Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study Author(s): Duygu Turker Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 4 (Apr., 2009), pp. 411-427 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40294805 . Accessed: 11/06/2014 12:12 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions © Springer2008 Journalof BusinessEthics (2009)85:411-427 DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6 MeasuringCorporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study ABSTRACT. Corporate social responsibility(CSR) is one of the most prominentconceptsin the literatureand, in short, indicatesthe positive impactsof businesseson theirstakeholders.Despite the growing body of literature on this concept, the measurementof CSR is still problematic.Althoughthe literatureprovidesseveralmethods for measuringcorporate social activities, almost all of them have some limitations.The purposeof this study is to providean original,valid,and reliablemeasureof CSR reflecting the responsibilitiesof a business to various stakeholders.Basedon a proposedconceptualframework of CSR, a scalewas developedthrougha systematicscale development process. In the study, exploratoryfactor analysiswas conducted to determinethe underlyingfactorialstructureof the scale. Data was collected from 269 businessprofessionalsworking in Turkey. The resultsof the analysis provided a four-dimensionalstructure of CSR, including CSR to social and nonsocialstakeholders, employees,customers,and government. KEY WORDS: Corporatesocialresponsibility,employees, scaledevelopment,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 Ethicsand SocialResponsibility;WCED: World Commissionon Environmentand Development Introduction The role of businessin society has been a matterof discussionsince the middle of the last century.The increasingpressuresof businesseson humanity and the naturalenvironmenthave raisedconcernsamong people all around the world considerably.Today, the variousstakeholdersin nationaland international Duygu Turker communities expect more responsible use of increasedbusinesspower. Corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) may provide a generalframeworkto structurethe responsibleuse of corporatepower and social involvement. Although the expandingliterature on this issue has provided a clearer understanding,it is still problematicto find a commonly accepteddefinition of CSR. Another problemis to measureCSR basedon its linkswith the stakeholder concept. Despite the existence of variousmeasurement methods in the literature,almost all of them have some limitations.In orderto better understand and measurehow CSR relateswith stakeholders,a new measurementof CSR is needed. The purpose of the currentstudyis to fill this void by providinga new scale to measureCSR in terms of the expectationsof variousstakeholders. The datafor this studywas collectedfrombusiness professionalsin Turkey. Although Turkey has hisof collectoricallysharedsome social characteristics tivist Middle Eastern societies, the modernization processhas changed economic, political,social, and culturaldimensionsof the society to a great extent since the beginning of the 1920s (Kongar, 1999). In the 1980s, in parallel with other countries similarlysituated in the world economy, Turkey changed its economic strategyfrom a protectionist model characterizedby heavy stateinterventionto a more outward-lookingand market-orientedmodel (Bugra, 2003). This export-orientedpolicy regime has backed up the graduallyliberalizingeconomic context in Turkey and today, in spite of its unique historical development path, Turkish companies sharesome basic perspectiveswith the global business community. The first CSR practices in Turkey were conducted by multinationalcompanies (Ararat,2004, p. 255). However, since the Ottoman era, there has This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 412 Duygu Turker been a strong tradition of corporate philanthropy through an institutional mechanism called 'waqf (foundation).Today, most family-ownedcompanies have associatedwaqfs and allocate a percentageof their profitsto these foundationsfor the creationof social benefits. Educational institutions, hospitals, and artisticor culturalcentres are the most popular fields of activityfor these foundations(Ararat,2005, p. 12). Despite the existence of a strong philanthropic tradition in the business community and society at large, until recentlyCSR effortshave not been particularlydiverse.Accordingto Ararat(2005, 2006), this was partly because of some cultural characteristicsaligned with some characteristicsof the 'predominantlyMuslim countries' cluster in Hosftede's analyticalframework(1980). However, recent changesin the political,economic, and social context of the country have offset these cultural characteristicsand increased the attention paid to CSR in Turkish society considerably (Ararat, 2005, 2006). Today, the large-scaleCSR projects of Turkish companies reflect the change in the understandingof CSR of the Turkish business community. The annual CSR awards of Capital Magazine,a leading business magazine in Turkey, also prove the interestof media and society in CSR issues. One of the managersof Trend Group, the company that organizes the event together with CapitalMagazine,evaluatedthe historicaldevelopment of the event and commented that CSR has been one of the most significantvalues in Turkey (Bayiksel,2007). Accordingto Ararat(2005), macroeconomicstability and economic development accompaniedby opening up to international competition have acceleratedthe convergenceof the Turkishbusiness culture. The changingpatternof the businesscontext has also been strengthenedby the candidacy process to the European Union (EU). Although relationsbetween Turkeyand the EU beganin 1963 with the signing of the Ankara Agreement, the candidacyprocess has increasedthe level of integration in the European context. During recent years, Turkey has harmonized its legislation for EU accession. As a result of this harmonization, "Turkishmarketshave become more competitive, civil rightsarebetterrespected,legalsystemhasbeen improved,juridical system is under improvement, and the intensifiedpolitical and economic integra- tion with Europeaffectedthe socialvalues"(Ararat, 2005, p. 19). The relations between the Turkish businesscommunityandEuropeancountriesarealso long-standing and the EU has been the most importanttradingpartnerfor Turkeyfor a long time (Flam, 2004, p. 179). Therefore, Turkish companies have alreadyfocused on the Europeanmarket and complied with most EU regulationsin orderto market their products. Based on these trading relations, the candidacyprocess also increasedthe integrationof the Turkish businessculture with a broader European cultural context. Therefore, Turkey providesa reliablesource of informationin order to develop an understandingand create a measureof CSR. The study contributesto the literatureby providing a new, valid,and reliablescaleof CSR. Based on the proposed conceptual framework,the scale reflectsthe correspondingresponsibilitiesof a business to various stakeholders.The paper contains threemain sections.In the firstsection, a conceptual frameworkis drawnto form a structuralbase of the study. In the second section, the existing measurement methods and their limitationsare reviewed. Based on the theoretical framework, a scale is developed for measuringCSR. Finally,in the last section, the limitationsand findingsof the studyare discussed. Conceptual framework for corporate social responsibility Despite the fact that CSR is one of the most prominentconcepts in the literature,it is still difficult to give a preciseand commonly accepteddefinition. 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 firstscholarsto define the concept, CSR is the obligationsof businessmen"to pursue those policies, to make those decisions,or to follow those lines of action which are desirablein terms of the objectives and values of our society" (p. 6). Since this definition of CSR, the literaturehas provided contradictorydefinitionsof the concept. The elaborate review of Carroll (1999), which traces the evolution of the CSR construct since the 1950s, clearlyindicatedthat one of the main problemsin This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MeasuringCorporateSocial 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 "...businessmen's decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partiallybeyond the firm's 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 organization's stakeholders (p. 43). 413 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 organization's objectives or are those actors with a direct or indirect interest in the company" (Verdeyen et al, 2004, pp. 326-327). 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 This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Duygu Turker 414 aim to affect primarysocial, secondarysocial, primary nonsocial, and secondary nonsocial stakeholders positively and goes beyond its economic interest.In orderto find the most appropriateway 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 existingmethodsin the literatureare discussedin detail. Literature review: existing methods of measuring CSR In his study,Carroll(2000) answeredthe questionof whether corporate social performance should be measuredand, if so, why. According to him, the briefanswerto this questionis 'yes', because"it is an important topic to business and to society, and measurementis one part dealing seriouslywith an important matter... The real question is whether valid and reliable measures can be developed" (Carroll,2000, p. 473). In fact,considerableattempts have been made to measurethe sociallyresponsible activitiesof organizationsboth in the academicand businesscommunities.However, as Wolfe and Aupperle (1991) indicated,there is no single best way to measurecorporatesocial activities.Waddock and Graves (1997) also pointed out the difficulties of measuringcorporatesocialperformanceand assessed the alternative methods, including forced-choice survey instruments,reputation indices and scales, content analysisof document, behavioraland perceptional measures,and case study. Maignan and Ferrell(2000) categorizedthese alternativemethods into three main approaches: expert evaluations, single- and multiple-issueindicators,and surveysof managers.Expandingon the latterclassification,the following approaches are suggested as viable to measureCSR: reputationindices or databases,single- and multiple-issueindicators,content analysisof corporatepublications,scalesmeasuringCSR at the individuallevel, and scales measuringCSR at the organizationallevel. Reputation indices and databasesare among the most widely used methods for evaluatingcorporate social activities. The Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini (KLD)Database,the FortuneIndex, and the Canadian Social Investment Database (CSID) are popularexamplesof this method. KLD ratescompanies, tradedon the US stock exchange,basedon eight attributesof social activities(communityrelations, employee relations, environment, product, treatmentof women and minorities,militarycontracts,nuclearpower, and South Africa).Fortune's reputationindex also offers a systematictool for evaluating socially responsible behaviors from a managerialpoint of view. A reputationindex can also be used to derivenew scalesfor measuringcorporate social activities(Abbottand Monsen, 1979). Ruf et al. (1998) developed a scale to evaluatethe relative importanceof KLD's eight dimensionsby using an analyticalhierarchyprocess.Accordingto these authors,the attributesof KLD coincidedwith the legal, ethical, and discretionarydimensions of Carroll's model (1979). However, Maignanand Ferrell(2000) found these indices inadequateto evaluateall businessesand statedthat both KLD and Fortuneindex "...sufferfrom the fact that theiritems are not based on theoreticalarguments"(p. 285). Another well-known databaseis CSID, which measuresthe sum of the average of a firm's net strengthand weaknessfor each of seven dimensions (Mahoneyand Thorne, 2005, p. 244): community, diversity, employee relations, environment, internationaloperations,product and businesspractices, and corporategovernance. Although this database reflects some key stakeholderrelationships,it only detailscompaniestradedon the Canadianstock exchange. Apparently,besides other limitations,the most importantproblemwith these databasesis their limited areaof assessment;they are only designedto evaluatecompaniesin some countries. The second alternativemethod is the use of single- and multiple-issue indicators. The pollution control performance,reported by the Council of Economic Priorities(CEP), is an exampleof such a single-issueindicatorand has been used by several scholars(e.g., Bragdonand Marlin,1972; Chen and Metcalf, 1984; FreedmanandJaggi, 1982). Corporatecrime is anotherindicatorof sociallyresponsible behaviors used by scholars (Baucus and Baucus, 1997; Davidson and Worrell, 1990). As can be noticed, the unidimensionalityof this method is a significantlimitation (Maignanand Ferrell,2000). Therefore,scholarsmay preferto use a combination of these indicators.However, even with the use of a multiple-issue indicator, this approach still has This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SocialResponsibility Measuring Corporate limited ability to delineate the entire structureof CSR. Moreover, these indicatorsare not globally focused and only reportthe activitiesof companies in a limited numberof countries,which also limits the use of this method by researchers. Another method used in the literatureis content analysisof corporatepublications.This method may also provide the possibilityto derive new measures for corporatesocial activities(Abbott and Monsen, 1979). Especiallyin recent years,informationabout CSR has become more readilyaccessibledue to the increasingattention that companies pay to social disclosure,thatis, informationcompaniesprovideon theirpracticesregardingenvironmental,community, employee, and consumerissues (Grayet al., 1995). The growing body of literatureon corporatesocial reportinghas increasedthe use of content analysisas a method of measuringCSR. According to Ruf et al. (1998), this method hasan "objectiveratingof companies since once the social attributes are selected, the process of rating is standardized" (p. 121). However, the informationgiven in a corporate report can be differentfrom the actualcorporate actions (McGuire et al., 1988). Companies may misleadthe potentialreadersof these reportsin order to create a more favorableimage. Therefore, the reliabilityof company reportsmay representa significantlimitation.Previousstudiesthat focus on the reliabilityof corporateenvironmentaldisclosures have provided empiricalevidence that there is no significantassociationbetween the content of these reports and actual performance (Freedman and Wasley, 1990; Ingramand Frazier,1980; Rockness, 1985; Wiseman, 1982). Ironically,poor performers provided longer environmentaldisclosures(Ingram and Frazier,1980). The fourthmethodis to use scalesthatmeasurethe CSR perception of individuals.One of the most widely used scales(Smithand Blackburn,1988) was developedby Aupperle(1984) to measurethe individualCSR valuesof managersaccordingto Carroll's four-dimensionalmodel. This scaleis the firstserious attemptto graspthe multidimensionalnatureof CSR (Rufet al., 1998). Although the scale is suitablefor investigatingthe sociallyresponsiblevalues of managers,it is not a usefulway for obtaininginformation aboutsociallyresponsiblebehaviorsof organizations. Additionally,the forced-choice instrumentsof the scale also appear as a limitation. Peterson (2004) 415 statedthat "this instrumentwould not be usefulfor assessingan organization'sperformancein the four domainsindependently;thatis, the instrumentwould not be helpful for assessingorganizationalperformance by employees who view their work organizationas highly responsibleon all four CSR domains or highlyirresponsibleon allfour domains."(p. 306). In order to measure the managerialattitudes towards social responsibility,Quazi and O'Brien (2000) also provided a scale based on the relevant previousstudies(Davis,1973;Orpen, 1987;Ostlund, 1977). In this study, the authorsconstructeda scale based on a two-dimensional model, including the span of corporate responsibilityand the range of outcomesof corporatesocialcommitments.Although this scale is useful to test the CSR perceptionsof managersin differentculturalandeconomic contexts, it is not designed to measure the organizational involvementwith sociallyresponsibleactivities. Another well-known scale is the PerceivedRole of Ethics and Social Responsibility (PRESOR) which aimsto measuremanagerialperceptionsabout the role of ethicsandsocialresponsibilityin achieving organizational effectiveness (Singhapakdi et al., 1996). Like the scalesof Aupperle(1984) and Quazi and O'Brien (2000), PRESOR also focuses on measuringindividualvalues, ratherthan measuring socially responsible activities of businesses.Additionally, in his study, Etheredge (1999) provided a constructivereplicationof PRESOR and the results did not confirmthe originalfactorialstructureof the instruments. Despite the proliferationof scales to measure individualperceptionof CSR, the literaturehas not providedan adequatenumberof scalesfor measuring CSR at the organizationallevel. The most important scale of the literaturein this categorywas developed by Maignanand Ferrell(2000) basedon the concept of corporate citizenship. In this study, corporate citizenship was defined as the extent to which businessesmeet the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionaryresponsibilitiesimposed on them by their stakeholders (Maignan and Ferrell, 2000, p. 284). The studyincorporatedboth the conceptual contribution of Carroll'smodel (1979) and stakeholder management theory. According to the proposed conceptualization,the authorsdeveloped a scale of corporatecitizenshipand tested it empirically in two dissimilarculturalsettings. Certainly, This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 416 Duygu Turker the developmentof this scale is a significantcontribution to the literature.However, the main limitation of the scale is that it considers only three primary stakeholders (customers, employees, and public).Maignanand Ferrell(2000) emphasizedthat "these stakeholdersare not the only ones who can impose responsibilitieson businesses and whose welfarecan be directlyaffected"(p. 295). In summary,a review of the literatureshows that thereareseveralmethodsto measurecorporatesocial activities.Althoughthesemethodshavecontributeda lot to the CSR literature,almostallof themhavesome limitations.Second, and more importantly,none of these methods addressesthe issue of CSR from the perspectiveof the currentstudy.As mentioned previously, this study conceptualizesCSR basedon the exclusionof the economic component,while incorporatingthe stakeholderconcept.Therefore,thereis a need to develop a new scale which articulatesCSR accordingto the proposedconceptualframework. Research methodology LiteratureReview | L of the Scale | Conceptualization I Itemgenerationthrou gh LiteratureReview I ExploratorySurvey: Itemgenerationthroughexploratorysurvey withopen-ended8 questions(n=21) "~ 1 GroupDiscussion-1: Itemgeneration throughgroupdiscussion / 55 items GroupDiscussion-2:Itemgenerationthrough groupdiscussion/ 42 items I Pilot Survey: Itemselectionandexaminationof validityof 7-pointscale throughpilot survey(n=30) i Assessment-1: Itemextractionthrough CorrelationAnalysis/ 29 items Assessment-2:Itemextractionthrough ExploratoryFactorAnalysis/ 21 items I Finalversionof scale/ 18 items | 1 Scale design Main Survev (n=269ï As Fig. 1 indicates,the scalewas designedthrougha standardscale development process (Bagozzi et al., 1991). The first step in the process was the conceptualizationof the scaleaccordingto the proposed definition of CSR. In this process, Wheeler and Sillanpaa'stypology (1997) was selected as the most suitable classificationto categorize stakeholders.It should be noted that this typology, one of the most comprehensivein the literature,was only used to build a ground for the concept of stakeholder. Therefore, this study had an exploratorystructure, and did not attempt to confirm the Wheeler and Sillanpaatypology (1997). Sinceit waspracticallyimpossibleto includeallthe stakeholdersof Wheeler and Sillanpaa'stypology (1997)in the scale,only someof themwere selectedto represent each group. Therefore, employees and customerswere selectedfrom the firstgroup;society, government,andcompetitorswere selectedfrom the second group; the naturalenvironment and future generationswere selectedfrom the thirdgroup;and nongovernmentalorganizations(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 pawkins 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. This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MeasuringCorporateSocial Responsibility A historical review of the literature shows that the notion of CSR startswith 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 Sillanpaa's 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 O'Brien, 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 417 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 assessmentswere 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 Bartlett's test of sphericity. Bartlett's 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 This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 418 Duygu Turker TABLE I CSR Scale No. Items 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 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 company's 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. This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 419 MeasuringCorporateSocial Responsibility TABLE II Total varianceexplainedand rotatedfactorloading matrix (VARIMAX) No. Commonalities Factor Items Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 14. 15. 16. 19. 21. 22. 23. 24. 28. 30. 31. 32. 35. 36. Our companysupportsemployeeswho want to acquireadditionaleducation. Our companypolicies encouragethe employeesto develop their skillsand careers. Our companyimplementsflexible policies to provide a good work & life balancefor its employees. The managementof our companyis primarilyconcernedwith employees'needs and wants. The managerialdecisionsrelatedwith the employeesare usuallyfair. Our companyprovidesfull and accurate informationabout its productsto its customers. Our companyrespectsconsumerrights beyond the legal requirements. Customersatisfactionis highly importantfor our company. Our companyemphasizesthe importanceof its social responsibilitiesto the society. Our companycontributesto campaignsand projectsthat promote the well-being of the society. Our company endeavorsto createemployment opportunities. Our companyalwayspaysits taxes on a regularand continuingbasis. Our companycomplieswith legalregulations completelyand promptly. Our companycooperateswith its competitors in social responsibilityprojects. Our companyalwaysavoids unfair competition. Our companyimplementsspecialprograms to minimize its negative impact on the naturalenvironment. Our companyparticipatesin activitieswhich aim to protectand improvethe qualityof the naturalenvironment. Our companytargetssustainablegrowth which considersfuturegenerations. Our companymakesinvestmentto createa better life for futuregenerations. 0.803 0.767 0.735 0.884 0.724 0.757 0.808 0.790 0.698 0.736 0.731 0.797 0.788 0.791 0.817 0.890 0.905 0.617 0.798 0.646 0.892 0.795 0.443 0.748 0.764 0.872 0.919 0.704 0.796 0.401 0.814 0.479 0.913 0.828 0.871 0.790 0.830 0.774 0.876 0.680 0.870 This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 420 Duygu Turker TABLE II continued No. Items Factor Factor 1 40. 41. Our company encourages its employees to participate in voluntarily activities. Our company supports non- Factor 2 Factor 3 Commonalities Factor 4 Factor 5 0.699 0.730 0.831 0.921 governmental organizations working in problematic areas. Sum of squares (eigenvalues) Percentage of trace 10.906 51.934 2.050 9.761 1.995 9.499 1.484 7.069 1.035 4.929 Total 17.47 83,192 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 19-61 years with a mean of 31.23 years.Agewise, 17%were aged 18-25 years, 41%were 26-30 years, 19%were 31-35 years, 13%were 36-40 years, and 10% were above 41 years. Among all respondents, 66.2% had a bachelor degree, 22.7% had a masterdegree, 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 35 years, 25.3% had 6-10 years, 14.1% had 1 1-15 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 3-5 years, 17.5% had 6-10 years, 5.2% had 11-15 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 Bartlett's test was used again. The Bartlett's 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 This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 421 MeasuringCorporateSocialResponsibility TABLE III Correlationmatrixof the CSR scale Item no. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 14. 15. 16. 19. 21. 23 24 31 32 35 36 40 41. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 14. 15. 16. 21. 19. 23. 24. 31. 32. 35. 36. 40. 0.718 0.475 0.629 0.521 0.698 0.702 0.400 0.566 0.587 0.722 0.259 0.340 0.363 0.446 0.495 0.232 0.351 0.353 0.388 0.397 0.689 0.273 0.351 0.302 0.389 0.422 0.657 0.633 0.328 0.452 0.410 0.426 0.373 0.438 0.460 0.464 0.416 0.477 0.380 0.418 0.316 0.283 0.288 0.293 0.692 0.144 0.088 0.105 0.091 0.125 0.350 0.343 0.406 0.243 0.156 0.205 0.138 0.140 0.142 0.162 0.353 0.338 0.395 0.282 0.217 0.868 0.303 0.289 0.230 0.230 0.152 0.285 0.298 0.217 0.423 0.418 0.261 0.310 0.735 0 290 0.268 0.222 0.232 0.080 0.173 0.180 0.127 0.381 0.455 0.164 0.207 0.540 0.577 0.310 0.250 0.490 0 359 0 387 0.307 0.298 0.242 0.272 0.195 0.234 0.449 0.500 0.578 0.707 0.205 0.145 0.598 0 405 0 440 0 307 0.343 0.251 0.180 0.179 0.174 0.509 0.427 0.480 0.451 0.635 0.170 0.098 0.546 0.458 0392 0 432 0 416 0.412 0.324 0.194 0.192 0.160 0.432 0.466 0.430 0.622 0.726 0.173 0.127 0.551 0.424 0.414 0.363 0.343 0.291 0.163 0.154 0.108 0.473 at the 0.01 level. significant Note:Bold-facevaluesindicatecorrelations items, which can be deemed sufficientin terms of factor explainedtotalvariance.As seen fromthe table, variance the of 1 accounts for approximately40% How(eigenvalue7.230), factor2 for 13.40%,etc. is a there that cross-loading shows ever, the table on two problemin the 19thitem;thisitem cross-loads factors(factor1 and 3) at the sametime. After assessingother possibleoptions (decreasing the number of factors and using another rotation technique)for the 19th item, it was decidedto delete this item in order to eliminate the cross-loading the reduced problem.The rotatedfactormatrixfor and result similar a showed pattern, items 17 set of the for values loadings. The and almost the same amountof explainedvarianceincreasedslightlyfrom 70.782%to 71.683%. The structureof the scalebasedon factoranalysis had changedfrom the pilot survey to main survey. The result of the main survey revealed more differentresultsthan 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) • Fourthfactor:including CSR to government (23rd and 24th items) • When consideringthe related literatureand the items includedin these factors,the factorscan be labeled as CSR to social and nonsocial stakeholders, employees,customers,andgovernment,respectively. Validation of factor analysis In this stage, the degree of generalizabilityof the results to the population was assessed. In fact, the direct approachto this assessmentis to applythe same scale to new samples from the population. However, it could be somewhat difficultto repeat the analysison an entirely new sample due to time limitations. Therefore, split sample analysis was chosen for the validation assessment.The main samplewas split into two samples(134 respondents in each) and the factor analysis procedure was This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 422 Duygu Turker TABLE IV Total varianceexplainedand rotatedfactorloading matrix(VARIMAX) No. Items Factor Commonalities Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 32. Our companyparticipatesin activitieswhich aim to protect and improve the qualityof the naturalenvironment. 36. Our company makesinvestmentto create a better life for future generations. 31. Our company implementsspecialprogramsto minimize its negative impact on the naturalenvironment. 35. Our company targetssustainablegrowth which considers future generations. 41. Our company supportsnongovernmentalorganizations working in problematicareas. 21. Our company contributesto campaignsand projectsthat promote the well-being of the society. 40. Our company encouragesits employees to participatein voluntarilyactivities. 19. Our company emphasizesthe importanceof its social responsibilitiesto the society. 6. Our companypolicies encouragethe employees to develop their skillsand careers. 8. The managementof our company is primarilyconcerned with employees' needs and wants. 7. Our companyimplementsflexiblepoliciesto providea good work & life balancefor its employees. 9. The managerialdecisionsrelatedwith the employees are usuallyfair. 4. Our company supportsemployeeswho want to acquire additionaleducation. 15. Our company respectsconsumerrightsbeyond the legal requirements. 14. Our company providesfull and accurateinformationabout its productsto its customers. 16. Customersatisfactionis highly importantfor our company. 23. Our company alwayspays its taxes on a regularand continuingbasis. 24. Our company complies with legal regulationscompletely and promptly. Sum of squares(eigenvalues) Percentageof trace 0.819 0.684 0.815 0.732 0.745 0.634 0.723 0.603 0.703 0.632 0.672 0.607 0.694 0.633 0.564 0.502 0.635 0.806 0.762 0.806 0.778 0.760 0.663 0.728 0.685 0.708 0.628 0.824 0.748 0.814 0.761 0.775 7.230 40.169 2.412 13.400 2.048 11.378 0.921 0.720 0.918 0.915 0.918 1.050 5.835 Total 12.74 70.782 Note:Factorloadingsless than 0.40 have not been reproducedand items have been sorted by loadingson 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 sample's demographics also support the generalizability of the scale. As stated previously, almost half of 269 respondents were This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SocialResponsibility Corporate Measuring women and the constructreflectedthe perceptions of women as well. Although the age range of the respondentswas 18-61 years,the mean age for the samplewas 31.23 years. Therefore, the sample included a relativelyyoung group of people and their thoughts shaped the construct. This result can be explainedby the majorityof young people in the population.Although the applicationof the scale in an aging society may give differentresults,it currently reflects the ideas of young business professionalsabout CSR. Therefore,the respondentsmay presenta modern point of view about CSR. Based on the respondents'relativelyhigher 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 generalizabilityof the scalein the well-educatedpopulationsof developed countries.The analysisof respondents'organizations shows that most of them were working in service and manufacturingindustry, 61.3% and 33.1%, respectively.This resultalso shows a similaritywith other modern societies. Reliabilityanalysis In the reliabilityassessment,two commonly used methodswere chosenfor eachscale.Firstly,the interitem correlationsof each scale were computed and interpreted.As a rule of thumb, the item-to-total correlationsshould exceed 0.50 and the inter-item correlationsshouldexceed 0.30 (Hairet al., 2006, p. 137). Table II shows that the correlationmatrixincludes17 items,afterthe deletionof 19thitem. There are 136 differentitem pairingsor correlationsandthe averageinter-itemcorrelationis 0.35, higherthanthe suggestedthresholdvalueof 0.30. In the second method, the internalconsistencies of eachscalewere assessedby computingCronbach's alpha. Although the generally agreed upon lower limit for Cronbach'salphais 0.70, the decisionswere taken based on the number of items, number of dimensions, and average inter-item correlations (Cortina,1993). Therefore,as computedabove, the inter-itemcorrelationis 0.35, and the scale includes 17 itemsin four dimensions.The suggestedalphafor similarconditions(r = 0.30/18 items/3 dimensions) describedby Cortinais 0.64 (1993). The Cronbach's alpha of the CSR scale (0.9013) was much higher 423 than this suggestedalphavalue. The Cronbachalpha valuesfor the four factorswere calculatedas 0.8915, 0.8836, 0.8554, and 0.9279. Limitationsof the study There are some limitationsof the currentstudy and these should be considered when generalizingthe validity of the scale. Firstof all, the scale does not cover every stakeholderof a business.As explained previously, only some representativestakeholders were selected at the beginning of the process.After the analyses,some items were also eliminatedfrom the scale. However, the scale still has a combination of various stakeholdersin a balanced manner and providesa useful tool to measureCSR. Depending on the selected sample, the current studyreflectsonly the perceptionsof employees,the internalstakeholdersof a business.Although it was assumed that the respondents give accurate and reliableinformationabout the CSR involvement of their organizations,it is possible that they might provideincorrector incompleteinformation.In fact, this is a common problem of every empiricalstudy basedon individualperceptions.Since thislimitation was foreseenat the beginning of the study, the data collection method was designedto overcome, or at least minimize, this risk. During the data collection process, the respondentswere assured the confidentialityof theirresponses.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 assessedin furtherstudies. Additionally,since the datawas collected from a samplewhich was drawnfrom only one country,the results can be generalized only in this country. However, as mentioned previously, the selected country has a unique position between Easternand Western cultures.Still, given the increasedconvergence of the culturalvalues of the business communities in Turkey to a Europeancontext, a scale developed in Turkey can provide insight into the understandingof CSR in modern societies. Additionally, the demographicsof respondentsalso supported the generalizabilityof the study. However, there is a need for further studies to confirm the currentstructureof the scale. This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 424 ^uygu Turker Conclusion According to Carroll (2000), since it is difficult to gatheractualmeasures,there is a tendencyto rely on stakeholders'opinionsor assessmentsof performance in the literature.However, developing comprehensive measuresof corporatesocialactivitiesthat really addresssocial performanceis a challenge. Because, "if we do less than this, we should not call it social performance"(Carroll,2000, p. 474). In spite of this apparentrisk,relyingon stakeholders'views can be a more reliable way of measuring corporate social activities compared to alternativemethods. In the currentstudy, a new measureof CSR was obtained basedon the views of employees.After an elaborate scale development process, the currentstructureof the scale providessome importantimplications. In the study,the typologyof WheelerandSillanpaa (1997) provided a base to build a frameworkfor stakeholders.Although these scholars theoretically defined the concept in a broadersense, some of the selectedstakeholderswere eliminatedduringthe scale developmentprocess.At the beginningof the study, employees, customers, society, government, competitors,naturalenvironment,futuregenerations,and NGOs were selectedto representeach dimensionof the typology. However, as a result of the scale developmentprocess,the responsibilitiesto competitorswere eliminatedfromthe factorialstructure.The possiblereasonfor thisresultmaybe the dualmeaning of some statements.Alternatively,the respondents maythinkthata businessdoesnot havea responsibility to their competitors.However, in the light of the discussionson faircompetitionand corporatespying, it can be estimatedthat the responsibilitiesto competitorswill be more significantin the near future. Therefore,as a suggestion,this stakeholdershouldbe reconsideredin furtherstudies. One of the interestingresultsin the study is the stakeholdercombinationand explanatorystrengthof the first factorialsubscalewhich includes CSR to society, naturalenvironment,futuregenerations,and NGOs. It can be noticed that this subscaleincludes more than one stakeholderand they are closely interrelatedwith each other.As discussedpreviously, thesestakeholdersaregenerallyconsideredashavinga secondaryor lessdirectimpacton businessoperations. However, especially in recent decades, increasing concerns about global problemshave made people more awareof theirsurroundingsandthe well-being of these stakeholders.Therefore, the result of the currentstudy may reflectthe increasingresponsiveness of respondents.Especially, considering some demographiccharacteristicsof respondents(for instance,ageandeducationlevel),the resultspresenteda modernperspectiveon CSR, as oldergenerationsor less-educatedpeople may have fewer concernsabout the protectionof the naturalenvironmentor the rights of future generations. On the other hand, the changingnaturesof CSR and stakeholderconcepts may reveala somewhatdifferentstructurein further studies.Althoughit is impossibleto predictthe exact structuresof the scale in furtherstudies,it might be to futuregenerations expectedthatthe responsibilities or the naturalenvironmentwill be perceivedasmore importantin the future and that these items may constructan entirelynew subscale. The other three componentsof the scale reasonably sequenced according to their degrees of importancefor the respondents.The secondsubscale includes the responsibilitiesto employees. This is a quite interestingresult,consideringthe fact that the data was gathered from employees. Based on this analysis,the respondentsseemed to ignore theirselfinterest and perceived that the CSR to society, naturalenvironment,futuregenerations,and NGOs aremore importantthan CSR relatedto themselves. This perspectiveof the respondentsmay alsosupport their objectiveness when assessing the social involvement of their organizations.The third subscale of the structureis CSR to customers. It is known that customersare criticallyimportantfor the survivaland growthof business.The resultof the analysisconfirmsthat the respondentsare also aware of the importanceof customersas stakeholders. Based on the legal dimensionof Carroll'smodel, CSR to governmentappearedin the finalsubscaleof the structure. However, this component has the weakest explanatorypower in the structure. As mentioned in the previous part of the study, the existenceof a legaldimension,similarto an economic dimension, is also questioned by some scholars. Therefore,thesescholarsexcludelegalresponsibilities fromtheirCSR definitions.In the currentstudy,legal responsibilitieswere consideredamong the dimensionsof CSR in orderto avoidnarrowingthe concept. However, the placeandweaknessof this component in the factorial structure somewhat supports the This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MeasuringCorporateSocialResponsibility sceptical approachesof 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. Acknowledgement This article is mainly based on the unpublishedmaster dissertationof the author. The author is grateful to Prof. Ömür N. Timurcanday Özmen, Dokuz Eylül University, for her constant support and advice throughoutthis processand Dr. Oyvind Ihlen, University of Oslo, for his valuablecomments and suggestions. References 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', Academyof ManagementJournal22(3), 501-515. Ararat, M.: 2004, 'Social Responsibility in a State Dependent System', in A. Habisch, J. jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter(eds.), CorporateSocial AcrossEurope(Springer-Verlag, Berlin), Responsibility Chapter19, pp. 247-261. Ararat,M.: 2005, 'Driversfor CorporateSocial Responsibility,Case of Turkey', WorkingPaper.(Availableat: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/mdfdb/docs/WP_ UJRC5.pdf). Ararat,M.: 2006, 'CorporateSocialResponsibilityAcross Middle Eastand North Africa', WorkingPaper.(Avail1015925). ableat SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract= Aupperle,K. E.: 1984, 'An EmpiricalMeasureof CorporateSocialOrientation',in L. E. Preston(ed.), Research in CorporateSocial Performanceand Policy, Vol. 6 (JAI, Greenwich,CT), pp. 27-54. Bagozzi,R. P., Y. Yi and L. W. Phillips:1991, 'Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research', ScienceQuarterly Administrative 36(3), 421-458. Bayiksel,S. Ö.: 2007, 'Hizli Büyüyen Daha Çok Begeniliyor', CapitalMagazine.(Availableat: http://www. capitd.com.tr/haber.aspx?HBR_KOD=%204509). 425 Baucus,M. S. and D. A. Baucus:1997, 'Payingthe Piper: An EmpiricalExaminationof Longer-TermFinancial Consequencesof IllegalCorporateBehavior',Academy of Management Journal40(1), 129-151. Bragdon, J. H. and J. A. Marlin: 1972, 'Is Pollution 19, 9-18. Profitable?',Risk Management Bowen, H. R.: 1953, SocialResponsibilities of the Businessman(Harper& Row, New York). Bugra,A.: 2003, 'The Place of the Economy in Turkish Society', Tlte SouthAtlanticQuarterly102(2/3), 453470. Carroll,A. B.: 1979, 'A Three DimensionalConceptual Model of CorporateSocial Performance',Academyof Review4(4), 497-505. Management Carroll,A. B.: 1991, The Pyramidof CorporateSocial Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of OrganizationalStakeholders',BusinessHorizons34(4), 39-48. Carroll,A. B.: 1999, 'CorporateSocial ResponsibilityEvolution of a Definitional Construct', Business& Society38(3), 268-295. Carroll,A. B.: 2000, 'A Commentaryand an Overview of Key Questions on Corporate Social Performance Measurement',Business& Society39(4), 466-478. Charkham,J.: 1994, KeepingGoodCompany:A Studyof CorporateGovernancein Five Countries(Claredon, Oxford). Chen, K. H. and R. W. Metcalf:1984, 'The Relationship Between Pollution Control Record and Financial Review55, 168IndicatorsRevisited', The Accounting 177. Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1994. 'A Risk Based Model of StakeholderTheory', in Proceedings of theSecondToronto on Stakeholder Theory(Centrefor Corporate Conference Ethics Social Performance& University of Toronto, Toronto). Clarkson,M. B. E.: 1995, 'A StakeholderFrameworkfor Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social PerforReview20(1), 92-117. mance', Academyof Management is Coefficient 'What Cortina, J. M.: 1993, Alpha? An and of Examination Theory Applications',Journalof 78(1), 98-104. AppliedPsychology Daft, R. L.: 2003, Management (ThomsonSouth-Western, USA). Davidson, W. N. and D. L. Worrell: 1990, 'A Comparisonand Test of the Use of Accounting and Stock MarketData in Relating CorporateSocial Responsibility and FinancialPerformance',AkronBusinessand EconomicReview 21, 7-19. (Cited in Maignan and Ferrell,2000). Davis, K.: 1960, 'Can BusinessAfford to Ignore Social Review2(3), Responsibilities?',CaliforniaManagement 70-76. This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 426 Duygu Turker Davis, K.: 1973, The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities', Academy of ManagementJournal16(2), 312-322. Dawkins, D. and S. Lewis: 2003, 'CSR in Stakeholder Expectations: and Their Implication for Company Strategy', Journal of Business Ethics 44(2/3), 185-193. Eells, R. and C. Walton: 1974, ConceptualFoundationsof 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, 51-64. Flam, H.: 2004, Turkey and the EU: Politics and Economics of Accession', CESifo EconomicStudies 50(1), 171-210. Freedman, N. and B. Jaggi: 1982, 'Pollution Disclosures, Pollution Performance, and Economic Performance', The International Journal of ManagementScience10, 167176. Freedman, M. and C. Wasley: 1990, The Association Between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure in Annual Reports and 10-Ks', Advancesin Public InterestAccounting3, 183-193. Freeman, R. E.: 1984, StrategicManagement: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,AuditingandAccountability Journal8(2), 47-77. Greenwood, M. R.: 2001, The Importance of Stakeholders According to Business Leaders', Business and SocietyReview 106(1), 29-49. Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, R. E. Anderson and R. L. Tatham: 2006, MultivariateData Analysis, 6th Edition (Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey). Hosftede, G.: 1980, Culture's Consequences:International Differences in Work-Related Values (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Ingram, R. and K. Frazier: 1980, 'Environmental Performance and Corporate Disclosure', Journal of AccountingResearch18(2), 614-622. Kongar, E.: 1999. 21. Yüzyilda Türkiye: 2000H Yillarda Tiirkiye'nin Toplumsal Yapisi. Remzi Kitabi, Istanbul. Mahoney, L. S. and L. Thorne: 2005, 'Corporate Social Responsibility and Long-Term Compensation: Evidence from Canada', Journal of Business Ethics 57(3), 241-253. 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), 283-297. Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2004, 'Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Frame- work', Journal of the Academyof MarketingScience32(1), 3-19. McGuire, J. W.: 1963, Businessand Society(McGraw-Hill, New York). McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988, 'Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance', Academyof ManagementJournal31, 854872. Orpen, C. : 1987, The Attitudes of United Statesand South African Managers to Corporate Social Responsibility', Journalof BusinessEthics6(2), 89-96. Ostlund, L. E.: 1977, 'Attitudes of Managers Towards Corporate Social Responsibility', California Management Review 19(4), 35-49. Peterson, D. K.: 2004, The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational Commitment', Businessand Society43(3), 296-319. Quazi, A. M. and D. O'Brien: 2000, 'An Empirical Test of a Cross-National Model of Corporate Social Responsibility', Journal of BusinessEthics 25, 33-51. Rockness, J. W.: 1985, 'An Assessment of the Relationship Between US Corporate Environmental Performance and Disclosure', Journalof BusinessFinance& Accounting12(3), 339-354. 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), 119-133. Sims, R. R.: 2003, Ethics and CorporateSocial 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 BusinessEthics 15, 1131-1140. Smith, D.: 1993, The Frankenstein Syndrome: Corporate Responsibility and the Environment', in D. Smith (ed.), Business and the Environment:Implicationsof the New Environmentalism(Paul Chapman, London), pp. 172-189. Smith, W. J. and R. S. Blackburn: 1988, 'CSR: A Psychometric Examination of A Measurement Instrument', Proceedingsof the SouthernManagementAssociation,293295. Votaw, D.: 1972, 'Genius Became Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility', California ManagementReview 15(2), 25-31. Verdeyen, V., J. Put and B. V. Buggenhout: 2004, 'A Social Stakeholder Model', International Journalof Social Welfare13, 325-331. Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, The Corporate Social Performance - Financial Performance Link', StrategicManagementJournal 18(4), 303-319. This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MeasuringCorporateSocial Responsibility Wheeler, D. and M. Sillanpaa:1997, Tlte Stakeholder Corporation:A Blueprintfor Maximazing Stakeholder Value(Pitman,London). Wheeler, D. and M. Sillanpaa:1998, 'Including the Stakeholders:The BusinessCase', LongRangePlanning 31(2), 201-210. Wherther,W. B. and D. Chandler:2006, Responsibility: 427 Wood, D. J. and R. E. Jones: 1995, 'Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on CorporateSocial Performance',InternaAnalysis3, 229-267. tionaljournalof Organizational World Commission on Environmentand Development (WCED): 1987, Our CommonFuture(Oxford UniversityPress,Oxford). Stakeholdersin a Global Environment(Sage, USA). Wiseman, J.: 1982, 'An Evaluation of Environmental Disclosures Made in Corporate Annual Reports', Accounting,Organizations,and Society7(1), 53-63. Wolfe, R. and K. Aupperle: 1991, 'Introduction to CorporateSocial Performance:Methods for Evaluatin ing an ElusiveConstruct',inJ. E. Post (ed.), Research VocationalSchool, YasarUniversity, Kazim Dirik Malt., 364 Sok., No. 5, Bornova, Izmir 35500, Turkey tr E-mail: duygu.turker@yasar.edu. CorporateSocial Performanceand Policy; Vol. 12 (JAI Press,Greenwich,CT), pp. 265-268. This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:12:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions