Skip to main content

Evidence for Novel Structures Relating CSR Reporting and Economic Welfare: Environmental Sustainability—A Continent-Level Analysis


This paper aims to work towards a factual framework to substantiate the linkage between corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and economic activity and between CSR reporting and CO2 pollution, continent-wide. The document summarizes the conclusions of the dynamic analysis of CSR reports and the correlation analysis between CSR reports and economic—environmental variables, always using evidence from continent-level data. We draw on growth—environmental data and CSR reports from 1999 to 2017 to perform an analysis that quantifies the direction, the strength and the nature of the dependence structure between the two variables. Continents’ position according to their CSR reporting performance, CSR report trends over time, comparative schemes among continents, compose a global view on continents’ differentiation on CSR practices and strategies. Overall, the paper contributes to the understanding of how the CSR policies have been integrated and evolved worldwide.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Availability of data and materials

Data come from World Bank database (World Bank 2020a-f) and are publicly available.

Code availability

Software application and custom code in R. Custom code is available upon request.


  1. 1.

    Publicly accessible at:

  2. 2.

    Hoeffding’s D estimates, computer output and R codes are available in the “Appendix”.


  1. Ağan, Y., Kuzey, C., Acar, M., & Açıkgöz, A. (2016). The relationships between corporate social responsibility, environmental supplier development, and firm performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1872–1881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Babiak, K., & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 717–736.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bashtovaya, V. (2014). CSR reporting in the United States and Russia. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(1), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhattacharyya, S. S. (2007). Chamera hydro-electric power project (CHEP-1), Khairi: looking beyond the horizon of hydroelectricity and profit, giving new meaning to life. Vision, 11(1), 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boehm, S., Brei, V., & Dabhi, S. (2015). EDF Energy’s green CSR claims examined: The follies of global carbon commodity chains. Global Networks, 15(s1), S87–S107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bolton, S. C., Kim, R. C. H., & O’Gorman, K. D. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a dynamic internal organizational process: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brown, H. S., De Jong, M., & Lessidrenska, T. (2009). The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative: a case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, 18, 182–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Castka, P., & Balzarova, M. A. (2008). Adoption of social responsibility through the expansion of existing management systems. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 108(3), 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cetindamar, D., & Husoy, K. (2007). Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: The case of the United Nations Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen, C. S., Yu, C. C., & Hu, J. S. (2018). Constructing performance measurement indicators to suggested corporate environmental responsibility framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135(C), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clark, M. (2013). A comparison of correlation measures. Technical report, University of Notre Dame. Resource document. Retrieved September 18, 2020, from

  16. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. (2014). Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Daddi, T., Iraldo, F., Frey, M., Gallo, P., & Gianfrate, V. (2016). Regional policies and eco-industrial development: The voluntary environmental certification scheme of the eco-industrial parks in Tuscany (Italy). Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-Present: Rev. Journal of Management, 33(4), 637–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. European Commission (2011). A renewed EU Strategy 2011–2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Resource document. Accessed 10 June 2020.

  20. European Commission (2017). Industry. Corporate Social Responsibility, Resource document.

  21. Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review, 2(4), 54–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of businesses is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, pp. 32–33.

  23. Global Reporting Initiative (2016). Standards. GRI Standards. Resource document. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from

  24. Halkos, G., & Nomikos, S. (2021). Corporate social responsibility: Trends in global reporting initiative standards. Economic Analysis and Policy, 69, 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Halkos, G. E., & Tsilika, K. D. (2019). Towards better computational tools for effective environmental policy planning. Computational Economics.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Halkos, G., Managi, S., & Tsilika, K. (2017). Evaluating a continent-wise situation for capital data. Economic Analysis and Policy, 55, 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Halkos, G. E., & Tsilika, K. D. (2015). A Dynamic interface for trade pattern formation in multi-regional multi-sectoral input–output modeling. Computational Economics, 46(4), 671–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrell, F. E. Jr, with contributions from Charles Dupont and many others (2020). Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 4.4-1. Resource document. Retrieved September 18, 2020, from

  29. Heer, J., Kong, N., & Agrawala, M. (2009). Sizing the horizon: The effects of chart size and layering on the graphical perception of time series visualizations. In Proceedings of the 27th International conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI) (pp. 1303–1312).

  30. Hoeffding, W. (1948). A non-parametric test of independence. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19, 293–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Nonparametric statistical methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Accessed 10 June 2020.

  33. Hu, J., Wang, S., & Xie, F. (2018). Environmental responsibility, market valuation, and firm characteristics: Evidence from China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1376–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. ILO (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Resource document. International Labour Organization. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from

  35. Javed, W., McDonnel, B., & Elmqvist, N. (2010). Graphical perception of multiple time series. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6), 927–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Keim, D., Nietzschmann, T., Schelwies, N., Schneidewind, J., Schreck, T. & Ziegler, H. (2006). A spectral visualization system for analyzing financial time series data. Time.

  37. Kitzmueller, M., & Shimshack, J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(1), 51–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee, B., Riche, N., Karlson, A., & Carpendale, S. (2010). Sparkclouds: Visualizing trends in tag clouds. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6), 1182–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Leitoniene, S., & Sapkauskiene, A. (2015). Quality of corporate social responsibility information. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 334–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mauri, M., Elli, T., Caviglia, G., Uboldi, G., & Azzi, M. (2017). RAWGraphs: A visualisation platform to create open outputs. In Proceedings of the 12th Biannual conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter (pp. 28:1–28:5).

  41. Nagler, T. (2019). wdm: Weighted Dependence Measures. R package version 0.2.1. Resource document. Retrieved September 18, 2020, from

  42. Navickas, V., & Kontautiene, R. (2012). The influence of stakeholder–company relationship on competitiveness of company. Economics and Management, 17(3), 58–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ngoasong, M. Z. (2014). How international oil and gas companies respond to local content policies in petroleum-producing developing countries: A narrative enquiry. Energy Policy, 73, 471–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Peterson, B. G., & Carl, P. (2020). PerformanceAnalytics: Econometric Tools for Performance and Risk Analysis. R package version 2.0.4. Resource document. Retrieved September 18, 2020, from

  45. Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., & Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2018). Environmental reporting policy and corporate structures: An international analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25, 788–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.

  47. Skagerlind, H., Westman, M., & Berglund, H. (2015). Corporate social responsibility through cross-sector partnerships: Implications for civil society, the state, and the corporate sector in India. Business and Society Review, 120(2), 245–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shixia, L., Panpan, X., Wei, C., Huamin, Q., Weiwei, C., & Conglei, S. (2012). RankExplorer: visualization of ranking changes in large time series data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, 18(12), 2669–2678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sparkes, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility: Benefits for youth in hydropower development in Laos. International Review of Education, 60(2), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Szczepankiewicz, E. I., & Mućko, P. (2016). CSR reporting practices of Polish energy and mining companies. Sustainability, 8(2), 126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Tableau. Academic programs. Seattle (WA): Tableau 2019.1.

  52. UNGC (2017). The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact. Resource document. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from

  53. Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 758–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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, 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wognum, N., Bremmers, H., Trienekens, J., Van der Vorst, J., & Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. (2011). Systems for sustainability and transparency of food supply chains—Current status and challenges. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25, 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. World Bank (2020). CO2 Emissions (kt). Atlas method [Data file]. World Development Indicators, The World Bank Group.

  58. World Bank (2020). CO2 intensity (kg per kg of oil equivalent energy use). Atlas method [Data file]. World Development Indicators, The World Bank Group.

  59. World Bank (2020). Exports of goods and services (annual % growth). Atlas method [Data file]. World Development Indicators, The World Bank Group.

  60. World Bank (2020). Exports of goods and services (constant 2010 US$). Atlas method [Data file]. World Development Indicators, The World Bank Group.

  61. World Bank (2020). GNI (constant 2010 US$). Atlas method [Data file]. World Development Indicators, The World Bank Group.

  62. World Bank (2020). GNI growth (annual %). Atlas method [Data file]. World Development Indicators, The World Bank Group.

  63. Zou, H., Xie, X., Meng, X., & Yang, M. (2019). The diffusion of corporate social responsibility through social network ties: From the perspective of strategic imitation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), 186–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Thanks are due to the Editor Professor Hans Amman and to three anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments. Any errors are solely the authors’ responsibility.


Not applicable.

Author information




GH; conceptualization and interpretation of the results in the environmental and economics context. SN; data curation and interpretation of the results in concerns regarding environmental responsibility. KT; analytic techniques, data importation, computing and programming in R. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Halkos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest/competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Hoeffding’s D Calculations

Appendix: Hoeffding’s D Calculations

Hoeffding’s D calculations for growth variables (gross national income growth (annual %), gross national income, exports of goods and services growth (annual % growth), exports of goods and services volumes correspond to GNIG, GNI$, EXPORTGR, EXPORT$ variables respectively).







Latin America and the Caribbean


Northern America




Hoeffding’s D calculations for environmental variables (CO2 emissions (measured in kt) correspond to CO2EMS variable and CO2 intensity (in kg per kg of oil equivalent energy use) corresponds to CO2INTENS variable) in Africa.


Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Halkos, G., Nomikos, S. & Tsilika, K. Evidence for Novel Structures Relating CSR Reporting and Economic Welfare: Environmental Sustainability—A Continent-Level Analysis. Comput Econ (2021).

Download citation


  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Exploratory data analysis
  • Correlation measures
  • Trends
  • Continent levels