Corporate Social Responsibility as Institution: A Social Mechanisms Framework

Abstract

Recent research suggests that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is institutionalised amongst multinational corporations. Yet CSR scholarship faces considerable challenges. An agreed definition is lacking, even amongst researchers adopting aligned approaches. Studies remain heavily focused on making a business case for CSR, despite its widespread acceptance into business practice. Few studies examine CSR's on-ground implications for the communities it purports to help, favouring instead a macrolevel focus. And concerns about CSR's sincerity, motivations and ethics perpetuate questions about its integrity. This article argues that new institutionalism is well placed to respond to these core challenges for CSR, and that new institutionalist perspectives can complement and enrich other common theoretical approaches. It contributes a social mechanism-based framework for CSR, identifying and exploring the key social mechanisms that institutionalise it; namely, discourse, mimesis, normative learning and coercion. Understanding CSR as an institution facilitates new and different explorations of its causes and effects and opens new avenues for scholarly inquiry. Illustrative examples from a 3.5-year study of CSR in the global mining industry are presented to explore the implications of CSR as an institution and to suggest pathways for innovative research.

Mitigating climate change: A role for regulations and risk‐taking

“…Less formal public and peer pressure such as self-regulation and voluntary certifications can also increase awareness and heighten scrutiny upon firms to make and keep commitments (Campbell, 2007;Hoffman, 2005;Prakash, 2001). According to institutional theory, formal and informal extraorganizational mechanisms such as International Standards Organization 14001, the world's largest voluntary certification scheme to address GHG pollutants (King & Lenox, 2000;King, Lenox, & Terlaak, 2005;Prakash & Potoski, 2014;Russo, 2009), establish standards of expected behavior which, in turn, affects firms' responses (Aguilera & Grogaard, 2018;Bice, 2017;Campbell, 2007;Clark, Bryant, & Griffin, 2017;DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;Flammer, 2013;Hoffman & Bansal, 2011;King et al, 2005;Prakash & Potoski, 2014). Stringent enforcement and credible scrutiny are necessary for the success of voluntary certifications and self-regulatory efforts (King et al, 2005;King & Lenox, 2000) such as disclosure through the CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project; Hsueh, 2019 Institutional context theorists also posit that a firm might engage in positive actions exceeding extant laws due to higher expectations from other publics such as media scrutiny, NGOs, activists, and the general public (Campbell, 2007).…”

Management Solutions to Determine the Level of Management Culture Aiming to Implement Corporate Social Responsibility

“…not always directly [4][5][6][7][8][9]. There is even a bigger lack of scientific researches suggesting managerial solutions for organizations aiming to implement corporate social responsibility, which is indirectly analyzed in the works of various authors [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22], and there is a particular lack of researches related to both CSR and management culture [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30].…”

Towards best practice jobs decision-making: institutionalising fuller consideration of the social context in resource projects

“…The paper, did not reference institutional theory, but covered similar concepts, and analysed the disconnect that can exist between internal regulations, the devolution of company approaches to health and safety, and the attitudes and behaviour of personnel at the operational level. The research in my study, combined with that of Gunningham (2016) and Bice (2015;, referenced in Chapter Three, could provide the foundations for a body of evidence-based and practice-oriented nested institutional theory CSR analysis for the resource sector. Haberberg's (2010) three phases of institutionalisation research (referenced in Chapters Three and Seven), can inform this comparative analysis, contributing to a more strategic assessment of the evolution of CSR and sustainability practice across the resource sector.…”

“…A recent body of research by Bice (2015; explored the relevance and usefulness of institutional theory to the resource sector. Bice (2015) concludes that the application of the theory, to the industry, can assist to draw out the potentially competing and complex interplay of pressures that shape the form that CSR takes across multiple organisational levels (p. 14).…”

“…Bice (2015) concludes that the application of the theory, to the industry, can assist to draw out the potentially competing and complex interplay of pressures that shape the form that CSR takes across multiple organisational levels (p. 14). Bice (2015) emphasises that the current use of a mix of segregated theories to assess and understand CSR practice in the resource sector can compound the lack of coherency around the term and contribute to a piecemeal understanding of the issues and drivers (p. 4). Bice (2016) identifies that social performance in the resource sector is "[t]oo frequently characterised by strong, idealised policies which are decoupled from practice" (p.…”