No abstract

ABSTRACT:A common complaint by academics and practitioners is that the application of international accountability standards (IAS) does not lead to significant improvements in an organization’s social responsibility. When organizations espouse their commitment to IAS but do not put forth the effort necessary to operationally enact that commitment, a “credibility cover” is created that perpetuates business as usual. In other words, the legitimacy that organizations gain by formally adopting the standards may shield the organization from closer scrutiny, thus enabling rather than constraining the types of activities the standards were designed to discourage.There is a lack of research on why certain types of IAS are more prone than others to being decoupled from organizational practices. Applying a neo-institutional perspective to IAS, we theorize that the structural dimensions of the types of standards themselves can increase the likelihood of organizations adopting IAS standards in form but not in function.

This cross-country study investigates the antecedents and outcomes of corporate environmental responsibility (CER) practices in developed and emerging countries. Based on stakeholder and institutional theory, we conducted an empirical study among firms in Germany, USA, India and China. We found support for a significant positive relationship between regulatory, market and social stakeholder influences, CER practices and business outcomes in the total and individual country samples. Regarding country differences, our data reveal significant similarities and differences between developed and emerging countries. Market stakeholder influences are stronger in developed countries, whereas regulatory and social stakeholder influences do not differ significantly between the two country groups. The relationship between CER practices and positive business outcomes is stronger in emerging than in developed countries. Implications for institutional theory and organizations are outlined.

integrative social contracts theory, discourse ethics, deliberative democracy, social contracting,