Defining Corporate Social Responsibility for Developing and Developed Countries

Abstract

This chapter proposes a conceptual framework for comparing enterprise and governmental approaches to corporate social responsibility (CSR) for developed and developing countries. An enterprise approach is voluntary. A governmental approach provides either requirements or guidance, strong or weak, for enterprise CSR. Focus is on multinational enterprises (MNEs), for two reasons. First, MNEs may operate across quite different conditions. Second, a major MNE concern has to do with fair trade and sustainable development supply chains. The chapter considers three approaches found in the extant literature. One approach asserts autonomy of developing countries from developed countries, and thus divergence of enterprise and governmental CSR by type of context. A second approach examines global convergence as highly context path-dependent and perhaps cosmetic. A third approach emphasizes “glocality” combining global thinking with local action. The author proposes an alternative understanding of how to compare CSR for developed and developing countries using theory versus context.

Carroll’s dimensions and CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from Pakistan

“…It has been argued by following researchers (Jamali, 2014;Jamali and Mirshak, 2007;Visser, 2006;Frynas, 2006;Asyraf Wajdi et al, 2008;Khavul and Bruton, 2013;Jamali, 2008) that the notion of CSR in developing economies equates to discretionary or philanthropic dimensions. Moreover, it has been argued by Dahlsrud (2008) that there is not much confusion about how CSR is defined and conceptualized but there is dearth of research as to how the notion of CSR is socially constructed especially in the context of developing economies (Jamali and Karam, 2018;Windsor, 2019). We have taken the debate of context-dependence of CSR further and examine the relevance of Carroll's four dimensions of CSR in the context of a developing economy.…”

“…Final approach has emphasized the relevance of "glocality" that combines global thinking with local action. However, the recent debate has compelled researchers to take an alternative approach that subsumes all of the abovementioned approaches (Jamali and Karam, 2018;Windsor, 2019). This approach draws from the juxtaposition of theory and context and urge researchers to examine countryspecific institutional conditions for better comprehension of CSR activities in the relevant context.…”

“…These investigations can facilitate to understand the indigenous expressions of developing economies about CSR (Jamali and Neville, 2011;Visser, 2008). As per this research gap, this study extends the scope of CSR research in the context of a developing economy and examines the context-dependence of CSR in Pakistan (Jamali and Carroll, 2017;Jamali and Karam, 2018;Windsor, 2019).…”

Institutional Ownership and Value Relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Empirical Evidence from China

“…It is due to the fact that country specific conditions are currently shaping CSR. Jamali and Karam (2018) [29] and Windsor (2019) [41] have argued that CSR in the context of a developing economy should be considered as a distinctive stream. As a matter of fact, limited efforts have been made to comprehend the CSR in developing economies and CSR practices have been less formal in these countries (Matten and Moon, 2008 [42]; Jamali and Mirshak, 2007 [43]; Sajjad and Eweje, 2014 [44]; Jamali and Karam, 2018 [29]).…”

The (missing) subjects of research on gender and global governance: Toward inquiry into the ruling relations of development

“…Although the theory and the practices of effective CSR remain contested across the management and business ethics literature, implementation of CSR continues, undeterred by scholars’ critical analysis. Windsor (, p. 15), comparing theories purporting to explain how CSR addresses challenges in development, sees CSR as an institutional method for balancing corporate decisions and activities that advance a corporation's profit‐making against its altruism; in his view “the main argument for [a corporation's] altruism‐like activities is strategic: a means for aligning stakeholders, including employees, with shareholder wealth goals.” Jain, Aguilera, and Jamali () quote research conducted in emerging economies that finds “exposure to institutional pressures from international markets, inter‐governmental organizations, and parent companies are important drivers of managerial motivations behind corporate responsibility.” Stakeholder demands, in this view, are a problem for corporations to manage. Elsewhere, stakeholders are understood within a global‐local debate about profit‐making enterprises “doing good” or doing what is “right” across international borders.…”