Stakeholder Pressures as Determinants of CSR Strategic Choice: Why do Firms Choose Symbolic Versus Substantive Self-Regulatory Codes of Conduct?
To encourage corporations to contribute positively to the environment in which they operate, voluntary self-regulatory codes (SRC) have been enacted and refined over the past 15 years. Two of the most prominent are the United Nations Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative. In this paper, we explore the impact of different stakeholders’ pressures on the selection of strategic choices to join SRCs. Our results show that corporations react differently to different sets of stakeholder pressures and that the SRC selection depends on the type and intensiveness of the stakeholder pressures as well as the resources at hand to respond to those pressures. Our contribution offers a more specific and finely variegated analysis of firm-stakeholder interactions.
KeywordsCSR Voluntary codes of conduct Stakeholder pressures KLD SD Pollution-intensive industries Resource discretion
This research is part of a project on International Business and Sustainable Development, which has been funded by a grant from the Title VIb Program of the United States Department of Education for the period 2008–2011 (Award # P153A080011).
- Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Austin, J. E., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). Starbucks and Conservation International. Harvard School Business-Teaching Note, 304–100, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Barnett, M. L., & King, A. A. (2006). Good fences make good neighbors: An institutional explanation of industry self-regulation. In: Best paper proceedings of the academy of management conference, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
- Berrone, P., Gelabert, L., & Fosfurri, A. (2009). The impact and substantive actions on environmental legitimacy, Working Paper-778 IESE Business School, University of Navarra. http://www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/DI-0778-E.pdf. Accessed Feb 2012.
- Chatterji, A. K., & Listokin, S. (2007). Corporate social irresponsibility. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, 3, 52–63.Google Scholar
- Dilling, P. F. A. (2010). Sustainability reporting in a global context: What are the characteristics of corporations that provide high quality sustainability reports—An empirical analysis. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 9(1), 19–30.Google Scholar
- DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2004). Globalization and corporate social responsibility: How nongovernmental organizations influence labor and environmental codes of conduct. Management International Review, 44(3), 7–30.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25, 88–106.Google Scholar
- Frees, E. W. (2006). Longitudinal and panel data: Analysis and applications in the social sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Garz, H., & Volk, C. (2007). GRI reporting: Aiming to uncover true performance. Dusseldorf: West LB Extra-Financial Research.Google Scholar
- Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2005). Managing stakeholder ambiguity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 10–14.Google Scholar
- Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.Google Scholar
- Howard, J., Nash, J., & Ehrenfeld, J. (2000). Standard or smokescreen? Implementation of a voluntary environmental code. California Management Review, 42(2), 63–82.Google Scholar
- King, A. A., Lenox, M. J., & Barnett, M. L. (2002). Policy and the natural environment: Institutional and strategic perspectives. In A. Hoffman & M. Ventresca (Eds.), Organizations, policy and the natural environment: Institutional and strategic perspectives (pp. 393–406). Stanford, CA: University Press.Google Scholar
- Mani, M., & Wheeler, D. (1999). In search of pollution heavens? Dirty industry in the world economy, 1960–1995. In P. Fredriksson (Ed.), Trade global policy and the environment, World Bank discussion paper, #402, (pp. 115–129). Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
- Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pays to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. www.stakeholders.bu.edu/Docs/Walsh. Accessed March 2010.
- McMullen, J. S., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and executives’ intentions to commit their firms to entrepreneurial action. In Paper presented at the frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Wellesley: Babson College.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
- Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
- Mosakowski, E. (1993). A resource-based perspective on the dynamic strategy-performance relationship: An empirical examination of the focus and differentiation strategies in entrepreneurship firms. Journal of Management, 19(4), 819–839.Google Scholar
- Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.Google Scholar
- Pérez-Batres, L. A., Miller, V. V., Pisani, M. J., Henriques, I., & Renau-Sepúlveda, J. A. (2012). Why do firms engage in national sustainability programs and transparent sustainability reporting? Evidence from Mexico’s clean industry program. Management International Review, 52(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
- Reich, R. B. (2007). Supercapitalism: The transformation of business, democracy, and everyday life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organization in action. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- United Nations General Assembly. (2005). World Summit Outcome. http://www.who.int/hiv/universalaccess2010/worldsummit.pdf. Accessed April 2010.
- Vormedal, I. (2005). Governance through learning: The UN global compact and corporate responsibility. Report No. 7/05. Center for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, Oslo. http://www.prosus.org/prosusFTP/prosusrep/publications/prosusrep2005_07.pdf. Accessed March 2009.
- Wang, H., Bi, J., Wheeler, D., Wang, J., Cao, D., Lu, G., & Wang, Y. (2002). Environmental performance rating and disclosure: China’s green-watch program, Policy Research Working Paper 2889. Google Scholar
- White, A. (2006). Why we need global standards for corporate disclosure. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(3), 167–186.Google Scholar
- Wisner, P. S., & Epstein, M. J. (2005). “Push” and “pull” impacts of NAFTA on environmental responsiveness and performance in Mexican industry. Management International Review, 45(3), 327–347.Google Scholar
- World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future, The Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). The ‘Brundtland Report’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar