Download What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?

What Do Surveys Say
About Corporate Citizenship?
“Americans Send Message: Get Down to Business on Corporate Citizenship”
“Understanding of Term ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (CSR)
Differs Greatly Country to Country”
“Corporate Responsibility Has Strong Affect on Reputations”
“Internal Considerations Motivate Companies to Adopt Corporate Citizenship”
These headlines, produced by polling companies, consulting firms, and
the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship’s research arm are
based on surveys of the general public and company executives in the
United States and around the globe. Some provide an outside-in look at
the public’s expectations of corporate citizenship and at the comparative
views of investors, consumers, and opinion leaders, as well as current and future members of the workforce. Others
afford an inside-out picture of
how managers think about citizenship, set their company’s
agenda, and put it into practice.
A Working Paper from the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
Table of Contents
What is the role of business in society? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What are the responsibilities of business? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
What does citizenship mean to business
leaders? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Are companies good corporate citizens? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Is citizenship a contributor to corporate
reputation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Does citizenship help companies to recruit and
retain employees? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Does citizenship matter to consumers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Are people socially responsible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
What drives citizenship in companies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
How do social issues factor into corporate citizenship? . . . . .7
How do companies manage sociopolitical issues? . . . . . . . . . .7
Can social issues be opportunities for business? . . . . . . . . . . .8
How do views of corporate citizenship differ
around the world? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
What’s on the social agenda in the United States? . . . . . . . . .9
How is citizenship managed in companies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
What’s involved in “Next Generation
Corporate Citizenship?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Can surveys help companies to manage
citizenship? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
What should you know about surveys? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?
w w w. b c c c c . n e t
So what do surveys say about corporate citizenship? The Center
has tracked the studies of respected organizations such as
GlobeScan, GolinHarris, and the Reputation Institute, and
done our own surveys of U.S. business leaders to get a
handle on this subject.1 Plus we’ve perused studies b y
PricewaterhouseCoopers, McKinsey & Co., Cone Inc.,
Fleishman Hillard and others to focus on select facets of citizenship that can be better understood, interpreted, and managed
through survey data. Here is a look at these findings followed by
general thoughts on company-specific surveys on citizenship
and how they can assist a business.
What is the role of business in society?
In 2006, the Center released the study Step Up: A Call for
Business Leadership in Society that featured face-to-face interviews with the CEOs and one other top executive in 25 global
companies. As part of the interview, the executives were asked
to complete a brief survey that allowed them to choose their
favored definition of the role of business. Just three of 48 who
completed the survey chose the narrow view of Milton
Friedman that the “social responsibility of business is to
increase its profits.” The rest had a far more expansive view that
emphasized the moral responsibilities of companies, the business case for engaging society more fully, or the idea that a positive relationship with society gives a firm its identity and
defines “who we are.”2
The Center’s researchers were surprised that so few CEO’s adopted the orthodox view that business is beholden only to its shareholders. After all, this is the philosophical fuel behind the shareholder’s rights movement that has dominated business since the
1980s and is still a central tenet in the business school’s catechism. We wondered: Could either our selective sample or the
“PR” aspects of a personal interview be sources of bias?
Fortuitously, on a parallel track was McKinsey & Co.’s anonymous, web-based survey of more than 4,000 executives in 116
countries.3 It found that just 16% of executives adopted the view
that business should “focus solely on providing highest possible
returns to investors while obeying all laws and regulations.” The
other 84% agreed with the statement that business should “generate high returns to investors but balance that with contributing
to the broader public good.”
This data provides broader-based evidence that company leaders today embrace a larger view of business than that of simply
providing returns to shareholders. This view includes, among
other themes, recognition of responsibilities to multiple stakeholders and the belief that firms can “do well by doing good.”
Summing up, one CEO interviewed by the Center remarked, “I
used to be a proponent of the idea that our job is to generate
BOSTON COLLEGE CENTER FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
By Philip H. Mirvis, Ph.D.
This Working Paper was produced to
provide an overview of and context to the
dozens of public opinion surveys addressing corporate citizenship issues. The surveys examine these issues from many
perspectives including those of executives,
employees, consumers, and the general
public.
The polls cited throughout the paper are
from a consortium of researchers around
the world including Bloomberg/LA
Times, Boston College Center for
Corporate Citizenship, Cone Inc.,
Fleishman-Hillard and the National
Consumer’s League, GEMI/BSR,
GlobeScan, GolinHarris, Hill and
Knowlton and Korn/Ferry, McKinsey,
NetImpact, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
Reputation Institute, and Sirota Survey
Intelligence.
1
shareholder value. But I came to believe that that is a naïve
proposition. It is intellectually correct, but it is naïve.”
These are, of course, operational aspects of firms and well within their control. But, in addition, a significant number held
them completely responsible for reducing human rights
abuses, preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, and reducing the
rich-poor gap. Add in the category of “partially responsible,” and
business is responsible, in the public’s eye, not only for minding its own store but also for addressing myriad of the world’s
ills. [See Figure 1]
Certainly the public ascribes to a larger view of business. The
Millennium Report, a poll of worldwide public opinion conducted at the turn of the century, found that just one in ten adults
subscribes to the Friedmanesque notion of corporate responsibilities. Contra-wise, a follow-up poll found that more than 80%
agree that “larger companies should do more than give money
to solve social problems.”4
The U.S. Perspective. Taking a somewhat different tack on this
subject, GolinHarris, a leading public relations firm, asks people in the United States to rate how important various practices
are to a company’s overall performance as a good corporate citizen. Whether or not a company “values and treats its employees well and fairly” was the #1 factor in citizenship as measured
in Fall 2006 (rated ‘very high in importance’ by 68% of the U.S.
public). Interestingly, this has been the top factor in their polls
about citizenship for five years running. In addition, large numbers rated as highly important that a firm’s “executives and business practices are ethical, honest, open, and accountable” (65%)
and that it “goes beyond what is required to provide safe and
“reliable products and services” (43%).5
What are the responsibilities of business?
What does the public see as the responsibilities of business? A
2005 GlobeScan poll asked the public whether or not companies were “not at all” or “somewhat” or “completely” responsible for various aspects of business operations and their impact
on society. The pollsters found that large majorities in twentyone countries hold companies completely responsible for the
safety of their products, fair treatment of employees, responsible use of raw materials, and for not harming the environment.
What does citizenship mean
to business leaders?
Figure 1
Societal Expectations of Companies
Companies Held Completely Responsible for
Average of 21 Countries, 2005
87%
Product health/safety
Do not harm the environment
82%
Treat employees fairly
82%
75%
Materials produced responsibly
73%
High universal standards
Good quality at lowest price
59%
50%
Reduce human rights abuses
Prevent spread of HIV/AIDS
43%
Reduce rich-poor gap
43%
Encourage employees to volunteer
Support progressive legislation
Citizenship
41%
Increase economic stability
Solve social problems
Operational
32%
26%
24%
* Not asked in Nigeria and Switzerland
Source: GlobeScan’s 2005 Corporate Social Responsibility Monitor survey. Reproduced with permission of
GlobeScan Incorporated (Toronto).
2
How do U.S. business leaders think
about citizenship? The Center’s survey of
business leaders finds that 75% believe
that the public expects them to exceed
laws to make sure products are reliable
and safe, and 58% believe that the public
expects them to exceed laws to protect
the environment. More broadly, some
80% believe that citizenship needs to be
a priority for companies and a large
majority (69%) agree that the public has
a right to expect it.
In the Center’s 2005 survey of American
business, we reminded a random sample
of over 1,000 executives that “corporate
citizenship means different things to different companies.” Then we asked them
to rate “how important” a variety of business practices were to their company’s
role in society. Roughly four in ten adopted a minimalist view of the role of their
firm: maximize profits, report finances
accurately, obey the law, ensure safety
What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?
w w w. b c c c c . n e t
CSR: Expectations versus Performance
Public expectations and public perceptions of
corporate responsibility performance
Expectations
Interestingly, we found differences in firms of different sizes.
For instance, the leaders in large companies were twice as likely as those in midsize and smaller firms to see the importance
of “building employee diversity” within the business and
“responding to community or interest groups regarding issues
they care about.” They also put somewhat more emphasis on
supporting employee volunteerism and on maximizing longrun profits for owners. We found some sectoral differences in
priorities. For instance, firms in heavy industry put more
emphasis on environmental protection while those in the service sector put somewhat more on treating employees well.
Other size and sector, as well as regional, differences are found
in Center reports on these surveys.
Figure 3:
•
•
•
CSR expectations
•
CSR industry
performance
Performance
and health, provide basic employee benefits, and the like.
Slightly more than six in ten, however, had a more inclusive perspective. They saw it as very important that their company treat
workers fairly and well, protect consumers and the environment, improve conditions in communities, and, in larger companies, to attend to ethical operation of their supply chain (see
Figure 2).
•
1
200
3
200
•
5
200
*In 2005, asked in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China,
France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria,
Philippines, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey and
USA
Source: GlobeScan’s 2005 Corporate Social Responsibility Monitor sur-
Figure 2:
vey. Reproduced with permission of GlobeScan Incorporated (Toronto).
The Role of Business in Society: Two Perspectives
Question asked: “How important is each of the following
(business practices) to your company’s role in society?”
Each category represents a set of practices that
respondents cited as “very important” or “critical.”
Public
House
Steward
in Order
(667
(413
respondents) respondents)
Maximize profits
✓
✓
Manage financial
reporting accurately
✓
✓
Operate ethically
✓
✓
Ensure employee
health and safety
✓
✓
Provide employee benefits
✓
✓
Provide jobs
✓
Protect the environment
✓
Improve conditions
in communities
✓
Protect consumers
✓
Work with suppliers
to ensure ethical operations
✓
BOSTON COLLEGE CENTER FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
Are companies good corporate citizens?
How is business doing overall on its responsibility scorecard? A
multiyear look at public opinion worldwide by GlobeScan
shows that public expectations of companies have been rising
and that ratings of their social responsibility have been dropping (see Figure 3). Recent data from the Reputation Institute
documents that in 25 countries studied, an average of just onein-five people agree that “most companies are socially responsible.” Roughly 16% of Americans see it this way—fewer than in
Mexico (35%) and Canada (26%) but more than in the U.K.
(11%) and Japan (9%).
GolinHarris provides only a slightly more sanguine view of current U.S. public opinion. Its 2006 poll asked “How would you
rate American business today for its corporate citizenship?”
Some 40% gave business average/fair marks and 37% said
below average or poor. Thus just one in four said good or excellent. In addition, over 40% opined that business is “headed in
the wrong direction on corporate citizenship.”
What accounts for these desultory results? Obviously, there are
broad perceptions at work here that encompass everything
from corporate downsizing, outsourcing, and offshoring that
3
combine to feed the insecurities of working people, to growing
gaps between the earnings of the fortunate fifth of Americans
versus the rest of the workforce whose wages stagnate. Swollen
paychecks of CEOs coupled with perceptions of profiteering by
oil companies, pharmaceuticals, and most every other big business exacerbate discontent; and the fallout from Enron and its
ilk remains a factor.
What do business leaders say about growing distrust of corporations in the United States? The Center’s 2007 survey of
American business asked company leaders what accounts for
widespread distrust today. Four of five say that excessive CEO
pay explains a lot of the public’s discontent. They also point the
finger at the media’s negative coverage of big business (stressed
by 62%) and to the idea that the public doesn’t understand what
most companies do (53%). At the same time, a substantial number of business leaders say that a lack of accountability (69%)
and transparency (49%) factor into the public’s judgments. And
roughly half acknowledge that distrust stems from the fact that
corporations do harm to the environment and show disregard
for communities in which they operate.
To put this into context, mistrust of business and its leaders has
been consistently documented in the United States since the
early 1960s and typically peaks whenever misdeeds come to
light—such as exposés on the safety flaws of the Chevrolet
Corvair in the 1960s, hazards of the Dalkon Shield birth control
device in the ’70s, the Exxon Valdez environmental mess in the
’80s, and so on. Now seems to be no exception: a Los Angeles
Times poll, asking about reactions to the financial misdeeds of
high-profile companies, found a substantial segment of the U.S.
public to be “much less trusting” (22%) or “somewhat less trusting” (another 22%) of major corporations in the aftermath.6
Finally, pay attention to the diminished role of government in
American society and the loss of trust and confidence in public
officials. This, in light of demonstrable problems in the nation’s
education and healthcare system, and in community welfare
and infrastructure, make it understandable why the public
might turn to business, particularly big business, to do more for
society and to take better care of the natural environment.
On this count, the Center’s 2007 survey finds that 60 percent
of U.S. business leaders say the the social contract between
business, government, nonprofits, and individual citizens has
serious structural flaws and may need a complete overhaul.
Large numbers agree that business is completely responsible for
making sure its products and operations don’t harm the environment and at least partially responsible for improving education and skills in communities where it operates, as well as
helping to solve social problems like crime and poverty. A key
question, then, is whether or not companies can make a busi-
4
ness case for this expanded citizenship agenda. Here, too, surveys have something to say.
Is citizenship a contributor to corporate
reputation?
The Center’s biennial survey of U.S. companies finds that two
of every three company leaders today believe that citizenship
makes a tangible contribution to the bottom line. What is
behind the thinking of America’s executives? Many researchers
are using surveys to document a link between citizenship and
reputation. Researchers from the Reputation Institute, for
example, have studied the reputations of over 600 companies
based on 30,000 online interviews with consumers in twentyfive countries. In response to a general question, between 50 to
80% of the respondents (depending on the country) agree that
citizenship programs have a strong effect on the reputations of
companies.
This perception is strongest in countries like South Africa,
Brazil, China, and Mexico where, the researchers argue, companies play a more important role in societal development. Still,
over 53% of the public in the United States see a strong link
between citizenship and reputation.
Digging deeper into the database, the Reputation Institute’s
researchers have analyzed the relationship between different
aspects of a firm and its overall reputation.7 The top predictor of
corporate reputation is what they term the “heartbeat” factor—
the public’s overall respect for and trust in a company. What is
the next most significant predictor? In its 2007 global survey on
reputation, ratings of a company’s social and environmental
responsibility was the next most significant predictor of its reputation overall. This means, at least in the public’s eyes, that citizenship is a bigger factor in reputation than perceptions of a
company’s products and services, innovativeness, financial performance, workplace practices, governance, and leadership.
It is not just the public that makes this connection between citizenship and reputation. Hill and Knowlton’s Corporate
Reputation Watch finds that 80% of CEOs believe that corporate
social responsibility contributes to their company’s reputation
to some extent, with three in ten holding the belief that it has a
very significant effect.8 This same survey reports that the majority of CEOs also believe that reputational benefits can significantly increase their company’s ability to recruit and retain
employees, generate additional sales, and achieve many of the
other business benefits we have identified.
What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?
w w w. b c c c c . n e t
Does citizenship help companies to recruit
and retain employees?
The Center has, for several years, characterized employees as
the “missing link” in corporate citizenship. We have, in turn,
urged companies to engage employees under the mantle of citizenship—and in deeper and more meaningful ways. This is, of
course, the central feature of the “good company” brand for
employers. One study phrased its meaning succinctly: CSR
minus HR = PR.
What’s the evidence that working people want to be engaged as
corporate citizens? The Reputation Institute finds that, on average, 75 to 80% of those polled in some 25 countries would “prefer to work for a company that is known for its social responsibility.” It also shows that the appeal of corporate citizenship to
employees is by no means limited to the United States or developed economies with their comparatively prosperous and welleducated workforces. On the contrary, while the Reputation
Institute ranks social responsibility as a significant driver in
attracting employees in the United States (over 62% say it is
important to them), it is even more important in India (69%),
South Africa (77%), and China (79%). Along this same line,
GlobeScan has found that nine out of ten employees worldwide
are interested in participating in the CSR initiatives of their
companies (increasing from 81% in 2002 to 92% in 2005).
Another recent survey by Sirota Survey Intelligence shows how
much corporate social responsibility factors into the job attitudes of working people. The Sirota survey, of 1.6 million
employees in 70 companies, found sharp differences in attitudes between employees who did and did not approve of their
company’s commitments to social responsibility.9 Some 71% of
employees who approve of their company’s commitments have
favorable perceptions of their management’s integrity versus
21% of those who do not approve. Those who favor their company’s commitments are also more engaged in their job (86 versus 37%) and more apt to believe that their employers are interested in their well-being (75 versus 17%). Interestingly, they rate
their companies as more competitive, too (82 versus 41%). This
link between strong and socially conscious corporate values,
commitments to citizenship, and the resulting business benefits is what the Center has called the “value proposition” for corporate citizenship.10
In the United States, an interest in citizenship seems especially
strong among Generation Y – or “Millennials,” as they are also
known – who were born 1978–98, and who are entering and
moving up in companies today. The 2006 Cone Millennial
Cause Study found that more than three out of four young people who are part of or entering the U.S. workforce want to work
for a company that “cares about how it impacts and contributes
to society.”11 Nearly seven in ten say that they are aware of their
BOSTON COLLEGE CENTER FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
employer’s commitment to social/environmental causes and
65% say that their employer’s social/environmental activities
make them feel loyal to their company.
How about the next generation of the nation’s business leaders?
Net Impact, a network of over 10,000 business school students
and graduates, has 125 student and professional chapters on
four continents in seventy-five cities and eighty graduate
schools. The group’s most recent survey of more than 2,000
MBA students (both members and non-members) found the
great majority of students hungry to learn more about CSR and
sustainability in their studies and committed to finding a job
that is socially responsible.12 How many students believe that
business should work toward the betterment of society? Over
80% of the members (and 66% of nonmembers). How many
agree that business is currently working for the betterment of
society? Some 18% of members (and 24% of nonmembers).
The key message from this profile of students: corporate citizenship matters to tomorrow’s business leaders.
Does citizenship matter to consumers?
Particularly in the west, but growing worldwide, there is a move
toward healthy and sustainable consumption.13 This is reflected in trends as varied as preferences for organic foods and clothing (a market growing 20% annually), for fair trade coffee and
chocolate (over 70% annually), and for local sourcing of agricultural produce (a requisite on many campuses and a signature of
some grocers). There is also interest in “ethical” consumerism
as evidenced by an increase in cause-related products and marketing, as well as interest in (at least among half of the world’s
consumers) a brand’s connection to social responsibility.
There is, not surprisingly, considerable debate about the gap
between people’s expressed interest and actual buying behavior
in these regards, and certainly as to whether consumers will pay
a premium for such goods and services.14 For example, the
UN’s environmental program describes a 40/4 gap where 40%
of consumers say they want to buy green product but only 4%
regularly do, at least as of 2004 when the report was issued.
And claims that consumers will pay 5% more for brands from
“visionary CSR companies” versus those of comparable quality
from “non-visionaries” simply don’t bear out, except in the case
of a few well-known icons like Ben & Jerry’s and the Body Shop.
It is well documented, however, that a firm’s social credentials
can help differentiate its brands, that consumers will switch
brands due to CSR issues, and that when they know about a
firm’s bona fides in this area, it is a factor in purchasing decisions. Indeed, evidence reveals that when a product’s social con-
5
tent aligns with its consumers’ personal
interests it can be decisive in building brand
loyalty.15 There are indications, for example,
that they will switch from one brand to
another of same price and quality if the
other brand is associated with a cause. A
2007 survey by Cone, Inc. shows that 87%
of consumers would switch under such conditions versus 65% in 1999.16
Figure 4
Corporate Citizenship "Drivers" [U.S. National Survey, 2007]
What drives companies to embrace corporate citizenship?
76%
Traditions and values
Customers and consumers
66%
Reputation/image
Are people socially responsible?
53%
33%
Expected in community
60%
29%
Findings like the 40/4 gap raise questions
Business strategy
It helps manage
about whether or not the public manifests
regulatory pressures
its interests in corporate citizenship in its
41%
own social responsibilities. A 2007 poll by
Recruit/retain employees
Louis Harris of 2,383 adults is revealing on
Source: State of Corporate Citizenship in the U.S.: Business Perspectives in 2007. © Boston
this count. It finds that over two-thirds of
College Center for Corporate Citizenship.
the public shows “good intentions” by supporting the idea that people should 1) get
involved with different issues and causes,
2) actively contribute time and money, and
credible) versus company websites (cited by 29%). The most
3) factor a company’s reputation for social responsibility into
credible sources are personal experience (cited by 60%) and
decisions about what to buy and who to do business with.
word of mouth (56%). There are, in addition, some signs of
activism in this 2007 survey. Approximately 40% report that
At the same time, far fewer translate these intentions into
they have sent an email to companies about some facet of coraction: Only 8% say that they are “extremely involved” in giving
porate social responsibility.
time and/or money to organizations and causes they believe in,
while another 24% say they give generously; and only 16% say
that a company’s reputation for social responsibility has a
strong effect on their decisions about what to buy and with
What drives citizenship in companies?
whom to do business, while another one-third say it sometimes
Many practitioners make the “business case” for corporate citiaffects their decisions. Meanwhile, 25% take a more libertarian
zenship based on its positive relationship to corporate reputaand laissez-faire position on these options. This shows a gap
tion, employee motivation, and, to some extent, customer loyalbetween what people preach versus practice, but not necessarity. In this light, the Center has queried American executives
ly a reliable one. The survey doesn’t gauge actual behavior nor
about what drives decisions about citizenship in their compaindicate how often and under what circumstances people transnies. In our 2003 and 2005 surveys, laws and political preslate their good intentions into periodic acts of charity or responsures, the expectations of communities, gains in recruiting and
sible consumption decisions.
retention, and benefits to reputation all proved to be motivators
for citizenship. But the most important driver executives cited
Surveys do show, however, that the public is increasingly interwas company traditions and values [see Figure 4]. It was rated
ested in the citizenship of companies. The 2007 Fleishmanhighest in small, medium, and large size firms and in compaHillard/National Consumer’s League survey found that some
nies in every sector. While the business case is a motivator for
54% of consumers seek out information “sometimes” about the
action, it seems that internal factors of identity and culture,
social responsibility of particular companies. Increasingly, they
namely the way citizenship expresses “who we are,” are what
are turning to the internet to search for information.
drive citizenship in companies.
Interestingly, over half of the consumers surveyed turned to the
Exploring this subject, a Booz Allen Hamilton/Aspen Institute
websites of independent groups, such as consumer-watch
survey found that nearly nine out of ten global companies have
groups or accrediting agencies, to garner data, a substantial
value statements that speak to ethics and integrity, and that the
increase from prior years. When it comes to judging the credigreat majority of them profess a commitment to customers,
bility of data, consumers favor independent (cited by 43% as
6
What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?
w w w. b c c c c . n e t
employees, shareholders, and other stakeholders as well as to
corporate citizenship or CSR.17 Interestingly, the study found
that companies that were top financial performers had a
stronger belief than the rest of the sample in the value of values.
They were also more likely to believe that environmental
responsibility and corporate citizenship are drivers of their business success.
How do social issues factor into corporate
citizenship?
Many polling and consulting shops profile the issues that keep
executives awake at night. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) 10th
annual survey of nearly 1,100 CEOs in 2006, for example,
found that concerns about overregulation, the availability of key
skills, low-cost competition, and energy and commodity prices
were uppermost on the minds of top executives. Issues around
scarcities in natural resources, global warming, and potential
pandemics, such as obesity and bird flu, were further down the
list of immediate concerns for most company heads.18 PwC
also asked about how many resources companies expend to deal
with these threats. The analysis shows some correlation
between the threats facing business and its response to them.
McKinsey & Co.’s 2007 global survey of over 3,500 top executives, by comparison, asked how important select issues would
be for business in the next five years. Looking ahead, business
leaders placed importance on issues such as the growing numbers of consumers in emerging economies, increasing global
talent and labor markets, a faster pace of technological innovation, constraints on supply or usage of natural resources, and an
aging population in developed countries. It showed many firms
taking active steps to respond to the technological and labor
force issues, but comparatively fewer preparing for social,
demographic, and environmental challenges.19
Social Issues in Perspective. McKinsey has also tried to put
social issues into perspective. For instance, in 2005, the consultancy also asked 4,063 consumers in the U.S., France,
Germany, Japan, India, and China for their views on the most
pressing social issues. Consumers ranked the environment,
pensions/retirement, and health benefits as their top three concerns. A comparison between consumer and executive worries
is striking, particularly when it comes to the natural environment and pensions/retirement—top concerns of consumers
and secondary worries of business leaders. No wonder
McKinsey labels these as two key risks facing business in the
years ahead.20
BOSTON COLLEGE CENTER FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
In addition, McKinsey also asked executives about the relative
balance of risks and opportunities posed by issues. The executives saw pensions as a key risk. In addition, they viewed threats
to privacy and political influence primarily as risks to companies. By contrast, the bulk of executives surveyed saw an equal
balance between risk and opportunity in calls for more investment in developing countries, for ethical standards in advertising and marketing, and for attention to human rights.
How do companies manage sociopolitical
issues?
Changing public expectations, the media spotlight, pressures
from nongovernmental organizations, aggrieved shareholder
resolutions, and of course misconduct or lapses in social performance all bring social issues into a firm’s strategic calculus.
McKinsey & Co. asked executives, “When large companies in
your industry try to manage sociopolitical issues, which three
tactics do they rely on most frequently?” The top three tactics
cited: 1) using media and public relations; 2) lobbying regulators
and governments; and 3) speeches and public actions taken by
the CEO. But a follow-up question in the executive survey asked
about the effectiveness of such tactics. Just 35% cited media and
public relations as an effective tactic; 25% cited lobbying; and
only 14% cited speeches and actions by the CEO.
Certainly the public no longer countenances corporate scandals
and attempts to cover them over in public relations campaigns.
Surveys show that the public—as consumers, investors, and
employees—takes a punitive view of “bad corporate behavior.”21 When asked in the Cone study how they would respond
if they were to find out about corporate misdoings, here is a
sample of what the public reports:
• 75% would refuse to work at that company.
• 80% would refuse to invest in that company’s stock; and
• 81% would speak out against that company among family
and friends;
• 90% would consider switching to another company’s products or services.
On these counts, the McKinsey study suggests a more effective
course of action for firms facing controversies. Tactics deemed
most effective are: increase transparency (cited by 36%), implement internal CSR policies (35%), and engage stakeholders
(33%).
7
Can social issues be opportunities for
business?
Polls show that the public expects corporations to “exceed the
law” when it comes to protecting the natural environment—not
only in the United States, Europe, and Japan, but also throughout Asia, Latin America, and even Africa. Very few support economic development at the expense of the environment, and big
companies especially are expected to apply the same environmental standards to their operations in the developing world as
they do at home.
According to McKinsey surveys, many business leaders see climate change as chiefly a risk, but a minority of them sees it as
more of an opportunity. This is another way that social issues
translate into strategy and what motivates company investments in environmental improvements, the emergence of carbon trading, and the launch of many more eco-friendly products. Studies of the size of this green market suggest that the
LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Safety) segment will grow
from $200 billion in sales today to $420 billion in three years
to $845 billion by 2015.
There are many other social issues that can be both threats and
opportunities. Obesity, as one example, is widespread in the
U.S. and Europe and growing in India, China, and elsewhere.
Type II diabetes is projected to reach pandemic proportions—
from roughly 180 million cases today to 370 million by 2030. At
the same time, attitudes have shifted dramatically about the
“causes” of obesity. An analysis of New York Times articles on
obesity found that, in 1990, some 84% of the stories stressed
that obesity was caused by individual habits and only 14% attributed causation to the environment. Thirteen years later, by comparison, personal causes were emphasized in 54% of the articles
while 46% cited environmental causes––a threefold increase.22
This naturally poses a threat to fast food franchisers and soft
drink purveyors. It also expands the market for healthier foods
and beverages.
How do views of corporate citizenship
differ around the world?
We have noted a few of the differences in the relationship of citizenship to corporate reputation, employee attraction, and consumer behavior around the globe. The Reputation Institute
reports, for instance, that citizenship is very important to the
Chinese. It is a major factor in their ratings of a company’s reputation, and very relevant in employee and consumer choices.
8
Note that this relationship works in two ways: good corporate
citizens are acclaimed and those that perform badly as citizens
are devalued and avoided in China. This same relational
trend is found in India, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and other
emerging markets where the public is interested in corporate
citizenship and companies are seen as critical to economic
and social development.
By comparison, citizenship is not much of a discriminator in
Russia. According to the Reputation Institute’s analysis, it’s
not much of a factor in Russian’s decisions about reputation,
employment or consumption. Why not? Largely because the
great majority of Russians don’t trust corporations and their
claims to being good citizens. This negative view of corporate
practices and intentions also dampens the relevance of citizenship in the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, France
and Germany.
Some of this can be explained by the stage of economic development in countries, the role historically assumed by companies
versus the state, and the particulars of national culture. Take, for
example, the question of whether or not multinational companies are good for society. In the U.S., a strong market capitalist
country where corporations are neither damned nor praised,
public opinion splits roughly 50/50 as to whether or not global
companies operate in the best interests of society. In Europe, by
comparison, only one in three trust companies in this regard,
according to the Reputation Institute.
GlobeScan has asked the public around the world what it
expects from companies. One poll asked the world, “What is the
most important thing a company can do to be seen as socially
responsible?” That study found significant differences in priorities around the globe: the United States, Canada, and Brazil put
prime emphasis on community involvement; Australia on protecting the environment; and Mexico and China on the quality
and safety of products. The most important criterion globally:
treating employees well.
Despite these regional and country differences, GlobeScan
finds that the majority of people in every country it surveys are
very interested in “learning more about the ways companies are
trying to be more socially responsible.” This runs from a high
of 90% in Mexico to 78% in the U.S. to 68% in South Korea to
56% in Russia. The challenge for companies is to communicate
credibly about citizenship in countries where there is interest
in, but endemic skepticism about, what companies are up to.
What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?
w w w. b c c c c . n e t
What’s on the social agenda in the United
States?
In the United States, an important criterion in the public’s judgments of corporations as citizen’s concerns their support for
communities and charity. In its 2006 poll, GolinHarris asked
people to rate the three most important types of issues for business to address as a good corporate citizen. The U.S. public
rates attention to the environment (ranked #1, #2, or #3 by
47%), education and literacy (40%), and human, civil, and animal rights (35%) as the key issues in good corporate citizenship.
When it comes to specific issues to address, the American public also cites disaster relief, product safety, and affordable health
insurance as key priorities.
How does this match corporate social priorities? The Center’s
2005 survey asked to what extent companies are “acting or
supporting action by others” to address a variety of social
issues (through their philanthropy, nonprofit partnerships,
and business activity). Companies reported that their most
significant efforts and investments were targeted to community development (cited by 40%), the safety and efficacy of
products (38%), training for the incumbent workforce (36%),
affordable insurance (30%), K-12 education (28%), and
improving the environment (26%). All of this is very much in
line with public expectations.
Corporate philanthropy in the United States was estimated at
$12.7 billion in 2006, according to the most recent data collected by the Giving USA Foundation, which represents 4.3% of
total charitable gifts in the nation. Although this was a decline
since 2005, when giving was inflated by funds, goods, and services for disaster relief, more detailed analyses from the
Committee to Encourage Corporate Philanthropy (CECP), a
forum of business leaders focused on this subject, revealed that
a majority of American companies actually increased their overall financial contributions in 2006 and that international corporate giving rose substantially.23 To better understand the nature
of this funding and the intent behind it, the Center has partnered with the CECP to analyze patterns of giving in a sample
of 75 companies (including thirty in the Fortune 500). Here’s a
sample of the findings:
• Fortune 500 companies make bigger contributions overall,
but smaller companies’ giving represents a larger share of
pre-tax profits.
• Most of the contributions are in the form of cash (42%),
with foundation cash and non-cash contributions coming in
just under 30%.
BOSTON COLLEGE CENTER FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
• As for budget source, the majority is from corporate headquarters (38.2%), followed by corporate foundations (31.3%)
and “all other groups” (30.5% from business units or
branch offices).
• Some 81% of the companies examined had a formal
volunteer program in place for domestic employees,
among them paid time off, flexible scheduling, dollarsfor-doers, employee volunteer recognition awards, retiree
and family volunteering.
Surveys of these companies showed that almost nine in ten
had one or more business-related goals associated with their
philanthropic efforts. This is a huge jump from two decades
ago, when most companies tried to choose areas for their
efforts that were distant enough from their business objectives
to eliminate the appearance of conflicts or self-interest. Giving
professionals cited more than 20 benefits from their engagement with communities, among the strongest being a greater
capacity to recruit and retain employees, enhance the brand,
develop relationships both within the company and with communities and governments, and smooth expansion into new
geographical areas.
How is citizenship managed in
companies?
Surveys have only scratched the surface as to how citizenship is
managed in companies. The Center’s 2003 survey, a first exploration of this subject in a national sample, asked large company
respondents to answer a few questions about management of
citizenship in their firms. The survey found that while the
majority of big firms addressed it in their employee communications (64%), public relations (58%), and company mission or
vision statements (54%), far fewer incorporated it into the firm’s
strategic plans (41%), work unit goals (36%), and manager performance appraisals (18%). And while two-thirds reported that
many people in their companies had responsibilities for
improving corporate citizenship, few had a process for evaluating its effectiveness in their companies or for measuring the
impact on the community or their own bottom line.
The Center’s 2007 survey finds only modest progress in managing citizenship across the spectrum of American big business. Slightly fewer than one-half of the big companies in our
random sample say that citizenship is an integral part of their
business planning process and that they issue a public report on
citizenship. As many consult regularly with external stakeholders and their own employees on citizenship matters. To get a
better feel for what companies with a track record managing cit-
9
izenship are doing, see the Conference Board’s 2006 survey of
medium- to large-size multinationals (a select sample of 198
member companies). This select sample is certainly giving citizenship more of their managerial attention.24 Over 60% say
that they have formal programs to manage citizenship and sustainability, and over 75% say that these are important to their
Boards and C-suite executives. Nearly half of this sample says
that their Boards routinely review citizenship efforts in their
companies. And some 71% publicly report on their performance in this arena – a significant increase for businesses documented from many sources.
The Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI)
and Businesses for Social Responsibility (BSR) surveyed 54
business professionals in 2006 from their respective member
companies.25 This study provides further evidence of interest
in, and professional management of, citizenship, at least
among a select sample of firms. The GEMI/BSR survey
reports that the CEOs of these companies have made a clear,
public commitment to sustainability (72%) and that there is a
strong connection between their company’s talk and actual
support for CSR (79% say their firm “walks the talk”).
Interestingly, over 60% report that CSR is well aligned and
coordinated with overall company strategy. Just over half add
that CSR is considered in product procurement processes and
46% say it is considered in product designs. There are less
favorable ratings of integration of CSR in the company. Just
42% say that their government affairs efforts are aligned with
CSR goals and 38% say that CSR in not linked to marketing
and brand messaging in their companies.
Finally, McKinsey & Co.’s 2007 survey of companies participating in the Global Compact finds that 90% of CEOs are doing
more than they did five years ago to incorporate environmental,
social, and governance issues into strategy and operations. But
gaps are notable: 72% of CEOs agree that corporate responsibility should be embedded into strategy and operations, but only
50% think their firms do so. And six in ten say that corporate
responsibility should be infused into global supply chains, but
only 27% say they are doing so.26
Details on this broad movement toward managing citizenship
more strategically and professionally and toward integrating it
into the operations of a firm can be found in Center studies of
the “stages of citizenship” and on integrating it into the business.27 This is all part of the going “beyond good company” criteria of citizenship toward a next generation of practice.
What’s involved in “Next Generation
Corporate Citizenship?”
The movement toward “next generation corporate citizenship”
takes firms beyond traditional measures of compliance and
community contributions to integrating citizenship into the
organization and operations and to factoring it into products
and services. Surveys show that the public supports this trend.
Polls find that the public all over the world says that the best way
for companies to make a positive contribution to society is by
working to solve a specific social problem, rather than donating
monies to charity (although both rank below their primary contribution of developing safer and healthier products and services). What’s involved in next generation citizenship?
Global Citizenship. First, it extends citizenship to a global scale.
This means applying world class standards to operations and
dealings in developing and emerging markets. It also means
taking account of social and environmental needs around the
world and tailoring actions to local needs and culture and conditions. Global scans and some of the multi-country data collected by the survey houses and consulting firms we have cited here
can be especially useful on these counts. Finally, it means factoring social and environmental sustainability into decisions
and actions. Increasingly, even small and primarily domestic
firms will be expected to “think globally and act locally.”
Business Practices and Products. Second, the new movement
extends citizenship to the full value chain of firms—from the
supply chain to products and services to distribution and recycling. Consider, for example, that surveys show that the affordability of products for poor consumers poses both risks and
opportunities for business. The risks factor into the defensive
strategies of banks, insurers, big pharmaceuticals, and health
care providers that have been pilloried by the public for red-lining and profiteering. Providing affordable loans and insurance
products and subsidized therapies are a responsible way of dealing with these threats. On the opportunity side, next generation
corporate citizens are opening up “untapped markets” through
microlending and devising new business models to reach the
bottom of the pyramid.28
In a recent survey by GlobeScan of over 300 experts in the field,
just 30% rated strategic corporate philanthropy as effective in
achieving the UN’s millennium development goals. By comparison, nearly 75% credited new business models and innovations
as either somewhat or very effective.
Multi-sector Partnerships. Third, this movement involves multisector partnering to address society’s needs. The public certainly approves of this. On a global scale, NGOs earn far more trust
than global companies in both the northern (68 versus 38% are
10
What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?
w w w. b c c c c . n e t
trusted) and the southern hemispheres (63 versus 46%); and in
both they are more trusted than national governments, domestic companies, trade unions, and the media.29 Who is most
trusted to do what’s right? In the United States, where trust
in business in this regard has been relatively constant since
2001, trust in NGOs has increased dramatically (from 36% in
2001 to 54% in 2006), moving well ahead of business. NGOs
are now the most trusted institution in every country except
Japan and Brazil.
In addition, a GlobeScan survey found that the public deems
NGOs far more trustworthy than government when it comes to
addressing environmental issues (65 versus 16%), human
rights issues (69 versus 14%), and health issues (64 versus
17%). What does this mean for a company? GlobeScan finds
that 85% of the public reports that its respect for a company
would go up if it partnered with a charity or NGO. Furthermore,
a growing segment of the public says that a key indication that
a company is socially responsible is that it works directly with a
charity group or NGO. This perception increased in the United
States from 16 to 30% from 2002 to 2005.
Business versus government. All of this stress on multi-sector
partnering in meeting society’s expectations needs to be considered in the context of tensions in the United States over the role
of business and government. The Center’s surveys find nearly
all business leaders adamant that corporate responsibility
should be a voluntary option of companies, not legislated or regulated by the government. The American public’s view on this
is markedly different. The 2007 Fleishman-Hillard/National
Consumer’s League survey found that four of five consumers
believe that it is “extremely” or “very” important for the
Congress to ensure that corporations address issues such as
energy, the environment, and healthcare. A majority also agree
that firms in certain industries, such as pharmaceutical (cited
by 62%), chemical (60%), food (55%), and energy (53%) require
more “oversight” by the government. This raises a question
about business versus government roles in the United States,
and the prospects for cooperation, in the years head.
Mindsets of Management. Finally, not discounting the threat of
legislation, next generation companies seem committed to
embedding citizenship into the mindsets of managers and fabric of their corporate culture. In PwC’s 2006 survey of CEOs,
some 81% of more than 1,000 top executives in 50 countries
agreed, “my company’s development program focuses increasingly on equipping leaders to take a role in creating a sustainable business environment.” Center surveys and those by others
in the next several years will highlight to what extent this is ultimately reflected in company values, practices, operations, and
culture.
BOSTON COLLEGE CENTER FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
Can surveys help companies to manage
citizenship?
Many firms today routinely use surveys to assess community
needs, gauge the impact of social programs, and increasingly, to
tap into the views of employees, investors, and other stakeholders about their social responsibilities and social performance.
Nike, as an example, used surveys in the 1990s to scale the public’s reactions to ethical problems in its dealings with its supply
chain and to gather opinions from myriad stakeholders. It has
since used them to assess the impact of its social programs promoting fitness, including Nike-Go. One Nike-funded study
found that, of those who knew about the programs, 69% had
more favorable opinions of Nike and 38% felt more inclined to
purchase Nike products.30
How important is social responsibility to your customers?
Research by British Telecom found that its citizenship activities
account for 25% of its reputation among 3,000 customers sampled.31 The company thereupon developed key performance
indicators in the social arena and instituted an annual “health
check” to review its performance.
Surveys can also help a firm to calibrate its cause-marketing and
socio-commercial investments. Unilever, for instance, was well
aware of how its industry was promoting a “skinny model” body
image through advertising and brand promises. Company
research found that just 12% of women are very satisfied with
their physical attractiveness; 68% strongly agree that the media
sets an unrealistic standard of beauty; and 75% wish the media
did a better job of portraying the diversity of women’s physical
attractiveness, including size and shape, across all ages. These
data bolstered the firm’s commitment to launch a campaign to
promote “inner beauty” through its Dove brand soaps and
shampoos. Advertisements show “real women have curves” and
a film documents how fashion models’ appearances are often
distorted by photographic software to conform to an idealized
but unattainable type. The Dove campaign is carried to schools
around the world in a complementary program to promote
young women’s self-esteem.
On the social marketing front, surveys can also help to identify
relevant niches. Certainly citizenship resonates with young people in the United States who, according to Cone Inc. and AMP
Insights, constitute the “most socially conscious consumers to
date.” In an online survey by these two Boston-based companies, some 61% of 13- to 25-year-olds feel personally responsible
for making a difference in the world; 69% consider a company’s social and environmental commitment when deciding
where to shop; and 83% trust a company more if it is
socially/environmentally responsible.
11
Beyond these niche applications, surveys can also provide
broad-based measures of a company’s reputation as a corporate
citizen. The Reputation Institute, for example, annually ranks
the top 200 among 600 corporate brands studied in terms of
their overall reputation among the public around the world and,
for a fee, will provide detailed scores for subscales, including
measures of corporate citizenship. The top companies in their
2007 reputation rankings were Ikea and LEGO. In turn,
GolinHarris ranks the top U.S. brands in terms of perceptions
of their corporate citizenship. Top companies in its 2006 ratings were Ben & Jerry’s, Target, and Patagonia.
Some companies use the broad data in conjunction with other
surveys to flesh out what’s behind their rankings or to assess
the implications. A survey by GlobeScan illustrates the need for
a more thoroughgoing assessment. For seven years running,
this survey house has asked people around the globe to “name
a company that you believe is fulfilling its responsibilities to
society better than others.” Who gets the most (unprompted)
citations in the U.S.? Wal-Mart. Then the pollsters ask who the
least socially responsible company is? Wal-Mart again! To sort
through the implications, Wal-Mart commissioned a more
detailed study of its consumers and discovered that up to 8% of
shoppers had stopped patronizing the chain because of its reputation.32 This, alongside data on declining same-store sales,
was a stimulus to the company’s makeover.
12
What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?
What should you know about surveys?
While the previous section seems to
imply that surveys can be informative,
instructive, and useful for companies in
developing and assessing their citizenship agenda, they can also be uninformative, downright misleading, and a
frightful waste of time and money.
Before you engage a polling shop or
“roll your own,” consider these five cautionary points:
• Be clear on what you want to study.
Remember social psychologist Kurt
Lewin’s famous adage: “There is
nothing so practical as a good theory.” A good survey starts with thinking carefully about and developing a
map of what it is you want to study.
Your cause-effect map should identify
the specific behaviors (or attitudes)
of interest, several possible causes,
and the potential consequences.
Ideally, a survey “tests” your theory.
There are, of course, plenty of standardized surveys that purport to
measure community needs, stakeholder expectations, even most every
aspect of corporate citizenship. Draw
from them when developing your
own survey or, if you work with a vendor, consider carefully whether or not
their instruments address and measure what you think is important. This
thinking through will make you
smarter about your situation. And
most vendors will tailor their surveys
to test your thinking or “theory of the
case.”
• Craft questions that are answerable.
Question writing is part science and
part art. There are plenty of examples
of surveys that include vague questions or have multiple questions
embedded in a single one; consider
this example from an otherwise reputable survey shop: are (your company’s) executives ethical, honest,
responsible, and accountable? And
how one might answer: yes, sometimes, for what, and to whom? There
are also difficult choices about question wording (is “committed” as
agreeable a phrase as “walks the
talk”?), response scales (agreeing
something is “very” important not
the same as rating it a “top” priority?), and the whole layout of the survey (do you favor a logical or random
order?). And there are price/performance tradeoffs on web-based, phone,
and paper-and-pencil surveys.
Experts can be helpful here. A pilot
test and actually working through the
survey with someone completing it
are very helpful too.
• Ensure reliability and validity. To
make sense of a survey, you need to
understand the impact of sample
size and composition, the reliability
of single questions and groupings of
them, and the validity of findings versus, say, what you set out to measure
(construct validity) and versus other
kinds of measures of the same thing.
A citizenship practitioner need not
know all the technical features of validating a survey but whomever you
work with (in-house or a vendor)
should know about these things. And
you should know enough to know
when the findings are suspect (e.g.,
apply the “smell” test).
• Use multiple measurement methods.
Surveys measure some things well
and not others. One-on-one interviews, a focus group discussion, and
an on-line jam can broaden your
study of corporate citizenship, reveal
nuances in perceptions and attitudes, and open up whole new
questions. These help in building a
survey or interpreting the findings.
Observations are also a rich source
of information. A lot of interesting
ideas emerge from “talking the
walk.”
BOSTON COLLEGE CENTER FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
• Remember correlation is not causation. Mirvis’ studies at Ben & Jerry’s
ice cream found that the company’s
social mission was a stronger factor
in employee commitment than
wages and benefits and even job
content. This strongly reinforced the
value of the company’s social mission. But this finding does not mean
that more investment in the social
mission would further increase commitment or that the company would
keep that commitment should it
reduce annual wage increases or put
smart people into dumb jobs. Survey
analysis shows only that there is an
association between sets of attitudes
or attitudes and behavior.
This point also applies to any conclusions you might read from surveys,
such as the idea that, should a firm
become a better citizen, it will motivate
more of its employees or win more customers and gain public approval.
Academic studies, for example, find a
generally positive relationship between
social responsibility and firm performance. But several of the studies have
found a negligible relationship between
social and financial performance. The
results seem to depend on the industry
studied and trends in its sectoral market. Second, it is not clear what causes
what: companies with good financial
performance, for example, also have
more monies—and perhaps mindshare—to invest in CSR-type activities.
Hence, it can be argued that good financial performance leads to social responsibility, rather than the other way
around. Sorting through all of this, most
researchers now see corporate social
and financial performance as part of a
“virtuous cycle” whereby each reinforces
the other. Both kinds of performance,
they contend, are a function of good
management.
13
Endnotes
1The major polls cited throughout this paper are from a consortium of researchers around the world, the Reputation Institute,
RepTrak Pulse 2006: Social Responsibility Report at http://www.reputationinstitute.com; GlobeScan, Corporate Social Responsibility
Monitor (2001-2006), http://www.globescan.com; and GolinHarris, Doing Well by Doing Good: The Trajectory of Corporate
Citizenship in American Business, http://www.golinharris.com. The Center’s surveys of business leaders include The State of
Corporate Citizenship in the U.S.: A view from inside 2003-2004. The State of Corporate Citizenship in the U.S.: Business Perspectives
in 2005. (Boston: BCCCC, 2004; 2006).
2Step Up: A Call for Business Leadership in Society, (Chestnut Hill: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, 2006).
3The McKinsey Quarterly. “Global Survey of Business Executives.” (January, 2006). Online edition at McKinsey.com.
Cited throughout this paper.
4Millennium Report. (Toronto, CA: Environics, 1999; 2003).
5A 2007 survey by Fleishman-Hillard and the National Consumer’s League adds a twist to American’s views on the corporate role
in society. In an open-ended question, a sample of 2,078 consumers said that a company’s primary social responsibility was to
communities more so than to employees (as reported by 23 versus 17%). Why the difference between these findings and those of
GolinHarris? Three factors are notable. One is timing. In 2006, for instance, the nation was rife with headlines about downsizing
and job loss; much less so in 2007. Meanwhile, news about community problems having to do with education, crime, health care,
and economy continued at pace. A second factor is question wording: questions about corporate citizenship may elicit different
reactions than those about a company’s social responsibilities. Finally, question formatting is key: the Fleishman-Harris survey
asked for one open-ended answer about social responsibility that was then coded under themes of community, employees, products and services, and so on. GolinHarris had people “check” the importance of each of these and other aspects of citizenship.
Fleishman-Hillard/National Consumer League. Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility. (May, 2007) Online at
www.fleishman.com
6Los Angeles Times. (March, 2004). The fallout on ethics continues. A 2007 Bloomberg/LA Times polls finds that six in ten
Americans don’t find CEO to be ethical and eight in ten say that they are paid too much (June, 2007).
7See Antonio Márquez and Charles J. Fombrun, “Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility.” Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 4,
(January, 2005): 304-308.
8Hill and Knowlton and Korn Ferry International. “Corporate Reputation Watch” (September, 2003). See also Return on
Reputation: Corporate Reputation Watch 2006. http://www.HillandKnowlton.com.
9Sirota Survey Intelligence, http://www.sirota.com.
10Steven Rochlin and Bradley Googins, The Value Proposition for Corporate Citizenship. (Chestnut Hill: Boston College Center for
Corporate Citizenship, 2005).
11Cone Inc./AMP Insights. “The 2006 Cone Millennial Cause Study” (October 24, 2006). http://www.coneinc.com.
12New Leaders, New Perspectives: A Net Impact Survey of MBA Student Opinions on the Relationship between Business and
Social/Environmental Issues. (San Francisco: Net Impact, October, 2006).
13See Anthony Kleanthous and Jules Peck, “Let them Eat Cake” World Wildlife Fund, (WWF-UK, 2006).
14Timothy Devinney, Patrice Auger, Giana Eckhardt, and Thomas Birtchnell. “The Other CSR” Stanford Social Innovation Review,
(Fall 2006) and United Nations Environmental Program, “Talk the Walk” (UNEP, 2005). http://www.uneptie.org.
15C. B. Bhattacharya and Sankar Sen. “Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate
Social Initiatives.” California Management Review. 47/1 (2004): 9-24.
14
What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?
w w w. b c c c c . n e t
16The 2007 Cone Cause Evolution Survey (July 9, 2007), at www.coneinc.com
17Chris Kelly, Paul Kocourek, Nancy McGaw, and Judith Samuelson, Deriving Value from Corporate Values, (Washington: The
Aspen Institute and Booz Allen Hamilton, 2005).
18PricewaterhouseCoopers 10th Annual Global CEO Survey, Was: Within borders Is: Across borders Will be: Without borders? (PwC:
2007).
19The McKinsey Quarterly. “Global Survey of Business Executives.” (March, 2007).
20Scott Beardsley, Sheila Bonini, Lenny Mendonca and Jeremy Oppenheim. “A new era for business,” Stanford Innovation Review,
(Summer, 2007).
21Cone Inc. “2004 Corporate Citizenship Study.” (December, 2004). http://www.coneinc.com.
22Regina G. Lawrence. “Framing Obesity: The Evolution of News Discourse on a Public Health Issue,” The Joan Shorenstein
Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University, 2004-5 http://www.ksg.harvard.edu.
23Estimate from The Giving USA Foundation. Giving USA 2007: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2006. (New York:
American Association of Fundraising Counsel, 2007).
24The Conference Board. Reward Trumps Risk: How Business Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability are Changing its
Bottom Line. Executive Action #216, November, 2006. Available at http://www.conferenceboard.org/publications/describe_ea.cfm?id=1237.
25GEMI/BSR. Sustainable Business & Strategy: A View from the Inside. (September 15, 2006). Find at
http://www.bsr.org/meta/GEMI_BSRsummaryresults.pdf.
26McKinsey & Co., “Shaping the New Rules of Competition: UN Global Compact Participant Mirror.” (July, 2007). Online at
McKinsey.com.
27Philip Mirvis and Bradley Googins. The Stages of Corporate Citizenship. (Boston: BCCCC, 2006); Julie Manga, Philip Mirvis,
Steven Rochlin, and Kristin Zecchi. Integration: Critical Link for Corporate Citizenship. (Chestnut Hill: Boston College Center for
Corporate Citizenship, 2005).
28John Weiser, Michele Kahane, Steve Rochlin, and Jessica Landis, Untapped: Creating Value in Underserved Markets (San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2006); C. K. Prahalad. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Wharton
School Publishing, 2005).
29See Globescan, Report on Issues and Reputation, (2005).
30See Mark Kramer and John Kania, “Changing the Game.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Spring, 2006). Online at
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/changing_the_game.
31British Telecom, Just Values: Beyond the Business Case for Sustainable Development, (2003). BT.com.
32See Marc Gunther, “The Green Machine,” Fortune, (July 31, 2006). Online edition,
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/07/8382593/index.htm.
33Philip Mirvis. Ben & Jerry’s: Team development intervention (A and B). In A. Glassman and T. Cummings (eds.) Cases in
Organization Development. (Homewood, II.: Irwin, 1991).
BOSTON COLLEGE CENTER FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
15
New Book Explores Changing Role of
Business in Society
Drawing on expertise from Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
Available December 2007 • www.beyondgoodcompany.com
Beyond Good Company: Next Generation Corporate Citizenship
Bradley K. Googins, Philip H. Mirvis, Steven A. Rochlin
“Beyond Good Company is a thoroughly-researched, eye-opening account of how the best international companies add “happiness maximization” to “profit maximization” and compete on foresight—that is, think ahead about how their products and
operations can solve critical societal problems. This book powerfully connects corporate citizenship to business strategy.”
Rosabeth Moss Kanter, author of Confidence: How Winning Streaks and Losing Streaks Begin and End,
and America the Principled: 6 Opportunities for Becoming a Can-Do Nation Once Again
“Even if some would argue that the Golden Age of corporate citizenship is coming to an end, now the hard, competitive slog
starts. Business leaders aiming to succeed in complex, dynamic global markets know they have no option but to deal with
the 1.0 compliance and 2.0 citizenship agendas. But as Googins, Mirvis and Rochlin - a supergroup in their field - argue, we
are seeing the emergence of a 3.0 agenda focusing on repurposing enterprise, on leverage and on the scaling of entrepreneurial solutions for the world's great sustainability challenges. Truly, next generation corporate citizenship.”
– John Elkington, Founder & Chief Entrepreneur
of SustainAbility and originator of the 'triple bottom line'
2007 State of Corporate Citizenship in the U.S.
Report to be released December 2007
Learn what U.S. executives think about corporate citizenship and how it is managed within their companies. The 2007 State
of Corporate Citizenship in the U.S. is the only survey that looks at the entire U.S. business landscape—including small,
medium, and large companies representing all major industry sectors—to examine the role of business in society.
The biennial survey is conducted by the Boston College Center
for Corporate Citizenship and funded by The Hitachi
Foundation. Highlights of the 2007 survey of 751 executives:
Attitudes about corporate citizenship:
• 73% say corporate citizenship needs to be a priority for
companies
• 71% say corporate citizenship should be completely
voluntary
• 65% say the public has a right to expect good corporate
citizenship from companies
• 61% say corporate citizenship makes a tangible
contribution to business bottom line
16
Key factors that motivate a company to be a good corporate
citizen include:
•
•
•
•
Fits our company traditions and values: 76%
Improves our reputation/image: 66%
Part of our business strategy: 60%
Important to our customers: 53%
According to executives surveyed, factors contributing to the
growing distrust of corporations in the United States, include:
•
•
•
•
Excessive CEO pay: 79%
Media provides mostly negative coverage: 62%
Lack of accountability: 59%
Public doesn’t understand what most companies do: 53%
What Do Surveys Say About Corporate Citizenship?
w w w. b c c c c . n e t
The Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship is a membershipbased research organization associated with the Carroll School of Management. It is
committed to helping business leverage its social, economic and human assets to
ensure both its success and a more just and sustainable world. As a leading resource
on corporate citizenship, The Center works with global corporations to help them
define, plan and operationalize their corporate citizenship. Through the power of
research, executive education and the insights of its 350 corporate members, The
Center creates knowledge, value and demand for corporate citizenship.
The Center offers publications including a newsletter, research reports, and white
papers; executive education, including three Certificate programs; events that include
an annual conference, roundtables and regional meetings; peer-to-peer learning
forums and a corporate membership program.
www.bcccc.net
This piece is printed on Mohawk Via 100% post consumer waste paper manufactured
with windpower and is Green Seal and FSC certified. The print facility has a 100%
recycling policy and uses UV Environmental Inks with no VOCs.
BOSTON COLLEGE CENTER FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
17
A Working Paper from Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
What Do Surveys Say
About Corporate Citizenship?
55 LEE ROAD • CHESTNUT HILL, MA 02467-3942 • PHONE 617.552.4545 • FAX 617.552.8499
E-MAIL: [email protected] • www.bcccc.net