1. Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability today are strong trends in the corporate world. All this is driven by the change of social conscience; companies cannot obtain benefits at any cost without considering the impact that their strategies and actions have on the environment, in the economic and social sphere. In this sense, to be able to advance is necessary for the investigation of this tendency.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has experienced a significant and constant conceptual evolution in recent years. Many authors have tried to define CSR in search of a unanimously accepted concept [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8], although this has not been achieved so far. De Bakker, Groenewegen, and Den Hond [9] developed the first conceptual evolutionary scale of concepts or approaches related to CSR that goes from 1950 to 2002. These researchers identified 10 levels of evolution, as well as the approaches whereby the practice of CSR has been guided. This work is complemented by the one developed by Dahlsrud [10], who extends the coverage in time until 2003, focusing on the analysis of the frequency of use of these concepts. These two studies put the existing discrepancy on the table, both in the conceptualization and in the identification of responsible practices by companies.
Although there are different definitions of what is meant by CSR, in this research we are going to consider the proposal in the Green Paper “Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility” published by the European Commission [3]. CSR “is a concept under which companies decide voluntarily to contribute to the achievement of a better society and a cleaner environment” and is defined as “the voluntary integration by companies of social and environmental concerns in their business operations and their interactions with their stakeholders”.
To make this definition operational, companies voluntarily carry out practices with the aim of contributing to the improvement of the society to which they belong, as well as to avoid degrading the environment with the business activity they develop. The Green Paper specifically indicates that this concept covers two dimensions. The first dimension refers to the internal scope of the company. Therefore, socially responsible practices include human resource management, health and safety in the workplace, adaptation to change, and environmental impact management of natural resources. In the case of the second dimension, the external scope refers to responsible practices developed in the field of local communities, business partners, suppliers, and consumers, as well as those related to global ecological problems [3].
In many cases, these practices have been considered as an element applied purely by large companies [11]. However, other authors support the idea that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can and are socially responsible by nature, and affirm that the main reason why these types of companies do not undertake social responsibility actions is because they are related with a series of additional expenses [12].
There are many researchers who state that scientific production developed to date regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is scarce [13,14]. In this context, it is considered necessary to carry out a bibliometric study with the objective of examining the scientific production related to the corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance subject focused on SMEs. In addition, it is complemented by a content analysis that allows the identification of the lines of research followed by researchers. In summary, this research provides an in-depth analysis on research carried out on this subject, allowing the observation of the approaches and lines of research that have not yet been addressed sufficiently by researchers in the context of SMEs.
This article is structured in five sections. In Section 1, the research is contextualized, the objective is stated, and it is justified. Next, the theoretical framework is presented. In Section 3, the work methodology is explained and then the results are presented. Finally, the conclusions and limitations of the investigation are discussed in Section 5.
2. Review of the Literature
2.1. Ethics and Philanthropy vs. Corporate Social Responsibility
Business ethics is a branch within ethics that deals with moral issues that arise within the world of business and business in relation to their practices. Corporate ethics considers all groups that are related with the company through the decision-making process. In this sense, a balance must be reached between the needs of the parties concerned and the company’s own need to obtain a benefit [10]. According to Carroll [15], ethics in companies is to some extent established as “encoded ethics” that are presented through the laws, rules, and regulations that the company must comply with and are part of the “social contract” established between the company and its stakeholders. In this last statement, it is emphasized and highlighted that corporate ethics has a strong relationship with the theory of “stakeholders”, which allows for the practical development of business ethics and CSR [16], being the key element of CSR, of business success and sustainability [17]. With respect to CSR and sustainability, although their practices imply developing business strategies with a double focus—obtaining benefits and contributing to improving the environment—it is not the same concept. CSR is the responsibility that companies have for their impact on society (social, economic, and environmental), and therefore, CSR seeks to minimize negative impacts on society and maximize positive ones. Instead, sustainability refers to the company’s ability to meet its needs without compromising future generations.
In this context, business ethics has been integrated or superimposed by CSR [18], which has come to be used in an interchangeable way in the literature [19]. However, although they have a close relationship, business ethics and social responsibility are not the same [20]. Following this same line, the academic literature collects the differences between business ethics and CSR, as well as more specific notions such as sub-domains, where “philanthropy” is considered [21].
Companies have developed CSR considering different levels of responsibility or areas of attention. These include internal audiences (employees, workers, managers, etc.), as well as external audiences (environment, suppliers, clients, etc.) and they set the social goals of organizations [22]. In this sense, Carroll [15] states that companies are not amoral, but they have a social contract that is submitted to the judgment of the stakeholders of the place where they are established [23] and points out that the responsibility of companies covers more areas than the economic and legal ones [15,24].
Philanthropy as a sub-domain of business ethics and CSR has been developed through social initiatives in order to leverage the impact that the company has on its immediate environment. At this point, it is necessary to mention that the philanthropy developed by companies is focused on actions that seek to develop a change within their stakeholders from a long-lasting view, that is to say, that can be maintained over time. In different areas of the world, philanthropy may or may not be considered a CSR action. Thus, the European Commission explicitly excluded philanthropy from CSR [25] because it is strongly associated with the religious sphere and the “charity” concept. In this study, corporate philanthropy is considered a social responsibility action [26]. It is incorporated by Carroll [27] in his four-part concept of CSR.
Two philanthropic aspects are observed in this field. On the one hand, the corporate aspect, categorized as a standardized process, which starts by establishing an objective, proceeding to the design of a strategy in order to achieve that objective, and then determining the mechanisms to measure the results and impacts that have been generated from the actions developed. Corporate philanthropic actions include the development of corporate subsidy programs, educational, health, and sports initiatives, or programs to promote local art, among other activities [28]. Thus, companies only generate benefits for their stakeholders, but there is no payment mechanism towards the very essence of the company, which is the economic benefit [4].
The second aspect represents a new approach that evolves towards a strategic philanthropy, where the knowledge or specialized capabilities of the company are used, in order to generate programs with greater impact on the community and also to maximize the benefits towards the company [26].
2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
The origin of this concept is found in the year 1950, when the first definition proposed by Bowden [1] appeared. In this literature review, it can be seen that the CSR concept has evolved from a merely idealistic concept to the specific identification of SR practices and the stakeholders that are related in this field.
Currently, CSR is incorporated day by day with greater force to business management in large companies, as well as in SMEs [29]. However, in the latter case, progress in the integration of the CSR concept and practices is not visible with the same intensity, partly due to the use of informal communication channels and tools [30] or because of its close proximity to the stakeholders [12]. These two circumstances make it difficult to assess the actions implemented by companies, as well as their impact, which in many cases are higher than those identified by the company, causing a silent social responsibility to emerge [31].
CSR within SMEs is established as a field of study, which has hardly been addressed [19], despite having identified the need to investigate it by different studies since the 1990s [32]. It is in the new millennium that studies of an empirical nature on CSR were initiated [33]. There is a lack of studies partly due to the heterogeneous behavior of SMEs, which prevents the results from being extrapolated, in addition to the presence of customized structures and of little formal management [34], which go hand in hand with the personal attitudes of owner-managers [35], who have a high relationship with decision-making and in the use given to resources.
In this context, the CSR concept has had to adapt to SMEs. Due to being a scientific field addressed mainly in the context of large companies, it is not an easy format to “cut and paste” [36]. Thus, CSR is considered a specific consequence of the business action [31], where practices are established voluntarily [11,19] and are marked by the economic, legal, ethical, and discretional expectations that the locality has on the company [15,37].
This is also seen by Jenkins [38], who states that despite the diversity of SMEs, you can find social practices in which everyone agrees and must work, such as having a good working environment, promoting an equitable distribution of wealth, and working for the protection of the environment. Although reaching a consensus to establish a definition of CSR within this type of company is something distant for the scientific community, it is necessary to put the question posed by Morsing and Perrini [39] on the table again, leading to reflecting and questioning whether a study based on the characteristics of the company is the right way or if it is necessary to try to establish a better understanding of the CSR and SME relationship before proposing a definition.
2.3. Corporate Social Performance (CSP)
The introduction of the company’s performance in the CSR equation arises with the need to achieve or establish what the results of CSR are, that is, to be able to quantify and measure it. Sethi [40] notes that the precursor of CSP states that formulating actions is one thing, but another very different thing is to be able to measure the results generated by those actions.
In addition to this, with the emergence of CSP, the sustainability approach is also integrated [41], where it is necessary to mitigate or reduce both the negative social and environmental impacts generated by business activities, while increasing the company’s performance [42].
At this point, it is necessary to specify that CSP is studied under two approaches. On the one hand, one approach is as an aspect of CSR [43], where the principles of social responsibility are formed [8] to satisfy the different corporate stakeholders [44]. The results are measurable and improve the relationship of the organization with society [8]. On the other hand, the other approach is as an umbrella theory, within which CSR is integrated [33]. As stated by Drucker [45], it is a new approach, where CSR results in benefits for the company, allowing for the generation of economic opportunities from the problems it identifies. Thus, CSP goes one step further, focusing on what companies are capable of achieving, recognizing their responsibilities, responding to them, and measuring their coverage [43]. The introduction of the need to measure performance allows companies to identify and prioritize the areas that should be improved, by evaluating the company´s work in terms of quality of costs and time.
The current literature, as in the previous concepts, focuses on the study of cases in large companies. With respect to the few studies carried out in SMEs, the results obtained are inconclusive [46,47], largely due to the generation of very specific studies that do not establish a clear relationship between the application of CSR practices and its effect on the financial return and performance of the company [48,49].
The results obtained emphasize that the CSR of SMEs follows a strong philanthropic approach, which improves the image and reputation [50], which increases the morale of employees, etc., but does not help improve the economic performance of companies [51]. On the other hand, companies that actively participate in social events are in a much more sensitive situation than those that do not, since it involves a high expenditure of resources, which are not always recovered quickly, which causes a decrease in corporate profitability [52].
3. Methodology
A bibliometric analysis is carried out in order to identify the scientific production on “corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance” developed in the field of SMEs. This analysis provides useful information to researchers on the evolution of publications, who investigates this issue, the most prolific authors, the highest producing countries, types of institutions focused on the research of this topic, and citation of articles or journals in which the publications of research on this subject are concentrated [53].
To carry out this analysis, the bibliometric indicators of production, collaboration, dispersion, and impact are used, which arise from mathematical models that relate two variables, which in turn are based on “bibliometric laws” of great relevance such as Lotka’s law, Price’s law, and Bradford’s law, among others.
The database used was Scopus, which has the following characteristics: (1) it is a database of international scope, (2) it has a great coverage in time, (3) it enables a significant download of metadata that allows the obtaining of bibliographic information, summary, keywords, details by author, etc. [54], in addition to (4) having rigorous quality standards, such as the SJR Scimago Journal Rank [55].
To track the documents within the Scopus database, the following search equation was used: “corporate social responsibility” OR “corporate responsibility” OR “Social responsibility” OR “CSR” OR “Corporate social performance” OR “CSP” OR “ethic*”AND “SMEs” OR “small and medium enterprise” OR “small and medium business”. The documentary unit was limited to scientific articles; “DOCTYPE (ar)”. This limitation was integrated into the equation when taking into account the speed of access to the relevant scientific literature enabled by the article [56]; a feature that is established as a contribution of great value to the scientific community [57].
The final result was the creation of an ad hoc working base made up of a total of 277 articles, after a debugging process was carried out with the purpose of eliminating those documents that had no relation with the subject, due to the inadequate use of keywords during their indexation, as well as eliminating duplicate documents.
4. Results
4.1. Productivity per Year
The 277 articles indexed in Scopus on CSR in SMEs are concentrated in a period of 18 years. ‘Ethics and information technology use: A survey of US based SMEs’ by Phukan and Dhillon was the first article identified and the only one published in the year 2000. It was observed that 2016 was the year with the highest productivity with 40 published articles. To observe the trend line, the 13 articles in 2018 (as of June 2018) are not included, as shown in Figure 1.
According to López López [58], three phases of behavior can be identified in the line of evolution of the study in any area of knowledge, and these phases are: precursors, exponential growth, and linear growth. The presence of two of them is observed in the analysis of CSR in SMEs. The precursor phase is characterized by a reduced production focused on taking the first steps within the subject. It goes from the year 2000 to 2007, with a productivity index of 3.57 articles/year.
The second phase, known as exponential growth, goes from 2008 to 2018, observing a considerable increase in scientific production. or in other words, an increase in the interest of the scientific community in the subject. During this phase, an index of 25.20 articles/year is observed; a fact that confirms compliance with Price´s law. This law states that after 10–15 years of the emergence of a subject, existing global information will be duplicated [59].
The estimated trend line allows us to observe that publications on this subject will continue to increase in the next five years. R2 = 0.9322, which is close to 1, represents a good adjustment of the line with respect to the data.
4.2. Citations
In relation to the analysis of citations, the 277 articles have obtained a total of 3876 citations, establishing a ratio of 13.99 citations/article, represented by an h index = 33, which means that 33 articles of the total of collected documents obtained 33 citations or more. Overall, 2009 is the year with the highest number of citations, with 533 citations, which accounts for 6% of the total number of citations, as shown in Figure 2.
Specifically, 55.6% of the total number of articles have obtained between 1 and 24 citations and 15.9% of articles get from 25 to more than 100 citations. Only 28.5% of articles do not record any citations during the entire analysis period. It is necessary to point out that the articles published in the last 10 years do not show a high number of citations, due to the fact that these have not reached their consolidation or the dissemination required, so their opportunity to be cited is limited [60].
Table 1 shows the documents with more than 100 citations, ordered from highest to lowest. The first four documents are also categorized as the items with the highest average of citations/year. It is noteworthy that of the nine documents with more than 100 citations, 7 of them were published in Journal of Business Ethics with a Q1 quartile (1.86, year 2018) in the Scimago Journal and Country Rank.
4.3. Authors
As for the authors, 555 authors have been identified, which means a productivity of 1.21 articles per author. Following Crane [66], we classify authors according to productivity: (1) large producers (authors with more than 10 articles), (2) medium producers (authors with between 5 and 9 publications), (3) aspirants (authors with between 2 and 4 publications), and (4) transient authors, who are authors with a single article. This classification is more detailed than the one established by Lotka [67]. Table 2 shows the classifications; 85.2% of the authors are transient with a single article, 14.1% are aspirants, and 0.7% are medium producers and there are no large producers. The transience index (TI = (productivity index, PI = 0)), defined as the percentage of authors with only one published article, is 85.2%. This index represents the number of occasional authors that arise once within the subject and that do not continue making contributions to the subject, as shown in Table 2.
Within the ranking of the most productive authors on this subject, we find Larrán-Jorge, M. with a total of 7 articles and with an h index = 5, followed by Jamali, D. with an h index = 24, Lechuga Sancho, M.P. with an h index = 3, Martínez-Martínez, D. with an h index = 4; all of them with 5 articles, as shown in Table 3.
Regarding the collaboration between authors, it enables the understanding of the relationships developed within this subject. On the one hand, according to what Berelson mentioned, the presence of a higher collaboration in writing the documents leads to an increase in the maturity of the discipline [58]; while on the other hand [68], it establishes the existence of a positive correlation between the number of authors and the number of times an article is cited, that is, it is recognized that the citation of a document increases when the number of authors and participating institutions is higher.
In this study, 21.3% of articles (59) have been written by a single author, so 78.7% of articles are produced under multiple authorship. In this last percentage, collaborations between two authors are the most frequent, with 33.8% (94) with three authors, which is 30% (83) of the articles. Finally, the co-authorship index is 2.43 authors per publication.
4.4. Productivity by Type of Institutions and Country
The affiliation of the authors is also examined, as shown in Table 4. This analysis enables the evaluation of the behavior of the investigation regarding organizations or countries [69]. In this sense, in the affiliation by country, the United Kingdom stands out as the leader with 68 authors, 79 authorships, and 45 centers, followed by Spain with 57 authors, 89 authorships, and 21 centers.
Regarding the productivity by institution, 314 institutions have been identified. Universities stand out with the highest number of affiliations with 85.7% (269) of the centers, followed by research institutes (6.4%, 20 centers) and private companies (6.1%, 19 centers). Table 5 shows the ranking of the most productive institutions; the University of Murcia (Spain) leads the ranking with 11 authors, followed by Universiti Sains Malaysia (Malaysia) with 7 authors.
Finally, with the aim of understanding the networks of institutional and geographic collaboration, 218 (78.7%) articles that have been written by numerous authors are analyzed; 74.3% (162) of the articles are signed by authors of the same country, while 25.7% are written with international participation.
In the case of national collaborations, 63% (102) are articles signed by authors of the same institution, and 37% (60) are signed by authors from different institutions, but from the same country. With respect to international collaboration, 100% of the articles are signed by authors of several institutions based in different countries.
4.5. Journals
In relation to the resources used for the scientific dissemination of the articles, 161 journals have been identified, and 76% have only published a single article on this subject. The dispersion index is 1.72 articles/journal, as shown in Table 6.
The Law of Bradford (1934) establishes that when examining the scientific production of any field, it is possible to observe a singular phenomenon, where a high percentage of the articles related to a subject are concentrated in a small number of journals. The minimum Bradford zone (MBZ) takes a value of 61. The ranking of journals is arranged in descending order of their productivity, obtaining that the Bradford core, which is composed of those journals whose sum of articles is equal to 61. It is observed that the MBZ is composed of four journals: Journal of Business Ethics with 30 articles, Social Responsibility Journal with 12, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management with 11, and Journal of Cleaner Production with 9 articles.
Regarding the geographical origin of the journals in which the articles have been published, the United Kingdom groups 71 journals and the United States is in second place positioned with 25.
4.6. Thematic Areas
The predominant area of knowledge is Business, Management, and Accounting with 136 (49%) articles and 85 (53%) journals, followed by Social Sciences with 53 (19%) articles and 33 (20%) journals. On the other hand, Arts and Humanities stands out as the area of knowledge that accumulates the highest number of citations received, as shown in Table 7.
In relation to the Business, Management, and Accounting (miscellaneous) categories, it is the leader with 63 articles and 29 journals, while Business and International Management is in second place.
4.7. Keywords
The study of the keywords for the indexation of any type of research is of great relevance since these terms are used to identify documents more easily. Their correct use increases the quality and success of the search carried out within the different databases. Taking into account their importance for future researchers, there are 24 articles that do not use keywords within their dissemination format nor in the Scopus metadata. Therefore, we proceeded to examine the keywords used to index each study in 253 documents. The presence of 704 keywords was observed, which have been used 1359 times. The most used terms are those shown within the ranking of keywords in Table 8.
4.8. Lines of Research
Table 9 shows the lines of research followed by the different authors regarding CSR in the context of SMEs.
5. Conclusions
The development of these types of studies is considered an element of great relevance for the scientific community, enabling the establishment of the progress achieved by any subject within the scientific community, in addition to showing the lines of research followed by the authors.
The first work indexed by Scopus related to CSR in SMEs was published in the year 2000. Since the publication of the first study, 18 years of research have gone by, within which exponential growth is found in 2008, giving rise to a greater concentration of studies, besides noticing an increase in the interest in its study that is maintained until the present time. In relation to the citations obtained by the 277 articles, they have experienced considerable growth until today, and the point that shows the highest number of citations is the year 2009. The analysis made allows us to observe that this topic does not reach maturity, due to the limited presence of quantitative and confirmatory studies, a situation completely contrary to that of more general CSR research in corporate contexts [30].
In relation to the authors, the predominance of transient authors can be seen through Crane’s classification, a behavior that is partly due to the fact that on the one hand, it is a new subject, and on the other hand, it has a high participation of countries where scientific production is infrequent or incipient. In addition, note the low percentage of medium producers, which is 0.7%, which highlights the absence of large producers in this study. The author with the highest productivity is the Spanish author Larrán-Jorge, M., with 7 articles.
Regarding geographical and institutional affiliation, in the geographical scope, it was observed that the United Kingdom that groups 12% of the total number of authors and authorships and even 14% of registered centers is the leader. At an institutional level, the center with the highest affiliation of authors are universities with 85.7%. On the other hand, researchers show a tendency towards dual collaboration, with 33.8% of articles signed by two authors.
With respect to the journals where the articles are published, it was observed that the Bradford core is composed of four journals that account for 22.4% of the total articles. The journals with the highest number of articles are: Journal of Business Ethics, Social Responsibility Journal, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, and Journal of Cleaner Production, which altogether have a total of 2251 citations. The classification by area of knowledge shows Business, Management, and Accounting as the predominant area for the publication of these studies mainly because of the direct relationship of the subject with the business world, followed by Social Sciences.
The content analysis was carried out with the objective of identifying the research lines. Ten lines were identified, with four being the most relevant due to the number of articles grouped together. The most studied line by researchers is “practices and institutionalization of CSR” that examines the practices carried out in relation to CSR, establishing during the process the level of institutionalization that it presents. The second line followed by researchers is “sustainable development, management, and environmental awareness” with 39 articles; it advocates for the inclusion of the environmental component within the CSR strategy to be used by SMEs. “Corporate ethics” with 36 studies is the third line; it is considered one of the sub-fields of CSR with greater presence within SMEs and is consolidated over time in the most adaptable practice for them. Finally, the study of “performance, achievement, and business competitiveness” appears as the fourth line with 32 articles. This groups different study cases that, based on models and proposals, try to establish how CSR can result in an action that enriches the company by obtaining economic returns and at the same time increases its competitiveness in the market.
C.P.M.-E., J.Á.-G., M.d.l.C.d.R.-R., R.C.-Q. contributed equally to this work. C.P.M.-E., J.Á.-G., M.d.l.C.d.R.-R., R.C.-Q. wrote, reviewed, and commented on the manuscript. C.P.M.-E., J.Á.-G., M.d.l.C.d.R.-R., R.C.-Q. have read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research received no external funding.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ranking of the most cited articles on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
| Rank | Authors | Title | Year | Citations | C/Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lepoutre and Heene [ |
Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social responsibility: A critical review | 2006 | 260 | 21.7 |
| 2 | Ciliberti, Pontrandolfo, and Scozzi [ |
Investigating corporate social responsibility in supply chains: A SME perspective | 2008 | 179 | 17.9 |
| 3 | Perrini et al. [ |
CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidence from Italy | 2007 | 178 | 16.2 |
| 4 | Russo and Perrini [ |
Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs | 2010 | 144 | 18.0 |
| 5 | Russo and Tencati [ |
Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large firms | 2009 | 132 | 14.7 |
| 6 | Spence, Schmidpeter, and Habisch [ |
Assessing social capital: Small and medium sized enterprises in Germany and the U.K. | 2003 | 126 | 8.4 |
| 7 | Jamali, Zanhour, and Keshishian [ |
Peculiar strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context of CSR | 2009 | 121 | 13.4 |
| 8 | Baden, Harwood, and Woodward [ |
The effect of buyer pressure on suppliers in SMEs to demonstrate CSR practices: An added incentive or counter productive? | 2009 | 104 | 11.6 |
| 9 | Jamali and Neville [ |
Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing countries: An embedded multi-layered institutional lens | 2011 | 103 | 14.7 |
C/Y = average citations received per article per year. Source: own elaboration.
Classification of authors using the Crane system.
| No. of Articles by Author | No. of Authors | % | PI | Crane | Authors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 473 | 85.2 | 0.000 | Transient | Other authors |
| 2 | 61 | 11.0 | 0.301 | Aspirants | Other authors |
| 3 | 12 | 2.2 | 0.477 | Battaglia, M.; Frey, M.; Gorondutse, A.H.; Hilman, H.; Lund-Thomsen, P.; Madueño, J.H.; Melero, I.; Russo, A.; Spence, L.J.; Turyakira, P.; Von Hoivik, H.W.; Wehrmeyer, W. | |
| 4 | 5 | 0.9 | 0.602 | Del Baldo, M.; Graafland, J.; Herrera Madueño, J.; Looser, S.; López-Pérez, M.A.E.; | |
| 5 | 3 | 0.5 | 0.699 | Medium Producers | Jamali, D.; Lechuga Sancho, M.P.; Martínez-Martínez, D. |
| 7 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.845 | Larrán-Jorge, M. | |
| Total | 555 | 100 | |||
PI = productivity index, decimal logarithm of the number of publications; % = relative frequency. Source: own elaboration.
Ranking of the most productive authors.
| R | Name | Country | University | f | TC | C/f | h-Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Larrán Jorge, M. | Spain | University of Cadiz | 7 | 30 | 4.3 | 6 |
| 2 | Jamali, D. | Lebanon | American University of Beirut | 5 | 244 | 48.8 | 24 |
| 3 | Lechuga Sancho, M.P. | Spain | University of Cadiz | 5 | 4 | 0.8 | 3 |
| 4 | Martínez-Martínez, D. | Spain | University of Seville | 5 | 30 | 6.0 | 4 |
| 5 | Del Baldo, M. | Italy | University of Urbino Carlo Bo | 4 | 37 | 9.3 | 3 |
| 6 | Graafland, J. | Netherlands | Tilburg University | 4 | 9 | 2.3 | 13 |
| 7 | Herrera Madueño, J. | Spain | University of Cadiz | 4 | 19 | 4.8 | 4 |
| 8 | Looser, S. | United Kingdom | University of Surrey | 4 | 6 | 1.5 | 2 |
| 9 | López-Pérez, M.ª.E. | Spain | Areca Consulting Group | 4 | 39 | 9.8 | - |
R = ranking; f = frequency (number of articles published); TC = total number of citations received for published articles; C/f = average of citations received for published articles; h-index = Hirsch’s index. Source: own elaboration.
Number of centers, authors, and authorships by their country of affiliation.
| R | Country | Authors | Authorships | Centers | R | Country | Authors | Authorships | Centers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United Kingdom | 68 | 79 | 45 | 32 | United Arab Emirates | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| 2 | Spain | 57 | 89 | 21 | 33 | Hungary | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| 3 | Australia | 37 | 43 | 12 | 34 | Ecuador | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| 4 | Italy | 36 | 53 | 16 | 35 | Ireland | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| 5 | Malaysia | 23 | 31 | 9 | 36 | Portugal | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| 6 | United States | 22 | 28 | 19 | 37 | Germany | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| 7 | France | 17 | 18 | 13 | 38 | Croatia | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| 8 | Romania | 17 | 19 | 6 | 39 | Singapore | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| 9 | Netherlands | 15 | 20 | 10 | 40 | Slovakia | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| 10 | South Africa | 11 | 16 | 4 | 41 | Slovenia | 4 | 4 | 1 |
| 11 | India | 11 | 13 | 11 | 42 | Venezuela | 4 | 4 | 1 |
| 12 | Canada | 11 | 13 | 9 | 43 | Egypt | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 13 | Taiwan | 11 | 11 | 8 | 44 | Ghana | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| 14 | Lebanon | 11 | 17 | 4 | 45 | Serbia | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 15 | Poland | 10 | 10 | 8 | 46 | Cameroon | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 16 | Indonesia | 10 | 10 | 7 | 47 | Chile | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 17 | China | 10 | 11 | 6 | 48 | Nigeria | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 18 | New Zealand | 10 | 10 | 5 | 49 | Thailand | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 19 | Finland | 8 | 8 | 4 | 50 | Pakistan | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 20 | Denmark | 8 | 11 | 3 | 51 | Qatar | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 21 | Norway | 8 | 11 | 3 | 52 | Turkey | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 22 | South Korea | 7 | 7 | 6 | 53 | Morocco | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 23 | Belgium | 7 | 7 | 4 | 54 | Bulgaria | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 24 | Greece | 7 | 7 | 3 | 55 | Cyprus | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 25 | Austria | 6 | 7 | 5 | 56 | El Salvador | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 26 | Colombia | 6 | 6 | 4 | 57 | Malawi | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 27 | Hong Kong | 6 | 6 | 3 | 58 | Mauritius | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 28 | Czech Republic | 6 | 8 | 2 | 59 | Mexico | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 29 | Japan | 5 | 6 | 5 | 60 | Sweden | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 30 | Brazil | 5 | 5 | 4 | 61 | Uganda | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| 31 | Switzerland | 5 | 5 | 4 | 62 | No affiliation | 3 | 3 | -- |
R = ranking. Source: own elaboration.
Most productive institutions with authors and authorships.
| Ranking | Institution | Country | Authors | Authorships |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | University of Murcia | Spain | 11 | 11 |
| 2 | Universiti Sains Malaysia | Malaysia | 7 | 11 |
| 3 | University of Waikato | New Zealand | 7 | 7 |
| 4 | Lebanese American University | Lebanon | 7 | 9 |
| 5 | Bucharest University of Economic Studies | Romania | 6 | 6 |
| 6 | Curtin University | Australia | 6 | 6 |
| 7 | Deakin University | Australia | 6 | 9 |
| 8 | Ghent University | Belgium | 6 | 6 |
| 9 | University of Turin | Italy | 6 | 7 |
| 10 | University of Cadiz | Spain | 5 | 20 |
| 11 | BI Norwegian Business School | Norway | 5 | 6 |
| 12 | Griffith University | Australia | 5 | 6 |
| 13 | Montpellier Business School | France | 5 | 6 |
| 14 | Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies | Italy | 5 | 11 |
| 15 | University of Bari | Italy | 5 | 5 |
| 16 | University of Central Lancashire | United Kingdom | 5 | 5 |
| 17 | University of Granada | Spain | 5 | 7 |
| 18 | University of Oradea | Romania | 5 | 6 |
| 19 | University of South Africa | South Africa | 5 | 7 |
| 20 | University of South Australia | Australia | 5 | 5 |
Source: own elaboration.
Ranking of the most productive journals.
| R | Title | Country | f | hi% | TC | h-Index | Q | SJR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Journal of Business Ethics | Netherlands | 30 | 10.8 | 1739 | 132 | 1 | 1.27 |
| 2 | Social Responsibility Journal | U. Kingdom | 12 | 4.3 | 60 | 20 | 2 | 0.32 |
| 3 | Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management | United States | 11 | 4.0 | 194 | 49 | 1 | 1.71 |
| 4 | Journal of Cleaner Production | Netherlands | 9 | 3.2 | 258 | 132 | 1 | 1.47 |
| 5 | Corporate Ownership and Control | Ukraine | 8 | 2.9 | 10 | 13 | 4 | 0.11 |
| 6 | Business and Society | United States | 7 | 2.5 | 49 | 58 | 1 | 1.71 |
| 7 | Sustainability (Switzerland) | Switzerland | 4 | 1.4 | 30 | 42 | 2 | 0.54 |
R = ranking; f = frequency (number of articles published); hi% = relative frequency; TC = total number of citations received for published articles; h-index = Hirsch’s index; Q = quartile; SJR = Scimago Journal Rank. Source: own elaboration.
Classification of articles by subject area.
| R | Area | Journals | f | TC | C/f |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Business, Management, and Accounting | 85 | 136 | 1120 | 8.2 |
| 2 | Social Sciences | 33 | 53 | 496 | 9.4 |
| 3 | Engineering | 8 | 9 | 25 | 2.8 |
| 4 | Environmental Science | 8 | 17 | 315 | 18.5 |
| 5 | Arts and Humanities | 7 | 36 | 1777 | 49.4 |
| 6 | Computer Science | 7 | 9 | 68 | 7.6 |
| 7 | Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1.3 |
| 8 | Economics, Econometrics, and Finance | 3 | 3 | 14 | 4.7 |
| 9 | Decision Sciences | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3.0 |
| 10 | Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 11 | Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2 | 45 | 22.5 |
| 12 | Materials Science | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 13 | Multidisciplinary | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 |
| 14 | Without area | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0.3 |
R = ranking; f = frequency (number of articles published); TC = total number of citations received for published articles; C/f = average of citations received for published articles. Source: own elaboration.
Classification of articles by keywords.
| R | Keywords | f | R | Keywords | f |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Corporate social responsibility | 123 | 32 | Innovation | 4 |
| 2 | SMEs | 85 | 33 | Italy | 4 |
| 3 | CSR | 51 | 34 | Resource-based view | 4 |
| 4 | Small and medium sized enterprises | 34 | 35 | Small business | 4 |
| 5 | Small and medium enterprise (SME) | 33 | 36 | Small medium enterprise | 4 |
| 6 | Small to medium size enterprises | 27 | 37 | Stakeholder engagement | 4 |
| 7 | Ethics | 21 | 38 | Strategic management | 4 |
| 8 | Sustainability | 18 | 39 | Values | 4 |
| 9 | Sme | 13 | 40 | Business performance | 3 |
| 10 | Social responsibility | 13 | 41 | Capabilities | 3 |
| 11 | Business ethics | 9 | 42 | Cluster | 3 |
| 12 | Developing countries | 9 | 43 | Codes of conduct | 3 |
| 13 | Sustainable development | 9 | 44 | Competitiveness | 3 |
| 14 | Corporate governance | 8 | 45 | Corporate strategy | 3 |
| 15 | Institutional theory | 8 | 46 | CSR strategies | 3 |
| 16 | Financial performance | 7 | 47 | Denmark | 3 |
| 17 | Performance | 7 | 48 | Empirical research | 3 |
| 18 | Case study | 6 | 49 | Environmental | 3 |
| 19 | Entrepreneurship | 6 | 50 | Environmental management system | 3 |
| 20 | Firm performance | 6 | 51 | Environmental responsibility | 3 |
| 21 | Stakeholder theory | 6 | 52 | Firm size | 3 |
| 22 | Supply chain management | 6 | 53 | Global supply chain | 3 |
| 23 | Communication | 5 | 54 | Leadership | 3 |
| 24 | Competitive advantage | 5 | 55 | Malaysia | 3 |
| 25 | Environmental management | 5 | 56 | Nigeria | 3 |
| 26 | Multinational corporations (MNCs) | 5 | 57 | Small enterprises | 3 |
| 27 | Perception | 5 | 58 | Small firms | 3 |
| 28 | Reputation | 5 | 59 | Social capital | 3 |
| 29 | Spain | 5 | 60 | Social involvement | 3 |
| 30 | Stakeholders | 5 | 61 | Sub-Saharan Africa | 3 |
| 31 | Environmental performance | 4 | 62 | Other terms with 2 to 1 repetitions | 712 |
R = ranking; f = frequency. Source: own elaboration.
Lines of research.
| Line of Research/Authors |
| Practices and institutionalization of CSR (68 articles) |
| Hosoda [ |
| Sustainable development, management, and environmental awareness (39 articles) |
| Cantele and Zardini [ |
| Corporate ethics (36 articles) |
| ElGammal et al. [ |
| Performance, achievement, and business competitiveness (32 articles) |
| Busse and Doganer [ |
| Levels of development, participation, and CSR gender (24 articles) |
| Badulescu et al. [ |
| Implementation processes (21 articles) |
| Meyer et al. [ |
| Theoretical understanding (19 articles) |
| Puppim de Oliveira and Jabbour [ |
| Image, Dissemination, and Corporate Reputation (18 articles) |
| Graafland [ |
| Innovation and entrepreneurship (11 articles) |
| Indarti and Efni [ |
| Regulations (9 articles) |
| El Baz et al. [ |
Source: own elaboration.
References
1. Bowen, H.R. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1953.
2. Carroll, A. Managing Corporate Social Responsibility; Little Brown: Boston, MA, USA, 1977.
3. European Commission. Green Paper “Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility”. 2001; Available online: http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/green/index-es.htm (accessed on 20 November 2019).
4. Davis, K. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities?. Calif. Manag. Rev.; 1960; 2, pp. 70-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166246]
5. Drucker, P. The Post-Capitalist Executive: Managing in a Time of Great Change; O’Reilly: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
6. Frederick, W.C. The growing concern over business responsibility. Calif. Manag. Rev.; 1960; 2, pp. 54-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165405]
7. Manne, H.G.; Wallich, H. The Modern Corporation and Social Responsibility; American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research: Washington, DC, USA, 1987.
8. Wood, D.J. Corporate social performance revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev.; 1991; 16, pp. 691-718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279616]
9. De Bakker, F.G.; Groenewegen, P.; Den Hond, F. A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Bus. Soc.; 2005; 44, pp. 283-317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278086]
10. Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2008; 15, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.132]
11. Perrini, F.; Russo, A.; Tencati, A. CSR Strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidence from Italy. J. Bus. Ethics; 2007; 74, pp. 285-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9235-x]
12. Lepoutre, J.; Heene, A. Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social responsibility: A critical review. J. Bus. Ethics; 2006; 67, pp. 257-273. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9183-5]
13. Ciliberti, F.; Pontrandolfo, P.; Scozzi, B. Investigating corporate social responsibility in supply chains: A SME perspective. J. Clean. Prod.; 2008; 16, pp. 1579-1588. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.016]
14. Jamali, D.; Zanhour, M.; Keshishian, T. Peculiar strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context of CSR. J. Bus. Ethics; 2009; 87, pp. 355-377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9925-7]
15. Carroll, A.B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz.; 1991; 34, pp. 39-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G]
16. Esteban, E.G. La teoría de los “stakeholders”: Un puente para el desarrollo práctico de la ética empresarial y de la responsabilidad social corporativa. Veritas Rev. Filos. Teol.; 2007; 17, pp. 205-224.
17. Fernández Fernández, J.L.; Sanjuán, A.B. La teoría del stakeholder o de los grupos de interés, pieza clave de la RSE, del éxito empresarial y de la sostenibilidad. ESIC Int. J. Commun. Res.; 2012; 6, pp. 130-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7263/ADR.RSC.006.07]
18. Cacioppe, R.; Forster, N.; Fox, M. A survey of managers’ perceptions of corporate ethics and social responsibility and actions that may affect companies’ success. J. Bus. Ethics; 2008; 82, 681. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9586-y]
19. Fassin, Y.; Van Rossem, A.; Buelens, M. Small-business owner-managers’ perceptions of business ethics and CSR-related concepts. J. Bus. Ethics; 2011; 98, pp. 425-453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0586-y]
20. Fischer, J.M. Free will and moral responsibility. Midwest Stud. Philos.; 2004; 29, pp. 1-312.
21. Matten, D.; Crane, A. Business Ethics: A European Perspective; Oxford University Press Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
22. Paéz, I. La influencia del desempeño social corporativo en la satisfacción laboral de los empleados: Una revisión teórica desde una perspectiva multinivel. Estud. Gerenc.; 2010; 26, pp. 63-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0123-5923(10)70123-6]
23. Muñoz-Martín, J. Ética empresarial, responsabilidad social corporativa (RSC) y creación de valor compartido (CVC). Glob. Compet. Gob. Georget. Universia; 2013; 7, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3232/GCG.2013.V7.N3.05]
24. McGuire, J. Business and Society; McGrew-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1963.
25. Luetkenhorst, W. Corporate social responsibility and the development agenda. Intereconomics; 2004; 39, pp. 157-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02933583]
26. Lourenço, I.C.; Branco, M.C.; Curto, J.D.; Eugénio, T. How does the market value corporate sustainability performance?. J. Bus. Ethics; 2012; 108, pp. 417-428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1102-8]
27. Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility: Will industry respond to cutbacks in social program funding?. Vital Speeches Day; 1983; 49, pp. 604-608.
28. O’Connor, A.; Parcha, J.M.; Tulibaski, K.L.G. The institutionalization of corporate social responsibility communication: An intra-industry comparison of MNCs’ and SMEs’ CSR reports. Manag. Commun. Q.; 2017; 31, pp. 503-532. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318917704512]
29. Vázquez-Carrasco, R.; López-Pérez, M.E. Small & medium-sized enterprises and corporate social responsibility: A systematic review of the literature. Qual. Quant.; 2013; 47, pp. 3205-3218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9713-4]
30. Ellerup Nielsen, A.; Thomsen, C. CSR communication in small and medium-sized enterprises: A study of the attitudes and beliefs of middle managers. Corp. Commun. Int. J.; 2009; 14, pp. 176-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280910953852]
31. Herrera, J.; Larrán, M.; Lechuga, M.P.; Martínez, D. CSR reports determinants in SMEs. Prism. Soc.; 2013; 10, pp. 271-302.
32. Sweeney, L. Corporate social responsibility in Ireland: Barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs when undertaking CSR. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc.; 2007; 7, pp. 516-523. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700710820597]
33. Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Bus. Soc.; 1999; 38, pp. 268-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303]
34. Bolton, J.E. Small Firms: Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO): London, UK, 1971.
35. Hopkins, M. The Planetary Bargain; Routledge: London, UK, 2003.
36. Jenkins, H. A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. J. Gen. Manag.; 2004; 29, pp. 37-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030630700402900403]
37. Popa, O. Organizational social responsibility—State of the art. Young Econ. J. Rev. Tinerilor Econ.; 2010; 8, pp. 59-68.
38. Jenkins, H. Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics; 2006; 67, pp. 241-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9182-6]
39. Morsing, M.; Perrini, F. CSR in SMEs: Do SMEs matter for the CSR agenda?. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev.; 2009; 18, pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2009.01544.x]
40. Sethi, S.P. Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. Calif. Manag. Rev.; 1975; 17, pp. 58-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41162149]
41. Martinez-Conesa, I.; Soto-Acosta, P.; Palacios-Manzano, M. Corporate social responsibility and its effect on innovation and firm performance: An empirical research in SMEs. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 142, pp. 2374-2383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.038]
42. Baumgartner, R.J.; Rauter, R. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 140, pp. 81-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146]
43. Carroll, A.; Buchholtz, A. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management 2002; South Western College Publishing: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2006.
44. Bendheim, C.L.; Waddock, S.A.; Graves, S.B. Determining best practice in corporate-stakeholder relations using data envelopment analysis: An industry-level study. Bus. Soc.; 1998; 37, pp. 306-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000765039803700304]
45. Drucker, P.F. The Frontiers of Management; Truman Talley: New York, NY, USA, 1986.
46. Gilley, K.M.; Worrell, D.L.; Davidson, W.N., III; El–Jelly, A. Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: The differential effects of process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. J. Manag.; 2000; 26, pp. 1199-1216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600607]
47. Wagner, M.; Van Phu, N.; Azomahou, T.; Wehrmeyer, W. The relationship between the environmental and economic performance of firms: An empirical analysis of the European paper industry. Corp. Soc. Respon. Environ. Manag.; 2002; 9, pp. 133-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.22]
48. Surroca, J.; Tribó, J.A.; Waddock, S. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strateg. Manag. J.; 2010; 31, pp. 463-490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.820]
49. Torugsa, N.A.; O’Donohue, W.; Hecker, R. Capabilities, proactive CSR and financial performance in SMEs: Empirical evidence from an Australian manufacturing industry sector. J. Bus. Ethics; 2012; 109, pp. 483-500. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1141-1]
50. Lewis, S. Reputation and corporate responsibility. J. Commun. Manag.; 2003; 7, pp. 356-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540310807494]
51. Jain, P.; Vyas, V.; Chalasani, D.P.S. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance in SMEs: A structural equation modelling approach. Glob. Bus. Rev.; 2016; 17, pp. 630-653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972150916630827]
52. Salzmann, O.; Ionescu-Somers, A.; Steger, U. The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. Eur. Manag. J.; 2005; 23, pp. 27-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.007]
53. Álvarez-García, J.; Durán-Sánchez, A.; Río-Rama, D.; De la Cruz, M. Scientific coverage in community-based tourism: Sustainable tourism and strategy for social development. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 1158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10041158]
54. Fernández, M.T.; Bordons, M.; Sancho, R.; Gómez, I. Difusión internacional de la investigación científica española en ciencia y tecnología en el período 1991–1996. Arbor; 1999; 162, pp. 327-345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3989/arbor.1999.i639.1664]
55. Harzing, A.W.; Alakangas, S. Google scholar, Scopus and the Web of science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics; 2016; 106, pp. 787-804. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9]
56. Frank, M. Access to the scientific literature—A difficult balance. N. Engl. J. Med.; 2006; 354, pp. 1552-1555. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp068004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16611948]
57. Goldschmidt, P.G. Information synthesis: A practical guide. Health Serv. Res.; 1986; 21, pp. 215-237.
58. López López, P. Introducción a la Bibliometría; Promolibro: Valencia, Spain, 1996.
59. Price, D.J. The exponential curve of science. Discovery; 1956; 17, pp. 240-243.
60. Merigó, J.M.; Mas-Tur, A.; Roig-Tierno, N.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research between 1973 and 2014. J. Bus. Res.; 2015; 68, pp. 2645-2653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.04.006]
61. Russo, A.; Perrini, F. Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics; 2010; 91, pp. 207-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0079-z]
62. Russo, A.; Tencati, A. Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large firms. J. Bus. Ethics; 2009; 85, pp. 339-353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9736-x]
63. Spence, L.J.; Schmidpeter, R.; Habisch, A. Assessing social capital: Small and medium sized enterprises in Germany and the U.K. J. Bus. Ethics; 2003; 47, pp. 17-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026284727037]
64. Baden, D.A.; Harwood, I.A.; Woodward, D.G. The effect of buyer pressure on suppliers in SMEs to demonstrate CSR practices: An added incentive or counter productive?. Eur. Manag. J.; 2009; 27, pp. 429-441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.10.004]
65. Jamali, D.; Neville, B. Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing countries: An embedded multi-layered institutional lens. J. Bus. Ethics; 2009; 102, pp. 599-621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0830-0]
66. Crane, D. Social Structure in a Group of Scientists: A Test of the “Invisible College” Hypothesis; This Research was Supported by Grant GN–527 from the National Science Foundation Leinhardt, M. Academic Press: Cambridge, UK, 1977; pp. 161-178.
67. Lotka, A.J. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J. Wash. Acad. Sci.; 1926; 16, pp. 317-323.
68. Figg, W.D.; Dunn, L.; Liewehr, D.J.; Steinberg, S.M.; Thurman, P.W.; Barrett, J.C.; Birkinshaw, J. Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacother. J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther.; 2012; 26, pp. 759-767. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1592/phco.26.6.759]
69. Spinak, E. Diccionario Enciclopédico de Bibliometría, Cienciometría e Informetría; UNESCO CII/II: Caracas, Argentina, 1996.
70. Hosoda, M. Management control systems and corporate social responsibility: Perspectives from a Japanese small company. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc.; 2018; 18, pp. 68-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2017-0105]
71. Garay, L.; Gomis, J.M.; González, F. Management, altruism, and customer focus as drivers of corporate social responsibility in tourism intermediation. Tour. Anal.; 2017; 22, pp. 255-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3727/108354217X14888192562528]
72. Jamali, D.; Lund-Thomsen, P.; Jeppesen, S. SMEs and CSR in developing countries. Bus. Soc.; 2017; 56, pp. 11-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650315571258]
73. Jamali, D.; Lund-Thomsen, P.; Khara, N. CSR Institutionalized myths in developing countries: An imminent threat of selective decoupling. Bus. Soc.; 2017; 56, pp. 454-486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650315584303]
74. Lee, H.Y.; Kwak, D.W.; Park, J.Y. Corporate social responsibility in supply chains of small and medium-sized enterprises. Corp. Soc. Respon. Environ. Manag.; 2017; 24, pp. 634-647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1433]
75. Stoian, C.; Gilman, M. Corporate social responsibility that “Pays”: A strategic approach to CSR for SMEs. J. Small Bus. Manag.; 2016; 55, pp. 5-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12224]
76. Amaeshi, K.; Adegbite, E.; Ogbechie, C.; Idemudia, U.; Kan, K.A.S.; Issa, M.; Anakwue, O.I.J. Corporate social responsibility in SMEs: A shift from philanthropy to institutional works?. J. Bus. Ethics; 2016; 138, pp. 385-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2633-1]
77. Antosova, M.; Csikosova, A. Corporate social responsibility in small and medium enterprises in Slovakia. Actual Probl. Econ.; 2016; 175, pp. 217-224.
78. Herrera Madueño, J.; Larrán Jorge, M.; Martínez Conesa, I.; Martínez-Martínez, D. Relationship between corporate social responsibility and competitive performance in Spanish SMEs: Empirical evidence from a stakeholders’ perspective. BRQ Bus. Res. Q.; 2016; 19, pp. 55-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.06.002]
79. Hou, M.; Liu, H.; Fan, P.; Wei, Z. Does CSR practice pay off in East Asian firms? A meta-analytic investigation. Asia Pac. J. Manag.; 2016; 33, pp. 195-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9431-2]
80. Indarto, A. Implementation of corporate social responsibility by micro, small and medium enterprises case study in Semarang City. Int. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. Res.; 2016; 14, pp. 8087-8101.
81. Laguir, I.; Laguir, L.; Elbaz, J. Are family small-and medium-sized enterprises more socially responsible than nonfamily small-and medium-sized enterprises?. Corp. Soc. Respon. Environ. Manag.; 2016; 23, pp. 386-398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1384]
82. Looser, S.; Wehnneyer, W. Swiss CSR-driven business models extending the mainstream or the need for new templates?. Corp. Ownersh. Control; 2016; 13, pp. 110-121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cocv13i4p10]
83. Looser, S.; Wehrmeyer, W. Ethics of the firm, for the firm or in the firm? Purpose of extrinsic and intrinsic CSR in Switzerland. Soc. Respon. J.; 2016; 12, pp. 545-570. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2015-0097]
84. Lorenz, C.; Gentile, G.C.; Wehner, T. Exploring corporate community engagement in Switzerland: Activities, motivations, and processes. Bus. Soc.; 2016; 55, pp. 594-631. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650313482549]
85. Manuere, F.; Phiri, M. The relationship between CSR meaning and CSR practices: The case of SMES. Corp. Ownersh. Control; 2016; 13, pp. 103-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cocv13i4p11]
86. Raza, J.; Majid, A. Perceptions and practices of corporate social responsibility among SMEs in Pakistan. Qual. Quant.; 2016; 50, pp. 2625-2650. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0281-2]
87. Tran, A.N.; Jeppesen, S. SMEs in their own right: The views of managers and workers in Vietnamese textiles, garment, and footwear companies. J. Bus. Ethics; 2016; 137, pp. 589-608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2572-x]
88. Wirth, H.; Kulczycka, J.; Hausner, J.; Koński, M. Corporate social responsibility: Communication about social and environmental disclosure by large and small copper mining companies. Resour. Policy; 2016; 49, pp. 53-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.04.007]
89. El-Kassar, A.N.; Messarra, L.C.; Elgammal, W. Effects of ethical practices on corporate governance in developing countries: Evidence from Lebanon and Egypt. Corp. Ownersh. Control; 2015; 12, pp. 494-504. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i3c5p1]
90. Saveanu, T.; Abrudan, M.M. Trends in the social responsibility expenditures of small and medium enterprises from Oradea. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci.; 2015; 6, pp. 212-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2s5p212]
91. Aya Pastrana, N.; Sriramesh, K. Corporate social responsibility: Perceptions and practices among SMEs in Colombia. Public Relat. Rev.; 2014; 40, pp. 14-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.10.002]
92. Lund-Thomsen, P.; Jamali, D.; Vives, A. CSR in SMEs: An analysis of donor-financed management tools. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2014; 10, pp. 602-619. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02-2013-0012]
93. Coppa, M.; Sriramesh, K. Corporate social responsibility among SMEs in Italy. Public Relat. Rev.; 2013; 39, pp. 30-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.009]
94. Minnee, F.; Shanka, T.; Taylor, R.; Handley, B. Exploring corporate responsibility in Oman—Social expectations and practice. Soc. Respon. J.; 2013; 9, pp. 326-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02-2012-0018]
95. Nkiko, C.M. SME owner-managers as key drivers of corporate social responsibility in Uganda. Int. J. Bus. Gov. Ethics; 2013; 8, pp. 376-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2013.059169]
96. Gellert, F.J.; Graaf, F.J. Corporate social responsibility and aging workforces: An explorative study of corporate social responsibility implementation in small-and medium-sized enterprises. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev.; 2012; 21, pp. 353-363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2012.01659.x]
97. Lee, M.H.; Mak, A.K.; Pang, A. Bridging the gap: An Exploratory study of corporate social responsibility among SMEs in Singapore. J. Public Relat. Res.; 2012; 24, pp. 299-317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.689898]
98. Baden, D.A.; Harwood, I.A.; Woodward, D.G. The effects of procurement policies on ‘downstream’ corporate social responsibility activity: Content-Analytic insights into the views and actions of SME owner-managers. Int. Small Bus. J.; 2011; 29, pp. 259-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242610375770]
99. Hasle, P.; Granerud, L. Social responsibility as an intermediary for health and safety in small firms. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag.; 2011; 4, pp. 109-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538351111143295]
100. Battaglia, M.; Bianchi, L.; Frey, M.; Iraldo, F. An innovative model to promote CSR among SMEs operating in industrial clusters: Evidence from an EU project. Corp. Soc. Respon. Environ. Manag.; 2010; 17, pp. 133-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.224]
101. Davies, I.A.; Crane, A. Corporate social responsibility in small-and medium-size enterprises: Investigating employee engagement in fair trade companies. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev.; 2010; 19, pp. 126-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01586.x]
102. Grigore, G. Corporate social involvement, part of the corporate social responsibility—The case of SMES in arges county—Research notes. Metal. Int.; 2009; 14, pp. 212-217.
103. Grigore, G.; Grigore, C.; Grigore, G. Corporate social responsibility in Romanian SMEs: A research note on the case of the arges county. Int. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Sci.; 2009; 4, pp. 259-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v04i02/52855]
104. Cornelius, N.; Todres, M.; Janjuha-Jivraj, S.; Woods, A.; Wallace, J. Corporate social responsibility and the social enterprise. J. Bus. Ethics; 2008; 81, pp. 355-370. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9500-7]
105. Hegarty, C.; Johnston, J. Graduate training: Evidence from FUSION projects in Ireland. Educ. Train.; 2008; 50, pp. 391-405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910810889075]
106. Lawrence, S.R.; Collins, E.; Pavlovich, K.; Arunachalam, M. Sustainability practices of SMEs: The case of NZ. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2006; 15, pp. 242-257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.533]
107. Cantele, S.; Zardini, A. Is sustainability a competitive advantage for small businesses? An empirical analysis of possible mediators in the sustainability-financial performance relationship. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 182, pp. 166-176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.016]
108. Dubruc, N.; Mekdessi, S.; Khawaja, D. Towards an eventual three-dimensional equilibrium regarding corporate social responsibility in Lebanese small and medium enterprises. World Rev. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev.; 2018; 14, pp. 229-249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2018.089069]
109. Tok, M.E.; Olawuyi, D.S.; D’Alessandro, C. Advancing clean technology entrepreneurship in the Middle East and North African Region: Law, education and policy imperatives. Glob. J. Comp. Law; 2018; 7, pp. 115-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2211906X-00701006]
110. Allet, M. Mitigating environmental risks in microenterprises: A case study from El Salvador. Bus. Soc.; 2015; 56, pp. 57-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650315574738]
111. Carrigan, M.; Lazell, J.; Bosangit, C.; Magrizos, S. Burgers for tourists who give a damn! Driving disruptive social change upstream and downstream in the tourist food supply chain. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2017; 25, pp. 1563-1582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1291652]
112. Corazza, L. The standardization of down-streamed small business social responsibility (SBSR): SMEs and their sustainability reporting practices. Inf. Resour. Manag. J.; 2017; 30, pp. 39-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2017100103]
113. Warren, P. The potential of smart technologies and micro-generation in UK SMEs. Energies; 2017; 10, 1050. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en10071050]
114. Goddard, J.; Glass, J.; Dainty, A.; Nicholson, I. Implementing sustainability in small and medium-sized construction firms: The role of absorptive capacity. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.; 2016; 23, pp. 407-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2015-0015]
115. Graafland, J.J. Price competition, short-termism and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 116, pp. 125-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.045]
116. North, P. The business of the anthropocene? Substantivist and diverse economies perspectives on SME engagement in local low carbon transitions. Prog. Hum. Geogr.; 2015; 40, pp. 437-454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132515585049]
117. Chang, C.H. Proactive and reactive corporate social responsibility: Antecedent and consequence. Manag. Decis.; 2015; 53, pp. 451-468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2014-0060]
118. Panwar, R.; Nybakk, E.; Pinkse, J.; Hansen, E. Being good when not doing well: Examining the effect of the economic downturn on small manufacturing firms’ ongoing sustainability-oriented initiatives. Organ. Environ.; 2015; 28, pp. 204-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026615573842]
119. Vo, L.C.; Delchet-Cochet, K.; Akeb, H. Motives behind the integration of CSR into business strategy: A comparative study in French SMEs. J. Appl. Bus. Res.; 2015; 31, pp. 1975-1986. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v31i5.9412]
120. Doukas, H.; Tsiousi, A.; Marinakis, V.; Psarras, J. Linguistic multi-criteria decision making for energy and environmental corporate policy. Inf. Sci.; 2014; 258, pp. 328-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.08.027]
121. Etoundi Eloundou, G.C. Ethics and sustainable development in cameroonian SMEs. (Éthique et développement durable dans les PME camerounaises). Mondes Dév.; 2014; 168, pp. 27-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3917/med.168.0027]
122. Jenkins, N.R.; Karanikola, I. Do hotel companies communicate their environmental policies and practices more than independent hotels in Dubai, UAE?. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes; 2014; 6, pp. 362-380. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-01-2014-0003]
123. Ayuso, S.; Colomé, R.; Roca, M. SMEs as “transmitters” of CSR requirements in the supply chain. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.; 2013; 18, pp. 497-508. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-04-2012-0152]
124. Ciasullo, M.V.; Troisi, O. Sustainable value creation in SMEs: A case study. TQM J.; 2013; 25, pp. 44-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542731311286423]
125. Musa, A.; Yusuf, Y.; McArdle, L.; Banjoko, G. Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry: The perspective of the industry. Int. J. Process. Manag. Benchmarking; 2013; 3, pp. 101-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJPMB.2013.057722]
126. Torugsa, N.A.; O’Donohue, W.; Hecker, R. Proactive CSR: An empirical analysis of the role of its economic, social and environmental dimensions on the association between capabilities and performance. J. Bus. Ethics; 2013; 115, pp. 383-402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1405-4]
127. Battisti, M.; Perry, M. Walking the talk? Environmental responsibility from the perspective of small-business owners. Corp. Soc. Respon. Environ. Manag.; 2011; 18, pp. 172-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.266]
128. Gliedt, T.; Parker, P. Dynamic capabilities for strategic green advantage: Green electricity purchasing in North American firms, SMEs, NGOs and agencies. Glob. Bus. Econ. Rev.; 2010; 12, pp. 171-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/GBER.2010.034892]
129. Gallucci, T.; Lagioia, G.; Dimitrova, V. Environmental approach to implement sustainable management: Partnership between transnational corporations and small-and medium-sized enterprises. Int. J. Manag. Enterp. Dev.; 2009; 6, pp. 419-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMED.2009.024233]
130. Vancheswaran, A.; Gautam, V. An appraisal of CSR in SMEs in a globalised context: An empirical study of a ceramic cluster in Morbi, India. Int. J. Glob. Small Bus.; 2009; 3, pp. 441-462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2009.032262]
131. Redmond, J.; Walker, E.; Wang, C. Issues for small businesses with waste management. J. Environ. Manag.; 2008; 88, pp. 275-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.02.006]
132. Shetty, M.V.; Ramanathan, S.; Jayabalan, J. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental consciousness of the SME sector in Malaysia. Int. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Sci.; 2008; 3, pp. 185-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v03i04/52592]
133. Burke, S.; Gaughran, W.F. Developing a framework for sustainability management in engineering SMEs. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.; 2007; 23, pp. 696-703. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2007.02.001]
134. ElGammal, W.; El-Kassar, A.N.; Canaan Messarra, L. Corporate ethics, governance and social responsibility in MENA countries. Manag. Decis.; 2018; 56, pp. 273-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2017-0287]
135. Turyakira, P.K. Ethical practices of small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries: Literature analysis. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci.; 2018; 21, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v21i1.1756]
136. Abdelzaher, D.M.; Abdelzaher, A. Beyond environmental regulations: Exploring the potential of “Eco-Islam” in boosting environmental ethics within SMEs in Arab markets. J. Bus. Ethics; 2017; 145, pp. 357-371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2833-8]
137. Cockburn, T.; Jahdi, K.; Cockburn-Wootten, C. Engaging CSR Drivers in SMEs Business Conversations: A Pilot Study in Ibero-America Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2017; Volume 11, pp. 275-296.
138. D’Aprile, G.; Talò, C. How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment: A psychosocial process mediated by organizational sense of community. Empl. Responsib. Rights J.; 2015; 27, pp. 241-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-015-9265-6]
139. Haron, H.; Ismail, I.; Oda, S. Ethics, corporate social responsibility and the use of advisory services provided by SMEs: Lessons learnt from Japan. Asian Acad. Manag. J.; 2015; 20, pp. 71-100.
140. Haron, H.; Ismail, I.; Oda, S.; Jalil, A.A.; Ishak, N.K. Ethics and corporate social responsibility of small and medium enterprises in Japan-lessons learnt. Adv. Sci. Lett.; 2015; 21, pp. 947-952. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1166/asl.2015.5947]
141. Karakas, F.; Sarigollu, E.; Kavas, M. Discourses of collective spirituality and Turkish Islamic ethics: An inquiry into transcendence, connectedness, and virtuousness in Anatolian tigers. J. Bus. Ethics; 2015; 129, pp. 811-822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2135-6]
142. Staniewski, M.W.; Slomski, W.; Awruk, K. Ethical aspects of entrepreneurship. Filosifija Sociol.; 2015; 26, pp. 37-45.
143. Cant, M.C.; Wiid, J.A.; Hung, Y.T. Small business owners’ perceptions of business ethics and employee theft in the small business sector of South Africa. Corp. Ownersh. Control; 2013; 10, pp. 237-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cocv10i4c2art1]
144. Cant, M.C.; Wiid, J.A.; van Niekerk, C. The perception of employees regarding ethical misdemeanours in small Tshwane businesses. Corp. Ownersh. Control; 2013; 10, pp. 217-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cocv10i2c2art1]
145. Hilman, H.; Gorondutse, A.H. Relationship between perceived ethics and trust of business social responsibility (BSR) on performance of SMEs in Nigeria. Middle East J. Sci. Res.; 2013; 15, pp. 36-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.15.1.638]
146. Savur, S. Theorising Ethical Decision Making Process for Research in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Australia Ethics, Values and Civil Society; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2013; Volume 9, pp. 137-154.
147. Millar, C.; Udalov, Y.; Millar, H. The ethical dilemma of information asymmetry in innovation: Reputation, investors and noise in the innovation channel. Creat. Innov. Manag.; 2012; 21, pp. 224-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00642.x]
148. Dutta, S.; Banerjee, S. Ownership patterns and ethical practices of small enterprises in Kolkata. J. Entrep.; 2009; 19, pp. 191-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097135570901800203]
149. Ide, T. How to rectify unfair trade practices and to establish appropriate supply chains and better business culture under the global market economy. Pac. Econ. Rev.; 2009; 14, pp. 612-621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0106.2009.00475.x]
150. Bagchi-Sen, S.; Scully, J. Strategies and External relationships of small and medium-sized enterprises in the US agricultural biotechnology sector. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy; 2007; 25, pp. 844-860. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c0560]
151. Şafakli, O.V. Are the lending functions of commercial banks towards SMEs ethical in Northern Cyprus?. Eur. J. Soc. Sci.; 2006; 4, pp. 9-15.
152. Wu, C.F. The relationship of ethical decision-making to business ethics and performance in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics; 2002; 35, pp. 163-176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013853107403]
153. Phukan, S.; Dhillon, G. Ethics and information technology use: A survey of US based SMEs. Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur.; 2000; 8, pp. 239-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09685220010353907]
154. Busse, R.; Doganer, U. The role of compliance for organisational change: Qualitative evidence from German SMEs. J. Organ. Chang. Manag.; 2018; 31, pp. 334-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2017-0163]
155. Ansong, A. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance among Ghanaian SMEs: The role of stakeholder engagement. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2017; 4, 1385165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1385165]
156. Ansong, A. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance of Ghanaian SMEs: The role of stakeholder engagement. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2017; 4, 1333704. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1333704]
157. Choongo, P. A Longitudinal study of the impact of corporate social responsibility on firm performance in SMEs in Zambia. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9081300]
158. Saeidi, S.P.; Othman, M.S.H.; Saeidi, P.; Saeidi, S.P. Mediating role of competitive advantage between corporate social responsibility and firm’s sales growth. Adv. Sci. Lett.; 2017; 23, pp. 8420-8424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.9902]
159. Adomako, S.; Obeng, G.D.; Opoku, R.A.; Danso, A. Perceived regulatory burden, institutional ties, financial resource capability and corporate social performance in a Sub-Saharan African economy. J. Gen. Manag.; 2016; 41, pp. 13-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030630701604100302]
160. Gorondutse, A.H.; Hilman, H. Mediation effect of organizational culture on the relationship between perceived ethics and SMEs performance. J. Ind. Eng. Manag.; 2016; 9, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1892]
161. Lee, K.H.; Herold, D.M.; Yu, A.L. Small and medium enterprises and corporate social responsibility practice: A Swedish perspective. Corp. Soc. Respon. Environ. Manag.; 2015; 23, pp. 88-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1366]
162. Verjel, A.M.; Hohan, A.I.; Schmid, J. Requirements for improving the performance and ensuring the sustainability of small and medium enterprises (SMES) in relation with social responsibility (CSR). Calitatea; 2015; 16, pp. 296-299.
163. Yang, L.; Yaacob, Z.; Teh, S.Y. The mechanism of corporate social responsibility affecting firm performance: A study of small and medium size enterprises in Hebei China. Adv. Sci. Lett.; 2015; 21, pp. 1509-1512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1166/asl.2015.6088]
164. Basuony, M.A.K.; Elseidi, R.I.; Mohamed, E.K.A. The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm performance: Evidence form a mena country. Corp. Ownersh. Control; 2014; 12, pp. 761-774. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i1c9p1]
165. Battaglia, M.; Frey, M. Public policies of promotion of CSR amongst SMEs and effects on competitiveness: The case of Tuscany region. Int. J. Bus. Gov. Ethics; 2014; 9, pp. 1-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2014.062762]
166. Turyakira, P.; Venter, E.; Smith, E. The impact of corporate social responsibility factors on the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci.; 2014; 17, pp. 157-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v17i2.443]
167. Mrvová, Ľ.; Púčiková, L. Using methods of CBA in the Context of CSR, focusing on the social projects. Appl. Mech. Mater.; 2013; 309, pp. 177-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.309.177]
168. Bočková, N.; Brož, Z.; Dohnal, M. Fuzzy model of relationship among economic performance, competitiveness and business ethics of small and medium-sized enterprises. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun.; 2012; 60, pp. 71-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11118/actaun201260040071]
169. Avram, D.O.; Kühne, S. Implementing responsible business behavior from a strategic management perspective: Developing a framework for Austrian SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics; 2008; 82, pp. 463-475. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9897-7]
170. Luken, R.; Stares, R. Small business responsibility in developing countries: A threat or an opportunity?. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2005; 14, pp. 38-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.427]
171. Badulescu, A.; Badulescu, D.; Saveanu, T.; Hatos, R. The Relationship between Firm size and age, and its social responsibility actions—Focus on a developing country (Romania). Sustainability; 2018; 10, 805. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10030805]
172. Skýpalová, R.; Kučerová, R.; Blašková, V. Development of the corporate social responsibility concept in small and medium-sized enterprises. Prague Econ. Pap.; 2016; 25, pp. 287-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.558]
173. McCaffrey, S.J.; Kurland, N.B. Does “Local” mean ethical? The U.S. “Buy local” movement and CSR in SMEs. Organ. Environ.; 2015; 28, pp. 286-306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026615586795]
174. Parker, C.M.; Bellucci, E.; Zutshi, A.; Torlina, L.; Fraunholz, B. SME stakeholder relationship descriptions in website CSR communications. Soc. Respon. J.; 2015; 11, pp. 364-386. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2013-0114]
175. Tang, Z.; Tang, J. The influence of stakeholder-firm power difference on corporate social responsibility of Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises. World Rev. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev.; 2015; 11, pp. 414-428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2015.072068]
176. D’Aprile, G.; Talò, C. Measuring corporate social responsibility as a psychosocial construct: A new multidimensional scale. Empl. Respon. Rights J.; 2014; 26, pp. 153-175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-013-9228-8]
177. Maijala, P.; Närvä, M.; Pasila, A. Farm-to-table concept: How the industry and commerce are integrated to the academic education system. Agron. Res.; 2014; 12, pp. 673-680.
178. Robinson, N.; Dale, C.; Evans, M. Risk management and organised crime. Int. J. Bus. Glob.; 2014; 13, pp. 287-297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2014.064676]
179. Van Tulder, R.; Da Rosa, A. Multinationals and small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): A linkages perspective on inclusive development strategies. International Business and Sustainable Development; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2014; Volume 8, pp. 203-227.
180. Tang, Z.; Tang, J. Stakeholder-Firm power difference, stakeholders’ CSR orientation, and SMEs’ environmental performance in China. J. Bus. Ventur.; 2012; 27, pp. 436-455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.007]
181. Charitoudi, G.; Sariannidis, N.; Giannarakis, G. The development guide for corporate social responsibility programming. Eur. J. Sci. Res.; 2011; 65, pp. 20-27.
182. Ahmad, N.H.; Seet, P.S. Gender variations in ethical and socially responsible considerations among Sme entrepreneurs in Malaysia. Int. J. Bus. Soc.; 2010; 11, pp. 77-88.
183. Csáfor, H. Corporate social responsibility in the countries of the Carpathian Euroregion. Period. Polytech. Soc. Manag. Sci.; 2006; 14, pp. 45-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3311/pp.so.2006-2.01]
184. Crals, E.; Vereeck, L. The affordability of sustainable entrepreneurship certification for SMEs. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.; 2005; 12, pp. 173-183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500509469628]
185. Meyer, M.; Narjoud, S.; Granata, J. When collective action drives corporate social responsibility implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises: The case of a network of French winemaking cooperatives. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus.; 2017; 32, pp. 7-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2017.086002]
186. Iatridis, K.; Kuznetsov, A.; Whyman, P.B. SMEs and certified management standards: The Effect of motives and timing on implementation and commitment. Bus. Ethics Q.; 2016; 26, pp. 67-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.9]
187. Panwar, R.; Nybakk, E.; Hansen, E.; Pinkse, J. The effect of small firms’ competitive strategies on their community and environmental engagement. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 129, pp. 578-585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.141]
188. Pedrini, M.; Bramanti, V.; Cannatelli, B. The impact of national culture and social capital on corporate social responsibility attitude among immigrants entrepreneurs. J. Manag. Gov.; 2016; 20, pp. 759-787. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-015-9327-z]
189. Bevan, E.A.M.; Yung, P. Implementation of corporate social responsibility in Australian construction SMEs. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.; 2015; 22, pp. 295-311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2014-0071]
190. Chiloane-Tsoka, E.; Rasivetshele, A.M. Corporate social responsibility: A toolkit for SMEs efficiency in Tshwane, South Africa. Probl. Perspect. Manag.; 2014; 1, pp. 276-282.
191. Baumann-Pauly, D.; Wickert, C.; Spence, L.J.; Scherer, A.G. Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. J. Bus. Ethics; 2013; 115, pp. 693-705. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1827-7]
192. Karhunen, P.; Kosonen, R. Strategic responses of foreign subsidiaries to host country corruption: The case of Finnish firms in Russia. Crit. Perspect. Int. Bus.; 2013; 9, pp. 88-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17422041311299969]
193. Klerkx, L.; Villalobos, P.; Engler, A. Variation in implementation of corporate social responsibility practices in emerging economies’ firms: A survey of Chilean fruit exporters. Nat. Resour. Forum; 2012; 36, pp. 88-100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2012.01440.x]
194. Baskaran, V.; Nachiappan, S.; Rahman, S. Supplier assessment based on corporate social responsibility criteria in Indian automotive and textile industry sectors. Int. J. Sustain. Eng.; 2011; 4, pp. 359-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2011.579360]
195. Von Weltzien Hoivik, H. Embedding CSR as a learning and knowledge creating process: The case for SMEs in Norway. J. Manag. Dev.; 2011; 30, pp. 1067-1084. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711111182547]
196. Puppim de Oliveira, J.A.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Environmental management, climate change, CSR, and Governance in clusters of small firms in developing countries: Toward an integrated analytical framework. Bus. Soc.; 2017; 56, pp. 130-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650315575470]
197. Sundiman, D.; Idrus, M.S. Confucianism ethic, Guanxi, and acculturation role on the knowledge transfer process of Chinese descendant in Indonesia. Int. J. Knowl. Manag. Stud.; 2015; 6, pp. 261-278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJKMS.2015.072712]
198. Demuijnck, G.; Ngnodjom, H. Responsibility and Informal CSR in formal Cameroonian SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics; 2013; 112, pp. 653-665. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1564-3]
199. Jammulamadaka, N. The responsibility of corporate social responsibility in SMEs. Int. J. Organ. Anal.; 2013; 21, pp. 385-395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-Mar-2012-0566]
200. Karakas, F.; Sarigollu, E. The role of leadership in creating virtuous and compassionate organizations: Narratives of benevolent leadership in an Anatolian tiger. J. Bus. Ethics; 2013; 113, pp. 663-678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1691-5]
201. Lamberti, L.; Noci, G. The relationship between CSR and corporate strategy in medium-sized companies: Evidence from Italy. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev.; 2012; 21, pp. 402-416. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/beer.12002]
202. Preuss, L.; Perschke, J. Slipstreaming the larger boats: Social responsibility in medium-sized businesses. J. Bus. Ethics; 2010; 92, pp. 531-551. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0171-4]
203. Ryan, A.; O’Malley, L.; O’Dwyer, M. Responsible business practice: Re-Framing CSR for effective SME engagement. Eur. J. Int. Manag.; 2010; 4, pp. 290-302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2010.033005]
204. Perry, P.; Towers, N. Determining the antecedents for a strategy of corporate social responsibility by small-and medium-sized enterprises in the UK fashion apparel industry. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2009; 16, pp. 377-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.05.003]
205. Graafland, J.; Smid, H. Reconsidering the relevance of social license pressure and government regulation for environmental performance of European SMEs. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 141, pp. 967-977. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.171]
206. Biong, H.; Silkoset, R. Buying CSR with employees’ pensions? The effect of social responsible investments on Norwegian SMEs’ choice of pension fund management: A conjoint survey. Int. J. Bank Mark.; 2017; 35, pp. 56-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-10-2015-0162]
207. Toppinen, A.; Hänninen, V.; Lähtinen, K. ISO 26000 in the assessment of CSR communication quality: CEO letters and social media in the global pulp and paper industry. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2015; 11, pp. 702-715. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2013-0108]
208. Hossain, T.B.; Siwar, C.; Jani, M.F.M.; Bhuiyan, A.B. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) for global market access: A malaysian case study on small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol.; 2013; 5, pp. 60-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.5.5084]
209. Scagnelli, S.D.; Corazza, L.; Cisi, M. How SMEs disclose their sustainability performance. Which variables influence the choice of reporting guidelines?. Accounting and Control for Sustainability; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2013; Volume 26, pp. 77-114.
210. Del Baldo, M. Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: The experience of some “spirited businesses”. J. Manag. Gov.; 2012; 16, pp. 1-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9127-4]
211. Dincer, C.; Dincer, B. An investigation of Turkish small and medium-sized enterprises online CSR communication. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2010; 6, pp. 197-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111011051711]
212. Choi, S.H.; Lim, S.J.; Phillips, J. Responsible entrepreneurship, nation brand, and public policy. Korea Obs.; 2009; 40, pp. 369-392.
213. Koričan, M.; Jelavić, I. CSR, women and SMEs: The Croatian perspective. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2008; 4, pp. 56-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471110810856839]
214. Schoenberger-Orgad, M.; McKie, D. Sustaining edges: CSR, postmodern play, and SMEs. Public Relat. Rev.; 2005; 31, pp. 578-583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.08.019]
215. Riedl, J.K. Corporate social responsibility and communication with external community. Informatologia; 2003; 36, pp. 166-172.
216. Sarbutts, N. Can SMEs “do” CSR? A practitioner’s view of the ways small- and medium-sized enterprises are able to manage reputation through corporate social responsibility. J. Commun. Manag.; 2003; 7, pp. 340-347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540310807476]
217. Indarti, S.; Efni, Y. Comparative study: The role of corporate social responsibility towards the development of entrepreneurial attitude and small medium-sized enterprises income, Pekanbaru, Indonesia. Int. J. Law Manag.; 2018; 60, pp. 311-324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-12-2016-0160]
218. Ratnawati, S.; Soetjipto, B.E.; Murwani, F.D.; Wahyono, H. Role of SMEs’ innovation and learning orientation in mediating the effect of CSR programme on SMEs’ performance and competitive advantage. Glob. Bus. Rev.; 2018; 19, pp. S21-S38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972150918757842]
219. Muenjohn, N.; McMurray, A. Design leadership, work values ethic and workplace innovation: An investigation of SMEs in Thailand and Vietnam. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev.; 2017; 23, pp. 192-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2017.1281642]
220. Szczepański, M.S.; Geisler, R.; Śliz, A. Building a model of corporate social responsibility in the old industrial region (in the case of Upper Silesia): A sociological perspective. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2009; 5, pp. 62-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471110910940005]
221. Del Baldo, M. Beyond CSR: The virtues-based approach to corporate responsibility and sustainability in Italian SMEs. Int. J. Environ. Health; 2015; 7, pp. 394-414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJENVH.2015.077132]
222. Omri, W.; Becuwe, A. Managerial characteristics and entrepreneurial internationalization: A study of Tunisian SMEs. J. Int. Entrep.; 2014; 12, pp. 8-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10843-013-0119-8]
223. Potocan, V.; Nedelko, Z. Management innovativeness: A case of Slovenian small and medium enterprises. Transform. Bus. Econ.; 2014; 13, pp. 41-59.
224. Hsu, J.L.; Cheng, M.C. What prompts small and medium enterprises to engage in corporate social responsibility? A study from Taiwan. Corp. Soc. Respon. Environ. Manag.; 2012; 19, pp. 288-305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.276]
225. Cingula, M.; Čalopa, M.K. Rethinking of entrepreneurship: Towards social responsibility. J. Inf. Organ. Sci.; 2006; 30, pp. 199-204.
226. El Baz, J.; Laguir, I.; Marais, M.; Staglianò, R. Influence of National Institutions on the corporate social responsibility practices of small-and medium-sized enterprises in the food-processing industry: Differences between France and Morocco. J. Bus. Ethics; 2016; 134, pp. 117-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2417-z]
227. Graafland, J.; Smid, H. Environmental impacts of SMEs and the effects of formal management tools: Evidence from EU’s largest survey. Corp. Soc. Respon. Environ. Manag.; 2016; 23, pp. 297-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1376]
228. Wickert, C. “Political” corporate social responsibility in small-and medium-sized enterprises: A conceptual framework. Bus. Soc.; 2016; 55, pp. 792-824. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650314537021]
229. Casalegno, C.; Pellicelli, A.C.; Pellicelli, M.; Civera, C. Innovation policy and environmental sustainability as strategic tools for reaching higher performances. A regional empirical analysis to find the best practice. Int. J. Sustain. Soc.; 2014; 6, pp. 170-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2014.057896]
230. Skýpalová, R.; Kucerová, R. The role of the state in launching social responsibility in small and medium enterprises. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun.; 2014; 62, pp. 1407-1415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11118/actaun201462061407]
231. Knudsen, J.S. The growth of private regulation of labor standards in global supply chains: Mission impossible for western small-and medium-sized firms?. J. Bus. Ethics; 2013; 117, pp. 387-398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1527-8]
232. Gelbmann, U. Establishing strategic CSR in SMEs: An Austrian CSR quality seal to substantiate the strategic CSR performance. Sustain. Dev.; 2010; 18, pp. 90-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.448]
233. Blaauwbroek, J. CSR in the Netherlands: Changing consumption and production patterns. Ind. Environ.; 2003; 26, pp. 10-12.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Álvarez-García, José 2
; María de la Cruz del Río-Rama 3
; Correa-Quezada, Ronny 4
1 Facultad de Recursos Naturales, Escuela de Ecoturismo de la Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo—ESPOCH, Riobamba 060155, Ecuador;
2 Financial Economy and Accounting Department, Faculty of Business, Finance and Tourism, University of Extremadura, 10071 Cáceres, Spain;
3 Business Management and Marketing Department, Faculty of Business Sciences and Tourism, University of Vigo, 32004 Ourense, Spain
4 Department of Economics, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL), 11-01-608 Loja, Ecuador;