voprecotestВопросы экономикиVoprosy Ekonomiki0042-8736Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP10.32609/0042-8736-2016-3-115-130voprecotest-185Research ArticleКОРПОРАТИВНЫЙ СЕКТОРCORPORATE SECTORКорпоративная благотворительностьи корпоративная филантропия: экономико-социологический анализCorporate charity and corporate philanthropy in russia: an economic sociology analysisКузинаО. Е.KuzinaO.

к.  э.  н., PhD, проф. департамента социологии, старший научный сотрудник Лаборатории экономико-социологических исследований НИУ ВШЭ (Москва)

kuzina@hse.ruЧернышеваМ. В.ChernyshevaM.

аспирант департамента социологии НИУ ВШЭ (Москва)

noemail@neicon.ruНИУ ВШЭРоссияNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsRussian Federation20162003201603115130Copyright © Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP, 20162016Voprosy Ekonomiki, NPVoprosy Ekonomiki, NPhttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/about/submissions#copyrightNoticehttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/article/view/185

Существует несколько подходов к объяснению мотивов корпоративной благотворительности и филантропии. В структурном функционализме эти явления связываются с идеей солидарности; согласно институциональному подходу они представляют собой способ легитимации бизнеса; в критической теории корпоративная благотворительность и филантропия выполняют идеологическую функцию - сохранение доминирующего положения господствующего класса. В данной работе существующие модели благотворительности дополняются моделью, в которой этот институт встроен в патримониальный тип взаимодействия между бизнесом и властью: государство предоставляет компаниям привилегию вести бизнес на его территории в обмен на их лояльность.

Several approaches exist that help explain the motivations for corporate charity and philanthropy. Structural functionalism associates these to the idea of solidarity, according to institutional approach they provide legitimacy for businesses, critical theory implies that they play an ideological role in sustaining the leading position of the dominating social class. This paper complements the existing models by treating these phenomena as a patrimonial type of exchange between business and government: the state provides the opportunity for the companies to do business on its territory in exchange for their loyalty.

корпоративная социальная ответственностькорпоративная благотворительностькорпоративная филантропияпатримониальный авторитетМакс Веберcorporate social responsibilitycorporate charitycorporate philanthropytheory of patrimonial authorityMax WeberReferencesГофман А. Б. (2013). Солидарность или правила, Дюркгейм или Хайек? О двух формах социальной интеграции // Социологический ежегодник 2012 / Под ред. Н. Е. Покровского, Д. В. Ефременко. Москва: ИНИОН РАНGofman A. B. (2013). Social solidarity or regulation, Durkheim or Hayek? On two forms of social integration. In: N. E. Pokrovskiy, D. V. Efremenko (eds.). Sotsiologicheskiy Ezhegodnik 2012. Moscow: INION RAS (In Russian)Димаджио П., Пауэлл У. (2010). Новый взгляд на «железную клетку»: институциональный изоморфизм и коллективная рациональность в организационных полях // Экономическая социология. № 1. С. 34-57DiMaggio P., Powell W. (2010). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Ekonomicheskaya Sotsiologiya, No. 1, pp. 34—57. (In Russian).Дюркгейм Э. (1996). О разделении общественного труда. М.: КанонDurkheim É. (1996). The division of labour in society. Moscow: Kanon. (In Russian).Краснопольская И. И. (2013). Связь корпоративной социальной ответственности и гражданского общества: теоретическое обоснование // Гражданское общество в России и за рубежом. № 2. С. 2-7Krasnopolskaya I. I. (2013). The connection of corporate social responsibility and civil society: Theoretical ground. Grazhdanskoe Obshchestvo v Rossii i za Rubezhom, No. 2, pp. 2—7. (In Russian).Кузина О. Е., Чернышева М. В. (2015). Корпоративная благотворительность и ответственность: обоснование понятий // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. № 4. С. 154-165Kuzina O. E., Chernysheva M. V. (2015). Corporate charity and responsibility: clarifying the concepts. Monitoring Obshchestvennogo Mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i Sotsialnye Peremeny, No. 4, pp. 154—165 (In Russian).Ледяев В. Г. (2009). Власть, авторитет и господство в России: основные характеристики и формы // Политическая концептология: журнал метадисциплинарных исследований. № 4. С. 61-94Ledyaev V.G. (2009). Power, authority and domination in Russia: the main characteristics and forms. Politicheskaya Kontseptologiya: Zhurnal Metadistsiplinarnykh Issledovaniy, No. 4, pp. 61—94. (In Russian).Норт Д. (1997). Институты, институциональные изменения и функционирование экономики. М.: НачалаNorth D. (1997). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Moscow: Nachala. (In Russian).Олейник А. Н. (2011). Власть и рынок: система социально-экономического господства в России «нулевых» годов. М.: РОССПЭНOleynik A. N. (2011). Power and market: A system of social and economic domination in Russia in the 2000s. Moscow: ROSSPEN (In Russian).Перегудов С., Семененко И. (2009). Бизнес и государство в социальной сфере: конфронтация или партнерство? // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. № 6. С. 58-66Peregudov S., Semenenko I. (2009). Business and the government in social sphere: confrontation or partnership? Mirovaya Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, No. 6, pp. 58—66. (In Russian).Полищук Л. (2009). Корпоративная социальная ответственность или государственное регулирование: анализ институционального выбора // Вопросы экономики. № 10. С. 4-22Polishchuk L. (2009). Corporate social responsibility or government regulation: An analysis of institutional choice. Voprosy Еkonomiki, No. 10, pp. 4—22 (In Russian).Чирикова А. Е. (2012). Государство и бизнес: взаимодействие на поле социальной политики в современной России // Россия реформирующаяся. Вып. 11 / Отв. ред. М. К. Горшков. М: Новый хронограф. С. 169-190Chirikova A. (2012). The government and business: interaction in the field of social policy in modern Russia. In: M. Gorshkov (ed.). Rossiya reformiruyushchayasya, Vol. 11. Moscow: Novyy Khronograf, pp. 169—190 (In Russian).Шишкин С. В. (ред.) (2005). Бизнес как субъект социальной политики: должник, благодетель, партнер? М.: ВШЭShishkin S. V. (ed.) (2005). Business as a subject of social policy: debtor, benefactor or partner? Moscow: HSE (In Russian).Яровой А. И. (2010). Влияние институтов власти на развитие корпоративной социальной ответственности в России и Европейском Союзе // Бизнес. Общество. Власть. № 4. С. 92-112Yarovoy A. I. The influence of power institutions on the development of corporate social responsibility in Russia and EU. Biznes. Obshchestvo. Vlast, No. 4, pp. 92—112 (In Russian).Arnove R. F. (1980). Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundations at home and abroad. Boston: G. K. Hall.Arnove R. F. (1980). Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundations at home and abroad. Boston: G. K. Hall.Baron D. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 7-45.Baron D. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 7-45.Benabou R., Tirole J. (2003). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 489-520.Benabou R., Tirole J. (2003). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 489-520.Benabou R., Tirole J. (2010). Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility. Economica, Vol. 77, No. 305, pp. 1-19.Benabou R., Tirole J. (2010). Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility. Economica, Vol. 77, No. 305, pp. 1-19.Berman S., Wicks A., Kotha S., Jones T. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 488-506.Berman S., Wicks A., Kotha S., Jones T. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 488-506.Brammer S., Jackson G., Matten D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. SocioEconomic Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3-28.Brammer S., Jackson G., Matten D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. SocioEconomic Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3-28.Brekke K., Nyborg K. (2004). Moral hazard and moral motivation: Corporate social responsibility as labor market screening. University of Oslo Department of Economics Memorandum, No. 25.Brekke K., Nyborg K. (2004). Moral hazard and moral motivation: Corporate social responsibility as labor market screening. University of Oslo Department of Economics Memorandum, No. 25.Campbell D., Moore G., Metzger M. (2002). Corporate philanthropy in the UK 1985-2000: some empirical findings. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 29-41.Campbell D., Moore G., Metzger M. (2002). Corporate philanthropy in the UK 1985-2000: some empirical findings. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 29-41.Carroll A. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons. Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 39-48.Carroll A. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons. Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 39-48.CECP (2015). Giving in numbers. In association with The Conference Board.CECP (2015). Giving in numbers. In association with The Conference Board.Clarkson M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 92-117.Clarkson M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 92-117.Davis K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 312-322.Davis K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 312-322.Dekker P. (2009). Civicness: from civil society to civic services? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 220-238.Dekker P. (2009). Civicness: from civil society to civic services? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 220-238.Domini A. (1992). What is social investing? Who are social investors? The social Investment Almanac. N. Y.: Holt.Domini A. (1992). What is social investing? Who are social investors? The social Investment Almanac. N. Y.: Holt.European Commission (2001). Green Paper - Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Bruxelles: European Commission.European Commission (2001). Green Paper - Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Bruxelles: European Commission.Fleming P., Jones M. (2013). The end of corporate social responsibility: Crisis and critique. L.: Sage.Fleming P., Jones M. (2013). The end of corporate social responsibility: Crisis and critique. L.: Sage.Freeman E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pittman-Ballinger.Freeman E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pittman-Ballinger.Friedman M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13.Freeman E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pittman-Ballinger.Ganiga U., Mele D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 51-71.Friedman M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13.Gautier A., Pache A. (2013). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 343-369.Friedman M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13.Giving USA (2015). The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2014.Ganiga U., Mele D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 51-71.Greening D., Turban D. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 254-280.Ganiga U., Mele D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 51-71.Griffin J., Mahon F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 5-31.Gautier A., Pache A. (2013). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 343-369.Jones T., Wicks A. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 206-221.Gautier A., Pache A. (2013). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 343-369.Kitzmueller M, Shimshack J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 51-84.Giving USA (2015). The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2014.Kotler P., Lee N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Giving USA (2015). The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2014.KPMG (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting.Greening D., Turban D. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 254-280.Kuhn T., Deetz S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/ should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In: A. Crane et al. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Greening D., Turban D. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 254-280.Lev B., Petrovits C., Radhakrishnan S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 182-200.Griffin J., Mahon F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 5-31.Mauss M. (2002). The gift: forms and functions of exchange in Archaic Societies. L.; N. Y.: Routledge.Griffin J., Mahon F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 5-31.Navarro P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 65-93.Jones T., Wicks A. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 206-221.Oliver Ch. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 145-179.Jones T., Wicks A. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 206-221.Parsons Т. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kitzmueller M, Shimshack J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 51-84.Porter M., Kramer M. (2006). Strategy and society. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 12, pp. 78-92.Kitzmueller M, Shimshack J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 51-84.Roelofs J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany: SUNY Press.Kotler P., Lee N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Roman R., Hayibor S., Agle B. (1999). The relationship between social performance and financial performance. Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 109-125.Kotler P., Lee N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Sahlins M. (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. L.: Tavistock.KPMG (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting.Sen S., Bhattacharya C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225-243.KPMG (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting.Sen S., Bhattacharya C., Korschun D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 158-166.Kuhn T., Deetz S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/ should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In: A. Crane et al. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Simon A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 25-44.Kuhn T., Deetz S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/ should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In: A. Crane et al. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sundaram A., Inkpen A. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 350-363.Lev B., Petrovits C., Radhakrishnan S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 182-200.Thorup M. (2013). Pro Bono? Philanthrocapitalism as ideological answer to inequality. Ephemera, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 555-576.Lev B., Petrovits C., Radhakrishnan S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 182-200.Vlachos P., Tsamakos A., Vrechopoulus A., Avramidis P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 170-190.Mauss M. (2002). The gift: forms and functions of exchange in Archaic Societies. L.; N. Y.: Routledge.Vogel D. (2006). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Mauss M. (2002). The gift: forms and functions of exchange in Archaic Societies. L.; N. Y.: Routledge.Weber M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Navarro P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 65-93.Navarro P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 65-93.Navarro P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 65-93.Oliver Ch. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 145-179.Oliver Ch. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 145-179.Oliver Ch. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 145-179.Oliver Ch. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 145-179.Parsons Т. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Parsons Т. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Parsons Т. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Parsons Т. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Porter M., Kramer M. (2006). Strategy and society. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 12, pp. 78-92.Porter M., Kramer M. (2006). Strategy and society. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 12, pp. 78-92.Porter M., Kramer M. (2006). Strategy and society. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 12, pp. 78-92.Porter M., Kramer M. (2006). Strategy and society. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 12, pp. 78-92.Roelofs J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany: SUNY Press.Roelofs J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany: SUNY Press.Roelofs J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany: SUNY Press.Roelofs J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany: SUNY Press.Roman R., Hayibor S., Agle B. (1999). The relationship between social performance and financial performance. Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 109-125.Roman R., Hayibor S., Agle B. (1999). The relationship between social performance and financial performance. Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 109-125.Roman R., Hayibor S., Agle B. (1999). The relationship between social performance and financial performance. Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 109-125.Roman R., Hayibor S., Agle B. (1999). The relationship between social performance and financial performance. Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 109-125.Sahlins M. (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. L.: Tavistock.Sahlins M. (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. L.: Tavistock.Sahlins M. (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. L.: Tavistock.Sahlins M. (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. L.: Tavistock.Sen S., Bhattacharya C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225-243.Sen S., Bhattacharya C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225-243.Sen S., Bhattacharya C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225-243.Sen S., Bhattacharya C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225-243.Sen S., Bhattacharya C., Korschun D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 158-166.Sen S., Bhattacharya C., Korschun D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 158-166.Sen S., Bhattacharya C., Korschun D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 158-166.Sen S., Bhattacharya C., Korschun D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 158-166.Simon A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 25-44.Simon A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 25-44.Simon A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 25-44.Simon A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 25-44.Sundaram A., Inkpen A. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 350-363.Sundaram A., Inkpen A. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 350-363.Sundaram A., Inkpen A. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 350-363.Sundaram A., Inkpen A. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 350-363.Thorup M. (2013). Pro Bono? Philanthrocapitalism as ideological answer to inequality. Ephemera, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 555-576.Thorup M. (2013). Pro Bono? Philanthrocapitalism as ideological answer to inequality. Ephemera, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 555-576.Thorup M. (2013). Pro Bono? Philanthrocapitalism as ideological answer to inequality. Ephemera, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 555-576.Thorup M. (2013). Pro Bono? Philanthrocapitalism as ideological answer to inequality. Ephemera, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 555-576.Vlachos P., Tsamakos A., Vrechopoulus A., Avramidis P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 170-190.Vlachos P., Tsamakos A., Vrechopoulus A., Avramidis P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 170-190.Vlachos P., Tsamakos A., Vrechopoulus A., Avramidis P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 170-190.Vlachos P., Tsamakos A., Vrechopoulus A., Avramidis P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 170-190.Vogel D. (2006). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Vogel D. (2006). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Vogel D. (2006). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Vogel D. (2006). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Weber M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Weber M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Weber M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Weber M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.