing values. Looking at the means, it can be
observed that, on average, the score on the competitiveness of business environment was
4.42 out of maximum 5, indicating a very competitive environment. Regarding firms’
motives for adopting ICMS, the means denote that the most influential of them was
customers’ demands (4.15) while the least significant was local communities (2.63).
136
Business Local Governmental Other International Domestic Cost Financial

EU NGO Customers Sales Productivity CSR
Environment Community Authorities Companies Markets Markets Savings Performance
N Valid 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.42 2.63 3.03 3.49 2.75 3.21 3.69 4.03 4.15 3.64 3.22 3.40 3.13 3.43
Std. Error of
.05 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .07 .07 .08 .08 .08 .08 .09
Mean
Std. Deviation .69 1.33 1.31 1.32 1.31 1.29 1.32 .99 .99 1.15 1.22 1.16 1.15 1.24
Variance .48 1.78 1.72 1.76 1.72 1.66 1.75 .97 .98 1.33 1.49 1.35 1.32 1.55
Skewness -1.03 .35 .00 -.41 .17 -.25 -.70 -.75 -1.03 -.51 -.20 -.25 .02 -.43
Std. Error of
.17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17
Skewness
Kurtosis .79 -1.11 -1.15 -1.01 -1.18 -.94 -.72 -.46 .13 -.59 -.89 -.86 -.77 -.81
Std. Error of
.33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33
Kurtosis
Range 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Minimum 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Table 6-1: Summary Statistics for Variables Denoting Breadth of ICMS Adoption
137
As far as the standard deviation values are concerned, the data were relatively closely
clustered about the arithmetic mean, implying that the dispersion of respondents’ replies
was relatively low (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Turning to the skewness values, one
can see that some variables have values either outside the -1< x < 1 interval or very
close to it. This suggests that they may not be normally distributed (Leech, et al., 2008).
Further information on the variables’ distribution can be found in Appendix 6-1; there
the reader can observe the patterns attributed by the distribution of each variable.
Moreover, looking at the minimum and maximum values, it is evident that none of the
respondents has chosen the value of ‘1’ for business environment (1= Not Competitive)
and domestic markets (1=Not Important), indicating that all participants recognised at
these variables at least some competitiveness/ importance. To get a more accurate
picture of the patterns of the breadth of ICMS implementation, the frequency values of
some key variables are presented below.
• Percentage of certified firms
Respondents’ replies regarding the percentages of certified firms within their sector
varied, indicating that some standards were more popular than others. Regarding
ISO9001, almost half of certified participants (51%) said that more than 60% of firms in
their sector had adopted this standard. In respect of ISO14001, the relevant percentage
decreased to 30%. As far as ISO22000 was concerned, 47% of participants who had
adopted this standard reported that more than 60% of firms in their sector had been
certified by it while the relevant percentage for OHSAS18001 was only 11%. Regarding
EMAS, the share was 14% whereas for SA8000, it was 0%.
138
Figure 6-1 illustrates the survey’s results with reference to how the number of ICMS
varied according to sector and firm size. It is evident that the number of standards that
the firm applies increases with the size of the company. Furthermore, the figure reveals
that ICMS certificates are most popular with manufacturing firms followed by service
and commercial companies.
Figure 6-1: Number of Standards per Industry and Firm Size
• Motives for adopting ICMS
As it was mentioned earlier, most respondents (79%) identified satisfying customer
requirements as the most influential driver for gaining certification; other important
drivers were: domestic market requirements (75%) and access to international markets
(64%). The least important factors were influence of local community (only 30% of
139
respondents characterised it as an important driver), improved relations with NGOs
(34%) and improved financial performance (36%). As far as CSR is concerned, almost
half of respondents (54%) argued that they adopted ICMS as a means of acknowledging
the application of socially responsible practices.
Satisfying customer and domestic market requirements were of equal importance for all
firms, irrespective of size or sector. By contrast, accessing international markets was
more important for manufacturing and commercial companies than for firms in services.
As for the least important factors, firms of different size and specialisation provided
similar responses with the exception of the variable financial performance.
Irrespectively of the sector, this variable was more important for micro, small and
medium firms than for big ones. Finally, focusing on CSR, acknowledging the adoption
of socially responsible practices was more important for medium and big companies
than for micro and small ones.
6.2.2 Depth of ICMS adoption
Table 6-2 presents descriptive statistics for the variables denoting the depth of ICMS
adoption. As can be seen from the table, no variable has missing values. Due to the fact
that one of the variables used (objectives, targets, indicators) was categorical, the mean
could not be used for identifying the centre of the frequency distribution of this variable.
For that reason the mode was also included in this table.
140
Objectives,
ICMS Internal Daily use of Content Number of Logo Logo Audit
MNCs Targets, Logo Web
Years Audits Documents Change Persons Documents Products Public
Indicators
N Valid 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 5.59 2.96 2.12 4.00 1.93 3.68 1.31 4.09 2.98 3.28 2.06
Std. Error of Mean .23 .05 .08 .07 .07 .23 .03 .09 .12 .12 0.92
Mode 3 3 1 4 1 2 1 5 1 5 5
Std. Deviation 3.36 .76 1.13 .97 .99 3.39 .46 1.29 1.73 1.67 1.34
Variance 11.28 .58 1.27 .95 .99 11.47 .21 1.67 2.98 2.79 1.80
Skewness .47 .07 .92 -.98 .84 2.97 .84 -1.34 -.02 -.29 1.01
Std. Error of
.17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17
Skewness
Kurtosis -.97 -1.28 .14 .75 -.10 11.32 -1.31 .57 -1.74 -1.45 -1.59
Std. Error of Kurtosis .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33
Range 13 2 4 4 4 24 1 4 4 4 4
Minimum 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 14 4 5 5 5 25 2 5 5 5 5
Table 6-2: Summary Statistics for Variables Denoting Depth of ICMS Adoption
141
Looking at the mean numbers for major-non-conformances (MNCs), it can be observed
that on average the score for this variable was 2.12, signifying that participants had only
one MNC. On top of that, the relevant value for the daily use of ICMS documents (4.00)
implies that managers maintained that they frequently used these documents.
Furthermore, the mean score for content change prior to external audits (1.93) denotes
that managers changed the content of the ICMS documents at some point pending the
external audit. Likewise, the mean values for the number of persons indicate that
companies employed on average almost 4 persons in the management team responsible
for the implementation of the standard/s. With reference to the categorical value, the
score that occurs more frequently in the data is ‘1’, meaning that most managers argued
that they were aware of the objectives, targets and indicators set within the context of
ICMS implementation. In addition, the mean scores for the use of ICMS logo indicate
that participating companies were frequently putting the ICMS logo on their documents
and sometimes on their products. Also, the relevant values for the use of ICMS logo on
firms’ web-site (3.28) denote that, on the whole, participants have been using it for two
years. Finally, the mean for audits results to public was 2.06, indicating that companies
did not disseminate frequently the results of the ICMS audits to the public.
Observing the standard deviation values, one sees that the ratings for ICMS years and
number of persons have a greater spread from the mean. This suggests that the mean
values are not a good fit for these variables (Field, 2009). Looking at the range values in
the table above, one sees that the first variable has the score of 13 whereas the number
of persons has the value of 24. These numbers denote that respondents’ answers varied
and some of them received extreme values, influencing the standard deviation scores.
Indeed, looking at the minimum and maximum values, it can be seen that these varied
142
for ICMS years (minimum 1, maximum=14) and number of persons (minimum 1,
maximum=25), indicating significant differences among firms in terms of these two
variables. The dispersion of the values for these two variables is best reflected in their
histograms (Appendix 6-1). Turning to the skewness values, one can see that some
variables have values either outside the -1< x < 1 interval or very close to it, which
means that they may not be normally distributed (Leech, et al., 2008). To get a better
understanding of the characteristics of the data referring to the depth of ICMS
implementation, frequency values of some key variables are considered below.
• Years of standards’ implementation
As figure 6-2 illustrates, most firms (79%) have been applying their ICMS for up to
nine years whereas 21% did it for more than ten years. At the same time, a significant
percentage of companies (35%) have been implementing their ICMS for under three
years.
Figure 6-2: Histogram – Years of ICMS Implementation
143
• Number of major-non-conformances (MNCs)
With reference to the number of MNCs, the majority of respondents (64.5%) had at least
one. Of these, 17% had two major-non-conformances and 13% had three or more
MNCs.
The sector with most MNCs was manufacturing in which 76.6% of the firms had at least
one major-non-conformance. The relevant percentage in commerce was lower (61.5%)
whereas it reached 57.3% in the service sector. As it can be seen from the data in figure
6-3, in the service sector there is no obvious correlation between the size of the firm and
MNCs. By contrast, in commerce and manufacturing sectors size seems to matter: as the
companies’ size increases, the percentage of firms with MNCs decreases.
Figure 6-3: Percentage of Companies with MNCs per Industry/ Size
• Daily use of documents
Regarding the daily use of documents variable, the vast majority of participants (75%)
argued that they use ICMS related documents on an everyday basis. With reference to
144
how this behaviour changes between different sectors and firm’s sizes, no patterns could
be observed.
• Content change
As far as the change of documents’ content is concerned, a significant percentage of
managers (42%) argued that they did not change the content prior to external audits.
Interestingly, 32% said that they change the content very little while about a quarter of
respondents claimed that they alter documents’ content at least to some extent.
Focusing on how this behaviour varies between different sectors and firm’ sizes, no
specific pattern reveals itself in services and manufacturing. Only in commerce, some
behaviour changes are observed as the size of the company increases (Figure 6-4). In
particular, it appears that the bigger the company the less it is likely to change the
documents’ content.
Figure 6-4: Percentage of Companies Changing Documents’ Content per Industry/

Size
145
• Awareness of objectives, targets, indicators
The majority of respondents (69%) argued that they were aware of the targets,
objectives and indicators set within the context of the standards implementation.
Interestingly, when respondents were asked to give an example of an indicator, target
and objective only 27% of them gave correct answers; 49% gave wrong examples, while
another 24% did not give any examples at all.
• Signalling
The majority of respondents reported that they use the standards’ logo to advertise their
certification. Most participants revealed that they place it on their documents (77%), on
their products (64.5%) and on their companies’ web-sites (74%). With reference to how
this behaviour varies depending on industry and firm size, respondents’ answers did not
reveal any patterns; irrespectively of size or sector participants’ replies denoted similar
trends, i.e. most of them use the ICMS logo.
• Characteristics of firms that apply ICMS substantially
To identify the number of firms, which conformed to the standard’s requirements, the
following criteria were used:
• Zero major non conformances: firms should comply to all standard’s major
requirements;
• Daily use of the documents created in the context of ICMS implementation:
firms should have integrated these documents in their everyday operations;
• Content change of the ICMS documents prior to external audits: firms should
not attempt to alter the documents’ content in order to present to external
auditors a different view from the real one.
146
Of the total number of the surveyed firms that provided valid responses, 42 (19.9%)
were found to conform to all three criteria. Of these, 18 (43%) were service companies,
14 (33%) commerce ones and 10 (24%) were manufacturing corporations. A minority
(12%) were micro companies, almost a third (31%) were small firms whereas more than
half (57%) were medium and big companies. A significant percentage of the surveyed
firms (45%), were applying more than one standard while more than half (57%) were
early11 adopters of standards.
6.2.3 Context of ICMS implementation
Table 6-3 presents descriptive statistics for the variables denoting the context of ICMS
adoption. As can be seen from the table below, no variable has missing values.
Regarding customers and government awareness on CSR, the mean scores indicate that,
on average, respondents did not believe that these stakeholders could always discern
CSR practices from philanthropy. Pertaining to ICMS, the mean scores denote that, on
the whole, respondents argued that both customers and government did not often ask for
information on ICMS implementation. Likewise, the relevant values for customer and
government awareness on ICMS signify that respondents believed that these
stakeholders were not very well informed. Furthermore, participants’ responses point
out that, on average, customers and government do not always ask for certification to be
included in contracts.
11
For a definition of early and late adopters see chapter 7, § 7.2.
147
Customer Government National

Customer Government Customer Government Customer Government Certificate Reputation Regulatory EU
Request Request Legislation
CSR CSR ICMS ICMS Certification Certification Recall Cost Framework Certification
ICMS Info ICMS Info Certification
N Valid 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.10 3.08 2.86 2.50 3.10 3.08 2.98 3.13 4.41 4.31 2.63 3.39 3.63
Std. Error of
.06 .07 .08 .08 .06 .07 .08 .09 .05 .07 0.75 .07 .07
Mean
Std.
.84 .96 1.15 1.18 .84 .96 1.23 1.34 .78 1.00 1.08 1.08 1.03
Deviation
Variance .70 .93 1.32 1.39 .70 .93 1.50 1.79 .61 1.00 1.18 1.17 1.05
Skewness .14 -.22 .08 .37 .14 -.22 -.04 -.27 -1.16 -1.51 .36 -.52 -.45
Std. Error of
.17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17
Skewness
Kurtosis -.18 -.25 -.81 -.71 -.18 -.25 -.93 -1.11 .58 1.59 -.49 -.32 -.43
Std. Error of
.33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33
Kurtosis
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Table 6-3: Summary Statistics for Variables Denoting Context of ICMS Adoption
148
With regard to sanctions in the case of non-compliance to ICMS requirements, the
mean values suggest that respondents, on average, perceived both reputation cost and
certificate recall as significant. On top of that, the mean for the strictness of the
regulatory framework underlying ICMS implementation (2.63) denotes that participants
did not see the framework as particularly strict. Finally, the mean scores for national
legislation and EU influence on certification levels demonstrate that, on average,
managers claimed that the influence of these factors was somehow significant.
The values of standard deviation show that the data are relatively closely clustered
about the arithmetic mean implying that the dispersion of respondents’ replies is
relatively low (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Turning to the skewness values, one can see
that some variables have values outside the -1< x < 1 interval implying that they may
not be normally distributed (Leech, et al., 2008). As it was mentioned earlier, the reader
can observe the patterns attributed to each variable’s distribution in Appendix 6-1.
Furthermore, scrutinising the minimum and maximum values, it can be seen that none
of the respondents circled the ‘1’ value for certificate recall (1= Not Significant). This
implies that all participants acknowledged at least some significance of this variable. To
get a more accurate picture of the patterns attributed by the data to the context of ICMS
implementation, the frequency values of some key variables are discussed below.
• Stakeholder Awareness
Half of the respondents believed that customers and the government could not
distinguish between companies that implement CSR practices substantially and those
that do not. These respondents argued that both stakeholder groups lacked interest in
CSR and this was why they were not informed about it. Furthermore, most respondents
149
maintained that neither customers (66.9%) nor the government (60.2%) were informed
about the implementation of the standards. In a similar vein, these respondents argued
that customers and government were not truly interested in getting information on
ICMS. Despite this, the majority of firms (64.9%) replied that customers preferred
certified companies and asked for certification in their contracts with firms. Likewise,
most firms (69.2%) responded that they faced similar pressures from the government.
• Sanctions
The influence of sanctions in the case of non-compliance to IMCS requirements was
widely recognized by most participants. In particular, the vast majority of the surveyed
firms (87%) acknowledged the significance of the impact of losing the certificate while
83% said that they also perceived as significant the impact on reputation cost.
6.3 Conclusions
This chapter presented the descriptive statistics generated by the survey. The evidence
highlights some interesting aspects of the implementation of ICMS as a form of CSR
practice. Focusing on the breadth of ICMS adoption, the results of the survey indicate
that for most companies the decision to adopt ICMS was influenced by external factors;
the three most popular motives being customer requirements, domestic market
requirements and access to international markets.
Interestingly, the influence of the local community was not acknowledged as a
significant driver for adopting an ICMS. In addition, few firms reported that they
adopted a CSR tool like an ICMS in order to improve their financial performance.
These findings emphasise the significant influence of the market on firms’ decision to
150
adopt a CSR tool. In particular, the lack of influence of the local community in contrast
to the widely acknowledged importance of market drivers may suggest that impetus for
CSR practices comes more from the market itself than from society. This does not mean
that the market is separated from society; it rather implies the significant role of the
market in satisfying societal demands. This evidence is in accordance with the market
driven approach to economic and social policy prevalent in most economies over the
last thirty years or so. As it has already been analysed earlier in this dissertation, the
eminence of neo-liberal philosophy and economic globalisation have favoured market
forces as the most efficient methods of satisfying societal and economic demands
(Lenox & Nash, 2003; Wilkinson, 2007). In this context, it is easy to see why local
community was not acknowledged as an important driver. The lack of recognition does
not mean that local community is ignored by firms but that the satisfaction of demands
of local societies takes place through the market.
Furthermore, the fact that most companies argued that they did not adopt a CSR tool
like an ICMS in order to enhance their financial performance implies that the adoption
of CSR practices may not always be driven by profit. This suggests that the adoption of
certain market norms is more a function of ‘negative’ (i.e. defensive) rather than
‘positive’ (i.e. profit maximization; implementation of CSR practices) stimuli. This
evidence may be seen as supportive of the existence of bandwagon pressures in the
market, i.e. pressures that force companies to adopt a management practice due to
threats of losing legitimacy or competitive advantage (Abrahamson, 1991).
Other findings of note are:
151
• The use of ICMS as a means of improving financial performance is more
important for MSMEs than for big ones. This supports the view of authors like
Sweeney (2007) who suggest that financial resources may be a barrier for these
firms in complying with market’s requirements and adopting CSR practices.
• The adoption of socially responsible practices is more important for medium and
big companies than for micro and small ones. This probably explains the
observation made earlier in this dissertation that the number of standards that the
firm adopts increases with the size of the company. Since CSR recognition is
more important for medium and big companies, this type of firms will adopt
more ICMS in order to promote better their engagement into CSR.
Focusing on the depth of ICMS adoption, the chapter revealed that only a minority of
companies, mostly early adopters of standards, were found to substantially implement
ICMS. Most firms applied ICMS symbolically, meaning they did not conform to the
standards’ requirements but used the fact of certification to create a certain social image.
In particular, it was found that most companies had at least one MNC; had changed the
content of documents prior to external audits; and did not make use of one of the most
important aspects of ICMS implementation, i.e. the objectives, targets and indicators set
for the next year. These findings reveal that such firms did not conform to at least some
of the ICMS’ major requirements and attempted to manipulate information presented to
external auditors in order to retain certification. In addition, lack of knowledge of the
objectives, targets and indicators, set within the context of ICMS implementation,
indicates that firms did not seriously attempt to quantify their performance, compare
results with previous years and set targets for improvement.
152
The survey also revealed that most firms used the ICMS logo for signalling purposes on
their documents, website and products. Firms are allowed to use the logo on their
documents and website, but not on their products since the adoption of ICMS does not
relate to product quality. Evidently, by placing the logo on products, firms seek to
influence (through inappropriate means because the logo is misused in this situation) the
buyers’ perception of the quality of the product. The fact that companies put the logo
on their products, despite not being allowed to do so, indicates an opportunistic
behaviour on behalf of firms and raises questions about the effectiveness of monitoring
mechanisms of ICMS implementation.
With reference to the context of ICMS adoption, the following need to be highlighted.
Most companies perceived the regulatory framework underlying ICMS implementation
as lax. In contradiction to this result, the majority of firms indicated that the
consequences of sanctions (e.g., reputation cost and certificate recall) in the case of non-
compliance to ICMS requirements were important for them. Another contradiction can
be observed: although respondents argued that customers and government were not well
informed on CSR and ICMS, most of them replied that both groups preferred certified
companies in their dealings and insisted on including certification as a requirement in
their contracts with firms. This fact clearly indicates that certification has business
value. However, the fact that both the government and customers were not well
informed on CSR and ICMS suggests that these stakeholders may not have a good
understanding of what exactly ICMS are and how they should be used by companies.
To conclude, the descriptive statistics about the breadth of ICMS adoption suggest that
most firms have engaged into CSR practices in order to comply with market’s
153
requirements. The results on the depth of adoption indicate that the market fails to
secure compliance to the standards’ requirements as most companies do not apply
ICMS substantially but instead use them as an instrument of influence and publicity.
Finally, the findings on the context of adoption imply that the context of ICMS adoption
is lax, leaving plenty of room for companies to manipulate the implementation of these
standards. These results highlight a problem in the application of CSR and the need for
further research. The next two chapters provide additional insights into these topics.
154
Chapter 7: Quantitative Analysis - Inferential Statistics
7 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS - INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
7.1 Introduction
Descriptive statistics do not allow extending results based on a sample to the whole of
the population. To do so, inferential statistics are required. This type of statistics
‘provides a bridge across the chasm that looms between having data about a sample and
having a description of a population’ (Burns & Burns, 2008, p. 9).
There are two broad categories of inferential statistics: differential and associational
(Leech, et al., 2007). The former leads to inferences on differences between groups in
the populations from which the sample was collected. Associational inferential statistics
lead to inferences on the association or relationship between variables in the population.
Accordingly, this chapter focuses on inferential statistics in order to allow this study to
draw generalizations beyond specific sample data.
In contrast to descriptive statistics, this type of quantitative analysis has more
restrictions as it includes many assumptions that need to be satisfied prior to conducting
a test (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For that reason, the researcher needs to be very
careful regarding the choice of statistical methods and thoroughly analyse whether his/
her data meet the various requirements. To test the hypotheses developed in Chapter 3
this study uses both differential and associational inferential statistics as it examines
differences between groups (i.e. early – late adopters of ICMS) and also analyses
relationships between certain variables.
155
The chapter is structured as follows: first, data analysis issues are discussed. Second, the
dependent, independent and control variables used in the analysis are presented. Third,
the statistical techniques chosen, their assumptions and how these were dealt with are
explained. In cases where any violations were found, these are explicitly mentioned and
their treatment is discussed. Next, the results for each model tested are presented while
the last section discusses the relevant conclusions.
7.2 Preliminary Analysis
7.2.1 Robustness checks
To assess the internal consistency of all the scales used, a Cronbach alpha test was
applied to all scales (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). All scales except one (i.e. government
awareness) exhibited satisfactory alphas that were larger than the acceptable threshold
of 0.70, indicating good internal consistency of the survey items (Nunnally, 1978). Even
in the case where the Cronbach alpha value was below 0.70, it was above 0.60
permitting to continue the analysis12 (Leech, et al., 2008). To screen the data for outliers
in the sample, Mahalanobis distance measures were used (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Seven cases were identified as outliers when testing Hypothesis 4 about stakeholder
awareness. Careful screening of these variables did not provide any information and
these values were removed from the analysis (Pallant, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007).
Due to the fact that the data used in this study are self reported, there was the threat of
bias due to common method variance (CMV) (Podsakoff, et al., 2003). CMV is a type
12
Although an adequate Cronbach’s alpha is above 0.70, for new scales and for scales with a handful of
items in the scale a smaller alpha in the .60-.69 range is permissible (Leech et al., 2008). Prior studies
have also used Cronbach’s alphas with values smaller than 0.70 (e.g Amis et al., 2004; Damanpour et al.,
2009).
156
of spurious correlation which occurs among indicators or constructs when these derive
from a common source (Chang, et al., 2010). Following the relevant literature (Chang,
et al., 2010; Podsakoff, et al., 2003), a number of ex ante approaches, implemented in
the research design, as well as an ex post approach, implemented after the research was
conducted, were taken into account.
Podsakoff et al., (2003) have categorised the sources of CMV: (a) common rater effect,
(b) item characteristics effect, (c) item context effect, and (d) measurement context
effect. The current research is based on the measurement of simple, objective, and
unambiguous constructs –such as internal audits, motives for adopting ICMS and use of
ICMS logo- that one would expect to be associated with lower levels of CMV as it is in
the case of ‘other business areas’. Yet, the potential presence of CMV was tested.
First, the common rater effect was examined. It occurs when respondents’ answers are
influenced by social desirability (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Malhotra et al., 2006). To
ensure that respondents’ answers were not influenced by any social imperatives, all
questionnaires were anonymous. Second, the item characteristics effect was taken into
account. This occurs when the questions are ambiguously phrased and respondents do
not understand the questions (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Malhotra et al., 2006). The bias
caused by the measurement items was not a problem in the current study because all
items in the questionnaire were simply and concisely defined. In addition to that, to
ensure the effectiveness of the instrument and secure its reliability, several
considerations were taken into account (see § 5.5.2). Third, the item context effect was
analysed. It occurs when several questions lead to respondent fatigue, or when the
positioning of the questions related to the dependent and independent variables may
157
imply a causal relationship (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Malhotra et al., 2006). As it was
discussed in Chapter 5 (see § 5.5.2), special care was taken regarding the order of the
questions and the way these were formulated. In addition to that, the questions related to
the dependent and independent variables were presented in a balanced manner in the
questionnaire. Due to these reasons, it was expected that item context was not a
potential source of bias. Fourth, the measurement context effect was taken into account.
It takes effect when a single respondent provides answers to the independent and
dependent variables at the same time (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Malhotra et al., 2006).
Due to the fact that in this study the independent and dependent variables were
measured at the same time, measurement context effects may be present.
Finally, to examine any problems related to common method bias, an ex post statistical
approach was conducted. To decide which test to choose the relevant literature was
consulted (Chang, et al., 2010; Malhotra, et al., 2006; Podsakoff, et al., 2003). Due to
the fact that all statistical tests available have several limitations and the relevant
literature is largely split as to which test to choose (Sharma, et al., 2010), the most
widely known approach for assessing CMV, the Harman’s single-factor test, using
principal components analysis, was computed (Podsakoff, et al., 2003; Podsakoff &
Organ, 1986). If CMV is present, a single factor emerges from the factor analysis or one
general factor accounts for the majority of the variance in the variables (Podsakoff and
Organ, 1986). The test yielded 11 factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and
indicated that the first factor accounted only for a minority of variance (19.8%)
(Appendix 7-1). This signifies that common method variance is not of great concern in
the data (Pérez-Nordtvedt, et al., 2008).
158
7.2.2 Variables used in the analysis
Because not all variables discussed in the methodology chapter (Chapter 5) were
included in statistical analysis, it is necessary to separately present those employed at
this stage of the dissertation. For clarity, the scales used for measuring the variables
included in the analysis are reiterated in this section.
• Dependent variables
The dependent variables associated with the study’s hypotheses are: percentage of
certified firms, number of MNCs, daily use of the standard’s documents, content change
of the standard’s documents, frequency of internal audits, use of ICMS logo on web-
site, use of ICMS logo on documents and use of ICMS logo on products.
To measure the diffusion of ICMS and identify whether this relates to efficiency or
imitation considerations a variable, which could provide information on the number of
companies that have already adopted ICMS, was needed. Thus, the percentage of
certified firms was used as the dependent variable. It was measured using a single item,
which invited respondents to indicate the percentage of certified firms in their industry
(1=less than 20 %, 5=more than 80 %).
To identify whether the firm conforms to all major ICMS requirements, participants
were asked to indicate the number of MNCs (none, one, two, three, four or more). To
capture daily use of the standard’s documents and content change of the standard’s
documents, the study adopted the methodology employed by Christmann and Taylor
(2006) and Naveh and Marcus (2004), which involved asking managers to identify the
level to which they use ICMS documents in their everyday activities (1=not at all, 5=to
159
a large extent), and the degree to which they change the content of the ICMS documents
prior to external audits (1=not at all, 5=to a large extent). To evaluate whether
companies audit the implementation of ICMS more times than the minimum required,
respondents were asked to specify the frequency of internal audits (don’t know, once,
twice, three times or more).
As it has already been explained, to investigate the use of ICMS as a signal of CSR
performance by firms, three survey items were used. Participants were asked to indicate:
a) how long they used the certification’s logo on their web-site (1= never, 2= 1 year, 3=
2 years, 4= 3 years, 5= 4 years or more); b) the extent to which they used the standard’s
logo on their documents (1=never, 5= always); and c) the extent to which they used the
standard’s logo on their products as a signal of good product quality (1=never, 5=
always). These items were not collapsed into a single measure because it was assumed
that they may have different effects on the way companies use them. The low bivariate
correlations (Spearman’s rho < .40) diminished the threats of multicollinearity and
allowed the separate use of these variables in the analysis.
• Independent variables
The independent variables associated with the study’s hypotheses are: motives, CSR,
customer awareness and government awareness, years of ICMS implementation,
sanctions and strictness of regulatory framework.
As it has already been discussed, the survey included 12 different motives for adopting
ICMS and respondents were asked to rate the influence of each of these motives in their
decision to adopt an ICMS on a 1 to 5 scale (1= not important, 5= very important). Due
160
to the fact that this number was too large to include in the statistical analysis, these
variables needed to be grouped together. To do so, factor analysis was conducted (Field,
2009; Leech, et al., 2008; Pallant, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). This test makes it
possible to collapse a large set of items into few groups. Hence, following factor
analysis (principal component analysis with varimax rotation) the variables referring to
firms’ motives for adopting ICMS were consolidated into the following three scales:
Influence of internal factors: influence of greater productivity; cost savings;
financial performance; sales’ increase. (Cronbach’s α = .85).
Influence of external factors: influence of governmental authorities: NGOs; EU;
local community. (Cronbach’s α = .81).
Influence of market factors: influence of customers requirements; domestic
market requirements (Pearson r = .65, p<.0001)13 (Appendix 7-2).
Due to the significance of CSR in this study, its influence on firms’ decision to adopt a
standard was used separately in the analysis. The influence of CSR was measured by a
single survey item asking respondents to evaluate CSR importance (1= not important,
5= very important).
Customer and government awareness of ICMS was measured by four survey items.
Respondents were asked to: a) rate whether customers and government could
distinguish between companies that implement CSR practices and those that did not
(1=never, 5=always); b) evaluate how well customers and government were informed
of standards’ implementation (1=don’t know, 5=very well informed); c) identify the
extent to which customers and government requested information from firms regarding
13
In the first place, pressure from other companies was also added resulting in a low internal consistency
(Cronbach’s Alpha = -.06). Therefore, it was excluded from further analysis.
161
the implementation of the standard/s (1=not at all, 5=to a large extent); and d) indicate
how often customers and government asked for certification to be included in the
contracts with them (1=never, 5=always). The high correlations these variables
exhibited (Spearman’s rho > .70) did not allow their separate use in the analysis. Thus,
these items were averaged and collapsed into two indices named customer awareness
(Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.73) and government awareness (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.62).
To measure years of ICMS implementation and divide the sample into early and late
adopters, respondents were asked to state the year they started implementing the
standard. Firms that adopted ICMS prior to 2000, year when ICMS started widely
diffusing in Greece (ISO, 2000; 2003), were treated as early adopters. Respectively,
firms that subscribed to an ICMS from 2000 onwards were treated as late adopters.
To capture sanctions, two survey items were used. Respondents were asked to identify
the significance of the consequences of certificate recall and reputation cost that their
company might face as a result of non-compliance with standard’s requirements (1=not
significant, 5=very significant). High correlations that these variables exhibited
(Spearman’s rho > .70) did not allow their separate use in the analysis. Consequently,
these items were averaged and collapsed into a single index named sanctions. For
strictness of regulatory framework, a single survey item was used asking participants to
rate the strictness of the regulatory framework in case of non-compliance to the
standard’s requirements (1=not strict, 5= very strict).
162
• Control Variables
Firm size and industry were used as control variables. The choice of these variables is
not incidental. Evidence from the literature indicates that MSMEs might have problems
in implementing ICMS due to lack of resources (King & Lenox, 2000; King, et al.,
2005). To control for firm size, the logarithm14 of the number of employees was used.
Additionally, the literature implies that ICMS may be better adapted to the
manufacturing sector than to the service or commerce sectors, resulting in service and
commerce firms being more likely to pursuit symbolic implementation (Boiral, 2003b;
Christmann & Taylor, 2006). To control for this effect, a survey item was used asking
respondents to identify the industry sector to which their company belonged (1= service,
2 = commerce, 3= manufacture). Table 7-1 summarizes the variables used in the
analysis of the three areas of interest namely breadth, depth and context of ICMS
adoption.
14
A transformation was necessary to achieve normal distribution.
163
BREADTH OF ADOPTION
Variables
Method of
Hypothesis
Analysis Dependent Independent Control
1 Logistic Percentage of Influence of internal factors Firm-size

Regression certified firms Influence of external factors Industry
Influence of market factors
Influence of CSR
Customer awareness
Government awareness
DEPTH OF ADOPTION
Method of Variables
Hypotheses
2a MANOVA Major non-conformances Early – Late adopters

Daily use of ICMS documents
Content change of ICMS
Firm-size
documents
Internal audits Industry
2b MANOVA ICMS logo on web-site Early – Late adopters
ICMS logo on documents

ICMS logo on products
CONTEXT OF ADOPTION
Method of Variables
Hypotheses
3a Logistic Major non-conformances Sanctions
Regression Regulatory framework
3b Logistic ICMS logo on products Sanctions Firm-size

Regression Regulatory framework
Industry
4 Logistic Daily use of ICMS Customer awareness
Regression documents Government awareness
Table 7-1: Summary of Variables used in the Analysis of Breadth, Depth and
Context of ICMS Adoption
164
7.2.3 Choosing statistical tests
The hypothesis referring to the breadth of ICMS implementation (hypothesis 1)
investigates how well a set of predictors explains a dependent variable while controlling
for some other variables. Due to violations in some of the assumptions of multiple
regression (the normal distribution of errors and the variance of the residuals being
constant), the hypothesis was tested using hierarchical logistic regression (Leech, et al.,
2008; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). To transform the dependent variable percentages of
certified firms into a categorical one, the recommendations of the diffusion of
innovations literature were followed (Rogers, 2003). As it was explained earlier in this
dissertation, during the first years of the introduction of an innovation only few
companies adopt it each year. Then a critical mass of adopters is reached and the
cumulative rate of adoption speeds up. It is argued that the latter stage is reached when
the number of adopters is large enough to influence the rate of adoption, but still is
below the average number. Consultancy experience indicates that this number is around
40% (Tapinos, 2008). Accordingly, in this study it was assumed that answers that
indicated certification percentages above 40% were indicative of ‘significant
certification percentages’ whereas those below that percentage represented
‘insignificant certification percentages’.
The hypotheses about the depth of ICMS implementation (hypotheses: 2a and 2b) deal
with the effect of a categorical variable (early vs. late adopters) on multiple continuous
variables. These hypotheses were tested using multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) (Leech, et al., 2008; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Finally, the hypotheses
referring to the context of ICMS adoption (Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 4) examine whether a
discrete outcome such as group membership (e.g. the firm has/ the firm does not have
165
MNCs; the firm uses/ the firm does not use the logo on its products; and the firm applies
the ICMS/ the firm does not apply the ICMS) can be predicted by a set of continuous
variables. To test these hypotheses, hierarchical logistic regression was performed
(Leech, et al., 2008; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). To transform the dependent variable
number of MNCs into a categorical one, replies that indicated zero MNCs were labelled
as ‘absence of MNCs’ while answers that indicated one MNC and above were labelled
as ‘presence of MNCs’. Similarly, to transform the dependent variable use of ICMS logo
on products, answers that indicated that firms never use it were labeled as ‘non-use of
logo on products’ while replies that indicated at least seldom use where labeled as ‘use
of logo on products’. Last but not least, to transform the dependent variable daily use of
the standard’s documents into a categorical one, answers, which indicated that the
company uses at least to some extent the documents, were labelled as ‘the company
uses the documents’. Similarly, replies, which indicated that the firm uses the
documents ‘very little’ or ‘not at all’, were labelled as ‘the company does not use the
documents’.
7.2.4 Checking the assumptions of the statistical tests
• Logistic regression
Logistic regression has no assumptions on the distribution of predictors. In particular,
the test does not require predictors to be normally distributed, linearly related or of
equal variance within each group (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In addition, logistic
regression does not have any requirements regarding the type of predictors, which can
be any mix of continuous or categorical variables (Leech, et al., 2008; Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007).
166
However, the test is sensitive to multicollinearity, i.e. to high correlations among
predictors (Pallant, 2005). Moreover, logistic regression requires a dichotomous
dependent variable and single representation of each case in a group. Additionally, in
order to be accurate, it needs a minimum of 20 cases per predictor with a minimum of
60 cases.
The test’s assumptions were checked and met for all hypotheses for which this test was
employed (i.e. for the hypotheses referring to the breadth and context of ICMS
adoption; hypotheses: 1, 3a, 3b, 4). In particular, each case was related to only one
group and the number of cases for all hypotheses was higher than the minimum
requirement of 20 cases per predictor15 (Leech, et al., 2008). Furthermore, the Tolerance
and VIF values in the Coefficients table indicated that there were not any problems of
multicollinearity since the tolerance values were close to 1 (table 1 in appendices 7-3; 7-
7; 7-9; 7-11). Additionally, to check the assumption that each of the continuous
variables is linearly related to the log of the outcome variable, interactions between each
predictor and its natural log were added to the model (Field, 2009; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). The results (table 2 in appendices 7-3; 7-7; 7-9; 7-11) indicated one violation for
hypotheses 1 and 4 and no violations for hypotheses 3a and 3b.
Regarding Hypothesis 1, a violation was found for the interaction term of internal
factors by its log. However, as Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) argue, a reasonable
criterion for identifying significance for this type of test is to divide the alpha value by
the number of terms entered. In this test, there were thirteen terms; therefore, the new
alpha value was α=.05/13=.003. Because the variable’s value was well above .003, the
15
There were: 26 cases per predictor for Hypothesis 1 and 53 cases per predictor for hypotheses 3a, 3b
and 4.
167
model run as originally intended. In the case of Hypothesis 4, the violation found
referred to the interaction term of customer awareness by its log. Even though the alpha
value was readjusted following Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), the values were still
significant. On top of that, there were seven cases with ZResid values well above 2.5.
These cases were clear outliers; following recommendation in the relevant literature
(Pallant, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), these values were removed and analysis
was repeated. The new analysis did not show any violations and thus hierarchical
logistic regression analysis was conducted.
• MANOVA
The assumptions of MANOVA include: independent observation, multivariate
normality and homogeneity of variance/ covariance matrices across groups (Leech, et
al., 2008). In addition, the test requires a conceptual relation among the variables and a
moderate correlation. MANOVA has the advantage of being ‘robust to violations of
multivariate normality and to violations of homogeneity of variance/covariance matrices
if groups are of nearly equal size’, i.e. when the large group is no more than 1.5 bigger
than the small group (Leech, et al., 2008, p.171).
Preliminary assumption testing was conducted with no violations noted for Hypothesis
2a. In particular, each person’s scores were found to be independent of every other
person’s scores. Moreover, the number of cases in each cell was bigger than the
required number of cases per cell (Appendix 7-5). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) suggest
that a sample size of at least 20 cases in each cell secures ‘robustness’ of MANOVA. In
both hypotheses, 2a & 2b, the number of cases was well above 20 (i.e. 47 and 164 cases
for early and late adopters respectively). The dependent variables used in both
168
hypotheses related conceptually with each other and correlated at medium to moderate
levels satisfying MANOVAs relevant requirement (Table 7-2).
For hypothesis 2b, there were violations of the assumptions of homogeneity of
covariances and on the equality of error variances. In particular, the Box Test of
Equality of Covariance Matrices was found to be significant, implying that the
assumption of homogeneity of covariances was violated (Leech, et al., 2008). Likewise,
the Levene’s test of the equality of error variances was significant for logo use on
website, indicating violation of this assumption (Field, 2009; Leech, et al., 2008;
Pallant, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Since the two groups (i.e. early and late
adopters) were not of equal size, these violations could not be disregarded. Following
the relevant literature (Pallant, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), the variable that was
found to be significant (logo use on website) was transformed. Since the variable had a
negative skew it was square rooted and cubed (Leech, et al., 2008) to see which of the
two transformations reduces the skewness more effectively. The cube of logo use on
website proved to be more effective and was chosen as a transformation technique.
Following transformation of the variable, the test’s assumption was checked again and
this time no violation was noted.
Multivariate normality was tested for both hypotheses by calculating Mahalanobis
distance (Pallant, 2005). The latter is the distance of a particular case from the ‘point
created by the means of all variables’ (Pallant, 2005, p.250) and aims to identify cases
that follow a strange pattern of scores on the dependent variables (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). After calculating the Mahalanobis distance and comparing it with critical
169
values16 for both hypotheses 2a and 2b, no case was found to have extreme values.
Furthermore, the Box Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices was non-significant
suggesting that the assumption of homogeneity of covariances was not violated.
Likewise, the Levene’s test of equality of error variances was not significant for all
variables implying no violation (Field, 2009; Leech, et al., 2008; Pallant, 2005;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) (Appendices 7-5 & 7-6).
7.3 Results
Table 7-2 provides the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the variables used
in the analysis. No inter-factor correlation was above the recommended level of 0.70
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) indicating that multicollinearity did not seriously affect the
results. To diminish any multicollinearity threats, the variance inflation factors (VIF) of
each individual predictor were also examined. Their values ranged between 1.01 to
1.89, well below the acceptable level of 10.0, indicating the absence of multicollinearity
(Hair, et al., 1995).
Several results from the correlation table deserve particular attention. Regarding the
breadth of ICMS adoption, there was a positive significant correlation between the
percentages of certified firms and: external factors; market factors; customer awareness
and government awareness. This finding indicates that increased pressures from
external and market factors and/ or increased levels of customer and government
awareness result in increased percentages of certified firms.
16
Critical values were identified by using a critical values chi-square table, with the number of dependent
variables as degrees of freedom (df) value (Pallant, 2005).
170
Std.
Variables Mean Dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1. % of Certified Firms 2.99 1.35 1
a
2. Employees 203 494.72 .09 1
3. Services .39 .49 -.17* -.05 1
4. Commerce .31 .46 .11 -.09 .53** 1
5. Manufacture .31 .49 .05 .11 -.51** -.42** 1
6. External Factors 3.38 1.02 .25** .03 .01 -.01 -.00 1
7. Internal Factors 3.04 1.01 .10 .09 -.13 .08 .04 .34** 1
8. Market Factors 4.03 .99 .26** .07 -.07 .06 -.01 .30** .32** 1
9. CSR 3.43 1.25 -.02 .13 -.14* .07 .08 .29** .58** .18* 1
10. Customer Awareness 3.29 .93 .23** .14* -.14* .04 .08 .11 .06 .18** .10 1
11. Government Awareness 2.98 .87 .29** .10 -.09 .12 -.04 .21** .33** .19** .15* .24** 1
12. Years of ICMS 5.59 3.36 .21** .38** -.03 -.13 .13 .08 .04 .05 .01 .20** .12 1
13. Internal Audits 1.88 .73 -.00 .13 .09 -.14* .07 .18** .10 .09 .19** .08 -.02 .11 1
14. Major-non-conformances 2.12 1.13 .02 -.15* -.11 -.01 .11 -.04 -.00 -.08 -.04 -.04 -.15* -.17* -.14* 1
15. Daily use of Documents 4.00 .97 .14* .11 -.12 .03 .06 .31** .18* .13 .15* .50** .19** .25** -.02 -.04 1
16. Content Change 1.93 .99 -.00 -.14* -.12 .11 .02 -.08 .04 .05 -.01 -.07 -.09 -.25** -.16* .28** -.24** 1
17. Logo Web-site 3.28 1.67 .02 .13 .03 -.15* .09 -.01 .08 .03 .09 .13 -.02 .23** .12 .03 .09 .09 1
18. Logo on Documents 4.09 1.29 -.08 -.24** .11 -.08 -.03 .00 .08 -.00 .04 -.05 .07 -.08 .07 -.07 .06 .04 .40** 1
19. Logo on Products 2.98 1.73 .03 -.04 .07 -.12 .04 .03 .09 .09 .08 .01 .09 .08 .12 -.06 .11 .22** .44** .40** 1
20. Sanctions 4.36 .79 .16* .18** -.07 -.02 .08 .29** .29** .32** .30** .25** .19** .02 .01 .05 .30** .03 .07 .05 .02 1
21. Regulatory Framework 4.51 .50 .00 .03 .13 -.25** .12 -.16* -.23** -.04 -.18* -.20** -.12 .02 -.00 -.03 -.12 -.02 .03 .09 -.02 -.06 1
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two tailed).
a
Mean and standard deviation values for employees are reported before log transformation for better interpretability.
Table 7-2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis (n= 211)
171
With reference to the depth of ICMS adoption, there was a positive relationship
between years of ICMS implementation and: daily use of documents and the logo on the
website. This result implies that the more years the firm applies an ICMS the more it is
likely to use the ICMS documents on a daily basis and the ICMS logo on its website. In
addition, the findings indicate that there was a significant negative relationship between
the years of ICMS implementation and: number of major-non-conformances and content
change. This result suggests that the more years the firm applies a standard the less
major-non-conformances it is likely to have; also, it is less likely to attempt to change
the content of the ICMS documents prior to external audits.
Regarding the context of ICMS adoption, the correlation table shows that the number of
major-non-conformances positively and significantly related to content change. This
indicates that the more MNCs the firm has, the more it can be expected to attempt to
change the content of the ICMS documents prior to external audits. Also, the table
above illustrates that there was a negative correlation between the number of MNCs and
government awareness. This indicates that greater government awareness of ICMS
implementation may result in a decrease of the number of MNCs that firms allow
themselves to have. In addition, there was positive and significant correlation between
the daily use of documents and: customer awareness; government awareness and
sanctions. These correlations imply that the company tends to use more the ICMS
documents on a daily basis when customer and government show greater awareness of
ICMS implementation and when there are increased sanctions for non-compliance to
ICMS requirements.
172
Table 7-3 shows the results of logistic regression analysis with respect to the breadth
and context of ICMS implementation while the findings from MANOVA regarding the
depth of ICMS adoption are presented in Table 7-4.
Hypothesis 1 stated that ICMS diffusion is based on other reasons than their potential to
improve CSR. The results from logistic regression supported this hypothesis. There was
a good model fit on the basis of the two control variables alone, x2 (8, N=211) = 8.32,
p= .40. However, the model with these two predictors was not significant: x2(3, N= 211)
= 6.43, p >.05, implying that the combination of number of employees and industry did
not predict significant or insignificant percentages of certified firms.
After the addition of the six independent variables (Table 7-1), the model considerably
improved and was statistically significant: x2(9, N= 211) = 32.18, p<.0001, indicating
that these predictors, as a set, reliably distinguish between significant and insignificant
certification percentages. The model was able to classify 90% of the firms that indicated
significant percentages and 35% of those that indicated insignificant percentages, for an
overall success rate of 72%. The overall classification of the model is satisfactory.
Model 1, presented in Table 7-3, shows that of all predictors commerce [x2(1, N=211) =
3.94, p<.05], external factors [x2(1, N=211) = 6.35, p<.05], market factors [x2(1,
N=211) = 4.43, p<.05] and government awareness [x2(1, N=211) = 5.58, p<.05],
reliably predicted significant percentages of certified firms. Further details on the
logistic regression for the breadth of ICMS adoption can be found in Appendix 7-4.
173
Breadth of ICMS Adoption Context of ICMS Adoption
Model 1 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

(Hypothesis 1) (Hypothesis 3a) (Hypothesis 3b) (Hypothesis 4)
Variables B Wald p Odds B Wald p Odds B Wald p Odds B Wald p Odds
ratio ratio ratio ratio
Constant -3.47 11.47 .00** .03 1.09 .43 .51 2.98 3.15 3.52 .06 23.33 -5.02 20.69 .00** .01
External Factors .45 6.35 .01** 1.57
Internal Factors -.28 1.62 .20 .76
Market Factors .36 4.43 .03* 1.43
CSR -.16 .92 .34 .85
Customer Awareness .16 .84 .36 1.18 1.39 26.20 .00** 4.03
Government Awareness .50 5.58 .02* 1.64 .38 2.35 .13 1.45
Sanctions .15 .67 .41 1.17 -.16 .68 .41 .85
Regulatory Framework -.13 .18 .68 .88 -.32 1.17 .28 .72
Control Variables
Employees .10 .97 .32 1.11 -.23 5.64 .02* .80 -.07 .52 .47 .94 .33 5.54 .02* 1.39
Industry (Services) - 3.94 .14 - - 7.10 .03* - - 3.66 .16 - - .52 .77 -
Industry (Commerce) .79 3.94 .05* 2.20 .12 .11 .74 1.13 -.58 2.71 .10 .56 -.17 .13 .72 .84
Industry (Manufacture) .32 .69 .41 1.38 .98 6.59 .01** 2.66 .06 .03 .88 1.06 -.36 .52 .47 .70
Log-likelihood 234.55 261.96 271.70 162.65

Model chi-square 32.18** 12.66* 5.22 52.63**
2
Cox & Snell R .14 .06 .02 .23
2
Nagelkerke R .20 .08 .03 .35
Number of cases 211 211 211 204
Notes: **p≤0.01; *p<0.05
Table 7-3: Logistic Regression Analysis for Breadth and Context of ICMS Adoption
174
7.3.2 Depth of ICMS Adoption
Hypothesis 2a conjectured that late adopters of ICMS tend to implement them
symbolically rather than using them to improve their performance in terms of corporate
social responsibility. The findings supported this hypothesis as the MANOVA produced
a significant difference between early and late adopters on the combined dependent
variables: Wilk’s Λ = .93, F (4,204) = 3.7, p =.01, partial η2 = .06817. According to
Cohen (1988), the partial η2 found in this study represents a medium or typical effect
size, suggesting a medium difference between levels of the independent variable with
respect to dependent variables.
The evidence provided in Model 2 (Table IV) suggests that there is some difference
between the two groups. Late adopters tend to have more than one MNCs (M=2.21
SD=1.16) while early adopters tend not to have any (M=1.87 SD=1.01). This evidence
indicates that late adopters do not conform to at least one major requirement of ICMS
while early adopters tend to conform to all standards’ major requirements. Also, late
adopters tend to change the content of documents prior to external audits (M=3.96,
SD=.89) whereas early adopters tend not to do so (M=4.38 SD=.68). This evidence
indicates that late adopters, in contrast to early adopters, tend to present to external
auditors a touched up picture of the implementation of ICMS. Also, early adopters use
the standard’s documents on a daily basis to a greater extent (M=1.55, SD=.83) than
late adopters (M=2.06, SD=1.02) (Model 2, Table 7-4). This implies that the former
have integrated ICMS in their operations in a more profound manner than the latter.
17
To calculate the effect size, one has to calculate the square root of the partial eta squared (Leech et al.,
2008). In this case the effect size is η = .26.
175
Depth of ICMS Adoption
Model 2 Model 3
(Hypothesis 2a) (Hypothesis 2b)
Early Late Early Late
F F
Adopters Adopters P Adopters Adopters P
(1,207) (1,207)
Variable (N=47) (N=164) (N=47) (N=164)
Internal 2.00 1.79 2.81 .09

Audits (.77) (.68)
Major-non- 1.87 2.21 3.96 .05*
conformances (1.01) (1.16)
Daily use of 1.55 2.06 6.95
ICMS (.83) (1.02) .01**
Documents
Content Change 4.38 3.96 8.69 .00**
of ICMS (.68) (.89)
Documents
ICMS Logo on 3.36a 3.27 .04 .84
Website (1.90) (1.61)
ICMS Logo on 3.68 4.20 1.00 .32
Documents (1.45) (1.23)
ICMS Logo on 2.87 3.06 .02 .90
Products (1.74) (1.73)
Notes: Standard deviations in brackets

**p≤0.01; *p<0.05.
a
Mean and standard deviation values for ICMS logo on website are reported before cubic transformation for better
interpretability
Table 7-4: Means, Standard Deviations and Univariate ANOVAs for Early and
Late Adopters on Indicators of Depth of ICMS Adoption
Hypothesis 2b stated that late adopters use the standards’ logo for signalling purposes
while early adopters do not. The results did not support the hypothesis as the MANOVA
has failed to produce any significant difference between early and late adopters on the
combined dependent variables: Wilk’s Λ = .99, F (3,205) = .90, p =.44, partial η2= .001.
An inspection of the means of the scores (Model 3, Table 7-4) revealed that late
adopters reported slightly less years of using the standards’ logo on their website
(M=3.27, SD=1.61) than early adopters (M=3.37, SD=1.90). Also, late adopters stated
somewhat higher levels of using the logo on their documents (M=4.20, SD=1.23) than
early adopters (M=3.68 SD=1.45). Finally, late adopters reported slightly higher levels
of using the standards’ logo on their products (M=3.06, SD=1.73) than early adopters
176
(M=2.87, SD=1.74). Further details in the MANOVA results for the depth of ICMS
adoption can be found in Appendices 7-5 & 7-6.
7.3.3 Context of ICMS Adoption
Hypothesis 3a asserted that the number of major-non-conformances (MNCs) is
influenced by the strictness of the regulatory framework and the sanctions applied in the
case of non-compliance to the standard’s requirements. The logistic regression findings
did not support the hypothesis. When the two control variables were considered
together, there was a good model fit: x2 (8, N=211) = 6.55, p=.59. Likewise, the model
with these two predictors was significant: x2(3, N= 211) = 11.78, p=.01, implying that
the combination of employees and industry predicts the presence of MNCs.
Following the addition of sanctions and regulatory framework (Table 7-1), the model
considerably improved and was statistically significant: x2(5, N= 211) = 12.66, p=.03,
implying that these predictors, as a set, reliably distinguish between existence or not of
major-non-conformances. The model was able to classify 93% of the firms that
indicated significant percentages and 13% of those indicated insignificant percentages,
for an overall success rate of 65%.This is a highly satisfactory result as far as the
presence of MNCs is concerned. Regarding the absence of MNCs, the model did not do
so well. Similarly, its overall success rate was unimpressive. Model 4 (Table 7-3)
illustrates that of all predictors, only number of employees [x2(1, N=211) = 5.64, p=.02],
services [x2(1, N=211) = 7.10, p=.03] and manufacture [x2(1, N=211) = 6.59, p=.01]
reliably predicted the presence of MNCs. Sanctions and strictness of regulatory
framework did not predict the presence of MNCs.
177
Hypothesis 3b contended that the use of ICMS logo on the firm’s products is influenced
by the strictness of regulatory framework and the sanctions following non-compliance
to the standard’s requirements. The results from logistic regression did not support the
hypothesis (Model 5, Table 7-3). During the initial stage of analysis, number of
employees and industry were entered as control variables. There was no good fit of the
model and none of the variables were significant predictors of whether or not the
company uses the logo on its products. Likewise, the model with these two predictors
was not significant: x2(3, N= 211) = 3.45, p=.33, implying that the combination of
employees and industry does not predict the use of logo on products. As the next step,
sanctions and strictness of regulatory framework were added to the model to see if they
were going to improve prediction. They did not do so; there was not a good model fit
and the model remained non-significant: x2(5, N= 211) = 5.22, p=.39. This indicates
that these predictors, as a set, do not distinguish reliably between the use and non-use of
logo on products.
Hypothesis 4 suggested that stakeholder awareness influences the way companies apply
ICMS. The logistic regression findings partially supported this hypothesis. There was a
good model fit on the basis of the two control variables alone, x2 (8, N=204) = 1.72,
p=.98. Also, the model with these two predictors was significant: x2(3, N= 204) = 10.69,
p=.01, indicating that the combination of employees and industry significantly predicts
daily use of documents.
After the addition of the two independent variables (i.e. customer awareness and
government awareness), the model improved considerably and was statistically
significant with x2(5, N= 204) = 52.63, p<.0001. This indicates that customer awareness
178
and government awareness as a set reliably distinguish between the use and non-use of
documents. The model was able to classify 91% of the firms that indicated daily use of
documents and 29% of those indicated non-use of documents, for a satisfactory overall
success rate of 78 %. Model 6, presented in Table 7-3, illustrates that of all predictors
employees [x2(1, N=204) = 5.54, p=.02] and customer awareness [x2(1, N=204) =
26.20, p<.000], reliably predicted daily use of documents. Further details in the logistic
regression results for the context of ICMS adoption can be found in Appendices 7-8; 7-
10; & 7-12.
7.4 Conclusions
To test the hypotheses developed in Chapter 3, this study employed both differential
and associational inferential statistics. Regarding the breadth of ICMS adoption
(Hypothesis 1), the results lend support to the view that these standards have diffused
due to pressures coming from the market and the government, and not because they
assist companies in improving their social and economic performance. This finding is in
accordance with the results of the descriptive statistics presented in the previous
chapter. Hence, hypothesis 1 has been confirmed in that the wide diffusion of some
CSR tools, like ICMS, has not taken place due to their potential in changing the
companies’ CSR performance but due to the fact that the market and the government
provide a backing for such tools.
The hypotheses pertaining to the depth of ICMS adoption (Hypotheses 2a and 2b)
examine differences in the way early and late adopters implement ICMS, and in the way
these two groups use the logo of these standards. Regarding implementation, a
difference was found in the way early and late adopters applied ICMS with the former
179
being more likely to implement ICMS substantially. This difference is further supported
by the descriptive statistics presented in the previous chapter where it was found that
early adopters tend to be more interested in dealing with their social responsibilities as
they tend to apply these standards substantially.
As for the use of ICMS logo, no differences were found in the way early and late
adopters used it as both groups employed certification for signalling reasons. This may
be interpreted as evidence that companies tend to employ the ICMS logo as a means of
declaring the application of socially and environmentally responsible practices.
Qualitative analysis will shed further light onto this topic.
The hypotheses related to the context of ICMS adoption (Hypotheses 3a; 3b and 4)
evaluate the influence of sanctions, regulatory framework and stakeholder awareness on
firms’ behaviour towards ICMS. Hypotheses 3a and 3b focused on two major aspects of
ICMS implementation: major-non-conformances and use of ICMS logo on products.
Interestingly, no evidence was found regarding the influence of sanctions and regulatory
framework on firm’s behaviour towards ICMS. Although firms recognized the
importance of sanctions, they often succeeded in behaving in a way that clearly violated
the assumptions built into the use of ICMS, i.e. they had major-non-conformances and
used the ICMS logo on their products. This might imply a problem in the way ICMS
implementation is monitored. A plausible explanation to the lack of significant relation
could be attributed a) to inefficiency of monitoring mechanisms on behalf of the
certification bodies or b) to poor audit quality of ICMS.
180
Finally, the fourth hypothesis deals with evaluating stakeholders’ influence on the way
firms adopt ICMS. The results indicate that the way companies apply management
standards is influenced by customers, but not by the government. This emphasises the
significance of the influence of the market on ICMS implementation. In addition, the
lack of significant relation between government awareness and the way firms
implement ICMS may suggest that government’s awareness on the topic is limited. The
results from qualitative analysis will shed further light in to this topic. Table 7-5
summarizes the hypotheses’ testing results.
181
Research
Hypothesis Description Aim Result
Question
ICMS diffuse in ICMS have diffused due
Why Evaluate the
Breadth a bandwagon to market and
companies reasons behind Hypothesis
of ICMS 1 way and are not government and not as
adopt ICMS Supported
Adoption motivated by means of improving
ICMS? diffusion
efficiency gains firms’ CSR performance
Analyse the
differences
Late adopters of
between early
ICMS are more
and late Late adopters tend to Hypothesis
2a likely to
adopters in the apply ICMS symbolically Supported
implement them
way they
symbolically
How implement
Depth of companies ICMS
ICMS implement Late adopters Analyse the
Adoption ICMS? will use the differences
standards’ logo between early Both early and late
Hypothesis
on their products, and late adopters use the ICMS
2b Not
documents and adopters in the logo for signalling
Supported
web-site for way they use purposes
signalling the ICMS’
purposes logo
Major non-
conformances
Hypothesis
positively relate
3a, Not
to weak
Supported
regulation and
sanctions
Evaluate the
influence of
The disallowed sanctions and Sanctions and regulatory
use of the regulatory framework do not
standard’s logo framework in influence the way
on company’s the way firms companies treat ICMS
In which products is
Context of implement
context influenced by the Hypothesis
ICMS ICMS
firms adopt 3b strictness of the Not
Adoption ICMS? regulatory Supported
framework and
the significance
of sanctions in
case of non-
compliance
Only customers influence
Analyse the
The way firms ICMS adoption by firms.
influence of
apply the Government does not Hypothesis
customers and
4 standard depends play a significant role in Partially
government in
on stakeholders’ the way companies Supported
the way firms
awareness implement these
adopt ICMS
standards
Table 7-5: Summary of Hypotheses-testing Results
182
Chapter 8: Qualitative Analysis
8 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
8.1 Introduction
Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?
Polonius: By the mass, and ’tis like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Methink it is like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or like a whale?
Polonius: Very like a whale.
(Shakespeare, Hamlet, act 3, scene 2 cited in Fontana & Frey, 2005)
Qualitative research is fundamentally interpretive; the researcher makes an
interpretation of the data ‘through a personal lens that is situated in a particular socio-
political and historical moment’ (Creswell, 2003, p. 182). As Bryman and Bell argue,
‘qualitative research embodies a view of social reality as a constantly shifting emergent
property of individuals’ creation’ (Bryman and Bell, 2007, p.28).
This type of inquiry employs different methods of data collection and analysis in
comparison with quantitative research. Instead of using inanimate instruments of data
collection, qualitative analysis uses the researcher as the main means of data gathering
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Moreover, the data that emerge from qualitative research are
descriptive; in contrast to quantitative analysis, data are reported in words rather than
numbers (Miles & Huberman, 1994). At large, qualitative research is mostly
exploratory and may offer a more nuanced understanding of the patterns revealed by the
quantitative data (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
183
This study uses qualitative analysis in order to gain an in-depth knowledge of the issues
identified by the survey. Moreover, qualitative analysis aims at increasing the validity
of the descriptive and inferential statistics’ results. In particular, the cross-checking of
the quantitative and qualitative results verifies the propositions made in the previous
chapters and enhances the credibility of the survey findings.
This chapter is structured in three parts. First, it explains the purpose of qualitative
analysis and the approach followed for analysing the interview data. Next, the chapter
discusses the findings of the interviews on the breadth, depth and context of ICMS
adoption while the third section of the chapter presents the relevant conclusions.
8.2 Data Analysis
8.2.1 Purpose of the analysis
Analysis of qualitative data usually follows an inductive process during which the data
are used for theory building (Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009). In this study, however,
qualitative analysis was used differently. Because a list of a priori themes had emerged
during quantitative research, the analysis of qualitative data was mostly based on a
deductive process. More specifically, the quantitative analysis pointed towards certain
theoretical propositions on the breadth, depth and context of ICMS adoption:
• Breadth of ICMS adoption: Companies adopt ICMS due to external factors and
not due to the potential of these standards to improve the firm’s CSR
performance;
• Depth of ICMS adoption: There is a difference between early and late adopters
in the way they apply ICMS. Companies that adopted ICMS prior to their wide
diffusion tend to apply them more substantially than firms which adopted them
184
at later stages. However, both groups of firms use the ICMS logo for signalling
purposes to declare application of CSR practices;
• Context of ICMS adoption: The way companies use ICMS is not influenced by
sanctions or the regulatory framework. Rather it is influenced by customer
awareness on the topic; the government plays a role in promoting ICMS as CSR
tools but it does not seem to play any role in the way the firm adopts an ICMS.
These propositions offered an explanatory framework of why, how and in which context
firms use ICMS. However, to enhance the validity of this framework and its explanatory
power, further exploration was necessary. Accordingly, qualitative analysis was used to
test existing propositions rather than develop a new theory.
8.2.2 Companies interviewed
As it was mentioned in Chapter 5, 18 interviews were conducted with companies’ CEOs
or General Managers. Although the profile of the interviewed companies was illustrated
earlier in Chapter 5 (§ 5.6.1), it is appropriate to repeat this information enhanced with
some additional data. The sample of firms included five small firms, eight medium and
five large companies representing manufacturing (five firms), the service sector (nine
firms) and commerce (four firms). Some over-representativeness of the service firms
(50%) and an under-representativeness of the trade sector in the interview sample
should be attributed to the fact, first, that the sample was randomly selected (see Figure
5-3) and, second, that the service sector was the most prevalent sector in the survey
sample reflecting its dominant position in the Greek economy (NSSG, 2008).
Furthermore, of the sample firms six were early adopters of ICMS, applying
management standards for more than ten years, and 12 were late adopters.
185
Turnover Years of ICMS

Company Interviewee Employees Established Certifications Industry Sector
(in millions £) implementation
A (medium company) General Manager 206 224.9 1974 6 years ISO9001, ISO14001, EMAS Manufacturing
B (large company) General Manager 3,000 417.56 1899 12 years ISO9001, ISO14001 Services
C (small company) General Manager 24 n/a 2002 3 years ISO9001, ISO14001 Services
D (large company) General Manager 700 1,288.26 1996 4 years ISO9001, ISO14001 Services
E (medium company) General Manager 75 30.20 1967 6 years ISO9001, ISO22000 Commerce
ISO9001, ISO14001,
F (medium company) General Manager 124 10.92 1978 5 years Commerce
OHSAS18001
ISO9001, ISO14001, EMAS,
G (small company) General Manager 28 1.2 1977 12 years Services
OHSAS18001
ISO9001, ISO14001,
H (small company) General Manager 24 n/a 2001 6 years Commerce
OHSAS18001
I (large company) General Manager 2,275 354.78 1973 7 years ISO9001, ISO14001 Manufacturing
J (large company) CEO 509 25.87 1874 11 years ISO9001, ISO22000 Services
ISO9001, ISO14001,
K (medium company) CEO 310 305.48 1954 7 years Commerce
OHSAS18001
L (medium company) General Manager 150 21.43 1967 5 years ISO9001, ISO14001, ISO17025 Manufacturing
M (small company) General Manager 25 9.39 2002 6 years ISO9001, ISO14001, ISO27001 Services
N (medium company) General Manager 80 n/a 1933 11 years ISO9001, ISO14001 Services
O (medium company) CEO 265 65.07 1932 15 years Manufacturing
OHSAS18001
P (small company) General Manager 11 n/a 1995 6 years ISO9001, ISO14001 Services
ISO9001, OHSAS18001,
Q (medium company) General Manager 200 23.82 1955 8 years Manufacturing
ISO22000,
R (large company) CEO 2,641 1,309.22 1992 14 years Services
OHSAS18001, ISO27001
Table 8-1: Profile of Interviewed Firms
186
8.2.3 Approach
Data analysis followed an iterative process with two main phases. In the first phase, all
interview recordings were listened to and the parts of interviews that were deemed
interesting and useful were transcribed. Each interview was listened to twice to secure
that all important issues were put onto paper. The texts were checked for accuracy and
where necessary cleaned from any errors occurred during the transcription process.
Transcribed data were saved in a word-processed file using filenames that maintained
confidentiality and preserved anonymity of interviewees whilst allowing easy
identification of each interview.
To facilitate the management of the data, the study employed the QSR NUD*IST Vivo
(NVivo) software. This is a software package for the management and analysis of
qualitative data that provides an online environment for organizing and handling data,
notes and ideas. NVivo is one of qualitative analysis tools most widely used by
scholars. It was chosen because it allows researchers to code text while working at the
computer and to easily retrieve the coded text (Bryman & Bell, 2007). These features
enabled the researcher to better organize the transcribed text and get a clearer view on
interviewees’ responses.
The second phase of the data analysis aimed at tracking information on the breadth,
depth and context of ICMS adoption. To do so, the transcribed texts were systematically
studied. The first reading of the transcript of each interview was undertaken with the
recording of each interview running. This helped the researcher to focus on emphasis,
mood, and intonation. Analysis proceeded in an iterative way by reading and rereading
the interview transcripts several times to form a comprehensive image of the data.
187
During this phase, quotes in the interview texts, that unveiled information on the three
areas of interest, were marked and marginal notes on the transcribed text were taken by
the researcher (memos). As the reading progressed, these memos were refined into
codes. Coding is the process of organizing data into ‘chunks’ and it involves
segmenting sentences into categories and labelling those categories with a term
(Creswell, 2003). To assist the coding procedure, free nodes were used; this enabled the
researcher to include all quotes on a certain topic from all interviews combined.
Bringing data from many documents together in the same node was significantly
important as it enabled the researcher to analyse more effectively the interview texts and
focus each time on the topic of interest.
The terms used to label the categories identified in the interview texts were derived
from the interview themes mentioned in the methodology chapter (§ 5.6.2) and referred
to the following topics:
• Motives for adopting ICMS (Breadth of adoption);
• Use of ICMS (Depth of adoption);
• Use of ICMS logo (Depth of adoption);
• Influence of regulation and sanctions on ICMS implementation (Context of
adoption);
• Stakeholders’ awareness of ICMS and CSR (Context of adoption).
Despite the fact that the initial readings provided clear indications regarding interviews
answers, the researcher did further readings of the transcripts to gain a deeper
understanding of the data. Qualitative analysis ended with the identification of several
188
explanations that were then translated into 5 findings regarding why firms adopt ICMS,
how they use these standards and in which context.
8.2.4 Preliminary analysis
Preliminary analysis was conducted to get a first glimpse on respondents’ replies. To do
so, word lists and the Key Words in Context (KWIC) technique were used. These
approaches draw on a simple observation: if you want to comprehend what people are
talking about, look closely at the words they use (Bernard & Ryan, 2010; Ryan &
Bernard, 2003).
During the reading of the interview texts it became immediately evident that certain
words were repeated more frequently than others. This repetition drew the attention of
the researcher as he had in mind that words that occur a lot can be seen as being salient
in the minds of respondents (Ryan & Bernard, 2003).
Using the word frequency query function of NVivo, it was possible to identify the
words that appeared more frequently in the interview texts. The word ‘state’ appeared
172 times making the researcher believe that state is a prevalent concept in the
implementation of ICMS. The word ‘customers’ appeared 130 times in the interview
texts suggesting that customers as a particular category of stakeholders might also be an
important aspect of ICMS. Other very frequent words were ‘company’ and ‘market’
which were used 100 and 82 times respectively. Again these frequent uses suggested
that these concepts might also play a significant role in the topics under investigation.
Another word that drew the attention of the researcher was the word ‘honorary’ as it
was only used 1 time. Table 8-2, depicts key words frequently (or less frequently) used
189
by interviewees. The frequent use of certain words indicate that the concepts these
words describe are important, recurring themes related to the breadth, depth and context
of ICMS implementation.
Word Count
state 172
customers 130
company 100
market 82
logo 79
informed 70
monitoring 63
profile 58
audits/ auditors 58
certification/ certificate/ certify 50
fines/ sanctions 46
awareness/ aware 43
requirement 40
competition/ competitors 37
enhance/ improve 35
supply 34
projects 34
financial 30
problems/ problematic 30
procedures 29
credibility 26
financial 24
documents 23
website 23
operations 22
boycotts/ picketing 22
tools 22
employees 20
certification 18
ESYD 18
reputation 17
marketing 17
absent 15
substantial 15
impediment 14
compliance 13
integrated/ integration 12
house 10
honorary 1
Table 8-2: Key Words
190
Due to the fact that concentrated data such as word lists and counts take words out of
their original context (Bernard & Ryan, 2010; Ryan & Bernard, 2003), a Key Words in
Context (KWIC) approach was also employed with the aid of NVivo. This technique
requires that the researcher identifies key words or phrases and then systematically
searches the body of text to find all instances of each key word or phrase. Using the key
words previously mentioned the texts of the interviews were searched to identify the
key phrases. Then, with the aid of text search query function of NVivo, all instances of
the application of these phrases in the texts were identified. Table 8-3 illustrates the
procedure with examples of how the key words illustrated previously (Table 8-2) were
used by respondents. In addition, some phrases are also included in this table for
information.
Breadth Depth Context

Company/
Sector Use of ICMS Sanctions & Stakeholder
Motives Use of ICMS
logo Regulation Awareness
A • To comply • Bureaucratic • The logo is a • Problems due • The state is
(medium with state procedures marketing tool to commercial impediment
company)/ legislation • ICMS have • Reputation relationships • The state isn’t
Manufacturing • To participate limited benefits enhancement • Problems due informed
in public • We prefer in- to
projects house systems insignificant
• We force our fines
suppliers
through supply
chain
B • To improve • Customer focused • We don’t use • More often • Consumers are
(large our operations • Created new the logo so audits are knowledgeable
company)/ • To improve procedures much needed • The state is
Services our financial • Monitoring of our • Certification is • Problematic somehow
performance operations an honorary title monitoring informed
C • ICMS are • Internal tools • We use the logo • ESYD lacks • The state is
(small market’s • Integration is on our website knowledge absent
company)/ requirement needed to see and documents • Public • Customers are
Services • Supply chain results • Logo brings employees partially
credibility and aren’t informed
enhances our informed
reputation
D • ICMS are a • ICMS • ICMS logo is a • The state is • The state puts
(large market’s implementation communication absent obstacles
company)/ requirement takes time mechanism • There are
Services • Participation • ICMS require • We use it on our problems due
in public substantial website and on to infrequent
projects changes our CSR reports audits
• ICMS grant
accountability
191
E • The market • Secure compliance • The logo is a • Not fair • The state isn’t
(medium requires with the state’s means of imposition of aware
company)/ certification laws communication fines • Customers
Commerce by certain • Important tools • The certification • The might punish a
standards logo is a means framework is company
• Supply chain of marketing lax through boycotts
& picketing
F • To operate in • Tools that entails • Logo on • There is a • The state isn’t
(medium Greek market bureaucratic documents, need to secure informed
company)/ • Certification procedures website the free • Customers are
Commerce was • ICMS increase red • It improved our operation of aware
customers’ tape profile and the market
requirement • We prefer in- reputation
• Supply chain house systems
G • Participation • ICMS are • We put the logo • Certification • Customers are
(small in public significant tools on our bodies are partially aware
company)/ projects • ICMS require documents, and problematic • Customers
Services • Supply chain continuous website • The state might boycott
improvement • It is a proof of lacks • The state is
credible knowledge absent
performance
H • To improve • We integrated • Logo on • Auditors • The state lacks
(small our finances ICMS into our documents, follow a knowledge
company)/ • To improve operations website, personal • The state
Commerce our operations • ICMS need time informative approach doesn’t care
• To be able to • ICMS require material • Auditors • Customers pay
participate in substantial • ICMS aren’t well some attention
public projects changes certification trained
grants • Problems due
recognition and to infrequent
enhances the or no auditor
firm’s profile visits
I • The market • ICMS are • Logo on • ESYD • The state is

(large demands marketing tools website, employees absent and not
company)/ certification • ICMS ensure documents aren’t informed
Manufacturing • Supply chain customer benefits • The logos knowledgeabl • Customers are
• External audits improved the e aware
prove ICMS company’s • Boycotts &
implementation profile picketing are
customers’
weapons
J • The Greek • ICMS entail • We put the • ICMS • The state isn’t
(large market asks substantial logos on the monitoring is interested
company)/ for ICMS benefits company’s lax • The state pays
Services • We satisfy ICMS website, • Civil lip service
requirements documents employees
lack
knowledge
K • Competitors • ICMS increase red • We use the • The current • The state is
(medium were certified tape in a company logos on our mechanism is irresponsible
company)/ website problematic • Customers are
Commerce • Our profile got • Stricter audits partially
improved are needed informed
• Customers have
power
L • ICMS are • We cover ICMS • Logo on website • ESYD • Customer
(medium market’s requirements • The logo employees awareness
company)/ requirement • ICMS use is enhanced our lack increases
192
Manufacturing • Competition proved by profile knowledge • The state pays

demanded to certification lip service
be certified
M • To improve • ICMS have • We use the • Not fair • Customers are

(small the company’s economic benefits ICMS logos on imposition of informed
company)/ finances • Annual external our website, fines • The state isn’t
Services • To enhance audits secure documents and aware
the company’s compliance to brochures
operations ICMS
• Supply chain
N • Market • Monitoring the • Logo offers • Market knows • Boycotts and
(medium requirement company’s differentiation better picketing can
company)/ • The main operations from • The state is threaten a firm’s
Services competition is • Organize activities competitors absent survival
certified • Reputation • The state is not
improvement well informed
O • In order to • ICMS require • We put the logo • Auditors • The state lacks
(medium improve our substantial on the aren’t well awareness
company)/ operations changes company’s trained • Customers are
Manufacturing • To • We monitor our documents, • Lax partially
differentiate activities website, monitoring informed
from • We have set brochures and creates • Picketing is a
competitors objectives, targets packages competition strong weapon
• Supply chain and indicators problems
P • Participation • ICMS are • We use the logo • ICMS audit is • The state is not
(small in public important tools on our website typical informed
company)/ projects • ICMS • Our profile • Once per year • Customers
Services • ICMS significantly enhanced audits are aren’t informed
certification improve business mostly a
was market’s operations window-
requirement dressing
Q • The market • Partial use of • Logo on • Problems due • Customer is
(medium demanded ICMS website, to typical everything
company)/ certification • Only when needed packages audits • Customers
Manufacturing • Our company • Our reputation • No actual might boycott a
got certified to improved auditing firm
participate in • The state’s
public operation is
projects problematic
• The state is not
informed
R • Market • Substantial use of • We put the • There is a • Customer
(large requirement ICMS certification clear need for awareness raises
company)/ • Supply chain • We have set logos on our a better • The state isn’t
Services objectives, targets, documents, structured informed
indicators website, market
• Frequent audits brochures, • No significant
reports audits are
• Profile performed
improvement
Table 8-3: Examples of how Key Words were used in Interview Texts
193
The interviews allowed making some initial observations during the preliminary
analysis. It became evident that irrespective of the size of the firm or the industry it
belongs to, comments given by interviewees regarding the use of ICMS logo indicated
that almost all firms systematically abused the rules regulating such use. Only one firm
was an exemption, a large services company, the manager of which stated that they do
not use the logo to promote ICMS certification. Similarly, it was noticeable that
respondents’ replies regarding the regulatory framework underlying ICMS
implementation and the sanctions in case of non-compliance to ICMS requirements
were revealing a problematic situation and a need for a more efficient market structure.
In addition, it appeared from the transcripts that the state lacked awareness whereas
customers were somehow better informed.
Regarding firms’ motives to adopt ICMS and how ICMS were used, respondents’
replies were influenced by firm size and industry affiliation. Market pressures presented
itself as the most important single motive for all firms irrespective of size and industry.
At the same time reaction to other motives varied. For instance, the second most
important motive for large and small companies was public projects whereas for
medium sized firms it was supply chain. With reference to the industry sector, it was
noticed that for the service sector the most important motive was market requirement,
for manufacturing supply chain and for commerce market requirement and public
projects. Table 8-4 illustrates these observations.
194
Firm Size Motives Industry Motives

1. Market requirement 1. Market requirement
Large 1. Public projects Services 2. Projects
2. Business case 3. Supply
4. Business case
5. Competition
1. Market requirement 1. Supply
Medium 2. Supply Manufacturing 2. Competition
3. Public projects, 3. Public projects
Competition 4. Market requirement
1. Market requirement 1. Market requirement,
Small Commerce Public projects
2. Public projects 2. Supply
3. Supply 3. Business case,
4. Business case Competition
Table 8-4: Firm Size – Industry Sector - Motives
With reference to the use of ICMS, four out of five large firms maintained that they
used the standards in their operations. The relevant rate for medium firms was three out
of eight, whereas for small firms it was two out of five. Some differences were also
evident between industries. Six out of nine service firms replied that they use ICMS
whereas the relevant rate for manufacturing was two out of five and for the commerce
sector it was one out of four. Table 8-5 presents these results.
Firm Size Use of ICMS Industry Use of ICMS
Large 80% (4/5) use ICMS Services 66.6% (6/9) use ICMS
Medium 37.5% (3/8) use ICMS Manufacturing 40% (2/5) use ICMS
Small 40% (2/5) use ICMS Commerce 25% (1/4) use ICMS
Table 8-5: Firm Size – Industry Sector – Use of ICMS
195
8.3 Findings
The qualitative findings on why firms adopt ICMS verified those from quantitative
analysis. The interviews indicated that management’s primary aim in relation to ICMS
was satisfaction of market’s requirements and government’s pressures rather than
improvement of CSR performance. Interviewees revealed their motives by using
formulations such as ‘ICMS are a window-dressing’, ‘getting certified was like
satisfying a requirement’, ‘our customers demanded from us to be certified’ or
‘everyone things and expects from us to be certified’.
Focusing on the market, analysis of the interviewees’ comments unveiled that ICMS
had diffused through the supply chain. Interviewees described significant pressures
exerted by certified companies towards their non-certified suppliers to obtain an ICMS
certification. The following quote is characteristic: ‘we demand from them [the
suppliers - KI] to be certified and comply with certain criteria stemming from our
management standards…if the supplier is not certified we will stop our cooperation and
we will try to find another one’ (Company I).
Many accounts indicated that peer pressure was also important motivation for pursuing
certification. On these occasions, the adoption of a management standard was perceived
as sine qua non for accessing the market. As one manager explained, ‘accessing a
market nowadays presupposes that the company adopts the standards this market
requires. For instance, if we want to export to European countries we need to adopt
certain ICMS to demonstrate that we comply with market requirements. The companies
196
that export to these markets are certified….if we want to access these markets we also
need to adopt certain standards’ (Company L).
With reference to pressures coming from the government, two main sources could be
identified from the transcripts of the interviews: a) participation in public projects; and
b) legal requirements. These findings did not come as a surprise: participation in public
projects was a major motive for most Greek companies as these projects are usually big
and entail attractive returns. In addition, in the county of Attica (where the sample was
drawn from) there is relevant regulation forcing companies to adopt ICMS (Law
2965/2001).
Apart from the market and the government, a third driver could also be deduced from
the interview texts. A minority of respondents referred to ICMS adoption as a means for
enhancing the firm’s financial and CSR performance. This result seems to confirm the
business case approach to CSR and, in contrast with the views expressed above,
suggests that firms may not always passively respond to external factors. One
interviewee explained: ‘The certificate is a proof of applying certain actions.
Sometimes, a company may already have in place certain procedures and be very close
to a desired result [improvement of operations - KI]. In some other cases, a standard
guides the company towards how to get better. For us, it was like marrying both
factors...for us it was both…enhancing our profile and implementing substantial
changes in the way we operated’ (Company H).
The examples discussed above, along with the evidence presented in Table 8-6, show
that, in most cases, ICMS potential to improve the firm’s CSR performance does not
197
influence firms’ decision to adopt such standards. This relationship can be expressed as
follows:
Finding 1: Market and government pressures are more likely to influence firms’
decision to adopt ICMS than the business case approach.
ICMS
Exemplary quotes Company
drivers
Market ‘The leader in our sector got certified. It does not need this N
certification…it does not even need publicity to
differentiate its position. For us, this company is the
benchmark…the fact that this company got certified was a
major driver for us to also obtain ICMS certification’
‘Especially ISO9001 and ISO14001 are prerequisites for D
operating in the Greek market’
‘…if we had not had it [the certification - KI] we would R
have had problems, now that we have it, it does not mean
that we see benefits from it’
‘We cooperate with our suppliers forcing them to also O
apply ICMS’
Government ‘We got certified to be able to participate in public projects. P

For us, certification is a driving licence; it is not enough to
say that you know how to drive but you also need to have a
paper verifying your ability to drive. Our approach is that
the paper that allows you nowadays to drive is ICMS’
‘Mainly we got certified to respond to legal requirements’ A
Business case ‘We adopted an ICMS to improve both our operations and B
financial benefits. Even before getting certified we had our
own approach to CSR; the adoption of ICMS enabled us to
enhance this approach’
‘We adopted ICMS in order to enhance our profile, the way M
we operate and by extension our finances’
Table 8-6: Evidence of Firms’ Motives for Adopting ICMS
8.3.2 Depth of ICMS adoption
• Use of ICMS
Analysis of interviewees’ responses on the use of ICMS revealed discrepancies between
what participants said and what they actually did. Although managers’ remarks mainly
198
praised ICMS as CSR tools, follow-up questions regarding the actual examples of how
ICMS had been integrated in the everyday activities of their firms revealed a different
picture. Most comments failed to verify a link between action and discourse and
revealed a superficial approach to ICMS with no serious attempts on behalf of
management to apply the standards substantially. Only a few ‘early adopters’ of
standards could provide convincing evidence of substantial implementation. In these
cases the application of ICMS had been integrated in the firm’s everyday activities
through daily monitoring of ICMS implementation; executive meetings during which
the adoption of ICMS was discussed; setting and monitoring of annual targets,
objectives and indicators regarding ICMS implementation; customer satisfaction and
supplier evaluation; corrective and preventive actions regarding ICMS adoption, etc.
These firms clearly regarded the adoption of an ICMS as an ongoing process. As one
interviewee explained: ‘the firm cannot completely comply with all requirements…the
adoption of an ICMS is an ongoing procedure. There are some [requirements - KI] that
are very general and are applicable to all processes in the company; these requirements
demand big and time consuming changes and cannot take place overnight…’ (Company
H).
In some comments ICMS were presented as an unnecessary exercise that does not assist
firms but instead increases red-tape, complicates business operations and leads to delays
in the firm’s production. For instance, one interviewee explained: ‘OK…to be
honest…standards help pacify customers’ concerns…when they see a certification…it
is like a recognition…because I am a technocrat and I am interested in getting to the
essence of things…the truth is that ICMS are very bureaucratic…we have to adopt them
to play the game the market requires…sometimes, as we say here in Greece, ICMS
199
focus on the ‘tree but miss the forest’, meaning that ICMS focus on detail…this is not
always good for the firm…time pushes and we have to do many things in the short-run,
we do not have the luxury to note everything down…at the end of the day, there is no
need to write down all things…’ (Company F). Table 8-7 provides additional evidence
for the way firms use ICMS.
Use of ICMS Exemplary quotes Company
Substantial ‘ICMS have definitely helped us; their implementation B

use assisted us to record in detail our operations; to formalize
our approach to various issues such as quality and
environmental protection; to set annual objectives, targets,
indicators an so on….we monitor the implementation of
ICMS on a daily basis; we have a separate team exclusively
dealing with the monitoring and implementation of our
ICMS. Here are some examples of how we implement our
standards….[the respondent shows to the interviewer
several documents on ICMS implementation - KI]’
‘ICMS are very important tools for dealing with our CSR O
activities and we cannot afford to use them symbolically.
ICMS assist us setting objectives and targets and
monitoring our annual performance. For example, we
monitor our waste and emissions through ISO14001; also in
the context of ISO9001 we set objectives regarding our
financial situation, the way we deliver our products etc.
Moreover, the implementation of OHSAS18001 enables us
to take all the needed measures for securing health and
safety in the workplace…
Symbolic use ‘ICMS are a window-dressing thing; we have our own in A

house systems, which we substantially apply’
‘We are very cautious towards ICMS because we are afraid K
that their adoption will increase red-tape. Overall, we prefer
in house systems’
‘Because the country [Greece – KI] is not well organized Q
we use ICMS only when we need them and depending on
our priorities we may pay attention to their implementation
or not’
‘Yes, ICMS have helped us and this is why we use them. I
The benefits we have seen relate with our customers who
come here [to the firm’s facilities - KI] and see that we are
certified….The use of ICMS in our everyday activities is
proven by the fact that we successfully comply with the
requirements of the annual external audits’
Table 8-7: Evidence of Use of ICMS
200
The examples described above indicate that, except for a minority of early adopters,
most companies do not use ICMS in their everyday activities. This finding can be
expressed in the following sentence:
Finding 2: The depth of ICMS adoption is the minimum required as most firms do not
genuinely attempt to conform to the standards’ requirements.
• Use of ICMS logo
The interview results supported the findings of the quantitative analysis that both groups
of ICMS adopters, i.e. early and late ones, use the ICMS logos for signalling the
application of CSR practices. Also, the results confirmed the assumption made in the
previous chapter that firms may use the ICMS logo as a means of declaring to society
that they responded to demands for the adoption of CSR practices. The most common
way of advertising their certifications was through corporate web-sites and documents
while a minority of respondents said that they also used the certification logo on their
products.
Comments mainly revealed that the use of ICMS logo was employed by companies as:
a) a means to enhance their legitimacy; and b) as a marketing tool to increase their
attractiveness to stakeholders. An interviewee explained: ‘It is in our interest to promote
our certifications…obviously, we can gain financially from doing so’ (Company N).
Interviews have revealed that in their attempts to influence stakeholders’ perceptions
about the firm’s operations some managers are prepared to be less than economical with
truth as is evident from the following dialogue between the interviewer (IV) and
company F General Manager (FG):
201
‘IV: You have been certified by various standards…how these standards help you
manage your CSR activities?
FG: Yes..I would say that….[pause - KI]..hold on a second...we have not been certified
by many standards…we have got only ISO9001 certification.
IV: Oh!!…I am sorry… but on your web-site you advertise that you have other
certifications too, like ISO14001 and OHSAS18001.
FG: Well…yes [pause - KI]….we do have them…but these certifications do not refer to
the whole range of our activities. There are certain operations that have been certified
by these standards; not the company as a whole.
IV: But you do not specify this on your web-site….instead you give the impression that
the company as a whole has been certified by all these standards.
FG: Yes.. [unease - KI].. you are right...we do not specify this.
IV: I see…well…to be honest as an ex-consultant I have seen this before.
FG: [nervous laughter - KI] Yes, ok…it is common practice’.
The examples described above along with the evidence illustrated in Table 8-8 indicate
that the ICMS logo has a signalling value first and foremost and firms use it as means of
communication with their stakeholders and marketing. This relationship can be
expressed in the following sentence:
Finding 3: Firms use the ICMS logo as a transmitter of information intended to
convince or even mislead the stakeholders that the firm operates within a framework set
by society.
202
Use of ICMS
logo
Extensive use ‘We do use the ICMS logos…You see, the logos enable our J
company to gain an image…our suppliers treat us
differently; when for example they have to deliver a product
at certain cooling temperature etc they know that because
we are certified we are serious about the way we operate
and treat us differently’
‘Yes, all our stakeholders know that we are certified as we C
advertise our certifications in our website and
documents…the logo assists our company to enhance its
credibility and reputation’
‘Yes, they [the stakeholders - KI] do know that we are E
certified…certification is a means of communication and
marketing’
‘We promote our certifications through our website and G
documents. Suppliers treat us more professionally and
customers perceive our company as a specialized one with
expert knowledge in our area….ICMS work as a proof of
credible performance’
‘The ICMS logos provide our company with a recognition H
from all stakeholders and this is why we explicitly mention
them in our documents, on the web-site and in other
informative material’
‘They [the government - KI] will treat you differently if N
they see that the company is certified…even more if you
have EMAS…this is why we use our logos’
Table 8-8: Evidence of Use of ICMS Logo
8.3.3 Context of ICMS adoption
• Influence of regulation and sanctions on ICMS implementation
Interviewees consistently reported that regulations and sanctions did not influence the
way firms implemented ICMS because the framework underlying the enforcement of
regulation and the imposition of sanctions was lax. Most accounts noted inefficiencies
in the way the national accreditation body (i.e. ESYD)18 monitored the implementation
of relevant laws and in the way the certification bodies monitored ICMS
implementation. These findings confirm the proposition made in the previous chapters
18
National accreditation bodies are the sole national agencies responsible for ensuring compliance of the
standardization market to national and EU legislation.
203
that the lack of significant relation between sanction, regulation and ICMS
implementation could be attributed a) to the lack of monitoring mechanisms on behalf
of the certification bodies or b) to poor audit quality of ICMS.
Regarding the implementation of regulation, most comments indicated that the majority
of civil servants, dealing with ICMS and CSR implementation, lacked sufficient
knowledge on these topics. In addition, corruption was identified as a significant
influence in the implementation of regulation. With reference to the sanctions imposed
by certification bodies, the main problems identified during the qualitative stage of
research relate to: a) commercial relations between auditors; and firms and b) auditor
competence. As an interviewee noted: ‘some certification bodies may not even visit the
firm’s facilities to perform an audit prior to granting a certificate’ (Company H).
These findings along with the evidence shown in Table 8-9 indicate that there are
serious inadequacies in the way ICMS implementation is monitored. The following
sentence illustrates the previously discussed results:
Finding 4: Regulation and sanctions do not influence the way firms implement ICMS
due to inefficiencies in the monitoring mechanisms on behalf of accreditation agencies
and certification bodies.
204
Influence of
regulation & Exemplary quotes Company
sanctions
Regulation ‘The implementation of regulation is very lax….monitoring K

mechanisms don’t work as they should’
‘I think the rational underlying the audit and accreditation Q
services is: if you don’t want to improve your operations
then don’t’
‘The people involved in the implementation of ICMS don’t L
have adequate knowledge of the topic and this is why the
framework underlying the implementation of these
standards is not strict’
‘Imposition of fines is not fair; there are firms that have M
connections with ESYD and other public agencies and can
easily influence their decisions’
‘Recently there were cases of EMAS certified firms, which A

Sanctions were found to pollute rivers….the fines these firms got
were insignificant’
‘Auditors mostly follow a personal approach to H
ICMS…they aren’t sufficiently trained’
‘The small certification bodies grant certificates very easily P
because they are interested in increasing their client lists
and becoming more competitive
Table 8-9: Evidence of Influence of Regulation and Sanctions on ICMS

Implementation by Firms
• Stakeholder awareness of ICMS and CSR
The assumption made in the previous chapter that the state might not be well informed
on the implementation of ICMS and CSR has been confirmed by the outcomes of the
interviews. As it was previously mentioned, there was a general belief among
interviewees that public sectors employees, dealing with the monitoring of ICMS and
CSR implementation, were not well informed. In addition, all accounts highlighted that
the government was only paying lip-service to the implementation of management
standards. When the state tried to be active (for example, a number of programmes
encouraging firms to obtain certification was initiated), there was general agreement
among the interviewees that little real commitment was shown. Managers’ remarks
indicated that the state bodies were often satisfied with a minimal typical
205
implementation of ICMS and did little to encourage companies to integrate the
standards in their everyday operations.
As far as customer awareness is concerned, the interviewees generally agreed that
although customers may not be very well informed about ICMS and CSR they can
significantly influence business operations. Interviewed managers consented that
customers had the potential to affect the firm through a number of actions, including
boycott and picketing. In addition to that, there was a general feeling among the
interviewees that customers who were more aware of ICMS and CSR did not believe
that firms were taking their social responsibility seriously. This was recognized by all
managers as an important issue awaiting its resolution. The interviewees revealed their
views on customer awareness by using such phrases as ‘customer knowledge gradually
improves’, ‘customers have the ability to recognize’ or ‘customers can influence the
way our firm operates’. Table 8-10 provides evidence for customer and government
awareness of ICMS and CSR.
206
Stakeholder
awareness of
ICMS and
CSR
Government ‘Until now, the state has been absent; it’s the market that C
awareness has moved things in this direction [towards the application
of CSR practices - KI]. The state needs to award good
practices and push companies towards such practices’
‘The government doesn’t have adequate knowledge of F
ICMS and CSR; these topics are new and civil servants,
involved in their implementation, need to have an
educational level necessary to comprehend how these things
work. Unfortunately, most times these people don’t have
the knowledge needed’
‘Government’s awareness?...they are like parrots… A
repeating what they hear without knowing the meaning’
‘There is a global trend for governments to pass to the J
market responsibilities that used to be undertaken by the
state…in this context, the government is not really
interested in substantially monitoring ICMS and CSR
implementation…’
‘We are talking about social responsibility and the state has K
no responsibility…they don’t bother to monitor the
implementation of ICMS and CSR at large’
Customer ‘Customers like to see logos… I wouldn’t say that they are L
awareness very well informed about ICMS…however, with time their
awareness increases’
‘Customers are aware of ICMS and CSR….they may not I
know every little detail, but they do have some knowledge
and can evaluate whether the firm applies an ICMS
substantially or not’
‘Customers are aware and may be very harsh critics…they F
are the ones who truly judge the way we operate’
‘Customers can recognize whether what you sell is image or B
an integrated strategy’
‘There is a general belief among customers that companies R
don’t do much about CSR…we need to address this topic in
order to change their opinion’
Table 8-10: Evidence of Stakeholder Awareness of ICMS and CSR
The findings described above along with the evidence illustrated in Table 8-10 show
that customers are perceived as significant influences in the way firms apply ICMS
while government is not. This relationship can be expressed in the following sentence:
207
Finding 5: Customer awareness influences the way firms apply ICMS. By contrast, the
state is relatively absent in ICMS and CSR implementation and this is why government
awareness does not play any significant role in the application of these topics.
8.4 Conclusions
The purpose of this chapter was to enhance the validity of the framework developed in
the quantitative analysis chapters. The results from qualitative analysis broadly
confirmed the assumptions made at earlier stages of this study and increased confidence
in the findings discussed in previous chapters.
Preliminary analysis indicates that firms’ motives to adopt ICMS and the manner in
which firms apply these standards differ depending on firm size and industry sector. In
line with the evidence from the quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis reveals that
most firms are more likely to adopt ICMS due to external pressures rather than in
pursuit of a CSR agenda. Firms have been found to adopt ICMS for three main reasons:
market pressure; government pressure; and the enhancement of the firm’s financial and
CSR performance (business case to CSR). As figure 8-1 illustrates, firms driven by
market and government pressures are more likely to use ICMS symbolically while firms
driven by the business case are more likely to adopt them substantially. In reality,
however, as it was previously discussed, most firms use ICMS symbolically; only a
minority of early adopters appear to be driven by the business case approach and
adopted them for improving both their financial and CSR performance.
Additionally, all interviews confirmed that the use of ICMS logo was seen by firms as a
means of declaring the application of CSR practices and in some cases even as a means
208
of misleading stakeholders about the firm’s CSR position. This evidence supports the
assumption made in the previous chapter that firms employ the ICMS logos mainly for
signalling purposes.
Breadth of ICMS Adoption Depth of ICMS Adoption Context of ICMS Adoption
ICMS drivers
Regulations/
Sanctions
Market Use of ICMS Corruption; Lack
of informed
Personnel /
Symbolic Use of Commercial
ICMS Use of ICMS logo Relationships;
Auditor Quality
Means of
Government Declaring CSR
Practices/ Stakeholder
Misleading Awareness
Stakeholders
Customer
Substantial Use of
Business Case to Awareness
ICMS (Early
CSR
Adopters of ICMS)
Figure 8-1: Summary of Qualitative Analysis Results
Finally, the evidence on the context of ICMS adoption has been found to confirm the
findings of the quantitative analysis. In particular, the lack of significant relationship
between sanctions, regulation and the way firms apply ICMS has been explained on the
basis of inefficiencies in the monitoring mechanisms of ICMS implementation.
Moreover, qualitative analysis indicated that in contrast with government awareness,
customer awareness may influence the way firms adopt ICMS.
209
Chapter 9: Discussion
9 DISCUSSION
9.1 Introduction
The purpose of this dissertation was to address gaps identified in the literature regarding
the implementation of CSR at the firm level and the factors that influence this
implementation. The study has established that current theorizing fails to provide
satisfactory guidance to the topic as the relevant literature suffers from three significant
shortcomings. First, there is controversy over the actual spread of CSR practices;
second, there is dissent regarding the validity of the business case for CSR; and third,
there is discord among scholars about firms’ motives to adopt a CSR practice.
Importantly, many of the different views on CSR are not substantiated by grass root
analysis, as the discourse on the topic evolves mainly in the conceptual domain. In this
context, there have been calls in the literature for studies that draw on empirical data
(Frederick, 2006; Lindgreen, et al., 2009a; Lindgreen, et al., 2009b; McWilliams, et al.,
2006). This thesis responds to these calls.
To begin with, the study employs International Certifiable Management Standards as a
proxy indicator of CSR-related practices. The choice of these standards is not incidental.
ICMS have been widely ignored by scholars (Brunsonn, et al., 2005), yet these
standards share several characteristics that make them a sine qua non for the analysis of
CSR. Next, the study adopts an inter-disciplinary approach and pays specific attention
to: firms’ motives for adopting ICMS (breadth of adoption); how firms apply these
standards (depth of adoption); and the conditions under which firms adopt ICMS
(context of adoption). In so doing, the dissertation employs a more holistic approach
when compared with existing literature, which either analyses the adoption of CSR
210
practices from a purely economic perspective (Beurden & Gössling, 2008; Carroll &
Shabana, 2010; Du, et al., 2010; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Peloza & Papania, 2008),
or uses unreliable indicators of CSR implementation (Bondy, et al., 2008; Branco &
Rodrigues, 2006; Chapple & Moon, 2005; Ki & Kim, 2010).
The investigation of the breadth and depth of ICMS adoption allowed the assessment of
the degree to which companies’ decision to adopt these standards is influenced by their
potential to enhance the firm’s CSR performance. Also, the analysis of why firms adopt
ICMS and how they integrate these standards in their everyday operations enabled this
dissertation to evaluate the explanatory power of the most prominent conceptual
approach to CSR, the so-called ‘business case’ for CSR. In turn, the investigation of the
context of ICMS adoption made it possible to identify the role of such important factors
as regulation, sanctions, and stakeholder awareness in encouraging firms to
substantially apply CSR practices.
This chapter aims to elaborate commentary on the study’s findings in light of existing
research and is structured as follows: first, it discusses the issues raised by combining
qualitative and quantitative data. In continue, it analyses the study’s findings on the
three areas of interest namely breadth, depth and context of adoption. Next, it discusses
the study’s implications for research, policy makers and practitioners. Finally, the
chapter evaluates the study’s limitations and highlights future research directions.
211
9.2 Issues Raised by Using a Mixed-Methods Approach
This study employed a mixed method approach to identify the influence of CSR on
business practice. Philosophically, mixed method research constitutes the ‘third wave’
or the third research movement (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2006), a movement that
provides a solution to the paradigm debate by suggesting a logical and practical
alternative. With reference to epistemology, pragmatism challenges the distinct contrast
between objectivity and subjectivity and maintains that epistemological issues exist on a
continuum, rather than two opposing poles. Regarding ontology, the pragmatist point of
view regarding reality consists of two parts: on the one hand, pragmatists agree with
positivists’ view of an external independent reality. On the other hand, pragmatists’
view of reality is not formulated simply as a theory or definition, but as the pragmatists’
attempt to say something interesting about the nature of truth.
Mixed method research constitutes an endeavour to legitimize the use of multiple
approaches in answering research questions, rather than restricting or constraining
researchers’ choices (i.e., it rejects dogmatism). It is an expansive and creative form of
research, not a limiting form of research. Mixed method approach is inclusive,
pluralistic, and complementary, and it implies that researchers take an eclectic approach
to method selection, the thinking about research and its conduct. What is most important
is the research question—research methods should follow research questions in a way
that offers the best chance to obtain useful answers. Many research questions and
combinations of questions are best and most fully answered through mixed research
solutions (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2006). This is also the case of this study. In
particular, in identifying the influence of CSR on business practice this research was
influenced by two considerations:
212
a) on the one hand, CSR was treated as an element of objective reality, independent
of our minds, which reveals itself through the implementation by companies of a
series of measures for reducing the environmental impacts of their operations,
enhancing health and safety in the workplace, etc.
b) on the other hand, it was acknowledged that the way individual actors respond to
CSR measures might vary and follow less deterministic patterns.
These two premises implied that, with reference to epistemology, a middle position,
rather than a distinct objectivist or subjectivist approach, would suit this study better.
Regarding ontology, the view of reality was influenced by positivists’ views of an
independent reality and at the same time this reality was not seen as something absolute
but as the attempt of this researcher to contribute to knowledge in the CSR topic.
Thus, it became clear to this researcher that to obtain valuable answers he would have to
find what ‘works’ best to answer the research questions. In this sense, the choice of
methods followed the research question and not the other way. Rejection of the either-or
approach and adoption of a mixed method research as a means of identifying the
influence of CSR on business practice was deemed the most appropriate thing to do. In
order to conduct mixed method research in an effective manner, this scholar considered
all the relevant characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research. This enabled him
to gain a thorough understanding of the strengths/weaknesses of quantitative and
qualitative research and, thus, use different methods in such a way that the resulting
mixture was likely to produce complementary strengths and non-overlapping
weaknesses. In particular, to indentify prevalent tendencies regarding why, how and in
which context firms adopt ICMS and due to absent of any relevant data, quantitative
213
method was chosen as a first step. The use of existing theories and development of
specific hypotheses (Figure 4.1) enabled this researcher to put into test certain
explanations with reference to the research questions. By doing so, the study had its first
set of answers about these questions. To enhance the validity of the initial explanations,
qualitative method was chosen as the second step. The use of qualitative method put on
test the conclusions drawn from statistical analysis. Corroboration of these conclusions
enabled this study to produce a superior product compared to a mono-method study.
The fact that the study’s conclusions were verified by qualitative analysis does not mean
that this is always the case as in many instances the findings might conflict. Had this
been the case, this researcher would still have improved his knowledge and could
modify his interpretations and conclusions accordingly. In any case, this researcher
shares the view of Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2006) and believes that the goal of
mixing methods is not to look for corroboration but rather to expand one’s
understanding. In this sense, the intention of this study was to enhance knowledge
regarding the influence of CSR on business practice.
This study demonstrates that the mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods is
feasible and in some cases necessary. In addition, it shows that the use of a mixed
method approach enables scholars to utilize the positive aspects of qualitative and
quantitative approaches, put together insights from both approaches and produce a
superior product. Thus, this study advocates a needs-based approach to research method
and concept choice.
214
9.3 Breadth of ICMS Adoption
As Figure 4.1 illustrates, to explain why firms voluntarily embark upon adopting CSR
activities, the study drew on diffusion of innovations theory. This theory has been
proved particularly popular among CSR scholars (Corbett & Muthulingam, 2007;
Halila, 2007; MacGregor & Fontrodona, 2008; Viadiu, et al., 2006), who have used it to
analyse firms’ motives for adopting CSR practices. Diffusion of innovations theory
offered valuable insights with reference to whether companies engage into CSR
practices to enhance their CSR performance or for other reasons.
The results from quantitative analysis suggest that in most cases CSR practices, such as
ICMS, have not diffused among companies due to their potential to improve the firm’s
CSR performance. In particular, the findings from descriptive statistics highlight that
companies’ decision to adopt ICMS is mainly influenced by customer requirements,
domestic market requirements, and access to international markets. Similarly, the
evidence from the hypothesis on the diffusion of ICMS (hypothesis 1, Figure 4.1)
indicates that firms voluntarily get involved in self-regulating their activities due to
pressures coming from the market and the government.
Information gathered during interviews support further the above findings, increasing
confidence in their validity. In particular, qualitative analysis reveals the importance of
market and government pressures as factors determining firms’ decision to adopt ICMS.
Only few comments, received during the interviews, indicated that firms’ adopted
ICMS in order to improve their social, environmental and financial performance.
215
Consequently, the study’s results contribute to knowledge by emphasizing the
importance of external pressures on firm’s decision-making to adopt CSR practices and
highlight the significance of bandwagon pressures as an explanatory factor of the
diffusion of such practices. According to the theoretical framework employed in this
study, bandwagon pressures occur when there is the threat of losing either legitimacy or
a competitive advantage (Abrahamson, 1991). Due to the significant influence of the
market and the government on firms’ competitiveness and legitimacy (Bansal &
Clelland, 2004; Deephouse, 1996; Narver & Slater, 1990; Porter, et al., 2009), it may be
deduced that companies adopt ICMS in order to stay competitive/ legitimate as
choosing not to do so may negatively affect their competitiveness/ threaten their
legitimacy. Thus, the conformance to market norms and governmental requirements
may be attributed to firms’ tendency to defend themselves from significant and
immediate negative impacts on their competitiveness/ legitimacy.
These conclusions contradict the view expressed by numerous supporters of the
‘business case of CSR’ that firms will voluntarily adopt CSR practices because their
adoption enhances both their financial and social performance (Aupperle, et al., 1985;
Kotler & Lee, 2005; Marin & Ruiz, 2007). Also, these findings oppose the position of
those scholars who argue that firms’ motives to voluntarily engage in CSR activities lie
in the sense of altruism and their ‘social conscience’ (Davis, et al., 1997; Gonzalez-
Benito & Gonzalez-Benito, 2005; Heugens, et al., 2008; Muller & Kolk, 2010).
Although these motivations are not impossible, the results contained in this study
confirm previous findings and contribute additional evidence that emphasises the
importance of other considerations, such as the desire to secure legitimacy and
216
competitive differentiation, and thus provide support to a pragmatic outlook on firm
behaviour as expressed by Bansal and Hunter (2003) and Campbell (2007).
9.4 Depth of ICMS Adoption
• Use of ICMS
To analyse the degree to which firms comply with the ICMS requirements this study
employed institutional theory (Figure 4.1). As with the diffusion of innovations theory,
the choice of institutional theory was not incidental. Many CSR scholars (Bansal &
Clelland, 2004; Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009; Campbell, 2007; Delmas & Montes-
Sancho, 2011; Delmas & Toffel, 2003; Schaefer, 2007) have previously used this theory
in their attempt to analyse how firms use CSR practices.
According to the theoretical framework discussed in Chapter 4, the depth of adoption
reflects the true value of CSR in the eyes of the management of the firm (Corbett &
Muthulingam, 2007). Thus, it can be expected that firms seeking certification for
signalling purposes will be satisfied with the minimal necessary depth of adoption, i.e.,
to do just enough to meet the formal requirements (Corbett & Muthulingam, 2007). As
it was explained in Chapter 4, when analysing the depth of adoption, it is beneficial to
make a distinction between early and late adopters (Delmas & Montes-Sancho, 2007;
Rogers, 2003; Westphal, et al., 1997). This is done in acknowledgement of the fact that
the choice of the moment when the firm decides to subscribe to ICMS is determined by
a combination of pressures exerted by the institutional environment in which it operates.
It follows that the same practice may be accepted for different reasons. Early adopters
are more likely to be motivated by direct efficiency gains. For this reason, they can be
expected to adopt a standard ‘substantially’, i.e., to show full and sincere commitment
217
to its requirements. By contrast, late adopters accept a standard because they want to
maintain their legitimacy with peers and society and as a result they apply the standard
‘symbolically’, i.e., they make no genuine attempt to conform to the requirements of the
standard (Delmas, 2003).
The results from quantitative analysis corroborate the results by Corbett (2006) and
Delmas and Montes-Sancho (2007), and suggest that late adopters of ICMS apply these
standards symbolically and are not interested in gaining the economic, social and
environmental benefits of their implementation. In particular, the findings of descriptive
statistics’ reveal that early adopters of ICMS are more likely to adopt ICMS
substantially because they are interested in gaining the aforementioned benefits. By
contrast, late adopters tend not to conform to the ICMS requirements because they are
mainly concerned in gaining the signalling benefits, meaning they are interested in
using ICMS to create a certain social image. Similarly, the results related to Hypothesis
2a (the manner in which late adopters apply ICMS, Figure 4.1), indicated that late
adopters of ICMS tend to apply ICMS symbolically. More specifically, the findings
reveal that late adopters are likely to fail to comply with at least one major requirement
of ICMS; they are also expected to attempt to present to external auditors a distorted
account of the implementation of ICMS; and tend not to use the ICMS documents on a
daily basis. By contrast, early adopters of ICMS exhibit a notably different behaviour
that reflects a profound integration of ICMS in their operations
The results of the qualitative analysis fully validate the above findings, but also reveal
some important new details. Thus, it has been established that only a minority of early
adopters of ICMS apply these standards substantially. At the same time early adopters
218
are more knowledgeable about ICMS requirements and have integrated ICMS in their
everyday activities. By contrast, the replies by late adopters reveal a superficial attitude
to ICMS and are evidence of little interest in implementing the standards.
Due to the fact that the vast majority of ICMS are late adopters (BSI, 2009; Europa,
2009b; ISO, 2009; SAI, 2009), the study’s results reinforce the view that despite
societal pressure to adopt CSR practices, firms mainly use CSR self-regulatory
measures to reconcile the traditional business model with limited social and
environmental performance (Mayhew, 1997; Valor, 2005). Hence, businesses seek to
continue the ‘business as usual’ scenario and do not attempt to use ICMS as a means of
improving their social and environmental performance. These results put in doubt the
conviction expressed by some authors (Lenox & Nash, 2003; Levy & Kaplan, 2008)
that CSR practices can be best implemented through self-regulatory tools. The findings
also question market fundamentalism and its assumption that voluntary action is
preferable to public interference.
Consequently, the results of this study enhance our understanding of the effectiveness of
voluntary self-regulatory approaches to promote CSR practices. The present study
confirms previous findings and contributes additional evidence that suggests that,
judging by the example of ICMS, self-regulation alone cannot effectively respond to the
complexity of environmental and social challenges caused by business activities. In this
sense, the results provide ammunition to the critics of the business case approach to
CSR, who argue that companies will mostly use self-regulation for window-dressing
and as a means of adopting a friendlier façade to their constituencies (Doane, 2005;
219
McMillan, 2007; Smith & Halina, 2009; Waddock, 2007). The evidence on how firms
use the ICMS logo, obtained in this thesis, sheds further light into this topic.
• Use of ICMS logo
Similarly to other CSR research (Cole, 1998; Darnall & Carmin, 2005; Folta & Janney,
2004; Jørgensen, et al., 2004; Terlaak & King, 2006), this study employed signalling
theory to analyse whether firms use the ICMS logo as symbol of conformance to
societal demands (Figure 4.1). According to the theoretical framework employed in this
study, companies are more likely to pursuit certification when they have (a) visible and
complicated operations (Jiang & Bansal, 2003); (b) when there are information
asymmetries in the market (Terlaak, 2007), and (c) when firms are involved in operation
of controversial nature (Bansal & Hunter, 2003). All three situations have one
denominator: they put firms in a position when it is particularly important to create a
positive image and convince the public of the legitimacy of what they do. Under these
circumstances, certification by an authoritative third party creates a signal of good
practice and helps the firm to obtain legitimacy (Fombrun, 2005; Kimerling, 2001).
These observations are highly relevant to ICMS. Organizations publishing ICMS are
well respected international or national bodies enjoying high prestige. Moreover, they
possess specific knowledge that other members of society do not have. This constitutes
the source of credibility of ICMS as effective means in dealing with the social and
environmental aspects of business activities. By extension, it is at least plausible that
firms subscribing to these standards are likely to be perceived by the public as more
efficient in comparison to firms that have not adopted them (Kimerling, 2001). This
creates the environment in which firms are tempted to subscribe to a standard simply
220
because using its logo may send a right signal to interested parties and, therefore, help
them to reduce transaction costs.
The results from quantitative and qualitative analyses confirm these arguments as they
demonstrate that firms mainly use the ICMS logo as a signal of good practice to
convince stakeholders that the activities of the firm are carried out within the framework
set by society. In particular, the findings from the descriptive statistics chapter highlight
that most of the surveyed companies use the ICMS logo on their documents, products
and web-site. Likewise, the results from inferential statistics (hypothesis 2b, Figure 4.1)
point out that both early and late adopters of ICMS use the standards’ logo extensively.
These findings lend support to existing research adopting the view that businesses
employ strategies and symbols with the intention to induce their stakeholders about the
legitimacy of their operations (Child & Tsai, 2005; Glynn & Abzug, 2002; Jiang &
Bansal, 2003; Oliver, 1997; Terlaak, 2007). According to this view, companies are
aware of the importance of societal support and this is why they attempt to manipulate
their environment and adopt various facades to present themselves and their goals as
consistent with societal beliefs and values (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006; Scherer &
Palazzo, 2008; Scherer, et al., 2009).
The results of the qualitative analysis provide general support for this view. This study
has found that firms use the ICMS logos as symbols of corporate responsibility to
reassure or even mislead their stakeholders about their operations. Analysis of the
interviews allows the conclusion that the use of ICMS logo is often perceived by
managers as a means of pacifying societal concerns over the firm’s activities and
impressing on stakeholders the firm’s commitment to CSR.
221
Therefore, the findings from both quantitative and qualitative analyses contribute to
knowledge by demonstrating that companies get certified by ICMS predominantly
because they want to convince the public that they conform to existing social
expectations. In this sense, ICMS are employed as a symbolic form that grants
legitimacy to certified firms. Symbolic forms are ‘produced, constructed or employed
by a subject who, in producing or employing such forms, is pursuing certain ‘aims’ or
‘intends’, in and by the forms thus produced’ (Thomson, 1992, p.138). Similarly, by
using the ICMS logo certified firms intend to demonstrate to society their managerial
effectiveness in dealing with CSR issues. By doing so, companies aim to acquire a
symbolic value as a means of increasing economic value. The same strategy is used by
advertisers when they use well-known film stars, pop stars or public figures as a means
of promoting certain products: the aim is to increase economic value by association with
a figure of high symbolic value, even though there is no necessary connection between
the two (Thomson, 1992). Accordingly, by adopting widely accepted CSR practices,
such as ICMS, symbolically, firms attempt to shape stakeholders’ perceptions and
persuade them that the firm’s operations comply with societal demands for adoption of
CSR practices, and thus are worthy of support. In this way, firms can continue the
business as usual scenario without having to bear the costs necessary for improving
their CSR performance.
9.5 Context of ICMS Adoption
• Regulation and sanctions
The study has also sought, through the application of self-regulation and stakeholder
theories, to extend research on self-regulatory CSR tools by focusing on the conditions
under which firms adopt such tools. According to the theoretical framework analysed in
222
Chapter 4 (Figure 4.1), weak monitoring and poor awareness may feed free-riding. As it
was argued earlier in the thesis, if the firm is in doubt regarding the consequences of
adopting self-imposed rules for its standing vis-à-vis competition, and monitoring is lax,
it may be tempted to minimize obligations stemming from the adoption of self-
regulatory tools and, thus, avoid conforming to any requirements as long as such
avoidance is compatible with retaining its ICMS certification (Cradden, 2005). In other
words, it may choose to free-ride and not implement the self-regulatory measures
substantially.
The empirical findings in this study contribute to knowledge by providing a new
understanding of the context of CSR implementation. In contrast to the view expressed
in the literature on CSR, which assumes that national legislation prescribes business
behaviour (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006), the evidence collected by this study indicates that
sanctions and regulation do not have much impact on the manner in which firms apply
ICMS. In particular, descriptive statistics revealed discrepancies between theory and
practice. Although the survey’s respondents mainly acknowledge the importance of
sanctions in the case of non-compliance to ICMS requirements, collected data on the
implementation of regulation reveal a different situation. More specifically, the
application of the regulatory framework underlying ICMS has been found to be largely
ineffective. In addition, the results from inferential statistics show that there is no
significant relationship between the depth of ICMS adoption and sanctions or
regulations (hypotheses 3a and 3b, Figure 4.1). This finding is surprising in light of
existing research arguing that in the presence of explicit sanctions firms will not behave
opportunistically (King & Lenox, 2000; Lenox & Nash, 2003). The lack of significant
223
relation between the depth of adoption and sanctions and regulations might, therefore,
be attributed to inefficiencies in monitoring during the post-certification period.
The findings from qualitative analysis confirm these propositions. The interviews
revealed that the implementation of ICMS is not influenced by regulations and
sanctions due to inefficiencies in ICMS implementation monitoring. These
inefficiencies relate to: insufficient knowledge of civil servants dealing with ICMS and
CSR implementation; corruption; commercial relationships between auditors and firms;
and poor training of auditors.
Therefore, it has been established that third-party audits, required by ICMS, reduce the
risks of decoupling certification from the implementation of ICMS requirements, but
they do not guarantee the application of the certified practices. This is a significant
finding, which adds substantially to our understanding of the context of implementation
of CSR practices. King et al. (2005) came to similar conclusions, but the scope of their
research was limited by its focus on ISO14001 exclusively and relied on secondary
data. This study, by contrast, examined the whole spectrum of ICMS.
The literature attributes drawbacks in the implementation of ICMS to audit quality.
There is a body of literature that argues, similarly to this thesis, that commercial
relationships between companies and auditors, insufficient auditor training and
knowledge, and infrequent visits from auditors to certified facilities, enable firms to
manipulate the ICMS implementation and behave opportunistically (Boiral, 2003b;
O'Rourke, 2003; Yeung, et al., 2006). Therefore, the argument made by Lenox and
Nash (2003) and Prakash and Potoski (2005), that independent monitoring secures
224
credible implementation of CSR practices, lacks credibility. As this study has shown,
robust entry requirements are not enough to secure compliance to CSR tools’
requirements; strict monitoring mechanisms and substantial audits are also needed.
• Stakeholder awareness
As it has been shown, the depth of ICMS adoption may also depend on the position
taken by the stakeholders of the firm as follows from stakeholder theory (Donaldson &
Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Jones, 1995; McWilliams, et al., 2006). According to the
theoretical framework discussed in Chapter 4, if stakeholders are in favour of ICMS, the
firm will be motivated to adopt them to gain the acceptance and support of its
constituencies. At the same time, it was demonstrated that research indicates that firms’
propensity to implement a standard symbolically is negatively related to the knowledge
of stakeholders about management standards (Christmann & Taylor, 2006). In other
words, low awareness may result in only a minimal adoption of the standards, just
enough to maintain a desirable public image.
Following the literature, customer and government awareness were used as prominent
sources of setting and maintaining the principles that decide the acceptability of
corporate practices (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009; Deephouse, 1996; Galaskiewicz &
Wasserman, 1989; Hoffman, 2001; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The findings from
descriptive statistics indicate that both customers and the government are mainly
perceived by respondents as not well informed about ICMS and CSR. Inferential
statistics further indicate that the way companies apply management standards may be
influenced by customers, but not by the government (hypothesis 4, Figure 4.1). Thus,
although the government is a significant influence, forcing companies to obtain
225
certification (see hypothesis 1), it does not influence the way firms apply the standards.
This result questions the role that the government plays in the application of CSR
practices and appears to reflect the diminishing role of the government in the
implementation of CSR (Albareda, 2008), i.e. the state forces companies to adopt CSR
tools but it does not take any further actions to evaluate the use of these tools.
Analysis of the interview texts provides additional insights. The findings show that
although the government is interested in promoting the diffusion of CSR practices, it
does not take any substantial measures in order to monitor how such practices are
implemented by firms.. By contrast, customer awareness presents itself as a force that
influences the actual implementation of CSR practices. Although most interviewees
acknowledge that customers are not very well informed about ICMS and CSR, they
agree that customers’ awareness of these topics is constantly improving.
Regarding the government, the study’s results make an important contribution to the
CSR literature by demonstrating that, with reference to CSR practices, the state fails to
secure their implementation, complicating the operation of the market. More
specifically, the fact that the government fails to efficiently monitor the application of
CSR practices leaves plenty of room for companies to behave opportunistically. This is
likely to create competition problems for some firms, which apply such CSR practices
as ICMS substantially and have incurred costs in order to change the way they operate
and adopt a socially responsible profile. What may happen is that the malfunction of
monitoring mechanisms may enable other firms to acquire a socially responsible image
without undertaking any investments and changing the way they operate. This evidence
questions the assumption made by neo-liberal economic philosophy, eminent in most
226
western countries over the last thirty years or so, that by playing the role of the arbiter
the state can secure the harmonic operation of the market (Bauman, 2007; De La Cuesta
Gonzalez & Martinez, 2004; Giddens, 2007). The empirical findings in this study
provide a new understanding of the role of the government with reference to the
implementation of CSR practices.
With reference to customers’ influence, the study’s results extend knowledge by
reinforcing existing research, which shows that companies have realised that there is
much to be gained from their customers feeling good about dealing with ethical and
‘caring’ firms (Hollender & Fenichell, 2006). Also, the study’s overall findings
contribute to knowledge by confirming the view that the degree to which firms are
prepared to incorporate in their decision-making the interests of each stakeholder
depends on stakeholder’s power and legitimacy (Mitchell, et al., 1997; Post, et al.,
2002). The literature indicates that constituencies who possess legitimacy and power are
considered as very important stakeholders and for that reason their involvement into
formulating firms’ policies is deemed essential. The fact that customers have been
found by this study to be, in the degree to which firms incorporate CSR practices in
their everyday operations, more influential compared to the government, may indicate
that companies perceive this group of stakeholders as more important than the
government. In this sense, the results question the government’s legitimacy and power
in the implementation of CSR practices and highlight customers’ importance. These
findings add substantially to our understanding of the influence of customers and
government on the way firms apply CSR practices and provide fertile ground for
scholars working on how to build a global governance system for CSR.
227
9.6 Implications for Research
The study’s findings have important implications for research and advance CSR theory
in several ways. Primarily, by conceptualizing CSR as a business-processes oriented
construct this study attributes great importance to the impacts of business operations
and to the policies/ tools that companies use to mitigate those impacts. In so doing, the
study responds to calls from scholars (Godfrey & Hatch, 2007; Wood, 2010) to
invigorate CSR research by focusing on processes and outcomes of business operations.
The results of this study forge a strong empirical basis on which a practical direction
into the analysis of CSR can build.
Moreover, the obtained results have implications for researchers who use narrow
indicators of CSR practices (e.g. Avshalom & Tal, 2008; Bondy, et al., 2008; Branco &
Rodrigues, 2006; Chapple & Moon, 2005; Runhaar & Lafferty, 2009) and effectively
substitute analysis of firms’ rhetoric for the analysis of their actual action. This
researcher holds the view that to evaluate the influence of CSR on business practice
academics need to use more reliable indicators of practices like ICMS. On top of that,
the results of this study reveal that the analysis of CSR activities requires the pursuit of
a holistic approach to be able to identify how CSR is really implemented by firms. By
analyzing why, how and in which context firms apply CSR practices this study provides
a fertile ground for a new line of inquiry into the analysis of such activities.
The results further reveal that, within the globalized business environment, self-
regulation measures fail to set conditions for a well functioning market and to
encourage CSR practices. This evidence advances existing knowledge on the
effectiveness of self-regulatory tools by reinforcing the view expressed by previous
228
studies that the development of CSR as a voluntary framework reflects the attempts of
corporations to satisfy own interests (Campbell, 2007; Haufler, 2001; Haufler, 2003).
Obtained evidence indicates the need to abandon the evangelical rhetoric approach that
claims that firms will voluntarily implement social and environmental practices. It
should not be forgotten that by definition firms are organizations, which ‘are created
with purposive intent in consequence of the opportunity set resulting from the existing
set of constraints’ (North, 1990, p. 5). In other words, within the constraints imposed by
society, firms will always put profit maximization first. This indicates that granting
authority to the private incentive to self-regulate its activities can only work when both
parties, i.e. society and firms, have great knowledge about each other. However, due to
the fact that modern markets are characterised by information asymmetries (Terlaak,
2007), self-regulatory tools cannot be effective. By contrast, it is more likely that the
existing information asymmetries will result in an inefficient ‘market for lemons’
(Akerlof, 1970), where only low quality self-regulatory tools can be ‘sold’. Researchers
need to give this limitation full consideration when dealing with self-regulatory
measures.
Significantly, this study has produced only limited support for the so-called ‘business
case’ for CSR. While existing research in CSR has been dominated by this approach
(Palazzo & Scherer, 2006; Vogel, 2005), the study’s results indicate that firms’ decision
to adopt ICMS is mainly driven by defensive reasons (i.e. ensuring legitimacy and
competitiveness) rather than the business case per se. This finding has serious
implications because it reinforces the view that the analysis of CSR through the lens of
financial performance fails to grasp some important aspects of CSR practices and does
not have much to offer in terms of explanation. The limitation of the business case as a
229
framework for CSR research has also been recently noted by other scholars who argue,
somewhat timidly, that ‘this may not be the most fruitful avenue for research at this
time’(Wood, 2010, p. 75). In this context, the findings of the present thesis may assist in
shifting the analysis of implementation of CSR practices away from the narrow
perspective of the business case.
9.7 Implications for Policy Makers and Practitioners
The study’s findings have important implications for governments that use self-
regulatory approaches to encourage CSR. It has been shown that these tools may not be
as effective as neo-classical economic theory suggests. Instead of exhorting firms to
adopt CSR self-regulatory tools, governments should play a more active role in the
implementation of CSR. By taking into account that within the globalized business
environment most states are not willing to regulate (Bauman, 2002; Haufler, 2001), a
possible solution would be for governments to collaborate with industry associations
and work towards improving existing self-regulatory tools. This researcher agrees with
other scholars (Aguilera, et al., 2007; Campbell, 2007) that this may help governments’
to split the costs related with the application of CSR practices and establish strict
monitoring and sanction mechanisms to ensure that such practices do not become
subject to adverse selection19.
The results of this study have significant implications for industry associations and
policy-makers in terms of the design of future voluntary CSR self-regulatory tools. The
study provides evidence that the way in which the application of CSR practices, such as
ICMS, is monitored is problematic and needs to change. To deal with this issue,
19
Adverse selection: poorly performing firms will adopt self-regulatory measures for gaining benefits
such as signalling and legitimacy enhancement without actually putting them into effect (Lenox and
Nash, 2003).
230
industry associations and policy-makers have to focus on issues identified in the
literature, this thesis including, as those that undermine substantial implementation of
CSR self-regulatory tools such as auditor quality, commercial relationships between
companies and auditors, and infrequent external audits.
In addition, the study’s findings have implications for managers who use ICMS
certification as a criterion of selecting their business partners. It has been demonstrated
that the presence of certification is not sufficient to establish the CSR credentials of the
firm; it is necessary to collect information about the actual implementation of the
standard before making any decisions.
9.8 Limitations and Future Research Directions
There are a number of limitations to this study pointing to interesting avenues for future
research. First, testing the study’s hypotheses in the context of a single country enabled
the analysis to hold any influences exerted by the environment constant, but weakened
the generalizability of the results. Due to cultural influences on organizations (Hofstede,
2001) and on ICMS implementation (Delmas, 2004), an interesting extension of this
study could be a cross-country research analyzing institutional and cultural influences
on: a) firms’ motives for adopting ICMS; b) the way firms adopt ICMS; and c) the
context of ICMS adoption. Such research would assist in further testing the robustness
of the current theoretical predictions and investigate whether firms’ motives for
adopting ICMS, way and context in which firms apply these standards vary in different
cultural contexts.
231
Second, the quantitative data collected were based on self-reporting. Although statistical
tests were carried out to diminish the bias that self-reporting may cause and also
interviews were conducted to verify the survey data, individual biases in reporting are
bound to exist.
Third, the present research is based on cross-sectional survey and interview research,
which provides limited longitudinal evidence on how firms use CSR practices in their
everyday activities. Future studies with access to longitudinal data will be able to
address questions concerning temporal changes in CSR implementation.
Fourth, using data from firms that have been certified by several certification bodies
allowed the study to examine whether there is an auditor effect on the depth of ICMS
implementation, but precluded the analysis from holding auditor quality constant.
Future studies could examine further the influence of auditor quality on the breadth,
depth and context of ICMS implementation.
Fifth, the vast majority of the surveyed firms were ISO9001 certified influencing the
study’s results. Due to the fact that IS09001 has implementation and audit requirements
similar to ISO14001, ISO22000, SA8000 and OHSAS18001, it was assumed for the
purpose of this research that firms applying these latter standards will exhibit the same
pattern of behaviour, with respect to the standards, as ISO9001 certified firms
(Christmann & Taylor, 2006; Oskarsson & von Malmborg, 2005). Nonetheless, an
interesting extension of this study would be to have a dedicated investigation of firms
that have been certified with standards other than ISO9001.
232
Sixth, due to the immense presence of SMEs in the Greek economy (EOMMEX, 2009),
there was an over-representativeness of this type of firms in both samples of this study.
Although no difference was observed regarding the context of ICMS adoption, some
differences were identified with reference to the breadth and depth of the standards’
adoption. In particular, the results indicate that financial performance is more important
for SMEs than for large companies. Also, the findings show that SMEs are less likely to
implement ICMS substantially compared to large firms. Although statistical analysis
controlled for this influence by using firm size as a control variable, biases are bound to
exist. Further research is needed to investigate in greater detail the breadth, depth and
context of ICMS adoption exclusively for SMEs or large companies.
Seventh, drawing on previous research (Cambra-Fierro, et al., 2008; Castka, et al.,
2004a; Jenkins, 2006; Jenkins, 2009; Tilley, 2003), which suggests that CSR is less size
sensitive than it is believed, this study did not focus very much on differences between
SMEs and big firms. Although this has not affected the study’s results, a more dedicated
analysis may be needed to highlight inevitable peculiarities of SMEs.
Eighth, measurement context effects may be present in the current study because the
independent and dependent variables were measured at the same time. However, several ex
ante approaches, implemented in the research design, along with an ex post approach,
implemented after the research was conducted, indicate that this study does not suffer
from any potential sources of CMV.
Ninth, the measures used in this study are by no means exhaustive. The
operationalization of the breadth, depth and context of ICMS adoption may not have
233
fully captured the various facets of these three areas. Nonetheless, given that, to the best
of our knowledge, the approach this study adopts is the first of its kind it provides as it
stands the basis for a new line of inquiry into CSR and self-regulation. Future studies
should introduce additional measures to further test the robustness of the theoretical
suggestions.
Tenth, because the difference found between early and late adopters of ICMS was not
very big, further research is needed in order to identify whether early adopters apply
ICMS substantially or not.
Despite the aforementioned limitations, the study’s findings are supported by other
studies (Boiral, 2007; Christmann & Taylor, 2006; Hart, 2010; King, et al., 2005)
indicating that this analysis has been able to overcome limitations related to the fact that
data were collected from a single, small country not influential in terms of defining the
conditions of CSR implementation. Therefore, these results can be expected to hold true
for CSR practices across a wide range of countries.
234
Chapter 10: Conclusions
10 CONCLUSIONS
This study sought to investigate CSR implementation at the firm level and the factors
that influence this implementation. To succeed in its aim, the study used the most
widely diffused CSR tool, namely International Certifiable Management Standards, as
proxy indicator of CSR practices. Given that existing studies mainly: a) analyse CSR
from a business case perspective; b) use unreliable indicators of CSR practices (e.g. web
reporting); and c) are limited to specific institutional contexts (e.g. the USA and China)
(Christmann & Taylor, 2006; King, et al., 2005), this PhD research focused on a less
explored institutional environment (Greece) and adopted a more holistic approach.
Drawing on arguments made in the literature (Corbett & Muthulingam, 2007; Westphal,
et al., 1997) that in order to evaluate the adoption of a practice by firms one needs to
analyse both the breadth and depth of adoption, the study extended this idea by
suggesting that to get a holistic perspective one needs to also analyse the context of the
practice’s adoption. This research expands existing knowledge by paying particular
attention to: a) firms’ motives for adopting ICMS; b) the way firms integrate these
standards in their everyday activities; and c) the context in which firms adopt ICMS.
By adopting a multidisciplinary and mixed-methods approach, the study highlighted the
importance of conceptual bricolage and multi-level analysis to comprehend a complex
topic like corporate social responsibility. In particular, the study built its conceptual
framework by adopting a cross-disciplinary approach, which drew on the following
theories: diffusion of innovation; institutional; signalling; self-regulation; and
stakeholder theory. Also, the research followed a sequential explanatory research design
235
and employed the two most widely applied methods for data collection: survey and
semi-structured interviews.
The empirical data were collected in two phases. Survey took place in the first phase of
this study and produced 211 responses from micro, small, medium and big companies
from services, commerce and manufacture (21.4% response rate). The aim of the first
phase was to identify the prevalent tendencies regarding why firms adopt ICMS, how
they apply them and in which context. The second phase of this research was devoted to
qualitative analysis. Its aim was to triangulate the survey’s results and enhance the
convergent validity of its analysis. In this context, a random sample of 18 companies
was chosen from the survey sample.
To eliminate variations in levels of scrutiny and societal demands firms face (Hoffman,
2001; Long & Driscoll, 2008), the empirical data in both phases were collected from a
single county of a single country. Also, to ensure high quality of responses the study
drew on the key informant method (Campbell, 1955; Kumar, et al., 1993). In line with
previous studies (Christmann & Taylor, 2006), this thesis understood the managers
responsible for the implementation of the standard/s in each company as the most
knowledgeable and appropriate persons to complete a questionnaire in ICMS. In
addition, to increase the validity and reliability of the analysis, the study employed the
multiple informants’ method (Bagozzi, et al., 1991; Golden, 1992; Seidler, 1974). In
this context, 18 of the surveyed firms were randomly selected and interviews were held
with their’ CEOs or General Managers.
236
The findings suggest that CSR practices fail to influence business practice and become
part of the firm’s everyday activities. In particular, the results reveal that the adoption of
CSR practices such as ICMS by firms is rather driven by competitive and legitimacy
reasons than from a sheer interest on behalf of the firm to integrate CSR practices in its
operations. Furthermore, the findings show that most firms do not comply with the
ICMS requirements and rather use these CSR tools for their signalling value in order to
pacify or even mislead societal concerns over their activities. Lastly, the results reveal
that the implementation of CSR tools like ICMS suffers from significant inefficiencies
in the way the implementation of these tools is monitored. To this, great role plays the
fact that the government pays lip service in the implementation of these CSR tools.
In conclusion, this study makes several important contributions to the literature in the
implementation of CSR practices. It provides new and interesting insights in such topics
as why companies engage into CSR practices, how they use such practices and in which
context. The framework presented here is designed to be a crucial first step in
conducting rigorous empirical and theoretical research on this poorly understood but
significant aspect of CSR research. In this sense, the study has not only provided an
explanation for the three areas of analysis, but also has opened up a new line of inquiry
for future research on implementation of CSR practices. However, much work remains
to be done in identifying and examining other factors that influence the implementation
of CSR practices.
237
Appendices
APPENDICES
Appendix 3-1: ICMS Requirements
- ISO9001
ISO9001 requires from firms to develop and put into operation a Quality Management
System (QMS). The latter consists of the following:
• Statements of Quality Policy and Objectives (strategic level);
• Quality Manual (strategic level);
• Quality Procedures (operational level);
• Work Instructions/ Documents (functional level); and
• Records.
Depending on the company’s size, the type of industry and the complexities of
operations, the extent of this documentation may differ from one firm to another. Thus,
in order to minimise red tape some small firms prefer to adopt more compact schemes;
in some cases all necessary requirements are included in the Quality Manual. Some
firms may prefer to merge procedures into a single one (ISO, 2009). For example, it is
common to merge the procedures dealing with ‘Document control’ and ‘Record
control’. In turn bigger companies may have more than one manual for their branches
and may need more complex management systems.
Usually, the Statements of Policy and Objectives are included in the Quality Manual.
These are developed according to specific requirements and must contain management’s
commitment to continuous improvement and legal compliance, and the objectives set in
the context of QMS implementation. The Quality Manual operates as an umbrella
document for the QMS:
• It discusses the firms’ organizational structure;
• It identifies the company’s processes; and
• It provides an account of how the company conforms to the standard’s
requirements, otherwise known as clauses, by referring to the relevant Quality
Management Procedures (ISO, 2009).
238
Appendices
Quality Management Procedures are developed according to the standard’s clauses and
provide a detailed account of how each procedure is undertaken. The procedures
required by ISO9001 are presented in the table below. Their aim is to ensure the correct
implementation of the Quality Policy and the constant improvement and effectiveness,
taking into consideration the customers’ needs and requirements and the applicable
legislative and regulatory constraints. These procedures are accompanied by a number
of documents such as document control list, approved supplier list and quality system
overview document. Depending on companies’ activities some of the ISO9001
procedures may not be applicable.
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
DOCUMENT CONTROL: entails the development of a simplified coding system of a firm’s
documents for enabling their easy control.
RECORDS CONTROL: requires that all company’s records are kept in specific places and that access
to these records is controlled by the person responsible for their maintenance.
INTERNAL AUDITS: includes periodical audits of the system’s implementation.
NON-CONFORMITIES/ CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: involves identification and record of any non-
compliances with the system’s requirements and the implementation of the actions needed for securing
the correctiveness of these non-compliances.
PREVENTITIVE ACTIONS: requires certain actions to be taken for preventing any non-compliances
with the system’s requirements.
MANAGEMENT REVIEW: entails periodical management reviews of system’s implementation (at
least one per year).
QUALITY OBJECTIVES, TARGETS AND INDICATORS: includes the setting of annual
objectives, targets and indicators for enabling the quantification of a company’s performance.
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
PERSONNEL RESPONSIBILITIES: requires the clarification of a firm’s organizational structure and
specification of personnel’s responsibilities.
PERSONNEL TRAINING: involves periodical training of personnel.
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT: includes the management of a firm’s infrustructe for
enabling its daily operation.
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE: entails setting a progam related to equipment’s maintenance.
EQUIPMENT CALLIBRATION: demands the callibration of measuring devices.
PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
SUPPLIER EVALUATION: requires the setting of certain criteria for evaluating and selecting
suppliers.
PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT: entails the setting of certain technical criteria for the supply of
raw and package materials.
DELIVERY/ CONTROL OF SUPPLIES: includes the identification of the way a firm accepts/
controls/ storages the incoming materials.
COMMUNICATION WITH CUSTOMERS PROCEDURES
CONTRACTS/ OFFERS: refers to the clarification of the way a firm submitts offers to its customers
and signs contracts with them.
239
Appendices
ORDER MANAGEMENT: involves the setting of a certain procedure for the management of
customers’ orders.
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: requires from a firm to use appropriate techniques (usually
questionnaires) for getting feedback on customer satisfaction.
COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT: entails a management procedure that a firm must follow in case of
complaints.
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT: in case of design and developmenet of new products/ services a
firm must follow certain procedures that enable the monitoring, review and verification of the design
process.
PRODUCTS/ SERVICES REALIZATION PROCEDURES
Requires the development of a number of procedures describing the way a firm undertakes its core
activities. For example, in case of production of goods a company must develop and apply procedures
such as:
-Production Planning;
-Execution of Production;
-Quality Monitoring of Production;
-Product Specifications;
-Product Identification and Traceability;
-Storage/ Packaging/ Loading/ Transport of Products; and
-Quality Plans.
Quality Management System Procedures
(adapted from ISO, 2009)
Work instructions are step-by-step guidelines on how to implement a certain task. In

practice, work instructions describe who is responsible for performing the task, when it
has to get started, when to be completed, how it has to be done, etc. An instruction can
be incorporated in a procedure as a part of it but it is more often included in a separate
document (functional level). With reference to the latter, this is very common in large
organizations that have a significant number of necessary instructions and operations,
which need to be monitored and controlled. Forms and documents help personnel to
record all information required for the successful development, implementation and
maintenance of a QMS in an accessible and understandable form (Tapinos, 2008;
TÜV.Hellas, 2008).
Finally, records provide evidence that the QMS is being maintained according to the
standard’s requirements and are necessary for evaluating the system’s implementation.
They also help to track and evaluate improvement in relation to the organization’s
quality policy, objectives and targets (Tapinos, 2008; TÜV.Hellas, 2008).
240
Appendices
- ISO 14001
The standard has been written in such a way that all types and sizes of organizations can
be included and diverse geographical, cultural and social conditions can be addressed.
The overall aim of ISO14001 is environmental protection and prevention of pollution in
balance with socio-economic needs. The standard does not establish absolute
requirements for environmental performance beyond commitment, in the policy, to
compliance with applicable legislation and regulations, and to continual improvement
(ISO, 2009).
ISO 14001 documents an organization’s environmental aspects, which include energy

use, water consumption, site history - everything the organization exerts control over, or
over which it could be expected to have influence. Once these aspects are identified,
they are used by the organization to establish objectives and targets and formulate a
program in pursuing them. The obligations of the standard are continual, so that the
environmental operations and action plans are constantly improved, and the
environmental policy continually revised. More precisely, ISO14001 requires the
development and operation of an Environmental Management System (EMS) that
consist of:
• Environmental Policy (strategic level)
• Environmental Management Procedures (operational level)
• Working Instructions/ External Documents (functional level).
The Environmental Policy is usually included in the Environmental Management

Manual. It sketches out the organization’s intentions with regard to the environment and
puts emphasis on the following:
• Legal compliance with relevant legislation;
• Setting clear and sufficient objectives and targets;
• Pollution prevention through avoidance, reduction and control; and
• Commitment to continuous improvement of the environmental management
system, and hence the environmental performance of the organization, in line
with its environmental policy (ISO, 2009; TÜV.Hellas, 2008).
The Environmental Manual is not mandatory for ISO 14001. The standard requires that
organizations should maintain information or documentation on the core elements of the
241
Appendices
EMS, i.e. its environmental policy, environmental objectives and targets, environmental
management programs, procedures, roles and responsibilities. In most cases, however,
organizations prepare an Environmental Manual, which is considered as the first level
of the system’s documentation (ISO, 2009; Tapinos, 2008; TÜV.Hellas, 2008).
As the contents of an environmental manual do not refer to any ‘sensitive’ sector of the
organization, it can be used as a marketing tool when sent to customers or other
stakeholders. Similarly with the Quality Manual, the Environmental one provides a
general description of the system. In particular, apart from the Environmental Policy it
describes the company’s organizational structure, identifies the procedures that
constitute the EMS and discusses how the standard’s requirements are satisfied.
Apart from the requirement to compile Environmental Management Procedures, the

standard has many similarities with ISO9001. Thus, an Environmental Management
System includes the same Management Procedures, the same Resources Management
Procedures and the same Procurement Management Procedures with ISO9001.
Environmental Management Procedures aim at setting a clear framework for dealing
with the environmental impacts of their activities. These procedures include:
Environmental Communication: requires the establishment of a mechanism
for the diffusion of all information related with a company’s EMS.
Emergency Prepardness and Response: refers to the identification of potential
accidents or emergency situations and preparation of relevant plans for the
management of these situations.
Identification of Legal and other Normative Requirements: entails the
identification of all relevant legal, normative or other (e.g. codes of practices of
associations in which the firm is a member) requirements related with a firm’s
activities.
Identification of Environmental Aspects and Environmental Impact
Assessement: requires the development of a specific methodology for
identifying the environmental aspects of a company’s activities and evaluating
the environmental impacts stemming from its operations/ products.
Waste Management (Toxic/ Non Toxic- Solid/ Liquid): demands a describtion
of the way a firm manages the solid/ liquid (toxic and non-toxic) waste
stemming from its activities.
242
Appendices
Air Pollution Management: entails the monitoring and controlling of the air
pollution caused by a company’s activities.
Noise Control: involves describtion of the way a firm measures and controls the
noise levels caused by its activities in order to undertake the needed policies for
the protection of its employees and of environment at large.
Monitoring and Measurement of Environmental Aspects: includes a
describtion of the way a company measures its environmental aspects (ISO,
2009; Tapinos, 2008; TÜV.Hellas, 2008).
- OHSAS 18001
The standard follows the operating principle Plan-Do-Check-Act and requires from
firms to develop and apply a Health and Safety Management System (HSMS) that
consists of:
• Health and Safety Policy (strategic level);
• Health and Safety Management Procedures (operational level);
• Working Instructions/ External Documents (functional level).
Similarly to ISO9001 and ISO14001, the firm’s policy is included in the Health and
Safety Manual. This serves as the System’s directory and has three main purposes:
• To define the organizational structure and responsibilities;
• To provide a description of the risk analysis mechanism, which has been
developed and implemented for the purpose of identifying/communicating
present and potential hazards; and
• To describe the procedures that constitute the Health and Safety Management
System and to analyse how the standard’s requirements are satisfied (BSI, 2009;
SGS, 2009; TÜV.Hellas, 2008)
In line with ISO9001 and IS014001, the standard requires the development of
Management Procedures, Resources Management Procedures and Procurement
Management Procedures. Apart from these, OHSAS18001 requires from firms to
develop and apply the following Health and Safety Procedures:
Hazard identification, risk assessment and determining controls: entails the
development of a methodology for identifying and assessing the significance of
all risks related with a firm’s activities.
243
Appendices
Legal and other requirements: refers to the identification of all relevant legal,
normative or other requirements related with a firm’s activities.
Objectives and OHS program(s): requires the setting of targets and objectives
related with health and safety in the workplace and the establishment of health
and safety programs for achieving those targets and objectives.
Communication, participation and consultation: involves the establishment
of a mechanism for the diffusion of all information related with a company’s
HSMS.
Operational control: includes the way a firm identifies and manages all health
and safety related risks that may be found in the workplace; it also entails how a
firm manages these risks for minimizing their venturesomeness for employees
and stakeholders at large.
Emergency preparedness and response: refers to the identification of potential
accidents or emergency situations and preparation of relevant plans for the
management of these situations.
Performance measuring, monitoring and improvement: requires the
establishment of a specific method of monitoring and measuring a firm’s health
and safety performance; it also refers to the way a firm monitors and measures
its equipment (BSI, 2009; SGS, 2009; TÜV.Hellas, 2008).
- EMAS
EMAS stands for Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. EMAS follows the continuous
improvement approach discussed earlier and has the following requirements:
1. Environmental policy: a formal environmental policy is required at corporate
level, containing commitment both to complying with relevant environmental
legislation and to continually improving the environmental performance.
2. Environmental review: identification of all environmental impacts, as well as
procedures for improvement and prioritisation of targets, are required by the
scheme.
3. Environmental program: based on environmental review it describes the set
objectives and targets and sets the pathway to achieve them. In other words, it
puts policy into practice through a clear chain of command.
4. EMS: the system must be properly organised and documented by trained
personnel and incorporated into the management structure. The EMS must be
244
Appendices
established on the basis of the review with an aim at improving the
environmental performance of the organisation.
5. Environmental Audit: any progress made must be audited at regular intervals
by internal environmental audits.
6. Environmental statement: this is a document that contains information on
organization’s efforts and accomplishments. In particular, it provides: an
assessment of all the significant direct and indirect environmental issues; a
summary of year-by-year figures on pollution emissions, waste generation, noise
and consumption of raw materials, energy and water; and a presentation of the
organisation’s environmental policy, programs and management system.
7. Validation: prior to its publication, the statement must be validated by an
accredited verifier who should be independent of the site auditor (Europa,
2009a).
- ISO 22000
ISO22000 is applicable to all firms regardless of size and is compatible with ISO9001
in order to encourage firms, which already apply the quality standard, to also adopt this
one. As other food management standards, ISO22000 builds on HACCP. This
abbreviation stands for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point and is a systematic
approach used to identify, evaluate and control food safety hazards. It is based on
certain principles, which companies must follow to develop a HACCP plan. This is a
document analysing how the company aims to identify, evaluate and control food safety
hazards (FAO & WHO, 1999).
ISO 22000 integrates the HACCP plan with other managerial requirements. In
particular, the standard requires the development and operation of a Food Safety
Management System (FSMS) that consist of:
• Food safety policy (strategic level)
• Food Safety Procedures (operational level)
• Work Instructions/ Documents (functional level).
The standard does not require a Food Safety Manual; nonetheless most companies
choose to prepare one and include in it their policy and objectives. Similarly to the
previously analysed ICMS, ISO22000 requires Management Procedures (e.g. document
and record control, internal audits, non-conformities, corrective/ preventive actions etc),
245
Appendices
Resources Management Procedures (e.g. personnel training, product identification and
traceability, equipment maintenance etc) and Procurement Management Procedures
(e.g. supplier evaluation, procurement management etc). Apart from these, the standard
requires the following food safety procedures:
The setting of a Food safety team responsible for the development,
implementation and verification of the FSMS.
HACCP Plan: see above.
The allocation of food safety specific responsibilities and duties for all
personnel working in areas related with food safety.
The setting of a mechanism through which a firm programs the productions
lines, in order to meet all requirements related to the final products and market
needs.
The setting of a mechanism through which the supplied materials are received;
Detailed description of the way raw materials/ semi finals products/ final
products are stored/ delivered.
Detailed description of the procedure followed for recalling finished products.
Detailed description of how products are treated during production, packaging,
storage and delivery to customers.
Description of the way the firm assigns, documents and authorizes the
specifications of its semi-final and final products.
Establishment of a mechanism for the diffusion of all information related with
a company’s FSMS.
Identification of potential accidents or emergency situations and preparation
of relevant plans for the management of these situations.
Securing Health and Safety in the workplace through actions such as pest
control, cleaning and disinfection and waste management (ISO, 2009; Tapinos,
2008; TÜV.Hellas, 2008).
- SA 8000
SA8000 is widely regarded as a standard that secures an ethical environment for

employees and its popularity constantly increases (Leipziger, 2003). SA8000 sets
standards for:
Child Labour: a firm should not use any child labour in its activities.
Forced Labour: the use of forced labour is prohibited.
246
Appendices
Health and Safety: a company must provide a healthy and safe workplace and
apply the needed policies for preventing potential accidents.
Freedom of Association and Right to Collective Bargaining: a firm must not
discourage personnel from forming/ joining trade unions and bargain
collectively.
Discrimination: no discrimination based on race, caste, national origin, religion,
disability, gender, sexual orientation, union membership, political affiliation or
age, is allowed to be included in a firm’s policies.
Discipline: a firm must not use any form of punishment, coercion or abuse to its
personnel.
Working Hours: these should comply with relevant legislation and should not
exceed a 48 hours working shift/ week.
Remuneration: a company must pay its employees in accordance with relevant
laws; it should never pay them below minimum national wage standards; and the
paid wages must ensure covering of basic needs and provision of discretionary
income (Leipziger, 2003).
In order to demonstrate competence and continuous improvement in these areas the firm
must develop and apply a Social Management System (SMS). This must be consisted
of:
• Policy (strategic level)
• Social Management Procedures (operational level)
• External Documents (functional level)
• Records.
The standard does not require the establishment of a social manual. Nonetheless, as with
other standards, many firms prefer to prepare one and use it as a mirror of the whole
management system. The policy, included in the manual, must be publicly available. In
line with ISO9001 and ISO14001, SA8000 requires the firm to develop a number of
management procedures such as internal audits, management review and allocation of
responsibilities (Leipziger, 2003). These procedures were discussed in detail in the
previous standards.
247
Appendices
Appendix 5-1: Survey information sheet
Lancashire Business School

University of Central Lancashire
Research on International Certifiable Management Standards and Corporate

Social Responsibility
Dear Sir/ Madam
Lancashire Business School is conducting a study on the application of international certifiable

management standards in Greece. We would appreciate your help. Your company was selected
because of its experience with adopting such standards. All you need to do is to read the
information below and answer the questionnaire attached. The completion of the questionnaire
will take no more than 5 minutes.
The study pursues exclusively scientific objectives. It is intended to assist in designing more
effective management standards that will respond better to the needs of companies and society
at large. The questionnaire refers to motivations for applying a management standard in your
company and perceptions about the use of such a standard.
Confidentiality: Your answers will be treated in full confidentiality at every stage of the project
and will never be used to identify you or your company. They will be aggregated with answers
from other respondents to produce a statistical database. The research results are intended for
publication in academic journals.
Thank you for taking the time to help this research. Please return the completed questionnaire
no later than the 15th of December 2008 in the enclosed Freepost envelope.
Alternatively, you can answer the questionnaire through the following web-site:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Hqs6Iqbyn_2btzp_2fxROLDM9g_3d_3d
If you have any queries please contact Mr Konstantinos Iatridis by e-mail:

KIatridis@uclan.ac.uk
Finally, we would like to inform you that you could access a summary of the research findings
through the Lancashire Business School web site at: http://www.uclan.ac.uk/lbs/index.php
or through e-mail in the above mentioned address.
Thank you for your help,
Professor Andrei Kuznetsov Professor Philip Whyman
248
Appendices
Appendix 5- 2: T-test results for early (N=47) and late respondents (N=164)
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error the Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Employees Equal variances assumed 2.310 .130 -1.042 209 .298 -71.672 68.755 -207.213 63.870
Equal variances not assumed -1.073 208.014 .285 -71.672 66.826 -203.414 60.071
Industry Equal variances assumed 1.137 .288 -.709 209 .479 -.082 .115 -.309 .146
Equal variances not assumed -.706 190.499 .481 -.082 .116 -.311 .147
Influence of external factors Equal variances assumed .301 .584 .440 203 .660 .063 .144 -.220 .347
Equal variances not assumed .444 196.748 .658 .063 .143 -.218 .344
Influence of CSR Equal variances assumed .901 .344 .195 209 .845 .034 .174 -.308 .376
Influence of internal factors Equal variances assumed .772 .381 -.106 209 .916 -.015 .141 -.293 .263
Influence of market factors Equal variances assumed 3.238 .073 .462 209 .645 .056 .120 -.182 .293
Customer awareness Equal variances assumed 3.610 .059 .253 209 .801 .035 .138 -.237 .306
Government awareness Equal variances assumed .276 .600 .983 209 .327 .118 .120 -.119 .355
249
Appendices
Number of annual internal Equal variances assumed .701 .403 -.807 209 .421 -.082 .101 -.281 .118
audits Equal variances not assumed -.817 201.836 .415 -.082 .100 -.278 .115
Number of MNCs Equal variances assumed 3.460 .064 .397 209 .692 .062 .157 -.247 .371
Daily use of documents Equal variances assumed .758 .385 1.204 209 .230 .159 .132 -.101 .418
Equal variances not assumed 1.218 201.289 .225 .159 .130 -.098 .415
The company changes the Equal variances assumed 1.989 .160 -.274 209 .784 -.038 .138 -.311 .235
content Equal variances not assumed -.278 202.426 .781 -.038 .136 -.307 .231
Logo use on products Equal variances assumed 1.791 .182 -1.069 209 .286 -.257 .240 -.729 .216
Equal variances not assumed -1.061 188.304 .290 -.257 .242 -.733 .220
Logo use on documents Equal variances assumed .081 .776 .891 209 .374 .162 .182 -.196 .520
Logo use on web-site Equal variances assumed .035 .852 -1.133 209 .258 -.359 .317 -.984 .266
Equal variances not assumed -1.133 193.886 .258 -.359 .317 -.984 .266
Sanctions Equal variances assumed .061 .805 -.950 209 .343 -.122 .129 -.376 .132
Strictness of the regulatory Equal variances assumed 4.084 .045 -.649 209 .517 -.098 .151 -.396 .200
framework Equal variances not assumed -.636 178.164 .526 -.098 .154 -.402 .206
250
Appendices
Appendix 5-3: Questionnaire
LANCASHIRE BUSINESS SCHOOL

INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIABLE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND
Page 1 of 4
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: .......................................................................................................................................................

ANNUAL TURNOVER:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
DECLARED PROFIT:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
INDUSTRY:…………………………………………………………………………………………….........................................
YEAR OF ESTABLISHMENT:…………………………………………………………………………………………………...
NUMBER OF PERSONS DIRECTLY INVOLVED INTO THE SETTING UP AND MONITORING OF THE
MANAGEMENTSTANDARD/S:………………………………………………………………………………………………...
1. Please specify the standard/s under which your company is certified:
i) ISO9001 ii) ISO14001 iii) EMAS iv) OHSAS 18001/ELOT1801
v) HACCP/ISO22000 Other (please specify):…………………………………………………..
2. For how long have you been implementing the standard/s?

STANDARDS YEARS
ISO9001
ISO14001
EMAS
OHSAS18001/ELOT
1801
HACCP/ISO22000
OTHER
3. How many times per year do you internally audit the standard/s’ implementation? (Please circle as
applicable).
STANDARDS I don’t know Once Twice 3 Times or more
ISO9001 1 2 3 4
ISO14001 1 2 3 4
EMAS 1 2 3 4
OHSAS18001/
1 2 3 4
ΕΛΟΤ 1801
HACCP/ISO22000 1 2 3 4
OTHER 1 2 3 4
4. How many major non-conformances does an internal audit reveal on average? (Please circle as applicable).
None 1 2 3 4 or more
1 2 3 4 5
5. How many secondary non-conformances does an internal audit reveal on average? (Please circle as
applicable).
None 1 2 3 4 or more
1 2 3 4 5
251
Appendices
LANCASHIRE BUSINESS SCHOOL Page 2 of 4
6. With reference to standard’s implementation please state to what extent: (Please circle as applicable).
To a
To some To a large very
Not at all Very little
extent extent large
extent
The documents created for the purpose of the
1 2 3 4 5
management system are used in daily practice
The content of the documents changes pending
1 2 3 4 5
the external audit
7. How would you rate the influence of the following factors in your decision to adopt and implement a
management standard? (Please circle as applicable).
Not Of little Some Very

Important
important importance importance important
Improved relations with local community 1 2 3 4 5
Improved relations with governmental authorities 1 2 3 4 5
Satisfaction of EU requirements 1 2 3 4 5
Improved relations with NGOs 1 2 3 4 5
Pressures from other certified companies 1 2 3 4 5
Access to international markets 1 2 3 4 5
Satisfaction of domestic market requirements 1 2 3 4 5
Satisfaction of Customer requirements 1 2 3 4 5
Increase in sales 1 2 3 4 5
Cost Savings 1 2 3 4 5
Greater productivity 1 2 3 4 5
Improved financial performance 1 2 3 4 5
Acknowledging Social Responsibility 1 2 3 4 5
8. Please choose and rank the 3 most important factors according to their importance in influencing your
decision to adopt and implement a management standard (where 1 the most important and 3 the least
important):
Improved relations with local community Satisfaction of Customer requirements

Improved relations with governmental authorities Increase in sales
Satisfaction of EU requirements Cost Savings
Improved relations with NGOs Greater productivity
Pressures from other certified companies Improved financial performance
Access to international markets Acknowledging Social Responsibility
Satisfaction of domestic market requirements
9. How would you evaluate the contribution of the following features of the management standard to
improving your company’s operations?
Not Of little Some Very

Important
important importance importance important
Management review 1 2 3 4 5
Internal Audits 1 2 3 4 5
Objectives, Targets, Indicators 1 2 3 4 5
Complaints Management 1 2 3 4 5
Document Control 1 2 3 4 5
Record Control 1 2 3 4 5
Supplier Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5
252
Appendices
10. Are you aware of the objectives, targets and indicators that, within the context of the standard’s
implementation, your company has set for the next year?
Yes 1 No 2
If yes, could you please refer a target, an objective and an indicator?
Objective:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Target:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Indicator:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
11. How many companies in your industry, do you think, are certified? (Please circle as applicable).
Less than Between Between Between More than
Standards
20% 20%-39% 40%-59% 60%-79% 80%
ISO9001 1 2 3 4 5
ISO14001 1 2 3 4 5
EMAS 1 2 3 4 5
OHSAS 18001/
1 2 3 4 5
ΕΛΟΤ 1801
HACCP/
1 2 3 4 5
ISO22000
ΑΛΛΟ 1 2 3 4 5
12. How would you evaluate the EU influence on certification levels in Greece? (Please circle as applicable).
Not particularly Somehow
Not significant Significant Very significant
significant significant
1 2 3 4 5
13. How would you evaluate the influence of national legislation on certification levels in Greece? (Please circle
as applicable).
Not particularly Somehow
Not significant Significant Very significant
significant significant
1 2 3 4 5
14. How strict is the regulatory framework in terms of the fines that a company may face in case of symbolic
implementation of a standard? (Please circle as applicable).
Not particularly
Not strict Somehow strict Strict Very strict
strict
1 2 3 4 5
15. How would you rate your business environment? (Please circle as applicable).
Lowly
Not competitive Competitive Highly competitive
competitive
1 2 3 4
16.
16. Do you think that customers and government can distinguish between companies implementing Corporate
Social Responsibility (excluding philanthropy) and ones that don’t? (Please circle as applicable).
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
Customers 1 2 3 4 5
Government 1 2 3 4 5
Please state why briefly ………………………………………………………………………………………………...
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
253
Appendices
17. How would you evaluate the impact of the following consequences that your company may face in case of
non-compliance with standard’s requirements? (Please circle as applicable).
Not
Not Somehow Very
particularly Significant
significant significant significant
significant
Recall of
1 2 3 4 5
Certificate
Reputation
1 2 3 4 5
Cost
18. How well informed do you think customers and government are about standards’ implementation? (Please
circle as applicable).
Not well Not very
Fairly well Very well
Don’t know informed at well
informed informed
all informed
Customers 1 2 3 4 5
Please justify briefly your opinion………………………………………………………………………………………
…………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………...………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
19. To what extent customers and the government request information, from your company, regarding the
implementation of the standard/s?(Please circle as applicable).
To some To a large To a very
Not at all Very little
extent extent large extent
Customers 1 2 3 4 5
20. Is the standard/s certification included in the contracts with your customers and government as contract
specification? (Please circle as applicable).
Customers 1 2 3 4 5
21. How long are you using the certification’s logo on the web-site of your company: (Please circle as
applicable).
4 or more
Never 1 years 2 years 3 years
years
1 2 3 4 5
22. Please state whether you use the certification’s logo on: (Please circle as applicable).

Your documents 1 2 3 4 5
Your products as signal of
1 2 3 4 5
good product quality
23. Do you communicate the results of the audits to the public? (Please circle as applicable).
1 2 3 4 5
Thank you very much for your time!!
254
Appendices
Appendix 5-4: Consent form
CONSENT FORM
I freely and voluntarily consent to be a participant in the research project on the topic of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to be conducted by Mr Konstantinos Iatridis, who is a
PhD Researcher in Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire. The broad
goal of this research study is to evaluate how CSR influences business practices using
International Certifiable Management Standards as indicators of CSR. Specifically, I have been
asked to give an interview, which should take no longer than 30 min to complete.
I have been told that my responses will be kept strictly confidential. I also understand that if at
any time during the interview I feel unable or unwilling to continue, I am free to leave. That is,
my participation in this study is completely voluntary, and I may withdraw from it at any time
without negative consequences. In addition, should I not wish to answer any particular question
or questions, I am free to decline. My name will not be linked with the research materials, and I
will not be identified or identifiable in any report subsequently produced by the researcher.
I have been given the opportunity to ask questions regarding the interview, and my questions
have been answered to my satisfaction. I have been informed that if I have any general
questions about this project, I should feel free to contact Mr Iatridis at: KIatridis@uclan.ac.uk.
I have read and understand the above and consent to participate in this study. My signature is
not a waiver of any legal rights. Furthermore, I understand that I will be able to keep a copy of
the informed consent form for my records.
……………………… ….….……………..
Participant’s Signature Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have explained and defined in detail the research procedure in which the respondent has
consented to participate. Furthermore, I will retain one copy of the informed consent form for
my records.
……………………… ….….……………..
Researcher’s Signature Date
255
Appendices
Appendix 6-1: Histograms
256
Appendices
257
Appendices
258
Appendices
259
Appendices
260
Appendices
261
Appendices
262
Appendices
Appendix 7-1: Testing common method bias
Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 7.326 19.800 19.800 7.326 19.800 19.800
2 2.868 7.752 27.552 2.868 7.752 27.552
3 2.428 6.561 34.113 2.428 6.561 34.113
4 2.208 5.969 40.082 2.208 5.969 40.082
5 1.915 5.175 45.257 1.915 5.175 45.257
6 1.752 4.734 49.992 1.752 4.734 49.992
7 1.501 4.058 54.049 1.501 4.058 54.049
8 1.455 3.931 57.980 1.455 3.931 57.980
9 1.396 3.773 61.753 1.396 3.773 61.753
10 1.175 3.175 64.929 1.175 3.175 64.929
11 1.097 2.966 67.894 1.097 2.966 67.894
12 .996 2.693 70.587
13 .899 2.431 73.018
14 .875 2.364 75.382
15 .819 2.215 77.597
16 .746 2.018 79.614
17 .707 1.910 81.525
18 .673 1.818 83.343
19 .661 1.786 85.129
20 .632 1.708 86.837
21 .556 1.503 88.340
22 .516 1.396 89.736
23 .492 1.331 91.067
24 .445 1.203 92.270
25 .395 1.068 93.338
26 .356 .963 94.300
27 .350 .946 95.246
28 .327 .883 96.128
29 .298 .806 96.934
30 .271 .733 97.667
263
Appendices
31 .211 .571 98.238

32 .202 .547 98.785
33 .185 .499 99.284
34 .139 .377 99.661
35 .125 .339 100.000
36 .000 .000 100.000
37 .000 .000 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
264
Appendices
Appendix 7-2: Factor analysis for motives influencing firms’ decision to adopt
ICMS
Factor Loading
Item Communality
1 2 3
Influence of greater productivity .88 .79
Influence of cost savings .82 .74
Influence of financial performance .77 .68
Influence of sales' increase .64 .43 .61
Influence of governmental authorities .84 .72
Influence of NGOs .76 .62
Influence of EU .73 .30 .63
Influence of local community .70 .57
Influence of domestic market requirements .84 .74
Influence of customer requirements .38 .74 .70
Pressure from other companies .57 .39
Influence of access to international markets .41 .42 .39
Eigenvalues 4.95 1.75 1.29
% of variance 22.71 22.42 16.41
Note: Loadings < .40 are omitted
265
Appendices
Appendix 7-3: Testing the assumptions of hypothesis 1 (Diffusion of ICMS)
Table 1: Testing the assumptions of multicollinearity
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized 95% Confidence Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Correlations Statistics
Lower Upper Zero-

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 2.490 .264 9.448 .000 1.970 3.009
Employees .080 .058 .095 1.379 .169 -.034 .194 .099 .095 .094 .981 1.019
Commerce .462 .219 .161 2.114 .036 .031 .893 .095 .145 .144 .805 1.242
Manufacture .378 .221 .131 1.710 .089 -.058 .813 .073 .118 .117 .797 1.255
2 (Constant) .096 .514 .187 .852 -.916 1.109
Employees .060 .054 .071 1.113 .267 -.046 .166 .099 .078 .069 .946 1.057
Commerce .403 .204 .140 1.976 .050 .001 .805 .095 .138 .123 .773 1.293
Manufacture .368 .205 .128 1.794 .074 -.037 .773 .073 .126 .112 .770 1.299
Influence of
external .263 .091 .201 2.888 .004 .083 .442 .238 .200 .180 .804 1.244
factors
Influence of
internal -.126 .112 -.097 -1.124 .262 -.347 .095 .054 -.079 -.070 .528 1.893
factors
Influence of
domestic .251 .092 .186 2.726 .007 .069 .432 .264 .189 .170 .840 1.191
markets
Influence of
-.156 .085 -.146 -1.840 .067 -.323 .011 -.035 -.129 -.115 .617 1.620
CSR
Influence of
customer .129 .096 .089 1.344 .180 -.060 .317 .212 .094 .084 .879 1.138
awareness
Influence of
government .365 .106 .239 3.447 .001 .156 .574 .302 .236 .215 .812 1.231
awareness
a. Dependent Variable: % of certified firms
Tolerance values are well above 0.1 and do not indicate any collinerarity problem.
Likewise, VIF values are well below 10 implying no concern over multicollinearity.
266
Appendices
Table 2: Testing the assumptions of linearity
Variables in the Equation
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
Step 1a ext 2.406 1.867 1.661 1 .197 11.089 .286 430.509
ext by LnExt -.943 .872 1.169 1 .280 .390 .071 2.152
CSR .627 1.363 .212 1 .646 1.872 .129 27.083
CSR by LnCSR -.349 .653 .285 1 .593 .706 .196 2.536
int -4.959 2.012 6.077 1 .014 .007 .000 .362
LnInt by int 2.223 .958 5.382 1 .020 9.232 1.412 60.368
DomMark 4.789 2.794 2.939 1 .086 120.206 .503 2.871E4
DomMark by LnDMark -1.920 1.232 2.426 1 .119 .147 .013 1.642
Custaw 2.233 2.771 .649 1 .420 9.328 .041 2.130E3
Custaw by LnCustAw -.914 1.278 .512 1 .474 .401 .033 4.904
Govaw 6.574 3.206 4.205 1 .040 716.338 1.337 3.838E5
Govaw by LnGovAw -2.875 1.516 3.596 1 .058 .056 .003 1.101
Constant -18.453 6.989 6.971 1 .008 .000
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: ext, ext * Lnext , CSR, CSR * LnCSR ,

int, LnInt * int, DomMark, DomMark * LnDMark , Custaw,
Custaw* LnCustAw , Govaw, Govaw* LnGovAw .
Only one interaction term is significant i.e. LnInt by int. However, as it was said in the
text this is well above the criterion α = .05/13 = .003
267
Appendices
Appendix 7-4: Hypothesis 1 (Diffusion of ICMS) - Hierarchical logistic regression

results
Case Processing Summary
Unweighted Casesa N Percent
Selected Cases Included in Analysis 211 100.0
Missing Cases 0 .0
Total 211 100.0
Unselected Cases 0 .0
Total 211 100.0
a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of cases.
Dependent Variable Encoding
Original Value Internal Value
insignificant percentage of
0
certified firms
significant percentage of
1
certified firms
Categorical Variables Codings
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2)
Industry Services 82 .000 .000
Commerce 65 1.000 .000
Manufacture 64 .000 1.000
Block 0: Beginning Block

Iteration Historya,b,c
Coefficients
Iteration -2 Log likelihood Constant
Step 0 1 266.764 .692
2 266.723 .722
3 266.723 .722
a. Constant is included in the model.
b. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 266.723
268
Appendices
Coefficients
Step 0 1 266.764 .692
2 266.723 .722
3 266.723 .722
c. Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because

parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
Classification Tablea,b
Predicted
Percentage of certified firms
insignificant significant
percentage of percentage of Percentage
Observed certified firms certified firms Correct
Step 0 Percentage of certified insignificant percentage of

0 69 .0
firms certified firms
0 142 100.0
certified firms
Overall Percentage 67.3
b. The cut value is .500
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 0 Constant .722 .147 24.188 1 .000 2.058
Variables not in the Equation
Score df Sig.
Industry (1) i.e.
Step 0 Variables Employees 1.266 1 .260
commerce is
Industry 4.856 2 .088 significant predictor
Industry(1) 3.954 1 .047 of whether there are
significant or not
Industry(2) .001 1 .982
percentages of
Overall Statistics 6.305 3 .098 certified firms.
269
Appendices
Block 1: Method = Enter Employees and industry are entered in Block 1, the first step.
Iteration Historya,b,c,d
Coefficients
Iteration -2 Log likelihood Constant LnEmp Industry(1) Industry(2)
Step 1 1 260.543 .013 .099 .698 .256
2 260.291 -.038 .115 .820 .274
3 260.291 -.040 .116 .824 .274
4 260.291 -.040 .116 .824 .274
a. Method: Enter
b. Constant is included in the model.
c. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 266.723
d. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because parameter estimates changed by less than
.001.
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-square df Sig. The combination of

Step 1 Step 6.432 3 .092 the two variables
Block 6.432 3 .092
does not predict
significantly the
Model 6.432 3 .092
outcome variable.
Model Summary
Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R

Knowing employees
Step -2 Log likelihood Square Square
and industry does not
1 260.291a .030 .042 provide any
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because parameter significant help in
estimates changed by less than .001. predicting
percentages of
certified firms.
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Step Chi-square df Sig. The insignificant value

1 8.315 8 .403
indicates the goodness of
fit of the model.
270
Appendices
Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Percentage of certified firms = Percentage of certified firms =

insignificant percentage of certified significant percentage of certified
firms firms
Observed Expected Observed Expected Total
Step 1 1 12 9.079 8 10.921 20
2 5 8.540 15 11.460 20
3 10 8.401 11 12.599 21
4 6 7.777 15 13.223 21
5 9 7.288 12 13.712 21
6 7 6.624 14 14.376 21
7 5 5.839 15 14.161 20
8 3 5.483 18 15.517 21
9 6 5.142 16 16.858 22
10 6 4.828 18 19.172 24
Classification Tablea
Predicted
Step 1 Percentage of certified insignificant percentage of

0 69 .0
firms certified firms
0 142 100.0
certified firms
a. The cut value is .500
271
Appendices
Step 1a Employees .116 .096 1.444 1 .230 1.123 .930 1.356
Industry 4.913 2 .086
Industry(1) .824 .372 4.906 1 .027 2.280 1.100 4.729
Industry(2) .274 .352 .605 1 .437 1.315 .659 2.623
Constant -.040 .423 .009 1 .925 .961
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: LnEmp, Industry.
The other seven factors are entered in the second step.

Block 2: Method = Enter
Coefficients
-2 Log Industry Industry External Internal Market Customer Government

Iteration likelihood Constant Employees (1) (2) factors factors factors CSR awareness awareness
Step 1 1 236.409 -2.697 .077 .643 .256 .342 -.206 .289 -.127 .135 .372
2 234.565 -3.391 .099 .778 .314 .439 -.272 .351 -.157 .160 .484
3 234.547 -3.468 .101 .790 .320 .450 -.279 .357 -.160 .163 .497
4 234.547 -3.469 .101 .790 .320 .450 -.280 .357 -.160 .163 .497
a. Method: Enter
b. Constant is included in the

model.
c. Initial -2 Log Likelihood:

260.291
d. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because parameter estimates changed by

less than .001.
Chi-square df Sig.
Adding external factors,
Step 1 Step 25.743 6 .000
internal factors, market
Block 25.743 6 .000 factors, CSR, government
Model 32.175 9 .000 awareness and customer
awareness significantly
improves prediction.
272
Appendices
Model Summary

By adding the above
mentioned factors these
1 234.547a .141 .197
R2s increased
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because parameter significantly.
estimates changed by less than .001.
Step Chi-square df Sig.
1 4.232 8 .836
Percentage of certified firms = Percentage of certified firms =

insignificant percentage of certified significant percentage of certified
firms firms
Step 1 1 15 14.331 6 6.669 21
2 12 11.148 9 9.852 21
3 8 9.653 13 11.347 21
4 9 8.381 12 12.619 21
5 4 6.590 17 14.410 21
6 6 5.418 15 15.582 21
7 5 4.678 16 16.322 21
8 3 3.839 18 17.161 21
9 5 2.991 16 18.009 21
10 2 1.971 20 20.029 22
273
Appendices
Predicted
Step 1 Percentage of certified firms insignificant percentage of

24 45 34.8
certified firms
14 128 90.1
certified firms
Sig. 95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B S.E. Wald df Exp(B) Lower Upper
Step 1a Employees .101 .102 .972 1 .324 1.106 .905 1.352
Industry 3.939 2 .140
Industry(1) .790 .398 3.939 1 .047 2.204 1.010 4.812
Industry(2) .320 .386 .687 1 .407 1.377 .646 2.937
External factors .450 .179 6.345 1 .012 1.568 1.105 2.225
Internal factors -.280 .219 1.622 1 .203 .756 .492 1.163
Market Factors .357 .170 4.427 1 .035 1.429 1.025 1.994
CSR -.160 .167 .919 1 .338 .852 .614 1.182
Customer
.163 .178 .844 1 .358 1.178 .831 1.669
awareness
Government
.497 .211 5.580 1 .018 1.644 1.088 2.484
awareness
Constant -3.469 1.024 11.468 1 .001 .031
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: ext, int, DomMark, CSRR, Custaw, Govaw.
Commerce, external factors, internal factors,

market factors and government awareness are
significant predictors of the dependent variable.
274
Appendices
Appendix 7-5: Hypothesis 2a (Early-Late Adopters) - MANOVA results
Between-Subjects Factors
Value Label N
Years of standards' 1 Early adopters 47

implementation
2 Late adopters 164
Box's Test of Equality of

Covariance Matricesa
Box's M 11.386
F 1.101
df1 10
df2 32721.092 Since this is insignificant the assumption

of no differences between the covariate
Sig. .357
matrices is not violated.
Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups
a. Design: Intercept + Employees + Industry + ICMSYRSCat
Multivariate Testsb
Partial Eta
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Squared
Intercept Pillai's Trace .822 236.041a 4.000 204.000 .000 .822
Wilks' Lambda .178 236.041a 4.000 204.000 .000 .822
Hotelling's Trace 4.628 236.041a 4.000 204.000 .000 .822
Roy's Largest Root 4.628 236.041a 4.000 204.000 .000 .822
Employees Pillai's Trace .009 .488a 4.000 204.000 .744 .009
Wilks' Lambda .991 .488a 4.000 204.000 .744 .009
Hotelling's Trace .010 .488a 4.000 204.000 .744 .009
Roy's Largest Root .010 .488a 4.000 204.000 .744 .009
Industry Pillai's Trace .046 2.472a 4.000 204.000 .046 .046
Wilks' Lambda .954 2.472a 4.000 204.000 .046 .046
Hotelling's Trace .048 2.472a 4.000 204.000 .046 .046
Roy's Largest Root .048 2.472a 4.000 204.000 .046 .046
ICMSYRSCat Pillai's Trace .068 3.700a 4.000 204.000 .006 .068
Wilks' Lambda .932 3.700a 4.000 204.000 .006 .068
Roy's Largest Root .073 3.700a 4.000 204.000 .006 .068
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + Employees + Industry + ICMSYRSCat

275
Appendices
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F df1 df2 Sig.

There was no
Number of annual internal significance
.473 1 209 .493
audits of ICMS and thus the
assumption of
Number of MNCs 3.691 1 209 .056
homogeneity
The company changes the of variances
3.367 1 209 .068
content was not
Daily use of documents .983 1 209 .323
violated
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal
across groups.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Type III Sum of Mean Partial Eta

Source Dependent Variable Squares df Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected Number of annual internal audits of ICMS 1.820a 3 .607 1.214 .306 .017
Model
Number of MNCs 10.439b 3 3.480 2.764 .043 .039
The company changes the content 14.532c 3 4.844 5.067 .002 .068
Daily use of documents 7.990d 3 2.663 3.692 .013 .051
Intercept Number of annual internal audits of ICMS 93.239 1 93.239 186.534 .000 .474
Number of MNCs 68.155 1 68.155 54.142 .000 .207
The company changes the content 60.451 1 60.451 63.232 .000 .234
Daily use of documents 392.507 1 392.507 544.100 .000 .724
Employees Number of annual internal audits of ICMS .072 1 .072 .145 .704 .001
Number of MNCs .211 1 .211 .168 .682 .001
Daily use of documents .042 1 .042 .059 .809 .000
Industry Number of annual internal audits of ICMS .102 1 .102 .205 .651 .001
Number of MNCs 5.546 1 5.546 4.406 .037 .021
ICMSYRSCat Number of annual internal audits of ICMS 1.403 1 1.403 2.807 .095 .013
Number of MNCs 4.985 1 4.985 3.960 .048 .019
Error Number of annual internal audits of ICMS 103.469 207 .500
276
Appendices
Number of MNCs 260.576 207 1.259
The company changes the content 197.894 207 .956
Daily use of documents 149.327 207 .721
Total Number of annual internal audits of ICMS 816.930 211
Number of MNCs 1235.000 211
The company changes the content 1013.000 211
Daily use of documents 3630.000 211
Corrected Number of annual internal audits of ICMS 105.289 210

Total Number of MNCs 271.014 210
The company changes the content 212.427 210
Daily use of documents 157.318 210
a. R Squared = .017 (Adjusted R Squared = .003)
b. R Squared = .039 (Adjusted R Squared = .025)
c. R Squared = .068 (Adjusted R Squared = .055)
d. R Squared = .051 (Adjusted R Squared = .037)
Estimated Marginal Means

Years of ICMS implementation
95% Confidence Interval

Years of ICMS
Dependent Variable implementation Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Number of annual internal Early adopters 1.998a .108 1.785 2.211

audits of ICMS
Late adopters 1.790a .056 1.680 1.901
Number of MNCs Early adopters 1.833a .171 1.495 2.171
Late adopters 2.225a .089 2.050 2.400
The company changes the Early adopters 1.555a .149 1.260 1.849
content Late adopters 2.060a .077 1.908 2.213
Daily use of documents Early adopters 4.362a .130 4.106 4.618
Late adopters 3.969a .067 3.837 4.102
a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Employees = 203.95, Industry = 1.91.
277
Appendices
Appendix 7-6: Hypothesis 2b (Use of logo) - MANOVA results
Between-Subjects Factors
Value Label N
Years of ICMS implementation 1 Early adopters 47
2 Late adopters 164
Descriptive Statistics
Years of ICMS
implementation Mean Std. Deviation N
Logo use on Website Early adopters 68.9362 58.46753 47
Late adopters 61.9512 53.68355 164
Total 63.5071 54.71940 211
Logo use on documents Early adopters 3.68 1.446 47
Late adopters 4.20 1.229 164
Total 4.09 1.296 211
Logo use on products Early adopters 2.87 1.740 47
Late adopters 3.06 1.733 164
Total 3.02 1.732 211
Box's Test of Equality of

Covariance Matricesa
Box's M 11.319
F 1.839
df1 6
The assumption of no differences between the
df2 42884.546
covariate matrices is not violated since the test is not
Sig. .087 significant.
Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups
278
Appendices
Multivariate Testsb
Hypothesis Partial Eta

Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared
Intercept Pillai's Trace .621 112.033a 3.000 205.000 .000 .621
Wilks' Lambda .379 112.033a 3.000 205.000 .000 .621
Hotelling's Trace 1.640 112.033a 3.000 205.000 .000 .621
Roy's Largest
1.640 112.033a 3.000 205.000 .000 .621
Root
Employees Pillai's Trace .100 7.564a 3.000 205.000 .000 .100
Wilks' Lambda .900 7.564a 3.000 205.000 .000 .100
Roy's Largest
.111 7.564a 3.000 205.000 .000 .100
Root
Industry Pillai's Trace .012 .826a 3.000 205.000 .481 .012
Wilks' Lambda .988 .826a 3.000 205.000 .481 .012
Roy's Largest
.012 .826a 3.000 205.000 .481 .012
Root
ICMSYRSCat Pillai's Trace .013 .896a 3.000 205.000 .444 .013
Wilks' Lambda .987 .896a 3.000 205.000 .444 .013
Roy's Largest
.013 .896a 3.000 205.000 .444 .013
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + Employees + Industry + ICMSYRSCat
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

There was no
F df1 df2 Sig.
significance and
Logo use on Website 2.273 1 209 .133 thus the assumption
of homogeneity of
Logo use on documents .948 1 209 .331
variances was not
Logo use on products .154 1 209 .696 violated.
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal
across groups.
279
Appendices
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Type III Sum of Mean Partial Eta

Source Dependent Variable Squares df Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected Logo use on Website 2521.266a 3 840.422 .278 .841 .004

Model
Logo use on documents 41.561b 3 13.854 9.224 .000 .118
Logo use on products 10.569c 3 3.523 1.177 .319 .017
Intercept Logo use on Website 104076.168 1 104076.168 34.400 .000 .143
Logo use on documents 494.955 1 494.955 329.542 .000 .614
Logo use on products 247.560 1 247.560 82.739 .000 .286
Employees Logo use on Website 562.090 1 562.090 .186 .667 .001
Logo use on products 9.264 1 9.264 3.096 .080 .015
Industry Logo use on Website 96.139 1 96.139 .032 .859 .000
Logo use on products .133 1 .133 .044 .833 .000
ICMSYRSC Logo use on Website 1961.211 1 1961.211 .648 .422 .003

at Logo use on documents 1.509 1 1.509 1.005 .317 .005
Logo use on products .048 1 .048 .016 .899 .000
Error Logo use on Website 626263.474 207 3025.427
Logo use on documents 310.904 207 1.502
Logo use on products 619.355 207 2.992
Total Logo use on Website 1479780.000 211
Logo use on documents 3874.000 211
Logo use on products 2553.000 211
Corrected Logo use on Website 628784.739 210

Total Logo use on documents 352.464 210
Logo use on products 629.924 210
a. R Squared = .004 (Adjusted R Squared = -.010)
b. R Squared = .118 (Adjusted R Squared = .105)
c. R Squared = .017 (Adjusted R Squared = .003)
280
Appendices
Estimated Marginal Means
Years of ICMS implementation
95% Confidence Interval

Years of ICMS
Dependent Variable implementation Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Logo use on Website Early adopters 69.546a 8.402 52.981 86.111
Late adopters 61.776a 4.354 53.192 70.361
Logo use on documents Early adopters 3.918a .187 3.549 4.287
Late adopters 4.133a .097 3.942 4.325
Logo use on products Early adopters 2.989a .264 2.468 3.510
Late adopters 3.028a .137 2.758 3.297
a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Employees = 203.95, Industry = 1.91.
281
Appendices
Appendix 7-7: Testing the assumptions of Hypothesis 3a (MNCs-Sanctions-

Regulatory Framework)
Coefficientsa
Unstand. Stand. 95% Confidence Collinearity

Std. Lower Upper Zero-

Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 2.490 .264 9.448 .000 1.970 3.009
Employees .080 .058 .095 1.379 .169 -.034 .194 .099 .095 .094 .981 1.019
Commerce .462 .219 .161 2.114 .036 .031 .893 .095 .145 .144 .805 1.242
Manufacture .378 .221 .131 1.710 .089 -.058 .813 .073 .118 .117 .797 1.255
2 (Constant) 1.644 1.025 1.604 .110 -.376 3.665
Employees .064 .059 .076 1.091 .277 -.052 .180 .099 .076 .074 .951 1.051
Commerce .461 .223 .160 2.068 .040 .021 .900 .095 .143 .141 .775 1.291
Manufacture .353 .221 .122 1.594 .113 -.084 .789 .073 .111 .109 .792 1.262
Sanctions .181 .118 .107 1.532 .127 -.052 .414 .128 .106 .105 .958 1.043
Strictness of
the regulatory .027 .186 .010 .147 .883 -.339 .394 -.014 .010 .010 .949 1.054
framework
a. Dependent Variable: % of
certified firms
282
Appendices
Step 1a Sanctions .054 521630.13

6.523 3.389 3.705 1 680.379 .887
6
Sanctions by
-2.781 1.458 3.639 1 .056 .062 .004 1.079
LnSanctions
RegFrame -21.109 15467.227 .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .
RegFrame by
8.466 6181.915 .000 1 .999 4751.297 .000 .
LnRegFrame
Constant 27.636 27589.091 .000 1 .999 1.005E12
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Sanctions, Sanctions * LnSanctions ,

RegFrame, RegFrame * LnRegFrame .
Both interaction terms are not significant

implying no violation.
283
Appendices
Appendix 7-8: Hypothesis 3a (MNCs-Sanctions-Regulatory Framework) –

Hierarchical logistic regression results
Missing Cases 0 .0
Total 211 100.0
Total 211 100.0
a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of

cases.
the firm does not have any

0
MNCs
the firm has MNCs 1
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2)
Commerce 65 1.000 .000

Coefficients
Step 0 1 274.633 .578
2 274.619 .595
3 274.619 .595
c. Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because parameter

284
Appendices
Predicted
Existence or not of MNCs
the firm does not

Observed have any MNCs the firm has MNCs Percentage Correct
Step 0 Existence or not of the firm does not have

0 75 .0
MNCs any MNCs
the firm has MNCs 0 136 100.0
Step 0 Constant .595 .144 17.124 1 .000 1.813
Score df Sig.

Industry &
Employees are
Industry 6.160 2 .046 significant
Industry(1) .349 1 .555
predictors of
whether or not a
Industry(2) 5.878 1 .015 firm has MNCs.
Overall Statistics 11.480 3 .009
Employees and industry

Block 1: Method = Enter are entered in Block 1, the
first step.
285
Appendices
Coefficients
Iteration -2 Log likelihood Constant Employees Industry(1) Industry(2)
Step 1 1 263.129 1.030 -.194 .147 .850
2 262.838 1.121 -.216 .155 .990
3 262.837 1.123 -.216 .155 .996
4 262.837 1.123 -.216 .155 .996
a. Method: Enter
d. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
Chi-square df Sig. The combination of the

Step 1 Step 11.781 3 .008
two variables significantly
predicts whether or not a
Block 11.781 3 .008 firms has MNCs.
Model 11.781 3 .008
Model Summary

Knowing employees and
Step -2 Log likelihood Square Square industry provides little
1 262.837a .054 .075 help in predicting whether
or not the company has
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because parameter
MNCs.

1 6.546 8 .586
indicates the goodness of
fit of the model.
286
Appendices
Existence or not of MNCs = the firm Existence or not of MNCs = the firm
does not have any MNCs has MNCs
Step 1 1 10 11.999 11 9.001 21
2 12 9.750 9 11.250 21
3 9 9.287 13 12.713 22
4 10 8.316 11 12.684 21
5 4 7.265 16 12.735 20
6 8 7.231 13 13.769 21
7 9 6.618 12 14.382 21
8 6 5.825 15 15.175 21
9 4 4.399 15 14.601 19
10 3 4.310 21 19.690 24
Predicted
the firm does not

Observed have any MNCs the firm has MNCs Percentage Correct
Step 1 Existence or not of MNCs the firm does not have

9 66 12.0
any MNCs
Step 1a Employees -.216 .095 5.233 1 .022 .805 .669 .969
Industry 7.324 2 .026
Industry(1) .155 .344 .202 1 .653 1.167 .595 2.290
Industry(2) .996 .379 6.917 1 .009 2.707 1.289 5.685
Constant 1.123 .429 6.868 1 .009 3.074

287
Appendices
Sanctions and regulatory framework

Block 2: Method = Enter are entered in the second step.
Coefficients
Regulatory
Iteration -2 Log likelihood Constant Employees Industry(1) Industry(2) Sanctions Framework
Step 1 1 262.260 1.021 -.206 .113 .831 .139 -.120
2 261.958 1.090 -.228 .119 .969 .154 -.128
3 261.957 1.092 -.229 .119 .975 .154 -.128
4 261.957 1.092 -.229 .119 .975 .154 -.128
a. Method: Enter
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step .880 2 .644 Adding sanctions and

regulatory framework
Block .880 2 .644 improves prediction.
Model 12.661 5 .027
Model Summary

Step -2 Log likelihood Square Square Adding the two
variables these R2s
1 261.957a .058 .080
slightly increased.
1 5.031 8 .754
288
Appendices
Existence or not of MNCs = the firm Existence or not of MNCs = the firm
does not have any MNCs has MNCs
Step 1 1 10 12.293 11 8.707 21
2 11 9.861 10 11.139 21
3 10 9.410 12 12.590 22
4 10 8.220 11 12.780 21
5 7 7.988 15 14.012 22
6 8 7.039 13 13.961 21
7 5 6.364 16 14.636 21
8 8 5.627 13 15.373 21
9 3 4.700 18 16.300 21
10 3 3.497 17 16.503 20
Predicted
the firm does not Percentage

Observed have any MNCs the firm has MNCs Correct
Step 1 Existence or not of MNCs the firm does not have

10 65 13.3
any MNCs
289
Appendices
Step 1a Employees -.229 .096 5.635 1 .018 .796 .659 .961
Industry 7.098 2 .029
Industry(1) .119 .352 .114 1 .736 1.126 .565 2.243
Industry(2) .975 .380 6.594 1 .010 2.651 1.260 5.579
Sanctions .154 .188 .668 1 .414 1.166 .806 1.687
RegFrame -.128 .304 .176 1 .675 .880 .485 1.598
Constant 1.092 1.661 .432 1 .511 2.979
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Sanctions, RegFrame.
Employees, services and

manufacture are significant
predictors when all of these are
entered together.
290
Appendices
Appendix 7-9: Testing the assumptions of Hypothesis 3b (Logo use on Products-

Sanctions-Regulatory Framework)
Coefficientsa


1 (Constant) 3.433 .345 9.944 .000 2.752 4.113
Employees -.069 .076 -.063 -.910 .364 -.219 .080 -.050 -.063 -.063 .981 1.019
Commerce -.517 .286 -.138 -1.804 .073 -1.082 .048 -.138 -.124 -.124 .805 1.242
Manufacture .045 .289 .012 .156 .876 -.525 .615 .064 .011 .011 .797 1.255
2 (Constant) 3.852 1.349 2.856 .005 1.192 6.512
Employees -.073 .077 -.067 -.944 .346 -.225 .079 -.050 -.066 -.065 .951 1.051
Commerce -.552 .293 -.148 -1.884 .061 -1.130 .026 -.138 -.130 -.130 .775 1.291
Manufacture .038 .291 .010 .130 .897 -.536 .612 .064 .009 .009 .792 1.262
Sanctions .056 .155 .025 .357 .721 -.251 .362 .019 .025 .025 .958 1.043
Strictness of
the regulatory -.141 .245 -.041 -.575 .566 -.623 .342 -.011 -.040 -.040 .949 1.054
framework
a. Dependent Variable: % of
certified firms
291
Appendices
Step 1a Sanctions -.538 3.441 .024 1 .876 .584 .001 495.747
Sanctions by
.172 1.475 .014 1 .907 1.188 .066 21.389
LnSanctions
RegFrame .693 .812 .727 1 .394 1.999 .407 9.823
RegFrame by
-.385 .328 1.385 1 .239 .680 .358 1.292
LnRegFrame
Constant 1.325 5.780 .053 1 .819 3.762
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Sanctions, Sanctions * LnSanctions ,

RegFrame, RegFrame * LnRegFrame .
All terms are not significant implying no

violation.
292
Appendices
Appendix 7-10: Hypothesis 3b (Logo use on Products-Sanctions-Regulatory

Framework) - Hierarchical logistic regression results
Missing Cases 0 .0
Total 211 100.0
Total 211 100.0

cases.
Use of logo on products 0
Non-use of logo on products 1
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2)
Commerce 65 1.000 .000

Coefficients
Step 0 1 276.926 .540
2 276.917 .554
3 276.917 .554

293
Appendices
Predicted
Use or not of logo on products
the firm does not the firm uses the

use the logo on its logo on its Percentage
Observed products products Correct
Step 0 Use or not of logo on the firm does not use the logo on
0 77 .0
products its products
the firm uses the logo on its

0 134 100.0
products
Step 0 Constant .554 .143 15.010 1 .000 1.740
Score df Sig.
Step 0 Variables Employees .557 1 .455
Industry 2.674 2 .263 None of the

variables is
Industry(1) 2.674 1 .102 significant
Industry(2) .537 1 .464 predictor.

first step.
294
Appendices
Coefficients
Step 1 1 273.503 .971 -.076 -.476 .036
2 273.466 1.028 -.083 -.507 .038
3 273.466 1.029 -.083 -.507 .038
a. Method: Enter
.001.
Chi-square df Sig.
The combination of the two
Step 1 Step 3.451 3 .327
variables does not
Block 3.451 3 .327 significantly predict
whether or not a firm uses
Model 3.451 3 .327
the logo on its products.
Model Summary
Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R Knowing employees

Step -2 Log likelihood Square Square and industry provides
very little help in
1 273.466a .016 .022
predicting whether or
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because parameter not a firm uses the
estimates changed by less than .001. logo on its products.
Step Chi-square df Sig. The significant value

indicates poor fit of
1 17.378 8 .026
the model.
295
Appendices
Use or not of logo on products = the Use or not of logo on products = the
firm does not use the logo on its firm uses the logo on its products
products
Step 1 1 5 10.057 16 10.943 21
2 9 8.936 11 11.064 20
3 13 8.839 8 12.161 21
4 11 8.147 10 12.853 21
5 8 7.409 13 13.591 21
6 8 7.408 14 14.592 22
7 4 6.822 17 14.178 21
8 8 6.894 14 15.106 22
9 2 6.058 18 13.942 20
10 9 6.429 13 15.571 22
Predicted

Step 1 Use or not of logo on the firm does not use the logo on
2 75 2.6
products its products

1 133 99.3
products
296
Appendices
Step 1a Employees -.083 .092 .814 1 .367 .921 .769 1.102
Industry 2.908 2 .234
Industry(1) -.507 .344 2.176 1 .140 .602 .307 1.181
Industry(2) .038 .358 .011 1 .915 1.039 .515 2.093
Constant 1.029 .426 5.820 1 .016 2.798
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Employees, Industry.
Sanctions and regulatory

Block 2: Method = Enter framework are entered in the
second step.
Chi-square df Sig.
Adding sanctions and
Step 1 Step 1.770 2 .413 regulatory framework
Block 1.770 2 .413 does not improve
prediction.
Model 5.221 5 .389
Model Summary Adding the two variables

Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R these R2s slightly increased,
but still knowing sanctions
and regulation does not
1 271.696a .024 .033 provide any help in
predicting whether or not
the company uses the logo
on its products.
1 4.613 8 .798
297
Appendices
Use or not of logo on products = the

firms does not use the logo on its Use or not of logo on products = the
products firm uses the logo on its products
Step 1 1 12 10.677 9 10.323 21
2 7 8.954 13 11.046 20
3 11 9.195 11 12.805 22
4 8 8.167 13 12.833 21
5 5 7.764 16 13.236 21
6 9 7.391 12 13.609 21
7 8 6.922 13 14.078 21
8 5 6.475 16 14.525 21
9 6 5.926 15 15.074 21
10 6 5.527 16 16.473 22
Predicted
the firms does not the firm uses the

Step 1 Use or not of logo on the firms does not use the
8 69 10.4
products logo on its products

4 130 97.0
products
298
Appendices
Step 1a Employees -.067 .093 .519 1 .471 .935 .779 1.122
Industry 3.662 2 .160
Industry(1) -.583 .354 2.713 1 .100 .558 .279 1.117
Industry(2) .056 .359 .025 1 .875 1.058 .523 2.140
Sanctions -.161 .194 .684 1 .408 .852 .582 1.246
Regulatory
-.323 .299 1.166 1 .280 .724 .402 1.301
Framework
Constant 3.150 1.680 3.515 1 .061 23.334
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Sanctions,

RegFram.
None of the variables is significant predictor

when all of these are entered together.
299
Appendices
Appendix 7-11: Testing the assumptions of Hypothesis 4 (Stakeholder awareness)
Coefficientsa


1 (Constant) .527 .084 6.263 .000 .361 .693
Employees .057 .018 .214 3.071 .002 .020 .093 .213 .212 .212 .977 1.024
Commerce .065 .069 .072 .939 .349 -.071 .201 .028 .066 .065 .798 1.253
Manufacture .040 .070 .045 .579 .563 -.097 .178 .043 .041 .040 .792 1.263
2 (Constant) -.081 .129 -.627 .531 -.334 .173
Employees .040 .017 .153 2.378 .018 .007 .074 .213 .167 .149 .954 1.048
Commerce .018 .063 .020 .281 .779 -.107 .143 .028 .020 .018 .782 1.279
Manufacture -.013 .064 -.015 -.205 .838 -.139 .113 .043 -.015 -.013 .779 1.284
Customer
.178 .029 .399 6.088 .000 .120 .236 .439 .397 .381 .912 1.097
awareness
Government
.037 .031 .078 1.192 .235 -.024 .098 .192 .084 .075 .924 1.083
awareness
a. Dependent Variable: %
of certified firms
300
Appendices
Step CustawRvd -112.069 16914.991 .000 1 .995 .000 .000 .

a
1
CustawRvd by LnCustAw 58.710 8858.138 .000 1 .995 3.145E25 .000 .
GovawRvd -7.046 4.871 2.093 1 .148 .001 .000 12.182
GovawRvd by LnGovAw 3.586 2.366 2.296 1 .130 36.088 .349 3728.759
Constant 152.069 21549.996 .000 1 .994 1.103E66
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: CustawRvd, CustawRvd * LnCustAw ,

GovawRvd, GovawRvd * LnGovAw .
All interaction terms are not significant implying

no violation.
301
Appendices
Appendix 7-12: Hypothesis 4 (Stakeholder awareness) - Hierarchical logistic

regression results
Missing Cases 0 .0
Total 204 100.0
Total 204 100.0

cases.
the firm does not use the

0
documents
the firm uses the documents 1
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2)
Commerce 64 1.000 .000
302
Appendices

Coefficients
Step 0 1 216.035 1.118
2 215.283 1.257
3 215.282 1.262
4 215.282 1.262

Predicted
use or not of documents
the firm does not the firm uses the Percentage

Observed use the documents documents Correct
Step 0 use or not of documents the firm does not use the
0 45 .0
documents
the firm uses the

0 159 100.0
documents
Step 0 Constant 1.262 .169 55.881 1 .000 3.533
303
Appendices
Score df Sig.

Employees is a
Industry .959 2 .619 significant
Industry(1) .165 1 .684
predictor.
Industry(2) .379 1 .538

first step.
Coefficients
Step 1 1 207.206 .110 .226 .259 .162
2 204.639 -.186 .347 .339 .196
3 204.586 -.248 .370 .344 .192
4 204.586 -.249 .371 .344 .192
5 204.586 -.249 .371 .344 .192
a. Method: Enter
.001.
Chi-square df Sig.
The combination of the two
Step 1 Step 10.695 3 .013 variables significantly
predicts whether or not a
Block 10.695 3 .013
firm uses the system’s
Model 10.695 3 .013 documents on a daily basis.
304
Appendices
Model Summary
Knowing employees
Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R and industry provides
Step -2 Log likelihood Square Square very little help in
1 204.586a .051 .078
predicting daily use of
documents.

indicates goodness of
1 1.723 8 .988
fit of the model.
use or not of documents = the firm use or not of documents = the firm
does not use the documents uses the documents
Step 1 1 8 8.885 15 14.115 23
2 8 6.545 12 13.455 20
3 5 5.891 16 15.109 21
4 4 4.971 16 15.029 20
5 6 4.766 15 16.234 21
6 4 3.992 16 16.008 20
7 4 3.470 17 17.530 21
8 3 2.850 17 17.150 20
9 2 2.269 18 17.731 20
10 1 1.362 17 16.638 18
305
Appendices
Predicted

Observed use the documents documents Percentage Correct
0 45 .0
documents
the firm uses the

0 159 100.0
documents
Step 1a Employees .371 .127 8.505 1 .004 1.449 1.129 1.860
Industry .704 2 .703
Industry(1) .344 .414 .688 1 .407 1.410 .626 3.177
Industry(2) .192 .428 .202 1 .653 1.212 .524 2.804
Constant -.249 .496 .253 1 .615 .779
Customer and government awareness are entered in the

Block 2: Method = Enter second step.
306
Appendices
Coefficients
Iteration -2 Log likelihood Constant LnEmp Industry(1) Industry(2) CustawRvd GovawRvd
Step 1 1 176.332 -2.322 .161 .071 -.053 .712 .148
2 164.105 -4.068 .271 -.054 -.227 1.146 .287
3 162.682 -4.879 .319 -.153 -.338 1.354 .361
4 162.650 -5.018 .326 -.173 -.359 1.391 .374
5 162.650 -5.021 .327 -.174 -.360 1.392 .375
6 162.650 -5.021 .327 -.174 -.360 1.392 .375
a. Method: Enter
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 41.936 2 .000 Adding these two

Block 41.936 2 .000
variables prediction
significantly improves.
Model 52.632 5 .000
Model Summary

Adding the two variables
1 162.650a .227 .349 these R2s significantly
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because parameter increased.
1 10.162 8 .254
307
Appendices
use or not of documents = the firm use or not of documents = the firm
does not use the documents uses the documents
Step 1 1 10 13.278 10 6.722 20
2 10 9.808 10 10.192 20
3 11 7.345 9 12.655 20
4 7 5.308 13 14.692 20
5 4 3.347 16 16.653 20
6 3 2.345 17 17.655 20
7 0 1.506 20 18.494 20
8 0 1.057 20 18.943 20
9 0 .681 20 19.319 20
10 0 .325 24 23.675 24
Predicted
the firm does not the firm uses the Percentage

Observed use the documents documents Correct
13 32 28.9
documents
the firm uses the

14 145 91.2
documents
308
Appendices
Step 1a Employees .327 .139 5.542 1 .019 1.386 1.056 1.820
Industry .521 2 .771
Industry(1) -.174 .488 .127 1 .721 .840 .323 2.185
Industry(2) -.360 .499 .520 1 .471 .698 .262 1.856
CustawRvd 1.392 .272 26.200 1 .000 4.025 2.361 6.859
GovawRvd .375 .244 2.351 1 .125 1.454 .901 2.348
Constant -5.021 1.104 20.692 1 .000 .007
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: CustawRvd, GovawRvd.
Number of employees and Customer awareness

are significant predictors when all of these are
entered together.
309
References
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E. 1991. Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of
innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 586-612.
Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1):

254-85.
Abrahamson, E. & Rosenkopf, L. 1993. Institutional and competitive bandwagons:

Using mathematical modelling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of
Management Review, 18(3): 487-517.
Ackerman, R. & Bauer, R. 1976. Corporate social responsiveness: The modern

dilemma. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.
Aguilera, R. V. & Jackson, G. 2003. The cross-national diversity of corporate

governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3):
447-65.
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. 2007. Putting the S back
in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 836-63.
Ahrens, T. & Chapman, C. S. 2006. Doing qualitative research in management

accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 31(8): 819-41.
Akerlof, G. A. 1970. Market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and market mechanism.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 488-500.
Albareda, L. 2008. Corporate responsibility, governance and accountability: From self-

regulation to co-regulation. Corporate Governance, 8(4): 430-39.
Albareda, L., Lozano, J. M., Tencati, A., Midttun, A., & Perrini, F. 2008. The changing
role of governments in corporate social responsibility: Drivers and responses. Business
Ethics: A European Review, 17(4): 347-63.
Anderson, S., W. , Daly, J. D., & Johnson, M. F. 1999. Why firms seek ISO 9000
certification: Regulatory compliance or competitive advantage? Production and
Operations Management, 8(1): 28-43.
Aravind, D. & Christmann, P. 2011. Decoupling of standard implementation from

certification: Does quality of ISO 14001 implementation affect facilities’ environmental
performance? Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1): 73-102.
Arksey, H. & Knight, P. 1999. Interviewing for social scientists. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Armstrong, J. S. & Overton, T. 1977. Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys.

Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3): 396-402.
310
References
Arrow, J. K. 1969. The organization of economic activity: Issues pertinent to the choice
of market versus nonmarket allocation. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
Atkinson, L. & Galaskiewicz, J. 1998. Stock ownership and company contributions to

charity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 82-100.
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. 2003. What will consumers pay
for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3): 281-304.
Aulakh, P. S. & Gençtürk, F. E. 2008. Contract formalization and governance of

exporter-importer relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3): 457-79.
Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. 1985. An empirical examination of the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of
Management Journal, 28(2): 446-63.
Avshalom, A. & Tal, S. 2008. How can a ratings-based method for assessing corporate
social responsibility (CSR) provide an incentive to firms excluded from socially
responsible investment indices to invest in CSR? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4):
899-905.
Bagozzi, R. P., Youjae, Y., & Phillips, L. W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in
organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 421-58.
Bakan, J. 2004. The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. London:
Constable.
Bansal, P. & Clelland, I. 2004. Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and
unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management
Journal, 47(1): 93-103.
Bansal, P. & Hunter, T. 2003. Strategic explanations for the early adoption of ISO
14001. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3): 289-99.
Bansal, P. & Roth, K. 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological

responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 717-36.
Baron, D. 2001. Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated strategy.
Journal Of Economics and Management Strategy, 10(1): 7-45.
Bartlett-Foote, S. 1984. Corporate responsibility in a changing legal environment.

California Management Review, 26(3): 217-28.
Bartley, T. 2003. Certifying forests and factories: States, social movements and the rise
of private regulation in the apparel and forest products fields. Politics and society,
31(3): 433-64.
Baum, J. A. C. & Oliver, C. 1992. Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of

organizational populations. American Sociological Review, 57(4): 540-59.
311
References
Bauman, Z. 2002. Society under siege. Cambridge: Polity.
Bauman, Z. 2007. Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Bauman, Z. 2008. Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers? Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.
Bell, J. 2005. Doing your research project. 4th ed. Buckingham Open University Press.
Bendell, J. 2004. Barricades and boardrooms: A contemporary history of the corporate

accountability movement. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development.
Bernard, R. & Ryan, G. 2010. Analyzing qualitative data. Systematic approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berrone, P. & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2009. Environmental performance and executive

compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(1): 103-26.
Beurden, P. & Gössling, T. 2008. The worth of values. A literature review on the
relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics,
82(2): 407-24.
Bhattacharya, C. B. & Sen, S. 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how
consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review,
47(1): 9-24.
Biazzo, S. 2005. The new ISO 9001 and the problem of ceremonial conformity: How
have audit methods evolved? Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(3):
381-99.
Blowfield, M. & Murray, A. 2008. Corporate responsibility: A critical introduction.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boiral, O. 2003a. The certification of corporate conduct: Issues and prospects.

International Labour Review, 142(3): 317-40.
Boiral, O. 2003b. ISO 9000: Outside the iron cage. Organization Science, 14(6): 720-
37.
Boiral, O. 2007. Corporate greening through ISO14001: A rational myth? Organization

Science, 18(1): 127-62.
Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2008. Multinational corporation codes of conduct:
Governance tools for corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 16(4): 294-311.
Bowen,H.R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper &
Row.
312
References
Brammer, S. & Millington, A. 2005. Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An

empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1): 29-44.
Branco, M. C. & Rodrigues, L. L. 2006. Communication of corporate social

responsibility by portuguese banks. Corporate Communications, 11(3): 232-48.
BRASS. n.d. History of corporate social responsibility and sustainability.

http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/History_L3.pdf. Accessed 14 February 2008.
Brown, N. & Deegan, C. 1998. The public disclosure of environmental performance

information – a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory.
Accounting and Business Research, Winter 1998: 21-41.
Brummer, J. J. 1991. Corporate social responsibility and legitimacy: An

interdisciplinary analysis. New York: Greenwood Press.
Brunsonn, N., Jacobsson, B., & Associates. 2005. A world of standards. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. 2007. Business research methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
BSI. 2009. Health & safety OHSAS 18001.

http://emea.bsi-global.com/OHS/Overview/index.xalter. Accessed 3 November 2009.
Burchell, J. 2008. The corporate social responsibility reader. Oxon: Routledge.
Burns, R. B. & Burns, R. A. 2008. Business research methods and statistics using SPSS.
Sage: London.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis.

Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Business in the Community. 2010. Case studies.

http://www.bitc.org.uk/applications/dynamic/case_studies.rm?filter_year_to=2010&filt
er_region=&skip=0&filter_result=&destination=%2Fadmin%2Findex.rm&preview_mo
de=none&filter_year_from=2004&filter_sector=&submitid=&debug=false&compare_li
ve=false&filter_category=&reset_md=0&id=41&filter_issue=&count=100. Accessed
21 May 2010.
Cambra-Fierro, J. s., Hart, S., & Polo-Redondo, Y. 2008. Environmental respect: Ethics
or simply business? A study in the small and medium enterprise (SME) context. Journal
of Business Ethics, 82: 645–56.
Campbell, D. T. 1955. The informant in quantitative research. American Journal of

Sociology, 60(3): 339-42.
Campbell, J. L. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An

institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,
32(3): 946-67.
313
References
Carroll, A. B. 1977. Managing corporate social responsibility. Boston: Little Brown

and Co.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.

Carroll, A. B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4): 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38(3): 268-
95.
Carroll, A. B. 2008. A history of corporate social responsibility. Concepts and

practicies. In: Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (eds), The
Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 19-46. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Carroll, A. & Shabana, K. 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A
review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 12(1): 85-105.
Cashore, B. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How

non-state market-driven governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance,
15(4): 503-29.
Castka, P., Balzarova, M., Bamber, C. J., & Sharp, J. M. 2004a. How can SMEs
effectively implement the CSR agenda? A UK case study perspective. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11: 140–49.
Castka, P., Bamber, C., J. , Bamber, D., J. , & Sharp, J., M. . 2004b. Integrating
corporate social responsibility (CSR) into ISO management systems - in search of a
feasible CSR management system framework. TQM Magazine, 16(3): 216-24.
Castka, P. & Balzarova, M. A. 2007. A critical look on quality through CSR lenses: Key
challenges stemming from the development of ISO26000. The International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 24(7): 738-52.
Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. 2010. From the editors: Common
method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business
Studies, 41: 178-84.
Chapple, W. & Moon, J. 2005. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-
country study of CSR web-site reporting. Business & Society, 44(4): 415-41.
Child, J. & Tsai, T. 2005. The dynamic between firms' environmental strategies and
institutional constraints in emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 95-125.
Christmann, P. & Taylor, G. 2001. Globalization and the environment: Determinants of

firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 439-58.
314
References
Christmann, P. & Taylor, G. 2006. Firm self-regulation through international certifiable

standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(6): 863-78.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.
Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cole, R. E. 1998. Learning from the quality movement: What did and what didn’t
happen? California Management Review 41, 41(41): 43-73.
Corbett, C., J. 2006. Global diffusion of ISO 9000 certification through supply chains.
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 8(4): 330-50.
Corbett, C. J. & Kirsch, D. A. 2001. International diffusion of ISO 14000 certification.

Production and Operations Management, 10(3): 327-42.
Corbett, C., J. & Muthulingam, S. 2007. Adoption of voluntary environmental

standards: The role of signaling and intrinsic benefits in the diffusion of the LEED
green building standards. Working Paper, Santa Barbara: University of California.
Corporate-Watch. 2006. What's wrong with corporate social responsibility? Oxford:

Corporate Watch.
Coupland, C. 2005. Corporate social responsibility as argument on the web. Journal of

Business Ethics, 62(4): 355-66.
Cradden, C. 2005. Repoliticizing management. A theory of corporate legitimacy. Hants:

Ashgate.
Cragg, W. 2005. Ethics codes, corporations and the challenge of globalization.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cramer, J., van der Heijden, A., & Jonker, J. 2006. Corporate social responsibility:
Making sense through thinking and acting. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4):
380-89.
Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. 2008. Corporate social repsonsibility. Readings
and cases in a global context. Oxon: Routledge.
Crane, A., McWilliams, A, Matten, D. & Siegel, D. 2008. The Oxford handbook of
corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crook, C. 2005. Survey: The good company. The Economist, 374(8410): 4.
Czaja, R. & Blair, J. 2005. Designing surveys. A guide to decisions and procedures. 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
315
References
Dacin, P. A. & Brown, T. J. 1997. The company and the product: Corporate
associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1): 68.
Dahlsrud, A. 2006. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37

definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1): 1-
13.
Darnall, N. & Carmin, J. 2005. Greener and cleaner? The signaling accuracy of US
Voluntary environmental programs. Policy Sciences, 38: 71-90.
Darnall, N. & Edwards Jr, D. 2006. Predicting the cost of environmental management
system adoption: The role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. 2005. Human resource management and
labour productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(1):
135-45.
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. 1997. Toward a stewardship theory of
management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 20-47.
Davis, K. 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California

Davis, K. 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities.
Academy of Management Journal, 16(2): 312-22.
de Andrés-Alonso, P., Azofra-Palenzuela, V., & Romero-Merino, M. 2010. Beyond the

disciplinary role of governance: How boards add value to Spanish foundations. British
Journal of Management, 21(1): 100-14.
De Bakker, F. G. A., Groenewegen, P., & Hond, F. d. 2005. A bibliometric analysis of

30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social
performance. Business and Society, 44(3): 283.
De La Cuesta Gonzalez, M. & Martinez, C. V. 2004. Fostering corporate social

responsibility through public initiative: From the EU to the Spanish case. Journal of
De Pelsmacker, P. & Janssens, W. 2007. Model for fair trade buying behaviour: The
role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes.
Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4): 361-80.
Deegan, C. 2002. The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures - A

theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3): 282-311.
Deegan, C. & Rankin, M. 1996. Do Australian companies report environmental news

objectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully
by the environmental protection authority. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 9(2): 50.
316
References
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. 2002. An examination of the corporate social and
environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: A test of legitimacy theory.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3): 312-43.
Deephouse, D. L. 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management

Journal, 39(4): 1024-39.
Delmas, M. A. 2001. Stakeholders and competitive advantage: The case of ISO 14001.
Production and Operations Management, 10(3): 343-58.
Delmas, M. A. 2002. The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe

and in the United States: An institutional perspective. Policy Sciences, 35(1): 91-119.
Delmas, M. A. 2003. In search of ISO: An institutional perspective on the adoption of

international management standards. Working Paper No. 1784, Stanford: University of
Stanford.
Delmas, M. A. 2004. Environmental management standards and globalization. In:

Vogel, D. & Kagan, R. A. (eds), How globalization affects national regulatory policies:
202-26. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Delmas, M. A. & Montes-Sancho, M. J. 2007. Voluntary agreements to improve

environmental quality: Are late joiners the free riders? Working Paper 07, Santa
Barbara: University of California.
Delmas, M. A. & Montes-Sancho, M. J. 2011. An institutional perspective on the

diffusion of international management system standards. Business Ethics Quarterly,
21(1): 1052-81.
Delmas, M. A. & Toffel, M. W. 2003. Institutional pressure and environmental

management practices, 11th International Conference of the Greening of Industry
Network. San Francisco State University, San Francisco: University of Berkeley.
Deming, E. W. 1982. Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT Center for Advanced
Educational Services.
Denzin, N. K. 1970. The research act in sociology. Chicago: Aldine.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 2005. The handbook of qualitative research 3rd ed.
Detomasi, D. 2008. The political roots of corporate social responsibility. Journal of

Diener, E. & Crandall, R. 1978. Ethics in social and behavioral research. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Diller, J. 1999. A social conscience in the global marketplace? Labour dimensions of

codes of conduct, social labelling and investor initiatives. International Labour Review,
138(2): 99-130.
317
References
Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. 2nd ed.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
DiMaggio, J., P., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48(2): 147-60.
Doane, D. 2004a. Beyond corporate social responsibility: Minnows, mammoths and

markets. Futures, 37(2-3): 215-29.
Doane, D. 2004b. Good intentions-bad outcomes? The broken promise of corporate

social responsibility. In: Henriques, A. & Richardson, J. (eds), The triple bottom line:
Does it all add up?: Assessing the sustainability of business and CSR: 81-89. London:
Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Doane, D. 2005. The myth of CSR. The problem with assuming that companies can do
well while also doing good is that markets don’t really work that way. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Fall 2005(23-29).
Donaldson, L. & Davis, J. H. 1991. Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO

governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16: 49-64.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:

Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. 2010. Maximizing business returns to corporate
social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1): 8-19.
E.C. 2001. Green paper: Promoting a European framework for corporate social
responsibility. Brussels: European Commission.
E.C. 2003. Mapping instruments for corporate social responsibility. Luxembourg

European Commission.
Economist, T. 2004. Two-faced capitalism. Economist, 370(8359): 59.
Eilbert, H. & Parket, I. R. 1973. The current status of corporate social responsibility.
Business Horizons, 16, Aug.: 5-14.
Elsbach, J. M. & Sutton, R. I. 1992. Acquiring organizational legitimacy through

illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories.
Academy of Management Journal, 35(4): 699-738.
EOMMEX. 2009. SMEs in Greece. Athens: EOMMEX.
Escribá-Esteve, A., Sánchez-Peinado, L., & Sánchez-Peinado, E. 2009. The influence of

top management teams in the strategic orientation and performance of small and
medium-sized enterprises. British Journal of Management, 20(4): 581-97.
318
References
Europa. 2009a. The EU eco-management and audit scheme.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/about/summary_en.htm. Accessed 7 November
2009.
Europa. 2009b. EU register of EMAS organisations.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/about/participate/sites_en.htm. Accessed 3
November 2009.
FAO & WHO. 1999. Codex alimentarius. Food hygience basic texts. 2nd ed. Rome:
FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.
Field, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage.
Fink, A. 2003. The survey handbook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Folta, T. B. & Janney, J. J. 2004. Strategic benefits to firms issuing private equity
placements. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3): 223-42.
Fombrun, C. 2005. Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving

standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1): 7-11.
Fombrun, C. & Shanley, M. 1990. What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 233-58.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. 2005. The interview. From neutral stance to political
involvement. In: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds), The sage handbook of
qualitative research: 695-727. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fowler, F. 1995. Improving survey questions. Design and evaluation. London: Sage.
Frederick, W. C. 2006. Corporation be good! The story of corporate social

responsibility. Indianapolis: Dog Ear Publishing.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pittman.
Friedman, M. & Friedman, R. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review,

24(2): 191–205.
Gabel, L. H. 2009. Corporate responsibility in economics. In: Smith, C. & Lenssen, G.

(eds), Mainstreaming corporate responsibility: 249-63. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and
Sons.
Galaskiewicz, J. & Wasserman, S. 1989. Mimetic processes within an

interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3):
454-79.
319
References
GAP. 2009. Social responsibility.

http://www.gapinc.com/GapIncSubSites/csr/MakeADifference/Gap.shtml. Accessed 15
October 2009.
Garriga, E. & Melé, D. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the
territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51-71.
Giddens, A. 2007. The consequencies of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gill, J. & Johnson, P. 2010. Research methods for managers. 4th ed. London: Sage.
Glynn, M., A. & Abzug, R. 2002. Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and
organizational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 267-80.
Glynn, M., A. & Marquis, C. 2004. When good names go bad: Symbolic illegitimacy in
organizations. In: Johnson, C. (ed), Legitimacy processes in organizations: 147-70.
Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Godfrey, P. C. & Hatch, N. W. 2007. Researching corporate social responsibility: An

agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1): 87-98.
Golden, B. R. 1992. The past is the past-or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as
indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4): 848-60.
Gonzalez-Benito, J. & Gonzalez-Benito, O. 2005. An analysis of the relationship

between environmental motivations and ISO14001 certification. British Journal of
Management, 16(2): 133-48.
Gorden, R. L. 1980. Interviewing: Strategy, techniques and tactics. Homewood, IL:

Dorsey.
GRI. 2010. GRI reports list.

http://www.globalreporting.org/GRIReports/GRIReportsList/. Accessed 14 January
2010.
Grief, A. 1997. Microtheory and recent developments in the study of economic

institutions through economic history. In: Kreps, D. & Wallis, K. (eds), Advances in
economic theory and econometrics: 79-113. Gambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gugler, P. & Shi, J. 2009. Corporate social responsibility for developing country
multinational corporations: Lost war in pertaining global competitiveness? Journal of
Business Ethics, 87: 3-24.
Guller, I., Guillen, M. F., & Macpherson, J. M. 2002. Global competition, institutions,
and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000
quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2): 207-32.
Gunningham, N. 1995. Environment, self-regulation, and the chemical industry:

Assessing responsible care. Law & Policy, 17(1): 57-108.
320
References
Habermas, J. 1987. The theory of communicative action volume 2: Lifeworld and system
- A critique of functionalist reason. Cambridge: Polity.
Hackman, J. R. & Wageman, R. 1995. Total quality management: Empirical,

conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2): 309-42.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. 1995. Multivariate data analysis. 4th
ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Halila, F. 2007. Networks as a means of supporting the adoption of organizational

innovations in SMEs: The case of environmental management systems (EMS) based on
ISO 14001. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(3):
167-81.
Hardin, R. 1971. Collective action as an agreeable n-prisoner's dilemma. Behavioural

Science, 16: 472-79.
Hart, S. 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management

Review, 20(4): 986-1014.
Hart, S. 2010. Self-regulation, corporate social responsibility, and the business case: Do
they work in achieving workplace equality and safety? Journal of Business Ethics,
92(4): 585-600.
Haufler, V. 2001. A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a
global economy. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Haufler, V. 2003. New forms of governance: Certification regimes as social regulations

of the global market. In: Meidinger, E., Elliott, C. and Oesten, G. (ed), Social and
political dimensions of forest certification: 237-47. Remagen-Oberwinter: Verlag.
Haverman, H. A. 1993. Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new
markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4): 593-627.
Hazlett, S.-A., McAdam, R., & Murray, L. 2007. From quality management to socially
responsible organisations: The case for CSR. The International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 24(7): 669-82.
Heald, M. 1970. The social responsibilities of business: Company and community,

1900-1960. New Brunswick.: Transaction Books.
Healey, M. J. & Rawlinson, M. B. 1994. Interviewing techniques in business and

management research. In: Wass, V. J. & Wells, P. E. (eds), Principles and practice in
business and management research: 123-46. Dartmouth: Aldershot.
Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. 2009. Decision comprehensiveness and
corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating role of managerial uncertainty preferences
and environmental dynamism. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8): 1289-314.
Hemingway, C., A. & Maclagan, P., W. . 2004. Managers' personal values as drivers of
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1): 33.
321
References
Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W. 2002. The next wave of corporate community
involvement: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2): 110-
25.
Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., Kaptein, M., & Oosterhout, J. v. 2008. Contracts to

communities: A processual model of organizational virtue. Journal of Management
Studies, 45(1): 100-21.
Hodgson, D. & Cicmil, S. 2007. The politics of standards in modern management:

Making 'the project' a reality. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3): 431-50.
Hoffman, A., J. 2001. Linking organizational and field-level analyses: The diffusion of
corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14(2): 133-56.
Hofstede, G. H. 2001. Culture's consequencies: Comparing values, behaviours,

institutions, and organizations accross nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J., Nath, L., & Wood, D. 2009. The supply of corporate social
responsibility disclosures among US Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4): 497-527.
Hollender, J. & Fenichell, S. 2006. What matters most: How a small group of pioneers
is teaching social responsibility to big business, and why big business is listening. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Howe, K. R. 1988. Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas

die hard. Educational Researcher, 17: 10-16.
Husted, B. W. & Salazar, J. d. J. 2006. Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits

and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 75-91.
Idemudia, U. 2007. Community perceptions and expectations: Reinventing the wheels

of corporate social responsibility practices in the Nigerian oil industry. Business &
Society Review 112(3): 369-405.
ISO. 1997. The ISO survey of ISO9001 and ISO14001 certificates. Geneva: ISO Central
Secretariat.
Secretariat.
Secretariat.
ISO. 2008. The ISO survey. Geneva: ISO Central Secretariat.
ISO. 2009. Management standards.

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards.htm. Accessed 31 October
2009.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. 2006. Using mixed methods sequential
explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1): 3-20.
322
References
Jackson, N. & Carter, P. 1991. In defense of paradigm incommensurability.

Organization Studies, 12(1): 109-27.
Jamali, D., Zanhour, M., & Keshishian, T. 2009. Peculiar strengths and relational
attributes of SMEs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3): 355-77.
Jenkins, H. 2006. Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal
of Business Ethics, 67(3): 241-56.
Jenkins, H. 2009. A business opportunity model of corporate social responsibility for

small and medium-sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1): 21-36.
Jenkins, R. 2005. Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty.

International Affairs, 81(3): 525-40.
Jiang, R. J. & Bansal, P. 2003. Seeing the need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management
Studies, 40(4): 1047-67.
Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 2006. Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14-26.
Jones, O. & Macpherson, A. 2006. Inter-organizational learning and strategic renewal in

SMEs. Extending the 4I framework. Long Range Planning, 39: 155-75.
Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and

economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404-37.
Jørgensen, T. H., Mellado, M. D., & Remmen, A. 2004. Integrated management

systems. Working Paper 7, Aalborg: Aalborg University.
Kaptein, M. 2004. Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say? Journal of
Ki, E. & Kim, S. 2010. Ethics statements of public relations firms: What do they say?
Kimerling, J. 2001. Corporate ethics in the era of globalization: The promise and peril
of international environmental standards. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics, 14(4): 425-55.
King, A. & Baerwald, S. 1998. "Greening" arguments: Opportunities for the strategic
management of public opinion. In: Sexton, K., Marcus, A. A., & Easter, K. (eds), Better
environmental decisions:Strategies for governments, business and communities: 309-28.
Washington, DG: Island Press.
King, A. A. & Lenox, M. J. 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The

chemical industry's responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4):
698-716.
323
References
King, A. A. & Lenox, M. J. 2001. Who adopts management standards early? An

examination of ISO 14001 certifications, Academy of Management 2001 Annual
Meeting. Washington, D.C.: Academy of Management.
King, A. A., Lenox, M. J., & Terlaak, A. 2005. The strategic use of decentralized
institutions: Exploring certification with the ISO 14001 management standard. Academy
of Management Journal, 48(6): 1091-106.
King, A. A. & Toffel, M. W. 2009. Self-regulatory institutions for solving

environmental problems:Perspectives and contributions from the management literature.
In: Delmas, M. & Young, O. (eds), Governance for the environment. New perspectives:
98-116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kollman, K. & Prakash, A. 2002. EMS-based environmental regimes as club goods:

Examining variations in firm-level adoption of ISO 14001 and EMAS in UK, US and
Germany. Policy Sciences, 35(1): 43-67.
Kotler, P. & Lee, N. 2005. Corporate social responsibility. Doing the most good for
your company and your cause. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Kraatz, M. S. & Zajac, E. J. 1996. Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The
causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological
Review, 61(5): 812-36.
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. 1993. Conducting interorganizational

research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1633-51.
Kurtz, L. 2008. Socially responsible investment and shareholder activism. In: Crane, A.,
McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford handbook of
corporate social responsibility: 249-80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuznetsov, A. 2008. Latest in CSR research: Linking research and teaching,

Responsible Corporate Citizenship: The Role of Business Educators. LBS, UCLan:
Corporate Social Responsibility BAM Special Interest Group.
Kuznetsov, A. & Kuznetsova, O. 2010. The role of stakeholders in shaping managerial

perceptions of CSR in Russia. European Journal of International Management, 4(3):
257-72.
Lazzarini, S., Claro, D., & Mesquita, L. 2008. Buyer-supplier and supplier-supplier
alliances: Do they reinforce or undermine one another? The Journal of Management
Studies, 45(3): 561-84.
Lee, M.-D. P. 2008. A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its
evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews,
10(1): 53-73.
Leech, N., Barrett, K., & Morgan, G. 2007. SPSS for introductory statistics. Use and
interpretation. 3rd ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Publishers.
324
References
Leech, N., Barrett, K., & Morgan, G. 2008. SPSS for intermediate statistics. Use and
interpretation. 3rd ed. New York: Psychology Press.
Leipziger, D. 2003. The corporate responsibility code book. Sheffield: Greenleaf

Publisher Ltd.
Lenox, M., J. 2006. The role of private decentralized institutions in sustaining industry
self-regulation. Organization Science, 17(6): 677-90.
Lenox, M. J. & Nash, J. 2003. Industry self-regulation and adverse selection: A

comparison across four trade associations programs. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 12(6): 343-56.
Lenway, S. A. & Rehbein, K. 1991. Leaders, followers, and free riders: An empirical
test of variation in corporate political involvement. Academy of Management Journal,
34(4): 893-905.
Levitt, T. 1958. The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review,

September–October: 41–50.
Levy, D. L. & Kaplan, R. 2008. Corporate social responsibility and theories of global
governance. Strategic contestation in global issue arenas. In: Crane, A., McWilliams,
A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford handbook of corporate social
responsibility: 432-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D. L. 1976. The public image of Henry Ford: An american folk hero and his
company. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Lindblom, C. K. 1994. The implications of organisational legitimacy for corporate

social performance and disclosure, Critical Perspectives of Accounting Conference.
New York.
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Johnston, W. J. 2009a. Corporate social responsibility: An
empirical investigation of US Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85: 303–23.
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Maon, F. 2009b. Introduction: Corporate social
responsibility implementation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2): 251-56.
Lindgreen, A. & Swaen, V. 2010. Corporate social responsibility. International Journal

of Management Reviews, 12(1): 1-7.
Lipovatz, D., Stenos, F., & Vaka, A. 1999. Implementation of ISO 9000 quality systems
in Greek enterprises. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16(6):
534–51.
Llewellyn, S., 2007. 2007. Case studies and differentiated realities. Qualitative
Research in Accounting and Management, 4(1): 53-68.
Locander, W., Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. 1976. An investigation of interview method,
threat and response distortion. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(354):
269-75.
325
References
Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in
management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(1): 115-36.
Long, B. S. & Driscoll, C. 2008. Codes of ethics and the pursuit of organizational
legitimacy: Theoretical and empirical contributions. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2):
173-89.
Luetkenhorst, W. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and the development agenda:

The case for actively involving small and medium enterprises. Intereconomics, 39(3):
157-66.
Luo, Y., Liu, Y., & Xue, J. 2009. Relationship investment and channel performance: An
analysis of mediating forces. The Journal of Management Studies, 46(7): 1113-37.
MacGregor, S. & Fontrodona, J. 2008. Exploring the fit between CSR and innovation.
Barcelona: IESE Business School.
Macpherson, A., Kofinas, A., Jones, O., & Thorpe, R. 2010. Making sense of mediated
learning: Cases from small firms. Management Learning, 41(3): 303-23.
Maitland, I. 1985. The limits of business self-regulation. California Management

Review, 27(3): 132-47.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. 2006. Common method variance in IS research:
A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management
Science, 52(12): 1865-83.
Margolis, J. D. & Walsh, J. P. 2001. People and profits? The search for a link between
a company's social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Margolis, J. D. & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social

initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 268-305.
Marin, L. & Ruiz, S. 2007. I need you too! Corporate identity attractiveness for
consumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3): 245-
60.
Matten, D. & Crane, A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical

conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 166-79.
Matten, D. & Moon, J. 2008. 'Implicit' and 'explicit' CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 33(2): 404-24.
Maxcy, S. J. 2003. Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences:
The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism.
In: Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds), Handbook of mixed methods research in social
and behavioral research: 51-90. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
326
References
Mayhew, N. 1997. Fading to grey: The use and abuse of corporate executives’
representational power. In: Welford, R. (ed), Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate
responses to sustainable development: 63-95. London: Earthscan.
McDonalds. 2009. Mcdonald's corporate responsibility.

http://www.crmcdonalds.com/publish/csr/home/report.html. Accessed 15 October 2009.
McIntosh, M., Leipziger, D., Jones, K., & Coleman, G. 1998. Corporate citizenship:
Succesful strategies for responsible companies. London: Financial Times.
McMillan, J. J. 2007. Why corporate social responsibility? Why now? How? In: May,
S., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (eds), The debate over corporate social responsibility: 15-
29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial

performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5):
603.
McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117–27.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. 2006. Guest editors’ introduction.
Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies,
43(1): 1-18.
Melé, D. 2008. Corporate social responsibility theories. In: Crane, A., McWilliams, A.,
Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford handbook of corporate social
Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as

myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 83(2): 340-63.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mill, G. A. 2006. The financial performance of a socially responsible investment over

time and a possible link with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,
63(2): 131-48.
Millington, A. 2008. Responsibility in the supply chain. In: Crane, A., McWilliams, A.,
Milne, M. J. & Patten, D. M. 2002. Securing organizational legitimacy: An

experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3): 372-405.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
327
References
Miyoshi, M. 1996. A borderless world? From colonialism to transnationalism and the

decline of the nation-state. In: Wilson, R. & Dissanayake, W. (eds), Cultural production
and the transnational imaginary: 78-106. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Modell, S. 2009. In defence of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed

methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20(3):
208-21.
Moon, J. 2004a. CSR in the UK : An explicit model of business-society relations. In:

Habisch, A., Jonker, J. Wegner, M and Schmidpeter, R. (eds), Corporate social
responsibility accross Europe: 51-66. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Moon, J. 2004b. Government as a driver of corporate social responsibility: The UK in

comparative perspective. ICCSR Working Papers, No. 20, Nottingham: University of
Nottingham.
Moon, J. & Vogel, D. 2008. Corporate social responsibility, government and civil
society. In: Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (eds), The
Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 303-23. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Morgan, D. 2007. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological

implications of combining qualitatitve and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(1): 48-76.
Morrow, D. & Rondinelli, D. 2002. Adopting corporate environmental management

systems: Motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS certification. European
Moskowitz, M. 2002. What has CSR really accomplished? Much of the movement has
been a public relations smokescreen. Business Ethics, 16(3-4): 4.
Muller, A. & Kolk, A. 2010. Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social
performance: Evidence from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico. Journal of
Naeem, M. A. 2008. Stakeholders' perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR):

Case studies from Bangladesh and Pakistan. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Nakamura, M., Takahashi, T., & Vertinsky, I. 2001. Why Japanese firms choose to
certify: A study of managerial responses to environmental issues. Journal of
Environmental Economics & Management, 42(1): 23-52.
Narver, J. C. & Slater, S. F. 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business

profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54 (October): 20-35.
Naveh, E. & Marcus, A. A. 2004. When does the ISO 9000 quality assurance standard
lead to performance improvement? Assimilation and going beyond. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management Science, 51(3): 352–63.
328
References
North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New

York: Cambridge University Press.
NSSG. 2005. Statistical data: National accounts.

http://www.statistics.gr/StatMenu_eng.asp Accessed 07 February 2009.
NSSG. 2008. Greece in figures. Athens: National Statistical Service of Greece.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psycometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Hare, M. 1982. Information strategies as regulatory surrogates. In: Bardach, E. &

Kagan, R. (eds), Social regulation: Strategies for reform: 221-36. San Francisco:
Transaction Books.
O'Rourke, D. 2003. Outsourcing regulation: Analyzing non-governmental systems of

labor standards and monitoring. The Policy Studies Journal, 31(1): 1-29.
OECD. 2001. Private initiatives for corporate responsibility: An analysis. Paris:

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Ogden, S. & Watson, R. 1999. Corporate performance and stakeholder management:

Balancing shareholder and customer interests in the UK Privatized water industry.
Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 526–38.
Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and

resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9): 697-713.
Oppenheim, A. N. 1966. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York:

Basic Books.
Oskarsson, K. & von Malmborg, F. 2005. Integrated management systems as a

corporate response to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 12: 121-28.
Othman, R. & Ameer, R. 2009. Environmental disclosures of palm oil plantation

companies in Malaysia: A tool for stakeholder engagement. Corporate Social -
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(1): 52-62.
Paine, L., Deshpande, R., Margolis, J., D. , & Bettcher, K. E. 2005. Up to code.
Harvard Business Review, 83(12): 122-33.
Palazzo, G. & Scherer, A. G. 2006. Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A

communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1): 71-88.
Pallant, J. 2005. SPSS survival manual. 2nd ed. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Pallister, J. & Law, J. 2006. A dictionary of business and management 4th ed. Oxford:
Oxford Universtiy Press.
329
References
Peloza, J. & Papania, L. 2008. The missing link between corporate social responsibility
and financial performance: Stakeholder salience and identification. Corporate
Reputation Review, 11(2): 169-81.
Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B., Datta, D., & Rasheed, A. 2008. Effectiveness and
efficiency of cross-border knowledge transfer: An empirical examination. Journal of
Perrini, F. 2006. SMEs and CSR theory: Evidence and implications from an Italian
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3): 305-16.
Pettigrew, A. M. 2009. Corporate responsibility in strategy. In: Smith, C. & Lenssen, G.

(eds), Mainstreaming corporate responsibility: 12-20. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and
Sons.
Philips. 2009. Sustainability.

http://www.philips.co.uk/about/sustainability. Accessed 18 October 2009.
Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research:

Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531-44.
Podsakoff, P. M., Lee, J.-Y., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.
Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. 2003. The competitive advantage of corporate

philanthropy. In: Harvard Business Review (ed), Harvard business review on corporate
responsibility: 27-64. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Porter, M. E., Ketels, C., & Delgado, M. 2009. The microeconomic foundations of
prosperity: Findings from the business competitiveness index. In: Schwab, K. (ed), The
global competitiveness report 2009-2010: 49-57. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. 2002. Redefining the corporation. Stakeholder
management and organizational wealth. California: Stanford University Press.
Prakash, A. 2000. Responsible care: An assessment. Business and Society, 39(2): 183-
209.
Prakash, A. & Potoski, M. 2005. Covenants with weak swords: ISO 14001 and firms’
environmental performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24(4): 745-69.
Preston, L. E. 1975. Corporation and society: The search for a paradigm. Journal of
Economic Literature, 13(2): 434-53.
Preuss, L. 2009. Ethical sourcing codes of large UK-based corporations: Prevalence,

content, limitations. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4): 735-47.
Preuss, L. & Perschke, J. 2010. Slipstreaming the larger boats: Social responsibility in
medium-sized businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4): 531-51.
330
References
Princic, L. 2003. Engaging small business in corporate social responsibility.

Vancouver, BC: Canadian Business for Social Responsibility.
Roberts, S., Lawson, R., & Nicholls, J. 2006. Generating regional-scale improvements
in SME corporate responsibility performance: Lessons from responsibility northwest.
Robson, C. 1993. Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rodriguez, L. C. & LeMaster, J. 2007. Voluntary corporate social responsibility

disclosure. SEC 'CSR seal of approval'. Business & Society, 46(3): 370-85.
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press.
Runhaar, H. & Lafferty, H. 2009. Governing corporate social responsibility: An

assessment of the contribution of the UN global compact to CSR strategies in the
telecommunications industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4): 479-95.
Russo, M., V. & Fouts, P., A. . 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate

environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3):
534-51.
Ryan, G. & Bernard, R. 2003. Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1): 85-
109.
Sacconi, L. 1999. Codes of ethics as contractarian constraints on the abuse of authority

with hierarchies: A perspective from the theory of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics,
21(2/3): 189-203.
Sacconi, L. 2006. A social contract account for CSR as an extended model of corporate
governance (i): Rational bargaining and justification. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3):
259-81.
SAI. 2009. Certified facilities list.

http://www.saasaccreditation.org/certfacilitieslist.htm. Accessed 3 November 2009.
Salomone, R. 2008. Integrated management systems: Experiences in Italian

organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16: 1786-806.
Sarbutts, N. 2003. Can SMEs “do” CSR? A practitioner’s view of the ways small and
medium-sized enterprises are able to manage reputation through corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4): 340-47.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. 2007. Research methods for business students.
4th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Schaefer, A. 2007. Contrasting institutional and performance accounts of environmental

management systems: Three case studies in the UK water & sewerage industry. Journal
of Management Studies, 44(4): 506-35.
331
References
Scherer, A. G. & Palazzo, G. 2008. Globalization and corporate social responsibility. In:
Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford
handbook of corporate social responsibility: 413-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. 2009. Introduction to the special issue:
Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly,
19(3): 327-47.
Scott, W. R. 1987a. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 32(4): 493-511.
Scott, W. R. 1987b. Organizations, rational, natural and open systems. Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Secchi, D. 2007. Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social

responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4): 347-73.
Seidler, J. 1974. On using informants: A technique for collecting quantitative data and
controlling measurement error in organization analysis. American Sociological Review,
39(6): 816-31.
Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration. New York: Harper and Row.
Sethi, S. 1975. Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework.

California Management Review 17(3): 58–64.
Sethi, S. 2002. Corporate codes of conduct and the success of globalization. Ethics and
International Affairs, 16(1): 89-106.
Sethi, S. 2009. Globalization and the good corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, 87:
1-2.
SGS. 2009. OHSAS18001: 2007 update.

http://www.uk.sgs.com/ohsas_18001_2007 update?serviceId=10059735&lobId=19035.
Accessed 7 November 2009.
Sharma, R., Yetton, P., & Crawford, J. 2010. A critique of the marker variable
technique: The effect of alternative marker variable criteria, 18th European Conference
on Information Systems. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
Shell. 2009. Responsible energy.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/nef/?utm_source=promo&utm_
medium=owned&utm_content=overlay&utm_campaign=NEF. Accessed 15 October
2009.
Silverman, D. 1993. Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analysing talk, text and
interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
332
References
Slack, N. & Lewis, M. 2003. Operations management. Critical perspectives on business

and management. Oxford: Routledge.
Smith, C. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California

Smith, C. 2008. Consumers as drivers of corporate social responsibility. In: Crane, A.,
McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford handbook of
corporate social responsibility: 281-302. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C. & Halina, W. 2009. Business as usual is not the answer to society's problems.
In: Smith, C. N. & Lenssen, G. (eds), Mainstreaming corporate responsibility: 8-9.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, C. & Lenssen, G. 2009. Mainstreaming corporate responsibility. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley and Sons.
Solomon, J. 2007. Corporate governance and accountability. 2nd ed. West Sussex:
John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Spence, L. J. 1999. Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(3): 163-74.
Spence, L. J. 2007. CSR and small business in a European policy context: The five “C”s
of CSR and small business research agenda 2007. Business and Society Review, 112(4):
533-52.
Squire, B., Cousins, P., & Brown, S. 2009. Cooperation and knowledge transfer within
buyer-supplier relationships: The moderating properties of trust, relationship duration
and supplier performance. British Journal of Management, 20(4): 461-77.
Steger, U. 2008. Future perspectives of corporate social responsibility. Where we are

coming from? Where are we heading? In: Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D.,
Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility:
560-67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stenzel, P. L. 2000. Can the ISO 14000 series environmental management standards
provide a viable alternative to government regulation? American Business Law Journal,
37(2): 237-98.
Strange, S. 1996. The retreat of the state. The diffusion of power in the world economy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swanson, D. L. 2008. Top managers as drivers for corporate social responsibility. In:
Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford
handbook of corporate social responsibility: 227-48. Oxfrod: Oxford University Press.
Sweeney, L. 2007. Corporate social responsibility in Ireland: Barriers and opportunities

experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR. Corporate Governance, 7(4): 516-23.
Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. 2007. Using multivariate statistics. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson.
333
References
Tait, J. & Lyall, C. 2007. Short guide to developing interdisciplinary research proposals.
Briefing Note (Number 1), Edinburgh: The Institute for the Study of Science,
Technology and Innovation.
Tapinos, C. 2008. Q-plan plc. Internal documents. Athens: Q-Plan plc.
Teddie, C. & Tashakkori, A. 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating

quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences.
Terlaak, A. 2007. Satisfying signaling: Corporate social strategy and certified

management standards, Academy of Management 2007 Annual Meeting. Philadelphia:
Academy of Management.
Terlaak, A. & King, A. 2006. The effect of certification with the ISO 9000 quality
management standard: A signaling approach. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 60(4): 579-602
Thomson, J., B. 1992. Ideology and modern culture. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tilley, F. 2003. Sustainability and competitiveness: Are there mutual advantages for
SMEs? In: Jones, O. & Tilley, F. (eds), Competitive advantage in SMEs: Organising for
innovation and change: 71-84. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tilling, M., V & Tilt, C., A. 2010. The edge of legitimacy: Voluntary social and
environmental reporting in Rothmans' 1956-1999 annual reports. Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, 23(1): 55-81.
Tolbert, P. S. & Zucker, L. G. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal

structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1 ): 22-39.
Turban, D. B. & Greening, D. W. 1997. Corporate social performance and

organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management
Journal, 40(3): 658-72.
TÜV.Hellas. 2008. Implementing international certifiable management standards.

Athens: TÜV Hellas.
Udayasankar, K. 2008. Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of

UNIDO. 2004. Survey of small and medium enterprises in the global compact. Vienna:
United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
Unilever. 2009. Purpose and principles.

http://www.unilever.co.uk/aboutus/purposeandprinciples/. Accessed 09 October 2009.
Utting, P. 2002. Regulating business via multistakeholder initiatives: A preliminary

assessment. In: Utting, P. (ed), Voluntary approaches to corporate responsibility.: 61-
130. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service.
334
References
Utting, P. 2005. Rethinking business regulation: From self-regulation to social control.

Technology, Business and Society Program, Paper no 15, Geneva: United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development.
Valor, C. 2005. Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: Towards

corporate accountability. Business & Society Review, 110(2): 191-212.
Van Oosterhout, J. & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. 2008. Much ado about nothing. A

conceptual critique of corporate social responsibility. In: Crane, A., McWilliams, A.,
Viadiu, F. M., Fa, M. C., & Saizarbitoria, I. H. 2006. ISO 9000 and ISO 14000
standards: An international diffusion model. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 26(2): 141-65.
Vogel, D. 2005. The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate social
responsibility. Washington, D.C.: Brookins Institution Press.
Vogel, D. 2008. Private global business regulation. Annual Review of Political Science,
11: 261-82.
Votaw, D. 1973. Genius becomes rare. In: D. Votaw & Sethi, S. P. (eds), The corporate
dilemma: 11-45. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Waddock, S. 2003. Stakeholder performance implications of corporate responsibility.

International Journal of Business Performance Management, 5(2/3): 114-24.
Waddock, S. 2007. Corporate citizenship. The dark-side of paradoxes success. In: May,
S., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (eds), The debate over corporate social responsibility: 74-
86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waddock, S. & Bodwell, C. 2004. Managing responsibility: What can be learned from
the quality movement? California Management Review, 47(1): 25-37.
Waddock, S., Bodwell, C., & B. Graves, S. 2002. Responsibility: The new business
imperative. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2): 132-48.
Waddock, S. & Graves, S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial

performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 303-19.
Wanderley, L., Lucian, R., Farache, F., & Sousa Filho, J. 2008. CSR information
disclosure on the web: A context-based approach analysing the influence of country of
origin and industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2): 369-78.
WBCSD. 1998. Corporate social responsibility: Meeting changing expectations.

Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. 1999. Integrated and decoupled
corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures and
corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 539-52.
335
References
Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. 1997. Customization or conformity? An

institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM
adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2): 366-94.
Westphal, J. D. & Zajac, E. J. 1994. Substance and symbolism in CEOs' long-term

incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 367-90.
White, B. 2000. Dissertation skills for business and management. London: Cassell.
Wilkinson, F. 2007. Neo-liberalism and new labour policy: Economic performance,

historical comparisons and future prospects. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(6):
817-43.
Williamson, O. E. 1964. The economics of discretionary behaviour. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Windsor, D. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of

Wolfram Cox, J. & Hassard, J. 2005. Triangulation in organizational research: A re-

presentation. Organization Studies, 12(1): 109-33.
Wood, D. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management

Review, 16(4): 691-718.
Wood, D. 2010. Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International

Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1): 50-84.
Yeung, A. C. L., Cheng, E. T. C., & Lai, K. 2006. An operational and institutional
perspective on total quality management. Production and Operations Management,
15(1): 156-70.
Zadek, S. 2001. The civil corporation: The new economy of corporate citizenship.
Stirling, VA: Earthscan.
Zamanou, S. & Glaser, S. R. 1994. Moving toward participation and involvement.

Group and Organization Management, 19(4): 475-502.
Zbaracki, M. J. 1998. The rhetoric and reality of total quality management.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(3): 602-36.
Zukin, S. & DiMaggio, P. J. 1990. Structures of capital: The social organization of the
economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zwetsloot, G. 2003. From management systems to corporate social responsibility.

Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3): 201-07.
336

The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility On Business Practice: The Case of International Certifiable Management Standards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility On Business Practice: The Case of International Certifiable Management Standards

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility On Business Practice: The Case of International Certifiable Management Standards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on

Business Practice: The Case of International

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire

academic or professional institution. I also declare that no material contained in the

Type of Award Doctor of Philosophy

School Lancashire Business School

the dissertation employs International Certifiable Management Standards (ICMS), as

proxy-indicators of CSR related practices and draws on an inter-disciplinary approach.

empirical evidence, this study contributes to existing knowledge by adopting a more

these practices in firms’ everyday activities.

1.1 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 3

2 BACKGROUND TO CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR)........ 9

2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 9

3 ANALYSING INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIABLE MANAGEMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 56

4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES ................................... 71

4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 71

5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 93

6 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS - DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ..................... 135

6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 135

7 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS - INFERENTIAL STATISTICS ..................... 155

7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 155

8 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS................................................................................ 183

8.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 183

9 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 210

9.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 210

10 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 235

TABLE 3-1: SUMMARY OF ICMS REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... 61

FIGURE 2-1: EVOLUTION OF CSR PERSPECTIVES ....................................................................... 22

APPENDIX 3-1: ICMS REQUIREMENS..........................................................................................238

I am heartily thankful to my main supervisor, Prof. Andrei Kuznetsov whose kind

CB: Certification Body

CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility

CEOs: Chief Executive Officers

CEN: European Committee for Standardization

CMV: Common Method Variance

EU: European Union

ICMS: International Certifiable Management Standards

ISO: International Organization for Standardization

ILO: International Labour Organization

KWIC: Key Words in Context

MANOVA: Multivariate Analysis of Variance

NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

MSMEs: Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

SMEs: Small and Medium Enterprises

SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

UCLAN: University of Central Lancashire

VIF: Variance Inflation Factors

WBCSD: World Business Council for Sustainable Development

the Community, 2010; Vogel, 2005).

misconduct, however, involving firms perceived as paragons of CSR, have unveiled

significant discrepancies between CSR rhetoric and practice. This contradictory

evidence leaves the influence of CSR on business practice1 open to interpretation. On

of using CSR as a public relations ploy.

Current research fails to address these issues as it mostly focuses on speculations

predominantly in conceptual, theoretical terms (Frederick, 2006). Moreover, it is a

activities (Bondy, et al., 2008; Gonzalez-Benito & Gonzalez-Benito, 2005; Holder-

To enhance our understanding of CSR influence on business practice, research must