Volume 4  Issue 3  2017

Journal of Corporate Responsibility

and Leadership

Corporate Social Responsibility in Management

Theory & Business Practice

Triple Bottom Line:

The Pillars of CSR
DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/JCRL.2017.018

Paulina Księżaka, Barbara Fischbachb

a
The Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University  
in Toruń, Poland; The Faculty of Law, Economics and Management, The University of
Angers, France, e-mail: paulina.ksiezak@outlook.com
b
The Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University 
in Toruń, Poland; The Faculty of Law, Economics and Management, The University of
Angers, France, e-mail: b.fischbach@op.pl

Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this paper is to discuss the areas of CSR and
analyse their elements to better understand the concept.
Design/methodology/approach: To analyse the elements of the
Triple Bottom Line model as a categorization of CSR areas and
compare it with another models.
Findings: Relations between Triple Bottom Line and other cate-
gorizations of CSR areas.
Research and practical limitations/implications: The article is
theoretical and can be a base for future research. Nevertheless, the
unsystematic research sampling should be considered a limitation
of the study.
Originality/value: The article focuses on Triple Bottom Line
and studies this concept in relation to other classifications. It has
particular value in situation when the policy concerning CSR is
obligatory for companies operating in the European Union area.
Paper type: literature review.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, Triple Bottom Line,

people, profit, planet.
96 Paulina Księżak, Barbara Fischbach

1.  Introduction

Corporate social responsibility is a way for a corporation to acknowl-

edge and take responsibility for its actions that affect the market, its
employees (workplace), the society and the natural environment
(Skrzypczyńska 2013, 2014). In the literature many views on the matter
are presented. In this article the authors discuss the scope of interests
of the field related to the expanse of CSR activities. Although there are
already many examples of articles and books referring to CSR compo-
nents, still there is no one clear classification. Some of the models are
applicable for certain companies while do not characterize sufficiently
the other ones. Thus, the topic is important and still worth examining.
The aim of this paper is to discuss the areas of CSR and look closer
into their component parts to better understand the concept. The paper
is based on the analysis of the subject matter literature and combination
of knowledge acquired during earlier studies. While selecting the litera-
ture, the up-to-date publications were taken into account. Nevertheless,
the unsystematic research sampling should be considered a limitation
of the study.
The paper is divided into sections, first of which answers the ques-
tion: “Why do companies involve into CSR activities?”. There are
many drivers of CSR, ranging from pressure of the society to securing
the business’s position on the market. The second section of the article
examines the areas of CSR according to the Triple Bottom Line, which
focuses on 3Ps i.e. Profit, People and Planet. Every part of this model
is considered separately to explain the importance of the elements. The
paper ends with a brief conclusion, comparing the Triple Bottom Line
with other models used to categorize CSR activities of enterprises.

2.  CSR drivers

Certainly, non-governmental organisations and general public have

a lot of power. As Banerjee (2007) states, despite the fact that NGOs’
pressures might not be legislated, corporations change their policies
based on those external demands. One of the NGO that has the most
visible impact in the field of CSR is the Global Reporting Initiative that
sets standards for reporting. Another influential reporting standard is the
United Nations Global Compact.
 Triple Bottom Line: The Pillars of CSR 97

Aside from pressures from general public and NGOs, the main driv-
er to use CSR is a corporate social contract. Every person who lives
under the social contract is bound to respect the law, to act responsibly,
and to relinquish some of their self-interest rights that are at odds with
the general good. Companies are obliged to produce goods that the
society requires and pay fair taxes. Moreover, in today’s economy, as
Mullerat (2010) states, taxes are not enough and companies, to not
breach the social contract, should assist in solving social issues. Both
corporations and society are considered equal partners that have rights
and responsibilities.
Facing the increasingly prevalent threat of global warming all large,
medium and small companies often care for the environment. Protec-
tion of the natural environment often brings additional cost savings, for
example in scaled-down litres of water used. Another important driver
for CSR is philanthropy and community involvement, like fighting
hunger and poverty locally and globally. Promotion of decent work
conditions and high standard of living is one of the most expected moti-
vators. In different countries there are different priorities. For instance,
safe workplace is the most important in Italy, Switzerland focuses on
eliminating the gender gap of salary, Norway bets on setting core labour
standards. Most of the companies also claim to fight the war against
corruption and bribery through increased transparency and reporting.
This leads to elevated dialogue with stakeholders and promotion of
communication with society (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010).
The importance of CSR as a business strategy is visible in relations
with every stakeholder. Companies need to inspire trust and be depend-
able to secure good relationships with customers, business partners,
suppliers, employees, and even NGOs. All of that, as Uddin, Hassan
and Tarique (2008) note, allows the companies to escalate their obli-
gation towards shareholders, whose gains are as enhanced as rises the
satisfaction of other stakeholders. They also mention three trending
dimensions, which boost the significance of CSR: evolving social
expectations, expanding prosperity and globalisation.
Broad spectrum of the CSR domain lets a company choose one or
several fields of activity that would suit the best the company’s mission.
It is important to direct business’s CSR policy in a congruous way and
that is why more and more corporations entrust that task to profession-
als. As Moon (2014) concurs, in recent years a vast number of CSR
consulting companies emerged. And the demand for their services is
98 Paulina Księżak, Barbara Fischbach

growing. Companies increasingly hire CSR consultants to appropriately

prioritise the social efforts they could contribute to. Porter and Kramer
(2006) identify three categories of social issues due to their relationship
to the company’s operations:
– generic social issues i.e. “social issues that are not significantly
affected by a company’s operations nor materially affect its
long-term competitiveness”;
– value chain social impacts i.e. “social issues that are significant-
ly affected by a company’s activities in the ordinary course of
business”;
– social dimensions of competitive context i.e. “social issues in
the external environment that significantly affect the underlying
drivers of a company’s competitiveness in the locations where
it operates”.
For many years the policy on CSR was a contentious issue and the
question: “Should corporate social responsibility be legislated?” was
frequently posed. According to Mullerat (2010), there were many voices
for it, especially in the environmental case, where there should be some
legally stated quotas considering, for instance, CO2 emissions, that in
other case would not be respected. He also wholeheartedly supported
an idea to implement into law some minimum to obey the international
bill of human rights, but reminded that most of the solutions to serious
society problems were introduced by corporations. Mullerat argued
that this would not stop companies from providing additional help to
society, but would make such help a normality.
At the time being, still in some countries CSR is not legislated and
any support enterprises give to the social issues is voluntary. Last years,
regulations concerning CSR has been tighten and since 2018 a new
rule of non-financial reporting in line with the Directive 2014/95/EU
is in force. In accordance with it, information relating to CSR must
be contained as non-financial statement in company financial reports.
More precisely, this kind of reporting is obligatory for enterprises hiring
more than 500 employees what means around 6000 companies across
the EU, in particular listed companies, banks, insurance companies and
other companies designated by national authorities as public-interest
entities. Under directive these enterprises have to include information
concerning applied policies related to “environmental protection, social
responsibility and treatment of employees, respect for human rights,
anti-corruption and bribery, diversity on company boards (in terms of
 Triple Bottom Line: The Pillars of CSR 99

age, gender, educational and professional background)”. For this pur-

pose companies can choose guideline which is the most convenient
for them i.e. UN Global Compact, OECD guidelines for multinational
enterprises, ISO 26000 or European Commission guideline published
in June 2017 (European Commission, nd). Social responsibility is not
compulsory worldwide yet, however in the view of all the arguments
presented one can see that involving in CSR is definitely worth trying1.

3.  The areas of CSR

Most of CSR theories admit that the foundation of the idea is the Triple
Bottom Line (TBL) concept that was introduced in 1987 in Brundtland
Commission. It was officially named by John Elikngton in 1994. This
theory is also known as 3Ps or three pillars. It states that a company
should be responsible for three features: Profit, People and Planet, that
is economic, social and environmental responsibility. Only if a com-
pany cares for all three aspects of Triple Bottom Line, can it be called
sustainable, because all of them are extremely closely related. Caring
for Profit and for People makes it equitable and fair, but omitting envi-
ronmental protection dooms the Planet. On the other hand, tending only
to Planet and People, and forgetting about the Profit, makes CSR policy
bearable, but business needs profits to survive. Again, if a company
pays attention to Profit and Planet, discarding the People, Cane (2013)
believes that it is viable and profitable, but in the long term can lead to
the fall of employees’ morale and the breach of social contract.

3.1.  Profit
Profit is a mandatory requirement, thanks to which a company has
a possibility to develop. Hopefully profit leads also to certain mea-
sures committed to responsible behaviour. However, the economic
part of CSR is not only about making profit, the most important task
is to use it well. The profit part of TBL has not been discussed often
in the last years, as there is a common view that it is well-tended, as
most of managers do not need a reminder to provide value for their
shareholders. Uddin et al. (2008) argue that the economic dimension of
CSR has more to do with direct and indirect economic impingement of

1  
The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for this comment.
100 Paulina Księżak, Barbara Fischbach

company’s activity on local community and other stakeholders. Social-

ly responsible enterprises in the long term can be profitable and save
costs. Therefore, it is more likely that a company respecting that will
evade any adverse social consequences and aggrandise beneficial social
outcomes. Moreover, accomplishing that task may draw the company
towards further expansion. The indicators of the success in overall eco-
nomic responsibility can be GDP and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) –
their growth is a measure of companies’ involvement in improving the
standard of living. Positive change of society is linked to companies’
success. Cooperation with stakeholders is also vital – thanks to trans-
parency and open reporting stakeholders can see the company’s work
and decide if it is in harmony with their own views (Uddin et al., 2008).
Aspects of economic responsibility are presented in Figure 1:

Taxes

Avoiding 
The Multiplier  actions that 
Effect damage trust

Profit

Figure 1.  Aspects of economic responsibility

Source: Own study based on: Uddin, Hassan and Tarique (2008,
pp. 204 – 205).

Uddin et al. (2008) process the economic dimension in three aspects.

First of them is the multiplier effect that is especially far-reaching when
a vast amount of people in the area work for that company. The point
is to consider the impact the business has on its stakeholders, therefore
local communities, employees, NGOs, customers and suppliers. The
higher economic performance of the company, the higher the salaries,
which are spent on products and taxes. On the enterprise’s side bigger
profits allow to put more money into socially responsible activities. In
 Triple Bottom Line: The Pillars of CSR 101

the end, higher profit of the company appears to benefit everyone in the
community.
The second aspect of the economic dimension is contribution
through taxes. The higher the profit, the more fair tax is paid to the
government, which can spend it on its people, helping society with
the most grave issues. And corporations are the main taxpayers on the
local basis. Uddin et al. (2008) propose to see the taxes paid not as costs
but as a part of CSR’s contribution to society. This would make tax
avoidance harmful to society, as it means that companies do not want
to share their success with society.
The last facet of economic responsibility is evading any activity
that abuses trust. This has to do with the company’s licence to operate.
The reputation of a company, once shattered is very difficult to reclaim.
Many still remember the scandal from the 1970s involving Nestlé and
its baby formula sold in the third world countries, although the com-
pany channelled ample resources into elaborate CSR actions. Those
activities that could potentially jeopardize the confidence put in the
company should be aborted and replaced with trust-building actions.
The most visible example can be bribery and corruption that once dis-
covered, change the way the company is viewed for a long time, if not
irredeemably.

3.2.  People
People are lifeblood of a company. The social dimension relies on
improving the standard of living. CSR is a tool that serves to develop
and preserve good relationship between society and an enterprise. This
is supremely important in the relations of small and medium enterprises
and local communities. SMEs usually take their workforce from the
area in which they operate, thus the responsibility doubles: employees
are at the same time the local community (Gołaszewska-Kaczan, 2009).
As a result, those companies are usually closer to the society and know
where the most acute problems lie.
Nevertheless, the local community is not only the individuals liv-
ing in the area. It is also all the groups and organisations acting in the
neighbourhood. Social responsibility covers all the people affected by
a company or those who affect it. In that sense business takes the bur-
den of assuring the well-being of the people and invests in their skills,
needed for recruiting process. Companies cannot exist without their
workers, the customers or participants of the supply chain. Previously
102 Paulina Księżak, Barbara Fischbach

widely discussed interdependence between business and society is an

essential component of daily life of an enterprise and no company can
renounce it and still perform (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Therefore
economic expansion must go conjointly with social development.
A business that respects the Triple Bottom Line concept is the one that
would not exploit people, that stands against child labour and provides
fair salaries and fair treatment for its employees, and that controls its
subcontractors to obey the same rules. For example, American clothing
company The Gap, Inc. was discovered several times to be unaware
of its products being made by children in subcontractors’ factory that
did not respect any fire safety regulations (Muthu (Ed.), 2017). Any
company that declares being socially responsible cannot let that happen.
Conveniently more and more companies take the direction towards
social progress. Managers make decisions to allocate a certain part
of the profits to contribute to society. Uddin et al. (2008) found three
aspects of responsibility towards people, that is towards customers,
employees and community (cf. Figure 2).

Resonsibility 
towards 
Employees

Responsibility  Responsibility 
towards  towards 
Customers Community

People

Figure 2.  Aspects of social responsibility

Source: Own study based on: Uddin, Hassan and Tarique (2008,
p. 206).

CSR regarding customers is the most obvious one: customers have

to put confidence in a company that they are buying from. Nowadays,
more and more consumers declare interest in the company’s out-of-
business activity. They want to buy from the enterprise that cares for
 Triple Bottom Line: The Pillars of CSR 103

them and they are aware that their favour is what makes the company
profitable. Gołaszewska-Kaczan (2009) brings up the idea of a ‘New
Consumer’ that is an independent, but concerned individualist that
looks for authenticity and, most of all, is well informed. Today’s con-
sumers have an access to the Internet that allows them to quickly get
to the enormous number of facts on the product they are going to buy,
therefore they can compare goods, and even producers before making
a conscious decision. ‘New Consumer’ does not want more, but better,
he or she wants superior quality and an improved standard of living.
As a result, ‘New Consumer’ is a critic. He or she has an opinion on
company’s policy and requires confirmation that goods were produced
in a socially responsible way. ‘New Consumer’ has power to boycott
a company and destroy its reputation with a negative review on the
Internet that in the blink of an eye finds willing receivers. That is why
a well-designed value for money is an important variable that often
decides the success or failure of a product. Customers expect good
quality, but also prominent service during transaction and refined after
sales service. Tending to all customers’ needs is a potential driver of
profitability (Gołaszewska-Kaczan, 2009).
Another aspect of the social dimension of TBL is responsibility
towards employees. The employment itself is beneficial for people,
but it is not enough. CSR for workers should ensure the best use of
their skills, taking care for their well-being. Companies should make
sure that all the safety measures are respected. They can also provide
possibility of self-realisation for the employees through education and
training courses and devise the best system of motivating. Absolutely
vital for CSR policy is impartial treatment, with no regard for gender,
age or other differences. Diversity management allows for creating
such an environment within the company that makes possible to use the
potential of unique competences of workforce (Wieczorek-Szymańska,
2017). The range of instruments to achieve it is wide, from flexible
working hours, working from home to job sharing for leadership roles
(Maj, 2017). Indeed, diversity can only improve the situation of the
company, as various employees with various backgrounds bring a fresh
look to the company that can result in advanced growth. The outcomes
of increasing diversity of managing boards may be used an example
to support such an observation (Hernik, 2014, Balina, 2016; Hernik
and Minguez-Vera, 2016, Hernik and Minguez-Vera, 2017). It is worth
mentioning that the image the company presents to the local society
104 Paulina Księżak, Barbara Fischbach

is crucial to its position against the competitors. The actions the busi-
nesses take for the benefit of the local communities frequently focus
on some forms of sponsoring, for example paying for the outfits of the
local football team, but they can also take form of training, donations
or simply recruiting (Idowu, Louche and Filho, 2010).

3.3.  Planet
Planet is the habitat for a company and the people. If large corpora-
tions pollute the environment with their actions and drive the planet to
destruction, they will be equally affected as anything else on the Earth.
Natural environment is the responsibility of everyone, and primarily of
corporations, which are often the first reason for its damage. Irresponsi-
ble usage of natural resources, producing waste or emission of polluting
by-products are the dominant negative impacts of corporations on the
environment. Therefore the least those companies can do is to minimise
or eliminate the detrimental environmental impact (Gupta, 2011).
There are plenty of ways the business can be environmentally
friendly. First of all, it can make sure it produces goods that do not harm
the environment in any way. However, this is not possible for every
industry yet. For instance, automotive industry’s products emit great
amounts of CO2. New, more eco-friendly cars emerge, nevertheless
they still damage environment, but to a lesser extent. The action all
enterprises can conduct is a reduction of waste. In any business there
are countless ways of lessening the amount of use without thought, for
instance putting an end to unnecessary printing of emails or plainly
recycling. Enterprises that produce highly toxic waste should also take
all the necessary measures to diminish the level of toxicity and show
concern for suitable and law abiding off-load (Mullerat, 2010). Another
way to help the environment is to lessen the use of water and energy,
for example teach employees to always turn off the light in the rooms
that are not used at the moment. In general, responsibility towards the
environment brings more profit for the business in the long run. It is
also easier to measure the impact the company and its CSR policy has
on the environment than on society. In the work of Uddin et al. (2008)
the environmental responsibility is explained by two aspects: environ-
mental impact and the win-win situation (cf. Figure 3).
In the environmental impact they count all the harmful effects the
company has on the environment as a result of its daily operations.
Environmentally responsible business should therefore measure the
 Triple Bottom Line: The Pillars of CSR 105

The Win­Win 
Environmental  of 
Impact Environmental 
Responsibility

Planet

Figure 3.  Aspects of environmental responsibility

Source: Own study based on: Uddin, Hassan and Tarique
(2008, p. 207).

impact it has on the natural environment, for example thanks to ecolog-

ical footprint that assesses the quantity of resources used by a company
during a year and examines it in contrast to the supply of these resourc-
es that are still accessible on the planet. Another mean of measurement
of environmental influence is LCA (life cycle assessment). It calculates
the environmental performance of a produced good from its beginning
(raw material stage), through being on a shelf in the shop, to the manner
of disposal after it has been used. Thus, the measured impact of a com-
pany should be well managed. That means altering the way it used to
work and implementing more planet friendly thinking into company’s
operations. It has been corroborated that through building processes
anew with the reference to environmental protection a company estab-
lishes a base for environmentally efficient business (Uddin et al., 2008).
An interesting example of using the LCA assessment to manage the
company impact on the natural environment in the clothing industry is
discussed by Księżak (2016). She analyses the CSR practices in H&M
Hennes & Mauritz AB – one of the best known companies operating in
this sector. H&M undertakes activities such as using certified organic
cotton and implementing programme of recycling fashion or replacing
polyutherane, known as vegan leather, with more environmentally
friendly water-based substitute.
The last aspect of environmental responsibility is the win-win situa-
tion, that is circumstances in which both sides benefit. The point is to be
able to use the advantage the newly created environmental management
gives. Obvious cuts in costs make the business more viable through
106 Paulina Księżak, Barbara Fischbach

savings. Additionally, the company might be able to discover any

abnormalities in production, due to thorough examination of processes,
and eliminate them, benefitting from lesser risk. All the environmental
actions improve the company’s reputation, therefore attracting custom-
ers, and may lead to significant competitive advantage (Mullerat, 2010).

4.  Discussion

The paper takes the perspective of the proponents of the corporate

social responsibility concept considered from the point of view of
a strategic approach to CSR (Porter and Kramer, 2006) and the theory
of positive management (Skrzypczyńska, 2013; Karaszewski and Lis,
2014a, 2014b). Nevertheless, it should be made clear, that some critical
opinions are observed in the literature. For instance, in 1970, a Nobel
Prize Winner Milton Friedman published an article in which argued
that: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business –
to increase its profits”. He claimed that a company is not capable of
having responsibility (Friedman, 2013). As observed by Ceglińska and
Cegliński (2014), to remain unbiased, the views of Friedman and his
followers embedded in the theory of neo-liberalism should be contrast-
ed with the ideas of a company as a social unit promulgated by Handy
(2002).
Undoubtedly the Triple Bottom Line is not the only presentation
of key areas of CSR. Not every researcher accepts this concept, many
think it is too general and does not cover all of the important fields.
According to the classification of the United Nations Global Com-
pact there are ten principles which are divided into 4 areas: human
rights, labour, environment and anticorruption (United Nations Global
Compact, nd). The first category is focused on protection of human
rights and reacting against abuse of them. Labour area shall give right
to create associations and collective bargaining, eliminate all kinds
of forced and child labour as well as discrimination in the workplace.
These two categories are for the most part consistent with the social
area of TBL. Precautionary approach to environmental challenges and
promoting friendly technologies characterise environmental issues. The
last group consists of such activities as working against corruption and
bribery. Even though this category is not distinguished in the TBL, the
principles of anticorruption are contained in economic area.
 Triple Bottom Line: The Pillars of CSR 107

More specific classifications can be found. For example, in 2010

the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) launched ISO
26000 which aims at global sustainable development including wealth
of society and taking into consideration stakeholders expectations as
well as consistency with applicable law and norms. According to it there
are seven key areas of social responsibility: organisational governance,
human rights, labour practices, environment, fair operating practices,
consumer issues and community involvement and development. In this
approach the domains are interdependent (Belak and Duh, 2017), that
may cause difficulties in an unambiguous division. Nevertheless, most
of the elements of ISO 26000 can be found in TBL classification for
instance organisational governance and fair operating practices may be
equated to the economic part of TBL. Areas such as human rights, labour
practices or consumer issues represent the social dimension. Consumer
issues and community involvement and development can be classified
either as the actions having impact on stakeholders or relations between
the company and people involved in it. Thus, the core subjects of ISO
26000 correlate with the model of Triple Bottom Line.
Many companies are also mapping down their own division of CSR
areas and use them in their reports. The example can be the Bridgestone
Corporation’s report, where there are four groups of CSR activities:
fundamental, business, environmental and social. It might seem similar
to the TBL, nevertheless the business activities include responsibility
towards shareholders, suppliers and customers, therefore people. The
fundamental CSR pursuits according to Bridgestone are: securing stable
profits as a business, ensuring a thorough understanding of and adherence
to compliance, ensuring business continuity and communicating with
stakeholders, hence the activities the Triple Bottom Line would mostly
count as economic responsibility (Bridgestone CSR Report, 2012).
The aforementioned models differ in regard to categories included,
however the TBL model enables the presentation of three classifications
of CSR areas outlined above (cf. Figure 4). It is important to note that
division of some elements appears to be difficult and the figure just
helps to point out links between the models.
Summing up, there is no commonly accepted categorization of CSR
areas and all the reports from socially responsible companies will never
look the same. Nevertheless, the Triple Bottom Line presents a clear
understanding of what is counted as corporate social responsibility and
it makes the concept easy to understand.
108 Paulina Księżak, Barbara Fischbach

Figure 4.  Comparison of CSR areas classifications by United Nations Global Com-
pact, Bridgestone Corporation and ISO 26000 with the Triple Bottom Line model
Source: Own elaboration.

5.  Conclusion

Taking into account the growing popularity of CSR, classification of its

areas is useful to understand the idea of a socially responsible company.
The literature as well as companies reports propose different divisions,
but majority of them are based on the same principles. Triple Bottom
Line can be still applied even though it was introduced 30 years ago.
This model admittedly, shows the concept at a general level, but at the
same time it contains all crucial elements. In this way, TBL may be
useful in the most of enterprises which is a big advantage in comparison
with another classifications. However, certain companies need to take
into account more elaborated models, especially in the dynamically
developing business world. Consequently, new classifications of CSR
areas appear, nevertheless issues do not fall outside of the economic,
social and environment area considering profit, people and planet which
should coexist.

References
Balina, R. (2016), “Does the Gender of a Bank’s President Have an Effect on Financial
Performance? A Case Study of Poland’s Cooperative Bank Sector”, Journal of
Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 9 – 22.
 Triple Bottom Line: The Pillars of CSR 109
Banjerjee, S.B. (2007), Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the
Ugly, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham.
Belak, J., Duh, M. (Eds.) (2017), Ethics, Social Responsibility and Innovation in Cor-
porate Governance, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Bridgestone CSR Report (2012). Retrieved from http://www.bridgestone.com/respon-
sibilities/csr/report/download/ (accessed 19 July 2015).
Cane, N. (2013), “What is The Triple Bottom Line?”. Retrieved from https://natecate.
wordpress.com/2013/04/10/what-is-the-triple-bottom-line/ (accessed 29 June
2015).
Ceglińska, M., Cegliński, P. (2014), “Motives for Consideration of CSR Concept
Assumptions for Building a Business Strategy”, Journal of Corporate Responsi-
bility and Leadership, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 9 – 20.
European Commission (nd), “Non-financial Reporting”. Retrieved from https://ec.euro-
pa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-re-
porting/non-financial-reporting_en, (accessed 04 January 2018).
Friedman, J. (2013), “Milton Friedman Was Wrong About Corporate Social Respon-
sibility”. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-friedman/milton-
friedman-was-wrong_b_3417866.html (accessed 19 November 2017).
Gołaszewska-Kaczan, U. (2009), Zaangażowanie społeczne przedsiębiorstwa,
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Białystok.
Gupta, A. (2011), “Triple Bottom Line (TBL a” 3BL)”, SAMVAD International Journal
of Management, Vol. 2, pp. 71 – 77.
Handy, C. (2002), “What’s a Business For?”, Harvard Business Review, December.
Hernik, J. (2014), “Diversity as a Base of an Innovative Model of Business”, Cross
Cultural Business Conference 2014: Proceedings, Shaker Verlag, pp. 39 – 47.
Hernik, J., Minguez Vera, A. (2016), “Women on Managing Boards – Are Companies
More Responsible When Women Share the Power?”, Organisational Studies and
Innovation Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 57 – 63.
Hernik, J., Minguez Vera, A. (2017), “Searching for a Perfect Composition for a Board
of Directors”, Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, Vol. 4, Issue
1, pp. 19 – 38.
Idowu, S.O., Louche, C., Filho, W.L. (2010), “Innovative Corporate Social Responsi-
bility: An Introduction”, in: Louche C., Idowu, S.O., Filho, W.L. (Eds.), Innovative
CSR: From Risk Management to Value Creation, Greenleaf Publishing Limited,
Sheffield, pp. 7 – 15.
Karaszewski, R., Lis, A. (2014a), “Is Leadership an Antecedent of Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Study in the Context of Positive Organisational Potential”, Jour-
nal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 53 – 70.
Karaszewski, R., Lis, A. (2014b), “Przywództwo i CSR w kontekście pozytywnego
potencjału organizacji”, Marketing i Rynek, No. 5, pp. 1056 – 1062.
Księżak, P. (2016), “The CSR Challenges in the Clothing Industry”, Journal of Corpo-
rate Responsibility and Leadership, Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 51 – 65.
Maj, J. (2017), “Diversity Management Instruments in Polish Organizations”, Journal
of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 39 – 54.
Moon, J. (2014), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford
University Press Inc., New York.
110 Paulina Księżak, Barbara Fischbach

Mullerat, R. (2010), International Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Cor-

porations in the Economic Order of the 21st Century, Kluwer Law International,
Alphen aan den Rijn.
Muthu, S.S. (Ed.) (2017), Textiles and Clothing Sustainability: Sustainable Fashion and
Consumption, Springer, Singapore.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R. (2006), “Strategy and Society: The Link Between Compet-
itive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility”, Harvard Business Review,
December, pp. 78 – 93.
Skrzypczyńska, K. (2013), “Corporate Social Responsibility as an Indicator of the
Company Positive Organisational Potential”, in: Stankiewicz, M.J. (Ed.), Positive
Management: Managing the Key Areas of Positive Organisational Potential for
Company Success, Dom Organizatora TNOiK, Toruń, pp. 261 – 286.
Skrzypczyńska, K. (2014), “Social Responsibility of Companies Operating in Poland”,
Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 71 – 84.
Uddin, M.B., Hassan, M.R., Tarique, K.M. (2008), “Three Dimensional Aspects of
Corporate Social Responsibility”, Daffodil International University Journal of
Business and Economics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 199 – 212.
United Nations Global Compact (nd), “The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact”.
Retrieved from https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles
(accessed 28 December 2017).
Visser, W., Tolhurst, N. (Eds.) (2010), The World Guide to CSR: A Country-by-Coun-
try Analysis of Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Greenleaf Publishing
Limited, Sheffield.
Wieczorek-Szymańska, A. (2017), “Organisational Maturity in Diversity Management”,
Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 79 – 91.