Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:33:19.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Has globalization eroded firms’ responsibility for their employees? A sociological analysis of transnational firms’ corporate social responsibility policies concerning their employees in the Netherlands, 1980–2010

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sander Quak ,
Johan Heilbron  and
Romke van der Veen
Johan Heilbron
Affiliation:
Centre Européen de Sociologie et de Science Politique de la Sorbonne (CESSP-CNRS0EHESS), Paris, France; and Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Romke van der Veen
Affiliation:
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the 1970s many firms expanded their operations across national borders and were restructured to fit the changing economic conditions during these times of economic globalization. Using a sociological approach to transnational firms, in this article the authors research the consequences of these developments for the responsibility of two transnational firms towards their employees in the Netherlands. These firms experienced a shift in their dual embeddedness in national and transnational economic fields, with the latter gaining importance. In response, they adjusted their corporate policies and structure to fit the competitive conditions of these fields, causing a centralization of their corporate labor policy on the transnational level, the polarization of this policy and the instrumentalization of labor and labor policy. This also meant that their responsibility for their employees was restructured and reduced.

Type
Corporate Responsibility, Multinational Corporations, and Nation States
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 14 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Corporate Responsibility, Multinational Corporations, and Nation States , October 2012 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2012 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atzema, O., Wever, E. and Krol, M. 2008. “Philips. A global electronics firm restructuring its home base.” In: Pellenbarg, P. and Wever, E. (eds.), International business geography: case studies of corporate firms. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 2005. The social structures of the economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Caroll, A. B. 1979. “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance.” Academy of Management Review 4 (4): 497–505.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. B. and Shabana, K. M. 2010. “The business case for corporate social responsibility: review of concepts, research and practice.” International Journal of Management Reviews 12 (1): 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Convert, B. and Heilbron, J. 2007. “Where did the new economic sociology come from?” Theory and Society 36 (1): 31–54.Google Scholar
Cooke, W. N. 2007. “Multinational companies and global human resource strategy.” In: Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of human resource management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 489–508.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. 1996. “Markets as politics: a political-cultural approach to market institutions.” American Sociological Review 61 (4): 656–673.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. 2001a. The architecture of markets: an economic sociology of twenty-first century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. 2001b. “Social skill and the theory of fields.” Sociological Theory 19 (2): 105–125.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
Friedman, T. L. 2005. The world is flat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Gabel, M. and Bruner, H. 2003. Global Inc.: An atlas of the multinational corporation. New York, NY: The New Press.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. 1985. “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91 (3): 481–510.Google Scholar
de Haas, A. 2000. 1900—2000 “100 jaar Personeelsbeleid” van N.V. Philips Gloeilampenfa-brieken naar Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Eindhoven: Philips.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. and Quak, S. 2012. “Changing labour policies of transnational corporations. The decrease and polarisation of corporate social responsibility.” In: van der Veen, R., Achterberg, P. and Yerkes, M. (eds.), The transformation of solidarity. changing risks and the future of the welfare state. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 139–163.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J., Verheul, J. and Quak, S. 2011. “Aandeelhouders Eerst! De Opkomst van ‘Aandeel-houderswaarde’ in de Verenigde Staten.” Sociologie 7 (1): 21–42.Google Scholar
Jacoby, S. M. 2005. The embedded corporation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. 1976. “Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure.” Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.Google Scholar
Kahancova, M. 2007. Making the most of diversity: social interaction and variation in employment practices in a multinational company. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kalb, D. P. 1995. Expanding class: power and everyday politics in industrial communities, North-Brabant illustrations, 1950—1950. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P. 1985. Small states in world markets: industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, D. L. and Prakash, A. 2003. “Bargains old and new: multinational corporations in global governance.” Business and Politics 5 (2): 131–150.Google Scholar
Lim, A. and Tsutsui, K. 2012. “Globalization and commitment in corporate social responsibility: cross-national analyses of institutional and political-economy effects.” American Sociological Review 77 (1): 69–98.Google Scholar
Matten, D. and Moon, J. 2008. ““Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility.” Academy of Management Review 32 (2): 404–424.Google Scholar
Mishra, R. 1999. Globalization and the welfare state. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Moon, J., Crane, A. and Matten, D. 2005. “Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as metaphor for business participation in society.” Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (3): 427–451.Google Scholar
Quak, S. 2012. Transnational firms and their corporate labor policy: case studies on Philips and ING in the Netherlands and the United States, 1980—2010. PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. W. and Schmidt, V. A. 2000a. Work and welfare in the open economy; Vol.1: From vulnerability to competitiveness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. W. and Schmidt, V. A. 2000b. Work and welfare in the open economy; Vol.2: Common challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sluyterman, K. E. 2005. Dutch enterprises in the twentieth century: business strategies in a small open economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smit, J. 2008. De Prooi. Amsterdam: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Useem, M. 1996. Investor capitalism: how money managers are changing the face of corporate America. New York, NY: Basic Books/HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Westerhuis, G. 2008. Conquering the American Market. ABN AMRO, Rabobank, and Nationale Nederlanden working in a different business environment, 1965—2005. Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
White, H. C. 1981. “Where do Markets come from?” American Journal of Sociology 87 (3): 517–547.Google Scholar