Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

 Springer 2008

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 85:411427

DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility:

A Scale Development Study

ABSTRACT. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is

one of the most prominent concepts in the literature and,
in short, indicates the positive impacts of businesses on
their stakeholders. Despite the growing body of literature
on this concept, the measurement of CSR is still problematic. Although the literature provides several methods
for measuring corporate social activities, almost all of
them have some limitations. The purpose of this study is
to provide an original, valid, and reliable measure of CSR
reflecting the responsibilities of a business to various
stakeholders. Based on a proposed conceptual framework
of CSR, a scale was developed through a systematic scale
development process. In the study, exploratory factor
analysis was conducted to determine the underlying factorial structure of the scale. Data was collected from 269
business professionals working in Turkey. The results of
the analysis provided a four-dimensional structure of
CSR, including CSR to social and nonsocial stakeholders, employees, customers, and government.
KEY WORDS: Corporate social responsibility, employees, scale development, stakeholders, Turkey
ABBREVIATIONS: CEP: Council of Economic Priorities; CSID: Canadian Social Investment Database;
CSR: Corporate social responsibility; EU: European
Union; KLD: Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini; NGO:
Nongovernmental organization; PRESOR: Perceived
Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility; WCED: World
Commission on Environment and Development

The role of business in society has been a matter of
discussion since the middle of the last century. The
increasing pressures of businesses on humanity and
the natural environment have raised concerns among
people all around the world considerably. Today,
the various stakeholders in national and international

Duygu Turker

communities expect more responsible use of

increased business power. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) may provide a general framework to
structure the responsible use of corporate power and
social involvement. Although the expanding literature on this issue has provided a clearer understanding, it is still problematic to find a commonly
accepted definition of CSR. Another problem is to
measure CSR based on its links with the stakeholder
concept. Despite the existence of various measurement methods in the literature, almost all of them
have some limitations. In order to better understand
and measure how CSR relates with stakeholders, a
new measurement of CSR is needed. The purpose
of the current study is to fill this void by providing a
new scale to measure CSR in terms of the expectations of various stakeholders.
The data for this study was collected from business
professionals in Turkey. Although Turkey has historically shared some social characteristics of collectivist Middle Eastern societies, the modernization
process has changed economic, political, social, and
cultural dimensions of the society to a great extent
since the beginning of the 1920s (Kongar, 1999).
In the 1980s, in parallel with other countries
similarly situated in the world economy, Turkey
changed its economic strategy from a protectionist
model characterized by heavy state intervention to a
more outward-looking and market-oriented model
(Bugra, 2003). This export-oriented policy regime
has backed up the gradually liberalizing economic
context in Turkey and today, in spite of its unique
historical development path, Turkish companies
share some basic perspectives with the global business community.
The first CSR practices in Turkey were conducted by multinational companies (Ararat, 2004,
p. 255). However, since the Ottoman era, there has


Duygu Turker

been a strong tradition of corporate philanthropy

through an institutional mechanism called waqf
(foundation). Today, most family-owned companies
have associated waqfs and allocate a percentage of
their profits to these foundations for the creation of
social benefits. Educational institutions, hospitals,
and artistic or cultural centres are the most popular
fields of activity for these foundations (Ararat, 2005,
p. 12). Despite the existence of a strong philanthropic tradition in the business community and
society at large, until recently CSR efforts have not
been particularly diverse. According to Ararat (2005,
2006), this was partly because of some cultural
characteristics aligned with some characteristics of
the predominantly Muslim countries cluster in
Hosftedes analytical framework (1980). However,
recent changes in the political, economic, and social
context of the country have offset these cultural
characteristics and increased the attention paid to
CSR in Turkish society considerably (Ararat,
2005, 2006). Today, the large-scale CSR projects
of Turkish companies reflect the change in the
understanding of CSR of the Turkish business
community. The annual CSR awards of Capital
Magazine, a leading business magazine in Turkey,
also prove the interest of media and society in CSR
issues. One of the managers of Trend Group, the
company that organizes the event together with
Capital Magazine, evaluated the historical development of the event and commented that CSR has
been one of the most significant values in Turkey
(Bayiksel, 2007).
According to Ararat (2005), macroeconomic stability and economic development accompanied by
opening up to international competition have
accelerated the convergence of the Turkish business
culture. The changing pattern of the business context has also been strengthened by the candidacy
process to the European Union (EU). Although
relations between Turkey and the EU began in 1963
with the signing of the Ankara Agreement, the
candidacy process has increased the level of integration in the European context. During recent
years, Turkey has harmonized its legislation for
EU accession. As a result of this harmonization,
Turkish markets have become more competitive,
civil rights are better respected, legal system has been
improved, juridical system is under improvement,
and the intensified political and economic integra-

tion with Europe affected the social values (Ararat,

2005, p. 19). The relations between the Turkish
business community and European countries are also
long-standing and the EU has been the most
important trading partner for Turkey for a long time
(Flam, 2004, p. 179). Therefore, Turkish companies have already focused on the European market
and complied with most EU regulations in order to
market their products. Based on these trading
relations, the candidacy process also increased the
integration of the Turkish business culture with a
broader European cultural context. Therefore,
Turkey provides a reliable source of information in
order to develop an understanding and create a
measure of CSR.
The study contributes to the literature by providing a new, valid, and reliable scale of CSR. Based
on the proposed conceptual framework, the scale
reflects the corresponding responsibilities of a business to various stakeholders. The paper contains
three main sections. In the first section, a conceptual
framework is drawn to form a structural base of the
study. In the second section, the existing measurement methods and their limitations are reviewed.
Based on the theoretical framework, a scale is
developed for measuring CSR. Finally, in the last
section, the limitations and findings of the study are

Conceptual framework for corporate social

Despite the fact that CSR is one of the most
prominent concepts in the literature, it is still difficult to give a precise and commonly accepted definition. As stated by Votaw (1972), CSR means
something, but not always the same thing, to
everybody (p. 25). According to Bowen (1953),
one of the first scholars to define the concept, CSR
is the obligations of businessmen to pursue those
policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those
lines of action which are desirable in terms of the
objectives and values of our society (p. 6). Since
this definition of CSR, the literature has provided
contradictory definitions of the concept. The elaborate review of Carroll (1999), which traces the
evolution of the CSR construct since the 1950s,
clearly indicated that one of the main problems in

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility

the literature is to sketch out a conceptual framework of CSR.
According to Sims (2003), for instance, social
responsibility and legality are not one and the same
thing. CSR is often seen as acts that go beyond what
is prescribed by the law (p. 46). The definitions of
McGuire (1963) and Davis (1973) distinguished the
social responsibilities of a business from its economic, technical, and legal obligations. Although
Carroll (1999) described the definition of Davis as a
restricted version of CSR, he also distinguished
between the economic component and the noneconomic components of CSR; the former is what
the business does for itself, while the latter are what
the business does for others (Carroll, 1999). Despite
his attractive distinction, Carroll (1999) stated that
economic viability is something business does for
society as well (p. 284) and described the economic
component as a responsibility to produce goods
and services that society wants and to sell them at a
profit (1979, p. 500). However, this definition of
the economic component might indicate the basic
function of business in the society. According to
Daft (2003), a business is an economic unit which
produces goods and services in a society (p. 153) and
gains a profit in return for this function. Therefore,
economic concern is the fundamental reason for the
existence of a business, and profit is surely the primary motive for owners. In this case, it might be
better to consider the economic component as a
reason for the existence of a business, rather than a
responsibility to society. A similar understanding can
be found in the definition of Davis (1960) as well. In
this definition, CSR is businessmens decisions
and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond
the firms direct economic or technical interest
(Davis, 1960, p. 70). According to Eells and Walton
(1974), In its broadest sense, corporate social
responsibility represents a concern with the needs
and goals of society which goes beyond the merely
economic (p. 247). In the current study, the economic component is excluded from the definition of
CSR. Therefore, CSR is defined as corporate
behaviors that aims to affect stakeholders positively
and that go beyond its economic interest.
The given definition of CSR is closely interrelated with the concept of stakeholder. According to
Carroll (1991), there is a natural fit between the idea
of CSR and an organizations stakeholders (p. 43).


Although there is no consensus regarding the definition and scope of stakeholder in the literature, it
can be briefly defined as others with which the
organization interacts while pursuing their goals
(Wherther and Chandler, 2006, p. 4). In a broader
understanding, which can be attributed to the famous definition of Freeman (1984), stakeholders are
those groups or individuals who can affect or are
affected by the achievement of the organizations
objectives or are those actors with a direct or indirect
interest in the company (Verdeyen et al., 2004, pp.
326327). In order to clarify the scope of the
stakeholder concept, scholars have provided various
classifications. Some of the most useful of these
classify these groups or individuals as external and
internal stakeholders (Verdeyen et al., 2004); contracting and public stakeholders (Charkham, 1994);
voluntary and involuntary stakeholders (Clarkson,
1994); primary and secondary stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984); primary social, secondary social, primary nonsocial, and secondary
nonsocial stakeholders (Wheeler and Sillanpaa, 1997,
1998); and internal, external, and societal stakeholders (Wherther and Chandler, 2006, p. 4).
The classification proposed by Wheeler and
Sillanpaa (1997) is obviously the most elaborate of
these alternatives. In this typology, stakeholders that
have direct impacts on relationships and involve
human entities are defined as primary social stakeholders. On the other hand, stakeholders that have
less direct impacts are secondary social stakeholders,
representing civil society, business at large, and
various interest groups. According to the authors,
this group can sometimes be extremely influential on
the business. The authors indicated that the nonsocial stakeholders do not involve human relationships
and divided them further into primary (direct) and
secondary (indirect) categories, including the natural
environment, nonhuman species, future generations,
and their defenders in pressure groups (Wheeler and
Sillanpaa, 1998, p. 205). It can be noted that the
consideration of nonsocial stakeholders has been a
significant advancement in the understanding of the
concept and has likely increased the recognition of
these stakeholders in the business community.
In the current study, this four-dimensional classification provides a useful means of conceptualization. Taking this understanding into account, CSR
can be further defined as corporate behaviors which


Duygu Turker

aim to affect primary social, secondary social, primary nonsocial, and secondary nonsocial stakeholders positively and goes beyond its economic
interest. In order to find the most appropriate way of
measuring CSR based on this conceptual framework, the related literature should be examined
carefully. In the next section, the pros and cons of
the existing methods in the literature are discussed in

Literature review: existing methods

of measuring CSR
In his study, Carroll (2000) answered the question of
whether corporate social performance should be
measured and, if so, why. According to him, the
brief answer to this question is yes, because it is an
important topic to business and to society, and
measurement is one part dealing seriously with an
important matter The real question is whether
valid and reliable measures can be developed
(Carroll, 2000, p. 473). In fact, considerable attempts
have been made to measure the socially responsible
activities of organizations both in the academic and
business communities. However, as Wolfe and Aupperle (1991) indicated, there is no single best way
to measure corporate social activities. Waddock and
Graves (1997) also pointed out the difficulties of
measuring corporate social performance and assessed
the alternative methods, including forced-choice
survey instruments, reputation indices and scales,
content analysis of document, behavioral and perceptional measures, and case study. Maignan and
Ferrell (2000) categorized these alternative methods
into three main approaches: expert evaluations,
single- and multiple-issue indicators, and surveys of
managers. Expanding on the latter classification, the
following approaches are suggested as viable to
measure CSR: reputation indices or databases, single- and multiple-issue indicators, content analysis of
corporate publications, scales measuring CSR at the
individual level, and scales measuring CSR at the
organizational level.
Reputation indices and databases are among the
most widely used methods for evaluating corporate
social activities. The Kinder, Lydenberg, and
Domini (KLD) Database, the Fortune Index, and the
Canadian Social Investment Database (CSID) are

popular examples of this method. KLD rates companies, traded on the US stock exchange, based on
eight attributes of social activities (community relations, employee relations, environment, product,
treatment of women and minorities, military contracts, nuclear power, and South Africa). Fortunes
reputation index also offers a systematic tool for
evaluating socially responsible behaviors from a
managerial point of view. A reputation index can also
be used to derive new scales for measuring corporate
social activities (Abbott and Monsen, 1979). Ruf et
al. (1998) developed a scale to evaluate the relative
importance of KLDs eight dimensions by using an
analytical hierarchy process. According to these authors, the attributes of KLD coincided with the legal,
ethical, and discretionary dimensions of Carrolls
model (1979). However, Maignan and Ferrell (2000)
found these indices inadequate to evaluate all businesses and stated that both KLD and Fortune index
suffer from the fact that their items are not based
on theoretical arguments (p. 285).
Another well-known database is CSID, which
measures the sum of the average of a firms net
strength and weakness for each of seven dimensions
(Mahoney and Thorne, 2005, p. 244): community,
diversity, employee relations, environment, international operations, product and business practices,
and corporate governance. Although this database
reflects some key stakeholder relationships, it only
details companies traded on the Canadian stock exchange. Apparently, besides other limitations, the
most important problem with these databases is their
limited area of assessment; they are only designed to
evaluate companies in some countries.
The second alternative method is the use of single- and multiple-issue indicators. The pollution
control performance, reported by the Council of
Economic Priorities (CEP), is an example of such a
single-issue indicator and has been used by several
scholars (e.g., Bragdon and Marlin, 1972; Chen and
Metcalf, 1984; Freedman and Jaggi, 1982). Corporate crime is another indicator of socially responsible
behaviors used by scholars (Baucus and Baucus,
1997; Davidson and Worrell, 1990). As can be
noticed, the unidimensionality of this method is a
significant limitation (Maignan and Ferrell, 2000).
Therefore, scholars may prefer to use a combination
of these indicators. However, even with the use of
a multiple-issue indicator, this approach still has

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility

limited ability to delineate the entire structure of
CSR. Moreover, these indicators are not globally
focused and only report the activities of companies
in a limited number of countries, which also limits
the use of this method by researchers.
Another method used in the literature is content
analysis of corporate publications. This method may
also provide the possibility to derive new measures
for corporate social activities (Abbott and Monsen,
1979). Especially in recent years, information about
CSR has become more readily accessible due to the
increasing attention that companies pay to social
disclosure, that is, information companies provide on
their practices regarding environmental, community,
employee, and consumer issues (Gray et al., 1995).
The growing body of literature on corporate social
reporting has increased the use of content analysis as
a method of measuring CSR. According to Ruf
et al. (1998), this method has an objective rating of
companies since once the social attributes are
selected, the process of rating is standardized
(p. 121). However, the information given in a corporate report can be different from the actual corporate actions (McGuire et al., 1988). Companies
may mislead the potential readers of these reports in
order to create a more favorable image. Therefore,
the reliability of company reports may represent a
significant limitation. Previous studies that focus on
the reliability of corporate environmental disclosures
have provided empirical evidence that there is no
significant association between the content of these
reports and actual performance (Freedman and
Wasley, 1990; Ingram and Frazier, 1980; Rockness,
1985; Wiseman, 1982). Ironically, poor performers
provided longer environmental disclosures (Ingram
and Frazier, 1980).
The fourth method is to use scales that measure the
CSR perception of individuals. One of the most
widely used scales (Smith and Blackburn, 1988) was
developed by Aupperle (1984) to measure the individual CSR values of managers according to Carrolls
four-dimensional model. This scale is the first serious
attempt to grasp the multidimensional nature of CSR
(Ruf et al., 1998). Although the scale is suitable for
investigating the socially responsible values of managers, it is not a useful way for obtaining information
about socially responsible behaviors of organizations.
Additionally, the forced-choice instruments of the
scale also appear as a limitation. Peterson (2004)


stated that this instrument would not be useful for

assessing an organizations performance in the four
domains independently; that is, the instrument would
not be helpful for assessing organizational performance by employees who view their work organization as highly responsible on all four CSR domains
or highly irresponsible on all four domains. (p. 306).
In order to measure the managerial attitudes
towards social responsibility, Quazi and OBrien
(2000) also provided a scale based on the relevant
previous studies (Davis, 1973; Orpen, 1987; Ostlund,
1977). In this study, the authors constructed a scale
based on a two-dimensional model, including the
span of corporate responsibility and the range of
outcomes of corporate social commitments. Although
this scale is useful to test the CSR perceptions of
managers in different cultural and economic contexts,
it is not designed to measure the organizational
involvement with socially responsible activities.
Another well-known scale is the Perceived Role
of Ethics and Social Responsibility (PRESOR)
which aims to measure managerial perceptions about
the role of ethics and social responsibility in achieving
organizational effectiveness (Singhapakdi et al.,
1996). Like the scales of Aupperle (1984) and Quazi
and OBrien (2000), PRESOR also focuses on
measuring individual values, rather than measuring
socially responsible activities of businesses. Additionally, in his study, Etheredge (1999) provided a
constructive replication of PRESOR and the results
did not confirm the original factorial structure of the
Despite the proliferation of scales to measure
individual perception of CSR, the literature has not
provided an adequate number of scales for measuring
CSR at the organizational level. The most important
scale of the literature in this category was developed
by Maignan and Ferrell (2000) based on the concept
of corporate citizenship. In this study, corporate
citizenship was defined as the extent to which
businesses meet the economic, legal, ethical, and
discretionary responsibilities imposed on them by
their stakeholders (Maignan and Ferrell, 2000,
p. 284). The study incorporated both the conceptual
contribution of Carrolls model (1979) and stakeholder management theory. According to the
proposed conceptualization, the authors developed
a scale of corporate citizenship and tested it empirically in two dissimilar cultural settings. Certainly,


Duygu Turker

the development of this scale is a significant contribution to the literature. However, the main limitation of the scale is that it considers only three
primary stakeholders (customers, employees, and
public). Maignan and Ferrell (2000) emphasized that
these stakeholders are not the only ones who can
impose responsibilities on businesses and whose
welfare can be directly affected (p. 295).
In summary, a review of the literature shows that
there are several methods to measure corporate social
activities. Although these methods have contributed a
lot to the CSR literature, almost all of them have some
limitations. Second, and more importantly, none of
these methods addresses the issue of CSR from the
perspective of the current study. As mentioned previously, this study conceptualizes CSR based on the
exclusion of the economic component, while incorporating the stakeholder concept. Therefore, there is a
need to develop a new scale which articulates CSR
according to the proposed conceptual framework.

Literature Review
Conceptualization of the Scale
Item generationthrou gh Literature Review
Exploratory Survey:
Item generation through exploratory survey
with open-ended 8 questions (n=21)
Group Discussion-1: Item generation
through group discussion / 55 items
Group Discussion-2: Item generation through
group discussion / 42 items

Pilot Survey:
Item selection and examination of validity of
7-point scale through pilot survey (n=30)
Assessment-1: Item extraction through
Correlation Analysis / 29 items
Assessment-2: Item extraction through
Exploratory Factor Analysis / 21 items

Research methodology
Final version of scale/ 18 items

Scale design
Main Survey (n=269)

As Fig. 1 indicates, the scale was designed through a

standard scale development process (Bagozzi et al.,
1991). The first step in the process was the conceptualization of the scale according to the proposed
definition of CSR. In this process, Wheeler and
Sillanpaas typology (1997) was selected as the most
suitable classification to categorize stakeholders. It
should be noted that this typology, one of the most
comprehensive in the literature, was only used to
build a ground for the concept of stakeholder.
Therefore, this study had an exploratory structure,
and did not attempt to confirm the Wheeler and
Sillanpaa typology (1997).
Since it was practically impossible to include all the
stakeholders of Wheeler and Sillanpaas typology
(1997) in the scale, only some of them were selected to
represent each group. Therefore, employees and
customers were selected from the first group; society,
government, and competitors were selected from the
second group; the natural environment and future
generations were selected from the third group; and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were selected from the fourth group. After this selection

Figure 1. Scale design process.

process, the corresponding responsibilities for these

stakeholders were derived from the literature.
Stakeholder management theorists have focused
on the rights, needs, and interests of stakeholders
(Dawkins and Lewis, 2003; Greenwood, 2001;
Maignan and Ferrell, 2004). When reviewing the
literature, it is easy to find which responsibilities a
business has to key stakeholders. In his book, Sims
(2003) portrayed the general framework of responsibilities to stakeholders, including shareholders,
employees, customers, creditors, suppliers, unions,
competitors, governments, local communities, and
general public (p. 41). However, the responsibilities
to the primary nonsocial stakeholders are not easily
captured in the literature. Especially in recent decades, there has been rapidly increasing pressure on
the business community to behave more responsibly
to these stakeholders. Therefore, the responsibilities
to these stakeholders were integrated into the scale
development process of the current study.

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility

A historical review of the literature shows that the
notion of CSR starts with the increasing concerns of
people about environmental degradation. The roots
of CSR can be found in the early environmental
concerns of the 18th century (Smith, 1993, p. 172).
Today, the responsibility of a business to the natural
environment is not only to avoid environmental
harm, but also to protect and improve the natural
environment. The rights of future generations
is another important dimension in stakeholder
management. The conceptual background for these
responsibilities can be traced from the notion of
sustainable development, which is defined as
development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987). The
responsibilities of corporations to the natural environment and future generations are closely interrelated with each other. Therefore, it seems reasonable
to categorize these two stakeholders under the primary nonsocial stakeholders in Wheeler and Sillanpaas typology (1997).
In order to create an initial item pool, a list of
statements was derived from the previous scales in
the literature (Aupperle, 1984; Carroll, 1979; Maignan and Ferrell, 2000; Quazi and OBrien, 2000;
Wood and Jones, 1995). In the third stage, an
exploratory survey was conducted to create new
items. A form which consisted of eight open-ended
questions concerning the selected eight stakeholders
was used in the survey. The survey included 30
respondents, working in different organizations in
Turkey. The data was analyzed to generate a list of
items for each dimension. This process was performed by a group of academics to eliminate the
perceptual distortions of the researcher. In order to
select new items that could be classified as CSR to
stakeholders, three main criteria were used: to be an
outcome of organizational decision, to have a positive effect on the stakeholders, and to go beyond the
monetary goals of the organization. Together with
an exploratory study, this process led to an enlarged
item pool including 55 items. In order to eliminate
the unrelated items from the pool, these were
reviewed through a second group discussion. Finally,
a scale including 42 items was constructed. This
version of the scale is shown in Table I.
In the next step, the standard validity and reliability of the scale were analyzed through a pilot


survey. Since it was conducted on a limited number

of respondents, this step was only seen as a preliminary analysis of the scale. In this stage, two
assessments were applied to the collected data. In the
first assessment, highly intercorrelated items were
excluded from the scale according to the correlation
analysis. The sufficiency of the correlations among
items was tested through Bartletts test of sphericity.
Bartletts test proved that the correlations, when
taken collectively, were significant at the 0.0001
level. In the next assessment, factor analysis was
performed to eliminate unrelated items. Table II
shows the obtained factorial structure of the scale. In
order to understand how variance could be partitioned, component analysis was performed to the
data set. Factor analysis revealed five distinct factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining
83.191% of the variance. Double-barreled items (the
22nd, 28th, and 30th items) were excluded from the
scale. The current factorial structure of the scale did
not change after the elimination of these items. As a
result of this process, a preliminary version of the
CSR scale including 18 items was obtained to use in
the main survey.

Sample selection, data collection, and analyses

The population consisted of business professionals in
for-profit organizations in Turkey. In the study, as a
data collection method, a self-administered questionnaire was sent via e-mail to management and
business-related mailing groups. These mailing groups
included a variety of business professions who were
active in the business life in Turkey and different in
terms of sectors, companies, departments, job positions, and so on. The e-mail included a cover letter
which briefly explained the purpose of the study as
well as a questionnaire form. As a rule of thumb, it was
aimed to reach 300 questionnaires within a prespecified time period, the first 2 weeks of April 2006. From
the target sample of 300 questionnaires, only 280
completed questionnaires were returned; 11 were
discarded as incomplete. Hence, the final number of
usable questionnaires was 269 a response rate of
89.6%. In order to guarantee anonymity, no personal
identifying information was requested from the
respondents. After downloading and numbering them
according to the receiving sequence, the collected


Duygu Turker
CSR Scale




Our company provides a wide range of indirect benefits to improve the quality of employees lives.
The employees in our company receive a reasonable salary to maintain an acceptable quality of life.
Our company policies provide a safe and healthy working environment to all its employees.
Our company supports employees who want to acquire additional education.
There are sufficient numbers of opportunities to develop my skills in my current job.
Our company policies encourage the employees to develop their skills and careers.
Our company implements flexible policies to provide a good work & life balance for its employees.
The management of our company is primarily concerned with employees needs and wants.
The managerial decisions related with the employees are usually fair.
I believe that our company provides equal opportunities to all its employees.
One of the main principles of our company is to provide high-quality products to its customers.
Our products comply with the national and international standards.
The guarantee extension of our products is the most advantageous choice in the market.
Our company provides full and accurate information about its products to its customers.
Our company respects consumer rights beyond the legal requirements.
Customer satisfaction is highly important for our company.
Our company is responsive to the complaints of its customers.
Our company is known as a respected and trustworthy company.
Our company emphasizes the importance of its social responsibilities to the society.
Our company contributes to schools, hospitals, and parks according to the needs of the society.
Our company contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of the society.
Our company endeavors to create employment opportunities.
Our company always pays its taxes on a regular and continuing basis.
Our company complies with legal regulations completely and promptly.
Our company tries to help the government in solving social problems.
Our company acts legally on all matters.
Our companys main principle is honesty in every business dealing.
Our company cooperates with its competitors in social responsibility projects.
Our company competes with its rivals in an ethical framework.
Our company always avoids unfair competition.
Our company implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment.
Our company participates in activities which aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment.
Our company has the necessary equipment to reduce its negative environmental impact.
Our company makes well-planned investments to avoid environmental degradation.
Our company targets sustainable growth which considers future generations.
Our company makes investment to create a better life for future generations.
Our company makes investments to create employment opportunities for future generations.
Our company conducts research & development projects to improve the well-being of society in the future.
Our company makes sufficient monetary contributions to charities.
Our company encourages its employees to participate in voluntarily activities.
Our company supports nongovernmental organizations working in problematic areas.
Our company considers every warning of nongovernmental organizations.

questionnaires were deleted from the system in order

to keep the e-mail addresses of the respondents confidential. The collected data were analyzed by using

SPSS and Minitab. In addition to descriptive statistics,

exploratory factor analysis and reliability assessment
were used to analyze the scale structure.

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility


Total variance explained and rotated factor loading matrix (VARIMAX)




Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5








Our company supports employees who want

to acquire additional education.
Our company policies encourage the
employees to develop their skills and careers.
Our company implements flexible policies to
provide a good work & life balance for its
The management of our company is primarily concerned with employees needs and
The managerial decisions related with
the employees are usually fair.
Our company provides full and accurate
information about its products to its
Our company respects consumer rights
beyond the legal requirements.
Customer satisfaction is highly important for
our company.
Our company emphasizes the importance of
its social responsibilities to the society.
Our company contributes to campaigns and
projects that promote the well-being of
the society.
Our company endeavors to create employment opportunities.
Our company always pays its taxes on a
regular and continuing basis.
Our company complies with legal regulations
completely and promptly.
Our company cooperates with its competitors in social responsibility projects.
Our company always avoids unfair
Our company implements special programs
to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment.
Our company participates in activities which
aim to protect and improve the quality of the
natural environment.
Our company targets sustainable growth
which considers future generations.
Our company makes investment to create a
better life for future generations.









































Duygu Turker




Factor 1



Our company encourages its

employees to participate in
voluntarily activities.
Our company supports nongovernmental organizations
working in problematic areas.
Sum of squares (eigenvalues)
Percentage of trace


Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5










Note: Factor loadings less than 0.40 have not been reproduced and items have been sorted by loadings on each factor.

Descriptive statistics
The respondents in this study were 269 business
professionals working in different for-profit organizations and sectors in Turkey. In terms of gender, 127
of them (47.2%) were female, 140 of them (52%) were
male, and 2% had this data missing. The age range of
the respondents was 1961 years with a mean of 31.23
years. Agewise, 17% were aged 1825 years, 41% were
2630 years, 19% were 3135 years, 13% were 3640
years, and 10% were above 41 years. Among all
respondents, 66.2% had a bachelor degree, 22.7% had
a master degree, and 5.9% had a PhD degree. Based on
this higher education level, 261 of all the respondents
(97%) had white-collar jobs, 7 (2.6%) of them had a
blue-collar job, and this data was missing for 1 (0.4%).
According to the general experience level of the
respondents, 18.2% had less than 2 years, 28.3% had 3
5 years, 25.3% had 610 years, 14.1% had 1115 years,
and 14.1% had more than 16 years experience.
According to the seniority of the respondents, 38.3%
of them had less than 2 years experience in their
organizations, 30.9% of them had 35 years, 17.5%
had 610 years, 5.2% had 1115 years, 7.8% had more
than 16 years experience, and 0.4% of them did not
provide any information.
Most of the respondents (61.3%) were working in
the service sector. The manufacturing and agricultural sectors represented 33.1% and 4.1%, respectively. Additionally, while 204 respondents (75.8%)
were working in domestic companies, only 31 (11.5)
were working in multinational companies. In order

to analyze the size of the organizations, a classification based on the number of the employees in the
organizations was used in the study. More than half
of the respondents (51.7%) were working in largescale organizations and 48.1% were working in
smaller than mid-scale organizations. Moreover, the
respondents organizations were geographically dispersed in Turkey.

Factor analyses
Factor analysis was performed within the six-stage
model-building framework introduced by Hair et al.
(2006). Table III presents the correlation matrix for
18 items of the scale. A review of the correlation
matrix reveals that 141 of the 153 correlations
(approximately 93%) are significant at the 0.01 level,
which provide adequate basis to perform a factor
analysis for each item and for the overall basis. To
evaluate the overall significance of the correlation
matrix, the Bartletts test was used again. The
Bartletts test found that the correlations, when taken
collectively, were significant at the 0.0001 level.
The data gathered from the main survey were
analyzed through principal components factor analysis. Table IV shows the information regarding the 18
possible factors and their relative explanatory powers.
In the table, it is possible to assess the importance of
each component and select the ideal number of factors
while using the eigenvalues at the same time. The four
factors capture 70.782% of the variance of the 18

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility


Correlation matrix of the CSR scale
Item no.































0.578 0.707
0.480 0.451 0.635
0.466 0.430 0.622 0.726

Note: Bold-face values indicate correlations significant at the 0.01 level.

items, which can be deemed sufficient in terms of

explained total variance. As seen from the table, factor
1 accounts for approximately 40% of the variance
(eigenvalue 7.230), factor 2 for 13.40%, etc. However, the table shows that there is a cross-loading
problem in the 19th item; this item cross-loads on two
factors (factor 1 and 3) at the same time.
After assessing other possible options (decreasing
the number of factors and using another rotation
technique) for the 19th item, it was decided to delete
this item in order to eliminate the cross-loading
problem. The rotated factor matrix for the reduced
set of 17 items showed a similar result and pattern,
and almost the same values for the loadings. The
amount of explained variance increased slightly from
70.782% to 71.683%.
The structure of the scale based on factor analysis
had changed from the pilot survey to main survey.
The result of the main survey revealed more different results than the pilot survey:
First factor: including CSR to society (21st
item), natural environment (31st and 32nd
items), future generations (35th and 36th
items), and NGOs (40th and 41st items)

Second factor: including CSR to employees

(4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th items)
Third factor: including CSR to customers
(14th, 15th, and 16th items)
Fourth factor: including CSR to government
(23rd and 24th items)
When considering the related literature and the
items included in these factors, the factors can be labeled as CSR to social and nonsocial stakeholders,
employees, customers, and government, respectively.

Validation of factor analysis

In this stage, the degree of generalizability of the
results to the population was assessed. In fact,
the direct approach to this assessment is to apply the
same scale to new samples from the population.
However, it could be somewhat difficult to repeat
the analysis on an entirely new sample due to time
limitations. Therefore, split sample analysis was
chosen for the validation assessment. The main
sample was split into two samples (134 respondents
in each) and the factor analysis procedure was

Duygu Turker


Total variance explained and rotated factor loading matrix (VARIMAX)




Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

32. Our company participates in activities which aim to protect
and improve the quality of the natural environment.
36. Our company makes investment to create a better life for
future generations.
31. Our company implements special programs to minimize its
negative impact on the natural environment.
35. Our company targets sustainable growth which considers
future generations.
41. Our company supports nongovernmental organizations
working in problematic areas.
21. Our company contributes to campaigns and projects that
promote the well-being of the society.
40. Our company encourages its employees to participate in
voluntarily activities.
19. Our company emphasizes the importance of its social
responsibilities to the society.
6. Our company policies encourage the employees to develop
their skills and careers.
8. The management of our company is primarily concerned
with employees needs and wants.
7. Our company implements flexible policies to provide a good
work & life balance for its employees.
9. The managerial decisions related with the employees are
usually fair.
4. Our company supports employees who want to acquire
additional education.
15. Our company respects consumer rights beyond the legal
14. Our company provides full and accurate information about
its products to its customers.
16. Customer satisfaction is highly important for our company.
23. Our company always pays its taxes on a regular and
continuing basis.
24. Our company complies with legal regulations completely
and promptly.
Sum of squares (eigenvalues)
Percentage of trace









































Note: Factor loadings less than 0.40 have not been reproduced and items have been sorted by loadings on each factor.

applied to compare the results. The two VARIMAX

rotations were quite similar to each other in terms of
loadings and commonalities for all of the items.
Based on these results, it can be said that the results
are stable within the two samples. Further studies

will be required to confirm the generalizability of

this result across the population.
On the other hand, the samples demographics
also support the generalizability of the scale. As stated previously, almost half of 269 respondents were

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility

women and the construct reflected the perceptions
of women as well. Although the age range of the
respondents was 1861 years, the mean age for the
sample was 31.23 years. Therefore, the sample included a relatively young group of people and their
thoughts shaped the construct. This result can be
explained by the majority of young people in the
population. Although the application of the scale in
an aging society may give different results, it currently reflects the ideas of young business professionals about CSR. Therefore, the respondents may
present a modern point of view about CSR. Based
on the respondents relatively higher level of education, it can be stated that the construct is also
reflecting the ideas of well-educated people. This
result may also support the generalizability of the
scale in the well-educated populations of developed
countries. The analysis of respondents organizations
shows that most of them were working in service
and manufacturing industry, 61.3% and 33.1%,
respectively. This result also shows a similarity with
other modern societies.

Reliability analysis
In the reliability assessment, two commonly used
methods were chosen for each scale. Firstly, the interitem correlations of each scale were computed and
interpreted. As a rule of thumb, the item-to-total
correlations should exceed 0.50 and the inter-item
correlations should exceed 0.30 (Hair et al., 2006, p.
137). Table II shows that the correlation matrix includes 17 items, after the deletion of 19th item. There
are 136 different item pairings or correlations and the
average inter-item correlation is 0.35, higher than the
suggested threshold value of 0.30.
In the second method, the internal consistencies
of each scale were assessed by computing Cronbachs
alpha. Although the generally agreed upon lower
limit for Cronbachs alpha is 0.70, the decisions were
taken based on the number of items, number of
dimensions, and average inter-item correlations
(Cortina, 1993). Therefore, as computed above, the
inter-item correlation is 0.35, and the scale includes
17 items in four dimensions. The suggested alpha for
similar conditions (r = 0.30/18 items/3 dimensions)
described by Cortina is 0.64 (1993). The Cronbachs
alpha of the CSR scale (0.9013) was much higher


than this suggested alpha value. The Cronbach alpha

values for the four factors were calculated as 0.8915,
0.8836, 0.8554, and 0.9279.

Limitations of the study

There are some limitations of the current study and
these should be considered when generalizing the
validity of the scale. First of all, the scale does not
cover every stakeholder of a business. As explained
previously, only some representative stakeholders
were selected at the beginning of the process. After
the analyses, some items were also eliminated from
the scale. However, the scale still has a combination
of various stakeholders in a balanced manner and
provides a useful tool to measure CSR.
Depending on the selected sample, the current
study reflects only the perceptions of employees, the
internal stakeholders of a business. Although it was
assumed that the respondents give accurate and
reliable information about the CSR involvement of
their organizations, it is possible that they might
provide incorrect or incomplete information. In fact,
this is a common problem of every empirical study
based on individual perceptions. Since this limitation
was foreseen at the beginning of the study, the data
collection method was designed to overcome, or at
least minimize, this risk. During the data collection
process, the respondents were assured the confidentiality of their responses. Under these conditions,
it was expected that they could provide more
accurate information about their organizations.
However, the perceptions of other stakeholders
might also be assessed in further studies.
Additionally, since the data was collected from a
sample which was drawn from only one country, the
results can be generalized only in this country.
However, as mentioned previously, the selected
country has a unique position between Eastern and
Western cultures. Still, given the increased convergence of the cultural values of the business communities in Turkey to a European context, a scale
developed in Turkey can provide insight into the
understanding of CSR in modern societies. Additionally, the demographics of respondents also supported the generalizability of the study. However,
there is a need for further studies to confirm the
current structure of the scale.


Duygu Turker

According to Carroll (2000), since it is difficult to
gather actual measures, there is a tendency to rely on
stakeholders opinions or assessments of performance
in the literature. However, developing comprehensive measures of corporate social activities that really
address social performance is a challenge. Because,
if we do less than this, we should not call it social
performance (Carroll, 2000, p. 474). In spite of this
apparent risk, relying on stakeholders views can be a
more reliable way of measuring corporate social
activities compared to alternative methods. In the
current study, a new measure of CSR was obtained
based on the views of employees. After an elaborate
scale development process, the current structure of
the scale provides some important implications.
In the study, the typology of Wheeler and Sillanpaa
(1997) provided a base to build a framework for
stakeholders. Although these scholars theoretically
defined the concept in a broader sense, some of the
selected stakeholders were eliminated during the scale
development process. At the beginning of the study,
employees, customers, society, government, competitors, natural environment, future generations, and
NGOs were selected to represent each dimension of
the typology. However, as a result of the scale
development process, the responsibilities to competitors were eliminated from the factorial structure. The
possible reason for this result may be the dual meaning
of some statements. Alternatively, the respondents
may think that a business does not have a responsibility
to their competitors. However, in the light of the
discussions on fair competition and corporate spying,
it can be estimated that the responsibilities to competitors will be more significant in the near future.
Therefore, as a suggestion, this stakeholder should be
reconsidered in further studies.
One of the interesting results in the study is the
stakeholder combination and explanatory strength of
the first factorial subscale which includes CSR to
society, natural environment, future generations, and
NGOs. It can be noticed that this subscale includes
more than one stakeholder and they are closely
interrelated with each other. As discussed previously,
these stakeholders are generally considered as having a
secondary or less direct impact on business operations.
However, especially in recent decades, increasing
concerns about global problems have made people

more aware of their surroundings and the well-being

of these stakeholders. Therefore, the result of the
current study may reflect the increasing responsiveness of respondents. Especially, considering some
demographic characteristics of respondents (for instance, age and education level), the results presented a
modern perspective on CSR, as older generations or
less-educated people may have fewer concerns about
the protection of the natural environment or the rights
of future generations. On the other hand, the
changing natures of CSR and stakeholder concepts
may reveal a somewhat different structure in further
studies. Although it is impossible to predict the exact
structures of the scale in further studies, it might be
expected that the responsibilities to future generations
or the natural environment will be perceived as more
important in the future and that these items may
construct an entirely new subscale.
The other three components of the scale reasonably sequenced according to their degrees of
importance for the respondents. The second subscale
includes the responsibilities to employees. This is a
quite interesting result, considering the fact that the
data was gathered from employees. Based on this
analysis, the respondents seemed to ignore their selfinterest and perceived that the CSR to society,
natural environment, future generations, and NGOs
are more important than CSR related to themselves.
This perspective of the respondents may also support
their objectiveness when assessing the social
involvement of their organizations. The third subscale of the structure is CSR to customers. It is
known that customers are critically important for
the survival and growth of business. The result of the
analysis confirms that the respondents are also aware
of the importance of customers as stakeholders.
Based on the legal dimension of Carrolls model,
CSR to government appeared in the final subscale of
the structure. However, this component has the
weakest explanatory power in the structure. As
mentioned in the previous part of the study, the
existence of a legal dimension, similar to an economic
dimension, is also questioned by some scholars.
Therefore, these scholars exclude legal responsibilities
from their CSR definitions. In the current study, legal
responsibilities were considered among the dimensions of CSR in order to avoid narrowing the concept.
However, the place and weakness of this component
in the factorial structure somewhat supports the

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility

sceptical approaches of these scholars. Thus, this result
of the study may stimulate new discussions and analyses of the legal dimension of CSR definitions in future studies.
In conclusion, although the results of the current
study presented a plausible structure for the scale,
there is surely a need for more research in order to
confirm these results. In particular, studies conducted in different sectors (for instance, NGOs) or
different countries will be useful in this sense.
This article is mainly based on the unpublished master
dissertation of the author. The author is grateful to
mur N. Timurcanday O
zmen, Dokuz Eylul
Prof. O
University, for her constant support and advice
throughout this process and Dr. Oyvind Ihlen, University of Oslo, for his valuable comments and suggestions.

Abbott, W. F. and R. J. Monsen: 1979, On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: SelfReported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring
Corporate Social Involvement, Academy of Management Journal 22(3), 501515.
Ararat, M.: 2004, Social Responsibility in a State
Dependent System, in A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M.
Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.), Corporate Social
Responsibility Across Europe (Springer-Verlag, Berlin),
Chapter 19, pp. 247261.
Ararat, M.: 2005, Drivers for Corporate Social Responsibility, Case of Turkey, Working Paper. (Available at:
Ararat, M.: 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility Across
Middle East and North Africa, Working Paper. (Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1015925).
Aupperle, K. E.: 1984, An Empirical Measure of Corporate Social Orientation, in L. E. Preston (ed.), Research
in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 6 (JAI,
Greenwich, CT), pp. 2754.
Bagozzi, R. P., Y. Yi and L. W. Phillips: 1991, Assessing
Construct Validity in Organizational Research,
Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3), 421458.
.: 2007, Hzl Buyuyen Daha C
Bayiksel, S. O
ok Begeniliyor, Capital Magazine. (Available at: http://www.


Baucus, M. S. and D. A. Baucus: 1997, Paying the Piper:

An Empirical Examination of Longer-Term Financial
Consequences of Illegal Corporate Behavior, Academy
of Management Journal 40(1), 129151.
Bragdon, J. H. and J. A. Marlin: 1972, Is Pollution
Profitable?, Risk Management 19, 918.
Bowen, H. R.: 1953, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Harper & Row, New York).
Bugra, A.: 2003, The Place of the Economy in Turkish
Society, The South Atlantic Quarterly 102(2/3), 453
Carroll, A. B.: 1979, A Three Dimensional Conceptual
Model of Corporate Social Performance, Academy of
Management Review 4(4), 497505.
Carroll, A. B.: 1991, The Pyramid of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of
Organizational Stakeholders, Business Horizons 34(4),
Carroll, A. B.: 1999, Corporate Social Responsibility
Evolution of a Definitional Construct, Business &
Society 38(3), 268295.
Carroll, A. B.: 2000, A Commentary and an Overview
of Key Questions on Corporate Social Performance
Measurement, Business & Society 39(4), 466478.
Charkham, J.: 1994, Keeping Good Company: A Study of
Corporate Governance in Five Countries (Claredon,
Chen, K. H. and R. W. Metcalf: 1984, The Relationship
Between Pollution Control Record and Financial
Indicators Revisited, The Accounting Review 55, 168
Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1994. A Risk Based Model of
Stakeholder Theory, in Proceedings of the Second Toronto
Conference on Stakeholder Theory (Centre for Corporate
Social Performance & Ethics University of Toronto,
Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, A Stakeholder Framework for
Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92117.
Cortina, J. M.: 1993, What is Coefficient Alpha? An
Examination of Theory and Applications, Journal of
Applied Psychology 78(1), 98104.
Daft, R. L.: 2003, Management (Thomson South-Western,
Davidson, W. N. and D. L. Worrell: 1990, A Comparison and Test of the Use of Accounting and Stock
Market Data in Relating Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance, Akron Business and
Economic Review 21, 719. (Cited in Maignan and
Ferrell, 2000).
Davis, K.: 1960, Can Business Afford to Ignore Social
Responsibilities?, California Management Review 2(3),


Duygu Turker

Davis, K.: 1973, The Case for and Against Business

Assumption of Social Responsibilities, Academy of
Management Journal 16(2), 312322.
Dawkins, D. and S. Lewis: 2003, CSR in Stakeholder
Expectations: and Their Implication for Company
Strategy, Journal of Business Ethics 44(2/3), 185193.
Eells, R. and C. Walton: 1974, Conceptual Foundations of
Business, 3rd Edition (Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL).
Etheredge, J. M.: 1999, The Perceived Role of Ethics
and Social Responsibility: An Alternative Scale
Structure, Journal of Business Ethics 18, 5164.
Flam, H.: 2004, Turkey and the EU: Politics and Economics of Accession, CESifo Economic Studies 50(1),
Freedman, N. and B. Jaggi: 1982, Pollution Disclosures,
Pollution Performance, and Economic Performance,
The International Journal of Management Science 10, 167
Freedman, M. and C. Wasley: 1990, The Association
Between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure in Annual Reports and 10-Ks,
Advances in Public Interest Accounting 3, 183193.
Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach (Pitman, Boston).
Gray, R., R. Kouhy and S. Lavers: 1995, Corporate Social
and Environmental Reporting: A Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 8(2), 4777.
Greenwood, M. R.: 2001, The Importance of Stakeholders According to Business Leaders, Business and
Society Review 106(1), 2949.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, R. E. Anderson and R. L.
Tatham: 2006, Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th Edition
(Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey).
Hosftede, G.: 1980, Cultures Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values (Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA).
Ingram, R. and K. Frazier: 1980, Environmental Performance and Corporate Disclosure, Journal of
Accounting Research 18(2), 614622.
Kongar, E.: 1999. 21. Yuzylda Turkiye: 2000li Yllarda
Turkiyenin Toplumsal Yaps. Remzi Kitab, Istanbul.
Mahoney, L. S. and L. Thorne: 2005, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Long-Term Compensation: Evidence from Canada, Journal of Business Ethics 57(3),
Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2000, Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the
United States and France, Journal of Business Ethics
23(3), 283297.
Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2004, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Frame-

work, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32(1),

McGuire, J. W.: 1963, Business and Society (McGraw-Hill,
New York).
McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial
Performance, Academy of Management Journal 31, 854
Orpen, C.: 1987, The Attitudes of United States and South
African Managers to Corporate Social Responsibility,
Journal of Business Ethics 6(2), 8996.
Ostlund, L. E.: 1977, Attitudes of Managers Towards
Corporate Social Responsibility, California Management Review 19(4), 3549.
Peterson, D. K.: 2004, The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational
Commitment, Business and Society 43(3), 296319.
Quazi, A. M. and D. OBrien: 2000, An Empirical Test
of a Cross-National Model of Corporate Social
Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics 25, 3351.
Rockness, J. W.: 1985, An Assessment of the Relationship Between US Corporate Environmental Performance and Disclosure, Journal of Business Finance &
Accounting 12(3), 339354.
Ruf, B. M., K. Muralidhar and K. Paul: 1998, The
Development of a Systematic, Aggregate Measure of
Corporate Social Performance, Journal of Management
24(1), 119133.
Sims, R. R.: 2003, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants Fall (Praeger, USA).
Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell, K. C. Rallapalli and K. L.
Kraft: 1996, The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social
Responsibility: A Scale Development, Journal of
Business Ethics 15, 11311140.
Smith, D.: 1993, The Frankenstein Syndrome: Corporate Responsibility and the Environment, in D. Smith
(ed.), Business and the Environment: Implications of the
New Environmentalism (Paul Chapman, London), pp.
Smith, W. J. and R. S. Blackburn: 1988, CSR: A Psychometric Examination of A Measurement Instrument,
Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, 293
Votaw, D.: 1972, Genius Became Rare: A Comment on
the Doctrine of Social Responsibility, California
Management Review 15(2), 2531.
Verdeyen, V., J. Put and B. V. Buggenhout: 2004, A
Social Stakeholder Model, International Journal of Social
Welfare 13, 325331.
Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, The Corporate
Social Performance Financial Performance Link,
Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303319.

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility

Wheeler, D. and M. Sillanpaa: 1997, The Stakeholder
Corporation: A Blueprint for Maximazing Stakeholder
Value (Pitman, London).
Wheeler, D. and M. Sillanpaa: 1998, Including the
Stakeholders: The Business Case, Long Range Planning
31(2), 201210.
Wherther, W. B. and D. Chandler: 2006, Responsibility:
Stakeholders in a Global Environment (Sage, USA).
Wiseman, J.: 1982, An Evaluation of Environmental
Disclosures Made in Corporate Annual Reports,
Accounting, Organizations, and Society 7(l), 5363.
Wolfe, R. and K. Aupperle: 1991, Introduction to
Corporate Social Performance: Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct, in J. E. Post (ed.), Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 12 (JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 265268.


Wood, D. J. and R. E. Jones: 1995, Stakeholder

Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical
Research on Corporate Social Performance, International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3, 229267.
World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED): 1987, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

Vocational School,
Yasar University,
Kazim Dirik Mah., 364 Sok., No. 5, Bornova,
Izmir 35500, Turkey
E-mail: duygu.turker@yasar.edu.tr