Bridging Corporate Social Responsibility and Individual Social

Responsibility

João M. S. Carvalho

1,2,3,* a

and Maria José Faria

REMIT, Portucalense University, R. António Bernardino de Almeida, 541, 4200-072, Porto, Portugal

CICS.NOVA, Minho University, Braga, Portugal

CEG – Centro de Estudos Globais, Open University, Lisboa, Portugal

COMEGI - Centro de Investigação em Organizações, Mercados e Gestão Industrial, Lusíada and Maia University,

Largo Tinoco de Sousa 4760-108 Vila Nova de Famalicão, Portugal

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Individual Social Responsibility, Personal Social Responsibility, Societal

Social Responsibility, Scoping Review.

Abstract: This study aimed to highlight the major trends in the relationships between corporate social responsibility

(CSR) and Individual Social Responsibility (ISR). A systematic scoping review was undertaken to interpret

and synthesise international research on this issue. The literature is still scarce and dispersed. From the scoping

review emerged 11 articles that presented theoretical reflections and quantitative and qualitative approaches

to the relationships between CSR and ISR. The main conclusions show that the literature is still scarce and

dispersed but evolving into new models that try to explain the antecedents and consequences of the dynamic

between CSR and ISR. The first measurement scale of ISR was created, and the research stream has the

potential to grow up fast. Based on this review, it is presented a research agenda.

1 INTRODUCTION AND

FRAMEWORK

The approach to the concept of social responsibility

can be made from its historical evolution and context

in social and business life. In historical terms, the first

discussions in the academy about social responsibility

began in 1899, based on the existence of a slave

production mode in the United States of America

(USA) since the 19th century. XVI, which only began

to be dismantled in 1863 with Abraham Lincoln in the

presidency (Faria, 2015). For Fonseca (2017), the

first scholar to discuss social responsibility was

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919), who, at the end of the

19th century, based his studies on two axioms: the

first called the principle of charity and the second

principle of assistance, also known as the trustee-

benefactor principle. In this line of understanding,

Freeman and Stoner (1992) argued that social

responsibility was about social charity and corporate

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0683-296X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9210-0695

This work was supported by the UIDB/05105/2020 Program

Contract, funded by national funds through the FCT I.P.

custody, resulting from sharing the richest with the

less fortunate, in which corporate prosperity should

contribute to society in general. The 1920 decade was

marked as a period when companies practised welfare

(Ashley, 2005), but there was disagreement among

shareholders. For example, Henry Ford, president and

majority shareholder of the Ford company, reverted a

fraction of the dividends to investments in

production, increasing wages and creating a reserve

fund. However, he had to fight the other shareholders

in court to win this case (Lee, 2008). Another

example happened in the American company P.

Smith Manufacturing Company, which also had to go

to court to defend the fact that it had funds to

Princeton University instead of distributing them to

its shareholders. These cases demonstrate the vision

of social responsibility from an essentially

philanthropic point of view (Ashley, 2005). However,

Sheldon (1924) wrote that an enterprise should

assume economic and legal duties and social

Carvalho, J. and Faria, M.

Bridging Corporate Social Responsibility and Individual Social Responsibility.

DOI: 10.5220/0011707700003494

In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business (FEMIB 2023), pages 59-67

ISBN: 978-989-758-646-0; ISSN: 2184-5891

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

responsibilities beyond these duties. In the 1930s and

1940s, some scholars referred to a concern for social

responsibility and the social consciousness of

managers (e.g. Barnard, 1938; Clark, 1939; Kreps,

1940). These and other works from that period can be

considered theoretical foundations for the first stage

of CSR theory with a sufficient critical mass of

scientific endeavour (Carvalho et al., 2014).

In 1953, Howard Bowen published a work entitled

"Social Responsibilities of the Businessman",

contributing to the academic debate on social

responsibility. The following year, Drucker included

public responsibility as one of the eight critical areas

in which business objectives should be set. He

maintained that organizations must promote the

public good and contribute to society's stability,

strength, and harmony. He firmly believed that all

institutions, including those in the private sector, have

a responsibility to society.

From the 1960s onwards, many authors sought to

define what could be considered corporate social

responsibility (e.g., Davis, 1960; Davis &

Blomstrom, 1966; Fitch, 1976; Frederick, 1960;

Johnson, 1971; McGuire, 1963), defending that it

aims to help solve social problems that the companies

often cause. For Parra (2017), social responsibility

began as a social obligation, to become a social

reaction. It went through a phase of social sensitivity,

later to social action and finally came to be observed

as an ethical premise of companies today. For

Sebastião (2009), corporate social responsibility was

the way companies found to assume, together with the

State, some of the obligations that were once strictly

attributed to the government.

Although the business world was beginning to

understand and practice what it deems to be social

responsibility actions, several academics argued

against this exercise, advocating that the existence of

social responsibility increases costs and reduces the

benefit of shareholders. They defended that solving

social difficulties is not an obligation for the

companies (Friedman, 1970), under penalty of

becoming “medieval churches” (Levitt, 1958).

However, it was in the late 1970s that Carroll (1979)

presented the most accepted and publicized model of

CSR, based on four dimensions of responsibility: (1)

organizations must be productive and profitable and

satisfy the needs of consumers and investors

(economic responsibility); (2) organizations must

work within existing legal frameworks (legal

responsibility); (3) organizations must follow socially

established moral standards (ethical responsibility);

and (4) the voluntary business activities

(philanthropy) of organizations should try to help

other people and contribute to the welfare of society

(discretionary responsibility).

Many other authors have been making

contributions to the development of CSR theory. For

example, the concepts of the social orientation of an

organization (Aupperle et al., 1985) and corporate

social performance (Epstein, 1987; Wartick &

Cochran, 1985).

The 1990s brought concerns about how to

measure CSR, namely through the studies by Wood

(1991), Maignan et al. (1999), and Maignan and

Ralston (2002). These authors introduced stakeholder

expectations as the primary target of CSR rather than

just talking about a society in general. There were no

currents contrary to CSR, as was the case of Jones

(1996), who considered that it would only make sense

if it contributed to increasing the company's

profitability. This relationship between CSR and

profitability has been assessed as inconclusive,

complex and depending on many other variables

(e.g., Arlow & Gannon, 1982; Griffin & Mahon,

1997; Margolis & Walsh, 2001; Roman et al., 1999).

More recently, there have been new attempts to

measure CSR (e.g., Kanji & Chopra, 2007, 2009,

2010) or the social footprint (e.g., McElroy et al.,

2008; Henriques, 2010), as well as to systematise its

evolution (e.g., De Bakker et al., 2005; Garriga &

Melé, 2004; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Windsor,

2001; Wood, 2000).

However, we are more interested in the influence

of current theories that help explain CSR's existence.

For example, in instrumentality theory, organisations

are seen as instruments to create wealth, so social

responsibility must only be used for that purpose

(e.g., Friedman, 1962, 1970; Levitt, 1958;

McWilliam & Siegel, 2001), assuring a competitive

advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2002). Another current

of thought encompasses the so-called political

theories, which defend that companies have a

political action of intervention in society through

CSR (e.g., Altman, 1998; Bowen, 1953; Davis, 1973;

Hay et al., 1976; McGuire, 1963). Other authors also

relate CSR to ethical values (e.g., Matten et al., 2003;

Mulligan, 1986; Wood, 1991; Wood & Logsdon,

2002), arguing that these are an obligation for

organisations.

In the 2010 decade, the studies focused on how

managers can implement and obtain results from CSR

policies (Carvalho et al., 2014), even in countries at

the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ (e.g., Hart and Sharma,

2004; Prahalad, 2010). CSR cannot be based only on

charity and altruism; Carroll’s approach seems solid

in the literature, associating economic, legal and

ethical responsibilities with philanthropic

FEMIB 2023 - 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

responsibilities if possible (Lantos, 2002).

Strategically, it is more important to society for

organizational activities to have an increased social

responsibility to stakeholders than to expect

philanthropic performance.

In short, the interest in studying social

responsibility extends to different elements of the

business, social, and academic community, among

others (Rivera et al., 2019). For Acuña-Moraga et al.

(2019), there are multiple definitions of social

responsibility resulting from multiple models,

concepts, instruments used to measure it, variables

and indicators that assess corporate social

responsibility actions, etc. Therefore, understanding

the concept of social responsibility implies analysing

an immense variety of ideologies that judge it in

numerous and different ways.

In this context, a new question arises: to what

extent do individuals who are CSR agents in

organisations relate to it through their individual

social responsibility? How have the relationships

between CSR and ISR been developed in the

literature? We know that individual social

responsibility will depend on multiple social, cultural,

educational and psychological factors, but to what

extent has the scientific literature addressed these

interrelationships? To answer this question, we

undertake a systematic scoping review as the most

appropriate method to interpret and synthesise

international research about ISR and its relationships.

This extensive coverage of the literature on this topic

allows us to clarify concepts and unveil research gaps

(Munn et al., 2018).

2 METHODS

We followed the path of Arksey and O’Malley’s

(2005) methodological framework for scoping

reviews, with a five-phase approach: (1) developing a

research question; (2) systematically identifying

relevant studies; (3) charting the data; and (4) and (5)

collating and analysing the results.

This study seeks to ascertain how ISR and CSR

have been related in the literature. Thus, the research

question is: How have the relationships between CSR

and ISR been developed in the literature?

It was systematically identified relevant studies

by developing a search protocol that included eleven

databases and publishers: Academic Search

Complete, Cinahl, Elsevier, Journal Citation Reports,

Medline, Psychology & Behavioural Science, Sage,

Springer, Taylor & Francis, Web of Science, and

Wiley.

The search terms adopted as keywords were:

‘corporate social responsibility OR CSR OR social

responsibility of business’ AND ‘individual social

responsibility OR personal social responsibility.

It found 17 articles. However, based on papers

referenced by these articles, it was possible to identify

six more articles that did not present CSR or ISR in

their keywords. Still, they had the potential to

enhance our research. After analysing these articles,

12 were set aside due to the exclusion criteria

presented below, leaving 11 as the base for this study.

Inclusion Criteria: In scholarly journals, we

searched for full-text articles published in English

between 2014 and 2022. This range was

automatically constructed by the database search

software, using the data of the first and last articles in

time. Some other earlier peer-reviewed scholarly

manuscripts were included when referenced by the

papers chosen for this scoping review and presented

some issues important to the studied topic. The search

was conducted in October 2022.

Exclusion Criteria: Articles were excluded when

they aimed at studying issues related to personal

social values but without any theoretical or practical

relation to CSR.

We used charting to reach a consensus on relevant

information to extract from all included studies

considering the conceptual framework and research

questions. This activity involved coding for

descriptive characteristics of studies using a

qualitative approach. We analysed the

conceptualisations of the relation between CSR and

ISR. Each author independently analysed and charted

the three studies comparing the results. One discussed

discrepancy to reach a consensus concerning the

analysis framework.

The review of the selected studies is presented and

analysed in terms of their objectives, methodologies,

and results. Because this subject is recent in scientific

research, there need to be more frameworks to help

the analysis. However, in this exploratory approach,

one can notice what research questions the

researchers propose, starting to see if they studied

one- or two-direction relationships between CSR and

ISR.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The 11 relevant articles in the scoping review are

summarised in Table 1. This table identifies the

authors and location of the eleven studies, including

objectives, methodology and conclusions. Five

articles used quantitative research methods, four

Bridging Corporate Social Responsibility and Individual Social Responsibility

qualitative, and two were only theoretical elaboration.

The USA had three studies, India and Pakistan two,

and France and Iran one each. The aims of the studies

include the analysis of the impact of CSR on ISR

using diverse approaches (Abbas & Dogan, 2022;

Farid et al., 2019; Glavas, 2016; Lu et al., 2021;

Mallory et al., 2021); theoretical and practical

development of the concept of ISR in CSR context

(Bénedou & Tirole, 2010; Davis et al., 2017, 2021;

Olsen et al., 2018); a study of the mutual influence

between CSR and ISR (Venkatesh et al., 2021); and a

study that relates CSR and ISR with Yoga principles

(Dayananda Swamy & Babu, 2021). All the

quantitative studies presented scales based on the

literature to measure the variables within the

proposed models, assuming that many are latent

variables. Three of these quantitative studies used

structural equation modelling and two regression

analysis.

These studies conclude that CSR and ISR are

intertwined and could be considered favourable to

organisational reputation, positively impacting their

performance and results. Moreover, the presence of

CSR could help the workers be more satisfied with

their activity, and the enhancement of ISR helps

organisations be more socially responsible. In

summary, organisations are also made of people, and

people’s needs are the primary motive for their

existence. As Bénadou and Tirole concluded, ISR

could be based on motives like intrinsic altruism,

material incentives (defined by law and taxes) and

social- or self-esteem concerns.

This study aims at analysing the mutual impacts

between CSR and ISR. It was discovered that ISR is

a recent concept in the scope of CSR literature. ISR

could be considered a moral notion as an individual

responsibility to society (Bénadou & Tirole, 2010) or

CSR at the individual level (Farid et al., 2019). Also,

ISR can be seen as the way people perform in their

daily life - and not only as consumers - basing their

decisions on a desire to maximise the positive impacts

on the social, environmental and economic

dimensions in the long run (Davis et al., 2017).

In organizational psychology, studies about

micro-CSR, i.e., the relationship between individual

characteristics (e.g., personality) and employees’

engagement in socially responsible behaviours, were

reviewed by Gond et al. (2017). However, these

authors did not consider the new concept of ISR in

management, focusing their revision on the individual

drivers, evaluations, and reactions to CSR. Some

studies approached the impact of the employees’

positive perception of CSR on their actions (e.g.,

Glavas & Piderit, 2009), showing the importance of

CSR for internal stakeholders (e.g., Aguilera et al.,

2010; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010; Rupp et al., 2013),

influencing their job satisfaction (e.g., Glavas &

Kelley, 2014; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008) and

work engagement (e.g., Caligiuri et al., 2013; Gao et

al., 2017). The study of Mallory et al. (2021) is in the

same line, linking the findings on employee CSR

perceptions with the psychological research of

socially responsible behaviours to get closer to

modelling the psychology of CSR. Bénedou and

Tirole (2010) also reflected on the psychology and

economics of prosocial behaviour, linking individual

concerns and interests to CSR and debating the

benefits, costs and limits of socially responsible

behaviour as a means to further societal goals.

Voluntary work engaged in CSR causes and

collaborators’ stories used as inspiration for social

intervention purposes are a mutual example of the

inter-relationship between CSR and ISR (Venkatesh

et al., 2021). Some organisations grant their

collaborators hours to develop their ISR opportunities

(Venkatesh et al., 2021).

Organizational culture could be a model for

shaping employees’ attitudes, behaviours, and moral

values (e.g., Abbas & Dogan, 2022; Ansari et al.,

2021). Moreover, Peng et al. (2014) found that the

four cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980) could

predict the firm’s CSR engagement, showing a new

attractive stream for research. Another crucial factor

for increasing ISR and CSR could be organizational

support to motivate employees’ participation in

socially responsible activities (e.g., Basil et al., 2009;

Caligiuri et al., 2013).

Thus, this new concept, ISR or personal social

responsibility (PSR), is considered a base for CSR

organizational strategies (Davis et al., 2017),

comprising total human behaviour beyond

consumption (Davis et al., 2021). More, Davis et al.

(2021) developed a scale to measure PSR based on

the literature related to consumer-responsible

behaviour (e.g., Anderson & Cunningham, 1972;

Fisk, 1973), ethical consumption (e.g., Barnett et al.,

2005; Miller, 1998), and CSR, namely Carroll’s

(1979, 1999) approach with economic, legal, ethical,

and discretionary dimensions. Their previous study in

2017 led them to include, as a distinctive dimension,

environmental responsibility, which has also been

mentioned in the consumer behaviour literature (e.g.,

Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008; Straughan &

Roberts, 1999). Consequently, the final PSR scale

remained with five dimensions measured by 19 items:

economic (3), legal (3), ethical (4), environmental (4),

and discretionary/philanthropic (5).

FEMIB 2023 - 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

Table 1: Descriptive characteristics of the eleven selected studies.

Reference

& Country

Objectives Methods Sample Instrument/data analysis Conclusions

Dayananda

Swamy &

Babu (2021)

India

To relate CSR and ISR with Yoga

principles.

Theoretical analysis based on

Yoga texts and CSR and ISR

definitions.

N/A Theoretical analysis

Philosophical Yoga principles should be incorporated by ISR,

which leads to CSR.

Venkatesh et

al. (2021)

India

1. To understand the nature of CSR

activities that IT companies in

India indulge in;

2. To determine if working for

responsible companies makes

employees happier;

3. To evaluate whether responsible

companies motivate employees

towards ISR;

4. To assess whether individual

employees’ ISR behaviour impacts

the behaviour of team members;

and

5. To assess whether individual

employees’ ISR behaviour impacts

the CSR policies and practices of

the firm.

Personal and in-depth

interviews conducted with the

executives of the six

companies chosen for this

study.

Six corporate

organizations in the

new-age category

spread across IT and

Information

Technology

Enabled Services

(ITES) sector.

A semi-structured

interview discussion guide with

14 questions.

Information brochures from the

participating organizations.

Content analysis.

Most companies…

- reported a positive outlook towards the mandated CSR

policy of the Government of India. - have integrated CSR

within their overall corporate policy.

- undertake an approach including project-led and event-led

CSR activities.

- provided unlimited support concerning employee

involvement in CSR. Participation in CSR elevates the

happiness quotient of volunteering employees.

Farid et al.

(2019)

Pakistan

To examine the influence of

employees’ perceptions of CSR

related to organizational

citizenship behaviour (OCB) and

work engagement through the

mediation of distributive and

procedural justice (a moral and

psychological component).

Survey with a self-

administered

questionnaire

Convenient sample

of 350 employees

working in the

banking sector of

Pakistan

Scales to measure employees’

perceptions of CSR, distributive

justice and procedural justice,

work engagement, and OCB.

Regression analysis.

Employees’ perceptions of CSR positively predict OCB and

work engagement. Both distributive and procedural justice

positively mediate the effects of employees’ perceptions of

CSR on OCB and work engagement.

Glavas

(2016)

USA

Exploring the relationship between

CSR and employee engagement.

Workplace survey.

15,184 employees in

a large professional

service firm.

Scales to measure employees’

perceptions of CSR, employee

engagement, authenticity, and

extra-role involvement in CSR

(single item).

Structural equation modelling

analysis.

Authenticity (i.e., showing one’s whole self at work)

positively and significantly mediates the relationship between

CSR and employee engagement. However, perceived

organizational support did not significantly mediate the

relationship. When CSR is extra-role, it weakens the

relationship between CSR and employee engagement. A

bottom-up approach might reveal that the more employees

can give of their whole selves, the more engaged they might

be at work.

Lu et al.

(2021)

Iran

To analyse the influence of CSR

on a firms’ sales growth and to

assess the mediating role of

competitive advantage and the

moderating role of the employee’s

individual belief of social

responsibility on the relationship

between CSR and sales growth of

small and medium enterprises.

Survey.

107 small and

medium enterprises

(SMEs) in the

consumption and

manufacturing

industry of a

developing country.

Scales to measure the four

dimensions of CSR (economic,

legal, ethical, and discretionary),

competitive advantage,

employees’ beliefs of social

responsibility, and sale growth.

Structural equation modelling

analysis.

The link between CSR and sales growth is mediated through

competitive advantage, and the positive impact of CSR on

sales growth is moderated by the employee’s individual belief

in social responsibility.

Abbas &

Dogan

(2022)

Pakistan

To examine the effect of

organizational green culture

(OGC) and CSR activities on

employees’ responsible behaviour

towards the society (ERBS)

outside their organizations.

Survey.

301 employees of

public and private

manufacturing and

services firms

Scales to measure OGC, CSR,

and ERBS.

Structural equation modelling

analysis.

OGC and CSR activities significantly reshape employees’

behaviour, and they tend to behave in a socially responsible

manner in society. The relationship between OGC and ERBS’

is partially mediated by CSR. Female workers tend to behave

more socially responsibly than male workers.

Olsen et al.

(2018)

USA

To investigate tourism

professionals’ purpose(s) for

engaging in tourism-centred

volunteer tourism opportunities

and compares tourism professional

motives with motives of volunteer

tourists.

Interviews.

Purposive sampling

with 23 interviews

with tourism

professionals.

A qualitative phenomenological

approach, using a constructivist

lens, was

used to examine tourism

professionals’ motives to

volunteer in a multi-day

philanthropic event.

Tourism professionals’ motives to volunteer for the tourism

industry are linked to the common good approach and the

sustaining of the tourism product, which directly affects

tourism professionals’ livelihood. There are hedonic,

utilitarian, and corporate motives.

Davis et al.

(2017)

Spain

Introducing Personal Social

Responsibility as a new concept,

based on Corporate and Consumer

Social Responsibility, and

providing a theoretical framework

as a starting point for future

empirical research.

Theoretical analysis.

In-depth interviews

to four researchers

and a focus group

interview with six

consumers selected

by convenience.

Qualitative research (in-depth

interviews and a focus group).

Definition and justification of the concept of Personal Social

Responsibility (PSR).

Davis et al.

(2021)

Spain

Development and validation of a

scale to measure Personal Social

Responsibility (PSR), a concept

that comprises individual

behaviours from the perspective of

the individual as a citizen.

The items were generated

based on the literature review

and qualitative research (in-

depth interviews with four

researchers, a focus group

with six consumers, and a

panel of three experts.

138 participants.

Qualitative research (in-depth

interviews, a focus group, and an

expert panel).

Structural equation modelling

analysis.

The construct of PSR comprises the economic, legal, ethical,

philanthropic, and environmental dimensions of individual

behaviour. Perceived consumer effectiveness and

collectivism have a positive influence on personal

responsibility behaviours and being more responsible leads to

higher levels of self-esteem and satisfaction with life.

Mallory et

al. (2021)

USA

To explore the antecedents and

consequences of felt responsibility

for constructive change within the

context of CSR.

Survey.

135 employees from

a small public

liberal arts

university.

Scales to measure Proactive

personality, Felt responsibility for

constructive change, Employee

perceptions of CSR, CSR

behaviours, General socially

responsible behaviours, and

Counterproductive work

behaviour. Regression analysis.

A proactive personality drives socially responsible behaviours

via felt responsibility, but when individuals perceive a high

level of CSR, the predictive power of felt responsibility is

diminished (illustrating the potential power of socially

responsible workplace environments). Internal CSR

communication strategies may play an important role in

encouraging prosocial behaviours of even those employees

less predisposed to be socially responsible.

Bénabou and

Tirole (2010)

France

To shed some light on socially

responsible behaviour (SRB), its

future and its limits.

Theoretical analysis around

CSR and ISR.

N/A Theoretical analysis.

SRB holds real promise, if we understand its motivations and

limitations. There are three possible understandings of

corporate social responsibility: the adoption of a more long-

term perspective, the delegated exercise of philanthropy on

behalf of stakeholders, and insider-initiated corporate

philanthropy. The latter two build on individual social

responsibility, which led us to review individual motivations

for prosocial behaviour. We saw that prosocial behaviour by

investors, consumers and workers is driven by a complex set

of motives: intrinsic altruism, material incentives (defined by

law and taxes) and social- or self-esteem concerns.

Bridging Corporate Social Responsibility and Individual Social Responsibility

Nevertheless, this research stream has excellent

potential for future investigation. Faris et al. (2019)

considered that there are gaps related to the moral and

psychological aspects that still need to be solved.

Gond et al. (2017) presented six ideas for further

development that are adapted here: (1) exploration of

the interactions among CSR drivers; (2) ISR construct

clarification and measure development; (3) bridging

the underlying mechanisms of CSR reactions; (4)

considering new and more relevant individual

differences; (5) exploring new constructs related to

CSR; and (6) incorporate individual-level dynamics

and learning processes. We add to this list another

idea for future research: to develop a broad model that

includes social responsibility at the individual (ISR),

organizational (CSR), and societal levels (SSR –

Societal Social Responsibility), studying their

different impacts in different cultures.

4 CONCLUSIONS

This study aimed to answer the following research

question: How have the relationships between CSR

and ISR been developed in the literature? The

literature is still scarce and dispersed. We chose 11

articles that presented theoretical reflections and

quantitative and qualitative approaches to the

relationships between CSR and ISR. These diverse

approaches to this topic started with the CSR concept

and its evolution and continued with the individual

approach and their relationships, mainly using

psychological aspects. Today, a growing body of

knowledge about the relationships between CSR and

ISR led recently to the development of a scale to

measure Personal Social Responsibility, which goes

beyond consumer or organizational behaviours. In

general, the impact on society, and even on

organizational performance, is considered positive.

There is a need for new modelling approaches that

give us broader insights into what happens in the

inter-relationships among the contextual,

behavioural, and performance variables related to the

social responsibility of individuals, organizations and

communities. Moreover, including topics like ethics

and sustainability in future models is inevitable.

Thus, as with any phenomena study, one needs a

multi-transdisciplinary approach to understand all the

complexities of human behaviour and its reflection on

organizations and society.

REFERENCES

Abbas, J. & Dogan, E. (2022). The impacts of

organizational green culture and corporate social

responsibility on employees’ responsible behaviour

towards the society. Environmental Science and

Pollution Research, 29, 60024–60034. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s11356-022-20072-w

Acuña-Moraga, O.E., & Severino González, P.E. (2019).

Corporate social responsibility and competitive

advantage. The study of small mining companies in

Chile. Revista Encuentros, 17(02). https://doi.org/

10.15665/encuent.v17i02.979

Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A., & Ganapathi,

J. (2007), Putting the S back in corporate social

responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in

organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3),

836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275678

Altman, B. (1998). Corporate community relations in the

1990s: a study in transformation. Business & Society,

37(2), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039803

700205

Anderson, W.T., Jr., & Cunningham, W.H. (1972). The

socially conscious consumer. Journal of Marketing,

36(3), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251036

Ansari, N.Y., Farrukh, M., & Raza, A. (2021). Green

human resource management and employees pro-

environmental behaviours: Examining the underlying

mechanism. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, 28(1), 229-238.

https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2044

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies:

Toward a methodological framework. International

Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Arlow, P., & Gannon, M. J. (1982). Social responsiveness,

corporate structure, and economic performance.

Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 235-341.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1982.4285580

Ashley, P.A. (2005). Ética e responsabilidade social nos

negócios [Ethics and social responsibility in business].

2nd ed. São Paulo: Saraiva.

Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B., & Hatfield, J.D. (1985). An

empirical investigation of the relationship between

corporate social responsibility and profitability.

Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.

https://doi.org/10.5465/256210

Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barnett, C., Cafaro, P., & Newholm, T. (2005). Philosophy

and ethical consumption. In T. Newholm, D. Shaw, &

R. Harrison (Eds.), The ethical consumer (pp. 11-24).

Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446211991.n2

Basil, D.Z., Runte, M.S., Easwaramoorthy, M., & Barr, C.

(2009). Company support for employee volunteering: A

national survey of companies in Canada. Journal of

Business Ethics, 85(2), 387–398. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s10551-008-9741-0

FEMIB 2023 - 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

Bénadou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate

social responsibility. Economica, 77, 1–19.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00843.x

Bowen, H.R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the

Businessman. New York: Harper & Row.

Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win-win-win:

The influence of company-sponsored volunteerism

programs on employees, NGOs, and business units.

Personnel Psychology, 66, 825–860. https://doi.org/

10.1111/peps.12019

Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual

model of corporate performance. Academy of

Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. https://doi.org/

10.2307/257850

Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility

evolution of a definitional construct. Business &

Society, 38(3), 268-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076

5039903800303

Carvalho, J.M.S., Jonker, J., & Dentchev, N. (2014).

What’s in a word? An exploration of the changes in

meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility over the

last century with an emphasis on the last decades. In D.

Turker, H. Toke & C. Altuntas (Eds.), Contemporary

Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 1-18).

Lexington Books.

Clark, J.M. (1939). Social control of business. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social

responsibilities? California Management Review, 2,

70–76.

Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business

assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of

Management Journal, 16, 312–322. https://doi.org/

10.5465/255331

Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R.L. (1966). Business and its

environment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Davis, S.L., Rives, L.M., & Ruiz-de-Maya, S. (2017).

Introducing personal social responsibility as a key

element to upgrade CSR. Spanish Journal of Marketing

– ESIC, 21, 146-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjme.

2017.04.001

Davis, S.L., Rives, L.M., & Ruiz-de-Maya, S. (2021).

Personal social responsibility: Scale development and

validation. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, 28, 763–775.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.2086

Dayananda Swamy, H. R., Nagarajan, K., & Babu, N.

(2021). Yogic principles of artha and dāna with

reference to individual and corporate social

responsibility. International Journal of Yoga, 14, 248-

55. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijoy.ijoy_106_21

De Bakker, F., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005).

A bibliometric analysis of 30 years research and theory

on corporate social responsibility and corporate social

performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283–317.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278086

Drucker, P.F. (1954). The Practice of Management. New

York: Collins, 2006.

Epstein, E.M. (1987). The corporate social policy process:

Beyond business ethics, corporate social responsibility,

and corporate social responsiveness. California

Management Review, 29(3), 99–114. https://doi.org/

10.2307/41165254

Faria, M.J.S. (2015). Responsabilidade Social Empresarial

- Relato e análise económica e financeira [Corporate

Social Responsibility - Economic and financial

reporting and analysis]. Porto: Grupo Editorial Vida

Económica.

Farid, T., Iqbal, S., Ma, J., Castro-González, S., Khattak,

A., & Khan, M.K. (2019). Employees’ perceptions of

CSR, work engagement, and organizational citizenship

behavior: The mediating effects of organizational

justice. International Journal of Environmental

Research and Public Health, 16, 1731.

https://doi.org/10.1177/10.3390/ijerph16101731

Fisk, G. (1973). Criteria for a theory of responsible

consumption. Journal of Marketing, 37(2), 24-31.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1250047

Fitch, H.G. (1976). Achieving corporate social

responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 1, 38–

46.

Fonseca, D.E.M. (2017). A importância do conceito de

Responsabilidade Social das Empresas. Comunicación,

37, 59–75. https://doi.org/10.18566/comunica.n37.a06

Frederick, W. (1960). The growing concern over business

responsibility. California Management Review, 2, 54–

61.

Freestone, O.M., & McGoldrick, P.J. (2008). Motivations

of the ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics,

79(4), 445-467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-

9409-1

Freeman, E.R., & Stoner, J.A.F. (1992). Administração

[Management]. Rio de Janeiro: Prentice Hall.

Friedman M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business

is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine,

September 13, pp. 32–33.

Gao, Y., Zhang, D., & Huo, Y. (2017). Corporate social

responsibility and work engagement: Testing a

moderated mediation model. Journal of Business

Psychology, 33, 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s108

69-017-9517-6

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social

responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal

of Business Ethics, 53(12), 51–71. https://doi.org/

10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34

Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and

employee engagement: Enabling employees to employ

more of their whole selves at work. Frontiers of

Psychology, 7, 796. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.20

16.00796

Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The Effects of Perceived

Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee

Attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2), 165–202.

https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20143206

Glavas, A., & Piderit, S.K. (2009). How does doing good

matter? Effects of corporate citizenship on employees.

Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 51–70.

https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2009.wi.00007

Bridging Corporate Social Responsibility and Individual Social Responsibility

Gond, J.-P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017).

The psychological microfoundations of corporate social

responsibility: A person-centric systematic review.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2-Special

issue), 225-246. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2170

Griffin, J.J., & Mahon, J.F. (1997). The corporate social

performance and corporate financial performance

debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research.

Business & Society, 36(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.11

77/000765039703600102

Hart, S.L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe

stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of

Management Executive, 18(1), 7–18.

https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.12691227

Hay, R., Gray, E.R., & Gates, J.E. (1976). Business and

Society. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing.

Henriques, A. (2010). Corporate Impact – Measuring and

Managing your Social Footprint. London: Earthscan.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International

differences in work-related values. SAGE Publications.

Johnson, H.L. (1971). Business in contemporary society:

Framework and issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Jones, T. (1996). Missing the forest for the trees: A critique

of the social responsibility concept and discourse.

Business & Society, 35(1), 7–41. https://doi.org/10.11

77/000765039603500102

Kanji, G.K., % Chopra, P.K. (2007). Poverty as system:

Human contestability approach to poverty

measurement. Journal of Applied Statistics, 34, 1135–

1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760701619142

Kanji, G.K., & Chopra, P.K. (2009). Psychosocial system

for work well-being: On measuring work stress by

causal pathway. Total Quality Management & Business

Excellence, 20, 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/14

783360902875741

Kanji, G.K., & Chopra, P.K. (2010). Corporate social

responsibility in a global economy. Total Quality

Management & Business Excellence, 21(2), 119-143.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360903549808

Kreps, T.J. (1940). Measurement of the social performance

of business. In: An investigation of concentration of

economic power for the temporary national economic

committee (Monograph No. 7). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Lantos, G.P. (2002). The ethicality of altruistic corporate

social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing,

19(2-3), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/073637602

10426049

Lee, M. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social

responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead.

International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1),

53-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.002

26.x

Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility.

Harvard Business Review, 36(5), 41-50.

Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social

responsibility. International Journal of Management

Review, 12(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

2370.2009.00277.x

Lu, J., Rong, D., Zhang, C., Wang, C., Saeidi, P., &

Streimikis, J. (2021). Exploring the relationship

between corporate social responsibility and sales

growth of small and medium enterprises: A combined

case study in the light of a literature review. Acta

Polytechnica Hungarica, 18(2), 177-197.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C., & Hult, T. (1999). Corporate

Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and Business

Benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

27(4), 455-469. https://doi.org/10.1177/00920703992

74005

Maignan, I., & Ralston, D.A. (2002). Corporate social

responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from

businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International

Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.

https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491028

Mallory, D.B., Rupp, D.E., Pandey, N., & Tay, L. (2021).

The effect of employee proactive personality and felt

responsibility on individual corporate social

responsibility behaviors: The CSR context matters.

Journal of Sustainability Research, 3(1), e210002.

https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20210002

Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2001). People and profits?

The search for a link between company's social and

financial performance. New Jersey: Mahwah.

Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves

companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659

Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the

mask: revealing the true face of corporate citizenship.

Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1/2), 109-120.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024128730308

McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R.J., & van Engelen, J. (2008).

Sustainability Quotients and the Social Footprint.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 15, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/

csr.164

McGuire, J.W. (1963). Business and society. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social

responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.

https://doi.org/10.2307/259398

Miller, D. (1998). A theory of shopping. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C.,

McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic

review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when

choosing between a systematic or scoping review

approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18,

143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Mulligan, T. (1986). A critique of Milton Friedman‘s essay

―the social responsibility of business is to increase its

profits. Journal of Business Ethics, 5, 265–269.

https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00383091

Olsen, L.M., Vogt, C., & Andereck, K. (2018). Sustaining

the common good: Tourism professional motives to

volunteer for the tourism industry. Tourism Recreation

FEMIB 2023 - 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

Research, 43(1), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/025082

81.2017.1371474

Ostermeier, K., Soelberg, C., Sigdyal, P., & Xu, L. (2015).

Individual Social Responsibility [ISR]: An Antecedent

to CSR and Intentions to Work. St. Pete Beach, Florida:

Southern Management Association. Retrieved from:

https://slideplayer.com/slide/13266594/ (Accessed on

October 23

2022)

Parra, C., Ripoll-i-Alcon, J., & Martí, G. (2017). Putting in

Value Corporate Social Responsibility. Symphonya:

Emerging Issues in Management, 1, 111–130.

https://doi.org/10.4468/2017.1.09parra.riponialcon.ma

rti

Peng, Y., Dashdeleg, A., & Chih, H.L. (2014). National

culture and firm’s CSR engagement: A cross-nation

study. Journal of Marketing & Management, 5(1), 38–

49.

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2002). The competitive

advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard

Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.

Prahalad, C.K. (2010). The fortune at the bottom of the

pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits (revised

and updated 5th anniversary edition). New Jersey:

Wharton School Publishing.

Rivera, J.J., Bigne, E., & Curras-Perez, R. (2019). Effects

of Corporate Social Responsibility on consumer brand

loyalty. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios,

21(3), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v21i3.40

Roman, R.M., Hayibor, S., & Agle, B.R. (1999). The

relationship between social and financial performance:

Repainting a portrait. Business & Society, 38(1), 109-

125. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800105

Rupp, D.E., Shao, R., Thornton, M.A., & Skarlicki, D.P.

(2013), Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to

corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects

of first-party justice perceptions and moral Identity.

Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933.

https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12030

Sebastião, S.P. (2009). Comunicação estratégica. As

Relações Públicas [Strategic communication. Public

Relations]. Lisboa: Guide-Artes Gráficas.

Sheldon, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Management.

London, New York: Pitman.

Straughan, R.D., & Roberts, J.A. (1999). Environmental

segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer

behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 16(6), 558-575. https://doi.org/10.1108/07

363769910297506

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs,

perceived corporate social responsibility and job

satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 159–172.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9306-z

Venkatesh, U., Chaudhuri, A., & Mathew, J. (2021).

Benevolence in new-age businesses of developing

economies: Some conclusions from the information

technology companies/sector of India. Journal of

Human Values, 27(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0971685820973187

Wartick, S.L., & Cochran, P.L. (1985). The evolution of the

corporate social performance model. Academy of

Management Review, 10, 758–769. https://doi.org/

10.5465/amr.1985.4279099

Windsor, D. (2001). The future of corporate social

responsibility. The International Journal of

Organizational Analysis, 9(3), 225–256.

https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028934

Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited.

Academy of Management Review, 16

, 691–718.

https://doi.org/10.2307/258977

Wood, D.J. (2000). Theory and integrity in business and

society. Business & Society, 39(4), 359–378.

https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030003900402

Wood, D.J., & Logsdon, J.M. (2002). Business citizenship:

from domestic to global level of analysis. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 155–187. https://doi.org/10.23

07/3857809

Bridging Corporate Social Responsibility and Individual Social Responsibility