Skip to main content
Book cover

Handbook of Business Legitimacy pp 1–29Cite as

Configurations of High Corporate Environmental Responsibility with Regard to Business Legitimacy: A Cross-National Approach

  • 285 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter identifies configurations of CR programs associated with high environmental responsibility. The approach elaborates how institutional fields, particularly regulative and stakeholder pressures, and firms’ CR orientations (employee, community, and consumer CR) influence firms to adopt high environmental CR. We present a sample of 573 firms in four European Union (EU) countries: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Latvia. The chapter identifies CR program configurations associated with high environmental performance and how this can vary across societal contexts. This chapter contributes to the existing literatures on corporate responsibility and business legitimacy as well as provides insights on environmental strategies adopted by firms.

Keywords

  • Ambidexterity
  • Corporate responsibility
  • Configurations
  • Environmental responsibility
  • Institutional approach legitimacy
  • Stakeholder pressure

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

Fig. 1

References

  • Agarin T, Grīviņš M (2016) Chasing the green buck? Environmental activism in post-communist Baltic States. Communis Post-Commun 49(3):243–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Agle BR, Mitchell RK, Sonnenfeld JA (1999) Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Acad Manag J 42:507–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera RV, Rupp DE, Williams CA, Ganapathi J (2007) Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Acad Manag Rev 32:836–863

    Google Scholar 

  • Alas R, Tafel K (2008) Conceptualizing the dynamics of social responsibility: evidence from a case study of Estonia. J Bus Ethics 81:371–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Arimura TH, Darnall N, Katayama H (2011) Is ISO 14001 a gateway to more advanced voluntary action? The case of green supply chain management. J Environ Econ Manag 61(2):170–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee SB (2003) Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organ Stud 24(1):143–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal P, Clelland I (2004) Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Acad Manag J 47:93–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone P, Cruz C, Gomez-Mejia LR (2012) Socioemotional wealth in family firms: theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Fam Bus Rev 25(3):258–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone P, Fosfuri A, Gelabert L, Gomez-Mejia LR (2013) Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Manag J 34(8):891–909

    Google Scholar 

  • Brislin RW (1986) The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Lonner WJ, Berry JW (eds) Field methods in cross-cultural research. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 137–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Buysse K, Verbeke A (2003) Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strateg Manag J 24:453–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JL (2006) Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate social responsibility. American Behav Scientist 49(7):925–938

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 32:946–967

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll AB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus horizon 34(4):39–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 9:233–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Cycyota CS, Harrison DA (2006) What (not) to expect when surveying executives: a meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organ Res Methods 9:133–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnall N, Henriques I, Sadorsky P (2008) Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international setting? J Int Manag 14:364–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnall N, Henriques I, Sadorsky P (2010) Adopting proactive environmental strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm size. J Manag Stud 47:1072–1094

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas M, Toffel MW (2004) Stakeholders and environmental management practices: an institutional framework. Bus Strateg Environ 13(4):209–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S (1985) The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess 49:71–75

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (eds) (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T, Preston L (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev 21:65–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Dögl C, Behnam M (2015) Environmentally sustainable development through stakeholder engagement in developed and emerging countries. Bus Strateg Environ 24:583–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Egri CP, Hornal RC (2002) Strategic environmental human resource management and perceived organizational performance: an exploratory study of the Canadian manufacturing sector. In: Sharma S, Starik M (eds) Research in corporate sustainability: the evolving theory and practice of organizations in the natural environment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, pp 205–236

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2003) Responsible entrepreneurship: a collection of good practice cases among small and medium-sized enterprises across Europe. European Commission, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2004) Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation 2006/2004. Accessed Nov 15, 2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/cross-border_enforcement_cooperation/index_en.htm

  • European Commission (2013) The consumer conditions scoreboard: Consumers at home in the single market, 9th edition. Accessed Nov 15, 2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/editions/docs/9th_edition_scoreboard_en.pdf

  • European Commission (2014) Progress towards achieving the Kyoto and EU 2020 objectives. COM(2014) 689 final. Accessed Nov 16, 2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2014/EN/1-2014-689-EN-F1-1.Pdf

  • European Commission. (2016). Non-financial reporting. Accessed Mar 10, 2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/finance/company-reporting/non-financial_reporting/index_en.htm#news

  • Fiss PC (2011) Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad Manag J 54:393–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J Mark Res 18:382–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Furrer O, Egri CP, Ralston DA, Danis W, Reynaud E, Naoumova I, Molteni M, Starkus A, Darder FL, Dabic M, Furrer-Perrinjaquet A (2010) Attitudes toward corporate responsibilities in Western Europe and in central and Eastern Europe. Manag Int Rev 50:379–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Gjølberg M (2009) The origin of corporate social responsibility: global forces or national legacies? Soc Econ Rev 7:605–637

    Google Scholar 

  • Gjølberg M (2010) Varieties of corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR meets the “Nordic model”. Regul Gov 4:203–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn T, Figge F, Pinkse J, Preuss L (2010) Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can’t have your cake and eat it. Bus Strateg Environ 19(4):217–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn T, Pinkse J, Preuss L, Figge F (2016) Ambidexterity for corporate social performance. Organ Stud 37:213–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Halme M, Laurila J (2009) Philanthropy, integration or innovation? Exploring the financial and societal outcomes of different types of corporate responsibility. J Bus Ethics 84(3):325–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Halme M, Roome N, Dobers P (2009) Corporate responsibility: reflections on context and consequences. Scand J Manag 25:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanges PL (2004) Response bias correction procedure used in GLOBE. In: House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW, Gupta V (eds) Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 737–751

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann J, Uhlenbruck K (2015) National institutional antecedents to corporate environmental performance. J World Bus 50:729–741

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmig B, Spraul K, Ingenhoff D (2016) Under positive pressure: how stakeholder pressure affects corporate social responsibility implementation. Bus Soc 55:151–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriques I, Sadorsky P (1996) The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: an empirical approach. J Environ Econ Manag 30:381–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriques I, Sadorsky P (1999) The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Acad Manag J 42:87–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt MA, Ahlstrom D, Dacin MT, Levitas E, Svobodina L (2004) The institutional effects on strategic alliance partner selection in transition economies: China vs. Russia. Organ Sci 15:173–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogendoorn B, Guerra D, van der Zwan P (2015) What drives environmental practices of SMEs? Small Bus Econ 44:759–781

    Google Scholar 

  • Höllerer MA (2013) From taken-for-granted to explicit commitment: the rise of CSR in a corporatist country. J Manag Stud 50:573–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson G, Apostolakou A (2010) Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: an institutional mirror or substitute? J Bus Ethics 94:371–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassinis G, Vafeas N (2006) Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Acad Manag J 49(1):145–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith T (2006) Multiple regression and beyond. Pearson Education, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna T, Palepu KG (2006) Emerging giants: building world-class companies in developing countries. Harv Bus Rev 84:60–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Knopf J, Kahlenborn W, Hajduk T, Weiss D, Feil M, Fiedler R, Klein J (2011) Corporate social responsibility: national public policies in the European Union. European Commission, Brussels, BE

    Google Scholar 

  • Koos S (2012) The institutional embeddedness of social responsibility: a multilevel analysis of smaller firms’ civic engagement in Western Europe. Soc Econ Rev 10:135–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsov A, Kuznetsova O, Warren R (2009) CSR and the legitimacy of business in transition economies: the case of Russia. Scand J Manag 25(1):37–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee MDP (2011) Configuration of external influences: the combined effects of institutions and stakeholders on corporate social responsibility strategies. J Bus Ethics 102:281–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Longhofer W, Schofer E (2010) National and global origins of environmental association. Am Sociol Rev 75(4):505–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Maignan I, Ferrell OC, Hult TG (1999) Corporate citizenship: cultural antecedents and business benefits. J Acad Mark Sci 27:455–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar SK, Marcus AA (2001) Rules versus discretion: the productivity consequences of flexible regulation. Acad Manag J 44:170–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten D, Moon J (2008) “Implicit” and “explicit” CR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 33:404–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Marano V, Kostova T (2016) Unpacking the institutional complexity in adoption of CSR practices in multinational enterprises. J Manag Stud 53(1):28–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis C, Toffel MW, Zhou Y (2016) Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: a global study of greenwashing. Organ Sci 27(2):483–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuer J (2017) Exploring the complementarities within high-performance work systems: a set-theoretic analysis of UK firms. Hum Resour Manag 56(4):641–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Midttun A, Gjølberg M, Kourula A, Sweet S, Vallentin S (2015) Public policies for corporate social responsibility in four Nordic countries: harmony of goals and conflict of means. Bus Soc 54(4):464–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Näsi J (1995) What is stakeholder thinking? A snapshot of a social theory of the firm. In: Näsi J (ed) Understanding stakeholder thinking. LSR-Julkaisut Oy, Helsinki, pp 19–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni N, Egri C, Lo C, Lin CY-Y (2015) Patterns of corporate responsibility practices for high financial performance: evidence from three Chinese societies. J Bus Ethics 126:169–183

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien RM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 41(5):673–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Parboteeah KP, Hoegl M, Cullen J (2009) Religious dimensions and work obligation: a country institutional profile model. Hum Relat 62:119–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Park BI, Ghauri PN (2015) Determinants influencing CSR practices in small and medium sized MNE subsidiaries: a stakeholder perspective. J World Bus 50:192–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng MW (2003) Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Acad Manag Rev 28:275–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersons A, King GJ (2009) Corporate social responsibility in Latvia: a benchmark study. Balt J Manag 4:106–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol 63:539–569

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin CC (2008) Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff J.D. (2019) The concept of business legitimacy: corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, corporate governance as essential elements of ethical business legitimacy. In: Crowther D, Seifi S, Wond T (eds) Responsibility and governance. Approaches to global sustainability, markets, and governance. Springer, Singapore, pp 45–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties. A network theory of stakeholder influences. Acad Manag Rev 22:887–910

    Google Scholar 

  • Samiee S, Roth K (1992) The influence of global marketing standardization on performance. J Mark 56(2):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer AG, Palazzo G, Seidl D (2013) Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: sustainable development in a globalized world. J Manag Stud 50(2):259–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (1995) Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (2005) Institutional theory: contributing to a theoretical research program. Great minds in management: The process of theory development 37(2005):460–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (2008) Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma S, Henriques I (2005) Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg Manag J 26:159–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Siltaoja M, Lähdesmäki M (2015) From rationality to emotionally embedded relations: envy as a signal of power in stakeholder relations. J Bus Ethics 128:837–850

    Google Scholar 

  • Simsek Z, Heavey C, Veiga JF, Souder D (2009) A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. J Manag Stud 46:864–894

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp J-BEM, Baumgartner H (1998) Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consum Res 25:78–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Steurer R, Konrad A (2009) Business-society relations in central-eastern and Western Europe: how those who lead in sustainability reporting bridge the gap in corporate (social) responsibility. Scand J Manag 25:23–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand R, Freeman R, Hockerts K (2015) Corporate social responsibility and sustainability in Scandinavia: an overview. J Bus Ethics 127:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):571–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffel MW, Short JL, Ouellet M (2015) Codes in context: how states, markets, and civil society shape adherence to global labor standards. Regul Gov 9(3):205–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidaver-Cohen D, Brønn PS (2015) Reputation, responsibility, and stakeholder support in Scandinavian firms: a comparative analysis. J Bus Ethics 127:49–64

    Google Scholar 

  • WDI (2011) World data indicators, population per country (2011). https://data.worldbank.org/

  • Williams LJ, Hartman N, Cavazotte F (2010) Method variance and marker variables: a review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organ Res Methods 13:477–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood DJ (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manag Rev 16(4):691–718

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan W, Bao Y, Verbeke A (2011) Integrating CSR initiatives in business: an organizing framework. J Bus Ethics 10:75–92

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Economics, Jyväskylä University, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Marjo Siltaoja & Mika Haapanen

  2. Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

    Carolyn P. Egri

  3. Department of Management, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Olivier Furrer

  4. Estonian Business School, Tallinn, Estonia

    Ruth Alas

  5. University of Southern Denmark, Songerborg, Denmark

    Knud Sinding

Authors
  1. Marjo Siltaoja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carolyn P. Egri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivier Furrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mika Haapanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ruth Alas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Knud Sinding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marjo Siltaoja .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

    Prof. Jacob Dahl Rendtorff

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Siltaoja, M., Egri, C.P., Furrer, O., Haapanen, M., Alas, R., Sinding, K. (2020). Configurations of High Corporate Environmental Responsibility with Regard to Business Legitimacy: A Cross-National Approach. In: Rendtorff, J. (eds) Handbook of Business Legitimacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_85-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_85-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social Sciences