Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany

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

Abstract

Corporate social reporting, while not mandatory in most countries, has been adopted by many large companies around the world and there are now a variety of competing global standards for non-financial reporting, such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the UN Global Compact. However, while some companies (e.g., Henkel, BHP, Johnson and Johnson) have a long standing tradition in reporting non-financial information, other companies provide only limited information, or in some cases, no information at all. Previous studies have suggested that there are, country and industry-specific, differences in the extent of CSR reports (e.g., Kolk et al.: 2001, Business Strategy and the Environment 10, 15–28; Kolk: 2005, Management International Review 45, 145–166; Maignan and Ralston: 2002, Journal of International Business Studies 33(3), 497–514). However, findings are inconclusive or contradictory and it is often difficult to compare previous studies owing to the idiosyncratic methods used in each study (Graafland et al.: 2004, Journal of Business Ethics 53, 137–152). Furthermore, previous studies have relied mainly on simple measures, such as word counts and page counts of reports, to compare the extent of reporting that may not capture significant differences in the content of the reports. In this article, we seek to overcome some of these deficiencies by using textual analysis software and a more robust statistical method to more objectively and reliably compare the CSR reports of firms in different industries and countries. We examine a sample of leading companies in four countries (US, UK, Australia, and Germany) and test whether or not membership of the Global Compact makes a difference to CSR reporting and is overcoming industry and country specific factors that limit standardization. We conclude that GlobalCompact membership is having an effect only in certain areas of CSR reporting, related to the environment and workers, and that businesses from different countries vary significantly in the extent to which they promote CSR and the CSR issues that they choose to emphasize in their reports. These country differences are argued to be related to the different institutional arrangements in each country.

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

References

  • Adams, C. A., & Harte, G. F. (1998), The Changing Portrayal of the Employment of Women in British Banks’ and Retail Companies’ Corporate Annual Reports. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 23(8): 781–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., & Kuasirikun, N. (2000), A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Reporting on Ethical Issues by UK and German Chemical and Pharmaceutical Companies. European Accounting Review, 9(1): 53–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004), Codes of Good Governance Worldwide: What is the Trigger? Organization Studies, 25(3): 415–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003), The Cross-National Diversity of Corporate Governance: Dimensions and Determinants, Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 447–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C .A., Conley, J. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2006). Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility: A Comparative Analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review 14(3): 147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Stock Exchange: 2003, ASX 2002 Australian Shareownership Study

  • Biggart, N., & Guillen, M. (1999), Developing Difference: Social Organization and the Rise of the Auto Industries of South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Argentina. American Sociological Review, 64: 722–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J. (2002), Is the International Business Research Agenda Running Out of Steam? Journal of International Business Research, 33(2): 365–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, S., Clubb, C., & Hopwood, A. G. (1985), Accounting in Its Social Context: Towards a History of Value Added in the United Kingdom, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(4): 381–413.

    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 

  • Cetindamar, D., & Husoy, K. (2007), Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Case of the United Nations Global Compact Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2): 163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R., March, J. (1963), Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Dando, N., & Swift, T. (2003), Transparency and Assurance: Minding the Credibility Gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3): 195–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004), Stakeholders and Environmental Management Practices: An Institutional Framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13: 209–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dembinski, P. H., Bonvin, J. M., Dommen, E., & Monnet, F. M. (2003), The Ethical Foundation of Responsible Investment. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(2): 203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., & Teegen, H. (2002), Nongovernmental Organizations as Institutional Actors in International Business: Theory and Implications. International Business Review, 11(3): 665–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‹The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine 33(September 13), 122–126

  • Geppert, M., Matten, D., & Williams, K. (2003), Change Management in MNCs: How Global Convergence Intertwines with National Diversities. Human Relations, 56(7): 807–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (2000), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines on Economic, Environmental and Social Performance. GRI: Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (2002), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. GRI: Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J. J., Eiffinger, S. C. W., & Smid, H. (2004), Benchmarking of Corporate Social Responsibility: Methodological Problems and Robustness. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 137–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, A., & Zammuto, R. F. (2005), Institutional Governance Systems and Variations in National Competitive Advantage: An Integrative Framework. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 823–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P., & Soskice, D. (2001), An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism. In: P. Hall, & D. Soskice (Eds), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Halme, M., & Huse, M. (1997), The Influence of Corporate Governance, Industry and Country Factors on Environmental Reporting. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(2): 137–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A. (2001), Multi-Stakeholder Approaches to Ethical Trade: Towards a Reorganisation of UK Retailers’ Global Supply Chains? Journal of Economic Geography, 1: 421–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., & Mirshak, R. (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context. Journal of Business Ethics, 72: 243–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, S., Maklan, S., & French, P. (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility: Exploring Stakeholder Relationships and Programme Reporting across Leading FTSE Companies Journal of Business Ethics, 61: 7–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keim, G. (2003), Nongovernmental Organizations and Business-Government Relations: The Importance of Institutions. In: J. Doh, H. Teegen (eds), Globalization and the NGOs: Transforming Business, Governments and Society. Westport, CT: Praeger

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2005): Environmental Reporting by Multinationals from the Triad: Convergence or Divergence? Management International Review, 45: 145–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk A., Walhain S., & Van de Wateringen, S. (2001), Environmental Reporting by the Fortune Global 250: Exploring the Influence of Nationality and Sector. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10: 15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, A., Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., & Martinuzzi, A. (2006), Empirical Findings on Business-Society Relations in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 63: 89–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T. (1999), Transnational Transfer of Strategic Organizational Practices: Contextual Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 308–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, C. C., & Schlegelmich, B. B. (1990), Do Corporate Codes of Ethics Reflect National Character? Evidence from Europe and the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(4): 519–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepoutre, J., & Heene, A. (2006), Investigating the Impact of Firm Size on Small Business Social Responsibility: A Critical Review. Journal of Business Ethics, 67: 257–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2005), The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Capitalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598: 12–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, L., & Unerman, J. (1999), Ethical Relativism: A Reason for Differences in Corporate Social Reporting? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10: 521–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2005), Global Business Citizenship and Voluntary Codes of Ethical Conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 55–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’ Self-Representations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3): 497–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, R. S., Cordano, M., & Silverman, M. (2005), Exploring Individual and Institutional Drivers of Proactive Environmentalism in the US Wine Industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14: 92–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meek, G. K., Roberts, C. B., & Gray, S. J. (1995), Factors Influencing Voluntary Annual Report Disclosure by U.S., U.K. and Continental European Multinational Corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26: 555–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002), Scoring Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reports Using GRI2000, ISO14031 and Other Criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9: 215–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niskala, M., & Pretes, M. (1995). Environmental Reporting in Finland: A Note on the Use of Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(6): 457–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobes, C. (1998). Towards a General Model of the Reasons for International Differences in Financial Reporting. Abacus, 34(2): 162–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. (2003), Foreword. In: Doh, J. P., Teegen, H. (Eds), Globalization and NGO’s: Transforming Business, Government and Society. Westport: Praeger

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. W. (1992), Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17: 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, S. (2003), Supply Chain Specific? Understanding the Patchy Success of Ethical Sourcing Initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3): 159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, S. B., & Niswander, F. (1995), Cultural Influence on the Development of Accounting Systems Internationally: A Test of Gray’s 1988 Theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 16: 379–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1948), Foundations of the Theory of Organizations. American Sociological Review, 13: 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P. (2003), Setting Global Standards: Guidelines for Creating Codes of Conduct in Multinational Corporations. New York: John Wiley and Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1955), A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69: 99–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. E., & Humphreys, M. S. (2006), Evaluation of Unsupervised Semantic Mapping of Natural Language with Leximancer Concept Mapping. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2): 262–279

    Google Scholar 

  • SPSS (2001), SPSS Advanced Models 11.0. Chicago, IL.:SPSS

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinker, A. M., & Lowe, E. A. (1980), A Rationale for Corporate Social Reporting: Theory and Evidence from Organizational Research. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 7(1): 1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Hidalgo, E. R. (2006), The Impact of Corporate Ethical Values and Enforcement of Ethical Codes on the Perceived Importance of Ethics in Business: A Comparison of U.S. and Spanish Managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 64: 31–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (1999), Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R., & Mayer, M. (2000), The European Corporation: Strategy, Structure and Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (1991), Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 691–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Stephen Chen

  2. University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia

    Petra Bouvain

Authors
  1. Stephen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Petra Bouvain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, S., Bouvain, P. Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. J Bus Ethics 87 (Suppl 1), 299–317 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9794-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9794-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation