“One size fits all”? Convergence in international corporate social responsibility communication—A comparative study of CSR mission statements in the United States and India

• Published date: 01 August 2018
• Author: Matthias S. Fifka,Anna‐Lena Kühn,Markus Stiglbauer
• Date: 01 August 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1670

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

“One size fits all”? Convergence in international corporate

social responsibility communication—A comparative study of

CSR mission statements in the United States and India

Matthias S. Fifka

1

|Anna‐Lena Kühn

2

|Markus Stiglbauer

3

1

Friedrich‐Alexander University

Erlangen‐Nürnberg (FAU), Institute of

Business and Economics, Erlangen, Germany

2

Management in the International Food

Industry, University of Kassel, Witzenhausen,

Germany

3

Friedrich‐Alexander‐University Erlangen‐

Nürnberg (FAU), School of Business and

Economics, Nürnberg, Germany

Correspondence

Matthias S. Fifka, Institute of Business and

Economics, Friedrich‐Alexander University

Erlangen‐Nürnberg (FAU), Kochstraße 4,

91054, Erlangen, Germany.

Email: matthias.fifka@fau.de

So far, no study has investigated determinants that shape corporate social responsibility (CSR)

communication in mission statements, as previous studies have focused on CSR reports and

homepages. Our study, which is based on institutional theory, fills this gap. By conducting a

directed content analysis of the statements of 200 listed companies in the United States and

India, we examine the content conveyed with respect to 5 CSR dimensions, the 5 most prominent

stakeholder groups, and additional components of CSR mission statements. Moreover, we

examine whether Unted States and Indian companies’CSR communication varies according to

their (a) home country, (b) industry affiliation, (c) degree of internationalization, (d) company size,

(e) profitability, (f) founding year, (g) length of the CSR mission statement, and (h) compliance with

the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative. Whereas the findings reveal that the companies’

home country, degree of internationalization, and size have no considerable bearing on their CSR

communication, we evidence that their communication can be explained by their industry

affiliation, the profitability ratio return on assets, founding year, length of the statement, and

compliance with the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines. Moreover, we explain the

cross‐country conformity of CSR communication by a convergence towards global and universal

CSR communication approaches.

1|INTRODUCTION

Companies around the globe are increasingly concerned about

communicating ethically and responsibly to their diverse stakeholders

(Breitbarth, Harris, & Insch, 2010), including the government, NGOs,

employees, investors, customers, suppliers, the media, and the general

public. Since companies face stakeholder scrutiny and pressure toward

their business conduct with respect to governance, employee

treatment, environmental issues, and community involvement, they

increasingly intend to not only disclose financial information but also

to report on the social and environmental impacts of their business

activities. Companies choose different corporate social responsibility

(CSR) communication channels to spread the respective information.

Whereas CSR reports are the most popular instrument to report on

the respective issues (KPMG, 2013), other instruments comprise

annual reports (Cerin, 2002), social and environmental reports

(Chatterji & Levine, 2006; Haddock‐Fraser & Fraser, 2008;

Hooghiemstra, 2000), and corporate websites (Chapple & Moon,

2005; Coupland, 2005; Guimarães‐Costa & Pina e Cunha, 2008; Lober,

Bynum, Campbell, & Jacques, 1997; Stanny & Ely, 2008).

In this context, mission statements expressing companies’CSR

and sustainability strategies have become increasingly important in

the public affairs portfolio of organizations. As condensed statements

of long‐term goals and values, they are essential strategic tools for

internal and external communication. This importance is reflected

by the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) recommendation for

companies to provide a mission and strategy statement as a vital part

of their CSR communication. Thus, the inclusion of such a mission

statement in CSR reports, annual reports, or on corporate websites

has become a certain standard among large companies (GRI, 2011).

By adequately employing these diverse communication channels,

they are able to mitigate risks associated with CSR issues, comply

with inclusion criteria of certain indexes, increase their reputation,

and obtain legitimacy regarding stakeholders (Azzone, Brophy, Noci,

Welford, & Young, 1997; Esrock & Leichty, 1998; Reimsbach &

Hahn, 2013; Ziek, 2009). However, despite these significant poten-

tials, CSR communication is an “often‐overlooked component of

CSR research”(Ziek, 2009, p. 137), because it is as vague and

ambiguous as the entire CSR concept (Coelho, McClure, & Spry,

2003; Frankental, 2001).

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1670

J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1670.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1670

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of16

Due to this fuzzy conceptualization, each company interprets

CSR individually, and the understanding of CSR displayed by an

organization is determined by several organizational as well as cul-

tural factors. Thus, a “one size fits all”approach must clearly be

questioned. Matten and Moon (2008) showed that CSR is highly

contextual, because it depends upon a range of institutional frame-

work conditions, such as the political system, financial, cultural, and

education and labor system. Regarding CSR communication in spe-

cific, the respective social environment was also found to be of

influence (Baughn & McIntosh, 2007; Chapple & Moon, 2005;

Welford, Chan, & Man, 2008). Even the business unit in charge of

communication makes an impact on how CSR is conveyed

(Chamorro & Bañegil, 2006; Frankental, 2001; Hockerts & Moir,

2004). A very large number of studies have focused on variations

in CSR communication across countries, demonstrating significant

differences in international comparison (Adams, Hill, & Roberts,

1998; Adams & Kuasirikun, 2000; Bartolomeo et al., 2000; Birkin

& Jorgensen, 1994; Chapple & Moon, 2005; Chen & Bouvain,

2009; Cormier, Gordon, & Magnan, 2004; Gray, Radebaugh, &

Roberts, 1990; Guthrie & Parker, 1990; Halme & Huse, 1997;

Hartman, Rubin, & Dhanda, 2007; Holland & Foo, 2003; Kolk,

2003; Kolk, 2005; Kolk, 2008; Kolk, Walhain, & Van de Wateringen,

2001; Lober et al., 1997; Maignan & Ralston, 2002; Meek, Roberts,

& Gray, 1995; Morhardt, Baird, & Freeman, 2002; Morhardt, 2010;

Roberts, 1991; Smith, Adhikari, & Tondkar, 2005; Tsang, Welford,

& Brown, 2009; for an overview see Fifka, 2013). Yet, most of these

studies have solely evidenced divergences in the extent and content

of CSR reporting without considering possible contextual variables,

such as the political and socioeconomic environment, that affect

the reporting approach (Fifka & Drabble, 2012). “Due to the

difficulty in isolating the contextual variables and the complex

relationship between cultural factors and [CSR] reporting”(Adams,

2002, p. 225), there is only a limited number of comparative studies

that have coherently investigated the potential impact of cultural

factors and company characteristics (e.g., Buhr & Freedman, 2001;

Cormier et al., 2004; Fifka & Drabble, 2012; Guthrie & Parker,

1990; Steurer & Konrad, 2009).

In order to fill this research gap, this empirical study examines the

impact of the cultural context by focusing on the United States as an

industrialized country and on India as an example of an emerging global

economic power. We chose both countries based on the differences in

their cultural embeddedness and social awareness. As Matten and

Moon (2008) have explained, the United States can be classified as a

country where explicit CSR is practiced, which is voluntary in nature

and driven by the perceived expectations of different stakeholders.

India, on the contrary, “has manifested long‐term implicit CSR”(Matten

& Moon, 2008, p. 418), which is values‐and norm‐based, and forged

by a strong societal consensus on the social responsibility of business.

Moreover, implicit CSR is also characterized by legally mandatory

components that enforce what is perceived as socially responsible

behavior.

In order to investigate the different cultural contexts in both

countries, we apply Whitley’s (1992, 1999, 2000a; 2000b) national

business systems approach, which focuses on institutions, as

theoretical basis. Regarding CSR communication as the target of

investigation of our paper, we build on Hall’s (1959, 1976) widely rec-

ognized distinction between high‐and low‐context communication to

explain potential differences in the reporting practices of companies

from different countries. Before we explain both approaches and apply

them to the United States and India as basis for hypotheses

development, we briefly discuss the concepts of CSR and CSR

communication.

Afterwards, we empirically examine the potential impact of

national characteristics on CSR communication by conducting a

content analysis of CSR mission statements. We investigate their

content with respect to (a) the five CSR dimensions of Dahlsrud

(2008), (b) the five most prominent stakeholder groups according to

Freeman (1984), and (c) additional components of CSR mission

statements, based on the work of Bartkus, Glassman, and McAfee

(2004). The sample comprises the CSR mission statements of the

100 U.S. companies listed on the S&P 100 Index and 100 Indian

companies listed on the S&P CNX Nifty 50 Index and the S&P Nifty

50 Junior Index. Since previous studies—as we discussed above—have

demonstrated the impact of company characteristics on CSR

communication, we further control for the influence of organizational

variables through linear regression. Thus, we develop a linear

regression model to test whether the (a) home country, (b) industry

sector, (c) degree of internationalization, (d) company size, (e)

corporate profitability, (f) founding year, (g) length of the CSR mission

statement, and (h) compliance with the GRI guidelines are

determinants of CSR communication. After presenting and discussing

the findings, we conclude by discussing the implications of our study

and by providing suggestions for future research.

Our study makes an important contribution to the existing CSR

literature in two ways. First, no study so far has analyzed how CSR

is communicated in mission statements, although they have become

a widely used media for CSR communication—mainly because of

the importance ascribed to mission statements by the GRI (GRI,

2011). Second, existing studies have neglected the investigation of

rhetorical CSR communication behaviors expressed through low‐

and high‐context cultures and their dedication to specific CSR issues

(Ziek, 2009).

2|CSR AND CSR COMMUNICATION

Companies are increasingly being expected to apply moral

management and consider the interdependence between business

and society. Yet CSR “has been defined in myriad ways”(Husted &

Allen, 2007, p. 594), and the concept of how companies should

communicate their corporate responsibility has remained “a fuzzy

one with unclear boundaries and debatable legitimacy”(Lantos, 2001,

p. 595). Moreover, the term (corporate) sustainability is often used

synonymously to corporate social responsibility, which creates addi-

tional terminological confusion (Dahlsrud, 2008; O’Riordan &

Fairbrass, 2008). Despite the fact that some scholars argue that CSR

is essentially a component of sustainability (Filho & Pawlak, 2009),

we refer to pertinent literature which understands both concepts as

congruent and thus uses both terms as synonyms (e.g., Hahn &

Kühnen, 2013).

2of16 FIFKA ET AL.