An Institution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Multi-National Corporations (MNCs): Form and Implications

Abstract

This paper investigates CSR as an institution within UK MNCs. In the context of literatures on the institutionalisation of CSR and on critical CSR, it presents two main findings. First, it contributes to the CSR mainstream literature by confirming that CSR has not only become institutionalised in society but that a form of this institution is also present within these MNCs. Secondly, it contributes to the critical CSR literature by suggesting that unlike broader notions of CSR shared between multiple stakeholders, MNCs practice a form of CSR that undermines the broader stakeholder concept. By increasingly focusing on strategic forms of CSR activity, MNCs are moving away from a societal understanding of CSR that focuses on redressing the impacts of their operations through stakeholder concerns, back to any activity that supports traditional business imperatives. The implications of this shift are considered using institutional theory to evaluate macro-institutional pressures for CSR activity and the agency of powerful incumbents in the contested field of CSR.

Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement

“…Corporate engagement with sustainable development themes -such as those defined by the SDGs -will thus be influenced by existing (formal and informal) institutions (e.g. Bondy, Moon, & Matten, 2012;Campbell, 2007;Matten & Moon, 2008). Yet the SDGs themselves can also be thought of as an institutional initiative.…”

“…Illustrative of this trend is the spread of codes of conduct (e.g. Bondy et al, 2012;Kolk, van Tulder, & Welters, 1999;Painter-Morland, 2006;van Tulder, van Wijk, & Kolk, 2009), the reporting mechanisms that communicate a company's social and environmental footprints (e.g. Barkemeyer et al, 2015), as well as the introduction of the ''Ruggie principles'' that guide MNEs' human rights policies (Ruggie, 2007(Ruggie, , 2008.…”

Complete and Partial Organizing for Corporate Social Responsibility

“…Moreover, there is evidence that they are investing in their own CSR capacity. This is evident in alignment of CSR with corporate aims and strategy, dedicated CSR personnel and sub-organizational units, budgets, procedures (Moon 2004; see also Bondy et al 2012;Strand 2012). However, it is now also organized by and with external actors such as other businesses (e.g., in an association such as Business in the Community UK), governmental or civil society partners, who bring new forms of organization, norms, incentives, and roles (Moon 2004).…”

Corporate social responsibility: Playing to win, or playing not to lose? Doing good by increasing the social benefits of a company’s core activities

“…The adoption of such practices may be driven by opportunism rather than by intrinsic motives. Bondy et al (2012) observed how organizations closely observe each other's CSR initiatives and are quite prone to copy them. We may already have arrived at a stage where adopting costfocused CSR may no longer differentiate companies or lead to sustainable competitive advantage (Orlitzky et al, 2011).…”

“…For instance, Microsoft's New Way of Working may result in cost savings for Microsoft's direct customers (Van Heck et al, 2012), but the flexibility that its customers' employees derive from choosing when and where they work, enabling them to establish a more favorable work-life balance, is much more important from a societal point of view (Hill et al, 2010). However, recent research among large organizations still shows a highly reactive pattern of responding to external pressures as if they were merely Public Relations issues, without much tendency to incorporate CSR deeply into their core processes (Bondy et al, 2012). Du and Vieira (2012) suggest that exactly this emphasis on the business case prevents organizations from deriving more substantial benefits -including gaining legitimacy -from their CSR efforts.…”