Skip to main content

What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions

Journal of International Business Studies volume 43, pages 834–864 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Based on Whitley's “national business systems” (NBS) institutional framework, we theorize about and empirically investigate the impact of nation-level institutions on firms’ corporate social performance (CSP). Using a sample of firms from 42 countries spanning seven years, we construct an annual composite CSP index for each firm, based on social and environmental metrics. We find that the political system, followed by the labor and education system, and the cultural system are the most important NBS categories of institutions that impact CSP. Interestingly, the financial system appears to have a relatively less significant impact. We discuss implications for research, practice and policymaking.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Figure 1

Notes

  1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this point and this example to us.

References

  • Adi, B. C., Amaeshi, K. M., Amao, O. O., & Ogbechie, C. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria: Western mimicry or indigenous influences? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 24 (1): 83–99.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. 2003. The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28 (3): 447–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. 2003. The search for universals in cross-cultural organizational behaviour. In J. Greenberg (Ed), Organizational behavior, (2nd edn): 373–411. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28 (2): 446–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E. 1991. The use of forced-choice survey procedures in assessing corporate social orientation. In J. E. Post (Ed), Research in corporate social performance and policy: 269–280. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, H. K., Nofsinger, J. R., & Weaver, D. G. 2002. International cross-listing and visibility. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 37 (3): 495–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R., & Hasan, I. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder's value: An event study analysis, Working paper, http://papers.ssrn.com/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928557.

  • Bhushan, R. 1989. Firm characteristics and analyst following. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 11 (2–3): 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizjak, J. M., Brickley, J. A., & Coles, J. L. 1993. Stock based incentive compensation and investment behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16 (1–3): 349–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botero, J. C., Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 2004. The regulation of labor. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119 (4): 1339–1382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H., & Haire, M. 1975. A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18 (2): 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A. K., Amazon, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. 1999. Beyond resources: The mediating effects of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business and Society, 38 (2): 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. 2004. Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. 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 

  • Campbell, J. L., Hollingsworth, J. R., & Lindberg, L. N. 1991. Governance of the American economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carl, D., Gupta, V., & Javidan, M. 2004. Power distance. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies: 513–563. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, W., & Moon, J. 2005. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR web site reporting. Business and Society, 44 (4): 415–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. 2010. How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (9): 917–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. 2006. Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 863–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. 1991. Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: The stakeholder management model. In J.E. Post (Ed), Research in corporate social performance and policy, Vol. 12: 331–358. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. 1985. Federal tax policy and charitable giving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. 1996. A methodological note on cross-cultural accounting ethics research. International Journal of Accounting, 31 (1): 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, D. 2011. Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5): 694–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. 2011. Differences in managerial discretion across countries: How nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management Journal, 32 (8): 797–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. 2005. Capitalist diversity and change: Recombinant governance and institutional entrepreneurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G., & Thompson, T. 1994. A social movement perspective on corporate control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (1): 141–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deeg, R., & Jackson, G. 2007. Towards a more dynamic theory of capitalist variety. Socio-economic Review, 5 (1): 149–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. 2011. Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86 (1): 59–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. 2011. The impact of a culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance, Harvard Business School and NBER Working Paper Series.

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (3): 442–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. 2007. Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (1): 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. 1997. Industry costs of equity. Journal of Financial Economics, 43 (2): 153–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. 1990. What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2): 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foulkes, F. 1980. Personnel policies in large nonunion companies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R., Harrison, J., & Wicks, A. 2007. Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R., & Medoff, J. 1983. What do unions do? New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13 September.

  • Galaskiewicz, J. 1997. An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979–81, 1987–89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (3): 445–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, M. J., Bharwuk, D. P. S., Nishii, L. H., & Bechtold, D. J. 2004. Individualism and collectivism. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies: 437–451. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. 1994. Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (4): 1034–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39 (3): 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (Eds) 2004. Corporate social responsibility across Europe. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P., & Soskice, D. 2001 (Eds). An introduction to varieties of capitalism. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage: 1–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. 1987. Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 9: 369–406. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haxhi, I., & van Ees, H. 2010. Explaining diversity in the worldwide diffusion of codes of good governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (4): 710–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What's the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2): 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1997. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H. G., Kubik, J. D., & Scheinkman, J. A. 2011. Financial constraints on corporate goodness, Working paper, Princeton University.

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds) 2004. Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. 1969. Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. 2010. The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations, SSRN Working Paper Series.

  • Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. 2010. Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute? Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (3): 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (4): 540–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Sidani, Y., & El-Asmar, K. 2009. A three country comparative analysis of managerial CSR perspectives: Insights from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (2): 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarrell, G., Lehn, K., & Marr, W. 1985. Institutional ownership, tender offers, and long-term investments. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief Economist, Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12 (2): 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. 1991. Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29 (2): 193–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. T. 1999. The institutional determinants of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 20 (2): 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koerber, C. P., & Griffin, J. J. 2011. Do industry characteristics matter when managing stakeholder relations?, Working paper, George Washington University.

  • Kolko, G. 1963. The triumph of conservatism. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacy, P., Cooper, T., Hayward, R., & Neuberger, L. 2010. A new era of sustainability: UN Global Compact – Accenture CEO study 2010. http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture_A_New_Era_of_Sustainability_CEO_Study.pdf., accessed 16 February 2012.

  • Lang, M. H., Lins, K. V., & Miller, D. P. 2003. ADRs, analysts and accuracy: Does cross listing in the United States improve a firm's information environment and increase market value? Journal of Accounting Research, 41 (2): 317–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 1998. Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106 (6): 1113–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 2006. What works in securities laws? Journal of Finance, 61 (1): 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. 1967. Party systems and voter alignments. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, G. C. 1990. Comparative business-government relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. 2006. Political behavior, social responsibility, and perceived corruption: A structuration perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 747–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lydenberg, S. D., Marlin, A. T., & Strub, S. O. B. 1986. Rating America's corporate conscience: A provocative guide to the companies behind the products you buy every day. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Mackey, T., & Barney, J. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3): 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I. 2001. Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30 (1): 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (3): 497–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (2): 268–305.

    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 

  • McCraw, T. 1984. Prophets of regulation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, A. M., & Porter, M. E. 1997. How much does industry matter, really? Strategic Management Journal, 18 (S1): 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, A. M., & Porter, M. E. 2002. What do we know about variance in accounting profitability? Management Science, 48 (7): 834–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. 1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4): 854–872.

    Article  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 

  • Meek, G. K., Roberts, C. B., & Gray, S. J. 1995. Factors influencing voluntary annual report disclosures by US, UK and continental European multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26 (3): 555–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, D. Q. 1994. Labor-management relations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, P. 1988. Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business, 61 (1): 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Oliveira, J. A. P. 2006. Corporate citizenship in Latin America. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 21 (1): 17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1): 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24 (3): 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. 1985. On competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., & Kramer, M. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84 (12): 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. 2002. Serving the world's poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80 (9): 48–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P. 1997. The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business and Society, 36 (4): 419–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy, B., & Ting, H. W. 2004. A comparative analysis of corporate social responsibility awareness: Malaysian and Singaporean firms. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13: 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, P. 1983. A structurationist account of political culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (3): 414–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringov, D., & Zollo, M. 2007. The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance, 7 (4): 476–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, M. 2003. Public disclosure of the sweatshop practices of American multinational garment/shoe makers/retailers: Impacts on their stock prices. Competition and Change, 7 (1): 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, P., Uhlenbruck, K., & Eden, L. 2005. Government corruption and the entry strategies of multinationals. Academy of Management Review, 30 (2): 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, M. J. 2003. Political determinants of corporate governance: Political context, corporate impact. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruf, B., Muralidhar, K., & Paul, K. 1993. Eight dimensions of corporate social performance: Determination of relative importance using the analytic hierarchy process. Academy of Management, Best Paper Proceedings, 326–330.

  • Rumelt, R. P. 1991. How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12 (3): 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneiberg, M. 1999. Political and institutional conditions for governance by association: Private order and price controls in American fire insurance. Politics and Society, 27 (1): 67–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. 2004. Having, giving and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business and Society, 43 (2): 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2): 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. 1999. Skill-biased technological change: Evidence from a firm-level survey. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., Adhikari, A., & Tondkar, R. H. 2005. Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24 (2): 123–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparkes, R., & Cowton, C. 2004. The maturing of socially responsible investment: A review of the developing link with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 52 (1): 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. 1998. The relationship between corporate social performance and organizational size, financial performance and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (2): 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teoh, S., Welch, I., & Wong, T. 1998a. Earnings management and the long-run market performance of initial public offerings. Journal of Finance, 53 (6): 1935–1974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teoh, S., Welch, I., & Wong, T. 1998b. Earnings management and the underperformance of seasoned equity offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 50 (1): 63–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. 1994. Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 4: 103–172. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (3): 658–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Tulder, R., & Kolk, A. 2001. Multinationality and corporate ethics: Codes of conduct in the sporting goods industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (2): 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (4): 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., House, R. J., Adetoun, B., Barrasa, A., Bobina, M., Bodur, M., Chen, Y. J., & Debbarma, S. 2006a. Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 823–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D., Siegel, D., & Javidan, M. 2006b. Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (8): 1703–1725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. 1999. Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt, K., & Camerer, C. 1988. Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9 (5): 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, J. 1968. The corporate ideal in the liberal state, 1900–1918. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R. 2004. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and Asia: Critical elements and best practice. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13: 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 1994. Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (3): 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. 1997. Business systems. In A. Sorge & M. Warner (Eds), The IEBM handbook of organizational behaviour: 173–186. London: International Thomson Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. 2005. How national are business systems? The role of states and complementary institutions in standardizing systems of economic coordination and control at the national level. In G. Morgan, R. Whitley, & E. Moen (Eds), Changing capitalisms? Internationalization, institutional change, and systems of economic organization: 190–234. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wokutch, R. E., & McKinney, E. W. 1991. Behavioral and perceptual measure of corporate social performance. In J. E. Post (Ed), Research in corporate social performance and policy, Vol. 12: 309–330. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R. 1991. The use of content analysis to assess corporate social responsibility. In J. E. Post (Ed), Research in corporate social performance and policy, Vol. 12: 281–308. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R., & Aupperle, K. 1991. Introduction to corporate social performance: Methods for evaluating an elusive construct. In J. E. Post (Ed), Research in corporate social performance and policy, Vol. 12: 265–268. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4): 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolridge, J. R. 1988. Competitive decline and corporate restructuring: Is a myopic stock market to blame? Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 1 (1): 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolridge, J. R., & Snow, C. C. 1990. Stock market reaction to strategic investment decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (5): 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank ASSET4 (Thompson Reuters) for providing us with the data for this paper, and we are particularly grateful to Dr Christopher Greenwald and Ms Caroline Harrison at ASSET4 for their help and cooperation. We thank Costas Markides, Donal Crilly, Sandra Waddock and Olga Hawn for valuable comments. We also thank participants at the Cass International Strategy Workshop 2011. Ioannou acknowledges financial support from the Research and Materials Development Fund (RAMD) at the London Business School. All errors remain our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London Business School, Regent's Park, London, UK

    Ioannis Ioannou

  2. Harvard Business School, Boston, USA

    George Serafeim

Authors
  1. Ioannis Ioannou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Serafeim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Accepted by Ishtiaq Mahmood, Area Editor, 17 August 2012. This paper has been with the authors for three revisions.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Description of Asset4 Pillars and Categories

Table A1

Table A1 Overview of ASSET4 Data 2002–2008
Full size table

Description of ASSET4 Categories (from ASSET4 Documents)

Environmental performance pillar

The resource reduction category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards achieving an efficient use of natural resources in the production process. It reflects a company's capacity to reduce the use of materials, energy or water, and to find more eco-efficient solutions by improving supply chain management.

The emission reduction category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards reducing environmental emission in the production and operational processes. It reflects a company's capacity to reduce air emissions (greenhouse gases, F-gases, ozone-depleting substances, NOx and SOx, etc.), waste, hazardous waste, water discharges, spills or its impacts on biodiversity, and to partner with environmental organizations to reduce the environmental impact of the company in the local or broader community.

The product innovation category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards supporting the R&D of eco-efficient products or services. It reflects a company's capacity to reduce the environmental costs and burdens for its customers, thereby creating new market opportunities through new environmental technologies and processes or eco-designed, dematerialized products with extended durability.

Social performance pillar

The workforce employment quality category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards providing high-quality employment benefits and job conditions. It reflects a company's capacity to increase its workforce loyalty and productivity by distributing rewarding and fair employment benefits, and by focusing on long-term employment growth and stability by promoting from within, avoiding lay-offs and maintaining relations with trade unions.

The workforce health and safety category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards providing a healthy and safe workplace. It reflects a company's capacity to increase its workforce loyalty and productivity by integrating into its day-to-day operations a concern for the physical and mental health, well-being and stress level of all employees.

The workforce training and development category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards providing training and development (education) for its workforce. It reflects a company's capacity to increase its intellectual capital, workforce loyalty and productivity by developing the workforce's skills, competences, employability and careers in an entrepreneurial environment.

The workforce diversity and opportunity category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards maintaining diversity and equal opportunities in its workforce. It reflects a company's capacity to increase its workforce loyalty and productivity by promoting an effective life–work balance, a family-friendly environment and equal opportunities regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

The society human rights category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards respecting the fundamental human rights conventions. It reflects a company's capacity to maintain its license to operate by guaranteeing the freedom of association and excluding child, forced or compulsory labor.

The society community category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards maintaining the company's reputation within the general community (local, national and global). It reflects a company's capacity to maintain its license to operate by being a good citizen (donations of cash, goods or staff time, etc.), protecting public health (avoidance of industrial accidents, etc.) and respecting business ethics (avoiding bribery and corruption, etc.).

The customer/product responsibility category measures a company's management commitment and effectiveness towards creating value-added products and services upholding the customer's security. It reflects a company's capacity to maintain its license to operate by producing quality goods and services integrating the customer's health and safety, and preserving its integrity and privacy also through accurate product information and labeling.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. J Int Bus Stud 43, 834–864 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.26

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.26

Keywords

  • corporate social responsibility
  • business in society
  • markets and institutions