Corporate Governance

Emerald Article: Corporate social responsibility in Ireland: barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR Lorraine Sweeney

Article information:
To cite this document: Lorraine Sweeney, (2007),"Corporate social responsibility in Ireland: barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR", Corporate Governance, Vol. 7 Iss: 4 pp. 516 - 523 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700710820597 Downloaded on: 21-10-2012 References: This document contains references to 58 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 8 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by KENYA METHODIST UNIVERSITY: SATELLITE CENT For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Corporate social responsibility in Ireland: barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR
Lorraine Sweeney

Lorraine Sweeney is based at the Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland.

Abstract Purpose The corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement has gathered great momentum over the past number of years and is now regarded as being at its most prevalent. However, there has been a lack of attention to, and discussion of, CSR in Ireland and in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The purpose of this paper is to overcome both of these research gaps and provide deep understanding of the nature of CSR in Ireland. Specically this research aims to uncover the difference between large rms and SMEs operating in Ireland with regard to their understanding of CSR, the type of CSR activities undertaken and the management of CSR. In addition, this research analyses the barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews the relevant literature of CSR. Then, through semi-structured in-depth interviews with 13 rms, this study analyses CSR from both a large rm and an SME perspective in an Irish context. Findings This paper highlights the way in which rms operating in Ireland dene CSR. It differentiates between the management and activities of CSR among SMEs and large rms and uncovers barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR. Originality/value It is hoped that this paper provides initial insights into the nature of CSR in Ireland. Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Small to medium-sized enterprises, Stakeholder analysis, Ireland Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement has gathered great momentum over the past number of years (Crawford and Scaletta, 2005) and is now regarded to be at its most prevalent (Williams, 2005). Not only has the issue received academic attention but has quickly moved up the corporate agenda (Knox et al., 2005; Ogrizek, 2002). However, there has been a lack of attention to, and discussion of, CSR in Ireland (Hoven Stohs and Brannick, 1999; ODwyer et al., 2005). Research with regard to SMEs has also been quite scant (Friedman and Miles, 2001; Jenkins, 2004). This research contributes new material to this by analyzing how CSR is understood and implemented in an Irish context, from both a large rm and an SME perspective.

Literature review
One of the factors contributing to the ambiguity of CSR is the lack of consensus as to what the concept really means (Carroll, 1979; Panapanaan et al., 2003). Although the acronym CSR is now well established in the business lexicon, what the term actually means remains a subject of much debate (Roberts, 2003; Hopkins, 2003). It has been described as an ambiguous (Fischer, 2004), subjective (Frederick, 1986), unclear (McWilliams, 2001), amorphous (Margolis and Walsh, 2001), highly intangible

PAGE 516

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

VOL. 7 NO. 4 2007, pp. 516-523, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701

DOI 10.1108/14720700710820597

(Cramer et al., 2004), fuzzy (McGuire, 1963) concept with unclear boundaries and debatable legitimacy (Lantos, 2001). Beliefs and attitudes regarding the nature of CSR have varied over time (Hill et al., 2003) with most recent denitions describing CSR through the lens of stakeholder theory (Jones, 2005; Vos, 2003). Stakeholder theory has been proposed as a tool to make the abstract idea of CSR more practical and comprehensible (Hopkins, 2003; Vos, 2003). Thus, despite the absence of a universally accepted denition of CSR, much recent research suggests it concerns the way a company governs the relationship between the rm and its stakeholders. However, there has been very limited research concerning the understanding of CSR from an Irish perspective, a gap this paper will contribute to lling. It has been argued that all organizations have an impact on society and the environment through their operations, products and services and through their interaction with key stakeholders and therefore CSR is important in all rms, large and small (Williams, 2005; Hopkins, 2003; Roche, 2002). However, literature on CSR has traditionally focused attention on larger rms. Little is known empirically about the type and extent of social responsibility in small rms (Vyakarnam et al., 1997; Schaper and Savery, 2004; Perrini et al., 2006; Spence et al., 2000). While articles have been calling for research on CSR in SMEs since the 1990s, the work to date has been limited and there is a considerable amount of research needed (Spence et al., 2003). Further, there is an acknowledgement that research on CSR in SMEs would have both academic and professional benets (Hornsby and Kuratko, 1994). The focus of research on large rms assumes that CSR as it is understood from a large rm perspective is universally applicable to all rms (Wilkinson, 1999). However, it has recently been argued that CSR such as it is understood for large companies cannot simply be cut and pasted onto the SME reality (Jenkins, 2004). Large and small rms are different in nature (Spence and Lozano, 2000), for example, they have different structures and management styles (Perez-Sanchez, 2003; Tilley, 2000) which can affect the content, nature and extent of their CSR activities. A key difference between large and small rms is that in small rms, ownership and management are not separated to the extent that they are in large multinational rms (Spence and Rutherfoord, 2001). Thus, control remains in the hands of one of the owners, potentially enabling him or her to make personal choices about the allocation of resources (Spence, 1999). Thus, in SMEs, the acceptance of CSR is largely a factor of the personal attitudes of the owner/manager (Hopkins, 2003; Perez-Sanchez, 2003). Additionally, SMEs by their nature may experience specic barriers to CSR. It has been argued that SMEs are constrained by time and nancial resources (Sarbutts, 2003; Vives, 2006). A focus on the short term can mean long-term investment projects in CSR are not of immediate concern (Thompson and Smith, 1991; Carlisle and Faulkner, 2004; Spence, 1999). On the other hand, it has been argued that being smaller and atter, SMEs may be better placed than large rms to take advantage of the changing needs of society (Sarbutts, 2003; Perez-Sanchez, 2003).

Methodology
Adopting a similar approach to Spence and Rutherfoord (2001), this research involved a qualitative strategy of investigation based on semi-structured face-to-face interviews. A total of 13 interviews were conducted with rms operating in Ireland. Following the advise of many authors that the chosen methodology should complement the research objectives (Punch, 2005; Rocco et al., 2003), semi-structured interviews were chosen for their ability to provide rich (Birn, 2000) and comprehensive (Creswell, 1994) data, thus providing valuable insights and understanding (Birn, 2000). Representing what is probably the most widely employed method in qualitative research (Bryman, 2001), semi-structured interviews also benet greatly from their exibility (Bailey, 1982). This group of respondents represents both large rms (three of which are subsidiaries of multinational rms) and SMEs operating in Ireland. Keeping in line with the argument that there exists an industry effect with regards CSR activities (Grifn and Mahon, 1997; Tschopp,

VOL. 7 NO. 4 2007 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 517

2005) this sample of rms spans a wide variety of industries. The sample was conned, for practical reasons, to 13 companies, six large rms and seven SMEs. While there is no single, uniformly acceptable denition of a small rm (Storey, 1994), this research employs the most widely used denition (Spence et al., 2003; Williamson and Lynch-Wood, 2001) as a rm with 250 employees or less (Table I).

Findings
The ndings will be discussed under each objective. Objective one: to gain an understanding of how CSR is dened by Irish rms In line with recent literature arguing that CSR is an issue of growing importance in both academia and business (Crawford and Scaletta, 2005; Williams, 2005; Perrini et al., 2006), this research found that all respondents were familiar with and had knowledge of the term corporate social responsibility. However, it must be kept in mind that this sample represents a group of rms agreeing to be interviewed on the topic of CSR, and as such may represent a more enlightened group than the Irish sector in general. This research found a variety of denitions of CSR. It would appear to be true of the Irish sector that the term means something, but not always the same thing, to just about everybody (Zenisek, 1979, p. 359). However, while there was no universally accepted denition, in line with the literature arguing CSR can be most practically explained by reference to stakeholder theory (Vos, 2003; Spence et al., 2000; Jones, 2005; Whitehouse, 2006), the rms involved in this research tended to dene CSR by reference to their responsibility to a variety of stakeholders. Interestingly, company M (large rm) argued that CSR is the same as stakeholder management:
It used to be called stakeholder management, that was the kind of 1970s denition . . . CSR in the 1990s, maybe by the end of this decade somebody else will come up with a new term.

Company K (large rm) felt stakeholder theory makes CSR more practical to companies, arguing it bridges the gap between CSR theory and company practice. SMEs tended to describe CSR quite vaguely as conducting business in a responsible manner. The wider community was often cited by this group of rms as an important stakeholder. Larger rms, by comparison, described CSR as responsibility to a broader group of stakeholders including customers, employees, the environment and community. This group of stakeholders were described by some large rm respondents as the four legs of CSR. It became apparent that not all respondents use the term CSR when referring to the topic and some felt that it may not be the most appropriate term to represent the activities and mindset of CSR. It is interesting to note that the word responsibility has been questioned in the literature. It has been argued that the word is too narrow and static to fully describe the Table I Company classication: size and industry of rms involved in study
Company A B C D E F G H I J K L M No. of employees 52 (SME) 208 (SME) 40 (SME) 111 (SME) 70 (SME) 240 (SME) 55 (SME) 8,000 (Large) 18,241 (Large) 4,600 (Large) 109,000 (Large) 116,000 (Large) 240,000 (Large) Sector Advertising Construction Food packaging Oil and gas Pharmaceutical Recruitment Restaurant Electricity Financial services Financial services Oil and gas Pharmaceutical Retail

PAGE 518 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 7 NO. 4 2007

social efforts and performance of business (Carroll, 1979). Alternatives such as responsiveness (Ackerman and Bauer, 1976) or performance (Wartick and Cochran, 1983) have been offered. However, this debate rarely appears in current literature and many current writers use the term corporate social responsibility (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Whitehouse, 2006; Jones, 2005). It was noted through this research that SME respondents described the term as grandiose, daunting or confusing. It was felt that the term is off-putting and made CSR seem more complicated than it is in reality. This is in line with recent literature arguing CSR may not be the most appropriate term for the SME sector (Schaper and Savery, 2004; Castka et al., 2004; Bessera and Miller, 2001). In particular, the word corporate may alienate smaller organizations. In contrast, this research found that larger rms were uncomfortable with the word social, which it was felt unrealistically connes CSR to a rms social activities. Some alternatives to CSR mentioned by this sample of rms include corporate responsibility, corporate citizenship or sustainability. Objective two: to gain insights into the management of CSR in large and small rms operating in Ireland In support of recent arguments (Graaand et al., 2003) it was found that the management of CSR in larger rms was more formal and structured than in SMEs in which CSR was described as an ad hoc issue. All large rms in this study had persons or departments devoted to CSR, in contrast no SME had a person appointed to manage CSR. An interesting nding was the relatively recent formation of such departments/positions in large indigenous rms. In three such rms the position/department was less than two years old, the remaining four large rms (of which three were multinationals) had CSR departments in operation for many years. This indicates that CSR is a relatively recent development in Ireland compared with other parts of the world. The responsibility of CSR in SMEs tended to rest with the owner/manager or another senior manager of the rm. All rms agreed strongly that the interest and involvement of senior management is crucial to the successful implementation of CSR. According to company C (SME) it is vital and company A (SME) argued it wouldnt happen otherwise. Providing an explanation, company F (SME) argued that if the CEO is interested in something it has a much greater chance of getting done and it motivates employees to get involved. In line with research undertaken in the UK (Quinn, 1997), this study indicated the presence of a positive relationship between the views and interest of the owner manager/managing director and the level of CSR undertaken by rms operating in the Irish sector. Objective three: to gain insight into the type of CSR activities undertaken by large rms and SMEs operating in Ireland Considering that SMEs tended to mention the community as an important stakeholder when dening CSR, it is not surprising that they describe their CSR activities along the lines of community projects and environmental initiatives. Common activities included working free of charge for charities, making charitable donations and recycling initiatives. This is in line with recent literature on the topic (Roche, 2002). In this sample of rms, the volume of CSR activity positively correlated with rm size. However, it must be kept in mind that respondents were not given a list of activities from which to choose from and it is possible that SMEs found it difcult to articulate the activities of CSR that they are involved in. In line with recent literature (Perrini et al., 2006) Co I (large rm) felt that SMEs may be involved in CSR activities and not call it CSR or may not even be aware of this. Providing support for this, when asked to describe some activities of CSR that the rm is involved in Co C (SME) failed to mention a recycling initiative of the rm, this issue only became apparent when discussing the cost of this program as a barrier for SMEs. Large rms, it was found, undertake a wider range of CSR activities than SMEs. Large rms described their CSR activities by reference to four main stakeholders: employees, community, customers and the environment. Popular activities include work/life balance and

VOL. 7 NO. 4 2007 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 519

diversity policies (employees); charitable donations and scholarship programs (community); innovative products and enhanced accessibility (customers); waste management and using recycled material (environment). Objective four: to assess the barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs Some recent literature (Carlisle and Faulkner, 2004) has argued that SMEs are likely to experience a wide range of barriers including, a perception that CSR does not relate to SMEs and resource constraints such as nancial, human and time limitations. Large rms tended to agree with this and argued that small rms, in comparison to themselves may lack resources such as nances, human resources or time to devote to CSR and this can act as a barrier preventing them from undertaking CSR. It was also mentioned from some large rm respondents that smaller rms may not feel CSR is an issue for smaller rms to concern themselves with and as such the main barrier may simple be a perception that there is no need for them to concern themselves with CSR. However it was interesting to note that SMEs did not experience all of these barriers and cost was the only barrier cited by SMEs. This is in support of emerging research that has studied CSR in SMEs and found that the barriers thought to prevent SMEs from undertaking CSR may not be present in reality (Castka et al., 2004; Perez-Sanchez, 2003; Vives, 2006). Agreeing with current literature (Sarbutts, 2003; Perez-Sanchez, 2003) large rms and SMEs felt the opportunities experienced by SMEs in relation to CSR are:
B B

SMEs are closer to their stakeholders and can more easily build relationships, and small rms are considered more exible and can quickly respond to stakeholder demands and implement stakeholder policies.

Conclusions
In conclusion, this paper has contributed to lling the gap in literature in relation to CSR in Irish rms and in particular Irish SMEs. This study involved semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 13 large and small rms operating in Ireland to gain insights into the nature of CSR in Ireland. Large rms operating in Ireland dened CSR along the four main stakeholders: employees, customers, community and environment. SMEs tend to dene CSR as conducting business in a responsible manner and in particular contributing to their local community. It was interesting to note that both groups of rms had difculties with the term CSR; small rms questioned the corporate element of the term, suggesting that it presumes a corporation of a certain size. Large rms felt the social element of the term unrealistically conned CSR to the social responsibilities of the rm. The volume and diversity of CSR activities was positively correlated with size. While large rms believe SMEs experience barriers such as perception and resource limitations such as nancial, human and time constraints, in reality the only barrier noted by SMEs was nancial constraints.

References
Ackerman, R. and Bauer, R. (1976), Corporate Social Responsiveness: The Modern Dilemma, Reston Publishing, Reston, VA. Bailey, K. (1982), Methods of Social Research, 2nd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY. Becker-Olsen, K., Cudmore, B. and Hill, R. (2006), The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behaviour, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, pp. 46-53. Bessera, T. and Miller, N. (2001), Is the good corporation dead? The community social responsibility of small business operators, Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 221-42. Birn, R. (2000), The Handbook of International Market Research Techniques, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London. Bryman, A. (2001), Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Carlisle, Y. and Faulkner, D. (2004), Corporate social responsibility: a stages framework, European Business Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 143-52.

PAGE 520 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 7 NO. 4 2007

Carroll, A. (1979), A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505. Castka, P., Balzarova, A. and Bamber, C. (2004), How can SMEs effectively implement the CSR agenda? A UK case study perspective, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 140-9. Cramer, J., Jonker, J. and Heijden, A. (2004), Making sense of corporate social responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55, pp. 215-22. Crawford, D. and Scaletta, T. (2005), The balanced scorecard and corporate social responsibility: aligning values and prots, CMA Management, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 20-7. Creswell, J. (1994), Research Design, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage Publications, London. Fischer, J. (2004), Social responsibility and ethics: clarifying the concepts, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 391-400. Frederick, W. (1986), Toward CSR3: why ethical analysis is indispensable and unavoidable in corporate affairs, California Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 126-41. Friedman, A. and Miles, S. (2001), SMEs and the environment: two case studies, Eco-Management and Auditing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 200-9. Graaand, J., van de Ven, B. and Stoffele, N. (2003), Strategies and instruments for organising CSR by small and large businesses in The Netherlands, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 45-57. Grifn, J. and Mahon, F. (1997), The corporate social performance and corporate nancial performance debate: twenty ve years of incomparable research, Business and Society, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 5-32. Hill, R., Stephens, D. and Smith, I. (2003), Corporate social responsibility: an examination of individual rm behaviour, Business and Society Review, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 339-64. Hopkins, M. (2003), The Planetary Bargain, Corporate Social Responsibility Matters, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London. Hornsby, J. and Kuratko, D. (1994), The ethical perceptions of small business owners: a factor analytic study, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 9-16. Hoven Stohs, J. and Brannick, T. (1999), Codes and conduct: predictors of Irish managers ethical reasoning, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 311-26. Jenkins, H. (2004), A critique of conventional CSR theory: an SME perspective, Journal of General Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 37-57. Jones, M. (2005), The traditional corporation, corporate social responsibility and the outsourcing debate, The Journal of American Academy, Vol. 2, pp. 91-7. Knox, S., Maklan, S. and French, P. (2005), Corporate social responsibility: exploring stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 7-8. Lantos, G. (2001), The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 595-632. McGuire, J. (1963), Business and Society, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. McWilliams, A. (2001), Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the rm perspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-28. Margolis, J. and Walsh, J. (2001), People and Prots? The Search for a Link between a Companys Social and Financial Performance, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Upper Saddle River, NJ. ODwyer, B., Unerman, J. and Bradley, J. (2005), Perceptions on the emergence and future development of corporate social disclosure in Ireland, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 14-43. Ogrizek, M. (2002), The effect of corporate social responsibility on the branding of nancial services, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 215-28.

VOL. 7 NO. 4 2007 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 521

Panapanaan, V., Linnanen, L., Karvonen, M. and Phan, V. (2003), Roadmapping corporate social responsibility in Finnish companies, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 Nos 2/3, pp. 133-48. Perez-Sanchez, D. (2003), Implementing environmental management in SMEs, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 67-77. Perrini, F., Russo, A. and Tencati, A. (2006), SMEs and CSR theory: evidence and implications from an Italian perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 305-16. Punch, K. (2005), Introduction to Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London. Quinn, J. (1997), Personal ethics and business ethics: the ethical attitudes of owner/managers of small business, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 119-27. Roberts, S. (2003), Supply chain specic? Understanding the patchy success of ethical sourcing initiatives, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 Nos 2/3, pp. 159-70. Rocco, T., Bliss, L., Gallagher, S. and Perez-Prado, A. (2003), Taking the next step: mixed method research in organisational systems, Information Technology Learning and Performance Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 19-28. Roche, J. (2002), CSR and SMEs: chalk and cheese?, Ethical Corporation, Vol. 9, pp. 18-19. Sarbutts, N. (2003), Can SMEs do CSR? A practitioners view of the ways small and medium sized enterprises are able to manage reputation through corporate social responsibility, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 340-7. Schaper, M. and Savery, L. (2004), Entrepreneurship and philanthropy: the case of small Australian rms, Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 239-50. Spence, L. (1999), Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 163-72. Spence, L. and Lozano, J. (2000), Communicating about ethics with small rms: experiences from the UK and Spain, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 43-53. Spence, L. and Rutherfoord, R. (2001), Social responsibility, prot maximisation and the small rm owner-manager, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 126-39. Spence, L., Jeurissen, R. and Rutherfoord, R. (2000), Small business and the environment in the UK and The Netherlands: toward stakeholder cooperation, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 945-65. Spence, L., Schmidpeter, R. and Habisch, A. (2003), Assessing social capital: small and medium sized enterprises in Germany and the UK, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 17-29. Storey, D. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, International Thompson Business Press, London. Thompson, J. and Smith, H. (1991), Social responsibility and small business: suggestions for research, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 30-45. Tilley, F. (2000), Small rm environmental ethics: how deep do they go?, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-40. Tschopp, D. (2005), Corporate social reporting: a comparison between the United States and the European Union, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 55-9. Vives, A. (2006), Social and environmental responsibility in small and medium enterprises in Latin America, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 21, pp. 39-50. Vos, J. (2003), Corporate social responsibility and the identication of stakeholders, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 141-52. Vyakarnam, S., Bailey, A., Myers, A. and Burnett, D. (1997), Towards an understanding of ethical behaviour in small rms, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1625-36. Wartick, S. and Cochran, P. (1983), The evolution of the corporate social performance model, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 758-69.

PAGE 522 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 7 NO. 4 2007

Whitehouse, L. (2006), Corporate social responsibility: views from the frontline, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 279-96. Wilkinson, A. (1999), Employment relations in SMEs, Employee Relations, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 20-1. Williams, A. (2005), Consumer social responsibility?, Consumer Policy Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 34-5. Williamson, D. and Lynch-Wood, G. (2001), A new paradigm for SME environmental practice, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 424-32. Zenisek, T. (1979), Corporate social responsibility: a conceptualization on organisational literature, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 359-68.

About the author

Lorraine Sweeney holds a BSc in Management and is currently undertaking a PhD in the Dublin Institute of Technology. Lorraine Sweeney can be contacted at: lorraine.sweeney@dit.ie

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 7 NO. 4 2007 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 523