17471111111141521

Social Responsibility Journal
Corporate perceptions of sustainability challenges in developed and developing countries: constituting a CSR divide?
Ralf Barkemeyer
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ralf Barkemeyer, (2011),"Corporate perceptions of sustainability challenges in developed and developing countries: constituting a CSR
divide?", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 257 - 281
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111111141521
Downloaded on: 16 April 2016, At: 21:33 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 98 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1593 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)
(2011),"Drivers and barriers of CSR and the size and internationalization of firms", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 234-256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111111141512
(2014),"CSR in Developing Countries through an Institutional Lens", Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and
Sustainability, Vol. 8 pp. 21-44
(2014),"Sustainability, corporate social responsibility and HRD", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 Iss 5 pp. 370-386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-04-2014-0034
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:231834 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Corporate perceptions of sustainability

challenges in developed and developing
countries: constituting a CSR divide?
Ralf Barkemeyer
Ralf Barkemeyer is based

at Queens University
Management School,
Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explore sustainability-related perceptions of proponents of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) from 53 countries in order to shed light on contextual differences regarding
the conceptualization of the role of CSR in global governance.
Design/methodology/approach The results of a survey of corporate UN Global Compact
participants are presented, focusing on respondents perceptions regarding 23 key issues in
sustainability. Non-parametric statistics are applied to identify regional and country-level patterns within
the overall sample.
Findings While general perceptions regarding the urgency of key global sustainability challenges
appear to be relatively homogeneous around the globe, significant differences can be identified
regarding the specific roles and responsibilities respondents attribute to their own companies in
countries from the global North and South, respectively.
Research limitations/implications The paper focuses on generic patterns within the overall sample;
more detailed analysis is needed in future work to explore their origins and impact on corporate practice.
Practical implications There is a need for an improved integration of Southern stakeholders in CSR
practice and policy making in order to fully unfold the potential of CSR in global governance.
Originality/value The paper uncovers generic differences between conceptualizations of the
corporate role in global sustainability between the global North and South.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Sustainable development, Governance, Globalization
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In recent years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become mainstream orthodoxy in
many parts of the world; it has also become broader in scope, increasingly addressing
issues that have traditionally been in the domain of public actors. The current voluntary,
beyond compliance mode of mainstream CSR blends into broader, societal-level
conceptions of global governance (Finkelstein, 1995; Haas and Kanie, 2004; Rosenau
and Czempiel, 1992). CSR is expected to contribute to the closure of governance gaps in a
diverse range of policy areas such as environmental protection, human rights, labour rights,
anti-discrimination or anti-corruption.
However, recent scholarly literature on the relationship between CSR and development has
questioned the adequacy of current CSR regimes to effectively address some of these most
pressing global sustainability challenges (Blowfield and Frynas, 2005; Frynas, 2008;
Prieto-Carron et al., 2006; Utting, 2005). These corporate-level criticisms are mirrored on a
broader societal level by critiques of a perceived Northern[1] bias in conceptualizations of
both global governance (Draude, 2007; Risse and Lehmkuhl, 2006) and sustainable
development (Kirkby et al., 1995; Redclift, 2005; Robinson, 2004): as a common
denominator, these concepts are argued to have largely developed in a Northern,
DOI 10.1108/17471111111141521
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011, pp. 257-281, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL
PAGE 257
industrialized country context, and are often based on assumptions that may not hold in
non-Northern contexts.
This paper explores sustainability-related perceptions of proponents of corporate social
responsibility from 53 countries in order to shed light on contextual differences regarding the
conceptualization of the role of CSR in global governance. The results of a web-based
survey of corporate UN Global Compact participants enquiring into the respondents
perceptions of the urgency of a set of key issues in global sustainability, and respective roles
of their companies in this context, are presented.
The remainder of this paper is as follows: the next section focuses on the CSR agenda and
regional differences in terms of its content and contextualization, followed by a brief
presentation of the methodology applied in the analysis. Subsequently, the results of a
survey of corporate UN Global Compact investigating respondents perceptions of 23 key
issues in sustainability are presented. The focus is on both general perceptions of the global
urgency of these issues, and the role of the respondents companies in addressing these
issues. Building on the results, patterns emerging from the analysis are discussed in more
detail. It is argued that the current wave of voluntary, beyond compliance-oriented CSR may
fail to address a wide range of pivotal issues that are positioned at the centre of effective
global governance. Finally, a summary of the research presented in this paper is provided.
The CSR agenda

A range of normative corporate guidelines such as the UN Global Compact principles, the
Indicators of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or Article 30 of Agenda 21 prescribe
comprehensive lists of corporate roles and responsibilities covering a wide range of
economic, social and environmental aspects. Nevertheless, despite this very broad
conceptualization of corporate responsibility towards society, actual corporate practice
tends to focus on a narrower set of issues when compared to these normative targets (e.g.
Barkemeyer, 2009). Utting (2007, p. 710) points out that a specific CSR agenda has
emerged in the sense that a) there is growing consensus about the range of issues that
companies should be concerned with, and b) CSR represents a particular approach to
corporate regulation one that emphasises voluntary initiatives and self-regulation.
An increasing number of scholars have recently highlighted diverse range of issues that are
in danger of being left out of the mainstream CSR agenda. For example, tax avoidance and
transfer pricing (see e.g. Jenkins, 2005), corporate power and policy influence, the negative
effects of economic liberalization (see e.g. Prieto-Carron et al., 2006; UNRISD, 2003), or the
resource curse effects of the influx of foreign aid or oil revenues on governance in
developing countries (e.g. Frynas, 2005; for the original concept see Sachs and Warner
(1995, 2001)) as well as the risk of deindustrialization as a result of these revenues derived
from natural resources (Corden and Neary, 1982) all are commonly not addressed, despite
potentially forming severe obstacles regarding corporate social performance in developing
countries. In the context of poverty alleviation, Jenkins argues with regard to an OECD study
of 246 multinational companies (MNCs) codes of conduct (OECD, 2001):
Whereas 148 codes covered labour standards and 145 dealt with environmental issues, only one
mentioned taxation (Jenkins, 2005, p. 539; see Ragodoo, 2009).
This bias blends into recent scholarly work criticizing the way in which sustainable
development has been conceptualized and operationalized: here, it has been suggested
that an overemphasis of Northern perceptions and interests at the expense of Southern
concerns can be observed (Kirkby et al., 1995; Redclift, 2005; Robinson, 2004).
It has been argued that the CSR agenda is largely shaped by Northern actors, with a clear
lack of participation/integration of developing country actors (see e.g. Blowfield, 2003; Fox,
2004; Fox et al., 2002; Utting, 2001; Ward, 2004; Ward and Fox, 2002). In their analysis of
CSR in Argentina, Newell and Muro (2006, p. 64) conclude that:
PAGE 258 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011
MNCs are the key drivers and respondents (of CSR). Often responsive to their home countries
and receptive to shareholder and activist pressures overseas, their strategies reflect European or
North American priorities.
For example, conflicting views typically revolve around labour rights in developing countries.
A reduction of excessive working hours might not always be appreciated locally, in particular
in those cases in which it hinders the employees opportunity to earn a sufficient income (see
e.g. Kaufman et al. (2004) for an analysis of the Thai garment industry). Equally, measures to
combat child labour might face local opposition if they in turn drive the childrens families
further into poverty (e.g. on the efforts to combat child labour in the Sialkot soccer ball
industry and the difficulties that were created locally see Hussain-Khaliq (2004)).
On a more general level, recent research indicates that CSR-related perceptions are
context-bound, reflecting generic differences in the way CSR is conceptualized and
CSR-related issues are prioritized in different contexts. Blowfield and Frynas refer to a survey
carried out by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), asking
respondents from different countries what CSR meant to them: It turned out that there were
considerable differences. For example, Thai and Ghanaian respondents stressed
environmental issues and community empowerment, respectively (Blowfield and Frynas,
2005; Holme and Watts, 2000). Likewise, a recent project focusing on the link between the
cultural variables identified by Hofstede (1980; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005), and different
types of CSR, identified among others institutional collectivism and power distance as
predictors of an organizations approach to CSR (House et al., 2004; Waldman et al., 2006).
For example, the degree of power distance is found to be negatively related to a firms
general commitment to CSR (Waldman et al., 2006).
From a neo-institutional perspective, it does not come as a surprise that companies CSR
practices and related perceptions regarding their roles and responsibilities in society to a
certain extent reflect respective expectations of the contexts in which they operate (see e.g.
DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Elsbach, 1994; Hahn, 2005; Suchman, 1995; Zucker, 1987).
From this point of view, organisations adapt to their institutional environments in order to
gain, maintain and repair legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). Hence, perceptions and
expectations in the contexts an organisation is embedded in could be assumed to serve
as a set of external constraints that actively shape the actions of the organisation.
However, not all stakeholders of a company can be expected to impact and shape a
companys actions in an equal manner. Instead, the companys primary stakeholders, i.e.
those stakeholders without whose continuing participation the corporation cannot survive
as a going concern (Clarkson, 1995, p. 106), are likely to be most influential. With regard to
Northern companies, it can be expected that their primary stakeholders are commonly
based in their respective home markets. In the context of the survey of sustainability-related
perceptions of contact points of corporate UN Global Compact participants from 53
countries that is presented in the remainder of this paper, it could therefore be expected that
respondents perceptions largely reflect related perceptions and expectations in their
companies home country contexts. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1.
Respondents perceptions of the role and responsibilities of the company in society

reflect the context the company is embedded in.
Building on the above argument of generic differences between the global North and South
in terms of the importance that is attributed to different sustainability-related issues, it could
be expected that perceptions and actual practice of Northern proponents of CSR mirror this
bias towards an inherently Northern interpretation of CSR. Hence, Northern proponents of
CSR might focus on the environmental dimension of CSR while at the same time neglecting
its socioeconomic or primarily development-related dimension:
H1.1. Northern proponents of CSR attribute a higher weight to environmental issues in
sustainability than to socioeconomic issues.
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 259
In contrast, Southern respondents can be assumed to prioritize different aspects in

sustainability. Based on their distinctly different local problem structures, perceptions and
expectations, a stronger emphasis on socioeconomic sustainability can be expected:
H1.2.
Southern proponents of CSR attribute a higher weight to socioeconomic issues

in sustainability than their Northern counterparts.
A web-based survey of sustainability-related perceptions of contact points of corporate UN

