Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
DOI 10.1007/s10997-009-9127-4
1 Introduction
123
M. Del Baldo
(SMEs), the dedication to, and articulation of, socially responsible management
philosophies must reverberate directly across a plurality of ‘‘intangible’’ components.
Among these intangibles are the company’s strategic profile (in terms of
integrating practices in a system of initiatives and integrated behaviours with the
overall business strategy), the culture of the enterprise, the processes of account-
ability (improving systems of collecting and diffusing information, of disclosure and
of informational transparency, as well as introducing procedures and forms of
control), and systems of corporate governance (systems of decision-making
processes and of internal control, configuration of assets and related matters). It
is this totality of factors that reflect that specific nature of the SME: the convergence
around the mission and value-set, facilitated by the proximity and by the direct
involvement of the owner and/or the entrepreneurial family in managing the
business; the simplicity of its organizational structure, which allows direct and
frequent rapports between the corporate actors; and its rooting in the surrounding
territory and socio-economic context. This last factor assumes particular importance
in driving the business towards forms of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) that
share a common thread—namely, they all possess values that typically express a
particular socio-cultural and economic tradition of the territory in which they are
embedded (Ringov and Zollo 2007).
Where an adhesion to multiple declensions of CSR is present, corporate
governance positions itself at the center of relations between stakeholders, strategic
profile and internal processes, human capital (Gazzola and Mella 2006) and is
experienced as enlarged governance (Sacconi 2008). A necessary condition is the
involvement of top management: the top managers and/or the entrepreneur serve as
the impetus for the reorientation of the firm’s mission, from its maximization of
profits to gaining value that comes from economic performance and finds a source in
the modification of the business direction and the rules that govern it.
In this context, is it possible to affirm that socially oriented businesses are
characterized by the ‘‘best’’ systems of governance? And on which specificities of
SMEs is the evolution of socially-oriented management philosophy based?
To answer these questions, the present study utilizes a dual analytical
perspective: deductive and inductive. The former is based on a review of the
contributions present in the literature concerning business ethics, entrepreneurship
and CSR among SMEs. The latter is developed through a qualitative study focused
on several case studies conducted through a semi-structured questionnaire on a
sample of SMEs in the Marches Region. The empirical analysis forms a part of a
more robust research project based on the qualitative and quantitative study of a
sample of Italian SMEs, started in May 2008.
The explication of the research question can be articulated this way: to individuate
the particular traits of the mission, systems of governance and of accountability that
characterize the SMEs that carry a business culture in which social responsibility is
lived within the governance of the firm. The central proposition is that in the presence
of a solid ethical framework, which is promoted and shared by the entrepreneurs and
managers who guide the business in carrying out socially responsible practices and
towards adopting methods communicating them (such as a charter of values, a code
of ethics, social report, etc.), the arrangement and quality of governance can mitigate
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
tensions and dedicate more energy towards the good of the business, of its workers,
and of the society and environment in which it operates.
The empirical analysis of such cases, conducted with reference to the
interpretative framework of Lamont (2002) and Molteni and Lucchini (2004), also
permits one to verify a second proposition: SMEs’ orientation towards CSR and the
coherence between mission-governance-accountability which follows are facilitated
by environmental factors—that is, of an anthropological and socio-cultural nature—
present in the territory from which the entrepreneurs and the SMEs come. This
makes it possible to trace the features of a Marchegian model of socially responsible
orientation centered on the best practices of SMEs who are excellent examples of
‘‘spirited businesses’’.
The work is articulated in three principle parts. The first section traces the
theoretical framework and synthesizes the existent contributions in the literature and
of the researches conducted on the theme of CSR and business ethics, attempting a
comparative reading with respect to large firms. The second part describes and
interprets the principle findings that have emerged from the qualitative investigation
focused on a selected group of ‘‘cohesive’’ SMEs, in which the nexus between
mission, corporate governance and socially responsible management practices were
examined. The last section closes the paper with concluding reflections.
1
‘‘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).
123
M. Del Baldo
connect them, and on the responsible use of power in political and social arenas
(Davis 1960, 1973; Donaldson and Dunfee 1994, 1999).
The third body of studies (integrative theories), in which the approaches of issues
management, public responsibility, stakeholder management and corporate social
performance coexist, maintains that ‘‘social demands are generally considered to be
the way in which society interacts with business and gives it a certain legitimacy
and prestige. As a consequence, corporate management should take into account
social demands, and integrate them in such a way that the business operates in
accordance with social values’’ (Garriga and Melé 2004, p. 57).
The last represents a collection of ethical theories which, focused ‘‘on the right
thing to achieve a good society’’ (ibidem, p. 64), includes the approach of
stakeholder normative theory (Freeman and Reed 1983; Freeman 1984; Evan and
Freeman 1993; Donaldson and Preston 1995; Phillips et al. 2003) which is based on
the premise of universal rights (UN Global Compact 1999), of sustainable
development (World Commission on Environment and Development, Brundtland
Report, 1987). It also includes the approach of the common good of society, in
which space is made for theories concerning the ‘‘common good’’ (Maritain 1966;
Melé 2002; Alford and Naugthon 2002; Alford 2006; Sacconi 2004; Catturi 2006)
and the Civil Economy (Zamagni 1995, 2006; Bruni and Zamagni 2004).
The nexus between corporate governance and the management’s and/or the
entrepreneur/business owner’s responsibility is a theme which, in recent decades,
has moved to the forefront and has fully merged into the ethics of responsibility
theory: the duty of management is to actualize a balance of interests among all
stakeholders, and social responsibility can (and must) be redirected towards the
emersion of moral preferences and their connection with particular types of
businesses (civil and social businesses) or, in lucrative firms, towards particular
mechanisms of governance in which a relational perspective prevails (Zamagni
2003).
According to such notions, CSR is an instrument of governance that facilitates
the compliance of a possible ‘‘encounter’’ among actors inside/outside the firm, and
governance become simplified when trust in the management and/or the entrepre-
neur increases and even more so when the same trust is repaid by the right results,
equitable and gratifiable for all (Jones and Thomas 1995).
Such a perspective signals the passage from a governance centered on managerial
and entrepreneurial aims to a multi-polar or holistic model (Sciarelli 2007) which
considers all who ‘‘matters’’ to the company and provided the foundation to a
responsibility composed of economic, social and environmental demands, which
provokes new problems.
The problems of business government2 touch on both the firm’s structural profile
as well as its processual profile. In the latter decades the two-part question ‘‘who
effectively governs’’ and ‘‘for whom’’ was enriched with the addition of a third
2
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
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
Footnote 2 continued
system, the modes and the instruments with which the decision-making processes and behaviours con-
form to the principles that inspire the functioning of the business. See Molteni 2004.
3
For a literature review on agency theory, see Mitnick (1995), beginning on page 76.
4
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).
5
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).
123
M. Del Baldo
of our moral imagination and articulate the relationship between corporations and
ethics’’ (Wicks et al. 1994).
Stakeholder theory is considered both an ethical theory of organization as well as
a theory of strategic management (Phillips et al. 2003). In the context of stakeholder
management,6 the distinction between normative stakeholders (towards whom the
organization has a moral obligation to treat equitably) and derivative stakeholders,
towards whom there is no obligation to treat equitably, is done based on the
fundamental principle of equity, according to whom in a cooperative environment,
each participant should receive benefits equal to the sacrifices they make (Phillips
2003).
One can consider a company as a sort of ‘‘independent stakeholder-subject
system’’; all stakeholders tend to pursue a dynamic equilibrium between themselves
based on ‘‘minimum mutual acknowledgement’’ (MMA); each stakeholder ‘‘draws
up’’ his own specific ‘‘map of the stakeholders’’ and, while respecting the MMA,
tries in any case to negotiate in order to achieve a situation of strategic equilibrium
which is most favourable to their interests. These principles of general stakeholder
theory consider the business as one element within a broader network and confirm
the importance of relationships and trust between diverse interlocutors (Rusconi
2006).
In this sense, stakeholder theory, which introduced the concept of equity
(fairness) and of the just treatment of diverse interlocutors, ‘‘also becomes an ethical
theory, in which values and principles of moral nature are recalled’’ (Sciarelli 2007,
p. 13). The concept of fairness recalls principles and values of a moral nature, which
are necessary to supplement or integrate scarcity in a form of governance that is not
effectively disciplined towards a juridical orientation and towards prominent market
forces, so as to balance the conflicting interests of diverse participants. These last
factors have and ‘‘have to do’’ with altruism, moral gratification, the ‘‘logic of
happiness’’ (Baldarelli 2005), satisfaction, gratuity and gifts (Gui and Sugden 2005;
Bruni 2005) and the honor of such behaviours (Brennan 1994).
Ethics among strong and weak interests, inasmuch the doctrine and practice is
oriented towards the decision between right and wrong, represents an effective and
necessary response to real demands of present and future corporate governance.
This approach opens the way towards an application of ethical values in
corporate choices. This is translated into the model of CSR-social-responsiveness-
issues management7 in which the principles of solidarity and trustworthiness are
reconciled and enmesh themselves in diverse levels of commitment correlated with
the typologies of relations with stakeholders.
Nevertheless, such a framework rests on the disassociation between ownership
and government of the company, which is typical in the United States but rare in
other contexts—especially in Italy.
6
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.
7
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).
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
Although the ethics corporate culture is not born in the environment of small firms,
which have been given less attention in ethics literature (Spence 1999; Tilley 2000;
Spence and Schmidpeter 2003), it finds its own matrix in the very specificity of the
motives and the values that guide the policies and the actions of the small-scale
123
M. Del Baldo
entrepreneur. There are three essential motives: the influence of the subjective
sphere, which in the small firm is maximized, the importance of relating to the
internal and the external, proclaimed by its limited dimension, and the social rooting
of the small business and of its creator (Del Baldo 2006a).
With respect to the manager, the entrepreneur is rarely motivated by purely
economic factors. More often, he experiences more ample stimuli under the social
profile, is characterized by a strong identification with the organization (organiza-
tional commitment) and is given personal power linked to authority, as is typical in
stewardship relationships. Subjective variables lie at the core of entrepreneurship,
which serve to explain behaviours, returns to personal characteristics and
motivations of a psychological and sociological nature (Marchini 2000).
In the sphere of typology matrix studies on entrepreneurship numerous
classifications of entrepreneurs have been drawn, based on the types of objectives
and personal characteristics they possess and strategic models (Julien 1994) have
been proposed which place the objectives of the entrepreneur among the key
variables that influence strategy next to organizational factors, the environment
(intended as global society and as sectors of activity) and production activities.
Values8 and attitudes towards the social context are central factors in the strategic
system; they are expressed by the vision and the ‘‘entrepreneurial formula’’ (Coda
1985).
‘‘Values nourish the organisation and enhance the spirit of entrepreneurialism’’
(Lamont 2002). They are like roots, which inspire the strategic orientation of
responsibility and constitute the most important source of identification inside the
firm and the primary basis of external legitimization (Cerana 2004). Competitive
positioning of the company springs not only from adapting to the binomial trade/
mission but also ‘‘from the business’ capacity to open itself up to ethical values
dominant in society, to the resulting roles and responsibilities and thus to the
necessity of a legitimacy in which factors of valorization of its image’’ (Marchini
1995, p. 114). Entrepreneurial motivations and aims are placed at the base of the
theory of social success of the entrepreneur (Sciarelli 2007).9 Success is measured
by not only the results achieved by the enterprise, but more so by the achievement of
respect gained from the surrounding community. Social leadership represents an
endpoint of entrepreneurial activity and social power finds its counterbalance in
social responsibility attributed to, and embraced by, the entrepreneur. His
understanding that the solidity of the firm’s success and the consequent relapse in
8
‘‘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).
9
‘‘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).
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
terms of social power is also founded on respect for both economic balances and on
moral values (Quinn 1997).
Large corporations usually separate ownership and control, and dissociate
between the figure of the business owner and the entrepreneur, replaced by a
delegated manager.10 The different interests of the owner and the management elicit
problems of practice and of control of the same proxy, inside of which the system of
shared values becomes central and the opportunity to balance/reconcile the interests
and powers of the diverse protagonists in the life of the firm. The search for the
values that provide the foundation to the proxy manager and to how his decisions
are put into practice has recently tended to view ethics as the key factor. The
majority of top men in large firms consider it a factor of success and demonstrate
that they are sensible towards social responsibility and business integrity
(Longenecker 1989; Longenecker et al. 2006), which is no longer an option but
an indispensable element for the creation and maintenance of positive relationships.
Even if the CSR has yet to factor into the value structure of the entire management,
it nevertheless increases its orientation towards an ‘‘exchange of abilities.’’ This
model, imported from the Anglo-Saxon world, increases the space of dialogue on
the terrain of governance and of competences and capabilities between the
enterprise in the for-profit sector and non-profit organizations. Fronts of collabo-
ration on projects and communal interventions are increased, there is a greater
generation of multi-tasking managers—who are carriers of supportive values—as
well as the number of top-level executives that move to the third sector.
In large companies, due to the diverse grade of identification between the
enterprise and the manager, and the non-persistence of the rapport with the
enterprise, success fulfills an intermediate or instrumental aim. The proxy finds it
difficult to define the subjects he is to promote, in fact, the entrepreneurial aims.
Trust is cemented in the achievement of durable economic results for the
shareholders, often negating the ‘‘luxury’’ of ethical principles and objectives in
the company’s management. Short-termism (Hosmer 1995) is privileged over the
construction of long-term values, and is connected with the firm’s image and with
the improvement of relationships among all of the stakeholders.
Regarding ethical principles, the manager may not have much discretion or may
encounter limits. Even SMEs experience ‘‘pathological’’ situations (subordination
of personal interests and/or family to that of the company, limited moral and ethical
depth of the firm’s manager). Nevertheless, for the entrepreneur, the pervasiveness
of ethical values in the company’s decisions is maximized. ‘‘In SMEs the owner-
manager is both the driver and implementer of values. Managers exhibit their
personal values through the exercise of managerial discretion and SMEs’ owner-
managers has the autonomy to exercise such discretion.’’ (Hemingway and
Maclagan 2004). For the owner-manager, the link between the company’s success
and his own is personal and more closely visible with respect to that which is
10
‘‘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).
123
M. Del Baldo
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
The increased attention towards CSR and SMEs is attributed to a more generalized
interest in sustainability that promulgates socially responsible management at the
global level. On the one hand, this interest was heightened at the European level
after the Council of Lisbon in 2000, which specifically addressed SMEs.
Comparative analyses confirm the superior diffusion of CSR compared to large
firms. At the same time one can underscore the fact that SMEs’ predominantly
informal approach (‘‘sunken or silent CSR’’) does not have to lead to considering
CSR a prerogative of the former (Russo and Tencati 2006; Perrini et al. 2006); the
proactive orientation of SMEs is thus relevant (Luetkenhorst 2004), even if it is not
explicit (Matten and Moon 2004; Spence and Rutherfoord 2003; Longo et al. 2005;
Mandl 2006) and attests to a sustained socio-competitive creativity.
On both the national and international levels, there emerges the need to deepen
the understanding of the motivations of the small firms’ commitment to CSR
(Morsing 2006) and to provide guidelines and instruments to aid SMEs adopt and
communicate socially oriented policies (Castka et al. 2004). At the same time, the
need to adopt a diverse perspective with respect to conventional theories is
confirmed and the necessity to bring to light specifics of SMEs (Jenkins 2004).
Among these one finds a central ethical orientation and the entrepreneur’s values.
One relevant aspect that emerges from the researches conducted on the diffusion
of CSR in SMEs (MORI 2000; Joseph 2000; European Commission 2001, 2002a, b;
European Union 2004; Molteni et al. 2006) is, on the one hand, that the process of
123
M. Del Baldo
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
The study of the field first attempted to identify the central value present in the
companies interviewed, its translation into a mission and, consequently, the impact
on relationships with stakeholders, its reflections on the structure of government,
and the presence of instruments of accountability.
5.2 The propositions posited at the base of this study are the following:
Proposition one CSR reinforces and facilitates the convergence between mission,
governance, and accountability; the orientation towards CSR is therefore reflected
positively on the governance of SMEs.
Proposition two Among SMEs, the orientation towards CSR begins with the
entrepreneur and is a manifestation of both the values tied to personal goals as well as
the values tied to cultural and social variables in the territory from which he comes.
First, this requires attention to be focused on the elements of the trinomial
mission-corporate governance-accountability and on their reciprocal relations,
departing from the assumption that ‘‘in every enterprise there exists an explicit and
coherent coordination between mission, governance and accountability’’ (Matacena
2005, 2008). Mission is used here to mean an explication and a synthesis of the
company aims; corporate governance as the command structure and of the
government present in the company; accountability as the informative responsibility
of the company. Matacena’s model is herein utilized to analyze the relations and the
coordination between the aforementioned elements and is preferred over both the
stakeholder approach and the stewardship view because the Author extended its
contextual applicability to diverse typologies of businesses, including small and
medium-sized firms, which are the objects of this study. He distinguishes ideal types
of businesses in terms of one-to-one relationships between mission and corporate
governance.13 Such relationships define the level and content of accountability of
13
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
123
M. Del Baldo
every specific ideal type of business. Among the Italian experts who research social
responsibility, the Author, who defines the business as a socio-economic system,
provides interpretive cues on how to maintain equilibrium between productive
systems and human systems, which are particularly brought close together in small
and medium-sized firms. He equally maintains that economic responsibility weighs
on all of the firms present in the market. What is diverse, however, is their social
responsibility, because the businesses that make up the market are diverse in both
their mission and their governance. Therefore, specific missions, with their relative
corporate governance, determine both the business’ level and type of accountability.
Second, this implies that one must identify those aspects of the system of
governance in SMEs which draw on the positive actions that orient the models of
behaviour of the firms who are capable of realizing socio-competitive synthesis
(Molteni 2004). Socio-competitive synthesis is itself derived from a stable and
structured approach to CSR, incorporated in its own strategic orientation, in its
underlying mode of governance and its system of internal and external reporting.
The typology elaborated by Molteni and Lucchini (2004) was utilized to place the
behaviours of the firms in the sphere of a grid of codified readings. Lamont’s (2002)
theoretical diagram was employed to individuate the most relevant aspects of a
‘‘spirited business’’.
5.3 Methodology
Footnote 13 continued
considered a specific quality for entrepreneurial activities. In the second and third, the mission is prev-
alently 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.
14
On an analysis of cases see Yin (1994, 2003); on specificities of research on small businesses see
Silvestrelli (1986), Ferraris Franceschi (1993).
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
qualitative approaches and the forms of research in action (Fayolle 2004) allow for
one to describe, explain and understand the entrepreneurial situations in their own
dynamics and in their own evolution.
Specifically, the case method constitutes a precious instrument for ‘‘capturing’’
the diverse manifestations of socially responsible government as well as of
stakeholders relationship and to utilize the results both with a cognitive aim as well
as with normative merit; such ‘‘cases for CSR or normative cases’’ can indicate best
practices and to suggest criteria for further action (Craig 2003).
Indeed, it is the opinion of those who write that the utility of the cases also reside
in the possibility of valorizing the experiences of entrepreneurs who are ‘‘champions
for corporate social responsibility’’ (Jenkins 2006a, b)15 and of recognizing the
merit of people and businesses who teach them, while not undervaluing
the possibility of a path towards CSR that starts ‘‘at the base’’ and is concreted in
the territory, favoring the imitation of best practices and raising awareness of the
operators that converge inside small businesses.
Specifically, the study was centered on the analysis of seven Marchegian SMEs16
(multiple/collective cases study approach) that belong to mature and emergent
sectors, characterized by different social and environmental contexts, and represent
the entrepreneurial and economic fabric of the region.
Two clarifications are necessary regarding the firms selected, with specific
reference to their size and geographic area in which they are found.
First, the businesses considered are predominantly medium-sized (in both
the number of workers and quantity of sales). Nevertheless, as one will see in the
following section, the excellence of their behaviours can be found in even the
smallest firm in this study (BoxMarche, 50 employees). Such businesses are not
cited and are completely or predominantly family-owned (six out of seven); they are
typical of the ‘‘family businesses’’ found throughout Italy. They do present,
however, managerial assets and evolved organizational structures and perform
competitively.
Secondly, the businesses come from a particular region in Italy, the Marches,
which is characterized by a thick fabric of diffuse entrepreneurship, a typical
example of the development of local systems and districts. They constitute a classic
example of the ‘‘Third Italy’’ model in which the development of SMEs is
established in small centers, without upsetting the pre-existent agricultural and
artisan vocations, and preserving socio-economic fabric of relationships anchored in
the territory. This region hosts numerous cases of entrepreneurial excellence tied to
a specific ‘‘genius loci’’ and it is on this basis that it is possible to trace a model of
‘‘territorial CSR’’.
15
‘‘(…) 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).
16
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.
123
M. Del Baldo
Thus, because of these attributes of the specific group of companies and of their
specific socio-economic context, the findings are valuable in this perspective.
The analysis was based on the collection of information acquired in May 2008
from diverse depth semi-structured interviews with the top entrepreneurs/managers,
on direct observation during the visits to the selected enterprises, and on the analysis
of available documentary sources (content analysis). The research was conducted at
the micro-level, i.e., it was grounded in the perspective of owner-manager/managing
directors, whose personal values influence the strategic direction a company takes
(Burns 2001), and shows how CSR is balanced with the daily activities of the
company.
The phases across which the empirical study was implemented and the decisions
formulated are represented in Table 1.
As indicated above, the businesses were selected for their excellence relative to
sensibility and to their dedication to CSR. Specifically, the selected enterprises are
characterized by the following attributes:
• presence of a framework of ethically connoted values, and values shared by the
leaders of the firm (entrepreneurial proprietor/family, managing director) and
diffuse throughout the organization;
• adoption of strategies of social responsibility with an adhesion to CSR codes;
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
A first level of analysis was focused on the identification of common lines (Table 3)
relative to the core values and to the behaviours of the entrepreneurs and top-level
managers, to the reflections on their mission, to the presence of instruments of
accountability and reporting of CSR, to structural characteristics and dynamics of
governance.
All of these businesses exemplify a strategic and structured approach to CSR and
align business values, purpose and strategy with the social and economic needs of
stakeholders, while embedding responsible and ethical business policies and
practices throughout the company. CSR is experienced as a ‘‘way of doing
business’’; is about operating and managing the business in a way that is sensitive to
the external and internal environment. Everyone in the company is aware of the
company’s commitment to CSR. The companies have an internal change-agent, a
‘‘champion’’ in their owner-manager, whose own values influence the strategy. In
all of the companies interviewed the owner-manager was directly responsible for
directing the CSR principles and activities of the company and moulding the
company culture in his personal values and beliefs. All interviewed felt that their
values were essential and a powerful driver of ethics and standard in the company.
The entrepreneurs are also strongly involved in the well-being of the local
community where they lives and where the company is placed.
A second level of analysis is relative to the definition of the positioning of the
firm with respect to the map of orientations towards CSR. The firms considered
(Table 4) possess characteristics of ‘‘cohesive’’ firms and of ‘‘multi-certified’’
firms.17
17
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.
123
M. Del Baldo
BoxMarche Spa, Corinaldo (AN); 1969 ISO 9001, year 2001; OHSAS 18000-SA 8000, year
Paper industry: design and production of packaging 2003; Social report, year 2003; Global report,
in food and houseware sectors year 2006b
50 employees; 11.000.000 euro; open family-
owned businessa
Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Gradara, List of company values (‘‘charter of values’’), year
Gradara (PU); 1911 2002; Social report and mission statement, year
Banking services 2002; Code of ethics, year 2004
94 employees; 16.200.000 euro; co-operative
society
Gruppo FAAM Spa, Monterubbiano (AP); 1974 Quality certification ISO 9000 and Vision 2000,
Engineering, metallurgy industry year 1997; Code of ethics, year 1999;
Environmental certification EMAS/ISO 14001,
230 employees; 60.000.000 euro; diffuse year 1999 (first in its sector in Europe); Social
shareholding (not cited) report, year 1999; Environmental report, year
2001
Gruppo Fbl Spa - Della Rovere Spa, Certification ISO 14001, year 2001; Social report,
Pesaro (PU); 1976 year 2005
Wood-furniture-interior decoration
137 employees; 38.000.000 euro; open family-
owned business
Gruppo Loccioni, Angeli di Rosora (AN); 1969 List of company values (‘‘charter of values’’), year
Electrical and electronics equipments, automatic 1969; Code of ethics, year 1996; Social report,
equipments and plants-design-robots (high year 1997; Intangibles impact, year 1997; Cause
technology) Related Marketing, year 1999
290 employees; 45.000.000 euro; open family-
owned business
PRB Srl, Fermignano (PU); 1972 Environmental certification EMAS/ISO 14001, year
Metallurgy industry (metal galvanizing) 2001
160 employees; 20.000.000 euro; closed family-
owned business (first and second generation)
TVS Spa, Fermignano (PU); 1968 Quality certification ISO 9000 and Vision 2000,
Metallurgy and mechanics industry year 1999; Social Accountability Standard-
SA8000:2001, year 2004
276 employees; 57.000.000 euro; closed family-
owned business (first and second generation)
a
The open family-owned economic subject can be defined as the economic subject characterized by the
presence of a social team that is not formed exclusively by members of the entrepreneurial family (closed
family-owned economic subject), but also extends to external subjects not tied to kinship bonds
b
The Global Report contains asset and liability statement, social and environmental report, and an
analysis of intellectual capital
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
In the first group of companies CSR is translated into business principles. CSR is
the practical implementation of a company’s ethos.
The fronts of engagement and the forms of communication of CSR are
systematic and creative and manifest themselves in a variety of forms:
123
M. Del Baldo
The third area of reflection more closely concerns the aspects connected to
governance, which are presented below.
• Where there exists a family-based economic subject, even the non ‘‘director’’
share moments of reflection around values, strategic orientation of the firm and
the rapport among members of the family-based government and stakeholders.
• In nearly all of the cases there was a strategic committee, in whose meetings
those with distinctive competences who are responsible for the firm’s
functioning participated.
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
123
M. Del Baldo
That which follows (Table 5), corresponding to the most significant elements
pertaining to the relationship between values, mission, social engagement and
commitment, and qualification of governance, some testimony—in the words of the
corporate protagonists interviewed—is offered.
