University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

Conclusion
206
In comparison, the Chinese government’s role is more significant than the Danish
government in CSR matters. In Danish organizations, the international market was
more influential in the direction of CSR whereby the Danish companies are given a
free reign in the way they would like to manage CSR in their companies, the same
could not really be said for Chinese companies.
There are some similarities in the collectivistic behaviour when looking at the
societal or nation-institution level. However, when looking at the organizational level,
individualism plays a bigger role in Danish companies since Danish capitalistic
economy is based on free-market. Thus, the Danish collectivistic behaviour is
reserved and demonstrated only in terms of its welfare state. In China, the
collectivistic behaviour is still very much retained as it has just started its open-door
policy. The Chinese display a stronger collectivistic behaviour as it practices a
socialist market economy in which the government plays central role, especially in
state-owned companies.
Chinese companies also appear to be more influenced by government policies as they
appear to dutifully align their goals with government aims; this suggests a
nationalistic-collectivistic behaviour that was not apparent in Danish companies. The
Chinese government’s power over economic matters in China is much more apparent;
labour unions appear to be extensions of the Chinese Communist Party and are
influential in the companies, especially state-owned ones. Danish labour unions are
not influential in companies, partly due to Denmark being a welfare state. It is
possible then to deduce that Chinese society and subsequently Chinese companies
seem to place a lot of trust in government leadership, as opposed to the Danish
companies who only seemed to consider government policies as merely helpful
guidelines. With such loyalty and trust in leadership, it is no wonder that Chinese
companies seem to project a large power distance, which is consistent in Chinese
societal behaviour in terms of hierarchical structure. In contrast, Danish society
which is egalitarian has a small power distance and this is shown in Danish
companies. Hence, this behaviour is also translated in the way Danish and Chinese
companies make decisions; Danish companies practise a bottom-up approach whilst
Chinese companies, a top-down approach.
From the CSR conduct analyses coupled with social constructivism theory, it was
established that Danish companies are at a more advanced CSR wave, with particular
emphases on employee relations and products and processes. Chinese companies are
still on the first wave with particular concern for education. The difference in
development of CSR in China and Denmark differs due to the varying capacitybuilding
in terms of socio-economic environment, political environment,
environmentalism movement and the interplay with globalisation pressures.
Denmark has a more advanced development in terms of CSR due to its conducive
capacity-building. China’s progress was disrupted due to political instability that
affected the socio-economic environment. Both the Danish and the Chinese place
high importance on acquiring knowledge but in terms of environmental
consciousness, the Danish appear to be at a more advanced stage.