IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/corgov/v14y2006i3p147-158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility: a comparative analysis of the UK and the US

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth V. Aguilera
  • Cynthia A. Williams

    (University of Illinois College of Law)

  • John M. Conley

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • Deborah E. Rupp

    (Department of Psychology and the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)

Abstract

This paper argues that key differences between the UK and the US in the importance ascribed to a company's social responsibilities (CSR) reflect differences in the corporate governance arrangements in these two countries. Specifically, we analyse the role of a salient type of owner in the UK and the US, institutional investors, in emphasising firm-level CSR actions. We explore differences between institutional investors in the UK and the US concerning CSR, and draw on a model of instrumental, relational and moral motives to explore why institutional investors in the UK are becoming concerned with firms' social and environmental actions. We conclude with some suggestions for future research in this area. Copyright (c) 2006 The Authors; Journal compilation (c) 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth V. Aguilera & Cynthia A. Williams & John M. Conley & Deborah E. Rupp, 2006. "Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility: a comparative analysis of the UK and the US," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 147-158, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:14:y:2006:i:3:p:147-158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2006.00495.x
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jim Psaros & Michael Seamer, 2004. "Australian Audit Committees — Do They Meet Best Practice Guidelines?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 14(34), pages 77-85, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:14:y:2006:i:3:p:147-158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0964-8410&site=1 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.