corporate social responsibility case study examples

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• *New* Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

5 Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility That Were Successful

• 06 Jun 2019

Business is about more than just making a profit. Climate change, economic inequality, and other global challenges that impact communities worldwide have compelled companies to be purpose-driven and contribute to the greater good .

In a recent study by Deloitte , 93 percent of business leaders said they believe companies aren't just employers, but stewards of society. In addition, 95 percent reported they’re planning to take a stronger stance on large-scale issues in the coming years and devote significant resources to socially responsible initiatives. With more CEOs turning their focus to the long term, it’s important to consider what you can do in your career to make an impact .

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Corporate Social Responsibility?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a business model in which for-profit companies seek ways to create social and environmental benefits while pursuing organizational goals, like revenue growth and maximizing shareholder value .

Today’s organizations are implementing extensive corporate social responsibility programs, with many companies dedicating C-level executive roles and entire departments to social and environmental initiatives. These executives are commonly referred to as a chief officer of corporate social responsibility or chief sustainability officer (CSO).

There are many types of corporate social responsibility and CSR might look different for each organization, but the end goal is always the same: Do well by doing good . Companies that embrace corporate social responsibility aim to maintain profitability while supporting a larger purpose.

Rather than simply focusing on generating profit, or the bottom line, socially responsible companies are concerned with the triple bottom line , which considers the impact that business decisions have on profit, people, and the planet.

It’s no coincidence that some of today’s most profitable organizations are also socially responsible. Here are five examples of successful corporate social responsibility you can use to drive social change at your organization.

5 Corporate Social Responsibility Examples

1. lego’s commitment to sustainability.

As one of the most reputable companies in the world, Lego aims to not only help children develop through creative play, but foster a healthy planet.

Lego is the first, and only, toy company to be named a World Wildlife Fund Climate Savers Partner , marking its pledge to reduce its carbon impact. And its commitment to sustainability extends beyond its partnerships.

By 2030, the toymaker plans to use environmentally friendly materials to produce all of its core products and packaging—and it’s already taken key steps to achieve that goal.

Over the course of 2013 and 2014, Lego shrunk its box sizes by 14 percent , saving approximately 7,000 tons of cardboard. Then, in 2018, the company introduced 150 botanical pieces made from sustainably sourced sugarcane —a break from the petroleum-based plastic typically used to produce the company’s signature building blocks. The company has also recently committed to removing all single-use plastic packaging from its materials by 2025, among other initiatives .

Along with these changes, the toymaker has committed to investing $164 million into its Sustainable Materials Center , where researchers are experimenting with bio-based materials that can be implemented into the production process.

Through all of these initiatives, Lego is well on its way to tackling pressing environmental challenges and furthering its mission to help build a more sustainable future.

Related : What Does "Sustainability" Mean in Business?

2. Salesforce’s 1-1-1 Philanthropic Model

Beyond being a leader in the technology space, cloud-based software giant Salesforce is a trailblazer in the realm of corporate philanthropy.

Since its outset, the company has championed its 1-1-1 philanthropic model , which involves giving one percent of product, one percent of equity, and one percent of employees’ time to communities and the nonprofit sector.

To date, Salesforce employees have logged more than 5 million volunteer hours . Not only that, but the company has awarded upwards of $406 million in grants and donated to more than 40,000 nonprofit organizations and educational institutions.

In addition, through its work with San Francisco Unified and Oakland Unified School Districts, Salesforce has helped reduce algebra repeat rates and contributed to a high percentage of students receiving A’s or B’s in computer science classes.

As the company’s revenue continues to grow, Salesforce stands as a prime example of the idea that profit-making and social impact initiatives don’t have to be at odds with one another.

3. Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission

At Ben & Jerry’s, positively impacting society is just as important as producing premium ice cream.

In 2012, the company became a certified B Corporation , a business that balances purpose and profit by meeting the highest standards of social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability.

As part of its overarching commitment to leading with progressive values, the ice cream maker established the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation in 1985, an organization dedicated to supporting grassroots movements that drive social change.

Each year, the foundation awards approximately $2.5 million in grants to organizations in Vermont and across the United States. Grant recipients have included the United Workers Association, a human rights group striving to end poverty, and the Clean Air Coalition, an environmental health and justice organization based in New York.

The foundation’s work earned it a National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy Award in 2014, and it continues to sponsor efforts to find solutions to systemic problems at both local and national levels.

Related : How to Create Social Change: 4 Business Strategies

4. Levi Strauss’s Social Impact

In addition to being one of the most successful fashion brands in history, Levi’s is also one of the first to push for a more ethical and sustainable supply chain.

In 1991, the brand created its Terms of Engagement , which established its global code of conduct regarding its supply chain and set standards for workers’ rights, a safe work environment, and an environmentally-friendly production process.

To maintain its commitment in a changing world, Levi’s regularly updates its Terms of Engagement. In 2011, on the 20th anniversary of its code of conduct, Levi’s announced its Worker Well-being initiative to implement further programs focused on the health and well-being of supply chain workers.

Since 2011, the Worker Well-being initiative has been expanded to 12 countries and more than 100,000 workers have benefited from it. In 2016, the brand scaled up the initiative, vowing to expand the program to more than 300,000 workers and produce more than 80 percent of its product in Worker Well-being factories by 2025.

For its continued efforts to maintain the well-being of its people and the environment, Levi’s was named one of Engage for Good’s 2020 Golden Halo Award winners, which is the highest honor reserved for socially responsible companies.

5. Starbucks’s Commitment to Ethical Sourcing

Starbucks launched its first corporate social responsibility report in 2002 with the goal of becoming as well-known for its CSR initiatives as for its products. One of the ways the brand has fulfilled this goal is through ethical sourcing.

In 2015, Starbucks verified that 99 percent of its coffee supply chain is ethically sourced , and it seeks to boost that figure to 100 percent through continued efforts and partnerships with local coffee farmers and organizations.

The brand bases its approach on Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) Practices , one of the coffee industry’s first set of ethical sourcing standards created in collaboration with Conservation International . CAFE assesses coffee farms against specific economic, social, and environmental standards, ensuring Starbucks can source its product while maintaining a positive social impact.

For its work, Starbucks was named one of the world’s most ethical companies in 2021 by Ethisphere.

The Value of Being Socially Responsible

As these firms demonstrate , a deep and abiding commitment to corporate social responsibility can pay dividends. By learning from these initiatives and taking a values-driven approach to business, you can help your organization thrive and grow, even as it confronts global challenges.

Do you want to gain a deeper understanding of the broader social and political landscape in which your organization operates? Explore our three-week Sustainable Business Strategy course and other online courses regarding business in society to learn more about how business can be a catalyst for system-level change.

This post was updated on April 15, 2022. It was originally published on June 6, 2019.

About the Author

• Contributors

The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility

Matteo Tonello is Director of Corporate Governance for The Conference Board, Inc. This post is based on a Conference Board Director Note by Archie B. Carroll and Kareem M. Shabana , and relates to a paper by these authors, titled “The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice,” published in the International Journal of Management Reviews .

In the last decade, in particular, empirical research has brought evidence of the measurable payoff of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to companies as well as their stakeholders. Companies have a variety of reasons for being attentive to CSR. This report documents some of the potential bottomline benefits: reducing cost and risk, gaining competitive advantage, developing and maintaining legitimacy and reputational capital, and achieving win-win outcomes through synergistic value creation.

The term “corporate social responsibility” is still widely used even though related concepts, such as sustainability, corporate citizenship, business ethics, stakeholder management, corporate responsibility, and corporate social performance, are vying to replace it. In different ways, these expressions refer to the ensemble of policies, practices, investments, and concrete results deployed and achieved by a business corporation in the pursuit of its stakeholders’ interests.

This report discusses the business case for CSR—that is, what justifies the allocation of resources by the business community to advance a certain socially responsible cause. The business case is concerned with the following question: what tangible benefits do business organizations reap from engaging in CSR initiatives? This report reviews the most notable research on the topic and provides practical examples of CSR initiatives that are also good for the business and its bottom line.

The Search for a Business Case: A Shift in Perspective

Business management scholars have been searching for a business case for CSR since the origins of the concept in the 1960s. [1]

An impetus for the research questions for this report was philosophical. It had to do with the long-standing divide between those who, like the late economist Milton Friedman, believed that the corporation should pursue only its shareholders’ economic interests and those who conceive the business organization as a nexus of relations involving a variety of stakeholders (employees, suppliers, customers, and the community where the company operates) without which durable shareholder value creation is impossible. If it could be demonstrated that businesses actually benefited financially from a CSR program designed to cultivate such a range of stakeholder relations, the thinking of the latter school went, then Friedman’s arguments would somewhat be neutralized.

Another impetus to research on the business case of CSR was more pragmatic. Even though CSR came about because of concerns about businesses’ detrimental impacts on society, the theme of making money by improving society has also always been in the minds of early thinkers and practitioners: with the passage of time and the increase in resources being dedicated to CSR pursuits, it was only natural that questions would begin to be raised about whether CSR was making economic sense.

Obviously, corporate boards, CEOs, CFOs, and upper echelon business executives care. They are the guardians of companies’ financial well-being and, ultimately, must bear responsibility for the impact of CSR on the bottom line. At multiple levels, executives need to justify that CSR is consistent with the firm’s strategies and that it is financially sustainable. [a]

However, other groups care as well. Shareholders are acutely concerned with financial performance and sensitive to possible threats to management’s priorities. Social activists care because it is in their long-term best interests if companies can sustain the types of social initiatives that they are advocating. Governmental bodies care because they desire to see whether companies can deliver social and environmental benefits more cost effectively than they can through regulatory approaches. [b] Consumers care as well, as they want to pass on a better world to their children, and many want their purchasing to reflect their values.

[a] K. O’Sullivan, “Virtue rewarded: companies are suddenly discovering the profit potential of social responsibility.” CFO , October 2006, pp. 47–52.

[b] Simon Zadek. Doing Good and Doing Well: Making the Business Case for Corporate Citizenship . New York: The Conference Board Research Report, 2000, 1282-00-RR.

The socially responsible investment movement Establishing a positive relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) has been a long-standing pursuit of researchers. This endeavor has been described as a “30-year quest for an empirical relationship between a corporation’s social initiatives and its financial performance.” [2] One comprehensive review and assessment of studies exploring the CSP-CFP relationship concludes that there is a positive relationship between CSP and CFP. [3]

In response to this empirical evidence, in the last decade the investment community, in particular, has witnessed the growth of a cadre of socially responsible investment funds (SRI), whose dedicated investment strategy is focused on businesses with a solid track record of CSR-oriented initiatives. Today, the debate on the business case for CSR is clearly influenced by these new market trends: to raise capital, these players promote the belief of a strong correlation between social and financial performance. [4]

As the SRI movement becomes more influential, CSR theories are shifting away from an orientation on ethics (or altruistic rationale) and embracing a performance-driven orientation. In addition, analysis of the value generated by CSR has moved from the macro to the organizational level, where the effects of CSR on firm financial performance are directly experienced. [5]

The CSR of the 1960s and 1970s was motivated by social considerations, not economic ones. “While there was substantial peer pressure among corporations to become more philanthropic, no one claimed that such firms were likely to be more profitable than their less generous competitors.” In contrast, the essence of the new world of CSR is “doing good to do well.” [6]

CSR is evolving into a core business function, central to the firm’s overall strategy and vital to its success. [7] Specifically, CSR addresses the question: “can companies perform better financially by addressing both their core business operations as well as their responsibilities to the broader society?” [8]

One Business Case Just Won’t Do

There is no single CSR business case—no single rationalization for how CSR improves the bottom line. Over the years, researchers have developed many arguments. In general, these arguments can be grouped based on approach, topics addressed, and underlying assumptions about how value is created and defined. According to this categorization, CSR is a viable business choice as it is a tool to:

• implement cost and risk reductions;
• gain competitive advantage;
• develop corporate reputation and legitimacy; and
• seek win-win outcomes through synergistic value creation. [9]

Other widely accepted approaches substantiating the business case include focusing on the empirical research linking CSR with corporate social performance (CSP) and identifying values brought to different stakeholder groups that directly or indirectly benefit the company’s bottom lines.

Broad versus narrow views Some researchers have examined the integration of CSR considerations in the day-to-day business agenda of organizations. The “mainstreaming” of CSR follows from one of three rationales:

• the social values-led model, in which organizations adopt CSR initiatives regarding specific issues for non-economic reasons;
• the business-case model, in which CSR initiatives are primarily assessed in an economic manner and pursued only when there is a clear link to firm financial performance [10] ; and
• the syncretic stewardship model, which combines the social values-led and the business-case models.

The business case model and the syncretic models may be seen as two perspectives of the business case for CSR: one narrow and one broad. The business case model represents the narrow view: CSR is only recognized when there is a clear link to firm financial performance. The syncretic model is broad because it recognizes both direct and indirect relationships between CSR and firm financial performance. The advantage of the broad view is that it enables the firm to identify and exploit opportunities beyond the financial, opportunities that the narrow view would not be able to recognize or justify.

Another advantage of the broad view of the business case, which is illustrated by the syncretic model, is its recognition of the interdependence between business and society. [11]

The failure to recognize such interdependence in favor of pitting business against society leads to reducing the productivity of CSR initiatives. “The prevailing approaches to CSR are so fragmented and so disconnected from business and strategy as to obscure many of the greatest opportunities for companies to benefit society.” [12] The adoption of CSR practices, their integration with firm strategy, and their mainstreaming in the day-to-day business agenda should not be done in a generic manner. Rather, they should be pursued “in the way most appropriate to each firm’s strategy.” [13]

In support of the business case for CSR, the next sections of the report discuss examples of the effect of CSR on firm performance. The discussion is organized according to the framework referenced earlier, which identifies four categories of benefits that firms may attain from engaging in CSR activities. [14]

Reducing Costs and Risks

Cost and risk reduction justifications contend that engaging in certain CSR activities will reduce the firm’s inefficient capital expenditures and exposure to risks. “[T]he primary view is that the demands of stakeholders present potential threats to the viability of the organization, and that corporate economic interests are served by mitigating the threats through a threshold level of social or environmental performance.” [15]

Equal employment opportunity policies and practices CSR activities in the form of equal employment opportunity (EEO) policies and practices enhance long-term shareholder value by reducing costs and risks. The argument is that explicit EEO statements are necessary to illustrate an inclusive policy that reduces employee turnover through improving morale. [16] This argument is consistent with those who observe that “[l]ack of diversity may cause higher turnover and absenteeism from disgruntled employees.” [17]

Energy-saving and other environmentally sound production practices Cost and risk reduction may also be achieved through CSR activities directed at the natural environment. Empirical research shows that being environmentally proactive results in cost and risk reduction. Specifically, data shows hat “being proactive on environmental issues can lower the costs of complying with present and future environmental regulations … [and] … enhance firm efficiencies and drive down operating costs.” [18]

Community relations management Finally, CSR activities directed at managing community relations may also result in cost and risk reductions. [19] For example, building positive community relationships may contribute to the firm’s attaining tax advantages offered by city and county governments to further local investments. In addition, positive community relationships decrease the number of regulations imposed on the firm because the firm is perceived as a sanctioned member of society.

Cost and risk reduction arguments for CSR have been gaining wide acceptance among managers and executives. In a survey of business executives by PricewaterhouseCoopers, 73 percent of the respondents indicated that “cost savings” was one of the top three reasons companies are becoming more socially responsible. [20]

Gaining Competitive Advantage

As used in this section of the report, the term “competitive advantage” is best understood in the context of a differentiation strategy; in other words, the focus is on how firms may use CSR practices to set themselves apart from their competitors. The previous section, which focused on cost and risk reduction, illustrated how CSR practices may be thought of in terms of building a competitive advantage through a cost management strategy. “Competitive advantages” was cited as one of the top two justifications for CSR in a survey of business executives reported in a Fortune survey. [21] In this context, stakeholder demands are seen as opportunities rather than constraints. Firms strategically manage their resources to meet these demands and exploit the opportunities associated with them for the benefit of the firm. [22] This approach to CSR requires firms to integrate their social responsibility initiatives with their broader business strategies.

Reducing costs and risks • Equal employment opportunity policies and practices • Energy-saving and other environmentally sound production practices • Community relations management

Gaining competitive advantage • EEO policies • Customer relations program • Corporate philanthropy

Developing reputation and legitimacy • Corporate philanthropy • Corporate disclosure and transparency practices

Seeking win-win outcomes through synergistic value creation • Charitable giving to education • Stakeholder engagement

EEO policies Companies that build their competitive advantage through unique CSR strategies may have a superior advantage, as the uniqueness of their CSR strategies may serve as a basis for setting the firm apart from its competitors. [23] For example, an explicit statement of EEO policies would have additional benefits to the cost and risk reduction discussed earlier in this report. Such policies would provide the firm with a competitive advantage because “[c]ompanies without inclusive policies may be at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting and retaining employees from the widest talent pool.” [24]

Customer and investor relations programs CSR initiatives can contribute to strengthening a firm’s competitive advantage, its brand loyalty, and its consumer patronage. CSR initiatives also have a positive impact on attracting investment. Many institutional investors “avoid companies or industries that violate their organizational mission, values, or principles… [They also] seek companies with good records on employee relations, environmental stewardship, community involvement, and corporate governance.” [25]

Corporate philanthropy Companies may align their philanthropic activities with their capabilities and core competencies. “In so doing, they avoid distractions from the core business, enhance the efficiency of their charitable activities and assure unique value creation for the beneficiaries.” [26] For example, McKinsey & Co. offers free consulting services to nonprofit organizations in social, cultural, and educational fields. Beneficiaries include public art galleries, colleges, and charitable institutions. [27] Home Depot Inc. provided rebuilding knowhow to the communities victimized by Hurricane Katrina. Strategic philanthropy helps companies gain a competitive advantage and in turn boosts its bottom line. [28]

CSR initiatives enhance a firm’s competitive advantage to the extent that they influence the decisions of the firm’s stakeholders in its favor. Stakeholders may prefer a firm over its competitors specifically due to the firm’s engagement in such CSR initiatives.

Developing Reputation and Legitimacy

Companies may also justify their CSR initiatives on the basis of creating, defending, and sustaining their legitimacy and strong reputations. A business is perceived as legitimate when its activities are congruent with the goals and values of the society in which the business operates. In other words, a business is perceived as legitimate when it fulfills its social responsibilities. [29]

As firms demonstrate their ability to fit in with the communities and cultures in which they operate, they are able to build mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders. Firms “focus on value creation by leveraging gains in reputation and legitimacy made through aligning stakeholder interests.” [30] Strong reputation and legitimacy sanction the firm to operate in society. CSR activities enhance the ability of a firm to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of consumers, investors, and employees. Time and again, consumers, employees, and investors have shown a distinct preference for companies that take their social responsibilities seriously. A Center for Corporate Citizenship study found that 66 percent of executives thought their social responsibility strategies resulted in improving corporate reputation and saw this as a business benefit. [31]

Corporate philanthropy Corporate philanthropy may be a tool of legitimization. Firms that have negative social performance in the areas of environmental issues and product safety use charitable contributions as a means for building their legitimacy. [32]

Corporate disclosure and transparency practices Corporations have also enhanced their legitimacy and reputation through the disclosure of information regarding their performance on different social and environmental issues, sometimes referred to as sustainability reporting. Corporate social reporting refers to stand-alone reports that provide information regarding a company’s economic, environmental, and social performance. The practice of corporate social reporting has been encouraged by the launch of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 1997-1998 and the introduction of the United Nations Global Compact in 1999. Through social reporting, firms can document that their operations are consistent with social norms and expectations, and, therefore, are perceived as legitimate.

Seeking Win-Win Outcomes through Synergistic Value Creation

Synergistic value creation arguments focus on exploiting opportunities that reconcile differing stakeholder demands. Firms do this by “connecting stakeholder interests, and creating pluralistic definitions of value for multiple stakeholders simultaneously.” [33] In other words, with a cause big enough, they can unite many potential interest groups.

Charitable giving to education When companies get the “where” and the “how” right, philanthropic activities and competitive advantage become mutually reinforcing and create a virtuous circle. Corporate philanthropy may be used to influence the competitive context of an organization, which allows the organization to improve its competitiveness and at the same time fulfill the needs of some of its stakeholders. For example, in the long run, charitable giving to education improves the quality of human resources available to the firm. Similarly, charitable contributions to community causes eventually result in the creation and preservation of a higher quality of life, which may sustain “sophisticated and demanding local customers.” [34]

The notion of creating win-win outcomes through CSR activities has been raised before. Management expert Peter Drucker argues that “the proper ‘social responsibility’ of business is to … turn a social problem into economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into well-paid jobs, and into wealth.” [35] It has been argued that, “it will not be too long before we can begin to assert that the business of business is the creation of sustainable value— economic, social and ecological.” [36]

An example: the win-win perspective adopted by the life sciences firm Novo Group allowed it to pursue its business “[which] is deeply involved in genetic modification and yet maintains highly interactive and constructive relationships with stakeholders and publishes a highly rated environmental and social report each year.” [37]

Stakeholder engagement The win-win perspective on CSR practices aims to satisfy stakeholders’ demands while allowing the firm to pursue financial success. By engaging its stakeholders and satisfying their demands, the firm finds opportunities for profit with the consent and support of its stakeholder environment.

The business case for corporate social responsibility can be made. While it is valuable for a company to engage in CSR for altruistic and ethical justifications, the highly competitive business world in which we live requires that, in allocating resources to socially responsible initiatives, firms continue to consider their own business needs.

In the last decade, in particular, empirical research has brought evidence of the measurable payoff of CSR initiatives on firms as well as their stakeholders. Firms have a variety of reasons for being CSR-attentive. But beyond the many bottom-line benefits outlined here, businesses that adopt CSR practices also benefit our society at large.

[1] See Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach , 1984, which traces the roots of CSR to the 1960s and 1970s, when many multinationals were formed. (go back)

[2] J. D. Margolis and Walsh, J.P. “Misery loves companies: social initiatives by business.” Administrative Science Quarterly , 48, 2003, pp. 268–305. (go back)

[3] J. F. Mahon and Griffin, J .J. “Painting a portrait: a reply.” Business and Society , 38, 1999, 126–133. (go back)

[4] See, for an overview, Stephen Gates, Jon Lukomnik, and David Pitt- Watson, The New Capitalists: How Citizen Investors Are Reshaping The Business Agenda , Harvard Business School Press, 2006. (go back)

[5] M.P. Lee, “A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: its evolutionary path and the road ahead”. International Journal of Management Reviews , 10, 2008, 53–73. (go back)

[6] D.J. Vogel, “Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility.” California Management Review , 47, 2005, pp. 19–45. (go back)

[7] Ibid. (go back)

[8] Elizabeth Kurucz; Colbert, Barry; and Wheeler, David “The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility.” Chapter 4 in Crane, A.; McWilliams, A.; Matten, D.; Moon, J. and Siegel, D. The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 83-112 (go back)

[9] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler , 85-92. (go back)

[10] Berger,I.E., Cunningham, P. and Drumwright, M.E. “Mainstreaming corporate and social responsibility: developing markets for virtue,” California Management Review , 49, 2007, 132-157. (go back)

[11] Ibid. (go back)

[12] M.E. Porter and Kramer, M.R. “Strategy & society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.” Harvard Business Review , 84, 2006,pp. 78–92. (go back)

[13] Ibid. (go back)

[14] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler, 85-92. (go back)

[15] Ibid., 88. (go back)

[16] T. Smith, “Institutional and social investors find common ground. Journal of Investing , 14, 2005, 57–65. (go back)

[17] S. L. Berman, Wicks, A.C., Kotha, S. and Jones, T.M. “Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance.” Academy of Management Journal , 42, 1999, 490. (go back)

[18] Ibid. (go back)

[19] Ibid. (go back)

[20] Top 10 Reasons, PricewaterhouseCoopers 2002 Sustainability Survey Report, reported in “Corporate America’s Social Conscience,” Fortune , May 26, 2003, 58. (go back)

[21] Top 10 Reasons . (go back)

[22] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler (go back)

[23] N. Smith, 2003, 67. (go back)

[24] T. Smith, 2005, 60. (go back)

[25] Ibid., 64. (go back)

[26] Heike Bruch and Walter, Frank (2005). “The Keys to Rethinking Corporate Philanthropy.” MIT Sloan Management Review , 47(1): 48-56 (go back)

[27] Ibid., 50. (go back)

[28] Bruce Seifert, Morris, Sara A.; and Bartkus, Barbara R. (2003). “Comparing Big Givers and Small Givers: Financial Correlates of Corporate Philanthropy.” Journal of Business Ethics , 45(3): 195-211. (go back)

[29] Archie B. Carroll and Ann K. Buchholtz, Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability and Stakeholder Management , 8th Edition, Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012, 305. (go back)

[30] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler, 90. (go back)

[31] “Managing Corporate Citizenship as a Business Strategy,” Boston: Center for Corporate Citizenship, 2010. (go back)

[32] Jennifer C. Chen, Dennis M.; & Roberts, Robin. “Corporate Charitable Contributions: A Corporate Social Performance or Legitimacy Strategy?” Journal of Business Ethics , 2008, 131-144. (go back)

[33] Kurucz, Colbert, and Wheeler , 91. (go back)

[34] Porter and Kramer, 60-65. (go back)

[35] Peter F. Drucker, “The New Meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility.” California Management Review , 1984, 26: 53-63 (go back)

[36] C. Wheeler, B. Colbert, and R. E. Freeman. “Focusing on Value: Reconciling Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability and a Stakeholder Approach in a Network World.” Journal of General Management , (28)3, 2003, 1-28. (go back)

[37] Ibid. (go back)

Nice blog. CSR has become something very important to all the corporate houses today. However, with the rising growth of CSR activities. It is very important to have an effective software that helps to keep a track of the entire exercise.

Interesting article! Perhaps nice to give Mr. Stephen ‘Gates’ his real name back? After all “The New Capitalists: How Citizen Investors Are Reshaping The Business Agenda” was written by Stephen DAVIS. I think he would like the recognition ;)

5 Trackbacks

[…] original here: The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility — The … This entry was posted in Internet and tagged corporate, corporate-governance, corporate-social, […]

[…] For the entire article, read it here. […]

[…] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2011/06/26/the-business-case-for-corporate-social-responsibilit … […]

[…] (CSR) and the behavior change awareness/advertising campaigns associated with them. Here is a terrific article in the Harvard Law School Forum that outlines the business benefits gained from CSR initiatives. […]

[…] guru Peter Drucker agreed that business has to make enough profit to secure its future, but insisted that its proper […]

Supported By:

Subscribe or Follow

Program on corporate governance advisory board.

• William Ackman
• Peter Atkins
• Kerry E. Berchem
• Richard Brand
• Daniel Burch
• Arthur B. Crozier
• Renata J. Ferrari
• John Finley
• Carolyn Frantz
• Andrew Freedman
• Byron Georgiou
• Joseph Hall
• Jason M. Halper
• David Millstone
• Theodore Mirvis
• Maria Moats
• Erika Moore
• Morton Pierce
• Philip Richter
• Marc Trevino
• Steven J. Williams
• Daniel Wolf

HLS Faculty & Senior Fellows

• Lucian Bebchuk
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Stephen M. Davis
• Allen Ferrell
• Jesse Fried
• Oliver Hart
• Howell Jackson
• Kobi Kastiel
• Reinier Kraakman
• Mark Ramseyer
• Robert Sitkoff
• Holger Spamann
• Leo E. Strine, Jr.
• Guhan Subramanian
• Roberto Tallarita

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

CorporateSocialResponsibilityandImpact →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

MBA Knowledge Base

Business • Management • Technology

Home » Management Case Studies » Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility of Starbucks

Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility of Starbucks

Starbucks is the world’s largest and most popular coffee company. Since the beginning, this premier cafe aimed to deliver the world’s finest fresh-roasted coffee. Today the company dominates the industry and has created a brand that is tantamount with loyalty, integrity and proven longevity. Starbucks is not just a name, but a culture .

It is obvious that Starbucks and their CEO Howard Shultz are aware of the importance of corporate social responsibility . Every company has problems they can work on and improve in and so does Starbucks. As of recent, Starbucks has done a great job showing their employees how important they are to the company. Along with committing to every employee, they have gone to great lengths to improve the environment for everyone. Ethical and unethical behavior is always a hot topic for the media, and Starbucks has to be careful with the decisions they make and how they affect their public persona.

The corporate social responsibility of the Starbucks Corporation address the following issues: Starbucks commitment to the environment, Starbucks commitment to the employees, Starbucks commitment to consumers, discussions of ethical and unethical business behavior, and Starbucks commitment and response to shareholders.

Commitment to the Environment

The first way Starbucks has shown corporate social responsibility is through their commitment to the environment. In order to improve the environment, with a little push from the NGO, Starbucks first main goal was to provide more Fair Trade Coffee. What this means is that Starbucks will aim to only buy 100 percent responsibly grown and traded coffee. Not only does responsibly grown coffee help the environment, it benefits the farmers as well. Responsibly grown coffee means preserving energy and water at the farms. In turn, this costs more for the company overall, but the environmental improvements are worth it. Starbucks and the environment benefits from this decision because it helps continue to portray a clean image.

Another way to improve the environment directly through their stores is by “going green”. Their first attempt to produce a green store was in Manhattan. Starbucks made that decision to renovate a 15 year old store. This renovation included replacing old equipment with more energy efficient ones. To educate the community, they placed plaques throughout the store explaining their new green elements and how they work. This new Manhattan store now conserves energy, water, materials, and uses recycled/recyclable products. Twelve stores total plan to be renovated and Starbucks has promised to make each new store LEED, meaning a Leader in Energy and Environmental Design. LEED improves performance regarding energy savings, water efficiency, and emission reduction. Many people don’t look into environmentally friendly appliances because the upfront cost is always more. According to Starbucks, going green over time outweighs the upfront cost by a long shot. Hopefully, these new design elements will help the environment and get Starbucks ahead of their market.

Commitment to Consumers

The second way Starbucks has shown corporate social responsibility is through their commitment to consumers. The best way to get the customers what they want is to understand their demographic groups. By doing research on Starbucks consumer demographics, they realized that people with disabilities are very important. The company is trying to turn stores into a more adequate environment for customers with disabilities. A few changes include: lowering counter height to improve easy of ordering for people in wheelchairs, adding at least one handicap accessible entrance, adding disability etiquette to employee handbooks, training employees to educate them on disabilities, and by joining the National Business Disability Council. By joining the National Business Disability Council, Starbucks gains access to resumes of people with disabilities.

Another way Starbucks has shown commitment to the consumers is by cutting costs and retaining loyal customers. For frequent, loyal customers, Starbucks decided to provide a loyalty card. Once a customer has obtained this card, they are given incentives and promotions for continuing to frequent their stores. Promotions include discounted drinks and free flavor shots to repeat visitors. Also, with the economy being at an all time low, Starbucks realized that cheaper prices were a necessity. By simplifying their business practices, they were able to provide lower prices for their customers. For example, they use only one recipe for banana bread, rather than eleven!

It doesn’t end there either! Starbucks recognized that health is part of social responsibility. To promote healthier living, they introduced “skinny” versions of most drinks, while keeping the delicious flavor. For example, the skinny vanilla latte has 90 calories compared to the original with 190 calories. Since Starbucks doesn’t just sell beverages now, they introduced low calorie snacks. Along with the snacks and beverages, nutrition facts were available for each item.

Also one big way to cut costs was outsourcing payroll and Human Resources administration . By creating a global platform for their administration system, Starbucks is able to provide more employees with benefits. Plus, they are able to spend more money on pleasing customers, rather than on a benefits system.

Commitment and Response to Shareholders

One way Starbucks has demonstrated their commitment and response to shareholder needs is by giving them large portions. By large portions, Starbucks is implying that they plan pay dividends equal to 35% or higher of net income to. For the shareholders, paying high dividends means certainty about the company’s financial well-being. Along with that, they plan to purchase 15 million more shares of stock, and hopefully this will attract investors who focus on stocks with good results.

Starbucks made their commitment to shareholders obvious by speaking directly to the media about it. In 2004, Starbucks won a great tax break, but unfortunately the media saw them as “money grubbing”. Their CEO, Howard Shultz, made the decision to get into politics and speak to Washington about expanding health care and the importance of this to the company. Not only does he want his shareholders to see his commitment, but he wants all of America to be able to reap this benefits.

In order to compete with McDonalds and keeping payout to their shareholders high, Starbucks needed a serious turnaround . They did decide to halt growth in North America but not in Japan. Shultz found that drinking coffee is becoming extremely popular for the Japanese. To show shareholders there is a silver lining, he announced they plan to open “thousands of stores” in Japan and Vietnamese markets.

Commitment to Employees

The first and biggest way Starbucks shows their commitment to employees is by just taking care of their workers. For example, they know how important health care, stock options, and compensation are to people in this economy. The Starbucks policy states that as long as you work 20 hours a week you get benefits and stock options. These benefits include health insurance and contributions to employee’s 401k plan. Starbucks doesn’t exclude part time workers, because they feel they are just as valuable as full time workers. Since Starbucks doesn’t have typical business hours like an office job, the part time workers help working the odd shifts.

Another way Starbucks shows their commitment to employees is by treating them like individuals, not just number 500 out of 26,000 employees. Howard Shultz, CEO, always tries to keep humanity and compassion in mind. When he first started at Starbucks, he remembered how much he liked it that people cared about him, so he decided to continue this consideration for employees. Shultz feels that a first impression is very important. On an employee’s first day, he lets each new employee know how happy he is to have them as part of their business, whether it is in person or through a video. His theory is that making a good first impression on a new hire is similar to teaching a child good values. Through their growth, he feels each employee will keep in mind that the company does care about them. Shultz wants people to know what he and the company stand for, and what they are trying to accomplish.

Ethical/Unethical Business Behavior

The last way Starbucks demonstrates corporate social responsibility is through ethical behavior and the occasional unethical behavior. The first ethically positive thing Starbucks involves them self in is the NGO and Fair Trade coffee. Even though purchasing mostly Fair Trade coffee seriously affected their profits, Starbucks knew it was the right thing to do. They also knew that if they did it the right way, everyone would benefit, from farmers, to the environment, to their public image.

In the fall of 2010, Starbucks chose to team up with Jumpstart, a program that gives children a head start on their education. By donating to literacy organizations and volunteering with Jumpstart, Starbucks has made an impact on the children in America, in a very positive way.

Of course there are negatives that come along with the positives. Starbucks isn’t the “perfect” company like it may seem. In 2008, Starbucks made the decision to close 616 stores because they were not performing very well. In order for Starbucks to close this many stores in one year, they had to battle many landlords due to the chain breaking lease agreements. Starbucks tried pushing for rent cuts but some stores did have to break their agreements. On top of breaching lease agreements, Starbucks was not able to grow as much as planned, resulting their future landlords were hurting as well. To fix these problems, tenants typically will offer a buyout or find a replacement tenant, but landlords are in no way forced to go with any of these options. These efforts became extremely time consuming and costly, causing Starbucks to give up on many lease agreements.

As for Starbucks ethical behavior is a different story when forced into the media light. In 2008, a big media uproar arose due to them wanting to re-release their old logo for their 35th anniversary. The old coffee cup logo was basically a topless mermaid, which in Starbucks’ opinion is just a mythological creature, not a sex symbol. Media critics fought that someone needed to protect the creature’s modesty. Starbucks found this outrageous. In order to end the drama and please the critics, they chose to make the image more modest by lengthening her hair to cover her body and soften her facial expression. Rather than ignoring the media concerns, Starbucks met in the middle to celebrate their 35th anniversary.

Related Posts:

• Case Study of Bajaj Auto: Establishment of New Brand Identity
• Case Study: Google's Recruitment and Selection Process
• Case Study of Procter and Gamble (P&G): Structure and Culture
• Case Study of Johnson & Johnson: Using a Credo for Business Guidance
• Case Study of Johnson & Johnson: Creating the Right Fit between Corporate Communication and Organizational Culture
• Case Study: British Petroleum and Corporate Social Responsibility
• Case Study: An Analysis of Competitive Advantages of Honda Corporation
• Case Study: Nissan's Successful Turnaround Under Carlos Ghosn
• Case Study on Marketing Strategy: Starbucks Entry to China
• Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility at The Body Shop

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, collaborative corporate social responsibility praxis: case studies from india.

Social Responsibility Journal

ISSN : 1747-1117

Article publication date: 25 March 2022

Issue publication date: 26 January 2023

This study aims to explore how corporate social responsibility (CSR) has assumed a new meaning today, with the COVID-19 pandemic. This, in turn, has changed the way companies now view the impact of their activities on the environment, customers, employees, community and other stakeholders.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper uses a qualitative case study approach and draws a critical lens to document the complex interplay between dimensions of CSR, business sustainability and social issues, applying theoretical tools such as social capital theory and stakeholder theory to elucidate the nature of collaborative managerial responses to the organisation’s challenges during the pandemic. This is a case study paper. This paper applies multi method approach to develop a case study analysis through participant observation and report analysis to investigate the CSR approaches undertaken in India by Infosys Genesis, a global leader in technology services and consulting, and Akshaya Patra Foundation, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), which operates the world’s largest lunch school program. This was an appropriate methodology since the focus was on an area that was little understood, while the analysis required an in-depth understanding of a complex phenomenon through observation and a case study. In addition, case study research has been recommended for how, why and what type of research questions that focus on contemporary events (Saunders et al. , 2003; Yin, 1994), such as CSR participation in the existing business environment. Furthermore, the issue under investigation is a real-life situation where the limitations between the phenomenon and the body of knowledge are unclear (Yin, 1994). This was the case because CSR has been probed by numerous disciplines through the application of various theoretical frameworks, each interpreting the context from their own perspective. Leximancer was used for the analysis (a text-mining software for visualising the structure of concepts and themes across case studies). This process differs from the traditional content analysis in that specific word strings are not needed; instead, Leximancer recognises what concepts are present in a set of texts, permitting concepts to be automatically coded in a grounded fashion (Cretchley et al. , 2010, p. 2). The paper will be looked at from three levels comprising themes, concepts and concept profiling to create rich and reliable dimensions of a theoretical model (Myers, 2008). The themes are created in Leximancer software and are built on an algorithm that looks for hidden repeated patterns in interactions. The concepts add a layer and discover which concepts are shared by actors. The concept profiling allows to discover additional concepts and allows to do a discriminant analysis on prior concepts (Cretchley et al. , 2010). Words that come up frequently are treated as concepts. Although the limited number of cases does not represent the entire sector, it enabled collection of rich data through quotes revealing some of the most crucial aspects of large organisations and non-profits in India.

The findings demonstrate how these robust, innovative, collaborative CSR initiatives between a multinational firm and an NGO have been leveraged to combat manifold issues of education, employment and hunger during the pandemic.

Research limitations/implications

Despite significant implications, this study has limitations. A response from only two companies is investigated to the COVID-19 pandemic. The scope of this study is only India, a developing nation, thereby, cross country research is recommended. A comparative study between developed and developing countries may be conducted. A quantitative approach may be used to get empirical findings of the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic policies of companies from an international perspective. Hence, there is ample opportunity to research organisations’ response to the pandemic and CSR as a strong arm to deal with critical disasters.

Practical implications

The paper offers new insights into exploring research and praxis agenda for collaborative potentials towards the evolution of CSR and sustainability.

Social implications

The findings develop new initiatives and combat manifold issues of education, employment and hunger during the pandemic to provide quick relief.

Originality/value

The paper offers new insights into how companies are considering issues related to the crisis, including avoidance of layoffs and maintaining wage payments, and may be in a better position to access fresh capital, relief programs and emergency funds. Taking proactive health and safety measures may avert legal risks to the company. It is likely that the way in which companies are responding to the crises is a real-life test on resilience and adaptation.

• Qualitative case study
• Corporate social responsibility
• Business sustainability
• Collaborative CSR
• Indian MNCs and NGOs

Chavan, M. , Gowan, S. and Vogeley, J. (2023), "Collaborative corporate social responsibility praxis: case studies from India", Social Responsibility Journal , Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 229-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2021-0216

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework

• Review Paper
• Published: 02 February 2022
• Volume 183 , pages 105–121, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Tahniyath Fatima   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2383-3390 1 &
• Said Elbanna   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5891-8258 1  

81k Accesses

94 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In spite of accruing concerted scholarly and managerial interest since the 1950s in corporate social responsibility (CSR), its implementation is still a growing topic as most of it remains academically unexplored. As CSR continues to establish a stronger foothold in organizational strategies, understanding its implementation is needed for both academia and industry. In an attempt to respond to this need, we carry out a systematic review of 122 empirical studies on CSR implementation to provide a status quo of the literature and inform future scholars. We develop a research agenda in the form of an integrated framework of CSR implementation that pronounces its multi-dimensional and multi-level nature and provides a snapshot of the current literature status of CSR implementation. Future research avenues relating to multi-level studies, theoretically supported research models, developing economy settings, and more are recommended. Practitioners can also benefit through utilizing the holistic framework to attain a bird’s eye view and proactively formulate and implement CSR strategies that can be facilitated by collaborations with CSR scholars and experts.

Similar content being viewed by others

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of Government in promoting CSR

Asan Vernyuy Wirba

Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review

Hans B. Christensen, Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz

A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility

Mauricio Andrés Latapí Agudelo, Lára Jóhannsdóttir & Brynhildur Davídsdóttir

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Advocates of corporate social responsibility (hereafter referred to as CSR) propose devising and implementing CSR strategies as an opportunity for organizations. When CSR is looked at from a strategic perspective, it emanates from top management’s vision and values and is not considered an expense but a strategic initiative readily adopted by organizations to differentiate themselves from their competition (Beji et al., 2021 ; Porter & Kramer, 2006 ; Serra-Cantallops et al., 2018 ). The organization’s ulterior motive to receive something in return for going out of its way to do better for the direct and indirect stakeholders indicates extrinsic CSR practices, i.e., strategic CSR (Story & Neves, 2015 ). Currently, CSR is predominantly being viewed as a strategic issue (Zerbini, 2017 ), and such a strategic interest of organizations towards CSR needs to be addressed by scholars when we take into consideration the significant time and resources invested in implementing CSR strategically within the organization (Bansal et al., 2015 ). While CSR has been under the limelight in the academic as well as the industrial sectors since the 1950s, its implementation, however, had not received as much attention (Klettner et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, implementation of CSR like any other strategy implementation is of crucial importance to ensure the successful attainment of one’s goals. Accordingly, an increasing number of academicians, over the past decade, have started focusing on how CSR is implemented in organizations, thereby paving a way for future research (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Du & Vieira, 2012 ).

CSR implementation as indicated by Lindgreen, Swaen, et al. ( 2009 ) is a budding field of research and has seen profound growth since they called attention to it in the special issue of Journal of Business Ethics. Although, various empirical papers have proposed CSR implementation frameworks to assist practitioners in implementing and formulating CSR strategies (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Ingham & Havard, 2017 ; Lindgreen et al., 2011 ), none of the review studies exclusively looked at CSR implementation from a multi-level and a multi-dimensional perspective. In this study, we define CSR implementation as the process that an organization undertakes to increase the awareness levels of CSR issues and CSR strategies, embed CSR values within the organization, communicate CSR initiatives internally and externally, and evaluate the progress of CSR strategies. The very few scholars who have produced reviews on CSR implementation look at specific dimensions of CSR implementation such as communication (Crane & Glozer, 2016 ) or ways of CSR implementation such as CSR washing (Pope & Wæraas, 2016 ). Therefore, conducting a review such as ours at this stage would allow researchers to attain a better idea on the overall progress of research in CSR implementation literature and provide a clearer perspective on future prospects, thereby filling in an important knowledge gap. In regard to facilitating this main research objective, this review paper proposes an integrative framework for CSR implementation and answers the call for a two-stage systematic review on CSR implementation (Lattemann et al., 2009 ; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010 ). Hence, through the integrative framework, we illustrate what has been done in CSR implementation literature and how can it be enhanced further.

This review study is guided by three developments: (1) the growing amount of time and efforts organizations are putting in towards implementing CSR, (2) an upsurge in organizations’ interests towards strategic CSR, and (3) recognition among CSR scholars of the need to understand how strategies are implemented (Elbanna et al., 2016 ). The structure of this review study is as follows: “ Defining CSR Implementation ” section begins with the theoretical development of the constructs under study and is followed by “ Review Methodology ” section on methodology that outlines the steps taken to initiate the systematic review and sets the stage for this review study. “ Trends in CSR Implementation Research ” section proceeds to discuss the trends discovered through descriptively analyzing the sampled studies. It also portrays the findings of reviewing the CSR implementation literature in six established categories, namely, level of analysis, research methods, theories being used, geographical focus, journal distribution with years of publication, and time lapse of CSR implementation topics. “ Thematic Analysis: An Integrative Framework of CSR Implementation ” section introduces an integrative CSR implementation framework that thematically distributes the CSR implementation literature and proposes a future research agenda. We conclude with “ Conclusion ” section that provides a summarized overview on theoretical and practical implications of this study.

Defining CSR Implementation

The first step of a systematic review entertains a repetitive process of defining, clarifying, and refining (Tranfield et al., 2003 ). As such, we scoured the CSR implementation literature to find any existing conceptual definitions that can support our review process. In our search for what it means to implement CSR, we found two empirical studies which developed CSR implementation frameworks. We used these studies as the foundation to build our own CSR implementation definition, which is supported with the theory of business citizenship as discussed later in this section. The first study was carried out by Maon et al. ( 2009 ), where a nine-stage integrative framework was developed, based on data collected from case studies and theoretically grounded on Lewin’s change model. The second study of Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ) regarded the process nature of CSR implementation construct, but generalized it into three separate dimensions; (1) commitment to CSR, (2) internal structures and procedures, and (3) external collaboration. Accordingly, these two frameworks were analyzed to procure specific lenses that can entail a better understanding of CSR implementation process. This phase contributed towards attaining richer and micro-level insights on CSR implementation. In addition, we theoretically based our dimensions of CSR implementation on the theory of business citizenship proposed by Logsdon and Wood ( 2002 ). This theory looks into the ethical, social, and political issues surrounding organizations. According to this theory, an organization can be viewed as a citizen such that there exists moral and structural ties among business organizations, humans, and social institutions where social control is exercised by the society on organizations, thereby protecting and enhancing public welfare and private interests.

As such, we identified four distinct dimensions of CSR implementation that concisely portray the CSR implementation process outlined in the two frameworks proposed by Maon et al. ( 2009 ) and Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ) and are based on the theory of business citizenship that views a corporation as a citizen, where the responsibilities associated with such citizenship towards society and environment come into play. According to Maon et al. ( 2009 ), CSR design and implementation constitute of nine steps. These are (1) raising CSR awareness, (2) assessing organizational purpose in a societal context, (3) establishing a CSR definition and vision, (4) assessing current status of CSR, (5) developing a CSR strategy, (6) implementing the CSR strategy, (7) communicating about CSR strategy, (8) evaluating CSR strategy, and (9) institutionalizing CSR policy. However, Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ) consider CSR implementation to comprise three dimensions, namely, commitment to CSR, embedding CSR, and external collaboration.

Of the nine steps proposed by Maon et al. ( 2009 ), we considered steps 1 (raising CSR awareness), 5 (embedding CSR), 6 (implementing CSR activities), 7 (communicating about CSR), and 8 (evaluating CSR) for inclusion in CSR implementation. It is worth noting that though step 5 dealt with formulating CSR strategy, a sub-part of this step (5.2) constituted of embedding CSR in the organization, which is also proposed as a CSR implementation dimension by Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ). Hence, we included step 5 in our typology of CSR implementation dimensions. Similarly, the commitment to CSR dimension proposed by Baumann-Pauly et al. ( 2013 ) takes into consideration the awareness that organizational members show towards CSR as included in step 1 of Maon et al. ( 2009 ). Although, CSR evaluation (step 8) is primarily not a constituent of strategy implementation process, scholars have begun to indicate its importance in the implementation process, where managers monitor strategy progress and take relevant steps for further improvements in CSR implementation (Graafland & Smid, 2019 ; Laguir et al., 2019 ; Rama et al., 2009 ). Steps 2, 3, and 4 are not considered in this study as they represent a part of CSR design, while step 9 identifies with post-implementation. Hence, the four dimensions relate to the need for an organization to accrue sufficient (1) CSR awareness which manifests itself in the form of organization’s commitment to CSR through (2) communicating and (3) embedding CSR , and placing systematic processes in place to (4) evaluate CSR . Overall, these dimensions entail interactions with various external stakeholders and are not restricted to interorganizational dynamics (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ).

CSR awareness includes the act of raising sensitivity of an organization and its members towards CSR issues, where it may be initiated by managers (top-down approach) or employees (bottom-up approach) for strategic or altruistic reasons and includes commitment to CSR through integrating it into policy documents (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Maon et al., 2009 ). Further, CSR communication is directed towards both internal and external stakeholders, where the means or nature of communication and its content need to be identified (Maon et al., 2009 ). The different ways of communication include meetings, corporate internal newsletters, and trainings for internal stakeholders such as employees and board members, while the social and environmental performance of an organization may be disclosed in the form of annual reports or CSR reports and advertisements to external stakeholders.

Embedding CSR entails instilling CSR values among organizational members using tools such as CSR policies, procedures, mission, and vision to reinforce a CSR compliant behavior in operational functions (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Maon et al., 2009 ). Lastly, CSR evaluation includes the measurement of how well the CSR objectives have been met, monitoring the progress of these CSR objectives, and exploring ways to improve CSR performance (Maon et al., 2009 ).

Review Methodology

We utilized a systematic literature approach to accomplish our research goal of surveying the literature on CSR implementation. Systematic reviews are commonly used to ensure transparency and replicability in the review process (Hossain, 2018 ). Given that it is imperative to outline the scope of one’s search prior to ensuing the data collection process (George et al., 2019 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ), we restricted our range to any research study that exclusively focused on the concept of CSR implementation or its four dimensions, namely, CSR awareness, CSR communication, CSR embedding, and CSR evaluation. The concept of CSR has taken various titular forms in literature, where overlapping constructs like corporate sustainability, corporate social performance, and corporate citizenship have been proposed and are now interchangeably used by researchers (Albinger & Freeman, 2000 ; Evans & Davis, 2014 ; Matten & Crane, 2005 ; Pedersen et al., 2018 ; Wood, 1991 ). However, the terminology of CSR had been most widely used by researchers (Matten & Crane, 2005 ), and as such is adopted in this study. Furthermore, we do not include research examining the concept of sustainability or corporate sustainability as it is an overarching concept that incorporates two different topics of CSR and corporate responsibility (see Fig.  1 ). As such, CSR acts as an intermediary tool that examines the efforts of organizations aimed at balancing the triple bottom line (van Marrewijk, 2003 ).

Mapping of corporate sustainability, CSR, and corporate responsibility (adapted from van Marrewijk, 2003 )

Three databases, namely, EBSCO, Science Direct, and ABI/Inform (ProQuest), were searched with the following set of keywords: “CSR awareness,” “CSR implementation,” “CSR sensitiveness,” “commitment to CSR,” “CSR integration,” “initiating CSR,” “CSR issues,” “CSR communication,” “CSR disclosure,” “CSR report,” “CSR value,” “embedding CSR,” “CSR policies,” “CSR procedure,” “CSR vision,” “CSR mission,” “evaluating CSR,” and “monitoring CSR.” We also took into account different occurrences of the keywords such as “implementing CSR,” “sensitivity to CSR,” and “CSR policy.” Further, our inclusion criteria did not include any time restriction as this would have limited our analysis and inferences of understanding the literature conducted so far on CSR implementation. However, in order to ensure quality of our findings and development of a relevant agenda for future research, we included peer-reviewed journal articles that were published in journals with a rating of at least B and above as per the 2019 ABDC ranking and 3 and above for the 2021 AJG ranking (Hoque, 2014 ). Imposition of the above strict criteria led to collection of 168 research articles. These papers were further analyzed to assess if the focus of their study was related to our research objective. Thus, the selection of the studies was contingent on the main topic of the study in question being either CSR implementation or one of the four dimensions (CSR awareness, CSR communication, CSR embedding, and CSR evaluation). In applying this criteria, we were able to shortlist 140 research studies.

Of the total 140 identified studies, we analyzed the nature of their research and found 18 papers were theoretical in nature. One of the theoretical papers was an editorial and was excluded. The remaining 122 empirical studies Footnote 1 are considered for further review, while the 17 theoretical papers are used to supplement the analysis and findings attained from this systematic review. We now discuss the findings attained from conducting our two-staged narrative synthesis analysis that provides the reader with a descriptive and thematic outlook of CSR implementation literature. In utilizing a narrative synthesis approach, we are able to efficiently provide a narrative on the CSR implementation literature through the use of statistical data (Popay et al., 2006 ). The first stage detailed in Sect.  Trends in CSR Implementation Research analyzes the entire empirical literature descriptively (123 studies) and discusses the underlying trends on the basis of the (1) level of analysis, (2) research methods, (3) theories being used, (4) geographical focus, (5) journal distribution with years of publication, and (6) time lapse of CSR implementation topics. The second stage brings a more nuanced understanding of the empirical literature where the literature is analyzed with respect to a comprehensive outlook of CSR implementation in Sect.  Thematic Analysis: An Integrative Framework of CSR Implementation .

Trends in CSR Implementation Research

Upon analyzing the empirical literature on CSR implementation, we were able to make several inferences that would shed light on research gaps not yet covered in the CSR implementation literature. We followed established review studies in CSR literature (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012 ; Pisani et al., 2017 ) and focused on six aspects to attain a general purview of CSR implementation research conducted to date. First, with respect to the level of analysis , CSR implementation literature, unlike the general CSR literature, does not seem to suffer from lack of focus on individual-level research. However, majority of the empirical research conducted on CSR implementation is at the firm level (refer to Table 1 ). In addition to that, multi-level studies are quite rare with only 8 papers analyzing CSR implementation at multiple levels, e.g., a combination of individual, firm, institutional, industry, and country levels with a combination of at most three levels (Ettinger et al., 2021 ; Helmig et al., 2016 ; Lattemann et al., 2009 ; Lindgreen, Antioco, et al., 2009 a; Lu & Wang, 2021 ; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009 ; Shen & Benson, 2016 ; Zamir & Saeed, 2020 ). In spite of acknowledging the multi-dimensional nature of CSR implementation (Lindgreen, Swaen, et al., 2009 b), majority of the scholars have failed to conceptualize and operationalize CSR implementation at a multi-dimensional basis. Accordingly, future research needs to take into consideration the multi-dimensional nature of CSR implementation and conduct scientific research that is not limited to a single level of analysis. Other empirical studies looked at various levels of analyses such as advertisement level (Green & Peloza, 2015 ), project level (Rama et al., 2009 ), activity level (Jong & Meer, 2017 ), and interaction level (Muthuri et al., 2009 ).

Second, the CSR implementation literature uses a wide variety of research methods . 36% of the research studies used qualitative research methods, 53% used quantitative methods, and only 11% of the studies have used mixed methods. The use of qualitative methods can be explained by the exploratory nature of the studies, which accounted for 49% of the empirical research, while a majority of 51% studies were explanatory in nature. However, given the growing adoption of CSR by different organizations across industries and countries, scholars have delved into examining implementation of CSR from a more explanatory nature as the trend line shows in Fig.  2 . Further, scholars can utilize mixed method studies in future to attain an insightful and a holistic empirical understanding of their research topic. This would allow the research findings to have both theoretical and geographical validity.

Trend of CSR implementation studies’ nature

Third, the theoretical underpinning of research on CSR implementation is still emergent, where a considerable proportion of the empirical literature, approximately 45%, was missing a theoretical foundation. Having a proper theory is quite essential to easily illustrate complex concepts (Frynas & Yamahaki, 2016 ), thereby indicating scope for future research to have richer theoretical support. Of the remaining 67 research studies that had theoretical support (54% of total empirical literature), a considerable proportion of research (42%) resorted to the use of multiple theories to substantiate their proposed frameworks. The most commonly used theory was stakeholder theory inclusive of its use in research studies with multiple theories (28%, 19 out of 67 papers) (e.g., Ettinger et al., 2018 ; Lindgreen et al., 2011 ; Park & Ghauri, 2015 ; Zheng et al., 2015 ). Lastly, as depicted in Fig.  3 , the remaining 31 research studies (46%) used a diverse range of theories from other disciplines like psychology (theory of planned behavior, balance theory, attribution theory, and social identity theory), communications (diffusion theory, inoculation theory), sociology (systems theory, social exchange theory, social identity theory), and biology (signaling theory).

Theoretical orientations in CSR implementation literature

Fourth, in terms of geographical locations being studied, majority of empirical studies were based on samples obtained from European (37%) and North American regions (22%) with only a small portion of research (16%) constituting samples from Asian countries. Further, only few studies examined other regions, such as Oceania (4%), United Kingdom (3%), Africa (1%), and South America (1%). However, the proportion of studies using samples from multiple regions was comparatively higher at around 16%. Hence, future research needs to study the less researched regions to better understand the role of context in CSR implementation. Further, given the emerging nature of cross-country research in CSR implementation (Lattemann et al., 2009 ), an additional scope exists for researchers to compare different regions in their future research.

Fifth, CSR implementation research, since the special issue in Journal of Business Ethics (Lindgreen, Swaen, et al., 2009 b) has been under the research limelight. The first empirical research conducted on CSR implementation in our collection of articles appeared in 2004, however, focus on CSR implementation has drastically improved since 2009 such that approximately 81% of CSR implementation literature has been published in 2010 and onwards. Moreover, Journal of Business Ethics is the highest contributing journal with a major share of 49% of the research studies. This was closely followed by Journal of Business Research (7%), Business Ethics: A European Review (5%), Business and Society (3%), and Business Strategy and the Environment (3%) while the remaining 32% was distributed among 28 journals. Interestingly, other top journals in the field of business ethics and CSR, such as Business Ethics Quarterly and Corporate Social Responsibility and Management were not reflected in our list of reviewed studies. This could be explained due to the absence of studies relevant to our research topic of CSR implementation and the inability of the journal to meet our selection criteria. While, other journals exclusively focusing on ethics and CSR constituted majority of the CSR implementation research, however, this topic seems relatively unexplored and under-published in general management and accounting focused journals.

Lastly, the ingrained analysis of empirical research concerning CSR implementation has shed the much needed light on how this research has changed over the years. For example, we find that while CSR communication has seen constant growth over the years, other dimensions of CSR implementation have experienced uneven growth and decline in research attention (see Fig.  4 ). The comparatively high focus placed on CSR communication brings into question the negligence of other crucial facets of CSR implementation such as CSR embedding and CSR evaluation. Overall, CSR implementation literature that covered either the entire process of CSR implementation in general or more than one dimension of CSR implementation has been gradually on the rise since 2009–2013. While the latest year indicates low publication rates, this may be attributed to the incompleteness of the time period. Upon learning from the insights gained in this descriptive analysis, we proposed a comprehensive framework to better portray the current status of CSR implementation literature and highlight more nuanced directions for future research.

CSR implementation trends over the years

Thematic Analysis: An Integrative Framework of CSR Implementation

The question that comes to mind at this moment in time is: What can we learn more about CSR implementation? We adapt an approach similar to that taken up by researchers who developed various integrative CSR implementation frameworks based on empirical data (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Maon et al., 2009 ; Yin & Jamali, 2016 ). However, our integrative framework is built upon the analytical insights attained from the selected 140 research studies and keeping in mind our purpose of aiding academicians and practitioners in understanding the complex multi-level nature of CSR implementation. Hence, this review tries to learn from the findings attained in descriptively analyzing the 122 empirical studies in the previous section and proposes directions for future research using a macroscopic lens with the aid of an integrative multi-level CSR implementation framework (see Fig.  5 ) that can have both research and practical implications.

An integrative multi-level CSR implementation framework

The remaining of this section will discuss the four components of our proposed framework: (1) CSR implementation, (2) CSR formulation, (3) CSR outcomes, and (4) CSR context. The main focus is placed on CSR implementation, as it is the main core of this review paper. We discuss the inherent complexity of the CSR implementation construct and how extant literature has conceptualized it, setting the stage to examine two distinct attributes of CSR implementation, namely, its multi-dimensional and multi-level nature. Given the capacity and scope of this study, which is centered on CSR implementation, we lightly touch on the other three components, namely, formulation, outcomes, and context to provide an overview on the whole CSR implementation framework. In discussing CSR formulation, we unravel its absence in studies that have examined CSR implementation and illustrate different ways that future scholars can incorporate it henceforth given the strong link that exists between strategy formulation and implementation. Additionally, the next sub-section on the effect of CSR implementation provides a snapshot on how the CSR implementation literature has heavily examined organizational outcomes, particularly, non-financial, and explains the potential of studying organizational performance comprehensively along with macro-level outcomes. We then conclude this section by extrapolating on the importance of identifying and accounting for contextual variables when studying CSR implementation that may inhibit or drive the implementation process and even potentially moderate the relationship of CSR implementation with CSR formulation and CSR outcomes.

CSR Implementation Construct

CSR implementation is characterized by complexity, where the organization has to deal with different stakeholders, internally and externally. Further, this complexity of CSR implementation is pronounced with its contextual nature across industries, countries, time, and pool of stakeholders (Kleine & Hauff, 2009 ). In spite of CSR implementation experiencing complexity in these varied manners, research studies have so far neglected this aspect (Dobele et al., 2014 ). For example, Luo et al. ( 2017 ) indicate how organizations vary in their CSR disclosure based on their linkages to the central government, highlighting the underlying institutional complexity. On the other hand, Marano and Kostova ( 2016 ) examine how various countries’ institutional forces affect the adoption of CSR practices by various multi-national corporations (MNCs) indicating the presence of transnational complexity (refer to Fig.  5 , link 1-3). Similarly, Polonsky and Jevons ( 2009 ) assert that global brands face three different kinds of complexity when implementing CSR, namely, social issue complexity, organizational complexity, and communication complexity. Communication complexity is the complexity that arises regarding the type of information that needs to be communicated, the consistency that needs to be maintained across the messages and in ensuring that the organizations are also walking the walk and not just talking the talk (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Brunton et al., 2017 ). Along these lines, a series of research articles have examined the concepts of CSR walk and CSR talk, where the former represents actual CSR implementation while the latter focuses on CSR communication (Graafland & Smid, 2019 ; Schoeneborn et al., 2020 ; Wickert et al., 2016 ). Further, Graafland and Smid ( 2019 ) found that the overall impact of CSR implementation on the society and environment is dampened in the presence of incongruency between CSR activities being communicated and CSR activities actually being implemented.

Adding to its complex nature, CSR implementation has escaped conceptualization by most of the studies under review (Klettner et al., 2014 ; Peloza et al., 2009 ; Risi & Wickert, 2017 ; Skouloudis & Evangelinos, 2014 ). On the other hand, researchers who did attempt to conceptualize the construct of CSR implementation either did so from a limited perspective of how CSR implementation occurred in the presence of stakeholder management (Osagie et al., 2016 ; Subramaniam et al., 2017 ), capacity development (Rama et al., 2009 ), social partnerships (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009 ), and employee participation (Bolton et al., 2011 ; Kim et al., 2010 ) or examined CSR implementation on the basis of the different types of CSR activities implemented by organizations (Khan et al., 2015 ; Quintana-García et al., 2018 ; Russo & Tencati, 2009 ). Although extant research has identified CSR implementation as a process comprising various stages (Farmaki, 2019 ), it falls short in operationalizing CSR implementation in a similar manner; rather, the studies were found to resort to using existing CSR scales for measuring CSR implementation (Helmig et al., 2016 ). Similar lack in exploring and discussing the process of CSR implementation was also observed among organizations (Klettner et al., 2014 ; Skouloudis & Evangelinos, 2014 ). Hence, as we acknowledge the existence of complexity in CSR implementation and the prevalent absence in conceptualizing CSR implementation, we need to understand the factors that contribute towards the aforesaid complexity of CSR implementation and how can we deal with these factors. To do so, we try to explain the inherent complexity of CSR implementation by exploring its multi-dimensional and multi-level facets that can assist future studies in better conceptualizing CSR implementation.

Multi-dimensional Nature

First and foremost, much of complexity in CSR implementation arises due to its multi-dimensional nature. Multi-dimensionality refers to information that is distributed over multiple dimensions due to its inability to align together in a single dimension such that the information is uniquely sorted into these various dimensions (Bucaro et al., 2020 ; Spalding & Murphy, 1996 ). Although extant research acknowledges the multi-dimensional nature of CSR implementation (Lindgreen, Swaen, et al., 2009 b), many have failed to conceptualize and operationalize it in such a manner, except for a few scholars. Primarily, these authors have assessed CSR implementation on the basis of the traditional classification of stakeholder theory, i.e., implementing CSR strategies directed towards society, environment, and employees (Muller & Kolk, 2009 ; Reimer et al., 2018 ; Shen & Benson, 2016 ) or as per the triple bottom line approach of economy, ecology, and society (Quintana-García et al., 2018 ; Stekelorum et al., 2019 ). However, the above conceptualizations of CSR implementation resonate with the conceptualization of the generic CSR concept itself, where CSR has been conceptualized in terms of stakeholders being targeted at or the nature of responsibility an organization holds towards its society such as economic, ethical, legal, and discretionary (Maignan & Ferrell, 2000 ; Turker, 2009 ). In the same vein, Frynas and Yamahaki ( 2016 ) suggest that CSR scholars need to diversify their usage of theories and restrict themselves from focusing only on the stakeholder view. Hence, researchers need to properly distinguish between the CSR strategy and its implementation.

Accordingly, our proposed conceptualization of CSR implementation can aid scholars and organizations in perceiving the multi-dimensional nature of CSR implementation by focusing on the four dimensions proposed in Sect.  2 . Future research can also test whether these four dimensions are practiced with equal fervor across and within organizations and industries (Walters & Anagnostopoulos, 2012 ). This will enable CSR implementation research to extend beyond CSR communication, which majority of identified empirical research in this study focused exclusively on with very little focus being placed on other CSR implementation dimensions or the construct as a whole. While CSR communication plays an important role in the implementation process, it, however, does not necessarily ensure that these practices are in fact carried out in reality (Arvidsson, 2010 ; Fassin, 2008 ).

CSR communication literature has seen a rich growth over the years (see Fig.  4 ) and as such has diversified into various sub-topics, with CSR disclosure or reporting being the most researched form of CSR communication, particularly in the accounting literature (Gödker & Mertins, 2018 ). Scholars have extensively examined the antecedents and outcomes of CSR disclosure on various fronts: individual, organizational, and country levels (Bucaro et al., 2020 ; DeTienne & Lewis, 2005 ; Lu & Wang, 2021 ; Tan et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2021 ). Further, CSR communication has now diversified into the arena of social media where direct and frequent interactions with customers have heightened (Chu et al., 2020 ; Saxton et al., 2021 ). In addition to customers, CSR communication research seems to have predominantly focused on external stakeholders in general, including investors (Bucaro et al., 2020 ; Hockerts & Moir, 2004 ). Consequently, no research in our shortlisted set of studies examined CSR communication from an internal perspective. A study by Schaefer et al. ( 2019 ) does examine the impact of CSR advertisements on embedding CSR values in employees of an European energy provider, however, the CSR communication under assessment is targeted at external stakeholders. Given the strong inter-relations that exist among actions and communication of CSR activities, examining CSR communication from an interorganizational perspective can tap into the unexplored avenue of its effect on employee involvement in the CSR implementation process (Schoeneborn et al., 2020 ; Sendlhofer, 2020 ; Tourky et al., 2020 ).

Multi-level Nature

Second, while examining different dimensions of CSR implementation surely gives one the wholesome picture, one cannot ignore the multiple levels involved as the above four dimensions of CSR implementation are considered. However, as per our review only a small fraction of the empirical research on CSR implementation (6%) had conducted multi-level research. Hence, academicians have not managed to pay attention to the multiple levels that are in-built when implementing CSR. In referring to the concept of multi level, we propose that CSR implementation involves actors and characteristics at various levels in its environment such that employees, customers, and managers form individual level, while organizational characteristics such as firm size, age, ownership constitute organizational level, and so on. The conceptualization of CSR implementation in our study as discussed in Sect.  2 shows its inherent multi-level nature, where for instance, CSR values may be embedded in the form of CSR vision and mission at organizational level, while CSR awareness initiated by managers or employees occurs at individual level.

The multi-level studies under examination in this review examined CSR implementation at different levels, namely, country, institutional, industry, organizational, and individual. These studies examined (1) drivers of CSR implementation (refer Fig.  5 , link 1-3) like corporate governance and culture background (Lu & Wang, 2021 ), organizational location and distribution of country income (Zamir & Saeed, 2020 ), stakeholders and their pressures (Helmig et al., 2016 ; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009 ), country governance, industry effect, and organizational characteristics (Lattemann et al., 2009 ); and (2) outcomes of CSR implementation including market performance (Helmig et al., 2016 ), customer attitudes (Ettinger et al., 2021 ), customer perceptions (Lindgreen, Antioco, et al., 2009 a), and employee work behavior (Shen & Benson, 2016 ). Hence, our integrative multi-level framework of CSR implementation considers the five levels discussed above as shown in Fig.  5 .

While researchers have used institutional-level interchangeably with country level due to institutionalized practices of governments or economies (Pisani et al., 2017 ), institutionalization can occur at an industry level as well (O'Connor & Shumate, 2010 ) indicating the need to distinguish institutional level of analysis. While country-level perspective pertains to factors such as government regulations and policies (Pisani et al., 2017 ), institutional-level factors, on the other hand, include institutionalized practices in the economy or corporations (O'Connor & Shumate, 2010 ). Conclusively, industry-level perspective consists of factors such as industry type (Lattemann et al., 2009 ), organizational-level perspective pertains to firm characteristics (Lattemann et al., 2009 ), and individual level refers to employees and managers (Graafland & Zhang, 2014 ; Helmig et al., 2016 ).

CSR Formulation: An Overlooked Antecedent of CSR Implementation

CSR strategy implementation is preceded by its formulation, which consists of decision making upon attaining and interpreting information (Khan, 2018 ). Given the integrative nature of this multi-level framework of CSR implementation, it becomes crucial to consider its critical antecedent, i.e., CSR formulation. Maon et al. ( 2009 ), in their CSR design and implementation framework, identified various steps involved in the formulation of CSR strategies; understanding organization’s societal purpose, identifying its stakeholders, defining CSR vision and mission, assessing current CSR practices, benchmarking with competition and developing the CSR strategy. Additionally, higher CSR orientation of board members also ensures higher proactivity in forming and implementing firm’s CSR strategy, as we identify through the links 1-2 and 1-3 in Fig.  5 (Shaukat et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, various researchers have focused on the sense making concept and linked it to how managers make sense of CSR (as opposed to having planned goals) and accordingly formulate CSR strategies, thereby dictating their implementation as depicted in links 1-2 and 2-3 in Fig.  5 (Hanke & Stark, 2009 ; Jiang et al., 2018 ; Khan, 2018 ). While the presence of stakeholders in CSR strategy formulation was found to positively influence CSR implementation (van Tulder et al., 2009 ), their real world presence in CSR formulation seems to be minimal (Trapp, 2014 ). Accordingly, future research can examine the barriers to stakeholder involvement in CSR formulation and propose ways in which organizations can enhance their involvement (link 1-2, Fig.  5 ). Moreover, scholars can also run comparative studies through collecting field data to test the difference in effectiveness of CSR implementation among organizations that involved stakeholders in formulating CSR versus organizations that had no stakeholder involvement.

Furthermore, very few researchers consider the formulation of CSR as an antecedent or control for its effect in their research studies when studying CSR implementation (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013 ; Maon et al., 2009 ). Instead several researchers have focused directly on examining various other antecedents of CSR implementation. Accordingly, one can examine if the mediation of CSR formulation can change the impact of certain antecedents like lack of top management commitment, lack of CSR knowledge and skills, and uncertain government regulations (Graafland & Zhang, 2014 ; Luo et al., 2019 ) on CSR implementation from negative to positive. Hence, linking CSR formulation with its implementation can provide a richer feedback as it gives deeper insights into the successful execution of the formulated strategy, where successful CSR implementation can be treated as a dependent variable.

The Impact of CSR Implementation

The outcomes in CSR research have prominently focused on organizational outcomes with special attention being given to financial performance, thereby ignoring the appropriate assessment of the success of a CSR strategy by looking at its non-financial performance indicators such as employees’ extra-role behavior, consumer’s perceptions, and social and environmental performance impact (Fatima & Elbanna, 2020 ). On the other end, CSR implementation, the subset of CSR research literature, has focused exclusively on the non-financial indicators including corporate reputation (Axjonow et al., 2018 ; Kim, 2019 ), consumer purchase intentions (Bartikowski & Berens, 2021 ; Groza et al., 2011 ), and various stakeholder satisfaction such as consumers (Cantrell et al., 2015 ) and employees (Brunton et al., 2017 ; Peloza et al., 2009 ). Comparatively, only four research papers by Helmig et al. ( 2016 ), Rhou et al. ( 2016 ), Pham and Tran ( 2020 ), and Platonova et al. ( 2018 ) have looked at financial indicators. Further, the measurement of CSR performance in CSR literature has been used interchangeably to reflect the construct of CSR (Beji et al., 2021 ; Ge & Li, 2021 ; Öberseder et al., 2014 ), thereby creating a conundrum when it comes to assessing the comprehensive impact of CSR implementation strategies. Consequently, CSR implementation research requires clarification in understanding the nature of its impact on organizational performance, where it may also act as a mediator between CSR formulation and CSR impact (Graafland & Smid, 2019 ).

Future research, hence, needs to consider both financial and non-financial indicators when examining the organizational performance outcome of CSR implementation. This can be achieved, for example, through adopting the sustainability balanced scorecard perspective when measuring organizational outcomes of CSR implementation (Elbanna et al., 2015 ; Fatima & Elbanna, 2020 ). In doing so, organizations can effectively assess the overall impact of CSR implementation on CSR performance constituting social, environmental, and financial performance. In addition to examining these micro-level and meso-level (industry level, institutional level) outcomes, future research can also explore how implementation of CSR strategies within organizations and industries can lead to a macro-level sustainability impact such as the country’s economic and sustainable development (Verk et al., 2021 ) through improvement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) index (a standard indicator of country’s sustainability performance developed by United Nations ( 2020 )) (refer to link 3-4, Fig.  5 ).

The Context Matters

Referring to the integrative multi-level framework shown in Fig.  5 , we can clearly see how various factors interact with each other at several levels during CSR formulation and implementation. This framework provides a multi-dimensional view of CSR implementation, examines the nature of interconnectivity among the antecedents and consequences of CSR implementation, and presents CSR implementation in a multi-level manner. While, we do not push for the scholarly need to examine and account for all the variables depicted in Fig.  5 , however, we do aim to bring forth the need for future scholars to consider the context of their study and account for the impact of certain variables that may confound their results when studying CSR implementation. The various perspectives under contextual variables relate to five different levels of analysis highlighted previously in Sect.  5.1.2 (individual, firm, industry, institutional, and country levels). The categorization of these various levels has been done based on the context as per the extant literature review on CSR implementation (Helmig et al., 2016 ; Lattemann et al., 2009 ; Lindgreen, Antioco, et al., 2009 a; Shen & Benson, 2016 ). For ease of understanding, each level is listed under a stand-alone perspective that portrays various items CSR implementation scholars can explore. For instance, items such as pressure from or involvement of stakeholders like customers, employees, managers, board members, etc., relate to individual-level characteristics.

As per our earlier discussion, CSR formulation has been neglected to a certain extent by CSR implementation scholars, where significant research scope also exists in understanding if certain situations or characteristics can impact the CSR formulation–CSR implementation relationship (link 2-1-3 in Fig.  5 ). For example, to what extent organizational size or industry type and stakeholder pressures (Helmig et al., 2016 ) strengthen or weaken this relationship? Our knowledge of extant theories such as institutional theory and stakeholder theory posit for the prevalence of a positive moderation effect. The institutional theory leads to the process of ‘isomorphism’ which can be defined as a process that constrains a unit in a particular set of environmental conditions to resonate with other units existing in similar situations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983 ). As leading organizations in controversial industries such as oil and mining respond to concerns on their societal and environmental impact (Dobele et al., 2014 ; Du & Vieira, 2012 ), other organizations are complied to follow suit to maintain legitimacy, thereby eliciting the potential role of industry type in moderating the relationship between CSR formulation and implementation. Additionally, Miska et al. ( 2016 ) found that home country characteristics played a pivotal role in shaping the type of CSR strategy that MNCs engaged in. Thus, the effect of institutional level of indicators need to be accounted for when examining the link between CSR formulation and implementation.

Similarly, stakeholder theory emphasizes an organization’s relationships with other stakeholders consisting of employees, customers, suppliers, society, and others by stressing on the importance of satisfying relevant stakeholders (Jamali, 2008 ; Zerbini, 2017 ). As organizations in the current century face rising pressures from various stakeholders to depict socially responsible behavior (Erdiaw-Kwasie et al., 2017 ; Shahzad & Sharfman, 2017 ), they are bound by normative pressure as per institutional theory to comply with these stakeholder needs to establish a sense of legitimacy among their stakeholders. Thus, through building upon the interplay of these three theories, namely, institutional theory, legitimacy theory, and stakeholder theory, future research can probe into the following research question: Are larger organizations or manufacturing industries or higher stakeholder pressures more prone to having a stronger CSR formulation–implementation relationship, in comparison to smaller organizations or service industries or lower stakeholder pressures?

Figure  5 portrays various variables under each of the five perspectives or levels that can either act as drivers or inhibitors towards implementation of CSR. Scholars can accordingly utilize this framework to attain a holistic view and empirically examine how these contextual variables may impact CSR implementation strategies of their sample under study and control for the relevant contextual variables. For instance, CSR scholars have found top managerial characteristics played a significant role towards implementation (Rodríguez Bolívar et al., 2015 ). Scholars can further extend this finding to examine if top management characteristics have a differential impact on CSR implementation dimensions, where the type of leadership may have an effect on the nature of CSR values (strategic or normative) being embedded in the organization’s employees (link 2-1-3). The upper echelons theory which states that an organization is a function of its leaders’ beliefs and thoughts as these leaders make most of the important organizational strategic decisions (Quintana-García et al., 2018 ) finds support for the above proposed moderating impact. Ethical leadership style, for instance, can instill a sense of ethical behavior among employees (Hansen et al., 2016 ) through posing as social learning models and establishing a reward system for ethically appropriate behavior (Fatima, 2020 ).

Further, as per our findings from reviewing the CSR implementation literature, some industries have rarely been studied with respect to their CSR implementation strategies such as the sports and gaming industry (link 1-3). Accordingly, future research can actively collaborate with practitioners to conduct field studies and longitudinal studies, where practitioners can execute and examine CSR implementation, while CSR scholars can act as consultants and conduct quality research. Additionally, with the influx of COVID-19 pandemic, the topical nature of CSR implementation has heightened such that organizations are now actively focusing towards building their social performance to build a safe and healthy organizational work environment and image (Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020 ; He & Harris, 2020 ). This reaction of organizations also finds theoretical support in literature as per the environmental contingency theory that asserts the influence of environment on various characteristics of the organization, such as strategy, task uncertainty, size, and technology (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013 , p. 98). Hence, scholars can effectively conduct prospective research as opposed to the retrospective research by studying the actions taken by organizations towards their CSR implementation strategies in response to such environmental changes in real time.

Considerable number of studies have managed to study the contextual nature of CSR implementation by examining the presence of mediating and moderating variables (Eberle et al., 2013 ; Ginder et al., 2021 ; Karaosmanoglu et al., 2016 ; Lecuyer et al., 2017 ; Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014 ; Vlachos et al., 2009 ). It is worthy to note that all of these research studies have examined mediators and moderators only at individual level and firm level, with an exception of Thorne et al. ( 2017 ) who carried out a cross-country comparison on CSR disclosures. Our framework indicates that multiple perspectives can have a moderating impact on the relationship between CSR implementation and outcomes (refer to link 3-1-4 in Fig.  5 ). For instance, referring to our earlier discussion of stakeholder and institutional theories, future researchers can also examine whether the presence of stakeholder pressures in the form of governmental regulations, active NGOs, and media positively strengthen the relationship between CSR implementation dimensions like CSR awareness, CSR embedding, CSR communication, and outcomes like organizational legitimacy, customer’s perceptions, and organizational performance (Du & Vieira, 2012 ; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009 ; Rhou et al., 2016 ).

Moreover, given the relatively low level of research being conducted in developing regions such as South America, Asia, and Africa, future research can study whether uncertain regulations weaken the relationship between CSR embedding in suppliers and supplier loyalty or supplier compliance through weakening the coercive pressures felt by organizations in compliance with institutional theory (Boyd et al., 2007 ; Lim & Phillips, 2008 ). Further research ideas can also be attained through scrutinizing our proposed framework where CSR implementation researchers can expand their theoretical support from merely focusing on stakeholder and legitimacy theory to other theories such as structural contingency theory for industry perspective, leadership contingency theory for individual perspective, intergroup theory for CSR embedding, population ecology for institutional perspective, agency theory for the relationship between CSR formulation and CSR implementation in SMEs and so on.

While it is difficult to ensure that one research study covers various levels as depicted in the CSR implementation framework, it, however, becomes easier to realize the presence of multiple factors that may affect CSR implementation–outcomes relationship. With this knowledge at hand, academicians can account and control for the factors, when applicable. Similarly, practitioners can also utilize this framework to get an overarching purview of CSR implementation and better understand the various factors that may positively or adversely impact the different outcomes of CSR implementation, and accordingly, take the necessary proactive decisions.

Upon analyzing the empirical literature trends on CSR implementation in Sect.  4 , several suggestions for future research were made pertaining to the nature of research, level of analysis, theoretical support, and geographical expansion. Further insights were gained through the depiction of an integrative multi-level CSR implementation framework developed in the previous section of thematic analysis. In doing so, this research study has made several theoretical and practical implications, as discussed below.

In terms of theoretical implications, first, we found that scholars have placed a considerable amount of focus towards examining the factors impacting implementation of CSR (antecedents, mediators, and moderators) and the organizational-level consequences of CSR implementation. In comparison, fewer studies have looked at non-organizational consequences or carried out field studies or longitudinal case studies to examine the implementation of complete CSR strategies. Hence, one of the prime insights for future research involve attaining deeper insights into how organizations implement CSR with respect to CSR awareness, CSR embedding, CSR communication, and CSR evaluation. In doing so, researchers would be able to examine CSR implementation from multi-dimensional and multi-level perspectives.

Second, one of the prominent difficulties encountered by organizations when implementing CSR relates to prioritizing stakeholders’ interests (Lee, 2011 ; Porter & Kramer, 2006 ). Different organizations place importance on different stakeholders and as such, a universal solution to prioritize stakeholders becomes difficult. We attempt to resolve this dilemma by proposing a CSR implementation definition (outlined in Sect.  2 ) that indicates the process of CSR implementation as an integrated and a comprehensive process which entails coordinated involvement of all stakeholders at different degrees throughout the four dimensions of CSR implementation.

Third, enhancing from the above research agenda, scholars could also link how multiple dimensions of CSR implementation relate to each other. For instance, Pomering and Dolnicar ( 2009 ) examined whether CSR communication by organizations leads to higher CSR awareness of customers. Furthermore, within the field of CSR implementation, some of its dimensions have not been as heavily researched as the rest; CSR communication has been of prime focus for several academicians. However, only three studies were found to study CSR evaluation as a part of the implementation process (Cowper-Smith & de Grosbois, 2011 ; Schaefer et al., 2019 ; Vlachos et al., 2009 ). Evaluating CSR in the implementation phase resonates with assessing the extent to which CSR objectives are met. However, CSR evaluation has mostly focused on assessing CSR performance using secondary databases like Kinder, Lyndenberg, and Domini (Rhou et al., 2016 ). Thus, to examine CSR evaluation as a part of the implementation phase, researchers need to study other internal stakeholders in addition to employees, such as way of monitoring CSR strategies by both board members and top managements. Accordingly, examining other CSR implementation dimensions in detail, specifically perceiving them from a different lens would enrich the extant knowledge on CSR implementation.

Fourth, most of the CSR implementation–performance literature has looked at organizational and individual-level outcomes. Given the very nature of an organization is to ensure profitability, the prime focus has been placed by researchers in identifying how CSR implementation impacts organizational outcomes such as organizational reputation and CSR performance. Similarly, customers are deemed as the most important stakeholder given their direct impact on organization’s profitability, and thereby, its sustenance. Accordingly, most prior studies have examined the impact of CSR strategy implementation on customer perceptions and behaviors. However, a research gap exists with regard to studying the impact on other external stakeholders like suppliers’ loyalty and suppliers’ compliance. Moreover, the impact of organization’s CSR implementation has been restricted to micro-level and meso-level, where country-level impacts such as on economic improvement and increase in sustainability index have not yet been studied. Therefore, researchers need to examine meso-level and macro-level impacts of implementing CSR strategies. Understandably, the absence of studies examining macro-level outcomes of CSR maybe due to the exclusion of sustainability construct from our literature search which is more prominently linked with country-level outcomes like sustainable development goals. Future reviews can, as such, consider the prospect of examining implementation of sustainability strategies as opposed to the concept of CSR which was the focus in this review.

The restrictive journal criteria used in this systematic review pose a constricted presentation of the CSR implementation literature. However, we followed the standard journal selection criteria used widely across general business and management reviews. Further, we aimed to examine high-quality research on CSR implementation, thereby justifying our usage of a restricted journal criteria. In order to attain a more general view and to better understand the research trends of a vast literature of CSR implementation that includes research in established ethics and CSR focused journals like Journal of Cleaner Production and Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, future scholars can conduct bibliometric analysis or meta-analysis with a more relaxed journal criteria.

This research study also produces various implications for practitioners regarding CSR implementation. First, practitioners can make use of the proposed CSR implementation dimensions that stresses on its multi-level and multi-dimensional nature and identifies it as a process that is not restricted to a stakeholder view. Accordingly, managers can make appropriate decisions to ensure CSR strategies are properly implemented in their organizations and are not solely restricted to financial investments. Second, top management and policy makers can utilize the CSR implementation framework for a bird’s eye view on the potential factors that can impact CSR implementation and the possible outcomes of CSR implementation. In doing so, organizations can pay heed to contextual factors that may impede or promote implementation of CSR and its relationship with different outcomes. Third, practitioners, upon realizing the multi-level impact of CSR implementation, which goes beyond the individual and organizational levels, can reflect upon their current organizational CSR strategies and accordingly, revise or formulate better versions.

To sum, CSR implementation has come a long way in the past decade and still has a long way to go. This review paper attempts to enlighten the research community with insights on the progress of CSR implementation research and how it can be further improved to enrich our understanding of the concept of CSR implementation. With the proposition of CSR implementation dimensions that facilitate the review of literature, an integrative multi-level CSR implementation framework has been developed to assist future research on CSR implementation in getting closer to reality by portraying the interconnectivity in implementing any organizational strategic decision. With the above research contributions, this study attempted to set the stage for future research to build upon by conducting richer and deeper empirical studies that examine CSR implementation in the right light.

A table reviewing the literature on CSR implementation has been submitted as supplementary material due to paper length considerations and is also available from the authors upon request.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 932–968.

Article   Google Scholar  

Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28 (3), 243–253.

Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 96 (3), 339–354.

Axjonow, A., Ernstberger, J., & Pott, C. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on corporate reputation: A non-professional stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 151 (2), 429–450.

Bansal, P., Jiang, G. F., & Jung, J. C. (2015). Managing responsibly in tough economic times: Strategic and tactical CSR during the 2008–2009 global recession. Long Range Planning, 48 (2), 69–79.

Bartikowski, B., & Berens, G. (2021). Attribute framing in CSR communication: Doing good and spreading the word – But how? Journal of Business Research, 131 , 700–708.

Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L., & Scherer, A. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 115 (4), 693–705.

Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N., & Omri, A. (2021). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 173 (1), 133–155.

Bolton, S., Kim, R., & O’Gorman, K. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a dynamic internal organizational process: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 101 , 61–74.

Boyd, D. E., Spekman, R. E., Kamauff, J. W., & Werhane, P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains: A procedural justice perspective. Long Range Planning, 40 (3), 341–356.

Brunton, M., Eweje, G., & Taskin, N. (2017). Communicating corporate social responsibility to internal stakeholders: Walking the walk or just talking the talk? Business Strategy & the Environment, 26 (1), 31–48.

Bucaro, A. C., Jackson, K. E., & Lill, J. B. (2020). The influence of corporate social responsibility measures on investors’ judgments when integrated in a financial report versus presented in a separate report. Contemporary Accounting Research, 37 (2), 665–695.

Cantrell, J., Kyriazis, E., & Noble, G. (2015). Developing CSR giving as a dynamic capability for salient stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 130 (2), 403–421.

Chu, S.-C., Chen, H.-T., & Gan, C. (2020). Consumers’ engagement with corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication in social media: Evidence from China and the United States. Journal of Business Research, 110 , 260–271.

Cowper-Smith, A., & de Grosbois, D. (2011). The adoption of corporate social responsibility practices in the airline industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (1), 59–77.

Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53 (7), 1223–1252.

DeTienne, K. B., & Lewis, L. W. (2005). The pragmatic and ethical barriers to corporate social responsibility disclosure: The Nike case. Journal of Business Ethics, 60 (4), 359–376.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147–160.

Dobele, A. R., Westberg, K., Steel, M., & Flowers, K. (2014). An examination of corporate social responsibility implementation and stakeholder engagement: A case study in the Australian mining industry. Business Strategy & the Environment, 23 (3), 145–159.

Donthu, N., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on business and research. Journal of Business Research, 117 , 284–289.

Du, S., & Vieira, E. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110 (4), 413–427.

Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118 (4), 731–746.

Elbanna, S., Andrews, R., & Pollanen, R. (2016). Strategic planning and implementation success in public service organizations: Evidence from Canada. Public Management Review , 18 (7), 1017–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1051576

Elbanna, S., Eid, R., & Kamel, H. (2015). Measuring hotel performance using the balanced scorecard: A theoretical construct development and its empirical validation. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 51 , 105–114.

Erdiaw-Kwasie, M. O., Alam, K., & Shahiduzzaman, M. (2017). Towards understanding stakeholder salience transition and relational approach to ‘better’ corporate social responsibility: A case for a proposed model in practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 144 (1), 85–101.

Ettinger, A., Grabner-Kräuter, S., Okazaki, S., & Terlutter, R. (2021). The desirability of CSR communication versus greenhushing in the hospitality industry: The customers’ perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 60 (3), 618–638.

Ettinger, A., Grabner-Kräuter, S., & Terlutter, R. (2018). Online CSR communication in the hotel industry: Evidence from small hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68 , 94–104.

Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. (2014). Corporate citizenship and the employee: An organizational identification perspective. Human Performance, 27 (2), 129–146.

Farmaki, A. (2019). Corporate social responsibility in hotels: A stakeholder approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31 (6), 2297–2320.

Fassin, Y. (2008). SMEs and the fallacy of formalising CSR. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17 (4), 364–378.

Fatima, T. (2020). Impact of employees’ perceived corporate social responsibility on organizational citizenship behavior: A proposed theoretical model. International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management , 11 (3), 25–38.

Fatima, T., & Elbanna, S. (2020). Balanced scorecard in the hospitality and tourism industry: Past, present and future. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 91 , 102656.

Frynas, J. G., & Yamahaki, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: Review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25 (3), 258–285.

Ge, Q., & Li, T. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder wealth: New insights from information spillovers. Financial Review , p. 1.

George, B., Walker, R. M., & Monster, J. (2019). Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 79 (6), 810–819.

Ginder, W., Kwon, W.-S., & Byun, S.-E. (2021). Effects of internal–external congruence-based CSR positioning: An attribution theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 169 (2), 355–369.

Gödker, K., & Mertins, L. (2018). CSR disclosure and investor behavior: A proposed framework and research agenda. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30 (2), 37–53.

Graafland, J., & Smid, H. (2019). Decoupling among CSR policies, programs, and impacts: An empirical study. Business & Society, 58 (2), 231–267.

Graafland, J., & Zhang, L. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in China: Implementation and challenges. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23 (1), 34–49.

Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2015). How did the recession change the communication of corporate social responsibility activities? Long Range Planning, 48 (2), 108–122.

Groza, M., Pronschinske, M., & Walker, M. (2011). Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (4), 639–652.

Hanke, T., & Stark, W. (2009). Strategy development: Conceptual framework on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (3), 507.

Hansen, D. S., Dunford, B. B., Alge, B. J., & Jackson, C. L. (2016). Corporate social responsibility, ethical leadership, and trust propensity: A multi-experience model of perceived ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 137 (4), 649–662.

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives . OUP.

Google Scholar  

He, H., & Harris, L. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. Journal of Business Research, 116 , 176–182.

Helmig, B., Spraul, K., & Ingenhoff, D. (2016). Under positive pressure: How stakeholder pressure affects corporate social responsibility implementation. Business & Society, 55 (2), 151–187.

Hockerts, K., & Moir, L. (2004). Communicating corporate responsibility to investors: The changing role of the investor relations function. Journal of Business Ethics, 52 (1), 85–98.

Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review, 46 (1), 33–59.

Hossain, M. (2018). Frugal innovation: A review and research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182 , 926–936.

Ingham, M., & Havard, C. (2017). CSR as strategic and organizational change at ‘Groupe La Poste.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 146 (3), 563–589.

Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82 (1), 213–231.

Jiang, F., Zalan, T., Tse, H. H. M., & Shen, J. (2018). Mapping the relationship among political ideology, CSR mindset, and CSR strategy: A contingency perspective applied to Chinese managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 147 (2), 419–444.

Jong, M., & Meer, M. (2017). How does it fit? Exploring the congruence between organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 143 (1), 71–83.

Karaosmanoglu, E., Altinigne, N., & Isiksal, D. G. (2016). CSR motivation and customer extra-role behavior: Moderation of ethical corporate identity. Journal of Business Research, 69 (10), 4161–4167.

Khan, S. N. (2018). Making sense of the black box: An empirical analysis investigating strategic cognition of CSR strategists in a transitional market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196 , 916–926.

Khan, Z., Lew, Y. K., & Park, B. I. (2015). Institutional legitimacy and norms-based CSR marketing practices. International Marketing Review, 32 (5), 463–491.

Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee, H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95 (4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2

Kim, S. (2019). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154 (4), 1143–1159.

Kleine, A., & Hauff, M. (2009). Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 517–533.

Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122 (1), 145–165.

Laguir, L., Laguir, I., & Tchemeni, E. (2019). Implementing CSR activities through management control systems: A formal and informal control perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32 (2), 531–555.

Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Shaomin, L., & Schneider, A.-M. (2009). CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17 (4), 426–442.

Lecuyer, C., Capelli, S., & Sabadie, W. (2017). Corporate social responsibility communication effects: A comparison between investor-owned banks and member-owned banks. Journal of Advertising Research, 57 (4), 436–446.

Lee, M.-D. (2011). Configuration of external influences: The combined effects of institutions and stakeholders on corporate social responsibility strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (2), 281–298.

Lim, S.-J., & Phillips, J. (2008). Embedding CSR values: The global footwear industry’s evolving governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 81 (1), 143–156.

Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D., & Sloot, R. (2009a). Purchasing and marketing of social and environmental sustainability for high-tech medical equipment. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 445–462.

Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility, Editorial. International Journal of Management Reviews, 112 (1), 1–7.

Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., Harness, D., & Hoffmann, M. (2011). The role of ‘high potentials’ in integrating and implementing corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 99 , 73–91.

Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Maon, F. (2009b). Introduction: Corporate social responsibility implementation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 251–256.

Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12 (2), 155–187.

Lu, J., & Wang, J. (2021). Corporate governance, law, culture, environmental performance and CSR disclosure: A global perspective. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 70 , 101264.

Luo, J. M., Huang, G. Q., & Lam, C. F. (2019). Barriers to the implementation of corporate social responsibility in gaming industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 20 (5), 528–551.

Luo, X. R., Wang, D., & Zhang, J. (2017). Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, 60 (1), 321–344.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23 (3), 283–297.

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87 , 71–89.

Marano, V., & Kostova, T. (2016). Unpacking the institutional complexity in adoption of CSR practices in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 53 (1), 28–54.

Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30 (1), 166–179.

Miska, C., Witt, M. A., & Stahl, G. K. (2016). Drivers of global CSR integration and local CSR responsiveness: Evidence from Chinese MNEs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26 (3), 317–345.

Muller, A., & Kolk, A. (2009). CSR performance in emerging markets evidence from Mexico. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 325–337.

Muthuri, J., Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2009). An integrated approach to implementing community participation’ in corporate community involvement: Lessons from Magadi soda company in Kenya. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 431–444.

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B., Murphy, P., & Gruber, V. (2014). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 124 (1), 101–115.

O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 24 (4), 529–551.

Osagie, E., Wesselink, R., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Mulder, M. (2016). Individual competencies for corporate social responsibility: A literature and practice perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 135 (2), 233–252.

Park, B. I., & Ghauri, P. N. (2015). Determinants influencing CSR practices in small and medium sized MNE subsidiaries: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of World Business, 50 (1), 192–204.

Pedersen, E. R. G., Gwozdz, W., & Hvass, K. K. (2018). Exploring the relationship between business model innovation, corporate sustainability, and organisational values within the fashion industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 149 (2), 267–284.

Peloza, J., Hudson, S., & Hassay, D. (2009). The marketing of employee volunteerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 371–386.

Pham, H. S. T., & Tran, H. T. (2020). CSR disclosure and firm performance: The mediating role of corporate reputation and moderating role of CEO integrity. Journal of Business Research, 120 , 127–136.

Pisani, N., Kourula, A., Kolk, A., & Meijer, R. (2017). How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. Journal of World Business, 52 (5), 591–614.

Platonova, E., Asutay, M., Dixon, R., & Mohammad, S. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance: Evidence from the GCC Islamic banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 151 (2), 451–471.

Polonsky, M., & Jevons, C. (2009). Global branding and strategic CSR: An overview of three types of complexity. International Marketing Review, 26 (3), 327–347.

Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 285–301.

Popay, J., Roberts, H. M., Sowden, A. J., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., & Britten, N. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme . Version 1.

Pope, S., & Wæraas, A. (2016). CSR-washing is rare: A conceptual framework, literature review, and critique. Journal of Business Ethics, 137 (1), 173–193.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), 78–92.

Quintana-García, C., Marchante-Lara, M., & Benavides-Chicón, C. G. (2018). Social responsibility and total quality in the hospitality industry: Does gender matter? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26 (5), 722–739.

Rama, D., Milano, B., Salas, S., & Liu, C.-H. (2009). CSR implementation: Developing the capacity for collective action. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 463–477.

Reimer, M., Van Doorn, S., & Heyden, M. L. M. (2018). Unpacking functional experience complementarities in senior leaders’ influences on CSR strategy: A CEO-Top Management Team Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 151 (4), 977–995.

Rhou, Y., Singal, M., & Koh, Y. (2016). CSR and financial performance: The role of CSR awareness in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57 , 30–39.

Risi, D., & Wickert, C. (2017). Reconsidering the ‘symmetry’ between institutionalization and professionalization: The case of corporate social responsibility managers. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (5), 613–646.

Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., Garde Sánchez, R., & López Hernández, A. M. (2015). Managers as drivers of CSR in state-owned enterprises. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 58 (5), 777–801.

Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2009). Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 339–353.

Saxton, G. D., Ren, C., & Guo, C. (2021). Responding to diffused stakeholders on social media: Connective power and firm reactions to CSR-related Twitter messages. Journal of Business Ethics, 172 (2), 229–252.

Schaefer, S. D., Terlutter, R., & Diehl, S. (2019). Is my company really doing good? Factors influencing employees’ evaluation of the authenticity of their company’s corporate social responsibility engagement. Journal of Business Research, 101 , 128–143.

Schoeneborn, D., Morsing, M., & Crane, A. (2020). Formative perspectives on the relation between CSR communication and CSR practices: Pathways for walking, talking, and t(w)alking. Business & Society, 59 (1), 5–33.

Seitanidi, M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 , 413–429.

Sendlhofer, T. (2020). Decoupling from moral responsibility for CSR: Employees’ visionary procrastination at a SME. Journal of Business Ethics, 167 (2), 361–378.

Serra-Cantallops, A., Peña-Miranda, D. D., Ramón-Cardona, J., & Martorell-Cunill, O. (2018). Progress in research on CSR and the hotel industry (2006–2015). Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 59 (1), 15–38.

Shahzad, A. M., & Sharfman, M. P. (2017). Corporate social performance and financial performance: Sample-selection issues. Business & Society, 56 (6), 889–918.

Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135 (3), 569–585.

Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work Behavior. Journal of Management, 42 (6), 1723–1746.

Skard, S., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2014). Is publicity always better than advertising? The role of brand reputation in communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124 (1), 149–160.

Skouloudis, A., & Evangelinos, K. (2014). Exogenously driven CSR: Insights from the consultants’ perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23 (3), 258–271.

Spalding, T. L., & Murphy, G. L. (1996). Effects of background knowledge on category construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22 (2), 525–538.

Stekelorum, R., Laguir, I., & Elbaz, J. (2019). Transmission of CSR requirements in supply chains: Investigating the multiple mediating effects of CSR activities in SMEs. Applied Economics, 51 (42), 4642–4657.

Story, J., & Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: Exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24 (2), 111–124.

Subramaniam, N., Kansal, M., & Babu, S. (2017). Governance of mandated corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Indian government-owned firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 143 (3), 543–563.

Tan, W., Tsang, A., Wang, W., & Zhang, W. (2020). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure and the choice between bank debt and public debt. Accounting Horizons, 34 (1), 151–173.

Thorne, L., Mahoney, L., Gregory, K., & Convery, S. (2017). A comparison of Canadian and U.S. CSR strategic alliances, CSR reporting, and CSR performance: Insights into implicit-explicit CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 143 (1), 85–98.

Tourky, M., Kitchen, P., & Shaalan, A. (2020). The role of corporate identity in CSR implementation: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Research, 117 , 694–706.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207–222.

Trapp, N. L. (2014). Stakeholder involvement in CSR strategy-making? Clues from sixteen Danish companies. Public Relations Review, 40 (1), 42–49.

Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (4), 411–427.

United Nations. (2020). The sustainable development goals report 2020 . United Nations.

van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44 (2), 95–105.

van Tulder, R., van Wijk, J., & Kolk, A. (2009). From chain liability to chain responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (2), 399–412.

Verk, N., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2021). A dynamic review of the emergence of corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 168 (3), 491–515.

Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (2), 170–180.

Walters, G., & Anagnostopoulos, C. (2012). Implementing corporate social responsibility through social partnerships. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21 (4), 417–433.

Wickert, C., Scherer, A. G., & Spence, L. J. (2016). Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organizational cost. Journal of Management Studies, 53 (7), 1169–1196.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4), 691–718.

Yin, J., & Jamali, D. (2016). Strategic corporate social responsibility of multinational companies subsidiaries in emerging markets: Evidence from China. Long Range Planning, 49 (5), 541–558.

Zamir, F., & Saeed, A. (2020). Location matters: Impact of geographical proximity to financial centers on corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in emerging economies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37 (1), 263–295.

Zerbini, F. (2017). CSR initiatives as market signals: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 146 (1), 1–23.

Zhang, L., Shan, Y. G., & Chang, M. (2021). Can CSR disclosure protect firm reputation during financial restatements? Journal of Business Ethics, 173 (1), 157–184.

Zheng, Q., Luo, Y., & Maksimov, V. (2015). Achieving legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: The case of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 50 (3), 389–403.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar

Tahniyath Fatima & Said Elbanna

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Said Elbanna .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 140 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fatima, T., Elbanna, S. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework. J Bus Ethics 183 , 105–121 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05047-8

Download citation

Received : 25 May 2021

Accepted : 20 January 2022

Published : 02 February 2022

Issue Date : February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05047-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Corporate social responsibility implementation
• CSR strategy
• CSR complexity
• CSR formulation
• CSR implementation framework
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

← Back to Articles

Jan 2, 2024

16 Brands Doing Corporate Social Responsibility Successfully

• Digital Strategy
• Digital Marketing

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) allows businesses large and small to enact positive change. It’s when companies choose to do what’s right not only for their bottom line but also to build customer trust. 

Consumers feel that when they use a product or service of a socially responsible company, they are doing their part. The more socially responsible the company, the more supportive its community and consumers become.

Corporate social responsibility helps gain customer trust, raise awareness, and encourage social change. Although many companies do their part, the efforts of large global corporations have far-reaching results that can impact global issues, from hunger and health to global warming and climate change. 

Plus with artificial intelligence (AI) being adopted rapidly by companies, businesses now need to link their CSR efforts with their responsible AI efforts (more on that later). 

Keep reading to see examples of how some major brands are doing CSR successfully (along with one brand that re-evaluated its CSR strategy after facing criticism for having the wrong kind of social impact). 

12 Ways Digital Marketers Can Use ChatGPT

Examples of corporate social responsibility in action.

Corporate social responsibility comes in many forms. Even the smallest company can impact social change by making a simple donation to a local food bank. Some of the most common examples of CSR include:

• Reducing carbon footprints
• Improving labor policies
• Participating in fairtrade
• Diversity, equity and inclusion
• Charitable global giving
• Community and virtual volunteering
• Corporate policies that benefit the environment
• Socially and environmentally conscious investments

Millennials Want to See More Corporate Social Responsibility

To millennials and Generation Z, socially responsible companies are even more important. They believe companies should invest in improving society and look for solutions that assist in those improvements.

A recent poll found that young Americans feel brands need to be held to a higher standard — 80 percent are likely to base their purchases on a brand’s mission or purpose. While 74 percent would boycott brands for crossing an ethical line and going against their personal values.

So, companies need to share how they are trying to make a positive impact on the world, so the public can see their pro-social initiatives. Showcasing efforts is key so it’s important to learn how to market to millennials because these efforts will sway the choices they make as consumers.

Millennials also like to take part in initiatives such as volunteer work or making donations. As ever more companies begin to see the impact their socially and environmentally conscious efforts have on a consumer’s perception, the more chance there is that they will begin initiatives of their own.

Changing Corporate Social Responsibility Trends

Activism by millennials and, indeed, all generations will also influence changing trends in CSR. You can expect to see companies continue to take a public stand against on-the-job harassment and discrimination thanks to the #metoo movement. 

Diversity in the workplace will also continue to expand to embrace people of all races, genders, cultures, disabilities, and sexual orientations. Many brands are becoming more vocal and showing their support for important social issues on social media to great effect.

Companies will also find their own voices to speak out against social injustice and policy changes that will negatively impact the environment. Even policies to protect data privacy in an ever-changing environment can become part of the CSR trends as more and more data breaches threaten personal information.

In 2022, Patagonia’s founder, Yvon Chouinard set a new standard in environmental corporate leadership by giving away the company and its future profits to fight climate change. 

“If we have any hope of a thriving planet – much less a thriving business – 50 years from now, it is going to take all of us doing what we can with the resources we have,” said Chouinard. “This is another way we’ve found to do our part.”

Corporate Social Responsibility and AI

While AI offers many benefits to organizations - automation, optimization and personalization - it also carries risks. 

As AI depends so much on data to learn and provide insights, bad or incorrect data can create skewed results and result in bias that leads to inequality or prejudice. For example, there is a close connection between responsible AI and efforts to promote social and environmental sustainability.

Customers can also be confused about how AI is used in a company and create an environment of mistrust if efforts aren’t made to be transparent and fair in its use.  

This is where Responsible Artificial Intelligence or RAI comes in. According to an MIT expert survey , 90% of managers in companies with at least $100 million in annual revenues — reported that their organization’s RAI and CSR efforts are linked. 

“From an organizational perspective, the practical implementation of the responsible AI initiative needs to be closely aligned to corporate social responsibility efforts to steer responsible business outcomes,” says Aisha Naseer, Director of research at Huawei Technologies Co. (UK). 

In this era of AI, it’s worth determining if you need to revisit your CSR initiatives by looking at the organizational culture, the level of AI maturity in-house and the strengths of CSR efforts (and whether linking them to AI would bolster them). 

Brands Doing it Right

1.  renewable innovation: johnson & johnson.

An excellent example of CSR on the frontline is big pharma pioneer Johnson & Johnson . They have focused on reducing their impact on the planet for three decades. Their initiatives range from leveraging the power of the wind to providing safe water to communities around the world.

Their purchase of a privately-owned energy supplier in the Texas Panhandle allowed the company to reduce pollution while providing a renewable, economical alternative to electricity. The company continues to seek out renewable energy options with the goal of having 100% of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2025 .

2. Social issues: Google

Google is trusted not only for its environmentally friendly initiatives but also due to its outspoken CEO, Sundar Pichai. He stands up against social issues including President Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim comments and the impact of AI in society in terms of misinformation and fake news.

Google also funds initiatives to drive inclusion both in the company and society in the areas of:

• Racial equity
• Disability inclusion
• Gender equality 
• LGBTQ+ inclusion
• Veteran inclusion

The company also builds tools to help minority-owned businesses and communities and factors in accessibility.  

3. Sustainability: Coca-Cola

As a brand, Coca-Cola is putting a huge focus on sustainability. The key areas are climate, packaging and agriculture along with water stewardship and product quality. 

Their message is ‘a world without waste’, with the aim of collecting and recycling every bottle, making their packaging 100% recyclable and replacing all water used in creating their drinks back to the environment to ensure water security. They aim that by 2030, they will have reduced their carbon footprint by 25% .

A number of years ago Coca-Cola unveiled its first bottle made from 100% plant-based plastic. “ Our goal is to develop sustainable solutions for the entire industry. We want other companies to join us and move forward, collectively. We don’t see renewable or recycled content as areas where we want competitive advantage,” said Dana Breed, Global R&D Director, Packaging and Sustainability, The Coca-Cola Company. 

4. Carbon neutral & pay equity: Ford Motor Company

Ford has huge plans in the area of CSR. Their mission is to ‘build a better world, where everyone is free to move and pursue their dreams’. They have increased investment in electrification to $22Bn (from an original $11Bn ) and aim for their vehicles to be carbon neutral by 2050 .  

“We’re committed to carbon neutrality”, stated Bob Holycross, Ford’s VP, Chief Sustainability, Environment & Safety Officer. “It’s the right thing for our customers, the planet and Ford. Ninety-five percent of our carbon emissions today come from our vehicles, operations and suppliers, and we’re tackling all three areas with urgency and optimism,”

Interestingly, the company is also focusing on pay equity. They are conducting a diversity, equity and inclusion audit while introducing a global salaried pay ratio (including gender) to level the playing field for all employees.

5 & 6. Employee rights: Netflix & Spotify

From a social perspective, companies such as Netflix and Spotify offer benefits to support their employees and families.

Netflix offers 52 weeks of paid parental leave to the birth parent and non-birth parent (which includes adopted children). This can be taken at any time whether it is the first year of the child's life or another time that suits their needs. This compares to a median of 18 weeks at other major tech companies.

Spotify offers a similar program , although for a shorter duration of 24 weeks of paid leave but employees can take parental leave until their child is three years of age. The program also allows employees one month of flexible work when they return to help transition from being a full-time parent to a full-time employee.

When it comes to social causes, Netflix and Spotify use their social media platforms to show support for movements such as Pride Month, environmental sustainability, and Black Lives Matter. Netflix sets an example of how to target - and appeal to - niche and minority audiences through clever social media . Its channel ‘Strong Black Lead’ is just one example. 

7. Access to healthcare: Pfizer

The Pfizer Foundation was established in 1953 and its goal is to “help build healthier communities around the world”. To do this it supports community-based innovations and safety net healthcare providers, promotes health equity and enables equitable access to vaccines. 

They also provide grants in the instance of natural disasters such as Haiti in the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew and the global refugee crisis in Europe and the Middle East. This money is provided in cooperation with NGOs to reach as many people as possible. 

Through Pfizer’s Global Health Innovation Grants program, $100,000 is provided each year to twenty organizations to drive solutions to address vaccine-preventable illnesses in their communities. The North Star Alliance in Uganda is one grant recipient. 

Join for FREE to access this video

8. Philanthropic Donations: Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo donates up to 1.5% of its revenue to charitable causes each year to more than 14,500 nonprofits through philanthropy such as food banks and incubators (plant science and renewable energy) to hasten the speed to market for start-ups.

A recent ‘Housing Affordability Breakthrough Challenge’ was established by Wells Fargo to address the housing affordability crisis in America. Winners of the challenge received between $2 to $3 million along with support from peers and industry experts to scale new strategies to make homes more accessible and affordable.

The company also collaborated with Team Rubicon to train veterans to rebuild homes. A $750,000 grant will help to give veterans trade skills such as contracting, electric, and plumbing to use in their communities.

9. Grassroots campaigns: TOMS

TOMS's mission was to donate a pair of shoes for every pair they sell and this has resulted in the donation of over 95 million pairs of shoes to children in need. However, the company faced criticism for creating a dependency on free shoes and collapsing local shoe-making industries.

As a result, TOMS re-evaluated its strategy. Instead of focusing on free shoes, the company now donates one-third of its profits to grassroots campaigns in the areas of mental health, access to opportunity, and ending gun violence.  

“We learned that giving shoes, sight, and safe water for over a decade was an amazing start— the right start — to creating meaningful change. But, the decision to give impact grants instead will enable our community to do even more. Rather than giving shoes, we’re giving 1⁄3 of our profits. In other words, $1 for every $3 we make, which is about as much as a company can give while still keeping the lights on.” - TOMS Impact Report.

As a result of their CSR initiatives, TOMS has helped 105 million people’s lives and counting!

10. Climate neutral:  Bosch

Bosch set itself ambitious goals for protecting the environment, with an aim to reduce their ecological footprint through climate action, water usage, and a circular economy.

It seems this ambition has paid off and paved the way for other global companies, as 400 of its locations are now climate neutral. The company now wants to reduce upstream (purchased goods and services) and downstream (product use) emissions by 15% in 2030.  

“Having achieved our initial targets for scopes 1 and 2, we are now tackling scope 3 emissions with the same degree of rigor – setting specific targets and milestones for the coming years.” - Torsten Kallweit, Head of EHS AND Sustainability

​​​​​​​11. Clean technology: GE

It's been over a decade since General Electric launched Ecomagination, its renewable business strategy with a mission to double down on clean technology and generate $20 billion in revenue from green products.

As part of its ‘Ecomagination Challenge’ launched last year, GE awarded five people $100,000 each to develop their innovations such as an inflatable wind turbine, an intelligent water meter, a cyber secure network infrastructure, and short-circuiting and outage technology.   

12. Workplace diversity & inclusion: Starbucks

With an eye to hiring, Starbucks wanted to diversify its workforce and provide opportunities for specific cohorts. It has pledged to hire 25,000 US military veterans and spouses by 2025 as part of its socially responsible efforts. The company has surpassed targets , hiring 40,000 veterans and spouses since the launch. 

To tackle racial and social equity, Starbucks announced a mentorship program to connect black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) to senior leaders and invest in partnerships. The chain also aims to have BIPOC represented at 30% in corporate roles and 40% in retail and manufacturing by 2025.    

Read: ‘Digital Accessibility: What Marketers Need to Know’ to find out how you can make your marketing activities more accessible. 

13.  Sustainability:  New Belgium Brewing Company 

This brewing company owned entirely by its employees through a stock ownership plan is focused on sustainability. Its Fort Collins, Colorado brewery produces its electricity through solar panels and wastewater and aims to have all its beer carbon neutral by 2030. 

New Belgium Brewing Company prides itself on reaching some key milestones . It is the first wind-powered brewery in the United States, the first certified carbon-neutral beer in North America (Fat Tire), and the first to achieve a perfect score of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. 

It also gives away $1 of every barrel sold to support its philanthropic initiatives, values and goals giving away $30 million so far. According to the Director of CSR, Katie Wallace: “We consider social and environmental well-being to be intricately intertwined.”

14. Local communities: The Walt Disney Company

Disney committed to reducing emissions and waste along with using sustainable design and sustainable materials in its 2030 Environmental Goals report . Some of the goals include achieving net zero emissions for direct operations, using plastic that contains at least 30 percent recycled content or a lower-impact alternative material and eliminating single use plastics on cruise ships by 2025. 

They are actively ensuring strict international labor policies to protect the safety and rights of their employees.

They are also active in the community and encourage employees to do the same. Through Disney’s VoluntEARS program, employees and cast members worldwide have volunteered 13 million hours of service to their communities while more than $140 million of Disney’s donations were directed to programs serving underrepresented communities. 

15. Packaging: LEGO

Lego has tripled spending on sustainability initiatives to $1.4 billion by 2025 with a focus on making products from more sustainable and circular materials by 2032.

Their primary focus as a modern-day superbrand is to phase out single-use plastic packaging for its bricks with all packaging to be sustainable by 2025. While testing on creating a sustainable brick has been challenging, the company is committed to continuing its research to come up with a viable solution.  

Currently, 93% of packaging is made from paper, cardboard, and other paper-based materials. Work is now underway to replace single-use plastic pre-pack bags in LEGO boxes with paper-based ones in partnership with the Forest Stewardship Council.

LEGO Group CEO, Niels B Christiansen said: “We cannot lose sight of the fundamental challenges facing future generations. It’s critical we take urgent action now to care for the planet and future generations. As a company that looks to children as our role models, we are inspired by the millions of kids who have called for more urgent action on climate change.”

16. . Social media & journalism: The Washington Post

In the wake of fake news, news outlets are taking to social media networks like TikTok and Threads to address a new audience and tackle false information around issues such as the U.S. election and coronavirus. 

The Washington Post is one example of a news brand using TikTok successfully. Their tagline is ‘We are a Newspaper’ and their TikTok profile already has 1.7 million followers (and growing). Their goal? To draw in new readers and build trust using short-form videos and viral content.

According to Dave Jorgensen, the Post’s social media guru, the rapid rise of TikTok is down to the fact that the platform has increased the trust between the paper and its followers. He believes that TikTok is journalism in every sense. “ Pretty much every other TikTok has something news related in it and with that we are delivering news to the users. That’s what journalism is – delivering news however you are able to in a responsible way. ”

Use digital marketing channels to engage and convert

For brands of all sizes, it's key to pay attention to the issues your customers are interested in. Advance your marketing knowledge and career with DMI’s industry-aligned and certified  Professional Diploma in Digital Marketing . The course explores digital marketing fundamentals, social media marketing, SEO, analytics, AI, PPC, email marketing, and much more. Get started today!

Updated 2024

• AI in Digital Marketing - The Ultimate Guide
• 8 Ways To Promote Corporate Social Responsibility On Social Media
• How Brands Can Take on Social Issues on Social Media
• 5 Successful Campaigns Using Digital for Social Change
• How to Develop a Social Media Strategy That Drives Brand Awareness & ROI

Related Free Video Lessons

• Digital Marketing Strategy Reviews
• Strategy Formulation Plan Benchmarking Against Competitors
• Social Customer Service Social Customer Service Metrics
• Digital Marketing Strategy Developing a Brief

Related Content

Toolkits: seasonal checklist & calendar template, toolkits: digital marketing project brief template, webinars: webinar: amplify your project management skills (with pmi), articles: 5 inspiring covid-19 marketing campaigns, articles: what is emotional intelligence & how can you improve yours, articles: how to choose the most qualified digital marketing agency.

• Categories:

Recommended For You

Toolkits: digital marketing campaign brief template, ebooks: ebook: the key social media platforms - a complete marketing guide, articles: key digital marketing trends for 2024, articles: the state of data privacy in 2024, articles: how to optimize your organization’s digital marketing budget, cpd points available.

This content is eligible for CPD points. Please sign in if you wish to track this in your account.

CPD Points Available

This content is eligible for CPD points. Please login if you wish to track this in your account.

• View Courses
• Change Password

Get the latest digital marketing data, insights and toolkits from DMI

Business growth

Business tips

10 examples of corporate social responsibility done right

And how to build your own csr strategy.

A few years ago, my parents switched toilet paper brands. While this is surely fascinating information for you personally, it's relevant here because they switched to "Who Gives A Crap," a company that donates 50% of its profits to building toilets and improving sanitation in developing countries.

Developing a business model around corporate social responsibility is a great way to use our speck of time on earth to change the world for the better—while still making a profit. After exploring lots of brands that use this strategy well, I compiled some of my favorite corporate social responsibility examples. These businesses do good for others while still doing good for themselves.

Table of contents:

Types of CSR

Corporate social responsibility examples

Ben & Jerry's

Who Gives A Crap

Tom's of Maine

Rent the Runway

How to build a CSR business model

Frequently asked questions, what is corporate social responsibility (csr).

You don't have to be a non-profit to show that you care about the world outside your organization. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a business model adopted by for-profit organizations that involves using company resources to benefit society while still pursuing corporate goals.

You've certainly heard of "the bottom line" in the corporate world—it's all about profit. CSR-oriented companies abide by a "triple bottom line" that encompasses two other "P" words: people , whether that be the company's employees or the population at large, and the planet . In other words, they're committed to incorporating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into their operations.

Many companies invested in CSR are Certified B Corporations, meaning they meet very high standards of positive social and environmental impact put forth by the non-profit network B Lab . But you can practice corporate social responsibility, certified or not. Here's what corporate social responsibility may look like in action:

Using sustainable manufacturing/production practices

Paying workers fair wages

Advocating for social justice policy reform

Innovating products to solve an environmental or social issue

Committing to reducing carbon footprint

Donating significant profits to a charitable cause

Types of corporate social responsibility

According to Harvard Business School , there are four broad categories of CSR on which businesses tend to focus:

Environmental: Businesses in this category focus on making a positive environmental impact. They adopt renewables, "cradle to grave" manufacturing principles, carbon offsets, and sustainable sourcing.

Philanthropic: Philanthropic businesses devote themselves to making a positive social impact. They often fund non-profits like universities, museums, arts programs, charities, and other cultural institutions. They might also provide grants and scholarships.

Ethical: Companies with strong ethical standards may go as far as codifying their ethics within their corporate structure to show their commitment to align with these values. For example, a company may establish in writing that it will never source materials from suppliers that mistreat their workers.

Economic: Companies committed to economic responsibility understand where their dollars are going and what impact they're having across the value chain. They believe it's important to pay their employees fair wages, and they exercise good stewardship with their profit.

10 corporate social responsibility examples

There are companies that throw half a percent of their earnings at a random charity, and then there are those that build their entire business model around societal advancement and really get their hands dirty. Here are 10 socially responsible companies that inspire with their CSR.

1. Ben & Jerry's

Ben & Jerry's commitment to social justice is just about as sweet as a pint of Half Baked®. As a B Corp, it's committed to using its ice cream to change the world for the better. For example, it invests heavily in building relationships with Black-owned and refugee-hiring suppliers.

But the brand didn't jump right into the deep end from its inception. From its humble beginnings in the late 1970s until today, the company has gradually advocated for more causes, now including voter rights, climate justice, LGBTQ+ rights, and many more—all while maintaining its brand presence.

Gradually take on new social initiatives rather than spreading your resources too thin all at once.

Develop an approachable personality for your brand through your tone and design.

2. Who Gives A Crap

After learning about the brand's mission , I certainly started giving a crap. Who Gives A Crap takes the shame out of (and adds some humor to) "going number two," humanizing itself as a brand.

But the brand name and tone aren't what makes it a socially responsible company. The founders are committed to building toilets and improving sanitation in developing countries to the point that they devote 50% of their profits to this mission, hence their status as a B Corp.

Like many other companies with great CSR, they also strive to be environmentally friendly, using plastic-free products and using sustainable materials like bamboo and recycled paper to manufacture toilet paper (among other paper products like tissues and paper towels).

CSR doesn't have to be serious stuff. Be authentic and honest with your brand's tone.

When expanding your brand's offerings, choose products that align with your other CSR objectives .

3. Tom's of Maine

If you've ever felt like there's no more room for innovation in your industry, think again. Tom's of Maine proved that a centuries-old industry (toothpaste) had more work to do by inventing the first recyclable toothpaste tube .

The company also exhibits transparency, providing detailed information about each of its ingredients so that consumers aren't left guessing what they're using to brush their teeth.

Tom's is also a great example of companies with high CSR standards banding together. The brand partners with TerraCycle, a recycling company, encouraging customers to recycle items that your average waste management company won't take, in order to redeem for charity donations. Since both companies emphasize sustainability and eco-friendliness, they go together like mint and toothpaste.

When thinking about innovation, consider CSR—how can you innovate in a way that's also socially responsible?

Partner with relevant, like-minded organizations that also practice CSR.

Most retailers produce clothing with a few narrowly-defined body types and presentations in mind. Most people don't fit those molds.

Queer-founded clothing brand TomboyX believes that everybody deserves to find a fit that makes them feel comfortable in their own skin. The company designs and manufactures clothing for all bodies and gender identities, keeping inclusivity at its core.

The company holds true to this value in its hiring practices as well, with 80% of its C-suite being women and 63% of managers identifying as LGBTQ+ and/or minority. The brand is also committed to sustainability, forming close relationships with its factories and striving to source organic and recyclable fabrics.

Having personal experience with a social issue makes it far easier to build your business around it. Focus on what matters to you personally.

Develop hiring practices that reflect your company's commitment to CSR.

5. Allbirds

According to Allbirds , shoes and sustainability make a great pair (pun intended). The brand is currently carbon-neutral and aims to have zero emissions by 2030 through tactics like regenerative agriculture and using renewable materials. Plus, Allbirds' shoes are durable and machine washable, making them easy to freshen up and use for many more months.

The brand emphasizes sustainability not only in its production, but also in the way it treats its workers. The brand has a strict code of conduct regarding the ethical treatment of employees and frequently visits and audits those factories to ensure their standards are being met.

Create both short- and long-term CSR goals.

Commit to your cause in a well-rounded way, not just focusing on one area of your business.

6. Rent the Runway

Thanks to Rent the Runway , you don't have to be a millionaire to wear designer clothes to your next bougie function. The company makes high-end apparel affordable and accessible by allowing customers to rent their clothes before choosing to either purchase them or send them back.

For those who regularly enjoy galas and nights out on the town, the brand offers a membership program that keeps its members equipped with a rotating selection of four outfits at a time.

Rent the Runway's mission is closely tied to sustainability. Too often, people purchase an outfit for a single event and then proceed to never wear that outfit again, resulting in textile waste. The company allows several people to enjoy an outfit for an evening out without making them pay top-dollar to purchase it. The brand now also offsets 100% of carbon emissions from shipments and aims to operate with net zero carbon emissions by 2040.

You can be socially responsible without shying away from profitable strategies like a membership-based business model.

Industries that produce a lot of waste offer the greatest opportunity for sustainability innovation.

Online grocery store Hive aims to make sustainable grocery shopping a breeze. The company does its due diligence to screen products and packaging for sustainability and ESG impact so that customers don't have to do the work themselves.

Hive notifies customers of their eco-friendly impact statistics after every purchase, providing them with a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. And the dopamine rush doesn't end there—Hive ships its products in cute cardboard boxes filled with recyclable packaging materials that resemble honeycomb. I've ordered a few boxes myself, and I can honestly say that opening a Hive box takes me back to being a kid on Christmas morning.

Build CSR into each step of your customer journey .

Lift the curtain for your customers, so they can feel like they're a part of your mission.

8. BLK + GRN

BLK + GRN is a Black women-owned natural marketplace. The brand is committed to educating consumers on toxic ingredients that are often included in personal care products marketed to Black women and supporting sustainable products from Black artisans and health experts. 

The company even curated a list of widely tolerated toxic ingredients that will never show up in its products, coined its Toxic Twenty List . It serves as an informational resource for readers who want to learn more about ingredients they should avoid.

Develop your mission to solve a problem for a specific audience.

Educate others about your cause rather than just producing products that support it.

9. Patagonia

"Earth is now our only stakeholder." That was Patagonia's statement after its owner stepped down and handed the company over to a trust dedicated to addressing climate change. This means that any profits not reinvested in the business will be used to tackle the environmental crisis. And that's in addition to the 1% of sales Patagonia already donates to environmental efforts.

This unique restructuring ensures Patagonia employees are secure, the founding family can still make sure the company's values are followed, and the max amount of money goes toward a good cause. This is an approach no other company has taken before, making it an unprecedented step in corporate social responsibility.

Don't be afraid to do something unprecedented if it means making a bigger impact. 

Think long term to ensure your company's values won't change with new leadership. 

10. Cariuma

Much like Allbirds, Cariuma is a sustainable sneaker company that kicks fast fashion to the curb by sourcing materials responsibly and making quality products that will last. Its dedication to people and the planet go hand in hand with its "Get a Pair of Sneakers, Plant 2 Trees" initiative. 

Even if you just subscribe to its email newsletter, Cariuma will plant a tree in the Brazilian rainforest in your name. From ethical factories to carbon-neutral shipping, the company is a stellar example that you don't have to compromise on style or substance to be environmentally responsible.

Create tangible measures of impact, like planting trees for each purchase, to make your CSR efforts more transparent and engaging.

Innovate your products to be both sustainable and appealing, proving that eco-friendliness and style can coexist.

Don't just throw CSR against your business's wall and hope it sticks—it has to be implemented strategically.

Most importantly, ensure your approach aligns with your resources and brand image. For example, Who Gives A Crap chose a philanthropic goal relevant to its product offering. The brand name itself reflects both of these efforts and does so in a creative and witty way.

You should also be wary of half-baked initiatives and the temptation to cut corners. Many brands simply throw an eco-friendly label on their packaging (a strategy known as greenwashing), whereas Hive carefully inspects all of its products to make sure they're actually being kind to the earth and its people. 

Taking these steps will ultimately benefit you. If you execute CSR strategically, you can become a Certified B Corp, improving your business's reputation and attracting new customers.

Have a few more questions about corporate social responsibility? Here are some main takeaways.

What are examples of corporate social responsibility?

Patagonia handing the company over to a trust dedicated to addressing climate change; BLK + GRN educating consumers on the toxic ingredients often included in personal care products marketed to Black women; Allbirds working to be zero-emissions by 2030—examples of corporate social responsibility run the gamut.  CSR can be achieved through initiatives such as advocating for social causes, ethical production, and donating profits to environmental efforts, but it's not limited to any specific actions.

What are the four types of corporate social responsibility?

The four types of corporate social responsibility are environmental responsibility, philanthropic responsibility, ethical responsibility, and economic responsibility. Many companies use a mix of many (or even all) of these types of CSR, but it can be helpful to start by deciding which type fits your brand most closely. 

What is an example of a CSR statement?

An example of a CSR statement is Patagonia's mission statement: "We're in business to save our home planet." It explicitly articulates its purpose beyond profit, conveys a commitment to environmental preservation as a central driver of its business activities, and demonstrates a genuine dedication to addressing pressing societal challenges. Putting CSR at the forefront of your mission statement is a great way to show you mean (responsible) business.

What is the main purpose of corporate social responsibility?

The main purpose of corporate social responsibility is for companies to weave ethical, environmental, and social considerations into how they do business. The idea is to make a positive impact on society while growing sustainably and rocking the long game.

Related reading:

7 annual report design examples

.org vs. .com and other TLDs

A step-by-step guide to competitive market analysis

How to start an eCommerce business

This article was originally published in June 2021 by Jeremy Ducheney and has also had contributions from Cecilia Gillen. The most recent update was in September 2023.

Get productivity tips delivered straight to your inbox

We’ll email you 1-3 times per week—and never share your information.

Luke Strauss

Luke is a writer and content marketer from sunny San Diego. Since receiving his degree in International Management from Pepperdine University, he's channeled his passion for digital marketing and creative writing to create engaging content for organizations across a wide variety of verticals. When he's not at his desk, you'll find him at a music festival, thrifting, or spending time with his friends and family.

Related articles

How to create a sales plan (and 3 templates that do it for you)

How to create a sales plan (and 3 templates...

How to build a B2B prospecting list for cold email campaigns

How to build a B2B prospecting list for cold...

The only Gantt chart template you'll ever need for Excel (and how to automate it)

The only Gantt chart template you'll ever...

6 ways to break down organizational silos

Improve your productivity automatically. Use Zapier to get your apps working together.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Corporate social responsibility

• Business management
• Corporate governance
• Business structures

How Low and Middle-Income Countries Are Innovating to Combat Covid

• Ben Ramalingam
• Benjamin Kumpf
• Rahul Malhotra
• Merrick Schaefer
• June 09, 2021

Bringing the Environment Down to Earth

• Forest L. Reinhardt
• From the July–August 1999 Issue

Copenhagen: Focus on the (Carbon) Negative

• Nicholas Eisenberger and David Gottesman
• December 07, 2009

The Green Economy Has a Resource-Scarcity Problem

• David Young
• Rich Hutchinson
• Martin Reeves
• July 08, 2021

GE Is Avoiding Hard Choices About Ecomagination

• Andrew Winston
• August 01, 2014

Why Wal-Mart Is Making Our Health Its Problem

• Julia Kirby
• January 20, 2011

Should the C-Suite Have a "Green" Seat? (HBR Case Study and Commentary)

• Eric J. McNulty
• Rupert Davis
• Muhtar Kent
• From the December 2010 Issue

The HBR List: Breakthrough Ideas for 2009

• Elizabeth Warren
• Amelia Tyagi
• Paul Collier
• Jean-Louis Warnholz
• Amy J.C. Cuddy
• John Sviokla
• Noah J. Goldstein
• Raymond Fisman
• Gurdeep Singh Pall
• Rita Gunther McGrath
• Janine M. Benyus
• Gunter A.M. Pauli
• Michael I. Norton
• Peter Schwartz
• Nicholas A. Christakis
• Marcelo Suarez-Orozco
• Ian Bremmer
• Juan Pujadas
• Steve Jurvetson
• Lew McCreary
• Alex "Sandy" Pentland
• Thomas H. Davenport
• R. Stanley Williams
• From the February 2009 Issue

2009: The Year of Light Green

• January 05, 2009

A Bretton Woods for the 21st Century

• Don Tapscott
• From the March 2014 Issue

Research: People Use Less Energy When They Think Their Neighbors Care About the Environment

• Jon M. Jachimowicz
• Oliver Hauser
• Julie O’Brien
• Erin Sherman
• Adam Galinsky
• January 28, 2019

The Big Idea: Leadership in the Age of Transparency

• Christopher Meyer
• From the April 2010 Issue

Introducing Leading Green

• Paul Michelman
• May 30, 2008

The $300 House: The Energy Challenge

• Bob Freling
• November 08, 2010

The End of Corporate Social Responsibility

• Joseph Pine and James Gilmore
• December 26, 2007

Changing Employee Values: Deepening Discontent?

• M.R. Cooper
• B.S. Morgan
• L.B. Kaplan
• From the January 1979 Issue

What’s Your Company’s Water Footprint?

• August 05, 2009

Beware of Bad Microcredit

• From the September 2007 Issue

The Triumph (and Challenge) of Climate Math

• November 13, 2012

The Brain--and Soul--of Capitalism

• Nancy F. Koehn
• From the November 2013 Issue

First to Fight? Culture, Tradition and the United States Marine Corps (USMC)

• Ranjay Gulati
• Joel Malkin
• January 20, 2023

Career at a Crossroad: Roopa Rao

• Noam Wasserman
• August 29, 2011

Purity Steel Corporation, 2012

• Robert Simons
• Antonio Davila
• March 04, 1997

Career at a Crossroad: Packing Up

Becton dickinson: ethics and business practices (a), supplement 2.

• Lynn Sharp Paine
• May 18, 1999

Grupo Beta San Miguel

• David E. Bell
• Natalie Kindred
• December 13, 2013

Life, Death, and Property Rights: The Pharmaceutical Industry Faces AIDS in Africa

• Nicholas Bartlett
• Debora L. Spar
• June 13, 2002

Earl Martin Phalen: Ready to ROAR?

• Julia Taylor
• August 04, 2011

Conflicting Responsibilities

• Teaching Ethics
• Ethics Teaching Group
• July 12, 1991

BeautifulCoffee and Fair Trade: Working with Local Farmer Co-operatives in Nepal

• Jinhwan Kim
• Luciano Barin-Cruz
• February 28, 2018

Champion International Corp.: Timber, Trade, and the Northern Spotted Owl

• August 15, 1991

Shell E&P Ireland Limited (SEPIL) and the Corrib Gas Controversy

• James Kennelly
• Trevor Mengel
• October 01, 2011

For the Love of Laundry: Comparing Organizational Forms to Scale a Social Enterprise

• Kent Walker
• Ian Stecher
• Francine Schlosser
• Megain O'Neil-Renaud
• January 19, 2018

Hilti - Leadership and Ownership Transition in a Culture-Rich Company

• Kavil Ramachandran
• Nupur Pavan Bang
• August 01, 2019

Implementation of a New Country-Wide Social Safety-Net Program: The Jamaica PATH Program Part A

• Julie Boatright Wilson
• April 03, 2017

Dream: Impact through Real Estate

• Michael Chu
• September 10, 2021

Google and Project Maven (B): An Eventful Week in June

• Gianpiero Petriglieri
• July 30, 2018

Revolution Foods: Addressing Food Insecurity During the Pandemic (B)

• Jennifer Walske
• Laura D'Andrea Tyson
• September 30, 2021

Ethics: A Basic Framework

• October 12, 2006

Torsten Thiele and the Global Ocean Trust

• Rosabeth Moss Kanter
• Brian Hoffstein
• November 10, 2015

LaTrappe Brewery: A Values-Based Business Model, Teaching Note

• Freek Vermeulen
• November 01, 2018

Career at a Crossroad: One Year Later (PPT)

Building Value That Lasts: A Playbook

• Kent Kaufield
• Stephanie Prior
• September 01, 2022

Popular Topics

Partner center.

18 Social Responsibility Examples (Personal and Corporate)

Social responsibility is when a person or organization takes action that will benefit others or society. That action can involve a simple gesture of kindness such as helping the elderly, or a grand gesture that involves moving to a third-world country to help the poor.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is another form of social responsibility that has been growing for several decades. Large companies realize there are many benefits to improving society and the environment.

Similarly, famous scholars such as John Dewey advocated that schools should instill a sense of social responsibility in their students.

Dewey (1899) wrote:

“When the school introduces and trains each child of society into membership within such a little community, saturating him with the spirit of service, and providing him with instruments of effective self-direction, we shall have the deepest and best guarantee of a larger society which is worthy, lovely and harmonious.” (p. 27-28).

The belief that you have an obligation to step in and help when you have the ability, without expectation of reciprocation, is called the social responsibility norm .

Everyday Social Responsibility Examples

• Donating blood: Bob donates blood every other month because he has type A-, which is quite rare.
• Recycling: The McDermotts are avid recyclers. It’s a family custom they have been practicing for years.
• Donating old clothes: Linda and her classmates have started a campaign at school to donate old clothes to various shelters in their city.
• Planting trees: Teenagers in this country plant trees on land that was once cleared for growing soy beans but is now abandoned.
• Mowing your neighbor’s lawn: Once a week, Stan mows the lawn of the elderly gentleman down the street.
• Picking up trash: The local Boy Scouts pick up trash along the beach every month and then sort it properly for recycling.
• Volunteering at animal shelter: Jenna volunteers at the local animal shelter for strays every Saturday.
• Working at a soup kitchen: Every Thanksgiving, the Garcia family work at a soup kitchen for the homeless.
• Helping out the poor: The Singh family help repair houses for people living in poverty on the outskirts of the city.
• International development: Every summer vacation Billy travels to a third-world country to help dig wells for the poor.
• Caring for the lonely: Jessie sees a kid in the schoolyard who doesn’t have anyone to eat lunch with, so she invites her to have lunch with her.
• Tithing: Many religious people give a tithe – which is 10% of their income – to their church in order to support the church’s mission.
• Volunteer firefighting: Many people choose to become volunteer firefighters to protect their community if a wildfire breaks out.

Related: The Different Types of Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility Examples

Case study #1: lego and sustainability.

Corporations that make products contribute to a lot of environmental degradation. Factories emit pollutants into the air and waterways, plastics stay in the environment for centuries, and product packaging accumulates in landfills.  

However, increasingly more companies are finding ways to alter their operations in ways that support sustainability .

For example, according to the Harvard Business School , Lego has made a substantial commitment to integrating sustainability practices into all facets of their operations .

Here are a few great examples of Lego’s commitment to the environment:

Lego has shrunk its boxes by 14 percent, which has saved 7,000 tons of cardboard.

In 2018, the company introduced 150 pieces made from sustainably sourced sugarcane instead of from petroleum-based plastic.

The company has also committed to investing $164 million into its Sustainable Materials Center .

Lego has stated :

“ It’s our aim that by the end of 2025, all our packaging will be made from sustainably sourced materials that are either renewable, or made from recycled content and certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.”

Case Study #2: Starbucks and Three Pillars

Starbucks is well-known for having a store on nearly every corner of a city, no matter where you live. With over 20,000 stores in 160 countries, they are one of the largest corporations in the world. From plastic straws to paper cups, the company generates a lot of waste.

However, the company is also a leader when it comes to corporate social responsibility. The CSR initiative of Starbucks rests upon three pillars: Community, Ethical Sourcing, and the Environment.

• Community : Starbucks establishes community stores that donate a percentage of sales to nearby charities. The company also hires youth from within the community as part of their overall commitment to inclusion and diversity.
• Ethical Sourcing : This pillar has to do with where the company purchases the materials it needs. Starbucks only purchases coffee, tea, cocoa and manufactured goods from farmers and suppliers that adhere to strict ethical standards of treating its employees fairly.
• Environment : The company is continuously expanding its plant-based menu options, and invests heavily in reforestation and regenerative agriculture.

Case Study #3: IKEA

IKEA is the largest furniture retailer in the world. That also means that it is the largest consumer of wood in the world. Fortunately, the company has initiated several programs to help reduce its impact on the environment.

• Turn Black Friday Green : Disposed furniture takes a huge toll on the environment by negatively impacting landfills. The company now works on finding ways to increase the durability of its products. In addition, this campaign promotes innovative ways that customers can repurpose their furniture instead of simply discarding it.
• Diversity and Inclusion Policy : The company has made a commitment to achieving a 50/50 gender split in top management by 2030. As of 2020, over 40% of top management positions were held by women.
• Supply Chain Compliance : Ensuring that employees throughout its supply chains are treated fairly is a fundamental component of IKEA’s CSR initiatives. The company regularly conducts audits and hires third-party organizations to ensure that all suppliers respect human rights.

Case Study #4: Coca-Cola

Coca-Cola is a massive company. Although mostly known for one beverage, the company actually has over 200 brands and sells nearly 2 billion servings a day. Being the largest seller of beverages also means having the largest impact on the environment.

The company has steadily been working towards several initiatives to alter its negative impact on the environment.

As a partner with Keep America Beautiful , Coca-Cola has donated over 1 million recycling bins across the U.S.  They have also contributed over $17 million in grants to environmental organizations such as the Closed Loop Fund to expand recycling efforts and support educational programs.

The company is also making headway in the area of water stewardship . That strategy is focused on creating sustainable water security by replenishing watersheds and supporting community programs that improve access to clean water. 

Case Study #5: Google  

It takes a lot of energy to operate Google’s data centers. Those centers consume a lot of electricity, which takes a tremendous toll on the environment. The company has committed to lessening its impact on the environment and also has several other CSR initiatives.

For example, Google has invested over $3.5 billion in renewable energy projects worldwide.This initiative has paid off. Google has been able to match its energy consumption with renewable energy purchases for several years in a row.

In fact, although Google’s computing needs grow every year, their energy consumption has remained flat. The company delivers seven times as much computing power with nearly the same amount of electricity .

Google is also doing its part in the area of food sustainability. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, 40% of food grown in the U.S. is uneaten. One reason has to do with what is affectionately referred to as “ugly produce”. 

Ugly produce has cosmetic flaws that supermarkets and restaurants refuse to buy. Even though the food is perfectly healthy and has no nutritional flaws, customers prefer to consume food that looks pretty.

However, “In 2015, Google cafés in the Bay Area saved 440,540 pounds of food from going to waste” ( Recipe for sustainability , 2016).

Related Concept: Altruism and Examples

The era of globalization has also brought the era of accountability. Corporations today now must demonstrate a meaningful commitment to social responsibility.

Fortunately, increasingly more corporations are realizing that protecting the environment is not just good for business, but actually results in tangible benefits for society.

CSR comes in many forms. For example, corporations try to use renewable energy, engage in significant recycling efforts, invest in ways to create sustainable manufacturing, and work to ensure that their supply chain partners are in compliance with fundamental human rights.

While it is true that individuals can make a difference, the incredible scale of today’s corporations means they can make an impact that is truly game-changing.

Banerjee, S. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34 , 51 – 79.

Carroll, A. B. (1999) Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38 , 268-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303

Davis, K. (1960, Spring). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities?  California Management Review , 2 , 70-76.

Dewey, J. (1899). The School and Society. The University of Chicago Press; Chicago Illinois. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/schoolsociety00dewerich/page/n7/mode/2up

Recipe for sustainability: Why Google cafes love ugly produce. (2016, December). Retrieved from https://sustainability.google/progress/projects/rews/

Masanet, E., Shehabi, A., Lei, N., Smith, S., & Koomey, J. (2020, February 28). Recalibrating Global Data Center Energy-Use Estimates. Science, 637(6481). Retrieved from https://www.gwern.net/docs/cs/hardware/2020-masanet.pdf

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *