Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:56:46.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Implicit to Explicit Corporate Social Responsibility: Institutional Change as a Fight for Myths

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Stefanie Hiss
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The focus of this paper is institutional change and the changing role of business in Germany. Back in the 1980s, the German institutional framework was characterized by implicit mandatory and obligatory regulations that set a clear context for responsible corporate behavior. Today, this framework has eroded and given way to a situation in which corporations explicitly and voluntarily take responsibility for social issues. This shift from implicit to explicit corporate social responsibility is an indication of a major institutional change epitomized by the deconstruction of ‘old’ and the reconstruction of ‘new’ institutions. In the course of this change, corporations, state actors, and civil society organizations compete for their ideas and interests in what we call a fight for myths. The paper traces this fight for myths and the changing understanding of corporate responsibility in Germany.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 433 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, W. B. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99: 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AVE—Außenhandelsvereinigung des Deutschen Einzelhandels e.V. 2004. Sektorenmodell Sozialverantwortung von Mitgliedsunternehmen der Außenhandelsvereinigung des Deutschen Einzelhandels e.V. (AVE)—Systembeschreibung. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Baron, D. P. 2003. Private politics. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 12: 31–66.Google Scholar
Beyer, J. 2006. Pfadabhängigkeit. Über institutionelle Kontinuität, anfällige Stabilität und fundamentalen Wandel. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Beyer, J., & Hassel, A. 2002. The effects of convergence: Internationalization and the changing distribution of net value added in large German firms. Economy and Society, 31(3): 309–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, J., & Höpner, M. 2003. The disintegration of organised capitalism: German corporate governance in the 1990s. West European Politics, 26(4): 179–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. 2005. Corporate community contributions in the United Kingdom and the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 56: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkmann, U., Dörre, K., & Röbenack, S. 2006. Prekäre Arbeit. Ursachen, Ausmaß, soziale Folgen und subjektive Verarbeitungsformen unsicherer Beschäftigungsverhältnisse. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.Google Scholar
BSCI—Business Social Compliance Initiative. 2008. Annual Report 2007–2008 Business Social Compliance Initiative. http://www.bsci-eu.org/BSCIAR0708smallinternet.pdf, June 20.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. L. 2004. Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CCCD—Centrum für Corporate Citizenship Deutschland. 2007. Corporate Citizenship. Gesellschaftliches Engagement von Unternehmen in Deutschland und im transatlantischen Vergleichmitden USA.Ergebnisse einer Unternehmensbefragung des CCCD. Berlin: CCCD.Google Scholar
David, P. A. 1985. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75: 332–37.Google Scholar
Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. 2004. Stakeholders and environmental management practices: An institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13: 209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. 2007. Ideologically motivated activism. How activist groups influence corporate social change. Academy of Management Review, 32: 901–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Bundestag. 2007. Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Große Anfrage der Abgeordneten Ulla Lötzer, Dr. Barbara Höll, Sabine Zimmermann, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion Die Linke. Drucksache 16/5844.Google Scholar
Deutschmann, C. 1997. Die Mythenspirale: Eine wissenssoziologische Interpretation industrieller Rationalisierung. Soziale Welt, 47(1): 55–70.Google Scholar
Deutschmann, C. 2002. Postindustrielle Industriesoziologie: Theoretische Grundlagen, Arbeitsverhältnisse und soziale Identitäten. Munich: Juventa.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker, L. G. (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment: 3–21. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.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(2): 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djelic, M.-L., & Quack, S. 2005. Rethinking path dependency: The crooked path of institutional change in Post-War Germany. In Morgan, G., Whitley, R. & Moen, E. (Eds.), Changing capitalisms? Internationalism, institutional change, and systems of economic organization : 137–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djelic, M.-L., & Quack, S. 2007. Overcoming path dependency: path generation in open systems. Theory and Society, 36: 161–86.CrossRefGoogle 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(1): 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, S., Gamble, A., Jackson, G., & Parkinson, J. 2000. The public interest and the company in Britain and Germany. London: Anglo-German Society for the Study of Industrial Relations.Google Scholar
Econsense—Forum Nachhaltige Entwicklung der Deutschen Wirtschaft. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility—Ein Memorandum für Kreativität und Innovation. http://www.econsense.de/_PUBLIKATIONEN/_ECONSENSE_PUBLIK/images/MEMORANDUM_0005E0FA.pdf.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. 1997. Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH). 2007. National Round Tables on Social Standards, final report. Eschborn: GTZ.Google Scholar
Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (Eds.). 2005. Corporate social responsibility across Europe. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, A., & Giese, G. 2005. Selling cheap at the employees'expense. The Black Book on the Schwarz Retail Company. Berlin, Nyon: Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft ver.di, UNI Commerce.Google Scholar
Hassel, A. 1999. The erosion of the German system of industrial relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 37(3): 484–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilferding, R. 1923. Das Finanzkapital. Wien: Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Hiss, S. 2006. Warum übernehmen Unternehmen gesellschaftliche Verantwortung: Ein soziologischer Erklärungsversuch. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. J. 2001. Linking organizational and field-level analyses. The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14: 133–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffschmid, J. 2002. Politische ökonomie der Finanzmärkte. Hamburg: VSA.Google Scholar
Jarass, L., & Obermair, G. M. 2004. Geheimnisse der Unternehmenssteuern: Steigende Dividenden, sinkendes Steueraufkommen. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
Jepperson, R. L. 2002. The development and application of sociological neoinstitutionalism. In Berger, J. & Zelditch, M. (Eds.), New directions in contemporary sociological theory: 229–66. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kinderman, D. (2005). Pressure from without, subversion from within: The two-pronged German employer offensive. Comparative European Politics, 3: 432–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. 2002. Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 281–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. 2007. New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7): 993–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. 2000. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4): 507–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. 2003. Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56: 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and in the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3): 497–515.CrossRefGoogle 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): 404–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M., Thomas, R., Leipziger, D., & Coleman, G. 2003. Living corporate citizenship: Strategic routes to socially responsible business. London: FT Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Merten, R. K. 1995. Soziologische Theorie und soziale Struktur. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1991. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 41–62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1992. The structure of educational organizations. In Meyer, J. W. & Scott, W. R. (Eds.), Organizational environments, updated edition: 71–98. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Meyer, R., & Hammerschmid, G. 2006. Die Mikroperspektive des Neo-Institutionalismus. Konzeption und Rolle des Akteurs. In Senge, K. & Hellmann, K.-U. (Eds.), Einführung in den Neo-Institutionalismus: 160–71. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C. 1992. The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4): 563–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. 2006. Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1): 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94: 251–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, G., & Williams, K. 2002. German management facing globalization: The “German Model” on trial. In Geppert, M., Matten, D. & Williams, K. (Eds.), Challenges for European management in a global context. Experiences from Britain and Germany: 281–93. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. R. 1991. Unpacking institutional arguments. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 164–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 1992. Introduction: From technology to environment. In Meyer, J. W. & Scott, W. R. (Eds.), Organizational environments, updated edition, 13–20. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. 1991. The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 108–40. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sorge, A. 2005. The global and the local: Understanding the dialectics of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. 1993. Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22: 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, W. 1991. On the institutional conditions of diversified quality production. In Matzner, E. & Streeck, W. (Eds.), Beyond Keynesianism: The socio-economics of production and employment: 21–61. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. 1992. Social institutions and economic performance: Studies in the industrial relations in advanced capitalist economies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. 1997. Beneficial constraints: On the economic limits of rational voluntarism. In Hollingsworth, J. R. & Boyer, R. (Eds.), Contemporary capitalism. The embeddedness of institutions: 197–219. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, W., & Höpner, M. 2003. Alle Macht dem Markt? Fallstudien zur Abwicklung der Deutschland AG. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy. Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, K. 1999. Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 369–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, D. 2005. The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Windolf, P. 2005. Die neuen Eigentümer. In Windolf, P. (Ed.), Finanzmarkt-Kapitalismus. Analysen zum Wandel von Produktionsregimen (Sonderheft 45 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie): 8–19. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windsor, D. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, H. A. 1974. Organisierter Kapitalismus. Voraussetzungen und Anfänge. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar