Practices and Factors Influencing Construction Enterprises’
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: a
Conceptual Framework
Q Zhang
*
, B L Oo and B T H Lim
Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052
Abstract. Understanding the practices and factors influencing CSR implementation is
important for construction enterprises in formu lating effect ive strategies for CSR
imple mentation in today’s era of sustainable development. This study aims to explore
construction enterprises’ CSR behavior. Based on a revie w o f the literature, this research
presents a conceptual modal on practices and factors influencing construction enterprises’
CSR implementation by integrating three underpinning theories (i.e. , stakeholder theory,
institutional theory and self-determination theory). The results show that there are ten CSR
aspects (with 36 sub-aspects) which closely relate to enterprise’s stakeholders. The identified
ten CSR aspects are shareholders, environment preservation, local co mmunity; employees;
clients or owners; suppliers; government; competitors; non-government organizations (NGO);
CSR institutional arrangement. It was found that construction enterprises’ CSR
implementations are affected by five groups of factors, namely: coercive factors; mimetic
factors; normative factors; intrinsic factors; and identified factor. This framework will be
tested in subsequent stages of the research project.
1. Introduction
The construction industry is often criticized for their lack of respect for the environment,
confrontation with clients and inconsideration towards society [1]. Given that construction activities
will always involve, to some extent, adverse environmental and social implications [2], corporate
social responsibility (CSR) has been advocated and promoted as a complementary measure in the
construction sector (e.g.,[3-5]). In general, CSR emphasizes the overall contribution of businesses to
sustainable development and fundamentally contributes to improve human well-being [6]. In essence,
CSR is socially, environmentally and economically advantageous [7]. For the many previous studies
on CSR in the construction industry, researchers’ focusses were on: the evaluation of CSR
performance (e.g., [8-10]); relationship between CSR performance and organization performance
(e.g., [11]); CSR communications (e.g., [12]); and drivers, motivators and barriers of CSR actions
(e.g., [8, 10, 12]). However, the implementation of CSR in the construction industry is still largely
informal, unsophisticated, immature, narrowly focused (mainly on environmental activities),
compliance driven and in its infant stages of development [13]. Hitherto, there are few studies that
attempted to (i) provide a comprehensive view of CSR practices of construction enterprises as well
576
Zhang, Q., Oo, B. and Lim, B.
Practices and Factors Influencing Construction Enterprises’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: a Conceptual Framework.
In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Environmental Management, Science and Engineering (IWEMSE 2018), pages 576-583
ISBN: 978-989-758-344-5
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

the categorizations of CSR practices; and (ii) investigate how the collective influence of different
factors on CSR implementation of construction enterprises.
In addressing these gaps, based on a review of the literature, this research presents a conceptual
modal on practices and factors influencing construction enterprises’ CSR implementation by
integrating three theories (i.e., stakeholder theory, institutional theory and self-determination theory
(SDT)). Understanding these CSR practices and influencing factors within the industry could help
construction enterprises to formulate effective strategies for CSR implementation, thus ultimately
promote the development of sustainable construction management [14].
2. Research methods
The development of the conceptual framework of this study is based on literature review. Peer-
reviewed research articles in CSR within the construction domain were undertaken a content analysis.
For this research, the purpose of content analysis, as indicated by Stemler [15], is to allow for
contextualizing and identifying the categorization of CSR practices and their impact factors in the
construction industry. Firstly, diverse classification of construction enterprises’ CSR practices
developed by previous scholars was compared, so as to identify generic aspects and sub-aspects of
CSR practices. Thereafter, by reviewing of relevant theories underpinning construction enterprises’
CSR behaviors, factors influencing CSR implementation mentioned in relevant studies can be easily
extracted and grouped into different categories. Finally, we integrated three underpinning theories
and proposed the conceptual framework which includes identified CSR practices and its impact
factors.
3. Literature review
3.1. Categorization of CSR practices
While there is a considerable amount of research attempted to classify CSR practices into different
aspects, it appears there is a lack of consistency in various categorization attempts (e.g., [8-10]). The
review reveals that one of the most common approaches is the application of stakeholder theory as
the theoretical underpinning to group CSR practices (e.g., [12, 16, 17]). According to stakeholder
theory, the CSR essentially serves to manage a number of stakeholders, to fulfill expectations of
diverse stakeholders, and to build a bridge between corporations and general society [18].
Accordingly, authors had classified CSR practices by relating CSR practices to the respective
stakeholders of construction enterprises (e.g., [10, 16, 19]). However, not all classifications were
organized by linking CSR practices directly to diverse stakeholder groups. Some significant aspects
are regarded as the individual categories such as environmental aspect and CSR institutional
arrangement (e.g., [8, 10]). For instance, by coupling project and corporate level CSR practices, Zhao
et al. [10] translated CSR performance issues to nine stakeholders, including employees, shareholders,
customers, suppliers and partners, resources and environment, local communities, government,
competitor, and NGO. Wu et al. [9], on the other hand, identified seven stakeholder-related CSR
practices categories to assess the Chinese international contractors’ CSR performance, including
labor practices, environment, fair operating practices, community involvement and development,
human rights, shareholders’ rights, and organizational governance. Construction quality and safety
were also addressed as one of the most important aspects of CSR practices. Nevertheless, some
studies attempted to separate it as an individual standalone aspect (e.g.,[8]), while some studies
recognized it as a sub-aspect of clients or owners’ CSR practices (e.g., [10]). This study adopted the
latter viewpoint in which quality and safety of construction product is seen as a company’s
responsible action for their clients or owners. Collectively, CSR practices can be categorized into ten
aspects (with 36 sub-aspects) which closely relate to enterprise’s stakeholders. The identified CSR
aspects include shareholders, environment preservation, local community, employees, clients or
Practices and Factors Influencing Construction Enterprises’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: a Conceptual
Framework
577

owner, suppliers and partners, government, competitors, NGO and CSR institutional organization, as
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Aspects and sub-aspects of construction enterprises’ CSR practices.
Aspects
Sub-aspects
Aspects
Sub-aspects
Shareholders
Shareholder legal revenues
Clients or
owners
Quality and safety of construction product (CL)
Accurate disclosure of corporate status and
development prospects
Client satisfaction
Decision-making participation
Client service
Shareholder relationship management system
(SH)
Disclosure of true performance information of
the company (CL)
Environment
preservation
Conservation of energy and resources
Enhancing communication and collaboration
with partners/supplier
Environment protection principles
Suppliers and
partners
Disclosure of credit records
Environmental training and education
Promoting CSR performance of partners and
suppliers
Research & Development (R&D)
Green supply chain management
local
community
Project impact on the community
Government
Obeying the requirements of laws and policy
Harmonious community relationship
Providing employment opportunities
Community involvement
Participation in public policy development
Employees
Occupational health and safety of employees
Engaging in urban renewal programs
Legal working hours and rest time
Competitors
Operation ethically
Wages and welfare
Fair competition
Staff employment
NGO
Social and public service strategy
Education and training
Media
Freedom of association and bargaining
Institutional
organization
CSR institutional organization
Harmonious labor/management relationship
Human rights
3.2. Categorization of factors influencing CSR implementation
External institutional and internal organizational factors can both lead to CSR implementations.
Institutional theory was firstly developed to address the influences of external environment on
implementation of organizational practices [20]. Authors have applied the institutional theory on
evaluation of CSR practices and drivers of Chinese state-owned companies [14], and how to motivate
CSR practices in Russia [21], and multi-national enterprises [22] as well as CSR disclosure [22].
According to institutional theory, isomorphism is the best description of the process of
homogenization of an organization through coercive, mimetic and normative ways [23, 24]. Thus,
institutional isomorphism can be divided into three different isomorphism processes, namely coercive
isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism and normative isomorphism [23]. According to institutional
theory, the coercive isomorphism process arises because of the pressure from powerful or critical
stakeholders, such as investors, clients and government policy. Coercive factors refers to those in
power can motivate companies to implement conform practices [14]. For instance, authors (e.g.,[4,
25, 26]) indicated mandatory requirements and regulations from government policy, clients’ demand
on CSR practices (e.g., green material), competitors’ CSR strategies, labour union requirement (e.g.,
legal working hours and rest time, occupational health and safety) can all serve as coercive factors
that bring pressure to firms to implement CSR practices. DiMaggio and Powell posited that in the
IWEMSE 2018 - International Workshop on Environmental Management, Science and Engineering
578

mimetic process, organizations try to emulate or copy other competitors’ successful practices, mainly
to obtain competitive advantage in terms of legitimacy [23]. In this way, the mimetic factors can be
defined as those isomorphic factors from competitors. Previous studies (e.g., [1, 4, 10]) recognized
that profitability; human resource benefits; innovation and technology development (e.g., renewable
energy, BIM technology); supplier-induced benefits (cost discount); collaborative advantage;
investment attraction; award or certification; brand, image and reputation benefits brought by the
competitor’s CSR practices can motivate organization’s mimetic CSR actions. The third and final
isomorphic process is normative isomorphism which relates to the pressures emerging from common
values to adopt particular institutional practices [24]. The normative factors could motivate
companies to implement legitimate organizational activities in order to be perceived as conformity.
Studies in the domain of CSR in the construction (e.g.,[1, 27]) revealed that normative factors relate
to public expectation or pressure, media attention, common social culture and community pressure.
Nevertheless, construction enterprises may have various levels of CSR performance driven by
internal organizational factors even when they are subject to similar external institutional factors [14].
According to SDT, intrinsic factors relate to the individual construction enterprises’ own sake,
pleasure, and satisfaction derived from engaging CSR activities rather than for some separable
consequences. In other words, organizations view CSR practices as inherently interesting or
enjoyable. Brown et al. [28] pointed out that enterprises would take CSR actions based on
organizational business strategies and organizational culture. On the other hand, from an
organizational perspective, enterprises are more willing to take CSR actions if they have enough
resources and capability [29]. Additionally, SDT supposes that individuals can perform out of choice
and volition, such as when the individual organization considers CSR to be important. In this way,
identified factor can be derived from the organizational awareness of the importance of CSR
practices. Many previous studies (e.g., [11, 12, 30]) support this viewpoint, indicating that well
organizational awareness, knowledge and positive attitude on CSR may lead to more active CSR
practices. Table 2 summarizes the factors identified in the literature that may influence the CSR
implementation of construction enterprises.
Table 2. Factors influencing CSR implementation of construction enterprises.
Coercive factors
Mimetic factors
Normative factors
Intrinsic factors
Identified
factor
Governmental policy
Profitability
Public
expectation/pressure
Business strategy
Attitudes
towards CSR
practices
Investor/client
pressure
Human resource benefits
media pressure
Organizational culture
Joint venture pressure
Innovation and technology
development
Common social culture
Resource and capability
Labor union
organization pressure
Supplier-induced benefits
Community pressure
Collaborative advantage
Investment attraction
Award or certification
Brand, image and reputation
benefits
4. The proposed conceptual framework
This study adopted three theories to underpin the proposed conceptual framework for explaining
construction enterprises’ CSR practices that are influenced by both external institutional and internal
organizational factors. They are: (i) stakeholder theory; (ii) institutional theory; and (iii) SDT. From
the perspective of stakeholder theory, organizations would engage in CSR activities and disclosure
CSR information in order to discharge their responsibility to all their stakeholders (in the ethical
Practices and Factors Influencing Construction Enterprises’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: a Conceptual
Framework
579

perspective), or to economically powerful stakeholders (in the managerial perspective).
Organizations’ disclosure of certain aspects of their operation information is in line with their
stakeholders’ right-to-know the rewards brought by CSR practices such as increased turnover and
corporate reputation [31], enhanced employee loyalty, attraction of talented personal [32], and
minimized adverse impact on the environment [33]. In addition, some pressure from critical
stakeholders can also drive organizations’ CSR practices [24, 28]. From the managerial perspective
of stakeholder theory, the motivation of organizations’ CSR implementation is driven by the desire to
manage the powerful stakeholders, while the ethical branch highlights the desire of organizations to
be responsible to all their stakeholders irrespective of their economic power [24]. Therefore, all the
CSR benefits and pressures from the critical stakeholders could be direct or indirect motivations for
CSR implementation.
Turning into intuitional theory, coercion, imitation and normative pressures are three major
driving forces influencing organizations to adopt CSR practices. Top management of construction
enterprises would try to conform to norms that are substantially imposed upon their organizations by
adopting CSR practices that society (including enterprises’ stakeholders) or powerful groups
(powerful or critical stakeholders) consider as “normal” [24]. However, whether the organizations’
behavior reap them with legitimacy depends on the extent of which the organizations’ performance
meets the society’s expectations or is recognized by the society. Organizations could attempt to meet
legal standards by complying with statutory obligations in a rather reactive manner, but they may not
obtain legitimacy because they could not meet the expectations of the majority of their stakeholders.
Through proactive CSR behaviors, organizations can deliver the information accurately and credibly
to stakeholders that they are making efforts to improve the social and environmental performance
positively, and finally improving the legitimacy in a given system with norms, values, or beliefs, so
as to obtain stakeholders’ acceptance and support [34]. Nevertheless, institutional theory emphasizes
more on external environment influences on organizational behavior, SDT is used here for addressing
both external and internal motivations for CSR practices. Corresponding to SDT, individual
organizations’ CSR practices are not only influenced by external environment, but also motivated by
internal organizational factors. In this sense, coercive, mimetic and normative factors can be regarded
as external motivations, while intrinsic motivations occur when construction enterprises have the
corresponding organizational culture, business strategies, resource and capability within their
organizations, and/or when top management consider CSR to be important (known as identified
motivations).
IWEMSE 2018 - International Workshop on Environmental Management, Science and Engineering
580

Organizational
culture
Identified
Factors
Resource and
capability
Business
strategies
C SR practices
Shareho ld ers
Environ m ent
preservation
Local
com m un ity
Em plo yees
Clients/o w n ers
Suppliers
G overnm ent
C om petitors
N on-
go vernm ent
organ ization
C SR
institutional
arrang em ent
Figure 1. The proposed conceptual framework.
In summary, the interconnection of these theories can be succinctly highlighted as “organizations
are motivated by external and internal factors to implement CSR practices to obtain and protect their
legitimacy by meeting the institutional and organizations’ stakeholders’ expectations”. Figure 1
shows the proposed conceptual framework that underpinned by the three theories. The innermost
circle presents the ten CSR aspects. The internal circle with bolded dotted line denotes construction
enterprises’ internal organizational boundary with their businesses environment. It also demonstrates
the enterprises are operating in dynamic systems and subject to institutional pressure from the
businesses environment.
5. Conclusions
Based on a review of the literature, this paper identified ten aspects and 36 sub-aspects CSR practices
as well as five categories of factors influencing construction enterprises’ CSR practices
implementation. The proposed conceptual framework integrates the CSR practices and influencing
factors by using stakeholder theory, institutional theory, and self-determination theory. This
framework provides an insight into the external institutional and internal organizational factors
influencing CSR implementation within construction enterprises. The framework could be adopted
for testing its validity using a sample population of construction enterprises engaged in CSR practices.
Acknowledgment
Qian Zhang gratefully acknowledges the funding and support provided by the University of New
South Wales-China Scholarship Council (UNSW-CSC) joint scholarship.
Practices and Factors Influencing Construction Enterprises’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: a Conceptual
Framework
581

References
[1] Duman D U, Giritli H and McDermott P 2016 Corporate social responsibility in construction
industry A comparative study between UK and Turkey Built Environment Project and
Asset Management 6:218-31
[2] Ojo E, Mbowa C and Akinlabi E 2014 Barriers in Implementing Green Supply Chain
Management in Construction industry
[3] Manne H G W H C 1972 the modem corporation and social responsibility: Washington
D.C:American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
[4] Jones P, Comfort D and Hillier D Corporate social responsibility and the UK construction
industry Journal of Corporate Real Estate 2006;8:134-+
[5] Liao P C, Shih Y N, Wu C L, Zhang X L and Wang Y Does corporate social performance pay
back quickly? A longitudinal content analysis on international contractors Journal of
Cleaner Production 170:1328-37
[6] Dahlsrud A 2008 How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions.
Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manage 15:1-13
[7] Galbreath J 2010 How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from
Australia Eur Bus Rev. 22:411-31
[8] Jiang W Y and Wong J K W Key activity areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the
construction industry: a study of China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;113:850-60.
[9] Wu C L, Fang D P, Liao P C, Xue J W, Li Y and Wang T 2015 Perception of corporate social
responsibility: the case of Chinese international contractors Journal of Cleaner Production
107:185-94
[10] Zhao Z Y, Zhao X J, Davidson K and Zuo J A 2012 corporate social responsibility indicator
system for construction enterprises Journal of Cleaner Production 29-30:277-89
[11] Loosemore M and Lim B T H 2017 Linking corporate social responsibility and organizational
performance in the construction industry Construction Management and Economics 35:90-
105
[12] Liao P C, Xia N N, Wu C L, Zhang X L and Yeh J L 2017 Communicating the corporate
social responsibility (CSR) of international contractors: Content analysis of CSR reporting
Journal of Cleaner Production 156:327-36
[13] Lim B T H and Loosemore M 2017 How socially responsible is construction business in
Australia and New Zealand? In: Ding L, Fiorito F, Osmond P, editors. International High-
Performance Built Environment Conference - a Sustainable Built Environment Conference
2016 Series Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Bv. p 531-40
[14] Zhu Q H and Zhang Q Z 2015 Evaluating practices and drivers of corporate social
responsibility: the Chinese context Journal of Cleaner Production1 00:315-24.
[15] Stemler S 2001 An overview of content analysis Research & Evaluation 7:137-46
[16] Jiang W and Wong J K W 2015 Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility into the
Construction Process: A Preliminary Study International Conference on Construction and
Real Estate Management p 18-27
[17] Wu C L, Yeh J L, Liao P C and Fang D P 2015 Benchmarking analysis on corporate social
responsibility perception of Chinese international contractors Journal of the CICHE 27:75-
80
[18] Mitchell A B and Wood D J 1997 Toward a Theory Academy of Stakeholder Identification and
Salience 24:853-86
[19] Zhu Q H, Zhao T L and Sarkis J 2011 An Exploratory Study of Corporate Social and
Environmental Responsibility Practices among Apartment Developers in China J Green
Build 6:181-96
[20] Hirsch P M 1975 Organizational effectiveness and the institutional environment Adm Sci Q
IWEMSE 2018 - International Workshop on Environmental Management, Science and Engineering
582

327-44
[21] Fifka M S and Pobizhan M 2014 An institutional approach to corporate social responsibility in
Russia Journal of Cleaner Production 82:192-201
[22] Hah K and Freeman S Multinational enterprise subsidiaries and their CSR: A conceptual
framework of the management of CSR in smaller emerging economies. Journal of business
ethics. 2014;122:125-36
[23] DiMaggio P and Powell WW 1983 The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and
institutional isomorphism in organizational fields Am Sociol Rev. 48:147-60
[24] Fernando S and Lawrence S 2014A theoretical framework for CSR practices: integrating
legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and institutional theory Journal of Theoretical
Accounting Research 10:149-78
[25] Othman A A E and Mia B 2008 Corporate social responsibility for solving the housing
problem for the poor in South Africa J. Eng Des Technol 6:237-57.
[26] Botero L F B 2009 Corporate Social Responsability in the Construction Industry Ad-Minister
105-23
[27] Zeng S X, Ma H Y, Lin H, Zeng R C and Tam V W Y 2015 Social responsibility of major
infrastructure projects in China Int J. Proj Manage. 33:537-48
[28] Brown J, Parry T and Moon J 2009 Corporate responsibility reporting in UK construction
Proc Inst Civ Eng-Eng Sustain. 162:193-205
[29] Lim B T, Ling F Y, Ibbs C W, Raphael B and Ofori G 2010 Empirical analysis of the
determinants of organizational flexibility in the construction business Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 137:225-37
[30] Barnes L R and Croker N 2013The Relevance of the ISO26000 Social Responsibility Issues to
the Hong Kong Construction Industry Construction Economics and Building 13:37-50
[31] Sethi S P, Martell T F and Demir M 2016 Building corporate reputation through corporate
social responsibility (CSR) reports: The case of extractive industries Corp Reputation Rev.
19:219-43
[32] Rodrigo P and Arenas D 2008 Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of
employees according to their attitudes Journal of Business Ethics. 83:265-83
[33] Fan L and Law A 2010 Sustainable decision in the Hong Kong construction industry - A step
forward to social responsibility. In: Zakaria RB, Mohamad MI, Mohammad MTSBH,
Mohamed SFB, Yusof ABM, editors. CRIOCM 2010 - International Symposium on
Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate "Towards Sustainable
Development of International Metropolis": Chinese Research Institute of Construction
Management p 43-51
[34] Suchman M C 1995 Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches Academy of
management review 20:571-610
Practices and Factors Influencing Construction Enterprises’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: a Conceptual
Framework
583