Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA,UK, Australia,and Germany

Corporate social reporting, while not mandatory in most countries, has been adopted by many large companies around the world and there are now a variety of competing global standards for non-financial reporting, such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the UN Global Compact. However, while some companies (e.g., Henkel, BHP, Johnson and Johnson) have a long standing tradition in reporting non-financial information, other companies provide only limited information, or in some cases, no information at all. Previous studies have suggested that there are, country and industry-specific, differences in the extent of CSR reports (e.g., Kolk et al.: 2001, Business Strategy and the Environment 10, 15–28; Kolk: 2005, Management International Review 45, 145–166; Maignan and Ralston: 2002, Journal of International Business Studies 33(3), 497–514). However, findings are inconclusive or contradictory and it is often difficult to compare previous studies owing to the idiosyncratic methods used in each study (Graafland et al.: 2004, Journal of Business Ethics 53, 137–152). Furthermore, previous studies have relied mainly on simple measures, such as word counts and page counts of reports, to compare the extent of reporting that may not capture significant differences in the content of the reports. In this article, we seek to overcome some of these deficiencies by using textual analysis software and a more robust statistical method to more objectively and reliably compare the CSR reports of firms in different industries and countries. We examine a sample of leading companies in four countries (US, UK, Australia, and Germany) and test whether or not membership of the Global Compact makes a difference to CSR reporting and is overcoming industry and country specific factors that limit standardization. We conclude that GlobalCompact membership is having an effect only in certain areas of CSR reporting, related to the environment and workers, and that businesses from different countries vary significantly in the extent to which they promote CSR and the CSR issues that they choose to emphasize in their reports. These country differences are argued to be related to the different institutional arrangements in each country.     

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Information Asymmetry?

In this study, we examine the empirical association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and information asymmetry by investigating their simultaneous and endogenous effects. Employing an extensive U.S. sample, we find an inverse association between CSR engagement and the proxies of information asymmetry after controlling for various firm characteristics. The results hold using 2SLS considering the reverse side of information asymmetry influencing CSR activities. The results also hold after mitigating endogeneity based on the dynamic panel system generalized method of moment. Furthermore, the CSR–information asymmetry relation is amplified in high-risk firms due to managers’ efforts to build a good reputation. Last, we find that CSR engagement is inversely associated with reputational risk measure and lower predicted value of reputational risk is positively associated with lower information asymmetry measures. We interpret these results as supporting the stakeholder theory-based, reputation-building explanation that considers CSR engagement as a vehicle to build and maintain firm reputation thereby enhancing the information environment.     

The Evolution of Business Groups’ Corporate Social Responsibility

Although establishing gender equality in board and managerial positions has recently become more important for organizations, companies with low levels of gender diversity seem to perceive an ethical dilemma regarding the ways, in which they attempt to attain it. One way that organizations try to move toward gender equality is through the use of their corporate websites to manage potential applicants’ impressions of their current levels of, and actions to improve, gender diversity. The dilemma is whether to truthfully communicate their low level of gender diversity, conceal it, or exaggerate it. On the one hand, organizations that are truthful may find it difficult to achieve equality because women are less attracted to companies that lack diversity. On the other hand, organizations that are untruthful risk their moral legitimacy. The present work investigates gender diversity-related communication on the corporate websites of 99 major German companies. Based on theoretical work on minority attraction, we apply an organizational impression management taxonomy to guide our in-depth content analysis. With this approach, we hope to advance the understanding of how the issue of gender diversity is presented on corporate websites, which is useful for both organizational decision makers as well as diversity researchers. We found that although gender diversity-related communications on corporate websites contain both assertive and defensive organizational impression management tactics, as well as a third type of tactic we refer to as “acknowledgement,” assertive tactics were used more frequently. We argue the existence of a paradox whereby organizations use assertive impression management tactics to maintain pragmatic legitimacy but compromise their moral legitimacy by doing so. Furthermore, we argue that moral legitimacy can be maintained or restored through the sincere use of defensive impression management tactics and acknowledgement.     

Conceptualising Corporate Social Responsibility: ‘Relational Governance’ Assessed,Augmented, and Adapted

Academic interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be traced back to the 1930s. Since then an impressive body of empirical data and theory-building has been amassed, mainly located in the fields of management studies and business ethics. One of the most noteworthy recent conceptual contributions to the scholarship is Midttun’s (Corporate Governance 5(3):159–174, 2005) CSR-oriented embedded relational model of societal governance. It re-conceptualises the relationships between the state, business, and civil society. Other scholars (In Albareda et al. Corporate Governance 6(4):386–400, 2006; Business Ethics: A European Review 17(4):347–363, 2008; Lozano et al., Governments and Corporate Social Responsibility, 2008) have recently successfully used the model as the basis for their analytical framework for researching CSR activities in a large number of western European countries. While this research offers valuable insights into how CSR is operationalised, it also suffers from a number of significant limitations. To develop a stronger analytical framework with which to explore CSR, this article draws more deeply on political science literature concerned with governance and public policy analysis. This represents the main purpose of this article. In addition, this article also addresses a second and more modest aim: to reflect on the ways in which relational governance-inspired frameworks could be adapted and applied to politico-economic systems where state-industry-third sector relations differ from those found in North America and Western Europe. Both lines of argument are illustrated using vignettes from a case study of the Evenkia Hydro-Electric Station building project in the Russian Federation.     

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Matter in Asian Emerging Markets?

This study addresses the question whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) matters in Asian Emerging Markets. Based on CSR scores compiled by Credit Lyonnais Securities (Asia), we assess the CSR performance of major Asian firms over a period of 3 years, from 2001 to 2004. The results show that there is a positive and significant relation between CSR and market valuation among Asian firms. We further find that CSR is positively related to the market valuation of the subsequent year. More importantly, Asian firms are rewarded by the market for improving their CSR practice.     

Do Lenders Value Corporate Social Responsibility? Evidence from China

Drawing on risk mitigation theory, this article examines whether the improvement of firms’ social performance reduces debt financing costs (CDFs) in China, the world’s largest emerging market. Employing both the ordinary least square (OLS) and the two-stage instrumental variable regression methods, we find that improved corporate social responsibility (CSR) reduces the CDF when firms’ CSR investment is lower than an optimal level; however, this relationship is reversed after the CSR investment exceeds the optimal level. Firms with extremely low or extremely high CSR are subject to a higher CDF. The results also suggest that the optimal CSR level for small firms is higher than that for large firms. This study is the first to document a U-shaped relationship between CSR and CDF and also the first to investigate this relationship within an emerging market context.     

Directors’ Roles in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Stakeholder Perspective

We propose that corporate directors are important in helping organizations deal with two major issues of stakeholders. First, directors can help manage the interests of organizational stakeholders, and second, they assist in protecting the interests of their organizations as stakeholders in society. Their contribution can be conceptualized as the directors’ roles in corporate social responsibility (DR-CSR). We identify two types of DR-CSR, organization-centered and society-centered roles. Based on a study of 120 corporate directors, we observe that the more concern that corporate directors have for stakeholders, the more likely that they will perceive the need to perform their DR-CSR effectively.     

Corporate Social Responsibility: Is it Rewarded by the Corporate Bond Market? A Critical Note

The question of whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) has a positive impact on firm value has been almost exclusively analysed from the perspective of the stock market. We have therefore investigated the relationship between the valuation of Euro corporate bonds and the standards of CSR of mainly European companies for the first time in this article. Generally, the debt market exhibits a considerable weight for corporate finance, for which reason creditors should basically play a significant role in the transmission of CSR into the valuation of financial instruments. Given that socially responsible firms are often regarded as economically more successful and less risky, they should have lower risk premia. The results of the empirical analysis, however, reveal that based on an extensive data panel the risk premium for socially responsible firms – according to the classification by SAM Group – was ceterius paribus higher than for non-socially responsible companies. However, only one case of the models investigated was weakly significant. Thus, largely the relationship has to be classified as marginal; so CSR has apparently not yet been incorporated into the pricing of corporate bonds.     

Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Impact on Firms’ Investment Policy, Organizational Structure, and Performance

This study examines the determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its implications on firms’ investment policy, organizational strategy, and performance. First, we find that firms with better performance, higher R&D intensity, better financial health, and firms in new economy industries are more likely to engage in CSR activities, while riskier firms are less likely to do so. We also find U-shaped relation between firm size and CSR, indicating that either very small or very large firms exhibit high levels of CSR strengths and concerns. Next, we find that firms’ CSR strengths relate favorably with their investments, organizational strategy, and performance, whereas CSR concerns and firm attributes are by and large negatively related. Using a 2SLS procedure, we verify that the CSR–performance relation is robust to corrections for endogeneity through reverse causation and/or biases introduced by time varying omitted variables. Finally, we find that the CSR–firm attributes relation is strengthened when the CEO’s incentives are below the sample median, suggesting that CSR participation is especially important when monetary incentives are lower than benchmark levels.     

Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Polluting Industries: Does Religion Matter?

Using a sample of Chinese listed firms in polluting industries for the period of 2008–2010, we empirically investigate whether and how Buddhism, China’s most influential religion, affects corporate environmental responsibility (CER). In this study, we measure Buddhist variables as the number of Buddhist monasteries within a certain radius around Chinese listed firms’ registered addresses. In addition, we hand-collect corporate environmental disclosure scores based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reporting guidelines. Using hand-collected Buddhism data and corporate environmental disclosure scores, we provide strong and robust evidence that Buddhism is significantly positively associated with CER. This finding is consistent with the following view: Buddhism can serve as social norms to evoke the consciousness of social responsibility, and thereof strengthen CER. Our findings also reveal that the positive association between Buddhism and CER is attenuated for firms with higher law enforcement index. The results are robust to various measures of Buddhism and a variety of sensitivity tests.     

Chinese Consumers’ Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

The findings of this article increase our understanding of corporate social responsibility from the consumers’ perspective in a Chinese setting. Based on primary data collected via a self-administered survey in Shanghai and Hong Kong and results of similar studies conducted in Europe and the United States, we provide evidence to show that Chinese consumers are more supportive of CSR. We also show that Carroll’s pyramid of responsibilities can be applied in China. We evaluated the importance placed by Chinese consumers on the four responsibilities of firms – economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic – and find that economic responsibilities are most important while philanthropic responsibilities are of least importance. The nature of these differences is important for firms intending to use corporate social responsibility for strategic purposes.     

Corporate Social Responsibility and Multi-Stakeholder Governance: Pluralism,Feminist Perspectives and Women’s NGOs

The corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature has increasingly explored relationships between civil society and social movements, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and corporations, as well as the role of NGOs in multi-stakeholder governance processes. This paper addresses the challenge of including a plurality of civil society voices and perspectives in business–NGO relations, and in CSR as a process of governance. The paper contributes to CSR scholarship by bringing insights from feminist literature to bear on CSR as a process of governance, and engaging with leaders of women’s NGOs, a group of actors rarely included in CSR research. The issues raised inform contributions to the CSR literature relating to the role of women’s NGOs with regard to the gender equality practices and impacts of corporations, and with respect to defining the meaning and practice of CSR. The paper frames marginalized NGOs as important actors which can contribute to pluralism, inclusion and legitimacy in CSR as a process of governance. It identifies several key barriers to the participation of women’s NGOs in CSR, and concludes by making suggestions for future research, as well as practice.     

Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement in Kenya: Bottom Line or Rhetoric?

Abstract

Over the last three decades, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has sparked considerable debate in the literature on management research. While previous research on the relationship between CSR and firm performance has largely been based on data gathered in developed countries, this paper examines the relationship between CSR and firm performance in Kenya, using a sample of 352 firm-years during the period 2005–2012. CSR was measured using four dimensions relevant to Kenya: employee CSR, product/service CSR, community CSR and environmental CSR, and aggregated using my own CSR index. Firm performance was measured using both ROA and ROE. Content analysis was used to collect data from the financial reports of companies. The results indicate a positive and significant relationship between employee CSR, product/service CSR and community CSR and firm performance; environmental CSR, on the other hand, was not significant. The overall CSR index was found to be positive and significant to both measures of firm performance.     

Strengthening Stakeholder–Company Relationships Through Mutually Beneficial Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) continues to gain attention atop the corporate agenda and is by now an important component of the dialogue between companies and their stakeholders. Nevertheless, there is still little guidance as to how companies can implement CSR activity in order to maximize returns to CSR investment. Theorists have identified many company-favoring outcomes of CSR; yet there is a dearth of research on the psychological mechanisms that drive stakeholder responses to CSR activity. Borrowing from the literatures on means-end chains and relationship marketing, we propose a conceptual model that explains how CSR provides individual stakeholders with numerous benefits (functional, psychosocial, and values) and how the type and extent to which a stakeholder derives these benefits from CSR initiatives influences the quality of the relationship between the stakeholder and the company. The paper discusses the implications of these␣insights and highlights a number of areas for future research.     

Multinational Firms’ Leadership Role in Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin America

This paper explores the commitment to corporate citizenship on the part of the largest U.S.-based multinationals in the emerging market region of Latin America. The websites of the largest U.S.-based firms – according to the 2007 Fortune 500 list – are reviewed and their CSR efforts in Latin America are noted. The firms’ positions on corporate citizenship in Latin America are mapped onto a three-by-three matrix in which firms’ commitment to corporate citizenship ranges from profit-making motivations to a more holistic approach where support for non-profit causes is embraced by the entire firm and implemented at all levels (Marsden, Business and Society Review 105(1), 9–26, 2000). The largest U.S.-based multinationals were selected for this study because of their leadership role and the fact that other firms within their respective industries may seek to emulate the firms’ level of commitment to corporate citizenship. While the matrix can be used to evaluate corporate citizenship efforts in any market – or globally – the emphasis in this study is on Latin America, a region of interest for two reasons: because of the paucity of research on this particular emerging market region as it relates to CSR, and because there is some evidence to suggest that philanthropic initiatives by the region’s wealthy individuals lag behind individual philanthropic efforts in other world regions (Oppenheimer, Latin America’s Rich Should Donate More. McClatchey-Tribune Regional News, 2007). If this is the case, this study aims to identify whether companies are picking up the slack.

“You make a living by what you get; but you make a life by what you give.” Winston Churchill

     

Exploring the Valuation of Corporate Social Responsibility—A Comparison of Research Methods

This paper argues the case that tests of how investors value corporate social performance (CSP) based upon realised stock market returns are liable to be weak tests if markets are efficient and firms change CSP policies infrequently. We provide a theoretical explanation of why this will be the case using examples to illustrate. Subsequently, we set out an alternative theoretical framework for the purposes of investigating whether markets place a positive, or a negative, valuation on CSP, and show why this is superior to tests based upon Tobin’s Q. Using US KLD data, we demonstrate that, as theorised, markets place a positive value on CSP that is not detected by conventional returns-based tests. Our conclusion is that researchers who are interested in the question of whether engagement with a corporate social responsibility agenda is a value-enhancing activity for a company (as argued by some stakeholder theorists) or value destructive (as argued by Friedman, The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, The New York Times Magazine, 1970), need to look beyond returns-based tests to answer the research question posed.     

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’.