Global Compact participants from 53 countries was used to test the above hypotheses. In
the next section, a description of the methodology applied for the survey and its potential
limitations is provided. This is followed by a presentation of the results.
Methodology
A web-based survey was constructed with the aim of identifying general

sustainability-related perceptions of corporate respondents who can be expected to be
involved in CSR-related activities in an international context. The survey was directed at all
corporate UN Global Compact participants that have produced at least one communication
on progress (COP) and that have specified a contact point for this COP. The UN Global
Compact is a multi-stakeholder initiative with the aim to promote corporate citizenship. It has
become the largest and arguably most visible of its kind, currently comprising more than
5,000 corporate participants and around 1,000 non-corporate stakeholders. As the
participating companies have voluntarily signed up to the initiative and comply with its
minimum participation requirements, they can be expected to have some form of
coordinated approach to CSR in place. Moreover, as contact points for the initiative
respondents can be expected to be personally involved in or at least have reasonable
insight into CSR-related structures and instruments that are in place at the respective
companies. In essence, respondents were asked to prioritize a set of 23 issues in
sustainability based on their own perceptions, and rate their companys potential to
contribute to each of these 23 issues, on a six-point Likert scale.
The list of 23 sustainability-related issues was compiled on the basis of a desk-based study
of key international documents and initiatives in the context of sustainable development and
corporate responsibility such as the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987), the OECD Guidelines
for Multinational Enterprises, the UN Millennium Development Goals (UN Millennium Project
and Sachs, 2005), the UN Global Compact (United Nations Global Compact, 2004), as well
as other normative work in the field (e.g. Frederick, 1991; Steurer et al., 2005). Furthermore,
documents related to the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) were reviewed in
order to identify key global environmental challenges.
The survey was sent out to 1,312 company contacts. This generated 265 usable responses,
corresponding to a moderate response rate of 20.2 per cent. However, this response rate
was higher than originally expected, particularly given the relatively high number of invalid
email addresses on the UN Global Compact web site. This in turn points to the difficulties of
the UN Global Compact in creating and coordinating a functioning online platform for
learning and dialogue. If the number of 194 undeliverable e-mails is not taken into account,
the response rate could be adjusted to 23.7 per cent. Of the 265 respondents, 101 have top
or middle management positions; 98 respondents hold explicitly CSR-related positions; 18
respondents work in corporate communications/ public relations; and 38 respondents did
not specify their position within the company.
Table I shows the distribution of responses in terms of company size, geographic origin,
Human Development Index (HDI) scores (UNDP, 2007) and North/South affiliation in relation
to the overall population of corporate UN Global Compact participants (n 5,024, as of
1 November, 2008). In general, the responses are distributed across a diverse range of
respondents in terms of company size, country of origin, HDI scores and OECD
membership. There are, however, a number of noticeable deviations from the overall
population. First of all, an under-representation of SMEs can be observed (20.0 per cent of
responses compared to 52.6 per cent in overall population). The percentage may be slightly
Table I Comparison of respondents with original sample (company size, geographic origin, HDI scores and North/South
affiliation)
Grouping
variable
Company size
Geographic
origin
Human
Development
Index
North/South
affiliation
Population
Nb in
population
% of
population
FT global 500
Large
SME
Unknown
Total
157
2,225
2,642
3.13
44.29
52.59
5,024
100.00
EU
Europe ex EU
North America
South America
Australasia
Middle east
Africa
Asia
Unknown
Total
1,693
680
244
1,121
33
111
275
865
2
5,024
33.70
13.54
4.86
22.31
0.66
2.21
5.47
17.22
0.04
100.00
High
Medium
Low
Unknown
Total
3,473
1,419
117
15
5,024
69.13
28.24
2.33
0.30
100.00
OECD
Non-OECD
Unknown
Total
2,597
2,425
2
5,024
51.69
48.27
0.04
100.00
Nb of
respondents
% of
respondents
%
respondents
as of
population
D%
respondents
per group as
of population
28
159
53
25
265
10.57
60.00
20.00
9.43
100.00
0.56
3.16
1.05
0.50
5.27
7.44
15.71
232.59
9.43
143
23
11
33
4
6
9
36
53.96
8.68
4.15
12.45
1.51
2.26
3.40
13.58
20.26
24.86
20.71
29.86
0.85
0.05
22.08
23.63
20.04
265
100.00
2.85
0.46
0.22
0.66
0.08
0.12
0.18
0.72
0.00
5.27
222
39
4
83.77
14.72
1.51
14.65
213.53
20.82
20.30
265
100.00
4.42
0.78
0.08
0.00
5.27
169
96
63.77
36.23
12.08
212.04
20.04
265
100.00
3.36
1.91
0.00
5.27
higher due to 25 responses (9.4 per cent of responses) that could not be traced back to any
specific company, as the personal information at the end of the survey was not answered in
these cases. Nevertheless, the response rate among small to medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) was noticeably lower than in the case of larger companies.
Likewise, an over-representation of EU-based companies can be observed (54.0 per cent of
responses compared to 33.7 per cent in overall population). In contrast, companies from
South America, Asia, and European countries outside the EU are under-represented in the
responses. While approximately every third corporate UN Global Compact participant is
based in a country that shows a medium or low HDI score, less than every fifth respondent is
located outside the countries showing a high HDI score (16.2 per cent of respondents
compared to 30.6 per cent of population). Similarly, the percentage of respondents from
non-OECD countries is significantly lower when compared to the overall population (36.2 per
cent compared to 48.3 per cent). To a certain extent, this can be explained by the larger
share of SMEs among corporate UN Global Compact participants from the global South.
Furthermore, the use of an English language survey may, for example, have negatively
impacted the response rate among South American participants.
The majority of data collected appeared to be negatively skewed. Data transformation did
not produce sufficiently normally distributed data and the size of a number of subsamples
was relatively small, and therefore non-parametric tests were conducted. As the focus of all
analyses in this research rests on identifying differences between groups within the overall
sample, Mann-Whitney tests and/or Kruskal-Wallis tests as the non-parametric alternatives
to independent samples t-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted. In the
case of Kruskal-Wallis tests, follow-up tests to identify the magnitude of effect sizes between
different groups were conducted. Bonferroni corrections were applied to control for Type 1
errors in multiple significance tests (see Field, 2009).
A number of generic limitations related to survey-based research need to be kept in mind
with regard to the results presented and interpreted below. One limitation may be the use of
English language questionnaires (see Harzing, 2004). However, the UN Global Compact is a
mainly English language network and web-based learning platform. It can therefore
reasonably be assumed that the potential bias created by the use of English language
surveys for UN Global Compact contact points is relatively limited. Response rates among
Spanish language contact points were only slightly lower than response rates from other
non-English language countries. Nevertheless, one Argentinean contact point responded
that she had difficulties filling out an English language survey.
A bias emerged towards respondents from large Northern companies, and in particular
EU-based companies. However, as discussed above, this bias may arguably be inherent to
the current generation of CSR-related tools and initiatives. Therefore, it is argued that the
bias towards large Northern companies observed in both samples in fact adequately
reflects a biased reality.
A potential limitation of survey-based research can be caused by the extent to which

non-respondents may have responded in a way that is systematically different from the
whole population (e.g. Armstrong and Overton, 1977; Fowler, 2009). Independent samples
t-tests were conducted to test for statistical differences of means between the first three
quarters and the final quartile of respondents and hence to test for non-response bias
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977; Lambert and Harrington, 1990). This approach is based on
the assumption that responses of the final quartile are similar to those of non-respondents,
and has repeatedly been adopted in research into corporate responsibility (e.g. Christmann,
2004; Christmann and Taylor, 2006; Husted and Allen, 2006, 2007; Maignan and Ferrell,
2000). Only one out of 23 issues showed a significant difference of means between early and
late respondents in terms of global urgency, and no significant difference can be identified in
terms of the companies contributions. Corruption showed the only significant difference at a
p , 0:05 level. The results therefore suggest that no non-response bias existed in the data
collected.
It could be argued that the comparison of 23 distinct issues in sustainability and in
particular the analytical division between environmental and socioeconomic issues may
fail to acknowledge the synergies and inter-connectedness of these issues. For example,
climate change as a core environmental issue has severe socioeconomic implications;
poverty as the dominant socioeconomic concern is closely related to a range of
environmental issues. Nevertheless, the analysis presented here focuses on prioritizations
within sustainability: taking the above example, addressing poverty as a sustainability
challenge in its own right arguably has different implications for corporate practice than
addressing poverty as part and parcel of climate change.
As a final limitation, biased responses on the basis of the perceived desirability of certain
behaviour are a longstanding and widespread problem in ethics-related research (Edwards,
1953; Randall and Fernandes, 1991; Zerbe and Paulhus, 1987). The potential impact of this
social desirability response bias will be addressed in the discussion of the findings.
Findings
Global urgency of sustainability challenges
Tables II-V show respondents scores regarding the perceived urgency of issues in global
sustainability. A relatively uniform pattern emerges: all 23 issues are perceived as urgent
global challenges, with mean values ranging between 5.33 (reducing poverty and hunger)
and 4.06 (strengthening global partnerships).
Table II Global urgency of issues in sustainability grouped by company size
Reducing poverty and hunger

Safeguarding human rights
Safeguarding labour rights
Achieving universal primary education
Combating gender-based inequality
Combating discrimination
Reducing child mortality
Achieving access to basic sanitation
Combating water pollution
Combating HIV/AIDS and malaria
Combating corruption
Combating soil erosion
Protecting biodiversity
Preventing climate change
Reducing air pollution
Reducing corporate ecological footprint
Preserving marine ecosystems
Sustainable consumption patterns
Strengthening global partnerships
Fair international trade regime
Protecting forest cover
Environmentally-friendly technologies
Abusing child labour
Total
Mean
259
259
262
258
257
259
259
257
257
259
261
258
257
262
258
258
258
260
257
254
261
259
261
5.33
5.06
4.60
4.89
4.37
4.59
5.04
5.00
5.09
4.81
4.93
4.38
4.72
5.24
4.94
4.63
4.72
4.67
4.06
4.41
4.82
4.77
5.07
0.86
0.97
1.00
1.01
1.15
1.05
1.04
1.02
0.84
1.11
1.02
1.07
1.02
0.93
0.92
0.97
1.05
1.02
1.06
1.07
1.02
1.03
1.12
0.99
6.29
2.15
0.25
1.16
1.68
6.90
0.97
8.62
6.28
1.28
3.66
6.45
0.29
0.13
1.14
1.47
1.61
0.69
0.78
2.28
0.50
7.72
Company size
Kruskal-Wallis test (1, 2 and 3)
df
Monte Carlo sig.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.62
0.04a
0.35
0.88
0.56
0.43
0.03a
0.62
0.02a
0.04a
0.53
0.16
0.04a
0.86
0.94
0.58
0.48
0.45
0.71
0.68
0.33
0.78
0.02a
Note: a Indicates significant test result
Table III Global urgency of issues in sustainability grouped by sector affiliation

Total
Mean
259
259
262
258
257
259
259
257
257
259
261
258
257
262
258
258
258
260
257
254
261
259
261
5.33
5.06
4.60
4.89
4.37
4.59
5.04
5.00
5.09
4.81
4.93
4.38
4.72
5.24
4.94
4.63
4.72
4.67
4.06
4.41
4.82
4.77
5.07
0.86
0.97
1.00
1.01
1.15
1.05
1.04
1.02
0.84
1.11
1.02
1.07
1.02
0.93
0.92
0.97
1.05
1.02
1.06
1.07
1.02
1.03
1.12
3.10
1.84
0.68
2.52
1.76
3.30
1.67
3.78
4.45
1.74
2.53
1.29
1.95
0.96
4.99
0.19
2.92
2.90
5.49
1.80
2.47
1.85
0.31
Sector affiliation (4 sectors)a

df
Monte Carlo sig.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.38
0.62
0.88
0.48
0.62
0.35
0.65
0.29
0.21
0.63
0.48
0.74
0.58
0.81
0.18
0.98
0.40
0.41
0.14
0.63
0.49
0.61
0.96
Note: a Financial services (n 31), food and drink (n 21), professional , scientific and technical service (n 24), utilities (n 17)
j
259
259
262
258
257
259
259
257
257
259
261
258
257
262
258
258
258
260
257
254
261
259
261
5.33
5.06
4.60
4.89
4.37
4.59
5.04
5.00
5.09
4.81
4.93
4.38
4.72
5.24
4.94
4.63
4.72
4.67
4.06
4.41
4.82
4.77
5.07
Mean
0.86
0.97
1.00
1.01
1.15
1.05
1.04
1.02
0.84
1.11
1.02
1.07
1.02
0.93
0.92
0.97
1.05
1.02
1.06
1.07
1.02
1.03
1.12
s
5.99
7.83
5.09
3.88
8.51
12.01
13.12
6.21
1.54
5.52
3.33
2.51
4.42
0.78
0.83
5.09
0.89
0.65
1.87
3.87
1.26
5.41
4.52
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.11
0.05
0.16
0.28
0.04a
0.001a
0.00a
0.10
0.68
0.13
0.35
0.48
0.22
0.86
0.84
0.16
0.83
0.89
0.61
0.28
0.74
0.14
0.21
163
164
166
163
161
164
164
163
163
163
165
164
161
166
163
164
163
164
161
159
165
163
165
n
5.23
5.07
4.63
4.77
4.44
4.55
5.09
5.01
5.05
4.83
4.86
4.31
4.71
5.22
4.85
4.67
4.72
4.73
3.94
4.38
4.75
4.72
5.08
Mean
North (4)
0.93
0.98
0.96
1.00
1.11
1.08
1.01
1.02
0.81
1.03
1.06
1.01
1.04
0.97
0.91
0.95
1.01
1.03
1.10
1.07
1.01
1.05
1.10
s
96
95
96
95
96
95
95
94
94
96
96
94
96
96
95
94
95
96
96
95
96
96
96
South (5)
5.50
5.04
4.55
5.11
4.24
4.65
4.96
4.98
5.15
4.78
5.06
4.51
4.75
5.26
5.08
4.55
4.74
4.57
4.26
4.46
4.95
4.85
5.03
Mean
0.71
0.96
1.06
0.99
1.20
1.01
1.10
1.03
0.89
1.24
0.95
1.16
0.99
0.84
0.92
1.01
1.12
0.99
0.97
1.07
1.02
0.98
1.16
Global North/South
6,679
7,644
7,605
6,120
7,184
7,438
7,332
7,544
7,024
7,752
7,115
6,763
7,634
7,901
6,574
7,243
7,550
7,098
6,448
7,172
7,000
7,380
7,768
22.18
20.27
20.65
22.94
20.98
20.63
20.84
20.22
21.19
20.13
21.44
21.70
20.17
20.12
22.14
20.85
20.35
21.38
22.31
20.70
21.63
20.80
20.28
20.14*a
20.02
20.04
20.18**a
20.06
20.04
20.05
20.01
20.07
20.01
20.09
20.11
20.01
20.01
20.13*a
20.05
20.02
20.09
20.14*a
20.04
20.10
20.05
20.02
Mann-Whitney test (4 and 5)
Note: aFrance (n 32), Germany (n 32), Spain(n 34), UK (n 12); *significant at the 0.05 level; **significant at the 0.001 level; aindicates significant test result; italics indicates
lower values

Total
Country of origin
(FRA, GER, ESP, UK)a
Kruskal-Wallis test
(1, 2 and 3)
Monte Carlo
H
df
sig.
Table IV Global urgency of issues in sustainability grouped by country of origin (selected sectors and countries))
Table V Global urgency of issues in sustainability

Total
Mean
High HDI (1)

Mean
s
259
259
262
258
257
259
259
257
257
259
261
258
257
262
258
258
258
260
257
254
261
259
261
5.33
5.06
4.60
4.89
4.37
4.59
5.04
5.00
5.09
4.81
4.93
4.38
4.72
5.24
4.94
4.63
4.72
4.67
4.06
4.41
4.82
4.77
5.07
0.86
0.97
1.00
1.01
1.15
1.05
1.04
1.02
0.84
1.11
1.02
1.07
1.02
0.93
0.92
0.97
1.05
1.02
1.06
1.07
1.02
1.03
1.12
216
216
219
215
214
217
216
214
216
216
218
216
214
219
215
216
216
217
214
211
218
216
218
5.33
5.11
4.66
4.84
4.39
4.61
5.13
4.98
5.12
4.83
4.95
4.36
4.78
5.26
4.94
4.68
4.77
7.73
4.01
4.39
4.84
4.81
5.13
0.87
0.96
0.98
1.01
1.14
1.07
1.02
1.03
0.81
1.08
1.02
1.08
1.03
0.94
0.91
0.96
1.03
1.03
1.07
1.07
0.98
1.03
1.07
Human development index

Medium/low HDI
(2)
Mann-Whitney test (1 and 2)
n Mean
s
U
Z
r
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
41
43
43
42
43
43
43
42
42
43
43
43
43
43
43
5.33
4.81
4.30
5.16
4.23
4.50
4.60
5.07
4.90
4.72
4.84
4.50
4.47
5.12
4.93
4.36
4.48
4.37
4.30
4.49
4.72
4.58
4.72
0.81
0.98
1.01
0.97
1.17
0.99
1.09
0.99
0.97
1.28
1.04
1.02
0.96
0.85
0.99
1.01
1.13
0.93
1.01
1.08
1.18
1.01
1.28
4,529
3,784
3731
3,706
4,273
4,215
3,354
4,396
3,898
4,544
4,380
4,247
3,786
4,122
4,576
3,733
3,823
3,622
3,915
4,332
4,528
4,000
3,806
20.28
22.05
22.26
22.15
20.77
20.80
23.06
20.49
21.30
20.23
20.71
20.68
21.91
21.41
20.11
21.90
21.68
22.42
21.60
20.49
20.37
21.50
22.09
20.02
20.13*a
20.14*a
20.13*a
20.05
20.05
20.19**a
20.03
20.08
20.01
20.04
20.04
20.12
20.09
20.01
20.12
20.10
20.15**a
20.10
20.03
20.02
20.09
20.13*a
Notes: *Significant at the 0.05 level; **significant at the 0.01 level; aindicates significant test result; italics indicates lower values
To a certain extent, however, prioritizations among the 23 issues can be identified: the two
issues that are relatively clearly rated as the utmost urgent global challenges are poverty
and hunger (5.33) and climate change (5.24). An additional five issues receive mean values
of 5 or more on the six-point Likert scale: water pollution (5.09), child labour (5.07), human
rights (5.06), child mortality (5.04), and access to basic sanitation (5.00). At the other end of
the spectrum, global partnerships emerge as the only issue that receives a noticeably lower
score than the other 22 issues (4.06). On average, however, all 23 issues are generally
perceived as relatively urgent global challenges.
It could be assumed that contextual factors such as company size, sector affiliation,
economic origin, HDI scores, or country of origin to a certain extent influence the above
perceptions regarding the urgency of global challenges. However, Tables II and IV show that
company size and economic origin appear to have at most a modest impact on
respondents sustainability-related perceptions. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to identify
significant differences between SMEs, large companies[2] and FT Global 500 companies in
the sample. Only six out of the 23 issues show significant differences between groups
(human rights, child mortality, water pollution, HIV/AIDS and malaria, biodiversity, child
labour).
Interestingly, in 18 out of 23 cases large companies show the lowest values among the three
groups; in turn, in 17 out of 23 cases FT Global 500 companies show the highest scores
when compared to SMEs and large companies. Although only very few of the differences in
means are significant, the emerging pattern may point towards different underlying drivers in
the case of very large companies, such as for example increased visibility or better
institutionalization of CSR-related aspects within the company (e.g. Bowen, 2000); and
slightly different dynamics in the case of very small companies, which could for example be
linked to the unique role of owner-managers in these companies (see Jenkins, 2004, 2006).
Kruskal-Wallis tests were also used to compare subsamples based on sector affiliation and
country of origin (Tables III and IV). Financial services (n 31), food and drink (n 21),
professional, scientific and technical services (n 24) and utilities (n 17) form the four
largest sector subsamples within the overall sample. A comparison of these four groups
shows that in none of the 23 cases, significant differences in means can be identified. A
similar comparison of responses from the four largest country clusters France (n 32),
Germany (n 12), Spain (n 34) and the UK (n 12) based on Kruskal-Wallis tests shows
that only in the case of gender-based inequality, discrimination and child mortality,
significant differences can be identified.
Likewise, the North/South divide appears to only have a modest impact on respondents
perceptions. Mann-Whitney tests were used to identify significant differences of means
between respondents based in countries of the global North and South, respectively. In 19
out of 23 cases, perceptions do not appear to differ significantly. The only exceptions are
formed by poverty and hunger, primary education, air pollution, and global partnerships.
Similar results can be observed in terms of HDI scores as well as sector affiliation and
country of origin. A comparison of respondents from countries with high versus medium/low
HDI scores based on Mann-Whitney tests, again, only in six out of 23 cases, significant
differences can be identified (human rights, labour rights, primary education, child mortality,
sustainable consumption patterns, and child labour). Primary education emerges as the
only issue that shows significant differences between groups with regards to both
North/South affiliation and HDI scores.
In summary, all of the above grouping variables appear to have only a modest influence on
respondents perceptions on the urgency of the set of 23 global challenges. Irrespective of
company size, sector affiliation, North/South affiliation, HDI scores or country of origin,
respondents generally attribute high scores to all sustainability challenges, resulting in a
relatively homogeneous distribution of scores across sustainability-related issues.
Potential corporate contributions to effective solutions
To shed light on the role and responsibilities respondents attribute to their own organisations
in the context of sustainable development, they were asked to indicate the extent to which
their company can contribute to effective solutions to each of the 23 global
sustainability-related challenges within its own sphere of influence. Again, responses were
ranked on a six-point Likert scale (1 not at all; 6 a very great extent). Tables VI-X
shows average mean scores across all environmental and socioeconomic issues grouped
by HDI scores of the countries respondents are based in and North/South affiliation. As there
is no country in the global North with a medium or low HDI score, three categories can be
identified based on HDI scores and North/South affiliation: high HDI/North; high HDI/South;
and low HDI/South. In general, respondents from the high HDI/South sample award the
highest average scores to both environmental and socioeconomic issues, whereas in both
cases, respondents from the high HDI/North sample award the lowest scores of the three
groups. It is, however, interesting to note that the divide between environmental and
socioeconomic scores can be identified in both Southern subsamples: Southern
respondents appear to attribute noticeably higher scores to socioeconomic issues
irrespective of HDI levels. In stark contrast, Northern respondents generally give higher
scores to environmental issues when compared with respective scores for socioeconomic
issues.
As can be seen in Table XI show perceived corporate contributions to effective solutions to
each of the 23 challenges. A first finding is that average contribution-related scores are
noticeably lower than respective scores regarding the urgency of global challenges (3.53
compared to 4.79). This does not come as a surprise, as corporate engagement and
contributions in the context of these challenges are clearly restricted by their own resource
base and capabilities.
On average, perceived contributions are highest with regards to labour rights (4.43),
environ-mentally friendly technologies (4.34), and the companies ecological footprint (4.24).
In contrast, four issues receive average scores of below 3.00: marine ecosystems (2.50),
HIV/AIDS and malaria (2.54), child mortality (2.57), and soil erosion (2.79). The highest
differential between the respondents perceived urgency of a global challenge and the
Table VI Potential corporate contribution to solutions to issues in sustainability grouped by company size

Total
Mean
242
243
244
240
244
244
244
242
241
240
243
239
241
244
242
241
242
240
243
242
242
241
242
3.21
4.04
4.43
3.02
4.05
4.14
2.57
2.88
3.63
2.54
4.13
2.79
3.25
3.91
3.75
4.24
2.50
3.64
4.02
3.29
3.17
4.34
3.71
1.31
1.40
1.33
1.53
1.39
1.31
1.35
1.51
1.51
1.43
1.35
1.39
1.47
1.44
1.37
1.36
1.38
1.35
1.36
1.41
1.53
1.34
1.67
D contribution/urgency
n
Mean
s
Company size
H
df
Monte Carlo sig.
241
241
244
237
241
241
241
240
237
239
242
236
238
244
240
239
239
239
239
236
241
240
241
4.29
3.28
0.57
4.35
1.67
2.92
5.01
3.48
2.45
8.18
0.50
3.78
5.60
14.52
2.07
15.17
9.30
6.92
6.46
0.16
3.47
8.56
0.71
22.12
21.00
20.16
21.88
20.29
20.44
22.45
22.08
21.46
22.27
20.78
21.55
21.44
21.32
21.18
20.36
22.21
21.02
0.04
21.12
21.63
20.42
21.38
1.49
1.47
1.43
1.61
1.67
1.51
1.59
1.79
1.75
1.72
1.41
1.62
1.59
1.49
1.56
1.47
1.74
1.43
1.32
1.67
1.73
1.47
1.83
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.116
0.193
0.748
0.115
0.434
0.234
0.083
0.176
0.293
0.016a
0.780
0.150
0.060
0.000a
0.361
0.001a
0.009a
0.030a
0.037a
0.924
0.174
0.013a
0.704
Note: aIndicates significant test result
Table VII Potential corporate contribution to solutions to issues in sustainability grouped by sector affiliation

Total
n
Mean
242
243
244
240
244
244
244
242
241
240
243
239
241
244
242
241
242
240
243
242
242
241
242
3.21
4.04
4.43
3.02
4.05
4.14
2.57
2.88
3.63
2.54
4.13
2.79
3.25
3.91
3.75
4.24
2.50
3.64
4.02
3.29
3.17
4.34
3.71
1.31
1.40
1.33
1.53
1.39
1.31
1.35
1.51
1.51
1.43
1.35
1.39
1.47
1.44
1.37
1.36
1.38
1.35
1.36
1.41
1.53
1.34
1.67
n
Mean
s
Sector affiliation (selected

sectors)a
H
df
Monte Carlo sig.
241
241
244
237
241
241
241
240
237
239
242
236
238
244
240
239
239
239
239
236
241
240
241
1.39
1.83
2.41
0.43
3.87
0.68
2.71
3.63
13.33
1.15
2.28
1.80
9.26
15.45
14.43
6.88
6.19
7.29
2.26
1.84
2.37
3.89
4.24
22.12
21.00
20.16
21.88
20.29
20.44
22.45
22.08
21.46
22.27
20.78
21.55
21.44
21.32
21.18
20.36
22.21
21.02
0.04
21.12
21.63
20.42
21.38
1.49
1.47
1.43
1.61
1.67
1.51
1.59
1.79
1.75
1.72
1.41
1.62
1.59
1.49
1.56
1.47
1.74
1.43
1.32
1.67
1.73
1.47
1.83
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.703
0.606
0.494
0.935
0.280
0.880
0.440
0.312
0.004a
0.775
0.516
0.625
0.029a
0.001a
0.002a
0.072
0.101
0.062
0.524
0.616
0.506
0.274
0.234
Notes: aFinancial services (n 31), food and drink (n 21), professional , scientific and technical service (n 24), utilities (n 17);
a
indicates significant test result
j
3.21
4.04
4.43
3.02
4.05
4.14
2.57
2.88
3.63
2.54
4.13
2.79
3.25
3.91
3.75
4.24
2.50
3.64
4.02
3.29
3.17
4.34
3.71
242
243
244
240
244
244
244
242
241
240
243
239
241
244
242
241
242
240
243
242
242
241
242
Mean
1.34
1.67
1.36
1.38
1.35
1.36
1.41
1.53
1.51
1.51
1.43
1.35
1.39
1.47
1.44
1.37
1.39
1.31
1.35
1.53
1.31
1.40
1.33
240
241
239
239
239
239
236
241
240
237
239
242
236
238
244
240
241
241
241
237
241
241
244
20.42
21.38
20.36
22.21
21.02
0.04
21.12
21.63
22.08
21.46
22.27
20.78
21.55
21.44
21.32
21.18
20.29
20.44
22.45
21.88
22.12
21.00
20.16
Mean
1.47
1.83
1.47
1.74
1.43
1.32
1.67
1.73
1.79
1.75
1.72
1.41
1.62
1.59
1.49
1.56
1.67
1.51
1.59
1.61
1.49
1.47
1.43
0.30
1.20
2.69
1.68
1.61
2.12
1.00
2.47
0.97
1.74
3.56
0.71
2.58
0.83
0.52
2.09
6.66
3.59
1.19
3.68
2.81
2.92
3.55
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.961
0.755
0.452
0.635
0.665
0.557
0.805
0.486
0.810
0.640
0.309
0.875
0.460
0.842
0.919
0.565
0.081
0.315
0.754
0.293
0.423
0.409
0.326
Kruskal-Wallis test
Monte Carlo
H
df
sig.
150
151
151
152
151
153
152
152
151
151
152
153
151
152
153
153
154
153
153
150
152
152
154
4.32
3.30
4.23
2.38
3.62
3.81
3.06
3.07
2.59
3.45
2.35
4.01
2.52
3.13
3.98
3.68
3.83
3.97
2.42
2.55
2.94
3.84
4.22
Mean
North
1.38
1.63
1.38
1.32
1.36
1.38
1.40
1.47
1.50
1.51
1.33
1.39
1.31
1.49
1.47
1.40
1.45
1.35
1.33
1.35
1.38
1.46
1.39
91
91
90
90
89
90
90
90
91
90
88
90
88
89
91
89
90
91
91
90
90
91
90
4.37
4.40
4.24
2.71
3.66
4.39
3.68
3.33
2.365
3.92
2.86
4.34
3.26
3.47
3.78
3.88
4.42
4.41
2.82
3.80
3.66
4.37
4.78
Mean
South
1.28
1.52
1.33
1.46
1.35
1.26
1.36
1.61
1.40
1.47
1.53
1.27
1.41
1.41
1.38
1.33
1.22
1.19
1.35
1.49
1.06
1.24
1.14
6,742
4,296
6,707
5,996
6,650
5,137
5,135
6,213
4,754
5,551
5,408
5,856
4,652
5,811
6,332
6,295
5,352
5,730
5,722
3,667
20.16
24.96
20.17
21.65
20.14
23.40
23.31
21.21
24.09
22.42
22.54
21.99
23.95
21.84
21.21
21.00
23.04
22.28
22.39
26.03
24.14
22.73
23.03
20.01
20.32***a
20.01
20.11
20.01
20.22***a
20.21***a
20.08
20.26**a
20.16**a
20.16**a
20.13*a
20.26***a
20.12
20.08
20.06
20.19**a
20.15**a
20.15**a
20.39***a
20.27***a
0.18**a
20.19**a
Mann-Whitney test
4,711
5,503
5,361
Global North/South
Notes: aFrance (n 32), Germany (n 32), Spain(n 34), UK (n 12); *significant at the 0.05 level; **significant at the 0.01 level; ***significant at the 0.001 level; aindicates significant
test result; italics indicate lower values

Achieving universal primary
education
Combating gender-based
inequality
Achieving access to basic
sanitation
Reducing corporate ecological
footprint
Environmentally-friendly
technologies
Total
D
contribution/urgency
Country of origin (FRA,

GER, ESP, UK)a
Table VIII Potential corporate contribution to solutions to issues in sustainability grouped by country of origin
242
243
244
240
244
244
244
242
241
240
243
239
241
244
242
241
242
240
243
242
242
241
242
3.21
4.04
4.43
3.02
4.05
4.14
2.57
2.88
3.63
2.54
4.13
2.79
3.25
3.91
3.75
4.24
2.50
3.64
4.02
3.29
3.17
4.34
3.71
1.31
1.40
1.33
1.53
1.39
1.31
1.35
1.51
1.51
1.43
1.35
1.39
1.47
1.44
1.37
1.36
1.38
1.35
1.36
1.41
1.53
1.34
1.67
s
241
241
244
237
241
241
241
240
237
239
242
236
238
244
240
239
239
239
239
236
241
240
241
22.12
21.00
20.16
21.88
20.29
20.44
22.45
22.08
21.46
22.27
20.78
21.55
21.44
21.32
21.18
20.36
22.21
21.02
0.04
21.12
21.63
20.42
21.38
1.49
1.47
1.43
1.61
1.67
1.51
1.59
1.79
1.75
1.72
1.41
1.62
1.59
1.49
1.56
1.47
1.74
1.43
1.32
1.67
1.73
1.47
1.83
n
Mean
s
200
201
202
198
203
202
202
200
199
200
201
199
200
202
201
199
201
199
202
201
201
199
200
n
3.13
4.05
4.38
2.86
3.99
4.15
2.56
2.80
3.53
2.40
4.16
2.71
3.29
3.97
3.74
4.26
2.46
3.71
3.95
3.22
3.19
4.36
3.57
High HDI
Mean
1.34
1.44
1.36
1.50
1.41
1.33
1.37
1.53
1.50
1.31
1.37
1.37
1.49
1.45
1.40
1.37
1.33
1.34
1.35
1.42
1.50
1.33
1.67
s
42
42
42
42
41
42
42
42
42
40
42
40
41
42
41
42
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
3.60
3.98
4.67
3.76
4.34
4.05
2.64
3.29
4.07
3.25
3.98
3.20
3.10
3.60
3.80
4.12
2.73
3.29
4.41
3.61
3.05
4.26
4.40
1.11
1.24
1.14
1.45
1.26
1.19
1.25
1.37
1.47
1.74
1.26
1.44
1.34
1.34
1.27
1.33
1.57
1.35
1.34
1.38
1.64
1.38
1.52
3,347
3,984
3,784
2,756
3,598
3,991
3,981
3,346
3,336
2,889
3,895
3,208
3,820
3,550
4,051
3,891
3,767
3,362
3,243
3,465
3,890
4,021
2,997
Human development Index

Medium/low HDI
n
Mean
s
U
22.12
20.59
21.13
23.50
21.40
20.62
20.65
22.11
22.09
22.85
20.81
21.98
20.70
21.70
20.18
20.72
20.89
21.81
22.25
21.64
20.58
20.40
22.96
20.14*a
20.04
20.07
20.23***a
20.09
20.04
20.04
20.14*a
20.13*a
20.18**a
20.05
20.13
20.05
20.11
20.01
20.05
20.06
20.12
20.14*a
20.11
20.04*a
20.03
20.19**a
Mann-Whitney test
Z
r
Notes: *Significant at the 0.05 level; **significant at the 0.01 level; ***significant at the 0.001 level; aindicates significant test result; italics indicate lower values

Total
Mean
Table IX Potential corporate contribution to solutions to issues in sustainability
Table X Potential corporate contribution to solutions to sustainability-related challenges:

comparison of mean scores (grouped by HDI scores, global North/South)
High HDI
Medium/low HDI
South
North
Socioeconomic issues
3.31
4.02
3.86
Environmental issues
3.44
3.78
3.46
Table XI Potential corporate contribution to solutions to sustainability-related challenges: Mann-Whitney tests (high
HDI/North versus high HDI/South)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Medium/low
HDI
High HDI
Reducing poverty and

hunger
Safeguarding human
rights
Safeguarding labour
rights
Achieving universal
primary education
Combating
gender-based inequality
Combating
discrimination
Achieving access to
basic sanitation
Combating water
pollution
Combating HIV/AIDS
and malaria
Preventing climate
change
Reducing corporate
ecological footprint
Preserving marine
ecosystems
Sustainable consumption
patterns
Strengthening global
partnerships
Fair international trade
regime
Environmentally-friendly
technologies
North
Mean
Mean
152
2.94
1.38
48
3.71
1.03
152
3.84
1.46
49
4.71
154
4.22
1.39
48
150
2.55
1.35
154
3.83
153
153
Mean
42
3.60
1.11
2,426
23.58
20.25**a
1.15
42
3.98
1.24
2,433
23.73
20.26**a
4.88
1.14
42
4.67
1.14
2,696.5
22.90
20.20*a
48
3.83
1.53
42
3.76
1.45
1,948.5
24.88
20.35**a
1.45
49
4.49
1.19
41
4.34
1.26
2,814.5
22.73
20.19*a
3.97
2.42
1.35
1.33
49
49
4.71
2.98
1.12
1.44
42
42
4.05
2.64
1.19
1.25
2,587.5
2,890.5
23.35
22.48
20.24**a
20.17*a
151
2.59
1.50
49
3.43
1.44
42
3.29
1.37
2,500
23.48
20.25**a
151
3.45
1.51
48
3.79
1.47
42
4.07
1.47
3,119
21.48
20.11
152
153
151
152
2.35
4.01
2.52
3.13
1.33
1.39
1.31
1.49
48
48
48
48
2.54
4.67
3.31
3.79
1.27
1.21
1.40
1.41
40
42
40
41
3.25
3.98
3.20
3.10
1.74
1.26
1.44
1.34
3,254.5
2,639
2,458
2,705
21.16
23.00
23.44
22.75
20.08
20.22*a
20.24**a
20.19*a
153
153
3.98
3.68
1.47
1.40
49
48
3.94
3.94
1.41
1.39
42
41
3.60
3.80
1.34
1.27
3,656.5
3,291.5
20.26
21.11
20.02
20.08
151
4.23
1.38
48
4.35
1.33
42
4.12
1.33
3,515.5
20.32
20.02
152
2.38
1.32
49
2.69
1.37
41
2.73
1.57
3,236
21.42
20.1
151
3.62
1.36
48
3.98
1.28
41
3.29
1.35
3,114
21.50
20.11
135
3.81
1.38
49
4.37
1.20
41
4.41
1.34
2,844
22.61
20.18*a
152
152
3.06
3.07
1.40
1.47
49
49
3.73
3.57
1.35
1.55
41
41
3.61
3.05
1.38
1.64
2,719.5
3,050.5
22.89
21.94
20.20*a
20.134
150
151
4.32
3.30
1.38
1.63
49
49
4.47
4.39
1.19
1.54
42
42
4.26
4.40
1.38
1.52
3,512
2,326.5
20.48
23.96
20.03
20.28**a
Note: aIndicates significant test result
South
n
Mann-Whitney test
North versus South high HDI
(1 vs 3)
U
Z
r
corresponding corporate contribution can be found in the case of child mortality (22.45),
followed by HIV/AIDS and malaria (22.27) and poverty and hunger (22.12). In contrast,
perceived contributions to partnerships (20.04), labour rights (20.18), and gender-based
inequality (20.29) reach similar levels as corresponding urgency scores.
Similar to the above analysis of perceptions regarding the urgency of global challenges,
Kruskal-Wallis tests and Mann-Whitney tests were conducted to identify significant
differences of means between groups with regard to company size, North/South affiliation,
HDI scores, sector affiliation and country of origin. As can be seen in Table VI, company size
appears to affect respondents perceptions regarding their companies contributions to at
least a certain extent. In 22 out of 23 cases, average scores are highest in the FT Global 500
subsample, with labour rights being the only exception. SME respondents award the lowest
scores for 15 out of the 23 issues, while the remaining 8 issues receive the lowest scores in
the large company subsample. The higher scores of respondents based in larger
companies do not come as a surprise, as these can be expected to have a larger amount of
resources at their disposal and can therefore generally be expected to have a greater
impact than smaller companies. Only in seven out of the 23 cases, however, Kruskal-Wallis
tests show significant differences in mean scores. Overall, the impact of company size
therefore appears to be relatively modest.
As can also be seen in Tables VII and VIII, sector affiliation and country of origin only appear
to play a marginal role: only in four out of 23 cases, significant differences can be identified
across the four different sectors under review (financial services; food and drink;
professional, scientific and technical services; and utilities): water pollution, biodiversity,
climate change, and air pollution. When comparing the French, German, Spanish and UK
country subsamples, no significant difference can be identified regarding corporate
contributions to any of the 23 issues. However, all four countries are based in the global
North. The picture changes markedly when responses from Northern UN Global Compact
contact points are compared to those of Southern respondents. Here, a range of significant
differences between groups can be identified. In 22 of 23 cases, Northern respondents give
lower average scores when compared to the Southern subsample; the only exception is
climate change. Furthermore, only in eight out of 23 cases no significant differences
between North and South can be identified. Differences in mean scores between groups
exist with regard to all 13 issues that are primarily socioeconomic challenges (poverty and
hunger, human rights, labour rights, primary education, gender-based inequality,
discrimination, child mortality, basic sanitation, HIV/AIDS and malaria, corruption, global
partnerships, a fair international trade regime, child labour). On the other hand, eight out of
ten issues that are primarily describing environmental challenges showed no significant
differences in means scores (biodiversity, climate change, air pollution, corporate ecological
footprint, marine ecosystems, sustainable consumption patterns, protecting forest cover,
environmentally-friendly technologies). The only exceptions were water pollution and soil
erosion. Hence, the results suggest that within their own realm, Northern respondents
generally place less emphasis on socioeconomic issues when compared to Southern
respondents.
This pattern can only to a certain extent be observed in the case of HDI scores. Overall, in
nine out of the 23 cases, respondents from countries with medium or low HDI scores give
lower scores than when compared to the high HDI subsample. Similar to the above results,
however, all environmental issues except two do not show significant differences between
respondents from the global North and South. The only exceptions are water pollution and
the protection of forest cover. A more mixed picture emerges regarding the socioeconomic
issues, with human rights, discrimination, and corruption showing lower scores in the global
South; yet, none of these differences in mean scores prove to be significant in the
Mann-Whitney tests.
Table X above shows average mean scores across all environmental and socioeconomic
issues grouped by HDI scores of the countries respondents are based in a North/South
affiliation. As there is no country in the global North with a medium or low HDI score, three
categories can be identified based on HDI scores and North/South affiliation: high
HDI/North; high HDI/South; and low HDI/South. In general, respondents from the high
HDI/South sample award the highest average scores to both environmental and
socioeconomic issues, whereas, in both cases, respondents from the high HDI/North
sample award the lowest scores of the three groups. It is, however, interesting to note that the
divide between environmental and socioeconomic scores can be identified in both Southern
subsamples: Southern respondents appear to attribute noticeably higher scores to
socioeconomic issues irrespective of HDI levels. In stark contrast, Northern respondents
generally give higher scores to environmental issues when compared with respective scores
for socioeconomic issues.
As can be seen in Table XI, Mann-Whitney tests generally show a pattern similar to the one
that has been observed in the general comparison of Northern and Southern respondents in
terms of perceived corporate contributions to solutions to sustainability-related challenges.
A total of 12 out of 13 socioeconomic issues show significant differences in mean scores
between the high HDI/North and high HDI/South subsamples, with HIV/AIDS and malaria as
the only exception.
In contrast, only two out of ten environmental challenges show significant differences in
means scores (soil erosion, biodiversity). The divide in perceptions regarding
socioeconomic, development-related issues may therefore be more likely to be linked to
the divide between the global North and the global South, rather than to objective levels of
human development as measured by HDI scores.
Discussion
The results presented above have shown that general perceptions regarding the urgency of
the sustainability challenges were relatively homogeneous across countries, sectors, levels
of human development and differences in company size. On the one hand, this may indicate
that all of the 23 issues derived from a number of normative sustainability-related guidelines
are rather uniformly perceived as urgent and important across the sample. On the other
hand, the fact that all issues are perceived as somewhat important may also point towards
the influence of a social desirability response bias (Randall and Fernandes, 1991):
respondents might respond in a way that is perceived as socially desirable rather than
reflecting their personal perceptions.
In stark contrast however, a noticeable divide emerged between respondents from the
global North and South in terms of respective corporate contributions to these challenges.
The comparison of Northern and Southern responses has shown that all environmental
challenges except soil erosion and water pollution reached similar levels both in the Northern
and Southern subsamples, while Northern scores on socioeconomic issues were
significantly lower when compared to the Southern subsample. The results therefore
support H1.1 and H1.2. However, it has been shown that this divide is less visible when HDI
scores are used as a grouping variable. While both of the grouping variables (i.e. on the
basis of HDI scores and North/South affiliation) can be used to make a general distinction
between developed and developing countries, significant differences exist between the
two: Only 43 of the 91 non-OECD respondents are based in countries with medium or low
HDI scores.
The results may suggest that rather than objective levels of human development as
measured by e.g. HDI or gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, a range of other
contextual factors influence the way environmental and socioeconomic problems are
perceived and addressed. The North/South divide appears to be a better predictor of the
general role that is attributed to corporate actors in society, potentially constituting a CSR
divide in terms of the sustainability challenges that are (or ought) to be prioritised. Examples
of shared characteristics within the global North include the emergence of an influential
environmental movement (Dalton, 1994) and environmental parties (Muller-Rommel, 1993)
as a reaction to the negative impacts of increasing industrialization in the 1970s, which was
followed by the dissemination of national-level institutions for environmental policy (Janicke
and Weidner, 1995; Jorgens, 1996; Weidner and Janicke, 2002a) and a range of new
legislation and environmental policy innovations (Delmas, 2002; Janicke et al., 2000; Tews
et al., 2003; Weidner, 2002; Weidner and Janicke, 2002b). These factors may collectively
create a context in which the environmental dimension of sustainability is prioritized at the
expense of socioeconomic issues.
In light of the synthesis of recent academic work on the international CSR agenda presented
above, it is argued that this bias towards environmental issues in sustainability may impact
the general contribution of CSR to sustainable development in the global South in a number
of ways. Northern multinational companies (MNCs) are assumed to be key drivers of the
global dissemination of contemporary forms of CSR, both through their foreign operations
and through their supply chains (Newell and Muro, 2006). This is not only reflected by the
actions of these companies, but also through a range of normative pressures. From a
neo-institutional perspective, a Northern bias in formal guidelines and CSR practice may
create isomorphic pressures for non-Northern companies to adopt these concepts and
practices that would be deemed appropriate in a Northern context (see DiMaggio and
Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2001). The UN Global Compact or the Global
Reporting Initiative can serve as examples for these normative guidelines triggering
normative isomorphism: while both initiatives actively aim to integrate Southern companies
and stakeholders and to gain moral authority on a global level, they have both originated in a
Northern context.
This general mechanism is illustrated in Figure 1, taking a Northern MNC carrying out CSR
activities in the global South as an example. It can be argued that in the case of divergent
legitimacy perceptions in the companys home and host country contexts, host country
legitimacy perceptions if known to the company and considered in CSR-related decision
making are likely to play a subordinate role. CSR activities will still predominantly be
selected according to home country legitimacy perceptions. This corresponds to quadrants
1 and 2 in Figure 1. A successful CSR activity that is deemed appropriate by both home
country and local host country stakeholders would be located in quadrant 1. On the other
hand, an initiative that does not meet local legitimacy perceptions would thus be located in
quadrant 2 of the matrix. The highly publicized case of sports apparel companies fighting
child labour in Sialkot, Pakistan, and thereby unintentionally driving children into prostitution
(Hussain-Khaliq, 2004; Jenkins, 2005; Justice, 2002; Khan et al., 2007), can serve as an
example of the failure to identify a mismatch of legitimacy perceptions and thus be located in
quadrant 2.
Figure 1 International CSR between home and host country legitimacy perceptions
From a company perspective, CSR initiatives that do not match the local understanding of
legitimacy may lead to failure and therefore result in a misallocation of resources. If an action
is perceived as legitimate and relevant locally, it is generally more likely that the aimed-for
goals will be achieved. Hence, there is a need to recognize how local subsidiaries of MNEs
come to reflect [the] values, norms, and locally accepted practices (Rosenzweig and
Singh, 1991: 345) of the societies in which they operate (see Westney, 1989). As a
consequence, a company can be expected to benefit from measures that enable the
company to take an informed decision and to avoid these types of unintended mismatches
of legitimacy perceptions. However, a mismatch of international CSR activity and local
legitimacy perceptions can be the explicit aim of a company; in fact, this mismatch is
arguably one of the primary aims of corporate citizenship: the outspoken political approach
of corporate citizenship explicitly addresses a companys sphere of influence rather than its
sphere of responsibility (Matten and Crane, 2005a, b; Mirvis and Googins, 2006; Moon et al.,
2003; Post, 2000), and propagates an active political role for the company. One example in
this context is the promotion of human rights, irrespective of possible local opposition.
From a governance perspective, it is clearly advisable to put measures in place that ensure a
better integration and acknowledgement of Southern stakeholders. Similar to corporate
decision making processes, it will undoubtedly be useful to strengthen feedback loops
between North and South in order to facilitate informed policy decisions. This also includes
aspects such as power relations and information flows within international organisations
such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a range of donor
organisations. Feedback loops that strengthen the interlinkages between home and host
country publics can reduce both the misallocation of resources of proactive companies and
the tendency of reactive companies to employ CSR measures as a mere public relations
tool.
Governance structures that foster the creation and strengthening of institutions that in turn
enhance respective information flows would therefore improve corporate decision making in
this context. The UN Global Compact can be seen as one such institution that promotes
dialogue between companies and their global stakeholders, thereby raising awareness and
disseminating corporate best practice on development-related issues. However, the results
of the above survey have shown that the mere existence of an inclusive learning network
such as the UN Global Compact is arguably a necessary, but not sufficient precondition for
development-oriented international CSR. While the UN Global Compact among others
addresses a range of development-related issues, these may in fact be at risk of being
marginalized within the initiative.
De-marginalization of development in international CSR
In one way, subsuming development-related issues under the umbrella terms of sustainable
development or CSR can arguably be beneficial in terms of raising awareness for aspects
that would otherwise not be on the agenda of business. As pointed out above, CSR has got
people talking about worker rights, global governance, sustainable enterprise and all
manner of topics that have relevance to the well-being of the poor and marginalized
(Blowfield, 2005, p. 515). However, in addition to the general awareness of
development-related issues, awareness of the role of corporate responsibility in this
context and specific course of action for Northern companies to address global
socioeconomic challenges is of pivotal importance. The above results of the survey on
perceptions and priorities in international CSR suggest that this link to socioeconomic
challenges appears to remain relatively unclear among Northern companies compared to
the well-established link between corporate responsibility and environmental sustainability.
Consequently, one policy-level implication derived from this research is arguably that the
role of both Northern and Southern companies in regards to socioeconomic sustainability
needs to be spelt out and promoted more clearly. In particular, learning among Northern
MNCs about their role in development including the clear limitations of a globally uniform
response to global challenges is pivotal for an improved developmental impact of CSR
practice.
Southern-centred multi-stakeholder partnerships as corrective for corporate power

Furthermore, measures that enhance the active participation and engagement of local
Southern stakeholders are another key implication from this research. In general,
multi-stakeholder initiatives have become a leitmotif in both global governance and
international CSR as they are assumed to lead to more robust and mutually agreed upon
outcomes than traditional forms of regulation (Gouldson and Bebbington, 2007; Haas, 2004;
Oetzel and Doh, 2009; Ruggie, 2002, 2004). Recent academic work in this context has
suggested that Southern needs and interests are not adequately reflected in current
multi-stakeholder initiatives (see Biermann et al., 2007; Schepers, 2006). While future
research is clearly needed in this area to gain an improved understanding of the actual
impact of multi-stakeholder partner-ships on the international CSR agenda, it is equally clear
that an increased integration of Southern stakeholder is an important prerequisite for
effective and mutually agreed on solutions in this context. In particular, local Southern
governments and trade unions need to take ownership of CSR in order to be able to shape
the agenda.
Generic limitations of the current mode of international CSR?

The implications sketched out above mirror recent calls to reclaim development agendas
(Utting, 2006) and to move the corporate citizenship agenda to the South (Ward and Fox,
2002; see Blowfield and Frynas, 2005; Kytle and Ruggie, 2005; Newell, 2005). However, it
can also be argued that given the prospect of skewed power relations within
multi-stakeholder partnerships and within international CSR in general, this is easier said
than done. CSR may not necessarily be a response to a certain set of sustainability
challenges, but rather to certain salient (domestic) stakeholder groups. This inherent bias of
international CSR might point towards generic limitations of the current mode of voluntary,
market-driven, international CSR in contributing to sustainable development in the global
South. Figure 2 illustrates the company-society interface and related decision making in the
context of CSR.
The power relations and the bias towards Northern-based primary stakeholders lead to an
emphasis on the CSR business case with its implicit win-win orientation (quadrant 1) in
international CSR. Only issues that are perceived as legitimate by both the company and its
primary stakeholders can be expected to be addressed by voluntary, beyond compliance
corporate responsibility. In contrast, activities located in the third quadrant, i.e. those that are
Figure 2 International CSR as a means of home country legitimization
perceived as legitimate by the stakeholders but not by the company will not be exploited
through a mainly voluntary, corporate-led CSR agenda. For example, issues such as the
decision not to engage in tax avoidance or transfer pricing may serve as examples for issues
located in the third quadrant.
Along these lines, the power relations and legitimization processes that are underlying
international CSR may hinder the integration of Southern perspectives into mainstream
international CSR practice. Given the Northern bias and the under-representation of
development-related issues which are arguably inextricably linked to the current generation
of international CSR, anything more than incremental changes in these areas is only likely to
be induced by binding regulation beyond current voluntary, market-driven types of
corporate responsibility. Hence, for an effective contribution of the corporate sector to
sustainable development in the global South, focus needs to shift back to binding regulation
instead of largely voluntary action.
Conclusions
In the above web-based survey, contact points of corporate UN Global Compact

participants were asked to rate a set of 23 issues in sustainability in three different contexts.
Based on their own perceptions, respondents were asked to prioritize the issues in terms of
their global urgency and in terms of the extent to which their company was able to contribute
to effective solutions to the challenges each of these issues created.
The results have shown distinctly different prioritizations of sustainability-related issues
between respondents based in the global North and South, potentially constituting a CSR
divide in terms of the sustainability challenges that are to be prioritised. Northern
respondents appear to emphasize the environmental dimension of sustainability while at the
same time showing a lack of awareness of their companies socioeconomic responsibilities.
However, this lack of awareness is not linked to general perceptions regarding the urgency
of global development-related challenges; it is, however, linked to the role Northern
respondents attribute to their own companies in sustainability. Thus, the results of the survey
merely show distinctly lower levels of awareness or expectations regarding the role of own
company in socioeconomic sustainability among Northern respondents.
It has been argued that this bias towards the environmental dimension of sustainability may
be inherent to the current mode of CSR, thereby limiting its potential contribution in the
broader context of global governance and sustainable development. In light of the
socioeconomic challenges faced in vast parts of the non-industrialized world, the current
mode of CSR may therefore not be an adequate approach to address these challenges.
Instead, CSR may be more likely to merely have an impact in terms of global environmental
governance based on the perceptions and interests of the (Northern) actors that currently
shape the current and future direction of CSR-related concepts, instruments and initiatives.
An increased involvement of Southern actors is urgently needed to overcome this Northern
bias in the CSR agenda and to turn CSR into an instrument that addresses all three pillars
of sustainability.
Notes
1. In this research, the UNCTAD (2008) definition of developed and developing countries is followed:
here, generally all countries are subsumed as global South (i.e. developing) that are not OECD
and/or EU member states; exceptions are Mexico, the Republic of Korea and Turkey (OECD
members but developing), Andorra, Israel, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, and the transition
countries of South-Eastern Europe as well as the Commonwealth of Independent States
(non-EU/non-OECD but not developing).
2. The UN Global Compact defines large companies as those that are not classified as SMEs and
are not listed as Financial Times Global 500 companies.
References
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Barkemeyer, R. (2009), Beyond compliance below expectations? CSR in the context of international
development, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 273-89.
Biermann, F., Chan, M.-S., Mert, A. and Pattberg, P. (2007), Multi-stakeholder partnerships for
sustainable development: does the promise hold?, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei CSR Paper 28.2007,
FEEM, Milan.
Blowfield, M. (2003), Ethical supply chains in the cocoa, coffee and tea industries, Greener
Management International, Vol. 43, Autumn, pp. 15-24.
Blowfield, M. (2005), Corporate social responsibility: reinventing the meaning of development?,
International Affairs, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 515-24.
Blowfield, M. and Frynas, J.G. (2005), Setting new agendas: critical perspectives on corporate social
responsibility in the developing world, International Affairs, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 499-513.
Bowen, F.E. (2000), Environmental visibility: a trigger of green organizational response?, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 92-107.
Christmann, P. (2004), Multinational companies and the natural environment: determinants of global
environmental policy standardization, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 747-60.
Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. (2006), Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards:
determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 863-78.
Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995), A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Corden, W.M. and Neary, P.J. (1982), Booming sector and de-industrialization in a small open
economy, Economic Journal, Vol. 92 No. 368, pp. 825-48.
Dalton, R. (1994), The Green Rainbow: Environmental Groups in Western Europe, Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT.
Delmas, M. (2002), The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and the United
States: an institutional perspective, Policy Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 91-119.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-60.
Draude, A. (2007), How to capture non-Western forms of governance. in favour of an equivalence
functionalist observation of governance in areas of limited statehood, SFB-Governance Working
Papers Series No. 2, DFG Research Center (SFB) 700, Berlin, January.
Edwards, A. (1953), The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that
the trait will be endorsed, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 90-3.
Elsbach, K.D. (1994), Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 1, p. 57.
Field, A. (2009), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
Finkelstein, L.S. (1995), What is global governance?, Global Governance, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 367-72.
Fowler, F.J. (2009), Survey Research Methods, 4th ed., Sage, London.
Fox, T. (2004), Corporate social responsibility and development: in quest of an agenda, Development,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 29-36.
Fox, T., Ward, H. and Howard, B. (2002), Public Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Baseline Study: Corporate Social Responsibility Practice, Private Sector Advisory
Services Department, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Frederick, W.C. (1991), The moral authority of transnational corporate codes, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 165-77.
Frynas, J.G. (2005), The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: evidence from
multinational oil companies, International Affairs, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 581-98.
Frynas, J.G. (2008), Corporate social responsibility and international development: critical
assessment, Corporate Governance, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 274-81.
Gouldson, A. and Bebbington, J. (2007), Corporations and the governance of environmental risk,
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 4-20.
Haas, P.M. (2004), Addressing the global governance deficit, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 1-15.
Haas, P.M. and Kanie, N. (Eds) (2004), Dynamics of Multilateral Environmental Governance, United
Nations University Press, Tokyo.
Hahn, T. (2005), Gesellschaftliches Engagement von Unternehmen. Reziproke Stakeholder,
okonomische Anreize, strategische Gestaltungsoptionen, Deutscher Universitats-Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Harzing, A.-W. (2004), Does the use of English-language questionnaires in cross-national research
obscure national differences?, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 213-24.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA and London.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural
Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, rev. and expanded 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
and London.
Holme, R. and Watts, P. (2000), Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good Business Sense, World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.M., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hussain-Khaliq, S. (2004), Eliminating child labour from the Sialkot soccer ball industry: two industry-led
approaches, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 13, Spring, pp. 101-7.
Husted, B.W. and Allen, D.B. (2006), Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise:
strategic and institutional approaches, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6,
pp. 838-49.
Husted, B.W. and Allen, D.B. (2007), Corporate social strategy in multinational enterprises:
antecedents and value creation, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 345-61.
Janicke, M. and Weidner, H. (Eds) (1995), Successful Environmental Policy. A Critical Evaluation of 24
Cases, Edition Sigma, Berlin.
Janicke, M., Kern, K. and Jorgens, H. (2000), Die Diffusion umweltpolitischer Innovationen, Zeitschrift
fur Umweltpolitik (ZfU), Vol. 4, pp. 507-46.
Jenkins, H. (2004), A critique of conventional CSR theory: an SME perspective, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 37-57.
Jenkins, H. (2006), Small business champions for corporate social responsibility, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 241-56.
Jenkins, R. (2005), Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty, International Affairs,
Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 525-40.
Jorgens, H. (1996), Die Institutionalisierung von Umweltpolitik im internationalen Vergleich,
in Janicke, M. (Ed.), Umweltpolitik der Industrielander. Entwicklung Bilanz Erfolgsbedingungen,
Edition Sigma, Berlin, pp. 59-112.
Justice, D.W. (2002), The international trade union movement and the new codes of conduct,
in Jenkins, R., Pearson, R. and Seyfang, G. (Eds), Corporate Responsibility and Labour Rights: Codes of
Conduct in the Global Economy, Earthscan Publications, London, pp. 90-100.
Kaufman, A., Tiantubtim, E., Pussayapibul, N. and Davids, P. (2004), Implementing voluntary labour
standards and codes of conduct in the thai garment industry, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 13,
Spring, pp. 91-9.
Khan, F.R., Munir, K.A. and Willmott, H. (2007), A dark side of institutional entrepreneurship: soccer
balls, child labour and postcolonial impoverishment, Organization Studies, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1055-77.
Kirkby, J., OKeefe, P. and Timberlake, L. (1995), Introduction, in Kirkby, J., OKeefe, P. and
Timberlake, L. (Eds), The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Development, Earthscan, London, pp. 1-14.
Kytle, B. and Ruggie, J.G. (2005), Corporate social responsibility as risk management. a model for
multinationals, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 10, John F. Kennedy School
of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Lambert, D.M. and Harrington, T.C. (1990), Measuring non-response bias in customer service mail
surveys, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 5-25.
Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000), Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: the case of the
United States and France, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 283-97.
Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005a), Corporate citizenship: missing the point or missing the boat? A reply
to van Oosterhout, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 681-4.
Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005b), Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical
conceptualization, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 166-79.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-63.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and
Trends. Findings of the Conditions and Trends Working Group, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Mirvis, P.H. and Googins, B.K. (2006), Stages of Corporate Citizenship: A Developmental Framework,
Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
Moon, J., Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2003), Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a
metaphor for business participation in society (2nd edition), in Moon, J. (Ed.), ICCSR Research Paper
Series, International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Nottingham.
Muller-Rommel, F. (1993), Grune in Westeuropa. Entwicklungsphasen und Erfolgsbedingungen,
Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
Newell, P. (2005), Citizenship, accountability and community: the limits of the CSR agenda,
Newell, P. and Muro, A. (2006), Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Argentina,
Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 24, December, pp. 49-68.
Oetzel, J. and Doh, J.P. (2009), MNEs and development: a review and reconceptualization, Journal of
World Business, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 108-20.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001), Corporate Codes of
Conduct: Expanded Review of their Contents, Corporate Responsibility: Private Initiatives and Public
Goals, OECD, Paris.
Post, J.E. (2000), Meeting the challenge of global corporate citizenship, Corporate Citizenship
Research Papers, Boston College Center for Corporate Community Relations, Boston, MA.
Prieto-Carron, M., Lund-Thomsen, P., Chan, A., Muro, A.N.A. and Bhushan, C. (2006), Critical
perspectives on CSR and development: what we know, what we dont know, and what we need to know,
Ragodoo, N.J.F. (2009), CSR as a tool to fight against poverty: the case of Mauritius, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Randall, D.M. and Fernandes, M.F. (1991), The social desirability response bias in ethics research,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 11, pp. 805-17.
Redclift, M. (2005), Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age, Sustainable
Development, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 212-27.
Risse, T. and Lehmkuhl, U. (2006), Governance in areas of limited statehood new modes of
governance?, SFB-Governance Working Paper Series No. 1, DFG Research Center (SFB) 700, Berlin.
Robinson, J. (2004), Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 369-84.
Rosenau, J.N. and Czempiel, E.-O. (1992), Governance without Government. Order and Change in
World Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rosenzweig, P.M. and Singh, J.V. (1991), Organizational environments and the multinational
enterprise, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 340-61.
Ruggie, J.G. (2002), The theory and practice of learning networks. corporate social responsibility and
the global compact, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 27-36.
Ruggie, J.G. (2004), Reconstituting the global public domain: issues, actors and practices, European
Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 499-531.
Sachs, J.D. and Warner, A.M. (1995), Natural resource abundance and economic growth, NBER
Working Paper No. 5398, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, Cambridge, MA.
Sachs, J.D. and Warner, A.M. (2001), The curse of natural resources, European Economic Review,
Vol. 45 Nos 4-6, pp. 827-38.
Schepers, D.H. (2006), The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social responsibility
strategies of multinational corporations, Business and Society, Vol. 45 No. 3, p. 282.
Scott, W.R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi, A. (2005), Corporations, stakeholders and
sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business-society relations, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 263-81.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610.
Tews, K., Busch, P.-O. and Jorgens, H. (2003), The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments,
European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 569-600.
UN Millennium Project and Sachs, J.D. (2005), Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the
Millennium Development Goals, Earthscan, London.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2008), World Investment Report
2008. Transnational Corporations and the Infrastructure Challenge, UNCTAD, New York, NY and
Geneva.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2007), Human Development Report 2007/2008.
Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World, UNDP, New York, NY.
United Nations Global Compact (2004), The Global Compact: A Network of Networks, United Nations
Global Compact, New York, NY.
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) (2003), Corporate social
responsibility and development: towards a new agenda?, UNRISD Conference News, UNRISD,
Geneva.
Utting, P. (2001), Promoting Socially Responsible Business in Developing Countries. The Potential and
Limits of Voluntary Initiatives, Report of the UNRISD Workshop 23-24 October, 2000, United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva.
Utting, P. (2005), Corporate responsibility and the movement of business, Development in Practice,
Vol. 15 Nos 3-4, pp. 375-88.
Utting, P. (Ed.) (2006), Reclaiming Development Agendas. Knowledge, Power and International Policy
Making, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Utting, P. (2007), CSR and equality, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 697-712.
Waldman, D.A., de Luque, M.S., Washburn, N. and House, R.J. (2006), Cultural and leadership
predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GLOBE study of 15 countries,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 823-37.
Ward, H. (2004), Public Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: Taking Stock,
Corporate Social Responsibility Practice of the World Bank Group, Washington, DC.
Ward, H. and Fox, T. (2002), Moving the corporate citizenship agenda to the South, Words into Action,
available at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02259.pdf
WCED (1987), Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Weidner, H. (2002), Capacity building for ecological modernization: lessons from cross-national
research, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 1340-68.
Weidner, H. and Janicke, M. (2002a), Capacity Building in National Environmental Policy: A Comparative
Study of 17 Countries, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York, NY.
Weidner, H. and Janicke, M. (2002b), Summary: environmental capacity building in a converging
world, in Weidner, H. and Janicke, M. (Eds), Capacity Building in National Environmental Policy:
A Comparative Study of 17 Countries, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, NY, pp. 409-44.
Westney, D.E. (1989), Institutionalization theory and the multinational enterprise, paper presented at
the Workshop on Organizational Theory and the MNC, INSEAD, Fontainebleau.
Zerbe, W.J. and Paulhus, D.L. (1987), Socially desirable responding in organizational behaviour:
a reconception, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 250-64.
Zucker, L.G. (1987), Institutional theories of organization, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 443-64.
Corresponding author
Ralf Barkemeyer can be contacted at: r.barkemeyer@qub.ac.uk
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Ralf Barkemeyer School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Frank Figge Euromed Management School,
Marseille, France . 2014. CSR in multiple environments: the impact of headquartering. Critical perspectives on international
business 10:3, 124-151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Hannes Hofmann, Christian Busse, Christoph Bode, Michael Henke. 2014. Sustainability-Related Supply Chain Risks:
Conceptualization and Management. Business Strategy and the Environment 23, 160-172. [CrossRef]
3. Maria Alejandra Pineda-Escobar Business, Sustainability, and Base of the Pyramid 67-91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Alina Mihaela Dima, Simona Nicoleta Vasilache An Analysis on the Link Between Emerging Markets MNEs Reputation and
Corporate Social Responsibility 51-66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Mehran NejatiResearcher in the School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia Sasan GhasemiALA
Excellence Consulting Group, Isfahan, Iran. 2012. Corporate social responsibility in Iran from the perspective of employees.
Social Responsibility Journal 8:4, 578-588. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

17471111111141521

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

17471111111141521

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

17471111111141521

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Responsibility Journal

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Corporate perceptions of sustainability

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

Ralf Barkemeyer is based

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

The CSR agenda

PAGE 258 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

Respondents perceptions of the role and responsibilities of the company in society

VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 259

In contrast, Southern respondents can be assumed to prioritize different aspects in

Southern proponents of CSR attribute a higher weight to socioeconomic issues

A web-based survey of sustainability-related perceptions of contact points of corporate UN

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

A web-based survey was constructed with the aim of identifying general

PAGE 260 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 261

A potential limitation of survey-based research can be caused by the extent to which

PAGE 262 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

Table II Global urgency of issues in sustainability grouped by company size

Reducing poverty and hunger

Note: a Indicates significant test result

Table III Global urgency of issues in sustainability grouped by sector affiliation

Reducing poverty and hunger

Sector affiliation (4 sectors)a

VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 263

PAGE 264 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011

Mann-Whitney test (4 and 5)

Reducing poverty and hunger

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

Table V Global urgency of issues in sustainability

Reducing poverty and hunger

High HDI (1)

Human development index

VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 265

PAGE 266 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

Reducing poverty and hunger

Note: aIndicates significant test result

Reducing poverty and hunger

Sector affiliation (selected

VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 267

PAGE 268 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011

Reducing poverty and hunger

Country of origin (FRA,

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)

VOL. 7 NO. 2 2011 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 269

Human development Index

Reducing poverty and hunger

Table IX Potential corporate contribution to solutions to issues in sustainability

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 21:33 16 April 2016 (PT)