Introduction

The ways in which businesses interact with society has evolved over time. This evolution is reflected in alternative normative theories of the firm. According to the Ownership Theory, shareholder interests should be prioritized by using corporate resources to increase profits (Jensen, 2001). According to the Stakeholder Theory, a firm’s objective is to create value for society (Donaldson and Preston, 1995), reflected by the integration of social demands into business plans. Relative to the Ownership Theory, the Stakeholder Theory frames firm management within a wider context and requires a reformulation of the corporate objectives (Evans and Freeman, 1988). Specifically, it identifies the stakeholders, who are the individuals and groups that have an interest or concern in the firm (employees, customers, suppliers, creditors, the community, investors, regulators, policymakers, etc.), and considers them to have both the right and obligation to participate in the firm management. The main objective of the company should be the flourishing of all stakeholders (Werhane and Freeman, 1999). Some authors, such as Jensen (2001), disagree with firms having this multidimensional objective, as it may create confusion and disorder and preclude effective decision-making. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Theory is a hybrid “whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (Commission European, 2001, p. 6). The goal of CSR is to align the financial activities of the company with social objectives. While there is no universal characterization of the CSR, it is usually regarded as a four-dimensional concept. The economic dimension relates to the direct and indirect financial performance of the firm. The environmental dimension concerns the impact of business activity on natural ecosystems. The social dimension includes issues related to the quality of life for employees, customers, and future generations (Ioannou and Serafeim, 2012a) (Ioannou and Serafeim, 2012a). Finally, the corporate governance dimension deals with relationships among directors, managers, and other stakeholders. According to CSR Theory, a firm has four main responsibilities in decreasing order of priority: the economic, the legal, the ethical, and the philanthropic. After meeting the top obligation, attention is turned progressively to the remaining obligations as long as they do not compromise the financial viability of the firm. The logic behind this prioritization is that if a firm goes out of business, it will be unable to meet its other obligations, including the philanthropic ones (Brusseau, 2011). Interest in CSR has gained ground with increasing societal demands for firms to take responsibility for their social impacts and serve the general interest and not just the one of the shareholders minority (Blair, 1996; Wagner-Tsukamoto, 2006). An increasing number of firms have changed their business models to reflect CSR concepts. While these changes were initially aimed mainly at including environmental and social targets (Du et al., 2011), more recently, firms have also become interested in the way they interact with stakeholders. Further, CSR has evolved from being considered detrimental to a firm’s profitability, to be regarded as a potential competitive advantage, at least in the long-run (Castelo Branco and Lima Rodriques, 2007; Porter and Kramer, 2002).