Are you in need of online assignment help in the UK with AI-free case study? Look no further than Native Assignment Help. We have a dedicated team of professionals who are committed to delivering customised support for your academic needs and ensuring that you get excellent marks on all your assignments.
Introduction: Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is gaining in significance as businesses become more aware of the need to strike a balance between their financial objectives and their social and environmental responsibilities. Yet, due to cultural variations, CSR procedures can vary depending on the nation in which a corporation operates. The relationship between national culture and CSR has been studied in order to comprehend how cultural elements affect CSR practises. According to certain studies, cultures that are more individualistic tend to favour shareholder wealth over CSR, while cultures that are more collectivist tend to promote CSR. We shall summarise the results of many studies and reach our own judgements about how national cultures affect CSR in this review.
Brief about CSR concept
A concept known as "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) describes the voluntary measures a firm takes to address social and environmental issues outside of its legal obligations. CSR entails a business accepting accountability for how its operations affect society and the environment and working to make those impacts better. This can involve initiatives like lowering greenhouse gas emissions, fostering employee wellbeing, making contributions to the neighbourhood, and guaranteeing the ethical and sustainable source of raw materials (Halbusi, 2017). CSR is crucial because it enables businesses to show their dedication to moral and sustainable business practises, which can foster confidence among all stakeholders, including clients, investors, and staff. Also, it may result in greater connections with regional groups and governing authorities, as well as a rise in brand value and reputation (Riano, 2020).
How Culture and CSR is linked
CSR and culture are intertwined in several ways. Country culture can shape stakeholders' expectations of a company's social and environmental responsibilities as well as the values, beliefs, and attitudes of individuals and organisations towards CSR. For instance, there can be a higher expectation that businesses will contribute to social welfare and the greater good in collectivist societies, which place a greater emphasis on the importance of the community over the individual (Eriksson, 2019). Companies may put shareholder value ahead of social and environmental concerns in individualistic cultures where success and personal achievement are valued. Furthermore, cultural aspects may have an impact on how businesses execute CSR strategies. For instance, whereas charity may be a significant heritage in some cultures, others may place a larger emphasis on environmental sustainability or worker well-being. Moreover, cultural variations may influence how stakeholders are informed about and react to CSR projects. Some cultures may see CSR initiatives favourably, while others may view them as a kind of "greenwashing" or an endeavour to boost a professional image despite making significant changes to its business practises (Rishi, 2013).
Review of different article on how national cultures impact CSR
The article "Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe" by Andre? Habisch, Jonker, J., Wegner, M., Rene? Schmidpeter and Springerlink (Online Service) published in 2005 provides an overview of the state of CSR practices in Europe at the time. The study draws upon the findings of several national surveys on CSR, including Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain, to analyse the similarities and differences in CSR practices across these countries. The strength of the research lies in the comprehensive analysis of CSR practices in Europe, which provides valuable insights into the factors that influence CSR practices in different countries. The study highlights the role of national culture, institutional frameworks, and stakeholder expectations in shaping CSR practices. Additionally, the article provides a useful framework for analysing CSR practices, which can be applied to other contexts beyond Europe. However, one weakness of the research is that it relies heavily on secondary data, which may not be comprehensive or up-to-date. Additionally, the research does not provide a detailed analysis of the specific CSR practices adopted by companies in each country, making it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about the effectiveness of these practices (Jonker, 2005).
In terms of objective discussion and assessment of other people's research, the authors provide a balanced and objective analysis of the different national surveys on CSR, highlighting both their strengths and limitations. They also distinguish clearly between facts and opinions, providing a rigorous analysis of the data. However, there are some inconsistencies in the current knowledge and understanding of CSR practices in Europe. For example, some studies suggest that there is a positive correlation between CSR and financial performance, while others find no such relationship. Additionally, the article does not address the potential biases or omissions in the published research, which may limit the validity of the findings (Fooks, 2013).
Overall, it can be said that , the article "Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe" provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of CSR practices in Europe, highlighting the role of national culture, institutional frameworks, and stakeholder expectations. While there are some limitations to the research, the article provides a useful framework for analysing CSR practices, which can be applied to other contexts beyond Europe. Future research should aim to address the inconsistencies and gaps in current knowledge and understanding of CSR practices, and provide more comprehensive and up-to-date data on CSR practices across different countries and sectors.
The study "CSR as business strategy: A study of CSR integration in Norwegian enterprises" by Cramer and Stensaker (2009) offers an alternative perspective to the article "Corporate Social Responsibility Throughout Europe" by Habisch et al. Cramer and Stensaker specifically concentrate on the integration of CSR into business strategy in Norwegian enterprises, whereas Habisch et al. present a general overview of CSR practises throughout Europe. The amount of analysis used in the two studies is one significant distinction. Although Cramer and Stensaker examine internal company dynamics and how CSR is incorporated into business strategy, Habisch et al. concentrate on the national context and the impact of cultural elements on CSR activities. Strengths include a thorough investigation of the specific CSR strategies used by Norwegian businesses and the variables affecting how CSR is incorporated into corporate strategy by Cramer and Stensaker. The study offers insights into various CSR integration strategies, including the top-down strategy, where senior management is responsible for driving CSR, and the bottom-up strategy, where employees are responsible for driving CSR. The research's limitation to Norwegian businesses means that it may not be representative of CSR activities in other nations or areas, which is one of its flaws. Furthermore, the study does not cover the core topic of Habisch et al. study, which is the impact of cultural influences on CSR activities (,Stensaker 2009).
By taking into account the aforementioned main ideas, the opposing perspective offered by Cramer and Stensaker provides a more in-depth analysis of the particular CSR methods employed by businesses and how they incorporate CSR into their business strategy. This strategy, meanwhile, can ignore the broader institutional and cultural influences that drive CSR activities in many nations and areas. Despite the fact that Habisch et al. present a more thorough examination of CSR procedures in Europe, their study might not give a thorough grasp of the particular practises used by different organisations. In addition, the study makes extensive use of secondary data, which may reduce the validity of the conclusions. Ultimately, both studies provide insightful information about CSR efforts in Europe, albeit from distinct angles. To give a more thorough knowledge of the variables that define CSR practises in various nations and regions, as well as how they are incorporated into business strategy at the firm level, future study should seek to integrate these many viewpoints. Such research could also correct potential biases or omissions in previous studies and give more thorough and current information on CSR practises in other nations.
The effects of cultural and geographic contexts on corporate social performance (CSP) are examined across 48 nations in the study "A Worldwide Examination of Corporate Social Performance: The Impacts of Cultural and Geographic Environments" by Ho et al. (2011). The goal of the study is to give a thorough investigation of the variables that affect CSP globally, with a focus on the significance of cultural and geographic settings. The research's vast sample size, which contains information from 48 countries spanning various areas and cultures, is one of its strongest points. The study employs a comprehensive measure of CSP that takes into account a number of factors, including labour practises, product safety, and environmental performance. The authors additionally evaluate the effect of cultural and geographic settings on CSP using multiple regression analysis to account for potential confounding variables. The research's dependence on secondary data, however, presents a limitation that may reduce the validity of the conclusions. The authors also recognise the possibility of omitted variable bias because there might be more variables that affect CSP but are not included in the data. Regarding objectivity, the authors make a clear distinction between facts and opinions and go into great detail on the study's constraints and potential biases. They also highlight discrepancies in the present knowledge and understanding of the elements that drive CSP by comparing their results to earlier studies on the subject (,Ho et al. 2011).
The study's failure to analyse industry-specific factors that can have an impact on CSP is one such omission. The authors are aware of this shortcoming and propose more investigation into the influence of industry-specific factors on CSP. Overall, the work by Ho et al. makes a significant contribution to the body of knowledge on CSR and CSP by providing insights into how cultural and geographic contexts affect CSP globally. However, like with every research, the study has limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the results. Both studies focus on how cultural influences affect CSR activities, which is similar to the topic of the study "Corporate Social Responsibility Throughout Europe" by Habisch et al. Ho et al. present a more worldwide perspective on the variables that affect CSP, whereas Habisch et al. provide a more in-depth research of CSR practises throughout Europe. When taken as a whole, these studies offer a thorough grasp of the elements that influence CSR practises both locally and globally.
The impact of national culture on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is examined in the article "The Influence of National Culture on Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Cross-Country Research" by Lin and Chen (2018). The authors investigate how national culture affects CSR activities using a thorough literature review and meta-analysis of prior research. The research's thorough study of the body of literature on the subject, which gives a thorough review of the present state of knowledge, is one of its strong points. In order to combine the findings of earlier studies and produce a more solid and trustworthy assessment of the influence of national culture on CSR, the study also employs a rigorous meta-analysis methodology. The research's thorough study of the body of literature on the subject, which gives a thorough review of the present state of knowledge, is one of its strong points. In order to combine the findings of earlier studies and produce a more solid and trustworthy assessment of the influence of national culture on CSR, the study also employs a rigorous meta-analysis methodology. As a result of the authors' decision to only include studies that were published in English and were found in specific academic databases, the research does have the potential for publication bias. This could reduce the findings' generalizability and ignore pertinent studies that weren't taken into account throughout the analysis. Regarding objectivity, the writers make a clear distinction between facts and opinions and offer a thorough examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the earlier studies included in the analysis. Also, they go into great detail on the many approaches they used to address the problems of bias and heterogeneity in the meta-analysis and increase the reliability of the findings. Lack of agreement on how to conceptualise and quantify national culture is one contradiction in current knowledge and understanding of the impact of national culture on CSR, according to the authors. The validity and comparability of the results across many research and geographical areas may be impacted by this. The authors also point out another potential bias in published research: the emphasis on some CSR practises, including philanthropy and environmental responsibility, while ignoring other crucial elements, like stakeholder engagement and ethical behaviour. The findings may not be as comprehensive or generalizable as they may be as a result, and pertinent activities in various cultural contexts may be missed. Consequently, research study by Lin and Chen makes a significant contribution to the body of knowledge on CSR and national culture by providing understanding of the interaction between these two vital elements. However, like with every meta-analysis, the study has limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the results. The article by Lin and Chen provides a wider and more international view on the influence of national culture on CSR activities as compared to the study by Habisch et al. Lin and Chen investigate the effects of national culture on CSR across numerous nations and regions, in contrast to Habisch et al. who concentrate on CSR practises in Europe. When taken as a whole, these studies offer a thorough grasp of the elements that influence CSR practises both locally and globally (Chen, 2018).
Critical Reasoning on the topic and presenting own analysis
From the review of various authors viewpoint, I have identified how national culture affects corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in a variety of UK-based businesses. According to my learning I have analysed that the British multinational retailer Marks & Spencer (M&S), which has a strong commitment to sustainability and CSR initiatives, is a noteworthy example. The study which I did in the above segment helped me in understanding that M&S has created a thorough sustainability plan, Plan A, outlining the organization's long-term environmental and social objectives. The strategy calls for a variety of actions, including lowering greenhouse gas emissions, increasing sustainable sourcing, and helping regional communities. This indicates how M&S has taken into account the cultural norms of the UK, which strongly emphasise social responsibility and environmental conservation. I have also analysed that M&S has also incorporated UK cultural values into its business practises, such as its dedication to finding ethical and environmental goods (Gallén, 2017). This is consistent with the cultural ideals of justice and civic responsibility in the UK. For instance, what I identified is that M&S has received praise for their dedication to Fairtrade and for being a pioneer in providing goods that adhere to high ethical standards. It's crucial to remember that the cultural values of the UK are dynamic and subject to change throughout time. Questions about the future of UK cultural values and their influence on CSR practises have been raised in light of the recent Brexit vote as well as ongoing discussions about immigration and globalisation. Also, I evaluated that the businesses with UK operations will need to take these shifting cultural attitudes into account and modify their CSR strategies as necessary. From the review which I did in the above discussed heading helped me in make an evaluation that the Companies like M&S operating in the UK have developed their CSR procedures taking into account the cultural values of the nation. But because cultural norms can alter over time, it's critical for businesses to keep up with these changes and modify their CSR strategies accordingly. By doing this, they may maintain their socially responsible business practises and help the UK and its communities flourish sustainably (Koprowski, 2021).
Now let’s analyse the paper "Corporate Social Responsibility: A Comparative Study of Views of Practitioners and Academics in Europe and the USA" by Céline Louche, Nathalie Crutzen, and Samuel Idowu . This paper has helped in understanding the relationship between national culture and CSR. With the help of this article, I evaluated the contrasts the views of CSR held by academics and practitioners in the US versus Europe. What I identified was that the authors discovered that cultural variations significantly influence how people view CSR. For instance, while their American counterparts tended to prioritise economic difficulties, European practitioners and researchers placed a higher emphasis on social and environmental issues. The authors propose that this discrepancy is brought about by the more individualistic culture of the USA, where businesses are frequently more motivated by financial gain. Another intriguing conclusion from the study is that, in contrast to their US counterparts, European practitioners and scholars tend to consider CSR as a long-term investment rather than a short-term expense. This could be as a result of cultural variations in time orientation, with Europeans generally having a longer-term outlook and Americans generally adopting a more immediate perspective. Overall, this study demonstrates that cultural variations can affect how CSR and its significance to company are seen. Companies can create CSR strategies that are better adapted to their unique cultural contexts by understanding these cultural differences. Remarkably, the authors discovered that institutional variables had a stronger influence on CSR behaviours than cultural considerations. For instance, rather than cultural values, it was discovered that Japan's corporate governance framework had a significant impact on the country's CSR activities. Ultimately, the study indicates that while institutional considerations may be more significant in determining CSR behaviours than national culture, both can play a role in shaping CSR practises. Companies can create CSR plans that are more suited to their particular business settings by understanding these institutional characteristics.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between national culture and corporate social responsibility (CSR) is complex and multifaceted. While cultural differences can shape perceptions of CSR and influence CSR practices, other institutional factors may be equally or more important. Studies have shown that European practitioners and academics tend to place a greater emphasis on social and environmental issues, while their US counterparts tend to prioritize economic issues. This may be due to cultural differences in individualism and time orientation. Furthermore, differences in CSR practices across different countries have been found to be influenced by national culture, with some countries exhibiting higher levels of CSR than others due to cultural values that prioritize social responsibility and sustainability. However, institutional factors such as the corporate governance system may also play a significant role in shaping CSR practices. Overall, companies need to consider both cultural and institutional factors when developing CSR strategies that are tailored to their specific business environments. By understanding these factors and taking a holistic approach to CSR, companies can develop more effective CSR strategies that create value for both the business and society as a whole.
References
Andre? Habisch, Jonker, J., Wegner, M., Rene? Schmidpeter and Springerlink (Online Service (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Eriksson, D., 2019. The Cultural Influence on CSR, s.l.: JÖNKÖPING.
Fooks, G. J., 2013. The Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility: Techniques of Neutralization, Stakeholder Management and Political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), pp. 283-299.
Gallén, M., 2017. The effects of national culture on corporate social responsibility disclosure: a cross-country comparison. Applied Economics, 50(1), pp. 1-13.
Halbusi, H. A., 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): A Literature Review, s.l.: Sultan Qaboos University.
Ho, F.N., Wang, H.-M.D. and Vitell, S.J. (2011). A Global Analysis of Corporate Social Performance: The Effects of Cultural and Geographic Environments. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), pp.423–433. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1047-y.
Koprowski, S., 2021. National Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility, s.l.: .Universidade Comunitária da Região de Chapecó.
Riano, J. D., 2020. Corporate Social Responsibility, s.l.: Kedge Business School.
Rishi, P., 2013. Integrating Corporate Social Responsibility and Culture as a Strategy for Holistic Corporate Success in India. Journal of Corporate Citizenship.
Share this
Cite This Work
Go Through the Best and FREE Case Studies Written by Our Academic Experts!
