Blurring the Lines: A Quantitative Study of the Dynamic Interplay between Lobbying and Corporate Social Responsibility in European Firms

企业越来越多地参与围绕社会问题的政治活动（Peterson & pfizer 2009）。这些活动表明，游说（换句话说，企业政治活动（CPA））与企业社会责任（CSR）之间存在一定程度的相互作用，这引发了在追求企业社会责任和企业社会责任之间是否存在权衡的问题。解释对企业社会责任和注册会计师实践的范围具有深远的影响，并具有政治和社会意义。在超越国家的治理模式的新领域，理解公司在社会中的作用尤为重要。这种理解可以提高问责制和透明度（Bernhagen & Patsiurko 2014: 1-2）。虽然越来越多的研究开始探索注册会计师与企业社会责任之间的联系（Bernhagen & Patsiurko 2014; den Hond, Rehbein, Bakker & Lankveld 2014; Mellahi, Frynas, Sun & Siegel 2016），但没有一项研究全面地解释了它们之间的相互作用。本研究旨在通过系统分析注册会计师与企业社会责任之间的动态相互作用来填补这一空白。这些见解导致了以下研究问题：“企业社会责任问题与注册会计师活动之间何时、如何、在多大程度上以及以何种效果存在动态相互作用？”我专注于异质的制度和社会压力作为企业社会责任和CPA之间动态相互作用的解释性决定因素。这种选择是基于这样一个事实，即全球化和公司业务向多个国家的扩张，造成了一定程度的复杂性，在这种复杂性中，公司面临着多种、异类的、有时是相互冲突的期望（Scherer， Palazzo和Seidl 2013: 265, 278；另见Child和Rodrigues 2011； Smith和Lewis 2011； Ioannou和Serafeim 2012）。虽然这些力量只会迫使公司在一般情况下“做点什么”（Mellahi等人，2016:153-154），但我认为公司会选择采取政治行动来应对这些力量，尽管政治行动是一个长期的过程，需要付出很多努力（Peterson & pfizer 2009: 49）。制度和社会压力强调支持公共产品，这可能导致集体行动问题，如搭便车（Lawton, McGuire & Rajwani 2013: 8；另见Olson 2009）。政治行动确保竞争者也被迫采取负责任的行为，改变竞争环境的水平，克服集体行动问题（Olson 2009: 135-153）。虽然这两个解释性决定因素都是制约或促成企业社会责任与注册会计师相互作用的外部驱动因素，但制度压力反映的是情境视角，而社会压力反映的是关系视角。制度压力由制度理论提供信息（Mellahi et al. 2016: 153-154），包括经济增长、经济不确定性、监管压力、政治竞争和意识形态以及环境异质性（den Hond et al. 2014: 809; Hillman, Keim & Schuler 2004: 843-844; Lux, Crook, & Woehr 2011: 234）。另一方面，社会压力由利益相关者理论（Mellahi etal . 2016: 153-154）提供信息，并涉及公众监督/媒体压力（Chalmers & van den Broek 2016），利益相关者团体行动主义（den Hond & de Bakker 2007）和（当地）社区压力（Marquis, Glynn, & Davis 2007）。本研究将包括和控制的其他潜在解释因素包括：公司层面的变量、行业层面的变量和母国特征（Bernhagen & Patsiurko 2014: 4-8; Favotto, Kollman and Bernhagen 2016: 13-16）。

Firms are increasingly involved in political activities around social issues (Peterson & Pfitzer 2009). These activities suggest a certain degree of interaction between lobbying, or in other words Corporate Political Activities (CPA), and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), evoking questions of whether there is a trade-off between pursuing CSR and CPA. Explanations have far-reaching consequences for the scope of CSR and CPA practices, and bear political and social implications. Understanding the role of corporations in society is especially important in the new area of governance modes beyond the state. This understanding can lead to an increased level of accountability and transparency (Bernhagen & Patsiurko 2014: 1-2). While a growing number of studies have started to explore the link between CPA and CSR (Bernhagen & Patsiurko 2014; den Hond, Rehbein, Bakker & Lankveld 2014; Mellahi, Frynas, Sun & Siegel 2016), no research has explained their interaction in a comprehensive manner. This research aims to fill this gap by systematically analysing the dynamic interplay between CPA and CSR. These insights lead to the following research question: "When, how, to what extent, and with what effect is there a dynamic interplay between CSR issues and CPA activities?"I focus on heterogeneous institutional- and societal pressures as explanatory determinants of the dynamic interplay between CSR and CPA. This choice is informed by the fact that globalization, and the expansion of firms' operations to multiple countries, creates certain levels of complexity in which firms face multiple, heterogeneous and sometimes conflicting expectations (Scherer, Palazzo & Seidl 2013: 265, 278; see also Child and Rodrigues 2011; Smith and Lewis 2011; Ioannou & Serafeim 2012). Though these forces only compel companies to 'do something' in general terms (Mellahi et al., 2016: 153-154), I argue that companies will opt to act politically in response to them, even though acting politically is a long-term process which entails a lot of effort (Peterson & Pfitzer 2009: 49). Institutional and societal pressures stress supporting public goods, which can lead to collective action problems, like free-riding (Lawton, McGuire & Rajwani 2013: 8; see also Olson 2009). Acting politically ensures that competitors are forced into responsible behaviour as well, changing the level of the playing field and overcoming collective action problems (Olson 2009: 135-153). Though both explanatory determinants are external drivers that constrain or enable the interplay between CSR and CPA, institutional pressure reflects a contextual perspective while societal pressure reflects a relational perspective. Institutional pressure is informed by institutional theories (Mellahi et al. 2016: 153-154) and entails economic growth, economic uncertainty, regulatory pressure, political competition and ideology, and environmental heterogeneity (den Hond et al. 2014: 809; Hillman, Keim & Schuler 2004: 843-844; Lux, Crook, & Woehr 2011: 234). Societal pressure, on the other hand, is informed by stakeholder theories (Mellahi et al. 2016: 153-154) and entails public scrutiny/media pressure (Chalmers & van den Broek 2016), stakeholder-groups activism (den Hond & de Bakker 2007) and (local) community pressure (Marquis, Glynn, & Davis 2007). Other potential explanatory factors that will be included and controlled for in this research, are: firm-level variables, industry-level variables, and home-country characteristics (Bernhagen & Patsiurko 2014: 4-8; Favotto, Kollman and Bernhagen 2016: 13-16).