Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Drivers of Change: A Multiple-Case Study on the Process of Institutionalization of Corporate Responsibility Among Three Multinational Companies

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

Abstract

In this multiple-case study, I analyze the perceived importance of seven categories of institutional entrepreneurs (DiMaggio, Institutional patterns and organizations, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1988) for the corporate social responsibility discourse of three multinational companies. With this study, I aim to significantly advance the empirical analysis of the CSR discourse for a better understanding of facts and fiction in the process of institutionalization of CSR in MNCs. I conducted 42 semi-structured face-to-face and phone interviews in two rounds with 30 corporate managers from three multinational companies. The data has been analyzed using qualitative (multiple coding) and quantitative (ANOVA, χ2 analysis) techniques. The findings indicate that one company is driven by civil society’s influence on consumer’s perception, the second company by direct attacks by civil society, agenda setting organizations and legislators, and the third by the pressure of large customers and legislators. The results suggest that the coping behaviors of MNCs at both extremes of the spectrum of perceived responsible behavior aim at (1) improving the business case for CSR and (2) increasing legitimacy in society, resulting in converging CSR perceptions, and fostering an institutionalization 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 excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BAT:

British American Tobacco

CSR:

Corporate social responsibility

EU:

European Union

FCTC:

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

HP:

Hewlett Packard

MNC:

Multinational corporation

NGO:

Non-governmental organization

References

  • Argenti, P. A. 2004. Collaborating with Activists: How Starbucks Works With NGOs. California Law Review, 47(1): 91-116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arya, B., & Zhang, G. 2009. Institutional Reforms and Investor Reactions to CSR Announcements: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Journal of Management Studies, 46(7): 1089-1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 122-136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendell, J. 2000. Civil Regulation: a New Form of Democratic Governance for the Global Economy? In J. Bendell (Ed.), Terms for Endearment: Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendell, J. 2004. Barricades and Boardrooms: A Contemporary History of the Corporate Accountability Movement, Technology, Business and Society Programme, Paper Number 13. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, T., Reinicke, W. H., & Witte, J. M. 2005. Multisectoral Networks in Global Governance: Towards a Pluralistic System of Global Governance. In D. Held, & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), Global Governance and Public Accountability: 87-109. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 488-506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthoin Antal, A., Oppen, M., & Sobczak, A. 2009. (Re)discovering the Social Responsibility of Business in Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 89: 285-301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. 2004. Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1): 9-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P., & Marcus, A. 1989. The deterrent to dubious corporate behavior: Profitability, probability, and safety recalls. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3): 233-250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calton, J. M., & Payne, S. L. 2003. Coping With Paradox: Multistakeholder Learning Dialogue as a Pluralist Sensemaking Process for Addressing Messy Problems. Business & Society, 42(1): 7-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. 1998. Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy. Theory and Society, 27(3): 377-409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. 2006. Institutional Analysis and the Paradox of Corporate Social Responsibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7): 925-938.

    Article  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 

  • Chapman, S. and S. M. Carter: 2003, ‘“Avoid Health Warnings on All Tobacco Products for Just as Long as We Can”: A History of Australian Tobacco Industry Efforts to Avoid, Delay and Dilute Health Warnings on Cigarettes’, Tobacco Control 12(Suppl. III), iii13–iii22.

  • Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. 2009. Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 87: 299-317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative. 2004. Leadership, Accountability and Partnership: Critical Trends and Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. 2002. Institutional Theory and Institutional Change: Introduction to the Special Research Forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 45-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: 3-32. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, D. and E. Wollenberg: 2001, ‘A Strategic Approach to Multistakeholder Negotiations’, Development and Change 32, 231–253.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Euromonitor. 2008. Tobacco in Switzerland, Vol. 2008.

  • European Commission. 2001. Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility: Green Paper. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2003. EU Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, C. 2006. The Wal - Mart Effect: How the World’s Most Powerful Company Really Works - and How It’s Transforming the American Economy. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, E.: 2010, ‘Nestlé Hit by Facebook “Anti-Social” Media Surge’, Guardian, March 19.

  • Grayson, K., & Rust, R. 2001. Interrater Reliability Assessment in Content Analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(12): 71-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greminger, T. 2006. Promoting Human Security through Swiss Foreign Policy, 10th European Training Course in Security Policy (ETC.) of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP). Palais Fédéral in Bern: Political Affairs Division IV/Human Security.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett Packard: 2010, HP Named No. 1 on Corporate Responsibility Magazine’s 100 Best Corporate Citizens List, Vol. 2010.

  • Hiss, S. 2009. From Implicit to Explicit Corporate Social Responsibility: Institutional Change as a Fight for Myths. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3): 433-451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenhorst, T., & Johnson, C. 2005. Tools for Corporate Social Responsibility: Forest Stewardship Council. Atlanta, GA: ifPeople.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hond, F. D. and F. G. A. D. Bakker: 2007, ‘Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups Influence Corporate Social Change Activities’, Academy of Man- agement Review 32(3), 901–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hond, F. d., Bakker, F. G. A. d., & Haan, P. d. 2006. The Sequential Patterning of Tactics: Institutional Activism in the Global Sports Apparel Industry, 1988–2002, ECPR Joint Workshop Sessions, Workshop on ‘Studying forms of participation’. Nicosia, Cyprus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isabella, L. A. 1990. Evolving Interpretations as a Change Unfolds: How Managers Construe Key Organizational Events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1): 7-41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorge, A. A., & Francis, T. F. 2008. Assessing corporate responsibility as a contribution to global governance: the case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Effective Board Performance, 8(4): 456-470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kell, G. and J. G. Ruggie: 1999, ‘Global Markets and Social Legitimacy: The Case of the ‘Global Compact’’. Paper presented at the Conference: Governing the Public Domain beyond the Era of the Washington Consensus? Redrawing the Line Between the State and the Market, York University, Toronto, Canada, 4–6 November 1999.

  • Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. 2004. Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68: 92-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. 2004. Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31: 691-704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laslett, P. 2003. Environmental Ethics and the Obsolescence of Existing Political Institutions. In J. S. Fishkin, & P. Laslett (Eds.), Debating Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X. and J. Zhang: 2009, ‘Institutional or Instrumental: What Affects Corporate Social Responsibility Behavior in Emerging Economies?’, Academy of Management Proceedings 1–6.

  • Maragia, B. 2002. Almost there: Another way of conceptualizing and explaining NGOs’ quest for legitimacy in global politics. Non - State Actors and International Law, 2: 301–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., Kirkbride, J., & Bryde, D. 2007. From stakeholders to institutions: the changing face of social enterprise governance theory. Management Decision, 45(2): 284 - 301.

    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 

  • McNair. 1995. An Introduction to Political Communication. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meikle, J.: 2002, ‘BAT Sorry for Offer to Sponsor Student’, The Guardian October 11.

  • Millar, C. C. J., Chong, J. C., & Chen, S. 2004. Global Strategic Partnerships between MNEs and NGOs: Drivers of Change and Ethical Issues. Business and Society Review, 109(4): 395-414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. I. and D. Guthrie: 2007, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Institutional Response to Labor, Legal and Shareholder Environments’, Academy of Management Proceedings 1–5.

  • Murphy, D. E. 2002. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations: A Decade of Promoting Compliance and Ethics Iowa Law Review, 87 697-719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. 2001. Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media. The American Political Science Review, 95(1): 97-114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestlé: 2008, NESTLé Bulgaria – the best employer brand for 2008, Vol. 2010.

  • Nestlé: 2010, Nestlé (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd, Vol. 2010.

  • Norton, J. J.: 2009, ‘Multinational Companies: Of Institutional “Spheres of Influence”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Meaningful Financial Sector Law Reform for Developing Countries’, 20, 1–62.

  • Ogden, S., & Watson, R. 1999. Corporate Performance and Stakeholder Management: Balancing Shareholder and Customer Interests in the U.K. Privatized Water Industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 526-538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, R. J., & Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutional exceptions on global projects: a process model. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 562-588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Richter, U. 2005. CSR Business as Usual? The Case of the Tobacco Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4): 387 - 401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. 2006. Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1): 71-88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, J. S., & Dobbin, F. 2006. In Search of Identity and Legitimation: Bridging Organizational Culture and Neoinstitutionalism. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7): 897-907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perera, A.: 2007, Starbucks Campaign: Anatomy of a Win, Vol. 2008. Oxfam America.

  • Petersen, H., & Vredenburg, H. 2009. Morals or Economics? Institutional Investor Preferences for Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(1): 1-14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polishchuk, L. 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility or Government Regulation: An Analysis of Institutional Choice. Problems of Economic Transition, 52(8): 73-94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. 2008. Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(9): 1723-1742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronit, K., & Schneider, V. 1999. Global Governance through Private Organizations. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 12(3): 243-266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J.: 2007, Business and Human Rights: Mapping International Standards of Responsibility and Account- ability for Corporate Acts, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council”: United Nations.

  • Ruggie, J. G. 2004. Reconstituting the Global Public Domain – Issues, Actors, and Practices. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4): 499-531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scammell, M. 2000. The Internet and Civic Engagement: The Age of the Citizen-Consumer. Political Communication, 17(4): 351-355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. 2007. Towards 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. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. 2006. Global Rules and Private Actors: Toward a New Role of the Transnational Corporation in Global Governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4): 505-532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholte, J. A. 2005. Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Governance. In D. Held, & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), Global Governance and Public Accountability: 87-109. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D. 2005. Hungary: BAT university deal questioned. Tobacco Control, 14: 76-77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöström, E., & Welford, R. 2009. Facilitators and impediments for socially responsible investment: a study of Hong Kong. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 16(5): 278-288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Social Investment Forum. 2006. 2005 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States:10-Year Review. Washington, DC: Social Investment Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, J. 2004. AIDS ads: make a commercial, make a difference? Corporate social responsibility and the media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 18(4): 591-610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starks, L. T. 2009. EFA Keynote Speech: “Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility: What Do Investors Care about? What Should Investors Care about?” Financial Review, 44(4): 461-468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stovall, O. S., Neill, J. D., and Reid, B. 2009. Institutional Impediments To Voluntary Ethics Measurement Systems: An International Perspective. Journal of Applied Business Research, 25(2): 119-126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szejnwald Brown, H., M. d. Jong and T. Lessidrenska: 2007, ‘The Rise of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a Case of Institutional Entrepreneurship’, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Working Paper No. 36. (Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA).

  • Tran, M.: 2005, ‘Branded’, Guardian, September 1.

  • UK Government. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility - A Government update. London: Department of Trade and Industry.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO: 2010, What is the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control? Vol. 2010.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Visiting Assistant Professor of Management, School of Business Administration, Portland State University, Post Office Box 751, Portland, OR, 97207-0751, U.S.A.

    Ulf Henning Richter

  2. SBA 469, 631 SW Harrison Street, Portland, OR, 97207-0751, U.S.A.

    Ulf Henning Richter

Authors
  1. Ulf Henning Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulf Henning Richter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Richter, U.H. Drivers of Change: A Multiple-Case Study on the Process of Institutionalization of Corporate Responsibility Among Three Multinational Companies. J Bus Ethics 102, 261–279 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0811-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0811-3

Key words

Search

Navigation