Advertisement

Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus

, Volume 9, Issue 1–2, pp 129–138 | Cite as

A New Methodology Approach for Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility Performance

  • Nikolaos A. PanayiotouEmail author
  • Konstantin G. Aravossis
  • Peggy Moschou
Article

Abstract

The exact contribution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to a company as well as to its stakeholders should be measurable in order to be evaluated correctly. The difficult task of measuring the results of CSR has been a matter of significant research both by academics and by practitioners. Some of the literature on corporate social responsibility combines CSR with stakeholder theory introducing corporate social performance. The literature has attempted to describe emerging models of the issues that lead to a coherent model of what would represent corporate social performance. However, it is the case that social aspects are “soft” in nature, therefore being difficult to quantify. Innovated methods of performance measurement such as that of Balanced Scorecard has lately been introduced in some companies in their attempt to include non-financial indicators to give a more balanced and forecasting power to the traditional financial performance assessment system, but the view of corporate social responsibility is rarely taken into account. Furthermore, management frameworks that try to cover social and environmental aspects, such as Global Reporting Initiative, by providing a number of related performance measures, are not able to connect them with corporate strategy and are poor evaluators of cause–effect relationships. In the present paper, a CSR performance measurement framework based on the adoption of the Balanced Scorecard approach is presented. For the development of the proposed framework, the existing assessment of CSR and Corporate Sustainability actions of the Greek companies of different sectors was analysed in order to identify common practices in CSR performance evaluation as well as existing limitations. Taking into account the social indicators suggested by the traditional balanced scorecard views, an extension of its structure is proposed in order to better embody the environmental and social aspects of company performance.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) Performance measurement Balanced scorecard GRI Qualitative and quantitative evaluation process 

References

  1. Aravossis, K., Panayiotou, N., & Tsousi, K. (2006). A proposed methodological framework for the evaluation of corporate social responsibility. In K. Aravossis, C. A. Brebbia, E. Kakaras, & A. G. Kungolos (Eds.), Environmental economics and investment assessment (pp. 87–95). Shouthampton, Boston: WIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boatright, J. R. (2003). Ethics and the conduct of business, (4th ed.). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, C. S. (2005). The sustainable enterprise: Profiting from best practice. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  4. Buchholz, R. A. (1990). Essentials of public policy for management, (2nd ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Business for Social Responsibility Education Fund (2000). Corporate social responsibility: A guide to better business practices (p. 179). San Francisco: Business for Socially Responsible Education Fund.Google Scholar
  6. Business Intelligence Survey (1998). Strategic performance measurement and management survey. Retrieved June 10, 2001, from http://www.bscol.com.
  7. Castka, P., Bamber, C. J., Bamber, D. J., & Sharp, J. M. (2004). Integrating corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) into ISO Management Systems—In Search of a Feasible CSR Management System Framework. The TQM Magazine, 16(3), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EFQM (1999). The EFQM Excellence Model, European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels, available at: www.efqm.org.
  9. Epstein, M. J. (1999). Counting what counts: Turning corporate accountability to competitive advantage. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  10. Epstein, M., & Wisner, P. (2001). Good neighbours: implementing social and environmental strategies with the BSC, Balanced Scorecard Report, May–June, Vol.3, No 3. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Shaltegger, S., Wagner, M. (2001). The sustainability balanced scorecard—A tool for value-oriented sustainability management in strategy-focused organisation, (Paper presented at the 7th Eco-Management and Auditing Conference, Nijmegen, Netherlands), June.Google Scholar
  12. Fojt, M. (2008). Case studies in CSR: How to move from gloss to strategy. Strategic Direction, 24(1), 12–14, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  13. Frankental, P. G. (2001). Corporate social responsibility. Corporate Communications, 6(1), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. GRI (2002). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative, available at: www.globalreporting.org.
  15. Johnson, S. (1998). Application of the balanced scorecard approach. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 5(4), 35–41 Summer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79 January–February.Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lantos, G. P. G. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 595–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McIntosh, M. R., Leipziger, T. D., & Coleman, G. (2003). Living corporate citizenship. Strategic routes to socially responsible business. London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Introduction—Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. NIST (2002). Malcolm baldrige national quality award criteria. Gaithersburg, MD: US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Science and Technology available at: www.quality.nist.gov.Google Scholar
  22. Panayiotou, N., Aravossis, K., & Moschou, P. (2008). Contents of corporate social responsibility reports of companies in Greece: A comparative study. In S. O. Idowu & W. L. Filho (Eds.), Global Practices of Corporate Responsibility. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Papasolomou-Doukakis, I., Krambia-Kaprdis, M., & Katsioloudes, M. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: The way forward? Maybe not! A preliminary study in Cyprus. European Business Review, 17(3), 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–79 December.Google Scholar
  25. PriceWaterhouseCoopers Management Barometer (2002). Business Performance Measures are Top Information Priority for Executives of Multinationals in Europe and US, 12 September 2002, available at: http://www.barometersurveys.com/production/BarSurv.nsf/vwResources/PR_PDF_Files_2002/$file/mg020912.pdf.
  26. Pryce, V. (2002). CSR—should it be the preserve of the usual suspects. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(2), 140–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Radcliffe, M. (1999). Using the balanced scorecard to develop metrics for sustainable development. Chapel Hill: Greening of Industry Network.Google Scholar
  28. Robbins, S., & Decenzo, D. (2001). Fundamentals of management, (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Stainer, A., & Stainer, L. (2003). Editorial: Business performance and corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 5(2/3), 107–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Marrewiijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Webley, S. (2001). Business ethics: A European review. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaos A. Panayiotou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Konstantin G. Aravossis
    • 1
  • Peggy Moschou
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Section of Industrial Management & Operational ResearchNational Technical University of AthensZografosGreece

Personalised recommendations