Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany
Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Business Ethics 87 (1):299 - 317 (2009)
|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|
|Keywords||corporate social responsibility country industry global standards Global Compact content analysis Leximancer|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alan Muller & Ans Kolk (2009). CSR Performance in Emerging Markets Evidence From Mexico. Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2):325 - 337.
Yves Fassin (2008). SMEs and the Fallacy of Formalising CSR. Business Ethics 17 (4):364-378.
Simon Knox, Stan Maklan & Paul French (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Exploring Stakeholder Relationships and Programme Reporting Across Leading FTSE Companies. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 61 (1):7 - 28.
Taru Vuontisjärvi (2006). Corporate Social Reporting in the European Context and Human Resource Disclosures: An Analysis of Finnish Companies. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 69 (4):331 - 354.
Diana C. Robertson (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility and Different Stages of Economic Development: Singapore, Turkey, and Ethiopia. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 88 (4):617 - 633.
Jennifer Ann Bremer (2008). How Global is the Global Compact? Business Ethics 17 (3):227–244.
Hans Rämö (2011). Visualizing the Phronetic Organization: The Case of Photographs in CSR Reports. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 104 (3):371-387.
Kate Grosser & Jeremy Moon (2005). Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility: Reporting Workplace Issues. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 62 (4):327 - 340.
Lizet Quaak, Theo Aalbers & John Goedee (2007). Transparency of Corporate Social Responsibility in Dutch Breweries. Journal of Business Ethics 76 (3):293 - 308.
Kristen Bell DeTienne & Lee W. Lewis (2005). The Pragmatic and Ethical Barriers to Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: The Nike Case. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 60 (4):359 - 376.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads51 ( #24,673 of 754,681 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,372 of 754,681 )
How can I increase my downloads?