We address the question of how and why corporate social responsibility (CSR) differs among countries and how and why it changes. Applying two schools of thought in institutional theory, we conceptualize, first, the differences between CSR in the United States and Europe and, second, the recent rise of CSR in Europe. We also delineate the potential of our framework for application to other parts of the global economy.

REFERENCES

  • Aaronson S. A. 2002. Corporate responsibility in the global village: The British role model and the American laggard. Business and Society Review, 108: 309–338. Google Scholar
  • Aguilera R. V. , Jackson T. 2003. The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28: 447–466.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Albareda L. , Tencati A. , Lozano J. M. , Perrini F. 2006. The government's role in promoting corporate responsibility: A comparative analysis of Italy and UK from the relational state perspective. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6: 386–400. Google Scholar
  • Albert-Roulhac C. , Breen P. 2005. Corporate governance in Europe: Current status and future trends. Journal of Business Strategy, 26(6): 19–29. Google Scholar
  • Arora B. , Puranik R. 2004. A review of corporate social responsibility in India. Development, 47(3): 93–100. Google Scholar
  • Becht M. , Ro¨ell A. 1999. Blockholdings in Europe: An international comparison. European Economic Review, 43: 1049–1056. Google Scholar
  • Bendell J. 2000. Civil regulation: A new form of democratic governance for the global economy? In Bendell J. (Ed.), Terms for endearment: Business, NGOs and sustainable development: 239–254. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. Google Scholar
  • Birch D.Moon J. (Eds.). 2004. Corporate social responsibility in Asia. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13(Special Issue). Google Scholar
  • BITC. 2007. Our jubilee year. http://www.bitc.org.uk/who_we_are/our_jubilee_year/index.html, December 4. Google Scholar
  • Black J. 2000. Proceduralizing regulation: Part I. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 20: 597–614. Google Scholar
  • Bowen H. R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  • Brammer S. , Pavelin S. 2005. Corporate community contributions in the United Kingdom and the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 56: 15–26. Google Scholar
  • Bremner R. H. 1988. American philanthropy (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  • Carnegie A. 2006. (First published in 1889.) The gospel of wealth and other writings. New York: Penguin Books. Google Scholar
  • Carraro C. , Egenhofer C. 2003. Firms, governments and climate policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  • Carroll A. B. 1979. A three dimensional model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497–505.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Carroll A. B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4): 39–48. Google Scholar
  • Carroll A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility— Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38: 268–295. Google Scholar
  • Cashore B. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance, 15: 503–529. Google Scholar
  • Castles F. G. 1998. Comparative public policy: Patterns of post-war transformation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward El-gar. Google Scholar
  • Chapple W. , Moon J. 2005. Corporate social responsibility in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting. Business and Society, 44: 415–441. Google Scholar
  • Child J. 2000. Theorizing about organizations cross-nationally. Advances in International Comparative Management, 13: 27–75. Google Scholar
  • Christmann P. , Taylor G. 2001. Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32: 439–458. Google Scholar
  • Christmann P. , Taylor G. 2002. Globalization and the environment: Strategies for international voluntary environmental initiatives. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3): 121–137.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Coen D. 2005. Environmental and business lobbying alliances in Europe: Learning from Washington? In Levy D. L.Newell P. (Eds.), The business of global environmental governance: 197–220. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  • Coffee J. C. 2001. The rise of dispersed ownership: The roles of law and the state in the separation of ownership and control. Yale Law Journal, 111: 1–82. Google Scholar
  • Commission of the European Communities. 2001. Green paper: Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Brussels: European Commission. Google Scholar
  • Commission of the European Communities. 2002. Communication from the Commission concerning corporate social responsibility: A business contribution to sustainable development. Brussels: European Commission. Google Scholar
  • Corporate Citizenship NRW. 2007. Aktuelles. http://www.engagiert.in.nrw.de/, December 4. Google Scholar
  • Cover The Uninsured. 2007. What happened near you. http://covertheuninsured.org/events/, December 4. Google Scholar
  • Crane A.McWilliams A.Matten D.Moon J.Siegel D. (Eds.). 2008. The Oxford handbook of CSR. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Crook C. 2005. The good company. The Economist, January 22: 1–3. Google Scholar
  • Deakin N. , Walsh K. 1996. The enabling state: The role of markets and contracts. Public Administration, 74: 33–48. Google Scholar
  • Delmas M. , Terlaak A. 2002. Regulatory commitment to negotiated agreements: Evidence from the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 4: 5–29. Google Scholar
  • De Tocqueville A. 1956. (First published in 1835.) Democracy in America. New York: Mentor. 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: 147–160. Google Scholar
  • Djelic M.-L. 1998. Exporting the American model: The postwar transformation of European businesses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Doh J. P. , 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: 47–73. Google Scholar
  • Dowie M. 2001. American foundations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  • Eberhard-Harribey L. 2006. Corporate social responsibility as a new paradigm in the European policy: How CSR comes to legitimate the European regulation process. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6: 358–368. Google Scholar
  • The Economist. 1982. St Michael has a halo. February 20: 29. Google Scholar
  • Fiss P. C. , Zajac E. J. 2004. The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 501–534. Google Scholar
  • Ford. 2005. 2004/5 Sustainability report. Detroit: Ford Motor Company. Google Scholar
  • Friedman M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13: 32–33, 122–126. Google Scholar
  • Fukukawa K. , Moon J. 2004. A Japanese model of corporate social responsibility?: A study of website reporting. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 16: 45–59. Google Scholar
  • Garriga E. , Mele´ D. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51–71. Google Scholar
  • Geppert M. , Matten D. , Walgenbach P. 2006. Transnational institution building and the multinational corporation: An emerging field of research. Human Relations, 59: 1451–1465. Google Scholar
  • Granovetter M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510. Google Scholar
  • Guler I. , Guille´n M. , MacPherson J. M. 2002. Global competition, institutions and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of the ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 207–232. Google Scholar
  • Habisch A.Jonker J.Wegner M.Schmidpeter R. (Eds.). 2004. CSR across Europe. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  • Hacker J. S. 1997. The road to nowhere: The genesis of President Clinton's plan for health security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  • Hacker J. S. 2006. The great risk shift: Why American jobs, families, health care and retirement aren't secure—And how we can fight back New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Hall P. A.Soskice D. (Eds.). 2001. Varieties of capitalisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Heald M. 1970. The social responsibilities of business: Company and community, 1900–1960. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press. Google Scholar
  • Heaveside S. 1989. Education partnerships in public elementary and secondary schools. CS89-060. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Google Scholar
  • Heidenheimer A. , Heclo H. , Adams C. T. 1990. Comparative public policy: The politics of social choice in America, Europe and Japan. New York: St. Martin's Press. Google Scholar
  • Hollingsworth J. R. , Boyer R. 1997. Coordination of economic actors and social systems of production. In Hollingsworth J. R.Boyer R. (Eds.), Comtemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions: 1–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Huntington S. 1969. Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  • Jespersen K. 2003. Social partnerships: The role of government in Denmark. In Morsing M.Thyssen C. (Eds.), Corporate values and responsibility: The case of Denmark: 25–32. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Google Scholar
  • King A. 1973. Ideas, institutions and the policies of government: A comparative analysis. Parts I, II, and III. British Journal of Political Science, 3: 291–313, 409–423. Google Scholar
  • Kolk A. 2000. Economics of environmental management. London: Financial Times & Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  • Kolk A. 2005a. Corporate social responsibility in the coffee sector: The dynamics of MNC responses and code development. European Management Journal, 23: 228–236. Google Scholar
  • Kolk A. 2005b. Environmental reporting by multinationals from the Triad: Convergence or divergence? Management International Review, 45(Special Issue 1): 145–167. Google Scholar
  • Kostjuk K. 2005. Russia: The line between small businesses and big politics. In Habisch A.Jonker J.Wegner M.Schmidpeter R. (Eds.), CSR across Europe: 209–218. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  • Lacey R. , Kingsley C. 1988. A guide to working partnerships. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press. Google Scholar
  • Langlois C. , Schlegelmilch B. 1990. Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe and the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 21: 519–539. Google Scholar
  • Levy D. , Egan D. 2000. Corporate politics and climate change. In Higgott R. A. D.Underhill G. R.Bieler A. (Eds.), Non-state actors and authority in the global system: 138–153. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  • Levy D. L. , Kolk A. 2002. Strategic responses to global climate change: Conflicting pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business and Politics, 3: 275–300. Google Scholar
  • Levy D. L. , Newell P. 2005. The business of global environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  • Lijphart A. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven, CT, & London: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  • Lipset S. M. , Rokkan S. 1967. Party systems and voter alignments. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Lockett A. , Moon J. , Visser W. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 115–136. Google Scholar
  • Lo¨fstedt R. E. , Vogel D. 2001. The changing character of regulation: A comparison of Europe and the United States. Risk Analysis, 21: 399–405. Google Scholar
  • Lundqvist L. 1974. The hare and the tortoise: Clean Air policies in the US and Sweden. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  • Maignan I. , Ralston D. A. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses' self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33: 497–515. Google Scholar
  • March J. , Olsen J. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Matten D. , Crane A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30: 66–179. Google Scholar
  • Matten D. , Moon J. 2004. Corporate social responsibility education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 54: 323–337. Google Scholar
  • Maurice M.Sorge A. (Eds.). 2000. Embedding organizations: Societal analysis of actors, organizations and socio-economic context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  • Maurice M. , Sorge A. , Warner M. 1980. Societal differences in organizing manufacturing units: A comparison of France, West Germany and Great Britain. Organization Studies, 1: 59–86. Google Scholar
  • McCrudden C. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and public procurement. In McBarnet D. (Ed.), The new corporate accountability: Corporate social responsibility and the law: 93–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Melis A. 2005. Corporate governance failures: To what extent is Parmalat a particularly Italian case? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13: 478–488. Google Scholar
  • Meyer J. W. 2000. Globalization—Sources and effects on national states and societies. International Sociology, 15: 233–248. Google Scholar
  • Meyer J. W. , Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363. Google Scholar
  • Midttun A. , Gautesen K. , Gjølberg M. 2006. The political economy of CSR in Western Europe. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6: 369–385. Google Scholar
  • Miller T. 2005. A Chinese definition of CSR. Ethical Corporation, 34–35. Google Scholar
  • Mokhiber R. , Weissman R. 2004. The 10 worst corporations of 2003. www.commondreams.org, accessed February 5, 2004. Google Scholar
  • Molina O. , Rhodes M. 2002. Corporatism: The past, present and future of a concept. Annual Review of Political Science, 5: 305–331. Google Scholar
  • Moon J. 2002. Business social responsibility and new governance. Government and Opposition, 37: 385–408. Google Scholar
  • Moon J. 2004a. CSR in the UK: An explicit model of business-society relations. In Habisch A.Jonker J.Wegner M.Schmidpeter R. (Eds.), CSR across Europe: 51–65. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  • Moon J. 2004b. Government as a driver of CSR. ICCSR working paper No. 20, University of Nottingham, UK. Google Scholar
  • Moon J. , Crane A. , Matten D. 2005. Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15: 427–451. Google Scholar
  • Moon J. , Richardson J. J. 1993. Governmental capacity regained?: The challenges to and responses of British government in the 1980s. In Marsh I. (Ed.), Governing in the 1990s: Challenges, constraints and opportunities: 56– 97. Sydney: Longman Cheshire. Google Scholar
  • Murphy M. 2004. Life after Parmalat: Italy acts to restore confidence. International Financial Law Review, 23(2): 17–20. Google Scholar
  • Nicholls A. , Opal C. 2005. Fair trade: Market driven ethical consumption. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Orts E. W. 1995. A reflexive model of environmental regulation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5: 779–794. Google Scholar
  • Orts E. W.Deketelaere K.. (Eds.). 2001. Environmental contracts. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  • Palazzo B. 2002. U.S.-American and German business ethics: An intercultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 41: 195–216. Google Scholar
  • Pasquero J. 2004. Responsabilite´s sociales de l'entreprise: Les approches Nord-Ame´ricaines. In Igalens J. (Ed.), Tous responsables: 257–272. Paris: Editions d'Organisation. Google Scholar
  • Peters B. G. 1999. Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. London: Pinter. Google Scholar
  • Polanyi K. 1957. The great transformation. Boston: Beacon Press. Google Scholar
  • Porter M. E. , Kramer M. R. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 78–92. Google Scholar
  • Prahalad C. K. 2005. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing. Google Scholar
  • Preuss L. , Haunschild A. , Matten D. In press. The rise of CSR: Implications for HRM and employee representation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19. Google Scholar
  • Puppim de Oliveira J. A.Vargas G. (Eds.). 2005. Corporate citizenship in Latin America: New challenges for business. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 21(Special Issue). Google Scholar
  • Quack S.Morgan G.Whitley R. (Eds.). 1999. National capitalisms, global competition, and economic performance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  • Roner L. 2005. Corporate America to the rescue. Ethical Corporation, November: 20–21. Google Scholar
  • Royle T. 2005. Realism or idealism? Corporate social responsibility and the employee stakeholder in the global fast-food industry. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14: 42–55. Google Scholar
  • Schmitter P. , Lehmbruch G. 1979. Trends towards corpo-ratist intermediation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Sims R. R. , Brinkmann J. 2003. Enron ethics (or: culture matters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45: 243–256. Google Scholar
  • Smith N. C. 1990. Morality and the market: Consumer pressure for corporate accountability. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  • Sorge A. 1991. Strategic fit and societal effect—Interpreting cross-national comparisons of technology, organization and human resources. Organization Studies, 12: 161–190. Google Scholar
  • Spence L. , Schmidpeter R. 2002. SMEs, social capital and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 45: 93–108. Google Scholar
  • Starbucks. 2004. Focusing on healthcare and wellness. www.starbucks.com/aboutUSA/csr.asp, August 30. Google Scholar
  • Tainio R. , Huolman M. , Pulkkinen M. 2001. The internationalization of capital markets: How international institutional investors are restructuring Finnish companies. In Morgan G.Kristensen P. H.Whitley R. (Eds.), The multinational firm: 153–171. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Tempel A. , Walgenbach P. 2007. Global standardization of organizational forms and management practices? What new institutionalism and the business-systems approach can learn from each other. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 1–24. Google Scholar
  • Timpane P. , Miller McNeil L. 1991. Business impact on education and child development. New York: Committee for Economic Development. Google Scholar
  • Visser W.Middleton C.McIntosh M. (Eds.). 2005. Corporate citizenship in Africa. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 18(Special Issue). Google Scholar
  • Vogel D. 1992. The globalization of business ethics: Why America remains different. California Management Review, 35(1): 30–49. Google Scholar
  • Vogel D. 2002. Ships passing in the night: GMO and the politics of risk regulation in Europe and the United States. Working paper No. 2002/34/CMER, INSEAD, Fon-tainbleau. Google Scholar
  • Weir M. , Skocpol T. 1985. State structures and the possibilities for “Keynesian” responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain and the United States. In Evans P. (Ed.), Bringing the state back in: 107–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Wheeler D. , Fabig H. , Boele R. 2002. Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms in the extractive sector: Lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni. Journal of Business Ethics, 39: 297–318. Google Scholar
  • Whitley R. (Ed.). 1992. European business systems. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Whitley R. 1997. Business systems. In Sorge A.Warner M. (Eds.), The IEBM handbook of organizational behaviour: 173–186. London: International Thomson Business Press. Google Scholar
  • Whitley R. 1999. Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Whitley R. 2002a. Business systems. In Sorge A. (Ed.), Organization: 178–212. London: Thomson Learning. Google Scholar
  • Whitley R. (Ed.). 2002b. Competing capitalisms: Institutions and economies. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  • Williams C. A. , Conley J. M. 2005. An emerging third way? The erosion of the Anglo-Amercian shareholder value construct. Cornell International Law Journal, 38: 493–551. Google Scholar
  • Williams O. F. 2005. The UN Global Compact: The challenge and the promise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14: 755–774. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  555 Pleasantville Road, Suite N200
  Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900