Institutional Models of Corporate Social Responsibility

Abstract

Matten and Moon studied cross-national variations in corporate social responsibility (CSR) forms using an explicit-implicit framework. This article proposes a development and refinement of the explicit-implicit framework to account for, first, intranational variations of CSR, and, second, the role of individual managers in the actual process of developing CSR constructs within a given country. The specific national, institutional context, such as Norway, within which managers construct personal meaning for CSR, is ambiguous and possesses both different and potentially conflicting institutional logics of the role and responsibility of business in a given society. The author suggests that explicit and implicit models of CSR differ in two key respects. One difference concerns whether corporate or collective responsibility mechanisms should be used to address social issues. The other difference concerns whether the scope of issues to which the corporate entity is expected to attend should be broad or narrow. The author proposes four institutional models of CSR that combine the explicit-implicit distinction with these two differences: Explicit Expansionist CSR, Implicit Contractive CSR, Implicit Expansionist CSR, and Explicit Contractive CSR. Focus group interviews with Norwegian managers empirically illuminate these models and the micro-level individual construction of variable meanings for CSR within a national, institutional context.

There is no need to shout to be heard! The paradoxical nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting in a Latin American family small and medium-sized enterprise (SME)

“…Religious motivations of family members should not be underestimated in CSR reporting. As the choice of CSR activities was based around the social ethics of business owners (Cornwall and Naughton, 2003), then the variety of cultural dimensions and faith systems around the world can motivate researchers to revisit personal values, beliefs and motivations behind CSR reporting (Blindheim, 2015;Gond and Moser, 2019). Future studies could explore to what extent the variability of CSR reporting is influenced by cultural expectations, and the level of adherence to religious beliefs (Ibrahim, Howard and Angelidis, 2008;Miller and Ewest, 2015).…”

Social expenditure, business responsibility reporting score and firm performance: empirical evidence from India

“…Informational inefficiency can also include the possibility of more than one interpretation of information. While some stakeholders may trust the CSR initiatives, others may respond by considering such initiatives to be merely marketing gimmicks with an eventual aim of beefing up the corporate treasury, which is what critics of the instrumental approach point out (Grant, 2007;Hart, 2012;Blindheim, 2011). Societal skepticism may also have a role to play, where a rising CSR expenditure may create distrust of corporations (Connors et al, 2017).…”

The Commons, the Common Good and Extraterritoriality: Seeking Sustainable Global Justice through Corporate Responsibility

“…That being said, applying institutional theory to explicate CSR in the cross-national dimension needs to be complemented not only with "homogeneity and consensus" but also with "heterogeneity and contestation around the meaning and practice of CSR" [30] (p. 57). For instance, while current institutional theory work recognises the "institutional duality" of an MNEs' subsidiaries as these subsidiaries face dual internal and external pressures, by conforming to requirements from both the host country and the parent company [31,32], the theory does not explain the institutional role played by the MNE as a whole, and the sovereignty implications of the multiple cross-border dimensions in which it operates its CSR practices.…”

“…Sources Dimensions conceptions of state sovereignty [16] incompatibility with extraterritorial initiatives shareholder primacy norm [17][18][19][20]25,26] conflicts between the norm and mandatory CSR, including extraterritorial attempts separate legal entities [23,24] being separate legal entities, whether parent companies should be responsible or accountable for the actions and decisions of their extraterritorial subsidiaries or suppliers limited liability principle [21,22] limited liability principle shielding shareholders and parents companies from liability and the problem of corporate (extraterritorial) irresponsibility institutional theory [29] diversity and the dynamics of CSR and legislative attempts for addressing extraterritorial challenges [10,30] blurred boundaries between business and society and different forms of CSR (law) at national level [31,32] "institutional duality" of MNEs' subsidiaries Table 1. Cont.…”