This paper provides a multi-level theoretical model to understand why business organizations are increasingly engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, and thereby exhibiting the potential to exert positive social change. Our model integrates theories of micro-level organizational justice, meso-level corporate governance, and macro-level varieties of capitalisms. Using a theoretical framework presented in the justice literature, we argue that organizations are pressured to engage in CSR by many different actors, each driven by instrumental, relational and moral motives. These actors are situated within four "levels" of analysis: individual, organizational, national and transnational. After discussing the motives affecting actors at each level and the mechanisms used at each level to exercise influence, as well as the interactions of motives within levels, we examine forces across levels to propose the complex web of factors, which both facilitate and impede social change by organizations. Ultimately, this proposed framework can be used to systematize our understanding of the complex social phenomenon of increasing CSR engagement, and to develop testable hypotheses. We conclude by highlighting some empirical questions for future research, and discussing a number of managerial implications.

We develop a theoretical model to describe and explain variation in corporate governance among advanced capitalist economies, identifying the social relations and institutional arrangements that shape who controls corporations, what interests corporations serve, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities among corporate stakeholders. Our "actor-centered" institutional approach explains firm-level corporate governance practices in terms of institutional factors that shape how actors' interests are defined ("socially constructed") and represented. Our model has strong implications for studying issues of international convergence.

SummaryWe seek to bridge the macro concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) with micro research in organizational justice. A theoretical model is presented whereby employees' perceptions of CSR impact their subsequent emotions, attitudes, and behaviors, mediated by instrumental, relational, and deontic motives/needs, as well as moderated by organizations' social accounts.

No abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version.  We would like to thank the UK Department for Trade and Industry with support for the research on which this study was based. The authors would like to thank the participants of seminars and workshops at Cass Business School, University of Groningen, University of Auckland, UK AIB Chapter (King's College London), Copenhagen Business School, the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. The authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally to this paper. Permanent repository link AN ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH TO COMPARATIVE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: COSTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND COMPLEMENTARITIES ABSTRACTThis paper develops an organizational approach to corporate governance and assesses the effectiveness of corporate governance and implications for policy. Most corporate governance research focuses on a universal link between corporate governance practices (e.g. board structure, shareholder activism) and performance outcomes, but neglects how interdependences between the organization and diverse environments lead to variations in the effectiveness of different governance practices. In contrast to such 'closed systems' approaches, we propose a framework based on 'open systems' approaches to organizations which examines these organizational interdependencies in terms of the costs, contingencies, and complementarities of different corporate governance practices. These three sets of organizational factors are useful in analyzing the effectiveness of corporate governance in diverse organizational environments. We also explore how costs, contingencies, and complementarities impact effectiveness of different governance aspects through the use of stylized cases and discuss the implications for different approaches to policy such as 'soft-law' or 'hard law'.