The implementation of social responsiveness initiatives: case of Lithuania/Socialinio reagavimo iniciatyvu igyvendinimas lietuvoje.
Navickas, Valentinas ; Kontautiene, Rima
JEL Classification: A13, M14, M20, Q01, Q56.
Introduction
Being socially responsible means that organization complies not
only with economic, but also with moral, ethical, and social standards,
which are partially determined by stakeholder demands (Maignan, Ferrell
2001; David et al. 2005).Corporate social responsibility (CSR) suggests
that businesses are responsible for assessing their impact on society
(Mohr et al. 2001; Quazi 2003; Lockett et al. 2006). CSR is viewed as a
subset of corporate obligations dealing with a company's voluntary
and discretionary relationships with its societal and community
stakeholders to minimize or eliminate harmful effects and maximize long
run benefits to society (Mohr et al. 2001; Waddock 2004). An
"action phase" of corporate social responsibility (Carroll
1979; Wood 1991) and a way to manage and respond to societal and
stakeholder demands (Carroll 1979; Sethi 1979; Matten et al. 2003;
Crampton, Patten 2008) is corporate social responsiveness.
Responsiveness means that companies should take explicit and forward
looking actions to respond and to deal with stakeholders and public
policy issues (Waddock 2004). Corporate social responsiveness is about
the process and implementation of socially responsible activities
(Logsdon 2004). The initiatives of corporate social responsiveness have
been described as being necessary strategic tools for gaining and
sustaining a competitive advantage, as well as facilitating corporate
social responsibility (Friedman et al. 2004). Waddock (2004) maintained
that corporate social responsiveness was drawn from the experience of
companies rather than from calls for more responsibility from scholars
and activists. Businesses realize and take responsibility not only for
the success of their activities, but also for the contribution to the
development of a community, region and country. As stated Dillon et al.
(2014), "the potential social impacts of business and society
relations are a critical component of CSR that has been largely missing
from organizational scholarship". Main motive of this paper is to
analyze social responsiveness initiatives as organizational programs
responding to stakeholders and public issues, and their implementation
in Lithuania.
The object of the study is social responsiveness initiatives.
The purpose of the study is to analyze the implementation of social
responsiveness initiatives in Lithuania.
The tasks of the study are:
1. To explore the aspects of corporate social responsibility;
2. To analyze processes of corporate social responsiveness as
organizational programs;
3. To analyze corporate social responsiveness initiatives as
organizational programs in Lithuania.
The methods of the study are systematic, logical and comparative
analysis of scientific literature, analysis of statistic indices, the
expert evaluation method.
1. The aspects of corporate social responsibility
According to the European Commission's definition (2011)
corporate social responsibility (CSR) is "the responsibility of
enterprises for their impacts on society". In conformity with OECD
(2011), "corporate responsibility involves the search for an
effective "fit" between businesses and the societies in which
they operate". Corporate social responsibility is a concept whereby
companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business
activities and in their relationship with stakeholders. For example, for
dealing with social needs the company decides to go beyond the minimum
legal requirements and obligations covered in the collective agreements.
Corporate social responsibility provides the opportunity to coordinate
economic, social and environmental objectives for large and small
enterprises together with stakeholders. "CSR is, however, one of
the most complex challenges facing businesses today. To many, it is a
guiding principle that underpins corporate vision, strategy and
decision-making. To others, it represents a series of emerging issues
that must be "managed" by the company in order to maintain its
"license to operate" (Streimikiene, Kovaliov 2007). Corporate
social responsibility is based on three main elements: economic,
environmental and social, which must be developed equally and in
parallel (see Table 1) (Giziene et al. 2011).
A successful operative company adapts all of these aspects of
social responsibility so that they may function in equilibrium. All
these elements are significant to the development of sustainable
business and must be developed equally and in parallel. That's why
corporate social responsibility is considered to be an essential
condition for sustainable development. Corporate social responsibility
becomes an increasingly important concept both globally and within the
European Union because it is a part of the debate about globalization,
competitiveness and sustainability. The promotion of CSR indicates that
the need to defend common values and to increase solidarity and cohesion
is emerged. Although the concept of corporate social responsibility was
used for the first time in the 1930s, so far it does not have one
definition and an still discussed and on its content and scope.
Generally it can be said that corporate social responsibility is
ensuring the success of its business, including a wide variety of social
and environmental issues in organization's activity. "The
long-term success of the company depends on how it manages to integrate
harmoniously into the environment and to assess internal and external
stakeholder expectations. The relationship between the company and the
surrounding environment should be formed on the basis of social
responsibility" (Navickas, Kontautiene 2012). "... spreading
CSR conception impels to ensure the implementation of needs and goals of
all groups concerned" (Dagiliene 2010). Corporate social
responsibility may be analyzed in two dimensions: internal dimension and
external dimension. Each of the latter contains other several aspects,
based on the concept of CSR (see Fig. 1) (Ruzevicius, Serafimas 2007).
Social responsibility is consciously created economic, political, legal
and moral relationship between the organization and the society, as well
as its various structural forms; it's the ability to fulfill the
duties and to assume the responsibilities for the public pressure in
certain conditions (Pruskus 2003). The public wants to see
"healthy" companies. A matter of the primary task and the
obligation in activity of socially responsible companies is to
manufacture products, to provide services, and so on. But society
already requires more than produce or sell. A business has to make
decisions both social as well as in the field of global environmental
problems. Today business relationship is measured using the principles
of humanism. Business is a product of society, affecting not only the
people working on it, but also to the environment. Social responsibility
shows the commitment of the company to maximize the beneficial effects
and to minimize the negative impact on the public. No one company cannot
completely distance from responsibility.
2. Processes of corporate social responsiveness as organizational
programs
In the time of changing economic conditions being socially
responsible businesses is much more important than ever before.
According to Campbell (2007), "economic conditions --specifically,
the relative health of corporations and the economy and the level of
competition to which corporations are exposed, affect the probability
that corporations will act in socially responsible ways". Also
public expectations have exchanged, the expectations of customers,
partners and employees have altered as well. In order to retain in ever
changing environment of business the importance of conducting socially
responsible policies has become necessary demand from society, other
companies and governments in general. Corporate social responsiveness
comprises of the capacity of business to respond to societal needs
thereby (partially) representing its relationship with society
(Crampton, Patten 2008). It suggests that responsiveness means taking
explicit and forward looking actions when addressing stakeholders and
social/public policy concerns (Waddock 2004). This testified the ability
of a business to survive through adaptation to its changing environment.
"Responsiveness implies that companies monitor and assess
environmental conditions, attend to stakeholder demands and design plans
and policies to respond to changing conditions" (Fieseler et al.
2010). Corporate social responsiveness focuses on the processes for
achieving a certain degree of social responsibility and "for
determining, implementing, and evaluating the firm's capacity to
anticipate, respond to and manage the issues and problems arising from
the diverse claims and expectations of internal and external
stakeholders" (Maurer 2007). Wood (1991) emphasized three main
types of corporate social responsiveness processes: environmental
management, issues management, and stakeholder management. But according
to Maignan and Ralston (2002), Maignan and Ferrell (2004), Maignan et
al. (2005), responsive practices introduced by businesses were much
narrower in scope than the processes of corporate social responsiveness
conceptualized by Wood (1991).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Businesses designated responsiveness processes as organizational
programs and activities aimed at implementing CSR principles and/or
addressing specific stakeholder issues. Authors ascertained that
companies the processes of corporate social responsiveness defined as
specific activities such as quality management, ethics, or philanthropic
programs, sponsorship, and volunteerism (see Table 2). Dentchev (2004)
proposed that corporate social responsiveness could be seen as the moral
obligations of business to address and resolve issues spanning beyond
the boundaries of the organization. The programs of corporate social
responsiveness are pointed to respond to stakeholders' needs and to
contribute to resolving of social problems both inside and outside the
company. Well-established corporate giving programs benefit the
community as well as help to better position the company. Corporate
philanthropy is gifts given by companies to social and charitable
causes, such as support for education, culture, or the arts; minorities
or health care; or for relief funds for victims of natural disasters
(Seifert et al. 2004; Godfrey 2005). Corporate philanthropy often
extends beyond areas that are directly associated with a
corporation's economic activities or legal requirements (Wang et
al. 2008). According to Porter and Cramer (2002), philanthropy does not
just address a company's self-interest it benefits many through
broad social change. Another form of corporate social responsiveness is
sponsorship. Sponsorship is engagement in societal or local community
activities to which a company provides support in the form of finance,
know-how or other kinds of support. Sponsorship is not the same as
philanthropic activity as often reckoned. Sponsorships are investments
in cultural or social projects.
So it is planned actions on purpose to improve the image of the
company and to increase the loyalty of potential customers. Volunteerism
as organizational program is also a thoughtful and planned action.
Volunteerism is far more likely than other kinds of helping to take
place within an organizational setting. Volunteerism can be defined as
long-term, planned, pro-social behaviors that benefit strangers and
occur within an organizational setting (Penner 2002). As noticed
Eckstein (2001), some businesses encouraged volunteerism on their own
because they were so committed to the spirit of community. Volunteerism
usually targets community issues. Other CSR processes as codes of
ethics, health and safety programs addressed various stakeholder issues
at the same time. Successful companies need a healthy society.
Education, health care, and equal opportunity are essential to a
productive workforce. Safe products and working conditions not only
attract customers but lower the internal costs of accidents (Cunningham,
Harney 2012). Socially responsible companies strive to provide safe and
healthy work conditions as the foundation for promoting the well-being
of their employees. Also businesses involve and commit to advancing good
health and safety practices throughout operations and products because
they take thought for the future and well-being of society. Code of
ethics is one of the main tools for implementing CSR inside company, but
also is a point of reference for relations between the company and
society. According to Callaghan et al. (2012), "as ethics are
deemed to be an embodiment of a society's moral values, then
one's ancestry plays a pivotal role in the evolution of the current
ethical values of one's society. Codes of ethics are the written
codifications of these cultural self-perceptions and showcase to all who
read them the underlying ethos of the company and its perception of the
business culture of the country from which it emanates". The modern
concept of the business ethics concerns the issue of the
businesses' social responsibility, the setting of an adequate
organizational culture, that should take into account not only the need
of increasing the profit, the shareholders and associates' income,
but also the achievement of all the social conditions that act within a
society (Trifu 2011). Peddle and Rosam (2004) stated that CSR is not
different from quality--both searching for success through careful
balance. Socially responsible companies implement product/service
quality programs to realize maximum customer like other stakeholder
satisfaction. Companies' decisions to adopt environmental
management practices are influenced by the desire to improve or maintain
relations with their communities (Delmas, Toffel 2004). Adopting
environmental management systems not only focuses a company's
attention on negative environmental impacts but also ensures that
responsibility is appropriately assigned for maintaining high
environmental standards throughout the organization (Morrow, Rondinelli
2002). Companies implement organizational programs as processes of
corporate social responsiveness to respond to social concerns and
expectations. The implementation of corporate social responsiveness
contributes to the consolidation of relationship between business and
society and so it furthers the sustainable development of community,
region and country.
3. Corporate social responsiveness initiatives as organizational
programs in Lithuania
Lithuania, as a member of the European Union and contributing to
the strategies "Europe 2020" and "Lithuania 2030" to
create a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy, has approved CSR
development vision and priority areas of its implementation. Agreeably
to these strategies and other CSR initiatives promoting legal acts and
with conscious of their social responsibility Lithuanian companies
voluntarily assume additional obligations to improve business practices,
introduce modern human resource management technologies, implement
resource-saving and environment-friendly (mitigating climate change)
technologies, invest in "green" technologies, products and
services, use health harmless substances in manufacturing processes,
harmonize labor relations and actively take part in the social dialogue.
The long-term success of the companies depends on how harmoniously they
are able to integrate into the environment and to evaluate the
expectations of internal and external stakeholders--the relationship
between the company and the surrounding environment should be formed on
the basis of social responsibility. There is essential to regard the
expectations of all stakeholders in putting into practice the strategies
of corporate social responsibility. The development of socially
responsible business is encouraged by the formed in the society culture
of sociality and responsibility for their activities in the culture.
According to the Ciegis (2009), CSR is measured and institutionalized
not only on the basis of market and workplace parameters, but also
public and environmental parameters.
The aim of the empirical study "The integration of corporate
social responsibility into the strategies of international companies in
Lithuania" (Kontautiene 2011) was to investigate the opinion of the
experts about Lithuanian international companies' politics of
corporate social responsibility integration and the benefits for
companies and society.
According to the survey aim and the requirements for the experts,
as experts were sampled the trade responsible for CSR projects from
Lithuanian international companies. During the survey 32 answers to the
questionnaires were got. Experts were asked to assess the importance of
socially responsive programs realizable by Lithuanian companies. On the
basis of experts' evaluation Lithuanian companies focus and give
priority to programs of the quality and to management of the
environmental impact and environmental programs (see Fig. 2). Their
implementation is intense. Further, health and safety programs, codes of
ethics, sponsorships, volunteering and philanthropic programs were
grated according to importance. The quality programs, management of the
environmental impact and environmental programs as very important and
important socially responsive programs noted by 88 percent of the
respondents (see Fig. 2). An implementation of quality management and
environmental management standards into activities of businesses is very
important for the integration of CSR. Quality management systems
according to the ISO 9001 standards (International Organization for
Standardization 2014a) and environmental management systems according to
the ISO 14001 standards have gained recognition in Lithuania. Numbers of
ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certification have substantially increased in
past few years (International Organization for Standardization 2014b;
Lithuanian Standards Board 2014). According to Lithuanian Standards
Board (2014), by the beginning of July 2014 ISO 9001 issued 1534
certifications and ISO 14001 issued 914 certifications across a wide
range of organizations in the manufacturing, service and government
sectors (see Fig. 3). However, there is still comparatively big number
of companies which are not ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certified in
Lithuania.
Health and safety programs, codes of ethics as very important
socially responsive programs evaluated 41 percent of experts. More than
45 percent of respondents have assessed these programs as important and
significant on average. The majority of Lithuanian companies understand
social responsibility as investing in occupational health and safety as
well as in observing human rights (Jonkute et al. 2011; Matkeviciene
2013).
Certified occupational health and safety management systems OHSAS
18001, indicating that the company's operating system checked in
accordance with the standard of best practice and meets the
requirements, act in 550 Lithuanian companies (see Fig. 3).
Philanthropic and sponsorship programs and participating in voluntary
programs got least support from Lithuanian companies. Over 20 percent of
the respondents these programs as corporate social responsiveness
processes noted as not very important or irrelevant and as least
company-funded programs in Lithuania.
In Lithuania the companies' participation in philanthropic
activities is determined by the politics, culture and other factors, but
not by rising income of companies. There is growing number of socially
responsible companies in Lithuania, but the process run not so fast
(Navickas, Kontautiene 2011). A socially responsible company should be
responsible for each activity, which affects people, their communities
and the environment. In summary it can be stated that Lithuanian
companies pay the highest attention to quality programs and to
management of the environmental impact and environmental programs, what
was confirmed to the expert assessments. Philanthropic programs and
volunteerism are mainly sponsored by big companies in Lithuania. An
understanding of these programs usefulness and their process of
implementation develops sufficiently heavily.
Socially responsible businesses in Lithuania respond to the
expectations of the public and other stakeholders, and actively
contribute to the solution of social and environmental problems, and
further to the sustainable development of the regions and the whole
country. There are a growing number of socially responsible enterprises
in Lithuania, but the process of development of corporate social
responsibility is not so fast. This requires a solid and coherent
government formulated policy on CSR. The government of Lithuania
recognizes that socially responsible business is consistent with the
public welfare expectations, and is beneficial to the sustainable
development of society and the country. CSR promotion policy in
Lithuania does not secure an approval of public in terms of CSR and does
not create strong incentives for businesses to implement the initiatives
of corporate responsiveness. Nevertheless corporate social
responsibility becomes more and more valuable in Lithuania and its
future development mainly depends on the government and society of the
country.
Conclusions
Corporate social responsibility as companies' responsibility
for their impacts on society is based on three equally developing
elements: economic, environmental and social. The development of main
elements of CSR ensures the consolidation of relationship between the
company and all groups of stakeholders. Business organization should
maintain a sense of social responsibility for being accountable to any
its action that affects environment and society. Corporate social
responsibility is a set of activities that should be practiced by
companies in order to cope with social and environmental problems and
could be analyzed in two dimensions: internal (within the organization)
and external (outside the organization).
Corporate social responsiveness is an action dimension of CSR.
Processes of corporate social responsiveness as organizational programs
are aimed at implementing CSR principles and addressing social and
environmental concerns and expectations. Organizational programs such as
quality management, environmental impact management, philanthropic,
health and safety programs, sponsorship, volunteerism, are voluntarily
realizable by companies on purpose to resolve social and environmental
problems both inside and outside the companies. The implementation of
processes of corporate social responsiveness benefits to improvement of
public and business environment, and contributes to betterment the
relationship between business and society and so furthers the
sustainable development of region and country.
Lithuanian companies focus and give priority to development of the
quality and the management of the environmental impact and environmental
programs. Their implementation is more intense. Also they realize health
and safety, ethics, sponsorships, volunteering, philanthropic programs.
But a number of socially responsible companies, which implement
organizational programs as corporate responsiveness processes, too
small. In Lithuania the companies' participation in socially
responsiveness activities is determined by the politics, culture and
other factors, but not by rising income of companies. Socially
responsible businesses in Lithuania respond to the expectations of the
public and other stakeholders, and actively contribute to the solution
of social and environmental problems, and further to the sustainable
development of the regions and the whole country.
Caption: Fig. 1. Dimensions of CSR (adapted by Ruzevicius,
Serafimas 2007)
doi: 10.3846/btp.2015.526
Disclosure statement
Authors don't have any competing financial, professional, or
personal interests from other parties.
References
Callaghan, M.; Wood, G.; Payan, J. M.; Singh, J.; Svensson, G.
2012. Code of ethics quality: an international comparison of corporate
staff support and regulation in Australia, Canada and the United States,
Business Ethics: A European Review 21(1): 15-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.mi/j.1467-8608.2011.01637.x
Campbell, J. L. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially
responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social
responsibility, Academy of Management Review 32(3): 946-967.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.25275684
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of
corporate performance, Academy of Management Review 4(4): 497-505.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1979.4498296
Crampton, W.; Patten, D. 2008. Social responsiveness, profitability
and catastrophic events: evidence on the corporate philanthropic
response to 9/11, Journal of Business Ethics 81(4): 863-873.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9553-7
Cunningham, J.; Harney, B. 2012. Strategy & strategists.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ciegis, R. 2009. Gamtos istekliu ir aplinkos ekonomika. Klaipeda:
KU leidykla.
Dagiliene, L. 2010. The research of corporate social responsibility
in annual reports, Engineering Economics 21(2): 197-204.
David, P.; Kline, S.; Dai, Y. 2005. Corporate social responsibility
practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: a dual-process
model, Journal of Public Relations Research 17(3): 291-313.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1703_4
Delmas, M.; Toffel, M. W. 2004. Stakeholders and environmental
management practices: an institutional framework, Business Strategy and
the Environment 13(4): 209-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.409
Dentchev, N. A. 2004. To what extent is business and society
literature idealistic?" [online], Working paper [cited 11 June
2014]. Available from Internet: www.feb.ugent.be/nl/Ondz/
wp/Papers/wp_04_245.pdf
Dillon, P. J.; Back, R. M.; Manz, C. C. 2014. Authentic corporate
social responsibility based on authentic empowerment: an exemplary
business leadership case, Journal of Values-Based Leadership 7(1): 12.
Eckstein, S. 2001. Community as gift-giving: collectivistic roots
ofvolunteerism, American Sociological Review 66(6): 829-851.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088875
European Commission. 2011. Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of Regions: A renewed EUstrategy 2011-14 for
Corporate Social Responsibility, COM (2011) 681 final, Brussels
25.10.2011.
Fieseler, C.; Fleck, M.; Meckel, M. 2010. Corporate social
responsibility in the blogosphere, Journal of Business Ethics 91:
599-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0135-8
Friedman, M. T.; Parent, M. M.; Mason, D. S. 2004. Building a
framework for issues management in sport through stakeholder theory,
European Sport Management Quarterly 4(3): 170-190.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184740408737475
Giziene, V.; Palekiene, O.; Simanaviciene, Z. 2011. State social
responsibility in the context of knowledge-based economy, Economics and
Management 16: 485-492.
Godfrey, P. C. 2005. The relationship between corporate
philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk management perspective,
Academy of Management Review 30(4): 777-798.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.18378878
International Organization for Standardization. 2014a.
International-Standards [online], [cited 30 June 2014]. Available from
Internet: http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm
International Organization for Standardization. 2014b. ISO Survey
[online], [cited 30 June 2014]. Available from Internet:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification/
iso-survey.htm?certificate=ISO%2014001&countrycode=L T#standardpick.
Jonkute, G.; Staniskis, J. K.; Dukauskaite, D. 2011. Social
responsibility as a tool to achieve sustainable development in SMEs,
Environmental Research, Engineering and management 57(3): 67-81.
Kontautiene, R. 2011. The integration of corporate social
responsibility into the international companies' strategies:
Master's work. Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas.
Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O. C. 2001.Corporate citizenship as a
marketing instrument-concepts, evidence and research directions,
European Journal of Marketing 35(3/4): 457-484.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560110382110
Maignan, I.; Ralston, D. A. 2002. Corporate social responsibility
in Europe and the U.S.: insights from businesses'
self-presentations [online], [cited 30 June 2014]. Available from
Internet: http://ufirc.ou.edu/publications/Corporate%20Social%20
Responsibility.pdf
Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O. C. 2004. Corporate social responsibility
and marketing: an integrative framework, Journal of the Marketing
Science 32(1): 3-19. http://dx.doi.org/303258971
Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O. C.; Ferrell, L. 2005. A stakeholder model
for implementing social responsibility in marketing, European Journal of
Marketing 39(9/10): 956-977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560510610662
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024128730308
Matkeviciene, R. 2013. Communication of corporate social
responsibility in Lithuanian organizations' websites, Information
Sciences 64: 7-18.
Maurer, M. 2007. Corporate stakeholder responsiveness: an
evolutionary and learning approach. HauptVerlag AG.
Mohr, L. A.; Webb, D. J.; Harris, K. E. 2001. Do consumers expect
companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social
responsibility on buying behavior, Journal of Consumer Affairs 35(1):
45-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x
Morrow, D.; Rondinelli, D. 2002. Adopting corporate environmental
management systems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS
certification, European Management Journal 20(2): 159-171.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00026-9
Navickas, V.; Kontautiene, R. 2011. Influence of corporate
philanthropy on economic performance, Business: Theory and Practice
12(1): 15-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/btp.2011.02
Navickas, V.; Kontautiene, R. 2012. The influence of stakeholder
--company relationship on competitiveness of company, Economics and
Management 17(3): 1010-1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.em.1Z3.2111
Lithuanian Standards Board. 2014. Certification [online], [cited 20
July 2014]. Available from Internet: http://www.lsd.lt/
typo_new/index.php?id=157.
Lockett, A.; Moon, J.; Visser, W. 2006. Corporate social
responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and
sources of influence, Journal of Management Studies 43(1): 115-136.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00585.x
Logsdon, J. M. 2004. Global business citizenship: applications to
environmental issues, Business and Society Review 109(1): 67-87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0045-3609.2004.00004.x
OECD. 2011. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2011
edition. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264115415-en
Peddle, R.; Rosam, I. 2004. Finding the balance, Quality World 16:
18-26.
Penner, L. A. 2002. Dispositional and organizational influences on
sustained volunteerism: an interactionist perspective, Journal of Social
Issues 58(3): 447-467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00270
Porter, M. E.; Kramer, M. R. 2002. The competitive advantage of
corporate philanthropy, Harvard Business Review December 2002: 5-16.
Pruskus, V. 2003.Verslo etika: laiko issukiai ir atsako galimybes.
Vilnius: Enciklopedija.
Quazi, A. M. 2003. Identifying the determinants of corporate
managers' perceived social obligations, Management Decision 41(9):
822-831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740310488999
Ruzevicius, J.; Serafinas, D. 2007. The development of socially
responsible business in Lithuania, Engineering Economics 1(51): 36-43.
Seifert, B.; Morris, S. A.; Bartkus, B. R. 2004. Having, giving,
and getting: slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial
performance, Business & Society 43(2): 135-161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650304263919
Sethi, S. P. 1979. A conceptual framework for environmental
analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns,
Academy of Management Review 4(1): 63-74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1979.4289184
Streimikiene, D.; Kovaliov, R. 2007. Corporate social
responsibility in Baltic States, Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir
perspektyvos 2(9): 285-293.
