Search

We build on institutional theory to study Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices in English and German football clubs. We examine how the countries’ political, legal, economic, social, and...

The increasing importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in professional football leads to the demand for a sector-specific framework for strategic CSR integration that takes the particul...

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in developing countries has recently received increasing attention, and scholars have pointed to the strong contextuality of CSR in the respective regions. Regarding the latter, however, sub-Saharan Africa has been scrutinized only marginally by academia. Moreover, empirical research on the impact of the institutional context has been scant, despite its attributed importance for CSR. Our article seeks to fill a part of this research gap by investigating CSR website reporting of 211 companies in seven sub-Saharan countries. The study’s aim is twofold: First, we identify to what extent sub-Saharan companies report on CSR and which contents they disclose. Second, by building on institutional theory, we investigate how the socio-economic and political environments influence CSR reporting. For this purpose, we examine the impact of country-level and company-level determinants. We find that the sample African companies’ CSR efforts focus strongly on local philanthropy and therefore differ substantially from Western CSR approaches. Furthermore, we evidence that GDP and level of governance standard positively affect CSR reporting. Our study contributes to the literature by empirically evidencing the contextuality of CSR in Africa and by explaining how specific country- and company-level determinants contribute to or hamper the development of CSR in developing countries.

Despite the economic importance of the country, corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Russia has not been examined extensively yet. Knowledge on how Russian companies perceive and practice CSR is strongly limited. Thus, the objective of our study is to analyze to what degree the national political and socio-economic institutions determine CSR practice, and how it is influenced by international factors, such as CSR standards, frameworks, and foreign stakeholder expectations. Based on Whitley's national business systems approach, which we use as institutional theory framework, we examine the implementation of CSR in Russia's 50 largest companies. In specific, we investigate the areas of CSR in which Russian companies are active, what stakeholders they consider, the form and financial extent of their activities, the application of international standards, and how reporting is conducted. Our results show that awareness for CSR has been fostered by the influx of Western business concepts, but the understanding and practice of CSR is predominantly determined by the country's institutional environment. CSR mostly is an extension of traditional social roles that Russian business has assumed over decades, especially during communist times.

IN THE WAKE OF THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS, THE DISCUSSION ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BUSINESS TOwards society has received significant attention. Decisions driven by short-term profit maximization, intransparent financial instruments, risky lending practices, and a perceived overall ‘corporate greed’ have shaken confidence in the trustworthiness of business. On a global level, only 58% of more than 31 000 respondents in 26 countries articulated trust in business in a recent survey conducted by Edelman (2013). Wrong incentives for managers, corruption and bribery, incompetence, and a lack of transparency were the reasons most often mentioned for this lack of trust (Edelman, 2013). This is striking, because all of these reasons fall directly into the realm of business itself. Lacking governmental control and regulation were only mentioned in fifth place. Thus, it is primarily business that is seen as being responsible for undertaking action to address these problems. Moreover, the diverse and widespread consequences of the crisis – such as rising unemployment, business and private bankruptcies, and soaring governmental debt – have harshly demonstrated the strong interdependence of business, politics, and society. Likewise, they have shown that irresponsible business behavior can have dramatic consequences for governments and citizens alike, not forgetting business itself (Werther & Chandler, 2010). It is interesting to note at this point that states seem to be unable to cope with the magnitude of the crisis on a financial and regulatory level. Concerning the financial dimension, facing the crisis has overextended the pecuniary capabilities of many states and worsened their fiscal situation. With regard to regulation, especially on an international level, joint efforts to enact rules to reign in business and prevent further crises have hardly been successful. This reflects a shift of salience in the relationship just described. The importance and capabilities of the traditional nation state are declining in a more globalized world, whereas transnational business actors are increasingly powerful. In this context, it has to be pointed out that the difficult fiscal situation of many states – first and foremost western industrialized states – is not only a product of the crisis. Their budgets had already been strained before due to demographic changes driving up social expenditures, but also by the possibilities of businesses to offshore production and tax payments to other regions (Castells 1998; Zumbansen 2009). These developments drive corporate social responsibility (CSR) in different ways. First, the crisis itself has led to the call for more responsible business behavior in order to avoid negative impacts for society in the future. Second, the declining regulatory capabilities of nation states have shown the importance of finding alternative ways of governance, as traditional governmental control has reached its limits. Such alternative control can be provided by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), for whom this function is a primary raison d’etre, as they are seen to create a

Because of the declining fiscal capabilities of the German welfare state and the resulting reductions in social services provided by the government, increasing attention has been given to the voluntary social engagement of businesses, often referred to as corporate citizenship. In that context, scholars and politicians alike have pointed to the United States as a country with a strong corporate citizenship culture and advocated a transatlantic transfer of the respective practices. Against this background, it is the first aim of this paper to examine the socio-economic environment for corporate citizenship in both countries. Second, it will be investigated if corporate citizenship is really practiced more widely in the United States than in Germany and what forms of corporate citizenship are used by businesses. For that purpose, the corporate citizenship activities of the 100 largest companies in the United States and Germany each will be analyzed. Results show that more US than German companies undertake corporate citizenship activities and apply a wider variety of different forms. The possibilities for a transatlantic transfer are limited because of the differences in the cultural and political systems of both countries.

Germany, in most academic works on corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (cSr), is regarded as a stakeholder democracy (e.g., aguilera and Jackson 2003; O’Dwyer 2005; crane et al. 2004; crane et al. 2005; Schmidt 2006). allen et al. (2009, p. 1) attribute this notion to the German legal system which “ensures that firms are stakeholder oriented.” especially relevant in this context—and key to the perception of Germany as a stakeholder-oriented country—is the system of co-determination (mitbestimmung), which gives employees the possibility to participate in the organizational decision-making process at all levels. In large listed corporations with more than 2,000 employees, employee representatives are even granted half of the seats on the supervisory board by law. this model of capitalism, which integrates employee interests to a much higher degree than the anglo-Saxon model, has also been branded as “rhenish capitalism”, a term coined by French economist michel albert (1991). he compared this form of capitalism, which is prevalent in countries that border the river rhine (Switzerland, austria, Germany, France, and the netherlands), to the “neo-liberal anglo-american model” primarily represented by the united States (u.S.) and the united kingdom, where the position of workers is substantially weaker. these participation rights of workers go in line with the notion that German companies put less emphasis on maximizing shareholder value than american or British companies because German companies also have to consider the interests of stakeholders like employees whose interests might be diametric to—especially short-termed—profit maximization (turnbull 1994). this understanding has also been demonstrated by several studies (e.g., ascolese 2003; Barnett 2007; habisch et al. 2011). In this context, Denis and mcconnell (2003, p. 6) point out that “in many european countries shareholder wealth maximization has not been the only—or even necessarily the primary—goal of the board of directors.” Likewise, in a large empirical study, allen et al. (2009, p. 2) asked managers whether they though that a company “exists for the interest of all stakeholders” or if “[s]hareholder interest should be given the first priority”. eighty-three percent of the German managers that participated in the survey viewed the company as a legal entity serving all stakeholders’ interests, while 76 and 71 % of the american and British managers, respectively, spoke out for prioritizing shareholder value. these preliminary thoughts demonstrate that the supposed stakeholder orientation to be found in Germany is mostly based on legal statues, namely the system of codetermination. However, the finding by Allen et al. (2009) uwf DOI 10.1007/s00550-013-0268-1

Since companies provided the first publications on their social and environmental activities in the early 1970s, social and environmental reporting (SER) has been subject to academic analysis. Throughout the course of time, a substantial body of normative, theoretical, prescriptive, and empirical literature has been produced. Against this background, it is the aim of this paper to analyze the development of SER over four decades and its current state. The paper seeks to detect whether the methodological approaches to empirical research on SER have undergone changes over time and whether the approaches differ with regard to their geographic focus. The research is based on an analysis of 198 empirical studies. First, these studies are classified according to their date of publication and the country/countries they are concerned with. Second, the method of data collection, the media analyzed, and the samples considered are examined. The results show that there have been changes in empirical SER research over time and that regional variations are observable. Moreover, the results demonstrate that despite the considerable body of existing literature significant research gaps remain. Based upon their identification, research recommendations are developed. Lastly, the necessity of SER research is being discussed.

For four decades, reporting on corporate responsibility by businesses has been the subject of empirical research. In the 1970s and 1980s, studies mostly originated from Anglo-Saxon and Western European countries. During the last two decades research on responsibility reporting was increasingly undertaken in emerging and developing countries as well – always following the reporting practices of the respective businesses. Consequentially, a very large number of studies exist today. Many of these have empirically investigated the determinants of responsibility reporting and examined whether internal factors like size and industry or external factors like stakeholder pressures have an impact on disclosure. Thus, the purpose of the following paper is twofold. First, it seeks to provide an overview of the existing literature in order to facilitate further research. Overall, 186 studies have been examined for the determinants which they considered and have been grouped according to their geographical origin. This provides for an analysis of whether academics from different regions have taken different approaches to the empirical examination of responsibility reporting and if their results differed. The findings show that scholars across regions have taken different paths in empirical research, but indications for a variation in the impact of specific determinants on reporting are weak. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been controversially discussed for over 50 years. Consequently, a wide variety of definitions and understandings of CSR have been developed throughout the decades. That has made it increasingly hard, or not to say impossible, to agree on a common perception of CSR. Concerning the various notions of CSR, four core controversies can be identified which revolve around certain elements of CSR: First of all, there is the underlying question if CSR is the business of business or if it is none of its business as Friedman has famously argued. Second, should CSR contain legal obligations or is it a purely voluntary concept and, thus, ethical in nature? Strongly connected to that is the third controversy on whether CSR should be self-serving or if it has to be purely altruistic. Finally, there is widespread disagreement on the scope of CSR. Does it have a local, community-oriented focus or should it address concerns of a wider geographical scope? These controversies are analyzed and discussed here with the aim of developing a definition of CSR that does not remain confined to the academic world.

CSR Reporting has recently received widespread attention in the business community due to the introduction of mandatory CSR reporting at European Union (EU) level. Against this background, intense debate transpires regarding whether companies should be forced to report on their social and environmental performance, considering the underlying financial and technical effort necessary to measure and disclose the respective information. On the one hand, especially with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), such a burden is widely regarded as unbearable. Taking this argument into account, the EU has reacted by limiting the reporting requirement to large companies. This reaction clearly reflects the widespread notion that CSR reporting is an administrative and financial burden and supports the necessity of mandatory laws to motivate its realisation. Unfortunately, on the other hand, potential business benefits resulting from reporting—such as improved stakeholder communication, a better understanding of one’s own value chain, and enhanced risk management—tend to be disregarded.

In general, the discussion on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is relatively new in Germany. It only gathered speed in the early 1990s for several reasons. Firstly, the question arose on how private actors could be involved in order to fill the gap left behind by the shrinking welfare system. Secondly, the rapidly progressing globalization process demonstrated the difficulty of regulating multinational corporations (MNCs), which lead to calls for more self-governance. Thirdly, civil society organizations in turn considered pure self-governance as insufficient and, thus, began to pressure companies to act more socially responsible. However, business only partly reacted to these developments, as it perceived the paying of taxes, following the law and occasional donations as sufficient for assuming social responsibilities. Overall, CSR did not find a nourishing breeding ground in Germany.

So far, no study has investigated determinants that shape corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication in mission statements, as previous studies have focused on CSR reports and homepages. Our study, which is based on institutional theory, fills this gap. By conducting a directed content analysis of the statements of 200 listed companies in the United States and India, we examine the content conveyed with respect to 5 CSR dimensions, the 5 most prominent stakeholder groups, and additional components of CSR mission statements. Moreover, we examine whether Unted States and Indian companies' CSR communication varies according to their (a) home country, (b) industry affiliation, (c) degree of internationalization, (d) company size, (e) profitability, (f) founding year, (g) length of the CSR mission statement, and (h) compliance with the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative. Whereas the findings reveal that the companies' home country, degree of internationalization, and size have no considerable bearing on their CSR communication, we evidence that their communication can be explained by their industry affiliation, the profitability ratio return on assets, founding year, length of the statement, and compliance with the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines. Moreover, we explain the cross-country conformity of CSR communication by a convergence towards global and universal CSR communication approaches.