Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: Role of Context in International Settings

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research aims to explore the relationship between corporate governance and CSR: What are the major factors that play a direct role in the establishment of this relationship? How does context and institutional background impact upon the relationship between CSR and Governance? Using in-depth semi-structured interviews from two types of governance systems in three countries over three years, this study has demonstrated that in practice, within different settings, CSR is being used both as a strategy as well as a reaction to different drivers. We call this adaptive governance where governance can be defined as a flexible system of action incorporating strategic and monitoring activities that determines the way a company enacts its responsibilities to its shareholders and stakeholders and which is determined at any given time by the interrelationship of institutional drivers and behavioural norms. Governance systems and their interrelationships with CSR are demonstrated as fluid according to the national and institutional context, economic situation and industry impact. In the eyes of practitioners corporate governance includes both structural and behavioural factors as well as responsibilities and actions towards shareholders and stakeholders. Contextual factors that this research highlights to be important to the incorporation of CSR into governance include the economic environment, national governance system, regulation and soft law, shareholders, national culture, behavioural norms and industry impacts. Hypotheses on the impact of institutional contexts, industry impacts and economic situations on different types of CSR actions are proposed for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACGA. (2010). CLSA-Asia Pacific markets CG watch 2010: Corporate governance in Asia. Available http://www.acga-asia.org/public/files/CG_Watch_2010_Extract.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2010.

  • Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C. A., Conley, J. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2006). Corporate governance and social responsibility: A comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14, 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2008). Governance and sustainability: An investigation into the relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability. Management Decision, 46, 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(2), 136–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). (2007). Corporate governance council corporate governance principles and recommendations (2nd ed.). Sydney: ASX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government. (2006). The social responsibility of corporations. Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (CAMAC). http://www.camac.gov.au. Accessed 7 July 2011.

  • Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (2007). Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communication, corporate image and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7–8), 730–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., Mehta, P., & Mullainathan, S. (2002). Ferreting out tunnelling: An application to Indian business groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 121–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickley, J. A., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2010). Corporate governance myths: Comments on Armstrong, Guay and Weber. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50, 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (2004). Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 114–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, T. (2007). International corporate governance: A comparative approach. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. C. (2011). Nothing but the wind? The past and future of comparative corporate governance. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 59(1), 75–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G., Krishnamoorthy, J., & Wright, A. (2010). Corporate governance in the post-Sarbanes–Oxley era: Auditors’ experiences. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(3), 751–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowther, D. (2000). Social and environmental accounting. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz, J. M., & Wakolbinger, T. (2008). Multiperiod effects of corporate social responsibility on supply chain networks, transaction costs, emissions, and risk. International Journal of Production Economics, 116, 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Reporting Council Limited (FRC). (2010). The UK approach to corporate governance. http://www.frc.org.uk/images/uploaded/documents/UK%20approach%20to%20corporate%20governance%20Oct%2020101.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2011.

  • Fort, T. L. (2000). A review of Donaldson and Dunfee’s ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(4), 383–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. London: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • FTSE4 Good ESG Index. (2011). FTSE4Good ESG ratings: Global and regional leaders, March 2011. Available http://www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE4Good_ESG_Ratings/Downloads/Regional_Leaders.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011.

  • FTSE4 Good. (2011). 10 years of impact and investment. Available http://www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/Downloads/FTSE4Good_10_Year_Report.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011.

  • Galbraeth, J. (2006). Corporate social responsibility strategy: Strategic options, global considerations. Corporate Governance, 6(2), 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gettler, L. (2008). Blame perversity for the meltdown. The age. http://business.theage.com.au/business/blame-perversity-for-the-meltdown-20081029. Accessed 30 Oct 2008.

  • Grant, D., & Hardy, C. (2004). Introduction: Struggles with organizational discourse. Organization Studies, 25(5), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, W. Rehg (Trans). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research, 3, 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management-new perspectives. Why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1–2), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackling, B., & Johl, S. (2009). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from India’s top companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14, 492–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., & Neville, B. (2011). Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing countries: An embedded multi-layered institutional lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 599–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Safieddine, A., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: Synergies and inter-relationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(5), 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., & Greening, D. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, P., & Gupta, G. (2011). Status of corporate social responsibility: In Indian context. Asia Pacific Journal of Research in Business Management, 2(1), 178–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55, 867–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, S., & Maklan, S. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: Moving beyond investment towards measuring outcomes. European Management Journal, 22, 508–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2010). The integration of corporate governance in corporate social responsibility disclosures. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17, 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuada, J. (2009). Paradigms in international business research—classifications and application, Working Paper Series 53. https://www.business.auc.dk/ivo/publications/working/wp53.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2011.

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages and cultural phases: A critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marnet, O. (2004). Behavioural aspects of corporate governance. In M. Hirschey, K. John, & A. K. Makhija (Eds.), Corporate governance (advances in financial economics) (Vol. 9, pp. 265–285). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G. (2009). Driving corporate reputations from the inside: A strategic role and strategic dilemmas for HR. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(2), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Guest editors’ introduction. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. (2002). Corporate social responsibility: An overview. In C. Hartley (Ed.), The international directory of corporate philanthropy (pp. 3–14). London: Europa Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthuri, J. N., & Gilbert, V. (2010). An institutional analysis of corporate social responsibility in Kenya. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 467–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, R. J., & Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutional exceptions on global projects: A process model. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 562–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendleton, A. (2009). The liberal market model of finance, ownership and governance: An evaluation of its effect on labour. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(2), 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., & Kramar, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility Harvard Business Review: Onpoint Collection, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pralahad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 63, 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, J. M., Alexander, E. A., & Neill, S. (2010). The impact of national institutional context on social practices: Comparing Finnish and US business communities. European Journal of International Management, 4(3), 234–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, R. (1998). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 40(2), 8–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, U. H. (2011). Drivers of change: A multiple-case study on the process of institutionalization of corporate responsibility among three multinational companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D. C. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and different stages of economic development: Singapore, Turkey, and Ethiopia. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(Supplement 4), 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacconi, L. (2010). A Rawlsian view of CSR and the game theory of its implementation: The multistakeholder model of corporate governance. Econometrica Working Paper No. 22. Paper available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1777922. Accessed 9 Sep 2011.

  • Sarens, G., & Christopher, J. (2010). The association between corporate governance guidelines and risk management and internal control practices: Evidence from a comparative study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 25(4), 288–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, J., & Sarkar, S. (2000). Large shareholder activism in corporate governance in developing countries: Evidence from India. International Review of Finance, 1(3), 161–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. (2000). Institutions and organisations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secchi, D. (2007). Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 347–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sehgal, A., & Mulraj, J. (2008). Corporate governance in India: Moving gradually from a regulatory model to a market-driven model—a survey. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 5, 205–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (2009). Corporate governance and accountability (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic of institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thyil, V., & Young, S. (2010). An empirical investigation of hybrid corporate governance systems in large firms: Evidence from India. Corporate Ownership & Control, 8, 430–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tricker, R. I. (1990). Corporate governance: A ripple on the cultural reflection. In S. R. Clegg & S. G. Redding (Eds.), Capitalism in contrasting cultures (pp. 187–213). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschopp, D. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: A comparison between the United States and the European Union. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, 12, 55–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tudway, R. (2008). OECD must now tackle corporate governance issues. Financial Times, October 10. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/68d35624-9665-11dd-9dce-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=dafed. Accessed 30 Oct 2008.

  • United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm. Accessed 03 July 2012.

  • Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). Too good to be true! The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(Supplement 2), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. The Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2004). Report on the observance of standards and codes (ROSC), corporate governance country assessment, India. http://www.worldbank.org/ifa/rosc_cg_ind.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2009.

  • Young, S., & Marais, M. (2012). A multi-level perspective of CSR reporting: The implications of national institutions and industry risk characteristics. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(5), 432–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business, Economics and Law, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Suzanne Young

  2. Accounting Economics Finance and Law Group, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Vijaya Thyil

Authors
  1. Suzanne Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vijaya Thyil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne Young.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 6.

Table 6 Sample background
Full size table

Appendix 2

  1. (1)

    How would you describe the Australian/UK/Indian corporate governance system?

  2. (2)

    What are the factors driving the evolution of corporate governance in Australia/UK/India?

  3. (3)

    What corporate governance models have been useful for you in your organization?

  4. (4)

    In what ways is our/your governance system exemplary? What would you regard as best practice governance?

  5. (5)

    To what extent have existing corporate governance structures concerning listed companies in Australia/UK/India been found to be ineffective? On what grounds?

  6. (6)

    What types of regulation have been used to regulate the governance system?

  7. (7)

    How has the Australian/UK/Indian governance system been influenced by the international environment?

  8. (8)

    What is the level of public awareness over the importance of effective corporate governance?

  9. (9)

    What are the major concerns amongst the public regarding corporate governance issues?

  10. (10)

    Can you describe the factors that have impacted on your (if applicable) organizational corporate governance system?

  11. (11)

    Can you describe the evolution of governance in your (if applicable) organization?

  12. (12)

    How is shareholder input obtained on your organization?

Appendix 3

See Table 7.

Table 7 Coding themes and Australian sample of interview data (Rounds 1 and 2)
Full size table

Appendix 4

See Table 8.

Table 8 Coding themes and UK sample of interview data
Full size table

Appendix 5

See Table 9.

Table 9 Coding themes and Indian sample of interview data
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Young, S., Thyil, V. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: Role of Context in International Settings. J Bus Ethics 122, 1–24 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1745-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1745-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation