In Hungarian construction industry, the interest of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is growing and becoming increasingly important mainly in the field of employees and the environment. Companies operating in Hungary are expected to think socially responsible, but this is still in an unfolding phase in Hungary. One of the reasons is that there are no Hungarian guidelines available for company executives.
At the beginning of the research, the concept of CSR and the differences between CSR and sustainable development are clarified. Also, the development and the current practices of CSR are discussed both in the European Union and Hungary. These are important because the concept of CSR is not clear for managers and making a difference is still a problem for managers.
The focus of this research is to develop a self-evaluation system which would help for construction managers orient themselves in the areas and activities of CSR, because, for the time being, large companies are most consciously engaged in CSR, despite the fact that more than 99,1% of enterprises are small and medium-sized in Hungary. The proposed CSR Performance Evaluation model consists of factor assessment, ranking and the evaluation of the CSR Performance Index which is defined to measure companies’ CSR performance on a scale between 0 and 100. Five methods, which include Principal Component Analysis, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Maximum Likelihood Estimation are used for selecting the model factors. After the selection, the relative weights of the model factors are determined by the Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis. Then, the Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic mean is utilized for classification based on the weighted results. The developed CSR PE model allows companies to identify their areas for improvement based on the measurement.
During the research, evaluations of twelve companies are completed. The construction enterprises are grouped into CSR beginners, CSR users and CSR conscious groups according to their CSR performance. Seven companies belong to the first group, CSR beginners with the average CSR Performance Index of 45.01. The second group, CSR users includes two companies achieved 65.50 average CSR Performance Index. While 3 companies were classified into the third CSR conscious group with the average CSR Performance Index of 82.01 which counts as good results according to the defined CSR levels. Category performances shows imbalance that proves the lack of CSR awareness in Hungary and based on the results, the CSR PE model offers practical management standards and tools to each company which helps to strengthen corporate social responsibility.

In Hungarian construction industry, the interest of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is growing and becoming increasingly important mainly in the field of employees and the environment. Companies operating in Hungary are expected to think socially responsible, but this is still in an unfolding phase in Hungary. One of the reasons is that there are no Hungarian guidelines available for company executives.
At the beginning of the research, the concept of CSR and the differences between CSR and sustainable development are clarified. Also, the development and the current practices of CSR are discussed both in the European Union and Hungary. These are important because the concept of CSR is not clear for managers and making a difference is still a problem for managers.
The focus of this research is to develop a self-evaluation system which would help for construction managers orient themselves in the areas and activities of CSR, because, for the time being, large companies are most consciously engaged in CSR, despite the fact that more than 99,1% of enterprises are small and medium-sized in Hungary. The proposed CSR Performance Evaluation model consists of factor assessment, ranking and the evaluation of the CSR Performance Index which is defined to measure companies’ CSR performance on a scale between 0 and 100. Five methods, which include Principal Component Analysis, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Maximum Likelihood Estimation are used for selecting the model factors. After the selection, the relative weights of the model factors are determined by the Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis. Then, the Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic mean is utilized for classification based on the weighted results. The developed CSR PE model allows companies to identify their areas for improvement based on the measurement.
During the research, evaluations of twelve companies are completed. The construction enterprises are grouped into CSR beginners, CSR users and CSR conscious groups according to their CSR performance. Seven companies belong to the first group, CSR beginners with the average CSR Performance Index of 45.01. The second group, CSR users includes two companies achieved 65.50 average CSR Performance Index. While 3 companies were classified into the third CSR conscious group with the average CSR Performance Index of 82.01 which counts as good results according to the defined CSR levels. Category performances shows imbalance that proves the lack of CSR awareness in Hungary and based on the results, the CSR PE model offers practical management standards and tools to each company which helps to strengthen corporate social responsibility.

Abadir, K., Heijmans, R., & Magnus, J. (2020). Likelihood, information, and maximum likelihood estimation. In (pp. 485-550).
Abas, M., Khattak, S., Hussain, I., Maqsood, S., & Ahmad, I. (2015). Evaluation of Factors affecting the Quality of Construction Projects. Technical Journal, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila, Pakistan, Vol. 20(SI), 115-120.
Akintoye, A. (2000). Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 77 - 89.
Al-Ageeli, H. a. A., A. . (2016). Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects (Governmental Projects as a Case Study). Journal of Engineering(22(3)), 129-147.
Ali, W., Frynas, J. G., & Mahmood, Z. (2017). Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(4), 273-294. doi:10.1002/csr.1410
Alias, M., Radhakrishnan, D., & Ramasamy, G. (2015). Study on factors affecting the performance of construction projects and developing a cost prediction model using ANN. 8, 2189-2194.
Alinezhad, A., & Khalili, J. (2019). SWARA Method. In (pp. 99-102).
Almamlook, R. (2018). Overview Success Criteria and Critical Success Factors in Project Management. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 7. doi:10.4172/2169-0316.1000244
Alotaibi, A., Fotwe, F., & Price, A. (2019). Critical Barriers to Social Responsibility Implementation within Mega-Construction Projects: The Case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 11. doi:10.3390/su11061755
Blavoukos, S., & Bourantonis, D. (2017). The Politics of UNGA Resolution 65/276: A Tale of the EU Performance in the UNGA. In (pp. 47-60).
Board, E. (2017). IBM SPSS. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, 9, 134. doi:10.18311/gjeis/2017/15883
Bojkov, D. (2019). FACTORS ASSESSING PROJECT SUCCESS. Knowledge International Journal, 26, 1687-1691. doi:10.35120/kij26061687B
Carroll, A., & Brown, J. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Current Concepts, Research, and Issues. In (pp. 39-69).
Chan, A., Scott, D., & Chan, A. (2004). Factors Affecting the Success of a Construction Project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-asce - J CONSTR ENG MANAGE-ASCE, 130. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:1(153)
Cserpes, I., & Szabó, J. (2017). Analysis of construction risks of layer. International Journal of Engineering and Management Sciences, 2, 92-101. doi:10.21791/IJEMS.2017.4.8.
Csigene Nagypal, N., Görög, G., & Baranyi, R. (2016). Innovative business-academic partnerships as a pathway to promote CSR: The "It is about others" programme. Social Business, 6, 337-353. doi:10.1362/204440816X14811339919732
Darskuviene, V., & Bendoraitienė, E. (2014). Stakeholder expectations and influence on company decisions. Applied Economics: Systematic Research, 8, 83-96. doi:10.7220/AESR.2335.8742.2014.8.2.5
Deák, K., Győri, G., Báron, P., Ágoston, L. . (2006). Több, mint üzlet: vállalati társadalmi felelősségvállalás. Budapest: Demos Magyarország Alapítvány.
Emerson, R. (2020). A Look at Principal Component Analysis. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 114, 240-241. doi:10.1177/0145482X20927130
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., & Abushaban, S. (2009). Factors affecting the performance of Construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 15. doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.269-280
Esmaeili, B., Pellicer, E., & Molenaar, K. (2016). Critical Success Factors For Construction Projects. In (pp. 3-14).
Farrell, M. (2003). Green Paper: Notes on the Green Paper: an Initial Response. British Journal of Special Education, 25, 13-15. doi:10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00047
Francesco, P. (2006). [Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause, Philip Kotler, Nancy Lee]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 90-93. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/4166242
Garst, J., Blok, V., & Omta, O. (2020). Changing the Rules of the Game: The Legitimacy of CSR Standards. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020, 19641. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2020.19641abstract
Gelbmann, U. (2010). Comparative analysis of innovative CSR tools for SMEs. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development - Int J Innovat Sustain Dev, 5. doi:10.1504/IJISD.2010.034556
Giritli, H. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in construction industry: a comparative study between UK and Turkey. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6.
Gonzalez-Perez, M.-A., & Leonard, L. (2017). The UN Global Compact. In (pp. 117-138).
Hanson, D. N. (2006). Causes of Client Dissatisfaction in The South African Building Industry and Ways of Improvement: The Contractors' Perspectives. Johannesburg Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1016.9317&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hughey, C., & Sulkowski, A. (2012). More disclosure=better CSR reputation? An examination of CSR reputation leaders and laggards in the global oil and gas industry. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 12, 24-34.
Iatridis, K. (2015). Identification of CSR tools related to Responsible Research and Innovation principles.
Issa, A. (2017). The Factors Influencing Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 1-19.
Jankalova, M. (2016). Approaches to the Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 580-587. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30302-1
Jha, K., & Iyer, K. (2006). Critical Factors Affecting Quality Performance in Construction Projects. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17, 1155-1170. doi:10.1080/14783360600750444
Karcagi-Kováts, A. (2012). Performance Indicators in CSR and Sustainability Reports in Hungary. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce – APSTRACT, 6, 137-142. doi:10.19041/Apstract/2012/3-4/20
Közlöny, M. (2006). Magyar Köztársaság Kormánya. 1025/2006. (III. 23.) Korm. határozat a munkáltatók társadalmi felelősségének erősítéséről és ezt ösztönző intézkedésekről. Magyar Közlöny Retrieved from net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/getdoc.cgi?docid=a06h1025.kor
KSH. (2018). A kis- és középvállalkozások jellemzői. Retrieved from
Lee, Y.-R., Kim, J.-H., Choi, B.-C., & Yoo, T.-Y. (2020). The Types of CSR Activities and Firm Performance : Strategic CSR vs. General CSR. Korean Corporation Management Review, 27, 1-17. doi:10.21052/KCMR.2020.27.1.01
Leipziger, D. (2017a). The Global Reporting Initiative. In (pp. 490-510).
Leipziger, D. (2017b). ISO 26000. In (pp. 83-129).
Libeskind-Hadas, R., & Bush, E. (2018). The UPGMA Algorithm: Computing content: reconstructing phylogeny with the UPGMA algorithm. In (pp. 163-174).
Ligeti, G., & Oravecz, Á. (2009). CSR Communication of Corporate Enterprises in Hungary. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 137-149. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9678-3
Loosemore, M., & Lim, B. (2016). Linking corporate social responsibility and organizational performance in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 35, 1-16. doi:10.1080/01446193.2016.1242762
Luangcharoenrat, C., Intrachooto, S., Peansupap, V., & Sutthinarakorn, W. (2019). Factors Influencing Construction Waste Generation in Building Construction: Thailand’s Perspective. Sustainability, 11, 3638. doi:10.3390/su11133638
Mascena, K., Barakat, S., Isabella, G., & Fischmann, A. (2020). The Influence of Board Structure and Ownership Concentration on GRI Reporting. Review of Business Management, 22. doi:10.7819/rbgn.v22i3.4075
Mititelu, C., & Fiorani, G. (2018). EU CSR policy co-design: A shopping basket voluntary approach. In (pp. 17-38).
Nora Rodek, B. (2017). CSR EMAT Is an Opportunity for Responsible Decision-Making. Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy, 63(3), 37-46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/ngoe-2017-0017
Omran, M., Hussainey, K., & Razek, M. (2011). Factors affecting corporate social responsibility disclosure in Egypt. Corporate Ownership and Control Journal, 8, 432-443. doi:10.22495/cocv8i4c4art5
Pisani, N., Kourula, A., Kolk, A., & Meijer, R. (2017). How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 591-614. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.003
Popal, P. (2019). The UN Global Compact. In (pp. 60-73).
Putzer, P. (2019). CSR - Merre tovább? Marketing & Menedzsment, 45(4), 45-52. Retrieved from https://journals.lib.pte.hu/index.php/mm/article/view/479
Saraf, D. D. (2013). Study of Factors Affecting Performance of Construction Project International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). Retrieved from https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v4i5/SUB154426.pdf
Sardana, D., Gupta, N., Kumar, V., & Terziovski, M. (2020). CSR ‘sustainability’ practices and firm performance in an emerging economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120766. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120766
Seeboo, A. (2019). Factors Affecting Performances of Small Projects in Small Island States – Stakeholders’ Perceptions. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 603, 032022. doi:10.1088/1757-899x/603/3/032022
Segal, J.-P. S., André; Triomphe, Claude-Emmanuel. (2003). Corporate social responsibility and working condition. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Sellakutty, D., Sethuraman, R., & R.Srimathi. (2017). A Review On Critical Success Factors In Construction Project. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Volume 3, 477-481.
Sheate, W. (2010). Tools, Techniques & Approaches for Sustainability: Collected Writings in Environmental Assessment Policy and Management.
Slapikaite, I., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2017). Modeling a csr evaluation system. Transformations in Business and Economics, 16, 173-186.
Soewin, E., & Chinda, T. (2018). Factors affecting construction performance: exploratory factor analysis. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 140, 012102. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/140/1/012102
Szlávik, J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility. Budapest: Complex Kiadó Kft.
Tengan, C., Appiah-Kubi, E., Anzagira, L., Balaara, A., & Kissi, E. (2014). Factors Affecting Quality Performance of Construction Firms in Ghana: Evidence from Small–Scale Contractors. Civil and Environmental Research, 6, 18-23.
Tóth, G. (2009). The Truly Responsible Enterprise: About unsustainable development, the tools of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the deeper, strategic approach.
Turyakira, P., Venter, E., & Smith, E. (2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility factors on the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 17, 157-172. doi:10.4102/sajems.v17i2.443
Valverde-Gascueña, N., Navarro Astor, E., Fuentes-Del-Burgo, J., & Ruiz-Fernandez, J. (2011). Factors that affect the productivity of construction projects in small and medium companies: Analysis of its impact on planning (Vol. 2).
van der Merwe, B. (2019). Design-based research for the development of a flexible learning environment. Health SA Gesondheid, 24. doi:10.4102/hsag.v24i0.1050
Vartiak, L. (2017). Global sustainable and responsible investment activities and strategies of companies. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 3, 77-87. doi:10.18844/gjhss.v3i4.1610
Vogel, D. (2006). The Market for Virtue
The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility (2 ed.): Brookings Institution Press.
Waddock, S., & Rasche, A. (2015). Corporate Responsibility. In.
Wang, J. (2013). Pearson Correlation Coefficient. In (pp. 1671-1671).
Yong, A., & Pearce, S. (2013). A Beginner’s Guide to Factor Analysis: Focusing on Exploratory Factor Analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9, 79-94. doi:10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079
Zhao, Z.-Y., Zhao, X., Davidson, K., & Zuo, J. (2012). A corporate social responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 29-30, 277-289. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.036
Zhao, Z.-Y., Zhao, X., Zuo, J., & Zillante, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility for construction contractors: a China study. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 14. doi:10.1108/JEDT-07-2014-0043