scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Posted Content

Corporate Social Responsibility and Institutional Theory: New Perspectives on Private Governance

TL;DR: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a pervasive topic in the business literature, but has largely neglected the role of institutions as discussed by the authors, which suggests going beyond grounding CSR in the voluntary behaviour of companies, and understanding the larger historical and political determinants of whether and in what forms corporations take on social responsibilities.
Abstract: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a pervasive topic in the business literature, but has largely neglected the role of institutions. This introductory article to the Special Issue of Socio-Economic Review examines the potential contributions of institutional theory to understanding CSR as a mode of governance. This perspective suggests going beyond grounding CSR in the voluntary behaviour of companies, and understanding the larger historical and political determinants of whether and in what forms corporations take on social responsibilities. Historically, the prevailing notion of CSR emerged through the defeat of more institutionalized forms of social solidarity in liberal market economies. Meanwhile, CSR is more tightly linked to formal institutions of stakeholder participation or state intervention in other advanced economies. The tensions between business-driven and multi-stakeholder forms of CSR extend to the transnational level, where the form and meaning of CSR remain highly contested. CSR research and practice thus rest on a basic paradox between a liberal notion of voluntary engagement and a contrary implication of socially binding responsibilities. Institutional theory seems to be a promising avenue to explore how the boundaries between business and society are constructed in different ways, and improve our understanding of the effectiveness of CSR within the wider institutional field of economic governance.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

2,134 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a multilevel review of the literature on CSR in developing countries and highlight the key differentiators and nuanced CSR-related considerations that qualify it as a distinctive field of study.
Abstract: Given the rising interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) globally, its local expressions are as varied as they are increasingly visible in both developed and developing countries. This paper presents a multilevel review of the literature on CSR in developing countries and highlights the key differentiators and nuanced CSR-related considerations that qualify it as a distinctive field of study. This review entails a content analysis of 452 articles spanning two-and-a-half decades (1990–2015). Based on this comprehensive review, the authors identify the key differentiating attributes of the literature on CSR in developing countries in relation to depictions of how CSR is conceived or ‘CSR Thinking’ and depictions of how CSR is practiced and implemented or ‘CSR Doing’. The authors synthesize from there five key themes that capture the main aspects of variation in this literature, namely: (1) complex institutional antecedents within the national business system (NBS); (2) complex macro-level antecedents outside the NBS; (3) the salience of multiple actors involved in formal and informal governance; (4) hybridized and other nuanced forms of CSR expressions; and (5) varied scope of developmental and detrimental CSR consequences. The paper concludes by accentuating how the nuanced forms of CSR in the developing world are invariably contextualized and locally shaped by multi-level factors and actors embedded within wider formal and informal governance systems.

503 citations


Cites background from "Corporate Social Responsibility and..."

  • ...Institutional theory has been instrumental in grounding analyses of CSR in wider systems of governance involving the market, the state and historically grown socio-political institutions (Brammer et al. 2012)....

    [...]

Posted Content
Ans Kolk1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine how the international business literature has addressed social responsibility issues in the past 50 years, highlighting key developments and implications from a historical perspective, focusing on the Journal of World Business (JWB).
Abstract: This article examines how the international business (IB) literature has addressed social responsibility issues in the past 50 years, highlighting key developments and implications from a historical perspective. Specific attention is paid to the Journal of World Business (JWB), which has covered the whole period and published relevant articles related to these issues, in comparison to the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), the other long-standing IB journal. The article outlines that they illustrate different conceptualizations of IB and social responsibility. The 50-year review shows three subthemes: the (green) environment; ethics, rights and responsibilities; poverty and (sustainable) development. These are discussed consecutively, including main contributions and promising areas to further the field.

423 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the two fields of business and sustainability have converged to become deeply entangled and blurred so that the relationship between business and society can no longer be separated. But, the two domains are not mutually independent.
Abstract: Corporate responsibility and sustainability tackle the relationship between business and society. However, the two fields of study have converged to become deeply entangled and blurred so that rese...

397 citations

References
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

32,981 citations

Book
01 Jun 1980
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present an analysis of knowledge in everyday life in the context of a theory of society as a dialectical process between objective and subjective reality, focusing particularly on that common-sense knowledge which constitutes the reality of everyday life for the ordinary member of society.
Abstract: A general and systematic account of the role of knowledge in society aimed to stimulate both critical discussion and empirical investigations. This book is concerned with the sociology of 'everything that passes for knowledge in society'. It focuses particularly on that 'common-sense knowledge' which constitutes the reality of everyday life for the ordinary member of society. The authors are concerned to present an analysis of knowledge in everyday life in the context of a theory of society as a dialectical process between objective and subjective reality. Their development of a theory of institutions, legitimations and socializations has implications beyond the discipline of sociology, and their 'humanistic' approach has considerable relevance for other social scientists, historians, philosophers and anthropologists.

16,935 citations


"Corporate Social Responsibility and..." refers background in this paper

  • ...…into pressing normative questions: which institutions, historically and comparatively, have led to the most desirable, efficient and stable ways of organizing business activities, in particular with regard to the modalities in which business discharges its basic responsibilities to society....

    [...]

  • ...By the word ‘institution’, we usually have in mind certain ‘typifications’ where under certain conditions X, a particular type of actor Y is expected to do Z (Berger and Luckmann, 1966)....

    [...]

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system, I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the “social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system”, I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned “merely” with profit but also with promoting desirable “social” ends; that business has a “social conscience” and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are — or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously -preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.

9,875 citations

Book
22 May 1995
TL;DR: Early Institutionalists Constructed an Analytic Framework I Three Pillars of Institutions Constructing an Analytical Framework II Content, Agency, Carriers and Levels Institutional Construction, Maintenance and Diffusion Institutional Processes Affecting Societal Systems, Organizational Fields, and Organizational Populations Institutional processes Affecting Organizational Structure and Performance Institutional Change Looking Back, Looking Forward
Abstract: Introduction Early Institutionalists Institutional Theory and Organizations Constructing an Analytic Framework I Three Pillars of Institutions Constructing an Analytic Framework II Content, Agency, Carriers and Levels Institutional Construction, Maintenance and Diffusion Institutional Processes Affecting Societal Systems, Organizational Fields, and Organizational Populations Institutional Processes Affecting Organizational Structure and Performance Institutional Change Looking Back, Looking Forward

8,382 citations