Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Institution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Multi-National Corporations (MNCs): Form and Implications

Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an institution within UK multi-national corporations (MNCs). In the context of the literature on the institutionalization of CSR and on critical CSR, it presents two main findings. First, it contributes to the CSR mainstream literature by confirming that CSR has not only become institutionalized in society but that a form of this institution is also present within MNCs. Secondly, it contributes to the critical CSR literature by suggesting that unlike broader notions of CSR shared between multiple stakeholders, MNCs practise a form of CSR that undermines the broader stakeholder concept. By increasingly focusing on strategic forms of CSR activity, MNCs are moving away from a societal understanding of CSR that focuses on redressing the impacts of their operations through stakeholder concerns, back to any activity that supports traditional business imperatives. The implications of this shift are considered using institutional theory to evaluate macro-institutional pressures for CSR activity and the agency of powerful incumbents in the contested field of CSR.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. Externalities are costs that are borne by groups who are not party to a transaction and exist where markets fail to reflect the full costs to society of particular acts of production or consumption. For instance, when I fly, people other than the airline staff and me face the consequences of the pollution of that flight.

  2. The FAME database provides detailed financial and business intelligence information on over seven million UK and Irish businesses with up to 10 years of history. This allowed us to identify the largest companies according to sales revenue in the UK.

  3. Dimensionalization refers to taking a higher-order theme and placing it on a continuum or other similar analytic device to define the range of ‘dimensions’ that encompass the theme. This allows for detailed analysis of a specific theme, particularly where participants discuss the same theme in different ways.

  4. CSR competitors were generally considered to be either good/service competitors, or were other MNCs who were seen to be leaders in preferred CSR aspects, such as community engagement strategies, code development or report writing.

  5. In the case of consulting companies, the interviews consisted of discussing what the consultancy itself does with regard to CSR and any experience it may have with other MNCs with which it has worked.

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arenas, D., Lozano, J., & Albareda, L. (2009). The role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual perceptions among stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 175–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Sonnenstuhl, W. (1996). The organizational transformation process: The micropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alignment of logics of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 477–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2002). Research methods. The Marketing Review, 3, 167–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 20(5), 777–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beliveau, B., Cottrill, M., & O’Neill, H. (1994). Predicting corporate social responsiveness: A model drawn from three perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(9), 731–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R., Bartunek, J., Fort, T., & Zald, M. (2007). Corporations as social change agents: Individual, interpersonal, institutional and environmental dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 788–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: The failing discipline and why it matters for international relations. International Relations, 19(2), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. G. (2005). Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81(3), 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondy, K. (2008). The paradox of power in CSR: A case study on implementation. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 307–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Multinational corporation codes of conduct: Governance tools for corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4), 294–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxenbaum, E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as institutional hybrids. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1), 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2003). The evolution of corporate charitable contributions in the UK between 1989 and 1999: Industry structure and stakeholder influences. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(3), 216–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. England: Gower Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolandi, C., Jaiswal-Dale, A., Poggiani, E., & Vercelli, A. (2009). Global standards and ethical stock indexes: The case of the Dow Jones Sustainability Stoxx index. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupland, C., & Brown, A. D. (2004). Constructing organizational identities on the web: A case study of Royal Dutch/Shell. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1325–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cragg, W., & Greenbaum, A. (2002). Reasoning about responsibilities: Mining company managers on what stakeholders are owed. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 319–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, J. (2005). Experiences with structuring corporate social responsibility in Dutch industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 583–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008a). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. (2008b). Corporate social responsibility: in a global context. In A. Crane, D. Matten, & L. Spence (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context (pp. 3–20). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creed, D., Scully, M., & Austin, J. (2002). Clothes make the person? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and the social construction of identity. Organization Science, 13(5), 475–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry, T., Ansolabehere, S., & Herzog, H. (2007). A survey of public attitudes towards climate change and climate change mitigation technologies in the United States: Analysis of 2006 results.

  • Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travel of ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating the organizational change. New York: Walter De Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, K. (2000). Corporate citizenship: A stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and identifying measures for assessing it. Business & Society, 39(2), 210–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. A. (2009). Alliances and networks: Creating success in the UK fair trade market. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore corporate social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 70–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32, 901–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detomasi, D. A. (2008). The political roots of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 807–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, M., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (1999). Where do new organizational forms come from? Management logics as a source of coevolution. Organization Science, 10(5), 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doane, D. (2005). The myth of CSR: The problem with assuming that companies can do well while also doing good is that markets don’t really work that way. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3(fall), 22–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J., Howton, S., Howton, S., & Siegal, D. (2010). Does the market respond to an endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information and legitimacy. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1461–1485.

    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, 252–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. (1998). Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capitalism. In M. Colombo (Ed.), The changing boundaries of the firm (pp. 29–59). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ECCR. (2006). News release: Responsible investors back Shell shareholder resolution.

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). The ‘triple bottom line’ for twenty-first-century business. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), Companies in a world of conflict: NGOs, sanctions and corporate responsibility (pp. 32–69). London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2008). Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change.

  • Fiss, P., Kennedy, M., & Davis, G. (2011). How golden parachutes unfolded: Diffusion and variation of a controversial practice. Organization Science, Articles in Advance, 1–23.

  • Fiss, P., & Zajac, E. (2004). The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 501–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransen, L. W., & Kolk, A. (2007). Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14(5), 667–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, K., & Horowitz, R. (2002). Observation and interviewing: Options and choices in qualitative research. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action. London: Sage.

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (1999). Sustainability reporting guidelines: Exposure draft for public comment and pilot-testing. In M. Bennett, P. James, & L. Klinkers (Eds.), Sustainable measures: Evaluation and reporting of environmental and social performance. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1031–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2011). The government of self-regulation: On the comparative dynamics of corporate social responsibility. Economy and Society (forthcoming).

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2001). Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: What (if anything) have we learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensmans, M. (2003). Social movement organizations: A metaphone for strategic actors in institutional fields. Organization Studies, 24(3), 355–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2001). From heresy to Dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmentalism. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W. (2003). Governance choices for corporate social responsibility: To contribute, collaborate or internalize? Long Range Planning, 36(5), 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B., & Allen, D. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among large firms: Lessons from the Spanish experience. Long Range Planning, 40, 594–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idemudia, U. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and developing countries: Moving the critical CSR research agenda in Africa forward. Progress in Development Studies, 11(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jermier, J. M., Forbes, L. C., Benn, S., & Orsato, R. J. (2006). The new corporate environmentalism and green politics. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (pp. 618–650). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (2006). Whence democracy? A review and critique of the conceptual dimensions and implications of the business case for organizational democracy. Organization, 13(2), 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, A., Tiantubtim, E., Pussayapibul, N., & Davids, P. (2004). Implementing voluntary labour standards and codes of conduct in the Thai garment industry. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13, 91–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keats, D. (2000). Interviewing: A practical guide for students and professionals. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, B., & Pearce, N. (2010). The contentiousness of markets: Politics, social movements and institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. (1992). Institutions and social conflict. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kurucz, E., Colbert, B., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegal (Eds.), The oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 83–112). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.

  • Langlois, C. C., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1990). Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe and the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(4), 519–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, A., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L. (2008). Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 943–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linneroth-Bayer, J., Löfstedt, R., & Sjöstedt, G. (2001). Transboundary risk management. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7), 993–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macalister, T. (2010). Tony Hayward’s parting shot: ‘I’m too busy to attend Senate hearing.

  • Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. (2010). BP’s Tony Hayward resigns after being ‘demonised and vilified’ in the US.

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1/2), 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Corporate social responsibility education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D., & Scott, R. W. (2005). Organizations and movements. In G. Davis, D. McAdam, R. W. Scott, & M. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory (pp. 4–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1998). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. (2002). Business social responsibility and new governance. Government and Opposition, 37(3), 385–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 427–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J., & Orlitzky, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility education. In D. Swanson & D. Fisher (Eds.), Assessing business ethics education. Information Age Publishing.

  • Moon, J., & Vogel, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, government and civil society. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 605–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M. (2003). Conspicuous responsibility: Communicating responsibility—To whom? In M. Morsing & C. Thyssen (Eds.), Corporate values and responsibility: The case of Denmark. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nattrass, B., & Altomare, M. (1999). The natural step for business: Wealth, ecology and the evolutionary corporation. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, accountability and community: The limits of the CSR agenda. International Affairs, 81(3), 541–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D., & O’Dwyer, B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The reporting and assurance dimension. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 384–412). Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parent, M., & Deephouse, D. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto-Carron, M., Lund-Thomsen, P., Chan, A., Muro, A., & Bhushan, C. (2006). Critical perspectives on CSR and development: What we know, what we don’t know, and what we need to know. International Affairs, 82(5), 977–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rijnders, S., & Boer, H. (2004). A typology of continuous improvement implementation process. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(4), 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students 4e. England: Pearson Education Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006). Managing the business case for sustainability. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility—Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2009). Introduction to the special issue: Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press Berkley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, R., & Barley, S. (1996). Organizations and social systems: Organization theory’s neglected mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 146–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J., Steensma, H. K., Harrison, D., & Cochran, P. (2004). Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives ‘decisions’. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 506–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tempel, A., & Walgenbach, P. (2007). Global standardization of organisational forms and management practices? What new institutionalism and the business-systems approach can learn from each other. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, P., & Zucker, L. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business & Society Review (00453609), 109(1), 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD. (2005). Business for development. Business solutions in support of the Millennium Development Goals. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S. (2006). Responsible competitiveness: Reshaping global markets through responsible business practices. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 334–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilber, T. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 234–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilber, T. (2006). The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: Translations of rational myths in Israeli High Tech. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 281–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editor, Adam Lindgreen, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. We would also like to thank conference participants from the Academy of Management SIM division for their helpful comments on an early version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, University of Bath, Claverton Campus, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

    Krista Bondy

  2. Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK

    Jeremy Moon

  3. Schulich School of Business, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Dirk Matten

Authors
  1. Krista Bondy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dirk Matten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krista Bondy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bondy, K., Moon, J. & Matten, D. An Institution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Multi-National Corporations (MNCs): Form and Implications. J Bus Ethics 111, 281–299 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1208-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1208-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation