Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Social Responsibility of the Most Highly Reputed European and North American Firms

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

Abstract

The objective of this article is double: first, to analyze, using a descriptive analysis, the main differences in the level and components of social behaviour between European and North American firms and, second, to contrast empirically, using a multiple linear regression model, whether the motives behind corporate social behaviour are different depending on the region or country of the firm. With this aim, an indicator of social behaviour (termed effort in sustainability) has been constructed by aggregating the firm’s social effort with customers, employees, community and environment for a sample of the 40 European and North American companies most highly reputed in the years 2003 and 2004. The results obtained indicate that the region or country of the firm influences the level, components and motivation of its social behaviour.

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, M. and Hardwick, P.: 1998, ‹An Analysis of Corporate Donations: United Kingdom Evidence’, Journal of Management Studies 35(5), 641–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R.V., Williams, C.A. et al.: 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 

  • Alexander, G.J. and Buchholz, R.A.: 1978, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 21(3), 479–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amato, L.H. and Amato, C.H.: 2007, ‹The Effects of Firm Size and Industry on Corporate Giving’, Journal of Business Ethics 72(3), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araque Padilla, R.A. and Montero Simó, M.J.: 2006, La Responsabilidad Social de La Empresa a Debate (Icaria, Barcelona).

    Google Scholar 

  • Archel Domench, P. and Lizarraga Dallo, F.: 2001, ‹Algunos Determinantes De La Información Medioambiental Divulgada Por Las Empresas Españolas Cotizadas’, Revista de Contabilidad 4(7), 129–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beliveau, B., Cottrill, M. et al.: 1994, ‹Predicting Corporate Social Responsiveness: A Model Drawn from Three Perspectives’, Journal of Business Ethics 13(9), 731–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belkaoui, A.: 1976, ‹Impact of Disclosure of Environmental Effects of Organizational-Behaviour on Market’, Financial Management 5(4), 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belkaoui, A. and Karpik, P.G.: 1989, ‹Determinants of the Corporate Decision to Disclose Social Information’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 2(1), 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H.R.: 1953, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Harper & Brothers, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxenbaum, E.: 2006, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility as Institutional Hybrids’, Journal of Business Strategies 23(1), 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S. and Millington, A.: 2004, ‹The Development of Corporate Charitable Contributions in the UK: A Stakeholder Analysis’, Journal of Management Studies 41(8), 1411–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S. and Millington, A.: 2006, ‹Firm Size, Organizational Visibility and Corporate Philanthropy: An Empirical Analysis’, Business Ethics: A European Review 15(1), 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S.: 2004, ‹Voluntary Social Disclosures by Large UK Companies’, Business Ethics: A European Review 13(2–3), 86–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S.: 2006, ‹Voluntary Environmental Disclosures by Large UK Companies’, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 33(7/8), 1168–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S.J., Pavelin, S. et al.: 2006, ‹Corporate Social Performance and Geographical Diversification’, Journal of Business Research 59(9), 1025–1034.

    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 

  • Carroll, A.B.: 1979, ‹A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M.B.E.: 1995, ‹A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, S.S., Ferreri, L.B. et al.: 1987, ‹The Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Social Responsibility Disclosure: A Typology and Frequency-Based Analysis’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 12(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J.P. and Guay, T.R.: 2006, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional-Stakeholder Perspective’, Journal of Management Studies 43(1), 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Sánchez, J. L. and L. Luna Sotorrío: 2004, ‹La Revelación de Información Social: Análisis Empírico de la Información Divulgada a través de Internet por las Empresas del Ibex-35’, Análisis Financiero Internacional 116, 47–61

  • Hackston, D. and Milne, M.J.: 1996, ‹Some Determinants of Social and Environmental Disclosures in New Zealand Companies’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9(1), 77–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J.S. and Freeman, R.E.: 1999, ‹Stakeholders, Social Responsibility, and Performance: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 479–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A.J., Keim, G.D. et al.: 2001, ‹Board Composition and Stakeholder Performance: Do Stakeholder Directors make a Difference?’, Business and Society 40(3), 295–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.A. and Greening, D.W.: 1999, ‹The Effects of Corporate Governance and Institutional Ownership Types on Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, L.S. and Thorne, L.: 2005, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility and Long-Term Compensation: Evidence from Canada’, Journal of Business Ethics 57(3), 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I.: 2001, ‹Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross-Cultural Comparison’, Journal of Business Ethics 30(1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C.: 2003, ‹Nature of corporate responsibilities Perspectives from American, French and German Consumers’, Journal of Business Research 56(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. and 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 

  • Moneva, J. M., J. M. Rivera-Lirio, et al.: 2007, ‹The Corporate Stakeholder Commitment and Social and Financial Performance’, Industrial Management + Data Systems 107(1), 84–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G.: 2001, ‹Corporate Social and Financial Performance: An Investigation in the U.K. Supermarket Industry’, Journal of Business Ethics 34(3/4), 299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, P.: 1988, ‹Why do Corporations Give to Charity?’, The Journal of Business 61(1), 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newson, M. and Deegan, C.: 2002, ‹Global Expectations and their Association with Corporate Social Disclosure Practices in Australia, Singapore, and South Korea’, International Journal of Accounting 37(2), 183–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D.M.: 1991, ‹Exposure, Legitimacy, and Social Disclosure’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 10(4), 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L.E. and O’Bannon, D.P.: 1997, ‹The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship’, Business and Society 36(4), 419–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R.W.: 1992, ‹Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Theory’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(6), 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, W.G. and Kohers, T.: 2002, ‹The Link between Corporate Social and Financial Performance: Evidence from the Banking Industry’, Journal of Business Ethics 35(2), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, A., Solomon, J. and Suto, M.: 2004, ‹Can the UK Experience Provide Lessons for the Evolution of SRI in Japan?’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 12(4), 552–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanwick, P. and Stanwick, S.: 2006, ‹Corporate Environmental Disclosures: A Longitudinal Study of Japanese Firms’, Journal of American Academy of Business 9(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance, S.C.: 1975, ‹Are Socially-Responsible Corporations Good Investment Risks’, Management Review 64(8), 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B.: 1997, ‹The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S.L. and Cochran, P.L.: 1985, ‹The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model’, Academy of Management Review 10(4), 758–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R.: 2005, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia: 2004 Survey Results’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 17, 33–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D.J.: 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 Administration, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Cantabria, Avda. de los Castros s/n, 39005, Santander, Spain

    Ladislao Luna Sotorrío & José Luis Fernández Sánchez

Authors
  1. Ladislao Luna Sotorrío
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Luis Fernández Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Luis Fernández Sánchez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sotorrío, L.L., Sánchez, J.L.F. Corporate Social Responsibility of the Most Highly Reputed European and North American Firms. J Bus Ethics 82, 379–390 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9901-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9901-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation