Instituto de Innovación Socialitemsweb.esade.edu › biblioteca › archivo ›...

S E L E C C I Ó N DE ARTÍCULOS

2007

Instituto de Innovación Social de ESADE

SELE

CC

IÓN

DE

AR

TÍC

ULO

S 2

007

Instituto de Innovación Social

Promotores del Instituto de Innovación Social:

Este libro ha sido impreso en papel de fi bras 100% reciclables post-consumo.Homologado internacionalmente con certifi cados NAPM, Cisne Nórdico, Ángel Azul y Eco-etiqueta Europea.

Barcelona Av. Pedralbes, 60-6208034 España

Tel. + 34 93 280 61 62Fax + 34 93 204 81 05

MadridMateo Inurria, 25-2728036 España

Tel. + 34 91 359 77 14Fax + 34 91 703 00 62

http://www.esade.edu

2 SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007

SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007 3

4 SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007

Este libro a sido impreso en papel de fi bras 100% reciclables post-consumo.Homologado internacionalmente con certifi cados NAPM, Cisne Nórdico, Ángel Azul i Eco-etiqueta Europea.

Diseño i producción | Gráfi cas 94Depósito Legal | B-5478-2008ISBN | 978-84-88971-17-3

SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007 5

SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS 2007Instituto de Innovación SocialESADE

6 SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Índice

SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Índice

7

índice

Presentación 9Introducción 10Artículos 19

ALBAREDA, L.; LOZANO, J.M; YSA, T. 15 “PUBLIC POLICIES ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN EUROPE” Journal of Business Ethics. (2007), núm.74.

KUSYK, S.; LOZANO, J.M. 35 “CORPORATE RESPONSABILITY IN SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES. SME SOCIAL PERFORMANCE: A FOUR-CELL TYPOLOGY OF KEY SOCIAL ISSUES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR STAKEHOLDER THEORY” Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society. Vol. 7 (2007), núm. 4.

RODRIGO, P.; ARENAS D. 51 “DO EMPLOYEES CARE ABOUT CSR PROGRAMS? A TYPOLOGY OF EMPLOYEES ACCORDING TO THEIR ATTITUDES” Journal of Business Ethics (accepted, available online).

BALAGUER, M.R.; ALBAREDA, L. 73 “ANALISIS COMPARATIVO DE LA RENTABILIDAD FINANCIERA DE LOS FONDOS DE INVERSION SOCIALMENTE RESPONSABLES EN ESPAÑA” Análisis Financiero (2007), núm. 105.

LOZANO, J.M. 87 “L’EMPRESA SOCIALMENT RESPONSABLE” Revista Econòmica de Catalunya (2007), núm. 55.

MURILLO, D 101 “LA RSE EN LAS PYMES” Documentación Social (2007), núm. 146.

Equipo Humano 119

8 SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Presentación

SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Presentación

9

PRESENTACIÓN

El Instituto de Innovación Social (IIS) de ESADE nace el año 2007 fruto de la expe-riencia que ESADE ha consolidado en el campo de la responsabilidad social de la empresa (RSE) y en el de la gestión de las ONG, integrando en un único proyec-to el Instituto Persona, Empresa y Sociedad (IPES), los programas formativos para ONG y la investigación sobre las relaciones entre éstas y las empresas.

El Instituto considera que las organizaciones, tanto del sector privado como del no lucrativo, son decisivas para hacer realidad la transformación hacia una sociedad más justa y en armonía con el medio ambiente. De ahí la importancia que todas actúen con criterios éticos, de sostenibilidad y de responsabilidad. Es por ello que deseamos aportar un programa de actuaciones de gran relevancia y calidad para las empresas y organizaciones de la sociedad civil, así como situar al Instituto como uno de los centros académicos líderes a escala europea e internacional en la generación de conocimiento y la formación sobre responsabilidad social de la empresa y gestión de las ONG.

La investigación es una función primordial del Instituto, mediante la cual genera conocimiento, al tiempo que participa y orienta el debate relacionado con los problemas sociales actuales.

En estas páginas, se ofrece un resumen de la labor realizada por los profesores e investigadores del Instituto de Innovación Social de ESADE y también se ofrece de manera íntegra una selección de algunos de los trabajos de investigación publi-cados en los principales journals y revistas académicas.

Ignasi CarrerasDirector del Instituto de Innovación Social

10 SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Introducción

SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Introducción

11

INTRODUCCIÓN

El Instituto de Innovación Social (IIS) de ESADE es un centro académico cuyo obje-tivo es desarrollar las capacidades de las personas y las organizaciones de los sec-tores empresarial y no lucrativo para que, en sus actividades propias, contribuyan a un mundo más justo y sostenible.

Lideramos en ESADE la formación, investigación y divulgación en las áreas de la responsabilidad social de la empresa (RSE), la ética de las organizaciones, el li-derazgo social, la gestión de las ONG, y la colaboración entre empresas y tercer sector.

En el ámbito de la formación y la divulgación, el Instituto de Innovación Social participa de forma transversal en la difusión de conocimiento en ESADE, así como al público en general a través de:

Programas de Executive Education, MBA y programas universitarios. Publicaciones de investigaciones y estudios. Eventos y jornadas en Madrid y Barcelona con destacados líderes académi-

cos, directivos y representantes sectoriales. Publicación de artículos de opinión en revistas especializadas y diarios gene-

rales.

En cuanto a la investigación, las principales líneas en las que se centró el instituto durante el año 2007 fueron las siguientes:

Integración de la RSE en la estrategia de la empresa. Políticas públicas para promover la RSE. Transparencia y rendición de resultados. Relación con grupos de interés. Liderazgo y estrategia para incrementar el impacto social de las ONG. Colaboración efi ciente entre empresas y ONG.

Además, el instituto forma parte de las redes internacionales SEKN (Social Entre-prise Knowledge Network), EUROSIF (European Social Investment Forum) y EABIS (European Academy of Business in Society).

Para más información sobre nuestras actividades y nuestro equipo humano, visitar www.innovacionsocial.esade.edu

12 SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Introducción

La investigación académica en el 2007 se ha materializado en las siguientes publi-caciones en revistas, journals académicos y conference proceedings:

AUTOR TITULO PUBLICACIÓNALBAREDA, L.; BALAGUER, M.R.

“La Responsabilidad Social de la Empresa y los resultados fi nancieros”

Contabilidad y Dirección (2007),

ALBAREDA, L.; YSA, T. “El diseño de las políticas públicas de Responsabi-lidad Social de la Empresa: análisis de la colabo-ración entre los gobiernos, las organizaciones in-termediarias y las organizaciones internacionales”

Documentación Social, (julio-sep-tiembre 2007), núm 146.

ALBAREDA, L.; LOZANO, J.M; YSA, T.

“Public Policies on Corporate Social Responsibili-ty. The Role of Governments in Europe”

Journal of Business Ethics. (2007), núm.74.

BALAGUER, M.R.; ALBAREDA, L.

“Análisis comparativo de la rentabilidad fi nancie-ra de los fondos de inversión socialmente respon-sables en España”

Análisis Financiero (2007), núm. 105.

BALAGUER, M. R.; ALBARE-DA, L.; LOZANO, J.M.

“La Inversión Socialmente Responsable en Espa-ña: El screening de los fondos de inversión Social-mente Responsables”

Contabilidad y Dirección, (2007).

CARRERAS, Ignasi. “Empresas y cambio climático” Ser Responsable (abril 2007), núm. 2

KUSYK, S.; LOZANO, J.M. “Corporate responsibility in small and medium-sized enterprises. SME Social Performance: A Four-Cell Typology of Key drivers and barriers on social issues and their implications for stakeholder theory”

Corporate Governance: The Inter-national Journal of Business in So-ciety. Vol. 7 (2007), núm. 4.

LOZANO, J.M. “L’empresa socialment responsable” Revista Econòmica de Catalunya (2007), núm. 55.

LOZANO, J.M. “Promoción pública de la responsabilidad social empresarial”

Ekonomiaz (2º cuatrimestre 2007), núm. 65.

MURILLO, D. “La RSE en las pymes” Documentación Social (2007), núm. 146.

PRANDI, M. “La gestión de los derechos humanos en la em-presa”

Documentación Social, (2007) núm. 146.

RODRIGO, P.; ARENAS, D. “La acción empresarial para el desarrollo sosteni-ble: clarifi cando algunos conceptos”

Documentación Social (2007), núm.146.

RODRIGO, P.; ARENAS D. “Do Employees Care About CSR Programs? A Typology of Employees According to their Attitu-des”

Journal of Business Ethics(accepted, available online).

URRIOLAGOITIA, L.; PLANE-LLAS, M.

“Sponsorship relationships as strategic alliances: A life cycle model approach”

Business Horizons (2007), vol. 50, núm.2.

ZHANG, Y.; STRAUB C.; KUS-YK, S.

“Making a life or making a living: Cross-cultural comparisons of business students work and life values in Canada and France”

Cross Cultural Management: An In-ternational Journal Vol. 14, Issue 3.

ARENAS, D.; LOZANO, JM.; ALBAREDA, L.

“Behind CSR: Mutual percepcions in multistake-holder Dialogue”

IABS 2007 Proceedings pp.419-424.

SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Introducción

13

Capítulos de libros publicados durante el 2007:

AUTOR TITULO LIBROSARENAS, D. “Alliances, Global Governance and the Global

Compact”BELIL, M. (coord). Towards a Coporate Citizenship. Barcelona Center for the Support of the Global Compact. Activity Report 2006. Barcelona: Fundació Fòrum Universal de les Cultures (Ed.), 2007.

IGLESIAS, M. “Colaboración empresas ONG: hacia una socie-dad mejor estructurada”

FUNDACIÓN ENCUENTRO, Informe España 2006. Madrid, Ed. Funda-ción Encuentro, 2007, p 53-101

IGLESIAS, M.; VERNIS, A. “Una aproximación a las fundaciones de empre-sa”

BENEYTO PÉREZ, J. M. (director); Rin-cón García Loygorri, A. (coord). Tra-tado de Fundaciones. Barcelona, Ediciones Bosch, 2007, p 859-904

KUSYK, S. “Corporate Social Responsibility: a stakeholder approach to innovation”

BAJO SANJUAN, A.; VILLAGRA GAR-CIA, N (ed), Conceptual evolution and practice in responsible manage-ment. Madrid: icai/icade press, 2007.

LOZANO, J.M; CASTELLÓ, I. “La retórica del Poder: la RSE a debate” Informe Anual 2007. La comunicación empresarial y la gestión de los intangi-bles en España y Latinoamérica. Ma-drid, Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

Libros publicados durante el 2007:

AUTOR TITULO EDITORIALALBAREDA, L.; BALAGUER, M.R.; ARENAS, D.

Observatorio 2007 de la Inverstión Socialmente Responble.

ESADE, 2007.

LOZANO, J.M.; ALBAREDA, L. y ARENAS, D.

Tras la RSE. La RSE en España vista por sus acto-res.

Ediciones Granica, diciembre 2007. p. 254

Lozano, J.M.; Albareda, L.; Ysa,T.; Rosher, H.M.

Governments and Corporate Social Responsibili-ty. Public policies beyond regulation and volun-tary compliance.

Londres, Editorial Palgrave Mcmi-llan, 2007.

MURILLO, D.; DINARÈS, M. (coords.).

Quince casos de RSE en pequeñas y medianas empresas.

ESADE, 2007.

GARCÍA, L.; RUBIO, F.; ECHA-BARRIA, L.; VERNIS, A.

“Managing Barcelona’s Olympic Heritage”. 50191 AND CRISTOFOLI, D. (Ed.). Strate-gic Change Management in the Public Sector. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2007.

MURILLO, D. “L’herència d’Adam Smith” MAYOS, GONÇAL ET AL: Fars del Pensament. Barcelona: Ed. La Bus-ca, 2007.

MURILLO, D. “La economía en la comunidad, según Aristóte-les”

D’ALCOBERRO, R. (coord.): Ética, Economía y Empresa. Barcelona: Gedisa, 2007.

MURILLO, D. “La RSE. Por qué, cómo y hacia dónde” D’ALCOBERRO, R. (coord.): Ética, Economía y Empresa. Barcelona: Gedisa, 2007.

MENDOZA, X.; VERNIS, A. “L’Estat relacional i la transformació de les admi-nistracions públiques”.

LONGO, F.; YSA, T. (Ed.). Els escena-ris de la gestió pública del segle XXI. Barcelona: Escola d’Administració Pública de Catalunya. 2007.

MURILLO, D. “Rescatar la ética económica de Adam Smith” D’ALCOBERRO, R. (coord.): Ética, Economía y Empresa. Barcelona: Gedisa, 2007.

SAZ-CARRANZA, A.; OSPINA, S.; VERNIS, A.

“Leadership in Interorganizational Networks”. WANKEL, C. (Ed.). Handbook of 21st Century Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2007.

PRANDI, M.; LOZANO, J.M. Practical Guide to Human Rights for Companies. Escola de Cultura de Pau (UAB), Esade, Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2007.

Congresos atendidos por el instituto durante el 2007:

Internacional Centre for Corporate Accountabilityla (ICCA),New York, junio 2007.

European Academy for Business in Society (EABIS), 5th Annual Colloquium. ESADE, Barcelona, septiembre 2007.

International Association for Business and Society (IABS), Italia, junio 2007

Europan Business Ethics Network (EBEN), Bélgica, septiembre 2007.

United Nations Industrial Development Organisations (UNIDO), Viena, noviembre 2007.

14 SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Artículos

SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Artículos

15

ARTÍCULOS

ALBAREDA, L.; LOZANO, J.M; YSA, T.

“PUBLIC POLICIES ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN EUROPE”

Journal of Business Ethics. (2007), núm.74.


17

Public Policies on Corporate Social

Responsibility: The Role of Governments

in Europe

Laura AlbaredaJosep M. Lozano

Tamyko Ysa

ABSTRACT. Over the last decade, Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) has been defined first as a concept

whereby companies decide voluntarily to contribute to a

better society and cleaner environment and, second, as a

process by which companies manage their relation-

ship with stakeholders (European Commission, 2001.

Nowadays, CSR has become a priority issue on govern-

ments’ agendas. This has changed governments’ capacity

to act and impact on social and environmental issues in

their relationship with companies, but has also affected the

framework in which CSR public policies are designed:

governments are incorporating multi-stakeholder strate-

gies. This article analyzes the CSR public policies in

European advanced democracies, and more specifically

the EU-15 countries, and provides explanatory keys on

how governments have understood, designed and imple-

mented their CSR public policies. The analysis has

entailed the classification of CSR public policies taking

into consideration the actor to which the governments’

policies were addressed. This approach to the analysis of

CSR public policies in the EU-15 countries leads us to

observe coinciding lines of action among the different

countries analyzed, which has enabled us to propose a

‘four ideal’ typology model for governmental action on

CSR in Europe: Partnership, Business in the Community,

Sustainability, and Citizenship, and Agora. The main con-

tribution of this article is to propose an analytical frame-

work to analyze CSR public policies, which provide a

perspective on the relationships between governments,

businesses, and civil society stakeholders, and enable us to

incorporate the analysis of CSR public policies into a

broader approach focused on social governance.

KEY WORDS: corporate social responsibility, public

policies, governance, public–private partnership, welfare

state

Introduction

Over the last decade we have seen how governments

have become Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR) drivers adopting public policies to promote

Laura Albareda is currently a Research Fellow at the Institute for

Social Innovation, ESADE, Universidad Ramon Llull-

URL. She is principal researcher and manager of the

Observatory on Socially Responsible Investment in Spain.

Her areas of research and academic interest are Corporate

Social Responsibility, Business Ethics, Global Gover-

nance and Public Authorites, Governments and Public

Policies on Corporate Social Responsibility and So-

cially Responsible Investment.

Josep M. Lozano is currently Professor & Senior Researcher at

the Institute for Social Innovation, ESADE Business School

(URL). He is Co-founder of Etica, Economıa y Direccion

(Spanish branch of the EBEN) and member of the editorial

board of Ethical Perspectives and Society and Business Re-

view. He was member of the Catalan Government’s Com-

mission on Values, and is member of the Spanish Ministry of

Employment and Social Affairs’ Commission of Experts on

CSR. He has been a highly commended runner-up in the

European Faculty Pioneer Awards of the Beyond Grey

Pinstripes and is author of Ethics and Organizations.

Understanding Business Ethics as a Learning Process

(Kluwer).

Tamyko Ysa is an Assistant Professor of the Institute of Public

Management, and the Department of Business Policy at

ESADE. Her areas of interest are the management of part-

nerships and their impact on the creation of public value; the

design, implementation and evaluation of public policies, and

the relations between companies and governments. She is the

Principal Researcher of the Research Group for Leadership

and Innovation in Public Management (GLIGP). She is

coauthor of Governments and Corporate Social Responsibility

(Palgrave MacMillan).

Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 74:391–407 � Springer 2007DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9514-1


and encourage businesses to behave in a responsible

and sustainable manner (Aaronson and Reeves,

2002a, b; Moon and Sochaki, 1996; Zappal, 2003).

In this sense, governments have been involved in a

new type of political relationship with businesses and

civil society stakeholders to promote responsible and

sustainable business practices (Aaronson and Reeves,

2002a, b; Albareda et al., 2006; Fox et al., 2002;

Moon, 2004).

The purpose of this article1 is to analyze the dif-

ferent CSR public policies adopted by European

governments in order to promote responsible and

sustainable business practices. This research sets out

from the initial hypothesis of establishing, how the

design and implementation of public policies pro-

moting CSR reveals changes in governments’

capacity for action and impact in social and envi-

ronmental issues in their relationship with businesses.

We mention that a unidirectional approach to the

public policy analysis neither gives an answer to the

needs of present-day societies (responsiveness), nor

does it enable us to understand the new challenges

facing social governance in depth. As a result, it

seems limited to analyze public policies from the

outmoded approach of ‘hard power.’

The objective of the research has been to develop

an analytical framework that enables us to under-

stand, through a more adequate methodology,

the approaches and perspective of governments in

designing and implementing public policies to pro-

mote CSR.

From here on, the article is structured as follows.

First, we present a review of specific research

focused on governments and CSR. Second, we

introduce the methodology developed to build an

analytical framework to map CSR public policies.

Third, we propose a ‘four ideal’ typology model for

governmental action on CSR based on analysis of

the CSR public policies in 15 EU countries.

Fourth, we present key elements for further

research.

What we learn from the literature focused

on governments and CSR

Over the last few years, CSR has been defined as a

concept whereby companies decide voluntarily to

contribute to a better society and cleaner environ-

ment (European Commission, 2001). This new

voluntary framework in which CSR is defined as a

reflection of how governments’ capacities to regulate

the actions of businesses have been transformed in

relation to social and environmental issues.

This voluntary approach to CSR changes gov-

ernments’ roles in relation to the promotion of

business, social and environmental practices (Midt-

tun, 2005; Matten and Moon, 2005; Moon, 2004;

Roome, 2005). Related to this, most of the research

conducted on governments and CSR suggests the

emergence of new roles adopted by governments in

CSR issues (Fox et al., 2002; Lepoutre et al., 2004;

Nidasio, 2004). Fox et al. (2002) put forward new

public sector roles adopted by governments to

enable an environment for CSR: mandatory (legis-

lative); facilitating (guidelines on content); partner-

ing (engagement with multi-stakeholder processes);

and, endorsing tools (publicity). In parallel, Lepoutre

et al. (2004) review the strategic roles to be played

by governments managing institutional uncertainty

(activate, orchestrate, and modulate) and present

common tools for public action managing strategic

uncertainty (public information campaigns, organi-

zational reporting, labeling, contracts, agreements,

and incentives). This analysis of the role of govern-

ments promoting CSR, as a new approach has also

been analyzed by other authors under the new forms

of public–private partnership linked to CSR (Grib-

ben et al., 2001; Nelson and Zadek, 2000) in order

to resolve social problems, to promote coordination

with companies, social organizations, and local

governments and also to analyze the role of CSR in

public–private partnerships as models of governance

(Guarini and Nidasio, 2003).

Another approach to the understanding of CSR

public polices is the soft policy approach introduced

by Joseph (2003), in which the role of government is

viewed as collaborative and facilitating through the

use of soft tools and means – always in collaboration

with the private sector.

Second, there is a common perception that CSR

is a process through which companies manage their

social and environmental impacts taking into acco-

unt their relationship with stakeholders (European

Commission, 2001). Most business ethics scholars

have made important attempts to link CSR practices

with stakeholder management (Carroll, 1989, 1991;

Clarkson, 1998; Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999;

Freeman, 1998) and the stakeholder approach has

392 Laura Albareda et al.


19

been integrated as part of the concept of corporate

citizenship (Waddock, 2002).

Related to this, some studies point to the devel-

opment of CSR in relation to the development of

multi-stakeholder dialogues as an aspect of rela-

tionship building and organizational change (Kap-

stein and Von Tulder, 2003; Payne and Calton,

2002, 2004). There is a common perception that

new challenges created by corporate practices all

over the world have to be solved through a multi-

stakeholder approach (European Commission,

2001). In recent years, we have seen the appearance

of multi-stakeholder dialogue proposals. Among

others, these have included the UN Global Com-

pact, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the

European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on CSR,

which propose dialogue among the different agents

involved as a working methodology aimed at mak-

ing headway in multilateral consensus proposals.

Third, other elements suggest that CSR is not a

new and isolated topic among the new challenges

facing governments in a globalized context (Crane

and Matten, 2004; Moon, 2002). Responsible and

sustainable business practices form part of the current

debate on the role of companies within society in a

globalized world (Frederick, 2006; Scholte, 2001).

This enables us to understand why governments

have adopted measures to promote CSR in their

relationship with the new social governance chal-

lenges. The first documents to introduce the debate

on governments’ CSR role date from the last decade

of the 20th century (Moon and Sochaki, 1996).

Most of these texts put forward the need for gov-

ernments to actively promote CSR as a response to

the social and environmental problems caused by

corporate action within a globalized economic

context (Moon, 2004). Midttun (2005) views the

development of CSR within the context of changes

in the welfare state, basing his work on a compara-

tive analysis of three governance models. He points

out that a new emerging model of CSR-oriented

societal governance could be analyzed as an

exchange theoretical perspective to examine the

distinctive characteristic of the relationship between

civil society, business, and government.

Relevant documents incorporating a new gov-

ernment vision, with particular emphasis placed on

Europe, include the official documents on CSR

published by the European Commission: the Green

Paper ‘Promoting a European Framework for Cor-

porate Social Responsibility’ (2001), the Commu-

nication ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A

Business Contribution to Sustainable Development’

(European Commission, 2002) and the Communi-

cation ‘Implementing the Partnership for Growth

and Jobs: Making Europe a Pole of Excellence on

Corporate Social Responsibility’ (2006).

Other studies include research based on geo-

graphical comparative analysis of government

behavior and CSR culture in European and North

American administrations. The work of Aaronson

and Reeves (2002a, b) and the comparative report of

CBSR (2001) shed some light on the relevance of

cultural differences and elements in the development

of national CSR models. Aaronson and Reeves

(2002a) analyze how, in the last decade, European

policymakers have taken a wide range of public

initiatives to promote CSR, in contrast with a lack

of policies in the U.S. They analyze European-based

companies’ acceptance of these CSR public policies

compared with the less accepting attitude of

U.S.-based companies. The authors argue that the

difference is based on the countries’ respective

business cultures. This research reveals that Euro-

pean-based companies ‘‘are more comfortable

working with governments to improve social con-

ditions, and they are more comfortable in a regulated

environment.’’ ‘‘Businesses expect government to

ask more of them and government does ask more of

businesses. It seems that European business leaders

seem to believe that CSR policies can help them

find their way in the chaotic, ever-changing global

economy’’ (Aaronson and Reeves, 2002a).

These studies lead to the hypothesis that analysis

of the different CSR approaches should take into

consideration a series of different elements: political

and institutional structure; political style and pro-

cesses; social structure; emphasis on a voluntary

approach or acceptance of state guidelines and

control; local and national views of the role of

companies; the role and posture of NGOs and civil

associations in society; the kind of educational sys-

tem and the values it transmits; what is expected of

their leaders; and historical traditions (Rome, 2005).

All of this comparative analysis enables us to relate

these cultural differences with the research of Matten

and Moon (2005) on the comparison between the

European CSR model and the U.S. model. For

The Role of Governments in Europe 393


them, CSR as a voluntary corporate policy is a fairly

recent and as yet scattered phenomenon within a

European context. The reason is derived from his-

torically different models of trust and authority

relationships in contrast with the more liberal model

in the U.S. As a consequence, the authors defend the

view that in the U.S. there is an ‘explicit CSR’

as opposed to a more European ‘implicit CSR.’

Explicit CSR refers to corporate policies that lead

companies to assume responsibility answering con-

crete needs of society. In the U.S., this normally

involves voluntary and self-interest-driven corporate

policies, programs, and strategies as part of CSR. In

contrast in Europe, implicit CSR refers to a coun-

try’s formal and informal institutions through which

business responsibility for collective society’s needs

are agreed and assigned to companies in relation to

the social role of business. This normally consist of

values, norms and rules which, in the course of the

last century, have resulted in mostly mandatory

requirements for corporations to address issues of

social, political, and economic interest. Nevertheless,

the authors argue that over the last years explicit

CSR has been gaining ground in Europe, changing

the approach to a more explicit CSR under the

influence of a voluntary approach to CSR.

Taking into account the following three elements

which emerge from the analysis of CSR and gov-

ernment we propose an analytical framework to

analyze CSR public policies:

• The voluntary nature of the company’s ini-

tiative;

• The emerging new roles and soft tools;

• Multi-stakeholder dialogue and new gover-

nance challenges.

The construction of an analytical model

to understand CSR governmental

approaches

The objective of this research was the analysis of

CSR public policies in 15 European Union coun-

tries. In order to be able to analyze and classify CSR

public policies we have built an analytical framework

which serves as a methodology. The design of this

analytical framework is based on a relational

approach focused on the interrelation, collaboration,

and partnership between the different actors: gov-

ernments, businesses, and civil society stakeholders.

It has been suggested that, in a globalized world,

public policies cannot simply be analyzed in the light

of self-sufficient governments, but that an added

value lies in exploring the intersections between

public and private sectors (including the for-profit

and non-profit sectors) and in broadening the areas

surrounding the boundaries between these three

sectors (Mendoza, 1996).

We use this relational methodology to analyze

the new governmental approach to enabling an

environment for CSR in 15 European Union gov-

ernments in: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France,

Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, the

Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden

and the United Kingdom.2 These are arguably

the European countries with the most advanced

democracies, where the development of social and

environmental regulatory frameworks for corporate

action and public CSR policies is strongest.

We started out from the previous study con-

ducted by Fox et al. (2002), which analyzed the new

public sector roles enabling an environment for

CSR, mostly in developing countries, based on non-

explicit CSR public policies. In this research, in

order to be able to conduct empirical analysis, and

unlike Fox et al. (2002), we have analyzed the

explicit CSR public policies of the 15 European

governments. We compiled all the data: CSR public

policies, programs, and instruments that governments

have explicitly adopted to promote CSR. This in-

volved researching each country and building a

database on the policies and instruments applied by

each government. The data was compiled via sour-

ces published by the governments or from official

documents, reports, and governmental web pages.

We also focused on an analysis of the contexts and

political structures to find out howCSR policy was being

assimilated into government structures. We compiled

the following elements for each government:

• National public policy on CSR: vision, mission

and objectives

• Government departments assuming responsibili-

ties for CSR policies

• Institutional and relational support from existing

international agreements. United Nations



21

Global Compact: participation in interna-

tional bodies on CSR issues

• Regulation in its diverse forms

• Organizational structure for CSR policies: cen-

tralized/decentralized; transversal/sectorial;

multi-stakeholder; creation of new agencies

• Actors in the process

• Socioeconomic, political and cultural context, and

administrative tradition

This data was then used to draw up a report for each

government.

After compiling the data, we focused on the

classification of CSR public policies taking strategic

and relational aspects into account. Here we intro-

duced a relational and multi-stakeholder approach

based on a triangulation approach taking into

account the relationship among governments, busi-

nesses, and civil society stakeholders.

This framework makes it possible to observe the

three social agents of governments, businesses, and

civil society stakeholders not as poles or opposites

which repel each other, but as agents collaborating

in an interrelated area. Different areas of bilateral

collaboration were observed: the first between

governments and companies; the second between

governments and civil society and the third a

framework of multilateral collaboration: govern-

ments; businesses; and civil society stakeholders

(Figure 1).

We applied this analytical framework to map the

government CSR public policies compiled previ-

ously. We classified all public policies taking direc-

tionality into consideration: the actors to whom

government policies are addressed:

1. CSR in governments: CSR public policies devel-

oped by governments to improve their own social

responsibility, leading by example;

2. CSR in government-business relationships: CSR

public policies designed to improve business CSR

practices;

3. CSR in government-society relationships: CSR

public policies designed to improve civil society

stakeholders’ awareness, and finally;

4. Relational CSR: CSR public policies designed

to improve collaboration between governments,

businesses and civil society stakeholders. This

allowed us to gain a complete overview of the

directionality of CSR public policies. This infor-

mation was grouped by country and incorporated

into specific reports drafted for each country ana-

lyzed.3

Subsequently, in order to obtain a general compar-

ative analysis of the 15 EU governments, we built a

transversal scheme containing all the CSR public

policies in Europe4 (Figure 2).

By combining this data, we elaborated a detailed

comprehensive scheme to map (see Table I) specific

initiatives and programs implemented by govern-

ments through their public policies on CSR.

As a result, we produced a map of CSR public

policies, programs and the action that governments

have taken to promote and develop CSR. This gave

us a relational view of the actors who have been

addressed by the policies and who governments have

attempted to involve.

We have observed how European governments

have developed a considerable number of policies

and programs in the four relational frameworks. As a

result, it can be deduced that the European gov-

ernments have adopted public policies taking the

different stakeholders into account. We have con-

firmed that, in general, for all 15 governments the

most significant number of policies lie in the rela-

tional framework between government and business.

These policies are intended to raise awareness of the

business sector, promote, and facilitate voluntary

1. CSR in governments

2. CSR in government-business relationships

3. CSR in government-society relationships

4. CSR in government-business and society relationships

1

2

4

BusinessesCivil

Society

Governments

3

Figure 1. Relational model for CSR public policy

analysis.



initiatives, capacity building, stakeholder manage-

ment, international standards, convergence and

transparency, evaluation and accountability, tax and

funding systems in addition to legislation.

However, we also found an important number of

initiatives among the policies that governments have

developed to increase their own social responsibility.

These CSR public policies are aimed at leading by

example, creating internal departments, coordinating

government bodies, capacity building, public

expenditure, public campaigns, participating in

international events, transferring international debate

to the local context, developing international

instruments and agreements, and foreign trade policy

and international development.

We also found a considerable number of gov-

ernment policies aimed at addressing the relationship

with civil society. In addition, we found that the

governments have also defined CSR public policies

with the objective of linking government-businesses

and civil society to promote CSR. These initiatives

are equally as important as other policies and

developed in much the same way.

European models of public policy

governance fostering CSR

The application of this analytical framework to

European governments’ public policies on CSR

gave us an overview of governments changing

capacities and strategies to favor the development of

social and environmental corporate practices. Taking

into account both the CSR public policies and the

actors involved, we have observed that there is

convergence between the governmental approaches

and the action to develop CSR public policies in

these countries. As a result of that analytical process,

we built up a four-ideal typology model for Euro-

pean governmental action on CSR (see Table II).

The partnership model

Throughout the 20th century, the countries in this

section (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and

Sweden) developed an extensive and comprehen-

sive welfare state. Since the 1950s, their social

policies have been directed towards improving

Public policies

•Leadership by example

(internal CSR policies)

•Linking public spending

to socially responsible

companies

•Participation in

international events

•Transfer of international

debate on CSR to the

national and local context

•Fostering international

instruments and

agreements

•External policy, trade

and development

cooperation policy

•Development of

technical know how for

implementing CSR in

companies

•Coordination of CSR

policies in administrations

•Public campaigns

•Creation of internal

departments

•Work in intersectorial

partnership

•Facilitating

•Promotion of socially

responsible investment

•Coordination of actions

between civil society and the

business sector

•Promotion of responsible

consumption

•Promotion of the interests

of all stakeholders

(producers, employees,

consumers, investors)

•Informand educate all

social actors

•Encouragement, creation

and supervision of

mechanisms for evaluation

and accountability

•Encouragement of

exchange of experiences and

good practices

•Promotion of convergence

and transparency in CSR

practices and instruments

Administrations Company Society Relational

Public administrations and CSR

Employment and social issues policy

•Environmental policy

•Tax and funding policies

Education and training policies

Rural business policy

Agriculture, fisheries and rural development policies

Consumer defence policy

•Legislation (compulsory)

•Regulation (by restriction)

•Directives and guidelines (soft law)

•Fiscal and funding framework

•To promote convergence and

transparency in CSR instruments

and practices

•To catalyzeand facilitate voluntary

CSR initiatives, exchange of

experiences and good practices

•Promotion of CSR in companies:

make known positive impact

•To export CSR in company attitudes

internationally

•Policies of attention to needs and

characteristics of SMEsin CSR

•To foster companyrelationships

with the market and stakeholders

(impact on customers, suppliers,

employees, capital providers)

•To foster social action by the company

•To draw up business restructuring

policies

•Regulation (by restriction)

•Directives and guidelines (soft law)

•To disseminate the positive impact

of CSR in society

•To support CSR promotion initiatives

of civil society

•To inform and educate all social actors

about CSR

•To promote and facilitate Responsible

Consumption

•To promote and facilitate Socially

Responsible Investment

•To promote and facilitate the

particular interests of all stakeholders in

CSR terms

Figure 2. Implemented public policies, programs and actions promoting CSR.



23

TABLE I

Classification of CSR public policies in different relational perspectives

Policies Programs

1. CSR in government

Internal 1. Leadership by example Action Plan for Government Offices

Work-life balance policies/equal opportunities/eth-

ical investment/anti-fraud and corruption policies

Accreditation for good employer practices

2. Creation of internal departments Creation of knowledge centers

Creation of monitoring organizations and control

systems

3. Coordinating government bodies CSR Minister responsible for coordinating activities

Cross-government CSR programs

CSR feasibility studies for new legislation

4. Capacity building Funding for research and innovation programs

Financial assistance for companies implementing CR

programs

Publication of guidelines and good practice docu-

ments

5. Public expenditure Social and environmental criteria in supplier policies

Ethical purchasing and outsourcing

CSR policies for public contracts

6. Public campaigns Promotion of positive impacts of CSR in business

and society

Surveys on public opinion

CSR Awards, communication campaigns and media

influence

International issues

7. International events International conferences on CSR

European Commission events

European conferences on CSR

8. Transferring international debate

to local contexts

Agreements between national and local government

Seminars on geographic or thematic areas

Consideration of CSR regional and local policies

9. International instruments

and agreements

Promotion of global regulatory frameworks

Development of international certification systems

Creation of evaluation and certification bodies

10. Foreign trade policy and

international development

CSR integrated into foreign affairs policies for

international markets and international development

Promotion of good CSR practice in overseas oper-

ations (human rights, labor standards, anti-corrup-

tion, environment etc)

Link CSR to foreign investment policy and inter-

national relations

External Other



TABLE I

continued

Policies Programs

2. CSR in government–business relations

Soft Raising awareness Identify and promote companies leading in CR

Promote CR through websites, publications, specialist journals

Offer CR services and support to CR initiatives in companies or

partnerships

Undertake surveys and communication campaigns

Voluntary initiatives

(facilitating and promoting)

Promotion of uptake of CR policies, publication of CR reports

Encouraging sharing and promotion of good practice

Promotion of SRI, environmental standards, fair trade, sustainable

consumption, work-life balance, equal opportunities, employee

volunteering, employee conditions, life-long learning

Promotion of business networks

Promotion of public–private partnerships or public–private-civil

society partnerships

Capacity building Finance research and innovation programs

Support business-university research programs (instruments, good

practice, comparative studies)

Develop guidelines and provide technical assistance

Incentives for sustainability reports

Stakeholders Evaluation and communication programs on the impact of CR

programs on stakeholders

Market mechanisms to favor CR (price policies, competition

policies, investment principles)

Promotion of stakeholder dialogue

International Incentives for adopting international CR standards

Promoting CR good practice in the south (labour standards,

human rights, anti-corruption)

Convergence and transparency Promote standardization across CR management models, stan-

dards, reports, indicators and auditing systems

Promote fair trade labeling systems

Encourage standardization of SRI analysis

Promote inclusion of international CR agreements in codes

of conduct

Evaluation and accountability Accountability and auditing mechanisms

Triple bottom line reporting initiatives

Social and environmental labeling

Tax and funding systems Tax incentives for CR (employment creation, gender balance,

work-personal life balance, environmental initiatives etc.)

Funding streams for CR (volunteering, social projects etc

Promotion of SRI through fiscal mechanisms

Legislation Transparency regarding socially responsible investment (pension

and investment funds)

Obliging companies to produce sustainability reports

Regulation regarding public contracts and selection processes

Environmental legislation

Hard Adaptation of international agreements to national standards



25

TABLE I

continued

Policies Programs

Sector specific issues

SMEs Promotion and incentives for good CR practice in SMEs

Raising awareness of impact of operations in the south

Support SMEs in impact assessment

Research into the social and environmental impact of SMEs

Promote the exchange of good practice and business cases for CR

in SMEs

Public campaigns directed at SMEs

Encourage cooperation between large companies and SMEs

Community action Favorable tax incentives for business in the community

Disseminating good practice and creating networks

Corporate restructuring Work with facilitators to promote CR in restructuring programs

Encourage good practices and their dissemination

3. CSR in government–society relationships

Soft Raising awareness Analysis and dissemination of good practices in business operations

with high impact on the community (work-life balance, social

cohesion

Tax incentives for civil society-government partnership programs

Knowledge dissemination of international agreements with civil

society implications (human rights, labor standards)



Campaigns for sustainable consumption, publications, seminars and

dissemination

Ethical investment initiatives

Support SRI initiatives

Support socially responsible consumption

Capacity building Publications, events, press

Surveys and CR awards

Stakeholders Create communication mechanisms to foster business-community

dialogue

Promote transparency mechanisms

Promote partnerships and participate in them

International Promote initiatives with international NGOs

Participation in international civil society activities

Convergence and transparency Fair trade labeling schemes

Social enterprise definitions



Social and environmental labeling

Tax incentives and funding streams Support for government-civil society partnerships for CR

initiatives


Management of social organizations Improve management of social enterprise

Enable SRI

Environmental and social criteria for public contracts to socially

Hard financed organizations



social provision and services within this frame-

work. Furthermore, during the final decade of the

twentieth century, these governments began to

acknowledge the importance of economic actors –

companies above all – in addressing and resolving

social problems. It is therefore safe to say that, for

governments identifying with this model, the

movement towards CSR mainly involves a change

in attitude by social actors (companies, trades

unions, and social organizations) assuming

co-responsibility in the building of a more inclu-

sive society and a dynamic and integrated

employment market. For these governments, all

actors are jointly committed to building new CSR

policies and actions that will promote the growth

of a fairer society.

TABLE I

continued

Policies Programs

4. Relational CSR: Government–business-society

Soft Raising awareness Sharing good practice and knowledge dissemination

Create National Resource Centers (e.g., National Contact Point,

Holland)

Capacity building Multi-stakeholder forums

Business support networks

Sharing experiences and best practices



Round tables on codes of conduct

University-business research projects, promoting dialogue

Proactive role in promoting innovation, pilot projects, dialogue

Stakeholders Consumers; information on supply chain, sustainability index

of products

Investors: information on RC policies and expectations regarding

pensions



Social and environmental labelling

Convergence and transparency Management standards

Codes of conduct

Promotion of simple and flexible indicators

International International partnerships

Networks and alliances

Multi-stakeholder forums


Community action Urban regeneration projects

Education projects in poor areas

Cross-sector partnerships Promoting CR networks with public/private participation

New social partnerships and common frameworks

Local partnerships between different sectors for urban regeneration

Stakeholder involvement in developing guidelines

Bringing together different sectors

Socially responsible investment

and fair trade

Pension schemes with social, environmental criteria

Transparency in definition of SRI

Selection, retention and realization of investment with CR

considerations

Hard Consumer rights



27

Apart from this, for many companies already in-

volved in the social context, being socially respon-

sible is simply inherent to their way of doing

business. Social initiatives are often implemented

informally or implicitly, as a response to local

expectations and demands (Morsing, 2005). National

settings define a framework, where public and pri-

vate actors are directly involved in the process of

creating public policies and establishing partnerships

for social responsibility. Partnership is seen as an

innovative and sometimes even key tool for solving

difficult social problems. Local governments,

responsible for channeling the creation of such

partnerships, are also heavily involved, thus fur-

thering the idea of social co-responsibility between

administrations, companies, and social organizations.

Encouraging partnerships has thus become central to

CSR public policies in these countries. In fact, in the

Danish context, cross-sector local partnerships

practically incorporate the CSR concept (Nidasio,

2004).

One of the policies common to all these countries

insists that companies should provide adequate CSR

information adhering to transparency principles on

social issues. It is consumers themselves who place

most emphasis on socially responsible production. In

the Netherlands, for example, labels are used to

avoid confusion. Another differential factor in this

model is that public officials take the attitude that

they should lead by example. Particularly in public

tenders, for instance, every effort is made to promote

the use of goods or services produced in a socially

responsible manner. In short, CSR public policies

are viewed as part of the regular framework for social

and employment practices. A considerable commit-

ment is made by local governments who act as the

channels for partnership building, favoring the

notion of social co-responsibility between adminis-

trations, companies and social organizations.

The Nordic model, linked to a long tradition of

preference for cooperative agreements and consensus

between different types of organizations, is largely

characterized by the use of partnership as a tool, and

by the creation of a shared area of welfare. In

essence, the impetus towards the adoption of public–

private partnerships may be construed as an heir to

Scandinavian political culture, in which research

always highlights cooperation, consensus, and par-

ticipation (Greve, 2003). Under the political tradi-

tion of most Nordic countries over the last century,

social problems are part of governments’ core

competences and, as such, are considered among the

basic issues that their policies must resolve (Rosdahl,

2001), with these values underpinning their politi-

cal-social philosophy.

The countries in this section all have considerable

experience in environmental management, which

now also incorporates the CSR component. They

TABLE II

Models of government action in the development of CSR-endorsing public policies in 15 EU counties

Model Characteristics Countries

Partnership Partnership as strategy shared between sectors

for meeting socio-employment challenges

Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden

Business in the

community

Soft intervention policies to encourage

company involvement in governance chal-

lenges affecting the community (entrepre-

neurship and voluntary service)

Ireland, the United Kingdom

Sustainability

and citizenship

Updated version of the existing social agree-

ment and emphasis on a strategy of sustain-

able development

Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg.

Regulatory France

Agora Creation of discussion groups for the different

social actors to achieve public consensus on

CSR

Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal



also enjoy a tradition that historically favors social

negotiation, in which relationships between gov-

ernment and companies are viewed as positive, and

which includes certain aspects of cooperation. We

use the term ‘partnership’ to refer to the format used

to design and implement CSR public policies in

Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Sweden, and

Finland), to which we have also added the Neth-

erlands.5

The ‘business in the community’ model

The business in the community concept refers to how

these governments and companies interpret the role

of business in society, particularly as regards social

challenges and its role in community development.

In this model, we have included the United King-

dom and Ireland. The British government has been

one of the most innovative in the development of a

political CSR framework. It links CSR to the main

challenges in societal governance faced by developed

countries (DTI, 2001; 2003a, b).

CSR first saw the light of day in the United

Kingdom and Ireland during the final decades of the

20th century, as a response to a deficit in social

governance when industrialized economies were

undergoing a severe crisis, forcing companies out of

business and causing severe problems of social

exclusion (Moon, 2004). Both societies had to deal

with acute problems of social exclusion and growing

poverty in urban and rural settings, coupled with

environmental degradation. The crisis also affected

the welfare state, as seen in the decline of the social

services offered by public administrations. The gov-

ernments began to look for innovative solutions to

these problems through engaging all social actors –

primarily companies. They began to create corporate

networks and public–private partnership projects to

strengthen CSR. Firms were soon involved in social

projects that invested in the community.

The concept of ‘business in the community’ arose

from the idea that companies play a fundamental role

in the economic development of communities in

which they operate as well as in fighting social

exclusion and poverty. In the United Kingdom and

Ireland, it is now commonplace for governments

and companies to use concepts like ‘investment in

the community,’ ‘involvement in the community,’

‘regeneration strategies for less favored areas’ and

‘commitment to the community’ to define their

contribution to social and community development.

The idea of corporate responsibility was first seen

in the contribution of companies to sustainable

development through new public social governance

policies (Moon, 2004). In terms of corporate man-

agement, governments advocate voluntary involve-

ment in CSR. Companies bring CSR initiatives into

commercial practices and corporate management on

a voluntary basis, quite apart from any legal

requirements. However, particularly in the United

Kingdom, the government adopts what is known as

‘soft intervention’ to promote and endorse corporate

action in CSR areas.

In both the United Kingdom and Ireland, gov-

ernment action is conceived as developing, facili-

tating, and providing incentives for CSR, as well as

encouraging public–private partnerships. In their

role as facilitators, the governments seek mechanisms

that provide incentives, whether through so-called

‘soft regulation’ to encourage corporate CSR actions

or through tax measures. Another important idea in

these countries as regards CSR is the building of

partnership projects for the public and private sec-

tors, either together or with the third sector. This

allows a joint grasp on problems linked to social

exclusion, poverty, lack of social services and quality

of life in economically depressed areas. Companies

collaborate in partnership projects with local gov-

ernments in staff training, company set-ups and

investment in deprived urban or rural areas.

To sum up, under this model, government actions

on CSR focus on providing support to the private

sector, facilitating economic and sustainable devel-

opment and economic regeneration, with the sup-

port and collaboration of the private sector. These

countries deal with social problems such as unem-

ployment and social exclusion through CSR policies

involving companies responding to a crisis of gov-

ernance and creating the conditions for corporate

action. Finally, governments base their application of

CSR measures on ‘soft regulation.’

The sustainability and citizenship model

The sustainability and citizenship model tackles

CSR from a focused perspective, above all through



29

companies considered as ‘good citizens.’ This is what

Frederick (2006), in his scholarly conclusions, clas-

sifies as ‘public/social policy,’ where the corporation

is analyzed as a political actor, and where these

newer citizenship concepts of business rest on a firm

theoretical foundation of political science in which

corporations take their place as citizens in civil

society. For the governments of this model, Austria,

Belgium, France, Germany, and Luxembourg, the

concept of ‘corporate citizenship’ holds that com-

panies must not only be good citizens through the

transparency of their activities and compliance with

tax obligations, but that they should go beyond this.

It also refers to businesses’ obligation to maintain a

direct link with their local environments and to

contribute to resolving social problems by forming

partnerships with other actors in society. One of the

main characteristics of the ‘sustainability and citi-

zenship’ model is the value it allocates to companies’

socially responsible behavior, which undoubtedly

contributes to social change. Essentially, the key

notion behind this concept is for companies to

function as genuine social agents, with corporate

citizenship as the strategy adopted to support their

actions in this sphere. In this model, government

action mainly promotes CSR and creates incentives

to help companies assume their social responsibility.

The concept of ‘social market economy’ also

responds to the same principle, combining economic

and personal freedom with social justice – thus fea-

turing social responsibility components. In these

governments, the role of the corporation in society is

much closer to societal goals and agendas.

The countries forming part of this ‘sustainability

and citizenship’ model generally enjoy relatively

sound welfare states, which, in the 1990s, had to

withstand the impact of a global economic crisis, an

increase in social costs and the consequences of

population ageing. Consequently, over the last few

years, CSR has been added to the political debate

surrounding growing concerns over their economy’s

lack of competitiveness and welfare state renovation.

Debate on CSR, therefore, often comes from within

companies themselves. These companies may join

forces and create platforms, where they can share

experiences and express themselves with a single

voice.

The countries explored in this CSR model have a

long-standing tradition of intense public discussion

on sustainable development issues, which began long

before the publication of the European Commission

Green Paper (2001). Nevertheless, these govern-

ments began moving towards CSR after 2001. This

experience of environmental public debate, essen-

tially based on the 1990s, views CSR initiatives as

part of long-term sustainability. Among the coun-

tries included under this model, France deserves

special attention. In France, CSR is well-established

in government-supported activities focusing on

sustainable development. So much so that, at times,

such activities appear to be directed by the govern-

ment, revealing a more regulatory approach, in line

with the apparently more centralist orientation of

the French state.

In recent years, these governments have devel-

oped national Sustainable Development strategies,

considering the role of companies as fundamental

points in sustainable development, innovation, and

competitiveness. In Austria, for example DETE

(2002) stresses the need for businesses to redefine

their image as regards environmental social respon-

sibility and proposes that it is necessary to explore

new forms of cooperation with governments and

their stakeholders.

In these countries, governments have promoted

CSR through support for business organizations and

through specific political initiatives on promotion

and awareness.

The Agora model

We use the term Agora – a Greek word meaning a

public gathering place or forum – to refer to the

model used to implement and enforce CSR public

policies in Mediterranean countries, including

Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Although some

are still at an early stage, others, such as Italy, have

already begun to consolidate their CSR govern-

mental project. We have named this model ‘Agora’

because, in Mediterranean countries, political CSR

applications arose from a series of discussion pro-

cesses in which governments sought to involve

companies and society stakeholders, debating in

groups along with political representatives. These

CSR relational initiatives work by seeking a con-

sensus that includes all social voices and viewpoints

on government action.



The countries in this model were the latest to

introduce CSR policies and have only recently ex-

pressed an interest in the issue, largely following the

publication of the European Commission Green

Paper (2001) and Communication (2002). In 2001,

none of their governments took part in European

Commission debates on the Green Paper. However,

from 2002 onwards, most began to include CSR

initiatives in their political agendas. These are

countries with a less well-developed welfare state,

which is less mature if compared with the other

countries in Europe. The origins of CSR in gov-

ernmental initiatives in Mediterranean countries can

be linked to European Commission initiatives to

promote a European framework for CSR and is also

due to the impact of various international public and

private initiatives (OECD’s guidelines for multi-

national companies, the Global Compact and

financial sustainability indexes). At the same time,

CSR actions were beginning to be endorsed by large

multinational companies that had invested in these

countries or companies from these countries, which

were starting to globalize. In all these countries,

corporate CSR networks and research centers have

been created to develop and incorporate the CSR

concept within the national framework. It is in these

CSR networks and organizations that the Mediter-

ranean discourse is being built. Issues linked to CSR,

at least in Spain, Greece, and Portugal, are mainly

social in nature.

These are countries whose governmental CSR

approach is under construction. In these countries

the governments have not been extremely innova-

tive or proactive in the development of CSR public

policies, except in Italy, where the government has

adopted specific projects and policies to promote

CSR.

What characterizes governmental action most of

all here is that before taking decisions, the govern-

ments need to construct a social consensus and to

have engaged in dialogue with all the social agents.

This dialogue produces the CSR public policies

defined by these governments. In these countries,

governmental action has been supported by the

drafting of reports and studies on CSR, analyzing

the development of CSR in more proactive Euro-

pean governments and the CSR public policies

undertaken. These elements of public dialogue

provide consensus on whether or not governmental

action has been defined or made specific through

tangible political initiatives, especially in Spain,

Greece and Portugal. In these countries, it seems that

the governments adopt a positive attitude towards

CSR.

The creation of commissions or working groups

using a ‘multi-stakeholder’ focus to discuss the

concept of CSR, to seek consensual solutions and

to determine the role to be played by government,

characterizes this process in Mediterranean coun-

tries. In Spain, Greece, and Portugal, similar pro-

cesses occur through the creation of expert groups,

working committees and forums. The Italian

government has thrown open the dialogue to all

intervening actors by creating an Italian multi-

stakeholder forum on CSR. In short, the Agora

model allows space for discussion with a certain

public dimension. Unlike the EC’s European

Multi-Stakeholder Forum on CSR, these working

groups or commissions are created by governments

during the initial stages of government action,

even before frameworks for action have been

defined. The countries in this model generally

have less-developed welfare states than those in

northern Europe, particularly in terms of social

services. But, like other European countries, they

too have suffered the consequences of eco-

nomic crises, increased unemployment and social

exclusion.

Governments and CSR: implications

for further research

As we have seen, the analysis of CSR public policies

leads us to consider the multi-directionality of these

policies: in other words, to whom they are ad-

dressed. The new challenges of social governance in

globalized societies requires new methodological

instruments to analyze how companies contribute to

society and how governments adopt new soft roles

taking into account the new frameworks of collab-

oration between governments, businesses, and civil

society stakeholders. All this means that companies

and governments must be increasingly aware of the

need to formulate their own approach to CSR.

CSR no longer simply affects relationships between

businesses and society. It has become a way of

rethinking the role of companies in society, which



31

takes governance and sustainability as its core values

and changes the focus of CSR public policies. As a

result, this analysis highlights the following points for

future research.

First, the considerable influence of a country’s

social, cultural and political context on the develop-

ment of national CSR public policies: models of

governmental CSR public policies outlined here

corroborate this. Furthermore, any reader familiar

with the literature on the evolution of the welfare

state in Europe (Esping-Andersen, 1999, 2000) will

have detected the similarities between our models for

public policies on CSR and other groupings normally

found when analyzing different forms and experi-

ences of the welfare state. These parallels should come

as no surprise, particularly if we then take a closer look

at the itinerary of EuropeanCommission proposals on

the development of CSR policies. An in-depth study

of the relationship between models of public policies

on CSR and models of development of the welfare

state is long overdue. This is essential, and not just for

historical or academic reasons. A correct orientation

of public policies on CSRwill in the long term form a

basic element in, and a symptom of, any forthcoming

discussions on the redefinition of the welfare state.

Second, while in some countries CSR policies

have been defined in relation to social issues, and an

independent public policy has been created, in

others government action has simply incorporated

CSR into national policies on sustainability. We feel

that the latter approach, focusing on sustainability,

ties in with countries, where there is a long-standing

tradition and intense public discussion on Sustainable

Development and ‘green’ policies. Conversely, the

CSR approach in other countries ties in with busi-

ness and society relationships, and CSR public pol-

icies are linked to social challenges and are closer to

collective bargaining policies.

Third, there are other elements that must be

considered when analyzing and developing any

government framework for endorsing CSR. CSR

must not be seen as being divorced from the great

political and economic challenges. In fact, it is

sometimes presented as a response to, and sometimes

as the result of, the new challenges created by eco-

nomic globalization. CSR is at once viewed as a

response to the crisis of the welfare state producing a

new model for social governance and as a framework

linked to national competitiveness. We argue that

this debate on government action on CSR must not

be confined to CSR public policies. Governments

must allow it a much wider approach and context,

embracing models of governance with a framework

for new relationships between governments, busi-

nesses, and society stakeholders.

From these three points of view, drawing up and

designing governmental approaches on CSR is there-

fore not just amatter of concept but a political decision.

This means that governments and businesses and also

society stakeholders must be increasingly aware of the

need to formulate their own approach to CSR in order

to adopt the CSR approach that best suits their welfare

state tradition and the existing relationships between

government, business and society. Currently, the role

of CSR public policies has become a way of rethinking

the role of businesses in society that takes relational

governance and sustainability as its core values.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Thomas Maak and the

anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and

suggestions that have helped to improve this article.

Notes

1 This research was made possible thanks to the

support of the Department of Economy and

Finance of the Regional Government of Catalonia.2 This research was begun in 2004 when the EU

was still composed of 15 Member States: Austria,

Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany,

Greece, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxem-

bourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United

Kingdom, before the EU Enlargement of May

2004 when 10 States joined the EU.3 For further information on the results for each

country please see: Lozano et al. (2007).4 Given the definition of the study object –

focused on governments – the actions between the

private, for-profit and non-profit sectors do not

form part of this analytical framework.5 As Kjaer et al. (2003) suggest on partnership

models, we include the Netherlands in this model of

CSR due to the tendency of its policies to adopt co-

responsibility and dialogue to construct alliances

with other key actors.



References

Aaronson, S. and J. Reeves: 2002a, The European Response

to Public Demands for Global Corporate Responsibility

(National Policy Association, Washington DC).

Aaronson, S. and J. Reeves: 2002b, Corporate Responsi-

bility in the Global Village: The Role of Public Policy

(National Policy Association, Washington DC).

Albareda, L., T. Ysa and J. M. Lozano: 2006, ‘The Role

of Governments in Fostering CSR’, in A. Katabadse

and M. Morsing (eds.), Corporate Responsibility. Recon-

ciling Aspirations with Application (Palgrave Macmillan,

Houndmills, Basingstoke/New York).

Carroll, A. B.: 1989, Business and Society: Ethics and Stake-

holder Management (South Western, Cincinnati, OH).

Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social

Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Orga-

nizational Stakeholders’, Business Horizons 34(4), 39–48.

CBSR: 2001, Government and Corporate Social Responsi-

bility. An Overview of Selected Canadian, European and

International Practices (Canadian Business for Social

Responsibility, Vancouver).

Clarkson, M. B. E. (ed.): 1998, The Corporation and its

Stakeholders: Classic and Contemporary Readings (Uni-

versity of Toronto Press, Toronto).

Crane, A. and D. Matten: 2004, Business Ethics. A Euro-

pean Perspective. Managing Corporate Citizenship and

Sustainability in the Age of Globalization (Oxford Uni-

versity Press, Oxford).

DETE (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employ-

ment): 2002, Sustainable Development Strategy 2003–

2005, December 2002 (Irish Government, Dublin).

Donaldson, T. and T. Dunfee: 1999, Ties that Bind: A

Social Contract Approach to Business Ethics (Harvard

Business School Press, Boston, MA).

DTI: 2001, Business and Society Developing Corporate Social

Responsibility in the UK (UK Government, Department

of Trade and Industry, London).

DTI: 2003a, Business and Society. Corporate Social

Responsibility Report 2002, UK Government,

Department of Trade and Industry, London.

DTI: 2003b, Corporate Social Responsibility – A Draft

International Strategic Framework (UK Government,

Department of Trade and Industry, London).

Esping-Andersen, G.: 1999, Social Foundations of Post-

Industrial Economies (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

Esping-Andersen, G.: 2000, A Welfare State for the 21st

Century. Report presented by the EU Portuguese

Presidency, Lisbon, March.

European Commission: 2001, Green Paper: Promoting a

European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility.

COM (2001) 366-final, Brussels.

European Commission: 2002, Corporate Social Responsi-

bility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development.

COM (2002) 347-final, Brussels.

European Commission: 2006, Implementing the Partnership

for Growth and Jobs: Making European a Pole of Excellence

on Corporate Social Responsibility. COM (2006) 136

final, Brussels.

Frederick, W. C.: 2006, Corporation, Be Good! The Story of

Corporate Social Responsibility (Dog Ear Publishing,

Indianapolis, IN).

Freeman, R. E.: 1998, ‘A Stakeholder Theory of the

Modern Corporation’, in M. B. E. Clarkson (ed.), The

Corporation and its Stakeholders: Classic and Contemporary

Readings (University of Toronto Press, Toronto),

pp. 125–138.

Fox, T., H. Ward and B. Howard: 2002, Public Sector

Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: A

Baseline Study (The World Bank, Washington).

Greeve, C.: 2003, ‘Public–Private Partnerships in Scandi-

navia’, International PublicManagementReview 4(2), 59–68.

Gribben, C., K. Pinnington and A. Wilson: 2001, Gov-

ernments as Partners: The Role of the Central Government

in Developing New Social Partnerships (The Copenhagen

Centre, Copenhagen).

Guarini, E. and C. Nidasio: 2003, CSR Role in Public–

Private Partnerships: Models of Governance. Paper

presented at the 2nd Annual Colloquium of the European

Academy of Business in Society, Copenhagen.

Joseph, E.: 2003, A New Business Agenda for Government

(Institute for Public Policy Research, London).

Kapstein, M. and R. Von Tulder: 2003, ‘Effective

Stakeholder Dialogues’, Business and Society Review

108(2), 203–224.

Kjaer, L., P. Abrahamson, P. Raynard (ed.): 2003, Local

Partnerships in Europe. An Action Research Project (The

Copenhagen Centre, Copenhagen).

Lepoutre, J., N. Dentchev and A. Heene: 2004, On the

Role of the Government in the Corporate Social

Responsibility Debate. Paper presented at the 3rd

Annual Colloquium of the European Academy of Business

in Society, Ghent.

Lozano, J. M., L. Albareda, T. Ysa, H. Roscher and M.

Marcuccio: 2007, Governments and Corporate Social

Responsibility. Public Policies beyond Regulation and Vo-

luntary Compliance (Palgrave, MacMillan).

Matten, C. and J. Moon: 2005, ‘A Conceptual Frame-

work for Understanding CSR’, in A. Habisch, J.

Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.), Cor-

porate Social Responsibility Across Europe (Springer,

Berlin), pp. 335–356.

Mendoza, X.: 1996, Las transformaciones del sector publico en

las sociedades avanzadas. Del estado del bienestar al estado



33

relacional. Papers de Formacio, No. 23, Diputacio de

Barcelona.

Midttun, A.: 2005, ‘Policy making and the role of gov-

ernment realigning business, government and civil

society. Emerging embedded relational governance

beyond the (neo) liberal and welfare state models’,

Corporate Governance. The International Journal of Business

in Society 5(3), 159–174.

Moon, J.: 2002, ‘Business Social Responsibility and New

Governance’, Government and Opposition 37, 385–408.

Moon, J.: 2004, Government as a Driver of Corporate Social

Responsibility: The UK in Comparative Perspective.

ICCSR Research Paper Series, n. 20-2004, The

University of Nottingham, pp. 1–27.

Moon, J. and R. Sochaki: 1996, ‘The Social Responsi-

bility and New Governance’, Government and Opposi-

tion 27, 384–408.

Morsing, M.: 2005, ‘Inclusive Labour Market Strategies’,

in A. J. Habisch; Jonker, M. Wegner and R.

Schmidpeter (eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility Across

Europe (Springer, Berlin), pp. 23–35.

Nelson, J. and S. Zadek: 2000, Partnership Alchemy – New

Social Partnerships in Europe (The Copenhagen Centre,

Copenhagen).

Nidasio, C.: 2004, Implementing CSR on a Large Scale:

The Role of Government. Paper presented at the 3rd

Colloquium of the European Academy of Business in Soci-

ety, Ghent.

Payne, S. L. and J. M. Calton: 2002, ‘Towards a Mana-

gerial Practice of Stakeholder Engagement: Develop-

ing Multi-Stakeholder Learning Dialogues’, Journal of

Corporate Citizenship 6(2), 37–52.

Payne, S. L. and J. M. Calton: 2004, ‘Exploring Research

Potentials and Application for Multi-Stakeholder

Learning Dialogues’, Journal of Business Ethics 55,

71–78.

Rome, N.: 2005, ‘The Implications of National Agendas

for CSR’, in A. J. Habisch; Jonker, M. Wegner and

R. Schmidpeter (eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility

Across Europe (Springer, Berlin), pp. 317–333.

Rosdahl, A: 2001, ‘The Policy to Promote Social Re-

sponsibility of Enterprises in Denmark’,Danish National

Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen. Discussion Pa-

per from Host country Expert: Denmark, sep 17–18.

Scholte, J. A.: 2001, ‘Globalisation, Governance and

Corporate Citizenship’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship

1(Spring), 15–23.

Waddock, S.: 2002, Leading Corporate Citizens: Vision,

Values, Value Added (MacGraw-Hill Irvin, Boston,

MA).

Zappal, G.: 2003, Corporate Citizenship and the Role of

Government: The Public Policy Case. Research Paper n.

4, 2003–2004, Australia.

Laura Albareda and Josep M. Lozano

Institute for Social Innovation,

ESADE Business School (University Ramon Llull-

URL),

Avda. Pedralbes, 60-62, Barcelona, 08034, Spain

E-mail: [email protected]

Tamyko Ysa

Institute of Public Management (IDGP),

ESADE Business School (University Ramon Llull-

URL),

Avda. Pedralbes, 60-62, Barcelona, 08034, Spain




35

ARTÍCULOS

KUSYK, S.; LOZANO, J.M.

“CORPORATE RESPONSABILITY IN SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES. SME SOCIAL PERFORMANCE: A FOUR-CELLTYPOLOGY OF KEY SOCIAL ISSUES AND THEIRIMPLICATIONS FOR STAKEHOLDER THEORY”

Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.

Vol. 7 (2007), núm. 4.


37

Corporate responsibility in small andmedium-sized enterprises

SME social performance: a four-cell typologyof key drivers and barriers on social issuesand their implications for stakeholder theory

Sophia Maria Kusyk and Josep M. Lozano

Abstract

Purpose – Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are often neglected in the context of business and

society theory building. The purpose of this article is to build a model of why SMEs address social issues

by integrating internal and external drivers and barriers to social performance (SP).

Design/methodology/approach – Using thematic analysis, barriers and drivers to SME social

performance are clustered along key stakeholders and presented in a theoretical model. The analysis

dates from 1973 until 2006 and is grounded in an extensive literature review that represents a total of 83

countries. It includes academic and practitioner accounts stemming from theoretical and empirical

work, as well as conference proceedings. A total of 80 drivers and 96 barriers to SME high social

performance are identified.

Findings – This paper develops an SME four-cell ideal type of social issues management (SIM)

response typology based on drivers and barriers of social performance.

Practical implications – The importance of understanding barriers and drivers to social responsibility

(SR) of SIM for stakeholder theory, policy makers, and practitioners is discussed, concluding with

implications for further SME-SR research.

Originality/value – The four-cell typology considers the theoretical claims of stakeholder theory within

the context of SMEs and proposes a heteronomy of stakeholder salience.

Keywords Small to medium-sized enterprises, Social responsibility, Stakeholder analysis

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction

An enterprise and the ethical norms in which it operates are socially constructed (Pinch and

Bijker, 1987) within a normative context to have moral agency (Goodpaster and Matthews,

1982) and to be responsible to its stakeholders (Freeman, 1984) for its triple bottom line

(Elkington, 1998) beyond the law (European Commission, 2001). However, there appears to

be gap between the social performance (SP)[1] (Swanson, 1995; Carroll, 1979) of an

enterprise and the expected results of the social responsibility (SR) theory embodied by the

stakeholder model. Adherence to the normative expectations in social issues (SI)

involvement and the practice of stakeholder engagement and corporate accountability of

the triple bottom line varies in scope and scale of application between and within

stakeholder issues of individual enterprises, where an SI is a stakeholder demand for

enterprise accountability. In particular, several authors have commented on the need for

further theory development and empirical work geared at social issues management (SIM)

from a small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perspective because of a historical

Sophia Maria Kusyk is

based at ESADE,

Universidad Ramon Llull,

Sabadell, Spain.

Josep M. Lozano is a

Professor at ESADE,

Universidad Ramon Llull,

Barcelona, Spain.


asymmetrical focus on large enterprises (LEs) (Jenkins, 2004a; Spence, 1999). We will

address the gap between normative expectations and practice by probing into the internal

and external, barriers and drivers, of SMEs for achieving a high SP.

This article builds a model of why SMEs address SI by integrating internal and external,

drivers and barriers, of their SP into the stakeholder model. Next it develops a SME four-cell

ideal type of SI response typology based on a proposed heteronomy of stakeholder

salience. Finally, the importance of understanding barriers and drivers to SR of SIM for

stakeholder theory, policy makers, and practitioners is discussed, concluding with

implications for further SME SR research.

Determinants and effects of SME social issue performance

Conventional SR theory development has been centered on large enterprises (LEs). The

rational is based on easier access to LEs and the fact that ceteris paribus the power of an LE

as an actor in the international system is substantial (Jenkins, 2004a). However, even though

relatively SMEs are smaller power agents in a cumulative sense they represent anywhere

from 97-99 percent of all enterprises and in some industry from 50 percent up to 80 percent

of total employment (World Bank Institute, 2004; European Commission, 2002). SMEs differ

from LEs because of their relative scale and scope of operations and organizational

characteristics (Jenkins, 2004a, b). A SME definition from the World Bank Institute is an

enterprise between 10 to 300 employees and total assets and annual sales ranging between

US$ 100,000 to US$ 15 million (World Bank Institute, 2004). In Europe the definition of SMEs

includes enterprises with less than 250 employees and with equal to or less than e50 million

annual turnover, and e43 million on annual balance sheet.

The SMEs sector is protean in character; varying in size, experience, values, resources,

stakeholder engagement in order to adapt themselves into their environments within the

different industries and cultural contexts in which they operate. In an organizational behavior

context SMEs have relatively fewer resources than their larger counterparts and are more

risk-adverse because of lesser market diversification (Jenkins, 2004a; Spence, 1999). We

also need to consider that form a stakeholder theory point-of-view many SMEs may have a

smaller demanding portfolio of stakeholders.

The current state of SME SR literature is at an embryonic stage focusing on exploratory

analysis and pointing out an LE context bias of SR theory (Jenkins, 2004a). To date it has

been limited to fragmented descriptive schematization of SMEs based on variable

characteristics such as organizational size, sector or geographic position. We propose that

to further our understanding from the descriptive ‘‘what’’ of SME SR, we need to consider the

prescriptive ‘‘why’’ of SME SR practices by making distinctions between SMEs and LEs

based on meaningful categories of theoretical relationships of constructs taken from

stakeholder theory.

A broad definition of stakeholder is ‘‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by

the achievement of the organization’s objectives’’ (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). It can also be

viewed in a narrow way as reverted to the language of the Stanford Research Institute (1963)

defining stakeholders as those groups ‘‘on which the organization is dependent for its

continued survival’’ (Windsor, 1992). The theory focuses on managerial decision-making

according to three approaches:

1. Descriptive which talks about whether stakeholder interests are being taken into account.

2. The instrumental approach is concerned about the impact stakeholders may have in

terms of corporate effectiveness.

3. The normative approach deals with reasons why corporations ought to consider

stakeholder interests even in the absence of apparent benefit (Donaldson and Preston,

1995).

Furthermore, Mitchell et al. (1997) have identified three classes of claims for stakeholder

salience:


39

1. The stakeholder’s power to influence the firm.

2. The legitimacy of the stakeholder’s relationship with the firm.

3. The urgency of the stakeholder’s claim on the firm.

Our paper focuses on describing how stakeholders are being taken into account and what

instrumental impact they have on SME SP in terms of stakeholder salience by linking them to

the barriers and drivers for SI engagement.

Departing from the assumption that SR practices cannot simply be transferred from LEs to

SMEs (Jenkins, 2004a; World Bank Institute, 2004; UNIDO, 2002; Spence, 1999) we need to

explore what the drivers and barriers to SMEs stakeholder issue engagement are. The basic

drivers of SR for LEs have been identified as values, strategy and public pressure, where

companies are often driven to stakeholder issue engagement by one or a combination of

them (UNIDO, 2002; Zadek et al., 1997). Our discussion is derived from an analysis of

existing SME SR conceptual and empirical literature (see appendix). After analyzing the

determinants of SP of SI we provide an ideal-type typology of SME SR engagement based

on the most salient stakeholders: owner-managers and supply chain agents. We propose

that SR drivers and barriers to stakeholder engagement are critical in order to move the

theoretical discussion form exploratory analysis towards explanatory research.

Environmental determinants of SME social performance on a social issue

An SME is a stakeholder in an interpenetrating system (Strand, 1983) of an international

normative framework, a national legal framework and the industry competitive environment.

It is from these external factors and the enterprises’ own internal capabilities that it can

assess its own market position with regards to SIM, whether or not these are derived from an

implicit or explicit stakeholder engagement. In Figure 1 boxes represent bundled concepts,

a broken line implies the system permeable membrane of individual stakeholders and the

direction of influence is marked by the arrow head.

In essence, Figure 1 depicts that the perception of SR by an SME on a given social issue is

determined through an interaction of different stakeholders in a normative international,

Figure 1 An integrated model of key social issue drivers and barriers of SME social performance


national political framework, industry competitive environment and the SMEs SR issue

market position. The figure further suggests that depending on the SR environmental

determinants of the normative framework on a SI: two types of key drivers or barriers for SI

practice and the salient stakeholders emerge. First of all the external SME market

competitive positioning based on a SR issue and secondly the internal SME decision making

autonomy of a SR issue. This is because there is a power hierarchy between stakeholders

and a market taxonomy between social issues with regards to the competitive environment.

Figure 1 concludes that depending on the ideal type of SME social issue engagement the

outcome or practice of SP will either be high or low and society will either benefit or bear the

externality cost. For a particular act the final feedback loop is the reincorporation of the SME

SP back to the environment. It is here that LE actions are often differentiated from SMEs as

their particular individual acts have a larger scale of impact as for example the Enron

scandal (Institute for Global Ethics, 2002) which resulted in change in the international,

national and industry SR environment. However, the millions of aggregate actions of SMEs

are impacting their environment on a cumulative scale (European Commission, 2004).

Irrelevant of the various views on social responsibility (SR), an implicit number of different

social issues (SI) exist (Carroll, 1979). International, national, and local stakeholders

determine the type, scale and scope of SI that may arise in any given market situation.

Carroll’s (1979) initial SI list has evolved and been incorporated into different international

tools such as the Global Reporting Initiative (2002) or the SA 8000 certifications (Social

Accountability International, 2006). The national political environment is an important factor

in setting the legislative framework of the nature and praxis of SR norms. The industry sets

the normative tone of the code of conduct on a particular SI in terms of market conditions by

its nature and history of SI praxis. Moreover, the SME whether explicitly or implicitly

ascertains its own internal strengths, weaknesses to the external threats and opportunities

for a given SI. The SI environmental framework for SR is an interpenetrating system of

international, national and local, external and internal stakeholders, where the SME is a

stakeholder in its own right.

Key internal and external drivers and barriers for SME social performance on asocial issue

From Figure 1 we see that the SME must make a choice on its SR market position, which is

determined by the barriers and drivers of SIM. Drivers are external and internal (agents,

competences and pressures) to aid, compel, promote a SME with social issues

identification, implementation and/or management. Barriers are external and internal

(agents, competences and pressures) that hinder, resist, stop a SME from social issues

identification, implementation and/or management.

The appendix was created in a three-step process: to start, a list of all possible barriers and

drivers for SMEs, as stated in the articles and in the context of the original work, was

comprised. In a second step, clusters of text were created based on meaningful categories

in which barriers and drivers to SP were subdivided into internal (ownership, employees,

resources), and external (customers, local community, competitive environment)

stakeholders. The final step was summarizing the list into key words presented in

appendix 1.

The literature represented a total of 83 countries which included the following geographical

areas: Africa (12 countries), East Asia and Pacific (13 countries), Europe and Central Asia

(17 countries), Latin America and Caribbean (16 countries), Middle East and North Africa

(five countries), North America (two countries), South Asia (five countries) and Western

Europe (15 countries). It included academic and practitioner accounts stemming from

theoretical and empirical work, as well as conference proceedings for both academics

and/or practitioners dating from 1973 until 2006. In total 80 drivers and 96 barriers to SME

high SP were identified.

The limitations of the drivers and barrier chart are inherent to the research designs from

which they are derived and it is questionable if the sample represented in the individual


41

studies are representative of their populations. It must also be stated that all of the studies

probably contain a positive bias towards SME-SR because both the academics and

practitioners participating the issue are interested in improving SP. Hence, the

non-interested accounts are underrepresented. Even though there was a positive bias 17

percent more barriers than drivers where identified. Due to the previously mentioned

limitations of the literature reviewed this article made a values-free list of all barriers and

drivers.

Table I shows that internal stakeholders contained 38 percent of the total drivers and 50

percent of the total barriers, external stakeholders comprised of 45 percent drivers and 38

percent barriers and that theory and practice were 18 percent driver and 13 percent barrier

to SME SI engagement.

We can conclude that the most cited driver is found on the attitude dimension of the internal

stakeholder perspective for social issues engagement. The driver is ‘‘a reflection of

owner/manager moral and ethical values’’ (seven citations). However the main barriers of the

internal stakeholder dimension were on the resources dimension ‘‘lack of justification of

allocation of limited money (nine citations) and limited time (eight citations).

From an external stakeholder perspective the most cited drivers of SR are customers ‘‘SMEs

perceive the SR business case for improved image and reputation, and customer loyalty’’

(five citations) and ‘‘the supply chain’’ externs some or strong pressure for SIM (four

citations), and ‘‘a strong link to the community’’ (six citations). On the other hand the single

most cited external stakeholder barrier is the supply chain cost-cutting top-down pressure

from supply chain that uses SMEs as a loop-hole for social irresponsibility (four citations).

After creating the clusters we encountered a paradox. It became apparent that SME

owners/managers or external SR market conditions could either be a barrier or a driver.

Variables such as size of company and location could not meaningfully explain why certain

SMEs were performing high or low on SIM. In particular, owner values did not play an

important barrier or driver in a macro-economic analysis, but they became critical in at the

mircro-economic level SI engagement. We propose that owner values that are inclined

towards social responsibility are an antecedent and idiosyncratic component of what we will

Table I Descriptive statistics of Appendix: drivers and barriers for SME social performance

Drivers (n ¼ 80) Barriers (n ¼ 96)Number % Number %

1. Internal stakeholders total 30 38 48 501.1. Owner/governance total 11 14 19 20

1.1.1. Style 4 5 4 41.1.2. Attitude 7 9 15 16

1.2. Employees total 9 11 6 61.3. Resources/management systems total 10 13 23 24

1.3.1. Resources 7 9 7 71.3.2. Information and understanding 3 4 12 131.3.3. Skills: planning and measurement 0 0 4 4

2. External stakeholders total 36 45 36 382.1. Customers total 17 21 4 4

2.1.1. Customers in general 10 13 3 32.1.2. Supply chain 7 9 1 1

2.2. Community total 13 16 17 182.2.1. Community in general 9 11 9 92.2.2. Public infrastructure 4 5 8 8

2.3. Competitive environment total 6 8 15 16

3. Theory and practice total 14 18 12 133.1. Business case total 14 18 3 33.2. Definitions total 0 0 9 9Total 80 100 96 100


call the ‘‘moral leader’’ (Table II). On a macro level, we propose two meaningful

drivers/barriers for SIM based on the external competitive nature of the industry and the

internal decision making autonomy of the owner/manager. In Figure 2 circles depict the

driver/barrier, the arrow head show the direction of influence and boxes contain the

outcome. In our model we assume that the SME is a for-profit, legal enterprise governed by

rational actors.

The sum of SR determinants (barriers/drivers) in Figure 1 can be placed into the category of

‘‘industry competitive environment’’. Figure 2 states that it can either give a high or low

advantage to the SME based on performance on a given SI. A high advantage is clearly

observed by niche markets where products differentiate themselves based on their SP on a

given SI. We can observe this phenomenon in different enterprises that use SI sensitive

customers as niche markets and promote their goods through social labels to differentiate

their products, such as for example Intermon Oxam products that are geared at the SR

consumer (Eco-Label Green Store, 2006; European Commission, 2006; Oxfam International,

2006). The converse is also true, that in certain competitive environments certain SI bear a

low advantage, such the commodity manufacturing industry in China (The Economist, 2006)

that differentiates itself on low cost. We propose that SMEs make an implicit or explicit

opportunities and threats analysis of SI engagement and act accordingly. SMEs will either

actively seek out SI competitive advantage by the social labeling and differentiation of their

products and services, or passively comply with the environmental norms of SR on a given

SI. Our analysis confirms that SMEs are interested in and make their decisions

(systematically or ad-hoc) based on the competitive environment of the SI in question.

Figure 2 also identifies a second key barrier/driver to SIM: the nature of internal decision

making autonomy. Certain SME owner/managers had either high or low degree of autonomy

Table II A four-cell typology of key social issue drivers and barriers of SME social performance

External: enterprise market competitiveadvantage based on SR issue

High Customer dependedSocial issue management: compliantSocial issue champion: supply chaindemand (active)Social issue performance: high

Moral leaderSocial issue management: innovatorSocial issue champion: owner/manager(active)Social issue performance: high

Low Non-participantSocial issue management: followerSocial issue champion: supply chaindemand (active)Social issue performance: low

ObserverSocial issue management: adapterSocial issue champion: owner/manager(passive)Social issue performance: low

Low HighInternal: decision-making autonomy on SR issue

Figure 2 A decision-tree approach for key social issue drivers and barriers of SME social

performance ideal types


43

in decision making from their external and internal stakeholders on a given SI. In the case of

high autonomy SME owners/managers could either choose or not choose to engage on a SI.

For example in the case of high autonomy in decision making SME owners/managers and

high SI market attractiveness there was SR innovations. However, on the opposite end,

supply chain stakeholders could exert definitive pressure towards high or low SP. Supply

chain stakeholder could be even more salient than the SME and exert top down pressure to

adopt ‘‘voluntary’’ SR standards or to cut cost regardless of SI.

Formation of SME social issues management ideal types

In order to make sense of SME drivers and barriers paradox we propose Table II. A typology

identifies multiple ideal types each of which represents a unique combination of

organizational attributes that are believed to determine the relevant outcome(s) and it is a

relevant method for management theory (Doty and Glick, 1994). Although a typology poses

a risk of simplification (Cowton, 2002), it is an important conceptual tool that allows for a

parsimonious treatment of a multifaceted and unexplored issue.

Table II’s vertical axis is the external divers/barriers of ‘‘enterprise market competitive

advantage based on SR issue’’ and its horizontal axis is the ‘‘internal drivers/barriers of

decision-making autonomy on SR issue’’. Depending on the intensity (high/low) and

combination (external/internal) of these two key drivers/barriers an SME’s will have a very

different ideal type on its SI identification and therefore SP. Each of the four categories will be

discussed in turn below moving from top to bottom and left to right in Table II.

An external high market competitive advantage on a SI and low internal decision-making

autonomy on SIM is what we termed the ‘‘customer depended’’ SME. In this scenario, the

market competitive advantage is high which states that high SP is required by the SR

environmental determinants. However, the SMEs internal decision-making autonomy

towards SIM is low. In this scenario the SME is SIM compliant to the active social issue

champion and its SP on that SI will be high.

An external high market competitive advantage on a SI and high internal decision-making

autonomy on SIM is what we termed the ‘‘moral leader’’ SME. In this scenario the market

competitive advantage is high which states that a high SP is required by the SR environmental

determinants. Since the SMEs sees that SIM is advantageous and it itself is the salient

stakeholder it can decide on its own SIM. The SME will try to gain a competitive advantage on

its SIM and will have an innovative approach to SIM and its SP on that SI will be high.

An external low market competitive advantage on a SI and low internal decision-making

autonomy on SIM is what we termed the ‘‘non-participant’’ SME. In this scenario, the market

competitive advantage for SP is low which states that SIM is not a required by the SR

environmental determinants. The SME’s internal decision-making autonomy towards SIM is

also low. The SME will be a SIM follower where the salient stakeholder will be active and the

SP on that SI will be low.

An external low market competitive advantage on a SI and high internal decision-making

autonomy on SIM is what we termed the ‘‘observer’’ SME. In this scenario, the market

competitive advantage for SP is low which states that high SIM not a required by the SR

environmental determinants. The SME’s internal decision-making autonomy towards SIM is high,

but the external environment does not provide the business case to act on SI. The SME

observes its environment andwill adapt to SI when it sees a business case and its SPwill be low.

Conclusions and implications for further research

The business and society field has made significant strides in stakeholder theory

development by pointing out that engaging stakeholders is crucial to identifying and raising

normative standards of SI. We havemade a global review of SME literature on SP drivers and

barriers and we build a model of why SMEs address SI by integrating internal and external,

drivers and barriers, of their SP to the stakeholder model. This was followed by developing a

SME four-cell ideal type of social issues response typology based on a proposed

heteronomy of stakeholder salience. A heteronomy of stakeholder salience proposes that


social issues are addressed as a function of and in subordination to a hierarchy of

stakeholders of which the SME itself is one. Due to the relative power of different

stakeholders, SMEs are not entirely autonomous actors solely addressing SI based on their

own value schemes. Stakeholders create the normative expectations on SMEs for SI

involvement; engagement in a SI depends on a multiple combination of barriers and drivers.

Our theoretical contribution to the stakeholder model is the idea of heteronomy of

stakeholder salience. To date the stakeholder model has proposed that the enterprise has

relative bargain power to determine the instrumental stakeholders. We have demonstrated

with Figure 2 that in the case of SMEs the instrumental value of a stakeholder, such as a

supply chain agent, can be greater than that of the SME itself. Figure 3 divides SME

stakeholder dialogue based on the autonomy of decision-making within the SME. The

‘‘customer depended’’ SMEs (SME1 to SMEn) show that the SME is subordinate to the larger

customer, and it will be instrumental in SIM by sheer market power. In the case of the

‘‘autonomous’’ SME it will be able to select a SI because it is in a relatively equal relationship

with its customers and environment. In this case the SME itself is the instrumental

stakeholder (current stakeholder theory assumption). The two axi of Table II thus force us to

think through the dominant questions that must be considered when faced with analyzing

the SP of SMEs. Therefore, Table I helps to systematize the important issues to be taught and

understood in an effort to clarify the SR of SMEs in the context of stakeholder theory.

Understanding where an SME is positioned on the four-cell typology of social issue drivers

and barriers of SME social performance (Table II) and who holds the power, according to

Figure 3, will be important for policy makers as they need to push SIM on a two tear level to

reach all SMEs. First of all, SIM needs to be pushed down the vertical supply chain to reach

the customer depended SMEs. Secondly, a strong business case is needed to convince the

autonomous SMEs that it is within their competitive advantage to practice SR.

Furthermore from an SME practitioner perspective it is important that we move beyond the at

times confusing definitions and classifications of SR and SMEs. Table I can serve as a tool for

practitioners to help them systematically ascertain their own position within their particular

heteronomy of stakeholder salience with reference to which SI they are faced with. This means

that reflecting on the SR of an SME of a SI and linking it to the SP, is not separate and distinct

from economic performance. Therefore, the table can also be used as a planning and

diagnostic problem-solving tool. It points to the fact that in order for social issues to be engaged

by SMEs they need to be integrated into the global strategy of the competitive context.

Figure 3 SME stakeholder instrumental types


45

A high social performance of a SME requires that:

B the external barriers and drivers of the market competitive advantage based on SR issue

be assessed;

B internal drivers and barriers to the decision making autonomy on SR issue be weighted;

and

B a realistic bounded SIM philosophy be chosen.

This paper is an initial introduction to a meaningful SME differentiation on social issues

engagement based on two key determinants of social issues performance. The conceptual

ideal types of Figure 1 are intended to help clarify the barriers and drivers of an SME SP. It also

presents the notions of SR and SP of a SI in a context of economic considerations and the

heteronomy of stakeholder salience. The model can help managers conceptualize the key

drivers/barriers to their own SP and to improve planning and diagnosis of their SI. The model is

a modest step towards the refinement of stakeholder theory as applied to SMEs. In the future,

research needs to empirically zero-in on the range and scope of each of the four cells of Table II.

Note

1. For the purpose of our discussion of SME SP we refer to Carroll’s three-dimensional conceptual

model of corporate social performance, which brings together the social responsibility categories

(economic, legal, ethical and discretionary), the philosophy of social responsiveness (Frederick,

1978; Epstein, 1987) and stakeholder involvement on social issues (consumerism, environment,

discrimination) to assess an enterprises’ tangible performance (management system

implementation, scope and scale of social issues addressed) on a given social issue (Carroll,

1979, p. 503).

References

Bjoerkman, T. and Hahn, T. (2005), ‘‘Triple bottom line in Swedish SMEs: what drives and sustains the

sustainable development? Based on a study of a government funded development project’’, working

paper, Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm.

Burns, P. (2001), Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Business in the Community (2006), ‘‘Small business channel’’, available at: www.bitc.org.uk/

small_businesses/index.html (accessed 15 May 2006).

Carland, J., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. and Carland, J. (1984), ‘‘Differentiating entrepreneurs from small

business owners: a conceptualization’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 354-9.

Carroll, A. (1979), ‘‘A three-dimensional model of corporate social performance’’, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 497-505.

Cowton, C. (2002), ‘‘On two-by-two grids: or, the Arkaeology of management thought: reason in practice

limited’’, Philosophy of Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 47-51.

Curran, J. (1999), ‘‘The role of the small firm in the UK economy: hot stereotypes and cool assessments’’,

Small Business Research Trust report, Milton Keynes.

Curran, J. and Blackburn, R. (1994), Small Firms and Local Economic Networks: The Death of the Local

Economy?, Paul Chapman, London.

Davis, J. (1991), Greening Business: Managing for Sustainable Development, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Dex, S. and Scheibl, S. (2001), ‘‘Flexible and family-friendly working arrangements in UK-based SMEs:

business cases’’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 411-31.

Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995), ‘‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence,

and implications’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 65-91.

Doty, H. and Glick, W. (1994), ‘‘Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved

understanding and modeling’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 230-52.

Eco-Label Green Store (2006), available at: www.eco-label.com/default.htm (accessed 23 May 2006).

(The) Economist (2006), ‘‘A survey of China’’, The Economist, March 25.


Elkington, J. (1998),Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, New Society

Publishers, Gabriola Island.

Epstein, E.M. (1987), ‘‘The corporate social policy process: beyond business ethics, corporate social

responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness’’, Californian Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 3,

pp. 99-114.

European Commission (2001), ‘‘Green paper: promoting a European framework for corporate social

responsibility’’, The Official Office of Publication for the European Communities, Brussels.

European Commission (2002), ‘‘European SMEs and social and environmental responsibility’’,

Enterprise Publications, Brussels.

European Commission (2004), ‘‘European multistakeholder forum on SR’’, Report of the Round Table on

‘‘Fostering SR among SMEs’’, version: 03/05/04, Brussels.

European Commission (2006), ‘‘Social economy enterprises’’, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/

enterprise/entrepreneurship/coop/index.htm (accessed 22 May 2006).

Frederick, W. (1978), ‘‘From SR1 to SR2: the maturing of business-and-society thought’’, working paper

no. 279, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA..

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.

Gaafland, J. (2002), ‘‘Modeling the trade-off between profits and principles’’, The Economist, Vol. 150

No. 2, pp. 129-54.

GEEF (2003), ‘‘Response to the green paper on corporate social responsibility’’, The European Group of

Owner-Managed and Family Enterprises, Madrid.

Gibb, A. (2000), ‘‘SME policy, academic research and the growth of ignorance, mythical concepts,

myths, assumptions, rituals and confusions’’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3,

pp. 13-34.

Global Reporting Initiative (2002), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Global Reporting Initiative,

Boston, MA.

Goffee, R. and Scase, R. (1985), Women in Charge, George Allen & Unwin, London.

Goodpaster, K. and Matthews, J.B. (1982), ‘‘Can a corporation have a conscience?’’, Harvard Business

Review, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 132-41.

Greening, D. and Turban, D. (2000), ‘‘Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in

attracting a quality workforce’’, Business and Society, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 254-80.

Headd, B. (2000), ‘‘The characteristics of small-business employees’’, Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 123

No. 4, pp. 13-18.

Hillary, R. (1999), ‘‘Evaluation of study reports on the barriers, opportunities and drivers for small and

medium sized enterprises in the adoption of environmental management systems’’, a study for DTI,

London.

Institute for Chartered Accountants (2002), Risk Management for SMEs, The Institute for Chartered

Accountants, London.

Institute for Global Ethics (2002), ‘‘Enron scandal unlikely to shock an already jaded public, Gallup

says’’, Ethics Newline, Vol. 5 No. 4.

Jenkins, H. (2004a), ‘‘A critique of conventional SR theory: an SME perspective’’, Journal of General

Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 37-58.

Jenkins, H. (2004b), Corporate Social Responsibility – Engaging SMEs in the Debate: Initial Research

Findings, BRASS, Cardiff.

Jenkins, H. and Hines, F. (2002), ‘‘Shouldering the burden of corporate social responsibility: what makes

business get committed?’’, paper presented at 10th International Conference of the Greening of

Industry Network, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 23-26.

Kusyk, S. and Espanyo, J. (2006), ‘‘Jorda: best practice example of human resources’’, in Murillo, D. and

Lozano, J.M. (Eds), SR and SMEs: Betting on Company Excellence, IPES, Madrid.


47

Longo, M., Mura, M. and Bonoli, A. (2005), ‘‘Corporate social responsibility: MNCs and corporate

performance: the case of Italian SMEs’’, Corporate Governance, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 28-42.

Mitchell, R., Agle, B. and Wood, D. (1997), ‘‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience:

defining the principle of who and what really counts’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 3,

pp. 853-87.

Nutek (2003), Environmental Work in Small Enterprises: A Pure Gain?, Nutek, Stockholm.

Oxfam International (2006), available at: www.oxfam.org/en/about/ (accessed 22 May 2006).

Pinch, T. and Bijker, W. (1987), The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts, MIT Press, Cambridge,

MA, pp. 17-51.

Raynard, P. and Forstater, M. (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility: Implications for Small and

Medium Enterprises in Developing Countries, United Nations Industrial Development Organization

(UNIDO), Vienna.

Rutherfoord, R., Curran, J. and Smith, S. (1997), ‘‘Small business and community: the petit bourgeoisie

in urban Britain and some implications for the small business’’, paper presented at Institute of Small

Business Affairs Conference on Generating Growth, Belfast, November 19-21.

Schumacher, E. (1973), Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, Blond and

Briggs Ltd, London.

Singh, A., Kundu, S. and Foster, W. (2005), ‘‘Corporate social responsiblity: MNCs to SMEs’’, working

paper, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, NY.

Social Accountability International (2006), ‘‘SA8000 certification’’, available at: www.sa-intl.org/index.

cfm?fuseaction ¼ Page.viewPage&pageId ¼ 472 (accessed 4 May 2006).

Spence, L. (1999), ‘‘Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics’’, Business Ethics:

A European Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 163-74.

Stanford Research Institute (1963), internal memorandum, in Freeman, R.E. (Ed.), Strategic

Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston, MA and Pitman (1984), London.

Strand, R. (1983), ‘‘A systems paradigm of organizational adaptations to the social environment’’,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 90-6.

Swanson, D. (1995), ‘‘Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance

model’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 887-910.

Tilley, F. (2000), ‘‘Small firm environmental ethics: how deep do they go?’’, Business Ethics: A European

Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-41.

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) (2005), Expert

Group Meeting on SMEs’ Participation in Global and Regional Supply Chains Report, United Nations

Conference Center, Bangkok.

Windsor, D. (1992), ‘‘Stakeholder management in multinational enterprises’’, in Brenner, S.N. and

Waddock. S.A. (Eds), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for

Business and Society, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 121-8.

World Bank Institute (2004), Can Small Be Responsibility? The Possibilities and Challenges of Corporate

Social Responsibility among Small and Medium Enterprises, World Bank Institute, Washington, DC.

Zadek, S., Pruzan, P. and Evans, R. (1997), Building Corporate Accountability: Emerging Practices in

Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting, Earthscan, London.

Further reading

Carroll, A. (1991), ‘‘The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of

organizational stakeholders’’, Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 39-48.

Cone (2001), The 2001 Cone/Roper Corporate Citizenship Study, Cone Inc., Boston, MA.

McGuire, J. (1963), Business and Society, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Wood, D. (2000), ‘‘The not-ready-for-prime-time scholars: theory, research, passion and integrity in

business and society’’, paper presented at Conversazione on Business, Issues and Society Conference,

University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, 3-4 June.


Appendix

Table AI Drivers and barriers for SME social performance

Drivers Barriers Some key references

Internal stakeholdersOwner/governance Governance/management style:

Holistic approachAutonomyPositive valuesFocused funding valuesCore business strategy

Attitude:‘‘way of doing business across thewhole enterprise’’Religious-basedLong-tem viewEntrepreneurial

Governance/management style:Time constraintInflexibleNot transparent governanceNo support

Attitude:Not interestedNot consideredNot relevantNot motivatedShort-term profit-orientedDifficult to regulate‘‘Chore’’Risk-aversePerceived financial riskLifestyle companyDifficult to implement

Kusyk and Espanyo (2006);Bjoerkman and Hahn (2005); Longoet al. (2005); European Commission(2004); Jenkins (2004a); World BankInstitute (2004); Longo et al. (2005);European Commission (2004);GEEF (2003); Nutek (2003);European Commission (2002);Jenkins and Hines (2002); Gaafland(2002); UNIDO (2002); Institute forChartered Accountants (2002);Burns (2001); Gibb (2000); Jenkins(2004); Tilley (2000); Curran (1999);Hillary (1999); Spence (1999)

Employees Personal relationshipsMotivational toolCooperativeJob satisfactionRecruiting toolCompany culture improvementStimulate learning and innovationHigh-skilled labor

Not motivatedUnderstaffedNepotismLow-skilled labor

Kusyk and Espanyo (2006);Bjoerkman and Hahn (2005); Longoet al. (2005); European Commission(2004); Jenkins (2004b); UNIDO(2002); GEEF (2003); Burns (2001);Jenkins (2004); Head (2000);Greening and Turban (2000)

Resources/managementsystems

Resources:Manager-ownedImplementation flexibilityContinuous improvement toolSME sizeSME ageCost savings and increased efficiencyImproved productivity and qualityEstablished business

Information and understanding:No measurement of benefitInvolvement without labelingUnderstanding of triple bottom linebusiness casePast positive result

Resources:SME fragmented identityJustification of additional resource(time and money) allocationCapacityTechnologySurvival strategySkills: planning and measurementShort-term projects-orientedMeasurement of intangible benefitsRisk managementAd hoc management style

Information and understanding:No SRLow awarenessInappropriate guidelinesUnclear business caseNo informationInappropriate CSR-SME supportMixed messageConfusion between monetary andnon-monetary initiativesConfusion between internal andexternal initiativesFragmented approachNon-applicable indicators

Bjoerkman and Hahn (2005); ESCAP(2005); Longo et al. (2005);European Commission (2004);Jenkins (2004a, b); World BankInstitute (2004); Nutek (2003);European Commission (2002);UNIDO (2002); Institute forChartered Accountants (2002); Gibb(2000); Tilley (2000); Curran (1999);Hillary (1999)

(Continued)


49

Table AI


External stakeholdersCustomer General:

Relationships with business partnersand customersPartnership opportunitiesNetwork exposureImage and reputationCustomer loyaltySocial conscious customer demandMarket alignmentMarket opportunity

Supply chain:Top-down pressure from supply chainTop-down supply chain passes onknowledgeTop-down capacity development helpLEs set exampleLEs partner with SMEs in SR effort

General:Cost-conscious customersNo customer demandLimited response to end-consumerpressureSouthern SMEs lack directrelationships with northernconsumers

Supply chain:Cost-cutting top-down pressurefrom supply chain

Bjoerkman and Hahn (2005); ESCAP(2005); Longo et al. (2005); Singhet al. (2005); European Commission(2004); Jenkins (2004b); World BankInstitute (2004); Nutek (2003);European Commission (2002);Institute for Chartered Accountants(2002); UNIDO (2002); Gibb (2000);Hillary (1999); Davis (1991)

Community Community in general:Public relationsNetworkingFacilitate codes of conductCommunity embeddednessInternational standards pressureLEs’ indirect influence on public SRpolicy that affects SMEs directly

Public infrastructure:LegislationAnticipation of future legislationDependence on a stable socialstructure, a clean environment and theprosperity of the communityInvolved by local government

Community in general:Non-responsive to institutionalpressureInadequate communicationchannelsLocal focus creates resistance tointernational trendsMissing equal commitment from allsides of an SR project‘‘Fortress enterprise’’, detachedfrom local communitiesVolatile economic environmentLack of sector-specific guidanceLack of global industry-widestandardsPublic infrastructure:Operate in informal sectorInadequate commercial legalstructuresLack of tax incentives for SMEsPoor funding of support servicesProfitable companies arediscriminated against by fundingdrivesUneven distribution of supportservices across regions, issuesand industriesLack of federal and localgovernment support

Business in the Community (2006);Bjoerkman and Hahn (2005); Kusykand Espanyo (2006); ESCAP (2005);Longo et al. (2005); EuropeanCommission (2004); Jenkins(2004b); World Bank Institute(2004); GEEF (2003); Nutek (2003);European Commission (2002);UNIDO (2002); Burns (2001); Dexand Scheibl (2001); Hillary (1999);Spence (1999); Curran andBlackburn (1994); Rutherfoord et al.(1997); Goffee and Scase (1985);Carland et al. (1984); Schumacher(1973)

Competitiveenvironment

Competitive advantage toolIndustry characteristics have SRaccelerators based on issues, structureand productConducive nature in the value chainFaith in the SR business casePressure from investment community

Cost-cutting-based competitionIllegal SME competitionDifficulty to diversify riskSR initiatives are driven by LEs andnot applicableIrrelevance of agenda for SMEsLEs’ top-down pressure forcost-cutting

Bjoerkman and Hahn (2005); Longoet al. (2005); Jenkins (2004b);European Commission (2004);World Bank Institute (2004); Nutek(2003); European Commission(2002); UNIDO (2002); Burns(2001); Gibb (2000)

(Continued)


About the authors

Sophia Kusyk is a Doctoral Candidate at ESADE in the social sciences department. Herresearch focus is ethics and organizational behavior applied to stakeholder theory. She is alecturer at ESADE in the social sciences department in the doctoral and undergraduateprogram. As well as, she is a researcher in the Institute for Social Innovation at ESADE.

Josep Maria Lozano is a professor at ESADE in the social sciences department and SeniorResearcher on SR in the Institute for Social Innovation at ESADE. Josep Maria Lozano is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Table AI


LE top-down pressure toimplement SR only towardsfirst-level supplierInvestor communityMarketing difficultiesLack of consumer demandPerceived as protectionist largeragendaCulturally inappropriateIndustry characteristics have SRresistors based on issues,structure and productRestrictive relationship betweendifferent parts in the value chainDriven by LEs and their concernsSR standards undermine SMEs indeveloping countries

Theory and practiceBusiness case Relationship building with community

Relationship building with businesspartners/customersPartnership opportunitiesImproved image and reputationMarket alignmentBusiness opportunityEmployee motivationRecruiting toolEmployee job satisfactionCost savings and increased efficiencyImproved productivity and qualityRisk managementCompany cultureLearning and innovation

Lack of financial measures ofbusiness caseNo business case benefitExcessive focus on business case

Longo et al. (2005); EuropeanCommission (2004); World BankInstitute (2004); Jenkins (2004b);Nutek (2003) European Commission(2002); UNIDO (2002)

Definition Theory aimed at LEsSMEs are alienatedThe term is too general for someSMEsIssues with LE theory drivers andbarriersLack of alignment of SR on a globalscaleUnclear boundary betweenvoluntary and mandatorystandards

European Commission (2004);Jenkins (2004a); World BankInstitute (2004); Institute forChartered Accountants (2002);UNIDO (2002)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


51

ARTÍCULOS

RODRIGO, P.; ARENAS D.

“DO EMPLOYEES CARE ABOUT CSR PROGRAMS? A TYPOLOGY OF EMPLOYEES ACCORDING TO THEIR ATTITUDES”

Journal of Business Ethics (accepted, available online).


53

Do Employees Care About CSR

Programs? A Typology of Employees

According to their AttitudesPablo RodrigoDaniel Arenas

ABSTRACT. This paper examines employees’ reactions

to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs at the

attitudinal level. The results presented are drawn from an

in-depth study of two Chilean construction firms that

have well-established CSR programs. Grounded theory

was applied to the data prior to the construction of the

conceptual framework. The analysis shows that the

implementation of CSR programs generates two types of

attitudes in employees: attitudes toward the organization

and attitudes toward society. These two broad types of

attitudes can then be broken down into four different

categories: (1) acceptance of the new role of the organi-

zation, (2) identification with the organization, (3)

importance attached to the work performed and (4) a

sense of social justice. In turn, each of these categories is a

grouping of many different concepts, some of which have

at first sight little to do with CSR. Finally, the analysis

reveals an attitudinal employee typology: the committed

worker, the indifferent worker, and the dissident worker.

KEY WORDS: CSR, employee attitudes, employee

typology, grounded theory, qualitative research, social

justice, stakeholders

Introduction

Today it is nearly impossible to discuss Corporate

Social Responsibility (hereafter CSR) without ref-

erence to the stakeholders of companies. The term

stakeholder became well known through the work

of Freeman (1984) in management literature, which

started an intense debate about the role of stake-

holders and their importance and legitimacy

(Mitchell et al., 1997). The most basic definition

establishes that stakeholders are those groups or

individuals who may affect or be affected by the

organization’s purpose or achievement (Freeman,

1984). However, many scholars have suggested that

this perspective is too broad, because in the final

analysis all social players are directly or indirectly

affected by the actions of firms. As a result, a lively

debate began to address how and why a stakeholder

is relevant to a firm.

This, in turn, led to various stakeholder classifi-

cation schemes (cf. Mitchell et al., 1997). For

example, it has been suggested that there are primary

and secondary stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995; Fred-

erick et al., 1988), according to the degree of impact

that they have on the organization in terms of

achieving its mission and corporate objectives. Other

frameworks have suggested that stakeholders be

classified as either voluntary or involuntary (Mitchell

et al., 1997). Voluntary stakeholders are those groups

for which there is some degree of risk, because they

have invested large quantities of money, personnel,

technology, or other resources in the firm. On the

other hand, involuntary stakeholders are those who

are interested in the firm because its actions affect

them even though this was not the intention (they

have nothing to gain from it). Goodpaster (1991)

Pablo Rodrigo is Associate Professor at Adolfo Ibanez University

(Chile), where he teaches Organizational Behavior, Orga-

nizational Theory, General Management, Human

Resources, Business Ethics and CSR. He is PhD candidate

in Management Sciences from ESADE Business School-

Universitat Ramon Llull, where he collaborates as researcher

in the Institute for Social Innovation.

Daniel Arenas is Associate Professor at ESADE Business

School-Universitat Ramon Llull, where he teaches Business

Ethics, CSR and sociology. He is the Head of Research of

the Institute for Social Innovation at ESADE and a member

of the management committee of EABIS.

Journal of Business Ethics � Springer 2007DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9618-7


suggests a distinction between fiduciary and non-

fiduciary stakeholders; he establishes that there are

groups – such as shareholders – who have placed

their trust in the firm’s management to conduct

business for them. Internal and external stakeholders

have also been established, and they are distin-

guished according to whether or not they find

themselves within the legal and administrative limits

of the organization (Cavanagh and McGovern,

1988; Mitroff, 1983). Through these various

typologies, separate studies may be made to establish

the relationship between a particular firm and its

stakeholders.

Independent of the classification presented, one

relevant stakeholder that must always be included are

the personnel of an organization. According to the

analysis of Mitchell et al. (1997), employees possess,

to a greater or lesser extent, the three characteristics

which validate their role as stakeholder, namely,

legitimacy, urgency, and power. Some go even

further by claiming that in the knowledge society,

this stakeholder contributes to the firm with some-

thing more essential than capital (Drucker, 2001;

Handy, 2001). However, this stakeholder has

received relatively little attention in CSR literature,

at least when compared to other groups. This is

especially surprising because attraction of talent,

loyalty to a firm, and motivation have been used to

explain why CSR can be a source of competitive

advantage to a firm (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006).

Even less attention has been devoted to the differ-

ences among employees in relation to CSR, pre-

supposing that this group’s expectations, views, and

attitudes were homogeneous. This research seeks to

make an in-depth analysis of employees’ reactions to

the implementation of different types of CSR pro-

grams and to offer an employee typology. CSR will

be broadly understood here as the introduction of

social and environmental criteria and practices into

the operations of the firm. This may take very dif-

ferent forms depending, among other things, on the

type of sector, on the company history and shared

culture, and on the values of its top management.

Generally, the form taken by a CSR program de-

pends also on the type of stakeholder that it intends

to satisfy.

Research has usually focused on the effects of

CSR on consumers or other stakeholders outside the

organization, whereas concern for its internal

stakeholders has mainly been centered on the

shareholders. As a result, research of this kind, albeit

confined within its field of application, is relevant

insofar as it develops this area further. In view of this,

the research aims to answer the following questions:

• What elements shape different employee atti-

tudes that emerge with the implementation

of CSR programs?

• What employee typology does the successful

implementation of CSR programs generate?

Attitudes may be understood as value judgments

held with respect to something. The formation of an

attitude is based on different components: a cogni-

tive component, the opinions or beliefs of an indi-

vidual; an affective component, which is related to

the feelings or emotions of an individual; and a

behavioral component, which is related to the

intention to behave in a certain manner (Beckler,

1984; Crites et al., 1994). This study does not aim to

separate these different components, but to under-

stand, as a whole, the attitudes that emerge among

employees.

This study is based on two cases drawn from the

construction sector in Chile, published in 2004 by

one of the authors for teaching purposes.1 The cases

describe successful initiatives to implement CSR

programs. The material compiled to draw up the

cases (in-depth interviews, hours of recordings,

documents, and notes based on observation in the

field) was sufficiently exhaustive to develop other

aspects which were not dealt with in the cases. Based

on the aforementioned material and the application

of grounded theory methodology to codify the

underlying concepts (Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser and

Strauss, 1967; Goulding, 2002; Patton, 2002; Strauss,

1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1990), we develop a

framework to clarify the attitudes that appear in

employees following the implementation of CSR

programs.

Methodology

Selection of cases

The cases selected are two firms from the Chilean

construction sector that implemented CSR initia-

Pablo Rodrigo and Daniel Arenas


55

tives.2 Although some authors insist on the impor-

tance of several cases in order to construct a theory

(cf. Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003), grounded theory

operates according to the principle of theoretical

sampling. In other words, the cases studied were not

selected at random, nor were they selected in a

quantity that will best represent the population. On

the contrary, we selected cases on account of their

particular characteristics (differences and/or similar-

ities) that permit the constant comparison of data at all

times (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss

and Corbin, 1990; Goulding, 2002) in various

organizational contexts for the purpose of gen-

eralization (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pettigrew, 1990;

Orlikowski, 1993; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin,

2003), thereby increasing the explanatory power of

the different patterns and concepts that may be ob-

tained (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Indeed, the two cases presented were selected

according to the theoretical sampling criterion de-

scribed. Two totally different scenarios on the same

economic sector were studied, which made it easier

to cross data and make comparisons. Furthermore,

the type of CSR practice or initiative in which the

two companies are committed is very different and –

as will be explained later – their main CSR activities

are oriented for different stakeholders. From a

methodological point of view, this is a key element

to facilitate the constant comparison of data and to

construct a framework that can be applied to situa-

tions that share similar characteristics.

Summary of Case A

Company A is a construction company founded in

1980 which, from its very beginning, was focused on

housing for the middle-income sector of society. To

date it has a high market share in this business niche.3

This company has recently applied a fairly high level

of technology in order to deliver high-quality

products, but it continues to be labor intensive. As

for CSR, the company has applied an initiative in-

tended to improve the quality of the working life

(hereafter QWL) of its employees.4

The rationale behind this concern is due to a

severe financial crisis that shook the company and

convinced its managerial team of the importance of

the firm’s human resources in order to achieve its

objectives. Indeed, Company A showed strong

growth during practically the entire decade of the

1990s, thanks to the sustained growth of Chile’s

GDP.5 However, as a result of the Asian Crisis

which severely affected Chile in 1998–2000, this

economic sector suddenly slowed down. In a bid to

cut costs, the company decided to axe its HR

department (and all its associated activities). Never-

theless, contrary to all expectations, the company

reported even poorer results, due mainly to the loss

of confidence and the insecurity that the employees

began to feel. The owner (and executive director) of

the company began to isolate different factors,

realizing that besides the importance of an HR

department to company results, the problem lay in

the lack of suitable conditions for creating a high

QWL, which could be a key factor in employee

productivity.

Therefore, the HR department was reinstated and

given broad powers, while measures were imple-

mented in order to raise the QWL over and above

the level stipulated by law. The company imple-

mented many different activities like the ‘‘solidarity

fund’’ to assist employees primarily in health and

educational matters; and the ‘‘values’ promotion

campaign’’ to spread values like solidarity, justice,

and tolerance among its employees. Of all these

activities, particular mention should be made of the

‘‘Happiness Month,’’ designed to bring workers

from all levels of the company closer to one another.

For the period of an entire month, the company

celebrated its anniversary with parties, competitions,

departmental activities, and free afternoons for

sporting activities. These activities were undertaken

during working hours (for the whole afternoon, or

even the whole day on some occasions), so that

during this month employees worked considerably

fewer hours than in the course of a normal month.

According to the data provided by the corporate

management system, the productivity of the

employees with contracts showed an average in-

crease of 3.8% over the previous month.

These QWL activities have been monitored by

means of various indicators during the last five years

in an effort to understand how, by means of these

programs, the company has improved the level of

internal communication, the employees’ perception

of benefits, importance attached to work, and rela-

tions with management, among other factors. These

indicators have shown an improvement over time

for permanent staff (with indefinite contracts);

Employees Care About CSR Programs


however, this situation has not been applied to

workers contracted for individual projects.

Summary of Case B

Company B, founded in 1947, corresponds to one of

the largest construction companies in the country,

which specializes in large-scale civil engineering

projects both in Chile and Latin America. These

projects range from factories and large shopping

malls to hospitals, office tower blocks, and univer-

sities. The company has a high market share and

provides direct employment for more than 5,200

employees.

The CSR programs of Company B focused

primarily on two areas. In one area, there were

many ‘‘community development’’ initiatives, such

as a foundation which provided ambulatory surgery

to the poorest people, a scholarship fund for out-

standing but poor high school students who wish to

study engineering, and many cultural activities (i.e.,

conferences, workshops, seminars) for employees,

clients, and suppliers. The second area dealt with

environmental issues. Given the magnitude and

characteristics of the company’s operations (which

implied an intervention in both natural and human

settings), this area was the main focus of its CSR

activities. Since the company was founded, its

business philosophy embraced the principle of

austerity, the concept of work well done, and the

fulfillment of obligations undertaken. These prin-

ciples underpinned and guided company opera-

tions. As a result of the second of these three

commitments, projects often cost the company

more than what was planned. Although customer

specifications were not always as demanding, the

company often improved the quality while assum-

ing the higher cost. This outlook was also evident

in its last corporate planning process in 1999, when

the company channeled all these principles and

values into a new vision and a new mission for its

various business areas, with an obvious effect on its

objectives and strategy.

During this same period, in January 2000, the

‘‘Clean Production Agreement of the Metropolitan

Region Construction Sector’’ was signed, whereby

several construction companies (the largest ones)

made a commitment to the Ministry of Economy, as

well as to the Clean Production Committee, to

implement voluntary environmental measures in

their operations. The agreement only lasted 2 years,

and after this each company was free to act as it

wished. However, company B, in accordance with

the principles and values explicit in its new planning

strategy (in which environmental issues were a major

concern), not only continued with the program, but

also transformed it into an environmental policy. In

operational terms, this concluded with the estab-

lishment of its Environmental Management System

(EMS). Broadly speaking, through the application of

this system, each engineering assignment had to

anticipate the environmental management proce-

dures and activities to be pursued in order to com-

plete the project, which at the same time made it

possible to calculate the cost of the environmental

initiatives. All these concerns and initiatives had

repercussions in the organizational structure with the

creation of the environmental management depart-

ment.

All the aforesaid has a fundamental importance,

because in the segment of the construction industry

in which company B operates (civil engineering),

projects are awarded by public tender (based almost

entirely on price), with the participation of large

Chilean and Latin American companies. According

to calculations made by the company, a project can

be lost by a margin of 0.1% in the costs; however,

the average increase in the costs of a project due to

the operation of an EMS is between 0.3% and 0.8%.

Therefore, if the company were to cut its entire

EMS, it would win some tenders that it currently

loses.

Data sources

In order to ensure the best interpretation of the data,

we applied a triangulation of data sources with re-

corded in-depth interviews, analysis of reports and

other documents, and field notes taken during direct

observation. By means of this procedure more

accurate comparisons could be made of the partial

results, and in this way a more solid theory could be

elaborated covering the various aspects of the situ-

ation under study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Goulding,

2002; Orlikowski, 1993; Patton, 2002; Pettigrew,

1990; Yin, 2003).

For Case A, 35 in-depth interviews were con-

ducted during the first half of 2003,6 averaging

approximately 1 hour and fifteen minutes. Break-

down of the interviewee groups is as follows: 37.5%



57

were conducted with members of the board of

directors or top managers, 25% with middle man-

agers or employees (such as supervisors, senior

executives, and so on), and 37.5% with low-level

workers, mainly on project sites (almost 60% of these

workers were hired only for the project, and lacked a

long term relationship with the company). Follow-

ing grounded theory methodology and the constant

comparison technique, the number of interviews

was not determined a priori, but in response to the

need to acquire new perspectives that would make

it possible to confirm the emerging concepts and

categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), while the final

aim was always to look for a model or theory in this

data comparison process (Glaser, 1978).

Since the interviews conducted were semi-struc-

tured, we followed a protocol (see appendix 1) as a

reminder for us about the main points to discuss, but

allowed the employees to wander off, conversa-

tionally speaking, in different directions. The longer

and more comprehensive interviews were those

conducted with the management team, and in some

cases these lasted an entire morning. By contrast,

some of the interviews conducted in the field with

low-level workers lasted only fifteen minutes, since

they felt that their working privacy had been in-

vaded, or they felt intimidated, while some also

harbored some mistrust, assuming that they were

taking part in a study on process reengineering.

This was combined with the analysis of docu-

ments relating to operational performance, infor-

mation from the human resources department on the

organizational climate and quality of working life, in

addition to company reports providing an insight

into the evolution of the CSR programs imple-

mentation process. Finally, one of the work sites (a

‘‘satellite town’’-type project) was visited for obser-

vation, in order to analyze the running of operations,

as well as the activities and attitudes of the workers.

For Case B, fewer interviews were conducted

(28) during the final quarter of 2002 and January

2003, but their average duration was longer (one

hour and fifty minutes) and we received more open

responses from employees. Twenty-five percent of

the interviews were conducted with board directors

or top managers, 41.7% with middle-level managers

or employees, and 33.3% with low-level workers

mainly on project sites (in this case almost 45% of

these workers were temporary workers). A hospital

under construction was visited in order to analyze

the execution of the environmental management

system and to observe the behavior of employees in

the field.

With all these sources, we codified all the data and

made constant comparison among all codes in order

to arrive at a meaning that is consistent with the

phenomenon studied (Glaser, 1992). We followed

this procedure until we reached theoretical satura-

tion, following one of the main principles of

grounded theory (shared by the two lines within this

methodology): each new comparison leads to the

same interpretation of a concept, property, or cate-

gory (cf. Glaser, 1978, 1992, 2004; Strauss, 1987;

Strauss and Corbin, 1990).7

Results

General framework

After applying grounded theory methodology to all

the materials and comparing the codes over and over

again until a solid and coherent result was obtained,

the study revealed the existence of two large groups

of general employee attitudes after the implemen-

tation of CSR programs. We called them ‘‘attitudes

toward the organization’’ and ‘‘attitudes toward

society.’’ While we expected that different attitudes

toward the organization would emerge or change, it

was surprising to find the emergence of broader

social attitudes. Here, we found attitudes about the

relation between one’s work and the improvement

of social conditions as well as sensitivity about social

injustice. Moreover, despite the fact that none of the

individuals was asked about the role that he or she

assumed during the interview, it is interesting to

point out that the individuals tended to assume the

role of citizens for the first group of attitudes, and

the role of workers for the second. In other words,

they talked about their organization from a citizen’s

perspective and about their society from an em-

ployee’s perspective.

The two groups of general attitudes could be

broken down into two basic categories for each

group. Finally, the degree to which these are ac-

cepted or developed suggests different types of

employees (see Figure 1). The categories that form

the group of attitudes toward the organization are



acceptance of the new role of the organization and

identification with the organization. In turn, the

categories that generate the group of attitudes to-

ward society are the sense of (social) importance that

employees attach to their work and the sense of

social justice that they develop as a result of the CSR

programs.

The first reaction one encounters among

employees (and hence the direction of the arrows in

Figure 1) have to do with how they perceive the

change in the organization’s social role. It was ob-

served that with the introduction of CSR programs,

employees developed different behaviors, emotions,

and cognitions about the new role that the company

assumes as a satisfier of social needs beyond the

delivery of high-quality products or services, or

handing over a salary at the end of the month. Due to

the introduction of CSR programs, employees asked

themselves whether the social context is changing and

whether companies need to reorient their priorities.

In this respect, many employees did not previ-

ously show great concern for social issues (or were

not aware of them) or took it for granted that it was

the State that should concern itself with such issues.

With the introduction of CSR programs in their

companies, some of them reorganized their beliefs

and expressed the view that in today’s globalized

world the private company has a responsibility

beyond its immediate and traditional business sphere

and must concern itself with the social and

environmental repercussions of its actions in the

areas in which it operates. A middle-level manager

in company B (41 years old and with more than ten

years at the company) stated:

Companies are a fundamental part of society because

they are the basis of economic growth. In today’s

world, companies are even more powerful than some

states and the influence of their operations can deter-

mine the progress of an entire community. Maybe in

the past it was the same, I don’t know... but as a dif-

ference I can say that in the past only some companies

took these kinds of actions, but right now almost every

company —even the smallest ones— know that they

have to improve community standards, the environ-

ment and be economically profitable as well.

As a result of the coding and analysis undertaken,

it may be established that the category ‘‘acceptance

of the new organizational role’’ is composed of the

following: an understanding of firms as a means of

social development, a reflection on the general

function of the firm within society, a view about the

State as a satisfier of social needs, an understanding of

the good neighbor relationship between the firm and

its stakeholders, and the perception of CSR as a

management fashion. There are, however, various

degrees of acceptance to be observed in this cate-

gory, ranging from some employees who are

immediately convinced of the new organizational

role, subscribing to it wholeheartedly, to others who

Acceptance of

new concept of

the

organizational

social role

Sense of Social

Justice

TYPES OF EMPLOYEES (Final categories of employee attitudes)

Identification

with the

organization

Importance of the

work performed

ATTITUDES TOWARDS THEORGANIZATION

ATTITUDES TOWARDSSOCIETY

Figure 1. Reactions of the employees after the application of CSR programs.



59

simply do not accept it. For instance, another person

interviewed (a 34-year-old middle-level manager

with five years at company A) explained his views

about the role of company in society in the fol-

lowing way:

I think the CSR actions undertaken by the company

could bring benefits to people, but let me be clear: I

think a company is not in business to satisfy social

needs and these kinds of things. I don’t know the

owners’ thoughts, but from my point of view the only

reason to do this is due to a market trend or a market

opportunity. I still believe in the old business is business.

In Table I, we can see how the category is broken

down into its different concepts and the various

degrees of acceptance. According to the methodol-

ogy followed for this study, the focus is of course not

on ascertaining how many workers would be in each

grading level, but rather on gaining a better under-

standing of the categories and exploring these in

more detail.

According to our research, the perception that the

organization has assumed a new role together with a

favorable reaction to it leads many employees, who

formerly felt that the organization was simply a place

of work, to view it as an institution that shares their

own social views. As a result, employees also develop

an attitude of identification with the organization

(see Table II). The category ‘‘identification with the

organization’’ contains four explanatory concepts.

Congruence felt by the employee with organiza-

tional values proved to be the concept that was

associated most with organizational identification. As

a result of this congruence of principles, values,

outlook, philosophies, or ways of thinking (these are

the various names obtained in the research),

employees see their social vision reflected in the

fundamental values declared and practiced by the

organization. A young executive in an entry-level

position in company B (26 years old, first year at the

company) told us:

One of the reasons that I applied for this job was the

company’s reputation in the market. Since the first day

when I saw the commitment that both managers and

owners show every day in order to improve standards

and the quality of the final work, I realized that my

decision was adequate. All the CSR actions performed

by the company respond to this commitment, even if

this sometimes leads to an increase in the operational

costs. But the managerial team prefers to earn less

money than compromise this commitment, because

they are convinced that honesty, quality, and respon-

sibility to society and the environment are company

trademarks and they manage it in such way to let all

the organization know that this is – and will be – our

way to do business.

In the same way, if employees feel that the

organization is being a good citizen, they feel proud

to be a part of it. This is partly related with the

employee’s perception of the results or effects of the

CSR programs implemented by the organization:

the individual feels that his or her contribution to

society has a smaller impact compared with the social

contribution that the organization can make, and so

the employee’s wish to make a social contribution is

satisfied through the organization. Thus the em-

ployee’s identification with the organization is

commensurate with his or her feeling that the

organization is a good citizen.

A third concept that appeared related to the

category of identification with the organization is

personal work style. Through this concept, one can

understand the workers’ degree of commitment to

their work. Some employees seem to take their

work as if they were in some way the owners of

the organization: they take their responsibilities

more seriously and they increasingly feel that they

are part of the organization, which is not the case

with other work styles. This could probably be

determined by other variables of a psychological

nature (such as perseverance and pressure to keep

one’s job), in addition to educational variables (such

as the type of studies completed and the formation

of values).

Finally, the fourth concept which emerged in

relation to identification is the overall degree of job

satisfaction expressed by employees during the

interviews:8 if employees are dissatisfied with their

specific job and the atmosphere around them, they

do not identify with the organization in spite of the

implementation of CSR programs. The majority of

employees at lower levels of the organizational

structure who were interviewed expressed a low

degree of satisfaction and said that they identified

somewhat less with the organization as a result. In-

deed, a representative answer of a low-level worker

(32 years old with almost six years’ temporary work

experience at company A) is the following:



TABLEI

Category

‘‘Acceptance

ofnew

organizationalrole’’:Gradingmatrixandcomponentconcepts

Concepts

Grading

New

role

accepted

(oracquired)

Acceptance

ofnew

role

in

evolution

New

role

notaccepted

Lackofclaritywithrespect

toorganizationalrole

Firmsas

meansofsocial

development

Understandsthenew

social

role

andshares

it

Understandsthenew

role

throughtheim

plementa-

tionoftheCSR

programs,

butisnotsure

that

itwill

haveagenuineeffect

on

society

Does

notview

CSR

asa

changein

theorganiza-

tionalrole,butas

acor-

porate

managem

ent

philosophy

Does

notunderstand(or

share)

thenew

role

of

organizationin

society

Generalfunctionofthe

firm

within

society

Believesin

firm

sasameans

tosatisfysocialneeds

Believes

inthefirm

asan

eminentlyproductiveen-

tity,thisbeingitsprincipal

socialcontribution

Believes

inthefirm

asa

productiveentity

that

is

notinterested

incarrying

outanysocialaction

Isnotsure

whattheroleof

thefirm

is

TheState

asasatisfier

of

socialneeds

Voluntary

CSR

ismore

efficientthan

theactionof

theState

insomeareas

TheState

should

offer

firm

seconomic

incentives

toim

plementCSR

TheState

should

satisfythe

basicneedsso

thatthefirm

may

fulfillitseconomic

role

insociety

TheState

should

control

allsocialaspects

Goodneighborrelation-

ship

betweenthefirm

and

itsstakeholders

Fundam

ental-thepath

thatthefirm

should

always

take

Itdependsonthestrategic

interestofthefirm

Thefirm

isagoodneigh-

boraslongasitactswithin

thelaw

Firmsdowhatever

isnec-

essary

towin

atalltimes

CSR

asamanagem

ent

‘‘fashion’’

No

No,butitdependsonthe

program

Yes

Yes,butdoes

notreally

understandwhat

CSR

is



61

How do I feel about it? Look, it takes me an hour and

a half to arrive to work, I get up everyday at 05:30 in

the morning and I don’t earn too much money and I

have two kids. Do you think I’m happy here? No, but

I have to work. At least in this company there is real

concern about our security, about a nice place to eat

and in general about good facilities for the workers in

the workplace, but the main problem is the labor

insecurity: I don’t know if I’ll be hired for the next

project.

Nevertheless, the new social role of the organi-

zation perceived by the employees not only affects

employee identification with the organization, but at

the same time it leads to the generation of attitudes

toward society, thereby creating the second group of

categories (see Figure 1). With the new social role of

the organization, employees may feel that what they

do has an importance that transcends purely eco-

nomic aspects, leading them to feel that their work

may contribute to a better society (see Table III).

Behind this there is a concept of self-transcendence

generated in part by the CSR initiatives undertaken

by the company. For example, the general manager

and founder of company A (around 55 years old)

was very clear about this:

When we cut the entire HR department at the end of

‘90 I felt so bad that I was wondering about the meaning

of work to human beings and the social consequences of

a good and a bad workplace. I couldn’t sleep well for

several weeks. When we started with our QWL pro-

grams and then I received the first indicators that showed

an improvement in both work climate and productivity

I began to feel... how can I say this? Full... with a sense of

work well done in a broader sense.

However, it is important to understand that al-

though appropriate CSR programs may be applied

both internally and externally, the data showed us

that routine at work is a key negative factor with

respect to the social importance attached to one’s

work. It was found that although many employees

could reach the point of feeling that their work

might be important, the simple memory of the

tediousness of an activity diminished or destroyed

this incipient feeling. An experienced worker in

company B (52 years old and more than fifteen years

at the company) reflected on this issue:

I’m part of the union and in our last monthly meeting

we discussed the importance of CSR in our work in

TABLEII

Category

‘‘IdentificationwiththeOrganization’’:Gradingmatrixandcomponentconcepts

Concepts

Grading

Highidentification

Interm

ediate

identification

Low

identification

Noidentification

Congruence

withOrganizational

Values

(after

applicationofCSR)

Shares

allthevalues

Shares

somevalues

Does

notsharethemajor-

ityofvalues

Does

notsharethevalues

Company

asagood

corporate

citizen

High

Interm

ediate

Low

Non-existent

Personalwork

style

Worksas

ifhe/she

was

theowner

Makesan

effortbeyondthe

jobdescription

Does

what

isindicated

by

thejobdescription

Does

what

he/sheis

told

mustbedone

Jobsatisfaction

High

Interm

ediate

Interm

ediate

–Low

Low



the sense that it is a way to see work as a contribution

to all human society and not as a way to make richer

only a few people. But sometimes it is very difficult,

especially for young companions, to think about

society when the job is very boring, monotonous, and

doesn’t offer many growing possibilities.

Although it might seem somewhat extraneous to

the topic at hand, one of the concepts that clearly

emerged in the data collected was the sense of social

justice, which is part of the larger category that we

labeled ‘‘attitudes toward society’’ that emerge with

the implementation of CSR programs. This sense of

social justice seems largely explained by the level of

ethical training an individual has received and even

by the general education received throughout their

lives (see Table IV). We found that the majority of

employees who had a relatively solid basis of

humanistic education in their studies used arguments

related to the concept of social justice and consid-

ered this concept essential in their worldview.

However, this does not mean that an employee

without this type of training could not ‘‘feel’’ that

social justice is something important (although

sometimes they may not be able to define the con-

cept correctly). In this respect, personal experience

has a considerable influence, inasmuch as it can lead

employees to identify with persons who have been

marginalized, exploited, or even socially oppressed.

In this case, one could refer to a degree of ‘‘prac-

tical’’ social justice. Thus, the feeling of social justice

that employees have can be instigated by either

theoretical knowledge or practical knowledge.

However, the perspective of social justice can

sometimes be expressed as a concern for one’s own

situation, leading even to negative reactions to CSR

programs undertaken by companies. A low-level

worker in Company A (29 years old and five years’

temporary work experience with the company)

expressed:

I just can’t understand why the company spends so

much money on these activities. It is an injustice be-

cause we work a lot but only the employees at the

office receive the benefits. We were talking with the

company to gain a permanent contract and nothing

happens.

A close relationship was also discovered between

this category and the sense of the importance of

one’s work. The more employees feel that their

TABLEIII

Category

‘‘Sense

ofIm

portance

ofWork’’:Gradingmatrixandcomponentconcepts

Concept

Grading

Highim

portance

Interm

ediate

importance

Low

importance

Noim

portance

Work

asameansto

anend

ofahigher

order

(personal

orgroup-focused)

Employeesfeel

that

theirwork

canlead

to

substantialchanges

in

theworldorin

thecli-

mateoftheorganization

itself

They

feel

that

theirwork

may

manageto

contribute

somethinginsofaras

they

reachpositionsofgreater

authority

andthey

have

decision-m

akingpower

They

feel

that

theirwork

allowsthem

tofeed

their

familyandlivelikeany

other

person,butnothing

more

They

feel

that

theirwork

isa

punishment.They

feel

frustrated

bybeingin

asituationin

which

they

cannotstandwhat

they

do,

butatthesametimethey

cannot

escape

Changein

self-fulfillment

(asaresultofCSR)

Great

change:

positive

Thereisnoperceptible

change

Thereisnoperceptible

change

Great

change:

negative

Company’scontributionto

abetterworldin

thefuture

High

Notquestioned

Low

Low

Work

routine

Low

ornon-existent

Low

Interm

ediate

High



63

TABLEIV

Category

‘‘Sense

ofSocialJustice’’:Gradingmatrixandcomponentconcepts

Properties

Grading

Highly

developed

sense

Fairlydeveloped

sense

Poorlydeveloped

sense

Sense

ofjusticenot

developed

Ethicaltraining

Attendscourses

orwork-

shopsrelatedwithgeneral

humanistictrainingor

businessethics(financedby

thecompanyorprivately)

Has

received

humanistic

andethicaltrainingatsome

point

Has

notreceived

human-

isticorethicaltraining

Notinterested

inhuman-

isticorethicaltraining.

Does

notfinditpractical.

Personalorclose

experience

Has

personally

experi-

enced,throughfamily

mem

bersorthroughpri-

vatesocialactivities,the

realityofwhat

itisliketo

beoppressed

andin

need

Has

nodirectexperience,

butisaw

areofcases

throughothers

Indirectlyaw

areofcases,

butisnotgreatlyinterested

because

ofhis/her

own

problems

Awareofcasesthrough

secondarysources,but

maintainsthat

those

con-

cerned

deserveto

bein

such

situationsoritistheir

fault.Does

notassumeany

responsibilityas

amem

ber

ofsociety

Individualswiththe

capacityto

contribute

(to

thedevelopmentofsocial

justicethroughwork)

Believes

that

his/her

work

contributesto

improving

socialinjustices

Believes

that

he/shecan

contribute,dependingon

thework

Believes

that

he/shecan-

notdoanythingto

change

thesocialstructure

Believes

that

itisnothis/

her

responsibility



work within the organization is important and has a

social meaning, the more their sense of social justice

is satisfied. Yet, some employees often feel power-

less, especially in the face of abuse or malpractice of

some firms they read about in the press or hear about

through friends and reference groups. Interestingly, a

manager’s assistant (32 years old with more than five

years at company A) told us about the importance of

CSR programs in order to get acquainted with these

situations:

When I talk to my father, who is old and retired from

business, it is impossible to arrive at a conclusion about

poor and oppressed people. For him, they are just lazy.

But he lived in a different time; he can’t understand

that the world is changing and not all people can have

an access to welfare. Here at the office many workers

arrive to see the manager with different problems and

if one spends just ten minutes with them, it is

impossible not to share their views and to think about

the injustices in our current economic system. With

these activities, the company is offering me the

opportunity to give a hand to people and to reduce

inequality.

Employee typology

Having seen the general attitudes, the concepts they

are composed of and the different levels of accep-

tance, identification, or development, we found

important differences among employees with respect

to their reaction to the implementation of CSR

initiatives. These differences do not depend neces-

sarily on the type of CSR initiative being imple-

mented (for example, more external versus more

internal), but they emerge from the constant com-

parison of all the data, which leads us to a general

model. On the basis of all this, we conclude that the

employees can be classified into three basic types

according to their general attitude toward these

initiatives (see Table V). The first type is the Com-

mitted Employee, who on account of his or her per-

sonal characteristics (studies or experiences), is very

concerned about social welfare and social justice, and

receives the CSR practices implemented by the

organization with great enthusiasm. These employ-

ees have a positive perception of the new social role

of the organization, which leads them to identify

with it. Due to the considerable sense of importance

that they perceive in their tasks, together with the

organizational identity achieved, they work over and

above the objectives set, and so their average per-

formance tends to increase. They can be found at all

levels of the organization, although it is generally the

top executives and owners who demonstrate this

commitment. Their average age ranges from 40 to

65, they have a family and family obligations, and

the majority have some type of technical training or

are graduate professionals.

The second type of employee is classified as the

Indifferent Employee. Their work is not oriented to-

ward social concerns, but toward the development

of their own career. They share the concepts of

social justice, but essentially from a theoretical rather

than a practical perspective, since their pragmatism

makes them focus on their jobs. They understand

the new social role of the organization, but regard it

simply as a new organizational model with which

they must work and try to fulfill as best as they can.

They would not say they are for or against it. These

TABLE V

Characteristics of each type of worker based on the categories identified

Type of

worker

Acceptance of the new

organizational role

Identification with

the organization

Sense of importance

of work

Sense of social justice

Committed Accepted High High Highly developed

Indifferent Acceptance evolving or

not accepted

Low or indifferent High or intermediate Poorly developed or

not developed

Dissident Not accepted or does not

possess a clear concept of it

Nil Low or nil Highly developed (feeling

he/she is a victim) or

moderate



65

workers are extremely efficient, because in wishing

to further their career they always try to do things

well. But rather than identify with the organization,

they identify with the task (or area of work) in

which they are engaged: their aim is to be recog-

nized as good workers in order to climb the orga-

nizational ladder, or to be recognized in the market

and thereby gain more opportunities for working

elsewhere. Thus, the implementation of CSR

practices by the company does not raise or lower

their organizational commitment, which is of

intermediate intensity. They can generally be found

at middle and high professional levels in the orga-

nization, and have good chances for promotion.

Their average age ranges from 25 to 35, some have a

family and others do not, while all of them have

professions that are in high demand.

The final type that clearly emerged is the Dissident

Employee. These workers ask themselves why the

money on CSR programs is not spent on increasing

the salary scale or on offering incentives to workers

instead of spending it on things that are intangible or

external. They regard their work as simply a source

of income that enables them to live, because they are

not interested in the social significance of what they

do. In general, they maintain that they have a keen

sense of social justice, but are focused toward

themselves or their immediate group. They want the

benefits of social justice, but do not see the need to

contribute to it because they feel socially marginal-

ized or disadvantaged themselves (at best, they are

interested in social justice ‘‘for their kind’’). Thus,

they are not interested in the new relational role of

the company, unless they receive direct advantages

to their salary or benefits (their principal concern, as

shown in one of the examples above) as a result.

They tend not to identify with the organization in

any way, and they do not contribute any more than

they are specifically asked for – and sometimes

contribute even less. The implementation of CSR

policies often depresses and frustrates them, or it

leads them to rebel against the company, as a result

of which they are less productive. They are generally

found at low or very low levels of the organization

(they may even be temporary workers, without a

permanent contract), on a salary scale that is only just

higher than the minimum wage (nor do they enjoy

any other type of benefit), and so they find it hard to

satisfy their basic needs. There is no clear age profile

for these workers, since their ages range from 18 to

65. They do not have any technical, professional, or

graduate qualifications of any kind, just sporadic

training that they have completed in the workplace.

Discussion

According to the characteristics of the grounded

theory method, which is described as an inductive

technique based only on empirical data for devel-

opment of a model or theory (Glaser and Strauss,

1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990), it could be assumed

that prior knowledge that may exist with respect to a

similar phenomenon should not be considered in

research so as not to affect the emerging theory.

Following Suddaby (2006) we consider this extreme

to be erroneous since it would prevent advancement

of knowledge and the formation of stronger theories.

The results must also be interpreted through

knowledge in other areas of study or similar theories

to validate new discoveries, and to try and under-

stand the reasons for the results (cf. Goulding, 2002).

In the same way, it is important to compare the

resulting theory with conflicting literature to in-

crease the reliability of the result and to facilitate

more creative conclusions (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Our results demonstrate that there are indeed

workers with a positive attitude following CSR

program implementation, and others who have an

indifferent or contrary attitude; yet surprisingly we

could not find in our research a cautious type with

a possible good general perception about these

initiatives but waiting to see long-term social and

corporate results. The very characteristics of the

construction sector in Chile lead to this conclusion.

Indeed, in this industrial sector, there are in-house

employees who are pursuing a career in the orga-

nization (at various levels) and ‘‘temporary work-

ers’’ contracted only for a project. The latter, most

of whom belong to the dissident worker type, are

dismissed as soon as the work is finished and re-

hired in accordance with the particular construction

needs at an average salary slightly higher than the

legal minimum.9 They have no job security and no

large organizational benefits either since, strictly

speaking, they do not form part of the company,

although often they are the same workers who are

contracted.



Trade union organization in the sector is complex

due to the characteristics of the contracts, and to the

fact that unions are not able to act in coordination to

gain improvements. Furthermore, since the main

(even sole) concern of workers without a permanent

contract is more stability and a higher salary; they are

not concerned with what the company may do with

regard to the rest of society (as per case B), or what

the company may do to maintain an appropriate

working climate among their workers who hold

indefinite contracts (as per case A). The emotions,

cognitions, and conducts (and consequent attitudes)

that the application of CSR programs generates in

these groups may even prove to be counterpro-

ductive for the company. In the cases studied, there

is an awareness of this situation at management level,

where efforts have been made to take action to

improve the position regarding this group of

workers (for example, through the logical step of

offering them indefinite contacts). But management

also knows that it is difficult to go against the

structure of the sector without incurring higher

operational costs, which in the highly competitive

context of the Chilean economy could result in a

company losing its position in the market.

These results coincide with several motivation

theories, from the most basic to the most complex.

From the perspective of Maslow’s classic (and con-

troversial)10 hierarchy of needs (1943), temporary (or

without permanent contracts) workers do not have

the capacity to fully satisfy their basic physiological

and safety needs, and so it is expected that they are

not very interested in CSR programs which operate

at the level of satisfying higher order needs (social,

esteem, self-actualization). Likewise, according to

the motivation-hygiene theory of Herzberg (2003

[1968]) and given the characteristics of the sector, for

some workers hygiene factors do not exist (those

factors that provide a minimum set of working

conditions so that the worker reaches a state of ‘‘non-

dissatisfaction’’ at work), and so it will be hard for

them to feel satisfied and motivated by these pro-

grams. On the other hand, in-house workers, who

are assured of an appropriate standard of hygiene

factors, are indeed motivated (even beyond work-

related factors) by the application of CSR programs.

A more complex theory that also gives an insight

into the problem is Adams’ Theory of Equity (1963).

According to this theory, if employees perceive any

inequality, they will feel a tension that will lead to a

behavior that tends to eliminate this inequity. Thus,

the workers with temporary contracts feel that there

is an inequality between what they contribute and

what they obtain in comparison with those

employees who have permanent contracts (or even

compared with the communities who receive the

benefits of the CSR programs). As a result, these

workers feel totally demotivated, which may result

in several reactions such as not making much effort,

or being less careful, and so a lower-quality product

is obtained.

With respect to the typology established, Hem-

ingway (2005) analyzes in a recent study the possible

types of ‘‘corporate social entrepreneurs.’’ In this

study, she develops a theory of four types of workers:

the active corporate social entrepreneur, who due to his or

her personal values and the organizational culture

develops or stimulates CSR initiatives; the frustrated

corporate social entrepreneur, who in spite of having a

concern for social issues does not manage to develop

them due to an organizational culture that is not

conducive to this type of activity; the apathetic cor-

porate social entrepreneur, who does not actually make

any effort to implement CSR programs and may

even try to boycott them; and finally, the conformist

corporate social entrepreneur, who in spite of working in

a firm with a culture that is conducive to the

development of CSR, allows others or the firm to

act on his or her behalf. It should be pointed out that

although there is some similarity between our results

and Hemingway’s proposal, there are fundamental

differences which means that the studies cannot be

strictly compared:

• In our study, research was conducted on the

reactions of employees following the success-

ful application of CSR programs (in terms of

the objectives established by the companies

to the different programs),11 without assum-

ing a priori models with respect to employ-

ees’ emotions or reactions toward CSR.

Hemingway’s study precisely builds this type

of model, since it determines beforehand the

stance employees would take in order to fa-

vor or obstruct CSR.

• Hemingway’s study principally analyzes two

concepts (organizational culture and personal

values), which in our study are included to



67

construct one of the categories established

(identification with the organization). Hem-

ingway’s study does not contain direct con-

siderations of other variables in our model

(acceptance of the new organizational role,

sense of importance of work and sense of so-

cial justice).

• Our study is an empirical investigation of a

qualitative type which has passed through a

series of filters: the construction and review

of the cases in the first instance, followed

by the coding of material, and finally the

theoretical concordance of the model ob-

tained. Hemingway’s proposal is a theoretical

development that has to be tested.

Over and above the differences, Hemingway’s

study (2005) puts forward the interesting conclusion

that ‘‘socially active’’ employees (and up to a point

this would be the category equivalent to the one we

have defined as ‘‘committed’’) can be found at all

levels of the hierarchical scale. This is a result borne

out by our research, since even employees at a low

hierarchical level (except the level of workers hired

on a project basis) felt motivated following the

application of this type of program. This occurs in

our cases because many committed workers have

been in the company for a number of years estab-

lishing affective ties with it; they support families and

look at the world a little differently compared with

younger professionals.

Furthermore, if other categories are analyzed,

some congruence can be seen between the char-

acteristics of the ‘‘apathetic’’ employee and our

‘‘dissident’’ employee, and in this respect we can

corroborate one of Hemingway’s proposals (2005,

p. 239): ‘‘saboteurs of CSR could also emerge in a

supportive culture.’’ According to our results, this

statement is correct, albeit for reasons that are

different from those put forward in the afore-

mentioned article, in which the emphasis is on

personal values. Our dissident worker, by contrast,

has a negative attitude toward the CSR programs

and the firm itself, because to a certain extent he

or she blames the entire economic structure and its

organizations for social injustice. It is because of

this larger context that this worker is skeptical

toward CSR programs, failing to understand that

money is spent on these activities.

Finally, although the first impression is that Hem-

ingway’s ‘‘conformist’’ employee bears some resem-

blance to our indifferent worker, the truth is that the

variables involved and the reasons why these workers

are classified as such are fairly different, with no pos-

sibility of establishing a direct correspondence be-

tween them. Finally, there is no equivalence in our

results to her ‘‘socially frustrated’’ employee, due to

the fact that our work analyzes firms that successfully

implemented CSR programs and therefore have a

CSR-oriented culture.Thus, all thosewho reallywish

to get involved in these activities can do so without

any problem, which may not occur in companies that

have not established this type of program; or in the

event that the programs have been established, they

have not been sufficiently successful to reorient the

entire organizational culture.

Conclusions

The results of the research lead to an understanding

of three important findings, which start answering

the question set in the title of this article: do

employees care about CSR programs? First, the

attitudes formed by employees following the imple-

mentation of successful CSR programs are complex,

composed of many different elements, with different

levels of acceptance, identification, or development.

Second, some of these elements have to do with

attitudes toward society and not just toward the

company, which suggests that the employees’

worldviews and their social conditions play an

important role in the emergence of attitudes toward

CSR. Third, a typology of three different types of

employees is derived from the combination of atti-

tudes: committed employee, indifferent employee,

and dissenting employee.

Due to the methodology applied, this research is

limited in its scope; to a greater or lesser extent all

qualitative methodologies have the problem that it is

difficult to generalize results, unless the context of

the research is extremely similar to the context in

which one wishes to apply the conclusions, where-

upon the results may be transferred (cf. Lincoln and

Guba, 1985).



Beyond this limitation, some general propositions

may be established so that additional qualitative re-

search may deepen them or subsequent quantitative

research may test their scope:

Proposition 1: The successful implementation of CSR

programs by a company does not necessarily lead to a po-

sitive working attitude on the part of all employees.Proposition 2: A good structure with respect to salary,

benefits, and working conditions aimed at all the employees

fosters the development of positive attitudes toward the

CSR programs implemented by the company.Proposition 3: Highly qualified young professionals

who are exclusively focused on their professional careers are

indifferent to CSR programs, supporting them if they are

asked to, but failing to take any substantial action.Proposition 4: Highly qualified professionals – any age

– who are interested in developing or have already devel-

oped long-term commitments to the organization establish

positive attitudes toward the CSR programs implemented

by the company.Proposition 5: The application of CSR programs in-

creases the sense of importance that committed employees

attach to the work performed, as well as the degree to which

they identify with the organization, and so they make more

effort and improve their working performance.

Another interesting aspect for future research is to

add a temporal dimension to the models proposed by

Hemingway (2005) and to the results obtained in

our study. A qualitative analysis could be made of

the changes in attitudes before and after the suc-

cessful implementation of CSR programs, or with

the prolongation of CSR programs over time. Does

this process of attitudinal change exist? Do individ-

ually formed attitudes have a more determinant ef-

fect on the worker or can the organization

contribute toward the development of a new set of

attitudes in the case of CSR? In this respect, it would

be interesting to verify whether, for example, an

indifferent worker can change his or her views over

time or with age, with the evolution of the CSR

program, or whether an apathetic corporate social

entrepreneur or a conformist corporate social entrepreneur

(cf. Hemingway, 2005) transforms his or her atti-

tudes in direct accordance with the organization’s

application of CSR programs, and if so, what the

characteristics of these processes are.

Notes

1 The original cases can be found in the ‘‘1ª Serie de

Casos Academicos de RSE’’ (Rodrigo, 2004).2 The names of the firms shall remain anonymous

for the purpose of this paper, although the correspond-

ing authorization to construct the cases and use the

names was granted at the time; their use for this article

was not requested.3 Company A’s legal statute characterizes it as a

‘‘closed anonymous society’’ (Sociedad Anonima Cerrada),

which means that it does not have the obligation to in-

form third parties about its financial performance (only

the Government for tax-related purposes). But other

companies in the industry (associated under the ‘‘con-

struction chamber’’) and analysts corroborate that Com-

pany A is one of the leading companies in that sector.

This legal condition is the reason why we did not have

full access to financial reports or data. Company B falls

under the same legal organizational type and for this

reason we could not reveal financial data in this case ei-

ther. However, since the purpose of the paper was not

to discuss the CSR business case, this situation does not

have any effect on the research conclusions.4 It is important to point out that the company ap-

plied these programs through its Human Resources

department, and so they are often confused with stan-

dard policies applied by the company in this area.

However, the fundamental difference is that the CSR

activities concerned with the quality of working life go

beyond the legal minimum; they also involve initiatives

that resolve aspects which have an influence on the

work, but which are not necessarily generated as a re-

sult of the work, and so the company is not directly

responsible.5 According to both company A and B’s own calcu-

lations, a high correlation can be observed between the

Chilean construction sector and the growth of the

GDP.6 For both cases A and B, we refer to the number of

interviews, not to the number of people interviewed. It is

important to emphasize this difference, given that in both

cases a few key employees were interviewed on more

than one occasion for different purposes. Therefore, if the

number of people interviewed is taken as the criterion for

establishing the number of interviews, the figure cited

earlier would be lower (16 persons in case A; 12 in case

B). However, we have considered these ‘‘same person’’

interviews as essentially different because they were con-

ducted at another time and with the aim of seeking (and

comparing) totally different data.



69

7 Glaser (1992) understands the ‘‘concept’’ as the

meaning or basic pattern that underlies an idea. The

‘‘property’’ corresponds to a type of conceptual charac-

teristic of the ‘‘concept’’ (or category). The ‘‘categories’’

are concepts of a higher order, since they contain great-

er explanatory power when a series of concepts is syn-

thesized into a theoretical framework.8 The concept ‘‘overall degree of job satisfaction’’

was not measured by us with an indicator. Instead, it is

our interpretation based on the opinions expressed by

the workers regarding the cited concept.9 The minimum monthly wage since July 2007 is

144,000 Chilean Pesos (CLP), equivalent to almost 277

US$ applying an average exchange rate of 520 CLP/

US$ for July 2007 (it is important to say that this mini-

mum monthly wage might reach 145.000 CLP since

January 2008 if the economy grows at least 5,8% during

2007). However, these data are for reference purposes,

given that in practice firms reward their experience,

their specialty within construction, as well as the train-

ing that they might have. Therefore, the minimum

wage is a reference for an inexperienced worker hired

for a specific project.10 For an analysis of the empirical evidence of this

theory, see Wahba and Bridwell (1976).11 The adjective ‘‘successful’’ was taken in both cases

from company directors. The criteria in case A were

precisely the company’s job satisfaction indicator, which

showed an increase after the application of QWL pro-

grams. Also in case A, the increase in the productivity

between months was considered as an indicator of suc-

cess. In case B, ‘‘success’’ in CSR programs is under-

stood differently: the company loses some projects due

to its environmental systems, but from the directors’

perspective, this fact reveals that their environmental

CSR is a success because the system is working and

avoiding environmental impacts.

Appendix 1

The protocol applied was longer due to the process

of introductory questions (‘‘warm-up questions’’)

and also because of other questions beyond the scope

of this research that we wanted to understand at that

moment. Sometimes the answers wandered in dif-

ferent directions, but we allowed that as a part of the

methodology in order to view aspects of which we

were not aware. The important parts in the inter-

views were the main topics and not the questions:

they were simply guides during the research.

Interview Protocol (semi-structured interview)

Hello, my name is XXX and as you probably know

through the information sent from (the General Manager’s

Office/your Boss/the Environmental Department/the

HR department) I’m conducting academic research in

order to know more about employees. I wanted to let you

know that this research is not supported in any way by the

company, so the managers don’t have authorization to see

the information that you will give me, which is absolutely

confidential. So feel free to say whatever you want.

Issue 1: General knowledge of the employee and his/her

work

1. Could you tell me your name and age?

2. What is your current position in the company?

3. Could you explain to me in detail what you do in your

job?

4. Do you feel satisfied with your current job?

5. How many years you have been working here?

6. In all of these years you certainly must have an

impression about the company as a working place: do you

think it is a good or bad place to work? (Here we have to

emphasize the confidentiality of the information!!!).

Issue 2: General employee’s knowledge about CSR

7. What do you know about CSR? Do you know what it

means? (If not, we have to ask what she/he thinks CSR is).

8. According with your last answer, what do you think

CSR involves?

9. Do you think CSR actions are important? Yes? No?

Why?

10. Are you really convinced about these actions? I mean,

do you think that these actions should be carried out by

the Government? Why the companies?

Issue 3: CSR and employees’ reactions

11. Do you know of any CSR action implemented by the

company in the last two years? Could you describe these

actions in greater detail?

12. Do you have any idea why the company gets involved

in these programs?

13. (Depending on the answer above) Which of these

reasons do you think is the most important for the

company?

14. (Depending on the answer above) Which would be,

in your opinion, the main reason for a company to start a

CSR program?

15. How do these CSR actions affect you as a worker and

as a person?

16. Could you tell me how do you react to these actions?

A) What do you think when the company does these

programs? B) How do feel about it? C) Do you change

your behavior because of these programs?



17. Do you feel like a part of the CSR programs taken by

the company? Do you receive any kind of benefits from

them? In what way?

18. Do you think the company is wasting time with these

programs?

19. Is there any gap between the company’s external pro-

grams and its internal ones? Why do you feel this?

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Fundacio Jesus Serra in Catalonia for

their financial support of one of the researchers to con-

tinue his research. A preliminary draft of this article was

presented (in Spanish) at the conference ‘‘XIV Congreso

Nacional de Etica, Economia y Direccion’’ (EBEN – Spain),

Valencia – Spain, 15 and 16 December 2006. We are

grateful to the audience for the interesting feedback we

received there. Our gratitude goes as well to our anon-

ymous reviewers because they gave us the opportunity

to fix some ambiguities, some omissions and in general

to improve the quality of the paper.

References

Adams, J. S.: 1963, ‘Toward anUnderstanding of Inequity’,

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 422–436.

Branco, M. C. and L. L. Rodrigues: 2006, ‘Corporate

Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspec-

tives’, Journal of Business Ethics 69(2), 111–132.

Breckler, S. J.: 1984, ‘Empirical Validation of Affect,

Behavior, and Cognition as Distinct Components of

Attitude’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47,

1191–1205.

Cavanagh, G. F. and A. F. McGovern: 1988, Ethical

Dilemmas in the Modern Corporation (Prentice Halls,

Englewoof Cliffs).

Clarkson, M.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for

Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Perfor-

mance’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–117.

Crites, S. L., Jr., L. R. Fabrigar and R. E. Petty: 1994,

‘Measuring the Affective and Cognitive Properties of

Attitudes: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’,

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20(6), 619–634.

Drucker, P.: 2001: ‘The Next Society’, The Economist,

Nov. 1st, p. 16.

Eisenhardt, K. M.: 1989, ‘Building Theories from Case

Study Research’, Academy of Management Review 14(4),

532–550.

Frederick, W. C., K. Davis and J. E. Post: 1988, Business

and Society: Corporate Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics

(McGraw Hill, New York).

Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: a Stakeholder

Approach (Pittman-Ballinger, Boston).

Glaser, B. (with the assistance of Holton, J.): 2004,

‘Remodelling Grounded Theory’, Forum: Qualitative

Social Research (On-line Journal) 5(2), Art. 4.

Glaser, B. and A. Strauss: 1967, The Discovery of Grounded

Theory: Strategies Of Qualitative Research (Wiedenfeld

and Nicholson, London).

Glaser, B.: 1978, Theoretical Sensitivity (Sociology Press,

Mill Valley, CA).

Glaser, B.: 1992, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis:

Emergence Versus Forcing (Sociology Press, Mill Valley,

CA).

Goodpaster, K. E.: 1991, ‘Business Ethics and Stakeholder

Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1), 53–72.

Goulding, C.: 2002, Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide for

Management, Business and Market Researchers (Sage

Publications Ltd, London).

Handy, Ch.: 2001, The Elephant and the Flea: Looking

Backward to the Future (Hutchinson, London).

Hemingway, C. A.: 2005, ‘Personal Values as a Catalyst

for Corporate Social Entrepreneurship’, Journal of

Business Ethics 60(3), 233–249.

Herzberg F.: 2003 [original 1968], ‘One more time: how

do you motivate your employees’, Harvard Business

Review 81(1), 87–96.

Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba: 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry

(Sage Publications Inc, Beverly Hills, CA).

Maslow, A. H.: 1943, ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’,

Psychological Review 50, 370–396.

Miles, M. B. and M. Huberman: 1994, Qualitative Data

Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd Edition (Sage

Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA).

Mitchell,R.K., B.R.Agle andD. J.Wood: 1997, ‘Toward

a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience:

Defining the Principle of who andwhatReally Counts’,

Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853–886.

Mitroff, I. I.: 1983, Stakeholders of the Organizational Mind

(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Orlikowski, W.: 1993, ‘CASE Tools as Organizational

Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical

Changes in Systems Development’, Management Infor-

mation System Quarterly 17(3), 309–340.

Patton, M. Q.: 2002, Qualitative Research & Evaluation

Methods, 3rd Edition (Sage Publications Inc, Thousand

Oaks, CA).

Pettigrew, A. M.: 1990, ‘Longitudinal Field Research on

Change: Theory and Practice’, Organization & Science

1(3), 267–292.



71

Rodrigo, P.: 2004, 1ª Serie de Casos Academicos de RSE

(Adolfo Ibanez University – Accion RSE, Santiago de

Chile).

Strauss, A. and J. Corbin: 1990, Basics of Qualitative

Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing

Grounded Theory (Sage Publications Ltd, London).

Strauss, A.: 1987, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists

(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

Suddaby, R.: 2006, ‘From the Editors: What Grounded

Theory is Not’, Academy of Management Journal 49(4),

633–642.

Wahba, M. A. and L. G. Bridwell: 1976, ‘Maslow

Reconsidered: A Review of Research on the Need

Hierarchy Theory’, Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance 15, 212–240.

Yin, R.: 2003,Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd

Edition (Sage Publications Inc, Thousands Oaks, CA).

Institute for Social Innovation,

ESADE, Av Pedralbes 60-62,

Barcelona, Catalunya 08034, Spain




73

ARTÍCULOS

BALAGUER, M.R.; ALBAREDA, L.

“ANALISIS COMPARATIVO DE LA RENTABILIDAD FINANCIERA DE LOS FONDOS DE INVERSION SOCIALMENTE RESPONSABLES EN ESPAÑA”

Análisis Financiero (2007), núm. 105.


75

1. INTRODUCCIÓN

Aunque la Inversión Socialmente Responsable (ISR) tieneuna larga historia, sólo recientemente se ha empezado aapreciar su potencialidad como motor de cambio y transfor-mación en la gestión de las empresas. Éstas, empiezan a serconscientes de que su responsabilidad no sólo es económica,sino también social y medioambiental. Bajo este contexto, laISR apunta progresivamente a potenciar una visión de laactividad económica que incorpore unos valores de respon-sabilidad social, medioambiental y ética en los procesos deinversión.

Tanto en España como a nivel internacional, la ISR se estáarticulando fundamentalmente, a través de instrumentos deinversión colectiva, fondos de inversión y de pensiones. Unfondo de inversión socialmente responsable (fondo ISR) esun fondo que introduce, explícitamente, criterios de prese-lección en las actuaciones empresariales, que no se limitan acriterios financieros, sino que incluyen valores éticos y deresponsabilidad social y medioambiental. En este sentido, labase de cualquier fondo ISR es su política de inversión ética

o con responsabilidad social (ideario ético), que recoge loscriterios éticos, sociales y medioambientales que definen elfondo ISR. Tras esta política se elabora el catálogo o uni-verso de valores invertibles1 que incluye el universo deempresas que pueden formar parte del fondo. El análisisfinanciero y de sostenibilidad es realizado por un equipo deinvestigación ética, y además existe una comisión de control,que supervisa todo el proceso.

Si en las primeras etapas de desarrollo de la ISR estos fon-dos se estructuraban a partir de criterios de preselecciónnegativos basados muchas veces en valores morales o reli-giosos, de hecho, así surgieron la mayoría de los primerosfondos ISR como el Stewardship Fund en el Reino Unido oel Pax World Fund en Estados Unidos, en la actualidad laISR ha adquirido una dimensión global más allá de los valo-res morales, que recoge la sostenibilidad, la gestión del ries-go y la responsabilidad social empresarial (RSE) como prin-cipales elementos. Para los inversores socialmente responsa-bles, no se trata sólo de invertir en los mercados financierosa través de fondos de inversión o fondos de pensiones, sinoque se trata de invertir teniendo en cuenta la dimensiónsocial, ética y medioambiental de los valores en los cuales

* Profesora Colaboradora. Departamento de Finanzas y Contabilidad- Universitat Jaume I** Investigadora Instituto Persona, Empresa y Sociedad. Profesora colaboradora del Departamento de Ciencias Sociales ESADE- Universidad Ramón Llull

María Rosario Balaguer Franch*y Laura Albareda Vivó**

Análisis comparativo de larentabilidad financiera delos fondos de inversiónsocialmente responsablesen España


invierten. Ello quiere decir que para elaborar el catálogo ouniverso de valores invertibles se tiene en cuenta el compor-tamiento de las empresas en el ámbito extrafinanciero: supolítica de RSE.

Actualmente, la ISR se considera uno de los tipos de inver-sión más dinámicos e innovadores de la industria de los fon-dos de inversión. Por ejemplo, en EEUU, según datos delSocial Investment Forum (2006), durante el período 1995-2005 este producto ha sido el que ha experimentado unmayor incremento en cuanto al volumen de capital invertido:de 12.000 millones de dólares en 1995 a 179.000 millones dedólares en 2005. Por su parte, Europa, pese a que sigue en ladistancia a EEUU en cuanto a la cifra de activos, cuenta conun mercado de ISR cada vez más maduro. Respecto al capi-tal gestionado entre junio de 2004 y junio de 2005 se obser-va un incremento del 27%. El Reino Unido mantiene el lide-razgo de la ISR en Europa, con un 19% de los fondos ISR yun 33,15% de los activos invertidos, que corresponde a7.999 millones de euros (Avanzi SRI Research, 2005).

Este aumento del volumen de las ISR en las últimas décadasestá estrechamente vinculado a las importantes transforma-ciones que se han ido consolidando en los últimos treintaaños respecto los valores de la sociedad en el marco de laglobalización económica, que han puesto en la agenda finan-ciera internacional, la necesidad de tener en cuenta las con-secuencias sociales y medioambientales de los modelos decrecimiento económico de las empresas.

Sin embargo, en España, la ISR muestra un considerableretraso respecto a la mayoría de los países europeos, queafecta tanto a la oferta como a la demanda. En España, laISR tuvo su punto de inflexión en 1999, coincidiendo con laaparición de la mayoría de los fondos ISR. En la actualidad,la ISR es un sector marginal en el mercado financiero espa-ñol, en cuanto al volumen porcentual de capital en fondosgestionados con estos criterios, pues, a finales del año 2005,alcanzaba tan solo el 0,49% del patrimonio total invertido enlos fondos de inversión mobiliarios en España.2 Son varioslos factores que pueden explicar esta situación, desde lamenor tradición de invertir en acciones hasta la falta dedemanda por parte de los inversores institucionales (que hasido crucial en otros países), pasando por la falta de impul-so, apoyo y promoción por parte de la AdministraciónPública, y el débil impulso institucional que le han dado lasinstituciones de gestión de fondos y los grupos financierosque comercializan estos fondos en España.

No obstante, probablemente, el principal reto que tiene queafrontar el mercado de la ISR en nuestro país es acabar con elmito de que los fondos que incluyen criterios de ISR son finan-

cieramente menos rentables, que los demás, y en este contextoes donde se enmarca esta investigación. El objetivo de este artí-culo es determinar si las “restricciones” autoimpuestas por losfondos ISR implican diferencias de rentabilidad en la gestiónfinanciera respecto a los fondos convencionales.

El artículo se estructura como sigue. En el epígrafe siguien-te se analiza la integración de la ISR en los mercados finan-cieros, no sólo como una nueva filosofía de inversión, sinocomo un instrumento impulsor de la RSE; en este mismoapartado, se profundiza en la rentabilidad de los fondos ISRy los índices socialmente responsables, para seguidamente,presentar la metodología y los resultados del análisis com-parativo de la rentabilidad de los fondos ISR en nuestro país.Finalmente, se exponen las conclusiones del estudio.

2. LA INTEGRACIÓN DE LA INVERSIÓN SOCIALMENTERESPONSABLE EN LOS MERCADOS FINANCIEROS

La ISR se ha erigido en los últimos tiempos como uno de lospilares que goza de mayor vitalidad dentro del amplio uni-verso de la RSE. Desde bancos éticos, pasando por micro-créditos hasta fondos de pensiones, el valor social de los ins-trumentos e instituciones financieras, especialmente en loque respecta a fondos de inversión, ha experimentado unaevolución que ha puesto en primera línea de actualidad lasostenibilidad en los modelos financieros.

Además, este interés hacia la ISR se ha visto favorecido porla mayor presión social hacia un comportamiento más res-ponsable de las empresas, motivado en buena parte por losescándalos protagonizados por grandes corporaciones vincu-lados a falta de transparencia y ética. La ISR pretende pues,participar en la restauración de la confianza del sistema y dela transparencia de los mercados y proporcionar al gestor unaherramienta de control de riesgos que le permita seleccionarmejor sus inversiones.

En este sentido, se han ido definiendo en el sector financie-ro diferentes tendencias que inciden en la consolidación delos mecanismos de ISR en los mercados financieros conven-cionales. Así podemos afirmar que, actualmente, la ISR hadejado de ser una herramienta propia de un mercado minori-tario vinculado a sectores de inversores más convencidos(tendencia nicho), para convertirse en una herramienta deuso cada vez más habitual en los mercados financieros inter-nacionales más avanzados (tendencia mainstreaming). Latendencia mainstreaming pretende impulsar la paulatinaincorporación de criterios sociales, éticos y medioambienta-les en los fondos convencionales, aunque éstos no lleguen atener la denominación de ISR. Tras este impulso subyace el


77

deseo de influir directamente en el comportamiento de lasempresas. En efecto, las líneas más innovadoras coinciden enseñalar que la ISR es uno de los elementos que impulsan laRSE desde los mercados financieros, sobre todo por el poderque tienen los inversores institucionales, a través de los fon-dos de pensiones.

Así pues, la ISR apunta progresivamente a potenciar unavisión de la actividad económica que incorpore unos valoressociales, medioambientales y éticos en los procesos de inver-sión. De hecho, la ISR se puede definir como la expresiónmás extendida del apoyo de los mercados financieros a lasbuenas prácticas en materia de RSE (AECA, 2004).

2.1. LA RENTABILIDAD DE LOS FONDOS DEINVERSIÓN SOCIALMENTE RESPONSABLES

En el desarrollo y consolidación de la ISR en los mercadosfinancieros, el rendimiento de los fondos ISR tiene un papel deinnegable importancia. Se podría pensar que, por el hecho derestringir el universo de inversión, las carteras seleccionadascon criterios ISR presentan una menor rentabilidad financiera.Numerosos estudios (Hamilton et al., 1993; Brooks, 1997;Gregory et al., 1997; Reyes y Grieb, 1998; Goldreyer et al.,1999; Statman, 2000; Bauer et al.; 2005, Balaguer, 2006) hanabordado esta cuestión y si bien es difícil concluir de ellos que,siempre existe una correlación positiva entre RSE y rendi-miento financiero, sin embargo sí se confirma que las carterasque asumen en su selección criterios sociales, medioambienta-les y éticos son al menos tan rentables como sus homólogasque no adoptan este tipo de selección.

Las líneas de investigación de la performance financiera dela ISR se pueden agrupar, básicamente, en tres categorías,que se detallan en la tabla 1, junto con sus principales auto-res y conclusiones.

Dentro de la línea de investigación que compara la perfor-mance de fondos ISR con la performance de fondos conven-cionales, destaca la metodología del matched pair analysis.Esta metodología fue aplicada inicialmente por Mallin et al.(1995) con la finalidad de analizar y comparar la performan-ce de los fondos ISR y los fondos convencionales, y se basaen comparar fondos de similares características en cuanto alvolumen de activos y la fecha de constitución. De esta mane-ra se pretende paliar el efecto de las características propias delos fondos ISR, que podrían distorsionar el análisis de la car-tera. Las características a las que nos referimos son lassiguientes:

- La relativa “juventud” de los fondos ISR, dado que su exis-tencia es relativamente reciente.

- El hecho de que sus carteras estén formadas, principalmen-te, por inversiones en compañías de pequeño tamaño.

Partiendo de esta metodología, Mallin et al. (1995) comparanla performance de un grupo de fondos ISR con una muestrade fondos convencionales, ambos grupos son homogéneos encuanto a fecha de constitución y volumen de patrimonio. Así,estudian los rendimientos de 29 fondos ISR en el ReinoUnido y 29 fondos convencionales durante el período 1986-1993, mediante el cálculo de los índices de Jensen, Sharpe yTreynor, y concluyen que, una pequeña parte de fondos deambos grupos se sitúa por debajo del índice de mercadoFinancial Times All Share Actuaries (utilizado como bench-mark de mercado). Los fondos ISR se comportan tan biencomo sus equivalentes no socialmente responsables, e inclu-so obtienen mejores resultados que estos últimos cuando se

Líneas de investigación Autores ConclusionesInvestigaciones que comparan la Mallin et al. (1995) No hay diferencias performance de los fondos ISR con Gregory, Matatko y Luther (1997) significativasla performance de los fondos de Hamilton et al. (1993) entre los fondosinversión convencionales Reyes y Grieb (1998) ISR y los fondos

(matched pair analysis) M’Zali y Turcotte (1997) de inversiónStatman (2000) convencionales.Bauer et al. (2005)

Investigaciones que comparan la Gregory, Matatko y Luther (1994) No hay diferenciasperformance de los fondos ISR Diltz (1995) significativascon la performance de los índices Arms (1999) entre los fondosde mercado Cummings (2000) ISR y los índices

Vermeir y Corten (2001) de mercado.Balaguer y Muñoz (2003)Kreander et al. (2005)

Investigaciones que comparan la Moskowitz (1972, 1975) La mayoría de lasperformance social y la Cowen et al. (1987) investigaciones performance financiera de la Wokutch y Spencer (1987) concluyenempresa McGuire et al. (1988) investigaciones

Morris et al. (1990) concluyen que,Hart y Ahuja (1994) por lo menos,Johnson y Greening (1994) una buena Waddock y Graves (1997) performanceRoman, Hayibor y Agle (1999) social no conduceOrlitzky et al. (2004) a una baja

performancefinanciera.

Nota: Conviene aclarar que, cuando hablamos de “fondos convencionales”, nos referimos a aquellosfondos que no realizan preselección de la cartera a partir de criterios ISR, es decir, a los fondos tra-dicionales.

Líneas de investigación de la performance financiera de laISR

Tabla 1

Fuente: Balaguer, M.R. (2006)


utiliza el alfa de Jensen. Concretamente, cuatro fondos ISRy tres fondos convencionales muestran alfas positivos, conun nivel de significatividad del 5%. Basándose en esta inves-tigación, y utilizando también la metodología del matchedpair analysis, Kreander et al. (2005) analizan la performan-ce de 80 fondos ISR de siete países europeos; a partir de losresultados obtenidos en el alfa de Jensen, confirman que noexisten diferencias significativas entre los fondos ISR y losfondos convencionales.

Estrechamente relacionados con las investigaciones deMallin et al. (1995) están los trabajos de Gregory,Matatko y Luther (1997), quienes comparan la perfor-mance de una muestra de 18 fondos ISR con un grupo de18 fondos convencionales en el Reino Unido. Ambos gru-pos son homogéneos en cuanto al volumen de activos;además, se distingue entre fondos formados por activos deempresas grandes y pequeñas. Como medida de la perfor-mance financiera utilizan el índice de Jensen y el períodode análisis incluye desde 1986 hasta 1994. Para compararla performance de los fondos integrados por activos deempresas grandes y los de las pequeñas emplean un com-ponente de ajuste por tamaño en los fondos con activos deempresas pequeñas. El análisis de sus resultados confirmaque no existen diferencias significativas entre los rendi-mientos de los fondos ISR y los fondos convencionales.Además, observan que las carteras de fondos —tanto ISRcomo convencionales— de empresas grandes tienden atener menor performance que las carteras de fondos ISRy fondos convencionales formados por empresas peque-ñas.

Un estudio similar es el llevado a cabo por Statman (2000),quien realiza un análisis comparativo de fondos ISR y fon-dos convencionales, considerando fondos de igual tamaño.Como medida de la performance utiliza el alfa de Jensen y,como benchmark, el Domini Social Index 400 y el S&P500.Los resultados obtenidos muestran que la performance delos fondos ISR es mejor que la de los fondos convenciona-les, aunque la diferencia no es estadísticamente significativa.

Podríamos seguir enumerando una larga lista de estudios einvestigaciones que avalan la hipótesis de que, a medioplazo, los fondos ISR no tienen por qué tener una baja ren-tabilidad financiera. Es más, como ya se ha visto, enmuchas ocasiones los fondos ISR ofrecen una rentabilidadsuperior a la obtenida por los fondos convencionales. Enúltima instancia, las investigaciones realizadas confirmanque la selección basada en criterios sociales no va en detri-mento de la rentabilidad.

2.2. ÍNDICES FINANCIEROS SOCIALMENTE RES-PONSABLES

En el contexto de la ISR, una correcta gestión de las empre-sas, no se mide únicamente por índices de rentabilidad, pues-to que se exige que la empresa desarrolle prácticas en elámbito social y medioambiental de manera exitosa. En estesentido, los índices de ISR representan un instrumento bási-co para comprobar la eficiencia de la gestión en materia deRSE, puesto que recogen a las empresas con mejor compor-tamiento social y medioambiental.

La creación de los índices socialmente responsables es portanto, una respuesta a la demanda creciente de productos deISR, y como cualquier otro índice, sirven de referencia a losgestores e inversores, permitiéndoles una fácil comparacióncon el rendimiento de los fondos ISR y con otros índices tra-dicionales, constituyendo un indicador del grado de madurezde los mercados financieros.

En los últimos años, los índices socialmente responsables sehan consolidado y han captado la atención de las grandesempresas europeas. El primer índice bursátil de estas carac-terísticas fue el Domini Social Index 400 creado en 1990, sinembargo en la actualidad existen más de una docena de índi-ces socialmente responsables, destacando el Dow JonesSustainability Index, FTSE Good, Calvert Social Index oEthibel Sustainability Index Europe, entre otros. Todos ellosse basan en una análisis de múltiples factores, tanto socialesy medioambientales como económicos, para decidir la selec-ción de empresas que entran a formar parte de los mismos.Los criterios de valoración son tanto generales para el con-junto de empresas como específicos de cada industria. Trasla aplicación de estos criterios, se le otorga una puntuación acada una de las empresas, elaborándose el ranking de soste-nibilidad por industrias.

En definitiva, todos estos índices son la consolidación de quelos mercados financieros están incorporando herramientas einstrumentos que permiten un seguimiento y evaluacióncada vez más precisos de la RSE de las empresas, y por tantode su valor y proyección bursátil.

3. BASE DE DATOS

La base de datos de nuestra investigación está formada por latotalidad de fondos ISR que existen en el mercado financieroespañol a fecha 31/12/2005. En esa fecha encontramos en elmercado español 31 fondos ISR. Cabe destacar que de los 31fondos ISR que existen en España, 14 están gestionados porinstituciones gestoras en España y 17 gestionados por institu-ciones gestoras extranjeras. Además, encontramos 4 fondos


79

solidarios. Los fondos solidarios se caracterizan porque cedenuna parte de la rentabilidad o la comisión de gestión a entida-des benéficas, pero no realizan preselección de la cartera fon-dos, sino que, simplemente, destinan un porcentaje de su comi-sión de gestión a organizaciones sociales, así pues, no incorpo-ran restricciones a la inversión. Son una peculiaridad del mer-cado español, y constituyen una simple vía de financiación paraproyectos sociales o de desarrollo. En ningún otro lugar deEuropa se considera que estos fondos sean fondos ISR3.

Además de los fondos ISR, para realizar el análisis compa-rativo, hemos seleccionado una muestra de fondos “nosocialmente responsables” (fondos convencionales )4, con elfin de evaluar y comparar las rentabilidades entre ambosgrupos de fondos. Así, para seleccionar los fondos conven-cionales que han formado parte de nuestro análisis compara-tivo hemos utilizado la base de datos de Morningstar. En estesentido, hemos seleccionado fondos que presentan similarvolumen de activos y similar fecha de constitución a los fon-

Fondos ISR registrados en la CNMV, domiciliados, gestionados y comercializados en España Fondos convencionales registrados en la CNMV

Denominación de la IIC Fecha de Patrimonio Denominación de la IIC Fecha de Patrimonioconstitución (miles de euros) constitución (miles de euros)

BBK Solidaria, FI 03-06-2005 3.408 Plusmadrid Fondandalucía, FI 26-05-2003 3.077BBVA Desarrollo Sostenible, FI 02-09-1997 69.399 Morgan S. Multigest. Activo Variable, FI 23-12-1997 47.994BBVA Extra 5 II Garantizado, FI 02-10-2003 813.959 Fondo Super 100 2, FIM 07-07-2003 658.042BNP Paribas Fondo de Solidaridad, FI 01-12-1999 5.581 Ahorro Corporac. Eurocanarias Mixto, FI 31-01-2000 7.725Caixa Catalunya Europa Valor, FI 15-11-1999 10.602 Cahispa Eurovariable, FI 14-01-2000 12.532CAM Fondo Solidaridad, FI 20-06-2005 600 Foncaixa Gestión Estrella E1, FI 09-12-2005 299Foncaixa Cooperación, FI 19-03-1999 8.161 Safei Global Patrimonio, FI 17-11-1998 6.224Foncaixa 133 Socialm. Responsable, FI 06-09-2005 2.963 Crédit Agric. Mercaeuropa Small Cap, FI 30-06-2005 3.197Fondo Solidario Pro Unicef, FI 07-05-1999 4.098 Fonbilbao Renta Fija, FI 22-07-1999 3.864Morgan Stanley Fondo Activo Ético, FI 25-03-1999 14.978 BG Mixto 50, FI 14-09-1999 12.892Santander Dividendo Solidario, FI 01-02-1999 21.555 BK Sector Telecomunicaciones, FI 26-05-1999 35.791Santander Responsabilidad, FI 03-06-2003 42.708 Fidenzis Fondo de Fondos C30, FI 27-05-2003 46.502Urquijo Cooperación, SICAV 26-02-2002 18.347 Santander Fondandalucía Mixto, FI 02-12-2002 16.311Urquijo Inversión Solidaria, FI 09-12-2003 15.235 Ahorro Corpor. Fondandalucía Mixto, FI 14-05-2003 13.118Fondos ISR registrados en la CNMV no domiciliados ni gestionados en España Fondos convencionales registrados en la CNMVABN AMRO F. - Socially Responsible Equity Fund 05-12-2001 46.500 Ahorro Corporación Multiestrellas Selección 90, FI 19-09-2001 42.909Aviva F. - European Socially Responsible Equity Fund 14-03-2001 37.400 Eurovalor Europa, FIMF 07-06-2001 28.449Axa World Fund Development Debt 02-01-2002 16.850 Ahorro Corporac. Bonos Corporativos, FI 03-09-2003 10.710Crédit Suisse Equity Fund (Lux) Global Sustainability 08-10-1990 45.340 Banesto Bolsa Internacional, FI 21-09-1990 34.680Dexia Equities L World Welfare 01-08-2000 71.700 Bomerbe, FI 15-04-2002 83.230DWS Invest Sustainability Leaders LD 03-06-2002 21.200 BBVA Índice Internacional Plus, FI 05-12-2001 24.524European Responsible Consumer Fund 27-06-2003 56.000 Cartesio Y - Acciones, FI 23-02-2004 37.327Fortis Equity Socially Responsible Europe 15-03-2002 15.670 Segurfondo Dinámico Europa, FI 12-12-2000 12.356Fortis Strategy Balanced SRI Europe 01-06-1998 172.490 Eurovalor Mixto-50, FI 15-12-1998 120.205Fortis Strategy Growth SRI Europe 01-06-1998 46.940 Rural Mixto 50, FI 15-01-1997 48.553Fortis Strategy Stability SRI Europe 01-06-1998 109.010 Plusmadrid 25, FIM 05-01-1999 106.074ING (L) Invest Sustainable Growth Fund 10-07-2000 32.670 ING Direct F0 Naranja S & P 500, FI 04-08-2000 31.183JP Morgan Funds - Global Socially Responsible Fund 01-09-2002 38.000

miles de $ Ahorro Corporación Multiestrellas Selección 90, FI 19-09-2001 42.909Mellon European Ethical Index Tracker 11-01-2002 21.200 Eurovalor Europa, FIMF 07-06-2001 28.449Pictet F.- European Sustainable Equities 01-10-2002 61.400 Santander Cuantitativo Europa, FI 21-11-2001 57.175Pioneer Funds - Global Ethical Equity 04-07-2000 283.900 Eurovalor Bolsa Española, FI 14-03-2001 282.080UBS (Lux) Equity Fund-Eco Performance 13-06-1997 255.250 miles de CHF BBK Fondo Internacional, FIMF 24-07-1998 168.229Fondos solidarios registrados en la CNMV domiciliados y gestionados en España Fondos convencionales registrados en la CNMVBankinter Solidaridad, FI 06-11-2003 7.508 Santander Global FX, FI 30-01-2004 8.309BBVA Solidaridad, FI 21-07-1999 17.872 Bankpyme Fonstresor Catalunya Mixto 24-03-1999 11.037

Euro 15 RV, FIEl Monte Fondo Solidario, FI 04-04-2000 4.120 Fonbilbao Renta Fija, FI 22-07-1999 3.864Fondespaña Catedrales, FI 02-03-2000 3.153 Fonbilbao Renta Fija, FI 22-07-1999 3.864

Fondos ISR y fondos convencionales a 31/12/2005

Tabla 2

Fuente: Elaboración propia e informes trimestrales de la CNMV


dos ISR que queríamos analizar (en línea con la metodolo-gía del matched pair analysis). Además, dado que, nuestroanálisis financiero se limita al caso español, para la selecciónde fondos convencionales del análisis comparativo hemosconsiderado únicamente los fondos de inversión domicilia-dos, gestionados y comercializados en España.

La tabla 2 recoge los fondos ISR, así como sus equivalentes“no socialmente responsables” o convencionales, que cons-tituyen la base de datos para el análisis comparativo. Lainformación se presenta en tres apartados diferentes, aten-diendo a los tres tipos de fondos ISR existentes en España:fondos ISR registrados en la CNMV, domiciliados, gestiona-dos y comercializados en España; fondos ISR registrados enla CNMV no domiciliados ni gestionados en España y fon-dos solidarios registrados en la CNMV.

4. METODOLOGÍA DEL ANÁLISIS COMPARATIVO

El objetivo de nuestra investigación es evaluar la gestión delos fondos ISR a partir de un análisis comparativo, tomandocomo referencia la metodología de matched pair analysis(análisis de pares), con el fin de evaluar si las “restriccionesautoimpuestas por los fondos ISR implican diferencias derentabilidad en la gestión financiera”.

4.1. ANÁLISIS FINANCIERO

Como paso previo al análisis comparativo hemos realizadoun análisis financiero de los fondos ISR y sus equivalentesconvencionales, a partir de diferentes indicadores financie-ros. La tabla 3 recoge de manera resumida las expresionesmatemáticas de los indicadores utilizados: volatilidad, ratiode Sharpe, beta y alfa.

Los resultados de dichos indicadores financieros para losfondos ISR y los fondos convencionales se recogen en latabla 4. En dicha tabla, la información financiera se presen-ta en tres apartados diferentes, atendiendo a los tres gruposde fondos ISR existentes en España: los fondos ISR domici-liados y gestionados en España, los fondos ISR extranjeroscomercializados en España y los fondos solidarios.

En lo que respecta a la desviación típica o volatilidad cabedestacar que es una medida del riesgo del fondo. Indica, entérminos medios, cuánto se ha desviado la rentabilidad delfondo de su media. Una desviación típica alta significa quela rentabilidad del fondo ha experimentado fuertes variacio-nes, mientras que una desviación típica baja indica que larentabilidad del fondo ha sido mucho más estable. La des-viación típica de un fondo es un dato interesante en dos sen-tidos. En primer lugar, porque, cuanto mayores fluctuaciones

presenta la rentabilidad de un fondo, más arriesgado es elfondo en cuestión; además, permite comparar todos los fon-dos entre ellos, desde los fondos monetarios hasta los fondosde acciones emergentes. En segundo lugar, porque los fon-dos que han sido más volátiles en el pasado también tienentendencia a ser los más volátiles en el futuro. En este senti-do, la desviación típica es una señal de alarma muy útil. Ladesviación típica se expresa, como la rentabilidad, en por-centajes, y en nuestro análisis, nos hemos basado en las ren-tabilidades de los últimos 36 meses (o 3 años). Atendiendo anuestros datos, se observa que, en general, la volatilidad delos fondos ISR domiciliados y gestionados en España y delos fondos solidarios es relativamente baja, mientras que lade los fondos ISR extranjeros es más alta y pareja. Para elcaso de los fondos convencionales, la volatilidad es en gene-ral más baja que sus equivalentes socialmente responsables.

Indicadores Expresión Matemática InterpretaciónVariables

S h a r p e : es una Rp = rentabilidad de lam e d i d a d e cartera p.rentabilidad-riesgo. Rf =rentabilidad delEl ratio de Sharpe activo libre de riesgo.mide el exceso de p = desviación típicarentabilidad por de la rentabilidad de launidad de riesgo. cartera p.Desviación típica = desviación típica.anualizada: es una Elevada al cuadrado esmedida del riesgo del la varianzafondo. Indica cómo, RMi= Rentabilidaden términos medios, mensual en ella rentabilidad del momento i i

fondo se ha desviado TR =Rentabilidadde su media. media mensual en n

períodos.n = Número deperíodos (hemosutilizado 36 meses)

B e t a : mide la i = Beta del fondo i

volatilidad relativa Co ij Co ij = covarianzadel fondo, siendo i= entre i (fondo) y j

1,00 la volatilidad del j2 (índice)índice de referencia. j2= varianza del índice

Alfa: representa la F = Media aritméticamedida en que el de los excesos defondo se ha rentabilidad del fondo.comportado mejor o = F - m= Media aritméticapeor (respecto a su de los excesos deíndice de referencia) rentabilidad del mercado.de lo que era deesperar, ateniendo asu riesgo.

Indicadores Financieros

Tabla 3

P

fPP

RRS =


81

Respecto al índice de Sharpe, cabe destacar que es una medi-da de la rentabilidad-riesgo. Se calcula con los datos de losúltimos 36 meses dividiendo el exceso de rentabilidad obteni-da por el fondo (respecto al activo sin riesgo5) por la desvia-ción estándar de esos excesos de rentabilidad. Cuanto más ele-vado sea el ratio de Sharpe, mejor comportamiento habrádemostrado el fondo en el período analizado. El ratio deSharpe mide, por tanto, el exceso de rentabilidad por unidadde riesgo. Tal y como se observa en la tabla 4, el índice deSharpe, es positivo para casi la totalidad de los fondos ISR ytambién para los fondos convencionales, lo que no debe resul-

tar sorprendente, si tenemos en cuenta que nos hallamos en unperíodo de tipos de interés bajos. Este es un dato importante,puesto que, cuanto mayor sea este ratio, mejor comportamien-to habrá demostrado el fondo en el período analizado.

Por su parte, la beta de un fondo o de una acción es una medi-da de la sensibilidad del fondo o de la acción respecto a losmovimientos del mercado. La beta del mercado es igual a1,00 por definición. Una beta, por ejemplo, de 1,10 significaque el fondo o la acción ha tenido, de media, una rentabilidadun 10% superior a la del mercado, cuando este subía, pero un

Fondos ISR registrados en la CNMV, domiciliados, gestionados y comercializados en España Fondos convencionales registrados en la CNMV

Denominación de la IIC Volatilidad Sharpe Beta Alfa Denominación de la IIC Volatilidad Sharpe Beta AlfaDesviación (%) Desviación (%)típica (%) típica (%)

BBK Solidaria, FI 2,79 0,36 1,23 0 Plusmadrid Fondandalucía, FI - - - -BBVA Desarrollo Sostenible, FI 8,13 2,27 1,00 0 Morgan S. Multigestión Activo Variable, FI 11,06 0,90 0,72 7,45BBVA Extra 5 II Garantizado, FI 1,77 0,30 - - Fondo Super 100 2, FIM - - - -BNP Paribas Fondo Solidaridad, FI 3,18 0,70 - - Ahorro Corporac. Eurocanarias Mixto, FI 2,64 1,12 0,19 2,23Caixa Catalunya Europa Valor, FI 13,30 0,47 1,10 -6,33 Cahispa Eurovariable, FI 17,19 0,86 1,32 10,12CAM Fondo Solidaridad, FI 5,40 2,32 - 2,30 Foncaixa Gestión Estrella E1, FI - - - -Foncaixa Cooperación, FI 6,20 2,10 0,95 - Safei Global Patrimonio, FI 5,57 0,68 0,34 2,52Foncaixa 133 Socialm. Responsable, FI 5,07 -0,72 1,02 - Crédit Agric. Mercaeuropa Small Cap, FI - - - -Fondo Solidario Pro Unicef, FI - - - - Fonbilbao Renta Fija, FI 1,67 0,43 0,07 0,45Morgan Stanley Fondo Activo Ético, FI 1,65 1,43 1,12 BG Mixto 50, FI 6,76 0,91 0,53 4,23Santander Dividendo Solidario, FI 5,95 2,43 1,08 7,62 BK Sector Telecomunicaciones, FI 11,55 0,56 0,89 3,06Santander Responsabilidad, FI 1,16 2,65 0,93 0,69 Fidenzis Fondo de Fondos C30, FI - - - -Urquijo Cooperación, SICAV - - - - Santander Fondandalucía Mixto, FI - - - -Urquijo Inversión Solidaria, FI - - - - Ahorro Corpor. Fondandalucía Mixto, FI - - - -Fondos ISR registrados en la CNMV no domiciliados ni gestionados en España Fondos convencionales registrados en la CNMV ABN AMRO F.-Socially Responsible Equity Fund 10,45 0,52 1,01 -6,69 Ahorro Corporación Multiestrellas Selección 90, FI 9,21 1 0,60 7,15Aviva Funds- European Socially Responsible Equity Fund 3,29 1,42 0,82 0,03 Eurovalor Europa, FIMF 11,15 1,02 0,86 8,42Axa World Fund Development Debt - 1,61 - - Ahorro Corporac. Bonos Corporativos, FICrédit Suisse Equity Fund (Lux) Global Sustainability 9,93 1,07 0,95 -0,31 Banesto Bolsa Internacional, FI 10,17 0,68 0,70 4,33Dexia Equities L World Welfare 10,51 1,02 1,03 - Bomerbe, FI 11,34 1,21 0,89 10,79DWS Invest Sustainability Leaders 8,97 0,63 0,68 - BBVA Índice Internacional Plus, FI - - - -European Responsible Consumer Fund - - - - Cartesio Y - Acciones, FI - - - -Fortis Equity Socially Responsible Europe 12,16 0,96 0,97 -2,65 Segurfondo Dinámico Europa, FI 10,49 0,93 0,82 6,79Fortis Strategy Balanced SRI Europe 6,53 1,25 1,01 -1,92 Eurovalor Mixto-50, FI 5,83 1,42 0,43 6,83Fortis Strategy Growth SRI Europe 9,93 1,12 1,01 -2,26 Rural Mixto 50, FI 5,70 1,28 0,43 5,81Fortis Strategy Stability SRI Europe 3,58 1,44 0,97 -1,38 Plusmadrid 25, FIM 3,36 0,98 0,27 2,29ING (L) Invest Sustainable Growth Fund 10,38 2,00 0,94 -0,88 ING Direct F. Naranja S & P 500, FI 10,46 0,71 0,70 4,92JPM Global Socially Responsible (USD) Fund 9,63 1,18 0,90 -0,14 Ahorro Corporación Multiestrellas Selección 90, FI 9,21 1 0,60 7,15Mellon European Ethical Index Tracker Fund 13,31 0,54 1,00 -3,67 Eurovalor Europa, FIMF 11,15 1,02 0,86 8,42Pictet Funds - European Sustainable Equities 12,67 0,96 1,07 -3,14 Santander Cuantitativo Europa, FI 11,86 1,76 0,51 20,71Pioneer Funds - Global Ethical Equity 10,41 0,75 0,97 1,48 Eurovalor Bolsa Española, FI 9,47 2,13 0,53 19,69UBS (Lux) Equity Fund - Eco Performance - -0,28 0,97 - BBK Fondo Internacional, FIMF 10,92 0,97 0,73 8,06Fondos solidarios registrados en la CNMV domiciliados y gestionados en España Fondos convencionales registrados en la CNMVBankinter Solidaridad, FI 0,08 0,01 0,98 0,02 Santander Global FX, FI - - - -BBVA Solidaridad, FI 2,55 2,12 0,95 0 Bankpyme Fonstresor Catalunya Mixto Euro 15 RV, FIEl Monte Fondo Solidario, FI 3,04 1,63 0,83 - Fonbilbao Renta Fija, FI 1,67 0,43 0,07 0,45Fondespaña Catedrales, FI 3,30 -0,19 1,04 -0,14 Fonbilbao Renta Fija, FI 1,67 0,43 0,07 0,45

Datos financieros de los fondos ISR y los fondos convencionales a 31/12/2005

Tabla 4


10% peor que el mercado, cuando este bajaba. De la mismaforma, una beta de 0,85 indica que el mercado ha tenido uncomportamiento un 15% peor que el mercado, cuando estese movía al alza, y un 15% mejor que el mercado, cuandoeste se movía a la baja. En general, las betas de los fondosISR son, en general, muy próximas a 1, es decir, se muevencon el mercado. Algunos de los fondos, incluso, presentan

una beta superior a 1, lo que significa que el fondo presentauna rentabilidad superior a la del mercado cuando este sube,pero una rentabilidad inferior al mercado cuando este baja.Mientras, las betas de los fondos convencionales son másbajas, de hecho la mayoría de los fondos convencionales pre-sentan una beta menor que 1, lo cual significa que el fondoha tenido un comportamiento peor que el mercado.

Fondos ISR registrados en la CNMV, domiciliados, gestionados y comercializados en España Fondos convencionales registrados en la CNMVRentabilidad

Denominación de la IIC Fecha de Patrimonio Rentabilidad Denominación de la IIC Fecha de Patrimonio Rentabilidad media del sectorconstitución (miles de neta constitución (miles de neta (%)

euros) acumulada euros) acumuladaanual (%) anual (%)

BBK Solidaria, FI 03-06-2005 3.408 1,20 Plusmadrid Fondandalucía, FI 26-05-2003 3.077 4,83 4,70BBVA Desarrollo Sostenible, FI 02-09-1997 69.399 16,68 Morgan S. Multigest. Activo Variable, FI 23-12-1997 47.994 22,57 19,99 BBVA Extra 5 II Garantizado, FI 02-10-2003 813.959 0,32 Fondo Super 100 2, FIM 07-07-2003 658.042 4,03 3,97 BNP Paribas Fondo de Solidaridad, FI 01-12-1999 5.581 5,13 Ahorro Corporación Eurocanarias Mixto, FI 31-01-2000 7.725 4,50 4,70 Caixa Catalunya Europa Valor, FI 15-11-1999 10.602 17,36 Cahispa Eurovariable, FI 14-01-2000 12.532 19,39 20,63 CAM Fondo Solidaridad, FI 20-06-2005 600 2,17 Foncaixa Gestión Estrella E1, FI 09-12-2005 299 - 6,03Foncaixa Cooperación, FI 19-03-1999 8.161 13,11 Safei Global Patrimonio, FI 17-11-1998 6.224 13,10 11,90 Foncaixa 133 Socialm. Responsable, FI 06-09-2005 2.963 -2,89 Crédit Agric. Mercaeuropa Small Cap, FI 30-06-2005 3.197 - 20,63Fondo Solidario Pro Unicef, FI 07-05-1999 4.098 1,90 Fonbilbao Renta Fija, FI 22-07-1999 3.864 1,90 5,30 Morgan Stanley Fondo Activo Ético, FI 25-03-1999 14.978 3,29 BG Mixto 50, FI 14-09-1999 12.892 9,00 5,30 Santander Dividendo Solidario, FI 01-02-1999 21.555 13,17 BK Sector Telecomunicaciones, FI 26-05-1999 35.791 5,52 20,63 Santander Responsabilidad, FI 03-06-2003 42.708 3,06 Fidenzis Fondo de Fondos C30, FI 27-05-2003 46.502 7,20 4,70 Urquijo Cooperación, SICAV 26-02-2002 18.347 4,91 Santander Fondandalucía Mixto, FI 02-12-2002 16.311 3,68 6,03Urquijo Inversión Solidaria, FI 09-12-2003 15.235 7,19 Ahorro Corpor. Fondandalucía Mixto, FI 14-05-2003 13.118 3,70 6,03 Fondos ISR registrados en la CNMV no domiciliados ni gestionados en España Fondos convencionales registrados en la CNMVABN AM. F. - Socially Responsible Equity 05-12-2001 46.500 23,00 Ahorro Corp. Multiestrellas Selección 90, FI 19-09-2001 42.909 20,66 19,99 Aviva F. - European Socially Responsible 14-03-2001 37.400 25,79 Eurovalor Europa, FIMF 07-06-2001 28.449 19,53 20,75 Equity FundAxa World Fund Development Debt 02-01-2002 16.850 2,56 Ahorro Corporación Bonos Corporativos, FI 03-09-2003 10.710 1,82 3,63 Crédit Suisse Equity Global Sustainability 08-10-1990 45.340 20,86 Banesto Bolsa Internacional, FI 21-09-1990 34.680 19,06 19,99Dexia Equities L World Welfare 01-08-2000 71.700 24,18 Bomerbe, FI 15-04-2002 83.230 21,94 19,99 DWS Invest Sustainability Leaders LD 03-06-2002 21.200 10,50 BBVA Índice Internacional Plus, FI 05-12-2001 24.524 12,29 19,99 European Responsible Consumer Fund 27-06-2003 56.000 13,61 Cartesio Y - Acciones, FI 23-02-2004 37.327 11,90 11,19 Fortis Equity Socially Responsible Europe 15-03-2002 15.670 24,68 Segurfondo Dinámico Europa, FI 12-12-2000 12.356 20,51 20,63 Fortis Strategy Balanced SRI Europe 01-06-1998 172.490 13,91 Eurovalor Mixto-50, FI 15-12-1998 120.205 8,20 11,19 Fortis Strategy Growth SRI Europe 01-06-1998 46.940 19,15 Rural Mixto 50, FI 15-01-1997 48.553 8,17 11,90 Fortis Strategy Stability SRI Europe 01-06-1998 109.010 8,96 Plusmadrid 25, FIM 05-01-1999 106.074 6,33 5,30 ING (L) Invest Sustainable Growth Fund 10-07-2000 32.670 23,26 ING Direct F. Naranja S. & P. 500, FI 04-08-2000 31.183 17,84 19,99 JP Morgan Funds - Global Socially 01-09-2002 38.000 7,90 Ahorro Corp. Multiestrellas Selección 90, FI 19-09-2001 42.909 20,66 19,99Responsible Fund miles de $Mellon European Ethical Index Tracker 11-01-2002 21.200 21,80 Eurovalor Europa, FIMF 07-06-2001 28.449 19,53 20,75 Pictet F. - European Sustainable Equities 01-10-2002 61.400 24,70 Santander Cuantitativo Europa, FI 21-11-2001 57.175 20,75 20,63 Pioneer Funds - Global Ethical Equity 04-07-2000 283.900 23,70 Eurovalor Bolsa Española, FI 14-03-2001 282.080 20,15 19,99 UBS (Lux) Equity Fund-Eco Performance 13-06-1997 255.250 21,80 BBK Fondo Internacional, FIMF 24-07-1998 168.229 23,77 19,99

miles de CHFFondos solidarios registrados en la CNMV domiciliados y gestionados en España Fondos convencionales registrados en la CNMVBankinter Solidaridad, FI 06-11-2003 7.508 1,25 Santander Global FX, FI 30-01-2004 8.309 1,98 1,62 BBVA Solidaridad, FI 21-07-1999 17.872 5,53 Bankpyme Fonstresor Catalunya Mixto 24-03-1999 11.037 3,75 4,70

Euro 15 RV, FIEl Monte Fondo Solidario, FI 04-04-2000 4.120 6,15 Fonbilbao Renta Fija, FI 22-07-1999 3.864 1,90 5,30 Fondespaña Catedrales, FI 02-03-2000 3.153 3,31 Fonbilbao Renta Fija, FI 22-07-1999 3.864 1,90 5,30

Análisis comparativo de la rentabilidad de los fondos ISR y los fondos convencionales a 31/12/2005

Tabla 5


83

Finalmente, el alfa es el rendimiento adicional obtenido porun fondo respecto a su índice de referencia o benchmarkteniendo en cuenta la exposición de este fondo al riesgo demercado (medido por la beta). El alfa mide la capacidad degestión respecto al mercado, y puesto que los resultados sonmás bien bajos, esto implica que no hay una capacidad degestión superior al mercado. Destaca, especialmente, elresultado obtenido en el alfa del fondo Santander DividendoSolidario, FI, cuyo resultado es estadísticamente significati-vo, pues logra batir al mercado, lo que significa que el gestorestá aportando valor añadido al fondo. Los fondos conven-cionales presentan en su totalidad un alfa positivo, destacan-do por encima de todos, el valor del fondo SantanderCuantitativo Europa, FI y el valor del fondo Eurovalor BolsaEspañola, FI, cuyos resultados muestran que se están batien-do al mercado.

4.2. ANÁLISIS COMPARATIVO

Una vez presentada la información financiera de los fondos,pasamos a analizar la gestión de los fondos ISR en relacióncon los fondos convencionales para el período 2005, a partirde un análisis comparativo, tomando como referencia lametodología del matched pair analysis. En este sentido,nuestro análisis se basa en comparar las rentabilidades6 de losfondos ISR con las rentabilidades de fondos convencionales,que presentan similar volumen de activos y similar fecha deconstitución.

La tabla 5 muestra los resultados del análisis comparativo. Enella se observa que más de la mitad de los fondos ISR y soli-darios (21 de un total de 35) presentan rentabilidades supe-riores a sus equivalentes convencionales. Los fondos ISRextranjeros comercializados en España son los que muestranmejores resultados desde el punto de vista de la rentabilidad,puesto que prácticamente todos ellos (14 de un total de 17)presentan rentabilidades superiores a sus equivalentes con-vencionales. En el caso de los fondos ISR domiciliados ygestionados en España, sólo 5 (de un total de 14) superan larentabilidad de sus equivalentes convencionales. En cuantolos fondos solidarios, 3 (de un total de 4) obtienen mejoresrentabilidades que sus equivalentes convencionales (tabla 5).

También se ha comparado la rentabilidad de cada fondo conla rentabilidad media del sector al que pertenecen. De nuevo,los resultados muestran que más de la mitad de los fondos ISR(19 de un total de 35) presentan rentabilidades superiores a lamedia del sector. Al igual que en el caso anterior, el análisisdetallado por grupos de fondos confirma que la mayoría de losfondos ISR extranjeros comercializados en España (14 sobre17) presentan una rentabilidad superior a la media del sectoral que pertenecen. Respecto a los fon-dos ISR domiciliados,

gestionados y comercializados en España, sólo 3 (de un totalde 14) muestran mayores rentabilidades que la media del sec-tor. En cuanto a los fondos solidarios, 2 de los 4 existentes ennuestro país presentan una rentabilidad superior a la media delsector al que pertenecen (tabla 5).

El hecho de que los fondos ISR domiciliados, gestionados ycomercializados en España presenten rentabilidades másbajas que los fondos ISR extranjeros comercializados enEspaña se puede deber al incipiente desarrollo y novedad dela gestión de dichos fondos en nuestro país, y también, quizá,a que el universo de inversión queda muy restringido en unmercado tan estrecho como es el mercado financiero español.

En definitiva, el análisis realizado es consistente con lasinvestigaciones llevadas a cabo en otros países y confirmaque los fondos de inversión ISR no sólo no difieren del restode los fondos a efectos de rentabilidad, sino que, incluso,pueden presentar rentabilidades superiores.

5. CONCLUSIONES

En este artículo hemos querido avanzar en el análisis de unode los aspectos más importantes de la ISR no sólo en España,sino en todo el mundo: el análisis de la rentabilidad de losfondos ISR frente al resto de los fondos del mercado. En estesentido, nuestro estudio constituye una investigación pione-ra, que ha incidido en la comparación de la rentabilidad delos fondos ISR respecto a los fondos convencionales en elmercado financiero español.

En lo que respecta al análisis financiero, la volatilidad de losfondos ISR domiciliados y gestionados en España y de losfondos solidarios es bastante baja, mientras que la de los fon-dos ISR extranjeros es más pareja. En cuanto al índice deSharpe, éste es positivo para casi la totalidad de los fondosISR. Se trata de un dato importante, puesto que, cuantomayor sea este ratio, mejor comportamiento habrá demostra-do el fondo en el período analizado. Por otra parte, los fon-dos ISR presentan betas muy próximas a 1, es decir, se mue-ven con el mercado; algunos de los fondos, incluso, muestranuna beta superior a 1, lo que significa que el fondo presentauna rentabilidad superior a la del mercado cuando este sube,pero una rentabilidad inferior al mercado cuando baja. Laalfa, por último, mide la capacidad de gestión respecto almercado: los resultados son más bien bajos, lo que implicaque no existe una capacidad de gestión superior al mercado.En lo que respecta al análisis comparativo, hemos observadoque los fondos ISR comercializados en España presentan ren-tabilidades netas anuales positivas. En el caso del grupo defondos ISR domiciliados y gestionados en España, se consta-ta una gran disparidad de las rentabilidades, si se compara


con sus fondos convencionales pares en el mercado. Losresultados desagregados muestran que solo 5 de los 14 fon-dos obtienen rentabilidades superiores a su par en el merca-do; en este mismo grupo, solo 3 de los 14 fondos presentanrentabilidades netas superiores a la rentabilidad media anualdel sector. Con todo, si consideramos el margen diferencialentre los fondos ISR y los fondos convencionales, este no essignificativo a efectos de rentabilidad. En general, influyennegativamente en estos resultados las fusiones y transforma-ciones que han sufrido los fondos ISR gestionados enEspaña. Esto muestra, en cierto modo, la falta de madurezdel sector en nuestro país.

En cambio, la rentabilidad de los fondos ISR comercializa-dos en España, pero gestionados fuera de nuestro país, pre-sentan rentabilidades superiores y mayor homogeneidad enlos resultados que los fondos ISR domiciliados y gestiona-dos en España. Concretamente, 10 de los 17 fondos ISRextranjeros comercializados en España presentan rentabili-dades superiores al 20%, y 14 de esos 17 fondos obtienenmejor rentabilidad que sus pares convencionales en el mer-cado español. Por otra parte, ese mismo número de fondos(14 sobre un total de 17) supera la rentabilidad media delsector.

Respecto a los fondos exclusivamente solidarios, en general,presentan bajas rentabilidades. Así, 3 de los 4 fondos obtie-nen mejores rentabilidades que sus pares convencionales y 2de esos 4 fondos obtienen mejores resultados que la rentabi-lidad media del sector.

El análisis realizado confirma que, tal y como sucede en losfondos convencionales, la rentabilidad de este tipo de inver-siones depende de las inversiones que se escojan y de la ges-tión que se haga de la cartera. De hecho, la estructura de losfondos ISR es la misma que la de los fondos convencionales,compran bonos o acciones con la lógica intención de que serevaloricen y así poder ofrecer una ganancia a sus partícipes.Su elemento diferenciador y fundamental radica en la selec-ción de la cartera de inversión conforme a criterios, no solode rentabilidad económica, sino también de carácter social ymedioambiental. La rentabilidad económica es un motor desu gestión, pero no el único.

Teniendo en cuenta que los inversores responsables buscanen su inversión no sólo rentabilidad, sino también responsa-bilidad, este análisis financiero de los fondos ISR en Españaconfirma que estos fondos pueden ser tan rentables como losfondos convencionales e incluso, en ocasiones, más renta-bles que estos últimos. En este sentido, si la rentabilidad dela ISR fuera distinta de la rentabilidad de la inversión con-vencional, este sería un factor determinante tanto de su éxito

como de su fracaso. Por este motivo, es importante que larentabilidad sea neutral, pues es una condición necesariapara lograr el éxito de la ISR.

En última instancia, este análisis de la rentabilidad de losfondos ISR en España muestra unos resultados consistentescon las investigaciones realizadas en esta misma línea enotros países, y confirma que los fondos de inversión ISR nosólo no difieren del resto de los fondos convencionales entérminos de rentabilidad, sino que, incluso, pueden tener ren-tabilidades superiores.

REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS

AECA (2004): Marco Conceptual de la Responsabilidad SocialCorporativa, AECA (Madrid).

Arms, M. (1999): “The Opportunity Cost of Monetary Conviction:A Comparison of the DSI and the S&P 500”, The Park PlaceEconomist, VII, 21-32.

<http://titan.iwu.edu/~econ/ppe/1999/melissa.pdf>.Avanzi SRI Research/SiRi Company (2005): Green, social and

ethical funds in Europe. 2005 Review, Milán, octubre.Balaguer, M. R. (2006): La inversión socialmente responsable: tres

ensayos, tesis doctoral, Universitat Jaume I (Castellón).Balaguer, M.R.; Muñoz, M.J. (2003): “Análisis de los fondos de

inversión éticos y solidarios españoles: Evaluación de la per-formance social y financiera”, XI Foro de Finanzas, Alicante,<http://xiforofinanzas.ua.es/trabajos/1041.pdf.>.

Bauer, R.; Koedijk, K.; Otten, R. (2005): “International Evidenceon Ethical Mutual Fund Performance and Investment Style”,Journal of Banking and Finance, 29, (7), 1751-1767.

Brooks, L.J. (1997): “Business Ethics in Canada: Distinctivenessand Directions”, Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 591-604.

Cowen, S.; Ferreri, L.; Parker, D. (1987): “The Impact of CorporateCharacteristics on Social Responsibility Disclosure: ATypology and Frequency-Based Analysis”, AccountingOrganizations and Society, 12, (2), 111-122.

Cummings, L. (2000): “The financial performance of ethicalinvestment trusts: an Australian perspective”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 25, (1), 79-92.

Diltz, J. D. (1995): “The Private Cost of Socially ResponsibleInvesting”, Applied Financial Economics, 5, (2), 69-77.

Goldreyer, E. F.; Diltz, J. D. (1999): “The Performance of SociallyResponsible Mutual Funds: Incorporating SociopoliticalInformation in Portfolio Selection”, Managerial Finance, 25,(1), 23-36.

Gregory, A.; Matatko, J.; Luther, R. (1994): “The Performance ofEthical Unit Trusts: Choosing an Appropiate Benchmark”,British Accounting Review, 26, 77-89.

Gregory, A.; Matatko, J.; Luther, R. (1997): “Ethical unit trustfinancial performance: small company effects and fund sizeeffects”, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, junio, 24,(5),705-726.

Hamilton, S.; Hoje, J.; Statman, M. (1993): “Doing well whiledoing good? The investment performance of socially responsi-ble mutual funds”, Financial Analysts Journal, 49, (6), 62-66.


85

Hart, S. L.; Ahuja, G. (1994): “Does it Pay to Be Green?”, paperpresentado en la reunión nacional de la Academy ofManagement (Dallas, Texas), agosto.

Johnson, R.; Greening, D. (1994) “Relationships BetweenCorporate Social Performance, Financial Performance, andFirm governance”, Best Paper Proceedings of The Academy ofManagement, 314-318.

Kreander, N.; Gray, R. H.; Power, D. M.; Sinclair C. D. (2005):“Evaluating the Performance on Ethical and Non-EthicalFunds: A Matched Pair Analysis”, Journal of Business Finance& Accounting, 32, (7-8), 1465-1493.

Mallin, C.; Saadouni, B.; Briston, R. (1995) “The FinancialPerformance of Ethical Investment Funds”, Journal of BusinessFinance & Accounting, 22, (4), 483-496.

McGuire, J.; Sundgren, A.; Schneeweis, T. (1988): “CorporateSocial Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance”,Academy of Management Journal, 31, (4), 854-872.

Morris, S.; Rehbein, K.; Hosseini, J.; Armacost, R. (1990):“Building a Profile of Socially Responsive Firms”, en Wood,D. J. y Martello, W. E. (eds.) Proceedings of the InternationalAssociation for Business and Society, 297-303.

Moskowitz, M. (1972): “Choosing Socially Responsible Stocks”,Business and Society Review, 10, 71-75.

Moskowitz, M. (1975): “Profiles in Corporate Responsibility: TheTen Worst and the Ten Best”, Business and Society Review, 13,28-42.

M'Zali, B.; Turcotte, M. (1997): “Étude des portefeuilles d'investis-sement “environnementaux” au Canada et en Italie”,Documento de trabajo nº 05-97.

Orltizky, M.; Benjamín, J.D. (2001): “Corporate Social performan-ce and Firm risk: A meta-analytic Review”, Business andSociety Review, vol.40, nº4, 369-396.

Reyes, M.; Grieb, T. (1998): “The external performance of socially-responsible mutual funds”, American Business Review, 16, (1),1-7.

Roman, R.; Hayibor, S.; Agle, B. R. (1999): “The relationship bet-ween social and financial performance”, Business & Society,38, (1),109-117.

Social Investment Forum (2006): 2005 Report on SociallyResponsible Investing Trends in the United States, Washington,January.

Statman, M. (2000): “Socially Responsible Mutual Funds”,Financial Analysts Journal, 56, (4), 30-39.

Vermeir, W.; Corten, F. (2001): “Sustainable investment: The com-plex relationship between sustainability and return”, Bank-enFinanciewezen / Revue bancaire et financière.<http://www.ethibel.org/pdf/BankFinEnglish.pdf>.

Waddock, S. A.; Graves, S. B. (1997a): “The Corporate SocialPerformance-Financial Performance Link”, StrategicManagement Journal, 18, (4), 303-319.

Wokutch, R. E.; Spencer, B. A. (1987): “Corporate saints and sin-ners. The effects of philanthropic and illegal activity on orga-nizational performance”, California Management Review, 29,(2), 62-77.

Notas:

1.- La metodología para la selección de empresas se establece a partir de losfiltros de selección o ethical screening y se articula en criterios negati-vos, que excluyen determinadas inversiones y criterios positivos, cuyafinalidad es seleccionar aquellas con mejor comportamiento en térmi-nos de RSE. Dentro del grupo de criterios negativos destacan aquellosque se corresponden con lo generalmente rechazable por la sociedad(armamento, drogas, pornografía infantil,....) u otros más controverti-dos que responden a requerimientos de un grupo social importante(energía nuclear, tabaco, experimentación con animales,....). Lasempresas que superan el primer filtro de criterios excluyentes son nue-vamente examinadas con el objetivo de seleccionar aquellas que den-tro de sus diferentes sectores y mercados estén teniendo una mejoractuación en el campo de la RSE. La adopción de políticas de protec-ción medioambiental, la transparencia en la información, la formaciónde los trabajadores o el gobierno corporativo son algunos de los crite-rios positivos más utilizados.

2.- El patrimonio de los fondos de inversión mobiliaria en España a 31 dediciembre de 2005 ascendía a 207.449.533 euros. Datos obtenidos dela CNMV, Informes sobre instituciones de inversión colectiva, cuartotrimestre de 2005, cap. 2: “Fondos de inversión mobiliarios: número,partícipes y patrimonio de los fondos de inversión mobiliaria por tipode fondo” <http://www.cnmv.es>.

3.- Hemos incluido estos fondos en nuestra investigación porque en laCircular sobre utilización por las instituciones de inversión colectivade denominaciones “ético”, “ecológico” o cualquier otra que incidaen aspectos de responsabilidad social de la Comisión Ética de Inverco,de 15 de noviembre de 1999 se incluyen los fondos solidarios comoproductos socialmente responsables. No obstante, no son fondos ISRen sentido estricto.

4.- Una vez más, queremos recordar que, cuando hablamos de fondos deinversión convencionales, nos referimos a aquellos que no realizan unapreselección de la cartera de inversión a partir de criterios ISR.

5.- Como indicador del activo libre de riesgo hemos utilizado la rentabilidadde las Letras del Tesoro a 1 año.

6.- En nuestra investigación hemos comparado la rentabilidad neta acumu-lada anual de cada uno de los fondos ISR con la rentabilidad neta acu-mulada anual de su “equivalente” convencional. La rentabilidad se haobtenido de los Informes trimestrales sobre IIC, 4º trimestre, 2005.


87

ARTÍCULOS

LOZANO, J.M.

“L’EMPRESA SOCIALMENT RESPONSABLE”

Revista Econòmica de Catalunya (2007), núm. 55.


89

L’empresa socialment responsable1

Josep M. LozanoESADE

Al principi era l’ètica1.

Mai com en els darrers anys s’havien incorporat al discurs sobre l’empresa expressions com ara ètica i responsabilitat social de l’empresa (RSE). Tot i que, en rigor, aquestes preocupacions no són una novetat, sí que ho és la seva presència creixent en l’opinió pública i en el discurs empresarial. En aquest canvi de perspectiva hi han intervingut en graus diversos empreses, governs, ONG, mitjans de comunicació i consumidors, i confi gura un procés que ens porta a una autèntica redefi nició de com s’entén la contribució de l’empresa a la societat. Alhora, s’està generant un nou perfi l de demandes i expectatives cap a l’empresa, així com noves formes d’innovació empresarial.

De totes maneres, en aquest procés s’ha produït un fenomen curiós, que és la constatació que a Espanya, i a d’altres indrets, com més es parla de RSE, menys es parla d’ètica empresarial. Fenomen que mereixeria una anàlisi sociològica més detallada perquè, a primera vista, pot provocar una certa perplexitat que ètica i responsabilitat social es facin retòricament la competència.

La RSE és “la integració voluntària, per part de les empreses, de les preocupacions socials i mediambientals en les seves operacions comercials i en les relacions amb els seus interlocutors”, tal com la defi neix la Comissió Europea. A risc de simplifi car, crec que hi ha tres perfi ls d’aproximació concreta a la RSE.

El primer consisteix a veure la RSE com una demanda més del mercat. Per tant, encara que es parli de RSE, en el fons es fa, senzillament, com un reconeixement que les demandes del mercat i de la societat es tornen més complexes. La RSE aquí és una qüestió d’anàlisi dels nous riscos que té l’empresa en el context de la societat de la informació, i un d’aquests riscos és una cosa tan polièdrica com la reputació. Per tant, des d’aquesta perspectiva, encara que es parli molt de RSE, es fa sense cap convicció intrínseca, només com a resposta a aquestes noves demandes. En el límit això signifi ca que, quan la demanda es difumini, immediatament ho farà la RSE.

El segon perfi l consisteix a veure la RSE com una nova àrea de gestió que cal incorporar a la pràctica empresarial. Àrea que cal consolidar internament, com es va fer al seu moment amb altres àrees, que avui ja es consideren plenament normalitzades. Des d’aquesta perspectiva, la RSE es considera una dimensió complementària de l’activitat de l’empresa, que no afecta el nucli de la gestió. L’empresa, en el fons, se segueix gestionant igual que quan no es parlava de RSE, però amb una nova modulació, i incorporant-hi el conjunt d’activitats pròpies del nou departament de RSE. En casos molt reduccionistes, gairebé es pot considerar la RSE com un problema de talonari: la contribució de l’empresa a causes socials, sens dubte lloables, però perifèriques a l’activitat empresarial.

Finalment, des de la tercera perspectiva, es considera la RSE com una manera de repensar de manera global el model d’empresa. Des d’aquest punt de vista, la RSE és i no és —a la vegada— una novetat. No ho és perquè cap empresa comença de zero en aquest punt, sinó que totes parteixen de la pròpia trajectòria, en la qual moltes vegades ja hi pot haver alguns elements que defi neixen una política de RSE. Però és una novetat en el sentit que ens trobem en un context en el qual s’estan redefi nint les relacions entre empresa i societat. La RSE és aquí l’expressió d’una visió estratègica que articula un projecte d’empresa capaç d’actuar coherentment des del compromís amb uns valors que l’empresa ha interioritzat.

1 Aquest treball se situa en el marc de les línies de recerca de l’Institut Persona, Empresa i Societat (IPES). L’Obra Social Caixa Sabadell era l’entitat promotora de l’IPES.


De fet, aquestes tres perspectives no es donen en estat pur. Una empresa hi pot oscil·lar entre algunes. Fins i tot dins d’una mateixa empresa hi pot haver directius o departaments més pròxims a cada una. És comprensible, en la mesura que la RSE no és un estat, sinó un procés. I en RSE el que importa és el procés, i que aquest procés sigui l’expressió d’una dinàmica i un compromís coherents i transparentes per part de l’empresa. Perquè el que menys es tolera (dins i fora de l’empresa) és que el discurs sobre la RSE s’utilitzi per dissimular altres dèfi cits.

Possiblement avui ens trobem més còmodes amb el llenguatge de la RSE que amb el de l’ètica perquè ens resulta més fàcil avaluar resultats que navegar en el procel·lós mar postmodern de l’ètica. Probablement parlar de responsabilitat (i, per tant, d’actuacions i de presa de decisions) resulta més proper a una sensibilitat managerial. Però crec que al fi nal del recorregut per la RSE —fi nal no pas imminent— caldrà que ens retrobem amb l’ètica. Perquè parlar de RSE ens recorda que no es tracta de retòrica, sinó de models de gestió. Però parlar d’ètica ens recorda que un model de gestió sempre comporta un model de persona i un model de societat.

RSE: però què vol dir social? 2.

Quan ens preguntem per l’impacte social de les empreses, la primera qüestió que se’ns planteja és precisament la imprecisió del terme social, una imprecisió que no sempre resulta un bon punt d’ajuda per traduir-lo en termes de gestió. La diversitat d’usos del terme social —especialment en els debats sobre la RSE— ha portat que sovint s’utilitzin les mateixes paraules per dir coses substancialment diferents. Així, la S de RSE s’ha entès:

Com la relació de l’empresa amb determinats • stakeholders del seu entorn social, habitualment no vinculats directament a la seva activitat empresarial.Com una dimensió o un aspecte que, en diversos graus i intensitats, és inherent a la • relació amb tots els stakeholders, i que cal tenir en compte junt amb altres dimensions o aspectes.Com una manera de comprendre la gestió i l’excel·lència empresarials, la qual cosa • inclou tenir en compte tots els stakeholders.Com un compromís i uns objectius que van més enllà dels específi cs del negoci, que • són compartits amb altres stakeholders, i que situen l’actuació de l’empresa en un horitzó de comprensió que esdevé també referència per a tothom.Com l’eix del discurs que legitima la RSE (• l’aspecte social) enfront d’altres aspectes del discurs sobre l’empresa (com ara l’econòmic, el mediambiental, el managerial, l’ètic, etc.), contrastant-hi o complementant-los.

No ens ha d’estranyar, doncs, que alguns malentesos en els debats econòmics, polítics i socials que abunden sobre el tema siguin deguts, senzillament, al fet que amb les mateixes paraules se sostenen visions diferents, i fi ns i tot oposades, del que hi ha realment en joc, així com les respectives, i no menys diverses, estratègies.

A més, la S de la RSE no deixa de presentar difi cultats de comprensió i de comunicació. Recordem, entre d’altres, que al·ludeix alhora a la totalitat i a una part del concepte; que facilita la contraposició entre l’aspecte social i l’econòmic, o la curiosa consideració del que és social com una cosa estranya i afegida a l’empresa (en tant que institució primàriament econòmica); que difícilment refl ecteix de manera òbvia els aspectes ambientals; que facilita un debat irresoluble sobre l’abast i la concreció del que és social a la pràctica, o que no permet aclarir fi ns a quin punt és exigible la RSE.


91

D’altra banda, parlar de responsabilitat social sembla que planteja com a primera referència les conseqüències de les actuacions empresarials. Per això, quan es mesura l’impacte de les actuacions de l’empresa, no s’ha d’oblidar la S, però tampoc no s’ha de reduir tot a la S (si no és que aquesta S es refereix a la qüestió social en un sentit tan genèric que sigui, de fet, una mena de contenidor). Això és així, entre altres raons, perquè l’empresa no es relaciona amb la societat, sinó amb els stake-holders, i consegüentment la gestió de l’impacte social és la gestió de l’impacte de les actuacions de l’empresa en aquesta xarxa de relacions. Al mateix temps, la realitat del nostre món interdependent ens impedeix de concebre aquestes rela cions de manera unidireccional, únicament des de l’empresa cap als stakeholders: la gestió d’una responsabilitat relacional requereix una empresa no solament capaç d’actuar, sinó també capaç d’escoltar. I per això el diàleg amb els diversos stakeholders es converteix en un element estructurador de l’exercici de la gestió d’aquestes relacions.

Parlem de stakeholders2.1.

El terme stakeholder va aparèixer per primera vegada l’any 1963 en un memoràndum del Stanford Research Institute. En aquella primera defi nició es concebia els stakeholders en funció de la supervivència corporativa: grups sense el suport dels quals l’organització deixaria d’existir. Des del principi, doncs, tenim els tres elements que persistiran al llarg de tot el debat sobre els stakeholders: l’empresa, els altres actors que s’hi relacionen i la naturalesa d’aquesta relació. Tot el debat en relació amb els stakeholders girarà sempre, en darrer terme, al voltant d’aquests tres elements. A aquesta primera defi nició en seguiran d’altres, entre les quals cal destacar, per la rellevància que ha tingut, la de Freeman: qualsevol individu o grup que pot afectar la consecució dels objectius de l’organització o en pot ser afectat.

El mateix terme triat, tot i essent brillant i expressiu, arrossega a la pregunta pel contrast i, alhora, la relació amb els stokholders (accionistes). Quina relació hi ha entre l’enfocament stakeholder i l’enfocament stockholder? El primer s’oposa al segon? L’integra? El supera? O senzillament el fa més sofi sticat? Des del primer moment, veus prou rellevants com és ara Freeman van assenyalar que, tant des de la teoria com des del management, parlar de stakeholders comportava un canvi en la manera de pensar l’actuació de l’empresa i la seva valoració: el pas dels accionistes als stakeholders. En aquest sentit, no s’ha d’oblidar que el desenvolupament de la teoria dels stakeholders ha estat intrínsecament lligat al debat sobre la responsabilitat social de l’empresa.

El problema de la relació entre l’enfocament als accionistes i l’enfocament als stakeholders remet, per damunt de tot, a la gestió: es refereix a què han de fer els directius i a què n’ha de guiar l’acció. I no tan sols què la guia, sinó també què la legitima. Per això tant en les versions més combatives (Friedman: la responsabilitat social de l’empresa és augmentar els benefi cis) com en les més matisades (preeminència de la relació amb els accionistes per damunt d’altres stakeholders), la qüestió de la prioritat —o no— dels accionistes marca una línia divisòria en la manera d’acostar-se a la comprensió dels stakeholders. Avui, a sobre, cal afegir que no hi ha cap evidencia que els inversors es plantegin les inversions d’una única manera o des d’una perspectiva homogènia: la diversitat d’interessos, prioritats i perspectives temporals és cada vegada més un fet entre ells. A més, hi ha inversors que valoren les inversions des de criteris econòmics i socials alhora, tal com posa de manifest el creixement de les inversions socialment responsables.

Ara bé, és evident que l’enfocament als stakeholders fa inseparable el debat sobre el model d’empresa del debat sobre el model de gestió. Consegüentment, atès que una teoria de l’empresa en clau stakeholder ha de redefi nir el propòsit de l’empresa, aquesta redefi nició afecta també la comprensió de l’èxit i dels resultats corporatius i, en conseqüència, la comprensió de com ha de ser gestionada l’empresa.


És tan obvi identifi car els stakeholders?2.2.

Pot semblar, doncs, que el criteri de demarcació entre diferents aproximacions als stakeholders se situa en l’àmbit valoratiu i normatiu, una vegada que hem reconegut que s’ha d’evitar el risc de convertir una constatació sociològica en una prescripció gerencial. Però, de fet, molts plantejaments referits als stakeholders es basen en una identifi cació dels stakeholders que, suposadament, no hauria de presentar més problemes que el de fer una observació prou detallada.

De totes maneres, tampoc no hi ha hagut coincidència en els mecanismes d’identifi cació i anàlisi. Qui decideix quins grups són stakeholders en un context determinat? El problema de fons és que la idea d’una aproximació merament descriptiva als stakeholders exempta de valors és una contradicció de termes, a causa dels elements que confl ueixen en la seva identifi cació. Al capdavall, els atributs dels stakeholders són construccions socials, i no la realitat objectiva, i, per tant, tota identifi cació de stakeholders només es pot fer des d’assumpcions. O, dit amb unes altres paraules, quan identifi quem i descobrim els stakeholders, el que descrivim i posem de manifest simultàniament és com entenem la mateixa naturalesa de l’empresa i dels negocis, que és el que ens permet fer qualsevol descripció.

Per tant, no podem parlar de stakeholders si, de manera simultània, no posem de manifest els valors, criteris i concepcions que fan que els reconeguem i els jerarquitzem com a tals. Cap teoria dels stakeholders no és possible si no reconeix que només des d’una visió densa en valors sobre l’empresa i les seves relacions poden identifi car els elements que les confi guren: qui són els actors rellevants, quins interessos i quins poders es prenen en consideració, en quins àmbits es considera pertinent parlar d’afectar o de ser afectat, qui i com estableix què s’entén per èxit i per resultats corporatius, etc. L’enfocament als stakeholders, en defi nitiva, comporta articular, expressar, analitzar i entendre les relacions corporatives.

Més enllà de l’atomisme d’una agregació de relacions, també cal preguntar-se si els stakeholders disposen d’un marc de comprensió que estableixi i doni sentit a aquestes relacions i permeti regular-les i entendre-les. Un marc de comprensió que, en primer lloc, permeti explicitar quins són la fi nalitat i el propòsit de l’empresa, i no solament quins en són els interessos, i que, en segon lloc, permeti explicitar els valors, drets i deures dels stakeholders involucrats partint d’una visió global de la societat, i de la contribució específi ca que l’empresa fa a la societat en la qual opera.

En darrer terme, tot debat sobre teories dels stakeholders és també un debat antropològic i social, perquè tant la identifi cació descriptiva com les propostes prescriptives relatives als stakeholders pressuposen algun model antropològic i una visió de quin és el rol social de les empreses. No es pot parlar de stakeholders sense tenir presents els valors que els diversos actors identifi quen com a confi guradors d’aquesta relació. Una relació entre stakeholders no solament està carregada d’interessos, sinó que també és densa en valors i, consegüentment, tot discurs sobre els stakeholders necessita un model de comprensió dels valors que estructuren aquesta relació.

Així, doncs, en tota relació amb stakeholders no solament hi ha interessos en joc; també hi ha necessitats, valors i principis. I precisament per aquest motiu qualsevol refl exió sobre els stakeholders planteja més aviat abans que després la pregunta per la seva jerarquització. Identifi car algú com a stakeholder no indica, per si mateix, quin interès hi ha, o quin tipus d’interès hi ha; ni tampoc aclareix fi ns a quin punt o amb quina atenció s’hauria de considerar aquest interès. No solament s’ha d’identifi car el que hi ha en joc en cada relació, sinó que cal implicar-se a establir la qualitat d’aquesta relació: el fet que es constati una relació no ens diu res en si mateix sobre el signifi cat d’aquesta relació per a cada un dels involucrats.

S’ha dit que no s’han de considerar només els interessos, sinó també la capacitat d’infl uència i el poder. Però defi nir els stakeholders en termes del poder que tenen per infl uir és perfectament compatible amb les demandes de l’estratègia empresarial. L’existència de relacions de poder i d’interès planteja necessàriament la pregunta per la legitimitat d’ambdós. I això val per als dos pols de la relació, no només per a l’empresa. Un dels riscs més grans del debat sobre la RSE és que


93

s’estengui una interpretació segons la qual les expectatives i demandes socials envers l’empresa és poden ampliar indefi nidament, i que la seva rellevància pràctica només depèn del poder d’infl uència de qui les reclama.

Així, doncs, des del punt de vista teòric tot discurs sobre stakeholders incorpora necessàriament sempre, i de manera inseparable, descripció, estratègia, valors i principis. I, des del punt de vista pràctic, la naturalesa de les relacions amb els stakeholders no és universalment vàlida, sinó més aviat contingent, i depèn de la situació per la qual passa l’organització. En defi nitiva, l’eix de tot enfocament als stakeholders són els actors en el context de la relació, i no els actors com a preexistents a la relació que estableixen. Un enfocament stakeholder que es prengui seriosament a si mateix recolza sobre una visió relacional de l’empresa. Per això cada model de relació amb els stakeholders que adopti una empresa confi gura un model de RSE. La RSE no és res més que la manera com l’empresa defi neix i gestiona la relació amb els seus stakeholders.

La RSE suposa una empresa relacional3.

Amb la RSE ens trobem, doncs, més enllà del debat sobre les relacions entre empresa i societat. Perquè, des d’aquesta perspectiva, el problema és la i. El que ens hem de plantejar és el paper i el propòsit de l’empresa en la societat. Perquè les empreses no s’entenen al marge de la societat, com si fossin una organització que justifi ca per si mateixa la seva existència. Per consegüent, ens hem de preguntar si la perspectiva des de la qual pensem i desenvolupem l’enfocament stakeholder situa l’empresa en el centre o la considera com un node en un sistema de relacions. La capacitat de veure els reptes i les oportunitats en clau de sistema no és incompatible —al contrari— amb la necessitat d’afrontar les relacions amb els stakeholders des de la perspectiva de l’empresa, ja que aquesta perspectiva és capaç de tenir en compte el marc de referència social. Però, en canvi, una visió dels stakeholders que només es plantegi des de l’empresa centrada en si mateixa els subordina a una gestió de les relacions que és incapaç de veure-hi alguna cosa més que una projecció dels interessos de l’empresa.

Avui ens plantegem d’una manera nova si el món es pot convertir en un lloc per a tothom (Barber) o si vivim en un món desbocat (Giddens). La necessitat de governança dels processos de globalització ja no involucra només els governs i les institucions polítiques: és indispensable l’aliança entre els diversos actors, i la seva coresponsabilització, sobretot pel que fa a la creació d’acords bàsics compartits.

Un dels elements que vertebren tots aquests nous processos socials i empresarials és el pas cap al que s’ha anomenat la societat xarxa (Castells). És l’emergència de la societat xarxa la que justifi ca i fa necessari que l’enfocament de les relacions amb els stakeholders deixi d’estar centrat en l’empresa i es plantegi també des d’una visió sistèmica.

La referència per entendre l’organització és la xarxa, i l’organització passa a ser un nus de les xarxes en què s’insereix. Però no n’és el centre, entre altres raons perquè una xarxa no es defi neix a partir d’un centre. Això signifi ca que les relacions amb els stakeholders no es poden plantejar com a relacions segregades o diàdiques, d’un en un, assumpció que sol ser el substrat de moltes teories sobre els stakeholders. L’organització no és el centre de la xarxa, i per això entendre’n la situació com un element en un sistema de relacions permet entendre més bé com enfocar les interaccions amb els diversos stakeholders.

Això ens obliga a modifi car les nostres assumpcions. Ja no es tracta només de veure les relacions amb els stakeholders des del binomi conseqüencialista afectar - ser afectat. Es tracta també de pensar en clau d’interdependència i, consegüentment, de passar de parlar de la responsabilitat a parlar de la coresponsabilitat. Això és, per cert, el que justifi ca passar de parlar de responsabilitat social de l’empresa a parlar de responsabilitat social de les organitzacions. Quan es deixa de considerar l’empresa com a centre de l’univers i la veiem inscrita en relacions d’interdependència en la seva xarxa de relacions, això ens obliga a parlar de responsabilitats compartides, i desemboca


en la necessitat d’una aproximació responsable als stakeholders per part de totes les organitzacions, siguin privades, públiques o del sector social.

Per això creiem que té sentit no limitar-se a veure els stakeholders tan sols com un conjunt de relacions diàdiques que cal gestionar. Necessitem una visió dels stakeholders més basada en xarxes i més orientada a processos. Serà en aquest marc on construirem la confi ança i els compromisos; i serà en aquest marc on afrontarem les diferències i els inevitables confl ictes que també confi guren a la pràctica les relacions amb els stakeholders. Construir aquesta relació complexa vol dir narrar-la, explicitar-la, elaborar-la, entendre-la i donar-li signifi cat. I fer-ho tenint en compte els interessos, valors i principis que hi ha en joc. Però, sobretot, fer-ho sabent que cal construir —i cuidar— un espai en el qual siguin possibles el diàleg, la confi ança i, en algun sentit, la col·laboració.

L’enfocament als stakeholders és indispensable avui per pensar l’empresa i qualsevol organització. Però ens enganyaríem si creguéssim que qualsevol discurs corporatiu sobre stakeholders recolza sobre si mateix. L’elaboració d’un discurs sobre stakeholders sempre s’estructura des de l’assumpció (implícita o explícita) d’un model d’empresa, d’un model de gestió, d’un model d’identifi cació de stakeholders, d’un model d’explicitació de valors i d’un model de legitimació. Reconèixer que sempre que es parla de stakeholders es parla des d’assumpcions, ens permet entendre que una aproximació als stakeholders és més una mirada i una narrativa sobre l’empresa que una teoria. Aquest enfocament es concreta en una manera d’entendre els tres elements que el constitueixen: l’organització, els actors que s’hi relacionen i la naturalesa d’aquesta relació. Creiem que avui no podem parlar dels stakeholders des de la perspectiva d’una organització centrada en ella mateixa i que només sigui capaç de veure el món des de si mateixa. La societat emergent és una societat xarxa, feta d’interdependències, que exigeix que els diversos actors siguin capaços de veure’s ells mateixos i les seves pràctiques també des de la perspectiva d’aquest sistema d’interdependències.

La RSE, resultat de noves formes d’interdependències

Partir de la realitat —de la interdependència— ens pot ajudar a entendre millor per què la RSE ha assolit la importància que ha assolit. De fet, una de les qüestions recurrents de l’evolució de la RSE ha estat el comentari que no es tracta de res de nou, que d’això se n’ha parlat sempre i que som davant de l’etern retorn d’una retòrica que té un component cíclic en el món empresarial. Això seria veritat (i només molt parcialment) si forméssim part de la llarga llista d’addictes a utilitzar denominacions, terminologies i afi rmacions fora de context, com si tinguessin vida pròpia. Però no és aquest el cas, ans al contrari. Els termes actuals en què és planteja la RSE tenen un perfi l propi, precisament perqusè són el resultat d’un recorregut que, en pocs anys, ha canviat l’ecosistema de relacions del món empresarial.

Quadre 1

En el context de l’Estat del benestar, quan hom parlava de la qüestió social referida a l’activitat empresarial pensava en uns interlocutors ben establerts i defi nits: les patronals, els sindicats i els governs fent una funció alhora facilitadora i promotora. Els substantius que eren qualifi cats per social eren diversos: pacte, diàleg, acord i semblants. Però els actors eren aquests. I ho eren fi ns

-social- (EB) patronal (govern) sindicats

Font: Josep M. Lozano. ESADE


95

al punt que en algun moment del procés alguns poden haver tingut la temptació de creure que el vincle entre empresa i social era competència seva, i que qualsevol que s’hi volgués posar era un sobrevingut. Era un plantejament coherent amb la societat industrial, en què la qüestió social era gairebé sinònima de la qüestió obrera. Recordar això no respon a una pruïja historicista, sinó que és també un avís: parlar de RSE no ha de ser una coartada per encobrir retrocessos en les conquestes laborals o, simplement, males pràctiques laborals. Si fos això, simplement, no estaríem parlant de RSE. Però quan parlem de RSE no parlem de retrocessos, sinó d’uns canvis que inclouen els aspectes laborals convencionals, però que els desborden i van més enllà. Ara bé, els canvis en el desenvolupament de la RSE estan lligats indissolublement als processos de globalització.

Quadre 2

Entre els diversos aspectes involucrats a considerar, en voldria subratllar dos: el desenvolupament de les tecnologies de la informació i la mundialització dels mercats fi nancers, amb la consegüent aparició i consolidació, en aquest darrer cas, de les inversions socialment responsables. I al darrere d’ambdós l’aparició d’un actor: la societat civil global, amb la seva infi nita varietat d’ONG, organitzacions socials, etc. Crec que la redefi nició del discurs sobre la RSE ha estat propiciat pel trobament, sovint confl ictiu, entre les empreses globals, per una banda, i les organitzacions de la societat civil global, per una altra. Les organitzacions socials s’han mobilitzat per escrutar les pràctiques empresarials, i denunciar aquelles actuacions que consideraven reprovables, amb el consegüent risc que això suposa per a les empreses pel que fa a la reputació. Però les organitzacions socials també van ser a l’origen de les inversions socialment responsables, que han donat lloc, entre d’altres, a l’existència d’inversors institucionals i índexs especialitzats que cada vegada tenen més impacte tant en la cotització com, sobretot, en el reconeixement de les empreses. Tot plegat ha donat lloc que les empreses hagin d’incorporar a les seves agendes reptes de gestió amb els quals no estaven acostumades a encarar-se, i també que hagin hagut d’aprendre a relacionar-se amb uns actors amb els quals potser no estaven tan acostumades a tractar. En un món global i interconnectat la visió que es té de les empreses i del seu poder i, alhora, les expectatives que s’hi projecten queden substancialment modifi cats.

globalització


TIC

+

€

-social-(EB)

RSE

empresasTransnacionals ONG

patronal (govern sindicats


Quadre 3

Finalment, a conseqüència d’això anterior es produeix una redefi nició de la situació en els diversos països.

El discurs sobre la RSE, en primer lloc, retorna a cada país sota la forma de noves pràctiques • i activitats empresarials, i també sota la forma d’un discurs que guanya entitat pròpia i que vol redefi nir els paràmetres de la legitimitat empresarial.

En segon lloc, genera canvis en les organitzacions empresarials. Les organitzacions • empresarials convencionals es troben amb una qüestió que no respon a la lògica de l’actuació territorial. Es troben davant d’una qüestió que comporta un discurs i unes exigències globals sobre l’empresa, i alhora una aproximació a la qüestió que es planteja en clau de voluntarietat. Això fa que en un primer moment adoptin un to més aviat defensiu, si no clarament contrari (amb honroses excepcions), entre altres raons perquè hi veuen primordialment un elevat risc d’increment de costos i d’increment de regulacions. Paral·lelament, les empreses que han protagonitzat el gir vers la RSE creen noves xarxes de relacions i espais de trobada específi cs per tal de poder compartir i aprofundir les respostes que es poden donar a aquesta nova problemàtica. I apareix com una qüestió cada vegada més rellevant la importància d’incorporar-hi les pimes, de manera adequada a les seves peculiaritats.

A partir de les experiències generades per la nova situació, les ONG passen a voler jugar • un paper més rellevant com a interlocutores de les empreses. Aquesta relació pot anar de la confrontació a la col·laboració, però en tot cas passen a aparèixer com uns actors indispensables en aquest joc, i en conseqüència això genera noves preguntes i debats sobre la legitimitat del seu rol, de la seva manera d’actuar i d’organitzar-se i de les seves pretensions

globalització


TIC

-social-(EB)

RSE

empresasTransnacionals ONG

xarxespatronal empresarials sindicats + pimes

(govern)


97

Per als sindicats, en un primer moment la RSE era una aproximació que canviava el • discurs i l’agenda de la problemàtica social de l’empresa i, alhora, podia suposar una relativa pèrdua d’exclusivitat en les relacions amb l’empresa sobre qüestions socials. Però progressivament, sobretot per part dels sectors més lúcids i més atents als processos de canvi econòmic i social, la RSE és vista com una oportunitat i, alhora, com el repte d’ampliar tant l’agenda de preocupacions de l’acció sindical com l’abast geogràfi c.

Els governs es van poder sentir desplaçats per diversos motius. L’RSE és una qüestió • sobre la qual hi ha un consens molt gran quant al seu caràcter voluntari, i la temptació d’identifi car la pròpia capacitat d’acció amb regulació no sempre queda bandejada: en conseqüència, es troben davant d’un plantejament que qüestiona l’ús de l’instrument amb el qual se solen sentir més còmodes (la regulació). La RSE incorpora més actors al diàleg amb les empreses, amb relació als quals els governs i les administracions no sempre veuen clar quin paper han de jugar-hi. La RSE és una visió sobre les actuacions de les empreses que no coneix límits territorials, i els governs i les administracions tenen un marc institucional clarament territorial. Excepte algunes iniciatives amb una extraordinària capacitat de visió, no és fi ns molt recentment que es comença a veure el sentit al fet que els governs tinguin una política de RSE.

Finalment, cal no oblidar que l’escenari on és juga l’agenda, l’impacte i el • desenvolupament de la RSE són els mitjans de comunicació, el paper dels quals és decisiu en tots i cadascun dels aspectes de la RSE... cosa que genera noves preguntes, i també crítiques, sobre les seves pròpies responsabilitats en tot el procés.

Ens trobem, doncs, en una situació en què la RSE, per una banda, ha fet eclosió en la pretensió de proposar una nova mirada sobre l’empresa, coherent amb els processos de canvis econòmics, polítics i socials dels darrers anys, i, per una altra, ha esclatat en una agenda de temes i qüestions a tractar cada vegada més gran i dispersa. Potser al fi nal, sense negligir tots aquests punts, caldrà retornar a preguntes de caràcter més fonamental per tal de no perdre la visió del bosc de la RSE a causa de la fi xació en els arbres de la seva pròpia proliferació temàtica i, anant més enllà, recuperar la pregunta pel marc de referència ètic on se situa.

Al fi nal, caldrà retornar a l’ètica: la riquesa ètica de les nacions

És veritat que darrerament s’ha produït una autèntica explosió de les qüestions relacionades amb la responsabilitat social de l’empresa: memòries, polítiques de conciliació amb la vida familiar, acció social... La llista creix de dia en dia. És per això que correm el risc de dispersar-nos en la diversitat dels temes de l’agenda. I l’obsessió per fer alguna cosa per tal d’estar al dia ens pot fer oblidar que el desenvolupament de la RSE no es pot plantejar seriosament si no es vincula de manera simultània a una visió de l’empresa i a una visió del país. No neguem la necessitat de moltes iniciatives concretes. Però considerem que l’única manera de no reduir la RSE a una moda o un nou producte de consultoria és no oblidar que representa una gran oportunitat per reelaborar un projecte d’empresa i de país.

El debat sobre la RSE posa en relleu que en un món globalitzat no tan sols competeixen els productes i serveis, sinó també els models d’organització i de gestió (cosa que sovint s’oblida). I també competeixen models de país. Per això és cada vegada més necessari que cada empresa i cada país confi gurin la seva aproximació a la RSE. Aproximació que ningú no fa en el buit o partint de zero, sinó reelaborant l’agenda de la RSE des de la pròpia tradició empresarial, social i cultural.


No hi pot haver empreses amb èxit en països fracassats, i viceversa. Per això M. Porter parla de l’avantatge competitiu de les nacions. Perquè el desenvolupament econòmic està vinculat al teixit de relacions socials i culturals en què es produeix l’activitat empresarial, i en el qual aquestes relacions es reforcen mútuament. No hi ha una empresa realment viable que no estigui vinculada en algun grau al territori en què s’insereix. El que resulta una novetat avui dia, amb el predomini creixent de les xarxes, és que aquesta implicació mútua en el territori i amb el territori s’ha de construir deliberadament, perquè ja no ve donada per la inèrcia d’una societat més o menys estable i confortablement establerta.

El nou canvi d’accent que vivim ara és el de plantejar la relació entre l’avantatge competitiu de les nacions i la riquesa ètica de les nacions. Consisteix sobretot en la qualitat amb què actuen els professionals, en la coherència i la consistència del marc institucional, en els valors de referència que confi guren les relacions socials i la vida de les organitzacions. Per això, impulsar i fomentar el desenvolupament de la RSE en el marc d’una nació és una de les pedres de toc que permet l’articulació de l’avantatge competitiu i de la riquesa ètica. Perquè ajuda a vertebrar explícitament una visió de l’empresa i una visió del país en el context d’un món globalitzat. La RSE contribueix a confi gurar un país com un espai en el qual economia i societat no es visquin esquizofrènicament i en el qual el lideratge es vinculi amb el compromís cívic i nacional.

Això no ens ha de fer oblidar que parlar de RSE és parlar d’empreses, i d’excel·lència empresarial. Consegüentment, la RSE s’ha de gestionar i ha de ser gestionable. La clau, doncs, consisteix en com s’integra transversalment en els processos empresarials. Això signifi ca que no es pot plantejar com una font de nous problemes i tensions per a les pimes, ni com una estratègia de legitimació ideològica per a les grans empreses. La diversitat d’aspectes que cobreix la RSE s’han d’integrar en processos de millora i innovació empresarial. Des d’una visió de futur, la RSE s’ha de plantejar com una cosa lligada a la viabilitat i la supervivència de les empreses. Per això té tant de sentit que l’Acord Estratègic que es va signar a Catalunya parli d’impulsar una competitivitat responsable i sostenible.

Per a això necessitem lideratge, compromís i convicció, especialment en l’àmbit empresarial però també en el polític i social. Necessitem crear un espai públic en què sigui possible compartir, disseminar i reconèixer experiències signifi catives. Necessitem enfortir una cultura empresarial oberta al diàleg i al partenariat. Necessitem que l’agenda de la RSE es concreti en clau estrictament empresarial.

Però la societat del coneixement, organitzada en xarxes, ens obliga a replantejar la vinculació entre l’avantatge competitiu de les nacions i la riquesa ètica d’aquestes. La pregunta per la riquesa ètica de les nacions es planteja quan descobrim que són els valors els que fan possibles les pràctiques i les accions socials, siguin aquestes econòmiques, professionals, associatives o polítiques. Una nació és també un espai moral, en el qual han de ser possibles sobreviure, conviure i viure amb sentit (o, al contrari, pot ser també un espai immoral en què regni la corrupció, la injustícia i la incivilitat). La responsabilitat de la seva riquesa ètica correspon a tots els actors socials, i depèn de les pràctiques quotidianes. Por això el desenvolupament de la riquesa ètica de les nacions és la clau per explicar si ens trobem —o no— davant una societat desmoralitzada, en el doble sentit de l’expressió.

Per tant, la RSE ens porta a plantejar-nos si el nostre país és capaç de construir-se com un espai econòmic i social, perquè la RSE tracta també de com prenen posició i es diferencien les empreses i els països en un món interdependent. Potser el repte consisteix en què, en un món globalitzat, el made in Catalonia s’associï no tan sols a la qualitat dels nostres productes i serveis, sinó també a la responsabilitat, credibilitat i sostenibilitat de les nostres empreses.


99

Bibliografi a

AUSTIN, James E. (2000). The Collaboration Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. [El desafío de la colaboración. Buenos Aires: Granica, 2003]

BARBER, Benjamin R. (1998). A Place for Us. Nova York: Hill and Wang. [Un lugar para todos. Barcelona: Paidós]

BURKE, E. M. (1999). Corporate CommunIty Relations. The Principle ofthe Neighbor of Choice. Londres: Quorum Books.

CARROLL, Archie B. (1979). “A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance”. Academy of Management Review, vol. 4(4), p. 497-505.

CARROLL, Archie B. (1991). “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders”. Business Horizons, (juliol-agost), p. 39-48.

CARROLL, Archie B. (1999). “Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of a Defi nitional Construct”. Business & Society, vol. 38(3), p. 268-295.

CARROLL, Archie B.; BUCHHOLTZ, Ann K. (2003). Business & Society. Ethics and Stakeholder Management. Mason: South-Western.

CARROLL, Archie B.; NÄSI, J. (1997). “Understanding Stakeholder Thinking: Themes from a Finnish Conference”. Business Ethics – A European Review, vol. 6(1), p. 46-51. [DONALDSON, T.; PRESTON, L. E. The Corporation and its Stakeholders. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998, p. 71-80]

CLARKSON, M. B. (1995). “A stakeholder framework for analizing and evaluating corporate social performance”. Academy of Management Review, vol. 20 (1), p. 92-117.

COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2001). Libro Verde. Fomentar un marco europeo para la responsabilidad social de las empresas. Barcelona: ESADE.

CRAGG, Wesley (2002). “Business Ethics and Stakeholder Theory”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12 (2), p. 113-142.

DALTON, D. R.; DAILY, C. M. (1991). “The constituents of corporate responsibility: separate, but no not separable, interests?”. Business Horizons, (juliol-agost), p. 74-78.

DONALDSON, T. (2001). “The Ethical Wealth of Nations”. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, p. 25-36.

DONALDSON, Thomas; DUNFEE, Thomas (1999). Ties That Bind. Boston: Harvard Business Review.

ELKINGTON, John (1997). Cannibals with Forks. The triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Gabriola: New Society Publishers.

FISHER, J. (2004). “Social Responsibility and Ethics: Clarifying the Concepts”. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, p. 391-400.

FREEMAN, R. E.; REED, D. (1983). “Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance”. California Management Review, vol. 25(3), p. 88-106.

GARRIGA, Elisabet; MELÉ, Domènec (2004). “Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory”. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, p. 51-71.


GIDDENS, A. (1999). Runaway World. Londres: Profi le Books. [Un mundo desbocado. Los efectos de la globalización en nuestras vidas. Madrid: Taurus, 2000]

HANDY, Charles (2002). “What’s Business For?”. Harvard Business Review, (desembre), p. 49-55.

LOZANO, Josep M. (1999). Ética y empresa. Madrid: Trotta.

LOZANO, Josep M. (2002). La empresa ciudadana. Un reto de innovación. Barcelona: ESADE.

LOZANO, Josep M. (2004). “What Is a Successful Company? A Path to Understanding Accountability”. A: BRENKERT, George. Corporate Integrity & Accountability, Londres: Sage, p. 100-114.

LOZANO, Josep M.; ALBAREDA, Laura; YSA, Tamyko; ROSCHER, Heike; MARCUCCIO, Manila (2005). Los gobiernos y la responsabilidad social de las empresas. Barcelona: Granica.

MARREWIJK, Marcel van (2003). “Concepts and Defi nitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion”. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, p. 95-105.

MIRALLES, Josep (2004). “Ética empresarial y globalización”. Brotéria, 159 (5), p. 419-440.

MITCHELL, R. K.; AGLE, B. R.; WOOD, D. (1997). “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identifi cation and Sleince: Defi ning the Principle of Who and What Really Counts”. Academy of Management Review, vol. 22(4), p. 853-886. [DONALDSON, T.; PRESTON, L. E.: The Corporation and its Stakeholders. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998, p. 275-313]

ORTS, Eric W.; STRUDLER, Alan (2002). “The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12 (2), p. 215-234.

PORTER, Michael P. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Nova York: Free Press.

POST, James E.; PRESTON, Lee E.; SACHS, Sybille (2002). Redefi ning the Corporation. Standford: Standford University Press.

SMITH, N. C. (2003). “Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?”. California Management Review, 45(4), p. 52-76.

WHEELER, D.; SILLANPÄÄ, M. (1997). The Stakeholder Corporation. Londres: Pitman.

WHETTEN, D.; RANDS, G.; GODFREY, P. (2001). “What are the responsibilities of business to society?”. A: PETTEGREW et al. Handbook of strategy and management. Londres: Sage, p. 373-408.


101

ARTÍCULOS

MURILLO, D

“LA RSE EN LAS PYMES”

Documentación Social (2007), núm. 146.


103

RESUMEN

La empresa entendida como ente relacional ha quedado tradicionalmente apartada de los circui-

tos académicos. Con todo, el discurso de la RSE permite explicar la actuación de las pymes en

función del conjunto de redes sociales sobre las cuales se apoya; y la noción de capital social,

comprender la razón detrás de actuaciones que desbordan la actividad estrictamente mercantil

de la empresa.

Encontramos aquí elementos endógenos como los valores del empresario, la mejora del clima la-

boral o la innovación; pero también exógenos como la presión ejercida por el mercado y los or-

ganismos públicos. Al margen de presiones externas, se muestra como la RSE es connatural a

organizaciones que, a través del fortalecimiento de sus relaciones sociales, van a ver mejorar su

posición competitiva en el mercado. Grandes empresas y administraciones públicas van a ter-

minar por definir un modelo de RSE y por delimitar el formato y la intensidad de esta RSE en

las pymes.

Palabras clave:

Responsabilidad social de la empresa; pymes; capital social; competitividad.

6

David Murillo Bonvehí

Profesor investigador del Instituto de Innovación Social de ESADE. Licenciado en Administración y Dirección de Empresas (UB, 1996), en Humanidades (UOC, 2003) y diplomado en Sociología (UB, 2005). Actual coordinador del Área de Investigación en RSE y pyme.

Sumario

1. Una aproximación sociológica a la RSE. 2. Sentido de la RSE para las pymes.3. Las pymes ante el discurso de la RSE. Las dinámicas públicas y el mercado.

4. Evolución de la RSE en las pymes y pautas de futuro. 5. Referencias.

La RSE en las pymes


Mon

ografía

David Murillo Bonvehí6

ABSTRACT

The company, understood as a relational institution, has traditionally been sidelined from aca-

demic circuits. Nevertheless, the discourse of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) enables us

to explain the actions of SMEs in accordance with the set of social networks which support

them; and the notion of share capital helps us to understand the reasons for actions which ex-

ceed the scope of the company’s strictly mercantile activity.

Here we find endogenous elements such as the values of the entrepreneur, improvement of the

working environment or innovation; but also exogenous factors such as pressure from the mar-

ket and from public bodies. Aside from external pressures, CSR is shown to be co-natural to

organisations which, through the strengthening of their social relations, will improve their

competitive position in the market. Large corporations and public administrations will end up

by defining a model of CSR and delimiting the format and intensity of CSR at SMEs.

Key words:

Corporate social responsibility, SMEs, share capital, competitiveness.


105

1 UNA APROXIMACIÓN SOCIOLÓGICA A LA RSE

Existen múltiples definiciones que tratan de acotar los márgenes difusos dela responsabilidad social de la empresa (RSE). Es este un concepto que, contrala voluntad de académicos y empresarios por igual, se querría positivo peroque en esencia no deja de ser de índole normativa. En nuestro ámbito geográ-fico más inmediato, la definición dada por la Comisión Europea es la que talvez ha tenido un mayor éxito. Se entiende por RSE «la integración voluntaria,por parte de las empresas, de las preocupaciones sociales y medioambientalesen sus operaciones comerciales y sus relaciones con sus interlocutores» (EC,2001). Un debate alrededor del concepto que, en la inacabable lucha por la aco-tación del término, vemos también desplegarse hacia la utilización del másempresarial e inteligible «competitividad responsable y sostenible» o directa-mente al de «sostenibilidad» (Zadek et al., 2005).

Una de las causas fundamentales para explicar el reciente auge de la RSEen el mundo académico y particularmente en el vinculado al mundo empresa-rial, cabe buscarla en la incapacidad perenne y manifiesta que éste ha tenidopara explicar las interrelaciones entre la empresa y su entorno social (Steiner1999, p. 4). Gran parte de esta deuda cabría imputarla a unas pautas de pen-samiento, aprendidas y repetidas en facultades de economía y escuelas de ne-gocio, según las cuales la antropología del empresario, y del individuo en ge-neral, respondería aún al modelo de homo oeconomicus neoclásico, y la empre-sa al ente maximizador de rentas heredado desde Samuelson.

Lógicamente, con un aparato conceptual tan limitado, tan desligado deuna realidad mucho más compleja, ha sido inevitable que en el momento enque la sociedad, los gobiernos e incluso los mercados han empezado a de-mandar una visión mucho más plural de las organizaciones, la teoría econó-mica tradicional haya sido desplazada por lecturas mucho más sociológicas delo que representa este entramado de relaciones entre individuos, organizacio-nes y gobiernos que forma lo que conocemos por economía (para una aproxi-mación Biggart & Beamish, 2003).

En este sentido, la teoría neoclásica ha obviado la existencia de conflictosde interés dentro de la empresa (Swedberg 2003, p. 75), ha marginado lecturas

La RSE en las pymes

Mon

ografía

6


de la organización como coalición de intereses diferentes (véase la stakeholdertheory de Freeman, 1984) o bien ha minorizado aproximaciones como las quenos hablan de un contrato social o de la legitimidad de la empresa para des-arrollar su actividad (Donaldson, 1982). La institucionalición de la RSE en elámbito de las organizaciones (Ackerman, 1973; Jones, 1980) o aquellas inter-pretaciones de la empresa, particularmente transnacional, como agentes políti-co o incluso como ciudadana (Davis, 1960) también han sido tradicionalmentebandeadas de los círculos académicos ortodoxos.

Para la economía organizacional tradicional, siguiendo la interpretación deSwedberg (op. cit.), las relaciones sociales de los individuos son sólo una con-secuencia de este individualismo metodológico que parte de la actuación ra-cional de los individuos. Es natural pues que cuando los medios de comuni-cación, los movimientos sociales, las iniciativas legislativas e incluso los índi-ces bursarios nos hablen de RSE haya que mirar un poco más allá de la teoríaeconómica omnipresente para entender porqué esto es así.

Según la embeddedness theory (Granovetter, 1985), las acciones económicasestán integradas en estructuras de relaciones sociales. El orden en el mercado,pues, reside en un conglomerado de relaciones personales y entre empresas.Relaciones que, bajo la forma de redes interpersonales generan confianza ydesalientan la actuación fraudulenta de las partes. Así pues, tenemos ya confi-gurada una aproximación sociológica mediante la cual determinadas actuacio-nes de la empresa, actuaciones que superan su actividad estrictamente econó-mica en el sentido neoclásico, cobran sentido como fortalecimiento de sus re-des relacionales. Éste sería el marco idóneo para comprender porqué lasempresas, y como veremos particularmente las pequeñas y medianas empre-sas (pymes)(1), desarrollan actuaciones llamadas de responsabilidad social. Elsentido último es éste: la mejora de sus relaciones sociales, la acumulación decapital social.

Mon

ografía


(1) Para el presente estudio se ha seguido la clasificación establecida por la Recomendación de la CE de 6 mayo del 2003 (DOC

C(2003) 1442) que define pyme como aquella empresa de menos de 250 trabajadores, menos de 50 m € de facturación, un activo in-

ferior a los 43 M € y, para evitar contemplar filiales de grandes corporaciones, como es habitual, se ha complementado con el requeri-

miento de tener un capital participado por parte de empresas que no cumplan los anteriores requisitos inferior al 25%.


107

Figura 1. UNA APROXIMACIÓN SOCIOLÓGICA A LA RSE COMO CAPITAL SOCIAL

Para el caso que nos ocupa, encontramos diferentes aproximaciones a lanoción de capital social que nos son de utilidad. Así, Putnam (2000) define elcapital social como el valor colectivo de todas las redes sociales y de las incli-naciones que de ellas surgen para hacer cosas los unos por los otros. Habla dedos componentes del capital social (CS): el bonding CS como el valor asignadoa las redes sociales entre grupos de gente homogénea; y el bridging CS, equi-valente entre grupos de carácter heterogéneo. Como la evidencia nos demues-tra cabe encontrar los dos tipos de capitalización en las pymes.

Según Bordieu (1983) definimos CS individual como el conjunto de carac-terísticas personales que permiten al individup conseguir beneficios no sólo demercado en sus relaciones sociales. Para Coleman (1988) son los aspectos de laestructura social que facilitan algunas acciones de los agentes dentro de la es-tructura. Para el Banco Mundial (1999), por último, el CS hace referencia a lasinstituciones, relaciones y normas que dan forma a la calidad y cantidad de lasinteracciones sociales en una sociedad.

2 SENTIDO DE LA RSE PARA LAS PYMES

Si bien, hasta este punto, nos hemos referido a las empresas desde un pun-to de vista genérico, también es cierto que la creciente literatura específica so-bre RSE tiende en los últimos años a distinguir claramente entre empresas en

La RSE en las pymes

Mon

ografía

6

Contrato social/legitimidad de la Empresa

Conflicto interés/stakeholder theory

EMBEDDEDNESSTHEORY

CAPITAL

SOCIAL

CiudadaníaCorporativa

Institucionalizaciónde la RSE


función del sector en que operan, el marco cultural que las envuelve y, tam-bién de una manera cada vez más evidente, en función de su dimensión y es-tructura (Moore & Spence, 2006 para una agenda de los retos). En definitiva,como resulta obvio recordar, la RSE no va a ser abordada por todas las empre-sas de la misma manera.

La RSE desde sus orígenes surge como un elemento de debate que parte delas organizaciones sociales. Una ola que toma cuerpo en los años noventa, enpleno debate sobre el fin de la historia y las alternativas económicas a nuestrosistema económico y que eclosiona finalmente en los dos mil a partir del esta-llido de la burbuja tecnológica(2). La RSE nace pues como un planteamiento de-fensivo, principalmente de los movimientos sociales hacia las grandes corpo-raciones, y que se plantea en forma de interrogante o incluso de cuestiona-miento hacia sus prácticas sociales y medioambientales(3).

Con todo, para el caso de las pymes, en principio alejadas del ojo públicoal que están sometidas las empresas más grandes, parecería que no es la pre-sión mediática la que actúa de manera decisiva para empujarles hacia la RSE.En cualquier caso, encontramos entre las Pymes actuaciones que desbordanuna vez más la tradicional comprensión de la empresa como maximizadora derentas. Las Pymes llevan de manera natural, y en algunos casos desde hacemuchos años, actuaciones que cabe situar dentro del universo conceptual de laRSE (EC, 2001).

Comparando estudios realizados en Gran Bretaña, Italia y en nuestro pro-pio país (Jenkins, 2006, p. 248; Perrini, 2006, p. 311; Murillo & Lozano, 2006b, pp. 232-233) encontramos actuaciones que superan el simple cumplimiento dela ley en forma de iniciativas de formación continua, seguridad laboral, invo-lucración en proyectos para la comunidad, promoción de iniciativas cultura-les, control de impacto medioambiental, iniciativas para la inserción de ciuda-danos con minusvalías físicas o psíquicas, o de comercio justo entre otras. Paralo que aquí nos interesa, es interesante mostrar que la casuística y el grado deaplicación de éstas en el tejido empresarial, allí donde se ha medido (véase Pe-rrini, op. cit.), desborda la visión estrecha y puramente economicista de laspymes como simples entes para la maximización de beneficios económicos.

Diversos autores han tratado de explicarnos la razón detrás de este tipo deactuaciones, hoy en día identificadas dentro de la RSE. Las pequeñas empre-

Mon

ografía


(2) En nuestro país, cronológicamente, sería relevante destacar desde ésta época el Código Aldama de buen gobierno, la constitución

de la Subcomisión de Expertos en RSE del Congreso de Diputados, la reciente publicación del libro de recomendaciones sobre RSE por

parte de la citada comisión o la Ley del Fondo de Reserva de Seguridad Social, por citar los ejemplos más notables.

(3) Recordar los escándalos de Nike y la mano de obra infantil en el sudeste asiático; Union Carbide y el desastre de Bophal; Enron y

el fraude contable, el creciente auge de las zonas francas y del dumping social bajo el influjo globalizador... El etcétera sería bien

largo.


109

sas, según Spence (1999) son organizaciones con poca distinción entre los rolesde la gerencia y la propiedad; con cargos en la organización multitarea y pre-minentemente orientados a la solución de los problemas derivados del día adía. Empresas donde pesan especialmente las relaciones y comunicación detipo informal y donde las relaciones interpersonales son muy importantes(también Spence & Lozano, F., 2000). Son empresas con una elevada interrela-ción con su entorno o comunidad —en la cual a menudo actúan como bene-factores o activistas locales— y mayoritariamente sometidas a dinámicas demercado determinadas por grandes empresas, de las cuales en muchos casosson proveedoras (también Enderle, 2004).

En la pyme otro factor igualmente clave en el momento de comprender elporqué detrás de una determinada práctica de RSE es el que representan losvalores del propietario-director de la empresa (Spence & Rutherfoord, 2003 ySpence, Schmidpeter, Habish, 2003 ); factor que resulta determinante para elcaso de las empresas de menor dimensión (Trevino, 1986; Quinn, 1997). Spen-ce, Schmidpeter y Habish (op. cit.) señalan como es la particular dependenciadel entramado de relaciones interpersonales las que acercan las pymes a la no-ción de acumulación de capital social —ver también desde la socioeconomíaGranovetter (2000)—. El cultivo de las relaciones de proximidad con trabaja-dores y entorno social permite, según estos autores, estabilizar las expectativasen las relaciones sociales, asegurar la acción colectiva vía incremento de laconfianza, formar un tipo de relaciones de «seguridad» o mutua asistencia conproveedores e incluso empresas competidoras, y facilitar, por último, informa-ción empresarial relevante para la pyme.

Para Enderle (op. cit.) es precisamente esta lucha cotidiana por la supervi-vencia en el mercado la que determina la necesidad de la Pyme de fortalecersu red de interdependencias y colaboraciones en red. Para Vyakarnam et al.(1997), las consecuencias de esta implicación social de la pyme se traduciránen reputación, imagen de profesionalidad, incrementos en el factor confianzay lealtad. Elementos todos ellos que permiten garantizar la retención de lostrabajadores, la mejora en las relaciones con las entidades financieras y, en de-finitiva, la sostenibilidad de la empresa en el tiempo.

En este mismo sentido, el estudio de Spence (2000) y Spence & Lozano, F.(2000), pone de relieve que la motivación clave para las prácticas de responsa-bilidad social del pequeño empresario es la preocupación por la salud y elbienestar de sus trabajadores. En el estudio de Spence realizado para GranBretaña nos muestra como la ley y la posible presión por parte de los clientesserían otros elementos que empujarían la pyme a adaptar criterios sociales.Desarrollaremos estos condicionantes en el apartado siguiente.

La RSE en las pymes

Mon

ografía

6


3 LAS PYMES ANTE EL DISCURSO DE LA RSE. LAS DINÁMICAS PÚBLICAS Y EL MERCADO

Por lo hasta aquí expuesto, la RSE puede mostrarse como una actuación di-ríamos intrínseca a la actividad habitual de las empresas. Tampoco cabe nin-guna duda de que el análisis de la actuación social y medioambiental de laspymes es un factor relevante a la hora de medir el peso de las implicacionessociales y normativas en el conjunto de la actividad económica. Así, podemosver como las pymes representan en el conjunto de la Unión Europea (UE-25) el99,8% de las empresas censadas, dan empleo al 67,1% de los trabajadores, ge-neran el 58,1% de los ingresos empresariales y crean el 57,3% del valor añadi-do (EC, 2006). Son pues, de largo, el pilar fundamental de la economía de laUnión tanto por número de empresas como por su importancia productiva re-lativa. Convencidos pues de la necesidad de valorar e incorporar las pymes enel discurso global de la RSE, conviene detenernos igualmente en los elementosque, tanto desde fuera como desde dentro de la empresa, presionan a la pymehacia las incorporación de este tipo de prácticas en su actividad económica or-dinaria.

Diversos estudios, también desde la sociología, permiten acreditar un cam-bio de valores en la ciudadanía, y por ende en el trabajador, y sus efectos so-bre las dinámicas empresariales. Por un lado encontramos el nuevo papel delos consumidores, no sólo preocupados por la calidad de los productos queconsumen y por el impacto medioambiental de la actividad económica comoocurrió en la década de los sesenta y setenta. Consumidores que de maneracreciente esperan unos estándares mínimos de calidad, también ética, en lagestión y producción de bienes y servicios y que demandan unos estándaresde conducta empresarial hasta ahora ocultos a la mirada pública.

Para el caso de las pymes, resulta igualmente relevante el papel de lasgrandes corporaciones. Empresas que, presionadas por dinámicas de mercadoque tienden a incorporar entre sus estándares de calidad elementos de RSE, seven empujadas a trasladar de manera creciente la necesidad de contar con unmínimo de información social y medioambiental de sus empresas proveedo-ras. Se trata pues, en el ámbito de la gestión de la gran empresa, de incremen-tar los controles y la trazabilidad de los productos por ellas producidos a partirde solicitar una mayor información, también en el ámbito de la RSE, a todaslas empresas que participan de su cadena de producción.

Actualmente existe ya un importante listado de certificaciones y herra-mientas de diverso tipo que permiten empezar a acreditar y en algunos casosgestionar la RSE de las pymes. De la misma manera que la llegada de certifi-

Mon

ografía



111

caciones de calidad o medioambientales contribuyó a la difusión de éstos con-ceptos en las dinámicas propias del mercado, algo parecido esta ocurriendocon la RSE. Con toda probabilidad, la creciente llegada de estándares que acre-diten la aplicación de este tipo de prácticas potenciará su aplicación y exten-sión(4). Fijémonos bien que esto nada indica de la calidad de este tipo de prác-ticas ni, incluso, de la veracidad de las mismas. Con todo, parece incuestiona-ble que la atención dada al tema por las grandes certificadoras internacionalesva a atener consecuencias en su aplicación.

Por otro lado, aunque el papel de los medios de comunicación a la hora deconvertir la RSE en un tema caliente de gestión empresarial, como hemos dichohasta aquí, no atañe por igual a grandes y pequeñas empresas, también es cier-to que las pymes no son ajenas a este proceso de popularización del término.La RSE es un concepto que, difundido de manera creciente, ha empezado ya aplantearse no sólo a grandes empresas transnacionales sino que cada vez másabarca al ámbito de la gestión pública, el de las organizaciones no lucrativas,y obviamente también a las pymes.

En este sentido, el papel difusor de la RSE por parte de las administracio-nes públicas está jugando un rol muy importante en la difusión del concepto.La RSE, puede afirmarse con claridad, ha entrado ya a formar parte de lasagendas políticas de los gobiernos (Lozano et al., 2005 para el caso de la UniónEuropea) y de manera creciente su discurso está llegando al segmento depymes (para una muestra significativa EC, 2007). En el ámbito de la UE, losAcuerdos de Lisboa del Consejo Europeo del año 2000, pasando por la publi-cación del Libro Verde (EC, 2001) y las diferentes comunicaciones que abordanla RSE, demuestran que actualmente también la RSE es uno de los ámbitos detrabajo de los órganos comunitarios.

Aunque desde una fecha más reciente, también desde la administraciónpública, en el Estado español, se han llevado a cabo iniciativas y actuacionesconcretas que tratan de crear un marco propicio al desarrollo de la RSE. Cabeaquí destacar el informe de la Subcomisión del Congreso de los diputados so-bre la RSE, la constitución de la Comisión de Expertos en RSE o la puesta enmarcha de la mesa de Diálogo de RSE en el marco de los procesos de diálogosocial auspiciados por el Ministerio de Trabajo.

Por último, sirva como ejemplo a nivel de comunidad autónoma el caso deCatalunya, con la inclusión de la promoción de la RSE entre las funciones dela Generalitat en el nuevo Estatuto de Autonomía del 2006 (véase art. 45(5)) o la

La RSE en las pymes

Mon

ografía

6

(4) Es el caso de la futura norma ISO 26.000 de RSE, anunciada para el año 2009, y que aparecerá al lado de la ya vigente familia

de normas de calidad (ISO 9.000) o medioambiente (ISO 14.000).

(5) http://www.gencat.net/generalitat/cas/estatut/titol_1.htm


inclusión de éste concepto entre los elementos a potenciar en el marco de losacuerdos de competitividad alcanzados en el año 2005 entre la administración,patronales y sindicatos (medida 75 del Acuerdo Estratégico). Una medida queinsta a las partes a promover un modelo de competitividad responsable y sos-tenible.

Figura 2. PRESIONES AL FORTALECIMIENTO DE LAS REDES SOCIALES DE LA EMPRESA

Internas Externas

— Valores del empresario — Medios comunicación

— Clima laboral y retención de trabajadores — Grandes empresas

— Oportunidades de mejora productiva — Administración pública

— Innovación y mejora en la gestión — Consumidores

Si nos centramos en los elementos intrínsecos que desde la empresa im-pulsan la RSE, tal y cómo la abundante literatura existente pone de manifies-to, aparecen factores que mueven a la pyme en este sentido. La mejora del cli-ma laboral, las oportunidades de mejora productiva, la retención y motivaciónde los empleados y, entre otros, elementos de innovación o diferenciación res-pecto a la competencia, sobresalen como elementos que acercan la pyme haciael ejercicio de su RSE. Factores que, junto a los valores éticos del nivel geren-cial, se manifiestan como elementos centrales para hablar de la existencia deun business case, de una razón estrictamente empresarial para avanzar en la RSE(Forética, 2006, p.16), particularmente en el caso de las pymes (recientementeJenkins, 2006; Murillo y Lozano, 2006a y 2006b y Murillo & Dinarès, 2007). Ele-mentos que, todos ellos, vendrían a formar una «lluvia fina» que permiten quehablemos con propiedad de un giro de la RSE hacia las empresas de dimen-sión más reducida.

4 EVOLUCIÓN DE LA RSE EN LAS PYMES Y PAUTAS DE FUTURO

Trazar una previsión de la evolución futura de la RSE en el conjunto de laspymes implica desgranar los elementos arriba visitados. Con todo, podríamosdefinir la ejecución de este tipo de actuaciones como el intento, por parte deestas empresas, de aunar prácticas con pleno sentido económico o incluso eco-nomicista con otras que cabría enmarcar dentro de lo moral o normativo. LaRSE, tal y como se ha presentado hasta aquí, es también una manera de inte-

Mon

ografía



113

grar actuaciones encaminadas a mejorar la posición competitiva de la empre-sa en el mercado.

Desde esta aproximación, la RSE no es otra cosa que la integración dentrodel funcionamiento de la empresa de su dimensión relacional o social. Preten-der disociar, como la teoría económica dominante ha venido haciendo hastaahora, el ámbito social y relacional de la empresa con su vertiente estricta-mente productiva y de prestación de bienes y servicios, implica reducir nues-tra capacidad de comprensión de que es la empresa y, sobretodo, porqué éstaactúa como actúa. La RSE, tanto como modelo teórico como incluso como dis-ciplina, permite pues reunir lo que en la vida real nunca estuvo separado y,fundamentalmente, ponerle un nombre. Esa es la principal aportación de laRSE al debate económico.

Como podemos observar en diversos estudios, los principales responsablesde pymes, de una manera muy mayoritaria responden afirmativamente a lapregunta de si llevan acabo actuaciones de RSE (Observatory of EuropeanSMEs, 2002). Bajo un concepto de márgenes difusos, como no podía ser de otromodo, se muestra que la actuaciones sociales y medioambientales de laspymes no son nada ajeno a lo que las empresas ya hacen o pueden llevar acabo (Murillo & Lozano, 2006b). La gran diferencia con las grandes empresases su motivación proactiva, su vinculación a prácticas de competitividad o deinnovación que, en el común de los casos, no hacen otra cosa que mejorar suposicionamiento en el mercado.

Una vez más, a diferencia de las grandes corporaciones, sometidas de ma-nera permanente a la auscultación social y medioambiental por parte de orga-nismos reguladores, medios de comunicación, movimientos ciudadanos yagentes sociales, el acercamiento de la RSE y su tipo de aplicación en laspymes no depende de manera principal a factores externos a la misma. Entrelas motivaciones que se han señalado, una vez más, diferentes estudios citancomo el factor decisivo para su implementación el perfil ético del empresario(véase Fundación Etnor, 2000, aplicado al País Valenciano).

Este hecho responde a una lógica que aquí bien podríamos hablar como deexclusivamente organizacional. A diferencia de las grandes corporaciones so-metidas a órganos de gobierno compartido y con un peso muy importante dela representación accionarial en la gestión, es en las pymes donde el empresa-rio tiene una mayor libertad de actuación pues acostumbra a concentrar la ma-yoría de la propiedad de la empresa.

En qué medida esta involucración social y medioambiental se acentuará ono, y cual será el grado de aplicación real en la pyme, dependerá del resulta-

La RSE en las pymes

Mon

ografía

6


do de diferentes tipos de fuerzas que operan conjuntamente sobre la empresa.Por un lado, debemos seguir considerando como principal la actuación y con-cienciación del empresario como ciudadano e individuo cargado de un equi-pamiento moral propio. En la medida en que el presente discurso de la RSEpase a ser un concepto socialmente validado, que supere la imagen de ser unaherramienta de marketing de las grandes empresas y sea reconocido por elconjunto de agentes económicos, podremos decir que quedará definitivamen-te legitimado no sólo ante los trabajadores sino también ante los pequeños ymedianos empresarios. En este sentido, temas como el de la flexibilidad labo-ral, la conciliación de la vida laboral-familiar y los cambios en los modelos devaloración y satisfacción de los trabajadores hacia sus puestos de trabajo, per-miten avanzar que una gran parte del recorrido hacia la RSE, si más no en suvertiente interna, ya se está llevando a cabo.

Será necesario igualmente analizar el desarrollo de herramientas de ges-tión de RSE pensadas especialmente para pymes para estudiar su nivel de usoen el futuro. Como diversos estudios señalan (EC, 2007; Murillo & Lozano,2007, unpublished) sin herramientas de gestión que permitan la medición, elcontraste y la validación empresarial de determinadas prácticas, la RSE que-dará siempre en el reino de lo intangible y etéreo, una queja que sobresale aúnentre empresarios de pyme (Murillo et al., 2006). Como sabemos, la escasa de-partamentalización de las pymes y la orientación multitarea de los puestos detrabajo (Spence, 1999, op cit.) nos avanzan que nunca el uso de instrumentosde gestión sofisticados va a alcanzar el nivel de las empresas más grandes, contodo, la existencia de estas herramientas es un prerrequisito para su utilizaciónefectiva.

Por último, la acumulación de capital social entendida tal y como hemosdefendido aquí como aproximación al concepto de RSE en las pymes, no va adejar de llevarse a cabo con independencia del éxito o fracaso comercial deltérmino (este es el análisis que también hace Pollit, 2002, p. 126). Aunque escierto que la popularización del concepto, su legitimidad social y su crecienteuso no sólo en el ámbito académico sino estrictamente económico, van ha ju-gar un papel importante en la toma de conciencia que tenga la propia empre-sa como ente social y relacional. Para algunas empresas, la gran mayoría deellas pequeñas o microempresas(6), la RSE continuará siendo un concepto aleja-do. Para otras, particularmente para aquellas en vías de crecimiento hacia unamayor dimensión, las dinámicas estrictamente mercantiles van a llevarlas a in-tegrar unos elementos directamente relacionados con la retención de trabaja-dores, la innovación, la mejora de las relaciones con clientes o comunidad, o laimagen de marca.

Mon

ografía


(6) Una vez más siguiendo la clasificación dada por la Comisión Europea.


115

Dicho de otro modo, las pymes no dejarán de relacionarse con su entor-no, de fortalecer sus redes sociales y mejorar en la creación de marcos deconfianza indispensables para la existencia misma del mercado. Lo que sípuede hacer la RSE es ponerle un nombre a todo ello, aumentar el grado deconcienciación de la importancia intrínseca de estos elementos para la em-presa y, por encima de todo, validar y popularizar todo un ámbito de ac-tuaciones hasta el momento minorizado por el corpus teórico principal dela disciplina. En este sentido, será el grueso de las pymes, precisamente de-bido a su menor dimensión y mayor flexibilidad, las que mayor partidopuedan sacarle a este concepto, también desde una lógica estrictamenteempresarial.

5 REFERENCIAS

ACKERMAN, Robert W. «How Companies Respond to Social Demands». HARVARD

BUSINESS REVIEW, 1973, n.º 51(4), pp. 88-98.

BANCO MUNDIAL. «What is Social Capital?». 1999, PovertyNet. http://www.world-

bank.org/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm

BIGGART, Nicole W. & Thomas BEAMISH. «The economic sociology of conventions:

habit, custom, practice and routine in market order». ANNUAL REVIEW OF SO-

CIOLOGY, 2003, n.º 29, pp. 443-464.

BOURDIEU, Pierre. Forms of capital. En J. C. Richards (ed.) Handbook of Theory and

Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press. 1983.

COLEMAN, James S. «Social capital in the creation of human capital». AMERICAN

JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 1988, n.º 94, pp. S95-S120.

DAVIS, Keith. «Can Business Afford to Ignore Corporate Social Responsibility?» CA-

LIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 1960, n.º 2, pp. 70-76.

DONALDSON, Thomas. Corporations and Morality. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 1982.

ENDERLE, Georges. «Global competition and corporate responsibilities of small and

medium-sized enterprises». BUSINESS ETHICS: A EUROPEAN REVIEW, 2004, n.º

13(1), pp. 51-63.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Promoting a European framework for corporate social respon-

sibility - Green Paper. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities, 2001. COM (2001) 366.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Opportunity and Responsibility. How to help more small bu-

siness to integrate social and environmental issues into what they do. DG Enterprise and

Industry, 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/csr/documents/ree_report.pdf

La RSE en las pymes

Mon

ografía

6


FORÉTICA. Informe Forética 2006. Evolución de la Responsabilidad Social de las Empresas

en España, 2006. http://www.foretica.es/imgs/foretica/informe_foretica2006.pdf

FREEMAN, R. Edward. Strategic Management: A stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman,

1984.

FUNDACIÓN ETNOR. La dimensión ética de la cultura empresarial en la Comunidad Va-

lenciana, 2000, ÉTNOR – Economía 3.

GRANOVETTER, Mark. «Economic Action, Social Structure, and Embeddedness».

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 1985, n.º 91(3), pp. 481-510.

GRANOVETTER, Mark. «The Economic Sociology of Firms and Entrepreneurs». En

Richard Swedberg (ed.), Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2000, pp. 244–275.

JENKINS, Heledd. «Small Business Champions for Corporate Social Responsibility».

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2006, n.º 67(3), pp. 241-256.

JONES, Thomas M. «Corporate Social Responsibility Revisited, Redefined». CALI-

FORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 1980, n.º 22(2), pp. 59-67.

LOZANO, Josep M.; ALBAREDA, Laura; YSA, Tamyko; ROSCHER, Heike, y MAR-

CUCCIO, Manila. Los gobiernos y la responsabilidad social de las empresas. Políticas pú-

blicas más allá de la regulación y la voluntariedad. Barcelona: Granica, 2005.

MOORE, Geoff, y SPENCE, Laura. «Editorial: Responsibility and Small Business».

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2006, n.º 67(3), pp. 219-226.

MURILLO, David, y DINARÈS, Marta. La medición de la RSE en las Pymes. Un estudio de

caso. Artículo presentado en la Conferencia de EBEN-España, IESE, 8 de junio,

2007.

MURILLO, David; ESPANYÓ, Jordi, y LOZANO, Josep M. La Responsabilitat Social de

l’Empresa vista des de les Pimes, 2006. Informe disponible en: http://itemsweb.esa-

de.es/wi/research/iis/RSE_PIMES/Text_Imatges_Cat/LR1_Analisi_Percepcions_

RSE_Pimes_CAT.pdf

MURILLO, David, y LOZANO, Josep M. (eds.). RSE y Pymes: Una apuesta por la exce-

lencia empresarial. Barcelona. ESADE, 2006a.

MURILLO, David, y LOZANO, Josep M. «SMEs and CSR: An approach to CSR accor-

ding to their own words». JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2006b, n.º 67(3), pp.

227–240.

— «Pushing forward SME CSR through a network: An account from the Catalan mo-

del». BUSINESS ETHICS: A EUROPEAN REVIEW, 2007 Pendiente de publicación.

OBSERVATORY OF EUROPEAN SMES. European SMEs and social and environmental

responsibility. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Com-

munities, 2002.

Mon

ografía



117

PERRINI, Francesco. «SMEs and CSR Theory: Evidence and Implications from an Ita-

lian Perspective». JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2006, n.º 67(3), pp. 305-316.

The Economics of Trust, Norms and Networks.

POLLITT, Michael. «The Economics of Trust, Norms and Networks». BUSINESS

ETHICS: A EUROPEAN REVIEW, 2002, n.º 11, pp. 119-128.

PUTNAM, Robert. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New

York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

QUINN, John. «Personal Ethics and Business Ethics: The Ethical Attitudes of Ow-

ner/Managers of Small Business». JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS. 1997, n.º

16(2), pp. 119–127.

SPENCE, Laura. Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics. BUSI-

NESS ETHICS A EUROPEAN REVIEW, 1999, n.º 8(9), pp. 163-172.

— «Towards a Human Centred Organisation: The Case of The Small Firms». Presen-

tación en la 3rd Conference on Ethics in Contemporary Human Resources Manage-

ment, Imperial College, London, 7 Enero 2000.

SPENCE, Laura, y LOZANO, Félix. «Communicating about ethics with small firms:

Experiences from the UK and Spain». JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2000,

n.º 27(1), pp. 43-53.

SPENCE, Laura, y RUTHERFOORD, Robert. «Small Business and Empirical Perspec-

tives in Business Ethics». Editorial. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2003, n.º

47(1), p. 1.

SPENCE, Laura; SCHMIDPETER, René, y HABISCH, André. «Assessing Social Capi-

tal: Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in Germany and the UK». JOURNAL OF

BUSINESS ETHICS, 2003, n.º 47 (1), pp. 17-29.

STEINER, Philippe. La sociologie économique. París: La découverte, 1999.

SWEDBERG, Richard. Principles of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 2003.

TREVINO, Linda K.: «Ethical Decision Making in Organisations». ACADEMY OF MA-

NAGEMENT REVIEW, 1986, n.º 11(3), pp. 601-617.

VYAKARNAM, Shailendra; BAILEY, Andy; MAYERS, Andrew, y BURNETT, Donna.

«Towards an Understanding of Ethical Behaviour in Small Firms». JOURNAL OF

BUSINESS ETHICS, 1997, n.º 16(15), pp. 1625-1636.

ZADEK, Simon; RAYNARD, Peter; OLIVEIRA, Cristiano; NASCIMENTO, Edna, y TE-

LLO, Rafael. Responsible competitiveness. Reshaping Global Markets through responsible

business practices. London. Accountability, 2005.

La RSE en las pymes

Mon

ografía

6

SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Equipo Humano

119

EQUIPO HUMANO

El equipo del Instituto está formado por personas expertas en áreas de la responsabilidad social empresarial, el liderazgo y la gestión de las ONG. Contamos con una amplia red de colaboradores: profesores, investigadores, doctorandos, becarios y profesionales de diferentes sectores de actividad.

Equipo directivo

Ignasi Carreras Director del Instituto y profesor del departamento de Política de Empresa de ESADE. Miembro del Board internacional del Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Ex-director general de Intermón Oxfam.

Daniel Arenas Responsable de Investigación del Instituto y profesor del departamento de Ciencias Sociales de ESADE. Miembro de la junta directiva de la European Academy for Business in Society (EABIS).

Josep Maria Lozano Investigador Senior en RSE y profesor del departamento de Ciencias Sociales de ESADE. Miembro del comité académico internacional del Global Compact, cofundador de Ética, Economía y Dirección; miembro del consejo internacional de Ethical Perspectives y de Society and Business Review, entre otras fundaciones y asociaciones.

Alfred VernisResponsable de Formación del Instituto, representante en la Social Entreprise Knowledge Network (SEKN) y es profesor titular del Departamento de Política de Empresa y del Instituto de Dirección y Gestión Pública de ESADE. Miembro del Patronato de la Fundació Catalana de l’Esplai (Barcelona), del Consejo Social del Grupo Inditex y fundador del programa Alumni Solidario de ESADE Alumni.

Sonia NavarroResponsable de la gestión y divulgación del Instituto. Licenciada en Ingeniería de Comunicaciones y Electrónica por la Universidad de Northumbria (Reino Unido) y MBA (FT 01) y FGONG (07) por ESADE. Fundadora del programa Alumni Solidario de ESADE Alumni.

120 SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Equipo Humano

Laura AlbaredaLicenciada en Filología y en Ciencia Política y de la Administración. Máster en Estudios de Desarrollo. Doctoranda en relaciones internacionales e integración europea. Sus líneas de investigación son la RSE y las políticas públicas, el diálogo multistakeholder, la gobernanza global, la ética empresarial, y la inversión socialmente responsable.

Charo Balaguer Licenciada en Administración y Dirección de Empresas y doctora en Gestión Empresarial por la Universidad Jaume I (Castellón). Profesora de Economía Financiera en la Universidad Jaume I. Su investigación se centra en la contribución de las fi nanzas y las microfi nanzas al desarrollo sostenible.

Investigadores

Itziar CastelloLicenciada en Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales por la Universidad de Valencia y máster en Economía Europea por la Universidad de Nantes (Francia). Además, posee un Máster en Economía Europea por el Colegio de Europa (Bélgica) y ha realizado un Executive MBA en ESADE. Investiga sobre RSE en su relación con la estrategia de las empresas.

Mar Cordobes Licenciada y Máster en Administración y Dirección de Empresas por ESADE. Licenciada en Historia del Arte por la Universidad de Barcelona. Su trabajo se centra en la cooperación y la gestión cultural. Ha creado VIA, asociación para impulsar el turismo sostenible.

Marta DinaresLicenciada en Administración de Empresas. Consultora independiente y colabora con el Instituto de Innovación Social en investigaciones sobre RSE.

Maria Iglesias Licenciada y máster en Dirección y Administración de Empresas por ESADE y máster CEMS. Especializada en gestión de organizaciones no lucrativas. Se ha centrado en el desarrollo y el análisis de instrumentos de evaluación y seguimiento de impacto de las ONG.


121

Sophia KusykLicenciada en Administración de Empresas en la University of Western Ontario (Canadá). Está realizando su tesis doctoral en ESADE-Universidad Ramon Llull sobre RSE. Ha sido directora del track de la RSE en EABIS (2007).

David Murillo Licenciado en ADE (UB, 1996) y en Humanidades (UOC, 2003). Diplomado DEA en Sociología (UB, 2005). Investigador del Instituto desde 2002 y profesor asistente del Departamento de Ciencias Sociales de ESADE desde 2004. Actualmente coordina la línea de investigación sobre RSE u pymes en el instituto.

Maria Prandi Licenciada, máster y DEA en Relaciones Internacionales (UAB). Coordina la línea de investigación sobre empresa y derechos humanos en el Instituto de Innovación Social. Ha sido consultora en diferentes instituciones sobre temas de derechos humanos.

Pablo RodrigoLicenciado en Ciencias de la Administración e ingeniero comercial por la Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez (Chile). DEA en Management Sciences y candidato a doctor en Management Sciences por ESADE-URL.

Beatriz Sanz Licenciada y máster en Administración y Dirección de Empresas por ESADE, licenciada en Antropología Social y máster en Gestión del Desarrollo por la London School of Economics. Ha trabajado en diversos organismos internacionales y ONG. Trabaja como consultora independiente en cooperación.

Maria SuredaLicenciada y Master en Administración y Dirección de Empresas en ESADE-Universidad Ramon Llull. Colaboradora en la investigación sobre RSE. Ha participado en diferentes proyectos de investigación sobre el sector no lucrativo en el marco del Observatorio del Tercer Sector.

Marc Vilanova Licenciado en Ciencias Económicas por la Shepherd University y DEA en Ciencias del Management en URL-ESADE. Investigador principal de la línea sobre competitividad responsable. Cuenta con diversas publicaciones en el campo de la RSE, la competitividad responsable, la accountability, la gestión de stakeholders y la sostenibilidad. Profesor asistente del Departamento de Ciencias Sociales de ESADE.

Durante el año 2007 el Instituto contó con la presencia del Prof. Steen Vallentin, de la Copenhagen Business School como profesor invitado.

122 SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS IIS 2007Equipo Humano


123

S E L E C C I Ó N DE ARTÍCULOS

2007

Instituto de Innovación Social de ESADE

SELE

CC

IÓN

DE

AR

TÍC

ULO

S 2

007

Instituto de Innovación Social

Promotores del Instituto de Innovación Social:

Este libro ha sido impreso en papel de fi bras 100% reciclables post-consumo.Homologado internacionalmente con certifi cados NAPM, Cisne Nórdico, Ángel Azul y Eco-etiqueta Europea.

Barcelona Av. Pedralbes, 60-6208034 España

Tel. + 34 93 280 61 62Fax + 34 93 204 81 05

MadridMateo Inurria, 25-2728036 España

Tel. + 34 91 359 77 14Fax + 34 91 703 00 62

http://www.esade.edu

Instituto de Innovación Socialitemsweb.esade.edu › biblioteca › archivo ›...

Documents

Transcript of Instituto de Innovación Socialitemsweb.esade.edu › biblioteca › archivo ›...