The centrality of CSR with respect to the development of these firms allows one
to connote them as ‘‘spirited business’’ (Lamont 2002) or as ‘‘CSR enterprise’’
(Kvåle and Olsen 2006).18 They are high-performing companies where competitive
success grows out of their commitment to values and to the human spirit. ‘‘Spirited
businesses’’, in other words, are ‘‘company with a soul’’ (Catturi 2006). They are
passionately committed to people and wisdom. A ‘‘spirited business’’ company
focuses on vision and values, communication, top-level management commitment,
effective tools and mechanisms of stakeholder engagement. Important principles of
a ‘‘spirited business’’ include trust, vision, courage, community, creativity, patience,
humanity integrity, diligence, enthusiasm and openness (Lamont 2002). All
companies espoused such principles when entrepreneurs/managers discussed what
CSR meant and everything that they did was marked against those touch-stones.
To offer a concrete example of such forms of stakeholders engagement, the
following provides a brief synthesis of several projects produced by one of the firms
considered (the smallest one!), BoxMarche Spa and a list of some of the awards
obtained by this company for its excellence in CSR (Table 6).
BoxMarche’s first project carried the title, ‘‘The passion for improving activities
for a responsible business model.’’ With this project, the firm participated in the
third edition of the ‘‘Sodalitas Social Award’’19 and in 2005 came in first place in
the SME category. The second concrete example pertains to the Italian Prize for the
Social Responsibility of Businesses given to 24 companies in 2005, and awarded to
BoxMarche for being ‘‘a solid reality that donates 15% of its earnings in corporate
giving, and pays close attention to the environment, research and development, and
society’’.
18
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).
19
The Sodalitas Social Award honors businesses that operate in Italy who are distinguished for the
production of projects with high value and social content.
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
123
M. Del Baldo
Table 5 continued
The third relates to the Balance Oscar 2007 (Milan, Piazza Affari), in which
BoxMarche won the first prize for the category of Medium and Small Enterprises,
thanks to the 2006 Global Report, centered on the innovation of the ‘‘3Ps’’:
Products, Processes and People.
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
123
M. Del Baldo
The fourth is the Confindustria Award for Excellence, given to BoxMarche in 2006,
for being a ‘‘business champion for the valorization of the territory.’’ This initiative
was promoted by Confindustria with the objective of identifying and recognizing the
capacity of businesses to be important actors in their territories, not only in the
economic-productive reality, but also as subjects attentive to social, environmental
and cultural needs of institutions, to the needs of its workers and to the ecosystem in
which they play a part. Thus, in 2007, the business obtained the Prize ‘‘Valore Lavoro’’
(‘‘Work Value’’) for the Marches Region, assigned to the 10 best Marchegian firms,
distinguished for their contribution to best practices in the quality of work.
There are essentially three strong points of Marchegian SMEs: a rootedness in the
territory, familial synergies and tenacity. Among these the first, which finds
expression in the adhesion to and in the social consensus of the territory, construct
an emblematic aspect that makes the Marches a territory of genius loci.
The cases considered present evident profiles of that genius loci marked by work
ethics, by a strong sense of feeling like active members of one community in which
each person rediscovers the taste and the utility to work with trust. This mode of
operating and being characterizes the many enterprises who were born under
intensely local conditions but who serve as carriers of Italian creativity and talent
into the world at large. They plunge their roots into a territorial model based on
‘‘holy agriculture’’ (Fuà and Zacchia 1983) that has characterized the Marches
Region from the first half of the 1800s to the post-WWII era. These ‘‘champions’’ of
CSR, inserted into a territory rich in testimonies of socially responsible behaviours,
many of whom must yet emerge, are also due to their ability to communicate their
own engagement and to their ability to manage relationships with multiple
stakeholders. They demonstrate themselves capable of influencing and of molding
the socio-economic terrain from which they come. And this comes from the richness
and the appeal of their own virtuous testimony, called to ‘‘imitate the virtues’’.
The thoughts of one entrepreneur interviewed articulates this best: ‘‘We have an
emotional tie with the territory. We want to use our abilities to sustain the local
economy. Absolute priority is given to values, to human relations. Our activities are
not only business choices. Our ability, though we are a small firm compared to other
companies, is to card threads (through the determination to follow the ‘‘dream’’ of
an enterprise and of the environment in which it is inserted), is to pull thread
(through cohesion and collaboration inside and outside of the firm) and to stretch
thread (through the motivation that feeds creativity, understanding, sensibility, the
capacity to listen) of a network. A network made, in primis, by Men’’.
The profiles of ‘‘convivial enterprises’’ (Balloni and Trupia 2005) that emerge do
not correspond to a codified managerial model, but to a business ‘‘way of being’’ in
which conviviality is not merely a sentiment, but is an operative practice for
organization and governance. In such contexts the capacity of individual initiatives, in
absence of rigid forms of hierarchical coordination, remains vibrant. It is spurred on by
the sense of belonging (the status of the collaborators prevails in the organizational
arrangement) and on diffuse empowerment. That which is given achieves superior
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
goals with respect to the forms of government that privilege the achievement of
objectives in the logic of ‘‘executiveness’’ based on a system of checks and balances.
‘‘Enlarged’’ governance and control is a sort of ‘‘effect’’ of a socially oriented
philosophy and of the relative instruments of accountability, which institutionalize
and give representation and transparency to the qualities of the firm. These last
elements signal the passage from one model of informal responsibility, still prevalent
in the universe of small-sized firms, towards a new, proactive model ‘‘from the concept
of enlightened entrepreneur to CSR policy.’’ Regarding the stakeholders, it is all about
sociality and ‘‘is strongly inspired by a sentiment of collaboration, of ‘conviviality’’’.
This is a manifestation of an attitude of learning by interacting, which translates into
planning, innovation and more generally, the capacity to improve relationships and the
territory itself, by tying multiple interlocutors together in a network that sees a good
part of its actors coming from the same territory. For example, client relationships are
characterized by an attention that goes beyond customer care; those with dependents
go beyond ‘paternalism’: the Marchegian entrepreneurs who have been able to create a
community of people who work passionately, are also loved by those who have the
fortune to work with them. Also in relationships with local and political organizations,
the search for collaboration feeds a dialectical comparison.
The second of these aspects refers to the active involvement of the enterprise in
local development, because the business’ success comes from the same steps as that
of the territory. This translates into the creation of functional networks among
businesses, Chambers of Commerce, trade associations, banks, non-profit and local
organizations—which all become nodes of a cooperative network whose end is to
develop the territory.
An examination of the economic realities of the Marchegian territory, formed
predominantly by SMEs, and which attempts to understand the essence of the
people and their history, allows one to more closely view an entrepreneurial system
constructed on solid principles, capable of marrying ethics and business and of
confronting the challenge of globalization using the categories of ‘‘good’’ and
useful. And it allows one to discover evidence of a ‘‘gentile capitalism,’’ which
expresses itself in a development model founded on the synergy between the
recuperation of the past, defense of traditional understandings, of local culture, of
the quality of the landscape and its protection for the future through research by
advanced sectors and care for the environment. It also allows one to discover an
indirect but important protagonist: the territory of the Marches.
Alongside the desire to invent new products and to make a profit, one of the
principle motivations of Marchegian entrepreneurs is the desire to do something useful
for its own community (Balloni and Trupia 2005). This is because the histories of their
businesses have always been founded on ‘‘passion’’ rather than merely on calculations.
Enterprises are considered spaces to consolidate and nurture a passion for quality, for
understanding, for a form of development that engages and respects the surrounding
environment. The socially oriented entrepreneur is moved by the reciprocity of the
exchange, enriching the territory in the form of jobs, business opportunities for other
subjects, cultural initiatives, promotion and the development of the place of origin.
Diverse studies have analyzed the processes of industrialization diffuse in the
Central-North-East Italy within which lie the Marches. Some have identified factors
123
M. Del Baldo
such as the culture, history, institutions, beliefs and communal convictions, like a
sort of humus of the intangible assets of the context, difficult to define and to
quantify (Cipolla 1990). The intangibles or social capabilities thus correspond to a
genius loci, connected to a particular place. It is revealed in the way of living and
being a community and therefore even of the business and that from which it comes.
The socio-economic texture, defined in terms of ‘‘social capital,’’ social
capabilities or civic-ness, is enriched by values, cultures and traditions tied to a
specific community-space. It is therefore important to also look at those intangible
factors that favor the development of CSR and to the sustainability of the SME.
Another development in the CSR debate canconsider the following question: ‘‘Do
best practices of CSR increase social capital of the territory?’’ If yes, then what role
do SMEs play in constructing the structural components of the territory?
Social Responsibility of the Territory is a concept that has thus far not been
adequately studied. From the concept of social responsibility of the business, the
perspective shifts to a vision of the collective. No longer is responsibility solely the
realm of the individual firm, which is called to put itself in relation to the collective, but
rather it is the whole community, the territory, which comes to be conceptualized as an
unicum. The application of social responsibility of a business to the territory finds force
in the objective of improving the community’s quality of life and of marrying
economic events with social and environmental attention through the lens of
sustainable development. Social responsibility of the territory is founded, therefore, on
the rediscovery of shared values that the territory’s economic, social and institutional
actors know how to reinforce, thanks to solid networks of relationships.
Today, the Marches—along with other Italian territories such as Tuscany and the
Veneto—offers an interesting laboratory to study not only the extent of CSR, but
also Social Responsibility of the Territory.
The initiatives of the Marches Region (i.e. the SIRM project—System of
Responsible Business for the Marches Region—created between 2005–2006
constitutes a primary ‘‘ethical territorial network’’) and of the state legislative
bodies, in particular, have advocated both for paying close attention to civil society
through corporate responsibility and for favoring the adoption of best practices on
the part of individual firms.
The best practices of socially oriented Marchegian SMEs contribute to a model of
territorial development that progresses in the particular socio-economic context of the
Region. This possible way of experimenting with CSR in the territory points above all
to the value of participation, respect, and the recognition of roles, starting with the
SME and the socially oriented entrepreneur. The model’s protagonist, therefore, is an
‘‘enlightened’’ entrepreneur, who—other than generating opportunities for work and
creating high-quality products—fosters the sustainability of a collectiveness in the
territory in which it lies. Marchegian SMEs that create distinctive features of CSR in
their own mission, governance and accountability release energies and are orientated
towards sustainable development. They represent actors who enter into relations with
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
all of the realities that participate in the construction of welfare and to the production of
wealth, dominated by a paradigm of CRS focused on its more ample diffusion.
Recognizing the cultural dimension of CSR, its connection with anthropological
and environmental factors present in the given territory (such as the Marches),
therefore widens the field to a dimension that is not only operative, but strategic
when the relationships between actors in the territory’s network are oriented
towards affecting responsible, equal and sustainable development, which involves
and benefits all of the subjects who operate in a territory (and not only them).
The territory thus becomes the place in which avenues of sustainable
development can be concretely constructed. Together with the enterprises, network
actors, the first of whom were active promoters, play a propulsive role. In all of
these cases emerges the value of the producer of tangible effects at the local level, in
terms of quality of life of the people and of functions of local welfare: work, home,
help, social services, health, services for workers and training.
In this context one well understands the dimensions of freedom, solidarity and
shared responsibilities put into motion a mechanism that mobilizes the intelligences
and creativity, and which goes beyond economic data and provisional balances of
the firm. Too often the preoccupations of the manager focus on satisfying the
majority shareholder. CSR of the ‘‘territory’s SMEs’’ is intended to better articulate
the participatory dimension: not only the shareholders are to be satisfied, but the
citizens and the territory in which the business demands, as well.
The territory therefore becomes a terrain on which reciprocal approaches can be
forged. It becomes a subject and a protagonist. And the network that developed
activates new mechanisms of participation and planning, and allows for the
recuperation of its territory’s identity. Territorial networks can become a true
laboratory of CSR where mechanisms of plurilateral plans can be experimented
whose protagonists do not work against national and supra-national sustainable
development programs, but integrate (or sometimes even substitute) them. Finally,
the ample size of CSR also involves a spatial dimension. This latter also has a local
aspect, which can synthesize itself with the theme of the territory which, in a robust
sense, serves as both the main judge and, at the same time, the main beneficiary of
the socially responsible components.
Socially oriented ‘‘country governance’’ or ‘‘local governance’’ (Balloni and
Trupia 2005) is made possible by an integrated representation of social, economic
and institutional communal feeling, not sectorial like for the districts, but like that of
a territory. Throughout the years, in diverse districts, the deterioration of the socio-
cultural (and not only industrial) atmosphere has made the relationship between
economy and society, and between the firm and the environment, more difficult.
When small and medium centers search for rapid and extensive development, they
have mutated their own nature, and, at the same time, lost part of their social ties
and their local identity, because of a decline in social consensus with regards to
industry and industrialization. Only in those territories, like in the Marches,
developing networks between economic actors and actors coming from civil society
and from local politics, territorial closeness will concretize in terms of reciprocity of
exchange, of tradition, trust, identity, and will create a heritage of understanding,
relationships, of images and values that are rare ‘‘goods’’ in an era of globalization,
123
M. Del Baldo
6 Concluding remarks
The benefits of CSR are not always easily quantifiable. For that reason, one can say
that the adhesion to a philosophy of socially oriented management is above all an
‘‘act of faith’’ (Jenkins 2006a)20 but these benefits closely touch on governance and,
especially in small firms, the link among philosophy centered on sharing CSR,
strategy, governance and accountability is even more significant.
First, because the process is desired by the entrepreneur and reverberates across
his style of government, each expresses the will of the firm and translates it into the
operations of the business. And this often becomes an occasion to reinforce the
mission and, often, to create that necessary convergence around personal, family
and firm values, which facility the succession process in many family businesses.
Second, because the influx on the strategic profile is manifested above all in
terms of development of the culture of CSR. It is a process that seems to be the fruit
of the entrepreneur’s intense and sincere involvement in the multiple manifestations
of socially responsible actions. Thirdly, this is because the accountability and the
communication of the firms’ CSR engagement creates effects on the organizational
structure: it influences the micro-processes of the firm and produces effects induced
by the governance, in terms of transparency of the decision-making process, the
sharing of corporate policies, the diffusion of the instrument of delegation, greater
team participation by the top of the decision-makers in the firm, and the
multiplication of formal and informal occasions for reflection and for comparison.
From the cases considered here, a model characterized by forms of stakeholders
relationships based on instruments that provide for transparency and representation
of those qualities of the firm and its principle actors arises. Through this way, one
can view the co-penetration of the two drivers of socially oriented governance:
discipline and commitment. The first is formalized and codified, the second is
informal, emergent and value-based.21
In the SMEs where CSR is a characteristic trait of the corporate culture, the
consensus of the owner-entrepreneur/top management and the focus on referents at
the base of decisions characterize systems of corporate governance that are more
transparent and ‘‘harmonized’’, reinforce the organizational cohesion, the business
climate, and the trust factor (commitment).
The social strategy of the enterprises observed is based on an effective
government of systems of relations within the firm whose principle actor is the
20
‘‘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).
21
‘‘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).
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
References
Adams, C. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting:
Beyond current theorizing. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(2), 223–250.
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/cath
studies/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.
123
M. Del Baldo
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
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.
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, environ-
mental 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.
Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.
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.
Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.
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.
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.
123
M. Del Baldo
Julien, P. A. (Ed.). (1994). Les PME, Bilan et perspectives, GREPME, Groupe de recherche en e´conomie
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.
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.
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.
123
Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance
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.
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.
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.
Spence, L. J., & Rutherfoord, R. (2003). Small business and empirical perspectives in business ethics:
Editorial. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 1–5.
Spence, L. J., & Schmidpeter, R. (2003). SMEs, social capital and the common good. Journal of Business
Ethics, 45(1/2), 93–108.
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.
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.
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.
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.
123
M. Del Baldo
Author Biography
Mara Del Baldo is Assistant Professor at the Department of Business Studies (University of Urbino
‘‘Carlo Bo’’, Italy). She teaches Small Business Management, and Accounting. Her main research
interests are in small business economics and management with particular focus on Corporate Social
Responsibility and small entrepreneurs/SMEs’s business ethics. She is currently involved in diverse
research and seminar projects on those topics. She published in Italian and international journals (Piccola
Impresa/Small Business, Sinergie, Economia Aziendale Online) as well as in national and international
conferences’ proceedings.
123