Review of Professional Management- A Journal of New Delhi Institute of Management

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Institutional Pressures of CSR:Evidence from India


Affiliations
1 GGSIP University, Dwarka, New Delhi, India
2 Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi University, New Delhi, India
 

The aim of the study is to identify important pressures driving corporate social responsibility practices by companies in India. Institutional pressures are conceptualised as a second order hierarchical component model (reflective formative type) and its multiple dimensions as first order reflective constructs forming second-order components. The model has its ischolar_mains in institutional theory as applied to CSR - linking government, industry association, NGOs, media, local communities and peer groups for overall institutional pressure. An exploratory study was conducted among top level and middle level CSR professionals of companies in S&P BSE 500 index to empirically validate constructs. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used for data analysis. Results indicate that institutional pressures can be measured in a reflective-formative type HCM (Hierarchical Component Model) and local community, peers, media, government and industry association are important triggers for CSR in India. The study provides evidence that stakeholders are exerting institutional pressures on corporates. Further, a new multidimensional institutional pressures formative construct to understand the pressures of CSR in India is proposed which can be used by researchers in future, by policy makers to make sector specific CSR laws and by corporates for training.

Keywords

Institutional Theory, CSR, India, PLS-SEM.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Adeyeye, A. (2011). Universal standards in CSR: are we prepared?. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 11(1), 107-119.

  • Aharonson, B. S., & Bort, S. (2015). Institutional pressure and an organization’s strategic response in Corporate Social Action engagement: The role of ownership and media attention. Strategic Organization, 13(4), 307-339.

  • Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles and CSR practice: An examination of sense making, institutional drivers and CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 189-213.

  • Arenas, D., Lozano, J. M., & Albareda, L. (2009). The role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual perceptions among stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 175-197.

  • Arevalo, J. A., & Aravind, D. (2011). Corporate social responsibility practices in India: Approach, drivers, and barriers. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 11(4), 399-414.

  • Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The Partial Least Squares (pls) Approach to Casual Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption Ans Use as an Illustration.

  • Barnett, M. L. (2013). One voice, but whose voice? Exploring what drives trade association activity. Business & Society, 52(2), 213-244.

  • Boutin-Dufresne, F., & Savaria, P. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial risk. The Journal of Investing, 13(1), 57-66.

  • Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-economic review, 10(1), 3-28.

  • 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.

  • Carpenter, V. L., & Feroz, E. H. (2001). Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: an analysis of four US state governments' decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting principles. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(7-8), 565-596.

  • Chandler, D. (2014). Organizational susceptibility to institutional complexity: Critical events driving the adoption and implementation of the ethics and compliance officer position. Organization Science, 25(6), 1722-1743. Coopers, P. (2013). Handbook on corporate social responsibility in India.

  • Dahan, N. M., Doh, J., & Teegen, H. (2010). Role of Nongovernmental Organizations in the Business—Government—Society Interface: Special Issue Overview and Introductory Essay. Business & Society, 49(1), 20-34.

  • Das, G. (2010). The Difficulty of Being Good: On the Subtle Art of Dharma. Oxford University Press.

  • Dhanesh, G. S. (2015). Why corporate social responsibility? An analysis of drivers of CSR in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 114-129.

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269-277.

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

  • Doh, J. P., & Teegen, H. (2002). Nongovernmental organizations as institutional actors in international business: Theory and implications. International Business Review, 11 (6), 665-684

  • Dupire, M., & M’Zali, B. (2018). CSR strategies in response to competitive pressures. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 603-623.

  • Galaskiewicz, J. (1997). An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979-81, 1987-89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 445-471.

  • Gudergan, S. P., Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2008). Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLS path modeling. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1238-1249.

  • Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.

  • Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. SAGE Publications.

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing (pp. 277-319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Husted, B. W., Jamali, D., & Saffar, W. (2016). Near and dear? The role of location in CSR engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 37(10), 2050-2070.

  • Imbun, B. Y. (2007). Cannot manage without the ‚significant other’: Mining, corporate social responsibility and local communities in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(2), 177-192.

  • Jain, T., Aguilera, R. V., & Jamali, D. (2017). Corporate stakeholder orientation in an emerging country context: A longitudinal cross industry analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(4), 701-719.

  • Jones, M. T. (1999). The institutional determinants of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(2), 163-179.

  • Knudsen, J. S., & Brown, D. (2015). Why governments intervene: Exploring mixed motives for public policies on corporate social responsibility. Public Policy and Administration, 30(1), 51-72.

  • Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925-945.

  • Midttun, A. (2005). Realigning business, government and civil society: Emerging embedded relational governance beyond the (neo) liberal and welfare state models. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 5(3), 159-174.

  • Prabhakar, R., & Mishra, S. (2013, June). A Study of Corporate Social Responsibility in Indian Organization: An-Introspection. In International Business Research Conference, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada.

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.

  • Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. Scott, W. R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, Sage

  • Sharma, A. K., & Talwar, B. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: modern vis-à-vis Vedic approach. Measuring Business Excellence, 9(1), 35-45.

  • Sinha, A. (2005). Understanding the rise and transformation of business collective action in India. Business and Politics, 7(2), 1-35.

  • Sood, A., & Arora, B. (2006). The Political Economy of Corporate Responsibility in India. UNRISD.

  • Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modelling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159-205.

  • The Government of India. (2013). Companies Act 2013,, Ministry of Corporate Affairs , New Delhi, India

  • Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 1, 131-147.

  • Zuo, W., Schwartz, M. S., & Wu, Y. (2017). Institutional forces affecting corporate social responsibility behavior of the Chinese food industry. Business & Society, 56(5), 705-737.


Abstract Views: 422

PDF Views: 150




  • Institutional Pressures of CSR:Evidence from India

Abstract Views: 422  |  PDF Views: 150

Authors

Vijita S. Aggarwal
GGSIP University, Dwarka, New Delhi, India
Aruna Jha
Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi University, New Delhi, India

Abstract


The aim of the study is to identify important pressures driving corporate social responsibility practices by companies in India. Institutional pressures are conceptualised as a second order hierarchical component model (reflective formative type) and its multiple dimensions as first order reflective constructs forming second-order components. The model has its ischolar_mains in institutional theory as applied to CSR - linking government, industry association, NGOs, media, local communities and peer groups for overall institutional pressure. An exploratory study was conducted among top level and middle level CSR professionals of companies in S&P BSE 500 index to empirically validate constructs. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used for data analysis. Results indicate that institutional pressures can be measured in a reflective-formative type HCM (Hierarchical Component Model) and local community, peers, media, government and industry association are important triggers for CSR in India. The study provides evidence that stakeholders are exerting institutional pressures on corporates. Further, a new multidimensional institutional pressures formative construct to understand the pressures of CSR in India is proposed which can be used by researchers in future, by policy makers to make sector specific CSR laws and by corporates for training.

Keywords


Institutional Theory, CSR, India, PLS-SEM.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.20968/rpm%2F2018%2Fvl6%2Fi2%2F141023