The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The development of governance structures for corporate responsibility
Abstract
Purpose: This paper seeks to explore patterns of integrating corporate responsibility issues into corporate governance mechanisms and their development over time. Design/methodology/approach: Data from the Business in the Community Corporate Responsibility Index is explored to reveal dominant governance patterns of corporate responsibility issues for the 51 organizations continuously participating in the index since its launch in 2002. Findings: This research reports three major findings: First, there is increasing CEO leadership for the corporate responsibility agenda of the firm. Second, governance structures developed over time are now increasingly making use of corporate responsibility committees. In 2002 about 15 percent of the firms were using a CR committee, the number had increased by 2008 to more than 60 percent. Third, firms with a CR committee in place outperform others in the Corporate Responsibility Index. Research limitations/implications: While this paper gives a good insight into which structures companies set up to deal with the corporate responsibility agenda, interviews with practitioners would help to understand why this is the case and in which direction the governance of corporate responsibility is expected to evolve. Practical implications: To understand how companies are governing their corporate responsibility activities is useful for managers seeking to learn from best practices. Originality/value: This paper is the first empirical research looking at the development of governance structures for corporate responsibility beyond a single case study design.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 1×
“This process, together with a literature review of practitioner reports on the topic helped to triangulate results ( Jick, 1979”
BackgroundThe Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258887 · Cited by 5,846
Cited by
Jizi, M. I., Salama, A., Dixon, R., & Stratling, R. (2014) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1929-2 · Cited by 1,080
The Influence of Board Composition on Sustainable Development Disclosure
Jizi, M. (2017) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.1943 · Cited by 593
Composition and Activity of the Board of Directors: Impact on ESG Performance in the Banking System
Birindelli, G., Dell’Atti, S., Iannuzzi, A. P., & Savioli, M. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10124699 · Cited by 459
Board Characteristics and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Meta-Analytic Investigation
Endrikat, J., de Villiers, C., Guenther, T. W., & Guenther, E. M. (2021) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650320930638 · Cited by 319
Vice or Virtue? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Executive Compensation
Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2011) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0909-7 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Spitzeck, H.
- Venue
- Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2009-08-08
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 495-505
- ISSN
- 1472-0701 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2039397174
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The development of governance structures for corporate responsibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/14720700910985034
- The paper
- Spitzeck, H. (2009). The development of governance structures for corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700910985034
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.