Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 163–176 | Cite as

Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Case of The United Nations Global Compact

  • Dilek Cetindamar
Article

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to shed some light on understanding why companies adopt environmentally responsible behavior and what impact this adoption has on their performance. This is an empirical study that focuses on the United Nations (UN) Global Compact (GC) initiative as a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) mechanism. A survey was conducted among GC participants, of which 29 responded. The survey relies on the anticipated and actual benefits noted by the participants in the GC.

The results, while not conclusive, indicate that companies have more than one reason for adopting environmentally responsible behavior and that ethical and economic reasons co-exist. In terms of performance, the impact of participation in the GC seems to be particularly high in securing network opportunities and improved corporate image. The results indicate that companies that have participated many years in the GC, have submitted the most projects and have attended the most GC meetings also regard their CSR involvement as having had a strong, positive influence on their market performance. GC participation does not result in significant cost advantages, but this does not seem to have been regarded as a goal anyway. Costs seem to be affected to a␣large extent by existence of in-house research and␣development and the capability of developing environmentally sound technologies. Overall, the company receives both ethical and economic benefits from joining the GC.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility economics environmentally responsible behavior ethics the United Nations Global Compact Turkish case study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study would be impossible without the support of University of Oslo and Sabanci University. The authors are grateful to the 1st Global Compact Academic Conference participants and two referees for their helpful comments that made invaluable contributions. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

  1. Aaronson, S. A. and J. Reeves: 2002, ‚The European Response to Public Demands for Global Corporate Responsibility’, Working Paper Presented to the European Commission in Response to the Green Paper (Promoting a European framework for the development of the corporate social responsibility (2001)) [online]. URL: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/csr_index.htm [accessed 16.07.2003]Google Scholar
  2. Adams J. S., Tashchian A., Shore T. H. (2001) Codes of Ethics as Signals for Ethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 29(3): 199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balza, M. D. and D. Radjicic: 2004, ‚Corporate Social Responsibility and Nongovernmental Organizations’, Unpublished master thesis, Linköpings Universitet, [online]. URL: http://www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/eki/2004/impsc/005/ [accessed 01.07.2004]
  4. Blackman, A.: 1999, ‚The Economics of Technology Diffusion: Implications for Climate Policy in Developing Countries’, Discussion paper, Resources for FutureGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryane M. (2003) Corporate Social Responsibility in International Development: An Overview and Critique. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10: 115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cetindamar, D. and Y. Arikan: 2004, ‚Diffusion of Environmentally Sound Technology: Findings from the Turkish Case’, 12th International Conference of Greening of Industry Network, 6–11th of November, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  7. CSR Europe: 2003, ‚Investing in Responsible Business’ [online]. URL: http://www.csreurope.org/CSRESRISURVEY2003FINAL_pdf_media_public. aspx [accessed 30.08.2004]
  8. CTN Communications: 2003, ‚CSR Online Survey 2003’ [online]. URL: http://www.csr-survey.org/ [accessed 25.08.2004]
  9. Doane, D.: 2004, ‚Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: Minnows, Mammoths and Markets’, Futures: the Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, special edition: the Future of Ethical CorporationsGoogle Scholar
  10. Fussler C., Cramer A., Van der Vegt S. (2004) Raising the Bar: Creating Value with the United Nations Global Compact. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Garriga E., Mele D. (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics 53: 51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geroski P. A. (2000) Models of Technology Diffusion. Research Policy 29: 603–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gjølberg, M.: 2003, ‚The United Nations Global Compact – I hvilken grad bidrar Global Compact, via næringslivet, til FNs mål om bærekraftig utvikling?’. [Translated title: The United Nations Global Compact – To what extent does the Global Compact contribute – through the business sector – to reaching UN’s goals on sustainable development]. Unpublished Master thesis, University of OsloGoogle Scholar
  14. Granovetter M. (1982) The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. In: Marsden P. V., Lin N. (Eds.) Social Structure and Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, SageGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffin J. J., Mahon J. F. (1997) The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate: Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research. Business and Society 36(1): 5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hart S. L. (1995) A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Academy of Management Review 20(4): 986–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Institute of Business Ethics: 2006, http://www. ibe.org.uk/codesofconduct.html
  18. Jaffe, A. B., R. G. Newell and R. N. Stavins: 2002, Environmental Policy and Technological Change (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, April)Google Scholar
  19. Kallinowski, E.: 2004, Personal interview during the 1st Global Compact Academic Conference, 31 May–1 June, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  20. Kell, G. and D. Levin: 2002, ‚The Evolution of the Global Compact Network: An Historic Experiment in Learning and Action’, The Academy of Management Annual Conference, Denver, August 11–14Google Scholar
  21. Kemp R. (1995) Environmental Policy and Technical Change: A Comparison of the Technological Impact of Policy Instruments. Maastricht, The Netherlands, Universitaire Pers MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerkow, U., J. Martens and T. Schmitt: 2003, ‚The Limits of Voluntarism. Corporate Self-regulation, Multi stakeholder Initiatives and The Role of Civil Society’, World Economy, Ecology and Development AssociationGoogle Scholar
  23. Knox S., Maklan S., French P. (2005) Corporate Social Responsibility: Exploring Stakeholder Relationships and Programme Reporting across Leading FTSE Companies. Journal of Business Ethics 61(1): 7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Korhonen J. (2003) Should we Measure Corporate Social Responsibility? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10: 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Küskü F., Zarkada-Fraser A. (2004) An Empirical Investigation of Corporate Citizenship in Australia and Turkey. British Journal of Management 15: 57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lantos G. P. (1999) Motivating Moral Corporate Behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing 16(3): 222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luken, R., F. van Rompaey and K. Zigova: 2004, ‚The Determinants of Environmentally Sound Technology Utilization by Manufacturing Firms in Developing Countries’, 1st Global Compact Academic Conference, 31 May–1 June, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  28. Maxwell, J. W. and T. P. Lyon: 2004, ‚Corporate Environmentalism and Public Policy’, Cambridge University Press. Extracts available online, URL: http://www.rff.org/rff/Events/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=11854 [accessed 21.09.2004]
  29. McKinsey: 2004, Assessing the Global Compact’s Impact (McKinsey, New York)Google Scholar
  30. Moir L. (2001) What Do we Mean by Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society 1(2): 16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Montalvo, C.: 2002, Environmental Policy and Technological Innovation – Why do Firms Adopt or Reject New Technologies? (Edward Edgar Publishers)Google Scholar
  32. OECD (2001) Codes of Conduct: Exploring their Economic Significance. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Porter M. E., van der Linde C. (1995) Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4): 97–109Google Scholar
  34. Rogers E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd edn, The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Singh R. P. (2003) Improving Technology Transfer Through the Management of Stakeholder Networks: Theoretical Perspectives. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 2(1): 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith N. C. (2003) Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How? California Management Review 45(4): 52–76Google Scholar
  37. SustainAbility: 2004, Gearing Up: From Corporate Responsibility to Good Governance and Scalable Solutions (SustainAbility: London, UK)Google Scholar
  38. Tencati A., Perrini F., Pogutz S. (2004) New Tools to Foster Corporate Socially Responsible Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 53: 173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. UN: 1999, Press release: ‚Secretary-General proposes Global Compact on Human Rights, Labor, Environment, in address to World Economic Forum in Davos’ [online]. URL: http://www0.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990201.sgsm6881.html [accessed 31.08.2004]
  40. UN : (2002) Johannesburg Declaration. UN, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. UN : (2003) Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. UN, NYGoogle Scholar
  42. van Dijken M., O. Frey, B. Hansen, S. Sondergard, Y.␣Kerndrup, T. Prince, P. Wolters, E. Klaff and L.␣Rodriques: 1999, Adoption of Environment Innovations (Kluwer Boston, MA)Google Scholar
  43. WBCSD: 2000, ‚Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good Business Sense’ [online]. URL: http://www. wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=d&id=MzE0
  44. Welford, R.: 2004, Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia: 2004 Survey Results, Corporate Environmental Governance Programme, University of Hong Kong, http://web.hku.hk/∼cegp/image/publications/report11.pdf (accessed 30.08.2004)Google Scholar
  45. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ManagementSabanci UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations