Gobbels (2002), considered social responsibility as a term that means

something, but not always the same thing to everybody, however Moon and
Matten (2008) comment that CSR is the central notion that encompasses the
social needs surrounding business success. This highlights that social
responsibility is entwined with a companies need to maximise profits as
companies are now being judged on their social output and not just the value
they provide to their shareholders. For example Unilever have transformed their
core business aims to be equally centred around their social responsibility and
are transparent with their shareholders in that they are not viewed above their
CSR initiatives (Unilever Annual Report, 2013). The societal approach to the
definition of CSR offers a broader view in that companies are responsible to
society as a whole, of which they are an integral part[they] serve the needs of
society- to the satisfaction of society Marrewijk (2003). This concept focuses
that organisations have a duty that is not just directly tied to profit maximising,
and can even carry out these activities at the expense of this. Comparing this
definition with Moon and Matten (2008) they have created a framework that
uncovered two types of perspectives surrounding CSR within organisations;
implicit and explicit CSR. Implicit CSR takes the role of describing a corporations
role within the wider formal and informal institutions for societies interests and
concerns (Moon & Matten, 2008), whereas explicit CSR is described as
corporate activities that assume responsibility for the interests of society. The
framework also draws in the concept that different factors such as the type of
economy and culture with a country can influence the type of CSR an
organisation favours, upon which Mood and Matten use the differences between
explicit CSR in the United States and the Implicit CSR in Europe. This essay will
focus on examining the framework developed by Moon and Matten and how it
contributed to the field of CSR, after identifying other papers and journals that
use this framework the essay will look at analyse their use of Explicit and Implicit
CSR and will evaluate its influence on the literature.
It is vital to provide a clear understanding for both Implicit and Explicit CSR when
analysing the framework and also accessing other literature using the theory.
Implicit CSR takes the role of describing a corporations role within the wider
formal and informal institutions for societies interests and concerns (Moon &
Matten, 2008), whilst explicit CSR is described as corporate activities that
assume responsibility for the interests of society. The literature outlines the
main differences between the two states of CSR; the first being the language
organisations use when expressing their relations to society with explicit CSR
focusing on communicating their policies and practises to their stakeholders,
where implicit CSR does not use this type of language. The research also
highlights a second difference being around the intent of the CSR action with
implicit CSR not being a voluntary or deliberate business decision but rather a
reaction to, or reflection of, a corporations institutional environment (Moon &
Matten, 2008). However as a contrast explicit CSR is a deliberate, voluntary and
typically strategic process. The research identifies that geography can have an
effect on which is the more prominent CSR practise, due to a regions economy
and culture being a large influence, with Europe demonstrating a strong following
to implicit CSR with companies approaching CSR issues outside of the
governments remit and are more of a reflection on the corporations own
initiative for social responsibility. With also the United States having a stronger
connection with explicit CSR with Maignan and Ralston (2002) finding that 53

percent of US companies mention CSR explicitly of their website, only 29 percent

of French and 25 percent Dutch companies do the same. Brammer and Pavelin
(2005) also found that comparing community activities between USA and UK
corporations they found that value of contributions by U.S. companies in 2001
was more than ten times greater than those of their U.K. counterparts (United
States, $4,831 billion; United Kingdom, $428 million).
Moon and Matten (2008) devise a framework which highlights the contributing
factors that influence whether a company delivers CSR in an explicit or implicit
manner. We understand that the geography of an organisation shapes national
business systems due to institutional framework being historically developed
(Whitley, 1997) and its this notion that can help determine which stance on CSR
an organisation follows. However it would be naive to think that this is the only
measure, with companies ever evolving and re-positioning themselves there has
been rise in European companies expressing the use of explicit CSR, highlighting
the need for a more rigorous framework in identifying influencing factors. Moon
and Matten draw on new institutionalism theory as it argues that organisational
practices become institutionalised because they are legitimate, this is influenced
by three processes: coercive isomorphisms, mimetic processes, and normative
pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). These processes can be used to
acknowledge factors that contribute to an explicit CSR approach, and Moon and
Matten have addressed these processes to argue that new institutionalism
explains the rise in explicit CSR across Europe.
Moon and Matten (2008) develop their theory that economy and culture
contribute to a companys CSR strategies. They reference that those living in a
liberal, free market allow firms to have clear incentives as where to position their
CSR focus, allowing for their strategy to be more explicit in nature. This is
exemplified by the United States who have no access to free healthcare creating
a clear CSR initiative for employers to offer health insurance as part of their
employment contract as a social responsibility. However in a more rigid there is
less opportunity for this type of explicit work as for example at least the
minimum wage is not something a company will publicise turning it into more of
an implicit action.
Therefore it is clear that Moon and Mattens framework can be seen to make a
greatly recognised contirbution to CSR. There has been little work done
surrounding analysing differences in CSR strategy from an economic and cultural
perspective, and therefore provides sound justifications for motives behind CSR
and can further strategy development by firms as it enables there to be a
supporting theory behind the differences in CSR between countries which would
also be useful information for multinational corporations. This essay is now going
to analyse three other CSR research contributions where Moon and Mattens
framework is embedded into their study allowing for a thorough analysis of the
theory to be carried out.
Blindheim (2015) tiles his paper as a proposed refinement of the ExplicitImplicit Framework where its aim is to account for international variations of
CSR and the role of individuals managers in the actual process of developing
CSR constructs within a given country. He claims that there has been an over
focus on the concept of the historically grown institutional framework and the
national business system highlighting that this is does not address the present or
future of CSR growth and due to the ever changing nature of global corporations

it does not add sufficiently to the true context of CSR. Focusing on managers it is
clear that the role of management is a key aspect missing from Moon and
Mattens work, as the CSR outcome is focused on individuals decisions and these
managers may not be influenced by the historical context of a firm. Instead
National Business Systems (Whitley, 1997), can create notions surrounding CSR
however it is up to managers to apply this appropriately and they can also insert
their own perspectives into the decision which can have external societal
influences that are removed from the history of the firm. This therefore adds
another element to the theory and moves away from the idea that the economic
and cultural elements of a region play a dominant role in creating differences
surrounding CSR strategies. This view is appropriate as there may be CSR
managers working in an UK organisation however are of a different nationality for
instance American, this can dilute the argument that Moon and Matten are
creating through their theory. Blindheim (2015) coins the two expressions of a
managers take of CSR scope as expansive or contractive. Expansive CSR is
defined to focus on issues outside of the core activities of the firm, whilst
contractive explains when a firm will centre CSR around the business core
activities regardless if they are following. This shows how managers make the
assumption on behalf of the firm and have the freedom to position their
corporation within societal issues. For example the head of CSR for Boots Alliance
has the freedom to assume the CSR stance the whole company want to make on
social issues and therefore made the executive decision to focus CSR solely
around Health Care. However if a new individual were to take this managerial
position but have a strong disposition towards another social position then they
have the power to alter this strategy. Therefore highlighting the key thing that
Moon and Matten did not properly account for which moves CSR strategy away
from historical context as a sole mechanism.
Brammers (2012) paper focuses on institutional theory with a new perspective
on private governance. The author claims that CSR literature has neglected the
role of institutions and examines potential contributions to understand CSR as a
mode of governance. This perspective suggests going beyond grounding CSR in
the voluntary behaviour of companies, and understanding the larger historical
and political determinants of whether and in what forms corporations take on
social responsibilities (Brammer, 2012). The research describes Moon and
Mattens work as the social responsibilities of business are more strongly defined
by law or subject to binding negotiations with labour unions. He therefore
suggests that the scope for voluntary and explicit CSR processes may be limited.
Brammer however also acknowledges that institutions empower stakeholders
and face large pressures to adopt CSR measures to legitimate their activity. This
can be exemplified through the influence by strong labour unions who can put
pressure on companies to adopt better labour standards as demonstrated
through Moon and Mattens Starbucks example. It is here CSR is a reflection
within the broader institutional mirror (Brammer, 2012). He claims that CSR
indicators are biased and focus on explicit CSR as it tends to reflect marketoriented information, whilst he claims that implicit CSR may remain undetected
and can be easily be mistaken for an absence of responsibility. Therefore
Brammer critics Moon and Matten as their framework does not capture the
quality of outcomes in an appropriate and comparable manner, this means that it
is difficult to analyse both outputs and is an element of the framework that is not
focused on. The outcomes of CSR strategy should be the driving force behind

CSR theory and is something that is not expanded on in great enough detail to
provide a thorough analysis of both implicit and explicit CSR strategies. Brammer
also goes on to criticise the geographic definitions Moon and Matten provide,
arguing that CSR is not enough of a dominant force to justify this notion and for
national business systems to effect its form. To this his recommendations are for
Moon and Matten (2008) to look further into the business-society interactions
and to expand their framework to come up with more refined and differentiated
concepts.
Gjolberg (2009) labels her paper as Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing
an index of CSR practises and CSR performance in 20 countries. The aim of the
research is that presuming that a companys institutional environment matters
to its corporate social responsibility strategy the article aims to contribute a
more structurally orientated framework for analysing CSR. To do this Gjolberg
develops two indexes, one measuring CSR practices and one measuring CSR
performance within 20 OECD nations. The index is constructed by ranking the
degree to which companies of certain nationalities are over or under represented
in global CSR initiatives and rankings, proportionate to the size of their national
economies. Gjolberg suggests that using Matten and Moons (2008) implicit
versus explicit CSR, she would have expected the results of the index to overrepresent the United States as the index highlights the degree to which
companies are sufficiently explicit about their CSR strategies. The author
comments that while their argument mainly focuses on the differences between
US and European CSR practices, it could be logically extended to cover the other
economies affiliated with the liberal tradition, namely the UK, Ireland, Australia
and Canada. Thus, one would expect companies from these countries, the Unites
States in particular, to have the greatest need to be explicit about their social
responsibility, and consequently to be the top scorers (Gjolberg, 2009). However
the index did not show any clear division between the liberal and regulated
economies and instead the United States actually receives the lowest score in
the whole sample. She states that the high score of the Nordic Counteries and
the low score of the US appear to contradict Matten and Moons argument, with
the results highlighting that the institutional environments of the strongly
embedded economics force the average company to have a higher baseline in
CSR-related areas which is an issue not discussed by Matten and Moon. This
therefore highlights that there could be a weakness in the correlation between
economy and culture against a corporations CSR strategy, and that further data
collection and analysis may be needed. This highlights that there is large work
that has to be done within the field of CSR with each framework in need of large
supporting evidence and studies to support new theories.
The analysis of other academics take on Moon and Mattens framework around
implicit and explicit forces in CSR are highlighting that they have made a large
contribution to CSR literature and have started to move things forward in
understanding its trends and contexts. However it is clear that they have only
laid a foundation and still have more steps that are missing from the framework
to be able to provide a complete picture of CSR. Blindheim (2015) creates a vital
point surrounding the application of managers and how they can alter the
framework, showing that Moon and Matten have not considered all factors that
could disrupt the ideology. Brammers (2012) provides a large criticism in that
Moon and Matten have not done an appropriate analysis on the outcomes of both
CSR frameworks, giving us a limited amount of knowledge on the true

differences regarding implicit and explicit, which does not enrich the field of CSR
research from a corporate perspective. He there recommended for Moon and
Matten to look into the business-society interactions and to expand their
framework to come up with more refined concepts. Lastly, Gjolberg (2009) has a
more shocking discovery that there may a weakness in the correlation between
economy and culture against a corporations CSR strategy as when collecting
further data and developing an index it appears she did not encounter the results
she was expecting as assumed through Moon and Mattens theory. Therefore the
recommendations were for CSR theory to be heavily supported with evidence to
ensure that research is clearly analysed. Overall it is clear that Moon and Matten
(2008) have created a revolutionary theory that have created a new angle to
CSR being contextualised, however it is evident that there are gaps in the
theorem and that there is room for further exploration as well as the verification
of analysis to further support the initial research study.

Word Count: 2613

References
Gobbels, M (2002) Refining Corporate Social Responsibility:
Contemporary Conseption of a Fuzzy Notion. Sage: London.
Unilever
(2012).
Annual
Reports.
Downloaded
http://www.unilever.co.uk/aboutus/introductiontounilever/annual-reports/
3rd Jan 2015.

The
from
as of

M (2003). Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate

Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion. Journal of business
ethics, 44 (2-3), 95-105.
Marcel,

Matten, D. & Moon, J. 2008. Implicit and Explicit CSR: A conceptual

framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 404424.
Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. 2005. Corporate community contributions in the
United Kingdom and the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 56: 1526
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe
and the U.S.: Insights from businesses self-presentations. Journal of
International Business Studies, 33: 497515.v
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review, 48: 147160
Whitley, R. 1997. Business systems. In A. Sorge & M. Warner (Eds.), The IEBM
handbook of organizational behaviour: 173186. London: International
Thomson Business Press
Blindheim, B. (2015). Institutional Models of Corporate Social
Responsibility: A proposed Refinement of the Explicit-Implicit
Framework Business and Society, 54(1): 52-88.
Gjlberg, M (2009). Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing an index
of CSR practices and CSR performance in 20 countries. Scandinavian
Journal of Management (2009) 25, 1022