Corporate Social Responsibility in Western Europe: An Institutional Mirror or Substitute?

In spite of extensive research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its link with economic and social performance, few studies have investigated the institutional determinants of CSR. This article draws upon neo-institutional theory and comparative institutional analysis to compare the influence of different institutional environments on CSR policies of European firms. On the basis of a dataset of European firms, we find that firms from the more liberal market economies of the Anglo-Saxon countries score higher on most dimensions of CSR than firms in the more coordinated market economies (CMEs) in Continental Europe. This result lends support to the view of voluntary CSR practices in liberal economies as being a substitute for institutionalized forms of stakeholder participation. Meanwhile, CSR tends not to mirror more institutionalized forms of stakeholder coordination. Instead, in CMEs, CSR often takes on more implicit forms. Our analysis also shows that national institutional and sectoral-level factors have an asymmetric effect – strongly influencing the likelihood of firms adopting ‘minimum standards’ of CSR, but having little influence on the adoption of ‘best practices’.     

National Stakeholder Orientation,Corporate Social Responsibility,and Bank Loan Cost

Based on a sample of firms from 20 countries around the world, this study investigates how the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and bank loan pricing is affected by the degree of national stakeholder orientation. We find that firms with superior CSR performance are more likely to enjoy lower loan costs in more stakeholder-oriented countries than are their counterparts in less stakeholder-oriented countries. This study contributes to the CSR literature by highlighting the importance of national institutional environments in determining the economic consequences of CSR practices.     

Paradox strategic cognition and ECSR in China: a three-tripod perspective

Literature rooted in institutional theory and stakeholder theory offers conflicting views on the relationship between environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) and financial performance. However, both failed to explain why firms interpret this relationship variously which is subjective to a firm’s strategic cognition. How firms interpret this relationship affects the ECSR decision and implementation. Drawing on the paradox theory, four hypotheses were proposed and examined using data from 170 manufacturing firms in China. This study found paradox strategic cognition positively affects ECSR. Legal enforcement inefficiency, competitive intensity and industrial power weaken the effect of paradox strategic cognition on ECSR.     

Configuration of External Influences: The Combined Effects of Institutions and Stakeholders on Corporate Social Responsibility Strategies

This article introduces a theoretical framework that combines institutional and stakeholder theories to explain how firms choose their corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy. Organizational researchers have identified several distinct CSR strategies (e.g., obstructionist, defensive, accommodative, and proactive), but did not explain the sources of divergence. This article argues that the divergence comes from the variability in the configuration of external influences that consists of institutional and stakeholder pressures. While institutions affect firms’ social behavior by shaping the macro-level incentive structure and sources of legitimacy (distal mechanisms), firms’ stakeholders can amplify or buffer the institutional forces by acting as mediators (proximate mechanisms). The two dimensions are interdependent in that stakeholders draw legitimacy and power from institutions, and institutions are often actualized through stakeholder mechanisms. Together, they form a particular configuration of external influences that shapes how focal firms construct their CSR strategy.     

Stakeholders Pressures and Strategic Prioritisation: An Empirical Analysis of Environmental Responses in Argentinean Firms

This article focusses on corporate attitudes to stakeholder environmental pressures in Argentina. It uses a cross section survey of 505 CEOs of Argentinean firms to gather information on environmental attitudes and a stakeholder theory framework to design and interpret the statistical analyses. It is underpinned by theoretical and empirical findings in the literature on stakeholder management, targeting in particular studies that deal with corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Latin America. Its general aim is to gain a deeper empirical understanding of the coherence between managers’ perceptions of stakeholder pressures and the importance they are given in corporate CSR strategies through an empirical investigation of environmental management (EM) decisions. In doing so, it uncovers general differences in the way firms perceive and treat groups of stakeholders. It also detects variations across firms, observing that some are typically proactive in their response to stakeholder pressures whilst others are less responsive. Profiling the various stakeholder networks and the corporate response strategies in this way encourages the development of stakeholder-focussed policies and corporate strategies that emphasise communications, awareness and a clear sense of direction. It concludes that CSR appears to be more effective in the protection of the environment than previously reported. Although this study focusses on EM in Argentina, the findings are more generally applicable.     

Corporate Social Performance, Stakeholder Orientation, and Organizational Moral Development

This article begins with an explanation of how moral development for organizations has parallels to Kohlberg's categorization of the levels of individual moral development. Then the levels of organizational moral development are integrated into the literature on corporate social performance by relating them to different stakeholder orientations. Finally, the authors propose a model of organizational moral development that emphasizes the role of top management in creating organizational processes that shape the organizational and institutional components of corporate social performance. This article represents one approach to linking the distinct streams of business ethics and business-and-society research into a more complete understanding of how managers and firms address complex ethical and social issues.     

Determinants and Performance Effects of Social Performance Measurement Systems

This study investigates the performance measurement systems adopted by companies to manage their social responsibility activities, a theme that remains under-researched despite the important role that these mechanisms may play in helping firms control and improve their social performance. An integrative model is developed to examine how the three fundamental drivers of corporate social strategies, i.e., business motivations, perceived stakeholder pressures, and top management’s social commitment, influence the use of social performance indicators for internal decision-making and control and how such use impacts companies’ social and economic performance. The results from a survey of 97 Italian companies suggest that economic motivations and top management’s commitment are associated with a more intensive use of social performance indicators for decision-making and control, whereas perceived pressures from stakeholders do not represent a significant determinant of such use. The use of social performance indicators, in turn, is found to directly influence a firm’s social performance and, indirectly, its bottom line.     

Perceptions of Intentional Wrongdoing and Peer Reporting Behavior Among Registered Nurses

Researchers and practitioners have devoted considerable attention to firms' policies regarding discretionary disclosures. Prior studies argue that firms increase demand for their debt and equity issues and, thus, lower their cost of capital, by providing more informative disclosures. However, empirical research has generally not been able to document significant benefits from increased disclosure.This paper proposes an alternative explanation – firms disclose because it is the socially responsible thing to do. We argue that companies have incentives to engage in stakeholder management by undertaking socially responsible activities and that providing extensive and informative disclosures is one such practice.We examine the relationship between firms' disclosures and measures of social responsibility. We use ratings provided by the Council on Economic Priorities as proxies for the degree of social responsibility adopted by the sample firms. Disclosure rankings provided by the annual Association for Investment Management and Research Corporate Information Committee Reports (AIMR Reports) are used to measure disclosure level.Our results indicate that there is a positive relationship between disclosure level and corporate social responsibility. That is, firms that engage in socially responsive activities provide more informative and/or extensive disclosures than do companies that are less focused on advancing social goals. In addition, we find that socially responsible firms are more likely to provide this increased disclosure through better investor relations practices. These results support our contention that increased disclosure is a form of socially responsible behavior.     

Reciprocity in Corporate Social Responsibility and Channel Performance: Do Birds of a Feather Flock Together?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is more and more important in the supply chain. Drawing from the stakeholder theory and channel relational reciprocity literature, we develop and empirically support a theoretical framework. Our framework predicts that CSR reciprocity between buyer and seller firms in a supply chain affects channel tie intensity and channel sales performance (main effects) and that market competition may amplify these influences (moderated effects). The framework reveals important implications regarding the role of reciprocal CSR for channel relationship management.     

The Missing Dynamic: Corporations, Individuals and Contracts

In this article we discuss whether it pays to invest ethically. Our aim is to examine corporate social responsibility from philosophical, moral and practical points of views. We focus on two main issues related to ethical investments. Firstly we discuss the moral dilemma of how capitalism has changed its shape in today’s world and from ‘blaming the business’ there is a general attempt to use the markets to promote ethics values and corporate social responsibility. Secondly, we analyze the growth of ethical investment funds in the UK today, and their performance, and highlight some of the institutional investors involved in the management of ethical funds. We discuss whether ethical investments really succeed in reducing the conflict between profit-making and social responsibility as they promise or whether they use commercial rhetoric and market mechanism to merely sell us our own perceived values back. We conclude that the paper has a key contribution in setting the scene for future research in an area that is evolving and of fundamental importance to companies, investors and various stakeholder groups.     

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Firm Performance of Indian Companies?

This study examines whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) towards primary stakeholders influences the financial and the non-financial performance (NFP) of Indian firms. Perceptual data on CSR and NFP were collected from 150 senior-level Indian managers including CEOs through questionnaire survey. Hard data on financial performance (FP) of the companies were obtained from secondary sources. A questionnaire for assessing CSR was developed with respect to six stakeholder groups – employees, customers, investors, community, natural environment, and suppliers. A composite measure of CSR was obtained by aggregating the six dimensions. Findings indicate that stock-listed firms show responsible business practices and better FP than the non-stock-listed firms. Controlling confounding effects of stock-listing, ownership, and firm size, a favorable perception of managers towards CSR is found to be associated with increase in FP and NFP of firms. Such findings hold good when CSR is assessed for the six stakeholder groups in aggregate and for each stakeholder group in segregate. Findings suggest that responsible business practices towards primary stakeholders can be profitable and beneficial to Indian firms.     

Selective Engagement in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Stakeholder Perspective

This paper attempts to understand selective engagement in corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR involves various issues that can meet demands from multiple stakeholders. A firm can focus on certain CSR issues to satisfy a particular stakeholder while ignoring the demands from other stakeholders, or it can take a more balanced approach to CSR by addressing a wider range of social issues. In this paper, I investigate how stakeholder pressures from three types of primary stakeholders (customer, supplier, and employee) shape selective engagement in CSR. The empirical results based on a representative sample of more than 1,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the early 2000s suggest that firms prioritize their stakeholders based on instrumental considerations. Those stakeholders who have greater power over the focal firm will exert a larger impact on a firm’s CSR engagement. Constrained by limited managerial resources, firms accord attention to a limited range of issues most relevant to salient stakeholders. Specifically, MNCs as major customers pressure the focal firm to assume more responsibility for product quality, as well as on a wider range of social issues; SOEs as both major customers and major suppliers pressure the focal firm to assume more responsibility for employee welfare; employees with higher education pressure the focal firm to assume more responsibility for employee welfare, and for a wider range of social issues. This study contributes to stakeholder theory and research on the CSR of SMEs, and has important implications for CSR practitioners.     

中国纺织外贸企业履行社会责任与企业绩效的关系——基于 20家上市公司的面板数据分析

企业履行社会责任与企业绩效的关系一直是社会责任实践和理论研究中的热点问题。纺织行业作为典型的劳动力密集型行业,社会责任问题随着全球社会责任运动备受关注。本文以利益相关者理论为理论基础,以中国20家纺织业上市公司2001～2010年的数据为样本,利用实证的方法,从财务角度分析企业履行社会责任对企业经济效益的影响。从整体分析看,履行对各利益相关者的责任与企业绩效呈现较强的正相关性。     

Corporate Citizenship: How to Strengthen the Social Responsibility of Managers?

Corporate citizenship challenges the foundations and working of the basic institutions market, state and civil society. These institutional changes complicate the work of the manager, because the responsibilities of management are not only increasing, they are also becoming vaguer and more elusive. In this paper, I will analyze the new, complex responsibilities of management in terms of the scope and the legitimizationof corporate citizenship. What may we expect of individual organizations? Which wishes of which stakeholders should be honored? How can we legitimize the new societal and public role of business firms? The outcome of this analysis will be translated to the practice of management; how can we strengthen the social responsibility of managers? Four options will be discussed. (1) Market regulation, which binds the actions of managers. (2) Professionalization of management, which seeks for better information. (3) Moral management, which incorporates norms and values from outside the market. (4) Stakeholder management, which leaves room for the participation of stakeholders. These options can be schematized according to an internal-external axis and an objective-subjective axis. I will show that stakeholder management fits the best with the idea of corporate citizenship, but has serious risks of failing.     

Corporate Community Contributions in the United Kingdom and the United States

We address the issue of UK firms relatively poor record of corporate community contributions (CCCs) by subjecting them to formal comparison with those of US firms. To this end, we employ data on the top 100 UK, and top 100 US, contributors in 2001. Cross-country differences are described and discussed with reference to a stakeholder perspective on corporate social responsibility, and CCCs in particular. In this connection, we evaluate the role played by the sectoral composition of activities, as well as national, cultural and institutional factors. Our findings highlight a number of significant cross-country differences in the pattern of CCCs and suggest that UK and US firms operate within significantly different stakeholder environments.JEL Classification: M14Stephen Brammer is a Lecturer in Business Economics at University of Bath, with research interests in the area of corporate social responsibility. Much of his recent research has examined the stimuli for corporate socially responsive behaviour, the management of business social responsibilities, and the relationships between firm social performance and other dimensions of corporate performance. Recent publications include articles in the Journal of Management Studies, the European Management Journal and Business Ethics: A European Review.Stephen Pavelin is a Lecturer in Economics at the University of Reading, with research interests in foreign direct investment and corporate social responsibility. His current research agenda seeks to address: the effect of corporate social performance on the reputations and financial performance of firms; the incidence and quality of social and environmental reporting; demographic diversity (regarding gender and ethnicity) among corporate boards; and the effect of firms geographical diversification on their social performance. Recent publications include articles in the International Journal of Industrial Organisation, the Open Economies Review, the European Management Journal and Business Ethics: A European Review.     

