LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Eduardo Ortas; Igor Álvarez; Ainhoa Garayar (2015)
Publisher: MDPI
Journal: Sustainability
Types: Article
Subjects: United Nations Global Compact, stakeholders, ethics, stakeholder theory, GE1-350, behavior, social performance, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, business, RENEWABLE ENERGY, SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, GEOGRAPHY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, responsability, discourse, sustainable development, United Nations Global Compact; environmental performance; social performance; stakeholders; sustainable development; stakeholder theory, TJ807-830, management, MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, POLICY AND LAW, organization, self, Environmental sciences, environmental performance, Environmental effects of industries and plants, employees
jel: jel:Q2, jel:Q3, jel:Q0, jel:Q, jel:Q5, jel:Q56, jel:O13
Identifiers:doi:10.3390/su7021932
This paper aims to investigate companies' environmental, social, governance (ESG), and financial implications of their commitment to the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). The focus is placed on companies operating in the three countries with the highest number of UNGC participants: Spain, France, and Japan. The results clearly reveal that adoption of the UNGC often requires an organizational change that fosters stakeholder engagement, ultimately resulting in improvements in companies' ESG performance. Additionally, the results reveal that ESG performance has a significant impact on financial performance for companies that adopted the principles of the UNGC. These findings provide both non-financial and financial incentives to companies to commit to this voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative, which will have important implications on companies' strategic management policies that aim to foster sustainable businesses and community development. Finally, the linkages between the UNGC-committed companies' ESG and financial performance may be influenced by geographical spread, mainly due to the appearance of differences in the institutional, societal, and cultural settings. The authors are grateful for the financial help from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (research project ECO2011-26171). The usual disclaimer applies.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Rasche, A.; Waddock, S.; Mclntosh, M. The United Nations Global Compact: Retrospect and prospect. Bus. Soc. 2013, 52, 6-30.
    • Organ. Sci. 2010, 21, 1092-1107.
    • Gilbert, D.U.; Rasche, A. Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000.
    • Bus. Ethics Q. 2007, 17, 187-216.
    • Christmann, P.; Taylor, G. Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2006, 37, 863-878.
    • Kell, G. 12 years later: Reflections on the growth of the UN Global Compact. Bus. Soc. 2013, 52, 31-52.
    • Rasche, A.; Gilbert, D.U. Institutionalizing global governance: The role of the United Nations Global Compact. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2012, 21, 100-114.
    • Leipziger, D. The Corporate Responsibility Code Book; Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield, UK, 2010.
    • Cetindamar, D. Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: The case of the United Nations Global Compact. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 76, 163-176.
    • 9. Ottaway, M. Corporatism goes global: International organizations, nongovernmental organization networks, and transnational business. Glob. Gov. 2001, 7, 265.
    • 10. Ruggie, J.G. Reconstituting the global public domain-issues, actors, and practices. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 2004, 10, 499-531.
    • 11. Arevalo, J.A.; Aravind, D.; Ayuso, S.; Roca, M. The Global Compact: An analysis of the motivations of adoption in the Spanish context. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2013, 22, 1-15.
    • 12. Rasche, A. A necessary supplement: What the United Nations Global Compact is and is not. Bus. Soc. 2009, 48, 511-537.
    • 13. Ählström, J. Corporate response to CSO criticism: Decoupling the corporate responsibility discourse from business practice. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 70-80.
    • 14. Schwartz, B.; Tilling, K. 'ISO-lating' corporate social responsibility in the organizational context: A dissenting interpretation of ISO 26000. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2009, 16, 289-299.
    • 15. Waddock, S.A.; Graves, S.B. The corporate social performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 303-319.
    • 16. Kell, G.; Levin, D. The Global Compact network: An historic experiment in learning and action. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2003, 108, 151-181.
    • 17. Berliner, D.; Prakash, A. From norms to programs: The United Nations Global Compact and global governance. Regul. Gov. 2012, 6, 149-166.
    • 18. Ruggie, J.G. Business and human rights: The evolving international agenda. Am. J. Int. Law 2007, 101, 819-840.
    • 19. Ruggie, J.G. Trade, sustainability and global governance. Columbia J. Environ. Law 2002, 27, 297-307.
    • 20. Soederberg, S. Taming corporations or buttressing market-led development? A critical assessment of the Global Compact. Globalizations 2007, 4, 500-513.
    • 21. Runhaar, H.; Lafferty, H. Governing corporate social responsibility: An assessment of the contribution of the UN Global Compact to CSR strategies in the telecommunications industry. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 84, 479-495.
    • 22. United Nations Global Compact. Annual Review; United Nations Global Compact Office: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
    • 23. United Nations Global Compact. Annual Review; United Nations Global Compact Office: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
    • 24. Harms, D.; Hörisch J.; Schaltegger, S.; Windolph, S.E. International Corporate Sustainability Barometer: Introduction and Structure. In Corporate Sustainability in International Comparison; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 3-12.
    • 25. Moneva, J.M.; Ortas, E.; Álvarez, I. Exploring Sustainability in Spanish Companies. In Corporate Sustainability in International Comparison; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 167-182.
    • 26. Rhouma, A.B.; Francoeur, C.; Robin, G. International Corporate Sustainability Barometer 2012: Sustainability Management in France. In Corporate Sustainability in International Comparison; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 69-91.
    • 27. Kokubu, K.; Kitada, H.; Haider, M.B. Corporate Sustainability Barometer in Japan. In Corporate Sustainability in International Comparison; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 121-140.
    • 28. Lockett, A.; Moon, J.; Visser, W. Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. J. Manag. Stud. 2006, 43, 115-136.
    • 29. Scholtens, B. A note on the interaction between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68, 46-55.
    • 30. Margolis, J.D.; Elfenbein, H.A.; Walsh, J.P. Does it Pay to be Good? A Meta-Analysis and Redirection of Research on the Relationship between Corporate Social and Financial Performance; Working paper; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007.
    • 31. Orlitzky, M.; Schmidt, F.L.; Rynes, S.L. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organ. Stud. 2003, 24, 403-441.
    • 32. Hahn, T.; Figge, F. Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 104, 325-345.
    • 33. Ortas, E.; Moneva, J.M.; Álvarez, I. Sustainable supply chain and company performance: A global examination. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2014, 19, 332-350.
    • 34. Schaltegger, S.; Synnestvedt, T. The link between 'green' and economic success: Environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 65, 339-346.
    • 35. Berger, I.E.; Cunningham, P.; Drumwright, M.E. Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2007, 49, 132-157.
    • 36. Donaldson, T.; Preston, L.E. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 65-91.
    • 37. Jones, T.M. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 404-437.
    • 38. Anderson, J.C.; Frankle, A.W. Voluntary social reporting: An iso-beta portfolio analysis. Account. Rev. 1980, 55, 467-479.
    • 39. Berman, S.L.; Wicks, A.C.; Kotha, S.; Jones, T.M. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 488-506.
    • 40. Freedman, M.; Stagliano, A.J. Differences in social-cost disclosures: A market test of investor reactions. Account. Audit. Account. J. 1991, 4, 68-83.
    • 41. Graves, S.B.; Waddock, S.A. Beyond built to last stakeholder relations in “Built-to-Last” companies. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2000, 105, 393-418.
    • 42. Griffin, J.J.; Mahon, J.F. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-Five years of incomparable research. Bus. Soc. 1997, 36, 5-31.
    • 43. Preston, L.E. Analyzing corporate social performance: Methods and results. J. Contemp. Bus. 1978, 7, 135-150.
    • 44. Brammer, S.; Millington, A. Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 1325-1343.
    • 45. McGuire, J.B.; Schneeweis, T.; Branch, B. Perceptions of firm quality: A cause or result of firm performance. J. Manag. 1990, 16, 167-180.
    • 46. Allouche, J.; Laroche, P. A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines 2005, 57, 18-41.
    • 47. Seifert, B.; Morris, S.A.; Bartkus, B.R. Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Bus. Soc. 2004, 43, 135-161.
    • 48. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A stakeholder Approach; Harpercollins College Div: New York, NY, USA, 1984.
    • 49. Christmann, P. Effects of “Best Practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 663-680.
    • 50. Ruf, B.M.; Muralidhar, K.; Brown, R.M.; Janney, J.J.; Paul, K. An Empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2001, 32, 143-156.
    • 51. McGuire, J.B.; Sundgren, A.; Schneeweis, T. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1988, 31, 854-872.
    • 52. Choi, Y.; Yu, Y. The influence of perceived corporate sustainability practices on employees and organizational performance. Sustainability 2014, 6, 348-364.
    • 53. Harrison, J.S.; John, C.H.S. Strategic Management of Organizations and Stakeholders; West Publishing Company: Minnesota, MN, USA, 1994.
    • 54. Kotter, J.P.; Heskett, J.L. Corporate Culture and Performance; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
    • 55. Kapstein, E.B. The corporate ethics crusade. Foreign Aff. 2001, 80, 105-119.
    • 56. Ribstein, L.E. Accountability and responsibility in corporate governance. Notre Dame Law Rev. 2005, 81, Article 5.
    • 57. Peloza, J. Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for financial performance. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2006, 48, 52-72.
    • 58. Pan, X.; Sha, J.; Zhang, H.; Ke, W. Relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in the mineral Industry: Evidence from Chinese mineral firms. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4077-4101.
    • 59. Turban, D.B.; Greening, D.W. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Acad. Manag. J. 1997, 40, 658-672.
    • 60. Hofstede, G. Culture's Consequences; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1980.
    • 61. Schwartz, S.H. Cultural dimensions of values-Towards an understanding of national differences. In Individualism and Collectivism: Theoretical and Methodological Issues; Kim, U., Triandis, C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C., Yoon, G., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; pp. 85-119.
    • 62. Triandis, H.C. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychol. Rev. 1989, 96, 506-520.
    • 63. Williams, C.A.; Aguilera, R.V. Corporate social responsibility in a comparative perspective. In The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 452-472.
    • 64. Oreilly, C.A.; Chatman, J.A. Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Res. Organ. Behav. 1996, 18, 157-200.
    • 65. Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership; John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010; Volume 2.
    • 66. Sirmon, D.G.; Lane, P.J. A model of cultural differences and international alliance performance. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2004, 35, 306-319.
    • 67. Welford, R. Corporate social responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia. J. Corp. Citizsh. 2005, 2005, 33-52.
    • 68. Maignan, I.; Ralston, D.A. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses' self-presentations. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2002, 33, 497-514.
    • 69. Baughn, C.C.; Bodie, N.L.; McIntosh, J.C. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2007, 14, 189-205.
    • 70. Aaronson, S.A. Corporate Responsibility in the global village: The British Role model and the American laggard. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2003, 108, 309-338.
    • 71. Amann, B.; Caby, J.; Jaussaud, J.; Pineiro, J. Shareholder activism for corporate social responsibility: Law and practice in the United States, Japan, France and Spain. In The New Corporate Accountability-Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007.
    • 72. Aoki, M. Information, Incentives and Bargaining in the Japanese Economy: A Microtheory of the Japanese Economy; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989.
    • 73. Lindenberg, E.B.; Ross, S.A. Tobin's q ratio and industrial organization. J. Bus. 1981, 54, 1-32.
    • 74. Lee, D.E.; Tompkins, J.G. A modified version of the Lewellen and Badrinath measure of Tobin's q. Financ. Manag. 1999, 28, 20-31.
    • 75. McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 603-609.
    • 76. Elsayed, K.; Paton, D. The impact of environmental performance on firm performance: Static and dynamic panel data evidence. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2005, 16, 395-412.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.