How Corporate Social Responsibility is applied by different nations across the globe.

Introduction

            Such issues as pollution, poverty, health and human well-being are societal problems that occur in many nations across the globe. Addressing these societal problems is a very complex undertaking of which corporate social responsibility must make a significant contribution to resolve. Determining how CSR will contribute to attaining sustainability is what this research will show. Because nations and corporations are as different as every individual is, the solution cannot be a blanket one size fits all to resolve society's problems and expectations in different parts of the world. Keeping this point in mind, this research will present varying approaches to CSR and sustainability in the United States, European, Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Latin American nations. In addition, this research will determine how their institutional and cultural context affects the concepts and implementation of CSR. To accomplish this, I will provide a detailed analysis of the historical and institutional background, which brings to light the similarities as well as the differences in implementing CSR. The historical, cultural and political climate of each of these sections of the world will be the foundation for which this research will be based upon.

            This research will also focus on the divergence and convergence of CSR and sustainability in terms of shareholder, versus stakeholder relationships as well as the hierarchy of all the elements that CSR has interdependence. Specifically, the elements of CSR include corporate governance, corporate citizenship, social entrepreneurship and corporate social performance. These terms are interdependent and are critical to the success of the CSR program regardless of the particular region. In addition, this research will show there is a link with Agency theory to the cultural and political-economic climate in each of the above stated regions. Simply stated, this analysis will examine what political economic form is prevalent and what characteristics make it unique and contrast them to other political economic systems. Some of the unique characteristics of each political economic system may include property ownership, social institutions, political form and process. These characteristics for each region seemingly serve as the identifier for that region just as fingerprints uniquely identify individuals. The analysis for this research will provide a better understanding of these characteristics and their effect on implementing CSR. Upon completing my analysis for this research, I will provide some closing thoughts and comments.

United States

          To develop an understanding of the historical, cultural and political climate of each nation and region for this research, I developed profiles to facilitate clear comparisons of the similarities and differences between each of the nations/regions. For the United States, the rise of corporate social responsibility seemed to originate coincidentally about the time that child labor and workforce safety laws were being implemented. The charge for CSR was "led by visionary business leaders such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Hewlett and Packard" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 437). The source of motivation for these businessmen was the implementation of regulations. Thus, they began to explore the possibility of developing corporate policies that would be voluntary and serve to cut any additional costs they would incur from regulatory policies. The establishment of regulatory agencies in the 1960s and 1970s established benchmarks that guided how businesses would operate. Many of these agencies are well known today and continue to play a significant role in establishing regulatory standards that businesses must comply. These agencies include the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The government continues to monitor and regulate corporate behavior through such initiatives as the Community Reinvestment Act in the banking sector, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Public Company Accounting Reform. While these organizations seem to put government in a position of being bad for business by saddling corporations with regulations they view as costly, there is a good side to government. The government encourages enterprises that care about the environment and the safety of public health by providing various types of incentives. One type of incentive the government provides is reducing taxes in an effort to motivate such enterprises to engage in social policy. Social responsibility is critical and organizations require clear policies and procedures that ensures meeting of expectations by the public as well as employees. Reduction in pollution improves the financial status of companies due to advanced earnings guaranteed by timely tax submission (Chittock and Hughey 2011). In this case, a company minimizes costs of social responsibility and observes government regulations on environmental conservation. "In 2000 the EPA established the National Environmental Performance Track whereby participants pledged beyond compliance performance improvements and had an operating EMS" (Chittock and Hughey 2011: 545). This program was created as a benefit for companies to receive recognition and increased collaboration. Obviously, regulation is an incentive in itself, but regulation also contributed to the acceleration of US corporate philanthropy. Such practices as making charitable contributions to non-profit organizations for the receipt of tax breaks began to materialize as a standard practice by the Rockefellers and Carnegies in the early part of the twentieth century. While practices such as this seemed to present the appearance of corporations only looking out for their own interests, such charitable contributions have and continue to meet the expectations of society as well as help move toward a good society.

            CSR has evolved as a corporate concept particularly in the past twenty years. This evolution stems from the fact that CSR went from basically a regulatory compliance program to contributing towards corporate "reputation, public policy and core business practices" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 437). Furthermore, the evolution of CSR resulted in large part from pressures by new stakeholders. One example of these new stakeholders is institutional investors who invests in corporations on the basis of its environmental, social and corporate governance. This is in addition to the corporation's standard financial analysis. This fact stresses the importance of corporations developing meaningful relationships with all of its stakeholders, including new ones such as these institutional investors. Other examples of stakeholders in the United States as well as across the globle include investment professionals and corporate social responsibility professionals. Despite the pressures from the new stakeholders, "the reporting of CSR remains voluntary in the United States" (Tschopp, 2005, p. 57).

            The cultural and political climate in the United States is based upon concepts of capitalism. The decision-makers for American businesses focus on economics or bottom-line terms. U.S. companies focus more heavily on financial justifications for any decisions that are made because they want to ensure that any choices they make will result in the maximization of their bottom line. The concern for maximizing profits is a factor that hinders volunteer approaches to CSR because of the perceived cost factor. Providing incentives is a key component to attaining widespread cooperation by corporations to implement social responsibility policies. Additionally, the lack of motivation by corporate leaders to implement CSR policies is that they are viewed as costly. Furthermore, the political landscape in the US sees CSR as a hindrance for economic growth. The challenges and limitations to implementing CSR "usually relate either to political issues or to organizational-level concerns and are often embedded in culture" (Amato et al, 2009, p. 10). Speaking of political issues, conservatives in particular are concerned with over-regulation in the US because they see it as a negative on financial markets and that voluntary disclosure is the best option. This concern for regulation on the part of political conservatives led to the United States backing out of the Kyoto Protocol. While concerns for regulation may be legitimate, the priorities for the US may be more on economic concerns and less on concerns for humanity. While addressing the ideals of capitalism, economic growth and the view of CSR as a costly concept are the main focus in the United States, operating in a global society, organizations and their leadership face new demands.

European Region

            CSR in Europe was shaped by a relationship of diversity, economic, political and cultural landscapes across the continent between business and society (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010). Unlike the United States, the European region has a long tradition of companies contributing to society's well-being beyond any existing legal obligations. The development of the welfare state system in Western Europe placed emphasis on the role of the state to be the primary provider of welfare during the latter part of the twentieth century. However, in recent years, due to economic and socio-political factors, there was a partial redefining of the boundaries between the public and private sectors. This phenomenon resulted in the growing attention of companies assuming voluntary roles in the implementation of their CSR strategies to manage their economic, environmental and social impact. Essentially, this is the means by which companies would contribute to the wider societal development.

            The approach to address environmental and social issues was far different in Central and Eastern Europe. "In post-communist Central and Eastern Europe, environmental and social concerns have tended to receive less attention than the significant economic challenges associated with the transition to a market economy" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 27). This does not appear to be due to the lack of concern for environmental and societal issues but more as a result of the region experiencing a transitioning of economic and governmental systems. This point is substantiated by the fact that CSR awareness and its implementation in the region are increasing rapidly. In contrast to Western Europe, it is companies themselves, particularly foreign multinational corporations that are proving to be the main agents of change. Additionally, external pressure from various sources such as media and public authorities have been fairly low.

Where corporations developed strategies as a reactionary measure to regulation in the US, Europe's approach to the development of CSR resulted from proactive strategies by businesses, institutions and national governments. Despite the innumerable abuses that occurred during Europe's history, the region has historically been more CSR consistent in values, perceptions and norms than in any other region of the world. This does not mean that there was not any opposition to CSR in the European Union. The European Commission rejected regulation and placed emphasis on voluntary measures for businesses. Meanwhile, the European Parliament, in collaboration with non-government organizations and trade unions, demanded mandatory regulation and reporting of corporations' social and environmental impacts and transparency (Mullerat, 2013). However, the European Commission continues to view CSR as a voluntary initiative that goes beyond what is expected by law. The CSR movement has traditionally been led by large companies throughout the world, including Europe. What is interesting is that 99% of European companies are small and medium sized corporations and two-thirds of jobs in the private sector are in small and medium sized businesses (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010). Because Europe is so dominated by small and medium sized businesses, companies tend to adhere to the values of its founder as well as the local community. Does this mean that Europe is more inclined toward approaches of sustainable communities? It seems very possible that this would be the logical step in Europe's CSR movement toward attaining sustainability. Today, the emphasis in Europe is to build and implement a more structured CSR in these small and medium sized enterprises. Because Europe is a wealthy stable region with a developed economic and societal structure, their approach to CSR is different from the strategies less developed nations would adopt. However, the CSR agenda is continually being pushed forward due to increasing stakeholder expectations for corporate accountability practices both within and outside Europe.

Asian Region

            It is universally understood that sustainability is essentially a global concept. However, CSR has and continues to develop differently around the world.   This comes as no surprise since CSR flows naturally from the social contract that defines the relationship between corporations and society. Culture, values and tradition are the main driving force behind Asia's CSR trends. The unique aspect about Asia is that "two-thirds of all listed companies, and a substantial number of private companies, are family controlled and managed" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 15). This fact seems to hold true throughout Asia including places such as Indonesia and Hong Kong where well over fifty percent of businesses are family owned. The way CSR is built and implemented in Asia is affected by specific cultural traditions. This holds true in all countries within the Asian region. One example is in Indonesia where they believe in the concept of helping each other by sharing the burdens. The Philippines also has a similar tradition where individuals and small groups come together to assist those in need or simply to accomplish a common goal for the entire community. The trend I see developing in the Asian region is that communities do indeed work together and share the burden of labor for the better good of society. It definitely appears that sustainable communities would be the preferred approach for CSR in Asia. In addition to this sense of community, "Asian CSR also has a long tradition of philanthropy, through implicit obligations that were imbedded in business practices and institutional frameworks" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 16). Additionally, these were the owner of the corporation's responsibilities with no implication of a separate organizational mechanism. While the strength of CSR in Asia seems to be community oriented that serve to establish good relationships with many of their external stakeholders, they do have a glaring weakness when it comes to their employees. In Asia, "there is a low commitment to freedom of association and promotion of staff development and vocational education" (Welford, 2004, p. 39). Another point to consider with Asian companies is that they are likely to have policies on ethics, bribery and corruption if they see it occurring around them and see it as a problem. Furthermore, many Asian countries are surrounded by developing countries where issues of labor, health and safety standards may prove to be a more significant problem. In Asian cultures, gender equality are not as high as demands associated with trade and international business. Therefore, more emphasis would be tackling bribery and corruption for Asian companies (Welford, 2004).

African Region

            CSR as a concept has not quite gotten off the ground in Africa. CSR is not only in its infant stage in Africa but is also viewed as a suspicious agenda item being imposed on countries in the South by the North. Obviously, this alludes to a political conflict in the African region where there is an apparent struggle for power. The North and South are the two distinct parts of the African region. "The predominantly Muslim/Arabic region north of the Sahara is commonly referred to as Middle East and North Africa (MENA), while Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) covers the bulk of African states" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 2). Probably not too surprising, Africa has the highest poverty among all of the world's regions. Furthermore, Africa has shown the largest increase in people on twenty-five US cents per day, only 60% of children completing primary education, HIV is a major health concern with 5% of the adult population infected and population growth in urban and rural areas is the highest in the world (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010). You would think that these issues would be the focus of CSR in the African region, right? Unfortunately, many companies in Africa struggled with issues of ethics. For example, the British South Africa Company was "brutal and headed by rapacious imperialists who would happily wage war on local people; but sometimes they also made significant efforts to win over the locals" (Carey, 2009, p. 68). Additionally, any existing legislation and enforcement of them are inadequate. Furthermore, consumer activism for responsibly produced products is poor and a lack of a civil society is nearly non-existent. In short, the African region is in dire need of a structured CSR by encouraging businesses of the greater benefits to answer society's expectations. The good news is that there are a fair number of companies in Africa that are involved with CSR initiatives but many others are not taking CSR seriously. Pressure groups have played a significant role in changing the behavior of multinationals operating in Africa. "The normal pattern is that local opposition to a company comes to the attention of international NGOs – such as Human Rights Watch or Friends of the Earth" (Carey, 2009, p. 69). Clearly, the focus for CSR in Africa would be on ethics, anti-corruption measures and improvements upon substandard public service delivery in healthcare and education. Additionally, Africa's communal culture is another important factor toward determining the most appropriate approach to CSR in the region. Addressing this aspect in the African region would involve CSR to resolve challenges in communities that governments cannot fully address. This is a similarity in the United States where CSR does work as a team with the government to resolve the varying issues that the government may not be able or equipped to handle. It also bears worth mentioning that "CSR in Africa is most often associated with medium to large companies, and particularly with multinationals or large foreign investors" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 3). This presents a scenario of wealthy corporations in communities largely stricken with poverty therefore, providing a means by which corporations have the opportunity to counteract negative perceptions of business by making a difference on the environmental and social challenges. In short, the main focus for CSR activities in Africa would be promoting corporate image.

Middle Eastern Region

            CSR as a concept in the Middle East sheds some very interesting findings for the region. When we think of the Middle East, we think of dictatorships, totalitarianism and even as the breeding ground for terrorism. While this may be true to some extent, the region does have some unique perspectives on the concepts of CSR. "A recent summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), highlighted the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and governance, not only in creating social and environmental sustainability, but also as a framework for economic recovery and future financial growth in the region" (Middle East, 2010, p. 6-7). One might wonder why a region that is known for oil production would be in need of initiatives for economic recovery and financial growth, right? Oil, along with sand do have major roles in shaping the culture and traditions for the region as well as contributing factors on how CSR would be implemented. Additionally, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is dominated by Middle Eastern countries with at least half of the world's total oil supply. Ironically, it is the presence of oil and natural gas, which contributed to the creation of the region's welfare system as well as establishing its international importance. "Traditionally, the region's strategic advantage was founded upon its geographic position, which offers direct avenues for international trade" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 47). However, the focus has shifted to development despite the continued strategic advantage they have on international trade. Many of the decision-makers for corporations in the region see CSR as a means of attracting new investors, new markets and market shares. Additionally, CSR would promote innovation and attract new customers. This all seems to amount to corporations looking to improve their own self interests and not for the broader good of society. This conclusion is further substantiated by the fact that the countries in the region are adjusting their economies to promote themselves as preferred vacation destinations, financial centers, regional sports and cultural areas. Another conclusion that may be drawn is boosting the economy through tourism, finance and sports that would bring outside revenue to the area and create new jobs that may serve to achieve the goal for a good society. Generally sumarizing the state of CSR in the Middle Eastern region is that in the Western sense, is still in its infancy. "However, as much of the Arab world is guided by Islamic principles, there are overlapping similarities between traditional business cultures and the foundations of CSR" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 48). Another point to consider is that economies in the Middle East are largely producer driven. Practices such as collective bargaining, trade unions and lobbyists are not allowed in Arab states, which makes stakeholder engagement more difficult. This put defining CSR in the region with businesses and governments. "According to an October 2009 survey on MENA attitudes regarding CSR (also by the Sustainability Advisory Group), one of the top two barriers to greater corporate involvement in CSR was a lack of government requirements and incentives" (Middle East, 2010, p. 7). This is in stark contrast to the United States where there are a number of incentives for corporations to invest in the implementation of CSR.

            The development of CSR in the Middle East began just five years ago when corporate governance concepts started to gain popularity. Many supportive trends for this concept such as the globalization of regional companies, family and government entities going public helped popularize CSR and corporate governance in the area. CSR in Arab nations seemed to be only about charity and the company's contribution to society by which is misunderstood as philanthropy. Furthermore, there is little evidence to show businesses having a connection between CSR, corporate strategies and long-term sustainability. The culture of giving back to society is a well-established practice in the region (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010). Islam and Arab culture consider it dutiful to consider charity that will lead to society's prosperity. Because of religious beliefs and origins, societal contributions are considered confidential. This poses a problem for multinational companies operating in the region because they communicate their charitable contributions. Despite the region's focus on charity, corporate strategic philanthropy is essentially non-existent. In summary, the "ad hoc approach to charity and the absence of any sense of strategic philanthropy, combined with the local view that contributions should not be promoted for personal or commercial gain, mean that community initiatives are not harnessed to provide the 'win-win' potential they offer companies and society in the West" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 49). Furthermore, by contrast in the United States where CSR arose from consumer demands, businesses and governments define the terms of CSR in the Middle East. Clearly, CSR should be approached from the business perspective by providing them incentives that promote their image and financial gain while ensuring society does benefit from corporate initiatives.

Latin American Region

            While the findings of this research showed that corporate philanthropy was non-existent in the Middle Eastern region, it is alive and well at least to some extent in the Latin American region. "Traditionally, philanthropy in the region has been motivated by the need to alleviate extreme poverty in the midst of large inequalities and extreme wealth" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 38). Income inequality is not unique to Latin America because this is a growing problem in many nations as well as a serious concern on the global scale. Church organizations in the region have spear-headed charitable drives to assist the poor, a role that began in colonial times as provider for health and education services. Out of the perceived necessity for social cohesion, stemming from income inequality, the economically wealthy have joined in the effort to help the poor. Assisting the disadvantaged citizens in the region seems to be the main focus for a movement toward a good society. The one possible difference between Latin America and Asia is that Latin America seems to be willing to help individuals where Asia was more inclined to provide for the larger, society as a group. Latin America has evolved from their traditional contributions to charity to alleviate poverty to a more organized form that expands to causes, which includes civil society, community and institutional development. What is unfortunate is that these CSR efforts are limited to just a few firms because they are either multinationals or subsidiaries of multinationals or are large family-owned businesses led by a new generation of leaders. The challenge to implementing CSR in Latin America seems to be with building corporate citizenship, which provides for those all important relationships between the corporation and external stakeholders. Substantiating this claim will be difficult because statistical information is scarce to ascertain the progress for the development of CSR in the countries located in the region. "Most of the evidence is circumstantial and hard to compare between countries" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 39).

            Because many of the countries in Latin America are developing nations or have emerging economies, the priorities of businesses and stakeholder expectations are different than what we see in the United States and other developed regions of the world. Companies should consider global issues such as human rights, the environment, child, slave, and labor conditions in their CSR activities. One example of a company engaged in CSR activities in Latin America is Chiquita, one of the world's largest producers of bananas. The issue with Chiquita is female banana workers and structural inequalities. In an effort to repair its bad public image and improve its ethical performance, they developed a CSR policy that includes a corporate code of conduct. Chiquita is often held to be a good example of CSR, but many labor rights issues have not really been solved (Prieto-Carrón, 2006). While their ethical performance on their company plantations seems to be showing good practice, gender issues are falling short. For example, issues important to women such as discrimination, equal opportunity and sexual harassment are not addressed in the code of conduct. Similar to issues we see in the United States such as promotion of women and maternity rights are not being addressed by Chiquita. The company is aware of these shortcomings and are attempting to address them. The company has a training program and doing an extensive equal opportunity hiring campaign but most of the females only apply for some positions in the packing house, reducing the opportunity spectrum that can be offerred (Prieto-Carrón, 2006). While Chiquita has a considerable scope to improve working conditions in the industry as well as poor working conditions for women, the broader political economy and environmental context of the banana industry further complicates these issues. Obviously, since Chiquita is subjected to environmental conditions such as hurricanes, they experience fluctuations in the supply chain similar to most agricultural industries. Additionally, they face issues with competition and import/export tariffs in the shipment of their bananas. There are also pressures of multinationals from supermarkets and retail chains who have consolidated and have greater control production and distribution. These are examples of stakeholders that Chiquita needs to establish good relationships for their own self-interests. The preliminary assessment of Chiquita's CSR policy is insufficient but what is clear is that they are company on paper and that in practice, Chiquita seems to be trying (Prieto-Carrón, 2006).

Divergence/Convergence

            Understanding a socially responsible firm's decision for convergence versus divergence in CSR requires knowing what the difference is between these approaches. When a socially responsible firm opts for a convergence approach, they are essentially choosing to converge on a standard set of CSR practices. Additionally, firms who choose the convergence approach may be legitimacy-seeking by conforming to what regulators, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders deem to be appropriate behavior. When firms choose the divergence approach, they are "striving to differentiate themselves from rivals and achieve competitive advantage" (Misani, 2009, p. 1). For firms, it is necessary to differentiate themselves from the competition in their industry. They accomplish this through the delivery of the service they provide, the products they market and even in how they promote their corporate brand. In the context of CSR, companies are unique in their capabilities, limitations, corporate culture and even in where they are located. Nations differentiate themselves through their culture, beliefs, forms of government whether it is a democracy, socialist or dictatorship. Therefore, is it possible for them to use a convergence approach to their relationship with stakeholders and implementing all the elements of CSR? While my explanation for divergence and convergence is in terms of individual corporations, we can also visualize how these concepts apply to individual nations conforming to a standard or differentiating among nations at the global level. One standard that both individual firms and nations can conform to is socially responsible behavior. "Instrumental stakeholder theory suggests that CSR can add to the bottom line of a firm, thanks to the beneficial influence that CSR can exert on the relationships with stakeholders" (Misani, 2009, p. 2). If CSR can affect an individual firm's bottom line, can it have the same effect on a nation's economic growth? There is no reason to discount this and should be considered a possibility. Essentially, stakeholders would observe a firm/nation's responsible behavior express a preference for conducting transactions with. The concepts of corporate citizenship to establish relationships with stakeholders would serve to boost the firm's reputation in the marketplace, attain easier access to strategic resources and reduce operating costs. Clearly, this is indicative of competition for stakeholder goodwill by differentiating themselves from competitors. In terms of the convergence approach when firms invest in CSR for ethical purposes and not necessarily for profit, they should attempt it in such a way that combines social welfare with business opportunities. The points that were presented is the implication that there are two types of CSR, divergent and convergent. Furthermore, "CSR literature usually focuses on the relationship between a single firm and its stakeholders, interactions among competing firms are relevant to CSR, because stakeholders often put pressure on whole industries, and not on single firms" (Misani, 2009, p. 5).

            In contrast to convergence, companies that choose the divergence approach to CSR may be in some sort of transition and are attempting to gain social and economic legitimacy. For the purpose of this research, I have chosen the Ukraine because of the intriguing and unexplored research in CSR it presents. It has been suggested that the divergence in the definitions of CSR is partly a result of different views of the role of business in society in different areas of the world (Filosof et al., 2012). The CSR debate has been imbedded in capitalist discourse but is an unfamiliar concept in the former Soviet Union. The transition from a communist system to a democratic system may be the source of the transition the Ukraine experienced therefore, requiring the need to gain social and economic legitimacy by choosing the divergence approach to CSR. Despite the relative newness of CSR in Ukraine, the underlying principles are not necessarily foreign to the region. For over seven decades Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union in all senses – politically, economically and socially (Filosof et al., 2012). Even though businesses in the former Soviet Union were not driven by profit generation, they were encouraged to support the social infrastructure. Simply stated, businesses contributed toward attaining a good society. Activities such as community projects were encouraged as well as programs for recycling were encouraged in the Soviet Ukraine. It was not uncommon for a child in kindergarten to see their parents performing volunteer work such as painting and gardening at their school. The bottom line is that the Ukraine sees socialism as past concepts and capititalism as the way of the future. Therefore, the divergence approach is necessary for establishing a foothold on attaining social and economic legitimacy.

Agency Theory

            Understanding agency theory or also referred to as principal agency theory begins with its definition. "An agency relationship is defined as one in which one or more persons (the principal(s)) engages another person (the agent) to perform some service on their behalf which involves delegating some decision-making authority to the agent" (Hill and Jones, 1992, p. 132). The main idea is that the interests of principals and agents diverge. This relationship can be very complex when analyzing agency theory when linking this concept to cultural and political-economic process in each nation and region presented in this research. The United States has a system based upon capitalism, which is a largely self-regulating economic system in which the proper role of government is limited to providing certain basic public goods and services at low cost (Scott, 2006). Capitalism also means that production and distribution are privately or corporately owned. In many European nations, socialism is practiced. Sweden is a nation with a high standard of living and is the most socialized member of the European Union. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with representative democracy based on a parliamentary system. Under this system, the nation, in this case Sweden not own the means of production but the government has great power in planning major elements of the economy. This is in direct contrast to the political-economic system in the U.S. where government is limited. Asian economies are mostly mixed economies, tending toward market economies. China is recognized as a market economy by many other countries, but its official worldwide status is somewhat in question. Some small, underdeveloped regions in Asia still practice traditional economies, but these regions lie within countries that have a nontraditional economic system. Additionally, North Korea practices a command economy, and Iran's economy has many centrally planned aspects. The Middle East region has been entrenched in a political rift for a number of years but since the economies are largely producer driven, the production and distribution would be owned by the corporation. Furthermore, many of the nations are still under dictator rule while others are in political turmoil and transitioning in governmental systems. Similarly, Africa also faces political unrest between the North and South but economically are focused on addressing the issues of poverty and healthcare. Latin America is comprised largely of poor developing nations with emerging economies. The Latin American and the Caribbean Economic System is an organization founded in 1975 to promote economic cooperation and social development between Latin American and the Caribbean countries. "Corruption is a major problem, but mostly it is perceived by the population to be a government issue more than a company failing, although both parties are involved" (Visser and Tolhurst, 2010, p. 48). Legislation in Latin America covers CSR practices only indirectly, which seemingly allows corporations a longer leash to developing their own policies of CSR. CSR is not included as any part of government or public policy.

Conclusion

            This research found the implementation of CSR a very complex undertaking. There are many factors that affect how CSR is implemented including social problems, political conflicts, culture, types and size of enterprises within the different regions. There were even varying differences to the level of involvement by national governments the driving forces that motivate corporations to invest in CSR initiatives. The common belief is that corporations should display socially responsible behavior and be good corporate citizens within the community they conduct their operations. Additionally, corporations should be environmental stewards through conscientious efforts to reduce pollution, health risks, poverty and contribute to human well-being through progressive CSR activities.

References

Amato, A., Henderson, S., & Florence, S. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Business A Guide to Their Leadership Tasks and Functions.. Greensboro: CCL Press [Imprint].

Carey, S. (2009). Africa and Corporate Social Responsibility. New African, (484), 68-70.

Chittock, D., & Hughey, K. (2011). A Review of international Practice in the Design of Voluntary Pollution Prevention Programs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 542-551.

Filosof , J , Hollinshead , G & Kurinko , R (2012) ' Corporate social responsibility in Ukraine : cynical utilitarianism or Aristotelian 'Common Good'? ' University of Hertfordshire , pp. 21 . [Working Paper]

Hill, C.L. & Jones, T.M. (1992). Stakeholdoer-Agency Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131-154.

Middle East: CSR Valued, but Rarely Reported. (2010). Business & the Environment, 21(7), 6-8.

Misani, N. (2009). The convergence of corporate social responsibility practices. Management Research Review, 734-748.

Mullerat, R. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility: A European Perspective. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 13 N. 6, June 2013. [Working Paper]

Prieto-Carrón, M. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin America: Chiquita, Women Banana Workers and Structural Inequalities*. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (21), 85-94.

Scott, B.R. (2006). The Political Economy of Capitalism. Harvard Business School. [Working Paper] 

Tschopp, D. J. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Comparison Between the United States and the European Union.Corporate Social - Responsibility and Environmental Management, 12(1), 55-59. 

Visser, W., & Tolhurst, N. (2010). The World Guide to CSR: a Country-by-Country Analysis of Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Welford, R. (2004). Corporate social responsibility in europe and asia: Critical elements and best practice. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (13), 31-47.