How expected outcomes, stakeholders, and institutions influence corporate social responsibility at different levels of large basic needs firms

Abstract

A firm's choice to practice corporate social responsibility (CSR) is commonly explained using insights from institutional theory or stakeholder management. However, we do not know how important external pressures are at the executive level and individual manager level in a firm's choice to engage in particular CSR activities. Nor do we know how important these external pressures are in comparison with other attributes of CSR activities that can influence this choice, such as costs or expected returns of an activity. Finally, we do not know whether all firms respond in the same way to these influences. Hence, we ask the following: How do the outcomes and pressures for a CSR activity influence the choice of that particular activity by different classes of large basic needs industry firms? Using a choice experiment, we study the CSR activities of 402 firms in the energy, packaged foods, and pharmaceutical industries. We demonstrate that expected outcomes, rather than institutions or stakeholders, drive the choice of an activity. Firms invest differing amounts of funds into a particular activity. Although institutions and stakeholders explain the overall CSR strategy of the firm, they do not explain their choices for specific activities.

Where Does CSR Come from and Where Does It Go? A Review of the State of the Art

“…The social area is intimately related to human resources (Lu et al 2019), both those who are part of the company and those who are in its environment (Marí-Farinós 2017). The company's responsibility towards employees and society in general is contemplated in the social dimension of CSR (Jamali 2008;Shnayder and Van Rijnsoever 2018). CSR is considered from this area as a business practice aimed at satisfying and balancing the interests of these stakeholders (Maclagan 2008), so the company must know and take into account the specific characteristics and requirements of these stakeholders (Turner et al 2019).…”

Scaling sustainability from the organizational periphery to the strategic core: Towards a practice‐based framework of what practitioners “do”

“…However, the latter importance of the external environment as a key facilitator has also been found in other studies, for example, which find empirical evidence for the importance of gaining external legitimacy in the adoption of popular management concepts (Wilhelm and Bort, 2013), or to reflect competitors' positioning (Deephouse, 1999). Moreover, a number of studies in the sustainability area echo this importance of the external environment in influencing such issues within organizations, including Boiral et al (2015) whose empirical findings support the influence of external factors on organizational citizenship behaviours for the environment, Shnayder and Van Rijnsoever (2018) who find that "firms feel the pressure of institutions and stakeholders" (p. 1700) influencing their approaches to and investment in such issues, and Aguinis and Glavas (2012) who identify a number of external factors as both mediators and moderators of CSR outcomes. However, considering that those adopting a mobilization approach report the external environment as a facilitator, but those adopting a transition approach do not, may suggest that this latter group are acting as first movers or leaders and so do not 'react' to others.…”

The how and why of integrated reporting in a public health care organization: The stakeholders' perspective

“…According to the literature, the organization is influenced by public rules and the presence of governmental and independent organization (the region) that monitor corporate behaviors affecting a company's activities and mode of operation (DiMaggio & Powell, ; Farneti et al, ). The region, in this case, appears as a regulative and normative institution, according the approach promoted by Shnayder and Van Rijnsoever ().…”

“…The degree of variation in institutions is captured by Scott's () three pillars of institutions: regulative, normative, and cultural cognitive. These pillars are used to categorize institutions based on their modus of influence over the firm (Shnayder & Van Rijnsoever, ). Regulative institutions, like laws and directives, are formal by nature and are often the outcome of a political or administrative process, and they have punitive or other systems in place to enforce them (Scott, ).…”