Thoughts on the Evaluation of Corporate Social Performance Through Projects
- 1.2k Downloads
Corporate social performance (CSP) has become a widely applied concept, discussed in most large firms’ corporate reports and the academic literature alike. Unfortunately, CSP has largely been employed as a way of demonstrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) in practice, or to justify the business case for CSR in academia by relating some measure of CSP to some measure of financial performance. In this article, we discuss multiple shortcomings to these approaches. We argue that (1) CSR activities need to be managed and measured as projects and aggregated to the business or corporate level using a project portfolio; (2) appropriate measures need to be identified that move away from reporting the firm’s activities toward quantifying actual social outcomes achieved; and (3) given the types of projects prevalent in CSR, statistical evaluation methods common in other fields (ideally, pre-test post-test control group designs, such as used in medicine or propensity score matching for ongoing or past projects) should be employed to properly measure outcomes. We make a first, albeit imperfect, attempt at using such an approach with data collected on behalf of the Patrimonio Hoy project, a well-publicized CSR initiative carried out by Cemex in Mexico. We show that the results from this data reinforce concerns voiced earlier in this article.
KeywordsCorporate social performance Impact evaluation Measurement issues Project management Propensity score matching
The authors would like to extend their heartfelt thanks to Cemex and the managers who supported this project and generously provided their time to researchers at various stages in its development. In addition, the authors would like to thank the JBE reviewer who provided substantial guidance to the improvement of this manuscript. The authors alone are responsible for any errors that may remain.
- Abbott, W., & Monsen, R. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515.Google Scholar
- Cemex. (2009). Crece tu patrimonio hoy. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.cemexmexico.com/se/se_ph.html.
- Cemex. (2011a). Sustainable development: History. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.cemex.com/su/su_oc_sh.aspx.
- Cemex. (2011b). Investor center: Reports. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.cemex.com/ic/ic_re.asp.
- Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
- Coldewey, C. (2005, June 25). BOP in action: Cemex’s Patrimonio Hoy. Retrieved May 25, 2010, from Worldchanging: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002949.html.
- Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kremer, M. (2007). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
- Global Reporting Initiative. (2007). Performance indicators. Retrieved July 2008, from http://www.globalreporting.org/GRIPortal/GRIControls/G3Online/Tree/frmTree.aspx?IS=1.
- González, J. (2003). Estado, política social de vivienda y autoconstrucción: El sistema de consolidación habitacional en las urbanizaciones populares bajo el neoliberalismo (El caso del área metropolitana de Monterrey). Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, México.Google Scholar
- Greene, W. (1993). Econometric analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Harrington, H. J., Conner, D. R., & Horney, N. L. (2000). Project change management: Applying change management to improvement projects. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Herbst, K. (2002, Sept.). Enabling the poor to build housing: Pursuing profit and social development together. Changemakers.net Journal. Retrieved October 19, 2010, from www.changemakers.net/journal/02september/herbstep.cfm.
- Iracheta, A. (2001). México: Estudio sobre la Vivienda de Bajo Ingreso: Limitaciones en la Oferta de Vivienda. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
- Kaplan, D. L. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and theories of global governance: Strategic contestation in global issue arenas. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 432–451). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Khandker, S. R., Koolwal, G. B., & Samad, H. A. (2010). Handbook on impact evaluation: Quantitative methods and practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
- King, A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48(2), 289–299.Google Scholar
- KLD Research and Analytics. (2009). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings. Retrieved February 2009, from http://www.kld.com/research/ratings_indicators.html.
- Kunz, I., & Romero, I. (2008). Naturaleza y dimensión del rezago habitacional en México. Economía, Sociedad y Territorio, 8(26), 415–449.Google Scholar
- London, T. (2009). Making better investments at the base of the pyramid. Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 106–113.Google Scholar
- Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits: The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of what and who really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
- Porter, M., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.Google Scholar
- Prahalad, C. K. (2009). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Pratt, C. B., & Lennon, G. (2001). What’s wrong with outcomes evaluation? Public Relations Quarterly, 46(4), 40–44.Google Scholar
- Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2009). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- SAM Indexes GmbH. (2006). Dow Jones sustainability indexes. Retrieved August 2008, from http://www.sustainability-index.com/07_htmle/assessment/criteria.html.
- Sandoval, R. (2005). Block by block. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3(2), 34–37.Google Scholar
- Schreuder, H. (1981). Employees and the corporate social report: The Dutch case. The Accounting Review, 56(2), 294–308.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
- Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.Google Scholar
- Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
- Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. (1980). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
- Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.Google Scholar
- Xanhon, K. J. (2005). Selling to the poor multinational firms are finding a surprisingly lucrative market in targeting low-income consumers. Time International, 165(23), 52.Google Scholar
- Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(December), 125–132.Google Scholar