How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off Lee B u r k e a n d J e a n n e M. L o g s d o n

T O U G H E R COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS in recent years have put pressure on firms to examine their phil- anthropy and other social responsibility activities. Cutbacks have occurred in many organizations because the rationales for continuing or upgrading these programmes have not been clearly articulated. However, a fundamental belief among its business supporters and business-and-society scholars is that corporate social responsibility 'pays off' for the firm as well as for the firm's stakeholders and society in general. But the failure to find strong empirical sup- port for the relationship between socially responsible behaviour and financial performance 1'2 has been troubling. Rightly or wrongly, this lack of a clearcut empirical relationship between social responsibility and the bottom line is perceived by some executives and students as evidence that it is irrelevant for suc- cessful corporate performance, perhaps even anti- thetical to it.

This article approaches the issue of linking cor- porate social responsibility (CSR) to the economic interests of the firm from a different perspective. Rather than focusing only on direct correlations between CSR programmes and short-term profits, the thrust of our approach is to examine the ways in which CSR programmes can create strategic benefits for the organization even when they are not readily measurable as separable contributions to the bottom line. The question that is addressed here is: under what conditions does a firm jointly serve its own stra- tegic business interests and the societal interests of its stakeholders?

This is an important question for managers and for stakeholders because without a clearcut under- standing of strategic benefits that may accrue to the organization, it is more likely that top management will not invest in CSR practices which contribute to the long-term success of the firm. While a few organ-

izations with good reputations for CSR have en- countered financial difficulties, we believe that the explanation for this decline lies not in their CSR activities but rather in their competitive environ- ments and business decisions. A strategic reori- entation of the firm's CSR phi losophy can support its financial interests as well as other stakeholders' interests in the firm. How to reorient CSR toward a more strategic perspective is the key to inspiring more CSR activities, thus serving stakeholder and societal interests more fully.

A Tradeoff Between CSR and Profit? Historical Perspectives The perception that CSR entails a zero-sum tradeoff with corporate economic interests is strongly ident- ified with neo-classical economics. Even many defenders of CSR accept the zero-sum formulation,

Pergamon PII: S0024-6301 (96)00041-6

Long Range Planning, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 495 to 502, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0024-6301/96 $15.00+0.00

while at the same time embracing the social obli- gations of business. The classic literature in business and society asserted that while CSR might entail short-term costs, it paid off for the firm in the long run. 3'4 These scholars argued that firms would benefit from greater social legitimacy with less government regulation, and that a better society was simply good for long-term profitability. A complementary, though slightly different view held that CSR was appropriate for underwrit ing public goods which no single firm had a market incentive to provide. 5

The next stage in the academic debate over social responsibility focused on clarifying and quantifying the benefits from CSR. Empirical analyses of the relationship between CSR and profitability began to appear in the mid-1970s, but did not result in consen- sus. 1'2 These studies have generally used a single mea- sure of social performance (such as an external reputational index, content analysis of corporate annual reports or peer ratings) which was correlated with various measures of company economic per- formance. Researchers have usually acknowledged the weaknesses of these single CSR measures, but point out the extraordinary difficulty of gathering data about the wide range of CSR behaviours for a suf- ficient number of firms to perform statistical analyses. More recently, some have argued that fundamental definitional problems with the CSR construct itself, in addition to measurement problems, make the efforts to find statistical associations between CSR and profits highly problematic. 6

While CSR researchers struggled with these issues, the field of strategic management was grappling with its own definitional problems. Just what exactly was business strategy? Some theorists defined strategy as the goals, mission, and objectives of the firm. 7'8 Others focused on strategy as plan, 9 pattern, 1°'1~ p r o c e s s 12 and positioning for competitive advantage. ~3'~4 Within the classic strategy literature, discussions of the firm's external environment expanded beyond the tradi- tional economic or market context. Strategy theor- ists such as Andrews 1° identified the relationship between corporate strategy and "the economic and noneconomic contribution [the firm] intends to make to its shareholders, employees, customers, and com- munit ies" (p. 13, emphasis added). Ansoff ~5 articu- lated the need for firms to develop societal strategies. As a result, environmental scanning and monitoring systems gained importance as elements of an effective information gathering system for strategy formulation. ~8'17 Attempts to integrate the concepts of CSR and corporate strategy have included the stake- holder model of strategic management and the inclusion of social demands as strategic i s s u e s . 18'19

The integration of corporate social policy within the traditional strategy model was also furthered by the recognition that social response policies should be "strategically related to the economic interests of the

firm" (Carroll and Hoy, p. 55). 2o The concept of stra- tegic CSR builds on these efforts by demonstrating several fundamental ways in which CSR activities can be tightly linked to the strategy of the firm.

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate social responsibility (policy, programme or process) is strategic when it yields substantial busi- ness-related benefits to the firm, in particular by sup- porting core business activities and thus contributing to the firm's effectiveness in accomplishing its mission. While empirical studies to date have focused primarily on the link between CSR and financial per- formance (especially, short-term profits), we propose a more comprehensive basis for identifying the relationships between CSR and the firm's strategic interests. This broader set of criteria or dimensions attempts to capture the full range of strategic behav- iour and opportunities for business to benefit from CSR. These dimensions are not intended to encompass all CSR activity. Much observed CSR behaviour remains nonstrategic, however valuable it is for stakeholders and society. Our attempt here is to develop better measures for assessing when and in what ways CSR activities jointly serve economic and societal interests.

We have identified five dimensions of corporate strategy which are both critical to the success of the firm and useful in relating CSR policies, programmes and processes to value creation by the firm. Value creation is commonly viewed as the most critical objective for the firm and its strategic decision- making process. In assessing the probable con- tributions of CSR activities to value creation, the five dimensions of strategic CSR are: centrality, speci- ficity, proactivity, voluntarism and visibility. Figure 1 shows the development of these dimensions of value creation and their linkages to definitions of strategy found in the academic literature.

Cen tral i ty Centrality is a measure of the closeness of fit between a CSR policy or programme and the firm's mission and objectives. 21 Centrality is a critical issue in most definitions of strategy as goals or objectives. It pro- vides direction and feedback for the organization by revealing whether given actions or decisions are con- sistent with the mission, goals and objectives of the firm. Actions or programmes having high centrality are expected to receive priority within the organ- ization and to yield future benefits, ultimately trans- lated into profits for the organization. For example, in the product development area, funds spent by a pharmaceutical firm on new drug research and testing have very high centrality. By contrast, the internal

How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off

Goals, mission, objectives (Ansoff, Andrews, Thorelli)

Centrality Closeness of fit to the firm's mission and objectives

Competitive advantage (Rumelt, Porter)

Specificity

Ability to capture private benefits by the firm

Plan (Quinn)

Proactivity Degree to which the program is planned in anticipation of emerging social trends and in the absence of crisis

Value creation Identifiable, measurable economic benefits that the firm expects to receive

Process (Lyles)

Voluntarism The scope for discretionary decision-making and the lack of externally imposed compliance requirements

Pattern (Mintzberg)

Visibility Observable, recognizable credit by internal and/or external stakeholders for the firm

auditing function, while important for the ulti- mate health and security of firms, generally has low centrality.

With respect to strategic CSR, programmes or poli- cies which are related closely to the organization's mission or tightly linked to its accomplishment have much higher centrality than traditional broad-based corporate philanthropy programmes. For example, the design, testing and manufacture of air bags for automobiles--a socially responsible product--was highly central to TRW, as was the correction of safety problems with this product. Similarly, political activities in support of mandatory automobile safety equipment have high centrality for a manufacturer of such equipment. But even philanthropy decisions can have a high degree of centrality. Merck's investment in developing and distributing the river blindness drug, Mectizan, is widely regarded as strategically

astute as well as humanitarian. The 18 million Third World victims of this disease have clearly benefited from Merck's contribution, and Merck itself benefits because of its enhanced reputation in the indus- trialized world, including increased reputational leverage with medical professionals and government regulators. The company also benefits in terms of employee morale, productivity and retention by sup- porting the ethical motivations of the research staff.

Specificity Specificity refers to the firm's ability to capture or internalize the benefits of a CSR programme, rather than simply creating collective goods which can be shared by others in the industry, community or society at large. 13'14 Externalities (whether positive or negative) and public goods are by definition non- specific. By contrast, investments in research and

Long Range Planning Vol. 29 August 1996

development leading to patentable products are highly specific.

Many CSR behaviours, including many phil- anthropic contributions, create nonspecific public goods that are broadly available to a local or national community. For example, corporate donations to the San Francisco Symphony benefit Bay Area sym- phony-goers and others in the community who feel pride in or value the excellence of the local classical music scene. Neither of these benefits is specific to the donating firm since there is no exclusive enjoyment granted to the firm (although some of the firm's employees may hold symphony tickets). Similarly, smokestack scrubbers or waste water treatment facili- ties create public benefits (or avoid the creation of negative pollution externalities) which are available to the entire community. The firm discharging 'clean' smoke or 'pure' water benefits only to the extent that it shares in the enjoyment of a healthier environment and avoids censure or fines associated with failure to meet federal pollution enforcement standards. For a firm that exceeds existing standards for waste treat- ment, the benefit stream produced by pollution reductions beyond minimal compliance levels is public, i.e. nonspecific to the firm. One might argue that the firm may be motivated by the desire to save on future compliance costs. If so, the CSR behaviour may be strategic in terms of proactivity, another of the dimensions of strategic CSR.

Contrast this with the case of a firm investing in cogeneration technology which recaptures heat dis- charged through smokestacks and converts it to energy which substitutes electrical power purchased from the local utility. In this case, the benefits of cogeneration are highly specific to the firm in the form of energy costs saved. The benefit spillover to the public is the firm's contribution to aggregate energy conservation. Cause-related marketing programmes offer similar specific benefits to the sponsoring firm as well as to recipient nonprofit organizations.

Proactivity Proactivity reflects the degree to which behaviour is planned in anticipation of emerging economic, tech- nological, social or political trends and in the absence of crisis conditions. Proactivity has long been ident- ified by business strategists as an important charac- teristic of planning and scanning systems. 9'1°'22 In turbulent environments firms must constantly scan their environments to anticipate changes likely to affect the firm. Such changes can range from new market opportunities to emerging social issues or threats.

The firm that recognizes critical changes early will be better positioned to take advantage of oppor- tunities or to counter threats. For example, a firm which introduces an employee education and retrain- ing programme in advance of coming technological

changes requiring more skilled or differently skilled labour will be better prepared to shift to new tech- nologies and will encounter less resistance in doing so. Motorola has excelled in providing remedial edu- cation and specialized training for employees so that Total Quality Management and other improvement programmes could be implemented more effectively by a more qualified workforce.

An example of proactivity in the CSR context is a manufacturer monitoring emerging social trends and regulatory initiatives regarding pollution control. A company whose active investigation identifies new smokestack technologies to meet forthcoming or pro- spective regulations at a low cost would clearly gain a long-term competitive advantage over its competi- tors. But even more proactive is the firm which fosters pollution reduction throughout the organization because it has anticipated that pollution-related costs will increase over the long term. For example, 3M Company developed the Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) programme in 1975 and had reduced pollutants by over 575,000tons by the early 1990s. The 3P Plus programmme was recently introduced to provide an even more holistic approach to pollution preven- tion. 23 Similarly, a consumer products firm pursuing an environmental marketing strategy would be better positioned to roll out environmentally friendly pack- aging in a timely fashion for the 'green' decade of the 1990s, as Procter & Gamble has done. By contrast, cutting back on R&D aimed at finding substitutes for CFCs in the early 1980s may have hurt DuPont's dominance of that market niche more than the cut- backs helped the immediate bottom line.

Voluntarism Voluntarism indicates the scope of discretionary decision-making by the firm and the absence of externally imposed compliance requirements. Vol- untarism is closely linked to proactivity, especially to the extent that it presumes the absence of regulatory or other mandates. In general, philanthropic con- tributions are assumed to be voluntary--although executives are often subject to social network pres- sure to contribute to favourite charities. 24

Firms regularly engage in voluntary behaviours in their core business functions, e.g. in decisions regard- ing product line and new product introductions. In general, normal business activities are considered voluntary in the sense that firms maintain high levels of control and discretion over day-to-day operations. In the CSR domain, the firm which exceeds minimum standards for quality or safety, such as an airline which exceeds FAA inspection and maintenance requirements, exhibits voluntarism. These activities offer both strategic and social responsibility payoffs. In many cases additional mandates come into play only when such voluntary behaviour ceases, often in the face of short-run financial pressures. For example,

How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off

the perceived decline in US airline performance in the late 1980s with respect to on-time arrivals and baggage handling led to new requirements for airlines to publicly report performance in these areas.

Visibility Visibility denotes both the observability of a business activity and the firm's ability to gain recognition from internal and external stakeholders. Visibility can have both positive and negative consequences for firms. Positive forms of visibility involving normal business activities include favourable media mentions, strong earnings announcements, stock price run-ups (not associated with impending hostile takeovers) and successful new product launches. Instances of negative visibility include government investigations of contract fraud, the indictment or sentencing of company officials, the discovery of dangerous side effects from otherwise beneficent drugs, cases of poisoning and other forms of com- mercial terrorism, or the disclosure of toxic con- tamination in waste disposal sites.

Visibility for CSR activities is less likely to be nega- tive, although the CSR behaviour and resulting pub- licity may arise from initially negative events. For example, the discovery of toxic shock syndrome and its link to tampon use were certainly negative events. But Procter & Gamble's response, in the form of its recall of Rely tampons, generated significant positive visibility for the company and, by extension, enhanced the perceived reliability of its many other products. 25 Similarly, Johnson & Johnson's rapid and complete response to the Tylenol poisonings under- scored the firm's concern for its customers and brought high visibility to its long-standing corporate code of conduct. An unanticipated consequence of the Tylenol episode is that Johnson & Johnson's code is now the most widely known corporate code among business students, often used in business-and-society courses as a model for all firms.

Clearly these two well-known cases illustrate vol- untary CSR responses which resulted in positive visi- bility in the wake of negative initial events. This contrasts with Exxon's experience with the Valdez oil spill. In that case, negative visibility resulting from the initial event increased when the expected response capability failed to materialize. Exxon's treatment of, and information releases about, the extent and nature of the oil spill further reinforced the already negative publicity surrounding the initial event.

Visibility, unlike most of the other dimensions, may be particularly relevant with respect to the firm's internal consti tuency--i ts employees. For example, creative and extensive employee benefit programmes, such as comprehensive health care, on-site day care and continuing educational benefits, are likely to be highly visible within the firm, even if not to the out-

side world. They may also produce economic benefits for the firm by improving productivity, morale or loy- alty, thus making it easier for the firm to attract and retain the best employees.

Value Creation as Strategic Outcome The ultimate measure of strategic benefits from CSR activities is the value they create for the firm. Value creation refers to the readily measurable stream of economic benefits that the firm expects to receive. This dimension also most closely approximates the attempts by earlier researchers to find relationships between social responsibility and economic per- formance. Firms create or attempt to create value in their ongoing business activities through investments in new technology, new products, brand awareness, production facilities, training and customer service. To the extent that some of these also constitute or are integrated with CSR objectives or goals, these CSR programmes are among the most likely to create demonstrable economic benefits to the firm. Figure 2 provides a number of examples of potentially stra- tegic CSR activities and the benefits which they offer to firms.

Once the concept of strategic CSR is accepted by executives as feasible, the next step is to develop methods of analysis and guidelines to capitalize on these opportunities.

Implications for Management Practice and Research Increasing competitive pressures have caused execu- tives to examine the nature and extent of their firms' CSR activities. At the same time, governmental capa- bilities for solving social problems have been called into question, and in many cases society is looking to the business sector for assistance in identifying and implementing remedies. Meanwhile, many of these social problems are becoming more acute. It is critical for executives to consider the consequences of these trends. They do not bode well for communities or for firms.

One answer is strategic corporate social responsi- bility. By becoming more aware of the benefits to both the firm and its stakeholders, managers can make bet- ter decisions about CSR activities. For example, in a community suffering from a high drop-out rate in secondary schools, managers can design and implement many effective programmes for keeping at-risk teenagers in school. Many of these programmes are not very costly to firms, particularly when they encourage employees to volunteer. In addition, there are often payoffs to firms which employ and sell prod- ucts or services within these communities.

If we recognize the long-term investment charac- teristics of CSR (as opposed to thinking of CSR merely

Long Range Planning Vol. 29 August 1996

Cen

tral

ity

Phi

lant

hrop

ic

cont

ribu

tion

s ($

, pro

duct

, ti

me)

.'om

pu

ter

do

na

tio

ns

to

sch

oo

ls b

y co

mp

ute

r m

frs.

E

ng

ine

eri

ng

res

earc

h fe

llow

ship

s

Em

ploy

ee b

enef

its

(dir

ect

or i

ndir

ect)

Env

iron

men

t m

anag

emen

t (h

ealt

h,

safe

ty,

pollu

tion

)

Ne

w p

rod

uct

s e.

g. '

gre

en

'

Pro

cess

in

no

vati

on

es

p. r

e p

ollu

tio

n

Pol

itic

al a

ctiv

ity

(PA

C,

lobb

y or

in

form

atio

n,

inde

pend

ent

or

indu

stry

)

Fa

vou

rab

le c

ha

ng

e i

n e

con

om

ic o

r so

cial

re

gu

lati

on

s

Pro

duct

or

serv

ice

rela

ted

char

acte

rist

ics,

in

nova

tion

s or

pr

oces

ses

Pro

du

ct r

efo

rmu

lati

on

s e.

g. '

gre

en

' im

pro

ved

de

sig

n,

e.g.

fue

l e

ffic

ien

cy

ne

w p

rod

uct

s,

e.g.

air

ba

gs

Spe

cifi

city

Acc

ust

om

ne

w u

sers

to

fir

m's

pro

du

cts

vs

com

pe

tito

rs'

He

alt

h/w

elln

ne

ss

Day

car

e F

lex-

tim

e

Pat

ent

or

inn

ova

tio

n

ed

ge

in

pro

du

ct o

r pr

oces

s d

eve

lop

me

nt

Ne

w b

usin

ess

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

if p

re-

po

siti

on

ed

to

tak

e a

dva

nta

ge

of

ne

w

rule

s

Pat

ent

or

inn

ova

tio

n

ed

ge

fir

st-t

o-m

ark

et

bra

nd

lo

yalt

y

Pro

acti

vity

V

olun

tari

sm

Co

mm

un

ity

sup

po

rt

Ne

w o

r u

nco

mm

on

b

en

efi

ts

Hig

he

r e

mp

loye

e

loya

lty

Em

plo

yee

lo

yalt

y an

d m

ora

le

Le

arn

ing

cu

rve

a

dva

nta

ge

s P

ositi

ve r

ela

tio

ns

wit

h r

eg

ula

tors

Pre

-po

siti

on

ing

fo

r ch

an

ge

s in

re

gu

lati

on

s

En

viro

nm

en

tal

sca

nn

ing

to

cre

ate

e

dg

e i

n d

esi

gn

or

pro

du

ct i

deas

Vis

ibili

ty

Inte

rnal

: .=

mpl

oyee

lo

yalt

y an

d m

ora

le

Pub

lic r

ela

tio

ns

and/

or m

ark

eti

ng

a

dva

nta

ge

F i r

st-t

o-m

a r k

et

or

lea

de

rsh

ip

be

ne

fits

Val

ue c

reat

ed

Cu

sto

me

r lo

yalt

y

Fu

ture

pu

rch

ase

rs

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

ga

ins

Ne

w p

rod

uct

s o

r m

ark

ets

Ne

w p

rod

uct

or

ge

og

rap

hic

ma

rke

t o

pp

ort

un

itie

s

Ne

w p

rod

uct

on

ne

w m

ark

ets

Edg

e in

me

eti

ng

e

me

rge

ncy

ne

ed

s

as current period expenditures), then normal busi- ness decision rules would select CSR activities which 1. yield the highest total payoffs in terms of collective benefits to the firm and its stakeholders and 2. fall within the range indicated for strategic CSR. To ident- ify such projects, the firm should incorporate CSR planning and investment within its corporate plan- ning function. Specifically, the firm should carry out the following analysis: Q Identify the stakeholders which are critically

important for achieving the firm's mission, goals or strategic objectives.

Q Determine the socially valuable CSR policies, pro- grammes and projects which address the needs and interests of these stakeholders.

t3 Assess the opportunities offered by these CSR pro- jects to enhance the firm's attainment of strategic objectives or to solve significant problems and threats facing the firm. (Centrality.)

Ca Assess the degree to which these CSR projects offer benefits which can be captured and/or intern- alized by the firm as opposed to all firms in the industry or society at large. (Specificity.)

~1 Anticipate future changes in the firm's environ- ment and changes in the needs of its key stake- holders which could be addressed through proactive CSR policies and activities. (Proac- tivity.)

~3 Determine the baseline of mandated requirements in order to identify the opportunities for voluntary activities. (Voluntarism.)

O Identify opportunities to create positive visibility with key internal or external stakeholders from CSR activities. (Visibility.)

~3 Measure and compare the value or potential value expected from various CSR projects. (Value creation.)

To the academic community, the concept of strategic CSR provides an opportunity to measure the benefits of CSR in a broader context than simple correlations between philanthropic contributions and profits. Recent literature in the business-and-society field implicitly or explicitly takes a more strategic orien- tation to various components of C S R . 26'27 Greater pre- cision in specifying the attributes of strategic CSR will help future researchers to identify the broad range of business activities which represent CSR behaviour. In this vein, work needs to be done on 1. creating sound measures of strategic CSR for empirical research; 2. exploring the linkage between CSR and the alliance behaviours of firms; 3. examining the role of industry leaders in establishing norms for CSR and in innovating strategic CSR. A comprehensive frame- work should help managers to identify opportunities for and justify greater attention to CSR behaviour which can be linked to the strategic interests of the firm.

Several of these ideas appeared in a paper with Martha Reiner which was presented at the International Association for Business and Society 2nd annual conference in Sundance, UT.

References 1. A. Ullmann, Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among

social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms, Academy of Management Review 10(3), 540-557 (1985).

2. D. J. Wood and R. E. Jones, Research in corporate social performance: what have we learned? Paper presented at the Conference on Corporate Philanthropy, Case Western Reserve University, April (1994).

3. K. Davis, The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities, In A. Carroll (ed.), Managing Corporate Social Responsibility, Little, Brown & Co. Boston, MA (1977).

4. G. C. Steiner, An overview of the changing business environment and its impact on business, In L. E. Preston (ed.), Business Environment~Public Policy: 1979 Conference Papers, pp. 3-18, AACSB, St Louis, MO (1980).

5. W. J. Baumol, Enlightened self-interest and corporate philanthropy. In A New Rationale for Corporate Social Policy. Committee for Economic Development, New York (1970).

6. M. Starik and A. Carroll, In search of beneficence: reflections on the connections between firm social and financial performance. Proceedings, International Association for Business and Society 1990 Annual Meeting, pp. 1-15 (1990).

7. H. I. Ansoff, Corporate Strategy: an Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion, McGraw-Hill, New York (1965).

8. H. B. Thorelli (ed.), Strategy Plus Structure Equals Performance, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN (1977).

9. J. B. Quinn, Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL (1980).

10. K. R. Andrews, The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL (1980).

11. H. Mintzberg, Opening up the definition of strategy, In J. B. Quinn, H. Mintzberg and R. M. James, The Strategy Process, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1988).

Long Range Planning Vol. 29 August 1996

12. M. A. Lyles, Strategic problems: how to identify them, In L. Fahey (ed.), The Strateg& Planning Management Reader, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1985).

13. M. E. Porter, Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York (1985).

14. R. Rumelt, The evaluation of business strategy, In W. F. Glueck, Business Policy and Strategic Management, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York (1980).

15. H. I. Ansoff, Societal strategy for the business firm, In Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 1, pp. 3-29, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT (1983).

16. J. C. Camillus and D. K. Datta, Managing strategic issues in a turbulent environment, Long Range Planning 24(2), 67-74 (1991).

17. R.T. Lenz and J. L. Engledow, Environmental analysis: the applicability of current theory, Strategic Management Journal 7(4), 329-346 (1986).

18. A. Carroll, F. Hoy and J. Hall, The integration of corporate social policy into strategic management, In S. P. Sethi and C. M. Falbe (eds), Business and Society: Dimensions of Conflict and Cooperation, pp. 449-470, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA (1987).

19. R. Freeman, Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA (1984).

20. A. B. Carroll and F. Hoy, Integrating corporate social policy into strategic management, Journal of Business Strategy 4(3), 48-57 (1984).

21. H. I. Ansoff, Managing surprise and discontinuity: strategic response to weak signals, In H. B. Thorelli (ed.), Strategy Plus Structure Equals Performance, pp. 53-82, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN (1977).

22. A. C. Cooper and D. Schendel, Strategic responses to technological threats, Business Horizons 19(1), 61-69 (1976).

23. R. P. Bringer and D. M. Benforado, Pollution prevention and total quality environmental management, In R. V. Kolluru (ed.), Environmental Strategies Handbook, pp. 165- 197, McGraw-Hill, New York (1994).

24. L. Burke, J. M. Logsdon, W. Mitchell, M. Reiner and D. Vogel, Corporate community involvement in the San Francisco Bay Area, California Management Review28(3), 122-141 (1986).

25. E, Gatewood and A. Carroll, The anatomy of corporate social response: the Rely, Firestone 500, and Pinto cases, Business Horizons24(5), 9-16 (1981).

26. J. Logsdon, M. Reiner and L. Burke, Corporate philanthropy: strategic responses to the firm's stakeholders, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 19, (2), 93-190 (1990).

27. J. Mahon, Corporate political strategy, Business in the Contemporary World 2(1), 50-62 (1989).

How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off