University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

Figure 1. Distinction between corporate social responsibility, corporate social
performance and free-riding.
Source: Author’s own diagram.
695
The division as suggested by Baron (2001) may be deemed justified and at least
partly right. In the light of the presented research results as well as other related
works, it seems that in the majority of cases, it is not altruism that motivates
enterprises. Figure 1 presents three possible scenarios: (1) when a business takes
socially desirable activities – CSP, (2) when corporate social performance is
supported by ethical motivation – CSR, and (3) when attendance in voluntary
environmental activities is an example of free-riding. Undoubtedly, some businesses
strive to improve their social and environmental performance but almost always
expect some sort of benefits. Both these motivations tend to concur and should be
deemed complementary. The benefits coveted by businesses include enhancing
image, gaining legitimacy for further operations, minimizing the risk of the other
market players’ adverse response to non-commitment to CSR etc. Clearly, these may
be tangible and intangible benefits; they may also occur shortly or be delayed in time.