Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 85, Issue 4, pp 411–427 | Cite as

Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study

  • Duygu TurkerEmail author


Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is one of the most prominent concepts in the literature and, in short, indicates the positive impacts of businesses on their stakeholders. Despite the growing body of literature on this concept, the measurement of CSR is still problematic. Although the literature provides several methods for measuring corporate social activities, almost all of them have some limitations. The purpose of this study is to provide an original, valid, and reliable measure of CSR reflecting the responsibilities of a business to various stakeholders. Based on a proposed conceptual framework of CSR, a scale was developed through a systematic scale development process. In the study, exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine the underlying factorial structure of the scale. Data was collected from 269 business professionals working in Turkey. The results of the analysis provided a four-dimensional structure of CSR, including CSR to social and nonsocial stakeholders, employees, customers, and government.


Corporate social responsibility employees scale development stakeholders Turkey 



Council of Economic Priorities


Canadian Social Investment Database


Corporate social responsibility


European Union


Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini


Nongovernmental organization


Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility


World Commission on Environment and Development


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This article is mainly based on the unpublished master dissertation of the author. The author is grateful to Prof. Ömür N. Timurcanday Özmen, Dokuz Eylül University, for her constant support and advice throughout this process and Dr. Oyvind Ihlen, University of Oslo, for his valuable comments and suggestions.


  1. Abbott W. F., R. J. Monsen 1979. On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-Reported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Social Involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ararat, M.: 2004, ‹Social Responsibility in a State Dependent System’, in A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe (Springer-Verlag, Berlin), Chapter 19, pp. 247–261Google Scholar
  3. Ararat, M.: 2005, ‹Drivers for Corporate Social Responsibility, Case of Turkey’, Working Paper. (Available at:
  4. Ararat, M.: 2006, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility Across Middle East and North Africa’, Working Paper. (Available at SSRN:
  5. Aupperle K. E.: 1984. An Empirical Measure of Corporate Social Orientation. In L. E. Preston (Eds.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy Vol. 6, pp. 27–54. Greenwich, CT: JAIGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagozzi R. P., Y. Yi, L. W. Phillips: 1991. Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayiksel, S. Ö.: 2007, ‹Hızlı Büyüyen Daha Çok Begeniliyor’, Capital Magazine. (Available at:
  8. Baucus M. S., D. A. Baucus: 1997. Paying the Piper: An Empirical Examination of Longer-Term Financial Consequences of Illegal Corporate Behavior. Academy of Management Journal 40(1). 129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bragdon J. H., J. A. Marlin: 1972. Is Pollution Profitable?. Risk Management, 19, 9–18Google Scholar
  10. Bowen H. R.: 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Bugra A.: 2003. The Place of the Economy in Turkish Society. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 102(2/3), 453–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll A. B.: 1979. A Three Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll A. B.: 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll A. B.: 1999. Corporate Social Responsibility – Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carroll A. B.: 2000. A Commentary and an Overview of Key Questions on Corporate Social Performance Measurement. Business & Society, 39(4), 466–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charkham J.: 1994. Keeping Good Company: A Study of Corporate Governance in Five Countries. Claredon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen K. H., R. W. Metcalf: 1984, The Relationship Between Pollution Control Record and Financial Indicators Revisited. The Accounting Review, 55, 168–177Google Scholar
  18. Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1994. ‹A Risk Based Model of Stakeholder Theory’, in Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory (Centre for Corporate Social Performance & Ethics University of Toronto, Toronto)Google Scholar
  19. Clarkson M. B. E.: 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cortina J. M.: 1993, What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Daft R. L.: 2003, Management. Thomson South-Western, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Davidson, W. N. and D. L. Worrell: 1990, ‹A Comparison and Test of the Use of Accounting and Stock Market Data in Relating Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance’, Akron Business and Economic Review 21, 7–19. (Cited in Maignan and Ferrell, 2000)Google Scholar
  23. Davis K.: 1960. Can Business Afford to Ignore Social Responsibilities? California Management Review, 2(3), 70–76Google Scholar
  24. Davis K.: 1973. The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dawkins D., S. Lewis: 2003. CSR in Stakeholder Expectations: and Their Implication for Company Strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eells R., C. Walton: 1974, Conceptual Foundations of Business (3rd ed.). Irwin, Burr Ridge, ILGoogle Scholar
  27. Etheredge J. M.: 1999. The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: An Alternative Scale Structure. Journal of Business Ethics 18, 51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flam H.: 2004. Turkey and the EU: Politics and Economics of Accession. CESifo Economic Studies 50(1), 171–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freedman N., B. Jaggi: 1982, Pollution Disclosures, Pollution Performance, and Economic Performance. The International Journal of Management Science, 10, 167–176Google Scholar
  30. Freedman M., C. Wasley: 1990. The Association Between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure in Annual Reports and 10-Ks. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 183–193Google Scholar
  31. Freeman R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. Gray R., R. Kouhy, S. Lavers: 1995. Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting: A Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenwood M. R.: 2001. The Importance of Stakeholders According to Business Leaders. Business and Society Review, 106(1), 29–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hair J. F., W. C. Black R. E. Anderson R L. Tatham: 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  35. Hosftede G.: 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Ingram R., K. Frazier: 1980. Environmental Performance and Corporate Disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(2), 614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kongar, E.: 1999. 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye: 2000li Yıllarda Türkiye’nin Toplumsal Yapısı. Remzi Kitabı, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  38. Mahoney L. S., L. Thorne: 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility and Long-Term Compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(3), 241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maignan I., O. C. Ferrell: 2000. Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maignan I., O. C. Ferrell: 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGuire J. W.: 1963. Business and Society. McGraw-Hill, New York. Google Scholar
  42. McGuire J. B., A. Sundgren, T. Schneeweis: 1988. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Orpen C.: 1987. The Attitudes of United States and South African Managers to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2), 89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostlund L. E.: 1977. Attitudes of Managers Towards Corporate Social Responsibility. California Management Review, 19(4), 35–49Google Scholar
  45. Peterson D. K.: 2004, The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational Commitment. Business and Society, 43(3), 296–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quazi A. M., D. O’Brien: 2000, An Empirical Test of a Cross-National Model of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rockness J. W. 1985, An Assessment of the Relationship Between US Corporate Environmental Performance and Disclosure. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 12(3), 339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruf B. M., K. Muralidhar, K. Paul: 1998. The Development of a Systematic, Aggregate Measure of Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Management, 24(1), 119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sims R. R.: 2003. Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants Fall. Praeger, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. Singhapakdi A., S. J. Vitell, K. C. Rallapalli, K. L. Kraft: 1996. The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: A Scale Development. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1131–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith D. 1993. The Frankenstein Syndrome: Corporate Responsibility and the Environment. In: D. Smith (ed) Business and the Environment: Implications of the New Environmentalism. Paul Chapman, London, pp. 172–189Google Scholar
  52. Smith, W. J. and R. S. Blackburn: 1988, ‹CSR: A Psychometric Examination of A Measurement Instrument’, Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, 293–295Google Scholar
  53. Votaw D.: 1972 Genius Became Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility. California Management Review, 15(2):25–31Google Scholar
  54. Verdeyen V., J. Put, B. V. Buggenhout: 2004. A Social Stakeholder Model. International Journal of Social Welfare, 13, 325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waddock S. A., Graves S. B.: 1997. The Corporate Social Performance – Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wheeler D., M. Sillanpaa: 1997. The Stakeholder Corporation: A Blueprint for Maximazing Stakeholder Value. Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Wheeler D., M. Sillanpaa: 1998, Including the Stakeholders: The Business Case. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wherther W. B., D. Chandler: 2006. Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment. Sage, USAGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiseman J.: 1982. An Evaluation of Environmental Disclosures Made in Corporate Annual Reports’, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 7(l), 53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolfe, R. and K. Aupperle: 1991, ‹Introduction to Corporate Social Performance: Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct’, in J. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 12 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 265–268Google Scholar
  61. Wood D. J., R. E. Jones: 1995. Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 229–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vocational SchoolYasar UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations