Business News Framing of Corporate Social Responsibility in the United States and the United Kingdom: Insights From the Implicit and Explicit CSR Framework

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 683-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae Ho Lee ◽  
Daniel Riffe

This study aims to contribute to the understanding of business news coverage of corporate social responsibility (CSR) within a comparative international context by investigating two business newspapers, The Wall Street Journal from the United States and The Financial Times from the United Kingdom. Drawing on the news framing research and the implicit and explicit CSR framework of Matten and Moon, this content analysis shows that business news coverage of CSR in the United States and in the United Kingdom differs in terms of news framing (thematic vs. episodic), motive attributions of CSR as a concept, motive attributions of referenced companies in relation to CSR, general tone toward the concept of CSR, and the general tone toward referenced companies in relation to CSR. Most significantly, findings suggest that business news plays different roles in constructing and legitimizing CSR in the two countries. In the United States, CSR’s legitimacy and its conceptual positivity may be more implied through the coverage of singular events or actors (episodic framing), whereas in the United Kingdom, CSR’s illegitimacy and its conceptual negativity may be more exposed for further discussion through the coverage of larger societal contexts (thematic framing). Other theoretical as well as practical implications are also discussed.

2020 ◽  
pp. 136754942093588
Author(s):  
Stephanie Schulte

This comparative transnational history informed by discourse analysis examines the US and UK news coverage of two new ‘federal startups’ created in the early 2010s: The United States Digital Service and Government Digital Service. These agencies were designed to renovate federal infrastructures and institutions by integrating technologies and technologists into the federal government. Early coverage of these agencies in both countries focused on the integration of casual dress norms common in technology industries into federal offices dominated by suits. In the United States, those norms were embraced, often with amusement. But in the United Kingdom, they were met with hostility. This article explains why dress code was a focus in both countries and why it was covered differently in each. Ultimately, this study argues workplace attire is emblematic of the differing ways in which industry and government partnerships function in these countries. Dress code norm differences offer a window into how nationally specific cultural values remained about technology and government in each country. Ultimately, these findings suggest the extent to which values prioritized by technology industries became those prioritized by the US government, and the extent to which the United Kingdom retained separation between those arenas.


2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Pflugrath ◽  
Peter Roebuck ◽  
Roger Simnett

SUMMARY This study reports the results of a behavioral experiment examining whether financial analysts from Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom perceive a difference in the credibility of stand-alone corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports depending on whether they are assured, and the type of assurance provider (professional accountants versus sustainability consultants). We further examine whether the perceived credibility differs for financial analysts from the different countries and whether results hold for companies from different industries. The overall results show the credibility of a CSR report is greater when it is assured and when the assurer is a professional accountant. While assurance increases the credibility of the information in each of the three countries included, the relative impact is context-specific. Information is perceived to be more credible when a company is from an industry where assurance is more commonplace, and by financial analysts from the United States when the assurer is a professional accountant. Financial analysts from Australia and the United Kingdom perceive little difference in the enhanced credibility provided by the different assurance providers. Data Availability: Contact the first author about the availability of the data.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Rehana Cassim

Abstract Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 empowers courts to declare directors delinquent and hence to disqualify them from office. This article compares the judicial disqualification of directors under this section with the equivalent provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America, which have all influenced the South African act. The article compares the classes of persons who have locus standi to apply to court to disqualify a director from holding office, as well as the grounds for the judicial disqualification of a director, the duration of the disqualification, the application of a prescription period and the discretion conferred on courts to disqualify directors from office. It contends that, in empowering courts to disqualify directors from holding office, section 162 of the South African Companies Act goes too far in certain respects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document