Responding to public disclosure of corporate social irresponsibility in host countries: Information control and ownership control

Abstract

We extend the internalization literature by theorizing on how public disclosure of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) can damage reputation-based firm-specific advantages of multinational companies (MNCs) and how foreign subsidiary governance can subsequently be used as strategic responses. Specifically, we distinguish between two foreign subsidiary governance mechanisms – information control and ownership control – that the prior literature has often assumed operate in parallel, and posit that they function in divergent directions in this context. Furthermore, we explain how two host-country characteristics – press freedom and regulatory quality – amplify the need for MNCs to utilize different governance mechanisms as responses to CSI disclosure.

Résumé

Nous élargissons la littérature sur l’internalisation en théorisant sur la façon dont la divulgation publique de l’irresponsabilité sociale des entreprises (ISE) peut nuire aux avantages spécifiques fondés sur la réputation des entreprises multinationales (EMN) et comment la gouvernance des filiales étrangères peut ensuite être utilisée comme réponse stratégique. Plus précisément, nous distinguons deux mécanismes de gouvernance des filiales étrangères - le contrôle de l’information et le contrôle de la propriété - que la littérature antérieure a souvent supposé fonctionner en parallèle et postule qu’ils fonctionnent dans des directions différentes dans ce contexte. En outre, nous expliquons comment deux caractéristiques du pays hôte - la liberté de la presse et la qualité de la réglementation - renforcent la nécessité pour les EMN d’utiliser différents mécanismes de gouvernance en réponse à la divulgation de l’ICE.

Resumen

Extendemos la literatura de internalización mediante la teorización sobre cómo la divulgación pública de la irresponsabilidad social corporativa (ISC) puede dañar la ventaja específica de las empresas multinacionales basada en la reputación de la empresa y como cómo la gobernabilidad de las subsidiarias en extranjero puede ser usado subsecuentemente como respuestas estratégicas. Específicamente distinguimos entre dos mecanismos de gobernabilidad de las subsidiarias en el extranjero -control de la información y el control de la propiedad – que la literatura anterior ha asumido con frecuencia que opera en paralelo y postula que funcionan en direcciones divergentes en este contexto. Además. Explicamos como dos características de país anfitrión -libertad de prensa y calidad regulatoria- amplifican la necesidad de las empresas multinacionales a utilizar diferentes mecanismos de gobernabilidad como respuesta a la divulgación de la ISC.

Resumo

Estendemos a literatura de internalização, teorizando sobre como a divulgação pública da irresponsabilidade social corporativa (CSI) pode prejudicar a vantagem específica da empresa baseada em reputação de empresas multinacionais (MNCs) e como a governança subsidiária estrangeira pode subsequentemente ser usada como respostas estratégicas. Especificamente, distinguimos entre dois mecanismos de governança de subsidiárias estrangeiras - controle de informação e controle de propriedade - que a literatura existente frequentemente supôs operar em paralelo e postulamos que eles funcionam em direções divergentes nesse contexto. Além disso, explicamos como duas características do país hospedeiro - liberdade de imprensa e qualidade regulatória - ampliam a necessidade de MNCs utilizarem diferentes mecanismos de governança como respostas à divulgação de CSI.

摘要

我们通过对企业对社会不负责任(CSI)的公开披露如何破坏跨国公司(MNCs)基于声誉的公司特定优势以及国外子公司治理随后将如何能用作战略响应的理论化拓展了内部化文献。具体来说, 我们区分了两个国外子公司治理机制 – 信息控制和所有权控制 – 以前的文献经常假定其作用等同, 并假设它们在这种情境下发挥不同作用。此外, 我们解释了两个东道国特征 – 新闻自由和监管质量 – 如何扩大跨国公司利用不同治理机制作为对CSI披露的回应的需求。

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

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. 1986. Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3): 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anokhin, S., & Wincent, J. 2012. Start-up rates and innovation: A cross-country examination. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1): 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Armstrong, J. S. 1977. Social irresponsibility in management. Journal of Business Research, 5(3): 185–213.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Armstrong, J. S., & Green, K. C. 2013. Effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility policies. Journal of Business Research, 66(10): 1922–1927.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Autio, E., Pathak, S., & Wennberg, K. 2013. Consequences of cultural practices for entrepreneurial behaviors. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(4): 334–362.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baltagi, B. H. 2008. Econometric analysis of panel data. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 717–736.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. 2006. Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1): 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Barnett, M., & Salomon, R. 2006. Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11): 1101–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  11. BBC. 2012. Samsung faces fresh claims on Chinese factory workers. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19504381. Accessed June 1, 2017.

  12. Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9): 1460–1480.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. 1998. Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 773–795.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Birkinshaw, J. M., & Morrison, A. J. 1995. Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4): 729–753.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bitektine, A. 2011. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 577–601.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brouthers, L. E., Gao, Y., & McNicol, J. P. 2008. Corruption and market attractiveness influences on different types of FDI. Strategic Management Journal, 29(29): 673–680.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. 2003. A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87(7–8): 1801–1824.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Buckley, P. J. 1990. Problems and developments in the core theory of international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(4): 657–665.

  20. Buckley, P. J. 2016. The contribution of internalisation theory to international business: New realities and unanswered questions. Journal of World Business, 51(1): 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Buckley, P., & Casson, M. 1997. Analyzing foreign market entry strategies: Extending the internalization approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(3): 539–562.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Buckley, P. J., & Hashai, N. 2009. Formalizing internationalization in the eclectic paradigm. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(40): 58–7058.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Buckley, P. J., & Strange, R. 2011. The governance of the multinational enterprise: Insights from internalization theory. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 460–470.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  26. Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. 2003. Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(1): 36–46.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Casson, M. 2013. Economic analysis of international supply chains: An internalization perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2): 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Charlottesville, V., & Cambridge, T. 2009. Private environmental activism and the selection and response of firm targets. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1): 45–73.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. 2014. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chowdhury, S. K. 2004. The effect of democracy and press freedom on corruption: An empirical test. Economics Letters, 85(1): 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Coombs, W. T. 2007. Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3): 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Crilly, D., Ni, N., & Jiang, Y. 2016. Do-no-harm versus do-good social responsibility: Attributional thinking and the liability of foreignness. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1316–1329.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Crotty, J., Driffield, N., & Jones, C. 2016. Regulation as country-specific (dis-)advantage: smoking bans and the location of foreign direct investment in the tobacco industry. British Journal of Management, 27(3): 464–478.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. 2005. Inference by eye confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60(2): 170–180.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Danis, W. M., Chiaburu, D. S., & Lyles, M. A. 2010. The impact of managerial networking intensity and market-based strategies on firm growth during institutional upheaval: A study of small and medium-sized enterprises in a transition economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 287–307.

    Google Scholar 

  37. David, P., O’Brien, J., Yoshikawa, T., & Delios, A. 2010. Do shareholders or stakeholders appropriate the rents from corporate diversification? The influence of ownership structure. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3): 636–654.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Deephouse, D. 2000. Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1091–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Deloitte. 2013. Governance of subsidiaries: A survey of global companies, (September). www.deloitte.com/in%0AGovernance Accessed June 1, 2017.

  40. Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. W. 2004. Effect of equity ownership on the survival of international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3): 295–305.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Doh, J., Rodrigues, S., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Makhija, M. 2017. International business responses to institutional voids. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(3): 293–307.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. 1984. Patterns of strategic control within multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 15(2): 55–72.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Edstrom, A., & Galbraith, J. R. 1977. Transfer of managers as a coordination and control strategy in multinational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(2): 248–263.

    Google Scholar 

  44. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Kim, Y. 2017. Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(3): 360–385.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Feng, E. 2017. Volkswagen recalls vehicles in China over faulty airbags. https://www.ft.com/content/5ad4eb66-990b-11e7-a652-cde3f882dd7b. Accessed June 1, 2017.

  46. Fiaschi, D., Giuliani, E., & Nieri, F. 2017. Overcoming the liability of origin by doing no-harm: Emerging country firms’ social irresponsibility as they go global. Journal of World Business, 52: 546–563.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Filatotchev, I., Stephan, J., & Jindra, B. 2008. Ownership structure, strategic controls and export intensity of foreign-invested firms in transition economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(7): 1133–1148.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  50. Forbes Insights. 2014. 2014 Global survey on reputation risk. Reputation@Risk. www.deloitte.com/reputationrisksurvey. Accessed June 1, 2017.

  51. Fritz, J., & Busch, T. 2013. The effect of bad news on credit risk: A media based view of the pricing of corporate social responsibility. In PRI-CDC academic conference.