Trifu, A. 2011. Approach regarding the influence of business ethics
on corporate governance [online], [cited 11 June 2014]. Available from
Internet: http://ices.ro/RePEc/zan/
ygzier/2011/2011_1_09_Anuar_Tomul20_Trifu.pdf
Waddock, S. 2004. Parallel universes: companies, academics, and the
progress of corporate citizenship, Business and Society Review 109(1):
5-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0045-3609.2004.00002.x
Wang, H.; Choi, J.; Li, J. 2008. Too little or too much? Untangling
the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial
performance, Organization Science 19(1): 143-159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0271
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited, Academy
of Management Review 16(4): 691-718.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1991.4279616
Valentinas NAVICKAS (1), Rima KONTAUTIENE (2)
(1,2) Department of Economics, School of Economics and Business,
Kaunas University of Technology, K. Donelaicio g. 20, LT-44029, Kaunas,
Lithuania E-mails: (1) valentinas.navickas@ktu.lt (corresponding
author); (2) rima.kontautiene@ktu.edu
Received 26 August 2014; accepted 09 October 2014
(1,2) Kauno technologijos universitetas, Ekonomikos ir verslo
fakultetas, Ekonomikos katedra, K. Donelaicio g. 73, LT-44029 Kaunas,
Lietuva El. pastas: (1) valentinas.navickas@ktu.lt; (2)
rima.kontautiene@ktu.edu
Iteikta 2014-08-26; priimta 2014-10-09
Valentinas NAVICKAS. Doctor of social sciences (economics),
professor at Kaunas University of Technology (Lithuania), School of
Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
Author of more than 280 scientific publications (including
monograph published in Czech Republic, 2013) and scientific articles,
published in Lithuania and abroad, author of four experimental
development projects, prepared4 doctors of social (economics) science;
now he is research adviser of 2 persons maintaining a doctor's
thesis of social (economics) science.
Fields of scientific interest: international economics, tourism
economics, clusterization, competitiveness, customer satisfaction,
corporate social responsibility.
Rima KONTAUTIENE. PhD student at Kaunas University of Technology,
School of Economics and Business, Department of Economics. Fields of
scientific interest: microeconomics, macroeconomics, international
economics, corporate social responsibility, corporate philanthropy.
Table 1. Main elements of CSR (adapted by Giziene et al. 2011)
Corporate social responsibility
Economic Environmental Social
responsibility responsibility responsibility
Cost-effective Knowing what Caring for
activities--profitability. environmental impact the welfare,
of human activities perfection and
(use of raw motivation of
materials, workers.
environmental
pollution).
Competitive Constant improvement Support of open
products and of the activities. communication
services. with stakeholders.
Reliability of Knowledge and Encouragement
energy supply. compliance of of cooperation.
environmental
legislation.
Financial risk Evaluation and Caring for the
management. observance of needs of the
necessary changes. public and
clients.
Table 2. Corporate social responsiveness as organizational
programs (source: Maignan, Ralston 2002)
Corporate social responsiveness
Philanthropic The company presents a formalized
programs philanthropy program made of a
clear mission and application
procedures to allocate donations
and grants.
Sponsorships The company introduces sponsorships
as a type of responsibility initiative
aimed at providing assistance either
financial or in-kind to a cause
or charity.
Volun- The company presents programs
teerism that allow employees to work
for a good cause during paid
working hours.
Code of The company discusses the
ethics content and/or implementation
of a code of ethics or conduct.
Quality The company describes a formal
programs product/service quality program
as a form of responsibility
initiative.
Health The company introduces formal
and safety health and safety programs aimed
programs at one or more stakeholder
groups as a form of
responsibility initiative.
Mana gement The company discusses activities
of environmental aimed at diminishing the negative
impacts impact of productive activities
on the natural environment.
Fig. 2. Distribution of evaluation of socially
responsive programs, in percent (source: Kontautiene 2011)
Very Important Average
important important
Management of 53% 33% 12%
environmental
impacts
Health and 41% 31% 16%
safety
programs
Quality 69% 19% 12%
programs
Code of 41% 28% 16%
ethics
Volunteerism 16% 28% 35%
Sponsorships 9% 44% 22%
Philantropic 9% 25% 35%
programs
Not Totally
very irrelevant
important
Management of
environmental
impacts
Health and 6% 6%
safety
programs
Quality
programs
Code of 12% 3%
ethics
Volunteerism 12% 9%
Sponsorships 22% 3%
Philantropic 22% 9%
programs
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Fig. 3. Number of Lithuanian companies introduced management
systems as per international standards (in units)
(source: Lithuanian Standards Board 2014)
ISO 9001:2008 1534
OHSAS 18001:2007 914
Other standarts 60
ISO 14001:2004 550
SA 8000:2008 24
ISO 22000:2005 3
EMAS 156
Note: Table made from bar graph.
