Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to explore the firm’s and country-level institutional forces that determine banks’ CSR reporting diversity, during the recent global financial crisis.Design/methodology/approachSpecifically, this study assesses whether economic and institutional conditions explain CSR disclosure strategies used by 30 listed and unlisted banks from six countries in the context of the recent 2007/2008 global financial crisis. The annual reports and social responsibility reports of the largest banks in Canada, the UK, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal were content analyzed.FindingsThe findings suggest that economic factors do not influence CSR disclosure. Institutional factors associated with the legal environment, industry self-regulation and the organization’s commitments in maintaining a dialogue with relevant stakeholders are crucial elements in explaining CSR reporting. Consistent with the Dillard et al.’s (2004) model, CSR disclosure by banks not only stems from institutional legitimacy processes, but also from strategic ones.Practical implicationsThe findings highlight the importance of CSR regulation to properly monitor manager’s’ opportunistic use of CSR information and regulate the assurance activities (regarding standards, their profession or even the scope of assurance) to guarantee the proper credibility reliability of CSR information.Originality/valueThe study makes two major contributions. First, it extends and modifies the model used by Chih et al. (2010). Second, drawn on the new institutional sociology, this study develops a theoretical framework that combines the multilevel model of the dynamic process of institutionalization, transposition and deinstitutionalization of organizational practices developed by Dillard et al. (2004) with Campbell’s (2007) theoretical framework of socially responsible behavior. This theoretical framework incorporates a more inclusive social context, aligned with a more comprehensive sociology-based institutional theory (Dillard et al., 2004; Campbell, 2007), which has never been used in the CSR reporting literature hitherto.

Highlights

  • The present study investigates a particular aspect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: CSR disclosure by banks from Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal over the period of 2005-2011, exploring the firm’s and country-level institutional forces that determine bank’s CSR reporting diversity, during a period of financial crisis.This research objective is motivated by three main aspects

  • Drawn on the new institutional sociology, this study develops a theoretical framework that combines the multilevel model of the dynamic process of institutionalization, transposition, and deinstitutionalization of organizational practices developed by Dillard et al (2004) with the Campbell’s (2007) theoretical framework of socially responsible behavior

  • This theoretical framework incorporates a more inclusive social context, aligned with a more comprehensive sociology-based institutional theory (Dillard et al, 2004; Campbell, 2007), which has never been used in the CSR reporting literature hitherto

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The present study investigates a particular aspect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: CSR disclosure by banks from Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal over the period of 2005-2011, exploring the firm’s and country-level institutional forces that determine bank’s CSR reporting diversity, during a period of financial crisis. A theoretical framework that integrates these two visions is helpful to understand how institutional power flows along the three hierarchical levels (macro organizational level, organizational field level, and organizational level) and how it influences the evaluation criteria of organizational legitimacy when institutional pressures occur This allow us to capture an insightful explanation of the diversity and dynamics of CSR reporting by banks in the context of a financial crisis. We finalize with the conclusions, limitations, and suggestions for further studies

Literature Review
Methodology
4.Empirical Results
5.Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.