International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.

00, 1–30 (2016)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12112

Corporate Social Responsibility in

Developing Countries as an Emerging
Field of Study
Dima Jamali and Charlotte Karam
American University of Beirut, Olayan School of Business, Bliss Street, PO Box 11-0236, Beirut, Lebanon
Corresponding author email: dj00@aub.edu.lb

Given the rising interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) globally, its local ex-
pressions are as varied as they are increasingly visible in both developed and developing
countries. This paper presents a multilevel review of the literature on CSR in developing
countries and highlights the key differentiators and nuanced CSR-related considera-
tions that qualify it as a distinctive field of study. This review entails a content analysis
of 452 articles spanning two-and-a-half decades (1990–2015). Based on this comprehen-
sive review, the authors identify the key differentiating attributes of the literature on
CSR in developing countries in relation to depictions of how CSR is conceived or ‘CSR
Thinking’ and depictions of how CSR is practiced and implemented or ‘CSR Doing’.
The authors synthesize from there five key themes that capture the main aspects of vari-
ation in this literature, namely: (1) complex institutional antecedents within the national
business system (NBS); (2) complex macro-level antecedents outside the NBS; (3) the
salience of multiple actors involved in formal and informal governance; (4) hybridized
and other nuanced forms of CSR expressions; and (5) varied scope of developmental
and detrimental CSR consequences. The paper concludes by accentuating how the nu-
anced forms of CSR in the developing world are invariably contextualized and locally
shaped by multi-level factors and actors embedded within wider formal and informal
governance systems.

Introduction developed core (Egri and Ralston 2008; Kolk and

The literature on corporate social responsibility
(CSR) is growing and becoming more complex and
multifaceted. Various reviews of CSR scholarship
have been published over the last decade, including
general reviews (e.g. Aguinis and Glavas 2012) and
narrower reviews of specialist areas such as those pub-
lished in this journal (e.g. Secchi (2007) on theories
of CSR; Carroll and Shabana (2010) on the busi-
ness case for CSR; Frynas and Stephens (2015) on
political CSR). The insights and conclusions drawn
from these articles have gone a long way in terms
of mapping ‘what we know and don’t know about
CSR’ (Aguinis and Glavas 2012, p. 932), but have
fallen short in terms of a more nuanced analysis
of how CSR manifests itself in markets outside the
Lenfant 2010; Kolk and Van Tulder 2010).
The importance of exploring the context-
dependence of CSR has been accentuated in recent
years with calls for closer attention to the peculiar in-
stitutional constellations, or national business system
configurations of developing countries, which may ul-
timately lead to different expressions of CSR (Jamali
and Neville 2011; Okoye 2012a). Distinctive elements
of CSR in developing countries have been referred to
in the literature, with CSR commonly characterized
as less formalized, more sunken and more philan-
thropic in nature (Jamali and Neville 2011; Visser
2008). Further augmenting the need to explore CSR
in developing countries are the various arguments
against the transferability of frameworks and conclu-
sions drawn in developed countries to those that are


C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
2 D. Jamali and C. Karam
developing (Blowfield and Frynas 2005; Idemudia
2011; Luetkenhorst 2004; Moon and Shen 2010).
Gugler and Shi (2009) note that the north–south divi-
de in CSR practice is evident, accentuating the need to
understand the content, objectives and targets of CSR
in context and to tailor one’s theorizing accordingly
(Okoye 2012a; Prieto-Carrón et al. 2006).
Despite this burgeoning interest in CSR in devel-
oping countries, there is no systematic review of this
literature to date. Our aim in the current paper is to
document how this literature compares with and con-
tributes to the broader literature on CSR. Our focus
is on two important research questions, namely: (1)
how CSR in developing countries is commonly un-
derstood; and (2) in what ways is CSR expressed and
implemented in practice in developing countries. In
other words, our review of this literature seeks to de-
termine what has been found to be distinctive about
CSR in developing countries as a domain of study.
Our paper makes three important contributions.
First, we develop a comprehensive and interdisci-
plinary review of the specific body of literature on
CSR in developing countries, and situate our analysis
within the broader CSR and management literature.
Second, based on this review, we identify key themes
and insights from the past two decades and the dif-
ferentiating attributes of this body of scholarship as
a distinctive field within the CSR and management
literature. Third, in the final section, we consolidate
the main distinctive themes, identify lingering gaps,
and provide relevant guidance for future research.
We begin with a brief review of key comparative
CSR frameworks and argue that many of these sum-
mative efforts have focused on CSR in developed
countries, with applicability to developing contexts
still underexplored. While recognizing that there is
likely substantial variation across developing coun-
try landscapes, we argue that there are also important
commonalities that have not been explored to permit
a much needed synthesis and consolidation. Follow-
ing this, we describe the scope and method of the
review, detail the main findings and results, and then
end by synthesizing the main themes of variation and
providing directions for future research.
Comparative CSR literature
A number of powerful comparative CSR frameworks
have been advanced in recent years, highlighting the
importance of context in shaping CSR expressions.
These frameworks have drawn primarily on Insti-
tutional Theory and Whitley’s National Business

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Systems (NBS) approach (Whitley 1992, 1999). In-
stitutional theory has been instrumental in grounding
analyses of CSR in wider systems of governance
involving the market, the state and historically grown
socio-political institutions (Brammer et al. 2012).
Similarly, the NBS approach has aptly directed atten-
tion to a more thorough analysis of the relationship
between firms and institutions where the system itself
serves as a unit of analysis (Tempel and Walgenbach
2003), and the configuration of its components
is seen to be part of its competitive advantage
(Porter 1990), or analyzed with a view to improving
its competitiveness. Broadly, a National Business
System (NBS) is conceptualized as comprising
distinct institutional features and configurations that
are correlated with national economic performance
(Whitley 1999), including type and functioning of
the financial and control systems, the role of the
state, the level and type of skill development, and
trust and authority relationships (Whitley 1999).
While noting the significant advances in the com-
parative CSR literature framed within institutional
considerations of NBSs, we are also careful to ac-
knowledge the limitations that may be tied to the di-
rect adoption of such frameworks to examine CSR in
developing economies. We begin by noting that there
are frameworks that centralize an Anglo-American
perspective, such as the Matten and Moon (2008)
framework, which makes a distinction between ex-
plicit CSR in economies such as the USA and more
implicit forms of CSR encountered across Europe.
These distinct forms of CSR are linked to the NBS
of each context. They argue that US-style CSR is
characterized by less regulation and more incentive
for voluntary social roles for business firms, whereas
pertinent social obligations are seen in Europe as the
purview of government. Hence, while explicit CSR
encompasses the collection of formalized approaches,
processes and frameworks of the CSR industry that
have largely emanated from an Anglo-American con-
text (e.g. stakeholder engagement, CSR reporting and
the plethora of standards and guidelines for CSR, e.g.
UNGC), implicit CSR includes perceived mandatory
and/or taken for granted social obligations resulting
in requirements for corporations to address relevant
issues in their particular environments, often stem-
ming from cultural norms about citizenship or stew-
ardship, which may be salient in developing coun-
tries (Matten and Moon 2008). We also note that,
while both the US and Europe share in common the
predominance of market-based forms of organization
supported through strong regulatory oversight and
CSR in Developing Countries
enforcement of contractual rights, the contextual in-
stitutional arrangements of developing countries may
be in flux and less easily delineated, hence affecting
economic coordination and implicit and explicit CSR
expressions in complex and iterative ways.
A second framework also more applicable to more
clearly demarcated varieties of capitalist formations
comes through the work of Kang and Moon (2012).
Comparing corporate governance arrangements in
three different capitalist contexts, these authors find
that CSR is more competitive and instrumental in
the liberal market economies (e.g. US, UK), given
national systems of governance emphasizing share-
holder value creation. In the coordinated market
economies (e.g. Germany, Japan), CSR tends to be
more cohesive, given the national system of gov-
ernance focusing on broader stakeholder value cre-
ation and prevalent solidarity-building collaborative
efforts between workers, unions and shareholders.
In state-led market economies (e.g. France, South
Korea), CSR tends to be more developmental, given
the national governance system oriented towards pub-
lic value creation through the strong influence of the
state. Here again, the discussion directs attention to
how CSR is grounded in largely coherent systems of
governance, but the framework leads to more ques-
tions than answers in relation to systems that are
less coherent or that have had a history of dysfunc-
tional markets, contracted governments and weak-
ened labor institutions, as is typically characteristic of
developing countries.
Indeed, although NBSs have been used as a broad
comparative framework, scholars focused on the de-
veloping world have argued the need for alternative
NBS classifications that capture wider intra-system
complexities (Nölke and Vliegenthart 2009; Witt and
Redding 2013; Wood and Frynas 2006). Wood and
Frynas (2006), for example, propose a new form or
what they term the ‘Segmented Business System’ that
is more representative of NBSs in East Africa. They
conclude that this is a specific and novel category
of institutional configuration that does not necessar-
ily improve national economic performance through
better patterns of economic organization, but works
to generate ‘revenue for specific actors and maintain-
ing the existing power relations’ (Wood and Frynas
2006, p. 242). These authors thus not only identify a
different NBS configuration, but also highlight an im-
portant deviation from the foundational assumptions
of NBS, where the focus shifts away from improved
national efficiencies of intra-system coordination or
calibration to focus on serving a small, likely elite

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
3
group of power-holders within the nation. Their con-
tribution brings forward the possibility of varied and
mixed forms of NBS that do not necessarily mir-
ror the models anchored within an Anglo-American
frame of reference (see also Hall and Soskice 2001),
and that do not implicitly assume intra-system cali-
bration towards business centric efficiencies (Howell
2003; Kang 2006).
Hence, while acknowledging the impressive ad-
vances in the comparative CSR literature grounded
in the logics of NBS, we have also come to question
whether centralizing these logics that are focused on
hierarchy–market relations or explicitly tied to co-
herent institutions is suited for developing countries.
Keeping these potential variations in mind, our in-
terest in this paper is to trace better the antecedents
and consequences of CSR, and ensuing nuances per-
taining to CSR thinking and CSR doing, given the
peculiar institutional constellations characteristic of
developing countries.
Scope and method of the review
We modeled the scope and structure of this review
on other key review papers (e.g. Aguinis and Glavas
2012; Laplume et al. 2008; Nicholls-Nixon et al.
2011) by focusing on CSR at the institutional, organi-
zational or individual level. We next further delineate
the scope by defining specifically what we mean by
‘developing nations’. Indeed, we use Nielsen’s (2011)
Trichotomous Development Taxonomy weighted
by population and focus on Middle Development
and Lower Development categories as an inclusion
threshold. This taxonomy, is data-driven, relative and
based on the widely used standards of the United
Nations Development Programme, World Bank and
International Monetary Fund (see Nielsen 2011).
Based on this taxonomy, our review includes 101
developing countries spanning Asia and the Pacific,
Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean
(Appendix S1).
Next, specific articles to include in the review were
compiled using two-steps. The first step focused on
20 high-impact journals that served as the basis of the
Aguinis and Glavas (2012) review (Appendix S2).
Limiting our review to articles published between
1990 and 2015, but excluding book chapters and
book reviews, we used the terms: ‘Corporate Social
Responsibility’, ‘Corporate Responsibility’, ‘Corpo-
rate Citizenship’ or ‘Sustainability and Developing
Country(ies)’, ‘Developing Nation(s)’, ‘Developing
World’, ‘Emerging Market(s)’, ‘Emerging Economy
4 D. Jamali and C. Karam
(ies)’ or ‘Developing Economy(ies)’. This search
yielded a total of 190 articles, with the majority
appearing in the Journal of Business Ethics (156 out
of 190), which seems to have led the way in nurturing
scholarship about CSR in developing countries.
Using the same keywords and expanding our search
beyond just high-impact journals, we added three
general databases, namely, Academic Search Com-
plete, Business Source Complete and PsycINFO (i.e.
EBSCOhost, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Wiley, SAGE, El-
sevier and Emerald) to our second step. This final
search used ‘CSR and developing countries and/or
developing nations and/or third world’ as additional
keywords focusing on full text availability and jour-
nal articles written in English. Using the same in-
clusion/exclusion criteria, we also looked specifically
within two niche journals that publish articles per-
taining to CSR, including Third World Quarterly and
World Development.
Together, our efforts yielded 452 articles appearing
in both impact-factor and non-impact-factor journals
(see Appendix S3 for a full listing). As shown in
Table 1, only four of our total pool of articles (1%)
appeared between 1990 and 1994, while 26 articles
(6%) appeared between 1995 and 2004. An impor-
tant surge of articles published on CSR in developing
countries occurred between 2005 and 2009, with 40%
of the articles captured in our review appearing during
this period, while 53% of the articles were published
between 2010 and 2015. This suggests a healthy mat-
uration in scholarship on CSR in developing coun-
tries, and that the field is continuing to advance at an
exponential speed.
When we examined the articles in terms of levels
of analysis, 51% focused on the organizational level,
13% on the institutional level, and 9% on the indi-
vidual level, with the remaining 27% addressing two
or more levels of analysis. Our search also suggests
a greater tendency for empirical research, with 70%
being based on data analyses (i.e. qualitative: 37%;
quantitative: 29%; and mixed method: 4%); while
only 28% consisted of conceptual research. The re-
maining 2% of articles consisted of review articles.
Overall, while not exhaustive, we believe that our
review provides a comprehensive mapping of this
literature.
Analytical review
We focus on the predictors and consequences of CSR
at each of the three levels of analysis, and less on
the mediators and moderators of these relationships.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
While studying mediators and moderators is certainly
worthwhile, our review indicates that these are still
nascent in this literature; we thus channeled our ef-
forts as a first step to unpack the specific antecedents
and consequences of CSR in these contexts. An-
tecedents refer to factors that shape or predict the
type or scope of CSR actions and policies, while con-
sequences refer to outcomes, results or impacts of
CSR actions and policies.
Institutional level of analysis
At the institutional level, we focus on identifying
macro-level forces existing in the external environ-
ment of the firm, both internal and external to the
NBS. The literature explores macro-level, national
and/or supranational antecedents, the most prominent
of which fall into one of five categories: geopolitical
landscape of the past and present; political system and
governance; financial system, economics and busi-
ness operations; cultural system, societal values and
customs; and local ecosystems. In relation to CSR
consequences, impacts are seen to be manifested at
the level of the nation and in terms of encouraging
or impeding environmental, social, economic and hu-
man development, and affecting national governance
dynamics, which we characterize as ‘the positive de-
velopmental impact of CSR’ or, conversely, ‘the detri-
mental developmental impact of CSR’ (see Table 2).
Institutional-level antecedents of CSR. The first cat-
egory of antecedents relates to the geopolitical land-
scape of the nation, with geopolitics referring to the
effects of geography on international politics and rela-
tions. This category reflects researchers’ tendency to
write about CSR antecedents not as neutral or disem-
bodied factors, but rather as situated within complex
geographical and political spaces. For example,
Amaeshi et al. (2006), focusing on the geopolitical
past, describe the emergence of today’s Nigerian
CSR practices within the context of British colonial
imperialism. They detail the end of the slave trade
as ushering in the first generation of Nigerian firms,
with a turn towards philanthropy, aimed at addressing
the resultant socio-economic challenges. Examples
representing the geopolitical present include: the
role of international and national civil society or-
ganizations (Newell 2005; Robertson 2009) and the
influence of international standards such as Sullivan
Principles and Global Compact in various national
contexts (Blasco and Zølner 2010; Knudsen 2013).
Other antecedents prominent in discussions of the
institutional level focused on political system and
CSR in Developing Countries 5

Table 1. Summary of literature search results on CSR in developing countries per publication year and level of analysis

Empirical n (%)

Years and level of analysis Qualitative Quantitative Mixed Review n (%) Conceptual n (%) Total n (%)

Publication years
1990–1994 1 – – – 3 4 (1%)
1995–1999 – – – – 1 1 (0%)
2000–2004 8 4 – 1 12 25 (6%)
2005–2009 73 47 6 3 53 182 (40%)
2010–2014/15 86 81 12 5 56 240 (53%)
Total 168 (37%) 132 (29%) 18 (4%) 9 (2%) 125 (28%) 452
Level of analysis
Institutional 13 8 1 3 36 61 (13%)
Organizational 97 82 6 3 42 230 (51%)
Individual 9 26 3 1 2 41 (9%)
Multilevel 49 16 8 2 45 120 (27%)

Total 168 (37%) 132 (29%) 18 (4%) 9 (2%) 125 (28%) 452

governance, and the financial system, economics and
the business operating environment, which generally
depict or comment on the state of components of
the NBS, such as the national-level legislation reg-
ulating CSR activities (e.g. China: Lin (2010); In-
dia: Sharma (2011)) and the severe limitations of
national policies and legislation in the context of
ineffective or contracted governments (Boudier and
Bensebaa 2011; Raufflet 2009). Other antecedents
repeatedly mentioned include national levels of eco-
nomic development (Chapple and Moon 2005; Prasad
2004), openness of the economy to international in-
vestment (Robertson 2009), and the (non-)availability
of an enabling business environment (Resnik 2001).
Indeed, within this literature, shortcomings of the
NBS were frequently highlighted (e.g. Adegbite and
Nakajima 2011; Reed 2002a; Shengtian et al. 2010;
Tan 2009). Boudier and Bensebaa (2011) note, in this
respect, that the growth of socially irresponsible be-
havior in developing countries involving illegal trade
in hazardous waste can only be understood in view
of the significant shortcomings in the application of
legislation.
Additionally, many articles touch on the significant
influence of the cultural system on the interpretations
of CSR, and the influence of specific societal values
and customs, including religion (Beekun and Badawi
2005; Gustavson 2011), as well as patterns of social
and cultural attitudes (Gugler and Shi 2009; Wang
and Juslin 2009). For example, Dartey-Baah and
Amponsah-Tawiah (2011) note how a tendency
towards respecting hierarchical relationships and
maintaining harmony shapes African CSR. Jamali
et al. (2009b) also document that CSR in Arab coun-
tries is influenced by Islamic religious beliefs, with
the norm of Zakat requiring Muslims to give 2.5% of
their wealth to the poor and destitute. Wang and Juslin
(2009) highlight in turn that the Chinese approach
to CSR means respecting nature and loving people
according to Confucian and Taoist notions of inter-
personal harmony. Finally, a handful of researchers
examine the local ecosystem as a CSR antecedent,
whereby the accelerating depletion of natural ecosys-
tems and environmental externalities of industry are
serving to shape engagement in CSR (Lund-Thomsen
2005, 2009; Mitra 2012). For example, Mitra (2012)
points to subaltern communities’ framing of CSR
towards environmental sustainability, whereby they
emphasize the local tribal rights to thrive on lands
traditionally theirs, ‘free from corporal and state au-
thoritarianism’ and degradation (Mitra 2012, p. 143).
Institutional-level consequences of CSR. At the in-
stitutional level, consequences can be grouped into
two broad categories: the positive and the detrimen-
tal developmental impact of CSR. A small handful of
studies document the positive, for example, Wang and
Juslin (2009), highlighting the developmental poten-
tial of CSR in generating not only physical and finan-
cial capital, but also human and social capital. Other
research documenting the developmental impact ex-
plores corporate engagement in national development
agendas (e.g. Okoye 2012a) and the stimulation of
economic activity through CSR (Rifai-Hasan 2009).
Conversely, studies delving into detrimental
impacts focus on CSR impeding social-economic
development and environmental protection and lead-
ing to compounded governance problems. Campbell


C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
6 D. Jamali and C. Karam

Table 2. Summary of research on CSR at the institutional level of analysis

Antecedents of CSR Consequences of CSR

Geopolitical landscape of the past and present Positive developmental impact of CSR
Meaningful corporate engagement with national
Geopolitical past development agendas (Karam and Jamali 2013;
Slave trade and colonial capitalism (Adegbite and Nakajima 2011; Amaeshi Nwankwo et al. 2007; Okoye 2012a)
et al. 2006; Griesse 2007c; Idemudia 2007; Khan and Lund-Thomsen 2011); Balancing the negative effects of capitalism on the
Post-colonial rebuilding (Mohan 2001); ‘Northern/Western’ hegemonic global south (Gifford et al. 2010)
perspective and the continued sidelining of perspectives from developing
Stimulating economic activity through a ripple
nations (Idemudia 2009; Iyer 2009; Jamali and Sidani 2011; Mitra 2012)
effect (Rifai-Hasan 2009)
Geopolitical present
Role of international and national civil society organizations (Newell 2005; Generating human and social capital (Wang and
Robertson 2009); Potential influence of international standards such as Sullivan Juslin 2009)
Principles, Global Compact, BSCI (Blasco and Zølner 2010; Jamali and Neville Detrimental developmental impact of CSR
2011; Knudsen 2013; Montgomery and Maggio 2009; Rieth et al. 2007; Sethi Impeding socio-economic and environmental
1993; Yu 2008) development
Political system and governance Restricting social-economic development and
Nature of national governance orientations (Ho 2013; Prieto-Carrón et al. 2006; environment protection (Campbell 2012)
Robertson 2009; See 2009; Sharma 2011; Solorzano 2015) Compounding governance issues
Nature of citizen voice, awareness and action (Amran et al. 2013; Idemudia 2007; Amplifying institutional voids (Appiah and Abass
Muthuri 2008; Robertson 2009) 2014; Boudier and Bensebaa 2011; Idemudia
Governance problems and higher levels of corruption (Achua 2008; Adegbite and 2008)
Nakajima 2011; Griesse 2007c; Ip 2009; Jamali and Neville 2011; Reed 2002b) Increasing state complicity and/or level of country’s
Limitations of national policies and legislation in the context of contracted institutional corruption (Keig et al. 2015; Newell
governments (Abdalla et al. 2013; Boudier and Bensebaa 2011; Newell 2005; 2005)
Rahim 2013; Rahim and Alam 2014; Raufflet 2009) Marginalizing governance debates about complex
Political, brutal regimes and country risk conditions (Griesse 2007a; Holliday problems (Idemudia 2007; Newell 2005)
2005; Lin 2010; Resnik 2001; Rodrı́guez et al. 2014) Blurring of the lines of state accountability in such a
Financial system, economics and the business operating environment way as to create further problems of legitimacy
Operating environment (Adegbite and Nakajima 2011; Pesmatzoglou et al. 2014; (Campbell 2012)
Reed 2002b; Shengtian et al. 2010; Tan 2009; Vveinhardt and Andriukaitiene
2014; Xu and Yang 2010)
Openness to FDI (Robertson 2009; Wan et al. 2007)
National levels of economic development (Castelló and Galang 2014; Chapple
and Moon 2005; Prasad 2004)
Oil economics (Eweje 2006; Wheeler et al. 2002; Idemudia 2009; Ite 2004)
Mimetic effect of MNC practices on domestic firms (Beckman et al. 2009)
Weaker, less-regulated financial systems (Shengtian et al. 2010; Tan 2009)
(Non-)availability of an enabling business environment (Resnik 2001)
Corporate irresponsibility (Maamoun 2013; Moon and Shen 2010)
Stakeholder expectations concerning responsible practices (Tsoi 2010)
Cultural system, societal values and customs
Social and cultural values, customs, attitudes (Blasco and Zølner 2010; Darigan
and Post 2009; Dartey-Baah and Amponsah-Tawiah 2011; Gugler and Shi 2009;
Kim and Kim 2010; Wang and Juslin 2009; Xu and Yang 2010)
Influence of religion, ideology and related institutions (Beekun and Badawi 2005;
Gustavson 2011; Ip 2009; Rees and Miazhevich 2009)
Patriarchal forms of business management (Jamali et al. 2009b)
Local ecosystems
Negative environmental externalities of industry (Mitra 2012; Lund-Thomsen
2005, 2009)

(2012), for example, notes that CSR investments in
the mineral-rich countries of sub-Saharan Africa have
contributed to blurring accountability between actors,
creating further problems of legitimacy. Another
detrimental spillover from CSR activities concerns
the amplification of irresponsible social behavior in
the context of the institutional voids and gaps prevail-
ing in developing countries (e.g. Appiah and Abass
2014; Boudier and Bensebaa 2011; Campbell 2012;
Idemudia 2007; Keig et al. 2015). Newell (2005)


C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
CSR in Developing Countries
notes the limitations of state regulations in develop-
ing nations, compounded by institutional inertia and
state complicity in corporate irresponsibility. Wiig
and Kolstad (2010) note that, rather than address-
ing governance issues, CSR facilitates patronage
problems in resource-rich countries.
Organizational level of analysis
The greatest portion of the reviewed articles focused
on this level (i.e. 51% of articles). We classified
antecedents of CSR into six categories: ownership;
structure or governance; mission, identity and organi-
zational culture; motives; trade orientation/business
strategy; and primary stakeholders. We classified the
consequences into three categories: performance of
the firm; positive firm-specific benefits; and impact
vis-à-vis local communities (see Table 3).
Organizational-level antecedents of CSR. At this
level, antecedent categories were common to both our
review and the general CSR reviews, including those
relating to ownership, structure and governance, as
well as mission, identity and culture. For example,
studies relating to firm ownership were predominately
quantitative and examined state vs. non-state-owned
enterprises (e.g. Gao 2011; Ye and Zhang 2011),
foreign multinational vs. local subsidiaries (e.g.
Mijatovic and Stokic 2010; Muller and Kolk 2015;
Naeem and Welford 2009), global multinational vs.
multidomestic enterprises (e.g. Husted and Allen
2006) and family-owned companies (e.g. Adegbite
and Nakajima 2011; Jamali et al. 2009b) as variables.
Antecedents relating to other factors noted above are
also listed in Table 4.
The largest antecedent category concerns a firm’s
motives to engage in CSR. In contrast to instrumen-
tal motives identified by other general reviews (e.g.
Aguinis and Glavas 2012), firm CSR motives have
been conceptualized along more nuanced and multi-
faceted dimensions. Two common subcategories are
motives derived from meeting the expectations of
local populations in terms of healthcare services,
sanitation, basic education or roads (e.g. Arora and
Kazmi 2012; Bird 2009; Cash 2012; Reed 2002b)
and those derived from meeting the expectations of
power-holders such as: (a) host governments (e.g.
Cash 2012; Luo 2006; Shengtian et al. 2010); (b)
country elites (e.g. Kapelus 2002); and/or (c) guerilla
or paramilitary groups (e.g. Maurer 2009). Arora and
Kazmi (2012), for example, explore the case study
of a firm that provides financial services – through a

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
7
mobile banking toolkit – to two rural villages in India
and how this ultimately served as a strategic bridge
between public-sector organizations, bank and rural
communities, helping each better meet their respec-
tive expectations towards sustainable developmental
goals.
The two remaining categories include: (a) the firm’s
emic operations in terms of business strategy such as
advertising intensity, competition and diversification
(Cruz et al. 2015; Davidson 2009; Lindgreen et al.
2010; Muller and Kolk 2010); and a firm’s trade ori-
entation can serve as a CSR antecedent (e.g. Ozen and
Küskü 2009; Rwabizambuga 2007). The last category
involves the role of a firm’s primary stakeholders in
predicting CSR activities as in consumer perceptions
of the level of CSR importance (e.g. Christmann and
Taylor 2006), and other stakeholder groups such as
business–NGO alliances (e.g. Jamali and Keshishian
2009).
Organizational-level consequences of CSR. Of the
three categories of CSR consequences, performance
of the firm was the largest and most nuanced, includ-
ing broad conceptualizations of performance in terms
of financial measures, environmental and sustainabil-
ity measures, and employee and group performance.
It is interesting to note that only this first subcategory
mirrored Aguinis and Glavas (2012), but other perfor-
mance measures relating to, for example, better social
performance by building local legitimacy in the eyes
of firm stakeholders (Claasen and Roloff 2012), and
firm-level employee or group performance (Albdour
and Altarawneh 2012; Ligeti and Oravecz 2009) were
not identical.
The second general category of consequences
concerns those that ‘circle back’ in that they result
in positive benefits for the firm. Examples of these
include a positive impact on corporate reputation
and legitimacy (Zeng et al. 2013), general longer-
term business benefits (e.g. Atakan and Eker 2007;
Kannabiran 2009), as well as CSR resulting in variant
business opportunities such as entrepreneurial ven-
tures and foreign direct investment (e.g. Ahmad and
Ramayah 2012; Goyal 2006). There are a few studies
also suggesting that CSR performance has modest
strategic value for the firm and its stakeholders (e.g.
Reed 2002b) or limited effect on investors’ buying
and selling behaviors (Wang et al. 2011).
In terms of consequences, the largest category
concerns the firm’s impact vis-à-vis the community.
On the one hand, there is evidence for a detrimental
impact of CSR practices. For example, Glover (2007)
8 D. Jamali and C. Karam
Table 3. Summary of research on CSR at the organizational level of analysis
Antecedents of CSR
Firm’s ownership
State-owned vs. non-state-owned and privatization (Choi et al.
2013; Fryxell and Lo 2003; Gao 2011; Li and Zhang 2010; Ye
and Zhang 2011; Zhang et al. 2014)
MNE vs. domestic/subsidiaries (Castelló and Galang 2014; Khan
et al. 2013a; Mijatovic and Stokic 2010; Muller and Kolk 2015;
Naeem and Welford 2009)
Global MNE vs. multi-domestic (Husted and Allen 2006)
Government-MNC joint ventures (Idemudia 2008)
Local, family-owned and small–medium-sized enterprises
(Adegbite and Nakajima 2011; Jamali et al. 2009b; Muller and
Kolk 2009)
Firm’s structure or governance
Firm size, operating scale and financial characteristics (Castelló
and Galang 2014; Choi et al. 2013; Crisóstomo et al. 2011;
Jamali et al. 2009a; Klerkx et al. 2012; Özçelik et al. 2014;
Udayasankar 2008; Zhang et al. 2009)
Governance practices (Küskü 2007; de Jesus Lameira and Ness
2007; Lund-Thomsen 2008; Lund-Thomsen and Nadvi 2010a;
Mijatovic and Stokic 2010; Yin and Ma 2009)
Board of directors (Choi et al. 2013; Lindgreen et al. 2009)
Firm’s mission, identity and organizational culture
History of responsiveness and culture for CSR (Muller and Kolk
2015; Ozen and Küskü 2009; Prout 2006; Sandhu et al. 2012)
CSR central to mission and aligned with values (Atakan and Eker
2007; Husted et al. 2010; Rishi and Moghe 2013)
Firm’s motives
General motivational dimensions (Roy et al. 2013)
Duty: general, religious, public, ethics of care; virtue (Chakrabarty
and Bass 2015; Han et al. 2008; Kapelus 2002; Khan 2013;
Khan et al. 2013b; Van Cranenburgh and Arenas 2014)
Seeking political legitimacy (Idemudia 2007)
Leader altruism (Jamali and Mirshak 2007; Sanchez 2000)
Innovation (Vilk_e 2014)
r Meeting the localized expectations of power-holders: Host
government (Cash 2012; Luo 2006; Shengtian et al. 2010);
Countries elite (Kapelus 2002); Brutal military elite (Holliday
2005); Guerilla or paramilitary groups (Maurer 2009; Wheeler
et al. 2002); Stakeholder pressure groups (Ceha 2013; Eweje
2006; Griesse 2007a)
r Meeting local population expectations: Provide
government-type services (Arora and Kazmi 2012; Bird 2009;
Cash 2012; Reed 2002a); Safeguard local assets/communities
(Bird and Smucker 2007); Improve socio-economic assets and
sustainable community or biophysical development (Amaeshi
2011; Chaklader and Gautam 2013; Daye 2009; Dougherty and
Olsen 2014; Rwabizambuga 2007; Shaaeldin et al. 2013)
Firm’s trade orientation/business strategy
Firm’s strategy tripod (Cruz et al. 2015)
Firm’s advertising intensity (Zhang et al. 2010)
Firm’s level of industry competition (Muller and Kolk 2010)
Firm diversification, internationalization and core business strategy
(Davidson 2009; Lindgreen et al. 2010; Sandhu et al. 2012)
Firm’s stakeholder vs. capitalist view of business (Gao 2009;
Glover 2007; Lindgreen et al. 2009; Ozen and Küskü 2009)

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Consequences of CSR
Performance of the firm
r Financial: influenced stock prices (Arya and Zhang 2009),
market valuation (Cheung et al. 2010), return on equity, return
on assets, net profit margin, sales growth, debt financial cost,
market-based performance (Adewale and Rahmon 2014; Aras
et al. 2010; Arsoy et al. 2012; Chih et al. 2008; de Jesus
Lameira and Ness 2007; Demetriades and Auret 2014;
Dumitrescu and Simionescu 2014; Fauzi et al. 2007; Halme and
Laurila 2009; Ntim and Soobaroyen 2013; Ofori et al. 2014;
Tyagi and Sharma 2013; Xun 2013; Ye and Zhang 2011; Zeng
et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2014)
r Environment and sustainability: (Kuo et al. 2012; Yin and Ma
2009)
r Social (e.g. local legitimacy): (Claasen and Roloff 2012)
r Employee and group: Employee commitment and engagement
(Albdour and Altarawneh 2012; Ligeti and Oravecz 2009;
workplace relations (Mishra and Suar 2010), personnel
development (Mishra and Suar 2010)
Positive firm-specific benefits
r Long-term business benefits: (Atakan and Eker 2007; Henisz
et al. 2014; Kannabiran 2009; Zheng et al. 2014; Zeng et al.
2013)
r Business opportunities: entrepreneurial ventures and foreign
direct investments (Ahmad and Ramayah 2012; Goyal 2006)
r Strategic value: (Jamali and Keshishian 2009; Reed 2002a)
Impact vis-à-vis local communities
r Detrimental impact of CSR: Specific negative impact on a
community (Glover 2007; Hayhurst 2011; Menassa 2010;
Ramasamy and Yeung 2009; Sandhu et al. 2012); Suicides of
rural farmers (Iyer 2009); Provision of poor quality social
amenities (Dandago and Arugu 2014); Lack of sustainability
plan after closure (Littlewood 2014)
r Developmental impact of CSR: Addressing community concerns
and/or relieving of misery (Dunfee and Hess 2000; Fulmer et al.
2008; Muthuri et al. 2012; Pederson 2005); Sustainable
community development (Arevalo and Aravind 2011; Arora and
Kazmi 2012; Das 2009; Halme and Laurila 2009; Kolk and
Lenfant 2013; Muthuri et al. 2012; Philip 2009)
r Other spillover effects from CSR: Legitimizing and/or framing
business projects, strategies and partnerships (Joutsenvirta and
Vaara 2015; Ofori et al. 2014; Yoon and Lam 2013; Zeng et al.
2013; Zheng et al. 2014)
CSR in Developing Countries 9

Table 3. Continued

Antecedents of CSR Consequences of CSR

Firm’s resource availability/ performance/ CSR spending (Julian

and Ofori-dankwa 2013; Li et al. 2013; Verma and Kumar 2014)
Firm’s primary stakeholders
CSR importance to customer, suppliers and supply chain (de Abreu
et al. 2012; Christmann and Taylor 2006; Crisóstomo et al. 2011;
Luetkenhorst 2004; Luken and Stares 2005; Prout 2006; Sandhu
et al. 2012)
CSR importance to stakeholder groups, coalitions or partnerships
(Bhanji and Oxley 2013; Griesse 2007b; Idemudia 2011; Jamali
and Keshishian 2009; Lindgreen et al. 2010; Lund-Thomsen and
Lindgreen 2014; Lund-Thomsen and Nadvi 2010b; Mena et al.
2010; Nwankwo et al. 2007; Yin et al. 2013)

Table 4. Summary of research on CSR at the individual level of analysis

Antecedents of CSR Consequences of CSR

Personal values and other sociocultural characteristics Increased employee commitment to and
Personal cultural values and/or beliefs (Chun 2009; Duarte 2010; Erondu et al. 2004; engagement in the firm
Gupta and Hodges 2012; Katamba et al. 2012; Obalola 2008; Rodrigo and Arenas Increased employee commitment to the firm
2008; Shafer et al. 2007; Turker 2009; Vivier 2013) (Bayoud et al. 2012; Chun 2009; Turker
2009)
Personal religions orientations (Brammer et al. 2007; Mandurah et al. 2012) Increased OCBs (Lin 2010)
Attitudes towards cultural patterns, such as Guanxi, Ghandhian notions of trusteeship Increased attractiveness of (identification
(Arora and Kazmi 2012) with) the firm
CSR knowledge and expertise Increased firm attractiveness in the eyes of
Awareness of CSR (Alas and Tafel 2008; Balasubramanian et al. 2005; Erondu et al. both consumers and employees (Duarte
2004; Gupta and Hodges 2012; Kolkailah et al. 2012; Lam 2009; Tian et al. 2011) 2010)
Knowledge of environmental issues and commitment to environmental protections Increased identification with the firm in the
(Fryxell and Lo 2003) eyes of both consumers and employees
(Kim et al. 2010)
Other personal characteristics
Stewardship of a particular leader (Mohan 2001; Wheeler et al. 2002) Positive orientations and purchase intentions
Individual consumer, commitments and intentions (Arli and Lasmono 2010; Carvalho Increased positive orientations and purchase
et al. 2010; Juscius and Sneideriene 2013; Kolkailah et al. 2012; Ramasamy et al. 2010) intentions from consumers (Auger et al.
Individual attitudes towards human rights and/or ethical orientation (Pless and Maak 2007; Ramasamy and Yeung 2009)
2009; Puncheva-Michelotti et al. 2010)
Individual perceptions of and attitudes towards various dimensions of corporate
responsibilities (Baden and Wilkinson 2014; Cai and Aguilar 2014; Dawkins et al.
2014; Demuijnck and Ngnodjom 2013; Farooq et al. 2014; Mahmood and Humphrey
2013; Jamali et al. 2009a; Nambiar and Chitty 2014; Robertson et al. 2013; Zhu et al.
2014; Zu and Song 2009)

describes the Monsanto Small Holder Program and
suggests that the initial philanthropic intent was
undermined by competing commercial pressures
leaving vulnerable stakeholders underserved. Bond
(2008) warns of the naı̈ve acceptance of corporate
bona fides, and Akpan (2006) similarly highlights
that corporate inducement and pacification strategies
through CSR have the consequence of stoking greed
and opportunism and exacerbating conflicts in local
communities.
On the other hand, there is evidence for a posit-
ive impact of CSR, where the review suggests that
CSR practices often work to address community
concerns/misery (e.g. Dunfee and Hess 2000;
Fulmer et al. 2008; Muthuri et al. 2012), build mech-
anisms for sustainable community development (e.g.
Halme and Laurila 2009; Muthuri et al. 2012; Philip
2009) and balance the detrimental effect of capitalism
(Gifford et al. 2010). With regard to this last cat-
egory, Dunfee and Hess (2000, p. 95) argue that
‘private firms are uniquely positioned to provide sig-
nificant relief to the misery that pervades the develop-
ing world’, using the Merck-Mectizan case where the
pharmaceutical giant incurred great cost in develop-
ing and providing a free drug to treat river blindness
in Africa.


C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
10
Individual level of analysis
Of the articles reviewed, only 41 (9%) were focused
at the individual level. The antecedents identified fall
into three categories: the personal values and other
sociocultural characteristics of managers, employees
and other stakeholders; the CSR knowledge and
expertise of managers and decision-makers; and
the various personal characteristics of individuals
(employees, leaders, consumers). Corporate social
responsibility consequences fall into three cate-
gories, including increased commitment to the firm,
increased attractiveness of the firm in the eyes of
specific stakeholders and positive-orientations and
purchase intentions (Table 4).
Individual-level antecedents of CSR. The predomi-
nant category in terms of antecedents pertained to the
personal values and other sociocultural characteris-
tics, including personal cultural values and/or beliefs
(e.g. Chun 2009; Duarte 2010; Turker 2009) as well
as religious orientations. Brammer et al. (2007) ex-
plore, for example, the relationship between religious
denomination and individual CSR attitudes. Their re-
sults suggest no substantive differences in terms of the
prioritization of responsibilities; however, religious
membership does seem generally to predict broader
conceptions of business responsibilities. Other socio-
cultural characteristics encompass attitudes towards
specific cultural patterns such as Guanxi (Moon and
Shen 2010; Shafer et al. 2007).
A second category of antecedents refers to knowl-
edge of and expertise in CSR-related content. For
example, Fryxell and Lo (2003) document that en-
vironmental knowledge had an important influence
on CSR-related behaviors towards the environment.
Similarly, Tian et al. (2011) find that CSR aware-
ness is an antecedent, particularly among consumers,
with a higher level of purchase intention among con-
sumers who are aware of the CSR activities of the
firm in question. Finally, some studies explored other
personal characteristics, including, for example, con-
sumer commitment and intentions (Arli and Lasmono
2010; Carvalho et al. 2010; Kolkailah et al. 2012),
and attitudes towards human rights and/or other eth-
ical orientations (Pless and Maak 2009). Puncheva-
Michelotti et al. (2010), for example, explore how
decisions to support the initiatives of socially respon-
sible firms are influenced by their attributions con-
cerning specific aspects of human rights. Using a
sample of Russian and Bulgarian professionals, the
results of this study suggest that participants were

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
more willing to purchase, invest, seek employment
and support socially responsible firms that exhibited
greater acknowledgement of political rights.
Individual-level consequences of CSR. At this level,
consequences fall into three categories: increased em-
ployee commitment/engagement as a result of CSR;
increased attractiveness of the firm in the eyes of
specific stakeholders; and positive consumer orienta-
tions and purchase intentions. For example, several
articles suggest that perceptions of socially respon-
sible firms elicit increased employee commitment to
the firm (Bayoud et al. 2012). Furthermore, as found
by Chun (2009), perceived CSR was positively corre-
lated with attitudes towards the environment and em-
ployees, with higher scores on conservatism and self-
transcendence associated with higher environmental
commitment. Furthermore, individual consumers re-
gard firms that have active CSR initiatives more pos-
itively, and therefore the individual tends to hold pos-
itive orientations, attitudes and purchase intentions
(Auger et al. 2007; Puncheva-Michelotti et al. 2010).
CSR in developing countries as an
emerging field of study
In this section, we advance the claim that CSR in
developing countries is emerging as a distinctive
domain of study within management. Inspired by
Basu and Palazzo’s (2008) treatment of CSR as
a sense-making process, we divide our analysis
here into CSR Understanding (Thinking) and CSR
Expressions (Doing), but deviate somewhat by
focusing on CSR types manifested in the literature,
instead of on individual decision-makers.
CSR Thinking: conceptualizations of CSR in
developing countries
We begin by analyzing how the thinking about CSR
in developing countries is manifested by examining
the research questions asked, theoretical positions
adopted, methodologies used and CSR definitions
employed (Table 5).
Research questions. A subset of the types of re-
search questions reviewed parallel those asked in
the broader CSR literature. In particular, questions
tied to predicting and controlling forms of organi-
zational performance are common. Aligned with the
foundational assumptions of the NBS approach of

Table 5. CSR in developing countries as an emerging field: comparison with the developed countries literature on key dimensions
Developed
CSR Thinking: conceptualizations of CSR in developing countries
Questions asked r How to predict and control
organizational performance such as the
CSR–CFP link?
r How can CSR increase organizational
performance?
r How better to understand CSR
programs and the feed-back to
organizational performance?
Theoretical positions Institutional theory, resource-based view
adopted of the firm and micro-oriented theories
(organizational justice, needs)
Framing r
Isolated view of business from society
business–society where the view from C-suite is the
relationships dominant perspective
r The origin of CSR activities is inside
the organization and is specific to
organizational decision-makers and
therefore the locus of action lies solely
C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
within the corporation itself
CSR Doing: expressions of CSR in developing countries
CSR expressions r Explicit CSR (e.g. in USA)
r Implicit CSR (e.g. in Europe)
r Competitive and Instrumental CSR
(e.g. USA and UK)
r Cohesive CSR (e.g. Germany and
Japan)
r Developmental CSR (e.g. France and
South Korea)
Key stakeholders and r Predominant preoccupation with
issues considered primary organizational stakeholders,
including: consumers, managers,
employees and shareholders
r Preoccupation with issues relating to
operational efficiencies, financial
performance, firm reputation, firm
capabilities, wealth maximization and
agency problems
Developing
r How do global political and economic institutional forces intersect and interact with organizational performance
(e.g. CFP) and how do these impact CSR expressions?
r How do geopolitical historical patterns shape the relationship between MNCs and local communities, and how are
these relationships further influenced by multilateral financial institutions?
r What is the CSR program for? Whose ends does it serve? What are the direct and indirect consequences for various
CSR in Developing Countries
stakeholders in both the short and long term?
r How to understand better the externalities of organizational performance and the feed-forward to the design of CSR
programs.
Institutional theory, stakeholder theory, relational governance theory, political theory, transaction cost economics,
varieties of capitalism, Sen’s capability approach, social exchange theory, theory of planned behavior, postcolonial
theory, dependency theory, postcolonial feminist international relations theory, grounded theory, third universal
theory, community-enabled balanced scorecard theory
r Context is a key consideration accounting for integrated and complex interactions between business and society
r CSR is more broadly considered as a key relational exchange in which a multiplicity of actors are involved (beyond
corporate actors) who are expected to understand and accommodate mutual needs in the context of a dynamically
evolving social contract
r A multiplicity of interacting local communities and their traditions and mores existing within historical and
geopolitical context become central to the relations analyzed
r Hybrid CSR (combining elements of implicit CSR and explicit CSR))
r Developmental CSR (filling institutional voids and developmental gaps)
r Decoupled CSR (symbolic and legitimacy-oriented but entailing various avoidance and buffering strategies)
r Relational CSR (attuned to the social contract and relational norms and expectations of local communities)
r Attempts at placing a wide range of beneficiaries of CSR at the center of emerging analyses; including: children,
women, farmers, laborers, workers, miners, manufacturers, local communities and rural poor, disadvantaged
communities, or disenfranchised low income consumers
r Preoccupation with issues relating to education and human development, capacity building, child labor, fair labor
practices, human rights, human security, employment creation, accountability vis-à-vis stakeholders, inequality,
poverty, violence, conflict, corruption, social change and value creation
11
12
profit-seeking, we encounter questions in both sets of
literature pertaining to the intersections of CSR with
firm ownership structures, consumer pressure, rep-
utation management and corporate financial perfor-
mance (e.g. Adewale and Rahmon 2014; Choi et al.
2013; Prout 2006;Zeng et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2014),
all geared towards supporting economic growth and
efficient markets.
Beyond these, we also see political and critical
questions concerning the CSR–development nexus
(Achua 2008; Blowfield and Frynas 2005; Gokulsing
2011; Okoye 2012a; Reed 2002b). These questions
raise sociocultural, geopolitical and ecological con-
cerns that require considerations beyond traditional
market economics and call for reflection on how mar-
ket forces oppress, marginalize and stifle local voices
(e.g. Banerjee 2008; Khan and Lund-Thomsen 2011);
how CSR should be understood in relation to the ad-
verse outcomes of a global economy mediated by
transnational corporations and multilateral financial
institutions (e.g. Bond 2008; Eweje 2006; Idemudia
2009); and how better to counteract negative external-
ities in the design of CSR initiatives (e.g. Blowfield
and Frynas 2005; Jamali et al. 2015c; Newell and
Frynas 2007).
Such questions may be said to emerge at the criti-
cal edge of management studies (Jamali et al. 2015b),
with higher levels of epistemic reflexivity and greater
questioning of the values and assumptions under-
lying common modes of production and consump-
tion (e.g. Glover 2007; Iyer 2009; Okoye 2012b).
Relatedly, therefore, there is critical questioning of
the inherent coupling of CSR and corporate finan-
cial performance (CFP) which leads to new research
questions focused on probing the negative external-
ities of greater levels of CFP (e.g. Blowfield and
Frynas 2005; Fig 2005; Hayhurst 2011) and alterna-
tive system considerations beyond market strategies
(Mellahi et al. 2016) and profit-seeking (Banerjee
2008; Karam and Jamali 2015).
Theoretical positions. The theoretical positions
adopted are often similar to those we encounter in
the broader literature, with a predominant use of in-
stitutional theory and stakeholder theory (e.g. Amran
et al. 2013; Dougherty and Olsen 2014; Karam and
Jamali 2013; Xun 2013). Yet, we also see the integra-
tion of macro-level theories derived from various dis-
ciplines, including: relational governance theory (e.g.
Xun 2013), political theory (e.g. Castelló and Galang
2014), transaction cost economics (e.g. Bhanji and
Oxley 2013), capitalism theory (e.g. Amaeshi and

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
Amao 2009), Sen’s capability approach (e.g. Ansari
et al. 2012) slack resource theory (e.g. Julian and
Ofori-dankwa 2013), critical postcolonial theory (e.g.
Khan and Lund-Thomsen 2011) and grounded the-
ory (e.g. NewenhamKahindi 2011). These theories
are sensitive to the peculiarities of context and invoke
attention to the institutional complexity encountered.
Methodologies used. When we consider the types
of methodologies employed in this literature, we
note that, in contrast to the results of Aguinis and
Glavas’s review (2012) where qualitative methodolo-
gies were infrequently used (only 11%), our review
suggests that these methodologies are more popu-
lar in this body of empirical research (37% quali-
tative); with a tendency to engage multiple stake-
holders (Amaeshi et al. 2006; Belal and Roberts
2010; Yin et al. 2013) and multiple methods: inter-
views (Duarte 2010; Eweje 2006; Jamali and Mirshak
2007); focus groups (Adegbite and Nakajima 2011;
Lund-Thomsen 2008); and secondary reports (Baskin
2006; Gao 2011; Thompson and Zakaria 2004). Fur-
thermore, language presents a particularly challeng-
ing methodological consideration, given that English
is the predominant language for scholarship and pub-
lication. Jack et al. (2008) suggest that management
scholars need to examine better methods of inclu-
sion for non-English texts and also to consider the
constitutive effects of language in theory production/
maintenance.
Definitions invoked. Generally speaking, the defini-
tions of CSR in this literature show more sensitivity to
the complexity of business–society interactions and a
heightened affinity to the normative relationships em-
bedded in the business–society social contract. This
stands in contrast to the broader CSR literature, where
the business firm continues to be regarded as the fo-
cal point of attention and control, and where CSR
is primarily conceived, judged and determined from
the perspective of organizational stakeholders with
limited attention to possible variations in the
business–society interface (see Table 5).
In the process of our content analysis, we reviewed
various CSR definitions used in the developing coun-
try literature (Appendix S4). Some of these defini-
tions are common to the mainstream CSR literature,
such as Carroll’s (1979, 1999) pyramid model, which
includes economic, legal, ethical and discretionary re-
sponsibility. By placing economic and legal responsi-
bility at the base of this pyramid, Carroll’s (1979,
1999) model provides more weight to economic
CSR in Developing Countries
obligations and legal safeguards than to ethical and
philanthropic responsibility (see Kolk and Lenfant
2010; Lindgreen et al. 2009; Nejati and Ghasemi
2012; Oh et al. 2011). Similarly, the McWilliams and
Siegel (2001) definition is commonly used in both
sets of literature, which defines CSR as furthering the
social good beyond firm interests and legal compli-
ance. Corporate social responsibility therefore builds
on the basic economic and legal contracts between
corporations and society, and tries to go beyond these
to further the common good. The ‘business case’ for
CSR (see Kurucz et al. 2008; Porter and Kramer 2006;
Vogel 2005) takes this logic further by arguing that
CSR and economic performance can be synergetic,
and CSR and social involvement can be used to en-
hance the bottom line and economic viability. These
arguments are found in both the mainstream CSR lit-
erature and the CSR literature on developing countries
to some extent.
Yet, we also see a growing cluster of definitions
adopted in the developing country literature where
CSR is conceptualized as a complex phenomenon
that is contextual and multimodal and often initiated
in collaboration with others inside and outside the cor-
poration (e.g. Lund-Thomsen and Nadvi 2010a; Mal-
oni and Brown 2006; Muller and Kolk 2009; Muthuri
and Gilbert 2011; Yu 2008). As such, corporations
are seen to have a responsibility towards not only
not harming society, but also mitigating the nega-
tive externalities of market capitalism (Vachani and
Smith 2004). For example, Husted and Allen (2006),
drawing from Sethi (1990), suggest that CSR is de-
fined as ‘the firm’s obligation to respond to the ex-
ternalities created by market action’. Furthermore,
there is often more emphasis on how CSR is gov-
erned by social relations and shared sociocultural
values and norms. For example, various definitions
emphasize that CSR is normative and prescriptive
in the sense of seeking congruence with sociocul-
tural values and norms (Huemer 2010; Mohan 2001;
Robertson 2009) and seeking to enhance relationships
within the business–society social contract (e.g. Gao
2009; Gugler and Shi 2009; Yu 2009). There is, thus,
heightened concern with the nature of the business–
society social contract and ensuing relational norms
and expectations.
In this configuration, CSR is more broadly con-
sidered as a key relational exchange within an often
pre-existing social contract. This context-focused re-
lational dynamic is a salient feature of CSR in the
developing world and leads us to begin sketching the
conceptualization of an embedded relational type of

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
13
CSR that acknowledges the salience and multiplicity
of stakeholders existing within the historical, socio-
political and geopolitical context of the nation state. In
this way, therefore, the focus on CSR is more attuned
to context, the expectations of local communities, and
the traditions and mores of interacting cultural groups
and individuals. We dwell further on relational CSR
expressions in the next section.
CSR Doing: expressions and implementation of CSR
Moving beyond ‘Thinking CSR’, in this section we
examine the ‘Doing of CSR’, where we explore the
issues and areas of focus, and probe specific examples
of strategies, activities and implementation steps,
as conveyed in the literature. Examining these pro-
vides further evidence that CSR in developing coun-
tries is emerging as a distinctive field (see Table 5).
Issues and areas of focus. Unlike the predominant
preoccupation with consumers, managers, employ-
ees and shareholders in the core body of literature on
CSR in developed countries, we note a focus here on a
wider array of stakeholders and issues. These include
education and human development, capacity build-
ing, child labor, fair labor practices, human rights,
human security, employment creation, accountabil-
ity vis-à-vis marginalized stakeholders, inequality,
poverty, violence, conflict, corruption, pollution, cli-
mate change and social change, coupled with at-
tempts at placing the beneficiaries of CSR at the cen-
ter of analyses, including children, women, farmers,
laborers, workers, miners, soccer-ball manufactur-
ers, local communities and rural poor, disadvantaged
communities or disenfranchised low-income con-
sumers (see Akpan 2006; Bond 2008; Campbell 2012;
Holliday 2005; Khavul and Bruton 2013; Raufflet
2009; Renouard and Lado 2012). These issues are
broader and more locally nuanced and contextualized
than the themes emerging from reviews of the main-
stream CSR literature (e.g. operational efficiencies,
financial performance, firm reputation, firm capabil-
ities, market outcomes, wealth maximization and age-
ncy problems (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Coulmont
and Berthelot 2015; Revelli and Viviani 2015).
Relational CSR expressions. Other Doing charac-
teristics of CSR that emerge from this literature sug-
gest strategies that are geared towards initiating a
range of collaborative relationships with others inside
and outside the corporation (e.g. Lund-Thomsen and
Nadvi 2010a; Maloni and Brown 2006; Muller and
14
Kolk 2009; Yu 2008). Various scholars point to how
CSR in developing countries can only be effective if
geared to understanding local needs and expectations
through effective local engagement, partnering and
collaboration (e.g. Chjkwanha 2009; Cruz and Boehe
2010; Griesse 2007a; Raufflet 2009; Ramlall 2012;
Gokulsing 2011). For example, Tencati et al. (2010)
argue that, to generate impact, CSR needs to be fos-
tered rather than imposed, through the creation of
innovative partnerships and locally rooted solutions.
Relational CSR is thus a form of CSR that is gov-
erned by social relations and more attuned to shared
sociocultural values and norms (e.g. Huemer 2010;
Mohan 2001; Robertson 2009) accentuating the so-
cial embeddedness of the business firm, and the need
to reach out to the community and tailor CSR prac-
tices to respond organically to cultural expectations
or the implicit social contract.
We also detect variations in whether relational CSR
expressions emphasize local or global dynamics.
There are relational CSR expressions that are clearly
focused on the local level, as for example in the CSR
described by Wang and Juslin (2009), who define
a Chinese Harmony understanding of CSR where
interpersonal harmony guides corporate activities
and expressions of CSR. Balasubramanian et al.
(2005) similarly note the predominance of a caring
model of CSR in India. Here, CSR is embedded
in and emerges from local relations and is closely
informed by local sociocultural values and traditions.
There are also more global geopolitical relations that
spillover to shape local relations in the context of
CSR. For example, in the work of Idemudia (2009)
and the Africa literature more broadly, CSR practices
evolve to respond to the reactions of local populations
to the negative externalities of large oil companies.
This is a reactive form of local relational CSR that is
inevitably influenced and colored by broader geopo-
litical relations, and where CSR is often portrayed
as falling short of meeting local expectations and
keeping up with local values; hence the persistence
of notions of exclusion, subjugation, dispossession or
exploitation.
Developmental and decoupled CSR expressions. In
contrast to the instrumental, competitive and devel-
opmental CSR expressions identified by Kang and
Moon (2012) in the context of neatly delineated cap-
italist economies, our review points to two contrast-
ing expressions of CSR that are either developmental
or decoupled. The literature provides various exam-
ples of corporations working with local stakeholders

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
and communities to fill institutional voids and fos-
ter engagement with national development agendas
and local community issues (e.g. Arora and Kazmi
2012; Das 2009; Dunfee and Hess 2000; Fulmer et al.
2008; Kolk and Lenfant 2013; Muthuri et al. 2012;
Nwankwo et al. 2007; Philip 2009).
The literature also depicts decoupled CSR expres-
sions that are primarily symbolic and legitimacy ori-
ented, yet involve various buffering and avoidance
strategies (see Goodrick and Salancik 1996; Meyer
and Rowan 1977; Oliver 1991). In our review, these
forms of CSR have been referred to as symbolic
CSR (Jamali and Neville 2011), token, insincere or
greenwash CSR (Gautam and Singh 2010; Hamann
and Kapelus 2004), strategic or opportunistic CSR
(Wiig and Kolstad 2010), inducement, pacification
CSR or divide and rule CSR (Akpan 2006), and im-
perial and colonialist CSR (Khan and Lund-Thomsen
2011). Decoupled CSR expressions thus are intended
to preserve the legitimacy that such engagement en-
tails, while corporations go about their business as
usual (Jamali et al. 2015c). Where decoupled CSR is
still embedded in the logic of efficient systems with
profit-oriented business as the unit of analysis, re-
searchers often highlight the need to move towards
a substantive developmental CSR agenda where the
profit motive takes a less central position and where
development and sustainability become the priority
(Balasubramanian et al. 2005; Muthuri 2008; Tencati
et al. 2010).
Hybrid CSR expressions. Where the dichotomy of
explicit vs. implicit CSR may generally serve as a
useful categorization in some contexts, as suggested
by Matten and Moon (2008), our review makes clear
that forms of CSR emerging in the developing coun-
try context are not as easy to categorize. The simplest
variation may involve the mixing of implicit and ex-
plicit elements, but noting that depictions of CSR in
developing countries are likely to be more hetero-
geneous than merely reflecting implicit/explicit hy-
bridity. Indeed, various scholars note how CSR ac-
tivities in developing countries are simultaneously
shaped by the expectations of the global commu-
nity and the proliferation of international standards
of CSR that define corporate obligations in more ex-
plicit ways (e.g. Gugler and Shi 2009; Islam and Dee-
gan 2008), coupled by the continued local predomi-
nance of corporate philanthropy (Amaeshi et al. 2006;
Oyungerel and Lkhagvasuren 2011; Zhou et al.
2012). Balasubramanian et al. (2005), for example,
note that, despite the recent proliferation of Western
CSR in Developing Countries
standards and codes (i.e. driving explicit CSR), CSR
in India is still implemented in alignment with a caring
model, as dictated by cultural traditions (i.e. implicit
CSR). So we observe, similarly to Jamali and Neville
(2011), the prevalence of heterogeneous hybridiza-
tion of CSR expressions in developing countries that
are not solely explicit or implicit or strictly tied to the
foundational elements of the NBS, but combine ele-
ments of both, and possibly emerging from alternative
assumptions or central logics.
Our analysis of the Thinking of CSR and the Doing
of CSR leads us to identify points of departure from
the broader CSR literature, supporting the thesis that
CSR in developing countries is emerging as a distinct
field of study. In the next section, we bring together
the main insights gathered through our review and
identify directions for future research.
Synthesis of themes and future
research directions
While there are many elements of commonality
across the literature reviewed, there is also complexity
and heterogeneity, and multiple countervailing pres-
sures that emerge at the different levels of analysis
and in relation to both the antecedents and conse-
quences of CSR. In this section, we synthesize and
organize the discussion around five main themes that
capture the focal aspects of variation characteristic of
our review.
First: complex institutional antecedents within
the NBS
Analyses of CSR in developing countries are possibly
most distinctive in relation to the antecedents iden-
tified at the institutional level of analysis. It is clear
that the specific configurations of many developing
country NBSs do not neatly fit within the predefined
elements of the NBS outlined in the mainstream lit-
erature. This distinctiveness is understood to derive
from the malfunctioning and/or underdeveloped sub-
systems or the countervailing institutional forces that
are at play in the specific developing country under
study.
In relation to the first, some scholars assume that
the variations in CSR expressions are fundamenta-
lly tied to specific characteristics of the developing
country’s NBS. These characteristics refer, most com-
monly, to the lack of system maturation or the malf-
unctioning of one or more of its subcomponents.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
15
Indeed, while recognizing important differences
across developing countries, our review points to
the fact that the NBSs of many of these coun-
tries have evolved in ways that have striking sim-
ilarities, relating to unstable, changing or failing
structures such as the co-opted influence of states,
higher levels of corruption, weaknesses in regula-
tory enforcement and financial institutions, gover-
nance complications and contracted citizen voice
and action. These weakened structures are often
referred to as institutional voids or ‘the lack of
proper governance structures that facilitate market
relations and operations’ (Khanna and Palepu 2010,
p. 656), which, in turn, often creates a ‘responsibility-
free space’ or a ‘moral free space’ (Donaldson and
Dunfee 1994). This responsibility-free space accen-
tuates the agentic role of corporate actors in defining
their type and level of CSR engagement in developing
countries. These and other antecedent complexities
within the NBS are fruitful areas for future research.
Additional considerations at the level of the NBS
are the countervailing formal and informal institu-
tional elements that work together to create unique
conditions likely to shape CSR expressions. While
formal NBS institutions may not exert enough pres-
sure on firms to mitigate excessive opportunism in
CSR, given the institutional voids noted above, the
influence of informal institutions may present coun-
tervailing pressures to conform to particular cultural
norms or traditions such as Guanxi and Zakat (see
Jamali et al. 2008; Moon and Shen 2010; Shafer
et al. 2007). Given that traditional NBS classifica-
tions have focused on formal institutional elements
of the state, the financial system, market coordination
mechanisms and labor, future research may explore
informal cultural elements or, alternatively, important
systems that lie outside the NBS (further elaborated
next). In the absence of functioning and reliable for-
mal institutions, there are always emergent counter-
vailing pressures to invoke informal networks used
to access decision-making circles or other resources
not obtained through official channels. Informal net-
works are common across developing countries, given
the difficulty of basing business transactions on as-
sumptions of continuity in governance and regula-
tion or other aspects of formal institutions (Wood and
Frynas 2006). The boundaries between formal and
informal institutions are also often porous and per-
meable (Wood and Frynas 2006). Therefore, while
some institutions may work to support responsi-
ble behavior and CSR, other formal and informal
institutions may entice irresponsibility. This often
16
creates contradictions between responsibility and
irresponsibility, as well as between explicit and
implicit forms of CSR.
Second: complex macro-level antecedents
outside the NBS
There are important systems to consider existing out-
side the NBS that may serve as countervailing pres-
sures for CSR. For example, our review suggests that
countervailing forces may stem from the juxtaposed
pressures of the geopolitical present vs. geopoliti-
cal past. There are clear tensions in this literature
between embracing globalization and best practice
CSR being propagated through the diffusion of inter-
national organizations and standards, but the weight
of the geopolitical past often complicates and bur-
dens the ease of application. A number of authors
highlight and further expound the persistent influence
of colonial capitalism (e.g. Adegbite and Nakajima
2011; Amaeshi et al. 2006), post-colonial rebuilding
(e.g. Mohan 2001) and the nature of north–south re-
lationships (e.g. Idemudia 2009). As per Tempel and
Walgenbach (2007, p. 2), ‘The business systems ap-
proach highlights how business continues to be in-
fluenced by the national institutional frameworks in
which it is embedded but tends to play down the influ-
ence of international developments on national pat-
terns of economic organization.’ It also, as we high-
light here, plays down the influence of the negative ex-
ternalities of global economics on developing nations
(Blowfield and Frynas 2005; Jamali et al. 2015c;
Newell and Frynas 2007). With globalization and the
liberalization of markets proceeding unabated, these
influences are important to consider and keep in mind
in future scholarship on CSR in the developing world.
This review also makes clear that the hybridiza-
tion of CSR in developing countries may not be tied
solely to the foundational or classical elements of
the NBS, but instead there may be variations due to
forces, pressures and factors outside the NBS. Our re-
view highlights different research efforts that do not
embed their exploration within a particular NBS con-
figuration, but rather adopt alternative foundational
assumptions to examine CSR. There is, in fact, a
significant number of articles that attribute CSR to
specific cultural norms or traditions in developing
countries. Culture lies outside the traditional NBS,
with explicit efforts noted here to move beyond cen-
tralizing the business actor situated on assumptions
of efficient liberal market economic systems. In these
cases, the business system itself is neither the central

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
nor the teleological unit of analysis, and CSR emerges
to serve other functions (e.g. meeting cultural expec-
tations) that go beyond economic rationality and com-
petitive advantage. Moving beyond such constrained
paradigmatic assumptions raises questions about the
etymology of CSR practices as potentially emerg-
ing not only through the all-powerful business actor
or from the omnipotent economic system, but rather
from more sociohistorical, religious and culturally
embedded roots of responsibility.
Third: salience of multiple actors involved in formal
and informal governance
Another important differentiator concerns the manner
in which this literature captures the multiple actors in-
volved in CSR, while simultaneously differentiating
positional nuances (e.g. local agricultural farmers vs.
local landowners; local management vs. headquarter
managers) and the amplified space for agency ac-
corded to various actors in the context of the insti-
tutional voids of formal and/or informal governance
systems. This is often tied to the complexities of gov-
ernance in developing nations with the terrain of the
political economy often populated by multiple actors
(e.g. weakened governments, political elites and fac-
tions, local firms and MNCs) seeking to advance their
respective interests through strategic interactions in
the context of the institutional voids encountered.
This review indeed lends support to a recent stream
of literature on governance in areas of limited state-
hood (Börzel and Risse 2010) suggesting that, in
the absence of a strong shadow of state hierarchy,
other actors often step in and assume more active
and prominent roles in governance, including in-
digenous/domestic firms, but also political elites and
MNCs. We find evidence of this, with mixed but no-
table roles reported in relation to political feudal lords,
extended clan leaders and political elites, and also
MNCs forging partnerships with the latter or with
government co-opted representatives, as they ma-
neuver through institutional voids (e.g. Eweje 2006;
Holliday 2005; Kapelus 2002; Maurer 2009).
Hence identifying the various actors involved ap-
pears really central or key to comprehending the con-
textual nuances at different levels of analysis. For
example, at the organizational level, important coun-
tervailing nuances to keep in mind have to do with
the governance role of local indigenous firms, which
may resort to informal networks or to confluence
with small elite factions to alleviate their relative
exclusion from formal governance processes, while
CSR in Developing Countries
retaining engagement with philanthropy. Further-
more, at the individual level of analysis, it would be
amiss to overlook the power of individual decision-
makers in pushing the CSR agenda, particularly
within specific affiliated community groups. Thus,
gaining insight into the roles and salience of a range
of non-traditional actors is often important for un-
derstanding the local dynamics of governance in
developing countries and implications for CSR.
Fourth: hybridized and other nuanced forms of
CSR expressions
In light of the above, it is not surprising that the fourth
emerging theme concerns the salience of varied and
hybridized expressions of CSR across the develop-
ing world that are not solely explicit or implicit or
strictly tied to the foundational elements of the NBS.
In fact, in these contexts, CSR seems often enacted
in a contextually responsive manner such that expres-
sions are shaped in reaction to multilevel sociopo-
litical and historically situated factors. Additionally,
CSR seems to be enacted in light of serving specific
functions, including, for example, gaining legitimacy.
Legitimacy is gained by imitating global best prac-
tice (i.e. mimetic isomorphism), but is also strongly
shaped by staying attuned to the norms of the context
in question and to the values embedded in the im-
plicit social contract (i.e. normative isomorphism).
In this regard, we agree with Brammer et al. (2012,
p. 13) who suggest that, given lingering challenges
in defining CSR, which is a multifaceted and con-
tested concept, ‘implicit forms of CSR may remain
undetected in developing nations and could easily be
mistaken for an absence of responsibility’.
Beyond these varied hybridized CSR expressions,
we also detect expressions of CSR that are relational,
decoupled and developmental. Where decoupled
CSR is still embedded in the logic of efficient markets
using profit-oriented business as the unit of analysis,
relational and developmental CSR expressions bring
forward the possibility of CSR emerging to serve
purposes beyond maximizing economic efficiency.
These varied expressions can be explained in light
of the complex institutional antecedents delineated
above, and the range of countervailing pressures
originating from within or outside the NBS of devel-
oping countries. These varied CSR expressions can
also be explained in the context of the institutional
voids and amplified space for agency in developing
countries, and the roles and salience of the mul-
tiple actors involved in governance as explained

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
17
above. These variations are worth tracking in future
scholarship.
Furthermore, we invite sensitized attention to the
CSR expressions that are likely to be encountered
across various developing world landscapes, partic-
ularly the least developed, and emerging (or middle
development) country categories. While we begin to
identify some basic types here, we invite researchers
to add to this initial menu and expand understand-
ing of the range of possibilities of CSR expressions,
and how these are tied to variations in the mix of
institutional antecedents. Our review was intended
to synthesize commonalities, but we also recognize
that nuances and differences that are nation-specific
are not captured, and we invite future research to
examine those thoroughly and systematically.
Fifth: varied scope of developmental and
detrimental CSR consequences
This review finally highlights the varied spectrum of
CSR consequences documented in this body of re-
search. Here, we note a varied scope of consequences
evaluated in terms of impact on profit as well as a vari-
ety of other positive (i.e. developmental) and negative
(i.e. detrimental) considerations pertaining to individ-
uals, groups, community and environment. We thus
dissect consequences relating not only to the logics
of financial performance and healthier markets, but
also to non-market outcomes. For example, at the in-
stitutional level, some authors focus on the broad de-
velopmental impact of CSR (e.g. Gifford et al. 2010;
Karam and Jamali 2013; Nwankwo et al. 2007; Okoye
2012a), while others dwell on how CSR can, in turn,
restrict economic and social development and/or en-
vironmental protection (e.g. Appiah and Abass 2014;
Boudier and Bensebaa 2011), and exacerbate exist-
ing social inequities and/or blurring the lines of state
accountability (e.g. Campbell 2012).
Furthermore, we detect important nuances in the
way CSR consequences at the organizational level
are documented, with attention to dimensions other
than financial performance (e.g. performance vis-à-
vis society, the community, the environment and/or
employees) providing sensitization to a plethora of
documented and researched negative consequences
of CSR that seem to be examined increasingly in the
developing country literature, particularly at the in-
stitutional and organizational levels of analysis (e.g.
Appiah and Abass 2014; Dandago and Arugu 2014;
Kolk and Lenfant 2013). This heightened sensitiza-
tion to the negative consequences of CSR seems to
18
be another point of departure from the mainstream
developed country literature.
Directions for future research on CSR in developing
countries
Finally, we end our synthesis section by providing
more specific guidance for future research. At the
institutional level, we need to continue to flesh out
how pressures for CSR stemming from outside the
NBS interplay with different NBS configurations
(e.g. geopolitical past: Amaeshi et al. 2006; Idemu-
dia 2009; Iyer 2009; local ecosystem: Mitra 2012;
Lund-Thomsen 2005, 2009) or intersect with spe-
cific cultural traditions and norms (e.g. Blasco and
Zølner 2010; Darigan and Post 2009, Gustavson 2011;
Ip 2009; Jamali and Neville 2011). Future research
should also continue to explore and track more sys-
tematically the varied institutional consequences of
CSR in developing countries that may serve to either
support or hamper national development.
At the organizational level, it is important to con-
sider the complex mix of antecedent motives related
to meeting the expectations of local power holders,
feudal lords, country elites or local norms (e.g. Arora
and Kazmi 2012; Cash 2012; Kapelus 2002). Turn-
ing our attention to within the organization, it is also
important to consider how the organizational culture
and identity of the firm influence CSR adoption in
developing countries, and how these are affected by
institutional duality in the case of MNCs (Kostova
and Roth 2002) leading to potentially different CSR
expressions between local SMEs and MNCs (Jamali
and Neville 2011). It is also possible to consider CSR
motives and expressions across MNC subsidiaries
in multiple developing countries, or variation be-
tween CSR enacted at the headquarter vs. developing
country subsidiary level (Jamali 2010).
At the individual level of analysis, our review high-
lights the importance of understanding better the em-
beddedness of decision-makers, i.e. to understand
better who is making the decisions and why. One
main direction for this type of research is to focus on
the personal characteristics of decision-makers such
as perceptions and attitudes as well as cultural beliefs
and religious orientations. The paucity of articles at
this level of analysis suggests the need for more re-
search on the micro-foundations of CSR (Aguinis and
Glavas 2012) or the underlying psychological pro-
cesses associated with interpretation and decision-
making that are often reflected at the level of CSR
practice and implementation (Mellahi et al. 2016).

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
More generally, and not dissimilarly from the main-
stream CSR literature, more can be done to integrate
both organizational behaviour (OB) and human re-
source (HR) perspectives to dig deeper into the cogni-
tive and psychological aspects of CSR interpretation
and decision-making (Rupp et al. 2013). From an OB
perspective, future research can look into how em-
ployees under distinctive labor laws and workplace in-
frastructures understand and react to CSR activities of
their employers, and how CSR can be translated into
various employee outcomes ranging from increased
loyalty and motivation to increased awareness about
basic human and labor rights in the developing world
(Jamali et al. 2015c). Exploring potential synergies
between HRM and CSR (Jamali et al. 2015a) and
bridging the micro–macro divide in future research is
also important (Mellahi et al. 2016), given that schol-
arship on CSR tends to be concentrated at the macro
and meso levels (Aguinis and Glavas 2012).
Other important gaps identified through this review
include the attenuated explicit attention to geopolitics
and geopolitical considerations, except in some pock-
ets of literature (e.g. Amaeshi et al. 2006; Idemudia
2007, 2009; Khan and Lund-Thomsen 2011), know-
ing that both geography and international politics and
relations are likely to continue to flavor various as-
pects of economic organization and coordination in
the developing world with the advent of globalization.
A related gap is the need for more systematic atten-
tion to the complex interaction of formal and informal
institutional elements in influencing the expressions
of CSR in developing country contexts, knowing the
pervasiveness of informal networks across the devel-
oping world (Wood and Frynas 2006). Finally, this
review points to an important institutional antecedent
of CSR that needs to be accorded closer attention
in future scholarship pertaining to ‘local ecosystems’
that is likely to shape, enhance or constrain economic
organization and CSR expressions, particularly with
the compelling global environmental crises and grow-
ing evidence that environmental degradation is exac-
erbated across the developed–developing divide (Van
Beers and Van Den Bergh 2001).
Finally, although in this review our aim was to un-
pack the antecedents and consequences of CSR in
developing countries, we realize that exploration of
actual moderators and mediators is as important. Fur-
thermore, researchers adopting a long-term orienta-
tion in their research may be interested in modelling
how the CSR programs of today shape the contextual
antecedents of tomorrow in the same developing na-
tion context. For example, recent state-led attempts
CSR in Developing Countries
to regulate CSR activities in China (e.g. Lin 2010),
Nigeria (e.g. Okoye 2012aa) and most recently in In-
dia (Jain et al. 2016; Sharma 2011) are potential good
examples of institutional consequences of CSR that,
with time, may have converted or shaped a powerful
institutional antecedent.
Concluding remarks
Returning to where we began, our central research
question was: what is distinctive about the CSR in
developing countries literature as a domain of study?
The results of our review make clear that this liter-
ature has emerged as a legitimate domain of study,
whereby it is identifying and bracketing new defini-
tions and relationships and developing new empirical
and theoretical insights. We document points of de-
parture between CSR in developing countries and the
broader CSR literature in relation to CSR conceptu-
alizations (CSR Thinking) and the implementation of
CSR (CSR Doing). Our review also helps to iden-
tify the main themes of variation stemming from
the complexities of the context both as part of
and outside classic NBS configurations, the salience
of multiple actors involved in formal and in-
formal governance, the hybridized and other nu-
anced forms of CSR expressions, and the varied
scope of developmental and detrimental CSR con-
sequences. Therefore, one headline takeaway from
this review is that CSR in developing countries
has evolved into a significant body of scholar-
ship that retains its nuances, peculiarities and dis-
tinctiveness as a platform for knowledge genera-
tion. While not intended to augment the divide
between developed vs. developing countries, we
begin to document this idea of a parallel universe
between the mainstream literature on CSR in devel-
oped countries vs. the emerging literature on CSR
in developing countries. The paradigmatic lens and
embedded criticality of a large portion of this liter-
ature is noteworthy, and we invite future scholarship
to continue to step outside the logics or parameters
of neoliberal market relations or coherent NBS insti-
tutional configurations to thus allow for an opening
up to multiple voices, differing paradigms and in-
terdisciplinarity. Apart from the directions for future
research provided above, we also note the importance
of forging ahead with multi-level research, because
it helps to capture the nested complexity of develop-
ing country institutional contexts, while also tracking
more systematically the moderators and mediators
of CSR.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
19
More broadly, this review makes clear that, to get
a grounded understanding of CSR in the developing
world, it is often necessary to look beyond the level
of the corporation and the market to a range of polit-
ical and social institutions that lie outside the sphere
of the traditional parameters of the NBS. This re-
view in fact aptly highlights the complexity of the
NBS in the developing world, and how corporations
and their CSR expressions are themselves embed-
ded within wider formal and informal institutions and
systems of governance. Against competitive, collab-
orative and developmental forms of voluntary CSR
engagement across well-known market economics,
this review documents variant expressions of CSR,
including relational, developmental and decoupled
CSR, as well as hybrid and implicit socially bind-
ing responsibilities that are less often traced in the
developing world.
This review thus accentuates how the nuanced and
complex forms of CSR are contextualized and locally
shaped by multi-level factors, and how the bound-
aries of the business–society interface can usefully be
conceived as malleable and potentially changing, and
therefore taking shape in different ways between de-
veloped and developing country landscapes and also,
as likely, between varying developing contexts. Ex-
ploring variations in the business–society interface
and the antecedents, consequences, meanings and ex-
pressions of CSR are thus timely and important, given
the decisive impacts of business firms on a wide range
of outcomes in developing countries in the context of
institutional voids, responsibility-free space and po-
tential vulnerability of a range of stakeholders and
communities. We invite authors to continue to push
forward in this fascinating domain of scholarship
around CSR and its antecedents and consequences
in those contexts where it is most critically needed.
References
Abdalla, Y.A., Siti-Nabiha, A.K. and Shahbudin, A. (2013).
Examining the regulatory frameworks for the oil and gas
industry in Sudan. Journal of Environmental Assessment
Policy and Management, 15, pp. 1–23.
Achua, J.K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in Nige-
rian banking system. Society and Business Review, 3,
pp. 57–71.
Adegbite, E. and Nakajima, C. (2011). Corporate governance
and responsibility in Nigeria. International Journal of
Disclosure and Governance, 8, pp. 252–271.
Adewale, M.T. and Rahmon, T.A. (2014). Does corpo-
rate social responsibility improve an organization’s fi-
nancial performance? – Evidence from Nigerian banking
20
sector. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 13, pp. 52–
60.
Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t
know about corporate social responsibility: a review and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, pp. 932–
968.
Ahmad, N.H. and Ramayah, T. (2012). Does the notion of
‘doing well by doing good’ prevail among entrepreneurial
ventures in a developing nation? Journal of Business
Ethics, 106, pp. 479–490.
Akpan, W. (2006). Between responsibility and rhetoric: some
consequences of CSR in Nigeria’s oil province. Develop-
ment Southern Africa, 23, pp. 223–240.
Alas, R. and Tafel, K. (2008). Conceptualizing the dynamics
of social responsibility: evidence from a case study of
Estonia. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 371–385.
Albdour, A.A. and Altarawneh, I.I. (2012). Corporate so-
cial responsibility and employee engagement in Jordan.
International Journal of Business and Management, 7,
pp. 90–105.
Amaeshi, K. (2011). International financial institutions and
discursive institutional change: implications for corporate
social responsibility in developing economies. Journal of
Change Management, 11, pp. 111–128.
Amaeshi, K. and Amao, O.O. (2009). Corporate social re-
sponsibility in transnational spaces: exploring influences
of varieties of capitalism on expressions of corporate codes
of conduct in Nigeria. Journal of Business Ethics, 86,
pp. 225–239.
Amaeshi, K.M., Adi, B.C., Ogbechie, C. and Amao, O.O.
(2006). Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria. Journal
of Corporate Citizenship, 24, pp. 83–99.
Amran, A., Zain, M.M., Sulaiman, M., Sarker, T. and Ooi,
S.K. (2013). Empowering society for better corporate so-
cial responsibility (CSR): the case of Malaysia. Kajian
Malaysia, 31, pp. 57–78.
Ansari, S., Munir, K. and Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the ‘bot-
tom of the pyramid’: the role of social capital in capability
development and community empowerment. Journal of
Management Studies, 49, pp. 813–842.
Appiah, D.O. and Abass, K. (2014). Water supply and mining:
the policy paradox in Ghana. Water Policy, 16, pp. 945–
958.
Aras, G., Aybars, A. and Kutlu, O. (2010). Managing
corporate performance investigating the relationship be-
tween corporate social responsibility and financial per-
formance in emerging markets. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 59, pp. 229–
254.
Arevalo, J.A. and Aravind, D. (2011). Corporate social re-
sponsibility practices in India: approach, drivers and bar-
riers. Corporate Governance: An International Review,
11, pp. 399–414.
Arli, D.I. and Lasmono, H.K. (2010). Consumers’ perception
of corporate social responsibility in a developing country.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34, pp. 46–51.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
Arora, B. and Kazmi, S.B.A. (2012). Performing citizenship:
an innovative model of financial services for rural poor in
India. Business & Society, 51, pp. 450–477.
Arsoy, A., Arabaci, Ö. and Çiftçiočlu, A. (2012). Corporate
social responsibility and financial performance relation-
ship: the case of Turkey. Journal of Accounting & Finance,
(53), pp. 159–176.
Arya, B. and Zhang, G. (2009). Institutional reforms and
investor reactions to CSR announcements: evidence from
an emerging economy. Journal of Management Studies,
46, pp. 1089–1112.
Atakan, M.G.S. and Eker, T. (2007). Corporate identity of a
socially responsible university – A case from the Turkish
higher education sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 76,
pp. 55–68.
Auger, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J.J. (2007). Using
best–worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer
ethical beliefs across countries. Journal of Business Ethics,
70, pp. 299–326.
Baden, D. and Wilkinson, S. (2014). Socially responsible en-
terprise in Cuba: a positive role model for corporate social
responsibility? International Journal of Cuban Studies, 6,
pp. 55–86.
Balasubramanian, N.K., Kimber, D. and Siemensma, F.
(2005). Emerging opportunities or traditions reinforced?
An analysis of the attitudes towards CSR, and trends
of thinking about CSR, in India. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, 17, pp. 79–92.
Banerjee, S.B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: the
good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34,
pp. 51–79.
Baskin, J. (2006). Corporate responsibility in emerging
markets. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 24, pp. 29–
47.
Basu, K. and Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsi-
bility: a process model of sensemaking. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 33, pp. 122–136.
Bayoud, N.S., Kavanagh, M. and Slaughter, G. (2012).
Corporate social responsibility disclosure and employee
commitment: evidence from Libya. International Journal
of Economics and Finance, 4, pp. 37–50.
Beckman, T., Colwell, A. and Cunningham, P.H. (2009). The
emergence of corporate social responsibility in Chile: the
importance of authenticity and social networks. Journal of
Business Ethics, 86, pp. 191–206.
Beekun, R.I. and Badawi, J.A. (2005). Balancing ethical re-
sponsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders:
the Islamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 60,
pp. 131–145.
Belal, A.R. and Roberts, R.W. (2010). Stakeholders’ percep-
tions of corporate social reporting in Bangladesh. Journal
of Business Ethics, 97, pp. 311–324.
Bhanji, Z. and Oxley, J.E. (2013). Overcoming the dual lia-
bility of foreignness and privateness in international cor-
porate citizenship partnerships. Journal of International
Business Studies, 44, pp. 290–311.
CSR in Developing Countries
Bird, F. (2009). The ethical responsibilities of businesses in
developing areas. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, pp. 85–
97.
Bird, F. and Smucker, J. (2007). The social responsibilities of
international business firms in developing areas. Journal
of Business Ethics, 73, pp. 1–9.
Blasco, M. and Zølner, M. (2010). Corporate social re-
sponsibility in Mexico and France: exploring the role of
normative institutions. Business & Society, 49, pp. 216–
251.
Blowfield, M. and Frynas, J.G. (2005). Setting new agendas:
critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility in
the developing world. International Affairs, 81, pp. 499–
513.
Bond, P. (2008). Social movement and corporate social re-
sponsibility in South Africa. Development and Change,
39, pp. 1037–1052.
Börzel, T.A. and Risse, T. (2010). Governance without a
state – Can it work? Regulation and Governance, 4, pp. 1–
22.
Boudier, F. and Bensebaa, F. (2011). Hazardous waste man-
agement and corporate social responsibility: illegal trade
of electrical and electronic waste. Business and Society
Review, 116, pp. 29–53.
Brammer, S., Jackson, G. and Matten, D. (2012). Corporate
social responsibility and institutional theory: new perspec-
tives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10,
pp. 3–28.
Brammer, S., Williams, G. and Zinkin, J. (2007). Religion
and attitudes to corporate social responsibility in a large
cross-country sample. Journal of Business Ethics, 71,
pp. 229–243.
Cai, Z. and Aguilar, F.X. (2014). Corporate social respon-
sibility in the wood products industry: US and Chi-
nese consumers’ perceptions. Forest Products Journal, 64,
pp. 97–106.
Campbell, B. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and de-
velopment in Africa: redefining the roles and responsi-
bilities of public and private actors in the mining sector.
Resources Policy, 37, pp. 138–143.
Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional model of corpo-
rate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4,
pp. 497–505.
Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolu-
tion of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38,
pp. 268–295.
Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. (2010). The business case
for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts,
research and practice. International Journal of Manage-
ment Reviews, 12, pp. 85–105.
Carvalho, S.W., Sen, S., de Oliveira Mota, M. and de Lima,
R.C. (2010). Consumer reactions to CSR: a Brazilian
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, pp. 291–
310.
Cash, A.C. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and
petroleum development in sub-Saharan Africa: the case
of Chad. Resources Policy, 37, pp. 144–151.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
21
Castelló, I. and Galang, R.M.N. (2014). Looking for new
forms of legitimacy in Asia. Business & Society, 53,
pp. 187–225.
Ceha, M. (2013). Analysis of the application of the con-
cept of corporate social responsibility in local businesses.
Singidunum Journal of Applied Sciences, 10, pp. 1–10.
Chaklader, B. and Gautam, N. (2013). Efficient water man-
agement through public–private partnership model: an
experiment in CSR by Coca-Cola India. VIKALPA, 38,
pp. 97–104.
Chakrabarty, S. and Bass, A.E. (2015). Comparing virtue,
consequentialist, and deontological ethics-based corpo-
rate social responsibility: mitigating microfinance risk
in institutional voids. Journal of Business Ethics, 126,
pp. 487–512.
Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social respon-
sibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven-country study of CSR web
site reporting. Business & Society, 44, pp. 415–441.
Cheung, Y.L., Tan, W., Ahn, H.J. and Zhang, Z. (2010). Does
corporate social responsibility matter in Asian emerg-
ing markets? Journal of Business Ethics, 92, pp. 401–
413.
Chih, H.L., Shen, C.H. and Kang, F.C. (2008). Corporate so-
cial responsibility, investor protection, and earnings man-
agement: some international evidence. Journal of Business
Ethics, 79, pp. 179–198.
Chjkwanha, A.B. (2009). Human security and sustainable en-
terprise in a developing-country context. Journal of Cor-
porate Citizenship, 34, pp. 45–55.
Choi, B.B., Lee, D. and Park, Y. (2013). Corporate social
responsibility, corporate governance and earnings quality:
evidence from Korea. Corporate Governance: An Interna-
tional Review, 21, pp. 447–467.
Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation
through international certifiable standards: determinants
of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal
of International Business Studies, 37, pp. 863–878.
Chun, R. (2009). Ethical values and environmentalism in
China: comparing employees from state-owned and private
firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, pp. 341–348.
Claasen, C. and Roloff, J. (2012). The link between respon-
sibility and legitimacy: the case of De Beers in Namibia.
Journal of Business Ethics, 107, pp. 379–398.
Coulmont, M. and Berthelot, S. (2015). The financial ben-
efits of a firm’s affiliation with the UN Global Compact.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 24, pp. 144–157.
Crisóstomo, V.L., de Souza Freire, F. and Cortes de Vas-
concellos, F. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, firm
value and financial performance in Brazil. Social Respon-
sibility Journal, 7, pp. 295–309.
Cruz, L.B. and Boehe, D.M. (2010). How do leading retail
MNCs leverage CSR globally? Insights from Brazil. Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 91, pp. 243–263.
Cruz, L.B., Boehe, D.M. and Ogasavara, M.H. (2015). CSR-
based differentiation strategy of export firms from devel-
oping countries: an exploratory study of the strategy tripod.
Business & Society, 54, pp. 723–762.
22
Dandago, K.I. and Arugu, L.O. (2014). Corporate social re-
sponsibility and environmental concerns in Nigeria: a crit-
ical focus on oil producing communities. Issues in Social
and Environmental Accounting, 8, pp. 104–115.
Darigan, K.H. and Post, J.E. (2009). Corporate citizenship in
China: CSR challenges in the harmonious society. Journal
of Corporate Citizenship, (35), pp. 39–53.
Dartey-Baah, K. and Amponsah-Tawiah, K. (2011). Explor-
ing the limits of Western corporate social responsibility
theories in Africa. International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 2, pp. 126–137.
Das, S.C. (2009). Status and direction of corporate social
responsibility in Indian perspective: an exploratory study.
Social Responsibility Journal, 5, pp. 34–47.
Davidson, K. (2009). Ethical concerns at the bottom of the
pyramid: where CSR meets BoP. Journal of International
Business Ethics, 2, pp. 22–32.
Dawkins, C.E., Jamali, D., Karam, C., Lin, L. and Zhao,
J. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and job choice
intentions: a cross-cultural analysis. Business & Society,
10.1177/0007650314564783.
Daye, R. (2009). Poverty, race relations, and the practices of
international business: a study of Fiji. Journal of Business
Ethics, 89, pp. 115–127.
de Abreu, M.C.S., de Castro, F., de Assis Soares, F. and da
Silva Filho, J.C.L (2012). A comparative understanding of
corporate social responsibility of textile firms in Brazil and
China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20, pp. 119–126.
de Jesus Lameira, V. and Ness, W.L. Jr (2007). ADRs, differ-
entiated levels of corporate governance at the Sao Paulo
Stock Exchange and the performance of publicly traded
Brazilian companies. Journal of International Business
Studies, 15, pp. 68–82.
Demetriades, K. and Auret, C.J. (2014). Corporate social
responsibility and firm performance in South Africa. South
African Journal of Business Management, 45, pp. 1–12.
Demuijnck, G. and Ngnodjom, H. (2013). Responsibility and
informal CSR in formal Cameroonian SMEs. Journal of
Business Ethics, 112, pp. 653–665.
Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T.W. (1994). Towards a unified
conception of business ethics: integrative social contracts
theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 252–84.
Dougherty, M.L. and Olsen, T.D. (2014). Taking terrain
literally: grounding local adaptation to corporate so-
cial responsibility in the extractive industries. Journal of
Business Ethics, 119, pp. 423–434.
Duarte, F. (2010). Working with corporate social responsi-
bility in Brazilian companies: the role of managers’ values
in the maintenance of CSR cultures. Journal of Business
Ethics, 96, pp. 355–368.
Dumitrescu, D. and Simionescu, L. (2014). Should develop-
ing countries adopt corporate social responsibility? Em-
pirical evidence from Romania. Economic Computation &
Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 48, pp. 1–19.
Dunfee, T.W. and Hess, D. (2000). The legitimacy of di-
rect corporate humanitarian investment. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 10, pp. 95–109.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
Egri, C. and Ralston, D.A. (2008). Corporate responsibil-
ity: a review of international management research from
1998 to 2007. Journal of International Management, 14,
pp. 319–339.
Erondu, E., Sharland, A. and Opkara, J. (2004). Corporate
ethics in Nigeria. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, pp. 349–
357.
Eweje, G. (2006). The role of MNEs in community develop-
ment initiatives in developing countries: corporate social
responsibility at work in Nigeria and South Africa. Busi-
ness & Society, 45, pp. 93–129.
Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence,
P. (2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility on
organizational commitment: exploring multiple mediation
mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, pp. 563–
580.
Fauzi, H., Mahoney, S. and Abdul Rahman, A. (2007). The
link between corporate social performance and financial
performance: evidence from Indonesian companies. Is-
sues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 1, pp. 149–
159.
Fig, D. (2005). Manufacturing amnesia: corporate social
responsibility in South Africa. International Affairs, 81,
pp. 599–617.
Frynas, J.G. and Stephens, S. (2015). Political corporate
social responsibility: reviewing theories and setting new
agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews,
17, pp. 483–509.
Fryxell, G. and Lo, C. (2003). The influence of environmental
knowledge and values on managerial behaviours on behalf
of the environment: an empirical examination of managers
in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, pp. 45–69.
Fulmer, A.M., Godoy, A.S. and Neff, P. (2008). Indigenous
rights, resistance, and the law: lessons from a Guatemalan
mine. Latin American Politics & Society, 50, pp. 91–121.
Gao, Y. (2009). Corporate social performance in China: ev-
idence from large companies. Journal of Business Ethics,
89, pp. 23–35.
Gao, Y. (2011). CSR in an emerging country: a content anal-
ysis of CSR reports of listed companies. Baltic Journal of
Management, 6, pp. 263–291.
Gautam, R. and Singh, A. (2010). Corporate social respon-
sibility practices in India: a study of top 500 companies.
Global Business and Management Research: An Interna-
tional Journal, 2, pp. 41–56.
Gifford, B., Kestler, A. and Anand, S. (2010). Building local
legitimacy into corporate social responsibility: gold min-
ing firms in developing nations. Journal of World Business,
45, pp. 304–311.
Glover, D. (2007). Monsanto and smallholder farmers: a case
study in CSR. Third World Quarterly, 28, pp. 851–867.
Gokulsing, R.D. (2011). CSR matters in the development of
Mauritius. Social Responsibility Journal, 7, pp. 218–233.
Goodrick, E. and Salancik, G. (1996). Organizational dis-
cretion in responding to institutional practices: hospitals
and cesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,
pp. 1–28.
CSR in Developing Countries
Goyal, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as a sig-
nalling device for foreign direct investment. International
Journal of the Economics of Business, 13, pp. 145–163.
Griesse, M.A. (2007a). Caterpillar’s interactions with Piraci-
caba, Brazil: a community-based analysis of CSR. Journal
of Business Ethics, 73, pp. 39–51.
Griesse, M.A. (2007b). Developing social responsibility:
biotechnology and the case of DuPont in Brazil. Journal
of Business Ethics, 73, pp. 103–118.
Griesse, M.A. (2007c). The geographic, political, and eco-
nomic context for corporate social responsibility in Brazil.
Journal of Business Ethics, 73, pp. 21–37.
Gugler, P. and Shi, J.Y.J. (2009). Corporate social responsi-
bility for developing country multinational corporations:
lost war in pertaining global competitiveness? Journal of
Business Ethics, 87, pp. 3–24.
Gupta, M. and Hodges, N. (2012). Corporate social responsi-
bility in the apparel industry: an exploration of Indian con-
sumers’ perceptions and expectations. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 16, pp. 216–233.
Gustavson, R. (2011). Business ethics as field of teaching,
training and research in Oceania. Journal of Business
Ethics, 104, pp. 63–72.
Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (2001). An introduction to varieties
of capitalism. In Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D. (eds), Varieties
of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Compar-
ative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–
68.
Halme, M. and Laurila, J. (2009). Philanthropy, integration or
innovation? Exploring the financial and societal outcomes
of different types of corporate responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 84, pp. 325–339.
Hamann, R. and Kapelus, P. (2004). Corporate social respon-
sibility in mining in Southern Africa: fair accountability
or just greenwash. Development, 47, 3, pp. 85–92.
Han, E.K., Lee, D.H. and Khang, H. (2008). Influential fac-
tors of the social responsibility of newspaper corporations
in South Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, pp. 667–
680.
Hayhurst, L. (2011). Corporatising sport, gender and devel-
opment: postcolonial IR feminisms, transnational private
governance and global corporate social engagement. Third
World Quarterly, 32, 3, pp. 531–549.
Henisz, W.J., Dorobantu, S. and Nartey, L.J. (2014). Spin-
ning gold: the financial returns to stakeholder engagement.
Strategic Management Journal, 35, pp. 1727–1748.
Ho, V.H. (2013). Beyond regulation: a comparative look at
state-centric corporate social responsibility and the law
in China. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 46,
pp. 375–442.
Holliday, I. (2005). Doing business with rights violating
regimes corporate social responsibility and Myanmar’s
military junta. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, pp. 329–
342.
Howell, C. (2003). Varieties of capitalism: and then there was
one? Comparative Politics, 36, pp. 103–124.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
23
Huemer, L. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and multi-
national corporation identity: Norwegian strategies in the
Chilean aquaculture industry. Journal of Business Ethics,
91, pp. 265–277.
Husted, B.W. and Allen, D.B. (2006). Corporate social re-
sponsibility in the multinational enterprise: strategic and
institutional approaches. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37, pp. 838–849.
Husted, B.W., Allen, D.B. and Rivera, J.E. (2010). Gover-
nance choice for strategic corporate social responsibility:
evidence from Central America. Business & Society, 49,
pp. 201–215.
Idemudia, U. (2007). Community perceptions and expecta-
tions: reinventing the wheels of corporate social responsi-
bility practices in the Nigerian oil industry. Business and
Society Review, 112, pp. 369–405.
Idemudia, U. (2008). Conceptualising the CSR and develop-
ment debate: bridging existing analytical gaps. Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, 29, pp. 91–110.
Idemudia, U. (2009). Oil extraction and poverty reduction
in the Niger Delta: a critical examination of partner-
ship initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, pp. 91–
116.
Idemudia, U. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and
developing countries: moving the critical CSR research
agenda in Africa forward. Progress in Development Stud-
ies, 11, pp. 1–18.
Ip, P.K. (2009). The challenge of developing a business ethics
in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, pp. 211–224.
Islam, M.A. and Deegan, C. (2008). Motivations for an or-
ganization within a developing country to report social
responsibility information: evidence from Bangladesh.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21,
pp. 850–874.
Ite, U.E. (2004). Multinationals and corporate social respon-
sibility in developing countries: a case study of Nige-
ria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 11, pp. 1–11.
Iyer, A.A. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and farmer
suicides: a case for benign paternalism? Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 85, pp. 429–443.
Jack, G.A., Calás, M.B., Nkomo, S.M. and Peltonen, T.
(2008). Critique and international management: an un-
easy relationship? Academy of Management Review, 33,
pp. 870–884.
Jain, T., Aguilera, R. and Jamali, D. (2016). Corporate stake-
holder orientation in an emerging country context: a longi-
tudinal cross industry analysis. Journal of Business Ethics,
doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3074-1.
Jamali, D. (2010). The CSR of MNC subsidiaries in develop-
ing countries: global, local, substantive or diluted? Journal
of Business Ethics, 93, pp. 181–200.
Jamali, D. and Keshishian, T. (2009). Uneasy alliances:
lessons learned from partnerships between businesses and
NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics,
84, pp. 277–295.
24
Jamali, D. and Mirshak, R. (2007). Corporate social respon-
sibility (CSR): theory and practice in a developing country
context. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, pp. 243–262.
Jamali, D. and Neville, B. (2011). Convergence versus diver-
gence of CSR in developing countries: an embedded multi-
layered institutional lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 102,
pp. 599–621.
Jamali, D. and Sidani, Y. (2011). Is CSR counterproductive
in developing countries: the unheard voices of change.
Journal of Change Management, 11, pp. 69–71.
Jamali, D., El Dirani, A.M. and Harwood, I.A. (2015a). Ex-
ploring human resource management roles in corporate
social responsibility: the CSR-HRM co-creation model.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 24, pp. 125–143.
Jamali, D., Karam, C. and Blowfield, M. (2015b). Develop-
ment Oriented CSR. London: Greenleaf Publishing.
Jamali, D., Lund-Thomsen, P. and Khara N. (2015c). CSR
institutionalized myths in developing countries: an immi-
nent threat of selective decoupling. Business and Society,
doi: 10.1177/0007650315584303.
Jamali, D., Safieddine, A.M. and Rabbath, M. (2008). Cor-
porate governance and corporate social responsibility syn-
ergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 16, pp. 443–459.
Jamali, D., Sidani, Y. and El-Asmar, K. (2009a). A three
country comparative analysis of managerial CSR perspec-
tives: insights from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Journal of
Business Ethics, 85, pp. 173–192.
Jamali, D., Zanhour, M. and Keshishian, T. (2009b). Peculiar
strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context
of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, pp. 355–377.
Joutsenvirta, M. and Vaara, E. (2015). Legitimacy struggles
and political corporate social responsibility in interna-
tional settings: a comparative discursive analysis of a con-
tested investment in Latin America. Organization Studies,
36, pp. 741–777.
Julian, S.D. and Ofori-dankwa, J.C. (2013). Financial re-
source availability and corporate social responsibility
expenditures in a sub-Saharan economy: the institutional
difference hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 34,
pp. 1314–1330.
Juscius, V. and Sneideriene, A. (2013). The research of so-
cial values influence on consumption decision making
in Lithuania. Economics & Management, 18, pp. 793–
801.
Kang, N. (2006). A critique of the ‘Varieties of Capitalism’
approach. International Centre for Corporate Social Re-
sponsibility (ICCSR) Research Paper Series, Working Pa-
per No. 45. Nottingham: Nottingham University Business
School, ICCSR.
Kang, N. and Moon, J. (2012). Institutional complementarity
between corporate governance and corporate social re-
sponsibility: a comparative analysis of three capitalisms.
Socio-Economic Review, 10, pp. 85–108.
Kannabiran, G. (2009). Sustainable stakeholder engagement
through innovative supply chain strategy: an exploratory

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
study of an Indian organization. Asian Business and
Management, 8, pp. 205–223.
Kapelus, P. (2002). Mining, corporate responsibility and the
‘community’: the case of Rio Tinto Richard Bay miner-
als, and the Mbonambi. Journal of Business Ethics, 39,
pp. 275–296.
Karam, C.M. and Jamali, D. (2013). Gendering CSR in the
Arab Middle East: an institutional perspective. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 23, pp. 31–68.
Karam, C.M. and Jamali, D. (2015). A cross-cultural and
feminist perspective on CSR in developing countries:
uncovering latent power dynamics. Journal of Business
Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2737-7.
Katamba, D., Kazooba, C.T., Mpisi, S.B., Nkiko, C.M.,
Nabatanzi-Muyimba, A.K. and Kekaramu, J.H. (2012).
Corporate social responsibility management in Uganda:
lessons, challenges, and policy implications. International
Journal of Social Economics, 39, pp. 375–390.
Keig, D.L., Brouthers, L.E. and Marshall, V.B. (2015). Formal
and informal corruption environments and multinational
enterprise social irresponsibility. Journal of Management
Studies, 52, pp. 89–116.
Khan, M.M. (2013). Developing a conceptual framework to
appraise the corporate social responsibility performance
of Islamic banking and finance institutions. Accounting
and the Public Interest, 13, pp. 191–207.
Khan, F.R. and Lund-Thomsen, P. (2011). CSR As imperial-
ism: towards a phenomenological approach to CSR in the
developing world. Journal of Change Management, 11,
pp. 73–90.
Khan, A., Muttakin, M.B. and Siddiqui, J. (2013a). Corpo-
rate governance and corporate social responsibility dis-
closures: evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of
Business Ethics, 114, pp. 207–223.
Khan, S.A., Al-Maimani, K.A. and Al-Yafi, W.A. (2013b).
Exploring corporate social responsibility in Saudi Arabia:
the challenges ahead. Journal of Leadership, Accountabil-
ity and Ethics, 10, pp. 65–78.
Khanna, T. and Palepu, K.G. (2010). Winning in Emerging
Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Khavul, S. and Bruton, G.D. (2013). Harnessing innovation
for change: sustainability and poverty in developing coun-
tries. Journal of Management Studies, 50, pp. 285–306.
Kim, Y. and Kim, S.Y. (2010). The influence of cultural
values on perceptions of corporate social responsibility:
application of Hofstede’s dimensions to Korean public
relations practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 91,
pp. 485–500.
Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T. and Kim, N.M. (2010). Cor-
porate social responsibility and employee–company iden-
tification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, pp. 557–569
Klerkx, L., Villalobos, P. and Engler, A. (2012). Variation in
implementation of corporate social responsibility practices
in emerging economies’ firms: a survey of Chilean fruit
exporters. Natural Resources Forum, 36, pp. 88–100.
CSR in Developing Countries
Knudsen, J.S. (2013). The growth of private regulation of
labor standards in global supply chains: mission impossi-
ble for western small- and medium-sized firms? Journal
of Business Ethics, 117, pp. 387–398.
Kolk, A. and Lenfant, F. (2013). Multinationals, CSR and
partnerships in Central African conflict countries. Cor-
porate Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage-
ment, 20, pp. 43–54.
Kolk, A. and Lenfant, F. (2010). MNC Reporting on CSR
and conflict in Central Africa. Journal of Business Ethics,
93, pp. 241–255.
Kolk, A. and Van Tulder, R. (2010). International busi-
ness, corporate social responsibility and sustainable de-
velopment. International Business Review, 19, pp. 119–
125.
Kolkailah, S.K., AbouAish, E. and El-Bassiouny, N. (2012).
The impact of corporate social responsibility initiatives on
consumers’ behavioural intentions in the Egyptian market.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36, pp. 369–
384.
Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organi-
zational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corpo-
rations: institutional and relational effects. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, pp. 215–233.
Kurucz, E., Colbert, B. and Wheeler, D. (2008). The busi-
ness case for corporate social responsibility. In Crane, A.,
McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. (eds),
The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–112.
Kuo, L., Yeh, C.C. and Yu, H.C. (2012). Disclosure of corpo-
rate social responsibility and environmental management:
evidence from China. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 19, pp. 273–287.
Küskü, F. (2007). From necessity to responsibility: evidence
for corporate environmental citizenship activities from
a developing country perspective. Corporate Social Re-
sponsibility and Environmental Management, 14, pp. 74–
87.
Lam, M.L. (2009). Beyond credibility of doing business
in China: strategies for improving corporate citizenship
of foreign multinational enterprises in China. Journal of
Business Ethics, 87, pp. 137–146.
Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K. and Litz, R.A. (2008). Stake-
holder theory: a longitudinal review of a theory that moves
us. Journal of Management, 32, pp. 1152–1189.
Li, W. and Zhang, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility,
ownership structure, and political interference: evidence
from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, pp. 631–
645.
Li, Q., Luo, W., Wang, Y. and Wu, L. (2013). Firm perfor-
mance, corporate ownership, and corporate social respon-
sibility disclosure in China. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 22, pp. 159–173.
Ligeti, G. and Oravecz, A. (2009). CSR communication
of corporate enterprises in Hungary. Journal of Business
Ethics, 84, pp. 137–149.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
25
Lin, L.W. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in China:
window dressing or structural change? Berkeley Journal
of International Law, 28, pp. 64–100.
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and Campbell, T.T. (2009). Cor-
porate social responsibility practices in developing and
transitional countries: Botswana and Malawi. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90, pp. 429–440.
Lindgreen, A., Córdoba, J.R., Maon, F. and Mendoza, J.M.
(2010). Corporate social responsibility in Colombia: mak-
ing sense of social strategies. Journal of Business Ethics,
91, pp. 229–242.
Littlewood, D. (2014). ‘Cursed’ communities? Corporate so-
cial responsibility (CSR), company towns and the min-
ing industry in Namibia. Journal of Business Ethics, 120,
pp. 39–63.
Luetkenhorst, W. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and
the development agenda. Intereconomics, 39, pp. 157–166.
Luken, R. and Stares, R. (2005). Small business responsi-
bility in developing countries: a threat or an opportunity?
Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, pp. 38–53.
Lund-Thomsen, P. (2005). Corporate accountability in South
Africa: the role of community mobilizing in environmental
governance. International Affairs, 81, pp. 619–633.
Lund-Thomsen, P. (2008). The global sourcing and codes
of conduct debate: five myths and five recommendations.
Development and Change, 39, pp. 1005–1018.
Lund-Thomsen, P. (2009). Assessing the impact of public–
private partnerships in the global south: the case of the
Kasur tanneries pollution control project. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 90, pp. 57–78.
Lund-Thomsen, P. and Lindgreen, A. (2014). Corporate so-
cial responsibility in global value chains: where are we
now and where are we going? Journal of Business Ethics,
123, pp. 11–22.
Lund-Thomsen, P. and Nadvi, K. (2010a). Clusters, chains
and compliance: corporate social responsibility and gov-
ernance in football manufacturing in South Asia. Journal
of Business Ethics, 93, pp. 201–222.
Lund-Thomsen, P. and Nadvi, K. (2010b). Global value
chains, local collective action and corporate social
responsibility: a review of empirical evidence. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 19, pp. 1–13.
Luo, Y. (2006). Political behavior, social responsibility, and
perceived corruption: a structuration perspective. Journal
of International Business Studies, 37, pp. 747–766.
Maamoun, A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and
the developing world: commitment or duplicity? Business
Studies Journal, 5, pp. 7–26.
Mahmood, M. and Humphrey, J. (2013). Stakeholder expec-
tation of corporate social responsibility practices: a study
on local and multinational corporations in Kazakhstan.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man-
agement, 20, pp. 168–181.
Maloni, M.J. and Brown, M.E. (2006). Corporate social re-
sponsibility in the supply chain: an application in the food
industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, pp. 35–52.
26
Mandurah, S., Khatib, J. and Al-Sabaan, S. (2012). Cor-
porate social responsibility among Saudi Arabian firms:
an empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Business
Research, 28, pp. 1049–1057.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008). ‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’
CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative under-
standing of corporate social responsibility. Academy of
Management Review, 33, pp. 404–424.
Maurer, V.G. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and the
‘Divided Corporate Self’: the case of Chiquita in Colom-
bia. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, pp. 595–603.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social re-
sponsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 26, pp. 117–127.
Mellahi, K., Frynas, J.G., Sun, P. and Siegel, D. (2016).
A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: toward a
multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42,
pp. 143–173.
Mena, S., de Leede, M., Baumann, D., Black, N., Linde-
man, S. and McShane, L. (2010). Advancing the business
and human rights agenda: dialogue, empowerment, and
constructive engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 93,
pp. 161–188.
Menassa, E. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: an ex-
ploratory study of the quality and extent of social disclo-
sures by Lebanese commercial banks. Journal of Applied
Accounting Research, 11, pp. 4–23.
Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organiza-
tions: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American
Journal of Sociology, 83, pp. 340–363.
Mijatovic, I.S. and Stokic, D. (2010). The influence of inter-
nal and external codes on CSR practice: the case of com-
panies operating in Serbia. Journal of Business Ethics, 94,
pp. 533–552.
Mishra, S. and Suar, D. (2010). Does corporate social respon-
sibility influence firm performance of Indian companies?
Journal of Business Ethics, 95, pp. 571–601.
Mitra, R. (2012). ‘My country’s future’: a culture-centered
interrogation of corporate social responsibility in India.
Journal of Business Ethics, 106, pp. 131–147.
Mohan, A. (2001). Corporate citizenship: perspectives from
India. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2001, pp. 107–
117.
Montgomery, R.H. and Maggio, G.F. (2009). Fostering labor
rights in developing countries: an investors’ approach to
managing labor issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 87,
pp. 199–219.
Moon, J. and Shen, X. (2010). CSR in China research:
salience, focus and nature. Journal of Business Ethics,
94, pp. 613–629.
Muller, A. and Kolk, A. (2009). CSR performance in emerg-
ing markets evidence from Mexico. Journal of Business
Ethics, 85, pp. 325–337.
Muller, A. and Kolk, A. (2010). Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers
of corporate social performance: evidence from foreign
and domestic firms in Mexico. Journal of Management
Studies, 47, pp. 1–26.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
Muller, A. and Kolk, A. (2015). Responsible tax as corpo-
rate social responsibility: the case of multinational enter-
prises and effective tax in India. Business & Society, 54,
pp. 435–463.
Muthuri, J.N. (2008). Participation and accountability in cor-
porate community involvement programmes: a research
agenda. Community Development Journal, 43, pp. 177–
193.
Muthuri, J.N. and Gilbert, V. (2011). An institutional analysis
of corporate social responsibility in Kenya. Journal of
Business Ethics, 98, pp. 467–483.
Muthuri, J.N., Moon, J. and Idemudia, U. (2012). Corpo-
rate innovation and sustainable community development
in developing countries. Business & Society, 51, pp. 355–
381.
Naeem, M.A. and Welford, R. (2009). A comparative study
of corporate social responsibility in Bangladesh and Pak-
istan. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 16, pp. 108–122.
Nambiar, P. and Chitty, N. (2014). Meaning making by man-
agers: corporate discourse on environment and sustainabil-
ity in India. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, pp. 493–511.
Nejati, M. and Ghasemi, S. (2012). Corporate social respon-
sibility in Iran from the perspective of employees. Social
Responsibility Journal, 8, pp. 578–588.
Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, accountability and commu-
nity: the limits of the CSR agenda. International Affairs,
81, pp. 541–557.
Newell, P. and Frynas, J.G. (2007). Beyond CSR? Business,
poverty and social justice: an introduction. Third World
Quarterly, 28, pp. 669–681.
NewenhamKahindi, A.M. (2011). A global mining corpora-
tion and local communities in the Lake Victoria zone: the
case of Barrick Gold multinational in Tanzania. Journal
of Business Ethics, 99, pp. 253–282.
Nicholls-Nixon, C.L., Castilla, J.A.D., Garcia, J.S. and Pes-
quera, M.R. (2011). Latin America management research:
review, synthesis, and extension. Journal of Management,
37, pp. 1178–1227.
Nielsen, L. (2011). Classifications of countries based on
their level of development: how it is done and how it
could be done. Available at: http://www.imf.org/exter-
nal/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1131.pdf (accessed 3 June 2015).
Nölke, A. and Vliegenthart, A. (2009). Enlarging the va-
rieties of capitalism: the emergence of dependent mar-
ket economies in East Central Europe. World Politics, 61,
pp. 670–702.
Ntim, C.G. and Soobaroyen, T. (2013). Corporate governance
and performance in socially responsible corporations: new
empirical insights from a neo-institutional framework.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21,
pp. 468–494.
Nwankwo, E., Phillips, N. and Tracey, P. (2007). Social in-
vestment through community enterprise: the case of multi-
national corporations involvement in the development of
Nigerian water resources. Journal of Business Ethics, 73,
pp. 91–101.
CSR in Developing Countries
Obalola, M.A. (2008). Perceived role of ethics and social
responsibility in the insurance industry: views from a de-
veloping country. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, 1,
pp. 41–66.
Ofori, D.F., Nyuur, R.B. and S-Darko, M.D. (2014). Corpo-
rate social responsibility and financial performance: fact
or fiction? A look at Ghanaian banks. Acta Commercii, 14,
pp. 1–11.
Oh, W.Y., Chang, Y.K. and Martynov, A. (2011). The effect
of ownership structure on corporate social responsibil-
ity: empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business
Ethics, 104, pp. 283–297.
Okoye, A. (2012a). Exploring the relationship between cor-
porate social responsibility, law and development in an
African context: should government be responsible for en-
suring corporate responsibility? International Journal of
Law and Management, 54, pp. 364–378.
Okoye, A. (2012b). Novel linkages for development: corpo-
rate social responsibility, law and governance: exploring
the Nigerian Petroleum Industry Bill. Corporate Gover-
nance: The International Journal of Business in Society,
12, pp. 460–471.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional pro-
cesses. Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 145–179.
Oyungerel, T. and Lkhagvasuren, E. (2011). The implemen-
tation of corporate social responsibility in Mongolian busi-
ness sector. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in
Education and Science, 4, pp. 89–96.
Özçelik, F., Öztürk, B.A. and Gürsakal, S. (2014). Inves-
tigating the relationship between corporate social re-
sponsibility and financial performance in Turkey. Atatürk
Üniversitesi _Iktisadive_Idari Bilimler Dergisi, 28, pp. 189–
203.
Ozen, S. and Küskü, F. (2009). Corporate environmental cit-
izenship variation in developing countries: an institutional
framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, pp. 297–313.
Pederson, E.R. (2005). Guiding the invisible hand: the role
of development agencies in driving corporate citizenship.
Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 20, pp. 77–91.
Pesmatzoglou, D., Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I. and Al-
lian, S. (2014). Extractive multinationals and corporate
social responsibility: a commitment towards achieving
the goals of sustainable development or only a manage-
ment strategy? Journal of International Development, 26,
pp. 187–206.
Philip, P.J. (2009). Investing in India’s inclusive growth and
sustainable development: the ITC model. Review of Busi-
ness Research, 9, pp. 145–149.
Pless, N. and Maak, T. (2009). Responsible leaders as agents
of world benefit: learnings from ‘Project Ulysses’. Journal
of Business Ethics, 85, pp. 59–71.
Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations.
New York, NY: Free Press, Macmillan.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy and soci-
ety: the link between competitive advantage and corpo-
rate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84,
pp. 78–92.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
27
Prasad, B. (2004). Globalization, free trade and corporate
citizenship in Pacific Forum Island countries. Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, 13, pp. 65–76.
Prieto-Carrón, M., Lund-Thomsen, P., Chan, A., Muro, A.
and Bhushan, C. (2006). Critical perspectives on CSR and
development: what we know, what we don’t know, and what
we need to know. International Affairs, 82, pp. 977–987.
Prout, J. (2006). Corporate responsibility in the global econ-
omy: a business case. Society and Business Review, 1,
pp. 184–191.
Puncheva-Michelotti, P., Michelotti, M. and Gahan, P. (2010).
The relationship between individuals’ recognition of hu-
man rights and responses to socially responsible compa-
nies: evidence from Russia and Bulgaria. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 93, pp. 583–605.
Rahim, M.M. (2013). Harnessing SD and CSR within corpo-
rate self-regulation of weak economies – a meta-regulation
approach. Business and Society Review, 118, pp. 513–
537.
Rahim, M.M. and Alam, S. (2014). Convergence of corporate
social responsibility and corporate governance in weak
economies: the case of Bangladesh. Journal of Business
Ethics, 121, pp. 607–620.
Ramasamy, B. and Yeung, M. (2009). Chinese consumers’
perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 88, 1, pp. 119–132.
Ramasamy, B., Yeung, M.C. and Au, A.K. (2010). Consumer
support for corporate social responsibility (CSR): the role
of religion and values. Journal of Business Ethics, 91,
pp. 61–72.
Ramlall, S. (2012). Corporate social responsibility in post-
apartheid South Africa. Social Responsibility Journal, 8,
pp. 270–288.
Raufflet, E. (2009). Mobilizing business for post-secondary
education: CIDA University, South Africa. Journal of
Business Ethics, 89, pp. 191–202.
Reed, D. (2002a). Employing normative stakeholder theory
in developing countries: a critical theory perspective. Busi-
ness & Society, 41, pp. 166–207.
Reed, D. (2002b). Resource extraction industries in devel-
oping countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, pp. 199–
226.
Rees, C. and Miazhevich, G. (2009). Socio-cultural change
and business ethics in Post-Soviet countries: the cases
of Belarus and Estonia. Journal of Business Ethics, 86,
pp. 51–63.
Renouard, C. and Lado, H. (2012). CSR and inequality in
the Niger Delta (Nigeria). Corporate Governance: The
International Journal of Business in Society, 12, pp. 472–
484.
Resnik, D.B. (2001). Developing drugs for the developing
world: an economic, legal, moral, and political dilemma.
Developing World Bioethics, 1, pp. 11–32.
Revelli, C. and Viviani, J.L. (2015). Financial performance
of socially responsible investing (SRI): what have we
learned? A meta-analysis. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 24, pp. 158–185.
28
Rieth, L., Zimmer, M., Hamann, R. and Hanks, J. (2007).
The UN global compact in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, 28, pp. 99–112.
Rifai-Hasan, P.A. (2009). Development, power, and the min-
ing industry in Papua: a study of Freeport Indonesia. Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 89, pp. 129–143.
Rishi, P. and Moghe, S. (2013). Integrating corporate social
responsibility and culture as a strategy for holistic corpo-
rate success in India. Journal of Corporate Citizenship,
51, pp. 17–37.
Robertson, D.C. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and
different stages of economic development: Singapore,
Turkey, and Ethiopia. Journal of Business Ethics, 88,
pp. 617–633.
Robertson, C.J., Al-Khatib, J. and Rasheed, M.F. (2013).
A cross-national analysis of corporate citizenship: Saudi
Arabia vs. the United States. Journal of Managerial Issues,
25, pp. 284–298.
Rodrigo, P. and Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about
CSR programs? A typology of employees according to
their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, pp. 265–
283.
Rodrı́guez, L.C., Montiel, I. and Ozuna, T. (2014). A concep-
tualization of how firms engage in corporate responsibility
based on country risk. Business & Society, 53, pp. 625–
651.
Roy, A., Vyas, V. and Jain, P. (2013). SMEs motivation:
corporate social responsibility. SCMS Journal of Indian
Management, 10, pp. 11–21.
Rupp, D.E., Shao, R., Thornton, M.A. and Skarlicki, D.P.
(2013). Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate
social responsibility: the moderating effects of first-party
justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 66, pp. 895–933.
Rwabizambuga, A. (2007). Negotiating corporate social re-
sponsibility policies and practices in developing coun-
tries: an examination of the experiences from the Nige-
rian oil sector. Business and Society Review, 112, pp. 407–
430.
Sanchez, C. (2000). Motives for corporate philanthropy in
El Salvador: altruism and political legitimacy. Journal of
Business Ethics, 27, pp. 363–375.
Sandhu, S., Smallman, C., Ozanne, L.K. and Cullen, R.
(2012). Corporate environmental responsiveness in India:
lessons from a developing country. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 35, pp. 203–213.
Secchi, D. (2007). Utilitarian, managerial and relational the-
ories of corporate social responsibility. International Jour-
nal of Management Reviews, 9, 347–373
See, G. (2009). Harmonious society and Chinese CSR:
is there really a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 89,
pp. 1–22.
Sethi, S.P. (1993). Operational modes for multinational cor-
porations in post-apartheid South Africa: a proposal for a
code of affirmative action in the marketplace. Journal of
Business Ethics, 12, pp. 1–12.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
Sethi, S.P. (1990). An analytical framework for making cross-
cultural comparisons of business responses to social pres-
sures: the case of United States and Japan. In Preston,
L.E. (ed.), International and Comparative Corporation
and Society Research. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 29–
56.
Shaaeldin, E.E., Yakkop, M.R.M., Yusoff, K., Alwi, A. and
Abdullah, A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, a re-
covery scheme in Peripheries: the Petronas and CNPC
enterprises in Sudan. Journal of Academic Research in
Economics, 5, pp. 88–102.
Shafer, W.E., Fukukawa, K. and Lee, G.M. (2007). Values
and the perceived importance of ethics and social respon-
sibility: the U.S. versus China. Journal of Business Ethics,
70, pp. 265–284.
Sharma, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in In-
dia. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46, pp. 637–
649.
Shengtian, H., Weihui, F. and Xiaosong, L. (2010). Achiev-
ing sustainability with a stakeholder-based CSR assess-
ment model for FIEs in CHINA. Journal of International
Business Ethics, 3, pp. 41–55.
Solorzano, A.D. (2015). International pressure on the Peru-
vian government to repeal Decree 22342: corporate social
responsibility and labor reform in Peru. North Carolina
Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation,
40, pp. 805–848.
Tan, J. (2009). Institutional structure and firm social per-
formance in transitional economies: evidence of multina-
tional corporations in China. Journal of Business Ethics,
86, pp. 171–189.
Tempel, A. and Walgenbach, P. (2003). Global standardiza-
tion of organizational forms and management practices?
Combining American and European institutionalism. Uni-
versity of Erfurt.
Tempel, A. and Walgenbach, P. (2007). Global standard-
ization of organizational forms and management prac-
tices? What new institutionalism and the business-systems
approach can learn from each other. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 44, pp. 1–24.
Tencati, A., Russo, A. and Quaglia, V. (2010). Sustainability
along the global supply chain: the case of Vietnam. Social
Responsibility Journal, 6, pp. 91–107.
Thompson, P. and Zakaria, Z. (2004). Corporate social re-
sponsibility reporting in Malaysia progress and prospects.
Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13, pp. 125–136.
Tian, Z., Wang, R. and Yang, W. (2011). Consumer responses
to corporate social responsibility (CSR) in China. Journal
of Business Ethics, 101, pp. 197–212.
Tsoi, J. (2010). Stakeholders’ perceptions and future sce-
narios to improve corporate social responsibility in Hong
Kong and Mainland China. Journal of Business Ethics, 91,
pp. 391–404.
Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility in-
fluences organizational commitment. Journal of Business
Ethics, 89, pp. 189–204.
CSR in Developing Countries
Tyagi, R. and Sharma, A.K. (2013). Corporate social perfor-
mance and corporate financial performance: a link for the
Indian firms. Issues in Social and Environmental Account-
ing, 7, pp. 4–29.
Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and
firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, pp. 167–175.
Vachani, S. and Smith, C.N. (2004). Socially responsible
pricing: lessons from the pricing of AIDS drugs in de-
veloping countries. California Management Review, 47,
pp. 117–144.
Van Beers, C. and Van Den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2001). Per-
severance of perverse subsidies and their impact on trade
and environment. Ecological Economics, 36, pp. 475–486.
Van Cranenburgh, K.C. and Arenas, D. (2014). Strategic and
moral dilemmas of corporate philanthropy in develop-
ing countries: Heineken in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal
of Business Ethics, 122, pp. 523–536.
Verma, A. and Kumar, C.V.R.S.V. (2014). An analysis of
CSR expenditure by Indian companies. Indian Journal of
Corporate Governance, 7, pp. 82–94.
Vilk_e, R. (2014). Corporate social responsibility as innova-
tion: Recent developments in Lithuania. Economics and
Business, 26, pp. 119–125.
Visser, W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in devel-
oping countries. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten,
D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook
of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, pp. 473–479.
Vivier, E. (2013). A tough line to work through: ethical am-
biguities in a South African SME. African Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 7, pp. 68–78.
Vogel, D.J. (2005). Is there a market for virtue? The busi-
ness case for corporate social responsibility. California
Management Review, 47, pp. 19–45.
Vveinhardt, J. and Andriukaitiene, R. (2014). Social respon-
sibility discourse in empirical and theoretical Lithuanian
scientific studies. Engineering Economics, 25, pp. 578–
588.
Wan, G., Lu, M. and Chen, Z. (2007). Globalization and re-
gional income inequality: empirical evidence from within
China. Review of Income and Wealth, 53, pp. 35–59.
Wang, L. and Juslin, H. (2009). The impact of Chinese culture
on corporate social responsibility: the harmony approach.
Journal of Business Ethics, 88, pp. 433–451.
Wang, M., Qiu, C. and Kong, D. (2011). Corporate social re-
sponsibility, investor behaviors, and stock market returns:
evidence from a natural experiment in China. Journal of
Business Ethics, 101, pp. 127–141.
Wheeler, D., Fabig, H. and Boele, R. (2002). Paradoxes and
dilemmas for stakeholders responsive firms in the extrac-
tive sector: lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni.
Journal of Business Ethics, 29, pp. 297–318.
Whitley, R. (1992). Societies, firms and markets: the social
structuring of business systems. In Whitley, R. (ed.), Euro-
pean Business Systems: Firms, Markets in Their National
Contexts. London: Sage.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
29
Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Struc-
turing and Change of Business Systems. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wiig, A. and Kolstad, I. (2010). Multinational corporations
and host country institutions: a case study of CSR activities
in Angola. International Business Review, 19, pp. 178–
190.
Witt, M.A. and Redding, G. (2013). Asian business sys-
tems: Institutional comparison, clusters and implications
for varieties of capitalism and business systems theory.
Socio-Economic Review, 11, pp. 265–300.
Wood, G. and Frynas, J.G. (2006). The institutional basis
of economic failure: anatomy of the segmented business
system. Socio-Economic Review, 4, pp. 239–277.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
(2001). The Business Case for Sustainable Development.
Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Devel-
opment, ISBN 2-94-024019-1.
Xu, S. and Yang, R. (2010). Indigenous characteristics of Chi-
nese corporate social responsibility conceptual paradigm.
Journal of Business Ethics, 93, pp. 321–333.
Xun, J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in China: a
preferential stakeholder model and effects. Business Strat-
egy and the Environment, 22, pp. 471–483.
Ye, K. and Zhang, R. (2011). Do lenders value corporate
social responsibility? Evidence from China. Journal of
Business Ethics, 104, pp. 197–206.
Yin, H. and Ma, C. (2009). International integration: a hope
for a greener China? International Marketing Review, 26,
pp. 348–367.
Yin, J., Rothlin, S., Li, X. and Caccamo, M. (2013). Stake-
holder perspectives on corporate social responsibility
(CSR) of multinational companies in China. Journal of
International Business Ethics, 6, pp. 56–70.
Yoon, S. and Lam, T.H. (2013). The illusion of righteousness:
corporate social responsibility practices of the alcohol in-
dustry. BMC Public Health, 13, pp. 1–11.
Yu, X. (2009). From passive beneficiary to active stake-
holder: workers’ participation in CSR movement against
labor abuses. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, pp. 233–
249.
Yu, X. (2008). Impacts of corporate code of conduct on la-
bor standards: a case study of Reebok’s athletic footwear
supplier factory in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 81,
pp. 513–529.
Zeng, F., Li, J., Zhu, H., Cai, Z. and Li, P. (2013). How in-
ternational firms conduct societal marketing in emerging
markets – An empirical test in China. Management Inter-
national Review, 53, pp. 841–868.
Zhang, M., Ma, L., Su, J. and Zhang, W. (2014). Do sup-
pliers applaud corporate social performance? Journal of
Business Ethics, 121, pp. 543–557.
Zhang, R., Rezaee, Z. and Zhu, J. (2009). Corporate phil-
anthropic disaster response and ownership type: evidence
from Chinese firms’ response to the Sichuan earthquake.
Journal of Business Ethics, 91, pp. 51–63.
30
Zhang, R., Zhu, J., Yue, H. and Zhu, C. (2010). Corporate
philanthropic giving, advertising intensity, and industry
competition level. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, pp. 39–
52.
Zheng, Q., Luo, Y. and Wang, S.L. (2014). Moral degrada-
tion, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility in
a transitional economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 120,
pp. 405–421.
Zhou, S., Quan, X. and Jiang, W. (2012). Corporate social
responsibility and sustainable development in China: lit-
erature review and case analysis. Journal of Supply Chain
and Operations Management, 10, pp. 54–65.
Zhu, Q., Yin, H., Liu, J. and Lai, K. (2014). How is em-
ployee perception of organizational efforts in corporate
social responsibility related to their satisfaction and loy-
alty towards developing harmonious society in Chinese
enterprises? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-
mental Management, 21, pp. 28–40.
Zu, L. and Song, L. (2009). Determinants of manage-
rial values on corporate social responsibility: evidence

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Jamali and C. Karam
from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, pp. 105–
117.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in
the online version of this article at the publisher’s
website:
Appendix S1. List of developing countries and
regions/continents captured in review
Appendix S2. First step: CSR in developing countries
articles (1990–2015) based on management journals
considered by Aguinis and Glavas (2012)
Appendix S3. All articles included in the content
analysis
Appendix S4. A spectrum of CSR definitions in the
developing countries literature
 本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP 图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具