Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Neo-Institutionalism Influences on Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting Development in Australia: A Three Company Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Goals of Sustainable Development

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse the reporting of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) through the framework of neo-institutionalism. To explore this, the study focuses on the CSR reports published by three Australian firms, BHP, Westpac and Westfield from 1992 until 2015 and has applied the neo-institutional framework developed by Schultz and Wehmeier (2010) as a social constructivist representation of how macro, meso and micro-level triggers may influence the institutionalisation of CSR. Results show that the neo-institutionalisation of CSR has affected the development of CSR and CSR reporting in these three companies. Additionally, the absence of government regulation has increased the likelihood that macro-environmental institutional influences, namely mimetic pressures, have enabled manipulative communication and sensemaking strategies to be transferred from one firm to another, thereby affecting the credibility of CSR reporting.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the instances where there has been a change in company structure and company name, as was the case with Westfield, who have traded as Westfield Holdings Ltd, Westfield Corporation, Westfield Group, Westfield Retail Trust, Westfield America, and recently as Scentre Group.

References

  • Adams, C. (2008). A commentary on: Corporate social responsibility reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(3), 365–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(2), 223–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Kistruck, G. (2006). Seeing is (not) believing: Managing the impressions of the firm’s commitment to the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 165–180. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9021-9.

  • Bartlett, J., Tywoniak, S., & Hatcher, C. (2007). Public relations professional practice and the institutionalisation of CSR. Journal of Communication Management, 11(4), 281–299. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/10.1108/13632540710843904.

  • BHP. (1992). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • BHP. (1996). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • BHP. (1998). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • BHP. (2007). Sustainability Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • BHP. (2011). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • BHP. (2012). Sustainability Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • BHP. (2014). Annual Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M. C., & Rodgrigues, L. L. (2007). Issues in corporate social and environmental reporting research: An overview. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 1(1), 72–90.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. R., & Simnett, R. (2014). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 34(1), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, (2000). Corporate greening as amoralization. Organization Studies, 21(4), 673–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobele, A. R., Westberg, K., Steel, M., & Flowers, K. (2014). An examination of corporate social responsibility implementation and stakeholder engagement: A case study in the Australian Mining Industry. Business Strategy and the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 23(3), 145–159. doi:10.1002/bse.1775.

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Plessis, J. J., Anrgovan, A., Bargaric, M., & Harris, J. (2014). Principles of contemporary corporate governance (3rd ed.). Australia: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, A. (2010). How credible are mining corporations’ sustainability reports? A critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the international council on mining and metals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(6), 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, C., Milne, M., & Gramberg, B. (2015). The uptake of sustainability reporting in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 445–468. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2171-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, P. D., & Greenwood, R. (2003). 6bConstructing the iron cage: Institutional theory and enactment. Debating organization: Point-counterpoint in organization studies, 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilian, T., & Hennigs, N. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and environmental reporting in controversial industries. European Business Review, 26(1), 79–101. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/10.1108/EBR-04-2013-0080.

  • Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2013). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 145–165. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1750-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals’ reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 17(1), 1–15. doi:10.1002/bse.511.

  • Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2014). Sustainable bonuses: Sign of corporate responsibility or window dressing? Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauesen, L. M. (2013). CSR in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(4), 641–663. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/10.1108/SRJ-11-2012-0140.

  • Lindblom, C. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the Critical Perspective on Accounting Conference, Nova Iorque.[Links], New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. D. (1987). Signalling, agency theory and accounting policy choice. Accounting and Business Research (Wolters Kluwer UK), 18(69), 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijhof, A., & Jeurissen, R. (2006). Editorial: A sensemaking perspective on corporate social responsibility: Introduction to the special issue. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 316–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijof, A. H. J., & Jeurissen, R. J. M. (2010). The glass ceiling of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(11/12), 318. doi:http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/01443331011085222.

  • Nikolaeva, R., & Bicho, M. (2011). The role of institutional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 136–157. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0214-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16(4), 523–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. L. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: A critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37(2), 205–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Othman, S., Darus, F., & Arshad, R. (2011). The influence of coercive isomorphism on corporate social responsibility reporting and reputation. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(1), 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, K., Tilt, C., & Lester, L. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental reporting: An Australian study. Corporate Governance, 12(2), 143–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, F., & Wehmeier, S. (2010). Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within corporate communications: Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism. California, U.S.A.: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simnett, R., & Nugent, M. (2007). Developing an assurance standard for carbon emissions disclosures. Australian Accounting Review, 17(42), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1999). The institutionalization of institutional theory. Studying Organization. Theory and Method (pp. 169–184). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschopp, D., & Nastanski, M. (2014). The harmonization and convergence of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1992a). Rio De Janeiro: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.

  • United Nations. (1992b). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s Theory. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1639–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westfield. (1992). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westfield. (1997). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westfield. (2006). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westfield. (2011). Sustainability Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westfield. (2014). Sustainability Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac. (1992). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac. (1995). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac. (1997). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac. (1998). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac. (2001). Annual Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac. (2008). Stakeholder Impact Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac. (2009). Annual Review and Sustainability Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac. (2014). Annual Review and Sustainability Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, N. S., & Bennett, H. (2011). Business ethics, CSR, sustainability and the MBA. Journal of Management and Organization, 17(05), 641–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federation University, Gippsland, Australia

    Merryn Paynter, Abdel K. Halabi & Alan Lawton

Authors
  1. Merryn Paynter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdel K. Halabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan Lawton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merryn Paynter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leicester Business School , De Montford University Faculty of Business & Law, Leicester, United Kingdom

    David Crowther

  2. University of Derby , Derby, United Kingdom

    Shahla Seifi

  3. Federation University , Ballarat, Victoria, Australia

    Abdul Moyeen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Paynter, M., Halabi, A.K., Lawton, A. (2018). The Neo-Institutionalism Influences on Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting Development in Australia: A Three Company Study. In: Crowther, D., Seifi, S., Moyeen, A. (eds) The Goals of Sustainable Development . Approaches to Global Sustainability, Markets, and Governance. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5047-3_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation