Oil companies, social responsibility and CSP: combining actions and profiles

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to focus on the influence of socio-economic and cultural factors and their influence on corporate social performance (CSP) (Clarkson, 1995) within developing and mature economies. It aims at identifying the characteristics of socially responsible actions within two contexts: France and Brazil. Design/methodology/approach Based on a case study methodology and a press database, this paper analyzes two oil companies, the French group Total SA, and the Brazilian company Petrobras. Findings By focusing on corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions in different socio-economic and cultural contexts, it was possible to identify a predominant CSP “proactivity” in both companies; observe a difference in CSR discourse and practice; note a heterogenic and composite CSR; and notice that companies do not choose their CSP posture, but are subjected to external classifications. Research limitations/implications The analysis of only one company per socio-economic and cultural context belonging to the same field could be considered as a limitation, although it allows a deeper analysis of events within both organizations. Practical implications Apprehending CSP within different contexts may help decision makers to better understand companies’ socially responsible postures and to observe the socio-economic and cultural factors that can influence them. Originality/value This paper highlights CSR practices and their CSP under different socio-economic and cultural perspectives for a more comprehensive understanding of factors that motivate and direct the actions of big corporate organizations.

Social media as stakeholder engagement tool: CSR communication failure in the oil and gas sector

“…The interaction within the megaproject social responsibility (MSR) is of considerable importance due to the existence of different interests and expectations regarding the impacts of megaprojects on society (Pündrich, 2017; Wang et al, 2017; Wilson, 2016). Furthermore, one of the main complexities is the difficulty of achieving a SLO from local communities (Zhang et al, 2015).…”

An interdisciplinary perspective on private sector engagement in cross‐sector partnerships: The why, where, and how

“…For example, corporations may initially indicate short‐term, profit‐driven orientations toward CSPs—and shift to midterm, CSR strategies to proactively manage community relations, or deploy long‐term public relations campaigns to maintain operational legitimacy in profitable markets (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a; Idemudia, 2009; Yin & Jamali, 2016). Corporations may also pursue CSPs with public or nonprofit environmental agencies to improve business practices, enabling them to shift from exclusively short‐term, profit‐driven pursuits to midterm, necessity‐abiding interests in shaping and obliging regulatory compliance as well as long‐term, value‐driven orientation to promote business longevity in operating environments (Adderley & Mellor, 2014; Esteves & Barclay, 2011; Pündrich, 2017; Seitanidi et al, 2010). Development practitioners should therefore be aware of both parallel and divergent partnership motivations to enhance desirable partnership outcomes for all stakeholders, including shareholders and beneficiaries.…”

Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure (CSRD) and Financial Distressed Risk (FDR): Does Institutional Ownership Matter?

“…Salehi et al [6] also argue that CSR disclosure quality among developing countries like Iran is not as strong as developed countries like America because developing nations are facing extreme challenges with high inflation, economic problems, education, social justice, and much more. Similarly, Pündrich [88] points out that socio-economic and cultural factors affect corporate social performance in developing economies. Despite all the benefits of CSR, they is not sometimes a valid signal from the point of view of shareholders and investors of companies with financial problems.…”