Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting as Substantive and Symbolic Behavior: A Multilevel Theoretical Analysis

• Date: 01 June 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12089
• Author: Kareem M. Shabana,Elizabeth C. Ravlin
• Published date: 01 June 2016

Corporate Social

Responsibility Reporting as

Substantive and Symbolic

Behavior: A Multilevel

Theoretical Analysis

KAREEM M. SHABANA AND ELIZABETH C. RAVLIN

ABSTRACT

This article describes a multilevel theoretical framework that

examines the multiple causes of corporate social responsibil-

ity (CSR) reporting in the social environment of business. We

argue that substantive and/or symbolic reporting flows from

individual-, aggregate-, organizational-, and institution-level

phenomena, and is thus a complex outcome of CSR and cor-

porate social performance (CSP). Theoretical lenses range

from reinforcement theory at the microlevel to legitimacy

and stakeholder theories at the macrolevel, and include a

discussion of the emergence of lower-level CSR-relevant

characteristics to higher level constructs. Our goal is to clar-

ify how this behavior develops from microlevel, mesolevel,

and macrolevel processes with a view toward assisting cor-

porations to better enact CSR reporting, and their stakehold-

ers to effectively promote substantive reporting behavior.

Kareem M. Shabana is an Associate Professor of Management at the Department of Manage-

ment and Organization, School of Business, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain,

CT. E-mail: kshabana@ccsu.edu. Elizabeth C. Ravlin is an Associate Professor of Management

at the Department of Management, Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Caro-

lina, Columbia, SC. E-mail: ravlin@moore.sc.edu.

V

C2016 Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.,

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.

Business and Society Review 121:2 297–327

bs_bs_banner

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting has gained

widespread acceptance, to the extent that it is considered

“the de facto law for business” (KPMG International Coop-

erative 2011). Research on CSR reporting (e.g., Archel et al. 2009;

Belal and Roberts 2010; Criado-Jim

enez et al. 2008; Elijido-Ten

et al. 2010; Mahadeo et al. 2011; Orij 2010; Tilling and Tilt 2010;

van der Laan Smith et al. 2010) examines reporting behavior using

three fundamental perspectives: legitimacy theory (Dowling and

Pfeffer 1975; Preston and Post 1975; Suchman 1995), stakeholder

theory (Freeman 1984; Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar and de

Colle, 2010), and the corporate communication perspective (van

Riel and Fombrun 2007). These perspectives generally suggest that

a corporation participates in CSR reporting to strengthen its legiti-

macy, enhance its reputation, and build a competitive advantage

(Hooghiemstra 2000).

A corporation’s ability to achieve these objectives is contingent

on the extent to which its stakeholders favorably perceive the

disclosed information about its corporate social performance

(CSP). Accordingly, one might expect that only corporations with

favorable CSP would publish CSR reports; however, corporations

with favorable or unfavorable CSP engage in reporting (Dawkins

and Fraas 2011). Lindblom (2010) explains CSR reporting by

corporations with unfavorable CSP as attempts to manipulate

stakeholder perceptions. This explanation has raised concerns

about a corporation’s creating positive perceptions about their

poor performance (Lindblom 2010)—a practice that has come to

be known as “greenwashing” (Delmas and Burbano 2011, pp.

64–65).

While the explanation that corporations with favorable CSP dis-

close credible information while those with unfavorable CSP engage

in greenwashing sheds some light on the factors affecting CSR

reporting, little attention has been given to examining the proc-

esses underlying these behaviors. A more careful investigation of

these processes would provide a deeper understanding of the

reporting behavior, especially of the drivers of both credible CSR

reporting and greenwashing.

To fill this gap, we propose a multilevel analytic framework for

CSR reporting that depicts it as an outcome of individual-, team/

unit-, organizational-, and institutional-level processes. The

298 CSR REPORTING AS SUBSTANTIVE AND SYM BOLIC BEHAVIOR