Harmonization and differences in CSR reporting of US and German companies

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to extend the theoretical discussion and empirical evidence on harmonization as well as differences in CSR reporting, and to dismantle inconsistencies owing to the idiosyncratic methods applied in previous studies. While institutional and cultural differences suggest country-of-origin effects, the proliferation of global standards for CSR reporting is expected to promote harmonization. Design/methodology/approach – Based on a literature review hypotheses concerning harmonization and country-of-origin effects were derived. Reports were content analyzed using the software Leximancer. Harmonization effects were examined by comparing reports of companies that adhered to the standards by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and UN Global Compact and those that did not declare to do so. Country-of-origin effects were explored by comparing reports of German and US multinational enterprises (MNEs). Findings – The study reveals that there are comparatively greater similarities between reports issued by MNEs that adhere to global standards, especially GRI. Results also reveal some country-of-origin effects. While German MNEs report more on environmental issues, US MNEs have a stronger focus on society, especially the community. Originality/value – The study contributes to the limited evidence for harmonization in CSR reporting due to the adherence to global reporting standards. Because comparability is important for many stakeholders addressed by the reports the findings are valuable for stakeholder management, but also for the initiatives who aim to enhance transparency and comparability.

Firms with benefits: A systematic review of responsible entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility literature

“…Meanwhile, much CSR literature examines why firms issue CSR reports (Dagiliene et al, 2014;Krištofík et al, 2016;Lock & Seele, 2016). This literature also examines standardization in the context of CSR reporting (de Villiers & Alexander, 2014;Einwiller et al, 2016) as well as the credibility of these reports (De Beelde & Tuybens, 2015;Mahoney et al, 2013;Michelon et al, 2015). Although this work may not be replicable in the responsible start-up space due to Table 5).…”

Do companies manipulate CSR information to retain legitimacy?

“…For these reasons, one central point of criticism is the selectivity in CSR reporting concerning what measures to report on. This hampers comparability and transparency (Einwiller et al, 2016). Comparability is important to most users of CSR reports who are interested in the CSR performance of not just one company (Einwiller at al., 2016).…”

“…This hampers comparability and transparency (Einwiller et al, 2016). Comparability is important to most users of CSR reports who are interested in the CSR performance of not just one company (Einwiller at al., 2016). Numerous studies indicate that CSR disclosure differs across industry sectors (Cho et al, 2015), which leads to the question of why CSR disclosure differs across different companies in the same sector, and why CSR disclosure may differ year on year for the same company.…”

Does Institutional Context Affect CSR Disclosure? A Study on Eurostoxx 50

“…From an institutional perspective, it means that the globalization of firms' operations increases the homogenization of CSR reporting, by having firms adopting international sustainability guidelines. Although CSR is a voluntary activity, firms reply to societal and governmental pressure to comply with international standards (Einwiller et al [32]). Such a behavior suggests organizational mechanism among firms, called institutional isomorphism (Moll et al [33]).…”