Cross‐national differences in stakeholder management: Applying institutional theory and comparative capitalism framework

Abstract

Drawing upon the research in institutional theory and comparative capitalism, the present study investigates how cross-national differences in the political, business, and economic institutional contexts of the United States, Italy, and Japan are associated with the ways in which companies in each of these countries prioritize and engage in their stakeholder engagement activities (SEAs). Using Porter and Kramer's framework, which classifies corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities as falling into four categories (good citizenship, mitigating harm from value chain, transforming value chain activities, and strategic philanthropy), we investigate how companies in the United States, Japan, and Italy prioritize and engage in these fourSEAs. An analysis of data collected from 340 companies across these countries reveals that while companies in each of these three countries undertake the four types of SEAs, the prioritization and prevalence of the four types of SEAs vary from one country to the other, in ways that align with the prevailing institutional contexts of each country. The results contribute to a more nuanced understanding of why and how companies' approaches to CSR differ across countries. From a practitioner's perspective, the findings highlight the cultural specificity of CSR, implying that despite the global nature of CSR, the implementation of CSR needs to be tailored to a country's context.

Corporate social responsibility and comparative capitalism frameworks: Evidence from the United States, Poland, and Italy

“…Italy, instead, tends to be at the bottom in all SEA constructs. This supports the view that in Italy, CSR activities are rather informal and are not strategically planned (Kumar et al, 2021; Russo & Tencati, 2009), so they are not clearly prioritized. It is interesting to note that companies from a DME, like Poland, seem to give in general more priority to CSR than firms from a CME, like Italy.…”

“…It could thus be expected that firms treat CSR strategically and communicate about it openly, thus satisfying the criteria of explicit CSR (Matten & Moon, 2008). This implies the features of an instrumental approach to CSR (Maignan & Ralston, 2002), with different activities designed to benefit larger society but also to provide strategic value to the business (Kumar et al, 2021).…”

“…Different from the U.S., Italy falls within the CME category due to its tendencies toward centralization and the active regulatory role of the government. The firms and economic environment of Italy are characterized by a certain uniqueness, with a high representation of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) strongly embedded in local communities (Perrini, 2006) and the historical importance of cooperatives (Kumar et al, 2021). Interestingly, Italian companies recognize the importance of CSR for building relationships, even if they engage in CSR because of its perceived reputation and image creation value (Perrini et al, 2006).…”

“…Interestingly, Italian companies recognize the importance of CSR for building relationships, even if they engage in CSR because of its perceived reputation and image creation value (Perrini et al, 2006). Such a CSR stance suggests a high degree of awareness among firms, but in most cases, the CSR activities of Italian firms are informal (Kumar et al, 2021; Russo & Tencati, 2009) and not planned in Porter and Kramer's (2006) strategic sense, thus falling within the category of implicit CSR (Matten & Moon, 2008).…”

“…To extend our understanding of how the national institutional context outside of Western economies can shape stakeholder management activities, we compared the U.S., as an example of liberal market economy (LME), with Italy, as an example of coordinate market economy (CME), and added new data from Poland to extend and replicate a study that previously compared the United States with Japan and Italy (Kumar et al, 2019; 2021).…”