An external perspective on CSR: What matters and what does not?

Abstract

The paper aims at investigating external factors influencing organizational corporate social responsibility (CSR)-related decision making. Two theoretical perspectives-stakeholder theory and institutional theory-have been applied to compile a list of external factors that might affect a company's CSR choices. As a result, a framework built on the government-related, society-related, and business-related groups of external factors is being suggested. This framework is used in the paper to answer (a) to what extent do different external factors influence CSR-related decisions in large Danish companies and (b) how has that influence changed over the years. The research takes a qualitative approach and is designed as a multiple-case study. Empirically, the paper relies on data collected from semi-structured interviews with CSR specialists and managers and presents a dynamic perspective on the pressure exercised by the external factors on CSR decisions and choices.

CEO letters: Social license to operate and community involvement in the mining industry

“…The strong relationship between North American countries and higher employee participation in communities might be explained by culture (De‐Miguel‐Molina, de‐Miguel‐Molina M, Segarra‐Oña M, & Peiró‐Signes A, ) or by the level of development of the countries (Einolf, ) . However, the case of Australia and the relationship with investment in infrastructure might be explained by the institutional theory (Koivurova et al, ; Vashchenko, ) and the power of indigenous communities, which make firms more cautious about SLO (Cheshire, ; Prno & Slocombe, ; Sing, ). Although results indicate that location matters when operations are undertaken in the richest countries, Table shows that investments increased in the majority of regions when the two periods were compared.…”

“…This shift might indicate that companies are now focusing their efforts on what Boutilier and Thomson () call the credibility and trust levels, and are less focused on obtaining legitimacy. This could also indicate that the environment is forcing mining firms to give prominence to the institutional theory (Vashchenko, ) and signalling theory (Wright & Bice, ) as opposed to the legitimacy theory (Frynas & Yamahaki, ; Gao & Hafsi, ). However, when Tables , and are considered, it seems that all the models include more points related to reaching the credibility level.…”

“…Studies focusing on mining industries also indicated that country norms and regulations encourage CSR reporting, as Dong and Xu () stated for the case of China’s mining firms. However, as norms and regulations in industries vary over the years, these changes might affect CSR activities (Vashchenko, ).…”

Be bad but (still) look good: Can controversial industries enhance corporate reputation through CSR initiatives?

“…Extending this idea, following Ben‐Menahem, Kwee, Volberda, and Van Den Bosch () and Vashchenko (), we thus posit that controversial companies are to develop processes and routines with the goal of monitoring, scanning, and reacting to socio‐environmental changes, which might accrue new sets of inner organizational competencies. In this sense, a firm's ability to constantly readapt or “re‐fit” internal and external aspects of its CSR initiatives could constitute a rare, valuable, inimitable, and non‐substitutable intangible asset, becoming a significant source of competitive advantage (Hawn & Ioannou, ; Miles & van Clieaf, ).…”

Evidence of different models of socially responsible HRM in Europe

“…Despite the consensus regarding the benefits of SR‐HRM, there is a lack of consensus about the specific actions that it encompasses and how it is implemented in different contexts (Voegtlin & Greenwood, ). With regard to the latter, adapting CSR and HRM to the institutional framework of each country is key to obtaining legitimacy and ensuring an organization's long‐term survival, as indicated by Vashchenko () and Boon, Paauwe, Boselie, and Hartog (), respectively. Therefore, SR‐HRM reflects the dominant models of corporate governance in the country in which a company is headquartered (Ehnert et al, ).…”