The Governance Divide in Global Corporate Responsibility: The Global Structuration of Reporting and Certification Frameworks, 1998–2017

Abstract

In recent decades, as worldwide attention to corporate responsibility increased, the global corporate responsibility (GCR) movement did not converge on a singular governance model nor hybridize into myriad country-specific models. The movement, rather, bifurcated into onerous certification frameworks and more lax reporting frameworks. We examine this ‘governance divide’ in the GCR movement by investigating the cross-national diffusion of seven core GCR frameworks. We adopt a glocalization perspective that conceptualizes a vertical nesting of local and global contexts. Our cross-national quantitative analyses suggest that, while linkages to global culture have encouraged business participation in all GCR frameworks, power dependencies related to international trade and domestic factors related to effectiveness of local governance institutions have contributed to divergent diffusion patterns across reporting and certification frameworks. We discuss these findings in relation to several organizational perspectives and note their implications for further research on corporate responsibility.

Determinants of GRI-based sustainability reporting: evidence from an emerging economy

“…Increased concerns of global warming and widespread income inequality have raised questions about the contributions of modern business organizations toward achieving sustainable economic growth and social development of the world (Bapuji et al, 2018;Kolk et al, 2017;Lodhia and Hess, 2014;van Zanten and van Tulder, 2018). Organizations are now under increased pressure to meet the diverse needs and expectations of different stakeholders and justify their license to operate and earn profit (Bose et al, 2018;Pope and Lim, 2019;Siddiqui and Uddin, 2016). In response to the stakeholders' expectations, business organizations use sustainability reports, including information on economic, environmental and social activities to provide insights of their sustainability-related activities (Bose et al, 2018;Higgins and Coffey, 2016).…”

“…In response to the stakeholders' expectations, business organizations use sustainability reports, including information on economic, environmental and social activities to provide insights of their sustainability-related activities (Bose et al, 2018;Higgins and Coffey, 2016). The use of such sustainability reports helps organizations communicate effectively with stakeholders, improve corporate reputation and justify their legitimacy in society (Kılıç et al, 2015;Pope and Lim, 2019). Therefore, the importance of sustainability reporting (SR) is increasing overwhelmingly among managers and all other stakeholders (Kuzey and Uyar, 2017;Orazalin and Mahmood, 2018).…”

Three types of organizational boundary spanning: Predicting CSR policy extensiveness among global consumer products companies

“…Studies that directly address CSR policies consist mostly of diffusion studies of single policies, rather than analyses of the extent to which companies adopt numerous CSR policies across a variety of issue areas (Pope & Lim, ). This scant attention to CSR policy extensiveness seems mismatched to the construct of CSR, which is now understood to be an umbrella term that subsumes a litany of social issues (Dahlsrud, ).…”

When Rights Enter the CSR Field: British Firms’ Engagement with Human Rights and the UN Guiding Principles

“…In so doing, the authors of the UNGPs drew on the successful history of normative change this field has been able to inspire. Over the last two decades the number of CSR codes of conduct have bourgeoned as has corporate membership in such schemes (Pope and Lim 2019).…”