Corporate Social Responsibility and institutional theory: new perspectives on private governance

Corporate governance and national institutions: A review and emerging research agenda

“…For example, in addition to various 'hard laws', the influence of voluntary codes and various forms of 'soft law' are gaining significance, such as the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, the UK Corporate Governance Code, or self-regulatory initiatives for corporate social responsibility (Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazura, 2004;Brammer, Jackson & Matten, 2012). Likewise, large variation exists in the degree to which law on the books is effectively enforced by the courts or other state agencies across countries.…”

Corporate Social Responsibility in Challenging and Non-enabling Institutional Contexts: Do Institutional Voids matter?

“…It is also an essential governance mechanism of the market in advanced capitalist economies (Brammer et al, 2012;Amaeshi, 2009Amaeshi, , 2010Crouch, 2006), which is often weak in most developing markets. In other words, this literature appears to assume the relevance and suitability of CSR across institutional contexts and take for granted its supporting "…basic institutional prerequisites" (Matten and Moon, 2008: 406) …”

The integrated reporting of financial, social and sustainability capitals: a critical review and appraisal

“…Their responsible behaviours have often been triggered by socio-political forces and pressure groups. In this case, CSR practice rests on the dichotomy between the corporations' voluntary engagement and their socially binding responsibilities (Brammer et al, 2012). The fact that CSR is 'voluntary' is a clear reflection of the practicing organisations' institutional context.…”

“…Secondly, it links <IR> with key theoretical underpinnings. The author suggests that the agency, stewardship and institutional theories have contributed to the development of the <IR> field (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012;Brammer, Jackson & Matten, 2012;Muth & Donaldson, 1998;Davis, Schoorman & Donaldson, 1997;Scott, 1995;Ness & Mirza, 4 1991; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991;Eisenhardt, 1989). Indeed, prior research has used legitimacy theory (Beck et al, 2015;Deegan, 2002;Suchman, 1995) to interpret corporate reporting practices, but it had also focused on content of corporate disclosures (Perego, Kennedy & Whiteman, 2016;Eccles & Krzus, 2010), as it considered the perceived users of these reports (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2016).…”