This paper examines corporate responses to the voluntary UN initiative; the Global Compact and the legally binding UN Norms initiative that are attempts, at the urging of the international community, at different types of regulation of corporate activity in international socio-economic settings. This examination is done within the framework of the Modern World-Systems theory and both questions of the paper are therefore grounded in the MWS theory`s possibility to predict and explain the corporations` response to the two initiatives. The two hypotheses used in this paper are corresponding to the questions and they state that the MWS theory can answer the two questions. The paper therefore employs an overreaching congruence method that uses the MWS theory to predict and explain the outcome of the case study and a complementary descriptive argumentation analysis. This is conducted in order to attain the data needed and to elucidate what the differences and similarities are between the two initiatives and what aspect can be attributed most explanatory value to understand the possible differences in attitude by the corporations. The outcome of the case study shows that corporations are more in favor of the Global Compact then they are concerning the UN norms which they opposes vehemently. This difference in reaction is attributed to the latter’s legally binding principle and this is in accord with the logic of the MWS theory which is granted high predictable and explanatory value concerning the corporations` response to the Global Compact and the UN norms.