nach oben

Journal of Management and Governance

Erschienen in:

01.02.2012

Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”

verfasst von: Mara Del Baldo

Erschienen in: Journal of Management and Governance | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The study proposes to individuate the relationship between social engagement, social statements and governance of SMEs. Does an adhesion to the philosophy and to the practices of CSR, which are reflected in a firm’s mission and accountability, positively influences its governance? If so, is this influence more or less significant for SMEs with respect to large-sized firms? This paper winds itself around these questions and describes the principle findings that have emerged from a qualitative investigation focused on a selected group of “cohesive” Italian SMEs, in which their management complies with both economic and social issues. The empirical study finds that the diffusion of CSR is tied above all to the entrepreneur’s values and orientation and to the company embeddedness to the local socio-economic environment. The concluding reflections trace the features of a territorial model of socially responsible orientation centered on the best practices of SMEs who are excellent examples of “spirited businesses” and are part of a network (which includes institutions, trade associations, non-profit organizations, etc.) that contributes to the diffusion of an orientation towards CSR and to sustainability across the territory.

Nächster Artikel The changing role of the supervisory board chairman: the case of the Netherlands (1997–2007)

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

“Corporate social responsibility means something, but not always the same thing, to everybody” (Votaw 1972, p. 25). Moreover corporate social responsibility has been described as “…an eclectic field with loose boundaries, multiple memberships, and differing training/perspectives; broadly rather than focused, multidisciplinary; wide breadth; brings in a wider range of literature; and interdisciplinary” (Carrol 1994, p. 14).

Specifically, the aspects that lead corporate governance are: proprietary asset and the composition of the firm’s organs of government, relations and interactions among these organs (ownership, board of directors and management), the distribution of power and responsibility to the highest levels of the organization, the modalities of selecting and remuneration of the upper and middle management, transparency of the acts of government and internal control, the economic and financial information system, the modes and the instruments with which the decision-making processes and behaviours conform to the principles that inspire the functioning of the business. See Molteni 2004.

For a literature review on agency theory, see Mitnick (1995), beginning on page 76.

The cardinal rule of stakeholder theory is that “he who governs the firm must consider the rights, the interests and the expectations of all those who may be influenced by managerial decisions and who, conversely, may exercise their influence on the results of such decisions” (Freeman 1984, p. 46).

Regarding this citation, Jensen (2002), whose contribution is associated with instrumental theories, reaffirms the validity of agency theory; based on over twenty years of observations and reflections on corporate governance. At the same time, he critiques the inoperative nature of stakeholder theory which does not offer any criteria in deciding which objectives the manager must pursue. The multiplicity of objectives from which he can choose (in caring for all of the stakeholders), in fact, does not provide any guide as to how to arrive at this result. In his opinion, therefore, enlightened stakeholder theory seems more realistic, for it is a theory that seems to better take into account the importance of the stakeholders for the survival of the firm, and is able to reconcile shareholders’ interests with those of the interlocutors in the long-term. This theory is likewise critiqued and considered ethically inadequate with its sense of treating people as means of making wealth rather than as ends in and of themselves (Alford 2006, p. 3).

Stakeholder management is built around individuation, in both the classification and in the management of relationships with diverse interlocutors; that is, in the application of stakeholder theory to the business’ government.

Issues management as an instrument for improving the capacity of the firm by discovering the emergent social problems and responding to them with specific programs of activity (Carrol 1993).

“Values are abstract ideals of those that are considered “good”, desirable, preferable; they don’t have a specific object or situation and construct models that guide and determine action, scope, attitudes, ideology or representation of itself in terms of others. Even the attitudes are beliefs possessed by people, but are less stable and always refer to a specific object or situation. Values and attitudes influence individual and collective behavior in many ways in the field of strategic management; those possessed by the entrepreneur or by the management are considered among the principle factors that determine the strategic decisions of the enterprises” (Marchini 2000, p. 92).

“It is legitimate to hypothesize that the entrepreneur transfers a large part of himself into the firm, and that his fundamental objective is to produce a strong firm, one that is able to develop and to ensure the respect and admiration in competitive circles around which it operates, as well as in the larger socio-economic context in which the business plays a part” (Sciarelli 2007, p. 117).

“It is possible to refer to different sides under the profile of the rapport between ownership and government of the enterprise, separating the context of the “public company,” prevalently North American, from that of the “family business” that is very diffuse in Europe. One can easily imagine that in these two cases, different levels of difficulty are assumed with respect to social responsibility and the introduction of ethical principles in corporate management” (Sciarelli 2007, p. VIII).

In the context of historical studies about social accounting in Italy one can cite Terzani (1984), Matacena (1984). For an ample review of the different contributions, see Baldarelli (2005, pp. 19–59).

Direct accountability is found in documents which are published specifically and exclusively to “give an account for” at the end of the year on the fulfilling of its own responsibilities, typically that which takes place in teh financial statement and the social accounting. Indirect accountability in documents which, like ethical codes, inform the stakeholders of what the company plans to do (above all in terms of behavioural rules), has to respect its duties in check on the conformity with the codes resulting indirectly from the social accounting. See Rusconi (2006).

The Author distinguishes, on the one hand, between lucrative businesses (for profit companies, in which the assumption of specific forms of social responsibility is tied to the maintaining conditions of legitimacy and of consent in their actions), co-operative and mutual businesses (in which responsibility is connected to principles of solidarity), social businesses (non profit enterprises, in which the same ends are followed), and small and medium “territorial” businesses. For the first type, social responsibility is considered a specific quality for entrepreneurial activities. In the second and third, the mission is prevalently concerned with social solidarity. The third type is characterized by territorial vocation, that is, by the fact that their relationship with their surrounding environment and the coordination with all actors in the market is a condition of their own economic development.

On an analysis of cases see Yin (1994, 2003); on specificities of research on small businesses see Silvestrelli (1986), Ferraris Franceschi (1993).

“(…) This also led many to be external champions of CSR, promoting the agenda because the truly believed in it (…) It has a dedicated change-agent or “champion” in its owner-manager whose own values have influenced the direction and strategy of the company” (Jenkins 2006a, p. 8, 13).

In the definition of an SME, along with the attributes defined by the Recommendation of the Commission of the European Community on 6 May 2003; 2003/361/CE, the qualitative parameters were considered (independence of the economic subject, connection between ownership and control), following a setting diffusely adopted in the studies and in the research on small-sized businesses.

Molteni and Lucchini (2004) identify a typology of orientations among Italian firms, based on two coordinates (intensity of the phenomenon—that is, the socially responsible behaviour—and qualitative aspects linked to the practice and to corporate behaviour): cohesive firms, multi-certified, aware, able to be mobilized, skeptical.

Based on empirical research conducted between 2005/2006 on a sample of 51 SMEs from diverse European countries the Authors distinguished three categories of businesses: “the business strategy enterprises”, which are making a conscious effort to implement CSR and have adopted CSR as a part of their business strategy; “the intuitive enterprises”, which are “doing” CSR without having made a conscious decision to do so. Their normal business practices coincide with CSR indicators; “the raison d’être enterprises”, which are “doing” CSR because it coincides with their business concept, i.e. the actual business concept is philanthropic” (Kvåle and Olsen 2006, p. 7).

The Sodalitas Social Award honors businesses that operate in Italy who are distinguished for the production of projects with high value and social content.

“CSR is the practical implementation of a company’s ‘ethos’” (…) philosophy and vision are based on five key principles—integrity, humanity, diligence, enthusiasm and openness” (Jenkins 2006a, p. 6).

“While the first one is a formal, codified, explicit approach aiming at fostering ethical and social behavior through a set of rules and tools, the second one is often a more emergent, value-based, “strategy driver” approach, that leads employees to a strong CSR commitment through a high level of identification in their company’s strategy, deeply embedded in a set of values and based on a non-hierarchical set of both economic and social goals” (Minoja and Romano 2006, p. 3).

Adams, C. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorizing. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(2), 223–250.CrossRef

Alford, H. (2006). Stakeholder theory: Conference on the good company: Catholic social thought and corporate social responsibility in dialogue, Rome, 5–7 October, http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/conferences/thegoodcompany/.

Alford, H., & Naugthon, M. (2002). Beyond the shareholder model of the firm: Working toward the common good of business. In S. A. Cortright & M. Naugthon (Eds.), Rethinking the purpose of business. Interdisciplinary essays form the catholic social tradition (pp. 27–47). Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.

Baldarelli, M. G. (2005). Le aziende eticamente orientate. Mission, governance e accountability. Bologna: Clueb.

Baldarelli, M. G. (2007). New prospectives in inter-company relations, social responsibility (CSR) and social, ethical and environmental accounting in Italy by way of the government CSR-SC project: theory and praxis. Economia Aziendale 2000web, 1, Special issue, at: www.ea2000.it., 1–26.

Balloni, V., & Trupia, P. (Eds.). (2005). Origine, caratteristiche e sviluppo dell’imprenditorialità nelle Valli dell’Esino e del Misa. Ancona: Ed. Conerografia, Economia Marche.

Battaglia, M., Campi, S., Frey, M., & Iraldo, F. (2006). A “cluster” approach for the promotion of CSR among SMEs”. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen business school, Denmark, 26 October, http://www.cbs.dk/forskning_viden/kinferencer/csr_in_smes/menu/accepted_paper.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.

Brennan, M. (1994). Incentives, rationality and society. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Summer, 7(2), 31–39.CrossRef

Bruni, L. (2005). Hic sunt leones: Social relations as unexplored territory in the economic tradition. In B. Gui & R. Sugden (Eds.), Economics and social interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2004). Economia civile. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Burns, P. (2001). Entrepreneurship and small business. Hampshire: Palgrave.

Carrol, A. B. (1993). Business and society (2nd ed.). Cincinnati: South Western Publishing.

Carrol, A. B. (1994). Social issues in management research. Business and Society, 33(1), 5–25.CrossRef

Castka, P., Balzarova, M. A., Bomber, C. J., & Sharp, J. M. (2004). How can SMEs effectively implement the CSR agenda? A UK case study perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(3), 140–149.CrossRef

Catturi, G. (2006). Corporate power and socio-political responsibility. In G. Rusconi & M. Dorigatti (Eds.), Enterprise and social responsibility. Milano: F. Angeli.

Cerana, N. (Ed.). (2004). Comunicare la responsabilità sociale. Teorie, modelli, strumenti e casi di eccellenza. Milano: F. Angeli.

Cipolla, C. M. (1990). Storia economica dell’Europa pre-industriale. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Coda, V. (1985). Valori imprenditoriali e successo dell’impresa. Finanza, Marketing e Produzione, 2, 23–56.

Craig, S. N. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how. California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.

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

Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312–322.CrossRef

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.

Del Baldo, M. (2006a). Piccoli imprenditori e piccole imprese socialmente responsabili. In Scritti in onore di Isa Marchini (pp. 329–353). Milano: F. Angeli.

Del Baldo, M. (2006b). SMEs and corporate social responsibility. Some evidences from an empirical research: Proceedings on emerging issues in international accounting & business conference 2006, 1, 314–343. University of Padua, July 20–22.

Del Baldo, M. (2008). Corporate social responsibility e corporate governance: Un nesso vincente nelle PMI. 31th AIDEA conference. Naples, October 16–17.

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Towards a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284.

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Donaldson, J., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of corporation: Concepts, evidence, implication. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

European Commission (2001). Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Green paper, COM(2001)366 final.

European Commission (2002a). Responsabilità sociale delle imprese: Un contributo delle imprese allo sviluppo sostenibile, COM(2002)347 def.

European Commission (2002b). European SMEs and social and environmental responsibility. Observatory of European SMEs, 4. Luxemburg: Enterprise Publications.

European Union (2004). European multistakeholder forum on CSR: Report of the round table on fostering CSR among SMEs. Bruxelles.

Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1993). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Fayolle, A. (2004). À la recherche du coeur de l’entrepreneuriat: Vers une nouvelle vision du domaine. Revue Internationale P.M.E., 17(1), 101–121.

Ferraris Franceschi, R. (1993). Linee metodologiche nella ricerca economico-aziendale applicata alla piccola e media dimensione. In G. Padroni (Ed.), Lo sviluppo della piccola-media impresa: Vincoli ed opportunità. Milano: F. Angeli.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. Academy of Management Review, Spring, 88–107.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism & freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fuà, G., & Zacchia, C. (Eds.). (1983). Industrializzazione senza fratture. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Fugazza S., Pandini, L., & Gostner von Stefenelli, C. (2006). Interreg 3 A project. A model for the development of corporate social responsibility in the Province of Bolzano. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.CrossRef

Gazzola, P., & Mella P. (2006). Corporate performance and corporate social responsibility (CSR). A necessary choice? Economia Aziendale 2000web, 3, at: www.ea2000.it, 1–22.

GBS, Gruppo di Studio per il Bilancio Sociale. (2001). Principi di redazione del Bilancio Sociale. Roma: Adnkronos Comunicazione Spa.

GRI, Global Reporting Initiative. (2002). Sustainability reporting guidelines on economics, environmental and social performance. Boston.

GRI, Global Reporting Initiative. (2006). Sustainability reporting guidelines, at: www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/G3Guidelines.

GRI, Global Reporting Initiative. (2008). Small, smart and sustainable. Experiences of SME reporting in global supply chains, Research and Development Series, at: www.globalreporting.org.

Gray, R., Adams, C., & Owen, D. (1996). Accounting and accountability. Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London, UK: Prentice Hall Europe.

Grayson, D., & Hodges, A. (2004). Corporate social opportunity! 7 steps to make corporate social responsibility work for your business. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

Gui, B., & Sugden, R. (2005). Economics and social interactions. Accounting for interpersonal relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.CrossRef

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379–403.

Jenkins, H. (2004). A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. Journal of General Management, 29(4), 37–57.

Jenkins, H. (2006a). A ‘business opportunity’ model of corporate social responsibility for small and medium sized enterprises: EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Jenkins, H. (2006b). Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 241–256.CrossRef

Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.CrossRef

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economcis, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRef

Jones, T., & Thomas, M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

Joseph, E. (2000). A welcome engagement: SMEs and social inclusion. Southampton: Institute of Public Policy Research.

Julien, P. A. (Ed.). (1994). Les PME, Bilan et perspectives, GREPME, Groupe de recherche en économie et gestion des PME. Paris: Presse Inter Universitaires.

Kromminga, P., & Dresewski, F. (2006). Promoting CSR among SMEs: experiences from Germany, EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Kvåle, G., & Olsen, T. S. (2006). Variations in CSR in SMEs in five European countries. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Lamont, G. (2002). The spirited business: Success stories of soul friendly companies. London: Hoddes & Stoughton.

Lepoutre, J. (2006). Capabilities for effectively executing socially responsible strategies in small businesses. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Longenecker, J. G. (1989). Ethics in small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 27(1), 27–31.

Longenecker, J. G., Moore, C. W., Petty, J. W., Palich, L. E., & McKinney, J. A. (2006). Ethical attitudes in small business and large corporations: Theory and empirical findings from a tracking study spanning three decades. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 167–183.CrossRef

Longo, M., Mura, M., & Bonoli, A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: The case of Italian SMEs. Corporate Governance, The International Journal of Business in Society, 5(4), 28–42.CrossRef

Luetkenhorst, W. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and development agenda: The case of actively involving small and medium enterprises. Intereconomics, 39(3).

Mandl, I. (2006). CSR and competitiveness—European SMEs good practice. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Marchini, I. (1995). Il governo della piccola impresa.Vol. II—La gestione strategica. Genova: Aspi/Ins-Edit.

Marchini, I. (2000). Il governo della piccola impresa. Vol. I—Le basi delle conoscenze (2nd ed.). Genova: Aspi/Ins-Edit.

Maritain, J. (1966). The person and the common good. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.

Matacena, A. (1984). Impresa e ambiente. Il “bilancio sociale”. Bologna: Clueb.

Matacena, A. (2005). L’Accountability nelle imprese lucrative e sociali. Verso una possibile convergenza?, Economia Aziendale 2000web, 4, at: www.ea2000.it, 171–206.

Matacena, A. (2008). Responsabilità sociale delle imprese e accountability: alcune glosse. Rimini: Diapason.

Matten, D., & Moon J. (2004). Implicit and explicit CSR. A conceptual framework to understand CSR in Europe. ICCSR Research paper series, 29.

Melé, D. (2002). Not only stakeholder interests. The firm oriented toward the common good. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.

Minoja, M., & Romano G. (2006). Managing turnaround with responsible entrepreneurship: the Kendrion case. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Mitnick, B. M. (1995). Systematics and CSR. The theory and processes of normative referencing. Business & Society, 34(1).

Molteni, M. (2004). Responsabilità sociale e performance d’impresa. Per una sintesi socio-competitiva. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.

Molteni, M., Antoldi, F. & Todisco, A. (2006b). Smes and corporate social responsibility: An empirical survey in Italian industrial district. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Molteni, M., & Lucchini, M. (2004). I modelli di responsabilità sociale nelle imprese italiane. Milano: F. Angeli.

Molteni, M., Pedrini, M., & Bertolini, S. (2006a). La responsabilità sociale nelle aziende familiari italiane. Milano: Aidaf, ISVI.

MORI (2000). SME’s attitudes to social responsibility. Research study conducted for business in the community’s impact on society taskforce, UK, January–February.

Morsing, M. (2006). Drivers of corporate social responsibility in SMEs. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Ørskov, E. (2006). Green network—a showcase for working with CSR in SMEs. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106–117.

Perrini, F., Pogutz, S., & Tencati, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in Italy: The state of the art. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1), 65–91.

Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

Quinn, J. J. (1997). Personal ethics and business ethics: the ethics attitudes of owner/managers of small business. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(2), 119–127.CrossRef

Ringov, D., & Zollo, M. (2007). Corporate responsibility from a socio-institutional perspective. The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 476–485.CrossRef

Rusconi, G. (2006). Stakeholders and documents of the direct accountability of companies. In P. Arena (Ed.), The corporate social responsibility. Scientific development and implementation (pp. 235–255). Roma: Aracne.

Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2006). Formal vs informal CSR strategies. The case of Italian SMEs. EABIS/CBS International Conference Integration of CSR into SMEs business practice, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 26 October.

Sacconi, L. (2004). La responsabilità sociale come governance allargata dell’impresa. In G. Rusconi & M. Dorigatti (Eds.), La responsabilità sociale. Milano: F. Angeli.

Sacconi, L. (2008). A wider enterprise governance and value for all the stakeholders. Convegno ABI, Forum CSR, Roma, 29–30 gennaio.

Sciarelli, S. (2007). Etica e responsabilità sociale nell’impresa. Milano: Giuffrè.

Silvestrelli, S. (1986). Complessità degli approcci metodologici e delle problematiche nelle ricerche economico-aziendali sulle piccole imprese. In AA.VV., L’economia delle piccole e medie imprese industriali. Bologna: Clueb.

Spence, L. J. (1999). Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(3), 163–174.CrossRef

Spence, L. J., & Rutherfoord, R. (2003). Small business and empirical perspectives in business ethics: Editorial. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 1–5.CrossRef

Spence, L. J., & Schmidpeter, R. (2003). SMEs, social capital and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1/2), 93–108.CrossRef

Spence, L. J., Schmidpeter, R., & Habisch, A. (2003). Assessing social capital: Small and medium sized enterprises in Germany and the U.K. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 17–29.CrossRef

Terzani, S. (1984). Responsabilità sociale dell’azienda. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale (RIREA), luglio-agosto, 286–299.

Tilley, F. (2000). Small firm environmental ethics: How deep do they go? Business Ethics: A European Review, 9(1), 31–41.CrossRef

United Nations. (1999). Global compact, www.unglobalcompact.org.

Votaw, D. (1972). Genius became rare: A comment on the doctrine of social Rresponsibility. California Management Review, 15(2), 25–31.

Vyakarnam, S., Bailey, A., Myers, A., & Burnett, D. (1997). Towards an understanding of ethical behaviour in small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(16), 1625–1636.CrossRef

Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, Jr. D. R., & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 475–497.

Williamson, O. (1975). Market and hierarchies. New York: The Free Press.

World Commission on Environment, Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Zamagni, S. (Ed.). (1995). The economics of altruism. Hants: E. Elgar.

Zamagni, S. (2003). Impresa, mercato, economia civile. La Società, 4, 13–20.

Zamagni, S. (2006). The ethical anchoring of corporate social responsibility and the critique of CSR. The good company: Catholic social thought and corporate social responsibility in Dialogue, Rome, 5–7 October.

Zamagni, S. (2007). L’economia del bene comune. Roma: Città Nuova.

Titel: Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”
verfasst von: Mara Del Baldo
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2012
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Management and Governance / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 1385-3457
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-963X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9127-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

The adoption of deferred share unit plans for outside directors: economic and social determinants

The changing role of the supervisory board chairman: the case of the Netherlands (1997–2007)

Impacts of institutional pressures and the strength of market supporting institutions in the host country on the ownership strategy of multinational enterprises: theoretical discussion and propositions

Interdependence and accounting information exchanges in inter-firm relationships

International new ventures and governance structures—are international entrepreneurs strategic or entrepreneurial?

Internationalization of family SMEs: the impact of ownership, governance, and top management team

Premium Partner