Does the Business Case Matter? The Effect of a Perceived Business Case on Small Firms’ Social Engagement

Abstract

The business case for social responsibility (BCSR) is one of the most widely studied topics in the business and society literature that focuses on large firms. This attention is understandable because large firms have an obligation to shareholders who, as commonly assumed, seek to maximize returns on their investments, in turn, pressing corporate managers to show that firms’ expenditures in social engagement would pay off. Small firms, on the other hand, rarely face such pressures, yet the BCSR logic is increasingly applied to small firms as well. Our primary objective in this paper is to examine whether and how much do small firm owners’ perceptions of BCSR affect the firm’s social engagement. In finding a fine-grained answer to those questions, we consider BCSR as a two-dimensional construct consisting of tangible and intangible benefits, and also integrate the BCSR perspective with the slack resource perspective to offer a motivation-capacity lens to examine firm’s social engagement. Drawing on a multi-industry sample of 478 small firms in the US, we find that while small firm owners’ perceptions about potential tangible benefits of social engagement are not related to the firm’s social engagement, perceptions about potential intangible are positively related. Firm's financial performance is also positively related to its social engagement, but there is no interaction between potential benefits and financial performance. This study contributes to an improved understanding about small firms’ social engagement, which still remains an understudied area. Our results are in line with studies which argue that firms’ social engagement is a response to institutional factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Alexander, G. J., & Buchholz, R. A. (1978). Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21(3), 479–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amato, L. H., & Amato, C. H. (2007). The effects of firm size and industry on corporate giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arora, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(2), 136–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baden, D., & Harwood, I. A. (2013). Terminology matters: A critical exploration of corporate social responsibility terms. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 615–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L. J., & Scherer, A. G. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 693–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beal, R. M. (2000). Competing effectively: Environmental scanning, competitive strategy, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1), 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bowd, R., Bowd, L., & Harris, P. (2006). Communicating corporate social responsibility: an exploratory case study of a major UK retail centre. Journal of Public Affairs, 6(2), 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1325–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Callan, S. J., & Thomas, J. M. (2009). Corporate financial performance and corporate social performance: An update and reinvestigation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(2), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carpenter, R. E., & Petersen, B. C. (2002). Is the growth of small firms constrained by internal finance? Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(2), 298–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng, J. L., & Kesner, I. F. (1997). Organizational slack and response to environmental shifts: The impact of resource allocation patterns. Journal of Management, 23(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chiu, S. C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance: An extension and integration. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 467–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. NJ: Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Daniel, F., Lohrke, F. T., Fornaciari, C. J., & Turner, R. A. (2004). Slack resources and firm performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 565–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Delmas, M., Hoffmann, V. H., & Kuss, M. (2011). Under the tip of the iceberg: Absorptive capacity, environmental strategy, and competitive advantage. Business and Society, 50(1), 116–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Endrikat, J., Guenther, E., & Hoppe, H. (2014). Making sense of conflicting empirical findings: a meta-analytic review of the relationship between corporate environmental and financial performance. European Management Journal, 32(5), 735–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ensley, M. D., & Pearson, A. W. (2005). An exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: Cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2003). Making the business case for sustainability. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 9, 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. European Commission (EC). 2001. Green paper- promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility, COM(2001) 366 final, http://www.csr-in-commerce.eu/data/files/resources/717/com_2001_0366_en.pdf. Last viewed on August 17, 2014.

  37. Fassin, Y. (2008). SMEs and the fallacy of formalising CSR. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(4), 364–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1998). Cause related marketing and corporate philanthropy in the privately held enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1529–1539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fitzgerald, M. A., Haynes, G. W., Schrank, H. L., & Danes, S. M. (2010). Socially responsible processes of small family business owners: Exploratory evidence from the national family business survey. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(4), 524–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fogler, H. R., & Nutt, F. (1975). A note on social responsibility and stock valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 155–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine.

  44. George, G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 661–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Goldberg, A. I., Cohen, G., & Fiegenbaum, A. (2003). Reputation building: Small business strategies for successful venture development. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(2), 168–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Greenley, G. E., & Oktemgil, M. (1998). A comparison of slack resources in high and low performing British companies. Journal of Management Studies, 35(3), 377–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Greve, H. R. (2003). Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on innovation and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Grimm, C. M., & Smith, K. G. (1997). Strategy as action: Industry rivalry and coordination. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hair, J. R, Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate analysis. Upper saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hartmann, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in the food sector. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(3), 297–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hillary, R. (2000). Introduction. In R. Hillary (Ed.), Small and medium-Sized enterprises and the environment: Business imperatives (pp. 11–22). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Hockerts, K. (2015). A cognitive perspective on the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(2), 102–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among large firms: Lessons from the Spanish experience. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 594–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Jamali, D., Lund-Thomsen, P., & Jeppesen, S. (2015). SMEs and CSR in developing countries. Business & Society,. doi:10.1177/0007650315571258.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jamali, D., Zanhour, M., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Peculiar strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 355–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Jenkins, H. (2009). A ‘business opportunity’ model of corporate social responsibility for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency cost of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Corporate Finance, and Takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  64. Julian, S. D., & Ofori-dankwa, J. C. (2013). Financial resource availability and corporate social responsibility expenditures in a sub-Saharan economy: The institutional difference hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1314–1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lepoutre, J., & Heene, A. (2006). Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social responsibility: A critical review. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social-responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36(5), 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lu, W., Chau, K. W., Wang, H., & Pan, W. (2014). A decade’s debate on the nexus between corporate social and corporate financial performance: A critical review of empirical studies 2002–2011. Journal of Cleaner Production, 79, 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ludevid Anglada, M. (2000). Small and medium-sized enterprises’ perceptions of the environment: A study from Spain. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises and the Environment: Business Imperatives, 61(74), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Maloni, M. J., & Brown, M. E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: An application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Morgan, R. E., & Strong, C. A. (2003). Business performance and dimensions of strategic orientation. Journal of Business Research, 56(3), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Nurn, C. W., & Tan, G. (2010). Obtaining intangible and tangible benefits from corporate social responsibility. International Review of Business Research Papers, 6(4), 360–371.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Business and Society, 50(1), 6–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Panwar, R., Hansen, E., & Kozak, R. (2014a). Evaluating social and environmental issues by integrating the legitimacy gap with expectational gaps: An empirical assessment of the forest industry. Business and Society, 53(6), 853–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Panwar, R., Paul, K., Nybakk, E., Hansen, E., & Thompson, D. (2014b). The legitimacy of CSR actions of publicly traded companies versus family-owned companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3), 481–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Perrini, F. (2006). SMEs and CSR theory: Evidence and implications from an Italian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Phan, P. H., & Hill, C. W. (1995). Organizational restructuring and economic performance in leveraged buyouts: An ex post study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 704–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Revell, A., & Blackburn, R. (2007). The business case for sustainability? An examination of small firms in the UK’s construction and restaurant sectors. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(6), 404–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2009). Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy when corporate charity “begins at home”. Business and Society, 42(2), 169–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Schreck, P. (2011). Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: New evidence and analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(2), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2004). Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business and Society, 43(2), 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Smith, P. L., & Oakley, E. F. (1994). A study of the ethical values of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan small business owners. Journal of Small Business Management, 32(4), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Spence, L. J. (2007). CSR and small business in a European policy context: the five “C” s of CSR and small business research agenda 2007. Business and Society Review, 112(4), 533–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Spicer, B. H. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. Accounting Review, 53(1), 94–111.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Van Beurden, P., & Gössling, T. (2008). The worth of values–a literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Vogel, D. (2006). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Vyakarnam, S., Bailey, A., Myers, A., & Burnett, D. (1997). Towards an understanding of ethical behavior in small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(15), 1625–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 8(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Wan-Jan, W. S. (2006). Defining corporate social responsibility. Journal of Public Affairs, 6(3–4), 176–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26(4), 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Weber, J., & Gladstone, J. (2014). Rethinking the corporate financial–social performance relationship: Examining the complex, multistakeholder notion of corporate social performance. Business and Society Review, 119(3), 297–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Weinzimmer, L. G. (2000). A replication and extension of organizational growth determinants. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. White, A. L. (2006). Business brief: Intangibles and CSR. Business for social responsibility, pp. 1–10. Retrieved August 19, 2014 from http://bsr.org/reports/BSR_AW_Intangibles-CSR.pdf.

  111. Williamson, D., Lynch-Wood, G., & Ramsay, J. (2006). Drivers of environmental behaviour in manufacturing SMEs and the implications for CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Yang, X., & Rivers, C. (2009). Antecedents of CSR practices in MNCs’ subsidiaries: A stakeholder and institutional perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajat Panwar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panwar, R., Nybakk, E., Hansen, E. et al. Does the Business Case Matter? The Effect of a Perceived Business Case on Small Firms’ Social Engagement. J Bus Ethics 144, 597–608 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2835-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Business case
  • CSR
  • Small firms
  • Slack resources
  • Social engagement
  • Tangible intangible benefits