Corporate social responsibility in

non-profit organizations: Beyond the evidence

Guillaume PLAISANCE

CIRIEC No. 2021/02

 Corporate social responsibility in non-profit organizations:
Beyond the evidence

Guillaume PLAISANCE*

Working paper CIRIEC No. 2021/02

*
Ph.D candidate in management. Research Institute in Management Science, Bordeaux
University, France (IAE de Bordeaux, 35 avenue Abadie – CS 51412, 33072 Bordeaux, France)
(guillaume.plaisance@u-bordeaux.fr).

3
 CIRIEC activities, publications and researches are realised with the support of the Walloon
Region, the Walloon-Brussels Federation, the Belgian National Lottery and the University
of Liège.

Les activités, publications et recherches du CIRIEC bénéficient du soutien de la Région

wallonne, de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles, de la Loterie nationale belge ainsi que de
l’Université de Liège.

Abstract
The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in nonprofit organizations (NPOs)
is a challenge for the literature and for the organizations themselves. The concept is
often confused with social responsibility or sustainability. The pleonasm between CSR
and the mission, values and nature of NPOs also raises questions. Finally, the relevance
of the concept in its current state to NPOs calls into question, because of the
“corporate” terminology.
Design/methodology/approach: Based on a literature review, this article proposes to
respond to these different gaps thanks to an analysis of the definitions, the theories,
measurement methods and content of research dedicated to CSR, social responsibility
and sustainability.
Findings: The research underlines the triple relevance of the concept of CSR in NPOs.
Its relevance to the other two concepts, its strategic importance and the interest of
differentiation from for-profit organizations.
Originality: This article proposes a literature review on CSR in NPOs, a subject that is
still emerging in the literature but which nevertheless needs to be addressed in the
current context of multiple crises.

Keywords: nonprofit organizations (NPOs); corporate social responsibility (CSR);

sustainability; social responsibility; triple bottom line; literature review
JEL Codes: G34, L31, M14

4
1. Introduction
The Covid-19 crisis hits all organizations, societies and individuals. The
answers of the States were plural but they were not the only ones to react.
Companies (as for-profit organizations, FPOs) have also committed themselves
on their side, notably through corporate social responsibility (CSR) (García-
Sánchez and García-Sánchez, 2020; Manuel and Herron, 2020). Nonprofit
organizations (NPOs), for their part, maintained their activities in order to
continue to contribute to the satisfaction of society and their stakeholders. The
complementarity of the different sectors is currently highlighted in order to
address the crisis but also questions the identity and place of NPOs (Plaisance,
2020).
This is illustrated by putting the purpose of NPOs into perspective with the
definition of CSR adopted by the European Commission. The Commission defines
CSR as the responsibility of organizations for the impact they have on society
whereas “the goal for the NPOs is to make an impact on society” (Kelly and Lewis,
2009). The association between NPOs and CSR thus seems conceptually clear
and almost natural.
CSR as a responsibility in NPOs is studied in the academic literature.
However, recent works point out a problem of terminology: “scholars have
referred to CSR, nonprofit responsibility or sustainability” (Zeimers et al., 2019)
in order to address social responsibility in NPOs. In short, the literature on these
concepts used them as if they were interchangeable (Palakshappa & Grant,
2018). Their intersecting definitions are put forward to explain this behavior. The
concepts, defined by the Cambridge Dictionary 1 (widely used in research, for
example McGrath & Whitty, 2018), are indeed particularly interconnected:
(1) CSR is “the idea that a company should be interested in and willing to help
society and the environment as well as be concerned about the products
and profits it makes”;
(2) Social responsibility refers to “the practice of producing goods and
services in a way that is not harmful to society or the environment”;
(3) Sustainability is defined as “the idea that goods and services should be
produced in ways that do not use resources that cannot be replaced and
that do not damage the environment”.
Other authors such as Langergaard indeed combine the three concepts
and note that “sustainability (…) is still an underdeveloped, ambiguous and often
vague concept” (Langergaard, 2019) but indissociable from NPOs.
Beyond the Covid-19 crisis, NPOs are also struggling with other challenges.
Weerawardena et al. (2010) indicate that “the core issue is the need to build
1Cambridge Business English Dictionary, Online dictionary, consulted on January 20, 2021,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/

5
a sustainable organization that can continue deliver social value via the pursuit
of its social mission”. In a context of increasing scarcity of resources, regardless
of their nature (i.e. financial, human or natural resources), the sustainability of
NPOs is a central concern. However, there is also the question of the role of NPOs
in sustainable development, insofar as the impact they have on society is at once
economic, social and environmental. The “social value” created by NPOs
encompasses the roots of sustainability.
In short, the links maintained by NPOs with CSR and sustainability are
strong and tense. The creation of value for stakeholders and the pursuit of the
society’s well-being are the daily activities of NPOs, which would imply that the
notion of CSR is obvious (therefore irrelevant?) for these organizations (e.g.
Lin-Hi et al., 2015).
Two realities run counter to this idea. First, more and more NPOs are
publishing CSR (Casey, 2018; Gazzola et al., 2017) or sustainability (Veltri and
Bronzetti, 2014) reports, with the help, for example, of standardizers who adapt
their principles to the nonprofit sector (for example, the Global Reporting
Initiative). Second, the notion of well-being brought to stakeholders and society
is no longer the prerogative of only NPOs (e.g. Hart and Zingales, 2017a, 2017b).
Demands for transparency and accountability may explain the call for
innovative forms of reporting. It is also an admission of the difficulty for NPOs to
highlight their role in sustainable development. The link between CSR,
sustainability and NPOs that seemed obvious is probably a little too evident. As
Andreini et al. (2014) point out, “it is easy to believe that nonprofit equates to
socially responsible”. The authors hasten to remind the reader that this facility
is questionable and that the links between NPOs, responsibility and sustainability
need to be carefully studied.
They are not the only ones to underline this. The literature on these
linkages is extremely obscure in that the concepts used vary from one study to
another: “scholars have referred to CSR, nonprofit responsibility or
sustainability” (Zeimers et al., 2019) in order to address social responsibility in
NPOs. Other authors combine the concepts while noting that “social
sustainability (…) is still an underdeveloped, ambiguous and often vague
concept” (Langergaard, 2019).
The objective of this article is therefore to fill this conceptual gap by
specifying the relevance of the different concepts mobilized (CSR, responsibility
and sustainability) within the context of NPOs. In order to reach it, a literature
review is proposed.
This objective will be broken down into three research questions (2.). The
method chosen (3.) will consist of an analysis of the concepts’ definitions and the
theories on which they are based (4.). Then, an inventory of the methods used
to measure the three concepts is conducted as well as a state of the debate on

6
the difference between CSR in NPOs and in FPOs (5.). The discussion of these
analyses will provide the contributions of this paper (6.).

2. Research Questions Development

NPOs are a vast group of organizations whose common denominator is the
non-redistribution of profits. This very specific characteristic directly questions
the concept of CSR. This notion emerges above all in order to counterbalance
the FPOs’ main objective, which is to be profitable in order to satisfy
shareholders. In the absence of shareholders and in the presence of powerful
stakeholders, the interest of NPOs turns de facto to the same actors as those
targeted by CSR.
In addition, NPOs have increasing social and economic roles as public
authorities entrust them with new functions. Their political action is also
significant, due to their involvement in civil society and their key role of
advocacy. In short, NPOs already have a holistic influence on their economic,
social and ecological environment. Consequently, NPOs seek to perpetuate their
positive action on society for as long as possible (Neesham et al., 2017).
In other words, the sustainability of actions in NPOs is at the heart of their
management.
In the same way, the NPOs’ constitutive project defines a vast project for
the future of the organization but also for society in general. In other words, this
project, debated with stakeholders, is a social project that the organization seeks
to build for the society. The definition of CSR proposed by the European
Commission is therefore once again extremely similar.
The literature has already pointed out this convergence: the “dimensions
of corporate social responsibility are closely aligned with the goals of many
nonprofit organizations that function primarily to serve the public interest
through the distribution of goods and services” (Waters and Ott, 2014).
On the one hand, NPOs define their strategy but also their governance
according to the expectations and requirements of their stakeholders (Mano,
2010; Oppong et al., 2017; Rey-García, 2008). On the other hand, NPOs defend
“noble causes” (Dhanani and Connolly, 2012), involving respect for ethical
principles, sustainability of the action and being responsible (in the sense of CSR).
This (corporate social) responsibility has become an “ethical obligation” for NPOs
(Gazzola et al., 2017).
Beyond the European authorities, scholars have proposed many
definitions of CSR too, for FPOs but also for organizations in general. Waters and
Ott (2014) synthesize these definitions in a rather broad approach: “the
voluntary actions a company or organization implements to pursue goals, with

7
a responsibility to its stakeholders”. Bivona (2010) has succeeded in bringing out
common points shared by the majority of scholars: CSR remains voluntary and
goes beyond the economic sphere and the scope of the organization. In short,
non-financial and non-economic aspects such as social welfare or environmental
protection are included in CSR. In addition, stakeholders and society in general
are its targets; just like NPOs do, as already mentioned.

The references cited so far suggest to one observation: the discourse on

NPOs leads to the mixing of three key concepts, namely sustainability, social
responsibility and CSR. This difficulty has already been mentioned in the
introduction and Filho et al. (2019) recently summarized the situation: “the lack
of a consensus about what social responsibility means, or how (or whether) it
should be differentiated from related concepts remains a major weakness for
practice development” and continued: “sustainability is linked with social
responsibility and sustainable development and is concerned with equitably
balancing the interconnected needs of the environment, the economy and
society, both in the present and into the future, and both locally and globally”.
The first objective of this literature review will therefore be to investigate these
three concepts and to determine the differences and similarities that scholars
have formulated in the case of NPOs.

RQ1: How does the literature conceptually and methodologically

differentiate the notions of CSR, social responsibility and sustainability in NPOs?

Thus, there is confusion as to the terms used. A conceptual problem also

emerges: NPOs and CSR seem extremely close because the values and missions
of these organizations already integrate a social and environmental vision. Faced
with this discourse, the literature has taken an interest in the evolution and
practices of NPOs. For instance, Bivona (2010) finds that “although NPOs
embody in their mission – by definition – CSR intentions, in some field intense
commercial competition may erode the ‘moral high ground’ of the organization
and transform NPOs into ‘shadow businesses’”. Another example would be
Cornelius et al. (2008) who noticed that the working conditions of employees in
NPOs were not better or even worse than those of the FPOs. Recently,
Zeimers et al. (2019) have also noted the confusion surrounding CSR and NPOs,
but reject it and call for studies of the concept in NPOs (in the line of Chell et al.,
2016). Chelladurai (2016) will even go so far as to write: “One could argue that
the concept of CSR is more important in the nonprofit sector than in the profit
sector”. For this reason, it is essential to take an interest in the relevance of the
concept of (C)SR in NPOs, as second question. Would it not be intrinsic? Could it
be a pleonasm?

8
 RQ2: To what extent has the concept of CSR been applied to NPOs by the
literature?

The words chosen pose a third problem. Lin-Hi et al. (2015) stated that
CSR, since it is “corporate”, does not seem appropriate for NPOs. The concept of
CSR could then become “organizational social responsibility” (OSR) to address
the issue of terminology (e.g. Misener et al., 2020). So, the “corporate”
terminology challenges the literature: would CSR not be the same for all
organizations? For some authors (e.g. Phillips and Taylor, 2020), CSR has
included NPOs in a vision of partnership between FPOs practicing CSR actions
and their stakeholders (including NPOs). Other authors consider that the
definitions are broad enough to be applied to all organizations (Manfred
Bergman et al., 2017; Waters and Ott, 2014). According to Chelladurai (2016),
CSR should be different in NPOs in its practices, not in its conceptualization.
Beyond the applicability of the concept in NPOs, it is a question of understanding
whether the concept differs between different organizations.

RQ3: How has the literature operationalized the concept of CSR in NPOs?
Is it in a different way than in FPOs?

3. Methods and Data

In order to answer the three proposed research questions, a review of the
management literature is proposed. Scopus was the database used in order to
create the sample. It has proven its relevance in management (Kosch and
Szarucki, 2020) and provides access to peer-reviewed academic publications
recognized by the scientific world. The main keywords searched for in title,
abstract or keywords were CSR, corporate social responsibility, social
responsibility and sustainability. In order to reduce searches to works dealing
only with NPOs, the following keywords have been used as filters: nonprofit,
NPO, NGO, volunteer, not-for-profit, charities, foundations. In the case of more
than 1000 results, the filtered keywords had to appear in the title and/or
keywords (in order to minimize the risk of obtaining NPOs as a stakeholder). In
spite of precautions, a large majority of the results did not focus on NPOs but on
FPOs. The reading of the abstracts allowed to retain 49 publications, a result
consistent with the still emerging interest in the literature on the subject dealt
with in this article (Lin-Hi et al., 2015; Phillips and Taylor, 2020).
The works have been read and analyzed in their entirety. However, several
pieces of information were sought in order to answer the research questions:

9
 (1) Definitions of CSR, social responsibility or sustainability (about RQ1 and
RQ2);
(2) The theories mobilized in the literature review or in the theoretical
framework tested (about RQ2);
(3) Variables that operationalize the concepts of CSR, social responsibility or
sustainability; present in the literature review or in the authors’
methodology (about RQ1 and RQ3);
(4) Results that linked CSR, social responsibility or sustainability to other
management concepts or issues (about RQ3);
(5) Other information relevant to answer the research questions (including
literature criticisms or research avenues).
The results of this analysis are presented following the reasoning of a
scientific article: the definition of concepts, theorization, operationalization and
methodology to end with the practices and conclusions drawn. The results are
therefore structured in two parts: on the one hand, the rather conceptual
analyses (definitions and theories used, 4.) and on the other hand, the rather
applied analyses (measurement methods and research contributions, 5.). The
contribution of each section to each research question has been specified,
insofar as they are transversal.

4. Nonprofit Organisations are not exempt from CSR: Answers to RQ1 and
RQ2

In order to respond to RQ1 and RQ2, a conceptual and theoretical

examination of the sample articles is required, using the definitions of the three
concepts studied and of the theories employed by the researchers.

4.1. A conceptual answer to RQ1: defining (corporate) social responsibility

and sustainability
For each of the works analyzed, the definitions of CSR, social responsibility
and sustainability were selected (Table i), as well as what the authors had to say
about the links between these three concepts.

10
 Table i: Definitions of corporate social responsibility, social responsibility and
sustainability in NPOs
Authors Definitions in NPOs
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Olaya Garcerá et al. “a university management strategy, seeking to maintain a holistic approach to
(2020) the university organization itself, and devising interdisciplinary (synergy between
university faculties and departments) and inter-institutional (association of
various functions of the institutional structure) initiatives”
Chung et al. (2019) “a company’s voluntary responsibility to the societal good, beyond its legal
obligations”
Palakshappa and Grant a “vehicle, promoting sustainable practice within business, and bridging sectors
(2018) through the development of community/business collaborations and
partnerships”
Lin-Hi et al. (2015) Respecting the triple bottom line, “doing good” and “avoiding bad”
Andreini et al. (2014) “an organization’s contribution to both generating and solving social and
environmental problems”
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Dixit (2020), in the case “(a) creation of value and efficiency for the stakeholders; (b) protection of the
of public hospitals interests and investment of all stakeholders (including the government);
(c) protection of the environment; (d) recognition of the human rights of the
patients and the participants in the clinical trials; (e) ethical business practices;
(f) public accountability of business decisions; (g) compliance with the law and
regulations; and (h) protection of animal interests in scientific research”
Păceşilă and Colesca “all the behaviors and actions of organizations which engage in the community
(2020) according to their values and objectives”
Moldavanova and “an organization that engages in internally and externally sustainable
Goerdel (2018), defining organizational practices, such as shared leadership, strategic orientation, and
“socially responsible being proactive in achieving societal goals, such as the advancement of social
organization” equity across generations”
Pope et al. (2018), “(1) leadership (model innovative practices);
defining “organizational (2) citizenship (advance the collective movement);
responsibility” (3) ethics (respect community norms);
(4) accountability (be transparent and efficient);
(5) lawfulness (follow the lax);
(6) mission (make a positive social impact)”.
Chelladurai (2016) Organizational responsibility: “the fundamental responsibility of any
organizations (profit or nonprofit) is to achieve its stated goals”
Social responsibility: “to serve society by attaining their stated goals within the
rules and regulations set by society”
Andreini et al. (2014) (1) “the ability to fulfil the institutional mission that provides the NPO’s raison
d’être and the main attraction for stakeholders (members, volunteers, donors,
states and local governments, etc.)”
(2) “the way in which the mission is achieved, and to the NPO’s ability to respond
to other wide-ranging social and environmental issues (…). Examples include the
environmental impact of the NPO’s actions, the working conditions of its
employees, partners and volunteers, and its relationships with donors”
SUSTAINABILITY
Dadić and Ribarić (2020), “a comparison between earned income and other sources of income”
defining “financial “organizations that have a larger share of income from self-funding relative to
sustainability” income from grants and donations”
Yekini and Yekini (2020) “providing for society, and everybody has the opportunity to enjoy it for the
public good, which is dignifying to them in their own society”

11
 Langergaard (2019), (1) social cohesion;
explaining the various (2) social interaction;
dimensions of “social (3) social justice or equity;
sustainability” (4) sustainability of community;
(5) participation and local democracy.
Moldavanova and “a sustainable organization is understood here as an organization that is capable
Goerdel (2018) of ‘deliver[ing] social value via the pursuit of its social mission’ (Weerawardena,
Robert, and Mort 2010, 347), thus serving the needs of both current and future
generations”
Ceptureanu et al. (2017) “a sustainable NPO is an organization that can continue to fulfill its mission and
satisfy the key stakeholders’ requirements, regardless of difficulties
encountered”
Lee (2017) “closely related to organizational success and failure”
Manfred Bergman et al. “(a) should relate to corporate responsibility but offer something that goes well
(2017) beyond ethics-based considerations;
(b) should integrate and embrace economic concerns, instead of opposing them;
(c) should take into consideration the dependence of economic concerns on
societal and environmental interests and impacts;
(d) should allow negotiations between different stakeholder groups about
conflicts, trade-offs, and contradictions that have scope for application beyond
academic debates;
(e) should be understandable and transferrable across different contexts and
cultures; and
(f) should provide a basis upon which corporate sustainability can be assessed,
measured, reported, and improved”
Jones and Mucha (2014) “(1) living within the world’s natural limits;
(2) understanding the interconnections among economy, society, and
environment;
(3) equitable distribution of resources and opportunities”
Omura and Forster “how to ensure their continuity of services to community”
(2014)
Besel et al. (2011), “the ability of nonprofits to diversify their funding base and subsequently grow
defining financial their operating budget over a five-year period”
sustainability
Weerawardena et al. For a NPO: “being able to survive so that it can continue to serve its constituency”
(2010) Nonprofit sustainability: “the organization will be able to fulfill its commitments
to its clients, its patrons, and the community in which it operates. These
stakeholder groups depend on the nonprofit to service a need and to deliver on
the promise of its mission. Sustainability in this context means stakeholders can
place their trust in that commitment”
For the nonprofit sector: “important societal needs will be met”

The different definitions of CSR show the plurality of the concept. CSR is
moral, incorporating the notions of responsibility (Chung et al., 2019), but also a
strategy (Olaya Garcerá et al., 2020) and above all a commitment and a serie of
social initiatives towards society and the community (Andreini et al., 2014;
Chung et al., 2019; Palakshappa and Grant, 2018). It endorses social,
environmental and economic issues (Lin-Hi et al., 2015).
Social responsibility includes the actions and initiatives seen for CSR, while
stressing them with the values of the NPO (Chelladurai, 2016; Păceşilă and
Colesca, 2020). From this perspective, NPOs also have social, economic and
environmental commitments (Dixit, 2020), but they are viewed through the filter
of social and societal objectives specific to the organization (Chelladurai, 2016;

12
Moldavanova and Goerdel, 2018), its raison d’être (Andreini et al., 2014) and its
mission (Andreini et al., 2014; Pope et al., 2018). Social responsibility is then
translated into several governance mechanisms, including ethics, accountability,
compliance, etc. (Dixit, 2020; Pope et al., 2018).
Sustainability in NPOs, in contrast, is divided into many streams. First,
some researches reduce sustainability to a financial issue of survival (Besel et al.,
2011; Dadić and Ribarić, 2020; Lee, 2017). Second, an internal sustainability is
studied: the NPO must be able to maintain itself over time and to continue its
action (Moldavanova and Goerdel, 2018; Omura and Forster, 2014;
Weerawardena et al., 2010). Third, external sustainability means acting on
behalf of society and meeting societal objectives within the mission and actions
of the NPO (Langergaard, 2019; Weerawardena et al., 2010; Yekini and Yekini,
2020). The last two types of sustainability often intersect in the literature, with
the idea of maintaining the activity that serves the interests of stakeholders and
the community (Ceptureanu et al., 2017; Manfred Bergman et al., 2017;
Moldavanova and Goerdel, 2018; Weerawardena et al., 2010). Once again,
sustainability encompasses economic, social and environmental issues (Jones
and Mucha, 2014; Manfred Bergman et al., 2017).

The concepts of CSR, responsibility and sustainability are often assimilated

because of this common anchoring (Chelladurai, 2016; Lin-Hi et al., 2015;
Moldavanova and Goerdel, 2018; Nevárez and Féliz, 2019; Unerman and
O’Dwyer, 2010; Weerawardena et al., 2010) around the three previous
dimensions. They constitute the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1998), with the
three issues synthesized under the acronym Profit – People – Planet.
A twist to this triptych was made by Moldavanova and Wright (2020) in
particular, proposing to include culture as a fourth dimension of sustainability. If
this development may seem recent, it is in fact as early as the end of the 20th
century that the concept of “culturally sustainable development” appears
(Throsby, 1995). Moldavanova and Wright thus show that sustainable
development can bring together worlds that are often separate and
heterogeneous, namely the economy and culture, but also and above all that
NPOs participate massively in this development.
Beyond their common anchoring, the concepts of CSR, social responsibility
and sustainability have been widely associated in the literature. For instance, the
social responsibility of a hospital, defined as “its moral obligation to deliver
quality healthcare which is patients’ fundamental right” is linked to its
sustainability (Dixit, 2020). More generally, the concepts of CSR and
sustainability are associated in many studies (Chung et al., 2019; Nevárez and
Féliz, 2019), sometimes “viewed interchangeably” (Palakshappa and Grant,
2018; based on Pirnea et al., 2011).

13
 Many publications establish a link between CSR and sustainability
(Filho et al., 2019; van Marrewijk, 2003; Montiel, 2008) while Lin-Hi et al. (2015)
incorporate sustainability into CSR. Idowu (2008) conceptually did the same
incorporation and specified that “corporate entities (…) which aspire to be
perceived by their stakeholders as being socially responsible must be interested
in sustainability and sustainable development”.
Conversely, some authors call for a conceptual distinction and an
operational separation between CSR and responsibility: “the social
responsibilities of any organization (whether profit or nonprofit) must be
distinguished from the discretionary socially oriented initiatives of that
organization” (Chelladurai, 2016). In the same vein, Zeimers et al. (2019)
“contend the need for differentiated research and distinctive approach to
nonprofit social responsibility” compared to CSR. Moldavanova and Goerdel
(2018) contribute to this reflection by explaining that “sustainability should be
properly distinguished from CSR, since sustainability is concerned with the long
term and meeting the needs of future generations, rather than merely balancing
the interests of present-day stakeholders”.
The analysis of the definitions carried out earlier allows differences to
emerge between the three concepts, thus supporting the need for
differentiation:
(1) CSR concerns the relationship that the NPO has with its environment, both
philosophically (its responsibility) and operationally (its actions in favor of
economic, social and environmental issues). The horizon is rather short-
term, strategic and focused on unspecified actions for the protection of
the environment and in favor of society.
(2) Social responsibility integrates social, societal, environmental and
economic issues into the mission and raison d’être of NPOs. The actions
put in place are no longer general, but specific and in line with the values
of the NPO. The horizon therefore seems to be medium to long term.
(3) The sustainability of NPOs is both focused on daily life and on a long-term
horizon, addressing organizational survival and the ability of NPOs to act
over time and adapt over the long term to the demands and needs of
stakeholders and society. For Arhin et al. (2018), sustainability is “an
ongoing process rather than an end in itself; and as multidimensional
construct comprising elements such as financial, social, operational and
identity forms of sustainability”.

Figure 1 illustrates the distinction between CSR and social responsibility,

taking into account different time horizons and whether or not issues are
integrated into the mission. Sustainability, in that it is permanent and

14
cross-cutting, is represented as suggested by Arhin et al. (2018). It is a first
response to RQ1: the three concepts are well differentiated in the literature, in
spite of common roots.
Figure 1: An illustration of the distinction between CSR, social responsibility and
sustainability in NPOs

Sustainability
Focus

Mission-oriented

Social
responsibility

Corporate
social
responsibility

Unspecified

Time horizon
Short term Long term

4.2. Answering to RQ2: an analysis of the definitions and theories

encountered

In order to deal with RQ2, two levels are analyzed: the definitions of the
three concepts as well as the theories underlying the works.

Findings from the previous section distinguish mission-related and non-

specific actions. Thus, CSR actions are not intrinsic to NPOs: the latter have to be
concerned with sustainability and CSR (Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2010). Using the
generalist definition of sustainable development by the Brundtland Commission
(“development which meets the needs of current generations without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”),
Daub et al. (2014) explain the importance of the involvement of NPOs in this
process.

15
 In addition, Moldavanova and Wright (2020) insist on the role of NPOs “as
vehicles of sustainable development”. “Vehicle” terminology is particularly
relevant in our case: while NPOs have a propensity to participate in sustainable
development because of their nature, their mere existence is not enough.
Metaphorically, the vehicle must be run, propelled. In short, the commitment of
NPOs is essential to contribute to sustainable development (Moldavanova and
Goerdel, 2018).
The literature has long confused the concepts a priori for reasons of
simplification while the field of research was emerging. CSR has been an
“umbrella” term for sustainability and social responsibility (Palakshappa and
Grant, 2018). Now more developed, not to mix particularly different realities
seems crucial. The link between CSR and sustainability is not denied
(Palakshappa and Grant, 2018), but the concepts are well differentiated.
These conclusions are in line with Alisa Moldavanova’s researches. In
addition, the review of definitions carried out here confirms the observation she
made with her colleague regarding the interchangability of “organizational
sustainability (…) with the term institutional survival understood at the ability of
organizations to withstand immediate pressures” (Moldavanova and Goerdel,
2018).

An analysis of the theories underlying the works on CSR in NPOs also

confirms the importance of the concept in these organizations. In addition to the
theoretical framework of Elkington (1998) already seen, Carroll’s works (Carroll,
1979, 1991; Schwartz and Carroll, 2003) are also very recurrent. The pyramidal
reflection proposed around economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic
responsibilities sheds light on the subject of CSR in NPOs (Chelladurai, 2016;
Palakshappa and Grant, 2018; Smith, 2011). Discussions then focus on the
“required”, “expected” and “desired” dimensions, as well as their hierarchy.
Within the sample, twelve theories were mobilized. Their application to
CSR and NPOs sheds light on the interest of the subject. Resource dependency
theory, the resource-based view, organizational ecology and stakeholder theory,
for example, emphasize interactions with the environment and stakeholders,
which are crucial in NPOs in the absence of owners. CSR in NPOs thus becomes
a survival issue. Institutional and neoinstitutional theories explain how CSR and
sustainability issues have been able to permeate organizational culture and
reach NPOs. Roles have thus been assigned to the organizations, which serve as
a frame of reference for stakeholders to make judgments, as the attribution and
expectancy violation theories enlighten. In addition, corporate citizenship and
corporate social performance theories provide a framework for CSR and
responsibility in NPOs, by taking up political issues, for example. Finally, social
capital theories counterbalance shareholder visions of responsibility by

16
emphasizing the importance of integrating the NPO into its environment and the
links forged with it. Table ii reviews these theories and highlights their vision of
CSR as well as their adaptation and insights for NPOs. Initially formulated for
FPOs, the adaptation of their principles to NPOs shows the extent to which CSR
also makes sense in these organizations.
Table ii: Theories mobilized to study corporate social responsibility,
social responsibility and sustainability in NPOs
Theory Principles for (C)SR and Contribution about Authors using
sustainability NPOs these theories
Attribution Behaviors are understood and NPOs are scrutinized by their (Lin-Hi et al., 2015)
theory explained by the role assigned stakeholders and have
to organizations. Expectations assigned functions,
in terms of CSR and particularly in terms of CSR
sustainability therefore vary and sustainability.
according to stakeholders.
Corporate The organization is a citizen, NPOs have fundamental (Nevárez and Féliz,
citizenship theory beyond being responsible. political roles, participating in 2019)
The political stakes concern it the co-construction of norms
as much as the economic, and acting as advocacy
social and environmental groups.
aspects.
Corporate social CSR goes beyond economic This vision of performance (Nevárez and Féliz,
performance and compliance frameworks contributes to a definition of 2019)
theory to address social and societal NPOs’ overall performance.
issues (e.g. Carroll, 1979).
Expectancy In a complementary view to With regard to the mission of (Cho et al., 2020; Lin-
violations theory attribution theory, an NPOs, the violation of Hi et al., 2015)
organization will be better stakeholders’ expectations is
perceived if it positively risky.
exceeds the expectations
assigned to it in terms of CSR.
Institutional Institutional pressures force Institutional drivers help (Besel et al., 2011;
theory organizations to apply explain stakeholder Zeimers et al., 2019)
responsible principles. orientation and collaborations
in NPOs.
Neoinstitutional The organizations are NPOs are also subject to (Degli Antoni and
theory particular but are also cultural pressures with Portale, 2011; Pope
integrated in a specific respect to their CSR (for et al., 2018)
cultural space that crosses instance, the reports noted
and penetrates them. above).
Organizational The environment leads The mortality risk of NPOs is (Besel et al., 2011;
ecology organizations to evolve in particularly high because of Moldavanova and
order to survive, selecting the their difficult financial Goerdel, 2018)
most relevant processes. sustainability.
Resource based The search for resources and NPOs are under constraints (Zeimers et al., 2019)
view their potential to be shared and are confronted with a
explains the organizations’ scarcity of resources,
behaviors, as well as the underlining the issue of
obstacles and advantages to sustainability.
CSR.

17
 Resource Organizations and the Dependence on resources is (Moldavanova and
dependency environment are both cause and consequence Goerdel, 2018)
theory interdependent and need in NPOs: interdependence
each other, explaining the explains the strength of
importance of CSR. stakeholders, who are also
providers of resources.
Shareholder The responsibility of The economic dimension is (Nevárez and Féliz,
value theory organizations lies in the the basis for NPOs to survive 2019)
economic vision of survival but is not their only
(e.g. Friedman, 2007). responsibility.
Social capital Social capital is at the heart of The social capital is (Moldavanova and
theories interactions within and sometimes used to define the Goerdel, 2018)
between organizations, is specific nature of NPOs (e.g.
created within CSR practices Labie, 2005).
and contributes to
sustainability.
Stakeholders It provides a holistic view of The goals and values of NPOs (Dixit, 2020;
theory CSR (e.g. Elkington, 1994). are linked to their Moldavanova and
stakeholders’ expectations Goerdel, 2018;
and commitment. Nevárez and Féliz,
2019; Veltri and
Bronzetti, 2014)

In conclusion, the answer to RQ2 may be the following: an analysis of the

definitions of the concepts of CSR, social responsibility and sustainability has
shown that the mission and nature of NPOs is not enough to confuse NPOs and
CSR. Moreover, the theories on which these concepts are based produce specific
and new reflections in the context of NPOs and their interaction with CSR. With
Andreini et al. (2014), the results support that “because of this social value, and
thus the absence of monetary gain, all CSR activities promoted by an NPO could
be interpreted as ‘socially responsible’. However, this seems to be a rather
superficial interpretation”. Thus, the concept is relevant in NPOs, but it needs to
be studied, deepened and operationalized with more precision.

5. Towards a Specific CSR Adapted to Nonprofit Organisations: Answers to

RQ1 and RQ3

The previous section highlighted the importance of the concepts of CSR,

social responsibility and sustainability in NPOs. This section now focuses on the
operationalization of these concepts in studies as well as the interactions with
other managerial concepts in NPOs. The study of measurement methods will
provide a methodological response to RQ1 and RQ3, while the differences
between CSR in FPOs and in NPOs will be explored in greater depth for RQ3 in a
second stage.

18
5.1. A methodological answer to RQ1 and RQ3: CSR measurements in NPOs

For each of the works analyzed, the measurement methods of corporate

social responsibility, social responsibility and sustainability were identified
(Table iii).
Table iii: Measurement methods of corporate social responsibility,
social responsibility and sustainability in NPOs
Tested concept Variable Authors using these
variables
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Economic dimension “providing services necessary to the country” (Chung et al., 2019)
“contributing to the economic development through
re-investing profits”
“being operationalized effectively”
“economic responsibility” (Smith, 2011)
Environmental “providing eco-friendly [products and services] that (Chung et al., 2019)
dimension are different from one provided by [competitors]”
“seeming to take responsibility for environmental
protection since it prevents excessive us of natural
resources”
“trying to reduce its negative environmental impact
through [its CSR initiatives]”
“reducing the negative environmental impact as
much as possible through [its CSR initiatives]”
“Organizational management (good working (Olaya Garcerá et al.,
environment, green campus, ethics and 2020)
transparency)”
“investing sufficiently in green activities” (Andreini et al., 2014)
Social dimension “making various social contributions via providing (Chung et al., 2019)
[its activities]”
“contributing in different ways to the local
community via providing [its activities]”
“having a positive influence on the community,
providing [its activities]”
“focusing not only on economic profits but also
playing an important social role”
“Social participation (integration, co-created (Olaya Garcerá et al.,
projects, participation in external agenda)” 2020)
“Training (project-based learning, inclusion,
networking with external stakeholders)”
“Cognition (inter- and transdisciplinarity, research in
and with the community, production and
dissemination of useful knowledge)”
Being “socially responsible” (Andreini et al., 2014)
“investing sufficiently in social activities”
Relationships with customers / suppliers / (Smith, 2011)
employees / local communities
“socially responsible initiatives” (Zeimers et al., 2019)
Governance and CSR reports (Pope et al., 2018)
accountability Sustainability reports (Veltri and Bronzetti, 2014)
dimensions Social reports (Degli Antoni and Portale,
2011; Nardo and Siboni,
2018)

19
 Ethical and legal responsibility (Smith, 2011)
Ethical code (Degli Antoni and Portale,
“Number of stakeholders represented in the board 2011)
of directors”
Relationships with stockholders (Smith, 2011)
Perceptions of “Positive CSR performance” (Lin-Hi et al., 2015)
nonprofit CSR “No information on CSR performance”
“Negative CSR performance”
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Environmental “Environmental management” (Păceşilă and Colesca,
dimension 2020)
Social dimension “Social performance measurement” (Dixit, 2020)
Focus on “human resources and stakeholders in the (Păceşilă and Colesca,
organization” 2020)
“Social involvement”
Governance and “Sustainability charter” (Dixit, 2020)
accountability “Code of ethics”
dimensions “Whistleblowing protection”
“Performance data”
“Transparency of information” (Dixit, 2020; Păceşilă and
Colesca, 2020)
“Communication” (Păceşilă and Colesca,
Focus on “mission and values” 2020)
SUSTAINABILITY
Overall sustainability “Organizational success and failure” through the (Lee, 2017)
“level of mission accomplishment”
Organizational age
Financial dimension “Performance evaluation indicators” (Dadić and Ribarić, 2020)
“Share of earned income relative to public funding”
“Solvency and liquidity”
“Finance management procedures”
“Satisfied members and volunteers”
“Organizational success and failure” through (Lee, 2017)
“financial performance”
“the rate of change in capacity in each period” (Bowman, 2011)
“Long-term sustainability requires total assets to
grow at a rate no less than the longrun rate of
inflation”
Funding changes and diversity (Besel et al., 2011)
Economic dimension “Organizational success and failure” through (Lee, 2017)
“resource acquisition and efficiency”
“Contributing to local economic development” (Moldavanova and Wright,
2020)
Environmental “Engaging in creative place making-beautifying old (Moldavanova and Wright,
dimension buildings, public spaces, etc.” 2020)
Social dimension “Participating in coalitions with other organizations (Moldavanova and Wright,
for the purpose of influencing policy” 2020)
“Offering community members an opportunity to
connect through cultural activities and programs”
“Promoting social justice within the community”
“Cultivating public appreciation of arts and culture”
“Promoting creativity and cultural expression within
the community”
“Promoting arts as a source of critical reflection of
reality and everyday life”

20
First of all, it is important to note the recent work of Filho et al. (2019), which
combines under the terminology “Social Responsibility and Sustainability
Initiatives” many of dimensions: “economic impacts and considerations, social
impacts and considerations, ethical impacts and considerations, community
impacts and considerations, employee impacts and considerations, stakeholder
impacts and considerations, sustainable development impacts and
considerations, voluntary involvement, legal impact and considerations and
environmental impact and considerations”. The other variables operationalizing
the three concepts are to be found in Table iii. The variables are classified
according to the dimensions of the triple bottom line and additional dimensions
relating to governance or complementary visions.

In order to answer RQ1, a comparison of the dimensions included in the

three concepts is necessary:
(1) The economic dimension does not appear in social responsibility and is
viewed from the perspective of the economic development of
stakeholders as well as organizational effectiveness and efficiency.
(2) The environmental dimension is developed above all through CSR
(investments, reduction of negative impact, etc.), while social
responsibility associates it with environmental management and
sustainability summarizes it to the local environment.
(3) The social dimension focuses on stakeholders (and relationships with
them) as well as the NPO’s contributions to the community.
(4) There is no mention of governance in sustainability but it appears in the
form of reports and transparency, codes and charters, ethics and boards
of directors within CSR and social responsibility.
(5) CSR is sometimes analyzed through the filter of stakeholders’ perceptions
of its performance.
(6) Sustainability also has a financial dimension around financial indicators as
well as an overall dimension (based on age and achievement of the
mission).
The response to RQ1 therefore requires two levels. First, it is necessary to
recognize the predominance of the triple bottom line (known as Profit, People,
Planet), as already pointed out, as well as strong similarities in the economic
dimensions between them and the social dimensions between them. However,
despite these resemblances, the variables tested do not cover the same realities,

21
add dimensions related to governance or finance and approach the
environmental dimension differently.
The methodological analysis carried out here therefore complements the
theoretical findings mentioned in 4.1. The concepts of CSR, social responsibility
and sustainability are intertwined in the literature, and here the methods
intersect with each other. However, in spite of these intersections, the three
concepts are operationalized in various ways.

In order to answer RQ3, the variables presented in Table iii could

undoubtedly be applied in FPOs. In order to deepen the analysis, a comparison
with works that have synthesized publications dedicated to CSR, social
responsibility and sustainability in FPOs is proposed.
In the case of CSR, the work of Barauskaite and Streimikiene (2020)
provides an opportunity to identify classic measures: the publication of
sustainability reports, CSR indices, CSR investments, social expenditures,
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) indices and content
analysis in reports. These variables seek to quantify CSR, while those in the
sample take a more qualitative approach. The correspondence is therefore to be
found with the governance and accountability approach in Table iii.
The comparison between the variables dedicated to sustainability shows
that those retained in NPOs are, on the one hand, very close to those in FPOs
and, on the other hand, that they are particularly partial compared to the list
proposed, for example, by Wikström (2010).
With regard to the variables used to operationalize the concepts studied,
it is not possible to differentiate between NPOs and FPOs. As the field of research
is still emerging, measurement methods are still under development. For this
reason, the study of research question RQ3 have to go beyond the
methodological filter.

5.2. Completing the answer to RQ3: a comparison of the CSR literature in

NPOs and FPOs

In order to understand the particularities of CSR, social responsibility and

sustainability in NPOs, an account of the research carried out by the publications
in the sample is proposed and is then compared to the synthetic works on FPOs
to determine whether the results obtained are generalizable or specific to NPOs.
There are many inspirations from research on FPOs, as the field of
research is still emerging. Thus, in addition to Carroll’s vision, the work
differentiating implicit and explicit CSR (Matten and Moon, 2008) is also included
in NPOs (Palakshappa and Grant, 2018; Phillips and Taylor, 2020).

22
 One of the characteristics of CSR in NPOs remains stakeholders’ pressure
and perceptions. Scholars (Chung et al., 2019; Lin-Hi et al., 2015; Veltri and
Bronzetti, 2014) insist on the reputational dimension and note how the image
that stakeholders have of CSR initiatives and of the organization is sometimes
more important than the action itself. Stakeholder perception is also mobilized
in FPOs (e.g. Costa and Menichini, 2013). However, it is first and foremost an
evaluation tool and, above all, stakeholders have an even more special and
important role in NPOs. In line with the attribution and expectancy violation
theories, stakeholders have a different view of the managerial practices
(including CSR) of NPOs and are more or less demanding compared to FPOs
(Cho et al., 2020; Lin-Hi et al., 2015).
CSR has also been studied in NPOs in order to determine its effects on the
performance: on the perceived quality of activities (Andreini et al., 2014;
Chung et al., 2019), on image and reputation (Chung et al., 2019) and on social
capital (Degli Antoni and Portale, 2011). In short, research linking CSR and
performance in NPOs is based on performance indicators specific to these
organizations which, by definition, are different from those of FPOs.
The link with the NPO’s mission is indeed at the heart of most of the
studies in the sample (Chelladurai, 2016; Phillips and Taylor, 2020), so much so
that CSR is integrated into daily activity (Hogan, 2010) and in governance
(Degli Antoni and Portale, 2011). In the same vain, sustainability and
accountability are seen as “twin concepts” because the mechanisms “shown to
be capable of ensuring a sufficient accountability (…) leads to sustainability”
(Yekini and Yekini, 2020).
The integration and proximity of CSR to governance and accountability
(Alali et al., 2019; Alonso-Cañadas et al., 2019; Besel et al., 2011; Cho et al., 2020;
Jones and Mucha, 2014; Manetti and Toccafondi, 2014; Nardo and Siboni, 2018;
Weidenbaum, 2009) echoes the debate that already exists about the differences
between NPOs and FPOs on the two last concepts. Yet, the governance of NPOs
is conceptually (e.g. Speckbacher, 2008; Stone and Ostrower, 2007) and
operationally (e.g. Fontes-Filho and Bronstein, 2016) distinguishable from that
of FPOs and the literature shows that hybridity is a challenge for governance
(Smith, 2010) as well as for CSR and sustainability (Pope et al., 2018;
Weerawardena et al., 2010). For these two reasons, the concepts of (C)SR and
sustainability in NPOs are to be distinguished from those in FPOs.
The conditions for the success of CSR also make it possible to highlight this
distinction. The organizational factors pointed out by Moldavanova and Wright
(2020) embrace widely varying realities, including the quality of stakeholder
relationships (Moldavanova and Goerdel, 2018). Lee (2017) also notes that the
determinants of organizational sustainability can sometimes be similar between

23
NPOs and FPOs but specificities appear in the former (e.g. human resources or
governance characteristics).
The preceding comments are an indirect response to RQ3, thanks to the
analysis of the works carried out. Nevertheless, the literature has sometimes
directly answered this question. The issue of sustainability and CSR concerns all
organizations: this is the first observation in the literature that has called for
NPOs and FPOs to mobilize (Chelladurai, 2016; Idowu, 2008). However, scholars
have noted that these concepts take on a specific meaning in NPOs (Appe, 2019):
for instance, the sustainability of individual NPOs must be differentiated from
that of collective public services (Moldavanova and Goerdel, 2018;
Osborne et al., 2014). Because of the core values and identity (the raison d'être)
of NPOs (Păceşilă and Colesca, 2020), the literature calls for differentiation
between sectors (Smith, 2011) about (C)SR.
Moreover, Ceptureanu et al. (2017) explain that the sustainability of NPOs
differs from that of other organizations because it allows them to develop their
own commitments: “sustainability in the non-profit sector means that significant
society needs will be fulfilled by non-profits, enabling the business and
government sectors to pursue their own commitments and obligations toward
society without restrictions”.
This vision is in line with the work of Nevárez and Féliz (2019). They shed
light on the different characteristics of CSR. It has a role of “social regulation”,
allowing society to control the organization’s behavior. It is also a “power
relationship”: the interests expressed by the organization and its stakeholders
may conflict and mutual influences are exerted. The authors also make it a
“cultural product”, since CSR is based on values specific to the community in
which the organization operates. Finally, as a “socio-cognitive construction”, CSR
is particularly subjective and depends on the relationship between stakeholders.
This typology provides a final answer to RQ3. If CSR is so contingent, it
depends on each organization. As Zeimers et al. (2019) noted (based on
Athanasopoulou and Selsky, 2015), “CSR is sensitive to institutional context, core
social mission and organizational characteristics”. A conceptualization and study
of CSR in NPOs independent of FPOs is therefore essential. Beyond that, this
reflection calls for works that recognize the diversity of NPOs and thus addresses
the specificities of sub-sectors, types of activities or legal status. The results
obtained are therefore consistent with Selsky and Parker (2010) who underlined
that “organizations in every sector are confronted by and must respond to social
challenges. Yet, long established sectoral differences have traditionally led
organizations to frame social challenges in different ways and to address them
with different ends in mind” (also quoted by Zeimers et al., 2019).

24
6. Discussion and Conclusion

This final section presents a synthesis of the answers to the research

questions as well as the contributions of this article. Limitations and avenues of
research lead to the conclusion.

6.1. Research questions statement

This article pointed out the current questioning around the relevance of
the concept of CSR in NPOs, with the help of three research questions.
First, the relevance of the concept was questioned because of its
interchangeability with social responsibility and sustainability in some academic
works. The analysis of the definitions of the three concepts leads to a recognition
of the similarities but above all points to three complementary concepts, as
illustrated in Figure 1. This finding is repeated in the measurement methods used
in the literature. In short, the concepts are very similar but cannot be confused.
CSR as an independent concept is therefore relevant in NPOs.
Second, the relevance of CSR has been questioned due to the nature,
values and missions of the NPOs. The definitions and the theories that explain
the works dedicated to CSR show that it is not intrinsic to NPOs. CSR as a strategy
or process to be implemented is therefore relevant in NPOs.
Finally, the relevance of CSR as a concept applied to all organizations
without distinction was questioned. In light of recent publications, and despite
the measurement methods used, CSR is not an inclusive concept. In other words,
CSR in NPOs is not the same as CSR in FPOs.
The discussion of the results obtained has been conducted throughout this
paper. It will be completed in the following subsections.

6.2. Theoretical contributions

The theoretical contributions of this paper are multiple. First, it proposes

a clear distinction between the concepts of CSR, social responsibility and
sustainability in the context of NPOs. Then, it resolves the thorny question of the
relationship between NPOs and CSR, which was the gap in the literature: CSR is
indispensable in NPOs, while taking into account their particularities and thus
emancipating itself from the practices of FPOs. The concept of CSR may in the
future become sectoral (like the social responsibility of universities, Olaya
Garcerá et al., 2020) or more global (organizational social responsibility, for
instance).
In addition, this paper is an extension of Barauskaite and Streimikiene
(2020) who reviewed the links between CSR and performance. It complemented
their findings by focusing on NPOs and establishing that, in these organizations,

25
mission achievement and stakeholder engagement matter as much as (financial
and sustainability) performance.
Furthermore, putting into perspective the different theories underlying
the reflection on CSR underlines their complementarity. Monotheoretical
approaches are effective, but the complexity of NPOs requires integrated
theoretical frameworks with a transdisciplinary vision.
Through the study of definitions, theories and variables to operationalize
the concepts, this paper confirms recent works which consider that “CSR
incorporates issues such as accountability, governance, stakeholder
management, sustainability, and ethics” (Lin-Hi et al., 2015) as well as the vision
of a nonprofit CSR to highlight the mission of NPOs (Bivona, 2010).
Finally, it provided a response to the demand for new works on CSR in
NPOs (e.g. Chelladurai, 2016; Waters and Ott, 2014; Zeimers et al., 2019) and
opens up the research perspectives specified below (6.4.).

6.3. Managerial and societal contributions

The clarification of the concepts of CSR, social responsibility and

sustainability in the context of NPOs allows these organizations to illuminate the
vocabulary they use. The aim is to eliminate the potential discomfort (Waters
and Ott, 2014) that some NPOs may have had with a concept that originated in
part from FPOs.
The results obtained in terms of the legitimacy and relevance of CSR in
NPOs also explain the involvement of some of them in the processes of
sustainable development or CSR reporting, while encouraging the generalization
of these practices (or of a discourse on these subjects in annual reports). Finally,
the dimensions associated with CSR, social responsibility and sustainability
(Tables i and iii) can serve as a basis for reflection to develop concrete strategies
and actions.
More generally, this paper sheds light on the situation of NPOs in the face
of crisis (Covid-19, but also identity or socio-economic crisis). NPOs are often
dependent on CSR from FPOs, on funding from public authorities or on
contributions from individuals. CSR by NPOs is therefore in itself a means for
these organizations to enhance ways to show their impact on society and their
stakeholders. The congruence between mission and CSR is an asset that allows
for more effective and, a priori, more complete accountability and thus more
resource attractiveness. In addition, the distinction made between CSR of NPOs
and FPOs helps to counter the identity concerns of NPOs (Plaisance, 2020). The
isomorphisms observed by the literature (Weerawardena et al., 2010) in order
to ensure organizational sustainability should therefore be avoided: NPOs can

26
be inspired by and adapt practices from other sectors but not adopt them as
such.
Finally, in the face of the Covid-19 crisis, which is undermining the
availability of resources in NPOs, this paper reminds that the survival of these
organizations is permanently threatened by their “financial vulnerability”, the
risks of activity interruption and the challenges of “critical” organizational
characteristics, such as human and social capital (Ceptureanu et al., 2017). The
place of CSR in times of crisis is therefore non-negotiable for NPOs, in order to
protect their human resources and preserve their partnerships.
So, this work has highlighted the role of stakeholders in the definition and
relevance of CSR. Similarly, the survival of NPOs depends heavily on the
commitment of stakeholders. They therefore also have a responsibility in the
sustainability of NPOs and in sustainable development by extension. The
implementation of policies in favor of NPOs or facilitating the engagement of
FPOs seems indispensable, especially in times of crisis.

6.4. Limits, avenues for research and conclusion

However, this work has some limits. Although Scopus is a broad-spectrum
database, this paper does not claim to have been exhaustive. Even if some non-
English-language journals or publications are included in the database, they
remain only a minority, and the predominance of work in English is a weakness
of this paper. Bibliometric analyses may complement the work carried out here.
Research perspectives may also complement the contributions of this
paper. Many links can be explored in the future, between CSR, sustainability,
performance, mission success or governance. The current context of multiple
crises could also be addressed.
As noted earlier (6.2.), CSR remains a conceptual challenge (Chaves Ávila
and Monzón Campos, 2018) that requires further development (Olaya
Garcerá et al., 2020), both from a sectoral perspective (Nevárez and Féliz, 2019)
and in terms of new measures and tools (Alamo and Antonio, 2018).
The results also indicated that this field of research was/is emerging. This
raises traditional theoretical questions: should scholars be inspired or
emancipated from research dedicated to CSR in FPOs? Should traditional
theories be adapted or should new theoretical visions be formulated?
Research on isomorphisms and institutional pressures in CSR practices will
be relevant too. In this vein, the mandatory nature of CSR in certain contexts
(Nardo and Siboni, 2018) raises questions about the very notion of commitment
by NPOs (volunteering being the heart of CSR for Bivona, 2010) and the place of
the regulators, authorities and partners.
Finally, the publications in the sample provided their own avenues of
research. The reputational nature of CSR has already been highlighted, but

27
further studies on stakeholder perceptions will be useful to determine their
effects and potential disconnects with reality (Cho et al., 2020). A new
methodological and strategic approach to CSR could be that of capitals (Veltri
and Bronzetti, 2014), as already proposed by the Integrated Reporting (<IR> by
the International Integrated Reporting Council). In addition, CSR and
sustainability are frequently seen from a collaborative perspective (in which
stakeholders are engaged and, above all, rather positively). Moldavanova and
Wright (2020) proposes to remove this conjecture in order to question the
conflicting potential of CSR and sustainability. Finally, within the concepts’
various dimensions, the social one has been the most dealt with (Langergaard,
2019). The others will therefore benefit from being studied in greater depth.
The reasons for the lack of interest in CSR research in NPOs are multiple:
the uncertain terminology (Lin-Hi et al., 2015), the potential pleonasm that the
concept would have constituted with the mission of NPOs (Lin-Hi et al., 2015) or
a focus on NPO-FPO links via CSR (Phillips and Taylor, 2020). These reasons have
been analyzed and discussed in this paper. One can therefore hope that this field
of research will flourish and contribute to the knowledge of CSR in NPOs in order
to meet the challenges of scarce resources or even conjunctural crises that they
are facing.

28
References

References marked with an * are those of the study sample.

*ALALI, F., CHEN, Z. and LIU, Y. (2019), “Sustainability Reporting in Us Government and
Not-for-profit Organizations: A Descriptive Study”, in Baker, C.R. (Ed.), Research on
Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, Emerald Publishing Limited,
pp. 57–79.
ALAMO, B. and ANTONIO, F. (2018), “Organizational Sustainability Practices: A Study
of the Firms Listed by the Corporate Sustainability Index”, Sustainability, Vol. 10
No. 1, p. 226.
*ALONSO-CAÑADAS, J., del MAR GÁLVEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, M., del CARMEN CABA-PÉREZ,
M. and SARAITE, L. (2019), “Online Disclosure of Social Responsibility Strategies:
Perceptions and Reality Among Nonprofit Organisations”, Corporate Social
Responsibility: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, IGI Global,
pp. 1066–1085.
*ANDREINI, D., PEDELIENTO, G. and SIGNORI, S. (2014), “CSR and service quality in
nonprofit organizations: the case of a performing arts association: CSR and service
quality”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 127–142.
*APPE, S. (2019), “Reflections on Sustainability and Resilience in the NGO Sector”,
Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 307–317.
ARHIN, A.A., KUMI, E. and ADAM, M.-A.S. (2018), “Facing the Bullet? Non-
Governmental Organisations’ (NGOs’) Responses to the Changing Aid Landscape in
Ghana”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 348–360.
ATHANASOPOULOU, A. and SELSKY, J.W. (2015), “The social context of corporate social
responsibility: Enriching research with multiple perspectives and multiple levels”,
Business & Society, SAGE Publications, CA: Los Angeles, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 322–364.
BARAUSKAITE, G. and STREIMIKIENE, D. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility and
financial performance of companies: The puzzle of concepts, definitions and
assessment methods”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, No. online first, p. 10.
*BESEL, K., WILLIAMS, C.L. and KLAK, J. (2011), “Nonprofit sustainability during times
of uncertainty: Nonprofit Sustainability During Times of Uncertainty”, Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 53–65.
*BIVONA, E. (2010), “Outlining long term corporate social responsibility strategies in
nonprofit organizations: The case of a Colombian health care insurance”,
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Applied Business Research,
Dubai.

29
*BOWMAN, W. (2011), “Financial capacity and sustainability of ordinary nonprofits:
Financial Capacity and Sustainability of Ordinary Nonprofits”, Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 37–51.
CARROLL, A.B. (1979), “A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate
Performance”, Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 497–505.
CARROLL, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the
moral management of organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 39–48.
*CASEY, T. (2018), Corporate Social Responsibility in Nonprofit Organizations: How
Nonprofits Leverage CSR and Sustainability Reporting, Master thesis, University of
San Francisco, San Francisco.
*CEPTUREANU, S.-I., CEPTUREANU, E.-G., ORZAN, M. and MARIN, I. (2017), “Toward a
Romanian NPOs Sustainability Model: Determinants of Sustainability”,
Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 6, p. 966.
*CHAVES ÁVILA, R. and MONZÓN CAMPOS, J.L. (2018), “La economía social ante los
paradigmas económicos emergentes: innovación social, economía colaborativa,
economía circular, responsabilidad social empresarial, economía del bien común,
empresa social y economía solidaria”, CIRIEC-España, revista de economía pública,
social y cooperativa, No. 93, pp. 5–50.
CHELL, E., SPENCE, L.J., PERRINI, F. and HARRIS, J.D. (2016), “Social Entrepreneurship
and Business Ethics: Does Social Equal Ethical?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 133
No. 4, pp. 619–625.
*CHELLADURAI, P. (2016), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Discretionary Social
Initiatives in Sport: A Position Paper”, Journal of Global Sport Management, Vol. 1
No. 1–2, pp. 4–18.
*CHO, M., PARK, S.-Y. and KIM, S. (2020), “When an organization violates public
expectations: A comparative analysis of sustainability communication for
corporate and nonprofit organizations”, Public Relations Review, p. 101928.
*CHUNG, N., TYAN, I. and LEE, S.J. (2019), “Eco-Innovative Museums and Visitors’
Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 20,
p. 5744.
CORNELIUS, N., TODRES, M., JANJUHA-JIVRAJ, S., WOODS, A. and WALLACE, J. (2008),
“Corporate social responsibility and the social enterprise”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Springer, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 355–370.
COSTA, R. and MENICHINI, T. (2013), “A multidimensional approach for CSR
assessment: The importance of the stakeholder perception”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 150–161.

30
*DADIĆ, L. and RIBARIĆ, H.M. (2020), “Improving the financial sustainability of
nonprofit organizations through tourism‐related activities”, Journal of
Philanthropy and Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, e1692.
*DAUB, C.-H., SCHERRER, Y. and VERKUIL, A. (2014), “Exploring Reasons for the
Resistance to Sustainable Management within Non-Profit Organizations”,
Sustainability, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 3252–3270.
*DEGLI ANTONI, G. and PORTALE, E. (2011), “The Effect of Corporate Social
Responsibility on Social Capital Creation in Social Cooperatives”, Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 566–582.
DHANANI, A. and CONNOLLY, C. (2012), “Discharging not‐for‐profit accountability: UK
charities and public discourse”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1140–1169.
*DIXIT, S.K. (2020), “A new multiperspective emphasis on the public hospital
governance”, International Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 267–275.
ELKINGTON, J. (1994), “Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business
Strategies for Sustainable Development”, California Management Review, SAGE
Publications, CA: Los Angeles, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 90–100.
ELKINGTON, J. (1998), “Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line
of 21st-century business”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 37–51.
*FILHO, W.L., DONI, F., VARGAS, V.R., WALL, T., HINDLEY, A., RAYMAN-BACCHUS, L.,
EMBLEN-PERRY, K., et al. (2019), “The integration of social responsibility and
sustainability in practice: Exploring attitudes and practices in Higher Education
Institutions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 220, pp. 152–166.
FONTES-FILHO, J.R. and BRONSTEIN, M.M. (2016), “Governance Solutions in Listed
Companies and Not‐For‐Profit Organizations”, Annals of Public and Cooperative
Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 391–410.
FRIEDMAN, M. (2007), “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits”,
Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 173–
178.
GARCÍA-SÁNCHEZ, I.-M. and GARCÍA-SÁNCHEZ, A. (2020), “Corporate Social
Responsibility during COVID-19 Pandemic”, Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute,
Vol. 6 No. 4, p. 126.
*GAZZOLA, P., RATTI, M. and AMELIO, S. (2017), “CSR and sustainability report for
nonprofit organizations. An Italian best practice”, Management Dynamics in the
Knowledge Economy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 355–376.

31
*GUTHRIE, J., BALL, A. and FARNETI, F. (2010), “Advancing sustainable management of
public and not for profit organizations”, Public Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 449–459.
HART, O. and ZINGALES, L. (2017a), “Companies should maximize shareholder welfare
not market value.”, Working paper.
HART, O. and ZINGALES, L. (2017b), “Serving Shareholders Doesn’t Mean Putting Profit
Above All Else”, Harvard Business Review, p. 7.
*HOGAN, E. (2010), “Does ‘Corporate’ Responsibility Apply to Not-for-Profit
Organizations?”, in Idowu, S.O. and Leal Filho, W. (Eds.), Professionals’ Perspectives
of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 271–288.
*IDOWU, S.O. (2008), “An empirical study of what institutions of higher education in
the UK consider to be their corporate social responsibility”, Environmental
Economics and Investment Assessment II, Vol. I, presented at the ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMICS 2008, WIT Press, Cadiz, Spain, pp. 263–273.
*JONES, K.R. and MUCHA, L. (2014), “Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for
Nonprofit Organizations: Accountability ‘for the Public Good’”, VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 1465–1482.
KELLY, D. and LEWIS, A. (2009), “Human service sector nonprofit organization’s social
impact”, Business Strategy Series, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 374–382.
KOSCH, O. and SZARUCKI, M. (2020), “An Overview of 25 Years of European Scientific
Collaboration in the Field of Strategic Management: A Bibliometric Analysis”,
European Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 52–69.
LABIE, M. (2005), “Chapitre 4. Économie sociale, non-profit, tiers secteur : à la
recherche d’un cadre de gouvernance adéquat”, Gouvernement d’entreprise,
De Boeck Supérieur, p. 101.
*LANGERGAARD, L.L. (2019), “Interpreting ‘the social’: Exploring processes of social
sustainability in Danish nonprofit housing”, Local Economy: The Journal of the Local
Economy Policy Unit, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 456–470.
*LEE, W. (2017), “Sustainability of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations in a
Neighborhood Context”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 11–24.
*LIN-HI, N., HÖRISCH, J. and BLUMBERG, I. (2015), “Does CSR Matter for Nonprofit
Organizations? Testing the Link Between CSR Performance and Trustworthiness in
the Nonprofit Versus For-Profit Domain”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1944–1974.
*MANETTI, G. and TOCCAFONDI, S. (2014), “Defining the Content of Sustainability
Reports in Nonprofit Organizations: Do Stakeholders Really Matter?”, Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 35–61.

32
*Manfred BERGMAN, Zinette BERGMAN and Lena BERGER (2017), “An Empirical
Exploration, Typology, and Definition of Corporate Sustainability”, Sustainability,
Vol. 9 No. 5, p. 753.
MANO, R.S. (2010), “Marketing and performance evaluations in non‐profit services:
‘Missed’ targeting in communicating stakeholders’ expectations”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 555–570.
MANUEL, T. and HERRON, T.L. (2020), “An ethical perspective of business CSR and the
COVID-19 pandemic”, Society and Business Review, Emerald Publishing Limited,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 235–253.
van MARREWIJK, M. (2003), “Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate
Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 95–105.
MATTEN, D. and MOON, J. (2008), “‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A Conceptual
Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility”,
Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 404–424.
*McDONALD, R. E., WEERAWARDENA, J., MADHAVARAM, S. and MORT, G. S. (2015),
“From “virtuous” to “pragmatic” pursuit of social mission”, Management Research
Review, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 970–991.
MCGRATH, S. K., WHITTY, S. J. (2018), “Accountability and responsibility defined”,
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 687–707.
*MISENER, K., MORRISON, K., SHIER, M. and BABIAK, K. (2020), “The influence of
organizational social responsibility on involvement behavior in community sport
membership associations”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 591–611.
*MOLDAVANOVA, A.V. and GOERDEL, H.T. (2018), “Understanding the puzzle of
organizational sustainability: toward a conceptual framework of organizational
social connectedness and sustainability”, Public Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 55–81.
*MOLDAVANOVA, A.V. and WRIGHT, N.S. (2020), “How Nonprofit Arts Organizations
Sustain Communities: Examining the Relationship Between Organizational
Strategy and Engagement in Community Sustainability”, The American Review of
Public Administration, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 244–259.
MONTIEL, I. (2008), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Sustainability:
Separate Pasts, Common Futures”, Organization & Environment, SAGE
Publications Inc, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 245–269.
*NARDO, M.T. and SIBONI, B. (2018), “Requirements and Practices of Social Reporting
in Italian Not-for-Profit Organisations”, in Tench, R., Jones, B. and Sun, W. (Eds.),
Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, Vol. 12,
Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 299–317.

33
NEESHAM, C., McCORMICK, L. and GREENWOOD, M. (2017), “When Paradigms Meet:
Interacting Perspectives on Evaluation in the Non-Profit Sector: Evaluation in the
Nonprofit Sector”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 192–
219.
*NEVÁREZ, V.L. and FÉLIZ, B.D.Z. (2019), “La responsabilidad social en las dimensiones
de la ciudadanía corporativa. Un estudio de caso en la manufactura agrícola”,
CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, No. 97, pp. 179–
211.
*OLAYA GARCERÁ, J.E., ROJAS MUÑOZ, A.L. and GUTIÉRREZ VERA, H. (2020),
“Responsabilidad Social en la Universidad Santiago de Cali”, Revista Venezolana de
Gerencia, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 65–83.
*OMURA, T. and FORSTER, J. (2014), “Competition for donations and the sustainability
of not-for-profit organisations”, edited by Masudul Alam Choudhury,
P. Humanomics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 255–274.
OPPONG, G.D., CHAN, A.P.C. and DANSOH, A. (2017), “A review of stakeholder
management performance attributes in construction projects”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1037–1051.
OSBORNE, S.P., RADNOR, Z., VIDAL, I. and KINDER, T. (2014), “A Sustainable Business
Model for Public Service Organizations?”, Public Management Review, Routledge,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 165–172.
*PĂCEŞILĂ, M. and COLESCA, S.E. (2020), “Insights on Social Responsibility of NGOS”,
Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 311–339.
*PALAKSHAPPA, N. and GRANT, S. (2018), “Social enterprise and corporate social
responsibility: Toward a deeper understanding of the links and overlaps”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 606–625.
*PHILLIPS, J. F. (1999), “Do managerial efficiency and social responsibility drive long-
term financial performance of not-for-profit hospitals before acquisition?”, Journal
of health care finance, vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 67-76.
*PHILLIPS, S. and TAYLOR, D. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility in nonprofit
organizations: The brokerage role of community housing mutuals”, Strategic
Change, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 425–434.
PIRNEA, I.C., OLARU, M. and MOISA, C. (2011), “Relationship between corporate social
responsibility and social sustainability.”, Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition,
Vol. 14 No. 1.
PLAISANCE, G. (2020), “Covid-19 et solidarités : repenser l’identité organisationnelle”,
Management et Datascience, Vol. 4 No. 4, available at:
https://doi.org/10.36863/mds.a.13136

34
*POPE, S., BROMLEY, P., LIM, A. and MEYER, J.W. (2018), “The Pyramid of Nonprofit
Responsibility: The Institutionalization of Organizational Responsibility Across
Sectors”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1300–1314.
REY-GARCÍA, M. (2008), “Evaluating the organizational performance and social impact
of third sector organizations: a new functional realm for nonprofit marketing”,
presented at the International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR) Conference,
Working Papers Series VI: 1–24.
SCHWARTZ, M.S. and CARROLL, A.B. (2003), “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-
Domain Approach”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 503–530.
SELSKY, J.W. and PARKER, B. (2010), “Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships:
Prospective sensemaking devices for social benefit”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Springer, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 21–37.
*SMITH, A.D. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility implementation: Comparison of
large not‐for‐profit and for‐profit companies”, edited by Balachandran,
K. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 231–246.
SMITH, S.R. (2010), “Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance
challenge”, Policy and Society, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 219–229.
SPECKBACHER, G. (2008), “Nonprofit versus corporate governance: An economic
approach”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 295–320.
STONE, M.M. and OSTROWER, F. (2007), “Acting in the Public Interest? Another Look
at Research on Nonprofit Governance”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 416–438.
THROSBY, D. (1995), “Culture, economics and sustainability”, Journal of Cultural
Economics, Springer, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 199–206.
*UNERMAN, J. and O’DWYER, B. (2010), “Ngo Accountability And Sustainability Issues
In The Changing Global Environment”, Public Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 475–486.
*VELTRI, S. and BRONZETTI, G. (2014), “Intellectual Capital Reporting in the Italian
Nonprofit Sector. An Image-Building or an Accountability Tool?”, in Costa, E.,
Parker, L.D. and Andreaus, M. (Eds.), Advances in Public Interest Accounting,
Vol. 17, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 251–278.
*WATERS, R.D. and OTT, H.K. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility and the nonprofit
sector: Assessing the thoughts and practices across three nonprofit subsectors”,
Public Relations Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3.
*WEERAWARDENA, J., McDONALD, R.E. and MORT, G.S. (2010), “Sustainability of
nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 346–356.

35
*WEIDENBAUM, M. (2009), “Who will Guard the Guardians? The Social Responsibility
of NGOs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. S1, pp. 147–155.
WIKSTRÖM, P.-A. (2010), “Sustainability and organizational activities – three
approaches”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 99–107.
*YEKINI, L.S. and YEKINI, K.C. (2020), “NGO Accountability on Environmentalism: A
Literature Review of Relevant Issues and Themes”, in Yekini, K.C., Yekini, L.S. and
Ohalehi, P. (Eds.), Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, Emerald
Publishing Limited, pp. 139–155.
*ZEIMERS, G., ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, C., ZINTZ, T. and WILLEM, A. (2019), “Examining
Collaboration Among Nonprofit Organizations for Social Responsibility Programs”,
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 953–974.

36
This yearly series of working papers (WP) aims to publish works resulting from
the scientific network of CIRIEC. The WPs are subject to a review process and
are published under the responsibility of the President of the International
Scientific Council, the president of the scientific Commissions or the working
groups coordinators and of the editor of CIRIEC’s international scientific
journal, the Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics.
These contributions may be published afterwards in a scientific journal or
book.
The contents of the working papers do not involve CIRIEC’s responsibility but
solely the author(s’) one.
The submissions are to be sent to CIRIEC (ciriec@uliege.be).

Cette collection annuelle de Working Papers (WP) est destinée à accueillir des
travaux issus du réseau scientifique du CIRIEC. Les WP font l’objet d’une
procédure d’évaluation et sont publiés sous la responsabilité du président du
Conseil scientifique international, des présidents des Commissions
scientifiques ou des coordinateurs des groupes de travail et du rédacteur de la
revue scientifique internationale du CIRIEC, les Annales de l’économie
publique, sociale et coopérative.
Ces contributions peuvent faire l’objet d’une publication scientifique
ultérieure.
Le contenu des WP n’engage en rien la responsabilité du CIRIEC mais
uniquement celle du ou des auteurs.
Les soumissions sont à envoyer au CIRIEC (ciriec@uliege.be).

This working paper is indexed and available in RePEc

Ce working paper est indexé et disponible dans RePEc

ISSN 2070-8289
ISBN 978-2-931051-49-8
EAN 9782931051498
http://doi.org/10.25518/ciriec.wp202102
D/2021/1406/2-d

37
WP Collection 2021
2021/01 A Global but not Spontaneous Firm: Co-operatives and the Solidarity Funds in Italy
Andrea BERNARDI, Cécile BERRANGER, Anita MANNELLA, Salvatore MONNI &
Alessio REALINI
2021/02 Corporate social responsibility in non-profit organizations: Beyond the evidence
Guillaume PLAISANCE

38