Theorizing Transnational Corporations as Social Actors: An Analysis of Corporate Motivations

Abstract

An increasing number of firms are engaging in social and environmental initiatives beyond their core business activities. While much has been written about why business should spend resources on social and environmental causes, relatively few studies have systematically addressed the question of why certain companies actually do engage in such activities. A notable exception is literature on the ‘business case’ for corporate social responsibility, which argues that good social and environmental performance will positively affect a company's financial results. The evidence on this link, however, is mixed. Even if there is an economic rationale, it is not clear why some companies engage in social activities while others do not. And, why do many more companies today ‘see’ the business case than in the past? This paper maps out the theoretical terrain exploring this question and categorizes the various existing explanations for corporate social engagement.

Qur’anic Ethics for Environmental Responsibility: Implications for Business Practice

“…Accountability perspective delineates three possible groups (i.e. shareholders, stakeholders, and the public) that the company should be accountable for and consider ER actions towards (Benston, 1982;Brown et al, 2010).…”

“…At another level, the "hypothetical" social contract notion in the corporate ER worldview requires continuous renegotiation as a community's preferences change overtime (Brown et al, 2010;Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994). This proves the relative and transitional nature of ER.…”

Company Delistings from the UN Global Compact: Limited Business Demand or Domestic Governance Failure?

“…An emerging literature highlights how variations in domestic political and economic institutions lead to domestic variations in company CSR initiatives (Aguilera et al, 2007;Brown et al, 2010;Maignan and Ralston, 2002;Matten and Moon, 2008). Campbell (2007) has specified the necessary institutional conditions that must be in place if a firm is to engage in CSR.…”

“…During the last few decades, normative expectations about the role of the firm in society have shifted from a traditional shareholder focus to include a diverse range of stakeholder interests. Investors, NGOs, employees, customers, and the media have become adept at holding firms accountable for many social and environmental activities (Aguilera et al, 2007;Brown et al, 2010;Donaldson and Preston, 1995;Porter and Kramer, 2002, 2006, 2011; for a critique see Devinney, 2009). Many firms have, therefore, undertaken a range of CSR initiatives such as labor rights or human rights requirements in the supply chain, anticorruption schemes, or gender equality programs to ensure that their actions are seen as legitimate.…”

Private Business Firms, Human Rights, and Global Governance Issues: An Organizational Implementation Perspective

“…However, many of the decisive actors in global governance are private business firms. For this reason, bridging disciplinary gaps is necessary for understanding the phenomenon of global governance and its various actors and institutions (Brown et al, 2010) and for finding viable approaches to selfregulation. In particular, this is relevant for the area of human rights, in which self-regulation is becoming more and more central.…”