http://mos.sciedupress.com Management and Organizational Studies Vol. 1, No. 1; 2014 Published by Sciedu Press 52 ISSN 2330-5495 E-ISSN 2330-5509 Creating Competitive Advantage and Building Capital through Corporate Social Responsibility: An Exploratory Study of Hospitality Industry Practices Sandra Sydnor 1 , Jonathon Day 1 & Howard Adler 1,* 1 School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, Marriott Hall, Indiana 47907, USA *Corresponding author: School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA Received: January 16, 2014 Accepted: February 8, 2014 Online Published: February 17, 2014 doi:10.5430/mos.v1n1p52 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/mos.v1n1p52 Abstract Hospitality industry managers respond to a wide variety of requests from stakeholders, both internal and external, and even the smallest hospitality company practices corporate social responsibility (CSR). The foundations of these actions can be traced to the interrelated concepts of social capital and stakeholder theory. The present exploratory study used qualitative methods to determine how managers understand and operationalize CSR, how managers determine appropriate stakeholders to support, and what benefits managers expect from CSR activities. Three focus groups were conducted, involving a total of 11 owner/ managers of hospitality firms from a medium-sized Midwestern town. The study found that managers considered CSR activities to be an important business strategy but tended to respond reactively to stakeholder requests. While managers did not typically have specific rubrics for analyzing CSR opportunities, they were inclined to prioritize based on the type of stakeholder involved and relevance to the local community. Finally, as observed, CSR activities are motivated by business and personal reasons. Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, social capital, hospitality industry community work, corporate giving 1. Introduction The roles of businesses in society and the expectations of the community towards corporations to contribute to social issues are dynamic and evolving. Corporate responses to social issues range from disregard to proactive advocacy. Within that continuum, companies may choose roles of legal compliance, responsiveness to social demands, or social responsibility in response to contemporary social issues (Robbins & Coulter, 2012). Corporate response to social issues is not uniform and companies may respond to specific issues in different ways based on factors including (but not limited to) corporate culture, organizational norms, and stakeholder expectations. 1.1 Corporate Social Responsibility The role of business in addressing social issues has been a topic of discussion for over one hundred years. Milton Friedman (1970) captured the perspective of the classical view (Robbins & Coulter, 2012) when he declared that the ‘social responsibility of business was to increase profits’. In recent years, a socio-economic view (Robbins & Coulter, 2012) has become more common to describe business responses to social issues. This socio-economic view includes corporate responsiveness, in which corporations respond to social issues based on stakeholder pressure and corporate social responsibility. Conceptually, CSR can be understood as ‘a business’s intention, beyond its legal and economic obligations, to do the right things and act in ways that are good for society’ (Robbins & Coulter, 2012). The concept provides considerable scope for corporate response and has challenged both academics and practitioners to provide a more operational definition. Dahlsrud (2006) examined thirty seven definitions of CSR and determined there are 5 dimensions in defining CSR: environmental, social, economic, stakeholder, and voluntariness. These dimensions are evident in what Dahlsrud (2006) described as the most frequently cited definition of CSR: ‘A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’. Within organizations, these dimensions often translate to programs that