The purpose of this paper is to explore the evolution of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in academia. The process of evolution is conceptualised to consist of diffusion and dynamics. Bibliometrics were applied for data collection and visualisation of the evolution of CSR. The findings show increasing complexity and progression in the research on the concept of CSR fuelled not only by the efforts for intellectual refinement in the field but also reflecting the changing priorities of society and businesses. The growth of this field of research both in number of publications (i.e. diffusion) and in terms of different fields in academic usage (i.e. dynamics), is an indicator for growing complexity and widening acceptance of the CSR concept across various academic disciplines in the future.

The overall purpose of this article is to examine the theoretical connections between Corporate Entrepreneurship-CE and International Performance-IP. More specifically, we address two main research questions: (1) How do different dimensions of CE influence IP and (2) To what extent the context of host country matters? Using a two-case study approach, we employ hybrid qualitative-quantitative analyses to address the effects of different dimensions of CE on IP. We adopted four statistical techniques: descriptive statistics, decision tree, cluster analysis, and principal components (factorial maps). The results show that country matters for the perception of the relationship between CE and IP. They show that it is meaningful to separate the different dimensions of CE (innovative behavior, new business ventures, competitive aggressiveness, product/service and process innovation, self-renewal, proactiveness, and risk taking) when examining their influence on IP. The paper focuses on three level of the organization: the production sector (staff), middle management (managers), and top management (CEO and directors). Such perspective allows to explore the role of first-level managers in a "bottom-up" process of corporate entrepreneurship. Furthermore, we distinguished between two levels of corporate entrepreneurship: results and entrepreneurial behavior.