Today’s consumers are savvier than ever when it comes to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Recent studies and research have proven that nearly all-global consumers expect companies to act responsibly. (Cone Communications/Ebiquity Global CSR Study, 2015)

To demonstrate a sense of awareness, companies are now implementing social responsibility that satisfies stakeholders’ demands. The literature on CSR reporting practices is extensive, covering a broad range of industries, from food and energy to petroleum and telecommunications. However, there has been, so far, little attention devoted to the measurement of CSR across companies or a comparison by the new CSR Three Domain Approach model proposed by Mark Schwartz and Archie Carroll. This model is an upgrade and alternative of Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR (1991) and is now presented in an all-in-one depicted Venn framework, which comprises the probable approaches firms might have when classifying or analysing their CSRO’s (CSR Orientations).

This research aims to show an intra industry comparison of the CSR orientations implemented by eight Honduran firms, giving as a result the different CSR “portraits” according to their CSRO’s based on the Three-Domain model.

Today’s consumers are savvier than ever when it comes to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Recent studies and research have proven that nearly all-global consumers expect companies to act responsibly. (Cone Communications/Ebiquity Global CSR Study, 2015)

To demonstrate a sense of awareness, companies are now implementing social responsibility that satisfies stakeholders’ demands. The literature on CSR reporting practices is extensive, covering a broad range of industries, from food and energy to petroleum and telecommunications. However, there has been, so far, little attention devoted to the measurement of CSR across companies or a comparison by the new CSR Three Domain Approach model proposed by Mark Schwartz and Archie Carroll. This model is an upgrade and alternative of Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR (1991) and is now presented in an all-in-one depicted Venn framework, which comprises the probable approaches firms might have when classifying or analysing their CSRO’s (CSR Orientations).

This research aims to show an intra industry comparison of the CSR orientations implemented by eight Honduran firms, giving as a result the different CSR “portraits” according to their CSRO’s based on the Three-Domain model.

1. INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 CSR APPROACH IN HONDURAS 7
1.2 CSR WORLDWIDE REPORTING INSTRUMENTS 8
1.2.1 GRI 9
1.2.2 OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES 9
1.2.3 ISO 26000 10
1.2.4 INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (ILO) 10
1.2.5 UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 10
2. LITERATURE ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 11
2.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES 12
2.2 CARROLL’S CONTRIBUTION TO CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 14
2.2.1 THE THREE-DOMAIN MODEL OF CSR 15
2.3 AUPPERLE’S INSTRUMENT 17
3. METHODOLOGY 17
3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) “PORTRAITS” 17
3.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE THREE-DOMAIN MODEL 18
3.3 TYPE OF RESEARCH 19
3.4 RESEARCH METHOD 19
3.5 INSTRUMENT 20
3.6 DATA COLLECTION 22
3.7 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS 23
3.8 ARCHIVAL DATA 24
3.9 DATA ANALYSIS 24
3.9.1 INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDY 25
4. MAIN CASE STUDIES 25
4.1 CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS 25
4.1.1 FICOHSA FOUNDATION 26
4.1.2 DAVIVIENDA HONDURAS 26
4.1.3 BAC HONDURAS 27
4.1.4 DINANT CORPORATION 28
4.1.5 DHL HONDURAS 30
4.1.6 PUMA ENERGY HONDURAS 31
4.1.7 TIGO HONDURAS 32
4.1.8 CERVECERÍA HONDUREÑA 33
4.2 FINDINGS 34
4.2.1 INTRA-INDUSTRY CROSS-CASE ANALYSES 34
4.2.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CROSS-CASE ANALYSES AND THE INDUSTRY CSR PORTRAITS 35
O FINDING 1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE REPORTING INSTRUMENTS AND THE DOMAIN OF IMPORTANCE 35
O FINDING 2: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT AND THE DOMAIN OF IMPORTANCE 36
O FINDING 3: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SHAREHOLDER/STAKEHOLDER VALUE AND THE LEGAL DOMAIN OF IMPORTANCE 37
O FINDING 4: USE OF MASS MEDIA TO INFORM STAKEHOLDERS 38
O FINDING 5: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CROSS-CASE ANALYSES IN THEIR OWN INDUSTRY 39
O FINDING 6: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CSRO AND THE COMPANY’S LONGEVITY 39
O FINDING 7: THE ABSENCE OF THE ECONOMIC ORIENTATION 40
5. CONCLUSIONS 40
6.1 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS: DEVELOPMENT OF THE CSR PORTRAITS 41
6.2 CONTRIBUTION TO THE THEORY 42
6.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATION 43
REFERENCES 43

Abrams, F.K. (1951). Management’s responsibilities in a complex world. Harvard Business Review, XXIX, pp. 29–34.

Andrikopoulus. A, Samitas. A, Bekiaris. M, “Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in Financial Institutions: Evidence from Eurotext” Research in International Business and Finance, 2014

Berman, S.L., Wicks, A.C., Kotha, S. and Jones, T.M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, pp. 486–506.

Bowen, H. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper

Burton et al, “A Cross Cultural Comparison of Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation: Hong Kong vs. United States Students” Teaching Business Ethics. No. 2 (Feb.,2000), p 151-167

Carrol, A.B 1987, “Ethical Managers Make Their Own Rules.” Harvard Busienss Review (September/October) 69-73

__________.1987,”In Search of the Moral Manager”, Business Horizons (March/April) :7-15

__________.1990, “Principles of Business Ethics: Their Role in Decision Making and Initial Consensus.” Management Decisions, 28 (8): 20-24

__________.1991, “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders.” Business Horizons (July/August)” 39-48

__________.1993, Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management (2nd ed.) (Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing).

Carroll and M. Schwartz, “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach”, Business Ethics Quarterly (2003), Vol. 13, No. 4 (Oct., 2003), pp. 503-530

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.

Carrots & Sticks, “Global trends in sustainability reporting regulation and policy, 2016 Edition” http://www.carrotsandsticks.net

Cone Communications, “2015 Cone Communications/Ebiquity Global CSR Study”, http://www.conecomm.com/2015-global-csr-study-flipbook/

Dirk C. Moosmayer Alexandre Fuljahn, (2010),"Consumer perceptions of cause related marketing campaigns", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss 6 pp. 543 – 549

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

Frederick, W.C. (1978). From CSR1 to CSR2: the maturing of business and society thought. Working Paper 279, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh.

Frederick, W.C. (2006). Corporation, Be Good! The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility. Indianapolis, IN: Dogear Publishing.

Frederick, W.C. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: deep roots, flourishing growth, promising future. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 522–531.

Friedman, M. 1970. “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” The New York Times Magazine, 33: 122-126
Hay, R. and Gray, E. (1974). Social responsibilities of business managers. Academy of Management Journal, March, pp. 135–143.

Hoffman, W.M, R.E Frederick, and M.S Schwartz. 2001, Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality (4th ed.) (New York: McGraw-Hill)

Jamali. D, Mirshak. R, “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context” Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 72:243–262

Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, September–October, pp. 41–50.

McGuire, J. (1963). Business and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

ME Porter, MR Kramer, “The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, 2006

Nicholas Walliman (2009). Your Research Project

Philip Kotler and Nancy Lee (2005) “Corporate Social Responsibility – Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause”. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (HB: pp. 307, $29.95 US, ISBN: 0-474-47611-0)

Sethi, S.P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: an analytic framework. California Management Review, Spring, pp. 58–64.

Solomon, R.C 1991, “Corporate Roles, Personal Virtues: An Aristotelean Approach to Business Ethics.” Business Ethics Quarterly 2(3): 317-339

Spector, B. (2008). Business responsibilities in a divided world: the cold war roots of the corporate social responsibility movement. Enterprise & Society, 9, pp. 314–336.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.