







































1                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

   

  

  

 

Before the Sanctions: How Firms in Russia Institutionalized Corporate 

Social Responsibility1 

 

Stanislav Klimovich2, University of Potsdam, Germany 

Ulla Pape3, Technische Hochschule Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm, Germany 

Markus B. Siewert4, TUM Think Tank, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy, 

Germany 
 

 

 

 

Abstract 

This article investigates the development of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Russia 

before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. First, the authors present an index they 

constructed from CSR reporting data of 45 leading firms. The article demonstrates that the 

degree to which firms in Russia have institutionalized CSR practices and norms varies 

extensively. Second, by building on neo-institutionalist theory and mechanisms of isomorphic 

change, it explores the global and domestic pressures that promoted CSR institutionalization in 

Russia’s authoritarian capitalism. The findings from the Qualitative Comparative Analysis 

(QCA) show that there is no uniform path, but rather multiple, equifinal routes to CSR 

institutionalization. Two types of mimetic isomorphism—modelling CSR activities after best 

international practices and path-dependent Soviet-type experiences—are crucial to explaining 

CSR institutionalization in Russia. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, international 

practices could become less important, while the domestic pressures to further CSR 

institutionalization will remain relevant. 

  

 
1 This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: [Grant Number 388732203] 
2 Stanislav Klimovich is a Research Fellow and lecturer of Russian and East European Politics at the University 

of Potsdam. 
3 Ulla Pape is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at Technische Hochschule Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm and an Associate 

Lecturer at the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. 
4 Markus B. Siewert is the Managing Director of the TUM Think Tank at the Munich School of Politics and Public 

Policy 



2                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

Introduction 

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a business concept rooted in developed 

Western economies (Crotty 2016). From a neo-institutional perspective, scholars have 

attempted to understand why and how CSR practices have been adopted and translated across 

nations (Bondy et al. 2012; Brammer et al. 2012; Crotty 2016; Gjolberg 2009; Hofman et al. 

2017; Kang and Moon 2012; Maier 2021). The research has also turned to the question of CSR 

development in authoritarian contexts that lack the institutional prerequisites—such as a 

functioning market, effective governmental and legal institutions and an autonomous civil 

society—that are commonly considered necessary for business actors to engage in CSR (Matten 

and Moon 2008). Nevertheless, companies in autocracies do actively engage in CSR, and this 

development requires further explanation. Russia provides a salient example. 

Despite an increasingly authoritarian political regime (Gel’man 2015), the subordination of 

business under state interests (Rochlitz et al. 2020) and a weak civil society, there has been a 

proliferation of CSR in Russia over the past two decades (Blagov et al. 2015; Fifka and 

Pobizhan 2014), which is evidenced by a growing number of large companies, both Russian 

and foreign, which have institutionalized CSR in their business operations. However, in contrast 

to other authoritarian regimes like China, the development of CSR in Russia is not the result of 

state legislation (Hofman et al. 2017). Although the Russian state informally requires 

companies to engage in social responsibility, it does not provide formal regulation that 

prescribes CSR institutionalization within business organizations (Fifka and Pobizhan 2014). 

Instead, the development of CSR in Russia seems to be primarily driven by informal 

expectations of state actors and society at large, which concern the socially responsible 

behaviour of businesses (Zueva and Fairbrass 2021). These expectations are influenced by the 

experiences of the Soviet economy and the post-Soviet market transition, which translate into 

different forms of CSR in companies in Russia (Crotty 2016).  

To analyze the CSR institutionalization in authoritarian Russia, the authors identify the 

underlying factors that shape the behaviour of business actors in a specific institutional context. 

The article argues that CSR development is not a uniform process but can be understood as the 

result of different isomorphic pressures (Campbell 2007; DiMaggio and Powell 1983) that 

occur at two separate levels: the global and the national. On the one hand, companies in Russia 

are subject to pressures that stem from their integration into international markets and global 

value chains (Crotty 2016). On the other hand, they operate within a domestic institutional 

context and need to respond to the demands of internal and external stakeholders at the national 

level (Crotty 2016; Fifka and Pobizhan 2014). 

CSR institutionalization took place against the backdrop of growing autocratization in Russia 

that culminated in the military aggression against Ukraine in 2022. The war and the subsequent 

sanctions against Russia have led to the growing economic isolation of the country, with more 

than 1000 international companies withdrawing from the Russian market. Unprecedented 

sanctions targeted many of the largest Russian corporations, not only directly state-owned, but 

also belonging to the so-called oligarchs with close ties to the Kremlin. Alongside the well-

known restrictions on Russian gas and oil, a sector largely controlled by the state, the 

sanctioning countries also prohibited imports of Russian coal and metals (Atlantic Council 

2024). This massively affected the metallurgical and mining sector—the main realm of the 

oligarchs loyal to the regime. At present, it is impossible to determine the full extent of this 

economic isolation, but economists expect the Russian economy to stagnate for years (BOFIT 

Russia Team 2023; Prokopenko 2023).  

 



3                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

This study focuses on CSR institutionalization in Russia before the full-scale invasion of 

Ukraine in 2022. It explores the specific conditions for CSR institutionalization in Russian 

firms and various economic sectors (Maier 2021; Muller et al. 2023). Even though this study is 

based on data gathered before the war, it is important to obtain a clear picture of CSR 

institutionalization in Russia. Prior to the sanctions, Russian companies were closely embedded 

in international markets, and CSR was institutionalized in accordance with global trends and 

standards. Even if sanctions are eventually lifted, the war’s impact on the economy and trade 

relations will remain long lasting. 

The analysis is guided by two questions: first, to what extent companies in Russia 

institutionalize their CSR activities, and second, which factors account for the 

institutionalization of CSR norms and practices in companies in Russia? The authors focus on 

the institutionalization of CSR, defined as the standardization and formalization of CSR 

practices within companies, as the most distinctive and measurable expression of CSR 

development. They, thus, analyze the institutionalization of CSR as the adoption of CSR 

practices at the organizational level (Haberberg et al. 2010) and follow the tradition of studying 

institutionalization processes that do not occur between organizations but within them 

(O’Connor et al. 2017; Tolbert and Zucker 1996). The formalization of CSR practices within 

companies is an element of corporate communication and, thus, a way in which business actors 

shape their relations with relevant stakeholders. Formalized CSR, as reflected in CSR reports 

and internal procedures, therefore, does not necessarily equal the implementation of programs 

on the ground, particularly in closed authoritarian settings such as Russia, where public pressure 

remains limited. Nevertheless, the institutionalization of CSR at the organizational level 

constitutes an important process in its own right, as it provides evidence of how companies in 

Russia have changed their behaviour under the influence of external pressures for greater social 

responsibility. 

The authors developed an original index that allows them to measure the degree of CSR 

institutionalization. Drawing on literature that stresses the multidimensionality of companies’ 

CSR activities (Bondy et al. 2012; Campbell 2007), the index captures central elements of CSR 

institutionalization. The data used to build the index are drawn from the 45 largest companies 

by revenue across three major branches of the Russian economy: oil and gas, mining and 

metallurgy, and retail. Energy and metallurgy represent “old” industries rooted in the Soviet 

economy. The difference between the two is that while oil and gas remain state-dominated, 

metallurgy and mining are mostly privately owned and are controlled by the oligarchs. In 

contrast, the retail sector is a “new” branch that has been rapidly growing with the market 

transition of the economy. To answer the second question, concerning the factors that account 

for the institutionalization of CSR norms and practices in companies in Russia, the authors draw 

on a neo-institutionalist framework and apply a systematic cross-case analysis using Qualitative 

Comparative Analysis (QCA) (Ragin 2008; Schneider and Wagemann 2012) to analyze the 

impact of different isomorphic pressures on the adoption of CSR norms and practices among 

businesses in Russia. 

This article is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the Russian institutional context for the 

development of CSR. Section 3 elaborates on the measurement of CSR institutionalization and 

reviews the variation in its degree across companies. Section 4 outlines the theoretical 

framework for explaining CSR institutionalization within firms in Russia. Section 5 describes 

the data and methods, while Section 6 presents the findings of the empirical analysis. Section 7 

interprets these findings and situates them within the broader theoretical literature. The article 

concludes with a brief summary and remarks on avenues for future research. 



4                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

CSR in Russia’s Authoritarian Capitalism 

A central controversy in the scholarly debate on CSR concerns the reasons why business actors 

engage in socially responsible behaviour. In the traditional Western understanding, CSR is 

viewed as a voluntary activity, often described as going “beyond compliance,” (Davis 1973, 

313) undertaken to mitigate risks and enhance business performance. Recently, institutionalist 

scholars have challenged this narrow business-centred view and instead argued that CSR needs 

to be understood from a broader perspective to capture the diversity of the institutional 

arrangements that shape CSR practices across nations (Matten and Moon 2008). Consequently, 

CSR is not merely viewed as a business tool, but as “private…collective forms of self-

regulation” (Brammer et al. 2012, 7) that occur at the interface between business and society. 

The development of CSR in authoritarian settings is a puzzling case, as state dominance over 

the economy challenges the very idea of CSR as voluntary activity by business actors. CSR in 

Russia is subject to different—and at times contradictory—economic and political 

developments, which have shaped the nature of CSR practices within its business community 

(Blagov and Petrova-Savchenko 2012; Crotty 2016; Fifka and Pobizhan 2014). As an emerging 

economy, Russia experienced a difficult transition from planned economy to capitalism after 

the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Since Putin’s accession to presidency in 2000, the country 

has experienced a “centralisation of management and concentration of financial resources in 

the hands of the Kremlin and the Federal Government” (Yakovlev 2014, 11). Russia’s current 

economic system has been characterized as “authoritarian capitalism” (Sallai and Schnyder 

2021) with businesses being highly intertwined with and tightly controlled by the state. 

Sallai and Schnyder (2021, 3) argue that authoritarian capitalism is “the result of constant 

renegotiation and redefinition of the boundary between the public and the private domains not 

just in the political, but also in the economic realm.” The defining criterion is “state action that 

infringes on key principles of the ‘Rule of Law’” (Sallai and Schnyder 2021, 28), which sets 

authoritarian capitalism apart from other state-permeated business systems. State actors, thus, 

do not only intervene in the economy but also erode the frontier between the public and private 

domains by using authoritarian mechanisms with the aim of serving the particular interests of 

the governing elite. 

The degradation of the rule of law in Putin’s Russia has been observed by multiple scholars 

(Markus 2015; Yakovlev 2014). The arbitrariness of state action means that business actors 

need to act upon uncertainty and defend themselves against predatory state behaviour 

(Yakovlev 2014), which has a major impact on the adoption of CSR norms and practices by 

business actors. Depending on their position in the business system, companies in Russia are 

subject to diverse pressures at the international and national levels, which have given rise to the 

emergence of different forms of CSR. The adoption of CSR practices in Russia can be traced 

to three main drivers: the need to secure access to export markets, the Soviet legacy of the 

socially responsible enterprise, and state efforts to compensate for weakened capacities in the 

social sphere. (Crotty 2016, 836). Recent research also points to the fact that both state actors 

and local communities expect businesses to provide for social welfare (Bluhm and Kropp 2023). 

Although state authorities at all levels in Russia heavily rely on the assistance of business actors 

in welfare provision (Klimovich et al. 2023; Pape 2024), the government has made no 

significant attempts to provide a legal and regulatory framework for CSR (Fifka and Pobizhan 

2014).5 Instead, Russian decision makers have frequently used the notion of “social 

 
5  The only exception is the 2017 legal initiative on obligatory non-financial reporting, which has still not been 

approved by the State Duma. 



5                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

responsibility” as a discursive device to underpin the state’s authority over large companies and 

to legitimize informal demands of extra-taxational payments from the business community 

(Zueva and Fairbrass 2021). In turn, companies used their financial resources, framed as social 

responsibility and CSR, as a strategy of legitimation of their (oligarchic) capital for the wider 

public (Klimovich et al. 2023; Kropp et al. 2023). The tradition of informal relations between 

the authorities and business actors thus discourages the formalization of CSR procedures in 

favour of exclusive agreements between state and business actors. In sum, the institutional 

context for CSR development in Russia’s authoritarian capitalism is characterized by a 

defective rule of law, limited protection of property rights, a high level of informality, and 

insecurity in state–business relations. This occurs within a system characterized by minimal 

state regulation in the field of CSR. 

In this article, the authors argue that companies in Russia do engage in CSR, but that under the 

conditions of authoritarian capitalism it assumes different forms from those found in Western 

countries. To demonstrate this, the authors examine the extent to which companies in Russia 

have institutionalized CSR in their operations. Indeed, one can observe a growing CSR 

institutionalization in Russia. Over the past two decades, Russia has seen a gradual proliferation 

of CSR, with an increasing number of firms institutionalizing CSR practices in their business 

operations. For instance, as of 2019, 64 prominent Russian companies have become members 

of the United Nations Global Compact Initiative (UN Global Compact Russia 2025). Business 

actors, thus, use international standards and approaches to structure and systematize their CSR 

activities. The most visible sign of the proliferation of CSR in Russia has been an increase in 

non-financial reporting among large corporations. According to the Russian Union of 

Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, the number of large corporations that provide non-financial 

reporting has grown continuously since 2000, reaching 176 corporations in 2018 (RSPP 2019). 

The subsequent sections of this article elaborate on the measurement of CSR 

institutionalization within companies in Russia and explore the factors that explain this process. 

 

Measuring CSR Institutionalization 

Although CSR has proliferated among Russia’s leading businesses, there remains a lack of 

comprehensive measures that capture CSR institutionalization at the company level. Building 

on previous research (Bondy et al. 2012; Campbell 2007), this article understands CSR 

institutionalization as a multidimensional process that can be achieved through different sets of 

attributes. Companies institutionalize CSR by establishing organizational structures, 

implementing social and ecological programs, and reporting to their stakeholders, i.e., by 

formalizing their CSR activities and making them visible. To capture this multidimensionality, 

the authors construct an index based on seven components, each speaking to a different aspect 

of embedding social responsibility as a formalized practice within a company. 

The first component captures whether corporate governance and organizational structures 

concerning CSR are in place—a fact which is crucial to the strategic management of a company 

(Lock and Seele 2016). In this regard, having a top manager or a specific department 

responsible for CSR resembles a strong institutionalization measure at the level of strategic 

management, whereas having no department or officer in charge of CSR is a clear sign of a lack 

of institutionalization. Between these extremes, companies may embed CSR within another 

department and treat it alongside other issues or appoint a CSR manager without establishing a 

dedicated department. 



6                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

Beyond organizational structures, such as written documentation and activities like programs 

and projects can be considered an important element of corporate social behaviour (Wood 

1991). Concerning policies, institutionalization is indicated by whether a company has an 

explicit written CSR policy in place. On the other hand, some companies cover CSR in a less 

systematized and integrated manner, through separate social and environmental policies, which 

can be viewed as weaker forms of CSR institutionalization. In addition, CSR activities can 

include a variety of schemes, which address different external and internal stakeholders, have 

different organizational designs, and thematic directions. Among them, CSR programs, grant 

competitions, pension funds, and corporate foundations can be considered practices that mark 

the institutionalization of CSR (Blagov and Petrova-Savchenko 2012). As there are no 

theoretical grounds for ranking these practices according to their contribution to CSR 

institutionalization, they are assessed in an additive manner: the more systemic CSR practices 

a company adopts, the higher the degree of institutionalization.     

Organizational structures, policies, and activities are one side of CSR institutionalization. 

Nevertheless, previous research also stresses the importance of making companies’ CSR 

programs and activities visible (Hawn and Ioannou 2015). Against this backdrop, proper 

reporting and communication with stakeholders are additional features of CSR 

institutionalization. CSR reporting has become a widespread tool for companies to signal their 

social responsibility to the public (Fifka 2012). This reporting may take various forms, such as 

the inclusion of a CSR rubric in annual reports, a standalone CSR report, or a CSR report subject 

to an independent audit, with the latter representing the highest degree of institutionalization. 

Moreover, companies may establish information systems and present themselves as socially 

responsible on their websites (Maignan and Ralston 2002). For instance, companies may raise 

the visibility of CSR practices by operating individual websites related to their CSR activities 

and programs, which can be viewed as a strong form of CSR institutionalization. In contrast, 

companies with weaker forms of institutionalization may provide only infrequent or no 

information on their CSR programs.   

Finally, the official reference to international standards and budgeting also plays an important 

role in CSR institutionalization, not only in terms of reporting but also in terms of shaping CSR 

practices (Fortanier et al. 2011). Having a fixed budget dedicated to CSR policies and activities 

is a clear sign of its institutionalization. In practice, companies calculate CSR budgets very 

differently, which makes official figures hard to compare.6 In addition, despite investing a 

remarkable share of their revenues in CSR (Polishchuk 2009), companies in Russia are 

generally reluctant to report on their CSR spending, since it goes beyond their core business 

operations (Fifka and Pobizhan 2014, 199). For these reasons, the authors focus on the issue of 

transparent reporting, which addresses whether a company discloses its CSR expenditures or 

chooses not to. Lastly, references to the United Nations (UN) Global Compact, International 

Labour Organization (ILO) conventions, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD) guidelines are a sign of strong CSR institutionalization insofar as they 

signal adherence to universal codifications of CSR practices as part of the broader sustainable 

development agenda. In contrast, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 

standards) are focused on providing precise guidelines on socially and ecologically responsible 

behaviour, whereas Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) standards are 

primarily focused on maintenance of labour safety, thereby indicating a weaker form of CSR. 

 
6  For example, several retailers count customer donations collected at the checkout counter as part of their 

reported CSR spending, whereas others exclude them. 



7                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

Table 1 provides a summary of all seven components and how they are incorporated into the 

index. The authors selected the seven components to ensure they capture a broad range of 

possible institutional CSR features, while equal weighting was applied to maintain conceptual 

balance and avoid arbitrary prioritization. The additive index produces a graded measure of 

CSR institutionalization, ranging from 0 (no institutionalization) to 7 (strong 

institutionalization). The selected calibration captures meaningful distinctions in the degree of 

set membership. Assigning values of 0, 0.25, 0.75, and 1 to individual components of the index 

aligns more closely with the logic of fuzzy sets. These thresholds help distinguish cases that 

lean toward either side of set inclusion, improving both the interpretive clarity and robustness 

of the configurational analysis. 

Table 1: Index of CSR Institutionalization 

Component Indicators for strong / weak institutionalization Scoring 

1. Organizational  

structure 

 

▪ top CSR manager or separate CSR department 

▪ CSR function embedded in a different department  

▪ CSR manager without department 

▪ no CSR manager or department 

1.0 

0.75 

0.25 

0.0 

2. Policy 

 

▪ explicit CSR policy in place 

▪ social and environmental policy 

▪ social or environmental policy 

▪ no specific policy in place 

1.0 

0.75 

0.25 

0.0 

3. Activities 

 

▪ company conducts grant competitions 

▪ company runs a pension fund 

▪ company manages CSR programs 

▪ company has a corporate foundation 

0.25 each 

(additive) 

4. Reporting 

 

▪ CSR report with independent audit 

▪ CSR report 

▪ CSR rubric in the annual report 

▪ no mentioning of CSR in a report  

1.0 

0.75 

0.25 

0.0 

5. Visibility 

 

▪ website for CSR programs 

▪ separate rubric for CSR activities 

▪ reference to CSR on the general website 

▪ no information about CSR 

1.0 

0.75 

0.25 

0.0 

6. Standards ▪ reference to UN Global Compact, ILO or OECD 

Guidelines 

▪ reference to ISO 

▪ reference to OHSAS 

▪ no standards mentioned 

1.0 

 

0.75 

0.25 

0.0 

7. Budget ▪ budget for CSR disclosed 

▪ budget for CSR not disclosed 

1 

0 

Index of CSR 

institutionalization 
Additive index of all seven components 

Max. 7 

Min. 0 

Source: Authors’ compilation 

Figure 1 demonstrates that there is a considerable variation in the degree of CSR 

institutionalization across 45 of the largest companies in Russia (in terms of revenue) in the 

fields of oil and gas (black bars), mining and metallurgy (hatched bars), and retail (gray bars), 

considering the top 15 companies from each sector. The Y-axis represents the level of CSR 



8                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

institutionalization, measured on a scale from 0 (weak) to 7 (strong). Each bar indicates the 

CSR institutionalization level for a company, thus enabling a cross-company and cross-sector 

comparison. Each company’s score is based on its CSR reports, annual reports, and additional 

information provided on its website (see the supplementary material for details). This sample 

has been selected for two reasons. First, one can credibly expect companies that are at the 

forefront of their respective branches to be particularly prone to strong degrees of 

institutionalization, as they are supposed to have well-structured CSR practices (Bondy et al. 

2012; Bondy and Starkey 2014). Second, these firms represent a diversified sample of industries 

that vary across several factors relevant to the subsequent analyses, including ownership 

structure (state versus private), operational history and embeddedness in the Russian economy 

(old versus new), and business model (resource-based production versus customer-focused 

trade). 

Figure 1: The Index of CSR Institutionalization Across the Largest 45 Companies from 

Three Sectors in Russia 

Source: Authors’ compilation 

 

At least three aspects stand out. First, it is apparent that there is significant variation in the 

degree of CSR institutionalization. Companies cover the full range of the index, with several 

companies not engaging in CSR at all and others showing remarkably high levels of CSR 

institutionalization. In total, 24 companies scored above the mid-point of 3.5 and can thus be 

considered as high performers in CSR institutionalization. By contrast, 21 companies exhibit a 

substantially lower degree of CSR institutionalization and can therefore be classified as low 

performers (with the overall mean for CSR institutionalization being 3.79).  

Second, there are striking differences between the branches. Among the 24 high performers, 

there are 12 mining and metallurgical companies, 10 from the oil and gas industry but only two 

retail companies (Detsky Mir and X5 Retail Group). Conversely, 13 retail companies have not 

made strong progress in CSR, whereas only five oil and gas companies and three mining and 

metallurgical companies show a low degree of CSR institutionalization. There is also strong 

variation within each sector. In the retail sector, for instance, the degree of CSR 



9                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

institutionalization ranges from 0 to 5, in the metallurgy and mining sector from 2.5 to 6.75, 

and in the oil and gas sector from 0.25 to 6.75. At the same time, some companies from different 

branches, e.g., Detsky Mir, Novatek, and MMK, show similar degrees of CSR 

institutionalization. One can therefore observe interesting differences within, as well as 

commonalities across, all branches. 

Third, state-owned companies indicate different levels of CSR institutionalization, ranging 

from 1.75 (Slavneft) to 6.75 (Gazprom Neft). Among the top five performers, Gazprom Neft is 

state-owned, Lukoil, Nornickel and Severstal are privately owned, and Sakhalin Energy is a 

joint venture between the state-controlled Gazprom and a group of foreign investors. If the 

Russian state were a major promoter of CSR institutionalization, one would expect equally high 

index scores in state-owned companies.  

Altogether, the data shows considerable variation in the degree of CSR institutionalization, 

which seems to be partly attributable to the characteristics of the three branches. Differences 

across branches alone fall short of fully explaining the variations in CSR institutionalization 

among companies in Russia. However, since businesses from different branches show similar 

levels of CSR, it is necessary to look beyond sectoral differences to explain the variation in 

CSR institutionalization. 

 

Explaining CSR Institutionalization 

Previous research has shown that the CSR institutionalization within a company is subject to 

both external and internal pressures, which stem from the institutional environment as well as 

stakeholder demands for businesses to take greater social responsibility (Yang and Rivers 

2009). To identify the particular conditions and underlying mechanisms that lead to the 

institutionalization of CSR norms and practices, the authors draw on the work by DiMaggio 

and Powell (1983) and Campbell (2007) and combine different types of pressures into a 

configurative analytical framework. 

DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) concept of isomorphic change involves three mechanisms. First, 

coercive isomorphism is the result of formal and informal pressures from other organizations 

and the society at large, including laws and regulations, the influence of organized societal 

(external) stakeholders, such as citizen activists, NGOs, and market standards. Second, mimetic 

isomorphism refers to processes where an organization models itself on others to overcome 

environmental uncertainty, e.g., by borrowing best practices and solutions from actors in the 

field “that they perceive to be more legitimate or successful” (DiMaggio and Powell 1983, 152). 

Third, normative isomorphism results from professionalisation within the field, which is 

achieved primarily through education and the establishment of professional networks. Here, the 

exchange of professional knowledge plays an important role in advancing normative 

isomorphic change. In addition to the three isomorphic pressures, Campbell (2007) introduces 

stakeholder pressures as a mechanism that encourages the development of social responsibility. 

According to this view, dialogue between a company and its stakeholders has a positive effect 

on the company’s social responsibility. Among them, shareholders and employees are most 

important internal stakeholders for companies’ CSR.  

While different isomorphic mechanisms overlap in practice and the types “are not always 

empirically distinct” (DiMaggio and Powell 1983, 150), one expects that no condition alone 

will be necessary and/or sufficient for the institutionalization of CSR but instead find distinct 

configurations of conditions. In the following section, the authors identify a suitable proxy for 



10                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

each of the four outlined mechanisms (see Table 2). The proxies are divided at two levels 

according to their origin. In sum, the article concentrates on four international conditions, which 

stem from global pressures that companies are challenged with, and four national conditions, 

which refer to the Russian institutional environment and stakeholder demands for CSR 

institutionalization. 

Table 2: Explanatory conditions for CSR institutionalization in Russia 

Mechanisms International conditions National conditions 

Coercive pressures International listing National listing 

Mimetic pressures International market Soviet legacy 

Normative pressures International expertise Business association (RSPP) 

Stakeholder pressures International investors / 

shareholders 

Employees in Russia 

Source: Authors’ compilation 

At the international level, being listed on the international stock exchanges acts as an important 

coercive pressure for Russian companies. Previous studies have confirmed the relevance of 

international listings with obligatory provisions on non-financial reporting as an important 

driver of CSR disclosure among companies in Russia (Bhatia and Makkar 2019). In line with 

the expanding sustainability agenda, companies attract international investors not only by 

emphasizing their economic performance but also by allocating significant resources to social 

responsibility, particularly in cleaner production and the protection of human rights throughout 

the supply chain. Furthermore, by operating in international markets, Russian companies can 

draw on the experiences and solutions developed by other firms. This, in turn, can serve as a 

guideline for structuring their own CSR by importing policies and reporting practices. Such 

mimicking paves the way for stronger CSR institutionalization in accordance with global 

standards and market benchmarks (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Moreover, the international 

promotion of a CSR agenda by professional networks and communities generates normative 

pressure to institutionalize these practices (Campbell 2007; Fortanier et al. 2011; Fransen 

2012). International business associations, board members, and executive managers are 

important actors because they introduce expertise, experiences, and practices to Russian 

businesses by drawing on international CSR standards. Finally, shareholders are the most 

powerful stakeholders in companies’ CSR as they are making decisions about the strategic 

priorities in business operations (Mitchell et al. 1997). It has been shown that there is a turn 

towards “responsible ownership” (O’Rourke 2003) and “socially responsible investment” 

(Sparkes and Cowton 2004) in Western economies, with shareholders expecting their assets to 

properly address social and environmental issues. Thus, one can assume that international 

investors positively affect the institutionalization of CSR insofar as they possess resources to 

stimulate the incorporation of international CSR standards and practices into the business 

strategies of their Russian assets and business units.  

Being listed nationally at the Moscow Stock Exchange (MOEX) is the functional counterpart 

of an international listing, constituting a coercive mechanism. Listed companies are thought to 

behave in a more socially responsible way and are more likely to provide reporting on their 

activities due to stock market pressures (Goergen et al. 2015; van Cranenburgh et al. 2013). 

Mimetic pressures may also be present, since companies adopt CSR practices modelled on their 

own prior experiences with social responsibility. In the Soviet planned economy, factories and 

businesses used to play an important role in the provision of social services and support for 



11                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

social infrastructure on the territory of their operations as well as providing extensive non-wage 

benefits for employees (Cook 1993; Davis 2001). In addition, national trade and employer 

associations promote socially responsible behaviour among businesses (Campbell 2007). In 

Russia, Rossiiskii soiuz promyshlennikov i predprinimatelei [the Russian Union of Industrialists 

and Entrepreneurs] (RSPP) is one of the major promoters of the CSR agenda and has established 

two committees on CSR and charity, as well as a council on non-financial reporting consisting 

of experts responsible for public audits and the verification of CSR reports (RSPP 2025). 

Finally, employee demands for socially responsible behaviour can be considered a final driver 

of CSR institutionalization (McWilliams and Siegel 2001). As companies with a large number 

of employees are growing in size, they must establish an appropriate CSR organizational system 

to meet minimum standards and ensure coherent social policy across business units in different 

regions of the country. 

Figure 2 presents the analytical framework. The analysis is conducted separately at the 

international and national levels. In doing so, the authors follow a “competing theories 

approach” (Blatter and Haverland 2012, 144), which maintains this separation to test the 

interplay of conditions within each level. The article uses these proxies for coercive, mimetic, 

normative, and stakeholder pressures as explanatory conditions in the empirical analysis, 

allowing the authors to explore which configurations of mechanisms are consistently associated 

with the institutionalization of CSR. It is worth noting that the explanatory framework is 

designed to primarily explain under what conditions companies institutionalize CSR practices, 

not why they fail to do so. This focus is viable for two reasons. First, since the mechanisms 

listed above are responsible for greater CSR institutionalization, there is no theoretical 

expectation that the simple absence of these conditions should be linked to the weak or non-

institutionalization of CSR practices. Second, the authors contend that non-institutionalization 

arises not only from a lack of incentives to institutionalize CSR but also from other factors that 

hinder the adoption of CSR practices. Put differently, one would need an entirely different 

analytical framework to examine why companies fail to institutionalize CSR.7 

Figure 2: Analytical Framework to Explain CSR Institutionalization 

 
Source: Authors’ compilation 

Method and Data 

To explain the institutionalization of CSR in Russia, the authors make use of Qualitative 

Comparative Analysis (QCA) (Ragin 2008). As a set-theoretic approach, QCA models 

associations between explanatory conditions and an outcome of interest as superset and subset 

relations, which can be interpreted in terms of necessity and sufficiency. QCA is particularly 

 
7 In QCA, such asymmetric assumptions are built-in since outcome and non-outcome needs to be analyzed 

separately. For methodological reasons, the authors also ran an analysis for the absence of CSR institutionalization 

and presented the results in the supplementary material. However, they abstain from interpreting them in a 

substantial manner. 

CSR institutionalization 
in Russian companies 

International listing

Markets

Expertise

Investors/shareholders

Conditions at the

international level

National listing

Soviet legacy

Business association

Employees

Conditions at the 

national level



12                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

well-suited to the research question at hand, as it allows the examination of, first, which 

combinations of conditions facilitate CSR institutionalization (configurationality); second, 

whether multiple configurations account for different cases of CSR institutionalization 

(equifinality); and third, to concentrate on the conditions are associated with the 

institutionalization of CSR without presuming what factors explain its absence (asymmetry). 

The analytic protocol of QCA is as follows: first, the authors test for superset relations, which 

can be interpreted in terms of necessity. A condition is considered necessary if, whenever the 

outcome is present, the condition is also present. For example, a high degree of CSR 

institutionalization requires the presence of a given condition (formally, if Y then X). The 

analysis of necessity considers both individual conditions and or-combinations (also called 

disjunctions). The latter are interpreted as necessary when they involve theoretically 

meaningful, substitutable conditions (Schneider 2018, 248–9). Next, the authors examined 

sufficiency relations, i.e., whenever conditions (or combinations thereof) are present, the 

institutionalization of CSR should also be observed (formally, if X then Y). The subset analysis 

is based on the truth table, which displays all logically possible combinations of conditions 

along with additional information on the underlying cases, limited empirical diversity (that is, 

combinations without empirical cases), and the strength of set relations. Configurations that are 

consistently linked to the outcome are then further minimized (the authors used the packages 

“QCA” (Dusa 2019) and “SetMethods” (Oana et al. 2019), whose main objective is to remove 

redundant factors and to isolate those that make a difference across cases. 

A series of parameters exists to assess the quality of the set relations (Ragin 2008, 44–69; 

Schneider 2018; Schneider and Wagemann 2012, 119–49). The consistency parameter indicates 

the strength of set association and ranges between 0 for no relationship and 1 for a perfect set 

relation. The authors use a consistency level of 0.9 for necessity and 0.8 for sufficiency as 

widely accepted benchmarks (Schneider 2018, 247). The empirical importance of set relations 

can be grasped using the coverage and relevance parameters.8 Ranging between 0 and 1, low 

values on both parameters point towards low empirical importance or trivial associations, 

whereas high values indicate empirically relevant set relations.9 Before one can perform any 

analysis in QCA, all data needs to be transformed into sets, a procedure called calibration 

(Ragin 2008, 71). The outcome is the degree of CSR institutionalization based on the index 

introduced in the previous section. As outlined above, the index ranges from 0 to 7, with higher 

scores corresponding to stronger membership in the set of CSR institutionalization. Companies 

with a score of 7 are fully included in the set of CSR institutionalization, whereas companies 

with a score of 0 are fully excluded. The cut-off point is set at the index’s midpoint of 3.5, 

which can be justified by the fact that the authors focus on the largest companies in terms of 

revenue, meaning that by its design, the sample already includes companies that face a high 

degree of pressure to institutionalize CSR. 

Table 3 provides an overview of the explanatory conditions. International listing, national 

listing, and Soviet legacy are measured using dichotomous crisp sets, where a case, for instance, 

either has a Soviet legacy (1) or not (0). The other conditions are based on fuzzy sets, which 

allow for degrees of set memberships in addition to the qualitative differentiation, e.g., being 

partially in (0.75) or partially out (0.25) of a set. The authors qualitatively coded all conditions 

 
8    See Mahoney and Vanderpoel 2015, 70–2. 
9  The PRI parameter in the context of sufficiency analysis indicates if there is a problem with simultaneous 

subset relations, which refers to the fact that a configuration can be consistently linked to the outcome and the 

non-outcome at the same time. For instance, configuration X might be consistently associated with high and 

low degrees of CSR institutionalization, which accounts for a contradictory claim and should therefore be 

avoided. 



13                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

based on a detailed review of respective information collected from company websites and 

supplementary reports.    

Table 3: Indicators, Data Sources and Calibration of the Explanatory Conditions 

Condition Indicators Calibration strategy 

International level 

International 

listing 

Listing on, at least, one foreign stock 

exchange. Data source: company’s 

website. 

1 = if a company is listed 

0 = if a company is not listed 

International 

Market 

International market orientation is 

measured via two indicators: i) 

whether a company has international 

customers, and/or ii) there are 

production sites outside of Russia. 

Data source: company’s website. 

1 = if a company has both 

international customers and factories  

0.75 = if it has either international 

customers or factories 

0 = if a company has neither 

international customers nor factories 

International 

Expertise 

International expertise is measured via 

three indicators: i) membership in 

international business association, ii) 

presence of foreign Board members, 

and iii) presence of foreign top-

managers. Data source: company’s 

website and report. 

1= if all three indicators are present 

0.75 = if two out of three are present 

0.25 if one out of three is present 

0 = if none of the three indicators are 

present 

International 

Investors / 

shareholders 

Role of international investors 

differentiates between i) companies 

with major international shareholders 

(at least 50 % of the shares), ii) 

companies with minor international 

shareholders (at least 5%), and iii) 

companies without international 

shareholders. Data source: company’s 

website and report. 

1= if there is major international 

shareholder 

0.75 = if there is a minor shareholder 

0 = if there is no international 

shareholder 

National level 

National 

listing 

Listing on Moscow stock exchange 

(MOEX) Data source: company’s 

website. 

1 = if a company is listed 

0 = if a company is not listed 

Soviet legacy Existence of the current business 

before the collapse of the Soviet 

Union in 1991. Data source: 

company’s website. 

 

 

  

1= if company existed before 1991 

0 = if a company was created after 

1991 

 

  



14                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

National level 

Business 

association 

(RSPP) 

Potential impact of RSPP membership 

using four levels of active 

participation in the business 

association’s structures promoting 

CSR: i) CSR and Charity committee 

membership, ii) CSR or Charity 

committee membership, iii) RSPP 

membership, or iv) no RSPP 

membership at all. Data source: RSPP 

website. 

1 = if a company is member of the 

CSR and the Charity committee  

0.75 = if a company is member of 

either the CSR or the Charity 

committee 

0.25 = if a company is only a 

member in the RSPP 

0 = if a company is not a member in 

the RSPP 

Employees in 

Russia 

Number of Russian employees in 

2018 as an indicator of their influence. 

Data source: company’s website and 

report. 

1= if a company belongs to the first 

quartile in its respective sector  

0.75 = if a company belongs to the 

second quartile in its respective 

sector 

0.25 = a company belongs to the 

third quartile in its respective sector 

0 = a company belongs to the fourth 

quartile in its respective sector 

Source: Authors’ compilation 

Empirical Analysis 

This section discusses the results of the QCA, presenting first the findings of the analysis at the 

international level and then those at the national level. Both sections discuss necessity and 

sufficiency relations, following the analytic protocol outlined above. 

Conditions at the International Level: Explaining CSR Institutionalization  

The analysis shows that none of the international conditions, whether considered individually 

or in combination, meet the relevant benchmarks and can therefore be deemed necessary for 

the institutionalization of CSR in Russian companies. The authors, therefore, conclude that 

leading companies in Russia have adopted CSR as a part of their business strategy in various 

contexts without any particular condition being necessary for CSR institutionalization.  

Table 4 presents the results of the most parsimonious strategy, based on the truth table displayed 

in Table B1 in the supplementary material to this manuscript.10 The solution consists of three 

configurations of international conditions, which together account for 19 of the 24 companies 

that display a high degree of institutionalization of CSR practices. The overall model shows a 

very good fit, with a consistency of 0.82 (i.e., 82 percent of the data is in line with the subset 

relations) and a coverage of 0.73 (i.e., 73 percent of the outcome set is covered by the three 

 
10  In order to qualify as sufficient, a truth table row needs to pass a consistency score of 0.8 and a PRI value of 

0.6. Based on these criteria, row 3 is excluded from the minimization since it is associated with strong and 

weak CSR institutionalization simultaneously, which is contradictory (see Table B1). 



15                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

international packages). The PRI of 0.77 indicates that the solution is not simultaneously 

associated with the opposite outcome, that is, no or weak CSR institutionalization.11  

Table 4: International Conditions Linked to CSR Institutionalization 

 

Solution terms 

Model Consistency: .82 | PRI: .77 | Coverage: .73 

Consistency PRI 
Raw 

Coverage 

Unique 

Coverage 
Cases 

MARKETS* 

EXPERTISE 

.94 .92 .58 .09 Transneft, SUEK; Sibur, 

Sakhalin Energy; Evraz, 

NLMK, Severstal, TMK, 

Polyus; Lukoil, Rosneft, 

Tatneft, Novatek, Rusal, 

Nornickel, MMK 

MARKETS* 

INVESTORS / 

SHAREHOLDERS 

.87 .83 .37 .04 Detsky Mir, Slavneft, 

Metalloinvest; Sibur, 

Sakhalin Energy; Gazprom, 

Nezavisimaya Neftegazovaya 

Kompaniy; Lukoil, Rosneft, 

Tatneft, Novatek, Rusal, 

Nornickel, MMK 

MARKETS* 

INTERNATIONAL 

LISTING 

.79 .74 .51 .03 Gazprom Neft, 

Surgutneftegas, Mechel; 

Gazprom, Nezavisimaya 

Neftegazovaya Kompaniya; 

Evraz, NLMK, Severstal, 

TMK, Polyus; Lukoil, 

Rosneft, Tatneft, Novatek, 

Rusal, Nornickel, MMK 

Note: We apply the most parsimonious strategy to identify core conditions. Results of the complex and 

intermediate strategy are described in the supplementary material. The PRI score highlights that there 

is no problem of simultaneous subset relations. The raw coverage indicates how much of the outcome 

set a solution term explains, while the unique coverage signals how much is solely explained by this 

term, not considering those cases which are covered by both terms. Uniquely covered cases (bold) are 

only explained by the respective configuration while multiple covered cases are explained by both 

terms; cases in italics highlight deviant cases, i.e., which do not show the outcome. 

Source: Authors’ compilation 

 
11  Depending on how logical remainders, i.e. rows without empirical cases, are treated, QCA produces three types 

of solution formulas. In the present analysis, all three strategies produce the same result since neither the 

intermediate nor the parsimonious strategy makes use of the two logical remainders of the truth table. This 

speaks to the robustness of the findings.  



16                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

The first group of companies that exhibit CSR institutionalization are enterprises that are 

export-oriented and strongly influenced by outside expertise. These companies, thus, combine 

mimetic and normative pressures, as can be seen in typical cases such as Transneft and Siberian 

Coal Energy Company (SUEK). By operating in international markets, such as through 

cooperation with international customers, these firms gain access to experiences and solutions 

employed by other companies, which serve as guidelines for structuring their CSR activities in 

Russia. Companies also adopt international best practices through the imitation of CSR 

practices and the adoption of norms translated through international networks and experts. 

A combination of mimetic and stakeholder pressure characterizes the second type of companies 

that exhibit institutionalized CSR practices. Firms like Detsky Mir and Metalloinvest are 

representative of this configuration. This type is similar to the first path to institutionalization 

since global markets again play a crucial role in the introduction of international market values 

and practices to Russia. This time, however, it is combined with the influence of international 

shareholders, which accounts for the adoption of CSR standards and practices. 

Finally, the third type of companies connects CSR institutionalization with mimetic and 

coercive pressures.12 It uniquely describes Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas, which, in 

comparison to the big three—Lukoil, Gazprom, and Rosneft—are smaller players in the 

Russian oil and gas sector and rely on international market access. Since these companies need 

access to international markets and listings, they are forced to fulfil the requirements of 

international stock markets when it comes to the adoption of CSR practices. This confirms the 

position of several Russian companies in international value chains. 

Conditions at the National Level: Explaining CSR Institutionalization  

Turning to the national level, the superset analysis again shows that no single condition comes 

close to the required benchmarks to be considered necessary. Looking at disjuncts, national 

listing or Soviet legacy passes the consistency threshold; however, the authors refrain from 

interpreting this combination as necessary since there is no overarching theoretical concept that 

links these two conditions (Schneider 2018, 247–8). Against this backdrop, one can conclude 

that companies institutionalize CSR norms and practices irrespective of whether a particular 

national condition is required.  

Table 5 presents the results of the most parsimonious strategy based on the truth table displayed 

in Table B2 in the supplementary material. The overall solution consists of three terms and 

covers 17 of the 24 companies that institutionalize CSR. The solution has a good fit with a 

consistency of 0.82 and a coverage of 0.71; the PRI of 0.78 indicates that no problem of 

simultaneous subset relation exists.13  

 

 
12  International listing *~expertise turns out to be an alternative term—a phenomenon called model 

ambiguity (Baumgartner and Thiem 2015). However, the authors treat this configuration as a data 

artefact for two reasons. First, it is less consistent and empirically less relevant, covering only 22.6 

percent of the outcome. Second, and more importantly, the low PRI score of 0.48 indicates that the 

combination international listing*~expertise is simultaneously associated with weak CSR 

institutionalization. 
13  The authors again choose a consistency threshold of 0.8 and a PRI threshold of 0.6. This time, there 

is no problem with rows that are simultaneously associated with the presence and absence of the 

outcome. The most parsimonious strategy again yields the same results as the intermediate solution, 

as both make use of all three logical remainders. The findings are hence robust to alternative solution 

strategies. 



17                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

Table 5: National Conditions Linked to CSR Institutionalization 

 

Solution terms 

Model Consistency: .82 | PRI: .78 | Coverage: .71 

Consistency PRI 
Raw 

Coverage 

Unique 

Coverage 
Cases 

SOVIET_LEGACY* 

~NATIONAL LISTING 

.81 .78 .23 .05 Zarubezhneft; Sibur, 

UGMK/UMMC; SUEK, 

OMK; Evraz, Metalloinvest 

SOVIET_LEGACY* 

EMPLOYEES 

.82 .77 .50 .16 Rosneft, Gazprom, 

Gazprom Neft, 

Surgutneftegas, Transneft, 

Tatneft, Mechel; Lukoil, 

NLMK, Rusal, Nornickel, 

Severstal; Sibur, 

UGMK/UMMC; Evraz, 

Metalloinvest 

BUSINESS 

ASSOCATIONS 

.96 .94 .46 .10 Sakhalin Energy; MMK, 

TMK; Lukoil, NLMK, 

Rusal, Nornickel, Severstal; 

SUEK, OMK; Evraz, 

Metalloinvest 

Note: We apply the most parsimonious strategy to identify core conditions. Results of the complex and 

intermediate strategy are described in the supplementary material. The PRI score highlights that there 

is no problem of simultaneous subset relations. The raw coverage indicates how much of the outcome 

set a solution term explains, while the unique coverage signals how much is solely explained by this 

term, not considering those cases which are covered by both terms. Uniquely covered cases (bold) are 

only explained by the respective configuration while multiple covered cases are explained by both 

terms; cases in italics highlight deviant cases, i.e., which do not show the outcome. 

Source: Authors’ compilation 

The first type describes companies that institutionalize CSR based on mimetic and non-coercive 

pressures. Companies like Zarubezhneft are typical of this type, as they build on a Soviet legacy 

without being listed on the national stock exchange. The company’s high degree of CSR 

institutionalization can be explained by the fact that the company is deeply rooted in the Soviet 

tradition of responsibility towards employees and territories of operation. Since it is state-

controlled and mainly operates outside of Russia, Zarubezhneft is not listed on the Moscow 

stock exchange. 

Mimetic and stakeholder pressures are present in the second type of companies. Firms like 

Rosneft, Gazprom, Gazprom Neft, Surgutneftegas, and Transneft fit especially well within this 

category as they exhibit a Soviet legacy together with a large number of Russian employees. 

What these companies have in common is that they inherited production sites from Soviet times 

and have a strong connection to the places in which their production is based. Employees and 



18                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

the local population are, therefore, key stakeholders, which means that the companies define 

their CSR activities mainly as a responsibility towards their workforce and the territories in 

which they operate. The large number of employees and the broad geographic scope of 

operations make it necessary for these companies to develop organizational structures and 

coherent CSR policies.  

The third type of companies, exemplified by Sakhalin Energy, MMK, and TMK, is defined by 

normative pressures, as highlighted by the importance of active involvement in the business 

association Rossiiskii Soiuz Promyshlennikov i Predprinimatelei (RSPP). The RSPP is a key 

norm entrepreneur in CSR in Russia, serving as a networking venue that promotes the adoption 

of CSR practices among companies by establishing committees on CSR and offering guidance 

on how companies can best introduce and organize CSR (Blagov et al. 2015; Flohr et al. 2012).  

 

Discussion 

What do the findings tell us about the overall development of CSR in Russia and, more 

specifically, about its institutionalization? In light of the above analyses, two aspects emerge as 

particularly significant: 1) companies in Russia display significant variation in CSR 

institutionalization, which cannot be attributed only to branch specificities; 2) CSR 

institutionalization is primarily linked to mimetic isomorphism at both the international and the 

national levels, but only when combined with other institutional pressures. 

Based on the index, one can infer that the degree of CSR institutionalization varies significantly 

across companies in Russia. Out of the 45 examined companies, 24 firms exhibit a high level 

of CSR institutionalization. Of the CSR leaders, oil and gas companies, along with metallurgists 

and mining firms, constitute the majority, whereas retailers generally rank among the low 

performers in the institutionalization of CSR practices. Although the degree of CSR 

institutionalization seems to go hand in hand with the specific conditions of particular branches 

of the economy and general trends are recognizable, it cannot suffice as an explanation of this 

multidimensional process for two reasons. On the one hand, the index highlights significant 

variation within branches.  For example, different oil producers display both very high and very 

low degrees of CSR institutionalization, ranging from 0.25 to 6.75. On the other hand, there are 

surprising similarities among companies from different branches, with several retailers—

metallurgists as well as oil and gas extractors—having comparable scores in the index. 

Therefore, factors other than branch characteristics need to be considered to explain why 

companies in Russia have institutionalized CSR. 

By applying a framework of coercive, mimetic, normative, and stakeholder pressures that foster 

CSR institutionalization in companies in Russia, the article investigated the explanatory factors 

for CSR development and found mimetic isomorphism to be a key driver. Indeed, mimetic 

pressures appear in a majority of pathways in both the international and the national sets of 

conditions that influence the institutionalization. A number of companies adopt CSR practices 

because of international market pressures, which can be defined as “market-driven CSR” 

(Crotty 2016, 836). Export-oriented industries are therefore subject to greater international 

market pressure to adopt CSR standards and practices, as they depend on the cooperation of 

international customers. These companies imitate best practices with the aim of gaining access 

to international markets, and this is a strategy that applies mostly to Russian companies that are 

part of international value chains. Having achieved market access, companies also model their 

CSR after other CSR leaders. In the context of the large-scale sanctions against the Russian 

economy, which are unlikely to be lifted in the near future and have made cooperation with 



19                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

major companies and oligarchic capital from Russia generally toxic, it can be assumed that the 

international mimetic pressures from Western markets for CSR development in the country will 

diminish. It is, however, unlikely that businesses from Russia’s other trading partners, most 

notably China and India, which are currently replacing American and European markets, will 

produce the same pressures for the institutionalization of CSR. For instance, recent studies on 

Chinese companies expanding internationally suggest that CSR considerations have little 

influence on their investment decisions (Li et al. 2019). At the same time, the extent of CSR 

promotion abroad varies significantly across firms and is shaped by country-specific contextual 

factors (Fei 2023). 

At the national level, the “mimetic” version of CSR institutionalization relates to the recurrence 

of Soviet traditions of social responsibility as a form of “contextualised CSR” (Crotty 2016, 

836), which primarily consists of taking care of employees and local communities (Fifka and 

Pobizhan 2014, 200). Companies that have inherited production sites established in Soviet 

times are more tightly embedded in the local economic context. Being strongly linked with their 

regions of production, they have a vested interest in the socioeconomic development of these 

communities as a means of ensuring good living conditions for their employees and the local 

population. Their local embeddedness makes them more inclined to develop social and 

environmental programs and to institutionalize CSR activities with the aim of meeting the 

expectations of regional state actors and local communities. Moreover, their own history of 

social responsibility offers the companies an opportunity to preserve or reintroduce best 

practices in CSR from the Soviet past into current business operations. 

However, mimetic pressures alone are not enough to account for CSR institutionalization in 

Russian companies; instead, they must be combined with coercive, normative, or stakeholder 

pressures. At the international level, in order to trigger the adoption of CSR practices, mimetic 

pressures are accompanied by experts, investors, or international listings, which can thereby be 

regarded as functional equivalents. During the confrontation between Russia and the West, this 

international connection and pressure for CSR institutionalization will substantially decline. At 

the national level, the business association RSPP stands out as a main proponent of CSR 

development in Russia, providing its members with guidelines and best practices for 

establishing CSR programs and reporting. Since 2022, the economic hardships of the war with 

Ukraine and international sanctions have put many businesses into survival mode, with 

ambivalent consequences for CSR institutionalization. On the one hand, lower profit means 

fewer financial resources for corporate responsibility and a possible rollback of these activities. 

On the other hand, as the state and societal expectations for welfare provision remain high, 

companies may start actively inventing, exchanging, and institutionalizing new cost-efficient 

but publicly visible CSR practices to address these expectations. 

The empirical results confirm that there is no uniform path to CSR development in Russia but 

rather that combinations of multiple isomorphic pressures must be conjointly present for 

companies in Russia to institutionalize CSR norms and practices. In other words, there is no 

one-size-fits-all context under which companies in Russia institutionalize their CSR behaviour 

(Crotty 2016). From a theoretical perspective, the study adds to the debate on isomorphic 

mechanisms of institutional change insofar as it provides empirical evidence showing that 

different forms of pressures indeed occur in complementary combinations, as prominently 

highlighted by DiMaggio and Powell (1983).  

The analysis of CSR institutionalization in Russia’s major companies provides some important 

new insights into the broader context of CSR development in authoritarian Russia. The high 

level of CSR institutionalization among a substantial group of large corporations in Russia is 



20                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

in itself a notable observation, as the country lacks the institutional prerequisites that are 

commonly considered necessary for CSR development, i.e. functioning markets, effective 

governmental and legal institutions and, most importantly, a strong and vocal civil society able 

to hold business actors accountable (Matten and Moon 2008, 406). Authoritarian capitalism 

thus does not stand in the way of CSR but rather changes its characteristics.  

 

Conclusion 

The article examined the degree to which companies have institutionalized their CSR activities 

in Russia and the factors that explain CSR institutionalization in Russia’s authoritarian 

capitalism prior to the war against Ukraine. To answer this twofold question, the authors first 

developed an index allowing for the assessment of the degree of CSR institutionalization in 

companies. Then, the authors identified several combinations of conditions at the international 

and national level, which are consistently associated with the institutionalization of CSR norms 

and practices. In doing so, the analyses offer a series of new insights. The data highlights that 

the level to which Russian companies institutionalize CSR practices varies greatly, with some 

showing a high and others a low degree of institutionalization. Exploring this variation further, 

the findings underscore the configurational nature of CSR institutionalization since there is not 

just one but several equifinal paths to CSR institutionalization.  

Nevertheless, mimetic isomorphism, such as modelling CSR activities after best international 

practices and path-dependent Soviet-type experiences, in combination with other institutional 

pressures, seems to have played an important role at both national and international levels. 

While recognizing the configurational nature of the analysis, the authors argue that companies 

with access to international markets and/or a Soviet legacy—subject to the complementary 

factors discussed above—tend to perform better in terms of CSR institutionalization. Since 

February 2022, the growing isolation of the Russian economy from Western markets and the 

sanctions against Russian businesses have pushed these international factors into the 

background, while the role of Russia’s other global trading partners in fostering the 

development of CSR standards and practices remains questionable. However, in Russian 

authoritarian capitalism, the state traditionally has strong informal expectations regarding 

companies’ social responsibility, a tendency that intensifies during wartime. In the context of 

the growing isolation and the Kremlin’s attempts to build up a more autarkic war economy, 

coupled with additional pressure on national economic actors to bear the costs of the war, 

companies have a strong incentive to model CSR after path-dependent Soviet-type experiences 

and further institutionalize social responsibility as a defence strategy against further 

encroachments of the state. 

This study has some limitations that point in the direction of future research. First, one would 

need more in-depth case studies on typical and deviant companies to reconstruct the complex 

organization-level interactions that have led to CSR institutionalization in an increasingly 

authoritarian setting of Russia. The analysis provides a first step in this direction by identifying 

a series of relevant configurations that can serve as core ingredients for this, however, they need 

to be further unpacked to trace the underlying mechanisms. Yet during the full-scale invasion 

of Ukraine, under the current conditions of war economy, it is hard to access the relevant 

information and qualitative data concerning the CSR activities of large corporations in Russia. 

Second, other factors should be considered in order to understand what prevents companies 

from institutionalizing CSR, since this model is focused on those pressures that are positively 

connected with CSR institutionalization. Here, the role of informality in state-business relations 



21                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

and the broader context of authoritarian capitalism, with its unfavourable conditions for CSR 

institutionalization, offers a promising venue for future research. Third, the authors kept the 

international and national levels separate, but more cross-case and within-case studies are 

necessary that explore the reinforcing and complementary effects of the two analytic levels and 

the potential trade-offs between them.  

Finally, this study focused on CSR institutionalization within companies in Russia as a policy 

on paper and not necessarily in practice, as strongly institutionalized CSR at the company level 

does not equate to the implementation of programs on the ground. However, it is necessary to 

look at both sides of the coin—how companies display their activities and how they act. 

Therefore, further studies of CSR implementation are needed to gain a deeper understanding of 

CSR development in authoritarian contexts. 



22                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

Atlantic Council. 2024. “Russia Sanctions Database.”  Accessed April 23, 2024. 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/russia-sanctions-database/.  

Bhatia, Aparna, and Binny Makkar, B. 2019. “Extent and Drives of CSR Disclosure: Evidence 

from Russia.” Transnational Corporations Review 11 (3): 190-207. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2019.1652067. 

Blagov, Yury, and Anastasia Petrova-Savchenko. 2012. “Corporate Philanthropy in Russia: 

Evidence from National Awards Competition.” Corporate Governance. The 

International Journal of Business in Society 12 (4): 534–547. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701211267856. 

Blagov, Yury, Kabalina, Veronika, Petrova-Savchenko, Anastasia and Igor Sobolev. 2015. 

“Sozdanie tsennosti dlia biznesa i obshchestva. Analiz korporativnoi sotsialʹnoi 

deiatelʹnosti rossiiskikh kompanii” [Creating value for business and society. Analysis of 

corporate social responsibility activities of Russian companies]. Rossiiskii Zhurnal 

Menedzhementa, 13 (2): 67–98. https://rjm.spbu.ru/article/view/180/172. 

Blatter, Joachim, and Markus Haverland. 2012. Designing Case Studies. Explanatory 

Approaches in Small-N Research. Palgrave Macmillan. 

Bluhm, Katharina, and Sabine Kropp. 2023. “Introduction to the Symposium ‘Asymmetrical 

Resource Exchange. Business, State and Social Welfare Provision in Russian 

Regions.’” East European Politics 39 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/

21599165.2023.2183498. 

BOFIT (Bank of Finland – Institute for Emerging Economies) Russia Team. 2023. “BOFIT 

Forecast for Russia 2023–2024.” Accessed April 23, 2024. https://publications.bof.fi/

bitstream/handle/10024/53102/bru0223.pdf. 

Bondy, Krista, Jeremy Moon, and Dirk Matten. 2012. “An Institution of Corporate Social 

Responsibility (CSR) in Multi-National Corporations (MNCs). Form and Implications.” 

Journal of Business Ethics 111 (2): 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1208-

7. 

Bondy, Krista, and Ken Starkey. 2014. “The Dilemmas of Internationalization: Corporate 

Social Responsibility in the Multinational Corporation.” British Journal of Management 

25 (1): 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00840.x. 

Baumgartner, Michael, and Alrik Thiem. 2015. “Model Ambiguities in Configurational 

Comparative Research.” Sociological Methods & Research 46 (4): 954–987. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115610351. 

Brammer, Stephen, Gregory Jackson, and Dirk Matten. 2012. “Corporate Social Responsibility 

and Institutional Theory: New Perspectives on Private Governance.” Socio-Economic 

Review 10 (1): 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr030. 

Campbell, John L. 2007. “Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? 

An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Academy of Management 

Review 32 (3): 946–967. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275684. 

Cook, Linda. 1993. The Soviet Social Contract and Why It Failed. Welfare Policy and Workers’ 

Politics from Brezhnev to Yeltsin. Harvard University Press. 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/russia-sanctions-database/
https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2019.1652067
https://publications.bof.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/53102/bru0223.pdf
https://publications.bof.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/53102/bru0223.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115610351


23                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

Crotty, Jo. 2016. “Corporate Social Responsibility in the Russian Federation: A Contextualized 

Approach.” Business & Society 55 (6): 825–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0007650314561965. 

Davis, Keith. 1973. “The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibility.” 

Academy of Management Journal 16 (2): 312–322. 

Davis, Sue. 2001. Trade Unions in Russia and Ukraine, 1985–95. Palgrave Macmillan. 

DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional 

Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American 

Sociological Review 48 (6): 147–160. 

Dusa, Adrian. 2019. QCA with R: A Comprehensive Resource. Springer.  

Fei, Ding. 2023. “Internationalizing China Standards Through Corporate Social Responsibility: 

An Exploratory Study of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises in Africa.” Journal of 

Contemporary China 33 (147): 465–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/

10670564.2023.2204811. 

Fifka, Matthias. 2012. “The Development and State of Research on Social and Environmental 

Reporting in Global Comparison.” Journal für Betriebswirtschaft 62 (1): 45–84. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-012-0083-8. 

Fifka, Matthias, and Maryna Pobizhan. 2014. “An Institutional Approach to Corporate Social 

Responsibility in Russia.” Journal of Cleaner Production 82 (1): 192–

201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.091. 

Flohr, Annegret, Rieth, Lothar, Schwindenhammer, Sandra, and Klaus Dieter Wolf. 2012. 

“Variations in Corporate Norm-Entrepreneurship: Why the Home State Matters 1.” In 

Business and Global Governance, edited by Morten Ougaard and Anna Leander, 235–

256. Routledge. 

Fortanier, Fabienne, Ans Kolk, and Jonatan Pinkse. 2011. “Harmonization in CSR Reporting: 

MNEs and Global CSR Standards.” Management International Review 51 (5): 665–696. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0089-9. 

Fransen, Luc. 2012. “Multi-stakeholder Governance and Voluntary Programme Interactions: 

Legitimation Politics in the Institutional Design of Corporate Social Responsibility.” 

Socio-Economic Review 10 (1): 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr029. 

Gelʹman, Vladimir. 2015. Authoritarian Russia. Analyzing Post-Soviet Regime Changes. 

University of Pittsburgh Press. 

Gjolberg, Maria. 2009. “The Origin of Corporate Social Responsibility. Global Forces or 

National Legacies?” Socio-Economic Review 7 (4): 605–637. https://doi.org/10.1093/

ser/mwp017. 

Goergen, Marc, Salim Chahine, Geoffrey Wood, and Chris Brewster. 2015. Public Listing, 

Context and CSR: The Effects of Legal Origin. John H Dunning Centre for International 

Business Discussion Papers JHD-2015-09. University of Reading, UK. 

Haberberg, Adrian, Jonathan Gander, Alison Rieple, Clive Helm, Juan-Ignacio Martin-Castilla, 

and Juan-Ignacio. 2010. “Institutionalizing Idealism: The Adoption of CSR Practices.” 

Journal of Global Responsibility 1 (2): 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/

20412561011079443. 



24                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

Hawn, Olga, and Ioannis Ioannou. 2016. “Mind the Gap: The Interplay between External and 

Internal Actions in the Case of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Strategic Management 

Journal 37 (13): 2569–2588. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2464. 

Hofman, Peter, Jeremy Moon, and Bin Wu. 2017. “Corporate Social Responsibility under 

Authoritarian Capitalism: Dynamics and Prospects of State-Led and Society-Driven 

CSR.” Business & Society 56 (5): 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315623014. 

Kang, Nahee, and Jeremy Moon. 2012. “Institutional Complementarity between Corporate 

Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Comparative Institutional Analysis 

of Three Capitalisms.” Socio-Economic Review 10 (1): 85–108. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr025. 

Klimovich, Stanislav, Sabine Kropp, and Ulla Pape. 2023. “Defending Business Interests in 

Russia: Collective Action and Social Investments as Bargaining Chips.” Post-

Communist Economies 35 (1): 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2022.2104505. 

Kropp, Sabine, Stanislav Klimovich, and Ulla Pape. 2023. “Legitimation strategies of Russian 

companies: a bricolage of social responsibility.” East European Politics 39 (1): 15–38. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2022.2134122. 

Li, Minghui, Faqin Lan, and Fang Zhang. 2019. “Why Chinese Financial Market Investors Do 

Not Care About Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Mergers and 

Acquisitions.” Sustainability 11 (11): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113144. 

Lock, Irina and Peter Seele. 2016. “CSR Governance and Departmental Organization: A 

Typology of Best Practices.” Corporate Governance 16 (1): 211–230. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2015-0010. 

Mahoney, James and Rachel Sweet Vanderpoel. 2015. “Set Diagrams and Qualitative 

Research.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (1): 65–100. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013519410. 

Maier, Anna-Lena. 2021. “Political Corporate Social Responsibility in Authoritarian 

Contexts.” Journal of International Business Policy 4: 476–495. 

https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-020-00085-3. 

Maignan, Isabell and David A. Ralston. 2002. “Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and 

the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’ Self-Presentations.” Journal of International 

Business Studies 33: 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491028. 

Markus, Stanislav. 2015. Property, Predation, and Protection. Piranha Capitalism in Russia 

and Ukraine. Cambridge University Press. 

Matten, Dirk and Jeremy Moon. 2008. “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual 

Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility.” The 

Academy of Management Review 33 (2): 404–424. https://doi.org/10.5465/

AMR.2008.31193458. 

McWilliams, Abagail, and Donald Siegel. 2001. “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory 

of the Firm Perspective.” The Academy of Management Review 26 (1): 117–127. 

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011987. 

Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood. 1997. “Toward a Theory of 

Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really 

Counts.” The Academy of Management Review 22 (4): 853–886. 

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105. 



25                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

Muller, Alan, Weiqiang Tan, Mike W. Peng, and Mike Pfarrer. 2023. “Corporate Philanthropy 

and CEO Outside Directorships Under Authoritarian Capitalism.” Business & Society 62 

(7): 1420–1457. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503221148439. 

Oana, Ioana-Elena, and Carsten Q. Schneider. 2018. “SetMethods: An Add-on Package for 

Advanced QCA.” The R Journal 10 (1): 507–533. https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2018-031. 

O’Connor, Amy, Joshua M. Parcha, and Katherine L.G. Tulibaski. 2017. “The 

Institutionalization of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: An Intra-

Industry Comparison of MNCs’ and SMEs’ CSR Reports.” Management 

Communication Quarterly 3 (4): 503–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917704512. 

O’Rourke, Anastasia. 2003. “A New Politics of Engagement: Shareholder Activism for 

Corporate Social Responsibility.” Business Strategy and the Environment 12 (4): 227–

239. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.364.  

Pape, Ulla. 2025. “Russian Business and the Authoritarian Welfare State.” Communist and 

Post-Communist Studies 58 (3) 117–146. https://doi.org/10.1525/cpcs.2024.2302616. 

Polishchuk, Leonid. 2009. “Corporate Social Responsibility or Government Regulation: An 

Analysis of Institutional Choice.” Problems of Economic Transition, 52 (8): 73–94. 

https://doi.org/10.2753/PET1061-1991520805. 

Prokopenko, Alexandra. 2023. The Cost of War: Russian Economy Faces a Decade of Regress. 

Accessed April 23, 2024. https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88664.  

Ragin, Charles C. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of 

Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001.  

Rochlitz, Michael, Anton Kazun, and Andrei Yakovlev. 2020. “Property Rights in Russia After 

2009: From Business Capture to Centralized Corruption?” Post-Soviet Affairs 36 (5–6): 

434–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2020.1786777.  

RSPP (Rossiiskii soiuz promyshlennikov i predprinimatelei). 2019. Nefinansovaia Otchetnostʹ 

v Rossii i Mire: Tseli Ustoichivogo Razvitiia – v Fokuse Vnimaniia. Analiticheskii Obzor 

za Period 2017-2018 gg. [Non-Financial Reporting in Russia and the World: Sustainable 

Development Goals in Focus. Analytical Review of 2017 and 2018] 

https://rspp.ru/download/a48b14d9858856285b5f7aba0c57b076/. Accessed October 3, 

2025. 

———. 2025. “Komitety i komissii” [Committees and commissions]. Accessed April 23, 2024. 

http://rspp.ru/committee/.  

Sallai, Dorottya, and Gerhard Schnyder. 2021. “What Is ‘Authoritarian’ About Authoritarian 

Capitalism? The Dual Erosion of the Private–Public Divide in State-Dominated Business 

Systems.” Business & Society 60 (6): 1312–1348. https://doi.org/

10.1177/0007650319898475. 

Schneider, Carsten Q. 2018. “Realists and Idealists in QCA.” Political Analysis 26 (2): 246–

254. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.45.  

Schneider, Carsten Q., and Claudius Wagemann. 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social 

Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press.  

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004244.  

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917704512
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.364
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88664
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2020.1786777
https://rspp.ru/download/a48b14d9858856285b5f7aba0c57b076/
http://rspp.ru/committee/
https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.45
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004244


26                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

Sparkes, Russell, and Christopher J. Cowton. 2004. “The Maturing of Socially Responsible 

Investment: A Review of the Developing Link with Corporate Social Responsibility.” 

Journal of Business Ethics 52 (1): 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/

B:BUSI.0000033106.43260.99.  

Tolbert, Pamela S., and Lynn G. Zucker. 1996. “The Institutionalization of Institutional 

Theory.” In Handbook of Organization Studies, edited by Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia 

Hardy, and Walter R. Nord, 175–190. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218556.n6.  

UN Global Compact Russia. 2025. Accessed April 23, 2024. http://www.globalcompact.ru/en/.  

Van Cranenburgh, Katinka, Kellie Liket, and Nigel Roome. 2013. “Management Responses to 

Social Activism in an Era of Corporate Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 118 

(3): 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1597-7.  

Wood, Donna J. 1991. “Corporate Social Performance Revisited.” The Academy of 

Management Review 16 (4): 691–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/258977.  

Yang, Xiaohua, and Cheryl Rivers. 2009. “Antecedents of CSR Practices in MNCs’ 

Subsidiaries: A Stakeholder and Institutional Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 

86: 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0191-0.  

Yakovlev, Andrei. 2014. “Russian Modernization: Between the Need for New Players and the 

Fear of Losing Control of Rent Sources.” Journal of Eurasian Studies 5 (1): 10–20. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2013.09.004. 

Zueva, Anna, and Jenny Fairbrass. 2021. “Politicising Government Engagement with Corporate 

Social Responsibility: ‘CSR’ as an Empty Signifier.” Journal of Business Ethics 170: 

635–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04330-5.  

  

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000033106.43260.99
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000033106.43260.99
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218556.n6
http://www.globalcompact.ru/en/
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1597-7
https://doi.org/10.2307/258977
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0191-0
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04330-5


27                                                             Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(3) 2025: 1-27                                                       
   ISSN 2562-8429  

 

 

 

Published by the Centre for European Studies at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada 

Available online at: https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index 

 

The Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies (CJERS – formerly Review of 

European and Russian Affairs) is an open-access electronic academic peer-reviewed journal: 

articles are subject to double-blind peer-review. Topics relate to the European Union, its 

Member States, the former Soviet Union, and Central and Eastern Europe. The journal is 

published by the Centre for European Studies, an associated unit of the Institute of European, 

Russian and Eurasian Studies at Carleton University. 

CJERS aims to provide an accessible forum for the promotion and dissemination of high-quality 

research and scholarship.  

 

Contact: 

Carleton University 

The Centre for European Studies 

1103 Dunton Tower 

1125 Colonel By Drive 

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 

Canada 

E-mail: CJERS@carleton.ca 

 

Creative Commons License 

 

 
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 

 

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivs 4.0 

Unported License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).  Articles appearing in this publication may be freely 

quoted and reproduced, in unadapted form only, provided the source is acknowledged. We 

request that for any online postings; you do so by providing the title and/or abstract with the 

DOI link back to the original version of the article on the journal's website. 

ISSN: 2562-8429 

 

© 2025 The Author(s) 

 

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index
mailto:CJERS@carleton.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

