Yhteiskuntavastuun merkitys yritykselle Kaisu Puumalainen Lappeenranta University of Technology kaisu.puumalainen@lut.fi
Esityksen rakenne 1. CSR tutkimuksesta yleensä Tutkimuksen volyymi ja suuntaukset Vastuullisuuden vaikutukset 2. CSR Forest -projekti Projektin esittely Esimerkkejä tuloksista
CSR (Aguinis & Glavas 2012) context- specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental performance
CSR julkaisujen volyymi lähde: TR Web of knowledge, korkealaatuisimmat vertaisarvioidut tieteelliset journalit Artikkelien määrä Viittausten määrä Footer
CSR ilmiön kehitys to do as much as possible for everybody concerned, to make money and use it, give employment, and send out the car where people can use it Business is a service not a bonanza Henry Ford 1917, oikeudessa syytettynä voittovarojen liiallisesta sijoittamisesta yrityksen kehittämiseen, sai tuomion we want to find ingenious new ways to delight consumers, provide superior returns to shareholders and make the world a better place for us all William Clay Ford Jr 1999, sai aplodit osakkeenomistajilta Footer
CSR tutkimuksen historiaa aika tutkija Keskeisin näkökulma 50-60 Bowen Social obligation 70 Wallich & McGowan Enlightened self-interest 80 Carroll Corporate social performance, business ethics 90 Freeman Stakeholder approach 00 Hart, Porter Strategic management, shared value, global corporate citizenship, sustainability 10 Social enterprise, responsible Footer investment
CSR tutkimussuuntauksia Footer
CSR tutkimussuuntauksia Taneja et al., 2011 Footer
CSR business case ja merkitys Puolesta ja vastaan -argumenttien esittäminen keskittyi 1960-70 -luvuille - Milton Friedman 1962, one responsibility, max shareholder profits - Jos vapaa markkinatalous ei pysty ratkaisemaan jotain sosiaalista ongelmaa niin se on julkisen vallan tehtävä, ei yritysten - Yritysjohtajilla ei ole tarvittavaa osaamista - CSR johtaa todellisen mission unohtumiseen ja epäolennaisiin toimiin - Yrityksillä on muutenkin liikaa valtaa, eivät saisi yhteiskunnallista valtaa - Kilpailukyky heikkenee - Vähenevät rajahyödyt + Hyötyä pitkällä tähtäimellä + Vähentää valtion sääntelyä + Yrityksillä on resursseja ratkaista sosiaalisia ongelmia, antaa yrittää + Parempi olla proaktiivinen kuin vain reagoida ongelmiin + Kansa kannattaa CSR Footer
CSR business case ja merkitys Neljä lähestymistapaa (Carroll & Shabana 2010) Kustannusten ja riskien vähentäminen Esim. henkilöstöriskit, ympäristösäädöksiin sopeutuminen proaktiivisesti, oikeudenkäyntien välttäminen Kilpailuedun saavuttaminen Erilaistamisstrategian kautta, auttaa erottumaan kilpailijoista Sidosryhmien tarpeet luovat mahdollisuuksia eikä rajoitteita Maineen ja legitimiteetin parantaminen Auttaa houkuttelemaan asiakkaita, sijoittajia ja työntekijöitä Lisää brandin arvoa Hyväntekeväisyydellä ja avoimella raportoinnilla voi parantaa legitimiteettiä Synergistinen arvonluonti Drucker, 1984: turn a social problem into economic opportunity Footer
merkitykset Lähde: Aguinis & Glavas, 2012 Footer
CSP CFP tutkimustuloksista Peloza 2009 128 tutkimusta 59% positiivinen, 14% negatiivinen, 27% ei vaikutusta Orlitzky et al 2003 meta-analyysi 52 tutkimusta Positiivinen yhteys keskimäärin r=.18 Margolis et al 2009 meta-analyysi 166 tutkimusta Positiivinen yhteys keskimäärin r=.11 Riippuu käytetyistä mittareista Footer
CSR-FOREST 2009-2012 Corporate Social Responsibility and Value Creation Challenges in Global Forest Industry Academy of Finland, funding 470 k Consortium Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT, School of Business) University of Helsinki (UH, Department of Forest Economics)
Project team UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI Prof. Anne Toppinen Mikko Tervo Ning Li LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Prof. Kaisu Puumalainen Anni Tuppura Prof. Jaana Sandström Maija Hujala Prof. Ari Jantunen Prof. Satu Pätäri INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS University of Toronto, Prof. Shashi Kant Georgia Institute of Technology, Prof. Patrick McCarthy State University of New York, prof. David Sonnenfeld
Project objectives 1. to describe the adoption process and diffusion of socially and environmentally responsible business practices 2. to recognize firm level and business environment level factors that influence on the firms adoption of CSR 3. to model the influence of CSR on the market value and profitability of the firms 4. to model the dynamics of global consumption and international raw material (round wood and pulp) trade at the macro level - taking into account the ongoing development towards stronger customer awareness on sustainable forest products
Work packages WP3: Economic impact Raw material trade flows Trade of end products Location of production capacity WP2: Business impact Short and long term market value Market-to-book value Profitability Market share WP1: Adoption and diffusion of CSR innovations Managerial practices sustainability reporting, forest certification Technical innovations Bleaching, waste water treatment, reduction of emissions, recycled fiber Overall CSR indices Business environment Globalization, climate change, consumer values, emission trade Business characteristics and strategies Value chain integration, innovativeness
Achievements in numbers 22 publications in scientific refereed journals so far (10 w-i-p) 33 conference presentations 2 doctoral theses and 11 Master s theses Additionally: Numerous interviews, comments, speeches, etc. 3 datasets collected (global + Chinese survey, country data) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Conference participations Journal articles Pro Gradus Dissertations 0 2009 2010 2011 2012
Results - adoption of standards 1,00 0,75 Quality Standards and Reporting Practices 50 40 Diffusion of Selected Standards PEFC FSC ISO 14001 0,50 0,25 Nb of respondents 30 20 10 0,00 PEFC FSC EMAS ISO 14001 ISO 26000 SA 8000 OHSAS 18001 GRI 0 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 ISO 14001, FSC and PEFC are the most widely applied quality standards among the companies in this survey. The diffusion of both FSC and ISO 14001 has been increasing until today. PEFC shows signs of stagnation.
Results - CSR report published 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 integrated separate 0,2 0,1 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Results - environmental manager appointed 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 17% of respondent firms had an environmental manager by 1990, first one 1952, then 1970
Results adopter categories 0,5 0,7 0,45 0,4 0,35 0,6 0,5 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 <2500, N=36 2500-5000, N=11 >5000,N=13 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 EUR, N=32 NAM, N=14 SAM,N=8 OTHER,N=4 0 EARLY ADOPTERS EARLY MAJORITY LATE LAGGARDS MAJORITY 0 EARLY ADOPTERS EARLY MAJORITY LATE LAGGARDS MAJORITY Large firms are earlier adopters of CSR management practices than smaller firms South American firms are later adopters than European or North American firms
Results - motives for adopting CSR 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 PROACTIVE COMPETITION STAKEHOLDER 2 1,5 1 EARLY ADOPTERS EARLY MAJORITY LATE MAJORITY LAGGARDS Proactive motives: central in strategy, pioneering, more than legislation, management, employees take initiative Competition motives: monitoring competitors, imitate best practices, recent emphasis Stakeholder motives: ngo, customers, suppliers, other stakeholders take initiatives
Results barriers of adopting CSR Corruption Inadequately defined property rights in some host countries Protectionist (government) policy Reluctance of shareholders to invest in environmental protection Changing laws and practices Unprofitability of environmental investment Mean Legislators' indifference Uncertainty about environment and climate obligations in future Consumers' reluctance to pay 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Results - report scores
Results Firms mentioned as trendsetters
Results Firm level proactivity seem to foster corporate social performance (CSP) Proactive firms are forward looking initiators, who anticipate and act on future needs and shape their environments rather than merely adapt reactively to the changes enjoy learning curve effects more likely than non-proactive firms The result indicate, that some organizational structures and practices or routines may foster CSP, therefore: Some firms maybe better capable for CSP than others Some firms maybe better in gaining competitive advantage by investing in CSR
Results Corporate social performance seem to have positive influence on financial performance in forest sector firms (subjective CSP, measured with Likert-scale items) Earlier adoption of CSR standards and policies pays off financially CSP CFP
Results - KLD data, energy sector: We do not find support bidirectional causality of CSP and CFP Changes in CSP seems to occur earlier than changes in CFP (statistically supported), but not the other way round This means that it is possible that CSP has influence on CFP, whereas it is not likely that CFP influences CSP CSP CFP
Results - capacity change geographically Footer
Results RISI and FAO data Internet is a substitute for newsprint and possibly for magazine paper ICTs have an impact on the emerging markets as well Ongoing structural changes have clearly affected the bilateral trade flows of chemical pulp and recovered paper Asia, particularly China, is the most important driver of chemical pulp and recovered paper trade Planted forests (eucalyptus especially) and recovered paper have quickly increased their importance as a raw material for paper and paperboard production. Paper recovery rate and use of recovered fiber are driven by environmental conciousness in addition to economic and geographic factors
FEELWOOD - jatkoprojekti Vastuullinen liiketoiminta asiakasarvon lähteenä metsäpohjaisten tuotteiden ja palveluiden markkinoilla