Corporate social responsibility research: the importance of context

This article discusses the importance of contextual factors that influence CSR and reporting in developing countries, with particular emphasis on CSR reporting research. It highlights three contextual issues that warrant more and improved consideration in CSR research, with particular emphasis on CSR reporting research. The three issues are the role of political ideology and hegemony (China); the influence of cultural understandings (Middle East); and the impact of historical economic context (Sri Lanka).

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E Open Access
Corporate socialresponsibility research:the
importance of context
CarolA.Tilt
Abstract
There has,in recent times,been an increasing interest in understanding corporate social(and environmental)
responsibility (CSR) and,in particular,CSR reporting in developing countries.However,many of these studies failto
investigate fully the contextualfactors that influence CSR and reporting in those countries,preferring to rely on
theories and hypotheses developed from studies undertaken in the West,particularly the US,UK and Australasia.
It may be argued that this is appropriate as many emerging economies are experiencing growth and movi
towards having a more market-based orientation.Notwithstanding this,a large number of these countries have an
entirely different socio-politicalenvironment,with different politicalregimes,legalsystems and culturalinfluences.
These factors have a significant effect on the applicability of theories such as stakeholder theory,legitimacy theory
and accountability theory,which are commonly used to explain the phenomenon of reporting.
In State Capitalist countries,such as China,an important influence on companies is the politicalideology that
underpins the nation’s government.The nature and impact of ideology and hegemony in China has been
under-studied and,therefore,investigating how the ideology,and competing forces that may mitigate its influence,
manifest themselves in Chinese reporting are essential.In the Middle East,countries such as SaudiArabia have no
free press,are ruled by a royalfamily,have a market dominated by the oilindustry,and potentialreligious
influences.Such socio-culturaldifferences mean societies develop different understandings of concepts such as
sustainability and socialresponsibility.Finally,countries such as SriLanka have some similarities to other developing
countries,but their economy is set against a background of a recent civilwar – operating in a post-conflict
economy is a factor rarely considered in socialand environmentaldisclosure,yet has important influence on policy
in these areas.
This paper discusses three contextualissues that warrant more and improved consideration in CSR research,with
particular emphasis on CSR reporting research.
Keywords:Corporate socialresponsibility,Corporate environmentalreporting,Government,Ideology,Hegemony,
Politics,State capitalism,Economic development,Developing countries,China,SriLanka,Middle East
Background
More and more corporations worldwide are involved in
corporate social responsibility activities,and as a result are
providing more socialand environmentalinformation to
the public.Following from this,CSR disclosure,or report-
ing,has become one of the major fields of investigation by
accounting scholars(Deegan 2009;Mathews1997;Tilt
2001).Research that considers both CSR activity and CSR
reporting has traditionally focused on companies in more
developed economies, predominantly the US, UK, Australia
and New Zealand (Burritt and Schaltegger 2010; Frost et al
2005; Gray 2006; Gurvitsh and Sidorova 2012; Othman and
Ameer 2009;Patten 2002;Sahay 2004),but recently there
has been increasinginterestin understandingthe
phenomenon in developing countries particularly as they
experience growth and move towardsa more capitalist
orientation (Sumiani et al. 2007). Of the research that does
exist,a number of papers suggest that ‘country’is a deter-
minant for CSR involvement and for the levelof disclos-
ure, but do not go much further.
Many ofthe studies ofdeveloping countries however,
choosea framework fortheir investigation based on
those shown to be meaningfulfor explaining disclosure
Correspondence:[e-mail]
Schoolof Commerce,University of South Australia Business School,GPO Box
2471,Adelaide 5001,South Australia
International Journal of
Corporate Social Responsibility
© 2016 Tilt.Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),which permits unrestricted use,distribution,and reproduction in any
medium,provided you give appropriate credit to the originalauthor(s) and the source,provide a link to the Creative Commons
license,and indicate if changes were made.
Tilt InternationalJournalof Corporate SocialResponsibility (2016) 1:2
DOI10.1186/s40991-016-0003-7

in developed,capitalisteconomies.That is, they failto
investigatefully the contextualfactorsthat influence
firms and their reporting in those countries that have a
different social,political,legal and/or cultural context.
It may be argued thatthis is appropriate asmany
emerging economies are experiencing growth and moving
towards having a more market-based orientation.How-
ever,this is rarely acknowledged or questioned in these
papers.Yet,it is reasonable to suggest that these factors
have a significanteffecton the applicability oftheories
such as stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and account-
ability theory,which are commonly used to explain the
phenomenon of reporting.
The majority ofthe world’s population lives in devel-
oping countries and each country experiences its own
unique social,political and environmental issues (United
Nations 2013).These countries are in the process of in-
dustrialisation and are often characterised by unstable
governments,higherlevelsof unemployment,limited
technologicalcapacity,unequaldistribution ofincome,
unreliablewatersuppliesand underutilised factorsof
production.As a result of rapid industrialdevelopment,
policies are pursued thataim to attractgreater foreign
investment,and the investorsare often keen to start
benefittingfrom fiscal incentivesand cheaplabour.
While these strategies make economic sense,they have
adverse socialand environmentaleffects,including the
use of child labour,low or unpaid wages,unequal career
opportunities,occupationalhealth and safety concerns,
and increased pollution.
In a review ofthe literature on determinants ofCSR
reporting (Morhardt2010),reports thatresearch on the
impact of different variables in different regions is incon-
clusive due to the lack of enough studies.Factors that may
influence CSR disclosure practices fall broadly into internal
and external(Fifka 2013;Morhardt2010),but are com-
monly classified further as (Adams 2002: p224):
Corporate characteristics,such as size,industry
group,financial/economic performance and share
trading volume,price and risk;
General contextual factors,such as country of
origin,time,specific events,media pressure,
stakeholders and social,political,cultural and
economic context;and
Internal contextual factors,including different
aspects of corporate governance.
While CSR reportinghas been studied bya large
number of scholars,only a few fall into the second of the
categories above,and consider contextin detail.This is
particularly relevantwhen considering developing coun-
tries.A few papers have specifically reviewed studies on
developing countries.For example,(Belaland Momin
2009)categorise the work on developing countries into
three groups: studies of the volume or extent of reporting;
studies of the perceptions of CSR reporting by managers;
and studies of the perception of CSR reporting by stake-
holders. In all the studies reviewed there is little discussion
of the context,other than a description ofthe country,
and no realthoughtaboutthe theoreticalassumptions
being made.
This paper presents a discussion ofthe differentcon-
textualissues or factors that show some evidence or po-
tentialto influenceCSR and reportingin developing
countries.It focusses on three specific issues and provides
a research agenda for future consideration of the influence
of context in CSR reporting research.The paper is struc-
tured as follows.The next section introduces some broad
contextual factors that warrant consideration in the litera-
ture on CSR reporting.Next,three specific contextual
issues are examined:the role of political ideology and he-
gemony;the influence of cultural understandings;and the
impact ofhistoricaleconomic context.Finally,by way of
conclusion, some recommended areas for further research
are suggested.
Contextual considerations
Adams (2002) talks about the social, political,cultural and
economic context,so some consideration ofwhatthis
mightmean is needed as each ofthese concepts them-
selvescovera varietyof aspects,and indeed overlap.
While papers may talk about the ‘social context’in which
the companies being examined operate, this is not well de-
fined and little consideration is given to what this means.
Some things that could be more explicitly considered in-
clude, inter alia: the role of the press; the status of women;
the legal/justice system;the levelof corruption;the level
of governmentcontrol,culturalunderstandings;and so
on.This paper chooses to highlight three ofthese areas,
and these are discussed briefly below in broad terms,
followed by a discussion of some specific aspects of each
identified as providing fertile grounds for future research.
Political system
Assumptionsare often made aboutcapitalistsystems,
whether explicit or implicit,as the vast majority of work
on CSR reporting has been done in the Western context.
However,there is little research looking at CSR report-
ing in socialist or communist countries.Some work has
been undertaken on China (Dong et al.2014;Gao 2011;
Situ and Tilt 2012),but this work often applies the same
conceptualframeworks as Western studies.What about
the influence of ideology,and hegemony?
Sociocultural environment
Human beings have “distinctive cultural (learned) charac-
teristics,historiesand responsesto their environment”
Tilt InternationalJournalof Corporate SocialResponsibility (2016) 1:2 Page 2 of 9

and the term ‘sociocultural’is commonly used in an-
thropologicalresearch to describe these and the “interac-
tions and processes” thatthis involves (Garbarino 1983:
p1). Somegeneralstudiesof cultureand CSR using
Hofstede exist(Silvia and Belen 2013),but an in-depth
analysis ofdifferentunderstandings and conceptions of
terms such as CSR as a result of sociocultural influences is
lacking. The work that does examine specific factors often
suggests thatthe Western conceptof CSR does notfit
these contexts (Wang and Juslin 2009).
The majorityof work that considerssociocultural
factorshas looked mainly atreligiousaspectsof CSR,
most commonly by reviewing reporting by Islamic organ-
isation, such as Islamic banks (Maali et al. 2006; Siwar and
Hossain 2009;Sudarma etal. 2010).The teachingsof
many religions focus on social responsibility,the relation-
ship with the naturalenvironment,treatmentof others,
fairness,justice,etc.,so there is a natural expectation that
religion-based organisations may be more likely to engage
in CSR and CSR reporting. A more nuanced consideration
of how this manifests itselfin differentsocieties would
improve understanding of the drivers and motivations of
these activities.Similarly,other sociocultural factors,such
as nationalidentity,values,socialorganisation and lan-
guage, could be incorporated.
Stage of development
The emerging literatureon CSR reporting outsidethe
Western world examinescountriesthatare ‘developing’
(Belal and Momin 2009; Momin and Parker 2013), but little
depth is included about where they are in their develop-
ment journey and how the potential conflict between eco-
nomic and socialgoalsimpactsCSR or CSR reporting.
Rostow’s (1962)Stages ofEconomic Growth modelsug-
gests there are five stages (traditional society,preconditions
for take-off,take-off,drive to maturity,and age of high or
mass consumption),yetmostliterature on CSR classifies
countries only into developed or developing.The ‘develop-
ing’classification potentially includes countries that are in
Rostow’s first, second or third stage which may have an im-
pact on their response to CSR issues.In addition to eco-
nomic variables however, the United Nations also produces
a Human Development Index (HDI) which considers life
expectancy,education and income to measure how social,
as well as economic,development(UNDP 2015).Both
these concepts are important for consideration of CSR.
Importantly,consideration of just one or two aspects of
these three broader contextual issues may result in misin-
terpretation of the results.Often these things interact,for
example,socialissues often cross over with culturaland
religious impacts,or even with politicalinfluence where
the regime is more hegemonic.It is thus importantto
consider,or at leastacknowledge,the holistic nature of
the context of the phenomenon being examined.
It is beyond the scope ofthis paper to discuss allof
the issues raised here although this would be an import-
ant partof a larger research program.Therefore,three
particular contextualissues,and three specific contexts,
are the focus of this paper:the role of politicalideology
and hegemony (China);the influence ofculturalunder-
standings(Middle East);and the impactof historical
economic context (Sri Lanka).
Politics, ideology and state control
Ideology is a set of common beliefs that are shared by a
group ofpeople,and is “the fundamentalsocialbeliefs
thatorganize and controlthe socialrepresentations of
groups and their members” (Van Dijk 2009:p78).Coun-
tries such as China provide a fertile research setting to
examine the influence ofideology,and hegemonic ap-
proaches ofinfluencing CSR,which have been missing
from most CSR research in the region.
The Chinese politicalmodelhas some unique charac-
teristics.Among these isthe dominance of‘the party
state’,which exercisescontrolin differentforms over
mostaspects ofthe economy thatis unmatched when
compared to otherstate capitalisteconomies.Political
leaders use a variety oftools (Bremmer 2010)and itis
the combination of three particular tools that sets apart
the Chinese system:the exercise ofcontrolas a domin-
ant shareholder,the ability to appointkey positions in
major firms, and the meansto influencedecision-
making via ideology.First,the party exerts shareholder
power over state-ownedenterprises(SOEs). Chinese
SOEs play an instrumental role in society (Du and Wang
2013)and make up around 80 % ofthe stock market
(Economist T 2012).As protecting the environment is a
major part of the guiding ideology and the nation’s pol-
icy,SOEs are likely to be keen to provide CER.Second,
the party exercises power over the appointmentof the
senior leadership in SOEs (Landry 2008).This has re-
sulted in controlas they are “cadres first and company
men second.They care more about pleasing their party
bossesthan aboutthe globalmarket”(EconomistT
2012:p6). Third, party control is exercised through
ideology.The party has cells in most larger firms,
whetherprivate orstate-owned,which influence busi-
ness decisionsmade at board meetings.Given that
China considers the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology as
crucial this distinguishes it most significantly from other
varietiesof state capitalism thathave a more liberal-
democratic flavour.
There is some evidence thatthe firstform of party
control has been declining in recenttimeswith the
numberof SOEs underthe SASAC’scontrolhalving
over the last decade(Mattlin 2009).Similarly,since
1999,the share ofSOEs in the economy has declined
from 37 % to less than 5 %.This results in greater use of
Tilt InternationalJournalof Corporate SocialResponsibility (2016) 1:2 Page 3 of 9

regulation and ideologicalhegemony to achieve its aims,
yet mostCSR research stillusesstate-ownership asa
proxy for all types of state control.
Even after economic reform,ideology in China was still
pervasive (Lieber 2013).Lieber (2013) argues that ideology
is widely used to signal loyalty and the government is good
at using ideology to “control and direct key vocabularies…
(and) vague ideological language can create a climate of un-
certainty thus increasing the range ofa controlregime”
(Lieber2013:p346).However,the prevailing ideological
themes in China are dynamic.In particular,most recently,
new ideologicalthemes have developed to respond to the
changes in society.When economic reform began,“build-
ing up a socialistmarketeconomy with specific Chinese
characteristics”was the guiding ideology(Zhang 2012:
p25).As such,economic growth was the country’s priority,
but in 2005,“building up a harmonious society became the
prevailing ideology”(and CSR isa key elementof this
resolution).
Ideology is used by the Chinese governmentto exert
control over businesses.Traditionally,the government has
“been considered a source of moral authority,official legit-
imacy and politicalstability…and …politicallanguage has
been vested with an intrinsic instrumental value: its control
represents the most suitable and effective way first to co-
dify,and then widely convey,the orthodox state ideology”
(Marinellin 2012:p26).The language “developed and used
by party officials … consists of‘correct’formulation,aims
to teach the ‘enlarged masses’how to speak and,how to
think” (Marinellin 2012:p26).The idea of the importance
of a ‘HarmoniousSociety’is the “re-contextualized dis-
course in response to the emergent issues in the changing
socialstratification order” (Zhang 2012:p33).As a result,
Chinese companies have been noticeably adopting the lan-
guage of social concern and environmental protection.
It may therefore be suggested thatCSR reporting in
China is directly a response to the government’s ideo-
logicalhegemony.However,the story is not as straight-
forward asit may firstappear,for two reasons.First,
despite a great dealof commitment to socialand envir-
onmentalregulation in China,implementation ofthese
regulations has been limited.Second,as China enters a
phase of continued economic development,Western in-
fluences may begin to have a moderating effecton the
strength of the ideology.
The Chinese economy has grown rapidly in terms of
gross domestic product(GDP) (World Bank 2016).The
economic reforms thattook place over the pastdecades
were motivated substantially by the Chinese centralgov-
ernment,and recent scholars have noted the positive role
thatideology played in driving those reforms,notwith-
standing that economists historically view ideology as “dis-
torting… knowledge,judgmentand decisionmaking”
(Lieber 2013: p344).
With economic reform however,has come substantial
environmental degradation which in turn has led to poor
health outcomes for much ofsociety generally.This led
to a high levelof commitment to environmentalregula-
tion in particular from as early as the 1990,followed by
the release ofeven more rigorous regulations on envir-
onmentalprotection in the 2000s.However,despite the
high commitment made by the Chinese centralgovern-
ment,implementation ofthesepoliciesis quite poor
(Bina 2010).In terms ofenvironmentalregulation,for
example,the implementation problemsstem from a
number of areas,including:the position of environmen-
tal protection agencies in the politicalframework;con-
flict betweencentral and local governments;and
supervision issues.The system of supervision of local en-
vironmentaldepartmentsis a key problem (Bina 2010).
When an environmental department is set up in the central
government, corresponding environmental departments ar
setup in localgovernments.Ideally,these localdepart-
ments should be agencies of the central department, delive
the centralenvironmentaldepartment’sstrategies,and
supervise localenvironmentalprotection implementation.
In reality,the local environmental departments are subser-
vient to the local rather than central governments. All their
financialsupport and staffappointments come from local
governments.Therefore,rather than supervising localen-
vironmentalprotection implementation,the localenviron-
mentaldepartmentsbecome“rubberstamps”for local
governments (Zheng 2010).Therefore,it is unlikely that
there willbe efficient enforcement of environmentallaws,
regulations and policies at the local level (Bina 2010; Zheng
2010).
Finally,as China heads towards a market economy,gov-
ernment intervention becomes a policy choice, and market
function as a toolof nationalinterest (Zhao 2011).How-
ever,as Chinese firms become more involved with foreign
trading partners and markets, their reporting activity is also
influenced by foreign and globalorganisations,leading to
potentialtension between demonstrating commitmentto
state ideologicalgoalsand meeting the requirementsof
global stakeholders.
Given thecomplexityof the context,research into
CSR reporting in China needs to take into accountthe
specific aspects ofChinese politics and culture in order
to provide a nuanced understanding,and ultimately an
improvement,of CSR reporting activities.However,a
review doneof the literature on CSR in by Chinese
showed thatit is very descriptive with little depth and
much of the CSR literature is conceptual,descriptive,or
argumentative in nature (Guan and Noronha 2013).The
authorsnoted properresearch methodologiesare not
systematically applied in some studies,and supporting
theoriesare lacking.In the non-Chinesestudieson
China, there is also a predominanceof paperson
Tilt InternationalJournalof Corporate SocialResponsibility (2016) 1:2 Page 4 of 9

determinantsand volumeof reporting (Situ and Tilt
2012),with very few consideringbroadercontextual
factors,other than a few thatlook at specific cultural
attributes (e.g.,Rowe & Guthrie 2009).
Sociocultural understandings
Notwithstanding a move towards a market orientation of
many developing countries,such as in China as outlined
above,conceptions of CSR by management of companies
in these countries may be quite different to those in the
West(Wang and Juslin 2009).These differing concep-
tions may be a result of differing values and attitudes, lan-
guage,religion or identity.Even specific elements of CSR
are conceived ofdifferently,for example in China,the
main understanding of sustainability is in terms of envir-
onmental protection (Situ et al.2013,2015).These socio-
culturally derived understandings are inevitably reflected
in their reporting.
In another example,in the Middle East,the predomin-
ant perception ofCSR is thatit simply means philan-
thropicdonations.In this region,the issueof social
responsibility is relatively new,and as such the number
of studies of CSR and CSR reporting in the Gulfregion
is growing (Al-Khatarand Naser2003;AlNaimi et al.
2012;Emtairah et al.2009;Mandurah et al.2012;Marios
and Tor 2007;Minnee et al.2013;Nalband and Al-Amri
2013;Naser et al.2006;Naser and Hassan 2013;Qasim
et al. 2011;Sangeetha and Pria 2012).Many of these
studies do notconsiderthe culturalcontextto a very
great extent as the research is emerging and focusses on
perceptions.For example,Mandurah etal. (2012)and
Emtairah etal. (2009)explored managerialperceptions
of the conceptof CSR in SaudiArabia and found that
managersare aware ofthe concept,but there is little
connection between themanageriallevel perceptions
and firms’workforce.The authors describe CSR as being
in its infancy phase,which limits the understanding of
the conceptto the view thatCSR simply means being
philanthropic.This indicates a different,and perhaps less
developed,understanding ofthe conceptin the region
compared with the West,but the reasons for this,and
the consequences for CSR reporting,are under-explored.
Some authors suggest the narrow use of the term is be-
cause of the religious obligations towards society,(Visser
2008).There is only minimalevidence of any CSR prac-
tices other than philanthropy-based or any strategic ap-
proaches to CSR forlong-term benefits (Visser2008),
but the trend is increasing and the forms thatphilan-
thropy takes is expanding.
It has also been argued that politics plays a significant
role in increasing the awarenessof CSR in the Arab
world.Avina (2013) suggests that the perception of CSR
in the Middle East changed after the Arab spring event,
for both localand internationalfirms.The term CSR
more than a decade ago had little meaning to the public
(Visser 2008) but since the Arab spring,the sense of so-
cialresponsibility among civilsociety and the corporate
sectorhas increased Avina 2013).Firms realised that
they play a role in socialresponsibility,not just govern-
ments,and recognised thatCSR should go beyond just
donations to charitable causes (Avina 2013).Ronnegard
(2013),however,predicts thatCSR in the Middle East
will not mimic the Western conceptbecauseof the
strong influence ofculture and religion in the region.
Moreover,the influence ofstakeholders in the Middle
East is considered to be limited due to there being a lack
of free press,few lobby groups and the different cultural
attributes of employees and consumers.Some studies in
Gulf countrieshave however,suggestedthat stake-
holders, such as government and charitable
organisations,may have an impacton firms’behaviour
(Emtairah et al.2009;Naser et al.2006).Others suggest
thatCSR may have developed as a conceptdue to the
increase offoreign directinvestmentinto Arab coun-
tries,the trend of shifting family and government owned
firms into the public domain,and the globalisation of
the region’s large national firms.
From the limited studies thathave been undertaken,
there is evidence of CSR reporting by Gulf country com-
panies,with human resources and community involve-
mentbeing the dominantthemes in may reports Abu-
Baker and Naser 2000).Thus,understanding of motiva-
tions for CSR reporting is notyetwell developed and
few existing studies consider the different levelof stake-
holder pressure in the region.This suggests thatmore
research is needed on the formation ofnotions ofCSR
within specificcontexts.This region is of particular
interest because,according to the Human Development
Report (HDI 2013),countries in the region are classified
as high,or very high,in human development.That is,
they are notonly trying to develop and improve their
economy,but are also trying to improve the quality of
life of their citizens (Ramady 2010).The overalloutlook
of thesecountriesindicatesthat they are performing
well,however,Fadaak (2010) notes that identifying pov-
erty lines is a challenge because of a lack of a clear defin-
ition of povertyin the region.There are no official
reports considering poverty or other social problems and
no GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council)countrieswere
found in the list of the World Bank Database in relation
to the poverty rate.
Similarly,in other developing countriesthe import-
ance oflocal economic,cultural,and religiousfactors
thatshape the business environment,and understand-
ings ofcharity and philanthropy,need to be taken into
account.Empiricalwork in this area is lacking (Lund-
Thomsen etal. 2016).In Sri Lanka,for example,“the
most common arguments used to ‘sell’the business case
Tilt InternationalJournalof Corporate SocialResponsibility (2016) 1:2 Page 5 of 9

for CSR and CP [Corporate Philanthropy],for example
an improved brand image,increased market or customer
share,employeeretention,mitigated regulatoryrisks,
and reduced tax burden,are considered mostly irrele-
vant” (Global Insights 2013:p1).Business leaders engage
in CSR for a range of business,humanitarian,social,reli-
gious,and political reasons.Key amongst them is a belief
that‘giving back’to society discharges religious obliga-
tions to the poor,and an awareness thatbeing seen to
contribute to nationaldevelopmentgoalsis important
(GlobalInsights 2013).Hence,the conception of CSR in
this region is culturally determined,but also shaped by
the economic environment.
Economic development
As well as government control, culture and political factors,
the stage of economic development a country is in is also
an importantcontextualfactorthat may impactCSR
reporting.In China,as discussed above,the drive for eco-
nomic reform led directly to environmental impacts which
needed to be addressed.A number of other developing
countrieshave been examined fortheir reporting on
CSR issues,particularly from the Asian region (Andrew
et al. 1989;Elijido-Ten etal. 2010),India (Mishra and
Suar 2010;Raman 2006;Sahay 2004),and Bangladesh
(Belaland Owen 2007;Belaland Roberts 2010;Khan
2010;Muttakin et al.2015).
While thesecountriesare classifiedas developing
(IMF 2015),Bangladesh and India score only medium
for human development.Another country in the region,
Sri Lanka,has a high rating on the HDI,and has been
exhibiting extensive growth since the end ofa 30-year
war (WPR 2015).Thus, exhibiting both economic and
socialgrowth aspectsmakesit an interesting case for
studying CSR.
Sri Lanka has a population of over 20 million and for-
eign companieshave increased theirinvestmentswith
one billion US dollars in directforeign investments in
2013 alone (BOI).Classified as a middle income devel-
oping country,the challenge for SriLanka is to achieve
high economic growth without causing irreversible dam-
age to the environment and while continuing to elimin-
ating socialissuessuch as poverty,malnutrition and
poor workplaceethics(Goger2013).In addition,Sri
Lanka also has a long history of corporate philanthropy,
largely led by individuals whose values and actions stem
from religious and cultural views (Beddewela and Herzig
2013) but has recently seen an increase in private firms
offeringdevelopment-relatedinitiatives.Public infra-
structure projects have been the main element ofpost-
war economicplanning,but therestill remainsrural
poverty in the country.Thus,the primary motivation for
CSR and philanthropy in Sri Lanka is poverty reduction,
particularlyfor children and youth, social welfare
Table 1 CSR and developing countries:political,economic and socioculturalvariables for a future research agenda
ClassificationVariable Interactions
Political PoliticalSystem Some politicalvariables could be considered socioculturalas,for example,politicalideology impacts
nationalidentity and values
Ideology
Hegemony
State Ownership
Propaganda Level
SocioculturalLanguage
Levelof urbanisation
Educationaldevelopment
Secularism Socioculturalfactors are related to economic development,for example,education levelis highly
correlated with industrialisation and technologicaladvancement
Freedom of the press
Access to information
Homogeneity of values
and attitudes
Existence of a national
figurehead
Nationalidentity
Economic HDI
FDI
Access to markets Economic variables impact on,and are impacted by,politics
Industrialisation level
Technology
Tilt InternationalJournalof Corporate SocialResponsibility (2016) 1:2 Page 6 of 9

organisations like orphanages and elderly homes,hospi-
tals and health services,and veterans’charities (Global
Insights 2013).Thus,the economic,cultural,and polit-
ical contextmeans thatthese poverty rates have fallen
(data indicatesthat the rate wentfrom approximately
20 % in 2000 to under 9 % in 2013)and thatinflation
has slowed (Wijesinha 2014),so opportunities for private
businesses to contribute to infrastructure abound.How-
ever,these private,development-orientated,CSR initia-
tives have often failed to deliver their aims and there is
considered to be a danger that they may in fact perpetu-
ate the causes ofpoverty and ethnic and religious con-
flict given their ties to particular ethnic groups (Global
Insights 2013).
Notwithstanding thisenvironment,the topic of CSR
reporting in Sri Lanka has received relatively little research
attention compared to other parts ofthe world (see Belal
and Momin 2009, for a review). In terms of motivations for
CSR, there is some evidence thatfirms in which senior
management have a positive outlook towards social and en-
vironmentalpractices tend to disclose more on these as-
pects,as compared to other firms (Fernando and Pandey
2012).However,reportingon CSR initiativesis not
mandatory thus it is likely that any voluntary reporting by
Sri Lankan firms will vary significantly. One study of report-
ing was conducted by Senaratne and Liyanagedara (2012)
who examined the level of compliance with Global Report-
ing Initiative (GRI) guidelines in the disclosures of publicly
listed companies, selected from seven business sectors. The
authors conclude that the level of compliance with the GRI
is low and that disclosures vary significantly amongst the
companies,potentially reflecting varying commitmentto
CSR. Similarly, a longitudinal study across five years (2005–
2010)wascarried outby Wijesinghe (2012)to identify
trends in CSR reporting in Sri Lanka and the study identi-
fied an increasingly positive trend,predicting similar levels
of disclosures provided by companies in developed coun-
tries.The few studies that have been conducted examining
the predominance of reporting in Sri Lanka,mostly exam-
ining multinationalcompanies,conclude that CSR report-
ing is gaining momentum in Sri Lanka but is still emerging
as the conceptof CSR itselfemerges(Beddewelaand
Herzig 2012; Hunter and Van Wassenhove 2011).
Conclusion and a future research agenda
As more and more research on CSR in developing coun-
tries emerges in the academic literature,it is important
to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the
context in which the research takes place.Examination
of CSR and CSR reporting practices without contextual-
isation could perpetuate flawed understandings that are
based on evidence from research in the developed world.
Differentpolitical,social,culturaland economic envi-
ronments impacton the both the developmentof, and
reporting of,CSR activities and consequently impact on
the value ofthese activities to benefitsociety and the
natural environment.
A suggested agenda for future research,that considers
context in more depth,includes:
1. Consideration of ideological and hegemonic regimes
and their attitude towards CSR.This research would
consider potential positive and negative impacts of
the political and governance system.In China,for
example,the potential for Communist Party
ideology to increase environmental protection and
improve social conditions is vast,and is starting to
be seen to have a strong impact on firm behaviour.
Examination of this over time will provide an
important contribution to understanding the role of
government beyond the more common analysis of
environmental protection regulation.
2. Greater examination of sociocultural variables in
different countries,beyond analysis of religious
influence,and beyond the use of Hofstede.
Understandings of concepts such as CSR in
countries in Asia,the Middle East and the Asian
sub-continent,are known to differ from those in the
West,so understanding their potential to lead to
better (worse) CSR outcomes is important.The
variety of variables that could be included is vast,
but some clearly important issues include:language,
secularism,freedom of the press,access to informa-
tion,homogeneity of values and attitudes,and the
existence of a national figurehead or identity.
3. Longitudinal examination of the process of
economic development.Countries where the
economy is developing rapidly,such as China and
the Middle East;and countries where the historical
economic context differs dramatically,such as in Sri
Lanka where the need for development is borne out
of conflict,provide rich backgrounds to consider
how CSR is developing alongside economic
developments.
A comprehensive framework for examining these,and
other,potentialfactorsthat influenceCSR and CSR
reporting in developing countriesdoesnot exist,but
Table 1 attemptsto provide a preliminary outline of
some factors that could comprise such a framework,and
be used to guide future research.As mentioned earlier,it
is importantto note,however,thatthese variables are
not discreetand are likely to interactwith each other.
This is noted in the table as a reminder that the classifi-
cationsare somewhatartificialand thatacknowledge-
ment of a more holistic consideration is important.
These are clearly only a selection ofopportunities for
CSR researchon developingnations and emerging
Tilt InternationalJournalof Corporate SocialResponsibility (2016) 1:2 Page 7 of 9

economies.Calls for more work on these factors have
continued since Adams’(2002) originalcall,but there is
still vastscope to improve ourunderstanding ofCSR
practice throughout the world (Fifka 2013),where much
of the social and environmental damage is taking place.
Importantly,research ofthis kind must be transdisci-
plinary as perspectives from areas such as politicalsci-
ence,philosophy and economics are essential.Only with
in-depth,contextualised understandingscan improve-
ments to the nature of CSR activity be implemented.
Competing interests
The author declares that she has no competing interests.
Acknowledgements
It is important to acknowledge that this paper provides an overview of a
larger research program currently being undertaken by a team of doctoral
students at Flinders University and the University of South Australia.Credit
must be given to Ms HuiSitu (Flinders University) who is researching
environmentalreporting in China,Mr Abdullah Silawi(Flinders University)
who is researching socialresponsibility reporting in the Gulf region,and Ms
DinithiDissanayake (University of SA),who is researching environmental
disclosure in SriLanka.
Received:14 March 2016 Accepted:18 May 2016
Published:5 July 2016
References
1. Abu-Baker,N.,& Naser,K.(2000).Empiricalevidence on corporate social
disclosure (CSD) practices in Jordan.InternationalJournalof Commerce and
Management,10(3/4),18–34.
2. Adams,C.(2002).Internalorganisationalfactors influencing corporate social
and ethicalreporting:beyond current theorising.Accounting Auditing
Account Journal,15(2),223–50.
3. Al-Khatar,K.,& Naser,K.(2003).User’s perceptions of corporate social
responsibility and accountability:evidence from an emerging economy.
ManagerialAuditing Journal,18(6/7),538–48.
4. AlNaimi,H.A.,Mohammed,H.,& Momin,M.A.(2012).Corporate social
responsibility reporting in Qatar:a descriptive analysis.SocialResponsibility
Journal,8(4),511–26.
5. Andrew,B.H.,Gul,F. A.,Guthrie,J., & Teoh,H. Y. (1989).A note of
corporate socialdisclosure practices in developing countries:the case
of Malaysia and Singapore.The British Accounting Review,21(01),
371–76.
6. Avina,J. (2013).The evolution of Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR) in the
Arab Spring.The Middle East Journal,67(1),77–92.
7. Beddewela,E.,Herzig,C.(2012).Corporate socialreporting by mncs’
subsidiaries in SriLanka.Paper presented at Accounting Forum.
8. Beddewela,E.,& Herzig,C.(2013).Corporate socialreporting by MNCs’
subsidiaries in SriLanka.Accounting Forum,37(2),135–49.
9. Belal,A.,& Momin,M.(2009).Corporate socialreporting in emerging
economies:a review and future direction.Research in Accounting in
Emerging Economies,9,119–45.
10. Belal,A.R.,& Owen,D.L.(2007).The views of corporate managers on the
current state of,and future prospects for,socialreporting in Bangladesh:an
engagement-based study.Accounting,Auditing & Accountability Journal,
20(3),472–94.
11. Belal,A.R.,& Roberts,R.W.(2010).‘Stakeholders’perceptions of corporate
socialreporting in Bangladesh.Journalof Business Ethics,97(2),311–11-24.
12. Bina,O.(2010).Environmentalgovernance in China:weakness and potential
from an environmentalpolicy integration perspective*.The China Review,
10(1),207–40.
13. BOI.Why SriLanka Now?.http://www.investsrilanka.com/:Board of
investment of SriLanka.nd.Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
14. Bremmer,I.(2010).The end of the free market:who wins the war between
states and corporations.European View,9(2),249–52.
15. Burritt,R.L.,& Schaltegger,S.(2010).Sustainability accounting and reporting:
fad or trend? Accounting,Auditing & Accountability Journal,23(7),829–46.
16. Deegan,C.(2009).Extended systems of accounting - the incorporation of
socialand environmentalfactors within externalreporting.In Financial
accounting theory(pp.378–425).Sydney:McGraw-Hill.
17. Dong,S.,Burritt,R.,& Qian,W.(2014).Salient stakeholders in corporate
socialresponsibility reporting by Chinese mining and minerals companies.
Journalof Cleaner Production,84,59–69.
18. Du,J.,Wang,Y.(2013).Reforming SOEs under China’s State Capitalism,
Unfinished Reforms in the Chinese Economy.p.1–38.
19. Economist,T.(2012).State capitalism,The economist.p.1–14.
20. Elijido-Ten,E.,Kloot,L.,& Clarkson,P.(2010).Extending the application of
stakeholder influence strategies to environmentaldisclosures:An
exploratory study from a developing country.Accounting,Auditing &
Accountability Journal,23(8),1032–59.
21. Emtairah,T.,Al-Ashaikh,A.,& Al-Badr,A.(2009).Contexts and corporate
socialresponsibility:the case of SaudiArabia.InternationalJournalof
Sustainable Society,1(4),325–46.
22. Fadaak,T.(2010).Poverty in the Kingdom of SaudiArabia:an exploratory
study of poverty and female-headed households in Jeddah City.Social
Policy and Administration,44(6),689–707.
23. Fernando,A.,& Pandey,I.(2012).Corporate socialresponsibility reporting:a
survey of listed SriLankan companies.Journalfor InternationalBusiness and
Entrepreneurship Development,6(2),172–87.
24. Fifka,M.S.(2013).Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in
comparative perspective – a review of the empiricalliterature and a meta-
analysis.Business Strategy and the Environment,22(1),1–35.
25. Frost,G.,Jones,S.,Loftus,J.,& Van Der Laan,S.(2005).A survey of
sustainability reporting practices of Australian reporting entities.Australian
Accounting Review,15(1),89–96.
26. Gao,Y.(2011).CSR in an emerging country:a content analysis of CSR
reports of listed companies.Baltic Journalof Management,6(2),263–91.
27. Garbarino,M.S.(1983).Socioculturaltheory in anthropology.A short history.
Long Grove:Waveland Press Inc.
28. GlobalInsights.Corporate responsibility,philanthropy and development,
Policy Brief 08,2016:13 January.2013.[online at https://www.sussex.ac.uk/
webteam/gateway/file.php?name=corporate-responsibility-and-
development-global-insights-08-web.pdf&site=11].
29. Goger,A.(2013).The making of a ‘business case’for environmental
upgrading:SriLanka’s eco-factories.Geoforum,47,73–83.
30. Gray,R.(2006).Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour?:
Wrong question? Right time? Accounting and Business Research,36(sup1),65–88.
31. Guan,J.,& Noronha,C.(2013).Corporate socialresponsibility reporting
research in the Chinese academia:a criticalreview.SocialResponsibility
Journal,9(1),35–55.
32. Gurvitsh,N.,& Sidorova,I.(2012).Environmentaland socialaccounting
disclosures as a vitalcomponent of sustainability reporting integrated
into annualreports of the Baltic companies for the Years 2007–2011:Based
on companies listed on NASDAQ OMX Baltic Main List as of June 2012.
GSTF Business Review (GBR),2(1),38–44.
33. HDI.Human Development Report 2013.United Nations Development
Programm;2013.Available at:http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2013_EN_
complete.pdf
34. Hunter,M.L.,& Van Wassenhove,L.N.(2011).Hayleys PLC:corporate
responsibility as stakeholder relations.The Journalof Management
Development,30(10),968–84.
35. IMF.(2015).World economic outlook,April2015.Washington,DC:
InternationalMonetary Fund.
36. Khan,M.H.U.Z.(2010).The effect of corporate governance elements
on corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) reporting:Empiricalevidence from
private commercialbanks of Bangladesh.InternationalJournalof Law and
Management,52(2),82–109.
37. Landry,P.F.(2008).Decentralized authoritarianism in China.New York:
Cambridge University Press.
38. Lieber,A.(2013).The Chinese ideology:reconciling the politics with the
economics of contemporary reform.Journalof Chinese PoliticalScience,
18(4),335–53.
39. Lund-Thomsen,P.,Lindgreen,A.,& Vanhamme,J. (2016).Industrialclusters
and corporate socialresponsibility in developing countries:what we know,
what we do not know,and what we need to know.Journalof Business
Ethics,133(1),9–24.
40. Maali,B.,Casson,P.,& Napier,C.(2006).Socialreporting by islamic banks.
Abacus,42(2),266–89.
Tilt InternationalJournalof Corporate SocialResponsibility (2016) 1:2 Page 8 of 9

41. Mandurah,S.,Khatib,J.,& Al-Sabaan,S.(2012).Corporate socialresponsibility
among SaudiArabian Firms:an empiricalinvestigation.Journalof Applied
Business Research,28(5),1049–57.
42. Marinellin,M.(2012).Disembodied Words:The Ritualistic quality of political
discourse in the era of Jiang Zemin.In P.Chilton,H.Tian,& R.Wodak (Eds.),
Discourse and Socio-politicalTransformations in Contemporary China.
Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Co.
43. Marios,I.K.,& Tor,B.(2007).Corporate socialresponsibility:an exploratory
study in the United Arab Emirates.SAM Advanced Management Journal,
72(4),9–20,2.
44. Mathews,M.R.(1997).Twenty-five years of socialand environmental
accounting research - Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting
Auditing and Accountability Journal,10(4),481–531.
45. Mattlin,M.(2009).Chinese Strategic state-owned enterprises and ownership
control.BICCS Asia Paper,4(6),1–28.
46. Minnee,F.,Shanka,T.,Taylor,R.,& Handley,B.(2013).Exploring corporate
responsibility in Oman – socialexpectations and practice.Social
Responsibility Journal,9(2),326–39.
47. Mishra,S.,& Suar,D.(2010).Does corporate socialresponsibility influence
firm performance of Indian companies? Journalof Business Ethics,95(4),
571–601.
48. Momin,M.A.,& Parker,L.D.(2013).Motivations for corporate social
responsibility reporting by MNC subsidiaries in an emerging country:
The case of Bangladesh.The British Accounting Review,45(3),215–28.
49. Morhardt,J. E.(2010).Corporate socialresponsibility and sustainability
reporting on the internet.Business Strategy and the Environment,19,436–52.
50. Muttakin,M.B.,Khan,A.,& Subramaniam,N.(2015).Firm characteristics,
board diversity and corporate socialresponsibility:evidence from
Bangladesh.Pacific Accounting Review,27(3),353–72.
51. Nalband,N.A.,& Al-Amri,M.S.(2013).Corporate socialresponsibility–
perception,practices and performance of listed companies of Kingdom
of SaudiArabia.InternationalBusiness Journalincorporating Journalof Global
Competitiveness,23(3),5–5.
52. Naser,K.,Al-Hussaini,A.,Al-Kwari,D.,& Nuseibeh,R.(2006).Determinants of
corporate socialdisclosure in developing countries:the case of Qatar.
Advances in InternationalAccounting,19(6),1–23.
53. Naser,K.,& Hassan,Y.(2013).Determinants of corporate socialresponsibility
reporting:evidence from an emerging economy.Journalof Contemporary
Issues in Business Research,3(2),56–74.
54. Othman,R.,& Ameer,R.(2009).Corporate socialand environmental
reporting:Where are we heading? A survey of the literature.International
Journalof Disclosure and Governance,6(4),298–320.
55. Patten,D.M.(2002).The relation between environmentalperformance and
environmentaldisclosure:a research note.Accounting,Organizations and
Society,27(8),763–73.
56. Qasim,Z.,Muralidharan,P.,Ramaswamy,G.2011.Corporate social
responsibility and impact of CSR Practices in the United Arab Emirates.
Paper presented at InternationalConference on Technology and Business
Management March.
57. Ramady,M.A.(2010).The SaudiArabian economy:policies,achievements and
challenges.New York:Springer.
58. Raman,S.R.(2006).Corporate socialreporting in India—a view from the
top.GlobalBusiness Review,7(2),313–24.
59. Ronnegard,D.(2013).CSR in SaudiArabia:Far behind or another path?
Fountainebleau:INSEAD.
60. Rostow,W.W.(1962).The stages of economic growth.London:Cambridge
University Press.
61. Rowe,A.L.,& Guthrie,J. (2009).'InstitutionalCulturalNorms of Chinese
Corporate EnvironmentalReporting.'Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Accounting Conference.Austria:University Innsbruck.
62. Sahay,A.(2004).Environmentalreporting by Indian corporations.Corporate
SocialResponsibility and EnvironmentalManagement,11(1),12–22.
63. Sangeetha,K.,& Pria,S.(2012).Resources affecting banks’CSR in sultanate
of Oman:a stakeholders’perspective.Journalof Business Ethics and
Organization Studies,17(1),31–40.
64. Senaratne,S.,Liyanagedara,K.(2012).Corporate sustainability reporting in Sri
Lanka.Paper presented at InternationalConference on Business
Management.
65. Silvia,R.,& Belen,F.-F.(2013).Effect of Hofstede’s culturaldifferences in
corporate socialresponsibility disclosure.InternationalJournalof Information
Systems and SocialChange (IJISSC),4(1),68–84.
66. Situ,H.,& Tilt,C.A.(2012).Chinese government as a determinant of
corporate environmentalreporting:a study of large Chinese listed
companies.Journalof the Asia Pacific Centre for EnvironmentalAccountability,
18(4),251–86.
67. Situ,H.,Tilt,C.A.,Seet,P.S.,& Max,S.(2013).Understanding the impact of
Chinese government and other stakeholders on Corporate Environmental
Reporting in China.Kobe,Japan:7th Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in
Accounting Conference (APIRA).Available at:http://www.apira2013.org/
proceedings/.
68. Situ,H.,Tilt,CA.,Seet,PS.(2015).Corporate EnvironmentalReporting (CER) in
China:A Stakeholder Perspective.Paper presented at Australasian Conference
on Socialand EnvironmentalAccounting Research.
69. Siwar,C.,& Hossain,M.(2009).An analysis of Islamic CSR concept and the
opinions of Malaysian managers.Management of EnvironmentalQuality,
20(3),290–98.
70. Sudarma,M.,Triyuwono,I.,Ludigdo,U.,Meutia,I.(2010).Qualitative
approach to build the concept of socialresponsibility disclosures based on
Shari’ah Enterprise Theory.
71. Sumiani,Y.,Haslinda,Y.,& Lehman,G.(2007).Environmentalreporting in a
developing country:a case study on status and implementation in Malaysia.
Journalof Cleaner Production,15(10),895–901.
72. Tilt,C.A.(2001).The content and disclosure of Australian corporate
environmentalpolicies.Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal,14(2),
190–212.
73. UNDP.Human Development Report (DHR).2015.[online at http://hdr.undp.
org/en].Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
74. United Nations,D.o.E.a.S.A.Population Trends.2013.http://www.un.org/
en/development/desa/population/theme/trends/index.shtml:United
Nations:Department of Economic and SocialAffairs.Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
75. Van Dijk,T.A.(2009).CriticalDiscourse Analysis:A Sociocognitive Approach.
In Methods of CriticalDiscourse Analysis (2nd ed.,pp.62–86).Los Angeles:
SAGE Publication Ltd.
76. Visser,W.(2008).Corporate socialresponsibility in developing countries.The
Oxford handbook of corporate socialresponsibility.p.473–79
77. Wang,L.,& Juslin,H.(2009).The impact of Chinese culture on corporate social
responsibility:the harmony approach.Journal of Business Ethics,88,433–51.
78. Wijesinghe,KN.(2012).Current context of disclosure of corporate social
responsibility in SriLanka.
79. World Bank.Macroeconomics & Economic Growth in South Asia.nd.http://
go.worldbank.org/6GS5XVH1O0.Accessed 5 Feb 2016.
80. Wijesinha A.'Can SriLanka build a prosperous post-war future?',2014;
[online at http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/06/10/can-sri-lanka-build-a-
prosperous-post-warfuture/].Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
81. WPR 2015.Sri Lanka Population 2015.http://worldpopulationreview.com/
countries/sri-lanka-population/:World Population Review.Accessed 20 Jan 2016.
82. Zhang,Q.(2012).The discursive construction of the socialstratification
order in reforming China.In P.Chilton,H.Tian,& R.Wodak (Eds.),Discourse
and socio-politicaltransformations in Contemporary China (pp.19–37).
Amesterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Co.
83. Zhao J.Funding energy industry:InternationalFinance Corporation invest in
Chinese Green Energy ( 为为为为为为为为为为 : 为为为为为为为为为为为为为为 ), China WTO Tribune.2011.p.10.
84. Zheng,Y.(2010).China model:experience and dilemma ( 为为为为 : 为为为为为 ). Zhengzhou,China:Zhengzhou People Publishing House.
Submit your manuscript to a
journal and benefi t from:
7 Convenient online submission
7 Rigorous peer review
7 Immediate publication on acceptance
7 Open access: articles freely available online
7 High visibility within the fi eld
7 Retaining the copyright to your article
Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com
Tilt InternationalJournalof Corporate SocialResponsibility (2016) 1:2 Page 9 of 9