Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Applications of corporate social monitoring systems; types, dimensions, and goals

  • Karen Paul
  • Steven D. Lydenberg
Article

Abstract

This article discusses the development and application of various types of corporate social monitoring systems. Boycotts are a relatively simple form of social monitoring system which aim to produce changes in corporate social behavior. Boycotts may be organized by a single group, or by a number of groups simultaneously. Rating systems may be organized around a single issue, such as the Sullivan Principles rating scheme, or may include multiple companies and multiple issues, such as shopping guides or ethical investment systems.

Monitoring systems may be unidimensional or multidimensional, qualitative or quantitative, and absolute or relative. Consumers and investors appear to be the groups most likely to be targeted in these schemes. The importance of these monitoring systems appears to be increasing as both consumers and investors become more interested in using social criteria in decision-making.

Keywords

Economic Growth Monitoring System Social Behavior Simple Form Rate System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brooks, J., Jr.: 1986,Canadian Corporate Social Performance (The Society of Management Accounts of Canada, Hamilton, Ontario).Google Scholar
  2. Dierkes, M.: 1984, ‘Corporate Social Reporting and Auditing: Theory and Practice’, in K. J. Hopt and G. Teubner, Eds.,Corporate Governance and Directors' Liabilities — Legal, Economic, and Sociological Analyses on Corporate Social Responsibility (Walter der Gruyter, Berlin/New York).Google Scholar
  3. Domini, A. L. and Kinder, P. D.: 1984,Ethical Investing (Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.).Google Scholar
  4. Elkington, J. and Hailes, J.: 1988,The Green Consumer Guide (Victor Gollancz, Ltd., London).Google Scholar
  5. Lydenberg, S. D.: 1978,Minding the Corporate Conscience: Public Interest Groups and Social Accountability (Council on Economic Priorities, New York).Google Scholar
  6. Lydenberg, S. D., Marlin, A. T., and Strub, S. O.: 1986,Rating America's Corporate Conscience: A Provocative Guide to the Companies Behind the Products You Buy Every Day (Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts).Google Scholar
  7. Paul, K.: 1989, ‘Corporate Social Monitoring in South Africa: A Decade of Achievement, An Uncertain Future’,Journal of Business Ethics 8, pp. 463–469.Google Scholar
  8. Paul, K. and Aquila, D.: 1988, ‘The Economic Impact and Political Consequence of Ethical Investing: The Case of South Africa’,Journal of Business Ethics 7, pp. 691–697.Google Scholar
  9. Rockness, J. and Williams, P. F.: 1988, ‘A Descriptive Study of Social Responsibility Mutual Funds’,Accounting, Organizations and Society 13, pp. 397–411.Google Scholar
  10. Rose, R., Ed.: 1990, ‘Symposium on Social Indicators’,Journal of Public Policy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  11. Simon, J., Powers, C. W., and Gunnemann, J. P.: 1972,The Ethical Investor (Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.).Google Scholar
  12. Will, R., Marlin, A. T., Corson, B., and Schorsch, J.: 1988,Shopping for a Better World (Council on Economic Priorities, New York City).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Paul
    • 1
    • 2
  • Steven D. Lydenberg
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Marketing & EnvironmentFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini & Co., Inc.CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations