5      ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016  |  5-30
THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF 
THE SOCIAL RESPONSE SCALE: THE CASE 
OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS 
OPERATING IN TUNISIA
RIM GHEZAL
1
 Received: 26 November 2014
ROMDHANE KHEMAKHEM
2
 Accepted: 2 November 2015
ABSTRACT: Satisfying multiple stakeholder expectations and, in some cases, stakeholder 
issues is perceived as a major challenge the companies face. Despite this challenge, corpo-
rate social response activities have not been well documented in the empirical literature 
and have so far attracted relatively limited attention from researchers interested in the field 
(e.g., de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz, 1999; de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia-Falcon, 2002). One 
of the main causes of this situation is closely related to the lack of a scale for measuring 
the social response activities among companies. In light of this gap in the corporate social 
response literature, the main objective of this study is to refine and validate the psychomet-
ric properties of a social response scale and to create a scaled-down version suitable for 
companies, and in particular for multinational corporations (MNCs). The refined scale is 
based on the prior literature and administrated to a sample of 251 subsidiaries operating 
in Tunisia. The scale has four dimensions. In quantitative analyses these dimensions high-
light high reliability and satisfactory validity. Research contributions are provided based 
on the study findings. Limitations are also presented and discussed along with suggestions 
for research.
Keywords: multinational corporation (MNC), corporate social response, social issues, stakeholders, scale refine-
ment and validation.
JEL Classification: F23; M14
DOI: 10.15458/85451.15
INTRODUCTION
Environments are characterized by multiple stakeholders where corporations struggle 
to deal with their social issues. While corporate social response is commonly associated 
with the nature of the social issue (Husted, 2000), a growing line of research attributes 
corporate social response to a set of social activities (e.g., Ackerman & Bauer, 1976; 
Arcelus & Schaefer, 1982; Amba-Rao, 1993). Research suggests that corporate social 
response falls under an umbrella term known as corporate social responsibility which is 
1 University of Sfax, Faculty of Economics and Management of Sfax, Tunisia, e-mail: rimghezal@yahoo.fr
2  University of Sfax, Faculty of Economics and Management of Sfax, Tunisia, e-mail: romdhanekhemakhem@
yahoo.fr

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 6
generally split into four categories, i.e. economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic (Sethi, 
1979; Murphy, 1978; Carroll, 1991), with other authors claiming that it is a process and an 
implementation of activities (e.g., Preston & Post, 1975; Waddock, 2004). 
The concept, although born more than 40 years ago (Arlow & Gannon, 1974), is still 
not well defined and therefore increasing attention must be paid to investigating it at 
theoretical, empirical and comparative levels. Extant research has described the processes 
used to respond to social issues and the various forms of corporate social response 
can take (e.g., Post & Mahon, 1980; Savage et al., 1991; Galbreath, 2006). Recently, few 
studies have focused on the determinants of corporate social response in the context 
of multinational corporations (MNCs) operating in developed countries and its role in 
establishing and maintaining social well-being (e.g., de la Cruz Déniz Déniz & Garcia 
Falcon, 2002; Borchani, 2010). But apart from these exceptions, insufficient empirical 
research on corporate social response has been conducted. The most common reason for 
this is the lack of an appropriate instrument. Therefore, we extend this line of inquiry 
through the re-examination of corporate social response and its measurement, building 
on the perspective of key stakeholders within a corporation. 
According to the stakeholder perspective, stakeholder issues should not be seen in isolation 
but rather in conjunction with social practices and activities of MNC’s subsidiaries (Park 
& Ghauri, 2015). Dealing with these issues thus involves a measurement instrument of 
corporate social response. Researchers that aim to develop a scale measuring corporate 
social response to social issues face several difficulties. A major difficulty that they continue 
to encounter is the limited body of literature directly linking MNCs and social activities. 
Quantitative research methodologies, by their nature, can be applied to only a large 
sampling of companies and therefore the process of collecting primary data is another 
challenge for researchers. In addition, researchers must also use available data, or research 
scale and this has proven to be difficult to find. Drawing on a bibliographic analysis of 
social practices studies, Park & Ghauri (2015) indicate that the existing literature that will 
aid in facing these difficulties is growing but still limited. 
The most thorough works on this topic have been done by some researchers (e.g., de 
la Cruz Déniz-Déniz, 1999; de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002) who have 
developed a 28-item scale measuring social response of MNC’s subsidiaries. Overall, the 
social response scale is an excellent starting point for our study as it has some advantages. 
First, this scale is an up-to-date measure of MNC’s behaviors in response to a wide range 
of social issues. Second, it is a multi-dimensional scale and should be conceptualized 
as such. Therefore it may properly reflect the overall level of MNC’s subsidiaries social 
response. Third, it is easy to apply it consistently in the industries and MNC’s subsidiaries 
that need to be studied. 
The social response scale, while offering some benefits has limitations. This scale has been 
developed primarily by focusing on MNCs operating in one developed country, notably 
Spain. As efforts to develop a measurement scale of social response have been carried out 
in a developed country, the published literature does not exhibit a clear concern about 

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 7
measuring social response activities among Spanish MNC’s subsidiaries. This need to 
expand the context in which corporate social response is measured has been mentioned 
as a gap in international corporate social response literature. Furthermore, the 28 items 
for capturing the five dimensions have not been tested with confirmatory factor analysis 
(CFA) following currently advocated procedures. Thus, the fit of the 28-item original 
version of the social response can be improved by deleting scale items. This suggests the 
need to understand and measure the social response activities for the development of a 
shorter version of the social response scale. For these two reasons, some refinements of 
this scale appear necessary.
From a stakeholder theory, this study extends an understanding of corporate social 
response enabling managers of MNC’s subsidiaries to satisfy multiple stakeholder 
expectations. Moreover, it re-examines a social response scale using CFA. Once this 
procedure is complete, this scale will be a useful tool for researching and investigating 
relationships between it and organizational outcomes (both economic and social). This 
study views corporate social response as an independent variable that will affect a variety 
of outcomes. Thus, its role is essential to gain more empirical knowledge about corporate 
social response. In addition, it offers an appropriate social response scale for MNC’s 
subsidiaries operating in an emerging country –T unisia. By proposing a conceptualization 
and a measurement instrument, one can make fine-gained recommendations to MNC’s 
subsidiaries managers regarding ways to create and maintain social well-being. In other 
words, the social response scale serves as an organization-wide guide for leading them to 
make accurate decisions regarding stakeholder strategies. 
Providing researchers and MNC’s subsidiaries with a culturally appropriate social 
response scale represents an attempt to fill the gaps mentioned above. Understanding and 
measuring its activities are important for the refinement and preliminary validation of the 
scale measuring corporate social response. Therefore, the main objective of this study is 
to refine and validate such a scale and to create a scaled-down version that will be suitable 
for MNC’s subsidiaries and can be used to deal with social issues. To attain this objective, 
it draws on the conception of corporate social response as forwarded by de la Cruz Déniz-
Déniz & Garcia Falcon, (de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz, 1999; de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia 
Falcon, 2002).
The remainder of the study is organized as follows. The relevant literature reviews are 
undertaken to examine the corporate social response and its activities in section 1. Section 
2 presents research methods. Section 3 focuses on analyzing the results. Section 4 provides 
a discussion of these results. Section 5 outlines research contributions. Section 6 points 
out limitations of the study and directions for future research.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 8
1. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSE
The concept of corporate social response was introduced into Business and Society literature 
in 1974. Despite the increasing attention to this concept, a consensus amongst researchers 
as to a definition of the term has yet to be reached. Many definitions of corporate social 
response have been developed, each providing a slightly different perspective. Broadly 
conceptualized, corporate social response is used to refer to an organization’s capacity to 
respond to social pressure (Frederick, 1994, p. 154). However, as Murphy (1987, p. 19) 
argued, corporate social response that is defined in terms of a reaction to stakeholder 
demands in diverse ways is a more positive and accurate concept than corporate social 
responsibility. 
According to Walker & Parent (2010), some proponents of corporate social response (e.g., 
Carroll, 1979; Wartick & Cochran, 1985) used a scale reflecting four motives—reactive, 
defensive, accommodative and proactive—attributed to companies for adopting socially 
responsive behavior. Moreover, corporate social response is regarded as a managerial 
approach (Carroll, 1979) and related to other business-society concepts such as corporate 
social responsibility and corporate social performance (e.g., W ood, 1991; Clarkson, 1995). 
Later, Husted (2000, p. 29) re-conceptualized corporate social response as the mechanism 
to maintain or bring the company into alignment with its social environment. Waddock 
(2004) advocated for some functions that help companies implement social response 
activities of this mechanism/ process. These functions are (1) open dialogue, (2) ethical 
business involvement, (3) stakeholder relations and communication, (4) public affairs, 
and (5) issues management (see Table 1).
The Husted’s (2000) definition is used to provide the conceptual framework for this 
discussion and analysis. This overview paper is organized according to the definition’s 
focus on the ability of a company to set up a process for dealing with its social environment. 
From this theoretical perspective, it is assumed that the corporate social response construct 
is multifaceted and built around activities of social mission establishment, stakeholders’ 
environment analysis, social response formulation, social response implementation and 
social response process control and its results (de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz, 1999; de la Cruz 
Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002). These five social response activities should not 
be considered to be mutually exclusive to one another, but rather to provide a working 
framework through which the social response scale can be refined and validated. We 
believe companies use a combination of five activities to deal with stakeholder issues, 
suggesting that there are multiple ways by which they can be established. The following 
paragraphs merely illustrate short descriptions of each social response activity. 

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 9
Table 1: The differences between corporate social responsibility and corporate social response
Corporate social responsibility Corporate social response
Emergence
1953 (Wartick & Cochran, 1985). 1974 (Arlow & Gannon, 1974).
Term synonyms
Company’s social obligation (Bowen, 1953; 
Sethi, 1990; Frederik, 1994).
- Managerial approach (Frederik, 1994)
-  Process and implementation of 
following activities: environmental 
assessments, stakeholder management, 
issues management and public relations 
management (Wood, 1991).
Determinant(s)
Stakeholder issues (Carroll, 1979; David, 
Kline & Dai, 2005; Maignan & Ferrell, 
2001).
Open dialogue, ethical business 
involvement, stakeholder relations and 
communication, public affairs, and issues 
management (waddock, 2004).
Arguments for
Moral obligation, sustainability, license  
to operate and reputation (Porter & 
Kramer, 2006).
 Gaining and sustaining a competitive 
advantage and facilitating corporate  
social responsibility (Friedman,  
Parent & Mason, 2004).
Types
Economic responsibilities (To make  
a profit); 
Legal responsibilities (To respect laws);
Ethical responsibilities (To be ethical);
Philantrophic responsibilities (To be  
a good corporate citizen) (Carroll, 1979).
-  Reactive, defensive, accommodative  
and proactive (Carroll, 1979; Wartick  
& Cochran, 1985).
-  Compromise, avoidance, defiance or 
manipulation (Olivier, 1991).
1.1. Corporate social mission establishment
The corporate social mission establishment is the first step of a corporate social response 
process. Its purpose is to involve a company in assuming social responsibilities. The 
corporate social mission establishment requires much dialogue between the company and 
its stakeholders (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). The corporate social mission is essential for 
the company setting up the social response process. In other words, it serves as a guide 
to formulating and implementing social plans, making assessment of these plans and 
determining what adjustments are necessary for them (de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia-
Falcon, 2002). As noted by some authors (e.g., Capriotti, 2011; Trapp, 2014), corporate 
social mission may also offer several other advantages such as consensual decision-making 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 10
and ensuring stakeholders support. However, the corporate social mission establishment 
is seen to be, more often than not, more complicated in the case of MNCs, as it is applied 
to local stakeholders in host countries as well as to MNC’s subsidiaries (de la Cruz Déniz-
Déniz & Garcia-Falcon, 2002).
1.2. Stakeholders’ environment analysis
Once the corporate social mission is explicitly established, the company must analyze its 
stakeholders’ environment. The environmental analysis involves the identification of the 
company’s stakeholders and their social issues.
1.2.1. Identification of the company’s stakeholders
To analyze its social environment, a company must begin with the identification of 
the stakeholders who have a ‘stake’ or an interest in its proper functioning (Freeman, 
1984, 1999). The company has a variety of stakeholders such as customers, employees, 
shareholders, suppliers and government agencies. Stakeholders are ‘‘ groups and individuals 
who can affect, or are affected by, the achievement of an organization’s mission’’ (Freeman, 
1984, p. 54). The range of relevant stakeholders is investigated through the use of several 
theoretical and empirical approaches. The descriptive approach being a basic framework 
starts from the assumption that the organization is a constellation of competing and 
cooperative interests. According to Donaldson & Preston (1995), this approach aims to 
describe the relationship between the company and its stakeholders. 
Mitchell, Agle & Wood’s (1997) proposed framework considers a set of attributes such 
as power to influence, legitimacy and urgency. Stakeholder classification which is 
then determined by combining them brings out three general categories: (1) definitive 
stakeholders who possess all three attributes, (2) expectant stakeholders who possess 
two attributes and (3) latent stakeholders who possess one. This has led researchers (e.g., 
Driscoll & Starik, 2004) to propose another attribute–proximity–in order to identify 
stakeholders and classify them into a fourth category, namely primary stakeholders. 
Specifically, Atkin & Skitmore (2008) apply an alternative typology of stakeholders 
categorizing them by distinguishing between internal and external stakeholders. Internal 
stakeholders include managers, employees and shareholders. External stakeholders are 
governments, competitors, customers and the media (Harrison, Bosse & Phillips, 2010; 
Laplume, Sonpar & Litz, 2008; Tang & Tang, 2012). 
Savage et al. (1991) claim that stakeholders can be identified based on their possession 
of two attributes: (1) potential for cooperation between the stakeholders and the 
company and (2) potential threat. This typology provides the largest range of diverse 
stakeholders groups. However, Yang & Rivers (2009) delineate two broad categories 
of stakeholders: social and organizational. The social stakeholders consist of formal 
government institutions, the community in which the company operates or serves, Non-
government organizations (NGOs) and industry bodies. This group of stakeholders 

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 11
defines the company’s social context influencing all companies operating in any country. 
The organizational stakeholders consist of consumers, shareholders, employees and 
parent firms. This group of stakeholders defines the company’s organizational context 
affecting the specific company. In short, all these typologies base much of the assessment 
on managers’ perceptions. 
1.2.2. Identification of stakeholders’ issues
Once the most important stakeholder groups are clearly identified, the company must 
determine each group’ s issues. Therefore, a clear distinction between different stakeholders 
should lead to a better assessment of social issues. Formal government institution-related 
stakeholder issues include compliance with the laws and tax receipts and other government 
issues. Community-related stakeholder issues encompass creating jobs for people living in 
the community, local sourcing, economic and social contribution to a region’ development 
and philanthropic giving and other community issues. Non-government organization-
related stakeholder issues include donations to social causes, employment of people with 
disabilities and the support of social projects. 
Consumer-related stakeholder issues range from consumer declarations and expectations, 
to consumer safety and other consumer issues. Shareholder-related stakeholder issues 
encompass achieving profits, sustainable growth, long-term financial success, responsible 
investments and other shareholder issues. Employee-related stakeholder issues include 
corporate policies and practices toward union relations, working conditions, non-
discrimination of employees, elimination of forced/child labor, remuneration policy and 
other human resources issues. Parent firm-related stakeholder issues include compliance 
with parent firm’s requirements for social practices and activities, value creation and 
performance and other parent firm issues (Yang & Rivers, 2009; Lovett, Pérez-Nordtvedt 
& Rasheed, 2009; Mishra & Suar, 2010).
As part of this step, social issues are analyzed according to three attributes: scope, 
urgency and importance (Mitchell et al., 1997; de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 
2002). This can be achieved through considering social issues closely linked with the 
main activities of the company (e.g., production, marketing). Research in corporate 
social response suggests that another way of identifying stakeholders’ issues types is 
through the construction of maps. It involves determining the impact of the current 
activities of the company on the social environment and the impact of this environment 
on these activities; monitoring trends, changing models and major value changes and 
establishing the impact of undertaken changes on the current and future activities of the 
company (Preston & Post, 1975; Post & Epstein, 1977; Arcelus & Schaefer, 1982). This 
stage, therefore, produces a rank ordering of social issues. Two other attributes should 
be considered when identifying stakeholders’ issues: the area of society in which they 
are set- political, economic, environmental, social, cultural or legal as well as the level 
of demand stakeholders have – primary, secondary or tertiary (Wood, 1994; Frooman, 
1999; Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008).

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 12
Thus, the company must satisfy the expectations of its stakeholders which are not of 
equal importance. Satisfying multiple stakeholder expectations, never an easy task, 
becomes exceptionally difficult in the case of MNC’s subsidiaries. As there is a great 
difference between host-country stakeholders’ expectations and those of the home 
country, subsidiaries which are part of a MNC are often faced with difficult decisions 
when choosing the most appropriate response to social issues (Polonsky & Jevons, 2009). 
Therefore, MNC’s subsidiaries should take into account all stakeholders who affect their 
social practices saliently. 
1.3. Social response formulation
The main purpose of social response formulation is to choose the most appropriate 
response and to formulate social plans and programs.
1.3.1. Choosing the most appropriate social response
Because stakeholders’ issues may change over time, a company should remain an ongoing 
process allowing for strategy design to adjust as more is known about their evolution. In 
other words, the company must focus on developing an understanding of the expected 
future for the most important social issues and trends in the behavior of stakeholders to 
adopt the most appropriate response (de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002). 
Much of the existing literature attempts to identify strategy typologies. Van Bommel’s 
(2011) typology claims that a company can follow three strategies to deal with social 
issues, namely a resign strategy, a defensive strategy and an offensive strategy. 
Along the same lines, some authors (e.g., Carroll, 1979; Wartick & Cochran, 1985; Sauser, 
2005) show wide agreement in stating that strategies can be classified into four main 
categories, i.e. reactive, defensive, accommodative and proactive. However, Heikkurinen 
& Forsman-Hugg’s classification (2011) suggests two possible social strategies, namely 
responsive and beyond responsive strategy. Some recent studies (e.g., Van Marrewijk, 
2010; V an Bommel, 2011) also establish links between the social strategy types and several 
key factors suggested in a company’s wider context. Typical factors of this kind include 
strategic guidelines, pressures and incentives. But in any case the social response chosen 
must reflect the values inspired from those of the corporate social mission (de la Cruz 
Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002).
 
2.3.2. Formulating social programs and plans
To address social issues, a company establishes actions plans and tactics during the 
strategic social programming stage. Every involved unit must accept the plan in terms 
of actions proposed by the company (de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002). 
This plan which represents the best fit between stakeholders’ values, managers’ values and 
social issues the company faces should be designed after the social objectives have been 
set (Stead, Stead & Gray, 1990). Therefore, it is necessary for the company to sacrifice the 

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 13
content, the resources (e.g., financial resources, physical resources, human resources) and 
the time schedule in favor of socially responsive actions in the plan. As a result, an efficient 
allocation of all resources provides a means for this company to achieve its target social 
objectives (Logsdon & Yuthas, 1997). 
1.4. Social response implementation
In order to implement the plan, a company must make decisions and develop activities. 
Therefore, several activities including –staff allocation, motivation and leadership, reward 
system and socialization of employees –need to be accomplished. The company can 
begin with human resource allocation (de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia-Falcon, 2002; 
Logsdon & Yuthas, 1997). Once selecting the right people for the plan implementation as 
the selected personnel needs to have both a positive attitude toward social issues and the 
ability to do things. 
Motivation and leadership, in effect, identify four main roles that managers must play in 
implementing this plan, i.e. the visible support of the plan, the communication of the plan 
details to the personnel, the use of a two-way communication if the change presents threats 
and the information can be misinterpreted and the implementation of a reward system 
(Gray, 1981). The next stage, reward system, should allow the managers to compensate for 
the efforts of the personnel acting in the best interest of all stakeholders. Acknowledging 
sanctions by employees adds an important component to this system. Socialization is also 
recommended to ensure moral development of the personnel (Logsdon & Yuthas, 1997). 
Performing these activities is a continuing process that puts the previously defined social 
plans into practice (de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002).
1.5. Social response process control and its results
Periodic controls of the social response process are essential to ensure the follow up of 
social objectives, the performance of the staff involved in the social plans implementation, 
etc. It is also important for the company to evaluate the effect of its social response activities 
on the stakeholders’ environment (de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002). After 
assessing the progress of the social response process, it can obtain information that will 
be published in an integrated report (IIRC, 2013). This information is very useful for the 
company that is trying to make necessary changes into any step of the process (de la Cruz 
Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002). Another information gathering activity should take 
place. This company should develop an effective communication to know the viewpoints 
of all stakeholders (e.g., customers, suppliers, shareholders) on the results of the social 
response process (Lavallée & André, 2005; Morrison-Saunders, Baker & Arts, 2003; Loxton, 
Schirmer & Kanowski, 2013; Kohls, 1985; de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002).
This gives a sequence of five social response activities with a conceptual representation, as 
delineated in Fig. 1.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 14
Figure 1: Proposed framework for corporate social response, figure adapted from de la Cruz 
Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon (2002, p. 345)
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To develop and validate the social response scale, the methodological approach appears to 
be useful in this study. Conducting this approach involves follow-up procedures advocated 
in the literature (DeVellis, 1991; Ping, 2004). Without the sample selection and the 
measurement of corporate social response, it will be impossible to study the psychometric 
properties of this scale (e.g., reliability, discriminant validity, predictive validity).
2.1. Research setting
Few works have tried to develop a psychometrically robust measure of corporate social 
response (e.g., de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz, 1999; de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia-Falcon, 
2002), and the literature is in its embryonic stage. To address this gap, the aim of this 
study is to provide a tool by which MNCs can deal with stakeholders’ issues. As the social 
response scale will be subject to further assessment, there is a need to undertake a selection 
of subsidiaries from different kinds of industries. Given the variation of social activities 
in different sectors, the latter concern (focus on subsidiaries undertaking several sector 
operations) should not be ignored (Öberseder et al., 2014). The generalizability of the 
results is yet another basic reason behind the selection of sample through a multi-sector 
approach (Mishra & Shah, 2009; Huang, Kristal & Schroeder, 2008).
 Corporate Stakeholders’ Social response Social response Social response 
 social mission environment formulation         implementation control and
 establishment analysis   its results
Phase 1
Time
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Social issues

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 15
2.2. Research sample and data collection
The survey sample of this study includes MNC’s subsidiaries which are located in Sousse, 
Tunis, Nabeul and Zaghouan. The main reasons for choosing these cities are not only 
the accessibility of subsidiaries, but also the facilitating data distribution and collection 
process. These subsidiaries operate in a variety of industries. In fact, the technique used 
to select such industries is the stratified sampling. This technique has clear advantages for 
the researchers, since it allows a greater degree of representativeness (Babbie, 1990) and 
consequently, a higher level of accuracy in estimating parameters (Nachmias & Nachmias, 
2007). In this study, the frame from which the survey sample is drawn is stratified according 
to foreign direct investment (FDI). 
The sampling frame for MNC’s subsidiaries operating in the five industries with most 
investment consists of 58 subsidiaries from the energetic industry (e.g., oil and gas 
extraction industry, oil and gas refining industry), 247 subsidiaries from the mechanic 
industry, 233 subsidiaries from the electric and electronic industry, 1124 subsidiaries 
from the textile and clothing industry and 74 subsidiaries from the construction materials 
industry. To increase the response rate, the survey was conducted entirely through face-
to-face interviews. A self-administered questionnaire was used and only translated from 
Spanish to French. The respondents were only managers who held different management 
positions in the foreign subsidiaries. The data collection process took place during the 
summer of 2011 and resulted in 265 completed responses. After eliminating fourteen 
cases, due to their inadequate completion of the research questionnaire, the final sample 
consisted of 251 subsidiaries.
In terms of representativity, this sample is composed of all the industries cited above. 
The biggest industry is that of textiles and clothing, representing more than 33% of the 
sample with 83 subsidiaries. The electrical and electronic industry and the mechanic 
industry, each accounts for about a quarter of the subsidiaries of the total sample, which is 
almost the same proportion (26%). Against all expectations, the energy industry includes 
only 9.6% and the construction and materials industry only 6%. Over 92% of MNC 
subsidiaries come mainly from European countries such as France, Italy, Germany, the 
UK, Sweden, Australia and Spain. Regarding the markets served, 44.6% of the subsidiaries 
are not focused on serving the host country. The average number of employees in these 
subsidiaries is 361 and the median is 70. Their median share capital was 850 million euro. 
Detailed characteristics of the sample are given in Table 2.  

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 16
Table 2: Sample descriptions
Characteristics Study
N %
Home country  
Europe
North America
Asia 
231
14
6
92.2
5.8
2.0
Market served
Host country
Other countries
139
112
55.4
44.6
Sector
Textiles and clothing
Electrical and electronic industry
Mechanic industry
Energy
Construction and materials
83
64
65
24
15
33.1
25.5
25.8
9.6
6.0
Size
Fewer than 10 employees
10–49
50–199
More than 199
29
67
100
55
11.5
26.6
40.0
21.9
Share capital
Less than 50 million euro
50–150 million euro
151–300 million euro
301–800 million euro
801–3000 million euro
3001–5000 million euro
More than 5000 million euro
38
35
24
13
18
17
106            
15.1
14.0
9.5
5.1
7.1
7.0
42.2
2.3. Scale measurement
Some authors (e.g., de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz, 1999; de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia 
Falcon, 2002) have developed the social response scale as a measure of socially responsive 
behavior related to MNC’s subsidiaries. The social response scale was designed as a 
multidimensional, 28-item scale that assesses the effort MNC’s subsidiaries devoted to 
performing five social response activities (see Fig. 1). In addition, these authors have 
investigated the relationship between the social response scale and a variety of variables 
(e.g., attitudes toward formulating social policies, legislation). Overall, results have 
been consistent with underlying theory and confirm the validity of the social response 
scale. They have also suggested that the social response scale has acceptable reliability. 
However, they did not make use of other known psychometric procedures and standards 
(e.g., convergent validity, discriminant validity) similar to those reported in other scale 
development studies (e.g., Webb, Mohr & Harris, 2008; Öberseder et al., 2014).

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 17
3. ANALYSES
To broaden our understanding of corporate social response as well as to bring needed 
attention to developing a reliable and valid scale measuring it, three studies are conducted. 
The first one focuses on refining scale items (study 1). However, the second methodological 
study aims to determine the dimensionality and reliability of the corporate social response 
(study 2). Finally, the third methodological study is concerned with checking convergent, 
discriminant and predictive validity of the scale (study 3).
3.1. Study 1: content validity evaluation and pilot testing 
This stage of the study involves scale refinement. Following de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & 
Garcia Falcon’s (2002) preliminary five dimensional conceptualization of social response 
scale, a pool of items was generated: social mission establishment (6 items), stakeholders’ 
environment analysis (6 items), social response formulation (6 items), social response 
implementation (6 items) and social response process control and its results (4 items). 
All five dimensions were combined with one another to form an overall measure of social 
response scale. Based on the conceptualizing and combining of these scale dimensions, 
content validity of the pool of items was then assessed by a group of four expert judges, 
academics and professionals. Both human judgment and ranking method were used 
to ensure consistent, quality scores. A priori items that got consistent scoring from at 
least three of the four judges were retained. In the end, this resulted in a total of 25 items 
remaining.
Next, the 25-item social response scale was incorporated into a questionnaire. The 25 
items were measured using a five-point rating scale, anchored by 1 ‘no effort’ and 5 ‘much 
effort’ . Using a procedure recommended by Netemeyer, Bearden & Sharma (2003), a pilot 
survey was then conducted to test the questionnaire among a small sample (n = 31). 
Respondents were asked to assess items for clarity and conciseness. This process resulted 
in some items being rephrased and in the retention of all the items for further analysis. The 
third stage of this study involves further purification of scale items and an overall testing 
of the internal reliability for 25 items. As the overall measurement scale was judged too 
long for large-scale survey research, items with a corrected item-total correlation inferior 
to 0.5 were deleted, resulting in the elimination of four items. The 21 remaining items 
were then subjected to follow-up factor analyses. By using Cronbach’s alpha, the internal 
reliability of the 21-item scale was acceptable (n = 31), which is in line with Nunnally’s 
(1987) recommendations for scale refinement. 
3.2. Study 2: exploratory factor analysis and internal reliability testing 
As an initial step in examining construct dimensionality, two tests KMO (Kayser Meyer 
Olkin) and Bartlett were used to test the data adequacy for factor analysis. In this study, 
the KMO was very high at 0.95 and the Bartlett test of sphericity was significant at the 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 18
< 0.001 level, clearly indicating the appropriateness of conducting an exploratory factor 
analysis (EFA) (principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation) on the 
21 remaining items (Pallant, 2007). Next, factor loadings and communalities were also 
estimated in order to ensure that each item loaded on one dominant factor as well as one 
specific factor. The values of both parameters should be greater than 0.5. 
Once the factor analysis revealed several factors, however, the items failing to exhibit 
simple structure on any factor should be eliminated. This study investigated the factor 
structure of the social response scale without identifying cross-loadings problems. The 
EFA applied to the remaining items was again used to examine the proportions of total 
variance and restrict the number of factors extracted. The items load on four distinct latent 
factors (factor loading above 0.6), accounting for 85.2% of the variance (see Table 3). The 
first factor included the stakeholders’ environment analysis dimension and the social 
response formulation dimension (SEA & SRF), the second captured the social mission 
establishment dimension (SME), the third represented the social response process control 
dimension (SRPC) and the fourth reflected the social response implementation dimension 
(SRI). By using the EFA, we showed that almost all factors were confounded with those 
proposed in the theoretical model drawn from de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz and Garcia Falcon’ s 
(2002) study, except for the stakeholders’ environment analysis dimension and the social 
response formulation dimension being merged together to report a significant relation to 
the underlying construct of corporate social response.
Internal consistency was firstly assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Secondly, assessment of 
internal consistency was based on another kind of indicator called composite reliability 
using a CFA. Cronbach’s alpha is also distinguished from composite reliability. Unlike 
Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability provides an assessment of internal consistency 
without assuming unidimensionality (Webb, Mohr & Harris, 2008). As recommended for 
testing internal consistency (Gerbin & Anderson, 1988), composite reliability presupposes 
the inequality of items reliabilities. 
We showed that a modest positive correlation exists between factors of corporate social 
response (SEA & SRF – SME, r = 0.582; SEA & SRF – SRPC, r = 0.553; SEA & SRF – 
SRI, r = 0.670; SME – SRPC, r = 0.620; SME – SRI, r = 0.537; SRPC – SRI, r = 0.647). 
These factors were not only conceptually and empirically distinct but also not highly 
intercorrelated. Therefore, the second order factor analysis was not performed (Anderson 
& Gerbing 1988; Doll, Xia & Torkzadeh, 1994) and the composite reliability for each 
factor was calculated.  
Thus, internal consistency of four factors was assessed using two indicators: Cronbach’s 
alpha and composite reliability (Nunnally, 1979; Hair et al., 1998). The Cronbach reliability 
values exceeded the acceptable threshold of 0.7: SEA & SRF = 0.97; SME = 0.96; SRPC = 
0.96; SRI = 0.96. The composite reliabilities values also reached this threshold: SEA & SRF 
= 0.89; SME = 0.96; SRPC = 0.95; SRI = 0.96, indicating high reliability for all four factors.
 

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 19
Table 3: The factor structure of social response scale (final sample, n = 251)
Items
a
Commu-
nality
Factor  
1
Factor  
2
Factor  
3
Factor  
4
Social mission establishment
26.  To formulate a declaration of intentions for safeguarding society’s well-being.
25.  To establish the specific obligations of the company towards its stakeholders (clients, employees...).    
27.  To decide what budget will be dedicated to meet the society obligations.
    .  To establish the operational area participating in fulfilling the obligations of the society.
0.885
0.920
0.901
0.927
0.846
0.871
0.835
0.863
Stakeholders’ environment analysis and social response formulation
7.    To consult publications for identifying the new demands emanating from the environment.
9.    To analyze the impact (present and future) of the stakeholders’ demands.
11.  To put the stakeholders’ demands in order of priority.
12.  To estimate the likelihood of new demands emerging from the stakeholders’ environment.         
20.  To establish the most appropriate answer to the stakeholders’ demands.
23.  T o specify the content, resources, duration, and person responsible for carrying out the social objectives.
21.  To formulate projects of staff training involved in the carrying out of social objectives.
.      To define evaluation systems for staff who participate in plans meeting the society obligations.
.      To define reward systems for staff who participate in plans meeting the society obligations.
0.716
0.784
0.782
0.809
0.801
0.833
0.832
0.857
0.831
0.697
0.730
0.717
0.723
0.802
0.783
0.801
0.815
0.802
Social response implementation
14.  To form interdisciplinary work teams to identify social demands and to find responses to them.
15.  To designate personnel who will be in contact with stakeholders.
17.  To assign a central role to managers in the implementation of plans meeting the society obligations.
16.  To communicate the social objectives and the plans to the whole organization.
0.857
0.881
0.866
0.892
0.803
0.815
0.825
0.830
Social response process control and its results
3.    To ask the managers for reports about their corporate social response contributions.
1.    To evaluate the personnel’s performance in social response activities.
5.    To evaluate the suppliers’ performance in terms of corporate social response.
2.    To learn the stakeholders’ opinion about corporate social response.
0.867
0.855
0.888
0.904
0.845
0.797
0.815
0.837
Eigenvalue 12.77 2.04 1.82 1.27
Explained variance (%) 29.32 18.72 18.63 18.5
Accumulated explained variance (%) 85.2
a
All items numbers are those in de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia-Falcon (2002).

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 20
3.3. Study 3: measurement model validation and construct validity
As the exploratory results seemed reasonable and parsimonious, the 21 remaining items 
were subsequently subjected to further structural investigation using CFA. Prior to data 
analysis, Pearson’s coefficient of skewness, Kurtosis coefficient and multivariate Kurtosis 
test were used to check the multinormality of the data. All items met or exceeded accepted 
standards for Pearson’s coefficient of skewness. The calculated Kurtosis coefficient for 
each item was in the acceptable range, providing further support for the assumption 
of multivariate normality. Based on multivariate Kurtosis test, whereby the Mardia’s 
coefficient for all items should be less than 3. 
The calculated Mardia’s coefficient for all did not fall below this threshold. Further 
procedure was therefore required before estimating the measurement model using 
maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). To do so, an initial examination of the factor 
structure of the social response scale was performed through Bootstrap method. It is an 
estimating process of the factor loadings, covariance between latent variables and error 
variances based on the resampling (Franco & Reisen, 2007; Yuan & Chan, 2008). The 
use of Bootstrapping is in no way an attempt to show the multinormality of the data, 
but provides a test to determine whether or not the multivariate normality assumption is 
violated. 
After confirming the non-violation of the multivariate normality assumption, the 
measurement model was examined and estimated in AMOS 18. To test the robustness 
of this model, some fit indices were used. They must meet or exceed the cited and 
recommended standards (see e.g., Hair et al., 2010; Byrne, 2001). The Chi-Square test 
statistic (χ2) additionally divided by degrees of freedom (χ2/df ≤ 2.5), the Comparative Fit 
Index (CFI ≥ 0.95), the Normed Fit Index (NFI ≥ 0.95) and the Root Mean Square Error 
of Approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.06). However, the CFA showed a very poor model fit for 
the four-factor solution of the social response scale (χ2 = 407.156, df = 146, p = 0.000; CFI 
= 0.86; NNFI = 0.81; RMSEA = 0.085). Examination of the modification indices suggested 
the elimination of two additional items. 
This process resulted in 19 items capturing four factors as follows: SEA & SRF (9 items); 
SME (4 items); SRPC (4 items) and SRI (4 items).The remaining 19 items were again tested 
with CFA resulting in a satisfactory fit of the data. The descriptive model fit statistics were 
χ2 = 241.195, df = 142 (p < 0.01); CFI = 0.984; NFI = 0.962, and RMSEA = 0.053, which are 
within the guidelines recommended by Hair et al. (2010). The CFA results indicated that 
four factors are useful in terms of understanding the corporate social response construct.
Following the suggestions of Fornell & Larcker (1981), the average variance extracted (A VE) 
was used to test convergent validity. It is calculated as the sum of the item standardized 
loadings squared divided by the sum of the item standardized loadings squared added to 
the sum of the item error variance. The AVE must be greater than 0.5 (Hair et al., 1998). 
The calculated AVE for the four factors exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.5: SEA 
& SRF = 0.55; SME = 0.87; SRPC = 0.84; SRI = 0.85. In addition, as recommended by 

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 21
Fornell & Larcker (1981), the discriminant validity is checked if the AVE is more than the 
square correlations between each pair of factors in the model (for similar approaches to 
construct validity, see e.g., Kaptein 2008).  All AVE values were also very good ranging 
from 0.55 to 0.87, whereas all interconstruct correlations were between 0.3 and 0.46 (see 
Table 4); this is an indicative of distinct social response factors.
Table 4: Correlations between the factors, square root of A VEs and standard deviations
SME SEA & SRF SRI SRPC
Standard 
deviations
SME 0.93
a
1.28
SEA & SRF 0.34 0.74 0.91
SRI 0.3 0.46 0.93 1.24
SRPC 0.4 0.31 0.44 0.91 1.24
Notes: The bold numbers in the diagonal row show the square roots of AVE. 
Data obtained from the same sample (n = 251) were used to gain further insight into 
predictive validity of the social response scale as well as to allow further examination of 
the generalizability of this factor structure. Predictive validity aims at how well the focal 
construct is predicted by other measures for which a relationship can be theoretically 
deduced (Bagozzi, 1994). To do so, measures for two conceptually related yet distinct 
constructs were included in the questionnaire, namely proactivity and reactivity in 
the formulation of social strategies (de la Cruz-Déniz Déniz & Garcia Falcon, 2002). 
Proactivity is conceptualized as “the degree to which behavior is planned in anticipation 
of emerging economic, technological, social or political trends and in the absence of crisis 
conditions” (Burcke & Logson, 1996, p.498). 
In the strategic literature, it is almost universally agreed that proactivity appears to be 
important in planning. According to Frederick (1994), more proactive is the firm which 
adopts an anticipatory scanning procedure to detect emerging problems. The level of 
proactive social strategy followed by a firm is largely dependent on the social mission, 
social strategy, organizational budget, organizational systems, managerial responsibilities 
and social decisions (e.g., Amba-Rao, 1993; Wykle, 1992; Merenda, 1981). Compared 
with reactivity, proactivity has two important advantages which are applicability and 
profitability (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009). While the reactive approach is helpful for 
formulating and instituting actions after social event has taken place, the proactive 
approach is more relevant if one’s interest is to anticipate the change in the stakeholders’ 
environment (Rupp, 1994). Based on this, the following hypotheses are advanced: 
H1.  Proactivity has significant positive effects on the adoption level of social response 
activities by MNC’s subsidiaries.
H2.  Reactivity has significant negative effects on the adoption level of social response 
activities by MNC’s subsidiaries.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 22
In addition to the social response scale, the questionnaire included two items, one 
measuring proactivity and the other measuring reactivity. These two items were adapted 
from de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz (1999). The final test employed in this study was to assess 
whether proactivity and reactivity are significant predictors of social response activities 
of MNC’s subsidiaries. At this stage, predictive validity of the social response scale was 
initially examined with correlation analysis. As hypothesized, proactivity was significantly 
positively related to all four factors: SEA & SRF (r = 0.22, p < 0.01); SME (r = 0.11, p < 0.1); 
SRPC (r = 0.14, p < 0.05); SRI (r = 0.19, p < 0.01). 
Similarly, reactivity was also significantly associated with all factors: SEA & SRF (r = - 0.20, 
p < 0.01); SME (r = - 0.21, p < 0.1); SRPC (r = - 0.17, p < 0.01); SRI (r = - 0.16, p < 0.05), 
indicating strong support for H1 and H2. To further assess predictive validity structural 
equation modeling (SEM) was used. Due to the presence of multicollinearity problem 
with covariance-based structural equation modeling (CBSEM), a partial least square (PLS) 
regression was subsequently adopted. The adjusted R
2
 of 0.33 suggests that a significant 
proportion of the variation in corporate social response is accounted for by proactive and 
reactive approaches. In support of H1, the findings show that proactivity was positively 
associated with subsidiary’s adoption of social response activities, particularly SEA & SRF 
(γ = 0.22, p < 0.1) and SRI (γ = 0.21, p < 0.1). Additionally, reactivity had significant 
negative correlation with SEA & SRF (γ = -0.26, p < 0.1) and SRPC (r = - 0.21, p < 0.01), 
but not SME and SRI. 
Figure 2: Scale refinement and validation process
Stage 1
Item generation
Literature review
International corporate social response
Total number of items after item generation = 28
Expert judges
with 4 academics and professionals
Result: suppression of 5 items + division of some  
items into additional sub-items
Total number of items = 25
Stage 3
Pilot test and initial  
purification
Mini-survey
with 31 subsidiaries’ managers 
Result: suppression of 4 items + reformulation  
of some items
Total number of items = 21
Stage 4
Further purification
Face-to-face survey
with 251 subsidiaries’ managers 
Result: suppression of 2 items
Total number of items = 19
Stage 2
Content validity jugement

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 23
4. DISCUSSION
Given the current world-wide, high level of interest in and concern about the demands’ 
internationalization of the stakeholders, the global society wants MNCs to behave more 
socially responsive. Due to this fact, more MNCs have become aware of the necessity of 
engaging in the corporate social response. In Spain some authors (e.g., de la Cruz Déniz-
Déniz, 1999; de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia-Falcon, 2002) have developed a scale 
measuring the corporate social response based on previous studies. Outside the context 
of Spain, this scale must be refined and updated for use, in particular, with subsidiaries’ 
managers in Tunisia, an important African business centre being viewed as a radically 
different sociocultural context from that of Spain.
In the theoretical literature, increasing attention is paid to corporate social response. 
Despite such corporate efforts to explore corporations’ response to social issues, research 
on corporate social response has been scarce in terms of its measurement. Thus, one of 
the objectives of the present study is to develop a shorter version of the social response 
scale in the Tunisian context. Building on the existing literature, this study re-examines 
corporate social response and describes the process used to refine and validate the social 
response scale to measure it.
Based on a series of three studies, integrating a range of methodologies, this research 
suggests that corporate social response is a multidimensional construct. To develop a 
shorter version of the social response scale implies that the CFA model would be fitted 
to the data. Another approach to validity assessment is the updated social response scale 
convergency with and divergency from other scales. All of the undertaken studies used 
recognized psychometric procedures and standards available in other scale development 
works (e.g., Webb, Mohr & Harris, 2008; Öberseder et al., 2014). The research findings 
show a reliable and valid measure. 
Four unidimensional factors of corporate social response that emerged are labeled as 
follows: stakeholders’ environment analysis and social response formulation, social 
mission establishment, social response implementation and social response process 
control. These factors of the social response scale share some consistent scores with the 
dimensions identified in de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia Falcon’s (2002) study, which 
help establish the utility of the social response use in MNC’s subsidiaries. This research 
has generally broadened our understanding of corporate social response as well as drawn 
the attention of managers to a strategy engagement that goes beyond simply financial 
results. 
In addition to maximizing shareholders profits, subsidiaries’ managers maintain 
organization competitive advantages which derive from social response activities and 
which, in turn, depend largely on satisfactory fulfillment of stakeholder expectations 
in host countries. In particular, subsidiaries’ managers realize different types of benefits 
by focusing on key stakeholders: consumers (e.g., consumer loyalty, enhanced brand 
image, reputation), employees (e.g., employee satisfaction, job commitment), suppliers 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 24
(e.g., increased ability to establish good supplier relations), shareholders (e.g., continued 
commercial cooperation and business relationship; decreased long-term level of risk 
on the investment, improved financial performance), local community (e.g., decreased 
regulatory burdens, improvement in the quality of local labor), parent company (e.g., 
obtaining internal legitimacy) and local governments (e.g., obtaining external legitimacy, 
building strong local relationships) (Y ang & Rivers, 2009; Park & Ghauri, 2015).
In order to secure their advantages, subsidiaries’ managers must undertake many 
essential locally based actions including making resources and processes investment in 
relationship with stakeholders and avoiding conflicts with them. Through these actions, 
MNC’s subsidiaries become more socially responsive. That is, MNC can be regarded as a 
valuable associate with consumers, suppliers and local governments, as a good employer 
for employees, as a profitable and sure investment for shareholders, as a good corporate 
citizen for the communities in which MNC operates, etc (Park & Ghauri, 2015).
Subsidiaries’ managers consider the social response scale to be useful in dealing with 
a wider range of social issues (e.g., protection of the environment, recycling behavior). 
Further, the importance placed on the social response scale in dealing with social issues is 
greater for proactive MNC’s subsidiaries. It should be noted that the objective of this study 
is to refine and validate the social response scale for use in MNC’s subsidiaries operating 
in five industries with most investment. However, based on ANOVA test, we recognize 
that the analysis at the industry level is not useful in understanding either the differences 
in subsidiary’s social response, or the social response scale validation across sectors.
5. THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Based on data analysis, the findings represent an initial effort in the refinement and 
validation of the social response for use by MNC’s subsidiaries in the Tunisian context. 
It seems, therefore, that the refined scale has several advantages. Data are gathered from 
face-to-face interviews with subsidiaries’ managers in order to develop a new scale 
that reflects their current social concerns. Refining a scale of corporate social response 
allows us to better understand its manifestations in the Tunisian context. The primary 
contribution to general corporate social response literature is the refinement of a social 
response scale that captures the views and perceptions of subsidiaries’ managers. This 
scale is multidimensional and has a complex and multifaceted conceptualization. 
After initiating the scale refinement and validation process, this study also confirms 
the structure of corporate social response and shows that the social response scale is 
generalizable across industries. This means that this tool is applicable to a wide variety of 
settings. Because of their daily exposure to unpredictable events in their task environment 
(e.g., stakeholders), managers need the social response scale to face them. According to 
Polonsky & Jevons (2009), MNC’s subsidiaries encounter difficulties when responding to 
social issues. To overcome such difficulties, the social response scale appears to be a good 
starting point for MNC’s subsidiaries.

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 25
In addition, the finding that the refinement of a multidimensional scale contributes to 
address issues of all stakeholders helps guide MNC’s subsidiaries in their institution of 
social response activities. This effort recognizes the rich and multidimensional character 
of the social response scale and the result here suggests that the tool contains a wide range 
of social response activities relevant to MNC’s subsidiaries. Research needs to explore the 
benefits that the social response scale provides for MNC’s subsidiaries, and specifically, 
the use of this scale as a strategic tool. 
6. LIMITATIONS AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
There are several limitations to be noted. First, although a review of literature highlighted 
several policies of the proper development, evaluation and use of the questionnaire –
the back-translation, the decentering, the committee technique and the parallel-blind 
translation (Cateora, 1996), only direct translation was used to develop the questionnaire. 
Perhaps the way in which the questionnaire was initially developed was inappropriate. 
Future research could also address this limitation of the present research by using the 
back-translation which is the best practice recommended by Maignan & Ferrell (2000).
Second, findings demonstrated convergent, discriminant and predictive validity through 
the testing of convergence and discrimination (both within the scale and among developed 
scales), correlational analysis and the PLS regression. To enhance the predictive validity 
(e.g., Bagozzi, 1984; Netemeyer, Durvasula & Lichtenstein, 1991), the social response scale 
could be used in future studies to appropriately assess the impact of the corporate social 
response on variables such as corporate social performance. By testing the result of the 
corporate social response, our understanding of the phenomenon of social involvement 
of MNCs could be extended.
Third, survey data having been gathered from the same source may have an impact on the 
results produced. In order to minimize common method bias, several precautions were 
taken such as the protection of respondent anonymity and the ensuring of the clarity and 
unambiguity of all scales items (Podsakoff et al., 2003), but this is not sufficient. T o remedy 
this limitation, future research could use a Multitrait-Multimethod (MTMM) model to 
better check the common method bias. 
  
In addition, the social response scale may also have its application in the Tunisian context. 
Future research should consider replicating the factor structure among other nations, 
cities and regions. Differences observed across regions allow researchers to achieve 
greater insight into the refinement of the social response scale. Furthermore, longitudinal 
research could be used to empirically verify whether the social response scale is evolving 
over time. Other key variables may also be studied through the examination of the social 
response scale. Although researchers (e.g., de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz & Garcia-Falcon, 2002; 
Borchani, 2010) have paid attention to the corporate social response, we know very little 
about its antecedents.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 26
Finally, future research seems interesting and insightful in trying to answer the following 
questions: When the MNC uses the corporate social response? What types of response it 
can provide to deal with the foreign stakeholders’ issues? How does the social response 
change over the time? What are the criteria to be taken into account when choosing the 
corporate social response?
REFERENCES
Amba-Rao, S. C. (1993). Multinational corporate social responsibility, ethics, interactions and third world 
governments: An agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(7), 553-572. 
Arcelus, F. J. & Schaefer, N. V . (1982). Social demands as strategic issues: Some conceptual problems. Strategic 
Management Journal, 3(4), 347-357.
Arlow, P . & Gannon, M. J. (1982). Social responsiveness, corporate structure, and economic performance. The 
Academy of Management Review, 7, 235-241.
Atkin, B. & Skitmore, M. (2008). Editorial: Stakeholder management in construction. Construction Management 
and Economics, 26(6), 549-552.
Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1984). A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 48(Winter), 
11-29.
Bagozzi, R. P . (1994). Structural equation models in marketing research: Basic principles. In Bagozzi, R. P . (Ed.), 
Principles of marketing research (pp. 317-385), Cambridge: Blackwell.
Borchani Maktouf, M. (2010). Déterminants de la stratégie sociétale des multinationales en France. Revue de 
l’ organisation responsable, 5(2), 39-58.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New Y ork: Harper & Row.
Burke, L. & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 
495-502.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management 
Review, 4, 497–505.
Carroll, A. B. & Buchholtz, A. K. (2009). Business & society: ethics and stakeholder management (7th ed.). Mason: 
South-Western Cengage Learning.
Capriotti, P. (2011).Communicating corporate social responsibility through the Internet and social media. In 
Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J. L. & May, S. (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 
358-378). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cateora, P . R. (1996). International Marketing (9th ed.). Chicago: Irwin.
Clarkson, M. B. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. 
Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
David, P ., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate identity, and purchase 
intention: A dual process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 291-313.

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 27
de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz, Maria (1999). Modelo de respuesta social en las Empresasmultinacionales: unaaplicación 
a Los sectoresquímico y de automoción. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
 
de la Cruz Déniz-Déniz, M. & Garcia-Falcon, J. M. (2002). Determinants of the multinationals’ social response. 
Empirical application to international companies operating in Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 339-370.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and 
implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91. 
Driscoll, C. & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual considerations of 
stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 55-73.
Franco, G. C. & Reisen, V . A. (2007). Bootstrap approaches and confidence intervals for stationary and non-
stationary long-range dependence processes. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 375(2), 
546-562.
Frederick, W . C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business & Society, 
33, 150-164.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing Inc.
Freeman, R. E. (1999). Response: Divergent Stakeholder Theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 234-237.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191-205.
Gerbing D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating 
unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186-192.
Gray, E. R. (1981). Planning for Corporate Social Programs Problems and Guidelines. Long Range Planning, 14, 
49-53. 
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. & Black, W . (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, 
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harrison, J., Bosse, D. & Phillips, R. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and 
competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58-74.
Heikkurinen, P. & Forsman-Hugg, S. (2011). Strategic corporate responsibility in the food chain. Corporate 
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(5), 306-316.
Huang, X., Kristal, M. M. & Schroeder, R. G. (2008). Linking learning and effective process implementation to 
mass customization capability. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 714-729.
Husted, B. W . (2000). A contingency theory of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39(1), 24-48.
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (2013). Integrated reporting. http://www.theiirc.org/.
Kohls, J. (1985). Corporate board structure, social reporting and social performance. In Preston, L. E. (Ed.), 
Research in corporate social performance and policy. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K. & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal 
of Management, 34(6), 1152-1189.
Logsdon, J. M. & Yuthas, K. (1997). Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, and organizational 
moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1213-1226.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 28
Lovett, S. R., Pérez-Nordtvedt, L. & Rasheed, A. (2009). Parental control of subsidiaries: A study of U. S. 
subsidiaries in Mexico. International Business Review, 18, 481-493. 
Loxton, E. A., Schirmer, J. & Kanowski, P. (2013). Designing, implementing and monitoring social impact 
mitigation strategies: Lessons from Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Packages. Environmental Impact 
Assessment Review, 42, 105-115.
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O.C. (2000). Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the United 
States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 283-297.
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O. C. (2001). Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument: Concepts, evidence and 
research directions. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 457-484.
Merenda, M. J. (1981). The Process of Corporate Social Involvement: Five Case Studies. In Preston, L. E.  (Ed.), 
Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Mishra, A. A. & Shah, R. (2009). In union lies strength: collaborative competence in new product development 
and its performance effects. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4), 324-338.
Mishra, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian 
companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 571-601.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: 
Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Morrison-Saunders, A., Baker, J. & Arts, J. (2003). Lessons From Practice: T owards Successful Follow-Up. Impact 
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21, 43-56.
Morsing, M. & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, 
response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323-338.
Murphy, P . E. (1978). An evolution: Corporate social responsiveness. Business Review, 6, 19-25.
Nachmias, C. F. & Nachmias, D. (2007). Research Methods in the Social Sciences (Data Bank CD) (7th ed.). New 
Y ork: Worth Publishers.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O. & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Netemeyer, R. G., Durvasula, S. & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1991). A Cross-National Assessment of the Reliability and 
Validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 320-335.
Nunnally, J. C. (1979). Psychometric theory. New Y ork: McGraw-Hill.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Murphy, P . E., & Gruber, V . (2014). Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate 
Social Responsibility: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 101-115.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179. 
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS Version 15. Maidenhead, 
UK: Open University Press.
Park, B. II, & Pervez N. G. (2015). Determinants influencing CSR practices in small and medium sized MNE 
subsidiaries: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of World Business, 50, 192-204.
Ping, R. A. (2004). On assuring valid measures for theoretical models using survey data. Journal of Business 
Research, 57(2), 125-141.

R. GHEZAL, R. KHEMAKHEM  |  THE REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSE ... 29
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral 
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(55), 
879-903.
Polonsky, M., & Jevons, C. (2009). Global branding and strategic CSR: An overview of three types of complexity. 
International Marketing Review, 26(3), 327–347.
Pomeroy, R. & Douvere, F. (2008). The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. 
Marine Policy, 32(5), 816-822.
Post, J. E. & Epstein, M. C. (1977). Information systems for social reporting. Academy of Management Review, 
2(1), 81-87.
Preston, L. & Post, J. (1975). Private Management and Public Policy: The Principle of Public Responsibility. 
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Rupp, W . T. (1994). Toward a Process Model of Corporate Social Performance in Response to Natural Disasters: An 
Analysis of Corporate America’s Response to Hurricane Andrew. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Sauser, W . I. Jr. (2005). Ethics in Business: Answering the Call. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(4), 345-357.
Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead C. J. & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for Assessing and Managing 
Organizational Stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61-75.
Sethi, S. P. (1990). An analytical framework for making cross cultural comparisons of business responses to 
social pressures: The case of the United States and Japan. In Preston, L. E. (Ed.), International and Comparative 
Corporation and Society Research. Greenwich: JAI press. 
Stead, W . E., Stead, J. G. & Gray, E. R. (1990). Toward an Operational Model of Corporate Social Performance. 
S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 55(3), 19-23.
Tang, Z. & Tang, J. (2012). Stakeholder-firm power difference, stakeholders’ CSR orientation, and SMEs’ 
environmental performance in China. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 436-455.
Trapp, N. L. (2014). Stakeholder involvement in CSR strategy-making? Clues from sixteen Danish companies. 
Public Relations Review, 40, 42-49.
Van Bommel, H. W. M. (2011). A conceptual framework for analyzing sustainability strategies in industrial 
supply networks from an innovation perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 895-904.
Van Marrewijk, M. (2010). Strategic Orientations: Multiple Ways for Implementing Sustainable Performance. 
Technology and Investment, 1(2), 85-96.
Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. 
Business and Society Review, 109, 5-42.
Wartick, S. L. & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of 
Management Review, 10, 758-769.
Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2001). A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its 
measurement. Journal of Business Research, 35, 91-98.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
Wykle, L. (1992). Social Responsibilities of Corporate Managers in an International Context. Journal of 
Management Development, 11(4), 49-56.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 18  |  No.  1  |  2016 30
Y ang, X. & Rivers, C. (2009). Antecedents of CSR practices in MNCs’ subsidiaries: A stakeholder and institutional 
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 86,155–169.
Yuan K.-H. & Chan, W. (2008). Structural equation modeling with near singular covariance matrices. 
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 52(10), 4842-4858.