  52. Geringer, J. M., & Hebert, L. 1989. Control and performance of international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 20(2): 235–254.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. 2009. Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1): 127–145.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Gomes-Casseres, B. 1989. Ownership structures of foreign subsidiaries: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 11(1): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Grewal, R., Johnson, J. L., & Sarker, S. 2007. Crises in business markets: implications for interfirm linkages. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(3): 398–416.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Guillén, M. F., & Capron, L. 2016. State capacity, minority shareholder protections, and stock market development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(1): 125–160.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Hansen, R. F. 2008. Multinational enterprise pursuit of minimized liability: Law, international business theory and the prestige oil spill. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 26: 410–451.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hennart, J.-F. 1993. Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of “market” and “hierarchy”. Organization Science, 4(4): 529–547.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hennart, J.-F., Roehl, T., & Zietlow, D. S. 1999. “Trojan Horse” or “workhorse”? The evolution of US–Japanese joint ventures in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1): 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Hoffman, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5): 623–641.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Huang, J. 2018. Foreign earnings management of US multinational companies: The role of decision rights. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(5): 552–574.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. 2012. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9): 834–864.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Iriyama, A., Kishore, R., & Talukdar, D. 2016. Playing dirty or building capability? Corruption and HR training as competitive actions to threats from informal and foreign firm rivals. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 2152–2173.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Jensen, N. M., Li, Q., & Rahman, A. 2010. Understanding corruption and firm responses in cross-national firm-level surveys. Journal of International Business Studies 41(9): 1481–1504.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Jourdan, J., & Kivleniece, I. 2017. Too much of a good thing? The dual effect of public sponsorship on organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1): 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kang, C., Germann, F., & Grewal, R. 2016. Washing away your sins? Corporate social responsibility, corporate social irresponsibility, and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 80(2): 59–79.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kang, J.-K., & Kim, J.-M. 2010. Do foreign investors exhibit a corporate governance disadvantage? An information asymmetry perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(41): 1415–1438.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kano, L. 2018. Global value chain governance: A relational perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 49: 684–705.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kim, H., & Jensen, M. 2014. Audience heterogeneity and the effectiveness of market signals: How to overcome liabilities of foreignness in film exports? Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1360–1384.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Kim, K., Park, J. H., & Prescott, J. E. 2003. The global integration of business functions: A study of multinational businesses in integrated global industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(4): 327–344.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kim, K. Y., Pathak, S., & Werner, S. 2015. When do international human capital enhancing practices benefit the bottom line? An ability, motivation, and opportunity perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(7): 784–805.

    Google Scholar 

  72. King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. 2007. Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 413–442.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Kölbel, J., Busch, T., & Jancso, L. M. 2017. How media coverage of corporate social irresponsibility increases financial risk. Strategic Management Journal,38(11): 2266–2284.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Kostova, T., Marano, V., & Tallman, S. 2016. Headquarters–subsidiary relationships in MNCs: Fifty years of evolving research. Journal of World Business, 51: 176–184.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Kotha, S. 1995. Mass customization – Implementating the emerging paradigm for competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. 2011. Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1): 153–184.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. 2012. Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2): 300–326.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Lee, S.-H., & Weng, D. H. 2013. Does bribery in the home country promote or dampen firm exports? Strategic Management Journal, 34(12): 1472–1487.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Li, J., & Wu, D. 2016. Do firms become more responsible after corporate social responsibility engagement? Ross School of Business Paper No. 1335. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2853877.

  80. Li, X., & Zhou, Y. M. 2017. Offshoring production while offshoring pollution? Strategic Management Journal, 38: 2310–2329.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Lu, J., Liu, X., Wright, M., & Filatotchev, I. 2014. International experience and FDI location choices of Chinese firms: The moderating effects of home country government support and host country institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(4): 428–449.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Luo, Y. 2002. Product diversification in international joint ventures: Performance implications in an emerging market. Strategic Management Journal, 23(1): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Luo, Y. 2003. Market-seeking MNEs in an emerging market: How parent-subsidiary links shape overseas success. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(3): 290–309.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Luo, Y. 2005. Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: A perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 40(1): 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Luo, X. R., & Chung, C.-N. 2013. Filling or abusing the institutional void? Ownership and management control of public family businesses in an emerging market. Organization Science, 24(2): 591–613.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Luo, Y., Wang, S. L., Jayaraman, V., & Zheng, Q. 2013. Governing business process offshoring: Properties, processes, and preferred modes. Journal of World Business, 48(3): 407–419.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Makhija, M. V. 2004. The value of restructuring in emerging economies: The case of the Czech Republic. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3): 243–267.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Malhotra, S., & Gaur, A. S. 2014. Spatial geography and control in foreign acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 45: 191–210.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Mayda, J., & Mayda, F. 1985. Environmental legislation in developing countries: Some parameters and constraints. Ecology Law Quarterly, 12(4): 997–1024.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Meyer, K. E., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Meyer, K. E., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Beugelsdijk, S. 2017. What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(5): 535–551.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Miletkov, M., Poulsen, A., & Wintoki, M. 2017. Foreign independent directors and the quality of legal institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(2): 267–292.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Mithani, M. A. 2017. Liability of foreignness, natural disasters, and corporate philanthropy. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(8): 941–963.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Mudambi, R. 2008. Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5): 699–725.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Narula, R. 2018. Multinational firms and the extractive sectors in the 21st century: Can they drive development? Journal of World Business, 53(1): 85–91.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Narula, R., & Santangelo, G. D. 2012. Location and collocation advantages in international innovation. Multinational Business Review, 20(1): 6–25.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Narula, R., & Verbeke, A. 2015. Perspective: Making internalization theory good for practice: The essence of Alan Rugman’s contributions to international business. Journal of World Business, 50: 612–622.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Ouchi, W. G. 1979. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9): 833–848.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Paruchuri, S., & Misangyi, V. F. 2015. Investor perceptions of financial misconduct: The heterogeneous contamination of bystander firms. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1): 169–194.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institution, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 492–528.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Pyndt, J., & Pedersen, T. 2006. Managing global offshoring strategies: A case approach. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  102. RepRisk. 2008. Most environmentally and socially controversial companies in 2008, (March): 1–9. reprisk.com.

  103. RepRisk. 2010. Most environmentally and socially controversial companies of 2010.

  104. RepRisk. 2012. Most controversial mining companies of 2011, (March): 1–13.

  105. RepRisk. 2013. RepRisk company report: General Electric Co. www.reprisk.com, Zurich, Switzerland. Accessed June 1, 2017.

  106. RepRisk. 2014. The most controversial companies of 2013. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from, https://www.reprisk.com/content/5-publications/1-special-reports, Zurich, Switzerland.

  107. RepRisk. 2016. Controversial projects RepRisk special report most controversial projects 2015. https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx.

  108. RepRisk. 2017. Most controversial projects 2016. www.reprisk.com, Zurich, Switzerland.

  109. Rhee, M., & Valdez, M. E. 2009. Contextual factors surrounding reputation damage with potential implication. Academy of Management Review, 34(1): 146–168.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Riera, M., & Iborra, M. 2017. Corporate social irresponsibility: Review and conceptual boundaries. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 26(2): 146–162.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Rogers, C., & Spector, M. 2017. Judge slaps VW with $2.8 Billion criminal fine in emissions fraud. https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-slaps-vw-with-2-8-billion-criminal-fine-in-emissions-fraud-1492789096. Accessed June 1, 2017.

  112. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. 2001. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and social psychology review, 5(4): 296–320.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Rugman, A. M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 1992. A note on the transnational solution and the transaction cost theory of multinational strategic management. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4): 761–771.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 1998. Corporate strategies and environmental regulations: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4): 363–375.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Nguyen, Q. T. K. 2011. Fifty years of international business theory and beyond. Management International Review, 51(6): 755–786.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Russo, M. V., & Harrison, N. S. 2005. Organizational design and environmental performance: Clues from the electronics. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4): 582–593.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Scott, S. V., & Walsham, G. 2005. Reconceptualizing and managing reputation risk in the knowledge economy: Toward reputable action. Organization Science, 16(3): 308–322.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Sellers, P. 2009. How Warren Buffett manages his managers. Fortune.com. http://fortune.com/2009/10/12/how-warren-buffett-manages-his-managers/. Accessed June 1, 2017.

  121. Semadeni, M., Withers, M. C., & Trevis Certo, S. 2014. The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7): 1070–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Short, J. L., Toffel, M. W., & Hugill, A. R. 2016. Monitoring global supply chains. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1878–1897.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Smith-Bingham, R. 2014. Reputation risk: A rising C-suite imperative. Retrieved from https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2014/may/reputation-risk-a-rising-c-suiteimperative.html. Accessed June 1, 2017.

  124. Sørensen, J. B. 2002. The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1): 70–91.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Strange, R., & Newton, J. 2006. Stephen Hymer and the externalization of production. International Business Review, 15(2 SPEC. ISS.): 180–193.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. 2006. Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 850–862.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. 2013. Stakeholder pressure on MNEs and the transfer of socially irresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2): 549–572.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Tan, J. 2009. Institutional structure and firm social performance in transitional economies: Evidence of multinational corporations in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 86: 171–189.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Tashman, P., Marano, V., & Kostova, T. 2019. Walking the walk or talking the talk? Corporate social responsibility decoupling in emerging market multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies 50(2): 153–171.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Terza, J. V., Basu, A., & Rathouz, P. J. 2008. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: Addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. Journal of Health Economics, 27(3): 531–543.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Wagner, T., Jones, B., & Bowd, R. 2008. The dark side of retailing: Towards a scale of corporate social irresponsibility. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(5): 124–142.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Wang, S. L., Luo, Y., Lu, X., Sun, J., & Maksimov, V. 2014. Autonomy delegation to foreign subsidiaries: An enabling mechanism for emerging-market multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(2): 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. 2016. Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2): 534–544.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Wartick, S. L. 2002. Measuring corporate reputation. Business and Society, 41(4): 371–392.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Woolridge, J. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Yan, J. 2011. Fonterra in the San Lu milk scandalA case study of a New Zealand company in a product-harm crisis. Lincoln University Dissertation.

  137. Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Hubbard, T. D. 2016. Reputation as a benefit and a burden? How stakeholders’ organizational identification affects the role of reputation following a negative event. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1): 253–276.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Zhou, Y. M. 2015. Supervising across borders: The case of multinational hierarchies. Organization Science, 26(1): 277–292.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to the Editor Rajneesh Narula, three anonymous reviewers, and participants in the Paper Development Workshop of the AIB 2018 annual conference, particularly Guest Editors Christian Geisler Asmussen, Tailan Chi, and Sumit Kundu, for their respective helpful comments and conversations.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Lu Wang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Christian Geisler Asmussen, Tailan Chi, and Rajneesh Narula, Special Issue Guest Editors, 12 January 2019. This article has been with the authors for four revisions.

Appendix A: Operationalization of Severity and Reach of CSI by RepRisk

Appendix A: Operationalization of Severity and Reach of CSI by RepRisk

RepRisk evaluates the degree of severity of CSI by examining (1) the direct consequences of the incidence (e.g., whether it has resulted in major injuries, deaths or property damage), (2) the horizontal extent of the incidence (e.g., whether it affects a small number or a large number of stakeholders), and (3) the cause of the incident (i.e., whether it is caused by accident, negligence, intent, or even systematically). The degrees of high, medium, and low are judged by the analyst panel. We use the CSI incidents of General Electric (GE) as an example to show the three levels of severity.

  • Low-level severity incident: In 2013, GE subsidiary General Electric Capital Aviation Services and its affiliated company, PK AirFinance, were accused of fraud in a UK court concerning the financing of aircraft for the German airline, Blue Wings. The associated issue was fraud, the location was the UK, and the level of criticism was low because of the amount of fraud was not significant.

  • Medium-level severity incident: In 2008, GE, as one of Beijing Olympic sponsors, received medium criticism for disregard of human rights abuses. The associated issues included impacts on communities, human rights abuses and corporate complicity, and poor employment conditions; the location was China; the level of criticism was medium because of the level of forced eviction of Chinese citizens from their homes to make way for new Olympic venues, exploitation of migrant workers who built these venues, and the jailing of activists who denounced such abuses.

  • High-level severity incident: GE received the most criticism for not accepting responsibility for the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. The associated issues included impacts on communities, local pollution, and controversial products and services; the location was Japan; the level of severity was high because GE supplied the reactors for units 1, 2, and 6 for Fukushima, and the Fukushima nuclear disaster forced over 160,000 people to evacuate their homes.

RepRisk codes the degree of reach of CSI by examining the media influence based on the readership level. If a particular CSI incident appears in multiple levels, the reach score is from the highest level.

Specifically, the level of reach is defined as follows:

  • Low-level reach: The incident was only reported by local newspapers with a circulation of less than 150,000.

  • Medium-level reach: The incident was reported by a local or national news outlet with a circulation of more than 150, 000.

  • High-level reach: The incident was reported by international media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The New York Times, the BBC, CNN International, Forbes, Fortune, and The Economist.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, S.L., Li, D. Responding to public disclosure of corporate social irresponsibility in host countries: Information control and ownership control. J Int Bus Stud 50, 1283–1309 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00224-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • corporate social irresponsibility
  • reputation
  • foreign subsidiary governance
  • internalization theory
  • firm-specific advantage
  • information control
  • ownership control
  • host-country press freedom
  • host-country regulatory quality