PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION. Corporations as political animals: Citizenship traditions and Corporate Social Responsibility

Transcription

1 PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION Corporations as political animals: Citizenship traditions and Corporate Social Responsibility Karen Wright, Politics, University of Glasgow, UK Alvise Favotto, Business, University of Glasgow, UK ABSTRACT: Corporations across the globe claim to be engaging in corporate citizenship, though what they mean by it can be unclear and contested. The paper introduces the idea of socially situated citizenship traditions as a useful theoretical framework for understanding what corporations believe their citizenship means and entails. The paper then examines the nature of civic republican, liberal and social rights traditions of citizenship and their implications for the conception and practice of corporate citizenship. The theoretical contribution is supported with empirical illustration that may also shed light on regional differences in corporate views of their roles and responsibilities as citizens. A content analysis of CEO statements from CSR reports of 150 large firms shows that distinctive patterns found in the US, UK and Germany can be linked to these particular traditions of citizenship. The empirical research was funded by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council in the United Kingdom (RES ) and is gratefully acknowledged. Traditions of understanding the nature, rights and obligations of citizenship are generally viewed as applying to individuals within a polity. Can they also explain the beliefs and behavior of corporations? Can corporations, in Aristotle s famous characterisation, be zoon politikon or political animals, and if so in what ways? More recently, corporate citizenship is widely used to describe firm activity that has some sort of wider public benefit. Is it as some have argued best seen as simply marketing rhetoric, as a metaphor (Moon, Crane and Matten, 2005) or as more than that? In addition, what corporate citizenship means and entails varies significantly, especially between Europe and the United States (Kollman and Prakash, 2001; Matten and Moon, 2008; Favotto, Kollman, and Bernhagen, 2016). Leading explanations for this variation 1

2 in the business management literature have focused on an institutional analyses of socially situated business systems or on discussions of the applicability of normative theory to corporate citizenship practice (Matten, Crane and Moon, 2003; Matten and Moon, 2008). This paper adds a different perspective; it suggests that socially situated traditions of citizenship may be able to provide meaningful insight into what firms believe their citizenship means and entails, and further that these traditions may also be able to shed light on regional differences in the understanding and practice of corporate citizenship. Both institutional theories and normative political theory have been brought to bear by CSR scholars (Logston and Wood, 2002; Moon, Crane and Matten, 2005; Matten and Moon, 2008,) in an effort to establish a theoretical base for claims of corporate citizenship and more broadly for corporate social responsibility. Institutional approaches such as those of Matten and Moon (2008, p. 405) make insightful comparisons and categorizations of CSR structures and norms; they acknowledge that these are culturally contingent, reflecting national differences in attitudes towards philanthropy, the role of government, individual social responsibility etc. However their widely-noted distinction between explicit (publically asserted) and implicit (practiced as part of a collective and less often promoted,) CSR does not grasp completely the particular character of differing socially rooted understandings of the public role and responsibilities of corporations (Matten and Moon, 2008 p. 409). Furthermore, while normative philosophical frameworks can illuminate underlying principles, contested aims and ideal processes, they nevertheless remain in some sense detached and without direct engagement with the practice of corporate citizenship. (Moon, Crane and Matten, 2005 and Logsdon and Wood 2002). What neither approach can effectively provide is an explanation for why and how corporate citizenship is understood and practiced in particular ways, ways that may vary across political, historical and cultural contexts. Traditions of citizenship may be able to offer assistance towards that end. The paper begins with an introduction to the conceptual framework offered by traditions, followed by an examination of contrasting citizenship traditions. It explores the distinct characteristics and implications of the civic republican tradition, more 2

3 dominant in the United States, the liberal tradition, and then a social democratic rights tradition, more dominant in continental Europe, for understanding the aims, priorities and language of corporate social responsibility (CSR). In charting the links between the current use and understanding of corporate citizenship and socially embedded traditions of citizenship it argues that specific conceptions of citizenship are ultimately relevant to how corporations see and practice corporate citizenship. Finally it offers initial empirical support for the conceptual framework based on the content analysis of CEO/management statements from 150 corporate social responsibility reports in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany. In doing so it hunts for the key tenets of corporate citizenship across the CSR terrain, and does not constrain itself to what is explicitly identified as corporate citizenship (Matten and Moon, 2008). Traditions Traditions are not the same as what we commonly think of as traditional views. They are not juxtaposed with modern or progressive or transgressive views on a particular topic or question. Rather they are more implicit sets of beliefs and practices that structure social understandings. Traditions consist of a rather loose but generally coherent framework of ideas, principles and practices that are as Alasdair MacIntyre has noted socially embodied in a community of practice. (Annas, 1989, MacIntyre, 1988, 1990) As such they embody a link between a set of ideas and the force of those ideas in the world. They are conceptual constructs that arise from specific historical and cultural contexts and that in turn have purchase on the beliefs and actions of institutions and individuals. Traditions are also under constant although not necessarily rapid construction and re-construction. Terry Nardin (1993) talks about ethical traditions as resilient but not immutable practices that are constantly modified in use. As socially embedded ideas traditions cannot be fixed and are necessarily in flux, subject to multiple interpretations, negotiations, contestations and evolution over time. (Nardin, 1992 and O Driscoll 2008) Cian O Driscoll foregrounds the role and importance of an interpretive community of practitioners in this process of continuous renegotiation; a tradition is only as vital as its interpretive community. (2008, p. 114). In some instances it may even make sense to talk about invented or retrospectively partially or wholly constructed traditions (Nardin,1992 p.7) Nevertheless, they retain 3

4 an overall coherence and the often enduring ability to both implicitly and explicitly shape social, political and even economic activity (Putnam, 1993). The further question of who is creating the tradition and for what purpose, while not within the aims or scope of this analysis, can nevertheless be raised and accommodated within this framework. Finally, in contrast to theoretical systems that are characterized by ordered structures and appeals to logical argument, traditions are messier; they rest not on a systematic set of principles but rather on historical and culturally contingent beliefs and practices. Alasdair MacIntyre takes this a rather radical step further. He moves from talking about contestation of key tenets and ideals within a tradition, to outlining the lines of dispute or disjunction among traditions that provide competing frameworks of understanding (MacIntyre, 1988). Moreover, he argues that traditions also implicitly define and privilege the nature of the reasoning that is to be used for their own processes of internal revision, as well as for the debates between competing traditions (MacIntyre, 1990). Thus both the traditions themselves and their rhetoric of justification are independent and self-referential. It is not surprising that there are chasms in communication across traditions. 1 Most commonly traditions have been thought of as embodying an idea of inheritance, or as characterized by Martin Krygier (1986) when referring to the context of law, as bestowing the authoritative presence of a continuously transmitted past. He specifies three necessary criteria/elements. First, the contents of every tradition have, or are believed by its participants to have, originated sometime in the past. Second, the practice or belief must hold present authority and significance that rests in large part on the idea of its being an inheritance. Finally a tradition must have been, or be thought to have been, passed down over intervening generations. (Krygier, 1986; Nardin, 1993 p. 6) This characterization usefully stresses the fact that the tradition is ultimately not an inevitable or immutable product of the past, but one that must be kept 1 MacIntyre s use of traditions has focused on overarching embodied intellectual frameworks Aristotelianism rooted in the ancient Greek polis, especially as translated by Thomism, as contrasted with Augustinism and more recently liberalism embedded in markets and consumerism. Moreover he has written about the (lamentable) eroding of traditions by corporations driven by market incentives. (MacIntyre, 1982). Nevertheless, his aversion to the impact of corporations in society, and his claims that corporations are incapable of moral action does not negate the argument presented here that corporations are acting in their social roles in ways that they view as exemplifying shared understandings of citizenship. 4

5 - or even made - alive, relevant and authoritative in the present. However Krygier s characterization also and less usefully implies that traditions will be explicit and conscious. Neither may always be necessary for them to have significant influence, and one area where that may well be the case is in the at times implicit understandings and presumptions about the nature of citizenship. Traditions occupy a somewhat less familiar location in some sense between normative theories and social norms (Lutz, 2004 p. 9). How can traditions be differentiated from them? As indicated earlier, both normative and non-normative theory provide an abstracted analytical construction that privileges certain factors or principles deemed to be essential to an adequate understanding of a particular question. Although they may describe, analyse and interrogate the social world they stand apart from it; they are not produced or created by it. Normative theory usually requires justification via a logical or at least clear set of arguments; no such analytical rigor is likely or required by traditions. Non- normative theory provides second order explanation for political phenomena, but does not emerge from or directly shape it; it is ultimately descriptive of the world and does not act in or on it. Norms, in the classic definition by Peter Katzenstein (1996, p. 5), are used on the other hand to describe collective expectations for the proper behaviour of actors with a given identity. Their social and historical embeddedness and effects on practices make traditions cousins of norms, but there are clear differences. Katzenstein argues that they can have both constitutive and regulative effects. Norms thus either define (or constitute) identities or prescribe (or regulate) behaviour, or they do both. (Katzenstein, 1996, p. 5) In contrast traditions are less focused on identity than on ideas or behaviour, and while there can be implicit regulation of behaviour if adherence to their principles is implied, they are not as such necessarily regulative. More importantly traditions construct a particular and coherent system of beliefs and practices that are intellectually distinct from their social origins and functions. For example, Just War traditions embody a specific set of ideas (e.g. jus ad bellum, jus in bello, etc.) that, though subject to debate and interpretation, have an existence independent of their any particular use of Just War principles to regulate conduct related to war (O Driscoll, 2008). This peculiar independent location of traditions gives them the power to make groups of ideas real in the world. Their hybrid character embodies a continually and 5

6 reflexively re-interpreted set of ideas and associated practices. Traditions may thus be in a position to provide a framework linking systems of ideas about citizenship and what it entails with the nature of CSR practices and conceptions of corporate citizenship. Traditions of Citizenship and CSR Civic traditions create enduring legacies of ideas and practices that are embedded in patterns of social interaction across time. One of the more famous analyses of traditions is found in Robert Putnam s Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (1993). Putnam identifies an Italian civic community associated with horizontal social and political networks, higher levels of civic participation, trust, compromise and the absence of corruption and clientalism. This civic community is differentially associated with the more northern regions of Italy, and in particular those areas with communal and republican legacies that he traces back to twelfth century (Putnam, 1993, p ). He focuses at some length on the rather better documented 19 th century, and finds evidence of regional variations in voluntary and mutual aid organisations as well as mass political parties and cooperatives resting on patterns of collaboration and sociability. Again the magnitude of the regional variation is striking; even more striking is the astonishing constancy of regional traditions of civic involvement through more than a century of vast social change. (Putnam, 1993 p. 149) Putnam argues for the enduring power of civic traditions and delineates a sharp, some might say somewhat overdrawn, distinction between Northern civic regions and Southern regions characterised by vertical clientalistic social and political networks, lower levels of social trust, anaemic participation in voluntary and secondary associations as well as an inclination towards more heavy handed approaches to preserving social order. In doing so he employs a simple civic community/civicness rubric where regions are rated on a single high versus low continuum. The components of the multiple indexes he uses to measure civic community and civic traditions are far more nuanced and multi-dimensional. The issue here is not about his measures themselves, but rather that their final composite representation has been reduced to a single uni-dimensional scale that obscures different understandings and traditions of civicness - and ultimately of citizenship. 6

7 Traditions of citizenship are not pure or ideal forms; they arise from particular historical contexts and reflect the multi-dimensional aspects of those legacies. Early Greek and Roman authors, most notably Aristotle and Cicero, followed by early Renaissance republicans focused on the vibrancy of citizenship and the character of the citizens as a critical if not the most important factor determining the nature and success of a political society. They were followed by an era of Enlightenment thinkers focusing on individuals, creating the enduring idea of a social contract between state and its citizens and often but not always exalting the role of universal reason over retrograde tradition. Nineteenth century political and social movements, coupled with post-war vision and determination, were reflected in widely influential ideals of social citizenship. Especially reflected in the work of T.H. Marshall, they anticipated the progressive advance of particular societies and of civilization itself through stages granting political rights, civil rights and ultimately social and economic rights. These traditions are overtly Western in origin and likely influence; they are often modified and at times blended. 2 It is nevertheless useful to delineate briefly their primary characteristics and regions of influence. Civic Republican Citizenship The civic republican tradition was defined classically by Aristotle s discussion of citizenship in The Politics. The first comparative political scientist, Aristotle conceded that in practice the nature of citizenship and who qualified for it was determined by the constitutions and laws of a particular society. (Aristotle, The Politics, 1275a34). However, drawing on his discussion of virtuous character in the Ethics, he advocated an ideal type and role for the citizen. His citizen was a member of an elite group: he had the privilege of a life with education and leisure to actively and directly engage in the affairs of the polis or political community ideally one small enough to recognize the faces of most of the other citizens. This made it possible for him (and by definition a citizen must be male) to fulfil his nature as a zoon politikon or political animal by engaging in the holding of offices and participating in judgements (Aristotle, The 2 These traditions reflect dominant views of citizenship in regions of the West. Their characterisations are not intended to be either comprehensive or necessarily critical, although the power and importance of critical perspectives is acknowledged. Because the aim here to explore the implications of traditions of citizenship for major corporations own views of their roles and responsibilities as corporate citizens it is dominant traditions that are most relevant. 7

8 Politics, 1275a22). There was no state in the modern sense; most civic duties rotated and were assigned by lot. Active engagement was of central importance - not only for the benefit of the polis, but also and essentially for the ethical development of the citizen. Key among Aristotle s virtues is magnificence, well-judged generosity in providing for (i.e. funding) festivals, war ships and other items deemed important to a good society. (Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, 1122b19ff) Civic republican ideals remained important during the Roman republics, and are further articulated in Cicero s idea of a commonwealth in some sense wealth held in common by its citizens, who were notably elite members of Roman society. The classical ideals continued to influence various parts of Europe into the Renaissance, competing with Christian views that placed little importance on either citizens or political community what was important was one s relationship to God and the Church. Republican ideas were renewed and transformed by Montesquieu and Rousseau and by the French republics in the late eighteenth century, which elevated political principles of liberty and - radically equality. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the US, wondering whether civic virtue could be sustained in a large republic he found instead what he called enlightened self-interest (Oldfield, 1990 p.117) operating in what might be thought of as a large number of local republics. Tocqueville was famously struck by the propensity for Americans to form associations for a wide range of non-political common purposes, associations that pave the way for political ones and developed the skills necessary for political association. (Oldfield, 1990, p. 127). Modern conceptions of civic republicanism retain a core focus on active engagement and democratic participation as necessary for the creation of a fair and/or good society. Active citizenship is seen as in some sense a social duty and the answer to reinvigorating democratic practice. While the rationale for engagement rests on communitarian ideas of interdependence and community, engagement itself is presumed to result from individual or independent - rather than collective or coordinated - initiative. Especially in America where it is taken as a matter of course, political participation includes engagement with community groups and voluntary and third sector organisations (Crick, 2010). The arena for citizenship is the public sphere broadly defined, most often the (local) community. Indeed, according to Adrian 8

9 Oldfield, Civic- republican thinking cannot accommodate the oxymoron private citizen. (1990 p.159). Perhaps surprisingly, the idea of a corporate citizen rests fairly easily in the civic republican tradition. The state is not essential to its definition or operation, particularly in the Tocquevillian context of the United States. It is a tradition of elite leadership in local communities and the good of the community is the primary aim. Top corporate managers are engaged directly and individually with a range of community activities. This was facilitated in many US communities by local United Way organisations, to which aspiring executives were loaned or seconded for periods of 3-12 months, and which conducted charity fundraising and volunteering drives among firm employees. Contributions for a wide variety of community organisations are deducted from employee pay checks, and campaign executives strive to encourage participation levels topping 90% among employees. (Wright, 2002a). Formal firm civic engagement was traditionally demonstrated through a range of philanthropic contributions, most often independent of the direct interests of the firm, totaling 1-5% of pre-tax profits. Taken as a whole these were practices that were rooted in the social life of the local communities in which they operated and most often where their corporate headquarters was located. However the increasing globalisationof firm operations and leadership have sometimes severely challenged the locally embedded nature of civic republican traditions of CSR practice. Liberal Citizenship By contrast Liberal traditions of citizenship presume and promote what civic republican traditions exclude - private citizenship (Oldfield, 1990). This is particularly true of the increasingly dominant neo-liberal approaches. For liberals the individual is sovereign and the bearer of range of rights to be respected and protected by the state. Duties are minimal: to obey the law, pay taxes, engage effectively in business, and defend the nation if necessary. Political duties are satisfied by exercising the right to vote; no wider involvement is necessary, or expected. While the civic republican citizen is a largely social and political animal, in the twenty-first century the liberal citizen is increasingly evolving into an economic creature with basic political rights. 9

10 The Liberal tradition of citizenship arose in the context of the fading of feudal structures and the emergence of capitalism and the nation state. Their central concern, embodied in the arguments of Locke s Second Treatise on Government, was that individuals possessed inalienable rights to liberty, property and just treatment that could not simply be ignored, overruled, or even given away in a social contract. Indeed Liberal theories often constituted a direct challenge to the arbitrary power of the crown as exercised through the structures and mechanisms of the state. Much of the classical Liberal tradition was an emancipatory one where the central focus was securing the liberty of individuals from the oppressive demands of feudalism and the crown. (Dwyer, 2010 p. 20, Locke, The Second Treatise) John Stuart Mill s arguments about the importance of protecting liberty and choice from the constraints not only of laws and state power but also importantlyof social convention echo these concerns, and his arguments on the nature of representative government are also some of the first to advocate for the fairer system of proportional representation instead of single-member districts. (J.S. Mill, Considerations on Representative Government) To some degree the classical and the increasingly dominant neo-liberal strands of Liberalism are rather awkward bedfellows. While both strands conceive of citizenship in terms of negative rights of non-interference, classical Liberals more clearly highlight the central importance of citizen sovereignty and power vis a vis state decisions. For neo-liberals the state is more peripheral and largely instrumental to the market, which is the ultimate arbiter of individual preferences. Liberal traditions of citizenship have in the past had a distant relationship with business, as firms were seen as operating in a private sphere, while citizenship was part of a public sphere. Indeed as argued by Adam Smith, I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good (Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 4.4.9) and echoed centuries later by the CEO of a major UK financial firm who said In Britain, unlike the US, the social obligations of business have been satisfied by operating within the requirements of the law. In particular levels of corporate contributions measured in a range of ways have been notably lower in the UK than in the US. (Brammer and Pavelin, 2005, Wright, 2001). More recently there has been at attempt to shift that analysis, and to explore what being a corporate private citizen might mean. Key to those discussions has been the strategy of aligning business and social goals, 10

11 producing the increasingly influential business case rationale that seeks to find key synergies between the advancement of business and social aims. This approach was promoted in the United Kingdom by the New Labour government, which in contrast to its communitarian social policy agenda, chose to create a CSR czar to champion the business case to firms in an attempt to improve the level of UK corporate giving and community involvement. Rationales for corporate citizenship in the liberal tradition stress the reputational value of corporate citizenship for brand definition, customer approval, employee retention and shareholder value; the focus is on individual corporate initiative and activities including strategic social investment and sponsorship. Social Rights Citizenship This tradition sees citizenship as a status that guarantees access to rights, protections and benefits,most often formally regulated by the state or a state-like body, and has been linked to post-wwii aims and efforts to create a fairer and more equal - society. T. H. Marshall s evolutionary vision of society postulated that improving material conditions and developing social institutions in a post-feudal society resulted in a consecutive development first of civil (legal) rights, making possible commerce, followed by the development of representative political institutions and political rights, and then the establishment of welfare states guaranteeing universal access to social (including medical) and economic provisions, and social rights. Marshall defined these social rights as a modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being (Marshall 1950, p. 69). Social rights provided the basis for relative social/economic equality that could to a significant extent compensate for the economic inequality produced by capitalism. Together Marshall saw civil, political and social rights as delineating the ultimate character of citizenship, and indeed of civilization itself (Marshall, 1950; Dwyer, 2010). Marshall s vision was in some sense a blending of classical liberal rights-based ideas of citizenship with social democratic ideals. Over time questions were posed about it, and especially about the idea of social rights. It was criticised for being vague and overly optimistic, dependent on (variable) resources, Androcentric, proclaiming a false universalism for welfare provision, presuming and requiring a male-breadwinner model of the family and simply being outdated (Dwyer, 2010). Some or all of these 11

12 criticisms may well be true and relevant for theoretical and policy debates; they are far less relevant in assessing its influence as a tradition of thinking about citizenship. Indeed the volume of critique is testament that the influence of ideas of social rights has been profound, especially in the UK and the rest of Europe. Richard Titmuss, whose ideas on welfare and social policy defined dominant paradigms for academic social policy for multiple post-war generations largely subscribed to Marshall s vision and view of social rights (Dwyer, 2010; Deakin, 1993). The tradition of social citizenship is at least as important in continental Europe, particularly within the European Union, and in transnational networks including both direct and indirect spheres of influence. Indeed, in the active debate over European citizenship the importance of social rights is presumed and in some quarters lamented (Jacobson and Kilie, 2003) Firms in this tradition, in contrast to the previous ones that presume that individual corporate initiative drives citizenship independent of the state, see themselves as members of a collective enterprise linked to states and international organisations. Citizenship entails participation in and compliance with a range of public and international agreements and norms stressing sustainability, continuous improvement of management practices, etc. (Favatto, Kollman and Bernhagen, 2016). Firms are concerned to act in an accountable fashion in relation to a range of stakeholders, including their workforce and customer base, but also seek to be and be seen to be good neighbours and citizens on an international plane. Notably they do so in significant part via participation in a variety of voluntary environmental, human rights and labour force codes of practice and view their participation as evidence to their stakeholders of their corporate citizenship. INSERT FIGURE 1 Comparing Traditions of Corporate Citizenship: US, UK and Germany The substantive and substantial variation among firms in how, why and to what end firms from different countries and regions practice corporate social responsibility has been the subject of much interest and debate among scholars of CSR (Welford, 2005; Maignan and Ralston, 2007; Matten and Moon, 2008). Amid a rapidly changing and some would argue converging global corporate landscape, is it still possible to trace the configuration of distinct and distinctive patterns of practice in regions and countries? 12

13 And how might an understanding of differing traditions of citizenship and the ways in which they might be embodied by corporations further illuminate these patterns? Footprints of these traditions are most likely to be apparent in the ways that corporations describe and justify their social responsibilities to themselves and their key audiences. An indication of the relevance of citizenship traditions to the explanation of regional variation in corporations views of their own CSR practices can be found in a comparison of the content of CEO/management statements contained in the CSR reports of firms in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany. Indeed it is in corporate self-characterisations and presentations that the footprint of traditions or a specific system of beliefs would be most evident; we would expect to see even larger footprints of these traditions among smaller, more locally-oriented companies. To this end we conducted a content analysis on a sample of 150 CSR reports drawn from the Corporateregister Database at three points in time: following the rise in global CSR/sustainability codes ( ), just before the global financial crisis (2005-6), and just after the crisis ( ) The national sub-samples contained the 50 largest transnational firms from each country according to the 2013 Capital IQ ranking. The national samples are roughly matched in terms of firm size and mix of sectors. The fact that the samples represent the largest transnational firms in each country means that they will be the companies most likely to reflect internationally converging rather than (or along with) national/regional values and practices. It some sense this provides a more challenging sample from which to identify distinctive traditions. Our content analysis is based on a self-generated coding frame and examined firm motivation, global CSR codes mentioned; CSR norms mentioned, stakeholders mentioned; CSR areas mentioned. Additionally, we conducted a supplemental thematic analysis of the CEO/management letters that examined the frequency with which key words indicative of each of the citizenship traditions above are mentioned. The findings are broken down by country and time period (see table) and discussed below. US corporations Just as citizenship has been historically most closely associated with the civic republican tradition, corporate citizenship as a term is somewhat more closely associated with US conceptions of corporate social responsibility. CEO statements from 13

14 the United States are characterized distinctively by their heavy emphasis on community involvement and philanthropic giving as a leading area of CSR activity, both closely aligned to the civic republican tradition. Eighty four percent of the US management statements mentioned community and/or giving to the community, in contrast to 71% of UK statements (up from 30% in ) and just 34% (up from 0%) of German statements. Community appears again as the most frequently mentioned motivation for CSR in the US. 76% of US firms cited community as their motivation, in comparison to 29% of UK firms and 19% of firms in Germany. Indeed the number of times the term community is mentioned in the US CEO statements (164) is significantly higher than in the UK statements (137) and dramatically higher than German statements, which mention it 12 times. US company reports are also notable in comparison for the absence of focus on human rights, and most especially for their non inclusion of participation in international codes. The strong emphasis on community and on philanthropic giving among US firms clearly embody civic republican ideas of citizenship, and the more peripheral role for human rights and the lack of emphasis on code participation are a reflection that neither are considered central or even particularly relevant to citizenship in the civic republican tradition. UK corporations In many areas (e.g. community, environment, human and labour rights, etc.) CEO management statements from the United Kingdom appear to score between those of the US and Germany, making a distinctive ethos more difficult to ascertain. They may in some ways be in the process of constructing a stronger culture of corporate social responsibility, borrowing elements from other traditions. However there are some specific aspects where UK firms score notably at or near the top. They share top scores (71%) with the US firms for the frequency with which they mention market motives as driving CSR (and the US emphasis on market motivation is waning), and are the most likely to identify the following as key stakeholders: customers (87%), employees (97%), shareholders (45%), suppliers (41%) and state regulators (47%). Of particular note is the sharp increase in mention of both customers and state regulators, and the fact that shareholders are mentioned twice as often by UK firms as by US or German firms. UK firms are also nearly the only ones in the sample to mention lobbying and remuneration as areas of CSR activity. They are also most likely to use term strategic to describe 14

15 their CSR activity. This less overt assertion of citizenship is of course characteristic of liberal traditions, as are specific features emphasizing market motivations and primary ties to customers, employees and shareholders. The liberal corporation, like the liberal citizen, owes its primary responsibility to its own members and within the private sphere. It is in in many ways a private corporate citizen. German corporations As an exemplar of stakeholder capitalism and social rights (corporate) citizenship, German firms express by far the greatest concern among the three countries for human rights, labour rights, and corruption. German firms also mention concern for the environment as a motivation for CSR more than either the US or UK, but all three emphasise it strongly. These concerns are also reflected in the areas of CSR activity highlighted by German firms: human rights is identified far more frequently by German firms, and while a majority in all three countries indicate the environment and labour as CSR priorities, German firms mention it most often. Strikingly it is only recently that German firms mention community concern or engage with community organisations or giving as part of their CSR activity. They are by far the most likely (75%) to identify international organisations as stakeholders; the US and UK are by contrast just beginning to do so. Furthermore German firms, unlike US or UK firms, mention far more enthusiastically their participation in international code regimes such as the UN Global Compact (69%) and the Global Reporting Initiative. The focus of German firms on human rights, labour rights, and especially international code participation, as well as the inclusion of international organisations as important stakeholders are all characteristic of social rights citizenship. INSERT TABLE 1AND TABLE 2 Discussion and Implications The content analysis of the CEO/management letters for 150 firms demonstrates some striking differences in the motivations, focus and overall understanding of CSR practices across countries. The particular shape of these differences is more coherent when understood as reflecting different traditions of citizenship. Because traditions are systems of belief and justification that are socially rooted, they can take different and seemingly incommensurate forms in different social locations. In the US it may be 15

16 second nature for a firm to think of itself as a corporate citizen, directly and actively participating in and contributing (financially and otherwise) to a range of needs and efforts concentrated at least until recently - in the geographic home community of their corporate headquarters. Indeed such participation is expected of US firms. The international sphere is not directly relevant, nor are human rights not because they are not valued, but because they fall outside the parameters of this understanding of the nature and responsibilities of citizenship. Similarly, participation in international codes will be perceived as desirable or not on a case by case basis, but not as an expression of the responsibilities of citizenship. While US firms cited market motivations as important for their participation in CSR activities, such citations were declining, and seen by comparison as far less important than community. Firms in the United Kingdom are more classically liberal in their understanding of citizenship participation is optional, not expected, and should be strategically focused on the concerns of their shareholders, customers and employees. UK firms equaled the score of US firms in the frequency with which they cited market motivation. Among the German firms, the focus was international rather than local and corporate citizenship was expressed via participation in collective commitments such as the UN Global Compact. Concern for human and labour rights was a key motivation and CSR activity was also focused in those areas. These features map fairly clearly onto conceptions of citizenship rooted in the social rights tradition. Not surprisingly in a sample of 150 large transnational corporations, there were also signs of hybridity and possible convergence. Because traditions are under ongoing interpretation and reconstruction by communities of practice, in this case including bodies like the UN Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative, Fairtrade, and networks like CSR Europe and even business schools, often promoting best practices there is considerable mutual influence. This is not incompatible with the importance of traditions. Indeed as noted by MacIntyre, the historical particularities and social rootedness of a tradition is not incompatible with its being adopted by and even flourishing in environments very different from those where a tradition was originally at home (MacIntyre, 1988 p. 392). In this sample, recent changes point towards these adoptions: most strikingly UK multinationals seemed to be racing to adopt the word community, while US firms show the hesitant beginnings of consideration of 16

17 international organisations as stakeholders. This question of convergence at least on the rhetorical level - is explored further by Tengblad and Ohlsson, (2009) who argue that more local, communitarian CSR discourses are being contested by increasingly international and individualistic ones. Whether in future multinational corporations will evolve a hybrid tradition of understanding and practicing corporate citizenship will be worth ongoing investigation. Corporate Citizenships reconsidered Companies across the globe claim to be practicing corporate citizenship. But what that actually means and entails varies widely and can be unrecognizable as citizenship from within another tradition. Is philanthropy part of citizenship? Is citizenship practiced locally or in many localities or at an international level? What is a community and how is it related to citizenship? What relationship do codes of practice have to citizenship? Can citizenship be practiced within the firm and its immediate circle of employees, customers and shareholders, or does it require a wider reach and remit? Are rights relevant to corporations as citizens? The central argument that drives this analysis is that socially embedded traditions of citizenship may constitute a mechanism that shapes the ways in which corporations understand what corporate citizenship is and how it is practiced. The most dominant traditions of citizenship in Western Europe and North America are civic republicanism, liberalism, and social rights/social citizenship. Because these traditions are socially embedded, they are the subject of interpretation, contestation and revision; some places such as Britain or the United States - may have dual or hybrid traditions. Citizenship traditions have profound implications for the form that corporate citizenship takes, its ultimate aims, and not surprisingly the rhetoric used by firms to describe and justify their efforts. They embody differing principles about the relationship of firms to the state, international norms, organisations and civil society as well as local and international communities, their employees and customers. Traditions also have more practical implications that are reflected in choices about priority areas, types of activities, and modes of engagement. These differences are fundamental ones for both theory and practice. They challenge efforts at a single (global) understanding and theory of corporate citizenship. 17

18 Moreover citizenship traditions are to some degree incommensurate and selfreferential. The aims, activities - as well as the essential nature of corporate citizenship - in each of these traditions can be seen by those rooted in another tradition to be inadequate, peripheral or even irrelevant to their own understanding of citizenship. And as Alasdair MacIntyre (1990) would predict, the logic and discourse used to represent and justify each tradition does not translate with much purchase across them. However the apparent congruence of regional corporate practices with major citizenship traditions gives some credence to the idea that corporate citizenship is indeed more than superficially or metaphorically about citizenship though not necessarily a single tradition of citizenship. Corporations can indeed act as political animals, albeit animals of rather different species. 18

19 References Annas, J. (1989) MacIntyre on Traditions Philosophy & Public Affairs. 18:4 p Aristotle, The Politics. Trans: T.A. Sinclair, Ed: TJ Saunders (1992) London: Penguin Books. Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S. (2005) Corporate Community Contributions in the United Kingdom and United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 56: Carroll, A. and Shabana, K. (2010) The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews. 12:1p Carroll, A. (1998) The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship. Business and Society Review :1 Chen, S. and Bouvain, P. ( 2008) Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 87: Crick, B. (2010) Civic Republicanism and Citizenship: The Challenges for Today in Crick, B. and Lockyer, A. (eds.) Active Citizenship: What Could it Achieve and How? Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Deakin, N. Titmuss 20 years on Journal of Social Policy. 22: 2 p. 235 Dwyer, P. (2010) Understanding Social Citizenship: Themes and Perspectives for Policy and Practice (2 nd ed.) Bristol: The Policy Press Favotto, A., Kollman, K. and Bernhagen, P. (2016) Engaging firms: The global organisational field for corporate social responsibility and national varieties of capitalism Policy and Society 35 (2016) Heater, D. (2004) Citizenship: The Ideal in World History, Politics and Education. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Jacobson, D. and Kilic, Z. (2003) European Citizenship and the Republican Tradition The Good Society 12:1 p Katzenstein, J. (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press Kollman, K. and Prakash, A. (2001) Green by Choice? Cross-National Variations in Firms' Responses to EMS-Based Environmental Regimes. World Politics. 53:3 Locke, J. Two Treatises of Government. Ed. P.Laslett. (1988) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 19

20 Logsdon, Jeanne M., and Donna J. Wood "Business Citizenship: From Domestic to Global Level of Analysis. "Business Ethics Quarterly 1 2(2): Lutz, C.S. (2004) Tradition in the Ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre. Oxford: Lexington Books. MacIntyre, A. ( 1990) Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy and Tradition. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press MacIntyre, A. (1988) Whose Justice, Which Rationality? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. MacIntyre, A. 1982, Why are the Problems of Business Ethics Insoluble, in B. Baumrin, B. Friedman, (eds.), Moral Responsibility and the Professions. New York: Haven Publishing Marshall, T.H. (2009) Citizenship and Social Class in Manza, J. and Sauder, M. (2009) Inequality and Society. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008) Implicit and Explicit CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comprehensive Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility Academy of Management Review 33:2 p Matten, D. and Crane, A. ( 2005) Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization Academy of Management Review. 30: Matten, D., Crane, A., and Chapple, W. (2003) Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics 45:1-2 p Mill, J.S. Considerations on Representative Government in On Liberty, Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Ed: Philip and Rosen (2015) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moon, J., Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2005) Can Corporations Be Citizens? Corporate Citizenship as a Metaphor for Business Participation in Society. Business Ethics Quarterly 15:3 p Muthuri, J., Matten, D. and Moon, (2007) Employee Volunteering and Social Capital: Contributions to Corporate Social Responsibility in British Journal of Management. 20:1 Nardin, T. (1992) Ethical Traditions in International Affairs in Nardin, T. and Mapel, D. Traditions of International Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press O Driscoll, C. (2008) The Renegotiation of the Just War Tradition and the Right to War in the Twenty-First Century. Palgrave-MacMillan Oldfield, A. (1990) Citizenship and Community: Civic Republicanism and the Modern World. London: Routledge. Preuss,U., Everson, M., Koenig-Archibugi, M., and Lefebvre, E. (2003) Traditions of Citizenship in the European Union Citizenship Studies 7:1 20

21 Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press Smith, A. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. (2012 edition) Ware: Wordsworth Editions. Tengblad, S. and Ohlsson, C. (2010) The Framing of Corporate Social Responsibility and the Globalization of National Business Systems: A Longitudinal Case Study. Journal of Business Ethics 93: Wright, K. (2002a) Generosity versus altruism: Philanthropy and charity in the US and UK. Civil Society Working Paper #17. LSE e-prints Wright, K. (2002b) Duty Calls? An Evolutionary Guide to the CSR Terrain Parliamentary Monitor. July 2002 p. 29 Wright, K. (2001). Generosity vs. altruism: Philanthropy and charity in the United States and United Kingdom. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(4),

22 Figure 1: Citizenship Traditions and Corporate Citizenship Practice Civic Republican Liberal/Individualist Social Rights Role Community leader Private actor Responsible member of a collective/corporatist enterprise Focus (Local) community improvement Strategic alignment with business goals Modes Involvement of management and firm resources in community Community contributions / philanthropy (priorities not directly related to business goals) Strategic social investment CC for reputation enhancement and employee retention Sponsorship Compliance with international and public agreements and norms Participation in international codes Labour rights agreements Human rights agreements Employee contribution and engagement programs Reportin g Opportunity to present achievements to local community Reputation management tool Evidence of participation and compliance 22