Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’ Self-presentations

By I. Maignan, David A. Ralston. 2002

1,387 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1c938f522c7d6904303ffcf529ee24057ab26d1b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Corporate sustainability reporting index and baseline data for the cruise industry (2014, background): “This is typical of other industries that downplay responsibility towards suppliers or through the supply chain and prefer to mention issues not affected by their activities (Maignan & Ralston, 2002) as CSR policies tend to deal with the edges of business (Laufer, 2003; Ramus & Montiel, 2005).”
Corporate Social Responsibility: One Size Does Not Fit All. Collecting Evidence from Europe (2009, background): “…when in contrast with the Anglo-Saxon or North American model (and also with other regional models: Asia, Africa, Latin America, etc.); for example: Adams et al. (1998), Habisch et al. (2005), Maignan and Ralston (2002), Matten and Moon (2008), Midttun et al. (2006), and Welford (2003, 2005).”
'Implicit' and 'Explicit' CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility (2008, background): “Maignan and Ralston (2002) found education to be the second most signaled U.S. stakeholder issue, whereas it is significantly less signaled in the United Kingdom and is virtually absent for French and Dutch companies.”
Can the Media Discipline Chinese Firms’ Pollution Behaviors? The Mediating Effects of the Public and Government (2016, background): “Extending this line of thinking, stakeholder studies suggest that the government and public are two major external drivers in forming firms’ environmental behaviors (e.g., Fryxell & Lo, 2003; Maignan & Ralston, 2002; Weaver et al., 1999).”
The Corporate Objective Revisited (2004, background): “firms. Maignan and Ralston (2002) compare the extent and content of businesses’ communications about corporate social responsibility in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.”
Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in host countries: Does distance matter? (2011, neutral): “…from AngloSaxon/LME countries, engage in more explicit CSR (Matten & Moon, 2008), articulate their commitment and attention to community issues (Maignan & Ralston, 2002), and tend to score higher on several dimensions of CSR (Jackson & Apostolakou, 2010).8 Journal of International Business…”
Value Priorities as Combining Core Factors Between CSR and Reputation – A Qualitative Study (2006, background): “In particular, CSR research has had two main tendencies; the legitimacy of the firm in society and competitive advantages that can be associated with socially responsible actions (Maignan and Ralston, 2002; Moir, 2001; Turban and Greening, 1997).”
Corporate social responsibility communication of Chinese and global corporations in China (2009, methodology): “An initial codebook was developed based on two existing studies on CSR: Chapple and Moon (2005) and Maignan and Ralston (2002).”
Theoretical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: A Critical Review (2015, background): “Maignan and Ralston (2002) provide that legitimacy of a firm is dependent on the maintenance of reciprocal relationship with its stakeholders, given that the firm has obligations including moral obligations to a broad range of stakeholders in to their shareholders (Adams et al., 1998).”
The Supply of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures Among U.S. Firms (2009, neutral): “A third theoretical approach considers these actions through the lens of the political economy (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Guthrie and Parker, 1990; Gray et al. 1995a; Deegan and Gordon, 1996; Cormier and Gordon, 2001; Deegan, 2002; O’Donovan, 2002; Maignan and Ralston, 2002; Campbell et al. 2003).”
Institutional Analysis and the Paradox of Corporate Social Responsibility (2006, background): “Third, a few studies have found that managerial attitudes toward CSR vary cross-nationally (e.g., Maignan & Ralston, 2002).”