Capturing advances in CSR: Developed versus developing country perspectives

This Special Issue of Business Ethics: A European Review is intended to capture recent advances in corporate social responsibility (CSR), with a particular focus on context and the context dependence of CSR. Our Special Issue was successful on at least those two counts. First, it helped synthesize recent advances in CSR conceptions and applications, drawing on a rich array of theoretical streams, including stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Freeman, Wicks, & Parmar, 2004), institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), postcolonial theory (Bobby Banerjee & Prasad, 2008), institutional logics (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012), with cross fertilization of insights from the strategy (Porter, 1980; Porter & Kramer, 2011), deliberative democracy (Donaldson & Preston, 1995), and development studies streams (Nelson, 2006; Sink, 1991). Furthermore, our Special Issue helped bring context center stage in considerations of how context shapes not only the lens adopted by CSR scholars, but also the actual boundary conditions within which CSR manifests itself across developed and developing countries (Jamali & Karam, 2016; Jamali, Karam, Yin, & Soundararajan, 2017; Jamali, Lund-Thomsen, & Jeppesen, 2017; Jamali & Neville, 2011). Hence, after 2 years of systematic consideration and follow up and multiple rounds of revisions and reviews, we ended up with a solid collection of seven articles for this Special Issue, which helped to meet at least one or more of the inclusion criteria articulated above. The first article in the Special Issue, entitled Tracing Stakeholder Terminology Then and Now: Convergence and New Pathways by Jennifer Griffin, helps capture recent advances in stakeholder management research, aptly tracing not only how stakeholder research has evolved in the management literature over the past 25 years, but also relevant gaps and avenues for future scholarship. The article is informative in providing a timely review of the recent stakeholder management literature and consolidating this knowledge into a useful organizing framework that focuses on the who (who are the stakeholders?), what (what mechanisms do they use?), and how (how do they interact and affect the focal organization?) or what Griffin refers to as the main stakeholders, relationships, and outcomes that underpin stakeholder management research. The article also contemplates the context of stakeholder relationships, helping in turn to meet our second inclusion criterion for the Special Issue and noting how context invariably shapes in complex ways the managerial and organizational constraints and contingencies placed on stakeholder relationships. The article concludes by identifying important themes emerging from existing stakeholder research and fruitful avenues for future scholarship. The second article in the Special Issue, entitled Examining the Win-Win Proposition of Shared Value across Contexts: Implications for Future Application, by Annika Voltan, Chantal Hervieux, and Albert Mills, examines in turn the concept of creating shared value (CSV) as articulated by Porter and Kramer (2011) and its different uses/applications in recent scholarship. At their core, CSV and CSR have much in common and are more similar than different and thus elucidate some of the same issues. Relying on a critical discourse analysis of 66 recent articles on CSV in developed and developing countries, the authors expose and question the paradoxical positioning of CSV as an instrumental concept that can offer win–win solutions to firms and stakeholders in developed and developing countries. Situating their analysis in postcolonial theory, which recognizes how Western thinking and ideas can be privileged and impact marginalized populations, the authors critically question the universal applicability of CSV across contexts, highlighting important nuances in how developing and developed country scholars approach the concept of CSV. Specifically, the authors note how non-western scholars tend to be more critical of the claims made by Porter and Kramer (2011) and take issue with its firm-centric approach to value creation. The authors conclude by directing attention to the need to move beyond a simplistic unilateral focus on the role of business in value creation, to account for the interactions of business and local stakeholders, the importance of local norms/values as well as inherent power dynamics and relationships in future applications of CSV. They also emphasize in closing the need for a “fundamental rethink—in future scholarship—of the embeddedness of Western notions of value, stakeholders and social responsibility and how they are operationalized and structured.” The third article in the Special Issue, entitled Caught in a Communicative Catch-22: Translating the Notion of CSR as Shared Value Creation in a Danish CSR Frontrunner, by Christiane Marie Høvring, also examines the notion of CSV and its application in the Scandinavian context. Making use of institutional logics and discourse analysis, the article sheds light on how organizational actors translate the complex predominant institutional logics associated with CSR as shared value while trying to continuously balance and reconcile the contradictory and competing institutional logics pertaining to economy (profit) and society (social welfare) inherent in the notion of CSV. The article hence presents an interesting analysis of how a Danish CSR frontrunner company and its internal stakeholders translate the notion of CSR as shared value creation through discourse, how they grapple with the tensions of competing logics, and how they invariably compromise, tailor, and adapt through reflexive practice and continuous negotiation. The article also nicely captures the permeable boundaries between organizations and the context in which they operate, and how dominant logics in the institutional environment invariably find their way into the organizational context, influencing the discourse and practice on an ongoing basis, both consciously and unconsciously. Conversely, the article also captures the important role and agency of micro-level actors in tailoring their discourse and practice around CSR in such a way as to maintain alignment with broader institutional logics, while taking into account firm-specific idiosyncrasies and peculiarities. The need for multilevel research and analysis of CSR and CSV in context is thus effectively illustrated and the dynamic process of adaptation of CSV and CSR with the circulation of ideas within context and across organizational actors and boundaries (e.g., Jamali et al., 2017; Jamali, Lund-Thomsen, et al., 2017) are also brought to the fore. The fourth article in the Special Issue, entitled Sustainable Banking in Latin American Developing Countries: Leading to (Mutual) Prosperity, by Francisco Javier Forcadell and Elisa Aracil, ponders the question of how CSR manifests itself across multinational corporation (MNC) subsidiaries in developing countries, recognizing that CSR tends to be institutionally bound and culturally specific. Using a blend of institutional theory and the national business system (NBS) approach, the authors examine how two multinational banks operating in Latin America manage, steer, and adapt their CSR through their subsidiaries in developing countries. They make the case that institutional voids and institutional necessity in developing countries provide ample opportunities for MNCs and their subsidiaries for positive CSR engagement with substantive outcomes. The authors posit financial inclusion and educational-related investments as important institutional necessities in developing countries, where large multinational banks are well-positioned to make a positive difference. Scrutinizing the CSR of two large multinational banks operating in Brazil and Mexico, their findings suggest that both MNCs adapt their CSR to filling institutional voids and addressing relevant local institutional necessities. For example, Bank A in Brazil tailors its CSR interventions to address educational-related investments (through sponsoring the world's largest Spanish speaking higher education platform), while Bank B in Mexico focuses more on financial inclusion (through running the largest private microfinance institution in Latin America) given its salience in the Mexican institutional environment. This tailoring of CSR initiatives to local necessities and priorities translates into mutual prosperity and positive outcomes for both the firm and the host country in question. The fifth article in the Special Issue, entitled An External Perspective on CSR: What Matters and What Does Not?, by Marina Vashchenko, zooms in on the external factors influencing CSR decision making in the context of three large Danish companies. Capitalizing on a blend of institutional theory and stakeholder theory, the article compiles an interesting framework that identifies government-related external factors (e.g., local government CSR, national government CSR, CSR discourse at the political level, industrial CSR regulation, and international CSR standards); societal-related external factors (e.g., pressures from non-governmental organizations [NGOs] and social movement organizations, pressure from the media, business education, and business related publications); and business-related external factors (e.g., institutional investors’ concerns, economic climate, CSR concerns among consumers, CSR requirements from suppliers, level of competition, and requirements for membership in professional associations). The framework is then used to analyze the extent variant combinations of these factors influence CSR-related decisions differently in the context of three large Danish companies (Lego Group, Danske Bank, and the Maersk Group) and whether the nature of influence does in fact change over time. The findings suggest that these external institutional pressures were not equally salient across the three case companies, with Maersk primarily responding to government-related pressures, while Danske Bank reacted primarily to business-related pressures and noting that societal pressures stemming from consumers, suppliers, and NGOs had the least influence across the board. The article also documents the ascendancy of international institutional pressures for CSR in recent years and the salience of government-related institutional factors in a developed country context (which are conversely conspicuously absent in developing countries). Hence, companies are dynamically responding to a mix of institutional pressures in their institutional environment as they enact their CSR. Not only are companies sensitized differently to different institutional stakeholders and institutional pressures in their external environments depending on their particular industry and nature of business (e.g., Jain, Aguilera, & Jamali, 2017), but this is invariably buffered and mediated by the company's previous CSR engagements and its vision/ambition for CSR as documented in this paper. The sixth article in the Special Issue, entitled Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Outcomes: The Role of Country Context, by Tay McNamara, Rene Carapinha, Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, Monique Valcour, and Sharon Lobel, examines employee perceptions of two different CSR orientations (i.e., internally focused CSR and externally focused CSR) and how these affect in turn employee-related outcomes (e.g., employee engagement and affective commitment) across countries. Focusing more on the micro foundations of CSR, the article examines two employee-level outcomes (affective commitment and employee engagement) in response to two different orientations to CSR (internally focused and externally focused CSR) using data collected as part of a multinational research project, The Generations of Talent Study (a 2009–2010 survey of 11,298 employees at 24 worksites within 11 countries). Their findings suggest that perceptions of internally focused CSR enactment were consistently associated with affective commitment across cultural contexts, suggesting that internally oriented CSR invariably bolsters employee commitment to the firm, whereas externally focused CSR was associated with both greater employee engagement and affective commitment. The article also highlights that perceptions of externally focused CSR were more strongly associated with affective commitment in Anglo-Saxon than in Confucian and Latin American countries, suggesting the need for more nuanced country-specific analysis. The seventh article in the Special Issue, entitled Stakeholder Theory: A Deliberative Perspective, by Ulf Henning Richter and Kevin Dow, takes stock of stakeholder theory and tries to extend it normatively, drawing on Habermas, language pragmatic approach, which strongly emphasizes dialogue, participation, and procedural justice as the conditions of legitimation. Hence, the authors argue that a Habermasian approach helps to create a more comprehensive normative foundation of stakeholder theory and addresses in turn the concern of Freeman (1994) in relation to the lack of specificity of the moral implications of stakeholder theory. The normative perspective they provide enhances our understanding of the responsibilities of corporations toward stakeholders in times of globalization and turns attention to the need to bolster procedures of stakeholder deliberations and including marginal stakeholders as we try to address global challenges. The normative strand of stakeholder theory proposed here is inspired by the deliberative democracy paradigm and if put in practice, can go a long way to remedy many of the deficiencies we see in the implementation of CSR across cultural contexts. The authors provide supporting practical examples of what this version of normative stakeholder theory might entail, and why it holds considerable promise in guiding management in the 21st century and remedying global CSR and governance challenges, leading to a more healthy and well-functioning global governance system. With these seven interesting contributions, our Special Issue makes several important advances that move the needle in the global comparative CSR literature. These contributions also help highlight important avenues for future scholarship. To start with, our contributors have managed to draw successfully on well-grounded theoretical streams, including institutional theory, institutional logics, stakeholder theory, postcolonial theory, NBSs approach, discourse analysis, and deliberative democracy, to highlight differences in the conceptions/applications of CSR and CSV across developed and developing country contexts. Institutional theory seems central to teasing out the idiosyncrasies of CSR adaptations across institutional contexts. For example, Høvring makes clear how firms in a developed country context (e.g., Denmark) are constantly translating the complex predominantly national institutional logics around CSV, while Vashchenko highlights differential firm interpretations of institutional pressures within the same context. Forcadell and Aracil turn attention in turn to the tailoring of CSR expressions based on firm interpretations of institutional voids and institutional necessities in developing countries. It is clear from these contributions that institutional theory and its variants (e.g., institutional logics) are well-positioned to help make important advances in the future comparative CSR literature agenda (e.g., Brammer, Jackson, & Matten, 2012; Jamali & Karam, 2016; Jamali et al., 2017; Jamali, Lund-Thomsen, et al., 2017). Stakeholder theory also comes across as an important theoretical framework that is likely to add value to future comparative scholarship on CSR in developed and developing countries; specifically, the managerial strand of stakeholder theory that identifies and compartmentalizes institutional pressures across specific stakeholder groups is promising (e.g., Vashchenko and Høvring in this Special Issue; Baranova & Meadows, 2017; Fassin, de Colle, & Freeman, 2017; Freeman et al., 2004; Jain et al., 2017), and so are strands of stakeholder theory that invoke the normative foundations of stakeholder theory (Ritcher & Dow in this Special Issue) and acknowledge interfaces of context with the managerial and organizational constraints and contingencies placed on stakeholder relationships (Griffin in this Special Issue). It is therefore not surprising that the affinities of institutional theory and stakeholder theory are increasingly appreciated in the literature, with scholars invoking a blend of the two theoretical streams to account for the dynamics and expressions of CSR in specific developed and developing country contexts (e.g., Vashchenko in this Special Issue). We hope to see significantly more scholarship in coming years that effectively utilizes a mix of theoretical streams in accounting for relevant CSR relationships and outcomes in context (Frynas & Yamahaki, 2016; Mellahi, Frynas, Sun, & Siegel, 2016). We are also likely to witness interesting breakthroughs from applying NBS frameworks to tease out the influence of national structures on nonmarket (i.e., social) outcomes (e.g., Mellahi et al., 2016; Wood & Frynas, 2006). While the influence of national institutions on economic growth and policy performance is well understood by now, there is considerable scope for contributions around the role of institutional nestedness and configurations in shaping nonmarket outcomes including CSR. We have seen in this Special Issue a good attempt at using the NBS framework and institutional theory to account for the varied interventions of multinational banks in relation to CSR in developing countries (e.g., Forcadell & Aracil in this Special Issue). As the literature on CSR in developing countries continues to mature and grow, the assumption that NBSs are by definition efficient coordination mechanisms is starting to be challenged (e.g., Jamali & Karam, 2016; Wood & Frynas, 2006). As Forcadell and Aracil make clear, we are only starting to tease out the wide range of existing NBS configurations in developing countries, which feature substantial market idiosyncrasies and distinctive social gaps and needs, leading to the differentiated CSR orientations and outcomes in developing countries (see also Jamali & Karam, 2016 and Jamali et al., 2017). At a more practical level, the contributions to the Special Issue make clear that it is time to move beyond a monolithic and simplistic understanding of CSR grounded in Western frames to more organic conceptions that take into consideration the peculiar lens and vantage points of researchers in context. As Høvring aptly points out, the CSV notion should not be accepted as a universal mantra, and there are important nuances in how developing and developed country scholars approach the concept of CSV. Jamali and Karam (2016), based on a comprehensive review of 451 articles on CSR in developing countries, had similarly noted differences between developed and developing country scholars in relation to the questions asked, the theoretical positions adopted, the framing of business-society relationships, the analysis of CSR expressions, in addition to key issues and stakeholders considered. While in no way intended to augment the developed–developing country divide in CSR research, there is a compelling need to continue to identify and analyze these differences to better inform and advance the international comparative CSR literature, which remains rather thin at best (e.g., Jamali, 2016; Kang & Moon, 2012; Matten & Moon, 2008). Beyond research on developed versus developing country idiosyncrasies, this Special Issue makes clear that there is also potential for significant variation in CSR orientations and engagements within the same country context, whether developed or developing, which are best gauged by attention to the and micro-level factors and accounting for the role of agency of actors in shaping CSR outcomes. of the contributions to this Special Issue Forcadell & Aracil, and that organizational actors are with agency and in complex of and which makes to through the institutional voids and to balance and reconcile internal and external priorities in shaping specific CSR orientations and outcomes. more into the of CSR, et in this Special Issue make clear that perceptions of externally focused CSR were more strongly associated with affective commitment in Anglo-Saxon than in Confucian and Latin American countries, suggesting the need for more nuanced country-specific analysis. beyond institutional idiosyncrasies, there is also a need to continue to with multilevel that the divide and account for the role of and factors in shaping specific CSR orientations and outcomes. we hope this Special Issue is the of a and more systematic advances in CSR research across developed and developing countries. As our Special Issue has helped to important research themes which are in future scholarship. We hope to continue to with this of critical scholarship that recognizes that institutions are important and relevant not only for economic growth and policy but also for understanding complex social dynamics and nonmarket outcomes. the of and the global to CSR as best practice and its across varied contexts, CSR research be from the institutional idiosyncrasies of the context in which it is As nicely put by Forcadell and Aracil in this Special Issue, CSR tends to be institutionally bound and culturally specific and we have a long way to go to the wide range of institutional configurations shaping CSR in context across developed and developing country We also need more research that theoretical streams and to account for the complex dynamics shaping CSR and stakeholder relationships in context. We hope to see more of this scholarship in the coming years that can help inform in turn the of research on CSR in context, and advance the global comparative CSR literature 2016).