Corporate

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility
4CR Working Papers

4CR Part B
4CR B1.3 - 19th July 2006
Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Management

By
Dr P Katsoulakos - INLECOM Ltd
and Prof Y Katsoulakos - Athens University of Economics and Business
www.csrquest.net
www.4cr.org
The headings in this paper are links to pages in the above website providing additional
information and links.
The 4CR framework has been designed to integrate the various strands of corporate responsibility and to
support stakeholder oriented strategic management and the staged development of strategic capabilities
enabling companies to reach optimised sustainability performance.
This paper describes Part A2 of the 4CR framework reviewing CSR application trends and defining a
corporate responsibility and sustainability management framework.
The 4CR strategic framework is being developed by Athens University of Economics and Business in collaboration with
K-NET SA and INLECOM Ltd utilising their initial research work in the CSRQuest project.
Table of contents
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
19th July 2006
1.0 Corporate responsibility practice...............................................................................3

1.1 An overview of corporate responsibility practice trends..............................................3
The overall picture............................................................................................................3
Objectives and motivations of CSR companies......................................................................3
CSR investment patterns and implementation features...........................................................4
The role of corporate responsibility associations and collaboration networks..............................5
Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as broker in collaborative responsibility alliances........5
1.2 Corporate Responsibility business models................................................................6

Basic corporate responsibility application template................................................................7
Identifying the key stakeholders and their interests...............................................................8
Example of CSR policies....................................................................................................9
Examples of corporate responsibility best practices and projects..............................................9
1.3 CR reporting trends.............................................................................................11

Historic reporting background...........................................................................................11
Recent reporting trends...................................................................................................12
1.4 Corporate Responsibility associated benefits...........................................................13

Preservation of licence to operate......................................................................................13
Improved operational efficiency........................................................................................13
Improved investment opportunities...................................................................................14
New market opportunities................................................................................................14
Sustainable Competitiveness............................................................................................14
1.5 Market surveys...................................................................................................14

1.6 Corporate Responsibility business success signs......................................................14
1.7 Corporate Responsibility around the world..............................................................16
Background...................................................................................................................16
The 2004 DJSI review.....................................................................................................16
The 2005 DJSI review.....................................................................................................17
Accountability Rating 2005...............................................................................................17
1.8 Corporate Responsibility business maturity.............................................................19

2 Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Management Framework..............................22
2.1 Corporate responsibility management challenges....................................................22
2.2 Corporate responsibility and sustainability management approach............................23
2.3 CRS Management Conceptual Model......................................................................24
2.4 CRS strategy management...................................................................................24
2.5 Stakeholder engagement.....................................................................................25
Stakeholder relations management...................................................................................25
Stakeholder participation.................................................................................................26
A stakeholder engagement process model..........................................................................26
2.6 CRS implementation management........................................................................28

Communications and training...........................................................................................28
Quality management.......................................................................................................29
2.7 Stakeholder oriented performance management.....................................................29

Approach.......................................................................................................................29
Indicators and measurement frameworks...........................................................................29
A stakeholder oriented performance management process....................................................31
Analysis and reporting.....................................................................................................31
Optimisation..................................................................................................................32
3 Corporate social and sustainability responsibility core practices......................................34

3.1 Economic responsibility and governance................................................................34
3.2 Human rights and labour standards.......................................................................35
3.3 Health promotion and communities support...........................................................36
3.4 Environmental responsibility.................................................................................37
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
19th July 2006
Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Management

1.0 Corporate responsibility practice
1.1 An overview of corporate responsibility practice trends
The overall picture
The CSR and corporate sustainability movements are building an impressive momentum with the
support from governments and the investment community through Socially Responsible Investing (SRI)
and associated corporate sustainability indexes.
It is generally accepted that businesses are doing far more than ever before in guarding against ethical
compromises, recognising their social and environmental responsibilities, creating enhanced governance
transparency and becoming more accountable to their stakeholders.
However today, despite the progress achieved, corporate responsibility and sustainability is primarily
about a handful of companies that have made corporate sustainability their business philosophy, some
following the principles of their founders established centuries ago, others in response to crises that
threatened their survival and a few simply because they recognised the long-term value of doing so.
There are also many companies that have adopted in name only corporate responsibility strategies
either because they feel obliged to follow their peers or because they see some marketing related
benefits. In these cases responsible behaviour may be skin deep but it could grow deeper.
Overall the large majority of companies that have not adopted CSR or related approaches view such
programmes as costly exercises only affordable by large companies. Consequently despite various
attempts to clarify the business benefits and the business case, CSR remains a low priority for the vast
majority of SMEs.
CSR and corporate sustainability as business practiced approaches are at the infancy stage with
relatively few adopters and questionable impact. Evidently it could take some time before Corporate
Responsibility and Sustainability becomes part of mainstream business practice.
Objectives and motivations of CSR companies

For the large companies that have adopted CSR we can distinguish a number of common objectives:
increased transparency and improved governance aimed at rebuilding public trust and investor
confidence;
delivering wider societal value including support for health and human rights improvements and
environmental protection;
contributing to regional development and global partnerships for sustainable development;
addressing in a balanced way the concerns of key stakeholders.
These objectives express company expectations / wishes for the future development of their Corporate
Responsibility and Sustainability programmes but do not always reflect current practices.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
19th July 2006
Success stories from responsible companies, for example the leading companies in SRI indexes, confirm
that outstanding financial performance is not incompatible with good sustainability performance.
However it should be recognised that the motivations of companies to address corporate responsibly
and sustainability varies widely from instrumental approaches using responsible practices as a means of
maximising profits to intrinsic approaches committing the company to upholding its values and
principles irrespective of the impact on financial performance.
KPMG's 2005 Survey of corporate responsibility reporting highlights the diverse motivations for
corporate responsibility (74% economic and 53% ethical) and the following important business drivers:
a) to have a good brand and reputation;
b) to be an employer of choice;
c) to have and maintain a strong market position;
d) to have the trust of the financial markets and increase shareholder value;
e) to be innovative in developing new products and services and creating new markets.
CSR investment patterns and implementation features

Lack of economic indicators and analytical methods to evaluate the contribution of CSR investments in a
companys performance restrains management from embarking on CSR investments. This situation is
likely to deteriorate in recessionary periods when non essential investments are cut back.
In general large companies appear to be happier to invest in establishing a foundation dedicated to
supporting good causes rather than investing to integrate corporate responsibility in their strategies and
operational processes or to invest in developing appropriate capabilities further confirming the early
stage in CSR mainstreaming.
The investment attitudes outlined above are also reflected in the implementation approaches which can
be grouped into two categories: opportunistic and stable as described in the following table.
CSR
implementation
CSR implementation patterns

Horizon
Features
type
Opportunistic
Short term
Few activities, questionable substance, no continuity,
Stable
Long term
no dedicated team, no development plans.

Dedicated team, coherent programme, historic
evidence of responsible performance, advantages/
disadvantages of specific actions evaluated,
appropriateness for sector and size and
benchmarking considered.
In examining the actual CSR operation in various companies, it would appear that there is some
confusion in many employees as to what CSR is, which activities constitute CSR, what the boundaries
are and how CSR can be integrated in mainstream business operations. The traditional activities of
sponsoring, donations, charities have to be extended by advanced forms of responsible behaviour
affecting all company decisions, functions and processes through programmes on human potential
development, contribution to the social welfare, environmental protection, etc. As a result each
company has to discover to a large extend its own unique ways to manage Corporate Responsibility and
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
4
19th July 2006
Sustainability which given the complexity of the change management challenge entails high costs and
performance penalties.
CSR is based on corporate self-regulation and voluntary initiatives beyond legal obligations. However,
this often leads to misleading perceptions and interpretations.
Sometimes it is said that a particular
activity is not CSR as it is governed by some standard or regulatory requirement. Strictly speaking, even
though this may be the case, CSR practising companies are expected to have policies that emphasise
and safeguard compliance to law and regulatory standards. Corporate responsibility encompasses legal,
ethical and sustainability responsibilities. In this context a company that does not comply with its legal
responsibilities cannot legitimately claim to be a CSR company.
Operational uncertainties and difficulties are compounded by recent observations of company anxiety
regarding CSR communications. Over-promising or declarations of rightness and good intentions could
cause the mistrust of consumers and stakeholders creating the opposite effects from those expected.
Companies are recognising that corporate responsibility communications should be low tone and
straightforward reflected in the actual behaviour of every member of the company which is extremely
difficult to achieve before CSR is integrated into the companys bloodstream.
The role of corporate responsibility associations and collaboration networks

A way of overcoming the uncertainties of how to develop efficient ways of implementing CSR is through
collaboration with other companies with similar objectives which can be facilitated by CSR associations
or collaboration networks.
This together with the initial political pressure to progress a CSR agenda has led to the emergence of a
relatively large number of associations which helped enormously in setting the initial momentum and
helped to create business communities with stable implementations. The downside is that each
association promotes its own brand of social responsibility whilst some of the standards such as GRI are
not followed widely. This coupled with the fact that SMEs are not as yet seriously involved in the CSR
and sustainability movement poses risks to the wider take up of corporate responsibility practices by the
business world.
To turn the initial strength of the CSR related associations into long term success for sustainable
development, greater convergence of CSR related approaches and greater collaboration between
associations would be beneficial.
Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as broker in collaborative responsibility

alliances
The key broker in collaborative responsibility alliances is often represented by the Non Governmental
Organisations (NGOs). The World Bank defines NGOs as "private organisations that pursue activities to
relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social
services, or undertake community support. Organizations like Oxfam, Greenpeace, WWF, Amnesty
International and thousands of others serve the public on a national and international scale.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
19th July 2006
Today an estimated 35,000 organisations qualify as international NGOs (with programs and affiliates in a
number of countries). Many recent surveys place NGOs as the most trusted organisations by the public
invariably far more trusted than national governments.
In recent years NGOs have seized the opportunity to increase their impact in society by focusing on
reforming market systems rather than confronting them, working closely with business organisations on
human rights, energy, and environment and community projects. The vital role of NGOs in sustainable
development was recognized in Chapter 27 of Agenda 21, leading to revised arrangements for
consultative relationship between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations.
NCOs could therefore play a central role in strengthening and maintaining the momentum of the
corporate responsibility and sustainability movement by promoting and facilitating collaboration
networks for sustainable development.
1.2 Corporate Responsibility business models

The common CSR and corporate sustainability approach adopted by business organisations involves
assessing their economic, social and environmental impact, taking steps to improve it taking into
account the requirements of their stakeholders and reporting on relevant measurements. In this
context, corporate responsibility means managing in a transparent manner the economic, social and
environmental impact of the systemic organisational activity. This means defining performance targets
for example on revenue growth and CO2 emissions and reporting on actual results for the specified
period without reference to related business processes.
The management process involves developing CSR or sustainability policies and strategies reflecting
stakeholder needs which are implemented through a CSR/sustainability programme and then annual
reports are produced to inform stakeholders of the actual progress achieved.
Policy development and implementation programmes are normally carried out in a company specific way
as a no methodologies have been established to guide these processes.
On the other hand CSR related standardisation has focused on reporting standards. Further various CSR
associations have produced reporting guidelines and even SRI assessment criteria and assessment
methods provide useful references for the annual reports. It follows that the production of the annual
corporate responsibility report has emerged as the central activity in CSR or corporate sustainability
management.
As the quality of the annual corporate responsibility reports increases (see reporting trends next
section) and the report contents are becoming integrated with the traditional annual financial reports
first the important dimension of responsible behaviour namely enhanced transparency is addressed and
secondly company social and environmental impacts are receiving increased attention and are slowly
considered within a single framework with financial issues.
Basic corporate responsibility application template

P. & Y. Katsoulakos
19th July 2006
A template reflecting the prevailing business model is given in the following table.
Key
Responsibilities
stakeholders
classification
Identification
of key
stakeholders
and their
primary needs
/ concerns
Policies
[Focus areas selected by

each company reflecting
priorities of key
stakeholders]
Economic responsibility
and Governance
[Products, Customers,
Suppliers, Ethical
standards]
Human Rights and Labour
Standards
Health promotion and
communities support
Environmental
responsibility
What
are the
companys
values and
objectives in
each
responsibility
area
Strategies
Measurement
Programme
Reporting
Impact
assessment
Improvement
targets and
strategies
Action
programme
Achievements
Performance
indicators
Progress
Benchmarking
Independent reviews
Feedback
First companies identify their key stakeholders and their primary interests. This is used to select the
responsibility areas they wish to focus on (responsibilities classification). An example of typical
responsibility categories are identified in the above table based on the Global Compact and related
classifications (expanded in section 3).
The next stage is formulation of policies for each area selected and development of related strategies.
The corporate responsibility policies should be part of and integrated with the overall corporate values
and policies but this is not as yet common practice.
Formulating strategies and the CSR programme typically starts with impact analysis facilitating the
specification of improvement targets in line with the specified policies. Quantifiable improvement targets
and indicators are crucial to a successful corporate responsibility programme. Strategies, which should
also be aligned with the overall business strategy, are then developed following evaluation of
alternatives to achieve the improvement targets. Strategies are transformed into an action plan, the
CSR programme, which is implemented by operational units through extensions of existing processes or
through specific projects.
The CSR programme is monitored against the indicators set in strategy stage and the results are
reported through CSR, sustainability or related reports. These reports which represent the central
component of CSR management are often made public for transparency purposes and frequently
provide an input into the assessment process undertaken by SRI evaluations or other benchmarking
exercises.
It should be highlighted that companies operating in high impact sectors such as power generation, oil
companies, transport and heavy industries (see also The FTSE4Good Indexes Sector Classification) have
the burden to invest heavily on reducing their impact on environment.
Identifying the key stakeholders and their interests

P. & Y. Katsoulakos
19th July 2006
It can be assumed that most companies include shareholders, employees and customers as key
stakeholder groups and then add to others particularly relevant to their circumstances [see Stakeholder
classifications, who are stakeholders].
The following table provides an example of the typical interests and expectations of the main groups of
stakeholders
stakeholders
interests
Expectations
Shareholders
Increase in the value of

invested capital
Employees
Job security, quality of life

and work
Customers
Satisfaction of needs
Profitability and value
Suppliers
growth
Government
Healthy macro-economy
Society
Social welfare
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
Stock price gains

Dividend payouts
Influence on company management
Optimized income / work interest
Job security/quality, personal development
Prospects and participative opportunities
Good value for money
Quality service
Acceptable margins
Independence
Secure, long-term relationship
Compliance to laws and regulations
Economic growth, jobs
Taxes and other charges
Sponsorship and community investment
Social equity
Environmental protection
19th July 2006
Example of CSR policies

The following table provides an example of typical CSR policies from a UK insurance group (AVIVA Plc).
Policies are defined for eight responsibility areas which are included in the classification presented
earlier.
Customers
We seek to provide our customers with a service
Workforce
We are guided by our aim to be the employer of
hallmarked
choice in all countries in which we operate.
by
integrity,
quality
and
care
(business unit specific policies apply).

Suppliers
We regard suppliers as our partners and work
Health and safety

We are committed
with
policy
environment which is both safe and fit for the
aspirations in the delivery of our products and
intended purpose and ensures that health and
services.
safety issues are a priority for all business
Standards of business conduct

We are committed to ensuring that our business
operations.
Community
We strive to be a good corporate citizen around
is conducted in all respects according to rigorous
the world, recognising our responsibility to work
ethical, professional and legal standards.
in partnership with the communities in which we
Human rights
We respect the Universal Declaration of Human
operate.
Environment
We are committed
Rights and seek to be guided by its provisions in
management,
the conduct of our business.
reporting of our direct and indirect impacts, which
them
to
help
us
achieve
our
to
providing
to
continuous
working
programme
improvement
of
and
marks our contribution to improving the world in

which we live.
Examples of corporate responsibility best practices and projects

There are many information sources on corporate responsibility best practices and projects from
government
websites
(e.g.
http://www.csr.gov.uk/bestpractice),
from
SRI
indexes,
and
from
associations such as CSR Europe, WBCSD, BITC, the Ethical Corporation, etc.
A number of individual companies also provide best practices interactive websites to promote
stakeholder engagement.
A good source of examples of how companies can put in practice corporate sustainability principles is
the Sustainable Livelihoods project undertaken by the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD). It includes 14 case studies transforming innovative ideas into commerciallyviable realities and demonstrating innovative sustainability oriented business models.
Examples from these projects include:
Procter & Gamble (P&G), for instance, is working with UNICEF and relief agencies to bring its water
purifying sachets, to disaster-stricken areas and remote villages.
Philips is collaborating with local hospitals and NGOs in India to provide specialist diagnostic
services to rural areas.

P. & Y. Katsoulakos
19th July 2006
Leading cement producer, Holcim is working with a microfinance provider to supply low-cost housing
solutions in Sri Lanka.
Unilever has partnered with Ghanas health ministry and UNICEF to reduce the prevalence of iodine
deficiency, thus bringing major improvements in maternal and child health.
SC Johnson in Kenya, GrupoNueva in Guatemala and Rabobank in Indonesia are significantly

improving the livelihoods of local farmers through boosting their competitiveness.
ConocoPhillips is developing the skills of women micro-entrepreneurs in Venezuela.
EDF provides affordable solar energy to villagers in Morocco, too remote to connect to the national
grid.
BP, Eskom and Rio Tinto are working with local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to
strengthen the fabric of both developing and transitional economies.
Vodafone has developed a microfinance payment platform for African entrepreneurs.
As indicated earlier NGOs are playing a key role in corporate responsibility projects focusing on social
welfare, mediation or consultation. Illustrative project examples include:
Greenpeace has collaborated with UK utility nPower to develop and promote a jointly branded
renewable energy product which generates environmental returns through reduced greenhouse gas
emissions. Their Juice initiative offers regularly priced green power from an offshore wind farm in
north Wales
WWF and HSBC developed together a sustainability strategy for the bank which has already
resulted in a new credit policy for the forest industry and senior staff trained in sustainability issues.
Amnesty International is supporting the new United Nations World Programme for Human Rights
Education and has worked with companies operating in zones of conflict to train business executives
in human rights issues.
Rainforest Alliance and Kraft together developed a common code for promoting sustainability among
coffee growers and distributors and sustainable coffee production in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and
Central America.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
10
19th July 2006
1.3 CR reporting trends

Historic reporting background
There are a number of pioneering efforts of socially responsible companies undertaking social and
ethical auditing and reporting. The retailing group Migros in Switzerland was involved in this process in
the 1960's. In the USA an early example is Abt & Associates (USA based research and consulting firm)
which in 1972 added an environmental report to its annual financial statements. The Abt report was
pioneering, but its concept of social responsibility was strictly related to air and water pollution and its
financial auditor disclaimed any responsibility for the data on the basis that no standards had been
introduced for such audits.
In the 70s a number of countries promoted environmental and social reporting. In France, law (the
Bilan Social) mandated companies with more than 300 employees to produce an employee report.
Germany engaged in the social model of corporate management. The Council on Economic Priorities and
others in USA began to rate companies publicly on their social and environmental performance. Social
Audit Limited was set up in the UK in 1978 to undertake external audits. Indias largest integrated
private sector steel company engaged in social audit in 1979.
In the 1980s, many companies considered it necessary to introduce quality management and then
environmental management systems. However, the main non-financial reports were not linked to
corporate performance and were criticised for lack of substance. The European focus during that period
was employee relations with attention to standardisation and impact measurement.
In the US during the late 1980s reporting started to grow in response to the 1987 'right to know'
legislation which established the Toxic Releases Inventory expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990.
Since the early 1990s, companies like the Body Shop in the United Kingdom, Shell Canada, Ben &
Jerry's in the United States, the Danish Bank Sbn have pioneered social reporting practices. Their
approaches have been based on relatively sophisticated efforts to determine what is considered to be
important for each of their key stakeholder groups and to define specific objectives and action
programmes for priority areas of performance improvement. The annual social reports evaluate
performance against these plans just as annual financial reports show financial results compared to prior
years and sometimes against objectives. However, even these companies do not escape criticism and
questioning of their motivation.
An interesting case is the brief history of mandatory reporting in the UK. A new Operating and Financial
Review (OFR) became a requirement from the 1st of April 2005 for all fully-listed UK companies. The
broad scope of the OFR was to enable shareholders to review a range of information on the companys
strategy and performance. Similar to the Sarbanes-Oxley law in the US, the OFR was to include an
analysis of both past and future issues and performance. OFRs were supposed to be produced after due
and careful enquiry and had to address environmental, social and community issues where applicable.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
11
19th July 2006
The UK government abolished OFR in December 2005. Reporting on environmental and social impacts is
no longer a legal requirement in the UK, possibly reinforcing the voluntary nature of CSR reporting.
The EU Accounts Modernisation Directive is intended to increase the comparability between companies
in the EU through a common reporting framework. To achieve this objective, the Union requires common
financial reporting standards that are transparent, fully understood, properly audited and effectively
enforced. The Directive brings European accounting requirements in line with modern accounting
practice, requires enhanced disclosure in directors reports and increases the reporting remit to take
account of the growing demand for non-financial comment and analysis.
Recent reporting trends

At the end of the 1990s CSR related reporting was dominated by environmental reports as shown by the
corporateregister.com, an online directory of corporate environmental, social and sustainability reports.
During the year 2000 the corporate responsibility reports were at the level of 1% and sustainability
reports at 5%.
The KPMG 2002 International Survey on Corporate Sustainability Reporting showed that non-financial
reporting was becoming a mainstream activity for big corporations, with 45 percent of Global Fortune
Top 250 companies publishing a report. The focus of these reports was shown to be shifting from the
inclusion of only environmental performance to combined environmental, social and economic reports
(i.e. sustainability reports). An increasing number of reports are being externally verified. The surveys
from corporateregister .com indicated that sustainability reports increased from 5% to 15% between
2000 and 2002 and Corporate Responsibility reports increased from 1% to 7% in the same period.
The KPMG 2005 International Survey on Corporate Sustainability Reporting confirms that non-financial
reporting is increasing and improving. Increases from the 2002 report were of the order of 15% in
Global Fortune Top 250 companies, 30% in N100 (top 100 companies in 16 countries) and highest
national increases were seen in Italy, Spain, Canada and France. Almost two-thirds of CR reports
included a section on corporate governance but lacked detail on structure and implementation.
Stakeholder dialogue was mentioned in almost 40 percent of the reports in the context of CR policies.
Sustainability reports are now beginning to include qualitative discussions of the linkages between
sustainability and shareholder value with few reports providing information on specific bottom-line
benefits the company has received or anticipates receiving from pursuing sustainability.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
12
19th July 2006
1.4 Corporate Responsibility associated benefits

The business benefits commonly linked with CSR and corporate sustainability approaches are outlined in
the following sections.
Preservation of licence to operate

Possibly the crucial benefit for companies adopting CSR or corporate sustainability is preservation of
their social licence to operate through enhanced reputation and social capital.
Enhanced reputation results from company focus on customer value, attention to employees and the
environment, respect for the suppliers and good record on human rights. Investment in local
communities normally attracts positive media attention and coverage in the local press where
outstanding
CSR
or
sustainability
performance
can
lead
to
participation
in
high
profile
national/international events or awards.

Overall, good corporate responsibility and sustainability performance increases a companys reputation
strength and secures its social licence to operate.
Enhanced social capital
results
from investment on multi-stakeholder
processes,
international
collaborations and community programmes. Strengthened relationships with international organisations,

NGOs, local authorities and other regional bodies become an important dimension of social capital at
company, regional and international levels.
Improved operational efficiency

Improved risk control is attainable from transparency and broader awareness of financial, environmental
and social risks. Enhanced risk management has a positive impact in operational efficiency and can
result in significant direct cost savings depending on the size of the company and the sector in which it
operates.
Increased efficiency could also result from:
investment in technology to control environmental risks which often produces additionally costcutting benefits;
eco-efficiency which means making more from less by reducing ecological impacts and resource
intensity throughout the life cycle of products;
continuous improvement in supply chain processes;
improved human capital through talent attraction and retention and a motivated and participative
work force;
lower health costs from healthier employees that become more productive and more effective.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
13
19th July 2006
Improved investment opportunities

Improved investment opportunities from SRI funds set up specifically for investing in CSR and
sustainability practising companies and from investors that take into account sustainability performance
criteria.
New market opportunities

New market opportunities arise from social innovation and green products and services. Social
innovation represents social learning and problem solving in areas ranging from improvements in human
health, education, human welfare, environmental protection and energy saving instruments.
Sustainable Competitiveness
Enhanced sustainable competitiveness can be achieved through innovative stakeholder approaches to
strategic management.
1.5 Market surveys

In 1999, a poll1 of 25,000 citizens across 23 countries showed that perceptions of companies around the
world are more strongly linked with corporate citizenship (56%) than either brand quality (40%) or the
perception of the business management (34%).
A recent MORI report indicates that the European opinion is that CSR effects significantly purchasing
decisions2. There was a substantial increase in the percentage of consumers affected by corporate
responsibility from 1997 reaching a maximum of 46% in 2001. There is a negative trend in recent years
(38% in 2003) possibly explained by increased levels of economic uncertainty in Europe and
internationally.
However, it must be remembered that most surveys show that consumers are more concerned about
things like price, quality, or sell-by date than ethics.
Generally market surveys indicate that the large majority of consumers are more likely to buy products
associated with a good cause when price and quality are equal and that the majority of people would be
more loyal to an employer that supports the local community.
1.6 Corporate Responsibility business success signs

Demonstrating that CSR and business principles are not mutually exclusive and can in fact be mutually
beneficial is central to the corporate responsibility movement.
Indicative signs that CSR and related approaches work well in the marketplace comes currently from
two sources:
success of responsible corporations
success of Socially Responsible Investing.
"Winning with Integrity" report, MORI, Co-operative Bank
http://www.mori.com/csr/database.shtml
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
14
19th July 2006
Harvard researchers John Kotter and James Heskett 3 showed that over an eleven-year period, sales and
employment growth at stakeholder oriented companies were significantly higher than at shareholderfocused companies. Specifically, stakeholder oriented companies reported four times the growth in sales
and eight times the growth in employment. The authors argued that successful, visionary companies,
although very diverse in other ways, put a lower priority on maximizing shareholder wealth and greater
emphasis on serving the interests of a broad mix of stakeholders.
The key remark here is that although it is not possible to distinguish the effect of corporate
responsibility from other strategies in corporate performance if the only common strategy in a large
number of successful companies is stakeholder orientation then at least this represents a strong link
between stakeholder approaches and business success.
Waddock and Graves (1997) correlated companies' previous year CSR ratings with financial performance
on measures such as return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), and return on sales (ROS). They
found quantitative support for the assertion that there is a connection between how a company treats
its stakeholders and financial performance.
A number of surveys indicate that, over the longer term, companies that rate highest on ethics and
corporate social responsibility are the most profitable 4.
Despite the success of CSR companies described by the studies outlined above there is not yet
compelling evidence or theoretical proof that responsible behaviour results in economic performance
improvements. Distinguishing the influence of CSR and sustainability strategies from the effect of other
business strategies on the economic or financial success of a company remains a research topic.
The success of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) 5 , having grown during the last decade to represent
close to 10% of available resources worldwide, provides evidence of good performance of responsible
businesses. However, even though there is some evidence that SRI indexes outperform comparable lists,
this is not entirely consistent in recent years and superior performance cannot be attributed
quantitatively to responsibility related factors.
If, as anticipated, stock exchanges begin to include some elements of corporate responsibility in listing
requirements, then the credibility of the assumption that corporate responsibility contributes to better
performance will be further enhanced.
3
4
Kotter, John, and Heskett, James. (1992) Corporate Culture and Performance . New York: Free Press.
Canadian Centre for Social Performance and Ethics at the University of Toronto; Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes 2003;
Zairi and Peters 2002
5
Social investment forum www.socialinvest.org
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
15
19th July 2006
1.7 Corporate Responsibility around the world

Background
Corporate Social Responsibility and sustainability has become a popular business concept, especially in
developed economies. Arguably, CSR and corporate sustainability is founded on Anglo-American
philosophies and values and certainly, there are distinct differences in the way corporate responsibility is
perceived and deployed in different countries around the word.
Traditionally in the United States, CSR has been defined much more in terms of a philanthropic model.
The primary focus of US Companies is on maximizing profits in the interests of the shareholders, fulfil
their duty to pay taxes and donate a certain share of the profits to charitable causes.
The European model of CSR and corporate sustainability is much more focused on operating the core
business in a socially responsible way, complemented by investment in communities for solid business
case reasons. Reconciling the need to increase company value in the long term but also considering the
interests of all stakeholders is a typical European approach.
The European model has two important advantages:
corporate responsibility becomes an integral part of the wealth creation process - which if managed
properly should enhance the competitiveness of business and maximise the value of wealth creation
to society;
there is the incentive to integrate CSR and sustainability in the overall corporate strategy and in the
business processes and to improve responsibility related practices as part of the companys overall
quality management system.
A survey6 in 1999 found strong interest in corporate social performance in Australia, Canada, the USA
and the UK, while there was least concern in China, Nigeria and Kazakhstan. Somewhere in between
were Germany, Japan, Indonesia and South Africa.
In the same survey, the USA and the UK dominated the FTSE4Good Global Index 7 with 41 per cent and
18 per cent of constituent companies respectively.
The 2004 DJSI review

The Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes 2004 Review 8 highlighted some key regional differences. Japanese
firms took the lead in environmental management and performance. They also showed the greatest
increase in terms of participation. Compared to 2003, the number of Japanese companies taking part in
the DJSI assessment went up by 40%. European companies led in environmental and social reporting as
well as labour indicators and human capital development. America led in the area of codes of conduct
and compliance, while Australia ranked top in corporate governance.
The main conclusions from the 2004 DJSI review of sustainability developments were:
Environics International Ltd. Toronto, (1999) Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility.
FTSE4Good.com
http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/htmle/assessment/review2004.
16
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
19th July 2006
Sustainability strategies were further integrated into companies core businesses evident in new
principles in codes of conduct, wider scope and coverage of environmental and social performance
measurement and alignment of sustainability targets with remuneration systems.
Policies and practices were increasingly expanded to cover supply chain management including the
definition of environmental and social standards and external audit procedures for suppliers.
Corporate governance was improving reflected in splitting the role of chairperson and CEO as well
as reduced external auditors conflicts of interest.
Sustainability reporting was increasingly integrated in Annual Reports and external verification as
well as internal assurance systems were spreading.
Reductions in normalised greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, water use and waste
generation provided improvements in eco-efficiency.
The 2005 DJSI review

The 2005 DJSI review provided the following analysis of recent sustainability developments:
Sustainability is continuing its move from corporate strategy and operations into product and
service offerings reflected in the integration of eco-design requirements in the electronics industry,
increasing implementation of environmental criteria in project financing and a wider use of life cycle
analysis in the chemical industry.
Companies are converging in their approaches to corporate governance and environmental

reporting with the emphasis shifting towards sector-specific issues such as healthy nutrition in the
food industry, business opportunities for consumer goods in emerging markets and anti-crime
prevention in the financial sector.
Transparency and accountability along the whole supply chain are increasingly visible through
policies and control mechanisms with industry groups such as the Business Social Compliance
Initiative (BSCI) adding further impetus to this development.
Sustainability indicators are increasingly linked to financial value drivers and integrated into Annual
Reports.
Corporations widely recognise and acknowledge the importance of human capital management for
their success but there is still considerable scope for improvements in all industries in measuring,
controlling and reporting on issues such as talent attraction, organisational learning, and employee
performance indicators.
Overall, sustainability performance continues to advance across all sectors. At the same time,
substantial room for progress in sustainability remains on the corporate agenda.
Certainly the key development in 2005 is movement towards sustainability oriented products and
services which could provide the impetus to bring corporate sustainability mainstream.
Accountability Rating 2005

AccountAbility and csrnetwork have developed the first global index, the Accountability Rating, which
measures the state of corporate accountability by ranking individual companies against six key areas:
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
17
19th July 2006
stakeholder engagement, strategy, governance, performance management, public disclosure and

assurance.
The 2005 report9 for the worlds 100 largest companies shows that all regional averages have raised
compared with 2004 with European companies continuing to lead with an average overall score of 40
(compared with 31 in 2004). Asian companies are next with 28 (2004: 25), with North American
companies lagging behind with 24 (2004: 16).
The rating found that 88 percent of European companies agree with internationally recognized standards
of human rights and environmental protection against only 24 percent in the United States. Moreover,
American companies evidence little inclination to engage with stakeholders to understand their concerns
and align their policies accordingly. Even fewer want to subject themselves to independent evaluation of
their social and environmental performance.
European companies BP, Shell Group, Vodafone, HSBC Holdings and Carrefour occupy the top five
slots in the published ratings.
www.accountabilityrating.com
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
18
19th July 2006
1.8 Corporate Responsibility business maturity

There is no doubt that businesses are doing far more than ever before to:
increase transparency and improve governance aimed at rebuilding public trust and investor
confidence;
deliver wider societal value including support for health and human rights improvements, and
environmental protection;
contribute to regional development and global partnerships for sustainable development;
balance the concerns of their key stakeholders.
Increasingly, corporate responsibility is viewed as part of the evolution of market-based societies from
an unbridled to a mature capitalism. The more developed and sophisticated corporate responsibility is,
the more mature and stable market capitalism becomes10 .
National culture, responsibility characteristics of governments and effectiveness of public institutions

have a major influence in corporate behaviour. Inevitably an individual or a company, largely
irrespective of their values, behave differently in a well organised ethical national environment than in
one which is not. Interestingly the 2005 Global Competitiveness Report from the World Economic Forum
shows that Nordic countries occupy five of the top 10 positions sharing a number of characteristics that
make them extremely competitive, including very healthy macroeconomic environments and public
institutions that are highly transparent and efficient. It is not coincidence that companies from these
countries also feature frequently as top performers in corporate responsibility assessments.
To draw a balanced view of the impact of CSR in business behaviour it is necessary to draw attention to
the fact that following the US Enron scandal, 2003 was Europes disaster year in terms of accounting
fraud and other criminal activities uncovered at Switzerland's Adecco, the Netherlands' Ahold, and the
Italian Parmalat. As a consequence claims of superior European corporate culture which has embraced
CSR and sustainability practices became questionable.
Furthermore despite the progress achieved the overall impact of CSR on sustainable development
remains questionable as we may not even be close to living within the carrying capacity of supporting
eco-systems. WWF, the global conservation organisation, in the fifth 'Living Planet Report 2004' has
warned that human consumption of natural resources is currently outpacing by 20% the earth's capacity
to regenerate. Although the basis of these estimates is disputed by some specialists, few have any
doubts that all countries have difficulties in meeting their sustainability strategies. Further evidence of
the problem comes from preliminary calculations of the Office of Atmospheric Research at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (March 2006) that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere climbed to record 381 parts per million during last year up 2.6 parts per million. Also
according to NASA, 2005 had the highest annual average surface temperature worldwide since
instrument recordings began in the late 1800s.
10
Culpeper R. 1998. The Evolution of Corporate Responsibility: From Unbridled to Mature Capitalism, Address to the
Canadian Centre for Ethics and Corporate Policy, Toronto 2nd December 1998.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
19
19th July 2006
It can be concluded that CSR and corporate sustainability as business practiced approaches are at the
infancy stage. One can observe similar patterns to other popular schemes such as Total Quality
Management and the Learning Organisation. The similarities are the early enthusiasm, the momentum
building initiatives, the doubts whether tangible benefits will materialise and the few real early
adopters.
There are also some encouraging differences including:
support for CSR and corporate sustainability from the financial community through SRI and
associated corporate sustainability indexes;
support from a number of committed business associations such as CSR Europe, WBCSD, BITC,
GRI, etc.;
early evidence of business benefits and serious attention on measurement and benchmarking;
general consensus that CSR and corporate sustainability is a necessity and a critical element in the
worlds sustainable development;
commitment by the majority of nations to implement sustainability strategies.
CSR movement evolution characteristics are summarised in the following diagram. Key points include:
CSR reporting is becoming well established;
SRI has grown consistently and has become an established branch for investment;
sustainability and stakeholder orientation is increasing;
adoption rates seem to be slowing down;
Impact is not as yet visible.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
20
19th July 2006
On the positive side it is becoming clear that leading companies in the future will have missions and
strategies to constantly increase shareholder value but as an integral part of those strategies will also
recognise and act upon the potential for:
addressing the interests of a broad range of stakeholders;
building societal value;
contributing to coalitions aimed at increasing the capacity for sustainable development.
Mainstreaming of corporate responsibility in business strategies and operational processes and wider
diffusion in companies of all sizes remains the main goal of the corporate responsibility movement from
2000 onwards.
In the words of the Rt Hon Gordon Brown Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK in 2006: Now we need
to move towards a challenging measure of corporate responsibility, where we judge results not just by
the input but by its outcomes: the difference we make to the world in which we live and the contribution
we make to poverty reduction.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
21
19th July 2006
Corporate
Responsibility
and
Sustainability
Management
Framework
2.1 Corporate responsibility management challenges
As the business case for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability is becoming clearer it is also
becoming evident that it could take some time before Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability
becomes part of mainstream business practice.
It is widely recognised that implementation of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability requires time
to reach maturity and the speed of achieving mainstreaming is dependant on leadership, training and
organisational capabilities to integrate CSR and sustainability policies in the overall business strategy
and in core operational processes.
Socially and environmentally responsible behaviour is multisided and is related to all functions, decisions
and processes in a company. The width and complexity of the Corporate Responsibility and
Sustainability scope makes mainstreaming a change management challenge necessitating carefully
planning and possibly long term commitment to developing appropriate capabilities.
Key challenges in Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability management include:
managing in an integrated manner the full lifecycle of CRS strategy formulation, implementation,
evaluation and evolution incorporating stakeholder participation;
aligning responsibility strategy to corporate strategy focusing on:
rationalising and harmonising the economic, compliance, ethical, and sustainability dimensions of
corporate responsibility and sustainability in the context of stakeholder requirements;
managing non-financial risk, particularly to brand, reputation, local licence to operate and to
performance instability as an integral part of corporate sustainability management;
integrating eco-design and other sustainability requirements into product and service offerings;
managing the sustainability performance optimisation process to continually increase stakeholder

satisfaction;
developing strategic responsibility and sustainability capabilities;
quantifying the expected returns on required investment.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
22
19th July 2006
2.2 Corporate responsibility and sustainability management approach

We define Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (CRS) as a company's verifiable commitment to
operate in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner that is transparent and
increasingly satisfying to its stakeholders.
Stakeholders include investors, customers, employees, business partners, local communities, the
environment and society. The emphasis is on transparent and verifiable stakeholder driven sustainable
business operation.
Sustainable business operation means addressing the needs of present stakeholders while seeking to
protect, support and enhance the human and natural resources that will be needed by stakeholders in
the future.
Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability incorporates:
Corporate Social Responsibility CSR;
Corporate Sustainability;
Corporate Governance.
Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability management addresses in an integrated manner the

different dimensions of corporate responsibility to deliver optimum corporate responsibility and
sustainability performance.
Corporate responsibility performance is measured by:
compliance to legal and regulatory requirements;
accountability to stakeholders;
ethical performance on stakeholder issues.
Corporate sustainability performance is measured by a companys economic, social and environmental

impact and associated stakeholder satisfaction. Sustainability impact is defined as follows:
Economic impact: sustainability of the businesses and its 'human capital and engagement in
sustainable wealth creation processes at global national and local levels.
Social impact: the impact of products or operations on human rights, labour, health, safety, regional
development and other community concerns.
Environmental impact: the impact of products or operations on environmental degradation including

the companys related emissions and waste.
It is pointed out we distinguish between economic impact in the context of corporate sustainability as
defined above and profitability. The 4CR stakeholder oriented strategic management (Part C) addresses
competitiveness and profitability within the total responsibility perspective as defined in the 4CR
corporate responsibility taxonomy.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
23
19th July 2006
2.3 CRS Management Conceptual Model

Corporate responsibility and sustainability management involves the following four components as
shown in the following diagram:
Corporate responsibility and sustainability strategy management;
Stakeholder engagement;
Corporate responsibility and sustainability implementation management;
Stakeholder oriented performance management.
The above are interlinked through learning feedback loops that support strategy development and
continuous implementation improvements 11 .Learning and knowledge management is particularly
important to enable active participation of key stakeholders in the companys operation and the
development of knowledge based dynamic capabilities 12.
2.4 CRS strategy management

CRS strategy management involves four main activities:
a) CRS policies, strategies and performance/ risk indicators need to be developed as an integral part
of the overall corporate strategy to reflect the requirements and priorities of the key stakeholders.
Strategies should clarify corporate responsibility positioning decisions in light of benchmarking
information. Business strategy alignment should then be periodically validated;
11
12
Strategic CSR Learning and Knowledge Management Approach- CSRQuest White Paper SFB1B 29/12/2004
An introduction to Knowledge oriented Strategy KoS and Strategic Knowledge Management Capabilities kBOS
white paper SKM1, 7/01/05, www.kbos.net
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
24
19th July 2006
b) governance structures, transparency standards and controls should be reviewed and adjusted as
necessary to support the agreed CRS policies and strategies which may take a number of iterations
to reach proper alignment;
c) a CRS capability development programme should be specified to support the implementation of the
strategies in the context of the specified governance design;
d) the overall strategy package as described above should be communicated across all stakeholder
groups for feedback and to establish a shared vision.
2.5 Stakeholder engagement

Companies interact with their stakeholders every day but commonly do not understand them well and
as a result do not even try to encourage their participation in shaping the future of the company.
Stakeholder engagement is all about redressing this problem by providing strategies, processes and
infrastructure to enable the company to:
discover what really matters to the key stakeholders;
involve them in providing feedback on corporate strategies and performance and in identifying what
and how things can be changed;
monitor and manage stakeholder contributions and satisfaction levels.
Stakeholder relations management

Stakeholder engagement develops and utilises relationships between a corporation and its stakeholders
for mutual benefit. The stakeholder engagement process starts with identifying the companys key
stakeholders and then defining their characteristics (threat or collaboration potential, importance to
companys survival, urgency of response, etc.) which will determine the type of relation the company
will build with them.
Stakeholder relationships can be categorised as follows:
Participative (stakeholders involvement in decision making);
Collaborative (stakeholders involvement as reviewers, advisors);
Informative (one or two way communications);
Defending (intelligence response, negotiation).
A prerequisite of developing the type of relations outlined above is establishing good stakeholder
understanding of:
their concerns and priorities;
their company perception;
their level of satisfaction
their intentions.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
25
19th July 2006
To establish insights into stakeholder requirements, perceptions and intentions transparency-enabling

infrastructure and efficient communications are essential. Stakeholder understanding guides companies
to analyse the relevance of different responsibility and sustainability issues and concerns in order to:
assess opportunities and threats;
identify existing or potential conflicts of interest
decide action and monitor its impact.
Stakeholder participation
Overlooking certain stakeholder expectations often means missed opportunities for building reputation
or entering new markets and can set up problems for the company in terms of lost contracts,
employees unrest and even litigation.
The question is how to respond in a balanced way to different voices from key stakeholders, some
making conflicting or costly demands and communicating their requirements with differing intensity. An
answer may be found in promoting a participative culture in the company.
The world has moved from a trust me culture to a show me culture and is now moving towards an
involve me culture in which stakeholders could be working in partnership with organisations. By
creating a participative culture for the companys stakeholders the gap between stakeholder
expectations and company responses can be reduced to an absolute minimum as the stakeholders
themselves become part of the solution.
Stakeholders should be represented by specific roles in the organisational design through which they
could participate in the companys business and learning processes. It is not enough to give
stakeholders the opportunities to be heard, because many will not have the capacity to participate
effectively. Building the capacity of stakeholders to participate is one of the most important challenges
for effective stakeholder engagement as has been learned from company experiences to date 13. The
companies learning processes and support systems should be designed specifically to address this issue.
A stakeholder engagement process model

The stakeholder engagement process model shown in the following diagram includes the following
activities:
Identification of key stakeholders;
Definition of stakeholders relations map and objectives;
Definition of stakeholder related responsibility and sustainability key performance and risk
indicators;
13
Definition of transparency policies and strategies;
Stakeholder Engagement: Why Expectation Gaps Occur, Michael Blowfield, The Center for Corporate
Citizenship at Boston College, 01/10/2005

P. & Y. Katsoulakos
26
19th July 2006
Definition of stakeholder participating roles and tasks;
Integration of stakeholder roles/tasks in existing and new processes;
Provision of role based information and training;
Supervision of stakeholder interaction and implementation feedback;
Monitoring of transparency and stakeholder company understanding/ perception;
Obtaining stakeholder feedback on responsibility and sustainability and monitoring stakeholder

satisfaction;
Updating the relations map and indicators.
The critical success factor in stakeholder engagement is the effective participation of key stakeholders in
the companys learning processes. In the above diagram this is illustrated through three feedback loops:
primary feedback (e.g. responsibility and sustainability concerns and priorities, level of satisfaction
and suggestions for change);
transparency and communications related issues and suggestions for improvement;
implementation related observations and improvement suggestions.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
27
19th July 2006
2.6 CRS implementation management

CRS implementation management is no different to managing the implementation of any other business
strategy. The key to successful implementation is process management emphasising communications,
training and quality control.
CRS implementation includes:
the corporate responsibility and sustainability specific processes practices and projects;
capability development projects;
integration of policies, strategies and practices in operational business processes.
Communications and training

A key component of CRS implementation is the communications and training programme.
The CRS communications system should:
enable stakeholders to participate in policies/strategies development and performance evaluation;
enable employees to understand how CRS principles affect their day to day work and decision
making;
establish the companys CRS identity among customers, investors and other stakeholders;
provide a pre-training function, across the organisation, addressing familiarisation and induction
requirements.
Training is essential, both for the CRS management team responsible for setting policy/strategy and
supervising communications and implementation, as well as for the team assigned to the different CRS
implementation activities.
A training area often neglected is supporting stakeholders and particularly
external stakeholders to participate in the tasks assigned to them. The training programme should be
designed to support all the different roles involved in CRS related processes.
When developing a CRS training programme reference could be made to the CSR Competency
Framework developed by the UK DTI to help managers integrate CSR into decision-making and
operations.
The Framework consists of a set of six core characteristics that describe the way all managers need to
think about responsible business decision-making.
understanding society: understanding the role of each player in society government, business,
trade unions, non-governmental organisations and civil society;
building capacity: participating in partnerships and creating strategic networks and alliances;
questioning business as usual: challenging the way of doing things and being open to new ideas;
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
28
19th July 2006
stakeholder relations: identifying stakeholders, building relations, engaging in dialogue and

balancing demands;
strategic view: taking a strategic view of the business environment;
harnessing diversity: respecting diversity and adapting to different situations.
Quality management
Quality management principles should apply in CRS implementation in much the same way as in other
process or project. Recent benchmarking reports have shown that mainstreaming lags behind policy and
communication activities. CRS mainstreaming targets should therefore be properly monitored to identify
required improvements. More generally, user feedback on the effectiveness of the CRS processes,
communications and training programmes should be an integral part of CRS quality management.
2.7 Stakeholder oriented performance management

Approach
Corporate
responsibility
and
sustainability
performance
management
involves
performance
measurement, analysis, reporting and optimisation based on the indicators defined in the strategy. A
stakeholder approach to performance measurement is advocated to facilitate a growing understanding
of stakeholder issues and to obtain stakeholder feedback on the strategic choices the company makes.
The broad responsibility and sustainability performance measurement categories have already been
defined. Detailed measurements are commonly based on process measurements or benchmarking
criteria. Process measurements relate directly to the companys specific CRS processes and projects.
Benchmarking tends to involve an external perspective, often comparing performance with that of
competitors or other best practitioners of business processes.
Indicators and measurement frameworks

Corporate responsibility related indicators for benchmarking purposes have been developed and used in
the last few years primarily by SRI indexes and reporting standards such as the Global Reporting
Initiative GRI. Such indicators provide baseline material for companies to develop their own evaluation
criteria.
Companies could also adopt or modify one of the existing measurement frameworks. A popular one is
the balanced scorecard focusing on financials (shareholders), customers, internal processes, plus
innovation and learning, modified so that stakeholders replace customers.
Neely and Adams (2002)14 use the stakeholder satisfaction perspective in their five-faceted
performance prism linking strategy process and capability to stakeholder contribution and satisfaction.
The key message here is that all organisations require certain things of their stakeholders and all
organisations are responsible for delivering certain things to all of their stakeholders.
14
Neely, A.; Adams, C.; Kennerley, M. (2002) The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing
Business Success. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
29
19th July 2006
According to Neely and Adams, the following five perspectives and associated key questions can be used
to guide the design of measurement systems:
Stakeholder Satisfaction who are the key stakeholders and what do they want and need?
Strategies what strategies do we have to put in place to satisfy the wants and needs of these key
stakeholders?
Processes what critical processes do we require if we are to execute these strategies?
Capabilities what capabilities do we need to operate and enhance these processes?
Stakeholder Contribution what contributions do we require from our stakeholders if we are to

maintain and develop these capabilities?
A matrix of key stakeholder needs and contributions is shown in the following table.
Another interesting approach focusing on the quality of stakeholder relationships measured using the
concept of social capital has been proposed by CIM
15.
This approach is closely related to the stakeholder
approach to strategic management.
15
Svendsen, A.C., R.G. Boutilier, R.M. Abbott & D. Wheeler (2002), Measuring the Business Value of Stakeholder
Relationships: Part One, Vancouver: Centre for Innovation in Management
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
30
19th July 2006
A stakeholder oriented performance management process

A stakeholder oriented performance management process is shown in the following diagram highlighting
the importance of measuring both stakeholder contribution and satisfaction and including feedback
streams associated with strategies, capabilities, implementation and contracts.
The measurement system, which is the heart of a company's control system, must:
help evaluate whether the company is getting expected contributions from employees and suppliers
and returns from customers;
help evaluate whether the company is giving each stakeholder group what it needs to continue to
contribute at an equal or improved manner;
guide the design, implementation and improvement of processes that contribute to the companys
CRS strategies/objectives;
support the evaluation and refinement of CRS strategies;
help evaluate the company's implicit and explicit contracts with its stakeholders.
Analysis and reporting

Although companies are under few legal obligations to publish social performance data, increasingly
many are doing so as part of a pro-active strategy to demonstrate their commitment to CRS principles.
The most common method for doing this is through one or more social reports covering a variety of
issues known to be of concern to stakeholders.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
31
19th July 2006
Performance data shows the company's level of performance in each area of CRS concern. Comparing
that performance against internal or external benchmarks provides the basis for judgements about how
well the company is doing and how its performance is changing over time.
Benchmarks may be internal or external to the company, local or international in origin. They may serve
to compare performance with that of other similar companies or to gauge proximity to best practices or
to support technical optimisation. Increasingly, companies with global brands are moving to
international benchmarks - such as best international practice - irrespective of lower legislative or other
requirements in any given local market.
In many cases absolute scores or measures may need 'normalising' or standardising to allow valid
comparisons to be made over time or between different locations. Hence, discharges of potential
pollutants are usually expressed in relation to the total volume of discharges made in a given period and
product returns are expressed as a percentage of total physical quantities produced. In many areas of
concern - particularly those related to the natural and work environment - there are already commonly
accepted measures.
Placing social performance data on public record raises issues of verification. Whereas financial data is
subjected to the rigors of the audit process there is nothing comparable for social and environmental
data. Over the last few years several verification approaches have been suggested but cost remains the
key issue. Use of a 'Stakeholder Panel' has been one way of giving stakeholder representatives the
opportunity to comment on report contents and veracity.
Optimisation
The emphasis on stable, quantifiable measures (with appropriate normalisation) is central to CRS
performance management and should augment measuring stakeholder perceptions. Stakeholder opinion
surveys can be of great value in ranking stakeholder concerns or establishing the factors contributing to
them but cannot provide the only input for sustainability performance optimisation.
Sustainability performance management should turn data into information and knowledge that is
accurate, timely, relevant and usable in planning and optimisation activities.
The key to successful optimisation is establishing an understanding of the companys CRS strategy and
then define a clear focus for the sustainability performance optimisation exercise. This should take into
account national sustainability strategies, sector characteristics including the regulatory regime, the
social model and organisational design variables.
A basic optimisation process is shown in the following diagram.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
32
19th July 2006
The Optimisation Context will determine the type of optimisation techniques that should be used. These
techniques include statistical analysis of historical data, system dynamics simulation, optimisation
algorithms and process optimisation. Using the chosen techniques a number of optimisation options will
be produced and then the operating solution for the selected option will need to be constructed and
deployed.
It is now fairly well accepted that net present value analysis can be extended using real options
techniques to evaluate potential investments. Real options approach has been embraced by strategic
managers who recognise the importance of managerial flexibility in adapting strategy to a changing
market environment. Such approaches are well suited to sustainability performance optimisation plans.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
33
19th July 2006
3 Corporate social and sustainability responsibility core practices

Corporate responsibility and sustainability practices are subdivided into the following areas:
Economic responsibility and Governance
Human Rights and Labour Standards
Health promotion and communities support
Environmental responsibility
3.1 Economic responsibility and governance

The corporate responsibility and sustainability economics related practices address primarily issues
associated with impact of products, ethical trading, governance transparency and support for fair
globalisation as defined in the following table.
Practice areas
Safety and
impact of
products
Issues
concerning the
consumers
Responsible
suppliers
management
Personal data
privacy
Ethical
standards
Support for Fair
Globalisation
Corporate
Governance
Practices
Production and distribution integrity;
Product safety;
Packaging safety;
Optimisation of positive health spin-offs and minimisation of the negative effects of
products and services;
Addressing special consumers needs (e.g. young and elderly, disabled).
Price/value and quality of product;
Informative and honest labelling;
Honest advertising;
Responsible marketing and selling practices, particularly to children;
Activities to safeguard consumers.
Equal opportunities concerning suppliers;
Supplier diversity management;
Working with sub-contractors, agents and suppliers to ensure that they also adopt
responsible business policies/practices;
Supply chain responsibility on human rights;
Responsible payments of bills;
Technology and knowledge transfer to suppliers;
Co-operation with public bodies on supplier diversity.
Policy and practices on supplier and consumers privacy;
Conformance to privacy standards;
Practice reviews and complaints procedures.
Business ethics policies and supervision for price fixing, unfair competition, money
laundering, tax fraud, bribes.
Adherence to Fair Globalisation principles;
Active participation in the promotion of fair globalisation.
Compliance to applicable regulations;
Transparency (accounting standards, financial disclosure);
Corporate accountability;
Safeguarding interests of stakeholders including minority and small shareholders;
Guarding against conflicts of interest (audit , nomination, remuneration board
committees);
Risk management.
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
34
19th July 2006
3.2 Human rights and labour standards

The focus is on creating workplaces free from discrimination, promoting learning and professional
conduct and a balance between work and other aspects of life. Responsible multinational companies are
expected to trade world-wide respecting human rights and social justice and facilitating the elimination
of all forms of forced or child labour. Employment conditions, based on internationally agreed
International Labour Organisation ILO standards, should be adhered to and checked throughout the
supply chain. The principal document relating to human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948.
Practice areas
Practices
Equal opportunities for women, minorities and physically disabled;
Employees equal Written non-discrimination policy covering background, religion, sexual orientation;
Policies and procedures on harassment;
opportunities
Equal opportunities management review.
Training and
professional
development
Good internal
relations
Employee
remuneration
Corporate training addressing all employee levels with quantitative targets;

Programmes to support the continued employability of employees and to manage career
endings;
Courses available for life long learning, new skills, new technologies and professional
development;
Policy on educational leave and postgraduate courses;
Leadership development;
training and communication programmes on corporate responsibility and sustainability;
Training schemes for people with special needs.
Upholding the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to
collective bargaining;
Regular and full company information to employees;
Providing open lines of communication;
Supporting employees to balance work, family & personal commitments;
Transparency on issues affecting security of employment, and work conditions;
Good cooperation with unions/employee associations and employees to manage
restructuring or crises;
Redundancy policies and support for job search and career counselling.
Fair appraisal and promotions;
Profit sharing schemes (bonus / share options) excluding sales commission;
Additional insurance/medical care /beyond the executive level;
Company pension schemes;
Disability policies;
Relocation support;
Overtime and abnormal hours compensation;
Other/additional benefits.
Safeguarding
against forced
or child labour
Safeguarding against all forms of forced or child labour;

Supporting when possible initiatives /actions for the elimination of forced labour.
3.3 Health promotion and communities support

P. & Y. Katsoulakos
35
19th July 2006
The starting point for the business sector is action to promote positive health and safety in the
workplace and to optimise the positive health spin-offs and reduce the negative impacts of their
products and services. Additionally, pharmaceutical companies and large multinationals are expected to
contribute actively to combat global health challenges.
Companies are expected to participate in the communities in which they operate by responding to
critical social issues such as regional development, education and health and taking care to maximise
the impact of their donated money, time, products, services, influence, knowledge and other resources.
Practice areas
Practices
Promotion of positive health and safety at the workplace (information

dissemination, seminars, training);
Health and safety in the Practice on recording and notification of Occupational Accidents and Diseases;
Availability of skilled health and safety officers;
workplace
Guidelines for dealing with work stress and lifestyle issues;
Availability of health support facilities;
Special health promotion initiatives.
Products health impact

optimisation
Participating in the
Global Partnership on
Health
Support for health
promoting community
initiatives
Products health impact management;

Product health related innovation.
Support access to medicines, and basic health care particularly in the less
developed world;
Development of basic infrastructure for public health including sustainable access
to safe drinking water and sanitation in poorer countries;
Reduction of child mortality;
Improvement for maternal health;
Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.
Encouragement of employees to engage in voluntary action;
Collaboration with local communities, and health organisations for community
health related issues or emergencies.
Support strategies for youth training;

Supporting training centres for long term unemployed and development of new
community educational
skills;
needs
Supporting schools and education of people with special needs.
Support for special
Support for local

regeneration
Sponsoring
Support for human
disaster relief
Support for local regeneration schemes;

Support for local business networking.
Sponsoring (sports, art etc);
Philanthropy.
Supporting humanitarian relief operations both in the wake of 'natural' disasters
or during or after times of conflict;
Support to reduce the vulnerability of communities.
3.4 Environmental responsibility

Interest in corporate environmental risk management issues is at an all time high across Europe and
North America due to pressure by shareholders, citizens and new regulations and standards (in Europe:
Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC and the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme). At
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
36
19th July 2006
the start of 2005, there were more than 400 regulations in development at Federal level in the United
States and the European Union is currently drafting rules concerning air quality, chemicals, groundwater,
environmental liabilities and waste.
Environmental Risk Management is concerned with the protection of living and non-living natural
systems, including ecosystems, land, air and water in case of emergencies and high environmental
impact crisis produced by industrial accidents. This implies the prevention and the mitigation of high
risk events through the use of monitoring systems and of environmental emergencies procedures and
plans.
Practice areas
Proactive support for

environmental issues
Practices
On-going programmes of staff training in environment;
Working with local authorities to build capacity and enhance
organisational ability to develop integrated approaches to
environmental management;
Research on renewable energy products and minimisation of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuels.
Prevention and mitigation (Environmental risk/hazard prediction and

modelling, risk assessment, prevention actions);
Risk monitoring and alertness;
Environmental risk management
Environmental disaster responsiveness (scenarios development,
emergency planning maps, communications, training);
Sustainable disaster mitigation.
Environment
Performance
P. & Y. Katsoulakos
Efficient use of materials;

Energy management;
Water impact management;
Management of biodiversity;
Waste / emissions / effluents minimisation;
Waste management;
Minimization of negative effects of products on environment.
37
19th July 2006

Corporate

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Corporate

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility

4CR Working Papers

Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Management

19th July 2006

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility

1.0 Corporate responsibility practice...............................................................................3

1.2 Corporate Responsibility business models................................................................6

1.3 CR reporting trends.............................................................................................11

1.4 Corporate Responsibility associated benefits...........................................................13

1.5 Market surveys...................................................................................................14

1.8 Corporate Responsibility business maturity.............................................................19

2.6 CRS implementation management........................................................................28

2.7 Stakeholder oriented performance management.....................................................29

3 Corporate social and sustainability responsibility core practices......................................34

19th July 2006

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility

Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Management

Objectives and motivations of CSR companies

contributing to regional development and global partnerships for sustainable development;

addressing in a balanced way the concerns of key stakeholders.

19th July 2006

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility

CSR investment patterns and implementation features

CSR implementation patterns

Few activities, questionable substance, no continuity,

no dedicated team, no development plans.

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility

Sometimes it is said that a particular

The role of corporate responsibility associations and collaboration networks

Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as broker in collaborative responsibility

19th July 2006

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility

1.2 Corporate Responsibility business models

Basic corporate responsibility application template

19th July 2006

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility

[Focus areas selected by

Identifying the key stakeholders and their interests

19th July 2006

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility

Increase in the value of

Job security, quality of life

Stock price gains

19th July 2006

The 4CR strategic approach to corporate responsibility

Example of CSR policies

choice in all countries in which we operate.

(business unit specific policies apply).

Health and safety

environment which is both safe and fit for the

aspirations in the delivery of our products and

intended purpose and ensures that health and

safety issues are a priority for all business

Standards of business conduct

is conducted in all respects according to rigorous

the world, recognising our responsibility to work

ethical, professional and legal standards.

in partnership with the communities in which we

Rights and seek to be guided by its provisions in

the conduct of our business.

reporting of our direct and indirect impacts, which

marks our contribution to improving the world in

Examples of corporate responsibility best practices and projects

services to rural areas.