running head: institutional theory and csr 1
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR
1
15 Institutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative Framework
Interactive Session
Institutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative FrameworkInstitutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative FrameworkInstitutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative FrameworkInstitutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative Framework
Sanket Sunand Dash
Xavier University, Bhubaneswar, India
Email: [email protected]
Nidhi Mishra
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India
Email: [email protected]
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 2
15 Institutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative Framework
Interactive Session
Institutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative FrameworkInstitutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative FrameworkInstitutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative FrameworkInstitutional Theory as a Driver of CSR: An Integrative Framework
Abstract
The paper uses institutional theory as a lens to explain CSR activities of organizations. The
article, in particular, focuses on three specific areas in CSR: CSR as a substitute for institutional
mechanisms, CSR focus of multinational corporations and CSR reporting. The rationale for examining
these three areas using institutional theory is explained. The paper then proceeds to verify the correctness
of propositions of institutional theory, as applied to the focus areas. The study finds that CSR focus
substitutes rather than complements existing institutional mechanisms, which is contrary to theory. The
role of multinationals as institutional entrepreneurs straddling different institutional environments is
verified. The study suggests that institutional mechanisms enable homogeneity as well as heterogeneity in
CSR reporting.
Keywords: institutional theory, CSR, institutional mechanisms, MNC
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 3
INTRODUCTION
Institutional theory broadly states that the behavior of firms is governed by its institutional
environment or field. The constituents of the field include the organization’s social context, the scope of
its activities, and it’s network of social relationships (Doshi & Khokle, 2012). The institutional field tends
to bring uniformity in business practice through three mechanisms: coercive, mimetic and normative.
Coercive mechanisms refer to pressure techniques that aim to bring business practice in line with societal
expectations. Mimetic practices refer to peers’ pressure on firms to conform to certain behaviors.
Normative practices refer to internalization of beliefs about the suitability of certain behavior (DiMaggio
& Powell, 2000). Broadly, the institutional forces drive agent’s behavior by aligning agent’s beliefs with
societal norms, with the alignment being caused by either internalization of norms or external pressure.
Norms drive group behavior especially when the groups’ normative focus and member’s group
identification is high (Terry & Hogg, 1996; Kallgren, Reno & Cialdini, 2000). Organizations can be
conceptualized as a consciously coordinate social unit that functions on a relatively continuous basis to
achieve a set of goals (Robbins, Judge & Vohra, 2013). Hence, organizations being a specific type of
groups are likely to be affected by group norms. CSR denotes a voluntary, organizational-level behavior
that includes not harming stakeholders (Campbell, 2007) and looking at social and environmental issues
besides business issues (Jackson & Apostolakou, 2010). As institutions influence an organization’s
selection of norms and alignment of behavior with norms, the institutional theory can explain CSR
activities, including reporting. This article specifically focuses on three areas where institutional forces
affect CSR activity: the relationship between formal institutional mechanisms for interacting with
stakeholders and CSR focus, the interaction between multinational corporations’ (MNCs) CSR focus and
institutional mechanisms and the role of institutional mechanisms in bringing homogenization in CSR
reporting. The three focus areas are inter-related as the relationship between formal institutional
mechanisms and CSR focus in the home country is likely to affect MNCs CSR focus in other countries
and their reporting standards. As the USA is home to the greatest number of Fortune 500 countries, it is
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 4
possible that the CSR norms of USA will be reflected in the operations and CSR reporting of USA-based
MNCs.
MNCs provide an interesting case study for the impact of institutional forces on firm’s behavior.
MNCs operate in multiple institutionalization fields and hence the applicability of neo-institutionalism for
their activities has been questioned (Kostova, Roth, & Dacin, 2008). Kostova et al. (2008) suggest that the
concepts of organizational field and institutional isomorphism in the traditional sense are not applicable to
MNCs. The authors had further suggested that MNCs engage in actor-specific manipulation and
negotiation and, hence, legitimacy for MNCs is associated with heterogeneity rather than homogeneity.
The article examines the CSR activities of MNCs to test the validity of Kostove et al. (2008) propositions.
Besides being theoretically relevant, the effect of institutional forces on MNC’s behavior is also
practically relevant. With increasing globalization, the economic clout and social importance of MNCs is
increasing. As their operations are spread over several countries, the coercive power of governments,
especially those from developing countries, over MNCs is limited. Hence, norms are important to ensure
voluntary, social positive actions by MNCs. Institutional theory can help clarify the mechanism through
which norms affect behavior at group and organization level
CSR reporting is examined to test the effects of institutional isomorphism on firms’ CSR
practices. Firms are legally mandated to follow national accounting standards and there is a move to
standardize reporting of financial results globally by using IFRS (International Financial Reporting
Standards). Assuming similar institutional pressures on standardization of CSR reporting would indicate
moves toward greater homogenization.
CSR as a substitute for institutional mechanisms
Campbell (2007) proposed that CSR focus is strengthened when there are institutional
mechanisms for communication between different stakeholders and the governmental institutions are
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 5
effective and pro-CSR. However, studies suggest that explicit CSR is stronger when institutional
communication mechanisms are weak and governments are more laissez-faire in their economic policies.
A secondary data-based study of firms in Western Europe, with the country of incorporation as
the higher level factor, suggested that CSR activities act as a substitute for institutionalized coordination
mechanisms between stakeholders(Jackson & Apostolakou, 2010). Countries were categorized into two
groups: liberal market economies (LME), with weak institutional coordination mechanisms and
coordinated market economies (CME), with strong institutional coordination mechanisms.CSR activities
were higher in LMEs than CMEs. Society-oriented CSR and investor-oriented CSR were not correlated
with the strength of laws protecting employee rights and investor rights.
Institutional pressures not only drive CSR spending but also affect CSR policy. Based on a
comparison of the private sector-driven CSR of the USA and the government-driven CSR of France,
Avetisyan and Ferrary (2013) found greater isomorphism of CSR policies and a greater
institutionalization of academic studies on CSR in France. On the other hand, CSR policies in the USA
show greater pluralism as they are driven mostly by firms’ philanthropic interests and their efforts to build
a positive image. The private-sector driven CSR policy in the US led to the emergence of sustainability
rating indices (SRI) while the government-driven CSR in France led to more stringent environment
regulations and guidelines.
Institutional theory is suitable for explaining national-level differences in corporate governance,
including CSR because it takes into account the role of national-level institutions. A review of the CSR
policies in USA and Europe suggests that explicit CSR, measured in terms of company donations or
reporting of CSR activities on the website, is more pronounced in the USA than Europe (Matten & Moon,
2008). The authors explain it by suggesting four nation-level institutional determinants that differ between
USA and Europe:
1. Greater role of the state in Europe than the USA
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 6
2. USA financial system is capital markets-based while the European system relies more on
banks
3. Larger role of state in employee training in Europe and a more rigid labor system
4. The Greater moral worth of capitalism in the USA and increased importance to personal
philanthropy.
These institutional level differences lead to greater focus on explicit CSR in the USA and implicit
CSR in Europe. However, due to the greater internationalization of operations, European firms are being
subjected to “coercive, mimetic and normative pressures” that is leading to a greater isomorphism with
USA business practices(Matten & Moon, 2008).
Institutional theory, multinational corporations, and CSR
Institutional mechanisms, especially coercive and normative mechanisms, lead to the
institutionalization of CSR practices within MNCs (Bondy, Moon, & Matten, 2012). MNCs operate in
their multiple countries with different institutional frameworks and hence are subject to multiple and
sometimes divergent institutional pressures. Hence, the study of institutional pressures on MNCs and their
reactions helps specify the boundary conditions of institutional theory.
Institutional theory has viewed firms as passive recipients of institutional pressure. However,
firms, especially MNCs, can and do play a big role in shaping institutional policies and attitudes towards
the environment (Child & Tsai, 2005). Moreover, the authors found that the role of MNCs in institutional
development is not environmentally regressive. MNCs provide the technical knowledge necessary for
formulating new regulations and monitoring their compliance and also show greater isomorphism than
local firms as far as compliance with host country regulations is considered. The reasons for MNCs
progressive policies regarding environmental standards include firm strategy, the need for legitimacy,
institutional pressures in the country of incorporation and desire for standardization of operations across
countries.
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 7
MNCs role as institutional entrepreneurs seems to be dependent on their financial performance
and the institutional distance between home and host countries. Positive associations have been found
between standardization of environmental norms and MNCs financial performance (Aguilera-Caracuel,
Aragón-Correa, Hurtado-Torres, & Rugman, 2012). On the other hand, institutional distance negatively
impacted the standardization of environmental practices. However, the strength of the negative
relationship declined when headquarters financial performance was healthy. Environmental institutional
differences were measured by comparing four parameters: overall environmental institutional score,
normative environmental institutional score, regulatory environmental institutional score and cognitive
environmental institutional score.
The different institutional pressures on MNC subsidiaries to conform to host and home countries
institutional mechanisms need not lead to either globalization/standardization or localization of CSR
activities. On the other hand, their CSR activities will lie on a continuum between the two extremes,
which will be determined by factors such as the area of operations, the strengths of the organizational
culture of the parent company and the degree of ownership of the parent firm (Naguib & Ratiu, 2010).
Subsidiaries of MNCs operating in emerging countries are more likely to be influenced by the conflicting
institutional pressures as the institutional pressures driving CSR, especially explicit CSR, are more
intense in the country of incorporation than in the host country (Jamali & Neville, 2011). The authors also
concluded that while global institutional pressures are leading to greater homogenization of CSR policies,
actual CSR activities are still directed by national-level institutional processes and traditions.
Institutionalization of CSR reporting
CSR reporting is an ideal place to study the isomorphic pressures generated by institutional
theory as reporting tends to take standardized forms. The globalization of firm operations and the
adoption of global operations, as well as the move towards explicit CSR, suggest increased the tendency
toward homogenization of CSR reporting globally. This is reflected in the increased use of sustainability
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 8
reporting guidelines, such as Global Reporting Initiative’s(GRI) G3.1 and G4, International Integrated
Reporting Council’s (IIRC) International Integrated Reporting Framework, and Sustainability Accounting
Standards Board’s (SASB) Sustainability Accounting Standards, by firms globally. Though these
standards are basically voluntary, companies increasingly face societal and government pressures to adopt
such standards (Eccles & Saltzman, 2011; Vigneau, Humphreys, & Moon, 2015) to enhance
comparability and transparency of CSR reports (Eccles & Saltzman, 2011; Einwiller, Ruppel &
Schnauber, 2016).Weber, Brooks, and Wong (2016) argued that GRI, IIRC, and SASB should be
considered complimentary guidelines since organizations may choose to follow one or a combination of
these.
Governments have been the most influential institutional driver of CSR reporting (Tschopp,
Wells, & Barney, 2011). Governments have driven CSR reporting through five processes: mandating,
facilitating, partnering, endorsing and demonstrating. Hence, unsurprisingly, European countries, where
the government has a larger role, have been found to lead the US in CSR reporting (Berinde &
Andreescu, 2015; Weber, Brooks, & Wong, 2016). National regulators in countries, such as Denmark,
have promoted integrated reports (IR) by making IR mandatory for largest companies on comply or
explain basis (Lueg, Lueg, Andersen, & Dancianu, 2015). Further, the European Union’s Directive
2014/95/EU requires all European Union countries having more than 500 employees to report their CSR
performance following appropriate guidelines from 2017 onwards (Weber, Brooks, & Wong, 2016). On
the other hand, use of only GRI reporting guidelines for CSR is more prevalent in the US and only a few
organizations prepare integrated reports or follow SASB’s standards (Weber, Brooks, & Wong, 2016).
Integrated CSR reports combine financial and non-financial-environmental, social and governance (ESG)
(Eccles & Saltzman, 2011) information and forecasts about future risk while traditional sustainability
reports only enumerate the firms’ CSR activities. This is in line with the conclusion of Jensen and Berg
(2012) that differential institutional pressures results in the emphasis on different types of annual CSR
reports.
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 9
Global CSR reporting guidelines, such as GRI and UN Global Compact, promote homogenization
in the final report with more detailed reporting frameworks, such as GRI, promoting greater
standardization (Einwiller, Ruppel & Schnauber, 2016). However, the institutional and cultural
differences between MNEs manifested as country-of-origin effects. It was found that while German
MNEs (a coordinated market economy) reported more on environmental issues, US MNEs (a liberal
market economy) exhibited a stronger emphasis on society, especially the community. This shows that
though MNEs are accountable to all stakeholders worldwide, they are more impacted by their home
country institutions and expectations.
The country-of-origin effects and the need to balance the institutional demands of different
countries might lead to the use of multiple accounting standards by an MNC, indicating a lack of
isomorphism (Jamali, 2010). Using the five predictive factors (cause, constituents, content, control and
context) identified by Oliver (1991), the paper found that acquiescent behavior was driven by concerns
with legitimacy and reputation. However, conditions like low coerciveness, lack of definite global
standards and large and diffused number of institutional actors like NGOs provided a large scope for
avoidance and manipulation.
Despite the adoption of different forms of CSR reporting standards, the homogenizing influence
of institutional forces on CSR reports have been observed in petroleum refining firms (O’Connor &
Gronewold, 2013). Similarly, the institutional pressure to conform to social norms has been found to
force firms with a poor rating on environment-related issues to improve their environmental performance
more than other firms (Chatterji & Toffel, 2010).
DISCUSSION
A review of the literature suggests only mixed support for the predictions of institutional theory
regarding firms’ CSR focus. The proposition that high level of support by government institutions for
CSR is linked to high firm CSR focus is not verified as US firms have higher explicit CSR than European
firms although the US government is less proactive. With respect to CSR reporting, the homogenizing
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 10
powers of institutional mechanisms seem limited as multiple CSR accounting standards were used by the
same firm. However, widespread use of CSR reports among large firms in the same sector and
homogenization in the presentation of CSR reports were also visible, suggesting organizational
isomorphism. The literature review also suggested that MNCs exploited their exposure to multiple
institutional mechanisms to reinforce home country norms or adapt to host country norms. Thus,
institutional pressures for MNCs can be the cause of not only converging but also diverging practices.
Propositions
It is proposed that countries with a strong social and governmental focus on CSR will have high
implicit CSR as CSR activities are mandated by legal or quasi-legal structures, such as the presence of
community and union members on the board. On the other hand, the presence of strong social support for
CSR, coupled with low government intervention, will lead to high explicit CSR as companies would
highlight their CSR activities. Based on this distinction the following propositions are suggested:
1 a. High social support for CSR and high government support for CSR will lead to high implicit
CSR and replace voluntary CSR with legal mandates.
1 b. High implicit CSR will be associated with homogenization as legal mandates will be worded
similarly and unambiguously.
1 c. High social support for CSR, coupled with a high market orientation, would lead to high
explicit CSR as firms publicize their CSR activities to gain legitimacy and consumer support in a
competitive market.
Once a particular CSR activity, such as CSR reporting, has been institutionalized in a market
economy, it will be perceived as a new business opportunity and hence a large number of players will be
attracted towards providing services related to that activity. The different players might try to formulate
different standards of CSR reporting, leading to heterogeneity in CSR practices. If the standards are
formulated by private bodies, they are treated as normal goods by the market with their survival dictated
by market forces. If there are no objective criteria for evaluating the different standards, it is likely that
different standards will co-exist in the market together, as seen in the US context. This is formalized as:
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 11
2 a. High explicit CSR in a market economy will lead to a multitude of organizations that aim to
promote different standards of CSR reporting.
2 b. The absence of objective measure for ranking the different standards of CSR reporting is
positively associated with the prevalence of multiple standards of CSR reporting.
Proposition 2a and 2b indicate that, for CSR reporting, institutional pressures have created greater
heterogeneity in CSR standards. When firms have options of choosing between different standards, they
would choose the standard that best fits their strategy. This is formalized as:
2 c. Firms’ choice of CSR reporting standards is aligned with their strategy.
Standardizing CSR operations across nations would help MNCs focus on their core operations
rather than spend time on tweaking their CSR operations in order to ensure fit with host country’s
institutional environment. Hence, they are likely to act as institutional entrepreneurs who will advance
their home country’s institutional framework in other countries. For example, multinationals
headquartered in the USA will advance explicit CSR while European MNCs will advance implicit CSR.
This is formalized as:
3. The relative success of US MNCs vis-à-vis European MNCs will be positively related to the
adoption of explicit CSR standards including CSR reporting.
Home country CSR practices might be better aligned with the personal values of the top
management. However, these practices might not have social legitimacy in the host country. In such
circumstances, MNCs are likely to adopt CSR practices for strategic, rather than ethical purposes. The
pressure to adopt certain CSR policies for purely strategic purposes is likely to be higher for consumer
goods firms, as compared to industrial goods firms, because of their more direct and frequent interaction
with the public. This is formalized as:
4. a. MNCs sensing a greater institutional discrepancy between home and host country are more
likely to pursue strategic CSR
4. b. Ceteris paribus, MNCs in consumer goods industries are more likely than MNCs in industrial
goods to pursue strategic CSR.
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 12
Based on the above review and proposition, the following framework has been proposed (figure 1).
Figure 1: Proposed framework
CONCLUSION
Institutional theory has been exhaustively used by scholars to study firms’ CSR activities. A
review of these studies suggests that the institutional environment not only creates pressure for
convergence but it also creates new choices for firms, especially with respect to CSR reporting. The
choices are higher for firms that operate in multiple institutional contexts such as multinationals. Another
finding of the literature review is those firms’ CSR focus acts as a substitute to institutional mechanisms
for interacting with stakeholders. This finding is contrary to the commonly accepted propositions of
institutional theory. To account for the divergent finding, there is a need to pursue research that aims for a
complete conceptualization of institutes. A complete conceptualization would include the creation of a
nomological net that includes the antecedents and consequences of institutions and the moderators and
mediators of the various relationships.
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 13
REFERENCES
Aguilera-Caracuel, J., Aragón-Correa, J., Hurtado-Torres, N., & Rugman, A. (2012). The effects
of institutional distance and headquarters’ financial performance on the generation of
environmental standards in multinational companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4),
461–474. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0978-7
Avetisyan, E., & Ferrary, M. (2013). Dynamics of stakeholders’ implications in the
institutionalization of the CSR field in France and in the United States. Journal of
Business Ethics, 115(1), 115–133. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1386-3
Bondy, K., Moon, J., & Matten, D. (2012). An institution of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) in multi-national corporations (MNCs): Form and implications. Journal of
Business Ethics, 111(2), 281–299. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1208-7
Berinde, M., & Andreescu, N. A. (2015). Reporting Corporate Social Responsibility According
to GRI Standards. The Annals of the University of Oradea, 17-23.
Campbell, 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. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.25275684
Caprar, D., & Neville, B. (2012). “Norming” and “conforming”: Integrating cultural and
institutional explanations for sustainability adoption in business. Journal of Business
Ethics, 110(2), 231–245. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1424-1
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic
Management Journal, 31(9), 917–945.
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 14
Child, J., & Tsai, T. (2005). The dynamic between firms’ environmental strategies and
institutional constraints in emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 95–125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00490.x
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2000). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. In J. A. C. Baum & F. Dobbin (Eds.),
Economics meets sociology in strategic management (pp. 143–166). Advances in
Strategic Management, vol. 17.
Doshi, V., & Khokle, P. (2012). An institutional perspective on corporate social responsibility.
Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 37(2), 98–102.
Eccles, R. G., & Saltzman, D. (2011). Achieving sustainability through integrated
reporting. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer, 56-61.
Einwiller, S., Ruppel, C., & Schnauber, A. (2016). Harmonization and differences in CSR
reporting of US and German companies: Analyzing the role of global reporting standards
and country-of-origin. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 21(2), 230-
245.
Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An
institutional mirror or substitute? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 371–394.
doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0269-8
Jamali, D. (2010). MNCs and international accountability standards through an institutional lens:
Evidence of symbolic conformity or decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 617–
640. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0443-z
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 15
Jamali, D., & Neville, B. (2011). Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing
countries: an embedded multi-layered institutional lens. Journal of Business Ethics,
102(4), 599–621. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0830-0
Jensen, J. C., & Berg, N. (2012). Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus
integrated reporting. An institutionalist approach. Business Strategy & the Environment
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 21(5), 299–316. doi:10.1002/bse.740
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct:
When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and social psychology
bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012.
Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational
corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4),
994–1006.
Lueg, K., Lueg, R., Andersen, K., & Dancianu, V. (2016). Integrated reporting with CSR
practices: a pragmatic constructivist case study in a Danish cultural setting. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 21(1), 20-35.
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. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.31193458
Naguib, R., & Ratiu, C. (2010). What lies between global efficiency and local adaptation?
Understanding the social responsibility of multinational firms. International Journal of
Business Strategy, 10(2), 104–118.
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND CSR 16
O’Connor, A., & Gronewold, K. L. (2013). Black gold, green earth: An analysis of the petroleum
industry’s CSR environmental sustainability discourse. Management Communication
Quarterly, 27(2), 210–236. doi:10.1177/0893318912465189
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review,
16(1), 145–179.
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A. & Vohra, N (2013). Organization Behavior (13th ed.). New Delhi:
Pearson Education.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). Stakeholder pressure on MNEs and the transfer
of socially irresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal,
56(2), 549–572. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0962
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role
for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776-793.
Tschopp, D., Wells, S., & Barney, D. (2011). The institutional promotion of corporate social
responsibility reporting. Journal of Academic & Business Ethics, 5, 1–18.
Tschopp, D., & Nastanski, M. (2014). The harmonization and convergence of corporate social
responsibility reporting standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 147-162.
Vigneau, L., Humphreys, M., & Moon, J. (2015). How do firms comply with international
sustainability standards? Processes and consequences of adopting the global reporting
initiative. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 469-486.
Weber, J. L., Brooks, M. R. & Wong, J. A. (2016). Imminent changes to corporate social
responsibility. The CPA Journal, 86 (6), 58-63.