Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 391–406 | Cite as

CSR, Transparency and the Role of Intermediate Organisations

  • Wim DubbinkEmail author
  • Johan GraaflandEmail author
  • Luc van Liedekerke


Transparency is a crucial condition to implement a CSR policy based on the reputation mechanism. The central question of this contribution is how a transparency policy ought to be organised in order to enhance the CSR behaviour of companies. Governments endorsing CSR as a new means of governance have different strategies to foster CSR transparency. In this paper we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of two conventional policy strategies: the facilitation policy and the command and control strategy. Using three criteria (efficiency, freedom and virtue) we conclude that both strategies are defective. Most attention is paid to the facilitation strategy since governments nowadays mainly use this. In evaluating this strategy we analyse the Dutch case. As an alternative we introduce a third government policy: the development of a self-regulating sub-system. By construing an analogy with the historical development of corporate financial disclosure, we point out that the vital step in the creation of a self-regulating subsys- tem is the creation of strong informational intermediate organisations.


self-regulation self-governance system approach social reporting command and control strategic and moral assessment of transparency,  transparency policy CSR infomediaries 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Auger, Pat, Burke, Paul, Devinney, Timothy M. and Louviere, Jordan J. (2003) What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product Features?, Journal of Business Ethics, XXXXII, 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartels, W.: 2006, ‹Directieverslagen te mager’, People Planet Profit, V, 29Google Scholar
  3. Barton, J., Waymire, G. (2004) “Investor protection under unregulated financial reporting.” Journal of Accounting and Economics XXXVIII, 65–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumol, W. J. (1975) Business Responsibility and Economic Behavior. In: M. Anshen (eds) Managing the Socially Responsible Corporation. New York: MacMillan, pp. 59–74Google Scholar
  5. Baumol, W. J. and S. J. Batey Blackman (1991) Perfect Markets and Easy Virtue: Business Ethics and the Invisible Hand. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  6. Berthelot, S. D. Cormier and M. Magnan (2003) Environmental Disclosure Research: Review and Synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature 22, 1–44Google Scholar
  7. Conlisk J. (1996) Why Bounded Rationality?. Journal of Economic Literature XXXIV, 669–700Google Scholar
  8. Consumentenbond: 2002, ‹Weet wat je koopt. Wet openbaarheid van productie en ketens’, Accessed June 2006
  9. Council for the Annual Reports: 2003, Annual Report Guideline 400 (Kluwer, Deventer)Google Scholar
  10. Curlo, Eleonora (1999) Marketing Strategy, Product Safety, and Ethical Factors in Consumer Choice. Journal of Business Ethics XXI, 37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deegan C., Rankin M. (1996) Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the environmental protection authority. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9:50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubbink, W.: 2003, Assisting the Invisible Hand. (Issues in Business Ethics Series) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht)Google Scholar
  13. Fung, A., E. Fagotto, M. Graham, D. Weil. (2006) “The Effectiveness of Regulatory Disclosure. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, XXVI/1, 155–181Google Scholar
  14. Fung, A., D. Weil, M. Graham and E. Fagotto: 2004, ‹The Political Economy of Transparency: What Makes Disclosure Effective?’, Working Paper OP-03-04, Harvard University, Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and InnovationGoogle Scholar
  15. Global Reporting Initiative: 2002, Final Report of the Measurement Working Group Google Scholar
  16. Graafland, J.J. (2002) Sourcing ethics in the textile sector: the case of C&A, Business Ethics: A European Review, 11: 282–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graafland, J.J. and S. Eijffinger (2004), Corporate social responsibility of Dutch companies: Benchmarking, transparency and robustness, De Economist, 152, 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graafland, J.J., H. Smid (2004) Reputation, Corporate Social Responsibility and Market Regulation, Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, XLIX, 271–308Google Scholar
  19. Gray, R. (2001) Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: What (if anything) have we learned?. Business Ethics: A European Review X, 9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Grip, A., J. van Loo and J. Sanders: 1999, ‹Employability in Nederland’, Economisch-Statistische Berichten LXXXIV, 116–118Google Scholar
  21. Hafkamp, W. and G. Molenkamp: 1990, ‹Tussen Droom en Daad: Over Uitvoeren en Handhaven’ in Commissie Lange Termijn Milieubeleid (ed.), Het milieu: Denkbeelden voor de 21ste Eeuw. (Kerckebosch, Zeist), pp. 209–251Google Scholar
  22. Hess D. (2007) Social reporting and new governance regulation: The prospects of achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Business Ethics Quarterly 1, 453–76Google Scholar
  23. Hess, D. and T. W. Dunfee (2007) The Kasky-Nike threat to corporate social reporting: Implementing a standard of optimal truthful disclosure as a solution?. Business Ethics Quarterly 2, 5–32Google Scholar
  24. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000) Corporate communication and impression management: New perspectives why companies engage in social reporting, Journal of Business Ethics 2, 55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaptein, M.: 2003, ‹De open onderneming: een bedrijfsethisch vraagstuk’, in M. Kaptein and J. Wempe (eds.), De Open Onderneming (ERIM, Erasmus University Rotterdam)Google Scholar
  26. Keane J. (eds) (1988) Civil Society and the State. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolk, A., Tulder, R.van, I. Sloekers (2001) Werken gedragscodes kinderarbeid?. Economisch-Statistische Berichten LXXXVI, 160–163Google Scholar
  28. Kooiman, J. (eds) (1993) Modern Governance. New Government - Society Interactions. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. KPMG: 2005, KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005. AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. KPMG: 2006, ‹Carrots and Sticks for Starters. Current Trends and Approaches in Voluntary and Mandatory Standards for Sustainability Reporting’,
  31. de Laat, P. B.: 2001, ‹Open source software: A new Mertonian ethos?’, in A. Vedder (ed.), Ethics and the Internet (Intersentia, Antwerpen-Groningen-Oxford), pp. 33–47Google Scholar
  32. van Lamoen, C. and R. van Tulder: 2001, ‹Accepteren, aanmodderen of afwijzen’, Economisch-Statistische Berichten LXXXVI, 932–934Google Scholar
  33. Lange, V.P.A. de, M.J. Winkler (2000) Social labelling and codes of conduct: a potential role for the Dutch government. Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  34. Luhmann, N. 1988. Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  35. Milieudefensie: 2005, ‹Wie van de drie is kampioen van de schone schijn?’, Accessed June 2006
  36. Ministry of Economic Affairs (2004) Transparantie Benchmark. SDU, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  37. Ministry of Economic Affairs: 2007, Terugblikken en vooruitzien. Voortgangsonderzoek Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen (2001–2006) (SDU, The Hague)Google Scholar
  38. MVOPlatform: 2006, ‹Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen in uw verkiezingsprogramma 2007’, Accessed June 2006
  39. van Overfelt, W., M. Deloof and A. Vanstraelen: 2007, ‹The Quality of Unregulated Financial Reporting: Evidence from the Early 20th Century’, Working Paper, University AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  40. Owen, D.L., T.A. Swift, C. Humphrey and M. Bowerman (2000) The new social audits: Accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions?. The European Accounting Review IX, 81–98Google Scholar
  41. Pigou, A. C.: 1920/1962, The Economics of Welfare, 4th edition (MacMillan, New York)Google Scholar
  42. Rabin, M. (1998) Psychology and Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVI, 11–46Google Scholar
  43. Rhunka, J.C. and H. Boerstler (1998) Governmental incentives for corporate self-regulation. Journal of Business Ethics XVII, 309–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scherer, A. G., G. Palazzo and D. Baumann: 2006, ‹Global Rules and Private Actors: Toward a New Role of the Transnational Corporation in Global Governance’, Business Ethics Quarterly XVI/4, 505–532Google Scholar
  45. Schultze C.L. (1977) The Public Use of Private Interest. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, A.: 1776/1976, ‹An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Two Volumes’, in R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (eds.) (Oxford University Press, Oxford)Google Scholar
  47. Stone C.D. (1975) Where the Law Ends. The Social Control of Corporate Behaviour. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Teubner, G. and Willke H. (1984) ‹Kontext und Autonomie: gesellschaftliche Selbststeuerung durch reflexives Recht.’ Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 1VI/1, 4–35Google Scholar
  49. Vliet, M. van. (1992) Communicatieve besturing van het milieuhandelen van ondernemingen. Eburon, DelftGoogle Scholar
  50. VNO-NCW: 2006, Openheid van zaken. Zeven ondernemingen over communicatie met publiek (The Hague)Google Scholar
  51. Walden, W.D. and Schwarz B.N. (1997) Environmental disclosures and public pressure policy. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy XVI, 125–54Google Scholar
  52. Weale, A. (1992) The New Politics of Pollution. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  53. Wartick, S. and Wood D. (1999) International Business & Society. Blackwell Business, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Yeager, P.C. (1991) The Limits of Law. The Public Regulation of Private Pollution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MassGoogle Scholar
  55. Zadek, S., Prudan P., Evans R. (1997) Building Corporate Accountability. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Center for Economics and Ethics, KULeuven and University AntwerpLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations