Good Global Citizen Research Articles

Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders

In recent years, firms have greatly increased the amount of resources allocated to activities classified as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). While an increase in CSR expenditure may be consistent with firm value maximization if it is a response to changes in stakeholders’ preferences, we argue that a firm’s insiders (managers and large blockholders) may seek to over- invest in CSR for their private benefit to the extent that doing so improves their reputations as good global citizens and has a “warm-glow” effect. We test this hypothesis by investigating the relation between firms’ CSR ratings and their ownership and capital structures. Employing a unique data set that categorizes the largest 3000 U.S. corporations as either socially responsible (SR) or socially irresponsible (SI), we find that on average, insiders’ ownership and leverage are negatively related to the firm’s social rating, while institutional ownership is uncorrelated with it. Assuming that higher CSR ratings is associated with higher CSR expenditure level, these results support our hypothesis that insiders induce firms to over-invest in CSR when they bear little of the cost of doing so.

Regional power South Africa: Co-operative hegemony constrained by historical legacy

This article argues that regional powers can be distinguished by four pivotal criteria: claim to leadership, power resources, employment of foreign policy instruments, and acceptance of leadership. Applying these criteria to the South African case, the crucial significance of institutional foreign policy instruments for the power over policy outcomes at the regional and global level is demonstrated. But although Pretoria is ready to pay the costs of co-operative hegemony (capacity building for regional institutions and peacekeeping for instance), the regional acceptance of South African leadership is constrained by its historical legacy. Additionally Pretoria's foreign policy is based on ideational resources such as its reputation as an advocate of democracy and human rights and its paradigmatic behaviour as a ‘good global citizen’ with the according legitimacy. The Mbeki presidency was more successful in converting these resources into discursive instruments of interest-assertion in global, than in regional bargains. In effect the regional power's reformist south-oriented multilateralism is challenging some of the guiding principles of the current international system.

Climate Change and Global Citizenship

The international climate change regime has failed. Even the most optimistic assessment of action to limit greenhouse pollution in the coming few decades will not prevent calamitous changes in Earth's climate. Arguments for international—that is, interstate—justice that have permeated international negotiations on climate change have been insufficient in fostering robust action by states. Indeed, by diverting all responsibility to states, focusing on international justice has not addressed consumption and pollution by hundreds of millions of affluent people around the world, including many millions living within developing states that have no treaty obligations to limit nationwide pollution. Increasingly, however, it is these individuals that matter: more and more of them who are not now subject to any climate‐related legal obligations are able to afford lifestyles that lead to greenhouse gas emissions and more climate change. This is especially true given the very rapid increase in the numbers of affluent people in the developing world. Bearing this in mind, this article goes beyond the still important questions of international climate justice to explore cosmopolitan or global climate justice. Global justice demands that affluent individuals in both affluent and poor states do much more to limit their pollution of the atmosphere. By being good global citizens, capable persons can help states start the world on a path to reducing the severity of climate change.

In His Own Words: The Effectiveness of CEO as Spokesperson on CSR-Sustainability Issues – Analysis of Data from the Sethi CSR Monitor©

The last decade has witnessed a rapid growth in the publication of corporate non-financial reports. Variously called the corporate social responsibility, global citizenship or sustainability report, this type of corporate communication provides an uncensored public venue for corporations to demonstrate their commitments toward good corporate citizenship and socially responsible conduct. There is, however, a paucity of research that evaluates the ability of these reports to reach and to positively persuade their intended audiences. This paper examines the notion of corporate reputation in the context of CSR-sustainability reporting, and evaluates the role of senior corporate executive as the spokesperson in engendering public trust and corporate image as a good global citizen.

Reflections On “Citizenship, Inc.”

Although I share many of the doubts about corporate citizenship of Néron and Norman, I join in their constructive project both by offering friendly criticism and by suggesting that their approach be extended further than they carry it. I argue first that rather than attempting to reform the language of corporate citizenship, we support its use where the effects are positive; second, that we concentrate on the fifth of their candidates for assessment; and third, that we extend the discussion to consider what it means to be a good global citizen, and whether that is compatible with being a good citizen of a particular state.

Indigenous Rights in International Politics: The Case of “Overcompliant” Liberal States

An overcompliant state is one that paradoxically takes actions that recognize specific rights or a category of rights that go beyond or even against that state's international human rights treaty obligations or its normative international commitments. Since there is no existing IR literature that would explain why a state might paradoxically comply or “overcomply” with its stated commitments, there is also no theory to explain what would propel a state to “overcomply” with an emergent norm. Securing indigenous rights means that several critical changes in the international discourse must occur, including an alteration of the liberal international Westphalian system of state sovereignty toward a postliberal, plurinational sovereignty system that includes a separate nation-to-nation and consent-based shared sovereignty arrangement between states and indigenous peoples. “Overcompliance” in indigenous rights occurs under a particular set of conditions: (1) when there is a strong presence of the international indigenous-rights movement within the state; (2) when the state places high value on its reputation as a “good global citizen”; and (3) when change occurs in the state's domestic discourse as it seeks to locate its own postcolonial identity in a globalized world. By examining state “overcompliance,” the author seeks to expose the limits of the current international discourse and the potential to push that discourse further to better accommodate the full spectrum of indigenous rights.

Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders

In recent years firms have greatly increased the amount of resources allocated to activities classified as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). While an increase in CSR expenditure may be consistent with firm value maximization if it is a response to changes in stakeholders' preferences, we argue that a firm's insiders (managers and large blockholders) may seek to over-invest in CSR for their private benefit to the extent that doing so improves their reputations as good global citizens. We test this hypothesis by investigating the relation between firms' CSR ratings and their ownership and capital structures. Employing a unique data set that categorizes the largest 3,000 U.S. corporations as either socially responsible or socially irresponsible, we find that on average, insiders' ownership and leverage are negatively related to the firm's social rating, while institutional ownership is uncorrelated with it. These results support our hypothesis that insiders induce firms to over-invest in CSR when they bear little of the cost of doing so.