Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Harmonization in CSR Reporting

MNEs and Global CSR Standards

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Management International Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

  • This paper focuses on MNEs’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting, which previous studies have found to exhibit strong country-of-origin effects. It examines whether MNEs’ adherence to global standards (as adopted by e.g. ILO, OECD, UN, ISO) is associated with smaller cross-country differences and less country-of-origin effects in CSR reporting, and whether stringency of standards’ enforcement mechanisms affects reporting harmonization.

  • To test our hypotheses, we collected data on 25 CSR items for a sample of firms consisting of the top 250 firms listed in the Fortune Global list, using ordered logistic regression analysis.

  • We find evidence for upward harmonization in reporting for those MNEs that adhere to global CSR standards. Stricter enforcement mechanisms did not result in stronger harmonization.

  • Our findings imply that global standards and guidelines do not only increase the overall level of CSR reporting, but are also associated with a harmonization of CSR activities of firms from different countries, thus reducing the role that domestic institutions (including legislation and societal concerns) play in shaping CSR practices. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

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

Notes

  1. In recent years, the Global Compact has become somewhat stricter when participating firms repeatedly fail to submit a report. However, this was after we did our empirical study and it is generally seen as still very weak in terms of sanctions and compliance.

References

  • 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), 53–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., Hill, W. Y., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate behaviour? British Accounting Review, 30(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes II, K. E. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5/6), 447–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, A., Owen, D. L., & Gray, R. (2000) External transparency or internal capture? The role of third-party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, R. (2009). Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: A commentary essay. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1370–1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belkaoui, A., & Karpik, P. G. (1989). Determinants of the corporate decision to disclose social information. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2(1), 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. J. (1991). What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal of Political Science, 21(2), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthelot, S., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental disclosure research: Review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22(1), 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N., & Vaaler, P. (1999). Some arguments for universal moral standards. In G. Enderle (Ed.), International business ethics. Challenges and approaches (pp. 160–173). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Buhr, N., & Freedman, M. (2001). Culture, institutional factors and differences in environmental disclosure between Canada and the United States. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(3), 293–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, P. O., & Jorgens, H. (2005). International patterns of environmental policy change and convergence. European Environment, 15(2), 80–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility—Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassel, D. (2001). Human rights and business responsibilities in the global marketplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2), 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavana, Y. R., Delahaye, L. B., & Sekaran, U. (2001) Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative methods. Melbourne: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia. Business & Society, 44(4), 415–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 747–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltman, T., Devinney, T., Midgley, D., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002) The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). Formative indicators: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1201–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. T. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, G., Hart, S. L., & Yeung, B. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Science, 46(8), 1059–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elango, B., & Sethi, S. P. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between country of origin (COE) and the internationalization-performance paradigm. Management International Review, 47(3), 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fekrat, M. A., Inclan, C., & Petroni, D. (1996). Corporate environmental disclosures: Competitive disclosure hypothesis using 1991 annual report data. The International Journal of Accounting, 31(2), 175–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortanier, F., & Kolk, A. (2007). On the economic dimensions of corporate social responsibility: Exploring Fortune Global 250 reports. Business & Society, 46(4), 457–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2005). Global warming, commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, and accounting disclosures by the largest global public firms from polluting industries. The International Journal of Accounting, 40(3), 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, G. O., Hsu, K., Jackson, C., & Tollerson, C. D. (1996). Environmental disclosures in annual reports: An international perspective. The International Journal of Accounting, 31(3), 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Compact. (2005). Guide to the Global Compact. http://www.uneptie.org/outreach/compact/docs/gcguide.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2005.

  • Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting. A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2002). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Boston: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guler, I., Guillén, M. F., & Macpherson, J. M. (2002). Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 207–232.

    Article  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 

  • Harzing, A. W., & Sorge, A. (2003). The relative impact of country of origin and universal contingencies on internationalization strategies and corporate control in multinational enterprises. Organization Studies, 24(2), 187–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W. (2002). The next wave of corporate community involvement: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2), 110–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, L., & Boon Foo, Y. (2003). Differences in environmental reporting practices in the UK and the US: The legal and regulatory context. British Accounting Review, 35(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P., & Clay, K. (2000). The choice-within-constraints institutionalism and implications for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 525–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, R. J., & Bansal, P. (2003). Seeing the need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 1047–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A., & Lenox, M. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knol, D. L., & Berger, M. P. (1991). Empirical comparison between factor analysis and multidimensional item response models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 457–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5), 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2005). Environmental reporting by multinationals from the triad: Convergence or divergence? Management International Review, 45(1), 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2010). Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2005). Business responses to climate change: Identifying emergent strategies. California Management Review, 47(3), 6–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 308–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2002) KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2002. De Meern: KPMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2005). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005. Amsterdam: KPMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2008). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008. Amstelveen: KPMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. M., & Hutchison, P. D. (2005). The decision to disclose environmental information: A research review and agenda. Advances in Accounting, 21, 83–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L., & Kolk, A. (2002). Strategic responses to global climate change: Conflicting pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business & Politics, 4(3), 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L., & Rothenberg, S. (2002). Heterogeneity and change in environmental strategy: Technological and political responses to climate change in the global automobile industry. In A. J. Hoffman & M. J. Ventresca (Eds.), Organizations, policy and the natural environment—Institutional and strategic perspectives (pp. 173–193). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L., Brown, H. S., & de Jong, M. (2010). The contested politics of corporate governance: The case of the Global Reporting Initiative. Business and Society, 49(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, M. R. (1997). Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(4), 481–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & 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 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, G. K., Roberts, C. B., & Gray, S. J. (1995). Factors influencing voluntary annual report disclosures by U.S., U.K. and Continental European multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 555–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. http://www.oecd.org/daf/investment/guidelines. Accessed 17 June 2005.

  • Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy. London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Outtes Wanderley, L., Lucian, R., Farache, F., & Milton de Sousa Filho, J. (2009). CSR information disclosure on the web. A context based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 369–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. L., Swift, T. A., Humphrey, C., & Bowerman, M. (2000). The new social audits: Accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions? European Accounting Review, 9(1), 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. (2004). Business and human rights. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13(Spring), 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F. Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2007). CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. R. (2008). The (not so) new corporate social responsibility: An empirical perspective. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2), 261–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1991). Auditing and environmental expertise: Between protest and professionalization. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4(3), 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for the 21st century capitalism. New York: Alfred Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, P. M., & Nohria, N. (1994). Influences on human resource management practices in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2), 229–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, P. M., & Singh, J. V. (1991). Organizational environments and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 340–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. (2005). The regional multinationals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2004). A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2008). A new perspective on the regional and global strategies of multinational services firms. Management International Review, 48(4), 397–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P., & Elango, B. (1999). The influence of “country of origin” on multinational corporation global strategy: A conceptual framework. Journal of International Management, 5(4), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, A., & Lewis, L. (2002). Incentives and disincentives for corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(3), 154–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarca, A. (2004). International convergence of accounting practices: Choosing between IAS and US GAAP. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 15(1), 60–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulder, R. van, & Kolk, A. (2001). Multinationality and corporat ethics: Codes of conduct in the sporting goods industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(2), 267–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Laan Smith, J., Adhikari, A., & Tondkar, R. H. (2005). Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(2), 123–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westney, D. E. (1993). Institutionalization theory and the multinational corporation. In S. Ghoshal & D. E. Westney (Eds.), Organization theory and the multinational corporation (pp. 53–76). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A., Rands, G., & Godfrey, P. (2002). What are the responsibilities of business to society? In A. M. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Management (pp. 373–408). London: Sage publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, J., Howell, R., & Breivik, E. (2008). Questions about formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1219–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. M., & Wern Pei, C. A. H. (1999). Corporate social disclosures by listed companies on their websites: An international comparison. The International Journal of Accounting, 34(3), 389–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam Business School, Plantage Muidergracht 12, 1018 TV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Fabienne Fortanier,  Ans Kolk &  Jonatan Pinkse

Authors
  1. Fabienne Fortanier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ans Kolk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonatan Pinkse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ans Kolk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fortanier, F., Kolk, A. & Pinkse, J. Harmonization in CSR Reporting. Manag Int Rev 51, 665–696 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0089-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0089-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation