We examine the relationship between board-level codetermination and corporate social responsibility in German companies, engaging with two distinct literatures. Most quantitative studies of codetermination focus on its economic impact, with little attention to other outcomes. Studies of corporate social responsibility rarely consider the role of worker representatives. Our new measure of the strength of codetermination, the Mitbestimmungsindex (MB-ix), shows a positive relationship with ‘substantive’ policies such as the adoption of targets for reducing pollution, but not with ‘symbolic’ policies, such as membership of the UN Global Compact. We therefore shed new light on the role of codetermination and provide a more differentiated view of the spread of what has been termed ‘explicit’ corporate social responsibility in Germany.
AguinisHGlavasA (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management38(4): 932–968.
2.
CampbellJ (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review32(3): 946–967.
3.
CarrollABBrownJA (2018) Corporate social responsibility: A review of current concepts, research, and issues. In: WasieleskiDMWeberJ (eds) Corporate Social Responsibility: Business and Society 360, vol. 2. Pittsburgh, PA: Emerald, pp. 39–69.
4.
DukesR (2005) The origins of the German system of worker representation. Historical Studies in Industrial Relations19: 31–62.
5.
FavottoAKollmanKBernhagenP (2016) Engaging firms: The global organisational field for corporate social responsibility and national varieties of capitalism. Policy and Society35(1): 13–27.
6.
GiertzJ-PScholzR (2018) Strategische Personalarbeit ohne eigenständigen Personalvorstand?WSI Mitteilungen71(2): 140–149.
7.
GirndtC (2006) Die Betriebsratsgründer: Alles, was Recht ist. Arbeit11: 40–45.
8.
GjølbergM (2010) Varieties of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): CSR meets The ‘Nordic Model’. Regulation and Governance4(2): 203–229.
9.
GoldMKlugeNConchonA (2010) ‘In the Union and on the Board’: Experiences of Board-level Employee Representatives across Europe. Brussels: ETUI.
10.
HadwigerFHammBVitolsKWilkeP (2017) Menschenrechte im Unternehmen durchsetzen: Internationale Arbeitnehmerrechte: Die UN-Leitprinzipien als Hebel für Betriebsräte und Gewerkschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript.
11.
HallPSoskiceD (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
HarveyGHodderABrammerS (2017) Trade union participation in CSR deliberation: An evaluation. Industrial Relations Journal48(1): 42–55.
13.
HöpnerMMüllenbornT (2010) Mitbestimmung im Unternehmensvergleich: Ein Konzept zur Messung des Einflusspotentials der Arbeitnehmervertreter im mitbestimmten Aufsichtsrat. Industrielle Beziehungen17(1): 7–29.
14.
JacksonGApostolakouA (2010) Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: CSR as an institutional mirror or a substitute?Journal of Business Ethics94(3): 371–394.
15.
JacksonGBartoschJ (2016) Corporate Responsibility in Different Varieties of Capitalism: Exploring the Role of National Institutions. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
16.
JirjahnU (2010) Ökonomische Wirkungen der Mitbestimmung in Deutschland: Ein Update (Arbeitspapier 186). Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.
17.
JürgensULippertIGaethF (eds) (2008) Information, Kommunikation und Wissen im Mitbestimmungssystem: Eine Umfrage unter Arbeitnehmervertretern im Aufsichtsrat. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
18.
KindermanD (2012) Free us up so we can be responsible: The co-evolution of corporate social responsibility and neo-liberalism in the UK, 1977–2010. Socio Economic Review10(1): 29–57.
19.
KindermanDLutterM (2018) Explaining the Growth of CSR within OECD Countries: The Role of Institutional Legitimacy in Resolving the Institutional Mirror Vs. Substitute Debate (Discussion Paper 18/2). Cologne: MPifG.
20.
KnoppeM (2015) CSR im Retail Management: Wertschöpfung oder Marketing-Gag? In: KnoppeM (ed.) CSR und Retail Management: Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung als zukünftiger Erfolgsfaktor im Handel. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 9–18.
21.
KöstlerRMüllerMSickS (2013) Aufsichtsratspraxis: Handbuch für die Arbeitnehmervertreter im Aufsichtsrat. Frankfurt: Bund.
22.
MattenDMoonJ (2008) ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review33(2): 404–424.
23.
PreussLGoldMReesC (2015) Corporate Social Responsibility and Trade Unions: Perspectives across Europe. London: Routledge.
24.
RaabeN (2010) Die Mitbestimmung im Aufsichtsrat: Theorie und Wirklichkeit in deutschen Aktiengesellschaften. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
25.
RosenbohmSHaipeterT (2019) German board-level employee representation in multinational companies: Patterns of transnational articulation. European Journal of Industrial Relations25(3): 217–230.
26.
ScholzRVitolsS (2016) Der Mitbestimmungsindex MB-ix: Wirkungen der Mitbestimmung für die Corporate Governance nachhaltiger Unternehmen (Report 22). Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.
27.
ScholzRVitolsS (2018) Der MB-ix in börsennotierten Unternehmen: Verankerung der Mitbestimmung im letzten Jahrzehnt. Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung Mitbestimmungsreport 43.
28.
SchonsLSteinmeierM (2016) Walk the talk? How symbolic and substantive CSR actions affect firm performance depending on stakeholder proximity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management23: 358–372.
29.
SethiSPSchepersDH (2014) United Nations global compact: The promise-performance gap. Journal of Business Ethics122: 193–208.
30.
StreeckW (1984) Codetermination, the fourth decade. In: WilpertBSorgeA (eds) International Perspectives on Organizational Democracy: International Yearbook of Organizational Democracy, vol. 2. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 391–422.
31.
VitolsK (2011) Nachhaltigkeit Unternehmensverantwortung Mitbestimmung: ein Literaturbericht zur Debatte über CSR. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
32.
WaddingtonJ (2010) European Works Councils: A Transnational Industrial Relations Institution in the Making. London: Routledge.
33.
WeißD (2016) Arbeitnehmermitbestimmung und die Europäische Aktiengesellschaft (SE): Eine empirische Analyse auf Länderebene. German Journal of Human Resource Management30(2): 84–107.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
