How Do Domestic Regulatory Traditions Shape CSR in Large International US and UK Firms?

Abstract

This article examines corporate social responsibility (CSR) pertaining to labor standards in apparel and tax transparency in extractives and explores how domestic regulatory traditions shape CSR in large international US and UK firms. Reflecting their more collaborative business‐government traditions, British firms are more willing to join international CSR multi‐stakeholder initiatives with business‐critical actors such as unions and civil society actors. The US has a more top‐down regulatory approach, which promotes hard law international CSR or encourages business‐driven voluntary CSR initiatives. This article makes three contributions. First, it argues that while corporations are the key actors in international CSR, their behavior reflects their respective national business systems. Second, focusing on a range of international CSR initiatives, this article finds that UK firms are more interested in adopting international (multi‐stakeholder) CSR initiatives than US firms. Finally, the article shows that the US and the UK governments play a key role in driving an international CSR agenda, and in doing this it highlights government agency more so than other research has.

Government Regulation of International Corporate Social Responsibility in the US and the UK: How Domestic Institutions Shape Mandatory and Supportive Initiatives

“…Finally, this study has focused on government mandatory and supportive international CSR initiatives but does not consider the impact on firm‐level CSR initiatives in UK and US corporations. It is to be expected that national institutions may exert a substantial influence over firms’ international CSR strategies (Christopherson and Lillie ; Knudsen ; Lane ).…”

Mapping corporate social responsibility practices at the international level: systematic review and content analysis approach

“…In our study, we identified 21 industry application categories. While the instruments applicable to any or multiple industries are not the most common in Raynolds et al ’s (2014) study, it is a finding that is reflected by the instruments included in Knudsen’s (2017) study. In this study, a large difference in the coverage of the instruments between IGOs and INGOs was identified.…”

“…ICSRIs can be distinguished according to the industry sectors to which they are applicable (Fransen et al , 2019; Knudsen, 2017; Perez et al , 2019). These can be broad, such as the extractive and garment industries (Knudsen, 2017), or specific, such as the tea and flower industries (Fransen et al , 2019). Moreover, some schemes may be applicable to multiple, and even all, industry sectors (Perez et al , 2019).…”

“…The idea that corporations had obligations toward society at large had already taken root (Agudelo et al , 2019). In the global north, the public’s demand for corporate accountability had since been reflected by legislation and government policy (Knudsen, 2017). In the global south, however, corporate misconduct continued to be a cause for concern (Omoteso and Yusuf, 2017).…”

“…Much of the existing research is limited to in-depth investigations of individual instruments (Brown et al , 2018) or comparative investigations of a small number of instruments (Fransen et al , 2019; Pope and Lim, 2020). Few research has concentrated on exploring all the instruments in use within a particular area (Raynolds et al , 2014; Knudsen, 2017), and fewer studies have attempted to investigate all the instruments in use at a global level (Perez et al , 2019). Without a comprehensive overview of the range and characteristics of these international CSR instruments (ICSRIs), thorough understanding and appreciation of the voluntary regulation phenomenon remains limited.…”