The Knowledge Diffusion Paths of Corporate Social ...download.xuebalib.com/xuebalib.com.26629.pdf · The Knowledge Diffusion Paths of Corporate Social Responsibility – From 1970

The Knowledge Diffusion Paths of Corporate SocialResponsibility – From 1970 to 2011

Louis Y.Y. Lu1* and John S. Liu21College of Management, Yuan Ze University

2Graduate Institute of Technology Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology

ABSTRACTThis paper presents a unique approach to translating a complex citation network into simplemain paths. We apply this approach to explore the knowledge diffusion paths of corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) literature over the past 40 years. ISI Web of Science (WOS) is usedas the data source for retrieving the CSR papers and their citation data. We then apply mainpath analysis to identify and visualize the local, global, and key-route main paths. The localand global main paths identify those papers that play a key role in the knowledge diffusion ofCSR. The key-routemain path clearly exhibits the divergence-convergence pattern of CSR devel-opment. Although the divergence-convergence pattern of a theory’s development has beenhinted at in previous literature, we propose the key-route main path to systematically identifyand exhibit it. This approach provides a useful method for researchers to figure out the devel-opment cycles of a target field. Copyright© 2013 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 16 March 2012; revised 3 September 2012; accepted 14 September 2012

Keywords: corporate social responsibility; main path analysis; stakeholder engagement; corporate social initiatives; sustainable

development; environmental policy

Introduction

THECONCEPT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) WAS PROMOTED IN THE 1950S (BOWEN, 1953), ITS NOTIONS AND

definitions expanded and proliferated over the 1960s and 1970s (Davis and Blomstrom, 1966; Sethi, 1975;Frederick, 1978; Carroll, 1979); and it matured in the 1980s (Carroll, 1999). In the 1990s, many scholarslinked CSR with other theories to enhance the concept of CSR (Wood, 1991a; 1991b; Clarkson, 1995; Jones,

1995), and by the late 1990s, the ideas of CSR had become universally promoted (Lee, 2008). After 2000, numerousresearchers put forth efforts on the empirical studies and/or theorization of CSR, with the result that ten times asmany CSR articles have been published over the past decade versus the sum total of all CSR articles beforehand.

Sethi (1975) proposed a three-stage path for adapting CSR behavior: social obligation, social responsibility, andsocial responsiveness. Beyond social responsibility, Frederick (1978) articulated social responsiveness as the capacityof a corporate to respond to social pressure. The concept of CSR was not generally accepted until Carroll (1979) sug-gested a three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Several researchers later furthermodified, developed, and strengthened Carroll’s model (Ullmann, 1985; Wartick and Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991a).

*Correspondence to: Louis Y. Y. Lu, 135 Yuan-Tung Rd., Chung-Li 32003, Taiwan. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental ManagementCorp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 21, 113–128 (2014)Published online 29 May 2013 in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/csr.1309

Over the past few decades CSR has triggered vast interest and publicity from practitioners to scholars (Melo andGarrido-Morgado, 2012), who have devoted much effort to CSR via theorizing or conducting empirical studies. Infact, more than 2000 articles have been published over the past 40 years. Some researchers investigated CSR activ-ities in developed countries (Maignan and Ferrell, 2000; Matten and Crane, 2005; Lehmann et al., 2010; Carnevaleet al., 2012); some extended their studies to developing countries (Waldman et al., 2006; Dobers and Halme, 2009;Sobhani et al., 2009); some examined the relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance (Bowmanand Haire, 1975; Spencer and Taylor, 1987; Waddock and Graves, 1997; McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; Callan andThomas, 2009); and some investigated CSR from a stakeholder’s perspective (Clarkson, 1995; Jones and Wicks,1999; Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009; Shah, 2011). We believe it is now time to take up a systematic review on theknowledge diffusion trajectories of the CSR literature.

Several researchers have recently reviewed the CSR literature from different angles (Margolis and Walsh, 2003;Orlitzky et al., 2003; Auld et al., 2008; Lee, 2008; Wood, 2010). Most of these review papers use tens or hundreds ofpapers in order to analyze and summarize the theoretical development of CSR. This kind of approach can inten-sively examine the selected papers, but it is almost impossible apply to a huge dataset, say thousands of papers.

Orlitzky et al. (2003) conducted a meta-analysis on 52 studies to rigorously review the relationship between cor-porate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP). They found that CSP is more corre-lated with accounting-based measures of CFP than with market-based indicators. Margolis and Walsh (2003)reviewed 127 studies published over 1972 to 2002 and reconfirmed that there is a positive association betweenCSP and CFP. They argued that studies of the relationship between CSP and CFP reveal little evidence that CSPdestroys value, injures stakeholders in a significant way, or damages the wealth-creating capacity of firms. Theyfurther proposed an alternative approach to investigate the tension between economic and broader social objectives.

Lee (2008) traced the conceptual evolutionary path of theories on CSR and argued that researchers have movedtheir focus from the macro-social effects of CSR to CSR’s effects on organization profit, and from explicitly norma-tive and ethics-oriented arguments to implicitly normative and performance-oriented managerial studies. Auld et al.(2008) identified seven ideal types of CSR innovations and suggested that firms should assess how and whetherCSR initiatives can transform a win-lose situation into a win-win situation. Wood (2010) reviewed the literatureof CSP measurement and offered some conclusions about existing CSP research. She recommended that CSPresearchers should refocus on stakeholders and society and also need to cross the disciplinary barriers of CSP.

These review papers provide comprehensive knowledge of the selected topic for readers, but the conclusions basedon expert opinions are embedded with problems of subjectivity (Acedo et al., 2006). Moreover, they only handle a smallvolume of articles. When the volume is large, the review work becomes challenging via using traditional approaches.This current study presents a unique way of identifying the major papers that play an important role in the knowledgediffusion flow of 2447 CSR articles published over the past 40 years. This approach is new to the CSR literature, and wedemonstrate its effectiveness and efficiency in identifying the major papers of a targeted discipline.

Methodology

Main path analysis is the focal method of identifying those papers that play a major role in CSR knowledge diffusion.The analysis uses the citation data to trace the main flow of knowledge diffusion. Citation data of CSR papers generatethe citation network, and main path analysis is applied to identify various main paths accordingly.

Citation data in academic publications are commonly used to indicate an academic publication’s acceptance andcontain rich information on how knowledge disseminates. The citation relation network can be used to track thedocumented flow and evolution of research over time (Kostoff, 1998). Garfield et al. (1964) drew and analyzedthe ‘topological network diagrams’ of a set of 40 DNA publications to demonstrate the usefulness of citationrelationships. Main path analysis is found to be a method that is able to extract crucial knowledge flow informationfrom citation relationships.

Hummon and Doreian (1989) suggested that citations are the explicit linkages among papers that share someimportant common content in a specific field. Based on the citation information from academic papers, theyintroduced the main path analysis to trace the main flow of ideas in DNA development. Main path analysis begins

114 L. Y. Y. Lu and J. S. Liu

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 21, 113–128 (2014)DOI: 10.1002/csr

with building a citation network and assigning a significance index to each citation link. After the significance indexis decided, a ‘priority first search’ is conducted to select the significant followers of an earlier publication. The paththus generated is the most significant path of the target academic field. Hummon and Doreian (1989) appliedthe method on the same DNA citation network used in Garfield et al. (1964) and demonstrated that the outcomeis very convincing. Hummon and his colleagues further successfully applied the method to different applications(Hummon et al., 1990; Hummon and Carley, 1993; Carley et al., 1993).

Batagelj and Mrvar later implemented the social network analysis in the freeware Pajek (Batagelj and Mrvar,1998) and offered different algorithms for determining various versions of the significance index to enhance themain path analysis (Batagelj, 2003). There are several approaches to count the significance index of a citation link:the search path link count (SPLC), the node pair projection count (NPPC), the search path node pair (SPNP), and thesearch path count (SPC). Batagelj (2003) concluded that SPC provides better properties than others and is the mostappropriate index for analyzing a larger social network.

Figure 1 exhibits a sample of a citation network in which each link is labeled with the SPC significance index.Each node represents a paper and the link between two nodes represents the citation relationship. For example,node C cites nodes A and B, whereas it itself is cited by nodes E and J. A ‘source’ is defined as a node that is cited,but cites no other nodes; and a ‘sink’ is a node that cites other nodes, but is not cited. In other words, sources are theorigins of knowledge, while sinks are the end points of knowledge diffusion flow. In Figure 1, the network containstwo sources, A and B, and four sinks, F, H, I, and J. Assuming that one exhausts all efforts in searching out all pathsfrom all the sources to all the sinks, each link’s SPC is defined as the total number of times the link is traversed. Forexample, link A-C has SPC value of 3, because paths A-C-E-H, A-C-E-J, and A-C-J pass through it. The larger the SPCis, the more important the link’s role is in knowledge diffusion. We explain how to explore the local, global, and key-route main paths from Figure 1 in turn.

Hummon and Doreian (1989) proposed a ‘priority first search’ algorithm to identify the one and only one path torepresent the main path of a citation network, which we name as the ‘local main path’. The local main path isconstructed by beginning the search from all source nodes and selecting the link(s) with the largest SPC value as thestart link(s). Take the end node(s) of the link(s) as the start point(s) for the next step until a sink node is hit. If thereare ties at each start point, then take all the tied links into consideration. In Figure 1, link B-D is selected from the sourcenode B, and thenD is taken as the start point for the next step. Afterward, D-G, G-I, andG-J are picked sequentially. Thelocal main paths of the sample citation network are A-D-G-I and A-D-G-J as shown in Figure 2.

One can find that the accumulated SPC value of the local main path is 7, but the accumulated SPC values of pathsA-C-E-H, A-C-E-J, B-C-E-H and B-C-E-J are 9, which is larger than 7. This means that the local main path may not bethe path with the largest accumulated SPC value among all paths in the whole network. Liu and Lu (2012) proposedthe concept of ‘global main path’ to identify the path with the largest accumulated SPC value. The global main pathemphasizes the ‘overall importance’ while the local main path highlights the progressing significance. Figure 3shows the global main path of the sample citation network.

Figure 1. A citation network with the SPC index

115The Knowledge Diffusion Paths of Corporate Social Responsibility


Although the global main path can complement the local main path via offering a feature of overall importance, onemay find that the link(s) with the largest SPC value may not always be included in the global main path (for example,link B-D). Liu and Lu (2012) suggested the concept of ‘key-route main path’ to overcome this issue. The key-route mainpath is constructed as follows: select the link(s) with the largest SPC value as the key-route(s); search forward from theend node of the key-route(s) until a sink is hit; search backward from the start node of the key-route(s) until a source ishit; combine the paths searching forward and backward, and the key-route main path is formed.

Figure 4 represents the key-route main paths with the largest two SPC value links, 4 and 3. The largest SPC valueis 4, and links B-D and C-E are identified accordingly. The second largest SPC value is 3, and links A-C and B-C areselected. Searching forward and backward from these links, the key-route main paths A-C-E-H, A-C-E-J, B-C-E-H,B-C-E-J, B-D-G-I, and B-D-G-J are then traced. These key-route main paths include all the links with the largesttwo SPC values. Multiple key-route main path approaches allow us to cover as many important links as we want.The key-route main paths usually contain both the local and global main paths. They are very useful in identifyingthe structural pattern, especially for the divergence-convergence pattern of knowledge diffusion flows.

The main path analysis provides several merits for a large citation network. First, it reduces a complicated citationnetwork to one or several simple path(s), with a small number of crucial nodes and links. Second, it provides asequence of historical events that significantly contribute to the development of a particular field. This simplificationis very helpful for scholars who are considering entering into a new research domain. Third, the main path analysistakes both the direct influence and indirect influence into account. Traditional citation count analysis considersdirect influence only.

Figure 2. The local main path (marked with solid lines)

Figure 3. The global main path (marked with solid lines)



Data

The ISI Web of Science (WOS) is the data source used to retrieve the CSR-related publications. WOS contains theScience Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index(A&HCI), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI). WOS includes the citation data of articles and is apopular data source for bibliometric analysis. The data time span ranges from 1970 to 2011 in order to explorethe evolutionary development of CSR over the past 40 years.

Keyword definitions are very critical in extracting an appropriate dataset from the huge database. We referred toseveral review papers (Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Lee, 2008; Wood, 2010) for collecting appro-priate keywords. The final keywords for the query consist of corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship,corporate environmental responsibility, corporate environmental performance, corporate social involvement, corpo-rate social initiatives, corporate public policy, stakeholder management and sustainability, corporate social issue,corporate social responsiveness, and corporate conscience. Table 1 shows the details of the query. Based on thesekeywords, the total number of papers retrieved is 2496. To assure the correctness of the dataset, we carefullyreviewed and screened out those papers that are actually not our target, and 2437 papers remain.

Although the ISI database is one of the most complete databases with citation data for academic research studies,in order to not miss important papers in the CSR field, we strengthened our dataset by supplementing it with somehighly cited papers in Google Scholar. The process begins with paralleling the WOS and Google citation counts,because, Google Scholar in general has a larger citation count (‘cited by’ count). First, we ranked the 2437 papers

Figure 4. The key-route main path (marked with solid lines)

Keywords No. of papers

Corporate social responsibility 2158Corporate citizenship 181Corporate environmental responsibility 22Corporate environmental performance 41Corporate social involvement 3Corporate social initiatives 5Corporate public policy 2Stakeholder management and sustainability 2Corporate social issue 2Corporate social responsiveness 19Corporate conscience 18Total 2496

Table 1. Keywords and search results



by citation count and found that the 100th paper has been cited by 55 papers in the dataset. We searched this paperfrom Google Scholar and found that the equivalent citation count there is 400. Second, we used the same keywordsto search CSR-related papers from Google Scholar and identified those papers with more than 400 citation counts,but which are not included in our dataset. We got 10 papers and supplemented them to our dataset. Finally, thedataset for further analysis consists of 2447 papers.

Basic Statistics

We summarized the statistics of the yearly number of CSR papers, the total number of CSR papers written by eachauthor, and the total number of CSR papers published by each journal.

Figure 5 shows the accumulated number of CSR publications each year. One can observe that the CSR literatureis in the emerging stage before 2000 and enters the growth stage after 2000. Table 2 presents some milestones ofthe growth in papers. The accumulation of the first 100 papers takes 15 years (from 1972 to 1986); the second 100and the third 100 papers take 11 and 4 years, respectively. In contrast, 109 papers were published in a single year(2005), and since 2009 over 400 papers were published each year. This exhibits that CSR has become a popularresearch subject over recent years.

Table 3 summarizes some statistics of journals that have published CSR articles, including total number of paperspublished, the number of papers published after 2000, the g-index, the h-index, and active years that published CSRpapers. Hirsch (2005) and Egghe (2006), respectively, proposed the h-index and g-index to evaluate researchperformance. Normally, the higher the h-index or g-index is, the higher the impact of the research paper.

When ranking journals according to the total number of CSR papers published, the top five journals are Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Business & Society, Public RelationsReview, and Business Ethics – A European Review. The top one, Journal of Business Ethics, has published more than700 CSR papers over the past 30 years. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management has only been

Figure 5. Growth curve of the accumulated number of CSR papers

Year Number of papers Accumulated number of papers

1986 9 1011997 23 2122001 38 3152005 109 6002009 410 16192010 425 20442011 403 2447

Table 2. Some milestones of the growth in papers



included in WOS since 2008, but it has published the second highest volume of CSR papers over the past fouryears. If we rank journal by the g-index, the top five journals are Journal of Business Ethics, Academy of ManagementReview, California Management Review, Harvard Business Review, and Business Ethics Quarterly. When ranking withthe h-index, the top five journals are Journal of Business Ethics, Academy of Management Review, Academy of Manage-ment Journal, California Management Review, and Strategic Management Journal. Some journals published less paperbut own a higher g-index or h-index.

One may question why several familiar journals in the CSR field are not included in the top journal list. The rea-son is that some journals are included in the WOS database late and not all of their publications are covered. Forexample, the journal Business Strategy and the Environment published its first issue in 1992, but WOS only includesits papers from 2009. Twelve papers are included in our dataset, and the number is not enough to be ranked in thetop journal list. However, we have supplemented the highly cited CSR papers from Google Scholar, and we believethat the issue of missing important CSR papers has been minimized.

Table 4 presents the statistics of individual authors. Their rankings in total papers, g-index, and h-index are moreconsistent than those of the journals. According to the data we collected from WOS, Moon, Siegel, Perrini, Bram-mer, and Matten are the top five productive authors of CSR papers. When examining co-authorship in the dataset,we find that there are many co-author teams. The following teams are those authors who have a co-authorship ofmore than three times in CSR research: Moon, J. and Matten, D.; Perrini, F. and Tencati, A.; Bhattacharya, C. B.and Sen, S.; Crane, A. and Matten, D.; Lindgreen, A. and Maon, F.; Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V.; Brammer,S. and Millington, A.; Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S.; Husted, B. W. and Allen, D. B.; Siegel, D. S. and McWilliams,A.; Palazzo, G. and Scherer, A. G.; Swaen, V. and Maon, F.; Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O. C. At least one memberof the co-author teams is in the top 20 author list. The results show that co-authoring is an important factor tothe productivity of publications.

Main Paths of CSR

The citation network (Figure 6) generated from the citation data of 2447 papers is very complex and does not offer anyclearmeanings.We adoptmain path analysis to reduce the complex citation network into simple paths, yet still keep the

Total papers After 2000 g-ind h-ind Active years Journal name

704 647 48 34 1982 ~ 2011 Journal of Business Ethics66 66 11 6 2008 ~ 2011 Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management43 41 21 6 1997 ~ 2011 Business & Society39 33 13 7 1981 ~ 2011 Public Relations Review39 39 7 5 2008 ~ 2011 Business Ethics - A European Review37 19 29 15 1973 ~ 2011 California Management Review37 37 20 12 2001 ~ 2011 Business Ethics Quarterly30 21 30 21 1985 ~ 2010 Academy of Management Review30 30 12 8 2003 ~ 2011 Corporate Governance - An International Review29 28 5 5 1977 ~ 2011 Management Decision26 26 4 3 2009 ~ 2011 African Journal of Business Management25 25 15 9 2005 ~ 2011 Journal of Cleaner Production24 21 15 8 1974 ~ 2011 Journal of Business Research22 12 21 5 1978 ~ 2007 Harvard Business Review19 3 19 17 1977 ~ 2010 Academy of Management Journal19 17 19 13 1979 ~ 2011 Journal of Management Studies18 16 18 14 1997 ~ 2010 Strategic Management Journal18 13 18 10 1985 ~ 2011 Journal of Management17 16 17 6 1999 ~ 2011 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16 16 4 4 2009 ~ 2011 Business Strategy and the Environment

Table 3. Journal statistics



important articles over the past 40 years. We analyze the knowledge diffusion trajectories as follows: First, we conductthe local, global, and key-route main path analyses over two different time periods and then compare them to check ifthere is any significant difference between them. Second, we analyze the global 20 key-route (global key-route with thetop 20 SPC links) main paths to examine the divergence-convergence pattern of CSR development.

Paths’ EvolutionAccording to the growth curve of the accumulated CSR papers (Figure 5), we know that the development of the CSRliterature is still in the growth stage. The development of CSR was in the emerging stage before 2000, but has

Total papers As 1st author g-index h-index Active years Author name

15 6 15 9 1995 ~ 2011 Moon, J15 3 15 8 2000~ 2011 Siegel, DS15 8 11 7 2004 ~ 2010 Perrini, F14 11 14 10 2003 ~ 2010 Brammer, S13 5 13 9 2003 ~ 2010 Matten, D13 4 13 8 2001 ~ 2011 Bhattacharya, CB13 4 13 7 2001 ~ 2011 Crane, A13 8 5 4 2004 ~ 2010 Lindgreen, A11 5 11 9 1974 ~ 2010 Carroll, AB11 10 9 5 2007 ~ 2011 Jamali, D10 2 10 7 2001 ~ 2011 Sen, S10 9 10 6 2000~ 2010 Husted, BW9 2 9 6 2005 ~ 2011 Palazzo, G8 0 8 6 2003 ~ 2008 Millington, A8 4 8 6 1991 ~ 2010 Wood, DJ8 0 5 4 2008 ~ 2010 Swaen, V8 4 4 3 2008 ~ 2010 Maon, F7 7 7 7 1999 ~ 2004 Maignan, I7 4 7 6 2006 ~ 2011 Waldman, DA7 1 7 6 2004 ~ 2010 Tencati, A

Table 4. Author statistics

Figure 6. Citation network of the 2447 papers



entered the growth stage since 2001. We conducted the main path analyses over two different periods, from 1970 to2000 (hereafter the first period) and from 1970 to 2011 (hereafter the second period), and compared them. If thereis any significant difference between these two periods, then it means that the development path of CSR in thegrowth stage is different from that of the emerging stage.

Figure 7 shows the local main paths over two periods. In the figure, the label for each paper begins with the lastname of the first author, continues with the first initials of any co-authors (in capital letter), and ends with its pub-lishing year. The local main path of the first period consists of Friedman1970 (Friedman, 1970), BowmanH1975(Bowman and Haire, 1975), AbbotM1979 (Abbott and Monsen, 1979), AupperleCH1985 (Aupperle et al., 1985),Wood1991b (Wood, 1991b), Clarkson1995 (Clarkson, 1995), and TurbanG1997 (Turban and Greening, 1997). Inthe second period, Wood1191a (Wood, 1991a) replace Wood1991b, and MitchellAW1997 (Mitchell et al., 1997)replace TurbanG1997. It means that more papers cited TurbanG1997 before 2000, but MitchellAW1997overwhelmed TurbanG1997 after 2000. Turban and Greening (1997) is an empirical study that examines therelationship between CSP and a firm’s reputation and attractiveness to applicants. Mitchell et al. (1997) is atheoretical article about conceptualizing CSR from the stakeholder perspective. This replacement represents thatthe stakeholder perspective became a popular topic in CSR after 2000. Wood (1991a) reformulated the Wartickand Cochran (1985) CSP model via linking CSP with organizational institutionalism, stakeholder management,and social issues management, so as to better frame the principles, processes, and outcomes. Wood (1991b)reviewed the conceptual developments and empirical research of the CSP theory and certainly included a summaryof Wood1991a. Wood1991b has gained a long-term advantage in citation count due to the nature of it being a reviewarticle.

In Figure 8 we see that the global main path of the first period is organized by Friedman1970, BowmanH1975,AbbottM1979, AupperleCH1985, SpencerT1987, Wood1991a, Jones 1995, MitchellAW1997, and JonesW1999. Theglobal main path of the second period has the same components as that of the first period except that Wood1991breplace Wood1991a. This represents that the development of the CSR literature is more consistent from global mainpath perspective.

Figure 9 shows the global 10 key-route main paths of the two periods. When comparing them, we observe thatthe branch organized by ZahraL1987, CoffeyF1991, GravesW1994, and TurbanG1997 disappears in the secondperiod. Zahra and LaTour (1987) found that there is a positive relationship between CSP and organizational effec-tiveness. Turban and Greening (1997) suggested that CSP provides a competitive advantage in attracting applicants.The other two papers examined the relationship between CSP and institutional ownership and concluded with apositive support. Coffey and Fryxell (1991) explored that a firm’s social responsiveness positively affects the amountof institutional ownership of corporate stock. Graves and Waddock (1994) found a positive relationship betweenCSP and the number of institutions holding shares of a company. The vanishment of this branch represents thatless papers cite these papers after 2000 due to researchers shifting their more focus to the conceptualization ofstakeholder engagement and global governance.

Figure 7. The local main path of CSR



Global 20 Key-route Main PathThe theoretical development for a specific field typically begins with a conceptual innovation, and then the innovationencourages a set of new ideas that expand and advance it. The knowledge of the original concept thus disseminatesdivergently to new varieties through different knowledge paths. In the process of knowledge evolution, the pace ofknowledge divergence gradually slows down, and the multiple knowledge paths gradually unite to a point where adominant concept is proposed. The aforementioned process forms a divergence-convergence cycle. As a theory evolves,the repetitive divergence-convergence pattern in knowledge diffusion paths can be clearly observed. Previous literaturehas hinted at the concept of a divergence-convergence pattern in knowledge diffusion (Bhupatiraju et al., 2012), but nosystematic methodology is proposed. The unique approach used in this present study provides a feasible solution touncover the divergence-convergence pattern.

Figure 10 shows the global 20 key-route main paths, and from them we clearly observe two full cycles of thedivergence-convergence pattern in the knowledge diffusion paths of CSR development. The third cycle is stillprogressing. We brief the articles that are in these three stages of the global 20 key-route main paths.

The First Stage – 1970 to 1990The first stage starts from Friedman’s (1970) article. Friedman is the most enthusiastic supporter of corporations’economic responsibility. He argued that corporations cannot be socially responsible, as only people can have

Figure 8. The global main path of CSR

Figure 9. The global 10 key-route main paths of CSR



responsibilities. He suggested that corporate executives have a primary responsibility to manage the business tomaximize profit while following the ‘basic rules of society’. Since then, many researchers investigated the relation-ship between CSR and corporate profitability, but no definitive consensus is reached. Some research studies found apositive relationship (Bowman and Haire, 1975; Spencer and Taylor, 1987), while others indicated an inconclusiverelationship (Abbott and Monsen, 1979; Aupperle et al., 1985).

Based on the contradictory results of the relationship between CSP and CFP, some researchers have tried tofigure out the root cause of the controversy from conceptual, operational, and methodological differences in thedefinitions of CSP and CFP. Carroll (1979) proposed a three-dimensional model to clarify and integrate variousdefinitions of CSR. The three dimensions are social responsibility categories, social issues involved, and philosophyof social responsiveness. Social responsibility includes the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary categories ofbusiness performance. The social issues of CSR have changed over time and are industry-dependent. Philosophyof responsiveness addresses the philosophy, mode, or strategy behind managerial response to social responsibilityand social issues. Cochran and Wood (1984) re-examined the relationship by applying the logit analysis on anenhanced industry-specific sample. They found that the key factor correlated to CSR is asset age. Firms with olderassets have lower CSR ratings. After controlling for asset age, the relation between CSR and CFP turns weak.Wartick and Cochran (1985) later proposed a landmark article, based on Carroll’s (1979) conceptual framework,on corporate social performance. They defined CSP as the integration of the principles of social responsibility,the processes of social responsiveness, and the policies developed to address social issues. This concept integrateswell the relationships between business and society.

Some researchers devoted their efforts to the question of whether corporations have an obligation to groups otherthan shareholders. Walters (1977) found that both conservative (opposing government intervention in the economy)and liberal (favoring substantial government intervention) arguments are used in favor of or against corporationsassuming social responsibility. He reasoned this paradox from a political ideology perspective. Jones (1980) arguedthat corporate behavior should not be judged by the decisions actually reached, but by the process by which they are

Figure 10. The global 20 key-route main paths of CSR



reached. Corporations need to analyze the social consequences before they make decisions and try to minimize thesocial costs of their decisions.

The Second Stage – 1991 to 2006The second stage begins with Wood’s two articles published in 1991 (Wood, 1991a; 1991b). Wood linked CSP withvarious related organizational theories, such as organizational institutionalism, stakeholder management, and socialissues management. She reformulated Wartick and Cochran’s (1985) CSP model to better frame the principles,processes, and outcomes. Following up on Wood’s framework, some scholars tried to enhance the theory of CSP(Swanson, 1995; Husted and Salazar, 2006), whereas others continued to test the relationship between CSP andCFP and attempted to identify other factors that affect this relationship (Waddock and Graves, 1997; McWilliamsand Siegel, 2000; 2001; Piga, 2002). More researchers further investigated the CSP from stakeholders’ perspective(Clarkson, 1995; Jones, 1995; Mitchell et al., 1997; Turban and Greening, 1997; Jones and Wicks, 1999; Sen andBhattacharya, 2001; Smith, 2003; Vachani and Smith, 2004; Doh and Guay, 2006).

Swanson (1995) argued that the economic and duty-aligned perspectives of previous CSP models are not inte-grated and proposed a framework to link across principles of corporate social responsibility, processes of corporatesocial responsiveness, and outcomes of corporate behavior. The reoriented CSP model formulates decision makingin terms of ethical and value processes, suggesting an interaction across principles, processes, and outcomes.Husted and Salazar (2006) used the tools of microeconomics to explore the conditions under which CSP is consistentwith shareholder value maximization. They suggested that greater overall corporate social performance is achieved bythe strategic approach than by the altruistic approach.

The following research studies investigated the relationship between CSP and CFP. Waddock and Graves (1997)found that CSP is positively related with prior financial performance. Their results support the theory that slackresource availability is positively related with CSP. They also presented that CSP is positively associated with futurefinancial performance. McWilliams and Siegel (2000) argued that previous studies do not control the factor of R&Dinvestment, therefore generating controversial results (positive, negative, and neutral) on the relationship betweenCSP and CFP. When investment in R&D is considered, they found that CSR has a neutral impact on financialperformance. McWilliams and Siegel (2001) further adopted a demand-supply approach to examine firms’ CSRbehavior and argued that a firm’s level of CSR depends on many factors, such as its size, level of diversification,R&D, advertising, government sales, consumer income, labor market conditions, and stage in the industry life cycle.Although customers are willing to pay a premium for products with social characteristics, the benefits to a firm areoffset by the increase in the costs of the products. Piga (2002) presented that McWilliams and Siegel’s (2000)neutrality results may be due to the free-entry assumption, which is only applicable for a perfect market. Moreover,they did not consider that CSR has the effects of raising rivals’ costs and promoting brand image, and these effectsare beneficial for gaining a competitive advantage.

Various stakeholder theories were applied to the field of CSR over this stage. Clarkson (1995) argued thatCarroll’s model (1979) is complex and difficult to test. He tied the CSP concept to stakeholder management modelsand proposed a stakeholder framework. Based on the analysis of more than 70 field studies of CSP from 1983 to1993, Clarkson concluded that corporations manage relationships with stakeholder groups rather than with societyas a whole. He also argued that it is important to distinguish between social issues and stakeholder issues and toidentify the appropriate levels of analysis for evaluating CSP. After identifying them, CSP can be effectively analyzedand evaluated. The three levels of analysis are institutional, organizational, and individual. Jones (1995) linked CSRwith economic theories and provided an instrumental stakeholder theory that has stronger predictive capacities. Hemade a clearer link between actions and outcomes and showed that the stakeholder model has a greater potential tobe the central paradigm of CSR. Mitchell et al. (1997) argued that stakeholders possess attributes of power, legiti-macy, and urgency. They combined these attributes to build a theory of stakeholder identification and salience.Jones and Wicks (1999) disclosed a convergent stakeholder theory from social science and normative ethicsapproaches. They integrated strategic and intrinsic perspectives into this theoretical framework.

Aside from introducing the aforementioned stakeholder concepts to CSR theory, some researchers conductedempirical studies from stakeholders’ perspectives. Based on the propositions from the social identity theory and sig-naling theory, Turban and Greening (1997) examined the effects of firms’ CSP upon their reputations and attractive-ness to employees. They found that a firm’s CSP may improve its reputation and provide a competitive advantage in



attracting applicants. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) investigated the consumer reactions to CSR and noted amoderating and mediating role of consumers’ perceptions on CSR. The CSR issues that a firm focuses on, the qualityof its products, consumers’ support, and beliefs about the CSR are key moderators of consumers’ responses to CSR.When potential customers believe that CSR initiatives are realized at the expense of the company’s ability tomake betterproducts, then CSR efforts may hurt buyers’ intention. Marketers need to convince consumers that the CSR activitiesdo not decrease the ability to make or deliver high quality products.

The Third Stage – from 2006The third stage commences with McwilliamsSW2006 (McWilliams et al., 2006), which develops a framework forthe consideration of the strategic implications of CSR and proposes a direction for future theoretical and empiricalresearch on CSR. The first two cycles of the divergence-convergence pattern are completed, but the third cycle is stillunder development. The articles in the third stage discuss the globalization issues of CSR.

Scherer and colleagues put forth much effort to promote the concept of global governance. Scherer et al. (2006)argued that the instrumental stakeholder theory and business & society research can only partially solve globalgovernance issues. Corporate citizenship and republican business ethics deliver helpful insights, but need to befurther developed. In particular, the legitimation issues of corporate political behavior have to be resolved. Schererand Palazzo (2007) categorized the theory of business and society into two schools: positivist and post-positivist. Theformer was criticized due to its instrumentalism and normative vacuity; the latter because of its relativism, foundation-alism, and utopianism. They argued that a business firm must play as a political actor in a global society. Scherer et al.(2009) edited a special issue ‘globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities’ in Business Ethics Quarterly todiscuss the trend of a shifting corporate role towards a sphere of societal governance that has been dominated by tradi-tional political actors. This special issue discusses the consequences of the social and political mandates of a corporationand examines the implications for the theory and practice of firms operating in a global environment.

Some scholars have also conducted research studies to enrich the literature of global governance. Gond et al.(2009) examined the Italian Mafia to evaluate the instrumental perspective on CSR. The Mafia study delivers threeinsights for both CSR analysis and organization research: clarifying the boundaries of instrumental CSR, recognizingCSR as arising out of social and normative embeddedness, and identifying instrumental CSR’s limitations in regulatingcorporate behavior in the global economy. Michaelson (2010) revisited the global business ethics question, ‘whenbusiness moral conduct standards conflict across borders, whose standards should prevail?’ As emerging economiesare burgeoning from all corners of the globe, the economic and political power relations have gradually shifted fromWestern economies to emerging economies. When MNCs encounter tension in moral standards across borders, theyneed to re-examine their political roles in global governance andmaintain themoral authority of global ethical norms sothat they do not merely reflect the dominant ideologies of the most economically powerful market actors. Banerjee(2010) argued that previous papers in global governance focus on the political role of corporations and lack a sophisti-cated analysis of power across institutional and actor networks. He suggested that a radical revision of democraticgovernance of global corporations is needed in order to overcome the limits posed by sovereignty, and new forms ofmulti-actor and multi-level translocal governance arrangements are required to create forms of power that are morecompatible with the principles of economic democracy.

Conclusions

This study adopts a unique approach that exhibits the divergence-convergence pattern of CSR literature over the past40 years. The main path analysis is an objective and powerful way to identify the major knowledge diffusion flowfrom a large number of papers. We believe that this approach can complement traditional qualitative methods ona literature review and is feasible for handling a large dataset of a target field.

CSR was merely a theoretical and ethical concept 40 years ago, yet it has increasingly attracted the interest ofresearchers from various disciplines. The statistics of journals and authors show that CSR issues have become ahot topic since 2000. Moreover, since 2005, hundreds of authors worldwide have published hundreds of CSRpapers every year.



Various main paths identify those papers that play a key role in the knowledge diffusion of CSR. The key-routemain path analysis figures out the divergence-convergence phenomenon of the CSR evolution. We identify two fullcycles of knowledge divergence and convergence over 1970 to 1990 and 1991 to 2006. By integrating these differentmain paths, a researcher can quickly grasp the evolutional structure of the CSR literature. Previous researchers haveindicated a similar concept of the divergence-convergence pattern in the knowledge flow. For example, Bhupatirajuet al. (2012) observed that multiple knowledge flows converge on each other and suggested the concept of aconvergence-divergence dynamic of main paths. We provide a further systematic approach to clearly explore andvisualize the divergence-convergence phenomena of a theoretical or technological development.

Some scholars have doubted the accuracy and research quality of citation analysis (Lindsey, 1989; MacRobertsand MacRoberts, 1996), but citation analysis remains important in bibliometric research and is very reliable whendata are aggregated (Phelan, 1999; Cronin, 2001). Many research studies show that citation analysis offers insight-ful information about research performance and scientific influence (Hummon and Doreian, 1989; Mina et al.2007; Verspagen, 2007; Kajikawa and Takeda, 2009; Liu and Lu, 2012). This present study reconfirms the useful-ness of citation analysis.

Our results’ interpretations should nevertheless take the following limitations into consideration. First, the data-set is from the WOS database and does not include all CSR papers published in journals. Although WOS includesthe majority of important journals, not all issues of some CSR-specialist journals are completely included in WOS.We have eliminated this imperfection by supplementing our data with highly cited papers from Google Scholar.Second, the results of the main path analysis are subject to citation noise, which is a general limitation of the citationanalysis.

In summary, this paper combines the citation information of CSR and applies the main path analysis to identifyvarious major knowledge flow paths in the evolution of the CSR literature. We demonstrate the efficiency andeffectiveness of a new approach for examining the knowledge dissemination structure of an academic discipline.We believe this approach is very helpful to those disciplines that have no review papers for reference.

References

Abbott WF, Monsen RJ. 1979. Measurement of corporate social-responsibility - self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporatesocial involvement. Academy of Management Journal 22(3): 501–515.

Acedo FJ, Barroso C, Galan JL. 2006. The resource-based theory: dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal 27(7): 621–636.Auld G, Bernstein S, Cashore B. 2008. The new corporate social responsibility. Annual Review of Environment and Resource 33: 413–435.Aupperle KE, Carroll AB, Hatfield JD. 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social-responsibility and profitability.

Academy of Management Journal 28(2): 446–463.Banerjee SB. 2010. Governing the global corporation: a critical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly 20(2): 265–274.Batagelj V. 2003. Efficient algorithms for citation network analysis. University of Ljubljana Institute of Mathematics Physics and Mechanics Preprint

series 41: 897.Batagelj V, Mrvar A. 1998. Pajek - program for large network analysis. Connections 21(2): 47–57.Bhupatiraju S, Nomaler Ö, Triulzi, G, Verspagen B. 2012. Knowledge flows – analyzing the core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and

science and technology studies. Research Policy 41(7): 1205–1218.Bowen H. 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Business. Harper: New York.Bowman EH, Haire M. 1975. Strategic posture toward corporate social-responsibility. California Management Review 18(2): 49–58.Callan SJ, Thomas JM. 2009. Corporate financial performance and corporate social performance: an update and reinvestigation. Corporate Social

Responsibility and Environmental Management 16(2): 61–78.Carley KM,HummonNP, Harty M. 1993. Scientific influence: an analysis of themain path structure in the Journal of Conflict Resolution.Knowledge:

Creation Diffusion Utilization 14(4): 417–447.Carnevale C, Mazzuca M, Venturini S. 2012. Corporate social reporting in European banks: the effects on a firm’s market value. Corporate Social

Responsibility and Environmental Management 19(3): 159–177.Carroll AB. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 4: 497–505.Carroll AB. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society 38(3): 268–295.Clarkson MBE. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20(1):

92–117.Cochran PL, Wood RA. 1984. Corporate social-responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 27(1): 42–56.Coffey BS, Fryxell GE. 1991. Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance – an empirical examination. Journal

of Business Ethics 10(6): 437–444.



Cronin B. 2001. Bibliometrics and beyond: some thoughts on web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science 27: 1–7.Davis K, Blomstrom RL. 1966. Business and its Environment. McGraw-Hill: New York.Dobers P, Halme M. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and developing countries. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

16(5): 237–349.Doh JP, Guay TR. 2006. Corporate social responsibility public policy and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: an institutional-

stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies 43(1): 47–73.Egghe L. 2006. Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 69(1): 131–152.Frederick WC. 1978. From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Working Paper No. 279, Graduate School of Business,

University of Pittsburgh.Friedman M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine 13: 32–33, 122, 124, 126.Garfield E, Sher I, Torpie R. 1964. The Use of Citation Data in Writing the History of Science, Institute for Scientific Information: Philadelphia.Gond JP, Palazzo G, Basu K. 2009. Reconsidering instrumental corporate social responsibility through the Mafia metaphor. Business Ethics Quarterly

19(1): 57–85.Graves SB, Waddock SA. 1994. Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal 37(4): 1034–1046.Hirsch JE. 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 102(46):

16569–16572.Hummon NP, Carley K. 1993. Social networks as normal science. Social Networks 15(1): 71–106.Hummon NP, Doreian P. 1989. Connectivity in a citation network: the development of DNA theory. Social Networks 11(1): 39–63.Hummon NP, Doreian P, Freeman LC. 1990. Analyzing the structure of the centrality-productivity literature created between 1948 and 1979.

Science Communication 11(4): 459–480.Husted BW, Salazar JDJ. 2006. Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies 43(1): 75–91.Jones TM. 1980. Corporate social-responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review 22(3): 59–67.Jones TM. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory - a synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review 20(2): 404–437.Jones TM, Wicks AC. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 206–221.Kajikawa Y, Takeda Y. 2009. Citation network analysis of organic LEDs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76: 1115–1123.Kostoff RN. 1998. The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics 43(1): 27–43.Lee MP. 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.Lehmann M, Toh I, Christensen P, Ma RF. 2010. Responsible leadership? Development of CSR at Danfoss, Denmark. Corporate Social

Responsibility and Environmental Management 17(3): 153–168.Lindsey D. 1989. Using citation network as a measure of quality in science: measuring what’s measureable rather than what’s valid. Scientometrics

15(3-4): 189–203.Liu JS, Lu LYY. 2012. An integrated approach for the main path analysis: the development of the Hirsch index as an example. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(3): 528–542.MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. 1996. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 36(3): 435–444.Maignan I, Ferrell OC. 2000. Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: the case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics

23(3): 283–297.Margolis JD, Walsh JP. 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): 268–305.Matten D, Crane A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review 30(1):

166–179.McWilliams A, Siegel D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification. Strategic Management

Journal 21(5): 603–609.McWilliams A, Siegel D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility - a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26(1): 117–127.McWilliams A, Siegel D, Wright PM. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies 43(1): 1–18.Melo T, Garrido-Morgado A. 2012. Corporate reputation: a combination of social responsibility and industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management 19: 11–31.Michaelson C. 2010. Revisiting the global business ethics question. Business Ethics Quarterly 20(2): 237–251.Mina A, Ramlogan R, Tampubolon G, Metcalfe JS. 2007. Mapping evolutionary trajectories: applications to the growth and transformation of

medical knowledge. Research Policy 36(5): 789–806.Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really

counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853–886.Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization Studies 24(3): 403–441.Phelan TJ. 1999. A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics 45(1): 117–136.Piga C. 2002. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective - a few comments and some suggested extensions. Academy of

Management Review 27(1): 13–15.Prado-Lorenzo JM, Gallego-Alvarez I, Garcia-Sanchez IM. 2009. Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the

ownership structure effect. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16(2): 94–107.Scherer AG, Palazzo G. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective.

Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1096–1120.Scherer AG, Palazzo G, Baumann D. 2006. Global rules and private actors: toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global

governance. Business Ethics Quarterly 16(4): 505–532.



Scherer AG, Palazzo G, Matten D. 2009. Introduction to the special issue: globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. BusinessEthics Quarterly 16(3): 327–347.

Sen S, Bhattacharya CB. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better: consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal ofMarketing Research 38(2): 225–243.

Sethi SP. 1975. Dimensions of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review 17(3): 58–64.Shah KU. 2011. Corporate environmentalism in a small emerging economy: stakeholder perceptions and the influence of firm characteristics.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18(2): 80–90.Smith NC. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review 45(4): 52–76.Sobhani FA, Amran A, Zainuddin Y. 2009. Revisiting the practices of corporate social and environmental disclosure in Bangladesh. Corporate

Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16(3): 167–183.Spencer BA, Taylor GS. 1987. A within and between analysis of the relationship between corporate social-responsibility and financial

performance. Akron Business and Economic Review 18(3): 7–18.Swanson DL. 1995. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance-model. Academy of Management Review

20(1): 43–64.Turban DB, Greening DW. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management

Journal 40(3): 658–672.Ullmann AA. 1985. Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and

economic performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review 10(3): 540–557.Vachani S, Smith NC. 2004. Socially responsible pricing: lessons from the pricing of AIDS drugs in developing countries. California Management

Review 47(1): 117–145.Verspagen B. 2007. Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks: a study on the history of fuel cell research. Advances in Complex

Systems 10(1): 93–115.Waddock SA, Graves SB. 1997. The corporate social performance - financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal 18(4): 303–319.Waldman DA, de Luque MS, Washburn N, et al. 2006. Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top

management: a GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies 37(6): 823–837.Walters KD. 1977. Corporate social-responsibility and political-ideology. California Management Review 19(3): 40–51.Wartick SL, Cochran PL. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review 10(4): 758–769.Wood DJ. 1991a. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Journal 16(4): 691–718.Wood DJ. 1991b. Social-issues in management - theory and research in corporate social performance. Journal of Management 17(2): 383–406.Wood DJ. 2010. Measuring corporate social performance: a review. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1): 50–84.Zahra SA, LaTour MS. 1987. Corporate social-responsibility and organizational- effectiveness - a multivariate approach. Journal of Business Ethics 6(6):

459–467.



本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP

图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页文献云下载图书馆入口外文数据库大全疑难文献辅助工具

http://www.xuebalib.com/cloud/

http://www.xuebalib.com/

http://www.xuebalib.com/cloud/


http://www.xuebalib.com/vip.html

http://www.xuebalib.com/db.php

http://www.xuebalib.com/zixun/2014-08-15/44.html


Documents

The Knowledge Diffusion Paths of Corporate Social ...download.xuebalib.com/xuebalib.com.26629.pdf · The Knowledge Diffusion Paths of Corporate Social Responsibility – From 1970