Paper instructions:
Summarize the paper (Paul, 2008) while covering the following items:
1) What are the objectives and motivations of this study/paper?
2) What were the author’s main findings?
3) How does/can sustainability reporting benefit corporations?
Make sure to refer to the paper or cite other peer-reviewed papers to support your opinions and ideas.
Corporate Sustainability, Citizenship and
Social Responsibility Reporting
A Website Study of lOO Model Corporations
Karen Paul
Department of Management and International Business,
Florida International University, USA
This study examines the websites of the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations
as defined by Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, Inc. under the auspices of th e World
Economic Forum. Philanthropy and employee voluntarism were routinely men-tioned, hence excluded from the analysis as having little differentiating value,
although useful as baseline concepts. Twelve terms and concepts relating to sus-tainability, corporate citizenship and corporate social responsibility were identified
as differentiating concepts. ‘Social responsibility’ was the term most fi-equently used
as a primary term visible on the corporate website, but considering all terms observed
regardless of order, ‘sustainability’ was the term most frequently used. Studies that
look for evidence of corporate interest in sustainability, citizenship or social respon-sibility should be wide-ranging in the terms they consider and researchers should be
alert to changing terminology.
• Business ethics
• Citizenship
• Corporate social
responsibility
• Corporate
website
• Environmental
disclosure
Dr Karen Paul is Professor of Management and International Business at
Florida International University. She received her PhD from Emory University
and previously taught at Rochester Institute of Technology and The
Pennsylvania State University. She has also been affiliated with Witwatersrand
University, Johannesburg, South Africa, and Catholic University of Bolivia in
La Paz, Bolivia. She has published in the areas of business ethics, corporate
social responsibility and socially responsible investing.
Department of Management and
International Business, Florida
International University, Miami,
FL 33199, USA
paulkg) fiu.edu
|CC 32 Winter 2008
KAREN PAUL
T
HIS RESEARCH EXAMINES TERMS USED IN THE SOCIAL REPORTING OF LEADING
global corporations and categorises the ways in which these companies commu-nicate their social objectives. Specifically, we examine the extent to which corpo-rate communication of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) has broadened in
recent years and moved towards the concept of sustainability . This is accomplished
by examining corporate websites, coding terms relafing to CSR, sustainability and ethics,
and considering their visibility: that is, whether each term is the primary representation
ofthe concept (the first observed on the website) or whether it appears secondarily (after
clicking on a primary concept). In addition, the total number of terms found in the site
was considered, since a firm expressing its commitment to CSR, sustainability or ethi-cal behaviour in many ways with many different terms has a wider, more comprehen-sive view ofthe concept
than a firm using merely one or two terms repeatedly.
Various terms are used for the goals desired or intended by corporations that relate
to sustainability, including ‘corporate social responsibility’, ‘corporate citizenship’ and
‘environmental, health and safety’. Recently, many firms have started to use the term
‘sustainability’ in their reporfing, generally referring to non-financial objectives, but
sometimes using the term to encompass both financial and social objectives. The objec-tive of this study is to examine the terms used in the social reporting of leading global
corporations and to categorise the ways in which these companies express their social
objectives. This abundance of terms makes it difficult to analyse corporate websites, or
any form of corporate communications, with regard to concepts relating to the social
dimension of corporate performance. One recent study, using only terms derived from
ethics (‘ethic’, ‘ethical’, ‘ethically’) and terms derived from social responsibility (‘corpo-rate responsibility’, ‘social responsibility’ and ‘socially responsible’) finds an inverse
relationship between the use of these terms and other indicators of corporate social per-formance (CSP) (Loughran et al. 2007). They conclude that is it likely that managers who
portray their firm as ‘ethical’ in ioK reports (annual reports required by the US Securi-ties and Exchange Commission) are more likely to be systematically misleading the pub-lic. However, their
interpretation (firms low in actual CSP tend to display high rhetoric
on ethics and CSP) is open to challenge. An alternative interpretation might be that, since
the researchers used only a few terms to operationalise the concept, and terms that may
be relatively outdated in corporate discourse, the companies low in actual CSP are
expressing an outmoded idea of actual CSP and commitment to ethics. From this latter
perspective, firms low in CSP would be using older, less current formulations ofthe con-cept compared with firms high in CSP and commitment to ethics, which would tend to
use more current and varied expressions of their commitment. Use ofthe more current
terminology might be more typical of companies with heightened commitment to CSR.
Corporate websites have become important mechanisms for communicating the eco-nomic, environmental and social goals of the corporation, for mobilising stakeholder
support, and for enhancing the reputation ofthe firm. In one ofthe first studies of cor-porate websites. Smith and Taffier (1992) found a positive relationship between the clar-ity of a firm’s
website and its financial performance. A few years later. Prentice et al.
(1999), studying 400 company websites, found that most corporate websites provided
‘fairly innocuous’ information, but that some websites were exposing the firms to lia-bility by excessive disclosure of extraneous or forward-looking material. As corporate
websites became more important in providing both corporate image and information,
Chun and Davies (2001) suggested a new term to refiect the persona communicated
through the corporate website: ‘e-reputation.’
Ettridge et al. (2002) found corporate websites used to attract investors, while Willis
(2003) found them used in the social screening of investments. Campbell and Beck
(2004) reported that corporate websites were being used not only for reputation
enhancement purposes, but also to counter possible negative information when public
64 |CC 32 Winter 2008
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, CITIZENSHIP AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORTINC
allegations of ethical malpractice had been made. Consistent with earlier findings of
Smith and Taffler (1992), Vaughn (2004) reported a positive relafionship between the
‘usability’ of the corporate website and its financial performance, while Matherly and
Burton (2005) reported considerable variation in the content of websites of US publicly
traded large manufacturing firms, but a posifive association between size of company
and quantity of disclosures, with a tendency for companies to merge their ioK and
annual reports into a hybrid document knovra as a ioK wrap. In a more detailed finan-cial analysis, Watkins and Smith (2007) reported that, among large UK manufacturing
firms, the quality of the website is associated with better debt positions, although not
necessarily with profitability. Paul et al. (2006) found that many global corporations,
though expressing a high degree of commitment to global norms of social responsibil-ity or sustainability on their main company websites, had failed to refiect this awareness
on websites of Mexican subsidiaries. Corporate websites are now a common means of
distributing critical corporate communications such as annual reports, press releases,
mission statements, consumer information, advertisements, and other elements which
themselves have been the subject of studies in business communications (Hynes and
Janson 2007; Williams 2008).
Some or even many of the goals and ideals expressed in corporate websites may be
seen as aspirational rather than truly representative, especially when challenges go
beyond familiar themes (Perrini 2005) or when controversial issues or matters requir-ing a large corporate investment are concerned (Cooper and Owen 2007). Nevertheless,
these representations signify some level of awareness or commitment. For example, a
company that expresses on its website a commitment to having a diverse workforce is
at least expressing acceptance of that goal as legitimate or important, although the
degree to which the corporation has actually implemented policies and practices to
achieve diversity is another question and deserves further research (Singh and Point
2006). Similarly, environmental reporting may reflect actual commitment and perfor-mance, or may be exaggerated to the point of’greenwashing’ (Jose and Lee 2007).
Since the role of the corporation in creating environmental problems and in achiev-ing environmental goals is an ongoing source of controversy, examination of CSR rep-resentations in corporate
websites should be of interest to those interested in the
evolution of CSR and the possible emergence of sustainability as an overriding concept.
Corporations have been reviled as the institutions most destructive to natural resources,
most exploitative of huma n capital and most damaging to sustainability (Hawken 1994),
and, at the same time, proposed as the only organisations with the resources, the tech-nology, the global reach and, ultimately, the motivation to achieve sustainabuity (Shri-vastava 1995; Hart
1997). Following a line of thought suggested by Kolk (2003), this
study takes it as at least a possibility that corporations might adopt and even dissemi-nate and perhaps even pressure other institutions to embrace sustainability as an objec-tive. Many
corporations have begun to at least articulate sustainability as an important
goal. Implicit in this study is the idea that sustainability is a relatively new and expanded
formulation, encompassing social responsibility, social performance and environmen-tal performance.
For example, in 2007, several major US corporations (Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar,
Duke Energy, DuPont, Florida Power & Light, GE, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, PNM, later
joined by Ford and Chrysler) mobilised with six envirormiental advocacy groups (Envi-ronmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council,
The Nature Conservancy, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and World Resources
Institute) in a coalifion (the US Climate Action Parmership, or USCAP) to press the fed-eral government for a cap-and-trade mechanism to cut greenhouse gas emissions by
60-80% from the 2007 level by 2050, with interim targets at 5,10 and 15 years (Envi-ronmental Defense 2007). This was a dramatic gesture, given the previous reluctance
JCC 32 Winter 200S 65
KAREN PAUL
of some business groups and spokespersons to even acknowledge the problems of cli-mate change and global warming. To the extent that this new commitment was featured
on corporate websites, it sent an important signal to stakeholders that the companies
were going to work in a more positive way for environmental objectives.
A corporate website may give insight into environmental or CSR practices even when
the company intends otherwise. For example, in 2006, a senior manager of the Royal
Society, representing leading British scientists, wrote a letter to the president of Exxon-Mobil accusing the company of providing more than US$2.9 million to 39 different
organisations misrepresenting the science of climate change (Adam 2006). In this case
the basis for the accusation was found in the company’s 2005 Corporate Citizenship
Report, distributed both in printed form and on the company’s website. In the section
on philanthropy the company listed the spurious organisations that had received con-tributions, enabling critics to document the extent to which the company was support-ing ‘faux science’.
This case demonstrates the utility of using website materials to
discern the nature and extent of corporate commitment to environmental and sustain-ability goals, and to identify both intended and unintended consequences.
Previous studies
Corporate disclosures of social performance have been analysed for more than a gen-eration, especially in the field of accounting (Spicer 1978; Roberts 1992). Before web-sites, corporate
material such as speeches and annual reports were subjected to content
analysis and other empirical studies. However, studies of corporate disclosure have
expanded in recent years, partly due to the ease of examining websites, and partly due
to the proliferation of information sources, including ethical investing databases, exter-nal audits and reporting schemes such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). In recent
years, there have been studies of corporate websites relating to several dimensions of
CSP, especially environmental concerns and accounting disclosures. Jose and Lee
(2007), studying the Fortune Global 200 (the 200 largest firms in the world), found con-siderable amounts of environmental information, especially among companies in envi-ronmentally sensitive
industries such as automotive, oil and gas, and utilities. These
firms tended to link environmental performance to corporate sustainability and stake-holder responsiveness, using external validation such as social audits. The most com-mon form of disclosure
was through sustainability reports. This suggests that limiting
the search for relevant terms to those derived from ‘ethics’ and ‘social responsibility’, as
did Loughran et al. (2007), is seriously inadequate.
One recurring research finding crucial to guiding research on corporate disclosures
on corporate social performance is that CSP is an evolving concept (Wartick and Cochran
1985). Models that dominate the field in one era, such as Carroll’s (1979) oft-reproduced
pyramid of social responsibility dimensions, may survive in introductory texts and jour-nalistic reviews even though academic thought has moved to another level (Carroll
1999). Some corporations continue to use the formulations of early models, but many
have moved towards more recent innovations such as the standards promulgated by the
GRI, widely used as a global standard.^ Amaeshi and Adi (2007) have suggested that the
concept of CSR is in danger of becoming relegated to ‘abstract theorising’ rather than
being used to guide managerial practice in any meaningful way, and make a case that
CSR needs to be ‘practical and actionable’. Sustainability may be the key to bringing CSR
more squarely to the world of management practice.
1 www.globalreporting.org
66 jCC 32 Winter 2008
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, CITIZENSHIP AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORTINC
Methodology
Appropriate methodologies for studying corporate websites and other publications
posted online are evolving, but content analysis is widely used (Robbins and Stylianou
2003). Following this path, key terms and concepts were selected based on previous
studies of corporate social monitoring and existing literature on corporate social report-ing and corporate reputation (Hess 2001; Gray et al. 2001; Antal et al. 2002; Robins
2005; Paul et al. 2006). Virtually all companies in the sample had some section on phil-anthropy and volunteerism, so these concepts were not coded since they had no differ-entiating power.
Since philanthropy and volunteerism are important ‘first steps’ for
companies beginning to identify CSR practices, they should be regarded as a bare min-imum rather than indicative of any particular commitment to CSR.
Corporate websites were examined for terms and concepts, listed below starting from
the more general, to the intermediate level, to the specific:
• Stakeholders
• Social responsibility/corporate social responsibility/responsibility
• Sustainability
• Citizenship/corporate citizenship
• Code of conduct/code of behaviour
• United Nations Global Compact
• Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
• World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
• Industry initiatives such as the Cement Industry Initiative and Responsible Care
(for chemical companies)
• Socially responsible investing indices or consultancies
• Human rights
• Awards
The 100 companies whose websites were examined were those identified as the Global
100 Most Sustainable Corporations by the consulting firm Innovest Strategic Value
Advisors, Inc. under the auspices ofthe World Economic Forum in 2006 (The Global
100 2006). Since this study was intended to be a study of the terms and concepts
expressed by companies with outstanding reputations for social and environmental
reporting, it was not intended to represent companies in general. The companies
included in the study have already devoted considerable resources to developing and
defining objectives beyond ordinary financial performance. However, other companies
may be likely to follow the norms established by these leading companies, so that prac-tices and trends observed among this sample may be observed more generally among
companies in the future.
Taking the sample of the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations, each website
was examined for the terms and concepts identified from previous studies. The first
term or concept observed on the website was identified and coded as the primary term.
Additional terms, those observed after clicking through to other web pages, were coded
as secondary elements. Further notes were made on any additional terms not included
in the coding scheme. Any unusual patterns not anticipated or routinely observed were
identified, as were terms for follow-up in future studies. To meet the threshold for cod-JCC 32 Winter 2008 67
KAREN PAUL
ing, specific mention of the term or concept in a category or in the text provided by the
company itself was required. For example, ‘human rights’ was coded when specifically
discussed in the company’s website, but not when it appeared only in a listing of the
standards of the United Nations Global Compact.
Since this is an exploratory study, at best a comparative analysis, hypotheses were not
being tested, but the previous studies reviewed above suggested some general expecta-tions. Companies producing or marketing consumer goods were expected to mention
these terms more frequently than companies producing industrial or commercial prod-ucts, since a reputation of social responsibility might be expected to be more important
when marketing to consumers than when marketing to businesses (Miles 1987). Com-panies in newer, high-tech fields wer e expected to have more frequent use of these terms
than companies in agriculture, extractive or industrial fields, because the newer com-panies would have been more infiuenced by recently developed thinking on corporate
social responsibility and similar topics (Miles 1987).
Findings
of the 100 companies identified as the sample, 97 had websites that could be analysed.
Of the three eliminated from consideration, one company had been acquired by another
company on the list, one was represented by such a minimal website it could not be
analysed, and one could not be found. Two other companies had no mention of any of
the terms and concepts in the analysis, so were included in the total count of compa-nies but eliminated from analysis of terms. Thus, of the original 100 companies in the
sample, 95 were subjected to analysis of terms relating to CSR, sustainability or related
concepts.
First, the number of coded terms used in any website was considered, since these
terms are most frequently found in the literature and tend to provide the basic philo-sophical orientation of a company. The maximum number of time s these concepts were
observed in a company website was ten. The frequencies of these terms were distrib-uted as shown in Table i. Most companies used between three and nine of these terms.
Five was both the median and the mean.
Number of terms in website
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number of companies
2
5
3
11
11
13
11
15
8
9
2
Table 1 NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CODED TERMS OBSERVED IN WEBSITE
68 JCC 32 Winter 2008
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, CITIZENSHIP AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING
The next consideration was the primary term observed: that is, the first one seen on
the website. Only 4 ofthe 12 terms coded were identified as primary terms. These are
shovm in Table 2. ‘Social responsibility/corporate social responsibility/responsibility’
was the most frequently observed primary term, followed by ‘sustainability’, ‘citizen-ship’ and ‘code of conduct/code of behaviour’. In five cases, two primary terms were
coded, because two terms appeared at the same time and were given the same promi-nence in the website.
Primary term used
Social responsibility/corporate social
responsibility/responsibility (CSR)
Sustainability
Citizenship
Code of conduct/code of behaviour
Number of companies
55
29
8
3
Table 2 PRIMARY TERMS USED BY COMPANIES
Secondary terms included the full set of terms and concepts coded (all 12 terms), but
excluded the terms coded as primary terms. The results are shown in Table 3. These
results should not be taken as a ranking of relative importance, since coding of a term
as a primary term necessarily excluded its coding as a secondary term. Thus, ‘social
responsibility/corporate social responsibility/responsibility’ was frequently used as a
primary term, but used less often as a secondary term. On the other hand, ‘stakeholder’
was commonly used as a secondary term, though infrequently used as a primary term.
AÄ’hen primary and secondary occurrence ofthe terms were combined, ‘sustainabil-ity’ was most frequently mentioned, followed by ‘social responsibility/corporate social
responsibility/responsibility’, ‘stakeholders’, and ‘code of conduct’. The other terms
Secondary term used
Stakeholder
Socially responsible investing (SRI)
Code of conduct/code of behaviour
Awards
Clobal Reporting Initiative (GRl)
Sustainability
Industry initiative
Human rights
United Nations Clobal Compact
Citizenship
World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
Social responsibility/corporate social
responsibility/responsibility (CSR)
Number of companies
59
44
42
42
40
36
34
26
19
14
9
8
Table} SECONDARY TERMS USED BY COMPANIES
|CC 32 Winter 2008 69
KAREN PAUL
Terms used both primarily and secondarily
Sustainability
Social responsibility/corporate social
responsibility/responsibility (CSR)
Stakeholder
Code of conduct/code of behaviour
Socially responsible investing (SRI)
Awards
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Industry initiative
Human rights
United Nations Global Compact
Citizenship
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD)
Number of companies using term
65
63
59
45
44
42
40
34
26
19
14
9
Table 4 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TERMS USED BY COMPANIES
were named only as secondary terms, so their frequency did not change when the two
categories were combined. Table 4 shows the total distribution of combined primary
and secondary terms, and suggests that ‘sustainability’ might become the preferred term
in the future.
Further examination of the corporate websites revealed additional topics and trends.
Several companies linked coded terms from the study to risk management, thereby mak-ing the connection between social/environmental and fmancial performance, and sev-eral hnked coded
terms to governance, thereby connecting the terms to the new
requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act relating to financial disclosure, corporate gov-ernance and compliance. Several companies referred to the Kyoto Protocol, and several
included discussions of global warming or climate change, further linking financial and
environmental concerns. Labour relations were discussed in several websites, particu-larly for European corporations. Supplier monitoring, or supply chain management,
was mentioned by several companies, while several others made mention of fair trade
principles. Supplier diversity, multicultural procurement and microfinance were men-tioned by some companies. Many companies referred to ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 certi-fication. Several
websites mentioned ethics programmes, compliance procedures and
the availability of an ombudsman or a toll-free telephone line for reporting ethical con-cerns. Several companies, especially those from the USA, provided case studies to illus-trate some aspect
of environmental or social performance, while other companies, in
particular those from Europe, mentioned anti-corruption efforts. Biodiversity was a
topic in several websites. Many companies referred to their carbon footprint or carbon
disclosure. Animal rights was mentioned by a number of companies, particularly those
from the pharmaceutical industry. Aboriginal communities were mentioned by some
Australian and Canadian companies. Glossaries were provided by some companies to
explain their understanding of concepts such as sustainability, triple-bottom-line man-agement and carbon disclosure.
Many websites provided reports from previous years, and there was a trend towards
inclusion of sustainability as an organising principle as the number of years represented
70 |CC 32 Winter 2008
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, CITIZENSHIP AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING
increased. Most companies appear to have begun their social/environmental reporting
efforts around 2000, although a few companies reported efforts going back to the 1980s.
Japanese companies tended to be different from American and European companies in
focusing on the values of founders or leaders of the company, and in having relatively
fewer uses of coded items. European and particularly Scandinavian companies tended
to have a greater number of coded items mentioned than American or Japanese com-panies. Several companies provided mechanisms, generally email links, for readers of
their sustainability, citizenship or social responsibility reports to provide feedback on
the usefulness and the adequacy of the reports. All websites but one were available in
English in addition to the language of the home country. The one exception was avail-able only in Spanish. The website that used the greatest number of languages was that
of Nike, available in English, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Turkish, Russ-ian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and Korean.
Our expectations about the salience of these CSP concerns for consumer-oriented
companies versus business-oriented companies were not realised. In fact, many of the
websites with a large number of coded items were industrial and manufacturing com-panies. Also, high-tech companies were not particularly exemplary in mentioning the
coded topics, as had been anticipated.
The GRI was the most generally used scheme for external validation of social/envi-ronmental performance, although conventional auditing firms were used by some com-panies. However, the
metrics used by socially responsible investing play a significant
role in providing a benchmark for measuring social and/or environmental performance.
The indices most commonly mentioned were the FTSE4Good and the Dow Jones Sus-tainability Index. AccountAbility, Ethibel, Innovest and KLD were also mentioned in con-nection with reporting,
screening or measuring systems (Bertelsmann Eoundation
2006). Since the consulting firm Innovest provided the screening to identify the list of
Global 100 used for our sample, by definition all websites examined were from com-panies evaluated favourably by the Innovest metrics. Consequently, it seemed somewhat
curious that this positive evaluation was mentioned by only a few firms on their web-sites. A number of other organisations providing guidance or collaboration for corpo-rations were
mentioned and are included, along with their websites, in Appendix B.
Significance of the findings
One obvious criticism of this type of study is that there may be little or no connection
between what companies profess to do on their websites and what they actually do. How-ever, it is true that many companies use external validation to demonstrate the credi-bility of their
claims. Doubtless, some companies adopt this type of discourse mainly
for image enhancement. However, several other functions may be served by articula-tion of ethical, social and environmental goals. This discourse may educate managers
and employees; may contribute to culture change or the enhancement of a desired busi-ness culture; may signal new priorities and expectations to a variety of stakeholders or
to other firms; may indicate compliance with legal or regulatory standards, especially
emerging standards; and may appeal to investors or consumers interested in these val-ues. On another level, the World Bank has indicated that companies looking for busi-ness partners do value
social responsibility, but often have difficulty assessing it,
especially when considering companies from different cultures, and in developing coun-tries of the world (World Bank 2003). Expressions of social responsibility, corporate cit-izenship or
sustainability may provide a positive signal to companies looking for
business collaborators that share common ethical standards and that will not bring
embarrassment to the partnership.
)CC 32 Winter 2008 71
KAREN PAUL
Directions for future research
The concept of sustainability is just beginning to have an impact on corporate discourse.
The term ‘sustainability’ may become an integrating concept linking financial and social
performance and joining together corporate social responsibility and risk management.
It will be interesting to see whether the use ofthe term ‘sustainability’ grows in future
years. For this, longitudinal studies will be necessary. Given that corporate websites
undergo continuous modification, and sustainability reports, social audits and other
forms of documentation are issued on variable schedules by different corporations,
ongoing monitoring will be required.
Studies that limit the focus to a small number of terms or a narrow range of terms
will fail to capture the conceptualisation of CSP expressed by many companies, even
companies that show most awareness of the concept according to reputable auditing
firms such as Innovest. This failure to capture relevant terms will be even more pro-nounced when samples include companies of lesser standing in CSP rankings and com-panies based in emerging
economies such as Mexico, Brazil, India or China. For
example, the term ‘harmonious relationships’ appears frequently in the websites of larg e
Chinese firms; researchers will need to investigate the operationalisation and mea-surement possibilities for this term, and whether or not it corresponds or relates to any
ofthe concepts associated with social responsibility.
This study focused on corporations interested in documenting their commitment to
sustainability or allied concepts. Future studies should look at patterns of reporting of
these terms and concepts among companies that are not thought leaders, perhaps even
those that have shown little regard for issues such as supply chain monitoring or cli-mate change. When these companies also feel the necessity to include the concepts and
terms studied here in their publications, electronic and printed, it will be clear ¿lat the
corporate commitment to sustainability is no longer an option, but rather an expecta-tion or even a requirement. Already, demonstrating a commitment to sustainability is
infiuencing investment decisions at least in socially screened investments (Willis 2003),
and likely for other stakeholders as well (Perrini 2005). Sustainability, and particularly
sustainability as measured by the GRI, is a theme of growing importance in corporate
disclosure, but the standards and norms for this reporting are still evolving (Peeters
2003; Gray 2006; Ballou et al. 2006; Raar 2007).
In this connection there are a few outliers among the companies in the Global 100,
companies that are considered exemplary in commitment to sustainability, but whose
websites do not refiect this commitment. For example, GlaxoSmithKline, a British phar-maceutical company, includes none of the concepts and terms coded here; instead it
includes only philanthropy in the section of its website concerning social impact. Sun
Life Financial, Inc., a Canadian insurance company, also cites only philanthropy in its
website. Eastman Kodak, an American chemical/photography company, mentions its
commitment to social responsibility, and indeed has some outstanding programmes,
especially in community development, but does almost nothing to display them on its
website. Schlumberger, a French diversified company much in the news for large-scale
construction projects and especially the privatisation of public utilities (e.g. water)
around the world, mentions only in passing that it has a code of ethics and, beyond that,
does not articulate any particular commitment to social responsibility. Tomra Systems
ASA, a Norwegian company in commercial services and supplies, makes a point of say-ing it vnü not conform to external monitoring systems such as the GRI, even though it
includes the topics of corporate social responsibility, stakeholders and sustainability in
its website and has a detailed set of performance objectives and one ofthe most exten-sive discussions of socially responsible investing firms and indices, including the Dow
Jones Sustainability Index, Ethibel, NAX, Portfolio 21 (a US-based environmental fund),
72 |CC 32 Winter 1008
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, CITIZENSHIP AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING
and the FTSE4Good indices. More in-depth discussion of Tomra Systems’ statement of
non-conformity to external monitoring systems would be interesting, and may simply
indicate that the company is exasperated by the reporting requirements of so many com-peting monitoring systems and alternative, competing metrics.
Observing patterns in reporting among companies in different industries, or located
in different parts of the world, or experiencing different challenges, may reveal inter-esting and significant tendencies. It will be particiilarly interesting to see whether Japan-ese companies
come to resemble American and European companies more as far as
their social reporting is concerned, and whether American companies will move towards
the more extensive reporting often done by European corporations.
Most important of all is the question of whether the image that a company presents
has any relation to its actual performance in social, environmental or ethical standards,
or in research terms: what aspects of a company’s presentation of self via website dis-closure relate to what aspects of corporate performance for what types of company
located where. How to identify significant variables and how to measure them are on-going issues. The GRI is probably the most widely accepted approach to corporate social
reporting, but relies on self-reported data for the most part. KLD has a well-developed
data set by which hundreds, even thousands, of companies can be evaluated on selected
social dimensions, but not every possible dimension of social performance is included
and its global scope is limited. Innovest has a sophisticated system, but its audits are
not made public. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the FTSE4Good Index have
achieved ample credibility in business circles, but their methodology is proprietary and
perhaps prohibitively expensive for academic researchers to use. There are several
potential approaches to studying the correspondence between stated and realised cor-porate goals in social, environmental or sustainability reporting. Further study of this
topic will be instructive in relation to how widely sustainability goals are adopted by cor-porations, how effectively sustainability norms are disseminated in various industries
and how corporations put sustainability measures into practice.
References
Adam, D. (2006) ‘Royal Society tells Exxon: Stop funding climate change denial’: www.
commondreams.org/headlineso6/0920-04.htm, accessed 5 October 2008.
Amaeshi, K.M., and B. Adi (2007) ‘Reconstructing the Corporate Social Responsibility Construct in
Utlish’, Business Ethics: A European Review 16.1 (January 2007): 3-18.
Antal, A.B., M. Dierkes. K. MacMillan and L. Marz (2002) ‘Corporate Social Reporting Revisited”, Jour-nal of General Management 28.2 (Winter 2002): 22-42.
Ballou, B., D.L. Heitger, C.E. Landes and M. Adams (2006) ‘The Future of Corporate Sustainability
Reporting’, journal of Accountancy 202.6 (December 2006): 65-73.
Bertelsmann Foundation (2006) ‘Who is Who in Corporate Social Responsibility Rating?’: www.
econsense.de/..CSR_INFO_POOL/?KAPITALMARKT/images/Transparenzstudie_2oo6_Bertelsmann.
pdf, accessed 5 October 2008.
Campbell, D., and A.C. Beck (2004) ‘Answering Allegations: The Use of the Corporate Website for
Restorative Ethical and Social Disclosure’, Business Ethics 13.2-3 (July 2004): 100-16.
Carroll, A.B. (1979) ‘A Three Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, Academy of
Management Review 4.4 (October 1979): 497-505.
(1999) ‘Corporate Social Responsibihty’, Business and Society 38.3 (September 1999), 268-96.
Chun, R., and G. Davies (2001) ‘E-reputation: The Role of Mission and Vision Statements in Position-ing Strategy’, Brand Management 8.4-5 i^^Y 2001): 315-33.
Cooper, S.M., and D.L. Owen (2007) ‘Corporate Social Reporting and Stakeholder Accountability: The
Missing Link’, Accounting, Organizations, and Sodety 32.7-S (October/November 2007): 649-67.
Environmental Defense (2007) ‘Leading companies call for bold action on global warming’: v*rww.
environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm.’contenti 0=5830, accessed 20 September 2007.
JCC 32 Winter 2008 73
KAREN PAUL
Ettridge, M., V.J. Richardson and S. Scholz (2002) ‘Dissemination of Information for Investors at Cor-porate Web Sites’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 21.4 (January 2002): 357-369.
Global 100 (2006) ‘Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World’; www.globalioo.org/
2006/index.asp, accessed 20 September 2007.
Gray, R.H. (2006) ‘Does Sustainability Reporting Improve Corporate Behavior? Wrong Question? Right
Time?’, Accounting and Business Research (Special Issue: International Accounting Policy): 65-88.
, M. Javad, D.M. Power and CD. Sinclair (2001) ‘Social and Environmental Disclosure and Corpo-rate Characteristics: A Research Note and Extension’, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting
28.3-4 (April/May 2001): 327-57.
Hart, S.L. (1997) ‘Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World’, Harvard Business Review y^.i
(January/February 1997): 66-77.
Hawken, P. (1994) The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability (New York: HarperCollins).
Hess, D. (2001) ‘Regulating Corporate Social Performance: A New Look at Social Accounting, Auditing,
and Reporting’, Business Ethics Quarterly 11.2 (April 2001): 307-30.
Hynes, G.E., and M. Janson (2007) ‘Global Imagery in Online Advertisements’, Business Communica-tion Quarterly 70.4: 487-92.
Jose, A., and S. Lee (2007) ‘Environmental Reporting of Global Corporations: A Content Analysis Based
on Website Disclosures’, Journal of Business Ethics 72.4 (June 2007): 307-21.
Kolk, A. (2003) ‘Trends in Sustainability Reporting by the Fortune Global 250’, Business Strategy and the
Environment 12.5 (September/October 2003): 279-91.
Loughran, T., B. McDonald and H. Yun (2007) ‘A Wölfin Sheep’s Clothing: The Use of Ethics-Related
Terms in io-K Reports’; www.nd.edu/^tloughra/WolfSheep.pdf, accessed 20 September 2007.
Matherly, CM., and H.A. Burton (2005) ‘An Analysis of Corporate Website Disclosures’, Management
Accounting Quarterly 6.2 (Winter 2005): 26-33.
Miles, R.E. (1987) Managing the Corporate Environment (Upper Saddle River, N): Prentice-Hall).
Paul, K., E. Cobas, R. Ceron, M. Friethof, A. Maass, I. Navarro, L. Palmer and L.Z. Deaton (2006) ‘Cor-porate Social Reporting in Mexico’, youma/ of Corporate Citizenship 22 (Summer 2006): 67-80.
Peeters, H. (2003) ‘Sustainable Development and the Role ofthe Financial World’, Environment, Devel-opment and Sustainability 5.1-2 (March 2003): 197-230.
Perrini, F. (2005) ‘Building a European Portrait of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting’, European
Management Journal 23.6 (March 2005): 611-27.
Prentice, R.A., V.J. Richardson and S. Scholz (1999) ‘Corporate Web-site Disclosure and Rule 10-5’, Amer-ican Business Law Journal 3.4 (Summer 1999): 531-78.
Raar, J. (2007) ‘Reported Social and Environmental Taxonomies: A Longer-Term Glimpse’, Managerial
Auditing Journal 22.8: 840-60.
Robbins, S.S., and A.C. Stylianou (2003) ‘Global Corporate Web Sites: An Empirical Investigation of
Content and Design’, Information and Management 40.3 (January 2003): 205-12.
Roberts, R.W. (1992) ‘Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of
Stakeholder Theory’, Accounting, Oi^anizations, and Society 53.1 (January 1992): 94-111.
Robins, F. (2005) ‘The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Asian Business and Management 4.2
(June 2005): 95-115.
Shrivastava, P. (1995) ‘The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability’, American Man-agement Review 20.4 (October 1995): 936-61.
Singh, V., and S. Point (2006) ‘(Re)Presentations of Gender and Ethnicity on European Company Web-sites’, youmol of Business Ethics 68.4 (April 2006): 363-79.
Smith, M., and R. Taffler (1992) ‘The Chairman’s Statement and Corporate Financial Performance’,
Accounting and Finance 32.2 (June 1992): 75-90.
Spicer, B.H. (1978) ‘Investors, Corporate Social Performance, and Information Disclosure: An Empiri-cal Study’, The Accounting Review 53.1 (January 1978): 94-111.
Vaughn, L. (2004) ‘Exploring Website Features for Business Information’, Scientometrics 61.3 (Novem-ber 2004): 467-77.
Wartick, S.L., and P.L. Cochran (1985) ‘The Evolution ofthe Corporate Social Performance Model’, Acad-emy of Management Review 10.4 (October 1985): 758-70.
Watkins, P., and M. Smith (2007) ‘Online Disclosures’, Financial Management }6.2 (April 2007): 34-35.
Williams, C C (2008) ‘Toward a Taxonomy of Corporate Reporting Strategies’, Journal of Business Com-munication 45 (July 2008): 232-64.
Willis, A. (2003) ‘Tlie Role ofthe Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in
the Social Screening of Investments’, youmolo/Bwsiness Ethics z^^.’} (March 2003): 233-37.
World Bank (2003) ‘Race to the Top: Attracting and Enabling Global Sustainable Business’; siteresources.
worldbank.org/INTPSD/Resources/CSR/Race.to.The.Top.pdf, accessed 5 October 2008.
74 JCC 32 Winter 2008
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, CITIZENSHIP AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORTINC
Appendix A. Most sustainable corporations in the world: the 2006
list (continued over)
Company name
ABB Limited
ABN Amro Holding NV
Adidas Salomon Agency
Aeon Company Limited
Agilent Technologies Inc.
Alean Inc.
Alcoa Inc.
Alliance Unichem pic
ARCELOR
Atlas Copeo AB
Aviva pic
BAA pic
Bank Of America Corp.
BASF AC
Baxter International Inc.
Boots Croup pic
BPpIc
British Airv^ays pic
British Land Company pic
British Sky Broadcasting Croup
BT Croup pic
Cadbury Schweppes pic
Canon Inc.
Centrica pic
Coca-Cola Company
Denso Corp.
Deutsche Telekom AC
Dexia
Diageo pic
Eastman Kodak Company
Enbridge Inc.
Ericsson Telephone AB
FPL Croup Inc.
Fresenius Medical Care AC
Camesa Corp. Technologica
General Electric Company
Country
Switzerland
Netherlands
Germany
Japan
US
Canada
US
UK
Luxemburg
Sweden
UK
UK
US
Germany
US
UK
UK
UK
UK
pic UK
UK
UK
Japan
UK
US
Japan
Germany
Belgium
UK
US
Canada
Sweden
US
Germany
Spain
US
CICS* industry*
Electrical equipment
Commercial banks
Textiles, apparel and luxury goods
Food and staples retailing
Electronic equipment and instruments
Metals and mining
Metals and mining
Healthcare providers and services
Metals and mining
Machinery
Insurance
Transportation infrastructure
Commercial banks
Chemicals
Healthcare equipment and supplies
Food and staples retailing
Oil, gas and consumable fuels
Airlines
Real estate
Media
Diversified telecommunication
services
Food products
Office electronics
Multi-utilities
Beverages
Auto components
Diversified telecommunication
services
Commercial banks
Beverages
Leisure equipment and products
Oil, gas and consumable fuels
Communications equipment
Electric utilities
Healthcare providers and services
Electrical equipment
Industrial conglomerates
* Global Industry Classification Standard
)CC 32 Winter 2008 75
KAREN PAUL
Company name
ClaxoSmithKline pic
Croupe Danone
eus pic
H&M Hennés &Mauritz AB
HBOS pic
Henkel AG
Hewlett-Packard Company
Holmen AB
Iberdrola SA
INC Croep NV
Insurance Australia Croup
Intel Corp.
Johnsons. Johnson
Kesko Corp.
Kuraray Company Limited
Lafarge
Land Securities pic
Marks & Spencer Croup pic
Masco Corp.
Matsushita Electric Industrial
Company
Mayr-Meinhof Karton AC
Mitchells & Butlers pic
Nike Inc.
NIkko Cordial Corp.
Nokia Corporation
Novartis AC
Novo Nordisk A/S
Novozymes A/S
NSK Limited
NTT Docomo Inc.
Pearson pic
Philips Electronics KON
Pinnacle West Capital Corp.
Reed Elsevier pic
Ricoh Company Limited
Royal Bank Of Canada
SABMiller pic
SAP AC
SCAAB
Schlumberger Limited
Country
UK
France
UK
Sweden
UK
Germany
US
Sweden
Spain
Netherlands
Australia
US
US
Finland
)apan
France
UK
UK
US
Japan
Austria
UK
US
Japan
Finland
Switzerland
Denmark
Denmark
Japan
Japan
UK
Netherlands
US
Netherlands
Japan
Canada
UK
Germany
Sweden
US
CICS® industry
Pharmaceuticals
Food products
Internet and catalogue retail
Speciality retail
Commercial banks
Household products
Computers and peripherals
Paper and forest products
Electric utilities
Diversified financial services
Insurance
Semiconductors and semiconductor
equipment
Pharmaceuticals
Food and staples retailing
Chemicals
Construction materials
Real estate
Multiline retail
Building products
Household durables
Containers and packaging
Hotels restaurants and leisure
Textiles, apparel and luxury goods
Capital markets
Communications equipment
Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceuticals
Chemicals
Machinery
Wireless telecommunication services
Media
Household durables
Electric utilities
Media
Office electronics
Commercial banks
Beverages
Software
Paper and forest products
Energy equipment and services
76 |CC 32 Winter 2008
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, CITIZENSHIP AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORTINC
Company name
Scottish & Southern Energy pic
Severn Trent pic
Skanska AB
Slough Estates pic
Smith & Nephew pic
Smiths Croup pic
STMicroelectronics
Stora Enso OYJ
Storebrand ASA
Sun Life Financial Inc.
Swiss Reinsurance Company
Taylor Woodrow pic
Tomra Systems ASA
Toyota Motor Corp.
Transalta Corp.
Unilever pic
United Parcel Service Inc.
United Technologies Corp.
Vestas Windsystems A/S
Vodafone Group pic
Volvo AB
Westpac Banking Corp.
Whitbread pic
Yell Group pic
Country
UK
UK
Sweden
UK
UK
UK
Switzerland
Finland
Norway
Canada
Switzerland
UK
Norway
Japan
Canada
UK
US
US
Denmark
UK
Sweden
Australia
UK
UK
CICS” industry
Electric utilities
Water utilities
Construction and engineering
Real estate
Healthcare equipment and supplies
Industrial conglomerates
Semiconductors and semiconductor
equipment
Paper and forest products
Insurance
Insurance
Insurance
Household durables
Commercial services and supplies
Automobiles
Independent power producers and
energy traders
Food products
Air freight and logistics
Aerospace and defence
Electrical equipment
Wireless telecommunication services
Machinery
Commercial banks
Hotels restaurants and leisure
Media
|CC 32 Winter 2008
77
KAREN PAUL
Appendix B. Collaborating, auditing or assessing organisations cited
Organisation
AccountAbility
Amnesty International
Association of Suppliers in the Paper
Industry (ASPI)
Bureau Veritas
Business in the Community
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR)
Carbon Disclosure Project
Coalition for Sustainable Prosperity
(Ceres)
Corporate Citizenship Company
Dow Jones Sustainability Index
Dutch Sustainability Research
Earthwatch
Equator Principles
Ethibel
FTSE4Cood
Global Compact
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
innovest
Institute of Business Ethics
International Chamber of Commerce
Jantzi Research Associates
Kinder, Domini, Lydenberg, Ltd (KLD)
People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA)
Sustainable Investment Research
International (SiRi)
United Nations Millennium Development
Goals
Veritas [see ‘Bureau Veritas’)
Vigeo
Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Directive (WEEE)
World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD)
WWF
Headquarters
UK/US
UK
US
France
UK
US
UK
US
UK
Switzerland
Netherlands
US
United Nations
Brussels
UK
United Nations
Netherlands
US
UK
France
Canada
US
US
Svi/itzerland
United Nations
France
European
Union
Switzerland
US
Website«
www.accountability2i.net
www.amnesty.org
wviftw.aspinet.org
wviAV.bureauveritas.com
www.bitc.org
Viiww.bsr.org
Viww.cdproject.net
www.ceres.org
www.corporate-citizenship.co.uk
viww.sustainability-index.com
www.d s res ea rch. n 1
www.earthwatch.org
Viiww.equator-prlnciples.com
www.ethibel.org
www.ftse.com
v^vrtv.globalcom pact.org
www.globalreporting.org
www.innovestgroup.com
v^ww.ibe.org
www.iccwbo.org
www.jantziresearch.com
www.kld.com
www.peta.org
www.siricompany.com
www.un.org/millenniumgoals
www.vigeo.com/csr-rating-agency
ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/
weeejndex.htm
viww.wbcsd.org
www.worldwildlifefund.org
* Websites accessed 6 August 2008
|CC 32 Winter 2008
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