Varieties of CSR: institutions and socially responsible behaviour
File version
Accepted Manuscript (AM)
Author(s)
Wood, Geoffrey
Makhmadshoev, Dilshod
Rymkevich, Olga
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
Size
File type(s)
Location
Abstract
A central concern within contemporary socio-economics has been on the relationship between national institutional configurations and societal outcomes. In this paper, we assess the relationship between legal origin and a range of correlated indicators of social responsibility, focusing on socially responsible investing and voluntary charitable giving. We found that in Common Law contexts, lower levels of social responsibility than in Civil Law contexts, other than in the area of charitable giving, where the converse was the case. We explore the reasons for this distinction, and for the different patterns encountered in post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe. Based on the findings, we identify directions for future research.
Journal Title
International Business Review
Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume
26
Issue
6
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement
© 2017 Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.
Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject
Business systems in context
Human resources and industrial relations
Strategy, management and organisational behaviour
Corporate governance
Stakeholder engagement
Marketing
Social Sciences
Business & Economics
Legal origin
Corporate social responsibility
Persistent link to this record
Citation
Demirbag, M; Wood, G; Makhmadshoev, D; Rymkevich, O, Varieties of CSR: institutions and socially responsible behaviour, International Business Review, 2017, 26 (6), pp. 1064-1074