Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 76, Issue 3, pp 293–308 | Cite as

Transparency of Corporate Social Responsibility in Dutch Breweries

  • Lizet Quaak
  • Theo Aalbers
  • John Goedee
Open Access
Article

Abstract

According to the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (2001), transparency by means of Sustainability Reporting should lead to better Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) performance of companies. Sustainability Reporting should also give consumers the information they need to purchase the most sustainable products available (Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2004). This article analyses the driving factors influencing CSR and Sustainability Reporting at seven breweries in the Netherlands. It also gives a better understanding of organizational behaviour with reference to CSR and the reasons breweries have for Sustainability Reporting. The Dutch government has no intention of forcing organizations to publish a sustainability report, since it is trying to diminish the volume of legislation. Rather, the government prefers to rely on the willingness and initiatives of organizations to make CSR a success. In 2006, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs will evaluate the effect of its CSR policy. But is it a success already? During our research, breweries appeared to find CSR more important than Sustainability Reporting. Sustainability reporting is, for most breweries, not the way to reach stakeholders. Most stakeholders have their own means for receiving information e.g. annual reports, meetings, public statements and press releases. Although small breweries think CSR is very important, they feel no pressure from outside to publish a sustainability report. For them it is very complex and expensive to publish a sustainability report. Large breweries feel pressure from many stakeholders to be transparent, but not on a regular basis. We conclude from this research that CSR does not stimulate Sustainability Reporting, but neither does Sustainability Reporting stimulate CSR.

Keywords

breweries corporate community involvement corporate social responsibility environmental report narratives social report stakeholders sustainability report 

Abbreviations

CMC

Computer-Mediated Communication

CMAC

Computer-Mediated Asynchronous Communication

CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility

EZ

Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs

GRI

Global Reporting Initiative

I.a

Among other things

MEI

Model-Effectiveness Instrument

SER

Sociaal Economische Raad (Social-Economic Counsil)

S.R.

Sustainability Reporting

RIVM

Institute for Public Health and the Environment

References

  1. Aalbers, R. A. H. M.: 2004, ‘Publieksmilieuverslag wordt afgeschaft’, Controllers Journal 23/24, 17–23Google Scholar
  2. Bauer M. W., Gaskell G. (2000) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. A Practical Handbook. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckers T., van Ingen E., Harkink E. (2004) Maatschappelijke waardering van duurzame ontwikkeling. Conceptualisering en Operationalisering. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  4. Benhunan-Fich R., Hilz S. R., Turoff M. (2002) A Comparative Content Analysis of Face-to-Face vs. Asynchronous Group Decision Making. Decision Support Systems 34: 457–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergmans, F.: 2003, ‘Balans in People’, Planet en Profit. Press Summary of: Kim, R., Dam, van E., 2003, ‘The Added Value of Corporate Social Responsibility’ (NIDO, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands)Google Scholar
  6. Corbett, D.: 2004, ‘Excellence in Canada: Healthy Organizations – Achieve Results by Acting Responsibly’, Journal of Business Ethics 55, 125–133. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramer J. (2002) Ondernemen met hoofd en hart. Koninklijke Van Gorcum, Assen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawkins, J. and L. Stewart: 2003, ‘CSR in Stakeholder Expectations: And Their Implication for Company Strategy’, Journal of Business Ethics 44, 185–193. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  9. DHV: 2001, ‘Duurzaamheidsverslag onvermijdelijk’, DHV (Adviesgroep Duurzaam Ondernemen) (DHV, Amersfoort, The Netherlands)Google Scholar
  10. Dutch Sustainability Research (2003) Duurzaam ondernemen onder AEX-bedrijven. Een studie naar maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen onder beursgenoteerde ondernemingen in Nederland. Dutch Sustainability Research, Zeist, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. Elkington J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone Publishing Limited, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Feenstra, D. W.: 2004, ‘De kwaliteit van externe verslaggeving met betrekking tot Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen’, Accounting 108(4), 9Google Scholar
  13. Garriga E., Melé D. (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics 53: 51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. GRI (Global Reporting Initiative): 2002, Richtlijnen voor Duurzaamheidsverslaggeving (GRI)Google Scholar
  15. Good Company (2003) Eindverslag t.b.v. project: Vergroten transparantie bij duurzaam ondernemen. Good Company, Amersfoort, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  16. Graafland J. J., Eijffinger S. C. W. (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility of Dutch Companies: Benchmarking, Transparency and Robustness. The Economist 152: 403–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graafland J. J., Eijffinger S. C. W., Stoffele N. C. G. M., Smid H., Coldeweijer A. M. (2003a) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility of Dutch Companies: Benchmarking and Transparency’, Commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. University of Tilburg, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. Hemingway C. A., Maclagan P. W. (2004) Managers’ Personal Values as Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 52: 85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hockerts L. M. (2004) Communicating Corporate Responsibility to Investors: The Changing Role of Investor Relation Function. Journal of Business Ethics 50: 33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoevenagel R. (2004) Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen in het midden- en kleinbedrijf. EIM, Zoetermeer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim R., van Dam E. (2003) The Added Value of Corporate Social Responsibility. NIDO, Leeuwarden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Krüger, W.: 1996, Implementation the Core Task of Management. CEMS Business Review. Vol 1 (Kluwer Academic/Plemum Publishers)Google Scholar
  23. van der Linden I., Molenkamp G. C. (2000) Verslaglegging op milieu en sociaal gebied in 2000. De top 100 Nederlandse concerns nader bekeken. KPMG Milieu, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  24. van Marrewijk M. (2003) Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion. Journal of Business Ethics 44: 95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miles, P. M. and J. G. Covin: 2000, ‘Environmental Marketing: A Source of Reputational, Competitive and Financial Advantage’, Journal of Business Ethics 44, 95–105. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministerie van Economische Zaken (EZ) (2001) Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen: het perspectief vanuit de overheid. Ministry of Economic Affairs, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  27. Ministerie van Economische Zaken (EZ) (2004) Transparantiebenchmark 2004: Bedrijven. Ministry of Economic Affairs, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  28. MVO Platform: 2002, MVO Referentiekader (Peco, Amsterdam)Google Scholar
  29. Paape L., Hummels H. (2000) Sociale en ethische verantwoording: keurslijf of lijfsbehoud? Van Gorcum, AssenGoogle Scholar
  30. Panapanaan V. M., Linnanen L., Karvonen M., Phan V. T. (2003) Roadmapping Corporate Social Responsibility in Finnish Companies. Journal of Business Ethics 44: 133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quazi A. M., O’Brien D. (2000) An Empirical Test of a Cross-National Model of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 25: 33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Remkes R. (2000) Het meten van de performance van eenonderneming op de financieel-economische dimensie van maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen. Erasmus University, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM): 2004, Kwaliteit en toekomst – verkenning van duurzaamheid (RIVM, Bilthoven). Summary available in EnglishGoogle Scholar
  34. Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER) (2003) Duurzaamheid vraagt om openheid. Social Economic Council, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  35. Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER) (2000) De winst van waarden. Social Economic Council, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  36. Tencati A., Perrini F., Pogutz S. (2004) New Tools to Foster Corporate Social Responsible Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics 53: 173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vringer, K.: 2005, Analysis of the Energy Requirement for Household Consumption (PhD Thesis, Utrecht University)Google Scholar
  38. van Wijk, J. J., R. F. J. M. Engelen, and J. P. M. Ros: 2001, Model Effectiviteit Instrumenten-Energiebesparing industrie (MEI- Energie) (Bilthoven, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu)Google Scholar
  39. Willems M. (2003) Communicatie tussen onderneming en samenleving. Telos, TilburgGoogle Scholar
  40. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. van der Ziel M. B. (2003) De relevantie van maatschappelijke verslagen. Dissertation, NyenrodeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The HagueNetherlands

Personalised recommendations