Table 3 Strengths of drivers of CSR involvement by case

▪ Compatibility with development plans (7.0);

▪ Pre-emptive anti-regulationism (6.5);

▪ Company reputation (6.0)

▪ Company reputation (7.0);

▪ Pre-emptive anti-regulationism (6.7);

▪ Supply chain partners’ expectations (6.5);

▪ Host community expectations (6.3);

▪ Peer pressure/mimicry (5.3)

▪ Company reputation (7.0);

▪ Pre-emptive anti-regulationism (6.0);

▪ Compatibility with development plans (6.0)

▪ Company reputation (6.7);

▪ Pre-emptive anti-regulationism (6.4);

▪ Compatibility with development plans (5.6)

• Bitter experience with regulators (4.0);

• Internal stakeholders’ expectations (4.7);

• Legal compliance (4.7);

• Bitter experience with regulators (4.3);

• Compatibility with development plans (3.7);

• Host community expectations/agitations (4.0);

• Bitter experience with regulators (4.0);

• Host community expectations/agitations (4.2);

• Bitter experience with regulators (4.1);

• Expectations/pressure from supply chain partners (3.8)

• Expectations/agitations of internal stakeholders (3.6)

• Industry codes as pressure/mimicry (3.1)

▪ Internal stakeholders’ expectations (3.0)

▪ Host community expectations 2.2);

▪ Bitter experience with regulators (2.0);

▪ Peer pressure/mimicry (2.0);

▪ Supply chain expectations (2.0);

▪ Unique financial strength (2.0);

▪ Legal compliance (1.0);

▪ Tax incentive (1.0)

▪ Company's relative better financial muscle (3.0)

▪ Tax incentives (2.3)

▪ Internal stakeholders’ expectations (3.0);

▪ Supply chain partners’ expectations (3.0)

▪ Peer pressure/mimicry (2.0)

▪ Legal compliance (1.0);

▪ Tax incentive (1.0);

▪ Unique financial strength (1.0)

▪ Legal compliance (2.2);

▪ Unique financial strength (2.0);

▪Tax incentive (1.4);