Are Organisation Researchers too Obsessed with the Economic Responsibility of the Firm?

The original intent of business education in America focused on the development of professional managers who would look after the interests of society. As economic and shareholder theories influenced business education, firm performance became the manager’s top – if not only – priority. The economic responsibility of the firm also appears to be dominating scholarly interest in organisations as well. However, business firms constitute part of the fabric of society and closer attention should be paid by organisation researchers to the social responsibilities of the firm. In doing so, a more balanced research approach can be achieved. In this article, we give evidence that research within the study of the organisation, specifically in the field of management, has predominately turned its attention to the economic responsibility of the firm. We close by demonstrating that other fields within organisation research also appear to be favouring the study of performance and we offer suggestions as to how scholars might better address the firm’s role in society beyond its economic responsibility. Jeremy Galbreath is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Curtin University of Technology where he is studying corporate social responsibility (CSR). He has published extensively, with over 50 articles in print and 3 book chapters. Dr. Galbreath's research and teaching focuses on strategic management, the resource-based view of the firm, corporate social responsibility, stakeholder management, the ethicality of profit making strategies, intellectual capital and information technology.     

Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility

Stakeholder theory advocates that firms bear responsibility for the implications of their actions. However, while a firm affects or can affect stakeholders, stakeholders can also affect the corporation. Previous stakeholder theorising has neglected the reciprocal nature of responsibility. The question can be asked whether??in a spirit of reciprocity, loyalty and fairness??stakeholders should treat the corporation in a fair and responsible way. This study based on different definitions of stakeholders argues that various stakeholder attributes differ for different categories of stakeholders. This analysis presumes that the attribute of stakeholder reciprocity can probably be restricted to real stakeholders, labelled stakeowners: genuine stakeholders with a legitimate stake, the loyal partners who strive for mutual benefits. Stakeowners own and deserve a stake in the firm. Stakeholder reciprocity could be an innovative criterion in the corporate governance debate as to who should be accorded representation on the board. Corporate social responsibility should imply corporate stakeholder responsibility.     

企业社会责任与财务绩效关系研究综述

20世纪90年代起,企业社会责任与利益相关者在理论与实证检验方面呈现出相互整合的趋势。本文通过探析企业社会责任与利益相关者缘何走向理论结合,分别基于利益相关者整体视角与利益相关者分维度视角,对国内外企业社会责任与财务绩效关系的实证研究进行回顾与总结,并在此基础上提出了未来的研究方向。     

How does social trust affect corporate financial performance? The mediating role of corporate social responsibility

Prior studies assert that social trust may positively influence the economic performance of countries and firms (within those countries). This paper proposes a more nuanced mechanism whereby corporate social responsibility (CSR) mediates the relationship between country-level social trust and firm-level financial performance. Anchored in neo-institutional theory, we theorize that social trust instills norms of trustworthiness and willingness to trust others guiding individual and corporate behaviors. In order to comply with such norms and gain legitimacy, firms in high-trust society are more likely to commit to CSR activities that serve the interests of stakeholders. CSR activities, in turn, can positively influence financial performance by enabling firms to access stakeholders' resources and capabilities and to decrease transactions costs in the stakeholder relationships. We tested our theory by analyzing 9818 firm-year observations across 34 countries, during the 2006 to 2015 period. Our analysis shows the expected CSR mediation in the relationship between social trust and firm-level financial performance. Our findings are robust across different models addressing the concerns of endogeneity, alternative measures, and potential moderators.     

Antecedents of Adopting Corporate Environmental Responsibility and Green Practices

This paper examines the antecedents of organizational commitment for adopting corporate environmental responsibility and green practices in the case of the logistics industry in South Korea. Seven hundred and eighty employees and top management from logistics companies were sampled. The data were analyzed using factor analysis, structural equation modeling techniques, and one-way analysis of variance. The results showed that social expectations, organizational support, and stakeholder pressure were the important antecedents for the adoption of corporate environmental responsibility and green practices. In the path analysis, social expectations had the greatest impact on both stakeholder pressure and green practice adoption. Moreover, we found that the higher the job titles were, the more willing they were to adopt green practices. This indicated that the current top management of Korean logistics companies is well aware of being mandated to make a commitment to corporate environmental responsibility and green practices.