Jeremy Moon

The government of self-regulation: On the comparative dynamics of corporate social responsibility

Abstract This paper explores the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and government. CSR is often viewed as self-regulation, devoid of government. We attribute the scholarly neglect of the variety of CSR-government relations to the inadequate attention paid to the important differences in the way in which CSR has ‘travelled’ (or diffused), and has been mediated by the national governance systems, and the insufficient emphasis given to the role of the government (or government agency) in the CSR domain. We go on to identify a number of different types of CSR-government configurations, and by following empirically the CSR development trajectories in Western Europe and East Asia in a comparative historical perspective, we derive a set of propositions on the changing dynamics of CSR-government configurations. In particular, we highlight the varied role that the governments can play in order to promote CSR in the context of the wider national governance systems.

Corporate Innovation and Sustainable Community Development in Developing Countries

The role of multinational corporations (MNCs) in fostering or undermining development within poor communities in developing countries has been a subject of intensive debate within academic and practitioner circles. MNCs are not only considered an obstacle to development but also as sources of solutions to some of the pressing social and environmental problems facing these communities. This article reviews the way in which companies frame (a) sustainable community development, and (b) their engagements in the community. It then considers the implications of both for sustainable community development and poverty alleviation in developing countries. The article then proposes an agenda for future research centering on how corporations innovate in their governance roles and the conditions in which community development innovations are created, take shape, and are put into practice. The article concludes with an introduction to the other articles presented in this special issue highlighting also their main contributions.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Education: A Trans-Atlantic Comparison

Using a sample of 72 European and 22 North American educational institutions, we examine the extent to which business schools in North America and Europe are driving educational programs and initiatives in corporate social responsibility and sustainability (CSRS). Drawing on several theoretical perspectives, such as institutional-comparative perspectives and resource dependence theory, the study indicates the increasing prominence of CSRS education in business schools on both continents. It does so through analysis of the extent to which business schools offer (a) dedicated CSRS programs, (b) CSRS tracks and majors, (c) compulsory CSRS classes or modules, and (d) optional CSRS modules across the range of taught programs. Contrary to some previous findings, religious affiliation, public/private status, and program size had only a negligible direct association with schools commitment to CSRS education. However, business school prestige showed a statistically significant relationship. Finally, the study highlights how European respondents perceptions concerning the primary drivers and constraints of CSRS initiatives differed from those in North America.

Corporate Social Responsibility Under Authoritarian Capitalism Dynamics and Prospects of State-Led and Society-Driven CSR

This article introduces the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the seemingly oxymoronic context of Chinese “authoritarian capitalism.” Following an introduction to the emergence of authoritarian capitalism, the article considers the emergence of CSR in China using Matten and Moon’s framework of explaining CSR development in terms both of a business system’s historic institutions and of the impacts of new institutionalism on corporations arising from societal pressures in their global and national environments. We find two forms of CSR in China, reflecting the “multiplexity” of its business system: one in the mainly family-owned small and medium-sized enterprise sector reflecting concern with local reputation, and another in the corporate, mainly state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector, reflecting global and national societal expectations. We investigate the dynamics of CSR in China through the interplay of the global and national societal pressures and mediating and even leading roles played by the State and the Party. We consider the conceptual integrity and practical prospects for “state-led society-driven” CSR and future research opportunities, including those opened up by the three contributing articles to this special issue.

Transfer of Social and Environmental Accounting and Reporting Knowledge: Subsidiary Absorptive Capacity and Organisational Mechanisms

Abstract nThis chapter investigates the antecedents to the development of the three components of subsidiaries’ absorptive capacity (ACAP): recognition, assimilation and application of transferred knowledge in the context of the vertical flow of social and environmental accounting and reporting (SEAR) knowledge from the HQ to acquired subsidiaries. Our analysis is based on an embedded multiple case study of a UK-based MNC, informed by 44 semi-structured interviews and capitalising on agency theory and socialisation theory. Prior knowledge is not a sufficient explanation to the development of ACAP but it is also dependent on organisational mechanisms that will trigger the learning processes. Depending on the nature and degree of the social, control and integration mechanisms, the effects of prior stocks of knowledge on ACAP may vary. Our propositions only hold for one direction of knowledge transfer. The study is based on an embedded multiple case study in one sector which restricts its generalisation. It excludes the specific relationships between the three ACAP learning processes and the existence of feedback loops. Our findings suggest that the HQ’s mix of social, control and integration mechanisms should account for initial stocks of SEAR knowledge. The contribution lies in uncovering the interaction between heterogeneous levels of prior knowledge and organisational mechanisms deployed by the HQ fostering ACAP. We address emerging issues regarding the reification of the ACAP concept and highlight the potential of agency theory for informing studies on HQ-subsidiary relations.

A New Era - Extending Environmental Impact to a Broader Sustainability Agenda: The Case of Commercial Group

It is the belief of the Directors of Commercial Group, the UK’s largest independently owned business services company, that leaders can exercise choice and, in so doing, shape the identity of an organisation. The key question is: ‘where would Commercial Group like their organisation to make a positive impact?’ The question is pertinent to the leaders of the company as they have entered into what could be considered a third phase since starting the business in 1991. Phase one was the early days, the survival days, about knocking on doors, getting in front of the right people, and securing sufficient numbers of clients to generate a steady cash flow. Phase two began in 2006, and was orientated towards placing Commercial Group at the forefront of climate action. In phase three, the company seeks to stretch and make a greater social difference, as well as achieve goals on growth and the environment. The leadership of Commercial Group is enacted by the Directors, and an Environmental Strategist. However, the Directors of the company encourage all members of staff to approach them with good ideas and, provided these fall within the vision of the company, to take the initiative to help convert ideas into a reality. Arthur, the company’s Managing Director, is the elder brother of a sister–brother team, and the patriarch of the company. He leads on a vision to grow the business year on year, and for the company to remain independently owned. The business does not have financial obligations to a bank and is controlled by the original co-founders. Simone, a Co-Director, is the sister of Arthur. She is a key player in shaping the values of the company, these encompassing being a team player and customer champion, being innovative (shaking things up), in addition to going the extra mile and being there for each other (Appendix 1).