Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Business and Politics

Editor-in-Chief: Aggarwal, Vinod K.


SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.384
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.352
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.459

More options …
Volume 16, Issue 1 (Apr 2014)

Issues

Socializing the C-suite: why some big-box retailers are “greener” than others

Hamish van der Ven
  • Corresponding author
  • University of Toronto, Political Science, Sidney Smith Hall, Room 3018, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2013-12-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bap-2013-0024

Abstract

Despite a considerable push by policy-makers to incentivize green business practices, take-up of environmental initiatives amongst North American retailers has been highly uneven. While some “big-box” retailers have launched ambitious environmental initiatives, others continue to conduct business as usual. This paper asks: why do some mega-retailers commit to ambitious environmental agendas while others in the same sector do not? And how can the answer to this question improve public policy? I investigate these questions using comparative case studies of four North American big-box retailers: Wal-Mart, Target, Costco and Kroger. My findings suggest that the socialization of senior executives through multi-stakeholder sustainability networks is the critical variable accounting for progressive environmental practices in some corporations and not others. This finding suggests that existing public policies that focus on making the business case for sustainability are based on incomplete assumptions about why companies “go green.” It further suggests that socialization theory can help explain broader instances of corporate social responsibility and proposes that scholars in this field should devote more attention to the composition of socializing groups.

References

  • Accenture and UNGC. 2010. A New Era of Sustainability: UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study 2010. Accenture and UNGC.Google Scholar

  • Alderson, Kai. 2001. “Making Sense of State Socialization.” Review of International Studies 27 (3): 415–433.Google Scholar

  • Arena, Christine. 2007. The High Purpose Company. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

  • Barnea, Amir, and Amir Rubin. 2010. “Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders.” Journal of Business Ethics 97 (1): 71–86.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barnett, Michael, and Martha Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bartley, Tim. 2007. “Institutional Emergence in an Era of Globalization: The Rise of Transnational Private Regulation of Labor and Environmental Conditions.” American Journal of Sociology 113 (2): 297–351.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berger, Ida E., Peggy H. Cunningham, and Minnette E. Drumwright. 2007. “Mainstreaming Corporate Social Responsibility: Developing Markets for Virtue.” California Management Review 49 (4): 132–157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bernhagen, Patrick J., Neil Mitchell, and Marianne Thissen-Smits. 2013. “Corporate Citizens and the UN Global Compact: Explaining Cross-National Variations in Turnout.” Business and Politics 15 (1): 63–85.Google Scholar

  • Bernstein, Steven. 2013. “Global Environmental Norms.” In The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy, edited by Robert Falkner. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Bertelsmann Stiftung, and UN Global Compact. 2010. “The Role of Governments in Promoting Corporate Responsibility and Private Sector Engagement in Development.” Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Stiftung. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar

  • Bhandari, Bishnu B., and Osamu Abe. 2001. “Corporate Citizenship and Environmental Education.” International Review for Environmental Strategies (IRES) 2 (1): 61–77.Google Scholar

  • Biersteker, Thomas J., and Rodney Bruce Hall, eds. 2002. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Boddy, David, and Rob Paton. 1998. Management: An Introduction. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

  • Börzel, Tanja A., Jana Hönke, and Christian R. Thauer. 2012. “Does it Really Take the State?” Business and Politics 14 (3): 1–34.Google Scholar

  • Branco, Manuel Castelo, and Lucia Lima Rodrigues. 2006. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource Based Perspectives” Journal of Business Ethics 69 (2): 111–132.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brown, Judy, and Michael Fraser. 2006. “Approaches and Perspectives in Social and Environmental Accounting: An Overview of the Conceptual Landscape.” Business Strategy and the Environment 15 (2): 103–117.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Dana L., Antje Vetterlein, and Anne Roemer-Mahler. 2010. “Theorizing Transnational Corporations as Social Actors: An Analysis of Corporate Motivations.” Business and Politics 12 (1): 1–37.Google Scholar

  • Büthe, Tim. 2010. “Global Private Politics: A Research Agenda.” Business and Politic 12 (3): 1–24.Google Scholar

  • Cashore, Benjamin W., Graeme Auld, and Deanna Newsome. 2004. Governing through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Canadian Business for Social Responsibility (CBSR). 2007. “The Climate Change Guide: Corporate Canada: Responsible Business Action on Climate Change.” Toronto, ON: Canadian Business for Social Responsibility.Google Scholar

  • Carbon Disclosure Project. 2009. “S&P 500 Report.” New York, NY and London, UK: Carbon Disclosure Project.Google Scholar

  • Carbon Disclosure Project. 2010. “S&P 500 Report.” New York, NY and London, UK: Carbon Disclosure Project.Google Scholar

  • Carbon Disclosure Project. 2011. “S&P 500 Report.” New York, NY and London, UK: Carbon Disclosure Project.Google Scholar

  • Carbon Disclosure Project. 2012a. “S&P 500 Report.” New York, NY and London, UK: Carbon Disclosure Project.Google Scholar

  • Carbon Disclosure Project. 2012b. “2012 Scoring Methodology.” Available from: https://www.cdproject.net/Documents/Guidance/CDP-2012-Scoring-Methodology.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2013.

  • Carbon Disclosure Project. 2012c. “Kroger 2012 Investor Response.” Available from: https://www.cdproject.net/Sites/2012/31/10331/Investor%20CDP%202012/Pages/DisclosureView.aspx. Accessed 22 February 2013.

  • Carbon Disclosure Project. 2012d. “Target 2012 Investor Response.” Available from: https://www.cdproject.net/Sites/2012/20/18320/Investor%20CDP%202012/Pages/DisclosureView.aspx. Accessed 22 February 2013.

  • Carbon Disclosure Project. 2012e. “Wal-Mart 2012 Investor Response.” Available from: https://www.cdproject.net/Sites/2012/02/20402/Investor%20CDP%202012/Pages/DisclosureView.aspx. Accessed 22 February 2013.

  • Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2005. “International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework.” International Organization 59 (4): 801–826.Google Scholar

  • Clapp, Jennifer, and Doris Fuchs, eds. 2009. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Collier, Jane, and Rafael Esteban. 2007. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Commitment.” Business Ethics: A European Review 16 (1): 19–33.Google Scholar

  • Costco. 2009. “Corporate Sustainability Report.” Issaquah, WA: Costco.Google Scholar

  • Costco. 2012a. “Annual Report 2012.” Issaquah, WA: Costco.Google Scholar

  • Costco. 2012b. “Seafood and Sustainability.” Issaquah, WA: Costco.Google Scholar

  • Cutler, A. Claire. 2002. “Private International Regimes and Interfirm Cooperation.” In The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, edited by Rodney Bruce Hall and Thomas J. Biersteker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cutler, A. Claire, Virginia Haufler, and Tony Porter. 1999. Private Authority and International Affairs. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

  • Dauvergne, Peter, and Jane Lister. 2010. “The Power of Big Box Retail in Global Environmental Governance: Bringing Commodity Chains Back into IR.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 39 (1): 145–160.Google Scholar

  • Danish Commerce and Companies Agency. 2006. “People & Profit – A Practical Guide to Corporate Social Responsibility.” Copenhagen: Danish Commerce and Companies Agency Danish Business Authority.Google Scholar

  • Delmas, Magali, and Vered Doctori Blass. 2010. “Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: the Trade offs of Sustainability Ratings.” Business Strategy and the Environment 19 (4): 245–260.Google Scholar

  • Deloitte. 2012. “Switching Channels: Global Powers of Retailing 2012.” London: Deloitte.Google Scholar

  • Desai, Ashay B., and Terri Rittenburg. 1997. “Global Ethics: An Integrative Framework for MNEs.” Journal of Business Ethics 16 (8): 791–800.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eden, Lorraine. 1991. “Bringing the Firm Back In: Multinationals in International Political Economy.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 20 (2): 197–224.Google Scholar

  • Egri, Carolyn P., and Susan Herman. 2000. “Leadership in the North American Environmental Sector: Values, Leadership Styles, and Contexts of Environmental Leaders and their Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 571–604.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Finnemore, Martha. 1996. “Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism.” International Organization 50 (2): 325–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fishman, Charles. 2006. “The Wal-Mart Effect and a Decent Society: Who Knew Shopping was So Important?” The Academy of Management Perspectives 20 (3): 6–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar

  • Fri, Robert W. 1992. “The Corporation as a Nongovernment Organization.” The Columbia Journal of World Business 27 (3–4): 91–95.Google Scholar

  • Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Gereffi, Gary, Ronie Garcia-Johnson, and Erika Sasser. 2001. “The NGO-Industrial Complex.” Foreign Policy (July/August): 56–65.Google Scholar

  • Godos-Díez, José-Luis, Roberto Fernández-Gago, and Almudena Martínez-Campillo. 2011. “How Important are CEOs to CSR Practices? An Analysis of the Mediating Effect of the Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 98 (4): 531–548.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Graafland, Johan J., and Bert van de Ven. 2006. “Strategic and Moral Motivation for Corporate Social Responsibility.” Journal of Corporate Citizenship 22: 111–123.Google Scholar

  • Haunschild, Pamela R., and Anne S. Miner. 1997. “Modes of Interorganizational Imitation: The Effects of Outcome Salience and Uncertainty.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (3): 472–500.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hemingway, Christine A., and Patrick W. Maclagan. 2004. “Managers’ Personal Values as Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 50 (1): 33–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Humes, Edward. 2011. Force of Nature: The Unlikely Story of Wal-Mart’s Green Revolution. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar

  • Ilinitch, Anne Y., Naomi S. Soderstrom, and Tom E Thomas. 1998. “Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance.” Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 17 (4): 383–408.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Irvine, Sandy J. A. 2011. “Canadian Refugee Policy: Understanding the Role of International Bureaucratic Networks in Domestic Paradigm Change.” In Policy Paradigms, Transnationalism and Domestic Politics, edited by Grace Skogstad. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

  • Kantz, Carola. 2007. “The Power of Socialization: Engaging the Diamond Industry in the Kimberley Process.” Business and Politics 9 (3): 1–20.Google Scholar

  • Kroger. 2011. “2011 Sustainability Report.” Cincinnati, OH: The Kroger Co.Google Scholar

  • Kroger. 2012. “2012 Sustainability Report.” Cincinnati, OH: The Kroger Co.Google Scholar

  • Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” The American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–693.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lister, Jane. 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility and the State: International Approaches to Forest Co-Regulation. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar

  • March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 2006. “The Logic of Appropriateness.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, edited by Michael Moran, Martin Rein, and Robert E. Goodin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mares, Isabela. 2003. The Politics of Social Risk-Business and Welfare State Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Margolis, Joshua D., and James P. Walsh. 2003. “Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business.” Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (2): 268–305.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Matten, Dirk, and Jeremy Moon. 2004. “Corporate Social Responsibility Education in Europe.” Journal of Business Ethics 54 (4): 323–337.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McWilliams, Abigail, and Donald Siegel. 2001. “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 26 (1): 117–227.Google Scholar

  • Meyer, John P., and Natalie J. Allen. 1997. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Miles, Morgan P., and Jeffrey G. Covin. 2000. “Environmental Marketing: A Source of Reputational, Competitive, and Financial Advantage.” Journal of Business Ethics 23 (3): 299–311.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nehrt, Chad. 1998. “Maintainability of First Mover Advantages When Environmental Regulations Differ Between Countries.” Academy of Management Review 23 (1): 77–97.Google Scholar

  • Newell, Peter, and Matthew Paterson. 2010. Climate Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Newsweek. 2009. “Green Rankings 2009 – US 500.” Available from: http://greenrankings2009.newsweek.com/top500. Accessed 22 February 2013.

  • Newsweek. 2010. “Green Rankings 2010 – US 500.” Available from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/18/green-rankings-us-companies.html. Accessed 22 February 2013.

  • Newsweek. 2011. “Green Rankings 2011 – US 500.” Available from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/features/green-rankings/2011/us.html. Accessed 22 February 2013.

  • Newsweek. 2012a. “Green Rankings 2012: Full Methodology.” Available from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/2012/10/22/newsweek-green-rankings-2012-full-methodology.html. Accessed 22 February 2013.

  • Newsweek. 2012b. “Green Rankings 2012 – US 500.” Available from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/22/newsweek-green-rankings-2012-u-s-500-list.html. Accessed 22 February 2013.

  • Newsweek. 2012c. “Green Rankings 2012: Frequently Asked Questions.” Available from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/08/green-rankings-2012-frequently-asked-questions.html. Accessed 22 February 2013.

  • OECD. 2011. “OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – 2011 Edition.” Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar

  • Park, Susan. 2005. “How Transnational Environmental Advocacy Networks Socialize International Financial Institutions: A Case Study of the International Finance Corporation.” Global Environmental Politics 5 (4): 95–119.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Perez-Batres, Luis A., Van V. Miller, and Michael J. Pisani. 2011. “Institutionalizing Sustainability: An Empirical Study of Corporate Registration and Commitment to the United Nations Global Compact Guidelines.” Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (8): 843–851.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Porter, Michael E., and Mark Kramer. 2006. “Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Harvard Business Review 84 (12): 78–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Porter, Michael E., and Claas Van der Linde. 1995. “Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (4): 97–118.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Porter, Tony, and Karsten Ronit, eds. 2010. The Challenges of Global Business Authority: Democratic Renewal, Stalemate or Decay? Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

  • Potoski, Matthew, and Aseem Prakash. 2005. “Green Clubs and Voluntary Governance: ISO 14001 and Firms’ Regulatory Compliance.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 235–248.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Prakash, Aseem. 2001. “Why Do Firms Adopt ‘Beyond-Compliance’ Environmental Policies?” Business Strategy and the Environment 10 (5): 286–299.Google Scholar

  • Reinhardt, Forest. 1999. “Market Failure and the Environmental Policies of Firms: Economic Rationales for “Beyond Compliance” Behavior.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 3 (1): 9–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Risse, Thomas. 2000. “Let’s Argue!: Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 54 (1): 1–39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Risse, Thomas, Stephen Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, eds. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ruggie, John G. 2002. “The Theory and Practice of Learning Networks: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Global Compact.” Journal of Corporate Citizenship 5: 27–36.Google Scholar

  • Ruggie, John G. 2004. “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain – Issues, Actors, and Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 10 (4): 499–531.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sangle, Shirish. 2010. “Critical Success Factors for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Public Sector Perspective.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17 (4): 205–214.Google Scholar

  • Schaper, Marcus. 2007. “Leveraging Green Power: Environmental Rules for Project Finance.” Business and Politics 9 (3): 1–27.Google Scholar

  • Schreurs, Miranda A. 2008. “From the Bottom Up Local and Subnational Climate Change Politics.” The Journal of Environment & Development 17 (4): 343–355.Google Scholar

  • Sims, Randi L., and Thomas L. Keon. 1997. “Ethical Work Climate as a Factor in the Development of Person-Organization Fit.” Journal of Business Ethics 16 (11): 1095–1105.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Strange, Susan. 1992. “Big Business and the State.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 20 (2): 245–250.Google Scholar

  • Target. 2011. “Corporate Responsibility Report.” Minneapolis, MN: Target Corporation.Google Scholar

  • Target. 2012. “Corporate Responsibility Report.” Minneapolis, MN: Target Corporation.Google Scholar

  • Thauer, Christian R. 2013. “Goodness Comes From Within: Intra-Organizational Dynamics of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Business & Society: 1–34 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar

  • The International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics. 2009. “A Global Review of Insurance Industry Responses to Climate Change”.Google Scholar

  • Trevino, Linda K., Gary R. Weaver, Donald Gibson, and Barbara Toffler. 1999. “Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance: What Works and What Hurts.” California Management Review 41 (2): 131–151.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Trevino, Linda K., Laura Hartman, and Michael Brown. 2000. “Moral Person and Moral Managers.” California Management Review 42 (4): 128–142.Google Scholar

  • UNEP. 2012. “The Business Case for the Green Economy: Sustainable Return on Investment”.Google Scholar

  • UNEP and Sustain Ability. 2001. “Buried Treasure: Uncovering the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability”.Google Scholar

  • UNGC. 2012. “After the Signature: A Guide to Engagement in the United Nations Global Compact”.Google Scholar

  • van der Ven, Hamish. 2013. “Bringing Values Back into CSR.” Business Ethics Journal Review 1 (16): 99–105.Google Scholar

  • Vandenbergh, Michael. 2007. “The New Wal-Mart Effect: The Role of Private Contracting in Global Governance.” UCLA Law Review 54: 913–970.Google Scholar

  • Vogel, David. 2006. The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar

  • Waltz, Kenneth. 1959. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wal-Mart. 2008. “Sustainability Progress to Date 2007–2008.” Bentonville, AR: Wal-Mart.Google Scholar

  • Wal-Mart. 2009. “2009 Global Sustainability Report.” Bentonville, AR: Wal-Mart.Google Scholar

  • Wal-Mart. 2010. “Global Sustainability Report: 2010 Progress Update.” Bentonville, AR: Wal-Mart.Google Scholar

  • Wal-Mart. 2011. “2011 Global Responsibility Report.” Bentonville, AR: Wal-Mart.Google Scholar

  • Wal-Mart. 2012. “2012 Global Responsibility Report.” Bentonville, AR: Wal-Mart.Google Scholar

  • Willard, Bob. 2002. The Sustainability Advantage: Seven Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line. Gabriola Island, B.C: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar

  • World Bank. 2012. “GDP (current US$).” World Bank Data Catalog. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2010+wbapi_data_value&sort=desc). Accessed 7 February 2013.

About the article

Corresponding author: Hamish van der Ven, University of Toronto, Political Science, Sidney Smith Hall, Room 3018, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3G3, Tel.: 647-965-2860, e-mail:


Published Online: 2013-12-13

Published in Print: 2014-04-01


Amongst others: Eden (1991); Strange (1992); Cutler, Haufler, and Porter (1999); Biersteker and Hall (2002); Vogel (2006); Clapp and Fuchs (2009); Büthe (2010); Dauvergne and Lister (2010); Porter and Ronit (2010); Lister (2011); Börzel, Hönke, and Thauer (2012).

For a defining statement of the business case for sustainability, see: Willard (2002).

For brevity, the legally registered names of these companies are here shortened to: Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, and Kroger.

A justification for this definition is provided in Section 5. See Delmas and Blass (2010: p. 246); Ilinitch, Soderstrom, and Thomas (1998).

Amongst other theories, scholars have variously pointed to the interplay of civil society and transnational corporations in creating new expectations about the global public role of private enterprise (Ruggie 2004: p. 519) or a global neoliberal agenda that abets firms in gradually supplanting the governance role of the state (Cutler 2002: pp. 32–33).

This figure represents the combined total 2010 group revenue of Wal-Mart, Kroger, Costco, and Target as reported in: Deloitte (2012: p. G11).

Comparison based on national gross domestic product (GDP) in USD for the same year, as reported in: World Bank (2012).

Dauvergne and Lister (2010: p. 147).

Dauvergne and Lister (2010: p. 147). The role of corporations in areas of limited statehood is further developed in Börzel, Hönke, and Thauer (2012).

An example being Wal-Mart’s decision to stop selling milk from cows treated with growth hormones. The decision resulted in a wave of similar policies in grocers across the US. See: “Major Grocer to Label Foods With Gene-Modified Content,” New York Times, 8 March 2013.

Schreurs (2008).

Vandenbergh (2007). For other examples of the “Wal-Mart Effect” see: Fishman (2006).

Bertelsmann Stiftung and UN Global Compact (2010: p. 5).

Danish Commerce and Companies Agency (2006: Preface).

Bertelsmann Stiftung and UN Global Compact (2010: p. 34).

Danish Commerce and Companies Agency (2006: Preface).

A full review of these policies is out of the scope of this article. However, the Government of Canada’s attempt to induce CSR in the mining sector is another good example of using economic incentives to induce sound social and environmental practices. See: Government of Canada. “Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector.” Available from: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/ds/csr-strategy-rse-stategie.aspx?view=d. Accessed 6 February 2013.

UNGC (2012: p. 7).

UNGC (2012: p. 5).

UNEP and Sustain Ability (2001); OECD (2011: p. 44); UNEP (2012).

Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler (2010); Margolis and Walsh (2003) contain comprehensive reviews of the field.

Other authors have attempted to create typologies of CSR theory. Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler also use a two-by-two matrix with internal-external on one axis and structure-actors on the other [Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler (2010: p. 6)].

This dichotomy is outlined in March and Olsen (2006). An analogy can be made to “strategic” vs. “moral” drivers of CSR or to “continuance commitment” vs. “normative commitment” as these categories are sometimes termed in the management studies literature. See Meyer and Allen (1997); Branco and Rodrigues (2006); Graafland and van de Ven (2006).

March and Olsen (2006: p. 248).

March and Olsen (2006: p. 249).

Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler (2010: p. 5). Friedman famously wrote: “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” Friedman (1962: p. 133).

Waltz (1959).

Porter and Kramer (2006: p. 80). Miles and Covin (2000); Ruggie (2002: p. 35).

Sims and Keon (1997). Especially in cutting-edge industries where personnel increasingly look for more than monetary awards, see: Ruggie (2002: p. 35).

Notably, stakeholder theory. See Freeman (1984).

On the threat of shareholder activism, see: The International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (2009: p. 59). On ENGO ‘naming and shaming’ campaigns, see: Bartley (2007: p. 299); Gereffi, Garcia-Johnson, and Sasser (2001); on NGOs targeting financial institutions, see Schaper (2007); on pressure from regional political institutions, see Bernhagen, Mitchell, and Thissen-Smits (2013); on pressure from international political institutions, see: Park (2005).

Prakash (2001: p. 289). See also: Fri (1992); Reinhardt (1999); Porter and van der Linde (1995); Nehrt (1998).

Prakash (2001: p. 289).

Thauer (2013: pp. 10–11). Organizational structure has also been used to explain labor-related CSR, see Mares (2003).

Prakash (2001: p. 296).

Prakash (2001: p. 293). A similar argument is made by Barnea and Rubin (2010).

Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler (2010: p. 5). See also Brown and Fraser (2006).

Newell and Paterson (2010: p. 52).

Cashore, Auld, and Newsome (2004).

Barnett and Finnemore (2004); Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler (2010: p. 13).

Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler (2010: p. 15).

Arena (2007); Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright (2007). Others suggest that changing organizational culture is a necessary precursor to implementing CSR, see Bhandari and Abe (2001).

Desai and Rittenberg (1997: p. 3); McWilliams and Siegel (2001); Hemingway and Maclagan (2004); Godos-Diez, Fernández-Gago, and Martínez-Campillo (2011).

Trevino et al. (1999); Canadian Business for Social Responsibility (CBSR) (2007: p. 34); Sangle (2010).

Egri and Herman (2000: p. 599).

Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright (2007); Collier and Esteban (2007); Trevino, Hartman and, Brown (2000).

Vogel (2006: p. 45).

For example, Shell’s decision to sink the Brent Spar, an obsolete oil rig in the North Sea, led to Greenpeace protests in 1995 and eventually prompted major reconsideration of Shell’s environmental practices. See Porter and Kramer (2006: p. 80).

For example, Wal-Mart has pursued environmental initiatives aggressively, but has made relatively little progress on labor-relations and gender equity, despite arguably facing more pressure from NGO campaigns.

Bernstein (2013: p. 140).

See, for example, van der Ven’s critique of Thauer: van der Ven (2013).

Prakash (2001: p. 293).

Egri and Herman (2000: p. 599).

Matten and Moon (2004) is an exception. The authors speak to the role of executive education in shaping managerial values.

Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler (2010: p. 20).

A “value” is here defined rather broadly as being a “principle or norm that guides behavior,” see Hemingway and Maclagan (2004: p. 36). Eco-centric values are therefore those that deeply value and identify with nature, see Egri and Herman (2000: p. 572).

Checkel (2005: p. 804). See also Alderson (2001).

Prominent examples included: Adler and Barnett (1998) on security communities, Finnemore (1996) on the European Union, Irvine (2011) on domestic policy paradigms, and Slaughter (2004) on global government networks. For overviews see: Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink (1999) and the special issue of International Organization of which Checkel (2005) is the introductory article.

Checkel (2005: p. 804).

Checkel (2005: p. 804).

Checkel (2005: p. 812). See also Risse (2000); Kantz (2007: p. 7).

Slaughter (2004: p. 198).

Freeman (1984).

A notable exception is Kantz (2007) on how socialization helps explain diamond industry engagement in the Kimberley Process.

A summary of such works is available in Prakash (2001: p. 291).

Checkel (2005: p. 804).

Although, it is worth noting that socialization is a two-way process. In some cases, the interests of non-corporate entities may realign to allow for the ongoing importance of corporate interests. See Kantz (2007: p. 9).

Although, Checkel does specify a number of broader conditions under which identity and interest change are most like to occur (1) “The target of the socialization attempt is in a novel and uncertain environment and thus cognitively motivated to analyze new information. (2) The target has few prior, ingrained beliefs that are inconsistent with the socializing agency’s message. (3) The socializing agency/individual is an authoritative member of the ingroup to which the target belongs or wants to belong. (4) The socializing agency/individual does not lecture or demand but, instead, acts out principles of serious deliberative argument. (5) The agency/target interaction occurs in less politicized and more insulated, in-camera settings.” Checkel (2005: p. 813).

DiMaggio and Powell (1983); Haunschild and Miner (1997).

DiMaggio and Powell (1983); Haunschild and Miner (1997).

Perez-Bartres, Miller, and Pisani (2011: p. 850).

See: Boddy and Paton (1998: p. 118); Trevino et al. (1999); Prakash (2001: p. 287); Sangle (2010).

Prakash (2001: p. 287).

For example, groups like the National Association for Environmental Management or the Reusable Packaging Association.

For example, while several firms in this study have engaged with the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance or the National Governor’s Association on environmental initiatives, these groups are not considered MSSNs because they maintain broader agendas.

The same stipulation holds for many eco-labeling organizations, since membership does not reflect a dialogue between industry and external stakeholders.

This is the research design suggested in Brown, Vetterlein and Roemer-Mahler because the small-n sample “can yield more refined understandings of the weight of various contextual and agency factors, and how they intersect in practice” (Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler 2010: p. 24).

Lijphart (1971).

See Ilinitch, Soderstrom, and Thomas (1998); Delmas and Blass (2010: p. 246).

Ilinitch, Soderstrom, and Thomas (1998: p. 388).

Ilinitch, Soderstrom, and Thomas (1998: p. 389).

See Ilinitch, Soderstrom, and Thomas (1998); Delmas and Blass (2010).

Newsweek (2012c). For a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate the NGBR, see: Newsweek (2012a). For further comments on credibility, see: “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Newsweek’s Green Rankings,” Greenbiz.com, 17 October 2011.

Newsweek (2012a).

The NGBR’s disclosure (transparency) score was only introduced in 2011, having replaced a reputation survey score, which was based on an opinion survey of CSR experts, academics and other environmental experts. Thus the NGBR is not a good measure of transparency for this time period. While the CDP Disclosure Rating reflects the degree to which companies are transparent on their climate change performance, CDP reports often reflect broader environmental goals than climate change. Hence, the CDP Disclosure Rating is a reasonable proxy for a firm’s transparency about its environmental initiatives more generally. See Newsweek (2012a).

Prakash (2001: p. 288).

Prakash (2001: p. 288).

While Target outperformed the other retailers in its Environmental Impact Score in 2011, its ranking fell due to a poor Environmental Management score that year. This may be due to the relatively late release of its 2011 sustainability report.

The significant fluctuation in rankings year-over-year reflects the evolution of the NGBR methodology. Slight changes in methodology between years can lead to big swings in a company’s ranking relative to others. For our purposes, it suffices that the position of the four retailers relative to each other remains largely unchanged across time.

See Wal-Mart (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012).

Potoski and Prakash (2005).

CDP (2012e: p. 6.1b).

Target (2011: p. 11).

Target (2011: p. 13).

Target (2011: p. 14).

Prominent initiatives include constructing energy efficient warehouses, reducing plastic PVC packaging, and recycling waste materials. See: Costco (2012a: pp. 13–14).

“Costco Steps Up Sustainable Seafood Policy,” Triplepundit.com, 3 March 2011.

“Costco makes a move toward ocean protection,” Greenpeace.org, 28 February 2011. Greenpeace singled out Costco for a campaign, setting-up a website called oh-no-costco.com to publicize its grievances.

The exact number of this rate of investment is unspecified. CDP (2012c: p. 3.3c).

Kroger (2012: p. 30).

“Wal-Mart kept NGO partnerships on the DL,” Reuters, 13 March 2008.

A more detailed version of Wal-Mart’s sustainability journey is presented in Humes (2011).

“The Green Machine,” Fortune Magazine, 31 July 2006. Available from: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/07/8382593/index.htm. Accessed 10 March 2011.

“The Green Machine,” Fortune Magazine, 31 July 2006.

The events in this paragraph are described in: “Wal-Mart Chairman: How We Came to Embrace Sustainability,” Fortune, 17 April 2012. Available from: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/17/rob-walton-peter-seligmann-transcript/. Accessed 21 August 2013. They are a transcript of an interview of Rob Walton and Peter Seligmann describing their initial contact and how it shaped Wal-Mart’s sustainability practices.

“The Green Machine,” Fortune Magazine, 31 July 2006.

“Wal-Mart’s Scott: “We Were Getting Nowhere,”” BusinessWeek, 21 September 2005. Available from: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2005/nf20050922_2095_db008.htm. Accessed 16 March 2011.

“Wal-Mart’s Scott: “We Were Getting Nowhere,”” BusinessWeek, 21 September 2005.

“The Green Machine,” Fortune Magazine, 31 July 2006.

“The Green Machine,” Fortune Magazine, 31 July 2006.

CDP 2012e, 2.3a.

“Wal-Mart kept NGO partnerships on the DL,” Reuters, 13 March 2008.

“Wal-Mart kept NGO partnerships on the DL,” Reuters, 13 March 2008.

The fact that SVNs focused “primarily on environmental impact” might also explain why Wal-Mart has been so active in this domain, and less active in other aspects of CSR. See Wal-Mart (2008): p. 11.

Wal-Mart (2012: p. 2).

“Wal-Mart Chairman: How We Came to Embrace Sustainability,” Fortune, 17 April 2012.

“WRI Board of Directors.” World Resources Institute. Available from http://www.wri.org/about/board. Accessed 22 February 2013.

Target (2011: p. 3).

Target (2011: pp. 43–44).

CDP (2012d: p. 2.3a).

“WRI Corporate Consultative Group.” World Resources Institute. Avialable from: http://www.wri.org/corporate-consultative-group. Accessed 22 February 2013.

Target (2012: p. 9).

Interview transcript from: “How Target aims to hit the mark on sustainability,” Greenbiz.com, 14 April 2013.

CDP (2012d: p. 1.1a and 2.1a).

Costco (2009: p. 10).

Costco (2009: p. 2).

“WWF Collaborates with Costco Wholesale to Assess Wild-Caught Fisheries and to Further Develop a Sustainable Sourcing Strategy,” World Wildlife Fund. 16 March 2011. See also: Costco (2012b: p. 2).

“Costco makes a move toward ocean protection,” Greenpeace.org, 28 February 2011. More recently, Costco has become a member of the Global Partnership for Oceans, but this may also be an attempt to save face after the Greenpeace campaign.

Costco (2009, 2012a).

Costco (2009; p. 12).

Notable exceptions include partnerships with WWF on reforming seafood procurement and The Sustainability Consortium on life cycle analysis. See: Kroger (2011: p. 21).

CDP (2012c: p. 1.2a).

CDP (2012c: p. 2.2a).

CDP (2012c: p. 2.3a).

A similar appeal is made in Brown, Vetterlein, and Roemer-Mahler (2010: p. 25).

Bernstein (2013: p. 141).

Vogel (2006: p. 4).

Bernstein (2013: p. 142).

Checkel (2005: p. 804).

Accenture and UNGC (2010: p. 42).


Citation Information: Business and Politics, ISSN (Online) 1469-3569, ISSN (Print) 1369-5258, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bap-2013-0024.

Export Citation

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in