Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada

    Rajat Panwar

  2. BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

    Erlend Nybakk

  3. Oregon State University, Corvallis, WI, USA

    Eric Hansen

  4. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Jonatan Pinkse

Authors
  1. Rajat Panwar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erlend Nybakk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonatan Pinkse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajat Panwar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. 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

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2835-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation