The assessment of corporate social responsibility: approaches analysis

. The problem of the last period becomes the assessment of individual areas of Corporate Social Responsibility, which is associated with a number of CSR approaches and with their "ability" to measure achieved level in every CSR item. The aim of this study is, based on a comparative analysis, to identify appropriate approach to assessing the achieved level of Corporate Social Responsibility. The study is organized as follows: the theoretical background (studies) of approaches to evaluating the CSR; the findings about primary and secondary data on structure, purpose and application of approaches to evaluating the CSR, the appropriate approach to evaluating the CSR activities of the company in the light of any previous research; conclusions in dealing with the issues and future research opportunities of the study.


Introduction
Corporate social responsibility comes in many different shapes and sizes which is demonstrated by many authors (Carroll, 1979;Búciová, 2008;Dahlsrud, 2008;Mutz, 2008;Gjølberg, 2009;Kuldová, 2010;Lakin and Scheubel, 2010;Remišová, 2011;Sapkauskiene and Leitoniene, 2014;Figurska, 2014;Tvaronavičienė, 2014;Raudeliūnienė, Tvaronavičienė, Dzemyda and Sepehri, 2014;Grubicka and Matuska, 2015;Baronienė and Žirgutis, 2016).  A watershed in CSR was 1971 when the Committee for Economic Development (CED) published its Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations. As a code of conduct (Committee for Economic Development, Example phrases environmental the natural environment "a cleaner environment" "environmental stewardship" "environmental concerns in business operations" social the relationship between business and society "contribute to a better society" "integrate social concerns in their business operations" "consider the full scope of their impact on communities" economic socio-economic or financial aspects, including describing CSR in terms of a business operation "contribute to economic development" "preserving the profitability" "business operations" stakeholder stakeholders or stakeholder groups "interaction with their stakeholders" "how organisations interact with their employees, suppliers, customers and communities" "treating the stakeholders of the firm" voluntariness actions not prescribed by law "based on ethical values" "beyond legal obligations" "voluntary" Source: Dahlsrud, 2008 The problem of the last period becomes the assessment of individual areas of Corporate Social Responsibility, which is associated with a number of CSR approaches (Business Excellence models, sustainability indexes, standards, initiatives) and with their "ability" to measure achieved level in every CSR item (from the perspective of the authors in the environmental, social, economic, stakeholder and voluntariness item). The aim of this study is, based on a comparative analysis, to identify appropriate approach to assessing the achieved level of Corporate Social Responsibility in the areas mentioned above.
The study is organized as follows: section 2 describes the theoretical background (studies) of approaches to evaluating the CSR; section 3 review the findings about primary and secondary data on structure, purpose and application of approaches to evaluating the CSR; section 4 discusses the appropriate approach to evaluating the CSR activities of the company in the light of any previous research; section 5 are conclusions and discuss the issues and future research opportunities of the study.

Theoretical background 2.1. Business Excellence models
"The fact that the excellence models give a comprehensive definition of the meaning of quality management has stimulated the use of these models not only for applying for an award, but for internal self-assessments to monitor and guide the organization in its quality management implementation" (Kok, Wiele, McKenna and Brown, 2001 The EFQM Excellence Model was the first model, which explicitly showed that social responsibility is strongly related to the quality thinking (Kok, Wiele, McKenna and Brown, 2001). Today it is based on 8 fundamental concepts of excellence, and at least one of those concepts has always been linked with corporate social responsibility (value for customers; creating a sustainable future; leading with vision, inspiration and integrity; succeeding through the talent of people; sustaining outstanding results). It was initially called "public responsibility", later "corporate social responsibility". Actually it is called "creating a sustainable future" and characterized as (EFQM, 2015b) "excellent organizations have a positive impact on the world around them by enhancing their performance whilst simultaneously advancing the economic, environmental and social conditions within the communities they touch".
Studies on the CSR concept in The EFQM Excellence Model can be divided into two main sections :  those that explore the link between the CSR concept and The EFQM Excellence Model as a framework for its evaluation, and  those that explore the effect of such CSR evaluation on company sustainability performances.
The European Foundation for Quality Management defines CSR in relation with The EFQM Excellence Model as (EFQM, 2004) "a whole range of fundamentals that organizations are expected to acknowledge and to reflect in their actions. It includes among other things respecting human rights, fair treatment of the workforce, customers and suppliers, being good corporate citizens of the communities in which they operate and conservation of natural environment". These fundamentals are seen as not only morally and ethically desirable ends in themselves and as part of the organization's philosophy; but also as key drivers in ensuring that society will allow the organization to survive in the long term, as society benefits from the organization's activities and behavior. This opinion has also Gorenak, who expressed that (Gorenak, 2015) "Using EFQM model, organizations have the support of a performance excellence framework founded on the social responsibility principles to develop sustainable approaches on for business excellence for people, planet, and profit. Each organization has to include social responsibility as part of its strategy, but these approaches have to be measured continuously, and the results have to be reviewed and improved as necessary. EFQM 2013 helps organizations to manage quality successfully and operate according to sustainable determination". In (Margaria, 2004) it is stated that "The EFQM framework for CSR is a new and integrated approach that uses The Excellent Model as a common base. The EFQM has been eager to promote The Excellence model as a tool for effective implementation of CSR". Also Abuhejleh and Yehia (2014) expressed, that "The EFQM Excellence Model Framework for CSR is a fresh and integrated approach that practices The Excellence Model as a mutual foundation".
Other studies (Neergaard and Pedersen, 2003;Porter and Tanner, 2004) argue that the model is based on a stakeholder view of the company and companies can be excellent if they satisfy the needs of their stakeholdersstakeholder theory is a common platform for the model as well for much of the literature in CSR. This opinion has also Bucur (2008) and Gorenak (2015). Bucur (Bucur, 2008) considers this model as a very effective management tool that combines CSR with stakeholder engagement in every activity and with many of the performance indicators of the organization. It focuses not only on direct results, but also on the causes and how to get there. Additionally, organizations can easily integrate their existing standards into the EFQM Framework for CSR (for example ISO 9000, ISO 14000 etc.), since it is a management framework, not a standard. Gorenak expressed that (Gorenak, 2015)  In (Abuhejleh and Yehia, 2014) it is stated that "The EFQM CSR Toolbox provides complete and compatible formats for CSR self-assessment, evaluation, and reporting that can be used by any organization. Undertaking this process gives an organization the opportunity to take a step back from its daily operations and assess its overall CSR performance in the form of a series of strengths and areas for improvement, and through a means of comparison to other organizations". A critical review is presented in  who found that "The CSR concept can be found in The EFQM Excellence Model, but it lacks activities especially in the environmental and voluntariness items", and in (Kok, Wiele, McKenna and Brown, 2001)  These responsibilities refer to basic expectations of your organization related to business ethics and protection of public health, safety, and the environment". In 2003 the core value was re-named "Social Responsibility" although the content remained essentially unchanged (American Society for Quality, 2003). Today, three of 11 core values and concepts are very closely tied to CSR principles (NIST, 2015):  Societal responsibility (by health care "societal responsibility and community health"): Leaders should stress responsibilities to the public, ethical behavior, and the need to consider societal well-being and benefit, which refers to leadership in and supportwithin the limits of an organization's resourcesof the environmental, social, and economic systems in the organization's sphere of influence.  Ethics and transparency: Ethical behavior and transparency build trust in the organization and a belief in its fairness and integrity that is valued by all key stakeholders. Organization should stress ethical behavior in all stakeholder transactions and interactions. Transparency is characterized by consistently candid and open communication on the part of leadership and management and by the sharing of clear and accurate information.  Delivering value and results: By delivering value to key stakeholders, organization builds loyalty, contributes to growing the economy, and contributes to society. Results should be used to deliver and balance value for organization's key stakeholdersstudents, customers, workforce, stockholders, suppliers, and partners; the public; and the community. Thus results need to be a composite of measures that include not just financial results, but also educational program and service results, process results; student, other customer, and workforce satisfaction and engagement results; and leadership, strategy, and societal performance. Studies on sustainable indexes can be divided into three sections (Jankalová, 2016):  those that explore the structure of sustainability indexes (Sjöström, 2004;Holt, Kido, Kolind, Mitchell, Song and Swartz, 2004;Hamner, 2005;Kašparová, 2006; …),  those that explore the purpose of sustainable indexes (Sjöström, 2004;Beurden and Gössling, 2008;Cerin and Dobers, 2008;…) and  those that explore other dimension, such as their application by the evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility activities of companies (Avlonas, 2004;Jankalová, 2013;…).
A combination of the first two approaches is research of E. Sjöström (2004), in which he identified thirteen companies providing sustainability indexes for European, American, Asian, and/or Global markets. It was showed that (Sjöström, 2004) all indexes also do an evaluation of the financial robustness of the companies, because there wouldn't be much of a point of these indexes if there was a financial trade-off. No investor would sacrifice financial pay-off even if it was for a "good cause", because their one and only mission is to maximize the return 448 on the investment. The different providers draw the index constituents from varying investment universes: Some use "conventional" indexes, such as Standard and Poor's Global index or Dow Jones World Index. Most sustainability indexes are market capitalization weighted, which means that each stock's weight in the index is proportionate to that stock's total market value. Many indexes have a fixed number of constituents, so if one company is excluded it is immediately replaced with another. The number of constituents in the identified indexes varies from 45 to 2,343. The indexes are normally reviewed every three or four months to ensure that the index composition accurately represents leading sustainability companies, and some are also monitored daily for environmental, economic and social crisis situations that may lead to exclusion from the index. The major underlying purpose behind the sustainability indexes is to measure the performance of companies that meet certain sustainability criteria, and to provide investors with an SRI benchmark (Sustainable Responsibility Investment). In other words, they want to facilitate socially and environmentally responsible investments. Some index providers have a more extensive purpose, in that they also want to increase awareness about CSR and SRI and encourage socially and environmentally responsible behavior, and one could suspect that they are not only profit-driven but also values-driven in their pursuit.
Hamner (Hamner, 2005)  with the aim to find the core sustainability criteria used by the 12 indexes and to count the criteria by conceptual groups. The results are in Table 3 and it shows the most popular criteria used by the analyzed indexes. 449 This research provides (Hamner, 2005), that the most significant observation is the strong focus on internal employee relations for sustainability, such as health and safety, labor relations and pollution prevention. Hamner's point of view, investors understand that good performance is created by a good business culture and sustainability programs should focus on internal development first and external efforts second. It was also being noted that three of the dominant criteria are often integrated: training and education leads to pollution prevention which improves health and safety. Hamner's research confirmed earlier realized research (Holt, Kido, Kolind, Mitchell, Song and Swartz, 2004), who analyzed indexes DJSI, Ethibel, FTSE4Good, Domini400 and Calvert. By the comparison of monitoring areas, he came to the conclusion that the monitored area of the individual indexes differed evidently. On the discrepancy of indexes also pointed Kašparová (2006), her research was based on extensive research of Hamner (2005).
The second section on studies focuses on the purpose of sustainable indexes, which explore the link between sustainable indexes and areas as Corporate Social Performance (CSP) and Sustainable Responsibility Investment (SRI). Beurden and Gössling (2008), also in line with Sotorrio and Sanchez (2008), describe CSP as a concept of three categories (Comincioli, Poddi andVergalli, 2012):  CSP1: social disclosure about social concern (Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes, 2003;Wu, 2006),  CSP2: corporate action, such as philanthropy, social programs and pollution control,  CSP3: corporate reputation ratings or social indices that may be provided by social rating institutions, such as KLD, EIRIS, Fortune, Moskowitz or ad hoc indices drawn up by the researchers themselves (Beliveau, Cottrill and O'Neill, 1994;Brammer and Pavelin, 2006;Hillman and Keim, 2001;Johnson and Greening, 1999;Mahoney andThorne, 2005;Moore, 2001). Cerin and Dobers (2008) in their study "The contribution of sustainable investments to sustainable development mentioned" (Cerin and Dobers, 2008): In the last decade there has been a surge of new sustainable investment mutual funds and indices (SiRi Company, 2004;Sjöström, 2004). This has spurred critical research on their compositions, including ratings (Koellner, Weber, Fenchel and Scholz, 2005;SustainAbility, 2004;Figge, Schaltegger, 2000). Cerin and Dobers (2001a) found that other factors than sustainability (e.g. market capital size and back casting methodology) explained the Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index (DJSGI) out performance of Dow Jones Global Index (DJGI). The likely reason is the fact that DJSGI has selected its components mainly on the basis of information from the companies themselves (Cerin, Dobers, 2001b). Illnitch, Soderstrom and Thomas (1998) evaluated environmental ratings and found them to rely on public reactions rather than on precise and measurable outcomes. Instead the subjectivity in their formulations may raise a dangerous circularity where the rankings are based on reputation and the reputation is partly based on the ranking. Hawken and the Natural Capital Institute (2004) have, moreover, detected that almost identical constituents have been chosen (as of Oct. 2003) in the combined portfolio holdings of American SI mutual funds as of the 30 largest market capitalization size firms composing the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Some researchers (Cerin and Dobers, 2001a;Louche, 2004), however, also conclude that sustainability indices have indeed contributed to making sustainable investments a viable commercial project and transformed sustainable investments to an element of the broader Corporate Social Responsibility field.
The last groups are studies dealing with the application of the sustainability indexes by the evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility activities of companies (Avlonas, 2004;Jankalová, 2013;Jankalová, 2016). It is especially this research field that indexes are the tools of reporting, self-assessment and assessment of CSR activities of companies (Table 4).

environmental and economic impacts of its operations into policy and strategy and the day-to-day management of an organization, taking all stakeholders into account". The model is divided into the same nine criteria as The EFQM Excellence
Model. Five of these are "Enablers" and four are "Results". A separate criterion for measuring the organization's impact on the society is the criterion 8 "Society Results", according to which (EFQM, 2013) "excellent organizations achieve and sustain outstanding results that meet or exceed the needs and expectations of relevant stakeholders within society". The weight of sub-criteria is shifted with regard to perception and internal indicators. The sub-criterion 8a Measurement of Perception has the weight of 25% and the sub-criterion 8b Performance Indicators has 75%. This indicator with the weight of 10% within the whole model indicates the rate of corporate social responsibility, level of its influence over the environment and its benefits and significance for the society. The measurement of CSR activities of the enterprise according to criteria of The EFQM Excellence Model is significantly exact. The rate of meeting sub-criteria of assumptions and sub-criteria of results is assessed within individual criteria in the range from 0 to 100% on the grounds of the RADAR principle. Together with this scoring methodology are the organizations able to identify the strengths and the items where they need to focus on improvement.
The criteria for Performance Excellence in The Malcolm Baldrige Model for Performance Excellence include CSR in various forms (NIST, 2015), mostly in the categories Leadership and Results (Senior Leadership, Governance and Societal Responsibilities, Customer-Focused Results, Leadership and Governance Results). The CSR concept is in other criteria linked within their individual items . Already  when creating the Organizational Profile, some supporting questions are aimed at the CSR item, such as in the part Organizational Relationships -Customers and Stakeholders: "What are your key market segments, customer groups, and stakeholder groups, as appropriate?, in the part Strategic Context: What are your key strategic challenges and advantages in the areas of business, operations, societal responsibilities, and workforce?" Between strategic advantages (mentioned in the part Organizational Situation) are listed also (NIST 2015): Environmental ("green") stewardship and Social responsibility and community involvement.
The measurement of CSR activities of the enterprise according to criteria of The Malcolm Baldrige Model for Performance Excellence is also significantly exact. The scoring of responses to items is based on two evaluation dimensions: Process and Results, in the range from 0 to 100%. The four factors used to evaluate process are Approach, Deployment, Learning and Integration (ADLI). The four factors used to evaluate results are Levels, Trends, Comparisons and Integration (LTCI). Together with this scoring methodology are the organizations able to identify the strengths and the areas where they need to focus on improvement.
Jankalová and Jankal in  identified the proximity rate of the CSR concept in two models, namely The EFQM Excellence Model and The Malcolm Baldrige Model for Performance Excellence, as they belong to frequently used approaches in the practice. The calculation of the proximity rate of the CSR concept in the analyzed models depends on the number of sub-criteria or criteria of the model, in which the i-th CSR item appears. The determination of the proximity rate was preceded by:  determination of sub-criteria in the analyzed models in the i-th CSR item appears,  determination of the number of criteria of the model in the i-th CSR item appears (N c CSR i ),  calculation of the model CSR criterion score ( m CSR ics ). The results of these findings are stated in the Table 5, where N c CSR i = number of criteria of the model in the i-th CSR item appears; N mc = number of all criteria of the analyzed model; m CSR ics = model CSR criterion score; NR m CSR ics = proximity rate of the CSR concept in criteria of the respective model. Source: Jankalová and Jankal, 2016 The main conclusions of the study of Jankalová and Jankal (2016) are :  the CSR concept can be found in each of the analyzed models, the difference is in the determined proximity rate of the concept in those models,  the shortcoming of the analyzed models is the uneven representation of individual CSR items in sub-criteria the calculated weightings of the five CSR components in The EFQM Excellence Model were (after recalculation): environmental = 1,20; social = 2,00; economic = 2,60; stakeholder = 3,00; voluntariness = 1,20; the weightings of the five CSR components in The Malcolm Baldrige Model for Performance Excellence were (after recalculation): environmental = 1,35; social = 2,40; economic = 2,20; stakeholder = 2,70; voluntariness = 1,35,  the analyzed models lack the list of activities within individual CSR items,  the analyzed models lack activities especially in the environmental and voluntariness items.

Sustainable indexes
The problem of the indexes (Jankalová, 2013) is the objectivity of the data collected, since the source of them are personal interviews, websites, annual reports, reports on sustainable development and proper environmental protection of analyzed companies. Despite verification by the independent auditor, these reports often show signs of subjectivity due mainly mutual incomparability of data. Another problem is transparency in the evaluation of corporate social responsibility provided by rating agencies, since these agencies often use a methodology which is not disclose, because it is their know-how. Some rating agencies published indexes that assess only the company's reputation. In this case, the starting point is stakeholders' views on the company obtained especially by questionnaire survey. The problem in this case is known favoring of large companies, as these communicate with the public more often than small, of which beneficial activities know often only closed group of people. Mentioned indexes are also the basis for sustainable investments. The problem is that, since individual indexes are different in analyzed areas and also in indicators in the various areas and scales defined for each area, it is very difficult to compare these indexes.
Incomparability of indexes also causes (Jankalová, 2016):  The various definitions of corporate social responsibility that ambiguously identify the desired behavior of the business entity. While in overseas countries, we can talk more about corporate philanthropy (for many companies is that donations to foundations and support non-profit projects) in Europe CSR reflected in integration of principle areas of corporate social responsibility into the business strategy of the company.

Identification of the appropriate approach to evaluating the CSR activities of the company
Research problem of this study is the identification of the appropriate approach to evaluating the CSR activities of the company in five areas of CSR, namely: environmental, social, economic, stakeholder and voluntariness. The identification of the appropriate approach is presented as multi-criteria analysis. The approach of Jankalová and Jankal  for the calculation of the model CSR criterion score was used also for sustainable indexes (namely FTSE ESG and RobecoSAM). The selection of sustainable indexes was determined by the availability of the structure used by the evaluation. Five areas of CSR are used as the criteria with the equal importance. The evaluation matrix is in the Table 6.   From the Table 8 follows that the best approach for evaluating the CSR activities of the company may be considered The Malcolm Baldrige Model for Performance Excellence.

Conclusions
Praxis is proof of the fact that there are currently methods, norms and initiatives that enable evaluation of the CSR activities of the company. As the framework can be used Business Excellence models, sustainability indexes, standards and initiatives. Business Excellence models, as the models with fixed scale of criteria, has recently, with the increase of importance of corporate social responsibility, also became the framework for evaluating the CSR activities of the company. Between the best known models belong The EFQM Excellence Model in Europe and The Malcolm Baldrige Model for Performance Excellence in the USA. According to the own multi-criteria analysis, The Malcolm Baldrige Model for Performance Excellence is more suitable framework for evaluating the CSR activities of the company, as The EFQM Excellence Model, or sustainability indexes (namely FTSE ESG and RobecoSAM).
Despite the number and variety of approaches to the evaluation of CSR activities of the company authors of this study recommends companies to evaluate their own activities based on their selected approach. The question is "Which one?". By the approach of Avlonas (Avlonas, 2004) important is also the purpose of the evaluation of CSR activities of the company -Tool for reporting, Tool for self-assessment or Tool for assessment? According to the aim of the study, decisive was the approach that is suitable as the tool for self-assessment and tool for assessment too. Approach which would only serve as a tool for reporting would cover only part of the CSR and we could not talk about the complex approach for evaluating the CSR activities of the company. For company reporting are essential standards as Global Reporting Initiative, World Business for Sustainable 454 Development Reporting Project and AA1000 AccountAbility/Assurance Standard. The GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (ISO, 2014) are the most widely used sustainability reporting framework in the world and enable all companies and organizations to report on their economic, environmental, social and governance performance. GRI's mission is to make sustainability reporting standard practice.
Due to changes in the requirements of stakeholders, there is a constant revision of Business Excellence models, sustainability indexes, standards and initiatives, which are suitable for the evaluation and reporting of CSR activities of the company. Therefore, dealing with this issue is important in the future because it is necessary to continuously monitor CSR activities of the company.
The results of the study may represent a starting point for future research, oriented also on the possibilities of application of other Business Excellence Models as the approaches to evaluating the CSR activities of the company.