2.1 Bibliometric analysis

For the analysis of publications, the methodology proposed by Martínez, Bravo, and Becerra (2013) was followed. It comprises the collection, processing, and analysis of bibliometric information for the generation of results. The Scopus® database was selected as it is the largest base for abstracts and bibliographical references for scientific literature reviewed by academic peers, counting 18,000 titles and 5,000 international publishers; today, it is the best tool for bibliometric studies on scientific production, added to an increase in the number of publications on CSR between 2000 and 2018, as compared with other multidisciplinary databases (Smolarek & Sipa, 2020).

The analysis of scientific documents shows the impact and trends of scientific production (Tejedor-Estupiñán & Tejedor-Estupiñán, 2019); therefore, bibliometrics represents the application of quantitative methods to find bibliographic connections that make it possible to identify the literature standing out in the area of interest (Nita, 2019; Xue et al., 2020). For this reason, indicators make visible productivity, collaboration, citation, visibility, impact, recent, frequently cited documents, and the h index (Vitón, Diaz-Samada & Martínez, 2019).

The search protocol was defined between 2012 and 2016, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established (Table 1) as well as the combination of key words.

The profile for the search equation included criteria and coupling of terms (Table 2), which generated 591 articles when prototyped in the database, highlighting authors and institutions, the production dynamics, and the evolution of the subject matter. Then, titles, keywords and abstracts were read thoroughly; therefore, the initial number was narrowed down to 64 publications.

2.2 Systematic review

The systematic review from bibliometrics in the methodological phase allowed to identify patterns of literature, impact studies, and theoretical-conceptual evolution (Lopes & De Carvalho, 2018); in turn, it led to the development of a reviewing protocol which materialized as a structured analysis of information (Martínez-Usarralde, Gil-Salom & Macías-Mendoza, 2019). According to Ferreira, Urrutia and Alonso-Coello (2011) , systematic reviews are:

“Scientific research in which the unit of analysis comes from primary original studies; they provide an essential tool to synthesize the scientific information available; to increase the validity of conclusions in individual studies and identify areas of uncertainty where it is necessary to conduct research; however, conducting a quality systematic review is not an easy task, and sometimes its interpretation is not easy either” (p.689).

For Santana, Morales-Sánchez and Pasamar (2020) , the development and evolution of literature related with CSR makes conducting bibliographic studies that identify theoretical and methodological trends among stakeholders in socially responsible practices, including materials and methods used to obtain results worth it (Pérez, 2019). Consequently, three stages were implemented: 1) review planning; 2) development of review and interpretation, and 3) presentation of results (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003).

3.1 Approaching stakeholders

There is a wide range of bibliography on stakeholders; however, most authors agree on the fact that philosopher Edward Freeman is the father of this theory. In his book Strategic Management a Stakeholder Approach, he states that the world of business takes up new administrative and productive roles facing the globalized change in technologies, communications, and the economic system. He also states that companies went from small family homes to multinational corporations with representative progress in their corporate actions, with significant effects on the society and their surroundings (Freeman, 1984). Hence, organizations hold countless interests at stake, not only from shareholders and owners, but from all groups and communities they interact with (Seguí, 2012).

Corporate actions and productive activities have both a direct and indirect impact on the well-being of stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, clients, providers, local communities, the natural environment, the government, and society in general; since the expectations of every group of stakeholders are defined according to their needs (Alniacik, Alniacik, & Genc, 2011). In this respect, Post, Preston and Sachs (2002) state that stakeholders are defined as “individuals and groups that voluntarily or involuntarily contribute to a business’ capacity and activities for the creation of wealth, and consequently they are the business’ potential beneficiaries and/ or risk holders” (p. 8). In this sense, their corporate influence is important (exogenous influence) as the success and implications of corporate management and organizational image depend on this influence (Noto & Noto, 2018).

According to Freeman “one of the stakeholders in an organization is any group or individual who may affect or be affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p.25). On the other hand, Bryson (1995) states that stakeholders may present an ownership claim before an organization to defend their rights and request guarantee on responses to their reality. These examples of stakeholders refer to a governmental body, trade unions, social organizations, political parties, the financial community, and the citizens (Corrêa & Miranda, 2011). Likewise, Chung, Lin, and Yang (2012) state that these claims are emphasized on the corporate objectives facing responsible actions towards the surrounding social and environmental settings.

Although the primary definition of stakeholders put forth by Freeman (1984) has revolutionized the corporate world regarding the affectation of stakeholders, what this definition denotes has evolved to include providers, environmentalists and other groups that may contribute to or hinder organizational purposes. For this reason, Clarkson (1995) divides stakeholders into primary and secondary. Primary stakeholders are indispensable for the corporation to develop and achieve its social purpose and comprising shareholders, investors, employees, clients, suppliers, and the so called public stakeholders (communities and the government), who provide infrastructure, markets, laws and regulations, thus creating interdependence between the corporation and primary stakeholders (Moura- Leite, Padgett, & Galán, 2014; Colvin, Witt, & Lacey, 2016).

Secondary stakeholders are those who influence or affect, or are influenced by the company; however, they do not conduct direct operations nor are they essential for its survival. This wide definition of secondary stakeholders includes communication media and non-governmental organizations, since they have the capacity to mobilize the public opinion to support or oppose the success of the company (Moura-Leite et al., 2014).

CSR practices addressed to primary stakeholders are prone to lead to changes in equity. With their power, stakeholders can demand a higher financial and social performance and their demands are likely to get immediate attention, although theory and empirical evidence for the connection between financial performance and CSR are not conclusive (McWilliams & Siegel, 2000; Margolis & Walsh 2003). Secondary stakeholders, on the contrary, have little power and urgency when exerting pressure on their legitimate demands on the corporation (Chang, Kim, & Li, 2014).

Regarding stakeholder theory, it is worth highlighting that it has been presented both within the framework of the organization as corporate management that stems from dialogic ethics, which is the basis for the development of CSR strategies (Freeman, 1984). It has also been used to overcome the macroeconomic approach or the neoclassical theory which identifies the maximization of economic growth of the company, making owners the only ones involved in such purpose (Agudo-Valiente, Garcés- Ayerbe, & Salvador-Figueras, 2015).

According to Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (2015), the concept of stakeholders provides an ample institutional perspective on the accountability reports of the company, which establishes the promotion of an alternative to Milton Friedman’s traditional approach as a fundamental factor, with the monetary factor as the one and only purpose, in turn, this theory refers to the need to balance the needs and the interests of stakeholders (Ferrero, 2014). Although Freeman’s theory starts with the strategic vocation of management, Carroll (1991) argues that it is developed from the legal perspective, and the ethical engagements of the organization stakeholders are all those involved with the functioning, development, management, and economic success of the company (Harjoto, Laksmana, & Lee, 2015).

Donaldson and Preston (1995) offer more analytical depth to our understanding of Carroll’s stakeholders theory by introducing the articulation of four dimensions: (1) a descriptive dimension, which represents what managers really do regarding commercial relationships; (2) an instrumental dimension, when defining the results or consequences of specific actions performed by administrators on behalf of their organizations; (3) a regulatory dimension, in response to the ethical question that must be considered by managers and organizations; and (4) management in searching for support from professionals in learning how to develop the complex network of relationships within the stakeholders (Weber & Gladstone, 2014).

Consequently, the importance of stakeholders’ theory is framed within corporate logics that allows for their configuration within the ethical, legal, economic, and socially responsible aspects of the organization. Hence, Coetzee and Van Staden (2011) refer that CSR is defined from dialogue with all its stakeholders, claiming that the performance evaluation of an organization must include the assessment by its stakeholders on social matters as part of an ethical commitment (Arrigo, 2013).

3.2. CSR Trends

CSR originated in the 19th century in the United States and Europe under the initiative of some Christian businessmen who tried to improve the conditions of their workers; then, in the 1920s a philanthropic trend sparkled in corporations. However, under the pressure of governments, organizations had to undertake the responsibility for water and air pollution because of their productive processes, together with the risks they represented for their workers and the population. Later, in the 1970s, the concept of CSR was coined by the academy under a systemic approach, under which the company moves from a closed to an open system, connected with its surroundings through actions and earnings which are not exclusively for shareholders and owners but also involve stakeholders (Barrera & Quiñones, 2011).

CSR has acquired national and international relevance as responsible management by the company, which makes it possible to balance economic growth and competitiveness, and in turn improve the quality of life and the preservation of the environment. Although there is a certain level of uncertainty in its conceptualization, efforts to develop fundamental aspects in its definition by both researchers and organizations are clear, as in the case of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the United Nations Global Compact, and the United Nations Associations of Spain. Consequently, there is a theoretical background related with CSR, supported on the systematic review with the application of the concept and approaches from the perspective of several researchers.

At this point, it is worth mentioning that the influence of the organization from the late 19th century and its participative role in the economic growth of countries in the 20th century led society to undertake productive behavior from the economic, social and environmental areas, viewing it as a cell that guarantees organizational capability and collective wellbeing as a new corporate practice known as CSR. This responsible management of the organization is established from four principles that allow for shared value (Arrigo, 2013) and classify CSR into four aspects: economic, ethical, legal and philanthropic responsibility (Mahon & Wartick, 2012; Arrigo, 2013; Wang & Juslin, 2013; Wang & Berens, 2014; Bai & Chang, 2015).

In view of the above, Cheng, Ioannou and Serafeim (2014) in their study Corporate Social Responsibility and Access to Finance, point out that CSR is the increase in demand, quality and commercialization of products and services framed in social legitimacy. Likewise, Servaes and Tamayo (2013) ; Lins, Servaes, and Tamayo (2017) ; and Bose, Saha, Khan, and Islam (2017) argue that the company that develops a socially responsible policy guarantees a better financial performance, more opportunities in the market, a high probability to have access to resources of all kinds; even social and environmental innovation processes are more easily implemented (Martinez- Conesa, Soto-Acosta, & Palacios-Manzano, 2017).

In contrast, Friedman affirms that practicing CSR with the participation of the community is a distraction from its finality, which is to generate economic interests, and it should be aimed to maximizing the value of these interests towards sustainable business; consequently, if managers have the purpose of working for the improvement of society, this should be done individually, not at the expense of the company’s earnings (Ingley, Mueller, & Cocks, 2011). In this way, CSR contributes to the improvement of the information environment with financial analysts who optimize earnings with very little chance for losses (Maaloul, Ben Amar, & Zeghal, 2016).

Mutual benefit CSR articulates social impact and the company’s profits (Porter & Kramer, 2011); that is, there is coherence between economic growth and stakeholders (Blodgett, Hoitash, & Markelevich, 2014). A socially responsible business transcends the maximization of economic benefit towards the stakeholders, since CSR represents the self-regulation capacity of businesses in the social and environmental spheres through their relationship with stakeholders (Gao, 2011). Hence, CSR turns into the organizational commitment to prevent, mitigate, and minimize the impact permeating benefits for stakeholders; in addition, it gears the administrative and financial performance of a company towards a sustainable management of production (Alniacik et al., 2011).

These connections of the term CSR with ethics are consistent with responsibility as the ethical commitment of companies, as they decide to take responsibility for something (an interest) or someone (a person or group) and take up actions and strategies to prevent and mitigate the damage caused; in other words, the organization as an active subject of responsibility recognizes, values and accepts the consequences of its decisions under the guidelines of their corporate ethical principles (Iborra, 2014). It is worth clarifying that CSR is not only consolidated with respect to the environment and the use of clean production systems, its lines of action also include ethical conduct articulated with the wellbeing of stakeholders and corporate profitability (Agudo, Garcés, & Salvador, 2012).

In this way, a good corporate government is related with its stakeholders when its actions do not only obey to economic interests, but they also implement processes from voluntary behaviors which are free from legal and social pressure (Preciado, 2015). Philanthropic actions involve diagnosing endeavors through international standards on work and environmental practices, being publicly accountable (triple line: economic, social, and environmental) and fulfilling the expectations of their stakeholders (Stiglbauer, Kühn, & Häußinge, 2014).

The Stakeholders Approach has become the most notorious paradigm in CSR, leading to a debate from the capitalistic Anglosaxon shareholders concept, which holds that companies should address their interests exclusively to their shareholders. On the other hand, the notion of capitalism of stakeholders recognizes that companies are also responsible for their workers and local communities (Ingley et al., 2011). Since 1984, Freeman confirmed that the competitive advantage of a company is based on its reputation and its capacity to attract its stakeholders with quality actions, preserving the efficiency of the organization operations and the quality of the products/services, which lead to the improvement of their level of satisfaction and the creation of a sense of belonging.

In this way, through CSR, the bases for the commitment of a company to operate in an economically and environmentally sustainable way by complying with the interests of their stakeholders are founded (Nejati, Amran, & Hazlina Ahmad, 2014). In line with Freeman, Agudo-Valiente et al. (2015) emphasize the idea of proactivity of CSR, when stating that it becomes a strategic tool that allows companies to satisfy the needs and expectations of stakeholders.

According to the Institutionalist Approach, the company tends to behave in an opportunistic manner to obtain better benefits in the short term, unless institutions intervene to mitigate this behavior. Michelon, Boesso, and Kumar (2013) point out that application of CSR under institutionalist guidelines focuses on the generation of profit and opportunities for the companies to obtain benefits from society; that is, they use corporate investments on social causes as a short-term strategy to overcome a negative reputation, so it takes up the role of a sort of tax or license to do profitable, sustainable business.

Several CSR approaches point out that the power of the company in its surroundings is based on the balance between the responsibility to prevent and correct social issues resulting from the influence of the organization and promoting the generation of profit that improves its reputation. In this regard, emphasis is made on three approaches: the macroeconomic (liberal) position, related with the increase in the profits resulting from free, open competition, without any interaction with external individuals and the surroundings; the microeconomic (social) position, which demands a responsible organizational behavior; and the intermediate position, which highlights its counter position from an integrated application approach, regarding the current performance of the companies within the setting of responsible practices.

The macroeconomic approach emerged between 1969 and 1970, in defense of economist and statistician Friedman, who stated that CSR is geared towards actions and practices that increase economic benefits without intending to take up responsibilities beyond their competence, within a framework of transparent competition. This postulate is supported on Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”, which states that the interaction of individuals in the market, guided by their own interests, will lead to the general good in a more effective and efficient way than if any other entity or institution wished to intervene in these dynamics (Ingley et al., 2011). From this optics, CSR doctrine aimed at the service of society is considered subversive, as it distorts the functioning of the market by generating inefficiency in the allocation of available resources; in theory, the neoclassical economic point of view suggests a negative connection between CSR and market fundamentalism (Walley & Whitehead, 1994; Gingrich, 1995).

In contrast, the microeconomic approach interprets CSR as a marketing strategy to achieve corporate success and economic benefits, besides gathering initiatives that involve and improve the conditions of their social and environmental surroundings. Hence, the company is socially responsible when it emphasizes its economic stability in connection to its corporate ethics to contribute to the good of society. Cheng et al. (2014) state that companies that undertake CSR with efficacy and efficiency are favored in four respects: they reduce investment and loss costs; the participation of stakeholders is effective; CSR dissemination becomes a long-term, credible, and transparent tool; and corporate objectives expand onto social components. This argument suggests that commitment with responsible initiatives promotes a better performance and prevents the altruistic bias of the activities between the business and the society.

According to Chung et al. (2012) , the overall picture of an organization that guides its actions from a microeconomic approach is revealed through the issuance of sustainability reports, as they promote transparency with regards to the social and environmental impact of the company as well as its governing structure; besides, it allows for changes in the internal control systems that improve the level of compliance with regulations and reliability of information. Hence, from the microeconomic perspective, CSR reveals itself as a determining factor for corporate durability, in addition to innovative alternatives for productive development and the possibility to promote new settings for social transformation, without hindering the growth of the company in terms of economic capital, including the human, social and cultural capital, the defense of life in all its forms, and the recovery of the ecosystem (Deng, Kang, & Low, 2013).

There are intermediate approaches, among which the Cost of Transaction stands out. This approach holds that the economy requires an appropriate social, juridical, and regulatory context to generate security in the economic exchanges which facilitate the development of companies, minimizing transaction costs. Brower and Mahajan (2013) argue that the adoption and implementation of CSR strategies leads to a higher output from the organization, as it promotes organizational commitment on the bases of mutual trust and cooperation; as a result, there is a reduction in agency costs, transaction costs and costs associated with team production. This improves profit, prevents residual losses, and promotes social actions. In addition, responsible management based on the reduction of costs facilitates an appropriate working environment; it generates quality products and services, undertakes an ethical conduct, and establishes cooperation networks (Cheng et al., 2014).

3.3. Valuation of stakeholders from the CSR perspective

The concepts under which stakeholders are assessed are classified into six approaches, namely:

Indeed, Agudo et al. (2012) propose assessing the impact of the Degree of Communication with Stakeholders (DCS) on its Socially Responsible Performance (SRP). They establish a separate measuring model using information provided by a set of indicators or manifest variables. Besides, a structural regression model is specified, which takes DCS as an independent variable and SRP as a dependent variable, and it allows assessing the impact of DCS on SRP. In consequence, they built a structural equations model that may simultaneously estimate the parameters of the two measurements and the regression models; this is a valid tool for studying these types of relationships (Bollen, 1989).

Power refers to physical resources like strength, violence, or restriction (coercive power), it may be symbolic (regulatory power) or it may take the form of material or financial resources (utilitarian strength); legitimacy is a generalized perception or supposition that the actions of an entity are desirable, adequate or appropriate within a socially constructed system of norms, values and beliefs; in turn, urgency is based on two attributes: sensitivity (the unacceptable degree at which management of response to requests or the relationship with stakeholders is delayed) and criticality of time (the importance of the claim or the relationship) (Mitchell et al., 1997; Looser & Wehrmeyer, 2015). The combination of power, legitimacy, and urgency results in seven categories of stakeholders: definitive, dependent, dangerous, dominant, demanding, discretional, and numb (Mit-chell et al., 1997; Looser & Wehrmeyer, 2015).

KLD indicators: these indicators came up on the bases of the stakeholder’s framework proposed by Clarkson. Further studies have focused on measuring socially responsible performance by using data provided by the company; Kinder, Lydenburg, & Domini (KLD) provide yearly classifications for more than 3,000 companies (Inoue & Lee, 2011).

In particular, the following five indicators are commonly implemented in studies related with stakeholders: (1) relationships with employees based on the level of participation in topics related with their interests; (2) the quality of the products, assessed in terms of how a company takes care of consumption relationships, offering quality and/ or innovative products, while guaranteeing their safety. (3) Community relationships consider whether the company supports communities through the implementation of charitable donations, educational initiatives, and volunteer programs. (4) Regarding the environment, the level of support to the environment by the company is represented by the use of clean energy, the provision of products and services that respect the environment, and recycling programs. (5) Diversity is classified as a company integrates minority groups into their management and operations through the appointment, promotion and hiring of women and workers from different ethnical backgrounds, minorities, and people with differential abilities (Inoue & Lee, 2011; Weber & Gladstone, 2014; Blodgett et al., 2014; Michelon et al., 2013; Brower & Mahajan, 2013).