Show simple item record

Explicit and implicit corporate social responsibility: Differences in the approach to stakeholder engagement activities of U.S. and Japanese companies

dc.contributor.authorKumar, Kamalesh
dc.contributor.authorBoesso, Giacomo
dc.contributor.authorBatra, Rishtee
dc.contributor.authorYao, Jun
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-30T15:31:18Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHS
dc.date.available2019-09-30T15:31:18Z
dc.date.issued2019-09
dc.identifier.citationKumar, Kamalesh; Boesso, Giacomo; Batra, Rishtee; Yao, Jun (2019). "Explicit and implicit corporate social responsibility: Differences in the approach to stakeholder engagement activities of U.S. and Japanese companies." Business Strategy and the Environment 28(6): 1121-1130.
dc.identifier.issn0964-4733
dc.identifier.issn1099-0836
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/151303
dc.description.abstractThis study uses the theoretical frameworks of institutional theory and comparative capitalism to demonstrate how cross‐cultural differences in national institutional frameworks are related to differences in the meaning and the nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and, as a result, how they create different incentives and opportunities for companies to engage in stakeholder management activities. More specifically, we draw upon the framework of “explicit” and “implicit” CSRs to investigate whether and how stakeholder management practices and programs differ between the United States and Japan. We first develop and validate a Stakeholder Engagement Activities (SEAs) scale, designed assess differences in the approach (explicit or implicit) that companies use to address a variety of common SEAs. Then we analyze data and present the results of surveys collected from 227 companies in the United States and Japan. We find that although the SEAs of American companies are characterized by strong “explicit CSR,” in contrast, the SEAs of Japanese companies exhibit strong “implicit CSR.” In the discussion that follows, we attribute these distinctions in the SEAs to differences in the configuration of political, economic, and market mechanisms in each country. The findings of this study contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the differences in prevailing CSR practices of American and Japanese companies than noted by previous researchers. From a practitioner’s perspective, the findings of this study reveal that despite the global nature of CSR, stakeholder management practices are both interpreted and operationalized differently due to differences in national institutional frameworks.
dc.publisherMcGraw‐Hill
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherstakeholder engagement activities
dc.subject.otherstakeholder management in the United States and Japan
dc.subject.othercross‐cultural CSR
dc.subject.otherstakeholder management
dc.subject.otherinstitutional theory and CSR
dc.subject.otherCSR in the United States and Japan
dc.titleExplicit and implicit corporate social responsibility: Differences in the approach to stakeholder engagement activities of U.S. and Japanese companies
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelBusiness (General)
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelBusiness and Economics
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151303/1/bse2306_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151303/2/bse2306.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/bse.2306
dc.identifier.sourceBusiness Strategy and the Environment
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee, S., Ha‐Brookshire, J., & Chow, P. ( 2018 ). The moral responsibility of corporate sustainability as perceived by fashion retail employees: A USA–China cross‐cultural comparison study. Business Strategy and the Environment., 27, 1462 – 1475. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2196
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarroll, A. B. ( 1979 ). A three‐dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4 ( 4 ), 497 – 505. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChappel, M., & Moon, J. ( 2005 ). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven country study of CSR. Business and Society, 44 ( 4 ), 415 – 441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305281658
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChoi, J., & Wang, H. ( 2009 ). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30 ( 8 ), 895 – 907. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.759
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCoombs, J. E., & Gilley, K. M. ( 2005 ). Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: Main effects and interactions with financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26 ( 9 ), 827 – 840. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.476
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDemise, N. ( 2005 ). Business ethics and corporate governance in Japan. Business & Society, 44 ( 2 ), 211 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305274914
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEweje, G., & Sakaki, M. ( 2015 ). CSR in Japanese companies: Perspectives from managers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24 ( 7 ), 678 – 687. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1894
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeman, I., & Hasnaoui, A. ( 2011 ). The meaning of corporate social responsibility: The vision of four nations. Journal of Business Ethics, 100 ( 3 ), 419 – 443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐010‐0688‐6
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFukukawa, K., & Moon, J. ( 2004 ). A Japanese model of corporate social responsibility? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14, 45 – 49.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFukukawa, K., & Teramoto, Y. ( 2009 ). Understanding Japanese CSR: The reflections of managers in the field of global operations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 ( 1 ), 133 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐008‐9933‐7
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGjølberg, M. ( 2009 ). Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing an index of CSR practices and CSR performance in 20 countries. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25 ( 1 ), 10 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2008.10.003
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKang, N., & Moon, J. ( 2011 ). Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms. Socio‐Economic Review, 10 ( 1 ), 85 – 108.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKobayashi, K., Eweje, G., & Tappin, D. ( 2018 ). Employee wellbeing and human sustainability: Perspectives of managers in large Japanese corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27 ( 7 ), 801 – 810. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2032
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKumar, K., Boesso, G., & Michelon, G. ( 2016 ). How do strengths and weaknesses in corporate social performance across stakeholder domains affect company performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25 ( 4 ), 277 – 292. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1874
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKumar, K., Boesso, G., & Yao, J. ( 2017 ). Cultural values, institutional arrangements and stakeholder management culture: A cross‐national study. Review of International Business and Strategy, 27 ( 4 ), 450 – 465. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS‐03‐2017‐0029
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee, K., Park, B., Song, H., & Yook, K. ( 2016 ). The value relevance of environmental audits: Evidence from Japan. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26 ( 5 ), 609 – 625.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGraves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. ( 1994 ). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37 ( 4 ), 1034 – 1046.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMatten, 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNakano, C. ( 2007 ). The significance and limitations of corporate governance from the perspective of business ethics: Towards the creation of an ethical organizational culture. Asian Business & Management, 6 ( 2 ), 163 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.abm.9200216
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNunnally, J. ( 1978 ). Psychometric methods. NY: McGraw‐Hill.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePorter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. ( 2006 ). Strategy and society: The link between corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 84 ( 12 ), 78 – 92.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRusso, A., & Tencati, A. ( 2009 ). Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium‐sized, and large firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 339 – 353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐008‐9736‐x
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSoskice, D. W., & Hall, P. A. ( 2001 ). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. ( 2011 ). Three decades of research on national culture in the workplace: Do the differences still make a difference? Organizational Dynamics, 40 ( 3 ), 189 – 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.006
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTempel, 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 ), 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6486.2006.00644.x
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitley, R. ( 1998 ). Internationalization and varieties of capitalism: The limited effects of cross‐national coordination of economic activities on the nature of business systems. Review of International Political Economy, 5 ( 3 ), 445 – 481. https://doi.org/10.1080/096922998347480
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. ( 2001 ). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097‐0266(200101)22:2<125::AID‐SMJ150>3.0.CO;2‐H
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHo, F. N., Wang, H. M. D., & Vitell, S. J. ( 2012 ). A global analysis of corporate social performance: The effects of cultural and geographic environments. Journal of Business Ethics, 107 ( 4 ), 423 – 433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐011‐1047‐y
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHosoda, M., & Suzuki, K. ( 2015 ). Using management control systems to implement CSR activities: An empirical analysis of 12 Japanese companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24 ( 7 ), 628 – 642. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1896
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnson, R. A., & 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.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. ( 2003 ). The cross‐national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28 ( 3 ), 447 – 465. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196772
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAguinis, H., & Glavas, A. ( 2012 ). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38 ( 4 ), 932 – 968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAutodesk, https://www.autodesk.com/retrieved, Dec 15, 2018
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBen‐Amar, W., & Chelli, M. ( 2018 ). What drives voluntary disclosure? The effect of country level institutions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27, 1609 – 1622. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2227
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoesso, G., & Kumar, K. ( 2009 ). Stakeholder prioritization and reporting: Evidence from Italy and the US. Accounting Forum, 33 ( 2 ), 162 – 175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.010
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrucksch, S., & Grünschloß, C. ( 2009 ). From environmental accountability to corporate social responsibility? Reflections on the CSR boom in Japan from the perspective of business management and civil society groups. Japanstudien, 20 ( 1 ), 307 – 329. https://doi.org/10.1080/09386491.2009.11826984
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCampbell, J. L. ( 2007 ). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32 ( 3 ), 946 – 967. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275684
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.