How to Write A Corportate Social Responsiblity Report

2006-10-14T16:38:00.001-07:00

Hello. This is the paper I wrote and will be presenting at the Business as an Agent of World Benefit Global Forum, October 22-25, 2006. See: http://www.bawbglobalforum.org/

For more information please visit: www.csrandthetriplebottomline.com

Thank you.
Laura Musikanski

How To Write A Corporate Social Responsibility Report

By Laura Musikanski, JD/MBA, Certificate in Environmental Management
Copyright Laura Musikanski.

ABSTRACT:
This paper answers four questions: 1) how does one issue a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) report? 2) how can one evaluate a CSR reports? 3) what are the legal implications of issuing a CSR report? and 4) why issue a CSR report?
This is the first paper to differentiate between guidelines and codes of conduct. Guidelines provide a form in which to issue a CSR report. Codes of conduct prescribe bases on which to make business decisions, the result of which are reported in a CSR report. With this paper in hand, a manager will be able to access tools for CSR reporting and make informed decisions about them.
This is also the first paper that provides a set of criteria for readers to evaluate CSR reports. This set of criteria also allows a manager to use a CSR report to measure performance and set goals. Part three of this paper provides a legal analysis. It begins with an explanation of the implications of the Nike v. Kasky case, explains some of the potential legal liabilities connected to CSR reporting. It also lays out the landscape of the laws available for protecting a business from these liabilities. The last part of the paper states the business case for CSR. It takes the perspective that practicing CSR must enhance profitability if a business is going to engage CSR into its operational decisions.

About the Author:
Laura Musikanski was born in Tunsia and grew up in Seattle, Washington. This Fall, Ms. Musikanski will complete her Juris Doctor, Masters of Business Administration, and Certificate in Environmental Management at the University of Washington. During her graduate studies she spearheaded “Business Education for the Longrun,” an annual workshop for business school faculty throughout the Pacific Northwest. Prior to graduate school, Ms. Musikanski raised her daughter, ran a small and profitable clothing manufacturing business for fifteen years, and graduated cum laude from the University of Washington Business School. Currently, Ms. Musikanski is working as a risk analysis consultant to private enterprises.
Musikanski is now working on a paper that follows up on this paper called “Effective Indicators for the Triple Bottom Line.” This paper will provide a set of criteria for evaluating triple bottom line indicators and an analysis of the indicators that are currently available for CSR reporting. She is also constructing a web page that will act as a tool for those wishing to issue a CSR reports.
HOW TO WRITE A CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT
This paper is intended to be a tool for a business manager deciding whether to issue a corporate social responsibility (CSR) report. It is divided into four parts. The first part tells how to form a CSR report. It includes a comparative analysis of the prominent guidelines and codes of conduct for corporate social responsibly reports. The second section is a critical analysis of a CSR report. Part three of this paper explores the legal implications of CSR reports in light of the recent case, Nike v. Kasky.[1] The last part of this paper gives the business case for practicing CSR and issuing a CSR report. In this paper the term CSR is used to encompass the theory and practices behind “triple bottom line,” “sustainable business practices,” “stewardship of the earth and community” as well as socially, environmentally, and fiscally responsible business practices.

PART ONE: HOW TO WRITE A CSR REPORT
Once the threshold decision to issue a CSR report is made, a decision maker faces two choices. They are how to report, and what codes of conduct to apply. A distinction has not yet been made between guidelines, and codes of conduct. In this paper, “guidelines” are instruments that tell a business manager the format in which to issue a CSR report. “Codes of conduct” are sets of principles which are based on ethical norms. They guide a business manager in what to do. The purposes of codes of conduct include social, environmental, or financial goals. Thus, “guidelines” are procedural and “codes of conduct” are substantive.

A Comparative Analysis of the Guidelines
A business manager newly addressing the issues of the triple bottom line has two decisions to make. What guideline should be used for the form of the report? What code of conduct should be adopted to guide performance? These two decisions are best coordinated.[2] By separating the decision of the guidelines and code of conduct, a manager can approach socially and environmental behaviors both a reporting standpoint, and an ethical or social standpoint. In this way, the relationship between a code of conduct and business performance are more readily discernable. Guidelines provide managers a framework from which to analyze the outcomes. Once that framework is established, a manger can decide the criteria on which to make decisions, and take action.
Accessing CSR Guidelines
The most prominent guidelines currently available to form a CSR report are the AcountAbility 1000 (AA 1000), the SA 8000, and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The chief difference between the three guidelines is that the former two function more as auditing procedures than performance guidelines. One of the GRI guidelines is to audit performance, but this is not the focus of the guideline. The GRI sets forth guidelines and offers measurement tools.
The GRI is described as a “disclosure framework.”[3] It is the product of a partnership between the United Nations Environment Programme and other stakeholders, including representatives of trade unions and labor federations, the ILO, and specialist labor rights groups.[4] A stakeholder is any party that “has an interest or concern in a business or enterprise, though not necessarily as an owner.”[5] Consumers, suppliers, employees, labor organizations, governmental agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, are just a few examples of stakeholders. The GRI is in the process of publishing its latest version of the GRI, the gr3.[6]
The AA1000 is a set of guidelines formed by the Institute for Social and Ethical Accountability.[7] The Institute for Social and Ethical Accountability is a British non-profit organization that offers auditing services, and training seminars as well as the access to the AA1000 tool. The AA1000 is essentially a set of procedures that carries with it the means to adopt or build a code of conduct. It can be used alone or with other guidelines.
The SA 8000 was designed to monitor relationships with suppliers and focuses on labor practices.[8] It is best used by a manufacturing firm.[9] The SA 8000 is essentially a variation of the ILO standards.
One factor a manager should consider when choosing a guideline is whether other businesses are issuing CSR reports and what guidelines they are using. There is a strong trend in the business community to issue CSR reports.[10] In 2003, at least 1,500 businesses, of which 250 are in the Global Fortune 500, issued CSR reports.[11]
The Business Roundtable, composed of numerous Fortune 500 companies, sent out a message that businesses should form CSR reports.[12] It appears that more and more businesses will prepare CSR reports, and therefore, adopt sustainable business practices.
In this paper, I submit that the GRI is the better choice for four reasons: consistency, scope, costs and benefits, and the auditing process. In a nutshell, the reason to adopt the GRI is that it contributes to the consistency in CSR reporting, it has the most comprehensive and flexible scope, it better enables a business manager to unlock the benefits and control costs of creating a CSR report.
Consistency
An important factor in deciding which guideline to apply is whether it contributes towards consistency within an industry and across industries. One of the benefits of regulation is that it provides consistency and “clear and durable solutions.”[13] On the other hand, a “proliferation of competing” guidelines or codes of conduct results in “duplication, confusion and uncertainty.”[14] If there is consistency in CSR reporting then the costs that result from uncertainty can be minimized and the benefits of consistency realized.
The users of CSR reports are better able to analyze a business’ performance and compare performances across companies if they use the same set of guidelines and adopt a consistent code of conduct. Consistency within and across industries allow readers to compare performances. Consistency across times allows a manager to monitor internal processes. Stakeholders, including investment firms, non-governmental organizations and a company’s employees can better understand a business’ activities. Business managers can easily benchmark with other firms.
The European Commission acknowledges that a "global consensus needs to evolve on the type of information to be disclosed, the reporting format to be used, and the reliability of the evaluation and audit procedure."[15] In the European Commission’s green paper, it suggests that a business use the SA8000 for reporting on labor issues, and the GRI for environmental issues.[16] The reason for this suggestion is that the scope of the GRI includes reporting on labor issues, whereas the scope of the SA 8000 is more limited and the SA 8000 can be incorporated into a GRI report. For purposes of consistency, it makes sense to use the GRI as the overarching guideline, and to either use the SA 8000 or International Labor Organization standards to augment the “Labor Practices and Decent Work” and “Human Rights” sections of the GRI.
Comparative statistics for the usage of the GRI, AA1000 and SA8000 must be patched together as the data is not gathered by any single organization. The University of Amsterdam’s Graduate Business School surveyed over 1,600 companies worldwide and found that 40% of companies of reporting use the GRI, but less than 1% use the AA1000.[17] Of companies in the Global Fortune 500, 52% issued CSR reports.[18] Social Accountability International, the organization that publishes the SA8000, reported that 763 facilities have SA 8000 certification as of 2004.[19] The AA1000 bureau reported that in 2004, there were 101 users of AA1000 and 23 more businesses that mentioned the AA1000 in their CSR reports. AA1000 reported that 101 organizations used its standards, and 13 mentioned the AA1000 in 2004.[20] The GRI reported that over 450 corporations use its report as of 2004.[21] As of 2006, 817 companies registered with the GRI.[22]
The prevalence of other companies’ use and the level of support important stakeholders give to a guideline are two factors on which to make a decision. The GRI is supported by prominent stakeholders across the globe. Its adoption contributes to a growing consistency among CSR reports. Therefore, it is the better choice as using it will enable a business to contribute to consistency in CSR reporting.
Auditing and Verification
The auditing and verification process should be considered when deciding which guideline to adopt. Auditing procedures for a CSR report vary considerably, partly due to their voluntary nature. The most fundamentally important reason for auditing and verification is it can lend insights for meeting performance goals.[23] Other benefits of auditing and verification include its use as a marketing tool to enhance a company’s brand as well as establishing credibility. Green washing occurs when a business puts forth language indicating that it supports corporate social responsibility, but does not practice in a socially, or environmentally responsible manner.[24] Auditing and verification are one way of ensuring that businesses report truthfully, and thereby avoid costly legal liability as with Nike v. Kasky.[25] Auditing, whether external or internal, is also an important tool that a manager can use to send the message to employees that socially responsible behaviors are important to the company. It also enables management to see how CSR activities affect the bottom line, and to keep employees focused the interdependency between profit and socially or environmentally responsible practices. However, auditing can be intrusive and expensive. Before a business decides which auditing process it wants to employ to verify and monitor its activities, it should ascertain what the value to the stakeholder would be in the verification. It should also ascertain how it can extract value from an audit.
The SA 8000 and AA 1000 include auditing and verification procedures whereas the GRI does not. The SA8000 offers “in house” auditing and verification.[26] Bureau Veritas helps firms verify their reporting under the AA1000 guidelines.[27]
There is no requirement in the GRI to audit, but this may change when it is re-issued. [28] The current GRI includes “auditability” as a principle and auditing is suggested for building credibility with stakeholder.[29] Therefore, when applying the GRI, a business manager should choose an auditing and verification process.
One option is to use the GRI in conjunction with the AA1000 and SA8000 thereby getting verification from those organizations. This ensures that a CSR report is audited by a neutral third party. Differing levels of reporting and auditing under both the SA8000 and the AA1000 are available, at different levels of cost. Depending on the level of compliance with the AA1000 or SA8000, this approach may lend the most credibility.
A business can use a process similar to the AA1000 and SA8000, but in a more informal capacity, by involve stakeholders. This process involves first identifying stakeholders. Stakeholders and the business managers agree upon standards, goals, and scope of a report. Interaction with stakeholders can occur through interviews, focus groups, public meetings, and questionnaires. Together, a business manager and the stakeholders choose the issues and scope of reporting, and decide upon indictors for the report. Together managers and stakeholders collect and analyze information for the report. This process is iterative. Although this process can potentially slow operations and be detrimental to profits, if stakeholders are chosen carefully, their involvement can contribute to the enhancement of a business performance: social, environmental and financial. In addition, this method can build credibility among grassroots as well as mainstream constituents.
Another option is to use independent third-party auditors. There are also industry-specific organizations that will audit a business.[30] In the range of 30% of CSR reports are independently audited, with major accounting firms doing over half the auditing, and certification organizations doing about 20%. [31] The field of auditing standards was first addressed by the AA1000, but is now shared by the International Standard for Assurance Engagements (ISAE 3000) and other standards formed or being formed in various countries.[32] Most of these auditing standards rely heavily on the AA1000, the GRI, or mirror those of the financial community.
Some managers choose an internal auditing process. Starbuck’s employs this tactic.[33] This is the lowest cost way but may not be credible. One risk of this method is that employees may not understand how to report and inadvertently give managers false information. Because an internal auditor has the same goals as the business, mistakes in reporting may not be detected. For example, a well-meaning employee may use statistics for race distribution from the community to report the employee distribution for a division in an effort to supply data on diversity. An internal auditor may not detect this mistake if the sources and assumptions in reporting are not recorded.
A business manager may find novel ways to perform audits, such as setting up a research fellowship at an educational institution. This is a variation of stakeholder interaction for auditing and verification. McDonald’s did this in 2005.[34] There is a potential for a conflict of interests, because university constituents may fear that if their report reflects poorly on the business, funding will dry up. Research fellowships could be useful for increasing credibility, but may be more valuable as a means for gathering innovative solutions that meet social and environmental goals in ways that are financially beneficial. For example, students can draw on new concepts and thinking, analyzing ways to implement “cradle to cradle” stewardship of processes and materials.[35]
Coincident to auditing procedure, but not surrogate for it, are high ratings from the Dow Sustainability Index and other investment organizations that rate socially responsible businesses. Awards from organizations advocating for CSR also enhance credibility to a business’ position that it is acting socially responsible.[36]
Scope
The scope of a guideline must be broad enough to include upstream and downstream business practices.[37] This enables a business to practice continual improvement in all its processes and performance. In addition, a guideline should be flexible enough so that a manager can build into it measurements and codes of conduct specific to the business or exclude reporting on irrelevant aspects of doing business. A guideline that is too detailed, narrow or specific will not allow a business manager to unlock the full potential of CSR practices. The GRI supplies a format for reporting and a set of tools (“indicators”) for measuring progress.[38]
A GRI report includes:
· Coverage of five categories of behavior: Direct Economic Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Labor Practices and Decent Work, Human Rights, Society, Product Responsibility
· Reportage on the 57 performance indicators for economic, environmental, social and integrated performance.
· An index denoting where information is located, as per the GRI’s numerical order.
· Statement of the vision and strategy for CSR, identification of the standards, a discussion of implementation process, and portrayal of stakeholder involvement.
· Profile of the company including links to financial statements, an explanation of the timing, boundaries and policies, a description of changes since former reports, and identification of the stakeholders, who in the business is responsible for the CSR report, and how a reader can get more information.
· Description of governance structure and management system, identification of who is responsible for making decisions, control mechanisms on the decision maker, associations with other organizations, upstream and downstream systems, externalities, changes in operations, performance goals, and certification programs.
The primary goal of the GRI is to “contribute to an ongoing stakeholder dialogue.”[39] The goal of dialogue between stakeholders and business managers is to understand the company’s efforts towards sustainable development. The GRI supports financial, social, and environmental goals of a business. However, secondary goals of the GRI include comparability and flexibility in a report.[40]
Because the GRI is more flexible and enables a business to meet a wider range of goals, the AA1000 should not be employed in lieu of the GRI. Rather, a business manager who wants to ensure that the stakeholder interaction is occurring on a regular basis can use the AA1000 as a tool to augment a GRI report.
The AA1000 is a procedural tool. The procedure that a business employs when using the AA1000 guidelines is that of continual interaction with stakeholders. The scope of a report under the AA1000 is defined by social performance, and ethical issues. Stakeholders and the business managers collaborate to define what business performances to report, how to report, and what measures to use. Thus, the content in an AA 1000 report can be as broad or as narrow as the GRI, and it follows the format of the GRI. The goal of the procedure is continual improvement in social practices and ethical practices. The theory underlying the AA1000 is that business that practices in an ethical and socially responsible manner will realize profits and make environmentally responsible decisions. In the AA1000 scheme, financial and environmental goals are, if achieved, a secondary result of meeting social and ethical goals. With the AA1000, measuring compliance with the AA1000 vis-à-vis involvement of stakeholders is as important as measuring business performance.
The SA8000 is limited to labor practices. The scope of the SA8000 is set by its nine standards:[41]
1. Child Labor: No workers under the age of 15-14.
2. Forced Labor: No forced labor, including prison or debt bondage labor.
3. Health and Safety: prevent injuries; training; system to detect threats; bathrooms
4. Freedom of Association and Right to Collective Bargaining.
5. No Discrimination: race, caste, origin, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, union or political affiliation, or age; no sexual harassment.
6. Discipline: No corporal punishment, No abuse.
7. Working Hours: Comply with law and maximum of 48 hours a week, pay overtime, allow for days off.
8. Compensation: legal & industry standards, meet basic needs, no disciplinary deduction.
9. Management Systems: integrate the standard into management systems and practices.
The GRI covers a broader range of activities than the SA8000 and can easily be adapted to the specification of an industry or to incorporate the reporting topics of the SA8000. A GRI report should be “customized” to enhance the relevance and materiality to stakeholder.[42] Customization tools include the use of the SA8000, ILO and ISO standards, as well as the sector supplements supplied by the GRI.[43] The GRI offers consistency in forming reports that the AA1000 does not. Thus the GRI alone or in conjunction with the AA1000 or SA8000 is a better choice for a CSR report.
Costs and Benefits
Once a business has decided to form a CSR report, it faces the cost of gathering data and creating and marketing the report. For most businesses, the expected benefits are financial, as demonstrated by a survey performed by the University of Amsterdam business school.[44] Businesses expect the market share or value to the shareholder to increase through “increased business opportunities, innovation, reputation and reduced risk.”[45] Because these benefits are indirect, it is difficult to determine the return on investment. However, some benefits may be more direct, such as reductions in waste and energy use. In these cases, a business can measure the return.
Incremental adaptation of creating a CSR report is one way to lower costs. All three guidelines allow a business to take an incremental approach. A CSR report may just mention the GRI or “be in accordance” with the GRI. A report is in accordance with the GRI if it meets five conditions.[46]
The first two conditions concern the content of a report, the order of the contents and the inclusion of an index. The third condition is that each “core indicator” be reported upon or an explanation for the lack thereof.[47] Adherence to the eleven principles of the GRI is the fourth condition.[48] The fifth condition mirrors that of GAAP: a report must include a signed statement of accuracy by the CEO or board of directors, as provided by the GRI.
Enhancing profitability by meeting environmental and social goals is key to realizing the benefits of a CSR report. The core indicators represent the starting point for a business to draw value and profit from responsible business practices.[49] Once measurements are made, a manager has a context in which to make decisions that enhance financial, environmental, and social performance. As the GRI is tailored for an incremental approach to financial, social, and environmental responsibility, managers can first adopt measurements that help a business cut costs or increase profits. As the industry changes because of technological development and as more businesses change practices, economies of scale will kick in and costs for responsible business practices will go down. At this point, a business can adopt new measurements.
The GRI’s core indicators, covered in section five of the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, fall into the four categories of integrated, economic, environmental, and social indicators. Integrated indicators capture one category’s effect on another, such as job creation due to business activities. Economic performance indicators show how a business affects the financial standing of its stakeholders and community. The GRI broadly defines financial standing as the many ways a business affects the circumstances of stakeholder and community. In addition to core indicators, a GRI report can include the “additional indicators” supplied by the GRI or incorporate performance metrics specific to a business or industry. “Additional indicators” are indicators that are still new to CSR reporting or specific to the interests of a stakeholder segment. Critics of the GRI say that the indicators rely too heavily on descriptions of “policy and procedures.”[50] While there is some truth to this (35 of the 57 indicators are quantitative), a GRI report can be augmented with measurements taken from the ILO, ISO 14001 or other tools. Furthermore, the GRI continues to develop indicators.[51] The draft of the G3 was issued for public comment in early 2006. The draft version of the G3 is a mere 27 pages but the indicators are extensive. There are 5 indicator protocols, ranging from 18 to 60 pages each.[52] In late 2006, the indicators are scheduled to go digital.[53]
Because the GRI covers the widest range of business functions, it may be the most costly report to create. However, because it provides measurements, it also provides greater opportunities for environmental, social, and, financial improvement. The digital version of the indicators should make recording and sorting data easier. They will also enable managers to have an established database that can be drawn on when responding to stakeholders in the social investment realm, such as the Calvert Foundation and other areas, such as carbon emission assessment organizations.
The AA1000 uses what it calls a “stepped” approach for integrating stakeholders into business practices. There are 5 steps in the process, and the process is iterative. The first is planning, which entails committing to the process, defining values, and setting social and ethical goals. The second step is accounting, which entails setting the scope of the process, collecting and analyzing information, and developing plans for improvement. The third step is auditing and reporting. To qualify under AA1000 standards, a report on business systems and performance must be externally audited as well as made available to stakeholders. The forth step is “embedding.” Embedding requires the stakeholder engagement be iterative. Thus, improvements, issues and challenges vis-à-vis business practices are integrated into the stakeholders engagement approach, and stakeholder engagement is, in turn, embedded into business practices. Lastly, stakeholder engagement predicates that stakeholders get access to reports. To be in compliance with AA1000, a business must also give stakeholders a means to give feedback to the managers about the business practice.
The AA1000 SES enables a business to identify stakeholders appropriate to its goals and organization.[54] This interaction is part of the auditing and verification process. The procedure under the AA1000 SES is that a business manager must first “think and plan.” By thinking and planning, a manager takes a systematic approach to identifying stakeholders, issues, and relationships so as to build accountability, and improve performance. Secondly, a manager is to “prepare and engage” with stakeholders in ways that are meaningful to the stakeholders. The final aspect of stakeholder engagement is to “respond and measure” business performance and the stakeholders engagement itself.[55]
The AA1000 us currently used mostly by European companies. The AA1000 is aimed at social and ethical goals, and places financial and environmental goals second.[56] Use of the AA1000 without integrating financial goals can be costly with benefits understood indirectly. Social, environmental and financial benefits may be difficult to detect and measure. Use of the AA1000 in conjunction with the GRI may be a way to realize and record immediate benefits. However, the costs of adopting the AA1000 and the disjoint between its aims and that of most for-profit businesses may make it hard to justify its adoption by a U.S. business. Nevertheless, the advantages of consistency in reporting and the lure of doing business in European Union are two reasons to consider adopting it.
The SA8000 can be implemented in two ways. The less involved method is to hire an auditing team for certification.[57] Under this procedure, auditors certify a business if it meets the SA8000 standard. Only those auditors designated by the SA8000 organization can certify a business. A more involved approach is to employ the Corporate Involvement Program (CIP). [58] The SA8000 CIP is a three-step process in which businesses adopt, implement, and report according the SA8000 criteria. A business must still be audited by an outside 3rd party for certification when it has the CIP. The goals of the SA8000 are to ensure humane workplaces. Like the AA100, the benefits are indirect. Benefits include the building of a brand, monitoring of supplier performance, and increasing employee retention rates.[59] As with the AA1000, by using the SA8000 in conjunction with the GRI, the SA 8000 may be used to help increase the bottom line.
In conclusion, the GRI is the best choice among the guidelines. It is more comprehensive and can easily incorporate the useful objectives and aspects of either the AA1000 or the SA8000. A report that is made in accordance with the GRI allows a manager a foundation on which to unlock profitability in sustainable business practices.
A Comparative Analysis of the Codes of Conduct
Codes of conduct are important for reasons besides normative ethical reasons. A code of conduct guides business practices towards meeting social, environmental, and financial goals.[60] By setting expectations, a code of conduct can spark innovation for finding new ways of practicing business.[61] They can also unlock markets and industries.[62] Codes are also necessary for social and environmental accounting purposes. A code of conduct that enables a business to unlock profits while meeting the goals of social and environmental responsibility is more likely to be adopted by a wide array of businesses.
A code of conduct inherently transmits ethical principles.[63] Black’s law dictionary defines “code of conduct” as “[a] written set of rules governing the behavior of a specified group, such as lawyers, government employees, or corporate employees.”[64] A Code of conduct that is based on compliance sets a bar on behavior. For example, some businesses base their codes of conduct on the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 or the U.S. Sentencing Commission Organizational recommendations. Such codes instruct employees and managers of the minimum to do so as not to break the law. Once the conduct is aligned with the code, the manager has fulfilled his duty.
A code of conduct that enables a business to practice the triple bottom line encourages continual improvement in social, environmental and financial performance. Such a code of conduct sets goals rather than bars. Rather than being based on laws, which tell a business what not to do and set the bar on fulfilling legal obligation, it is based on principles. A study done by Global Ethics found that people of all nations near unanimously agreed on five principles.[65] The five principles are honesty, fairness, compassion, responsibility, and respect. A code of conduct that is founded on one or more of these five principles enables managers and employees to continually reach for higher goals, and fuller fulfillment of the principles. A code of conduct that enables a business to realize the triple bottom line will guide managers to make decisions that are profitable while meeting the goals of social and environmental stewardship.
The second aspect of a code of conduct for a CSR report is that it must serve accounting purposes. The same argument for consistency in guidelines for a CSR report holds true for the code of conduct. A universally adopted code of conduct establishes a common basis for reporting purposes. There is a plethora of codes of conduct among businesses today. As much as 85% of American corporations state that they adhere to a code of conduct.[66] In 2000, a study conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) resulted in a collection of 246 codes “about half of which were issued by individual firms, some forty percent by associations.”[67] The OECD published an assessment of the 246 codes of conduct in 2001.[68] Its assessment covered the issues of labor standards, environment stewardship, consumer protection, bribery, and competitive behavior, information disclosure, science and technology, taxation, and workplace conditions, and employee treatment. In the study, there was noted “diversity” in the scope and degree to which the codes reflected underlying principles.[69] This notable “lack of coherence” in the codes adopted by businesses and other organizations is detrimental to the ability of a business to meaningfully practice and report on CSR activates.[70]
When all businesses use the same code of conduct, they contribute to the development of an agreed upon definition of CSR both conceptually and operationally. When all businesses adhere to one code of conduct, readers of CSR reports can “compare the performance of one company to that of others in the same sector,” just as readers of financial statements do when reading statements formed according to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).[71] This is because there is greater transparency. Transparency increases credibility and decreases the costs of verification and auditing. Other reasons for having a universal code of conduct and guideline are that a business can unlock the benefits of economies of scale and the learning curve as more businesses practice sustainability in a uniform way. In this paper, I propose that the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises is the code of conduct that should be universally adopted.
Comparative Analysis of the Codes of Conduct
In 2001, the OECD published a comparative analysis of the standards for corporate social responsibly.[72] The OECD, with the help of Businesses for Social Responsibility, an organization that promotes CSR, examined seven instruments based on their “prominence” in the business community.[73] This comparative analysis is a good place to start when choosing a code of conduct. It should be noted that the OECD does not distinguish between codes of conduct used for informing behaviors, and a set of guidelines used for reporting. Thus, the OECD includes the GRI and Social Accountability 8000 in its comparison, neither of which are included in the list below. The codes of conduct that are compared are listed below, with a web-based source for accessing them:[74]
· OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
§ www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/36/1922428.pdf
· Principles for Global Corporate Responsibly: Benchmarks
§ www.bench-marks.org/downloads/Bench%20Marks%20-%20full.pdf
· UN Global Compact
§ www.un.org/Depts/ptd/global.htm
· Caux Principles for Business
§ www.cauxroundtable.org/principles.html
· Global Sullivan Principles
§ http://globalsullivanprinciples.org/principles.htm

The analysis includes a grid covering nine broad issues: accountability, business conduct, community involvement, corporate governance, environment, human rights, market place/consumers, and workplace/employees.[75] Each issue is expanded into sub issues, which were derived from the broader issues an “iterative fashion.”[76]
The OECD’s study concluded that the Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility Benchmarks (Benchmarks) is the most detailed code of conduct and covered the largest scope. The OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (hereinafter the “OECD code of conduct”) is the second most comprehensive in both detail and scope.[77] Codes that are very general are not practical for guidance purposes. The UN Global Compact, Sullivan Principles and Caux Roundtable principles fall into this category.
The OECD’s study also contemplates a verification process. A code without verification and auditing provision is less meaningful, for then a business can adopt a code yet not practice in a responsible manner. Although the Benchmarks cover a larger scope of activities than the OECD code of conduct, it does not have provisions for auditing, verification, or monitoring. Thus, a business that adopts the Benchmarks risks its credibility.
The creators of a code of conduct inform the reader as to the authenticity of a code. The creators of a code incorporate into it the rules and ethics that they represent. A group of differing stakeholders or an organization that stands for universally accepted norms lends a code a credibility because it is more likely to be based on recognized principles. The OECD code of conduct is the fruit of over 30 governments, including most of Europe, the United States, Japan, and Korea.[78] Thus, the OECD code of conduct reflects accepted ethics and norms. The UN Global Compact also is the product of stakeholders representing accepted norms. Although the UN Global Compact is not the product of the United Nations, it is upheld by UN representative and agencies.[79] In addition, stakeholders from business, government, and society support it.[80] The UN Global Compact is very general in comparison to the OECD code of conduct. The OECD code of conduct is better able to guide business practices.
Beyond OECD’s Comparative Analysis
The OECD study recommends that all businesses adopt the OECD code of conduct. It argues that this will enable the readers to better use CSR reports and businesses to improve financial, social, and environmental goals.[81] This seemingly biased conclusion is supported by important constituents in the field of CSR. The European Commission promotes the OECD’s code of conduct in its Green Paper.[82] The OECD is seen by legal scholars as “one of the most influential public international CSR instruments.”[83]
The European commission’s consideration of the profit motive in adopting CSR lends soundness to its suggestions.[84] The GRI also promotes the adoption of the OECD code of conduct, as it creates synergy between the OECD code of conduct and the GRI.[85]
The OECD’s study contemplated the balance between the detail and breadth of a guideline, its origins, and its credibility ranking. In addition to these factors, a business manager should also consider the following criteria:
· Vagueness and Specificity.
· Interpretation of the Codes of Conduct.
· Benefits to profitability and continuous improvement as well as marketability of a CSR report.
· Importance to stakeholders in the present and in the future.
· Affect on the company culture.
· Industry specific applicability, ease of integrating supplemental codes.
· Adaptability to a regulatory framework.
The Advantage of a Specific over a Vague Code of Conduct
Businesses should avoid a “fairly abstract and general” code of conduct, as it delivers “patchy and uneven content.”[86] Nike was a participant in the Global Compact when it was sued by Kasky.[87] The Global Compact is a fairly general code of conduct, with only nine “broadly-worded corporate principles.”[88] Nike, Bayer, and Nestle are a few of the businesses that adopted the Global Compact and have been accused of hypocrisy.[89] The reason for the accusation stems from the “speech-driven” aspect of the Global Compact.[90] A code that has specific provisions, including that of verification and auditing process, better informs practices.
The provisions in a code should be coupled with measurements. Measurements are one way a manager can define a code of conduct so that is informs business practices. They also give managers a means to monitor whether practices upholds the code. The OECD code of conduct include 11 general policies and approximately 43 more specific provisions which can be augmented with standards such as the ILO and ISO14001.[91] The GRI also includes indicators. In addition, a report created in accordance with the GRI includes an explanation of the incremental process in adopting CSR practices. Perhaps if Nike had followed the GRI guidelines and OECD code of conduct, business managers would have made different decisions based on better knowledge of practices and a better understanding of the incremental nature of adopting CSR practices.
The Advantages of a Code of Conduct as a Rule of Law
The adoption of a specific code of conduct potentially puts a business in a better competitive position if the country or governing body adopts the code as a regulation. A code of conduct that is vague is difficult to interpret. A code that is specific cannot only be interpreted, but also, should it become law, can be enforced.[92] Thus, in preparation for the regulation of CSR, a business should adopt a specific rather than general, code. Already the WTO relies on ISO for standardizing trade in some industries.[93] The ISO provides specific standards. Some scholars point to the WTO as the appropriate body to adopt a CSR code of conduct and thus, enforce corporate social responsibility.[94] Should the WTO or a body like it decide to regulate CSR practices and reporting, it is likely that it will choose a code of conduct that is specific enough to be enforceable. The OECD code of conduct fits the bill.
Interpretation
No matter how clear a code of conduct is, its interpretation will vary depending on context.[95] The organizations that create codes of conduct are the natural place to turn to for aid in interpreting a provision. One aspect that lends credibility to the interpretation of a code is the lack of a conflict of interest in the interpreter. Credibility is also established when a code of conduct reflects the five basic principles held in common across cultures.[96] Codes that are created by businesses and then interpreted by their creators beg the question “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Codes that are created and interpreted by a multifaceted group are more likely to reflect the principles of honesty, fairness, compassion, responsibility, and respect than codes created by a party representing a single interest.[97]
The OECD code of conduct is the product of a collaborative effort between governments, NGOs and businesses, primarily led by governments.[98] The OECD code of conduct includes provisions for its interpretation.[99] A business manager can get help interpreting the OECD’s code of conduct at one of the “National Contact Points.” These contact points are quasi-governmental offices where a business manager can dialogue with OECD officials.[100] These officials are representative of the Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises (CIME). An official at a contact point helps interpret the code and acts as a repository for feedback.
The importance of interpretation can be illustrated by a code of conduct that abolishes child labor. A provision that simply abolishes child labor may do more harm than good. The UN Global Compact included a provision for “the effective abolition of child labour.”[101] The OECD code of conduct also states that a business must “ [c]ontribute to the effective abolition of child labour.”[102] Without an agency to turn to for aid in interpretation, a business manager could easily interpret the UN Global Compact’s provision for “effective abolition” as suspending all employment of children. Working children may be dependent upon their work for existence. If they are fired because as code of conduct mandates it, the children may end up taking on “degrading activities that are physically and psychologically much more damaging” just to be able to survive.[103] Instead, a business manager should be counseled to transition a child from working to gaining an education without losing a source of substance and shelter.[104] Thus, when a business has the aid of interpretation, a code of conduct can be carried out in a responsible manner.
Company Culture
When creating a CSR report, the process of adopting a code of conduct can have large impacts on a company’s culture. The best scenario is one in which the adoption of a code of conduct for sustainable business practices bolsters a company’s culture, which in turn, contributes towards the effort of continual improvement toward social, environmental and financial goals. This situation achieves the “objective of CSR [which] is to ensure that companies integrate social, environmental, and human rights concerns into their business operations.”[105] Thus, a code of conduct that directly supports the triple bottom line will enable managers to meet these triple goals and is more likely to be easily incorporated into a company culture.
When adopting a code of conduct for CSR, a business manager may experience resistance to change. This resistance may stem from a perception that adopting CSR practices will impose costs and will not enhance profit. Nike experienced this.[106] Nike used several tactics to gain acceptance among its employees and managers.[107] Among the tactics Nike took were to create a department to manage suppliers’ handling of laborers, integrate CSR as an entrepreneurial adventure throughout the business, investigate lean manufacturing, join forces with stakeholders such as the fair labor association, and advocate for governmental regulation of international labor standards.[108] Just as CSR is achieved through continual improvement on many levels of business practices, so the adoption of a code of conduct can be achieved through many simultaneous efforts.
If a business is in a state of crisis, there may be less resistance to the adoption of a code of conduct. After a fiasco in Nigeria, Royal Dutch Shell began the process of creating a CSR report. Managers, employees, and stakeholders noticed, and for the most part, embraced, a change in the company culture.[109] Part of the changes at Shell include adopting and practicing policies that demonstrate integrity, so that managers are held accountable for decisions that affect the health and safety of stakeholders within and exterior to the company, as well as for decisions that affect the environment.[110] A business manager can use the desire to avert disasters as one of the ways to encourage the acceptance of a code of conduct. However, in such a case, adherence to the law is the expectation, and fulfillment of that is all that a manager can expect. A code of conduct sets goals for the social, environmental and financial well being of a business and enables a business to realize these goals will eventually become a part of the company culture. Such a code will help to preclude a crisis like that experienced by Royal Dutch Shell, because the basis for decision making encompasses following the law and extends to continually improving the social context in which a business operates.

Benefits of a Code of Conduct
A code of conduct should bring about greater profitability through continuous improvement to a business’ social, environmental and financial practices. The manager who applies a code of conduct incrementally “help[s] to maximize the potential positive contribution of business to sustainable development”[111] As with integrating a code of conduct into a company’s culture, the key to unlocking the benefits of a code of conduct is in using a “range of approaches…to adopt in addressing CSR issues associated with [a business’] core business activities.”[112] In the early 1990s, Johnson & Johnson set the goal of reducing waste through redesigning its packaging.[113] Johnson & Johnson realized cost reduction of $2.8 million dollars over the course of less than three years.[114] In a similar effort, Davis Energy Group, a California company came up with a way to replace 70% of wood with cheaper engineered wood products in tract houses, thereby decreasing costs.[115] These are just two companies that integrated a code of conduct into their business practices in order to realize environmental goal.[116]
The OECD code of conduct is broad enough to inform a business manager so that he or she can inspire innovation in the path towards meeting the triple bottom line. Codes that are too broad leave a manager without enough direction. Codes that are too focused on social, environmental or financial goals constrict innovation to single goals. The OECD code of conduct allows a business to incrementally integrate all three goals so as to create synergies between them that will unlock the benefits of CSR.
Integrating Standards and EMPs into a Code of Conduct
Once a business has adopted a code of conduct, it will need to find specific tactics and measurements to realize the goals of the code. As Robert Clark pointed out in his corporate law hornbook, the goal of profit maximization is defined and measurable.[117] However, vague goals and vague measurements leave shareholders with no control mechanisms to keep corporate managers accountable. A business manager also needs specific measurements to manage performance. There are several ways a business manager can provide tactics and measurements to realize CSR goals. A business can launch an Environmental Management Systems (EMPs), employ consultants or join an organization of other businesses, such as the Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI).[118] GEMI allows a business to benchmark to other businesses when devising tactics and measurements.[119]
The OECD’s Comparative Analysis of CSR tools mentions the International Labor Organization (ILO) Standards for labor issues or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000 standards for environmental issues but does not include them in its comparison.[120] The ILO and ISO standards are important because they represent a deeper level of sustainable business practices. Once a business has adopted CSR as a way to do business, the ILO and ISO 1401 family of standards can be integrated into the OECD code of conduct and a GRI report. ILO and the ISO complement the OECD. The main difference is in terminology, which can be resolved by clarification in a CSR report.
The ISO issues standards for the production of good and services.[121] It is used globally by businesses, governments and NGOs. The ISO 9000 series provides specific details for manufacturing goods and providing services. The ISO 14001 is a tool for establishing an environmental management system (EMS) and for monitoring and verification of the EMS. The basis of the ISO 14001 is an iterative “plan-do-check-act” process. It can also be used on the product level for assessing life cycles, establishing standards, and eco-labeling. The ISO 14001 and its family can help a business manager establish an EMS. The other standards in the ISO 14001 family help a business manager to establish principles and systems within an EMS. However, the ISO 14001 provides only the tools to set up processes to meet goals but does not set goals.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) is a United Nations agency that advocates for ‘decent labor practices.’[122] The ILO issues standards offers technical assistance for labor issues and works with organizations. Their standards set specific practices for specific goals, covering the range of worker’s rights to organize, occupational safely and health and child labor policies.[123]
The ILO and ISO 14000 standards are important because they could be the foundation on which national and international regulations and laws are built, as well as voluntary trade regulations, as demonstrated by the WTOs adoption of the ISO 9000 series. A business may gain a competitive advantage by using these standards. The ILO and ISO standards can also be used as a marketing tool when attaining a position in another business’ supply chain.[124] Ford and General Motors both require their suppliers to adhere to standards modeled after the ISO standards.[125] When beginning the process of creating a CSR report, a manager should keep in mind that at some future point, it may be appropriate to integrate the ILO and ISO 14001 family of standards in its practices and report.
PART TWO: HOW TO EVALUATE A CSR REPORT
Grading a CSR Report: a Framework and an Analysis
Section two of this paper is an evaluation of McDonald’s Corporate Responsibility report. Because corporate social responsibly reporting is a relatively new trend, a framework for evaluating one has not been established.[126] Thus, before evaluating McDonald’s CSR report a proposed framework for evaluating a CSR precedes the evaluation.
Setting a Framework for Evaluating CSR Reports
The framework for the evaluation of a CSR proposed in this paper is based on certain assumptions. One is that the purpose of a corporate responsibility report is to communicate with stakeholders about business practices. Another is to inform business managers how to incorporate sustainability into business operations. This assumption is based on the fact that financial statements are issued to inform the shareholders and investors about the economics of a business and to inform the business managers about making decisions that earn profit. As with a financial statement, a CSR report should contain information that is relevant, reliable, timely, consistent, and comparable across time with other businesses, and audited in an appropriate manner. Unlike financial statements, which report the results of operations, a CSR report focuses on methods of business practices. Thus, additional criteria are necessary for CSR reporting. The criteria proposed here are drawn from the GRI and based on the assumption that the GRI is the best guideline available for CSR reports.[127]
In addition to the principles of relevance, reliability, timeliness, consistency, and comparability, a CSR report should follow the principle of transparency.[128] A transparent report traces the methodology for arriving at a program, initiative, or other action plan to implement sustainability, explains how the program is implemented, and records the goals and results. A CSR report should also be clear. A report is clear when it presents information that the reader values in a way the reader understands. Another important aspect of a CSR report is that it sets the platform for interaction between the stakeholders and management.[129] These relationships can be the groundwork to enable a business to meet its social and environmental goals in a way that increases the bottom line.
When deciding the content of a CSR report, the creators should focus on the value to the reader. An over inclusive report will be too dense for a most readers to get value out of it. A report should include information about a business’ operations and programs and initiatives that are being implemented or considered. The potential impact that a business can have due to its size or function in society is indicative of the importance of its CSR report. A business with multitudinous stakeholders will have a greater overall affect on the world by practicing and reporting on CSR than a small cottage-industry enterprise. Lastly, a CSR report should enable the reader to ascertain if the business is practicing sustainability.
Based on the above assumptions, a CSR report should be evaluated according to the following criteria:
· Importance: Potential impact on stakeholders.
· Consistent and Comparable: information that can be compared across time and with other businesses.
· Transparent about businesses practices and programs for implementing CSR activities.
· Audited so as to ensure monitoring and verification.
· Stakeholder interaction: supports relationships between the stakeholders and management.
· Relevant, Reliable, Timely, and Clear: present information of value to the reader in a way the reader understands.
· Inclusive: Covers topics important to stakeholders.
· Sustainability: incremental improvements towards sustainability.

Importance: Why McDonald’s CSR Report Matters
McDonald’s influences a large number of stakeholders. They include farmers, suppliers, land purveyors, employees and customers. It is fair to say that McDonald’s is a brand that is recognized almost everywhere on the planet. The combination of McDonald’s size and brand lend it substantial power in relation to its stakeholders. Although customers in the fast food industry are presented with a plethora of substitutes, McDonald’s brand name joined with its performance keep it in good stead. However, its brand recognition can also act as a liability. As Jack Greenberg, McDonald’s former CEO stated “people will attach brands like McDonald’s because [they are] more visible.”[130] This vulnerability comes from stakeholders such as Jose Bove and activists groups like PETA, which “expect more from them.”[131] Stakeholders, watch McDonald’s closely because McDonald’s has such a large market presence. In addition, McDonald’s activities are felt through the supply chain, in the general population, as well as by the competition. Put more simply, when McDonald’s changes, the world changes.
Another aspect of the size and impact of McDonald’s is its structure. The majority of restaurants are independently owned. The franchise structure provides the opportunity for a large multinational company to think globally and act locally. In its European CSR report, McDonald’s sites the local multiplier effect with its franchise owned operations.[132] The local multiplier effect shows that locally owned business have a more positive effect on local economies than do non-locally owned businesses. Because most McDonald’s restaurants are owned by franchisors who live in the same community as that of their restaurants, McDonald’s structure creates the potential for it to increase its impact from its CSR activities.
Food is inherently and deeply meaningful to all. Without it, we cannot live. It is our direct tie to the earth. McDonald’s relationship with food is direct, and that directness extends to us, the consumer. McDonald’s relationship to the land affects us indirectly. Agricultural practices affect our planet and our skies and our health. Land transactions to support restaurant locations affect our communities and our relationships with each other and with business.
Thomas L. Friedman, the author of The Lexus and the Olive Tree, wrote that “[n]o two countries that both had McDonald’s had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald’s.”[133] In his book, he explains “[t]he Golden Arches Theory highlights one way in which globalization affects geopolitics—by greatly raising the cost of warfare through economic integration.”[134] The notion that democracy and capitalism will bring about world peace is not a new one. In 1947, GAAT, the predecessor to the WTO, was formed. Part of the intent behind it was to create bonds between nations with business. These bonds would act as a disincentive to war, and bring about world peace. As trite as it a may sound, businesses really can make the world a better place in ways that extend beyond conventional business channels. With its CSR activities, McDonald’s can be an actor towards reducing “the overall volatility of the world’s economy.”[135] It has already started on this path, as its CSR report shows.

Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk: CSR at McDonald’s
The process of implementing CSR into a business is incremental. There is no one way, no one program or initiative that will bring a business the size of McDonald’s to complete sustainability. Continually improving towards sustainability is one aspect of being a sustainable business. McDonald’s demonstrates that the path towards sustainability is manifold and one way is by issuing a CSR report. However, one stakeholder, an online NGO that publishes articles on CSR, criticized McDonald’s CSR report as “a walk around the issues - not even a baseline to look towards in future years. An interested stakeholder will learn only generalities.”[136] In its response the European Commission’s green paper on CSR, McDonald’s itself acknowledges that it is in the early stages of reporting.[137] In 2002, McDonald’s issued its first Corporate Responsibility Report.[138] Since then it has issued CSR reports in Canada, Brazil, Russia, Europe, Japan and Switzerland as well as reports specific to the issues of animal welfare, the environment, and company policies. 2004 saw McDonald’s second CSR report for the United States.[139]
In this paper I take the position that McDonald’s is reporting the truth and that it is making genuine efforts in its environmental and social goals. The basis for this position is a recent case that went before the Supreme Court, Nike v. Kasky.[140] McDonald’s has a robust legal team. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that McDonald’s would put itself at risk for the damage to its brand that Nike bore. Of the carrot and stick reason for practicing sustainable business, legal liability is aspect of the stick side. What is exciting is the carrot side. By doing the right thing for the environment and society, a business can make more money. This is a slow process, and requires learning, innovation, and persistence.
Consistent and Comparable: Report has Information that can be Compared across Time and with Other Businesses
In the United States, publicly traded businesses have a legal requirement to issue financial statements that conform to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). One reason for this law is to enable investors to compare a business’ performance to past years as well as to other businesses. However, there are no regulations for reporting on CSR. This is one reason for the lack of consistency among CSR reports. The lack of consistency makes it difficult for stakeholders to compare business performance from year to year as well as to compare one business to another. As CSR reports are voluntary, the need for consistency among CSR reports must be met voluntarily. When a business decides to issue a CSR report, it can allow the contents to form organically, structure its report after prescribed guidelines or integrate the two approaches. When deciding which guidelines to use, one should look to what other business are using and who supports the use of the tools that are available for issuing a CSR report. The GRI is more widely used than any other reporting set of guidelines and is supported by prominent stakeholders. Its adoption also contributes to consistency among CSR reports.
McDonald’s is a registered stakeholder of the GRI, but its CSR report does not conform to the GRI. The McDonald’s Switzerland CSR report does include an index for the GRI.[141] Starbucks also cites the GRI in its CSR report.[142] McDonald’s is in the early stage of its reporting. It is likely that as time goes by, McDonald’s will integrate the GRI guidelines into its reports. The format that McDonald’s uses today is based on one of the cornerstones of its business strategy and its company culture. This is its “plan to win,” an adaptation of the marketing mix or “4 P’s of marketing.” McDonald’s has added “people” to “product, price, place, promotion.”[143] Within the “5 P” framework, McDonald’s current report focuses on the programs around “balanced active lifestyles, responsible purchasing, people, environment, and community.”[144]
McDonald’s may have chosen to do this for its franchisors and employees stakeholders. In alignment with its “5P” framework, these are its most important stakeholders. This class of stakeholders may be resistant to CSR activities because they perceive them as threatening to the company culture and detrimental to profitability. By showing how McDonald’s CSR activities the fit with the company culture and contribute to its goals, employee and franchisor stakeholders can see how CSR advances their own interests. However, this still begs the question of integrating the GRI into its CSR report.
McDonald’s European Corporate Report 2005 integrates a question and answer approach to its report. Starbucks also employs the question and answer approach.[145] This approach involves including questions asked by activist organization and skeptical stakeholders in a report, as well as the answers. The answers are given by reporting on initiatives, programs, and other processes as well as progress report. This is one way to address accusations of green washing.
However, this approach could be taken to the next level. As noted by Jill Meredith Ginsberg and Paul N. Bloom, a “company gains credibility when it touts the traditional product attributes of price, quality, convenience and availability and make only a secondary appeal to consumers on the basis of environmental attributes.”[146] Starbucks and the European McDonald’s CSR reports pose the questions that are based on a mistrust that a business would do something environmentally or socially responsible. McDonald’s should consider answering these questions on two levels: reporting about is practices, and reporting how its CSR practices affect its financial performance.
By answering on both levels, McDonald’s will also assuage the fears of its shareholder’s that its CSR activities will reduce profits. In addition, McDonald’s will show that it is walking the walk that it talks. On page 2 of its CSR report for 2004, the then-CEO Charlie Bell and then-Vice Chairman Jim Skinner state “[s]imply put, being a responsible enterprise is crucial to McDonald’s continued success.” In that same statement they say “trust is difficult to earn and easy to lose.” By directly addressing the concerns of green washing to show not only what McDonald’s is doing, but also why it is practicing corporate responsibility, McDonald’s would be taking active steps to bolster and build trust in its brand among its diverse stakeholders.
Integrating the GRI guidelines and a question and answer format into McDonald’s 5Ps layout would heighten brand trust among stakeholders outside of the business. It would also meet the principles of consistency and comparability. A potential drawback to applying the GRI guidelines is the amount of time it would take to modify the content so that it fit in the GRI order and content. Ben & Jerry’s found this to be the case when preparing its 2004 CSR report.[147] They resolved this by simply adding an index. Starbucks takes a similar approach, but creates a table of contents at the front of its report. Starbucks adds indicators for the behaviors on which it reports as well as the results for that indicator for 2003, 2004 and the target for 2005. [148] McDonald’s would do well to adapt its report in a similar way to Starbucks and Ben & Jerry’s by integrating the GRI into its format as well as the question and answer method of presentation.
Another aspect of consistency in CSR reporting is consistency within a business. McDonald’s publishes CSR reports for Brazil, Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia, Switzerland as well as the United States and worldwide reports.[149] These reports vary in not only their format, but also their content. The reports for Brazil and Canada demonstrate that CSR is in its early stages. Charitable contributions as well as normal business functions are included in the report. This is one way to introduce CSR to the stakeholders within an organization, but a CSR report should inspire managers to reach higher goals than measuring already accepted business practices. The European and McDonald’s Switzerland demonstrate the next level of CSR reporting.
McDonald’s CSR reports should follow one format and use the same set of measurements. This will allow for greater ease of inter-organizational learning. For example, McDonald’s Switzerland uses biogas trucks fueled by restaurant’s organic waste. [150] Europe, the United States and other divisions of McDonald’s should report on its state of recycling of oil for use as biofuel. By reporting on performance, McDonald’s signals to managers the goals to set, allowing for consistency in reporting and performance.
Transparent about Businesses Practices and Programs for Implementing CSR Activities
Transparency can be attained when a reader can determine what a business is promising and whether it is fulfilling its promise. A reader must be able to ascertain what a business is promising and how the performance measures up to that promise for a CSR report to be transparent. A code of conduct transmits what a business promises. As with the need for consistency and comparability in the formatting of a report, there is a need for consistency and comparability in codes of conduct. If all businesses adopt the same code of conduct, the stakeholders do not have to search for an individual business’ code of conduct or make determinations about a business’ code of conduct.
McDonald’s has codes of conduct for many of its activities, however it lacks an overarching code of conduct for all of it CSR activities. McDonald’s should adopt the OECD code of conduct. The codes of conduct that McDonald’s currently has for its suppliers, environmental policies, and other business practices would fit within the framework of the OECD code of conduct. For example, the tool McDonald’s uses to ensure that suppliers carry out its vision, principles, and guidelines is called McDonald’s Agricultural Assurance Program (MAPP).[151] Five of the OECD code of conduct focus on environmental performance. The first clause is “[e]stablish and maintain a system of environmental management appropriate to the enterprise…” The OECD code of conduct include provisions that a business should collect and evaluate data, establish goals and monitor the progress of environmental, health and safety business practices. McDonald’s would do well to adopt the OECD’s code of conduct for all of its business operations. It could then supplement this overarching code with those specific to suppliers, vendors, and other stakeholders and activities, such as MAPP.
The other aspect of transparency is clarity on how well a business measures up to its promises. Galileo said “measure what can be measured, and make measurable what cannot be measured.” John W. Thompson, CEO of Symantec, is said to have retooled the phrase to be "you cannot manage what you cannot measure.” McDonald’s is working toward gathering data and creating meaningful metrics for its report.[152] Academics also support the notion that measurements are important to successful sustainable business practices.[153] As McDonald’s notes, for metrics to be meaningful within an organization full of franchise owners, it is necessary that metrics lend themselves to incremental and appropriate adoption. McDonald’s is working with one of its NGO stakeholders, Center for Environmental Leadership in Business, to create a “environmental scorecard” for its suppliers to tract water, energy, and air waste performance.[154]
McDonald’s employs charts in its report to show diversity among its franchise owners and employees, packaging use, and carbon dioxide emissions.[155] McDonald’s Switzerland includes charts and graphs that track energy use, waste, and emissions.[156] The report includes report cards in which last year’s goals are recorded, assessment of performance, and next years goals are set.[157]
Starbucks uses progress reports with pie charts to show fulfillment of goal, and bar graphs to show performance of resources usage and other activities related to the environment.[158] Ben & Jerry’s sets goals for resource use and reports whole numbers and percentage changes over the course of three years.[159] McDonald’s could take its measurements a step further and model them after those of Starbucks and Ben & Jerry’s It would also do well to link its measurements to an index or table of contents for the GRI, as well as note next to the measurement, in small print, which GRI indictor to which that measurement is relevant.
MAPP lends itself to immediate measurement. Both in Europe and the United States, McDonald’s uses MAPP as a tool to set goals and procedures for meeting goals for environmental, agricultural, and animal related supplier behaviors. It could tailor a chart or score card to measure how well it meets its MAPP goals and tie this chart to the GRI indicators EN33, “[p]erformance of suppliers relative to environmental components of programmes and procedures…” or EN14, ‘describe and qualify significant environmental impacts of principal products and services. In this way, the CSR report is more transparent for the reader who is comparing across industries.
By setting an overarching code of conduct, clear plans to meet the code of conduct (such as MAPP) and reporting performance in the form of measurements, McDonald’s informs its suppliers, franchise owners and managers which goals to set. Setting goals is important in meeting them and because doing so can spur innovation.[160] Measurements are important because they not only set expectations, but inform a manager how to meet them.[161] In addition, they create transparency in CSR reports. As time goes by, data on CSR related practices will be gathered and McDonald’s will be able to enrich its report with measurements.[162]
Another aspect of transparency is demonstrated by the Gap’s “path breaking Social Responsibility Report.”[163] Gap’s report is being heralded for its honesty in reporting about working conditions in its factories. The report lays out with surprising candor the state of things.[164] It also speaks to the challenges of monitoring and verifying compliance with codes of conduct.[165] Gap’s candor is new to the field of CSR. As such, it is not clear if the risk of reporting such candid information about factory conditions will be rewarded by building stakeholders’ trust in the company and by building up the Gap brand. It is clear that Gap eliminates the possibility of facing a lawsuit like that faced by Nike in Nike v. Kasky.
Audited so as to Ensure Monitoring and Verification.
Directly related to the issue of transparency is the issue of auditing. Auditing requires monitoring of practices and verifying that performance reports reflect the truth. The chief reason to have a CSR report audited is that it lends the report credulity in the eyes of the stakeholders. Another advantage to auditing it that auditors may be able to lend their expertise, and thereby fulfilling the role of consultants and increasing the benefits of CSR activities and reporting. Auditing also transmits to the employees and franchise owners that that top management sees value in CSR reports and practices.
The drawbacks to an auditing process are the costs it imposes. Once such costs is the direct costs of paying for an auditor, which can be enormous for large multinational businesses. There are also potential indirect costs. If a business is not careful about the process, monitoring can create an adversarial feeling in employees or franchise owners and thereby decrease motivation and feelings of loyalty. Lower employee motivation can negatively impact company culture as well as productivity, and, finally the financial performance. Less loyalty among employees increased the turnover rates, which result in higher training skills, and lower financial profits.[166]
The auditing process for social and environmental activities is still new. As observed by the senior director of corporate responsibility at McDonald’s, there is no standard procedure.[167] Instead there are many methods available to a business.
In a study of 1,600 CSR reports, most of independent auditing is performed by accounting firms.[168] Nike has a Report Review Committee. It is composed of an activist organization (the fair labor association), consultants (CH2M Hill) and representatives of Nike and other national and international groups. Nike states in its report that “[i]t was beyond the scope of the Report Review Committee to provide verification of the information” in its report.[169] In its vanguard CSR report, Gap Inc. extensively writes about the difficulties related to auditing and monitoring and the potential benefits auditors can give for realizing the triple bottom line.[170] Gap uses external auditors.[171] Starbucks employs a dual tactic: an independent third party audits its report in conjunction with self monitoring.[172]
Verification can be supported by accolades from NGOs. Journals, such as Business Ethics, also bolster the verification of a business’ performance.[173] McDonald’s has an array of awards.[174] Some of these are mentioned in its CSR report, such as Fortune Magazine listing of the “Top 50 Places for Minorities to Work” and “Most Admired Company.”[175] McDonald’s could further leverage its awards and the recognition it gets by including more mentions of them in its CSR report as side notes or in small bars to verify its performance indicators and measurements. Verification can also be augmented by ratings by financial institutions, such as Dow’s sustainability index, or investments by the likes of Calvert Foundation. Eco-labeling can transmit verification, but the claim must be backed up with an explanation of why it is sustainable for the label to have an effect.’[176]
McDonald’s European Corporate Responsibility Report 2005 is independently audited.[177] The one page audit is concluded with a bulleted list of areas for improvement. It is unclear if the readers place value in this audit or would place higher value in greater stakeholder interaction. In the United States, McDonald’s interacts with a variety of stakeholder organizations, including the World Resources Institute, Environmental Defense and Businesses for Social Responsibility.[178] McDonald’s is working with stakeholder groups including the Natural Step and Conservation International to address its purchasing program, and waste management.[179] McDonald’s is on the path towards adequate monitoring and verification. As it integrates stakeholders into more aspects of its operations, it will enhance this aspect of its CSR report.
Stakeholder Interaction: Supports Relationships between the Stakeholders and Management.
Stakeholders involvement in the monitoring and verification process might be the most effective means of monitoring. This is because it allows stakeholders to have a hand in deciding what programs a business implements. It also allows the business to benefit from an outsider’s viewpoint. In addition, it builds the brand and offsets misconceptions about the sincerity of a business.[180] There are several models for stakeholder involvement.
The Natural Step sets up a system to educate stakeholders within an organization.[181] It sets up the criteria for decisions, thereby at once defining and enabling implementation of sustainability. A good example is the interaction between the Natural Step and McDonald’s in Sweden. By defining goals and criteria, Swedish stakeholders within McDonald’s were able to implement sustainability and positively impact the brand image. [182]
AA1000 is a method involving stakeholders exterior to an organization. [183] Although AA1000 as a program may not fit with McDonald’s culture and goals, its method could be adopted. McDonald’s already has pieces of both the Natural Step and AA1000 in place. It has a blog on which stakeholders can interact with the corporate responsibly team. On its blog, stakeholders can ask questions about specific issues. Stakeholders are given answers that cite the action plans that have been taken for the issue in question. With its blog, McDonald’s deepens relationships with stakeholders. Its blog supplies status reports on the applicable program or initiatives.
Relationships could reach an even greater depth were McDonald’s also publish on its blog specific challenges to the programs. Stakeholders would be invited to give suggestions or comments on how McDonald’s can meet its goals. In this way, a dialogue would be set up whereby stakeholders can respond in ways that are meaningful to them and McDonald’s. Stakeholder questions and McDonald’s answers as well as the fruit of the interaction could be the basis for the question and answer part of its CSR report. This would strengthen relationships with stakeholders and could result in ideas that to increase the triple bottom line.
The blog could state that its the ultimate goals of CSR at McDonald’s is to reach as state of “abundance” whereby business practices harmoniously do good for the environment, people and the economy.[184] It could have a posting for visions of the future, such as paper containers that when disposed of disintegrated into nitrogen fixers than replenished the soil or restaurants that have zero waste. Bloggers could both share visions of tomorrow and contribute to solutions for today’s challenges.
Ben & Jerry’s uses “Green Teams” to fostering stakeholder relationships with employees at its production plants.[185] Employees have management’s support to form teams, create agendas, create action plans, and execute them. One such project was a campaign to reduce the use of paper throughout Ben & Jerry’s business. McDonald’s could extend this model to all stakeholders. It could do this via the Internet. It’s blog could be a portal for interaction between stakeholders within and exterior to the organization. The issues that arise from this are monitoring of interactions, including potential liability for anything McDonald’s hosts on its website, and extracting value from the website.
Presently, the blog site has links for specific areas of CSR activities. On some of the links, one can access web pages for issue specific stakeholders. McDonald’s could suggest to NGOs with which McDonald’s collaborates that they host blogs on their websites. When the blogger leaves the McDonald’s site to blog on the other site, a disclaimer could pop up to release McDonald’s from liability.
McDonald’s would be a participant on the blogs, but the blog manager would be responsible for notifying the management at McDonald’s when an important issue, contribution or exchange was occurring. In this way, bloggers who are interested in specific topics (nutrition, animal welfare, sustainable agriculture, diversity) could participate and interact with the stakeholders who are having an impact on decisions at McDonald’s. Some of these blogs could be invitation only, contingent upon a person’s intention to contribute to finding solutions for a challenge that the stakeholder group or individual hosting the blog is facing. Some blogs could be open to employees only, and others could be open to the public. Although monitoring will still be an issue, it might be more manageable. To bring bloggers back into the loop, questions, solutions and the process for coming to the solutions as well as an explanation of the implementation process could become a part of the CSR report and hosted on the blog site.
In France, McDonald’s partners with a radio station for call-in talk shows. The shows are issue specific and callers dialogue with people from the company as well as experts in the field. For example, a show on balanced lifestyles might include a representative of McDonald’s and a nutritionist with the goal of the discussion on how to effectively communicate to customers about the importance of exercise and nutrition.
Yet another tactic could use would be to host computer terminals in restaurants. In Brazil, McDonald’s already provides computer terminals as part of its socially responsible behaviors. [186] If McDonald’s were to provide terminals in restaurants in other parts of the world, it could integrate CSR into the customers’ restaurant experience. On the terminals could be an interactive game posing “Did You Know….” facts about its CSR activities. At the end, people could send in comments or suggestions. The computer could print out a coupon for a free side salad, water, or apple dipper with an order of a meal or large salad.
Relevant, Reliable, Timely, and Clear: Present Information of Value to the Reader in a Way the Reader Understands.
The format of a CSR report is as important as what a business reports. For if the contents of a report are not accessible to readers, a CSR report can not fulfill its purpose. Financial statements are generally available in print format, online, and when filed with the SEC. Ben& Jerry’s, one of the leaders in CSR, issued it’s sixteenth annual CSR report in 2004.[187] The report is 48 pages, thick with text and available in one version. For the stakeholder who is not an expert on CSR or Ben & Jerry’s, the density of the report damages its relevance and clarity. McDonald’s worldwide CSR report is available on line and in paper format. The report is divided into two sections. The first focuses on CSR activities in the United States and is laid out so as to be readable to most anyone. The second half is similarly dense as Ben & Jerry’s CSR report and provides a survey of McDonald’s CSR activities across the globe. By dividing the report into two sections, McDonald’s manages to report in a way that stakeholders of varying degrees of expertise will find relevant and clear.
McDonald’s Switzerland issues three versions of its CSR report. [188] One is a flyer, the second is an abridged version of the online source in a 20 page printable format and the third is a detailed report available online. McDonald’s does have a flyer that charts its history of corporate responsibility.[189] Were McDonald’s to issue flyers in downloadable format, it might more clearly communicate to employee and franchisor stakeholders about McDonald’s activities in CSR. In tandem with the flyer and the CSR reports, McDonald’s could print small “Did You Know….” facts about its activities on its placemats, food and beverage containers, napkins, receipts and other paper products. This would reinforce the value of McDonald’s CSR activities within and exterior to the business. It would also bolster the brand image.
When significant events occur, McDonald’s does issue newsletters, however, it is not clear for a stakeholder where to sign up for newsletters on its website. Starbuck’s prominently places its sign up for newsletters on its website for CSR.[190] Were McDonald’s to do this on its website and its blog site, it would allow for more timely communication about important events like its placing nutritional facts on its food containers and its adoption of a code of conduct for its suppliers of tomatoes.
Inclusive: Covers Topics Important to Stakeholders
A report is inclusive when it does not leave out subjects that are important to stakeholders.[191] McDonald’s balance sheet for 2004 indicates that McDonald’s is as much a real estate company as a restaurant business. The balance sheets carry net assets of $27,837 million.[192] Seventy four percent of these assets, $20,803 million, are in property and equipment. Rental revenues from franchisors were $4,840 million in 2004, representing 25% of the revenue for 2004.[193] McDonald’s leases the land under 15,235 restaurants.[194] McDonald’s Worldwide Corporate Responsibly report 2004 does indirectly reports on this aspect of its operations through reportage on the use of electricity, water, and waste systems, however, it could address much more directly its CSR activities, or lack thereof, as a landowner and landlord.
McDonald’s had formed a “U.S, Energy Team” to create tools for implementing and measuring energy reductions programs.[195] In both Japan and Switzerland McDonald’s is tracking the energy use and implementing programs that are environmentally friendly, decrease usages, and costs in the long term.[196] In Denmark, the McDonald’s are testing refrigeration systems that do not use hydroflurocarbons.[197] These programs are part of the path towards what Peter Senge calls the “next industrial revolution.”[198] McDonald’s reports that it is also looking into ways to bring the biotechnology to its operations and suppliers. This is the sort of thinking that is necessary to bring about the world envisioned by McDonough and Braungard in their book Cradle to Cradle.
McDonald’s CSR report for Europe directly addresses the issue of balancing the interests of informing the public about where to find a McDonald’s restaurant with the “visual impact” of McDonald’s signage.[199] The report forthrightly states that the golden arches are “a symbol of cultural homogenization in the globalized world” and declares that it takes this into consideration when putting a restaurant in a community.
McDonald’s Switzerland also incorporates sustainability into the construction of its new restaurants.[200] In Switzerland, new buildings are insulated with a combination of “ecologically acceptable” recycled newspaper and lime by-products of waste incinerators, the water conserving urinals allow for a 10% decrease in water usage, and 70% of a restaurant’s heat is sourced from a heat recovery system within the building.[201] All of these programs demonstrate that McDonald’s is making progress in sustainable practices. However, there is no unifying program, as there is with McDonald’s supplier management.
A potential program might serve as a foundation for unifying McDonald’s efforts toward sustainable construction and remodeling is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).[202] McDonald’s is currently looking into this, but does not report such in its CSR report.[203] A telephone interview with Dr. Phil Thompson, a former manager of McDonald’s restaurant in Naperville, Illinois, revealed some of the reasons for and against the implementation of a LEED standard at McDonald’s.[204] Buildings built to LEED certification allows the inhabitant to realize lower heating, lighting, and water costs, as well as other benefits including green roofs, and emissions controls. However, building in conformity with LEED certification drives up costs. In addition, it is not clear if the long term energy savings would offset the higher cost to build. Higher costs may be due in part to the absence of economies of scale for green building materials and competence. Should a business the size of McDonald’s adopt LEED standards for its renovation and construction, the economies of scale may necessarily fall in place, lowering material costs.
It is difficult to forecast the impact on the brand that building to LEED standards would have. Before considering implementing sustainability into the real estate side of its business, McDonald’s should find out if McDonald’s brand would benefit if McDonald’s restaurants were housed in green buildings. McDonald’s might be able to increase its customer base by using standards modeled after LEED for its buildings.
In 2003, McDonald’s wrote off $249.5 million dollars in assets for restructuring costs. This was part of a nation wide revitalization plan in which McDonald’s subsidized its franchisors to re-image the interiors and exteriors of restaurants. [205] These numbers indicate that McDonald’s has an organized system for its construction and remodeling of its restaurants. Implementing change can be difficult when there are established systems. To get people on board to change to green building practices would require incentives from cost savings and involvement on a regional level as to the decisions to build green.
Due to recent history within the organization, it could be very difficult to get stakeholders within McDonald’s to support green building unless it immediately enhances the bottom line. In 2002, McDonald’s wrote off $183.9 million when it abandoned a software initiative that it intended for its restaurants. The failure of this program would make management and franchise owners wary of new projects in which the ROI is calculated for the long run. As part of the process of converting to green building, McDonald’s should consider mimicking the practices of McDonald’s Switzerland, such as the fry oil recycling programs, and finding resources like the urinals that use less water.
Incremental Improvement towards Sustainability
A reader should be able to ascertain the degree of sustainability a business is practicing from a CSR report. Simon Zadeck, author of The Path to Corporate Responsibility suggested that there are five stages for a business on the path to sustainability: defensive, compliance, managerial, strategic and civil.[206] During the defensive stage, managers deny there is a problem. In the compliance stages, managers consider CSR a risk management strategy, looking to regulations, risks of litigation or campaigns by stakeholders, such as boycotting and bad press. In the managerial stage, CSR is ‘embedded in core management practices.” In the strategic stage, CSR is ‘integrated into the core business strategies.’ In some of its practices, McDonald’s has accomplished the managerial stage with its supplier’s code of conduct, decisions to decrease packaging, and use of recycled materials. In order to fully move out of the managerial stage and into the strategic phase, the corporate responsibility department should be reconfigured so that it is also part of the operations department of McDonald’s. This would demonstrate full support from the top, and send the signal to the all the departments that CSR is a way to do business.[207]
One of the indicators that a business is at the strategic stage is that it sees CSR as a means to greater profits and a way of gaining the first mover competitive advantage. Top management’s promotion of McDonald’s CSR activities demonstrate that CSR is part of its strategy. The CSR report can be accessed on the McDonald’s USA homepage.[208] The decision to put nutritional information on its food packaging is communicated to the public through the CSR department and is posted on the front page of McDonald’s financial visitor’s website. [209] As CSR practices prove to increase profitability, one can expect that top management will adopt sustainability into all of its strategic decisions.
Under Zedeck’s paradigm, the final stage of sustainability for a business is civil. At this stage, a business gains long term profits through collective action with others in its industry. In some aspects of its practices, McDonald’s is in the process of arriving at this stage. It collaborates with many stakeholder groups.[210] In addition, McDonald’s is a member of the Illinois retailers association and was awarded by that organization for its CSR related activities.[211] In this way, McDonald’s leads others in its industry towards CSR.
It is not clear how CSR is approached at the franchisee level. CSR may be perceived by franchisors as threatening to their profit, as many of them may see corporate responsibility in terms of charitable actions or compliance with regulations. Franchise owners, being small business owners, are likely to be risk averse. For this reason, new endeavors that do not realize immediate profitability in lower costs or higher revenue will likely be resisted. One approach may be to issue booklets or leaflets online in which a franchise owner could fill in the blanks. Franchisors could fill in classifications for recycling of fry oil recycling for bio-fuel, recycling of paper and other highly visible or cost reducing activities. McDonald’s corporate office could run a competition among its franchisors to see who can increase profitability the most by implementing CSR action plans. The competition could be recorded on the headquarters’ website, with the winner being celebrated on the homepage, newsletters and communications with the other stakeholders.
CSR Report Card
Below is a rating of McDonald’s CSR report with suggestions for improvement. This rating scheme is of my own design. The numerical ratings are arrived at based on comparisons to other CSR reports. The ratings are flawed because there are few benchmarks for the criteria, as the framework and criteria are new. This report card is put forth as a step toward establishing a framework for grading a CSR report.

Performance Criteria
Measurement
Scale 1-10
Suggested Goals for Next Year
Importance: Potential impact on stakeholders.

10
Promote growth in areas that meet the goals of the triple line.
· Increase sales of items such as salads with tomatoes grown under the new code of conduct.
· Open new franchisor restaurants in developing nations.
· Continue to employ a diverse workforce.
· Promote water as a beverage and the pedometer as a happy meal toy.
Consistent, and Comparable: information that can be compared across time and with other businesses

3
Set a template for all McDonald’s CSR reports.
· Use the question and answer format.
· Add an index to the GRI at the front.
· Show impact on financial performance for CSR activities.
· Use the same measurements (graphs, pie charts, data charts) for all reports. Where no activity has occurred for a measurement, include that it is not the right time to do that activity.
· Map report of subjects and measurements to the GRI in a small box next to the page numbers.
Transparent about businesses practices and programs for implementing CSR activities
Audited by a neutral third party.
5
Adopt the OECD’s code of conduct Enterprises as an overarching code of conduct and incorporate more measurements.
· Use current codes of conduct to show how the OECD’s code of conduct are implemented.
Audited
5
Use a consistent auditing procedure in all reports.
· Use stakeholder involvement for audits modeled after the Natural Step for internal stakeholders and the AA1000 for external stakeholders.
· Include mention of awards and accolades in a consistent manner throughout the report to bolster reportage.
· Investigate eco-labeling menu items (rain forest free beef, recycled paper sacks).
Stakeholder interaction: supports relationships between the stakeholders and management

5
Deepen and broaden stakeholder relationships and interactions.
· Use the Natural Step method, Ben & Jerry’s Green Teams and blog interactions to increase stakeholder interaction within the business.
· Use AA1000 method, blogs hosted by collaborators, radio talk shows, computer terminals in restaurants to deepen interactions with exterior stakeholders.
· Include Stakeholders in collaborative efforts to overcome challenges to implementing sustainability by posting the challenge and asking for suggestions. Include positive outcomes in the CSR report.
Relevant, Reliable, Timely, and Clear: present information of value to the reader in a way the reader understands
8
Continue to issue reports at in varying formats for different stakeholders.
· Issue a poster/flyer on line for annual accomplishments.
· Place “Did You Know…” facts in small circles on placemats, food and beverage containers, napkins, receipts etc.
· Place a sign up for newsletters prominently on CSR website.
Inclusive: Covers topics important to stakeholders.

6
Consider reporting on the real estate side of McDonald’s.
· Investigate using LEED, hydroflurocarbon free refrigeration, and McDonald’s Switzerland practices (water saving urinals, green insulation, etc.).
· Investigate a nation wide oil and paper recycling program or competition among franchisors.
Sustainability: incremental improvements towards sustainability.

10
Continue incremental adaptation.
· Move CSR department into operations department.
· Promote CSR activities as regular business activities.
· Continue to show Top Management support of CSR: when McDonald’s gets awards for its CSR activities have the CEO, COO or President accept them.
Sustainability is inherently an incremental process. As a business continually improves its practices, it creates more opportunities for improvement. In this way, a business is not unlike a human. There is always room for growth. By placing itself in a position to continually grow both within on activity and across the organization, rather than reach a level of CSR in one department and going on to another, McDonald’s practices sustainability. Because of its size, it is leading its industry towards sustainability. Thus, McDonald’s is continually realizing its potential for making the world a better place.

PART THREE: THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF ISSUING A CSR REPORT.
In 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court changed its mind about hearing a case in which Nike was being sued for unfair and deceptive advertising for its statements about its labor practices.[212] The U. S. Supreme Court decided that it had improvidently granted a writ of certiorari and sent the case back to California. This left the issue of whether communication about CSR is commercial speech undecided. If a CSR report and other communication about a business’s CSR activities is commercial speech, then a business may be held liable if performance does not match promise. If, on the other hand, CSR is deemed to be non-commercial speech, a business could still be held liable for false statements, albeit under tort law, under which a plaintiff has a different burden of proof.
Nike v. Kasky and the Law
In Nike v. Kasky, Marc Kasky sued Nike for not upholding its code of conduct.[213] Kasky, a private citizen of California, sued Nike for unfair and deceptive advertising under California’s Unfair Competition Law.[214] Kasky claimed that Nike and its suppliers’ performance did not match Nike’s promise against the use of forced, slave, prison or child labor. Kasky took his action after a cascade of negative media attention exposing Nike’s working conditions at manufacturing facilities in Asia.[215] The stories in the news made it evident Nike and its suppliers were not following Nike’s code of conduct. Nike responded by sponsoring a study of its suppliers’ facilities and issuing letters and a report denying that its code of conduct was being violated.[216] The California Supreme Court decided that Kasky had the right to sue Nike in trail court. Nike appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. Nike did not agree with the decision by California’s Supreme Court that the case should go to trial. Justice Stevens, writing an opinion concurring in the dismissal of certiorari as improvidently granted, stated that more time was needed before a the Supreme Court decided if Kasky should have standing to sue Nike because the case presented a “novel constitutional question.”[217] The novelty stems from the blending of “commercial speech, noncommercial speech, and debate on an issue of public importance.”[218]
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the California court system, where the prior decision had so broadly defined commercial speech that any communication by a corporation is deemed commercial speech.[219] Under this definition, issuing a statement that a business and its suppliers followed a code of conduct is a form of advertising.[220] Thus, a CSR report would be commercial speech because it influences people’s purchasing decisions. If a business or its suppliers do not adhere to the code of conduct, that business is deceiving the public, and therefore is potentially liable to consumer under a state statute regulating truthfulness in advertising.[221] Justice Stevens’ opinion indicates that the Supreme Court might not define commercial speech as broadly as the California Supreme Court, should they decide to rule on such a case:
Knowledgeable persons should be free to participate in [] debate [about multinational companies’ labor practices] without fear of unfair reprisal. The interest in protecting such participants from the chilling effect of the prospect of expensive litigation is therefore also a matter of great importance…. That is why we have provided such broad protection for misstatements about public figures that are not animated by malice. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964).[222]

One factor influencing Supreme Court decisions is precedent. Over a century ago, the Supreme Court determined that businesses have equal protection and due process rights.[223] Because of these decisions “a corporation is a person for purposes of the fourteenth amendment.”[224] A few years after being granted fourteenth amendment protection, the Supreme Court determined that businesses enjoy some of the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights.[225] These rights evolved to the right to speak and the right to privacy.[226]
First amendment protections of speech for a business gave rise to the notion that commercial speech has a role in the market place of ideas, and that consumers’ interest in access to information outweighs a governmental interest in regulation.[227] The notion that corporations have something to contribute to the market place of ideas became manifest in a case involving a business’ funding lobbying efforts that were not materially related to the business. In that case, Supreme Court decided that First Amendment rights extend to corporate entities.[228] The Supreme Court acknowledges that businesses have a role in the political arena, stating that “[c]orporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster.”[229] Even in advertising, business enjoys First Amendment rights based on the fact that the public benefits from a "free flow of commercial information."[230] When a business communicates either commercial or non-commercial messages, it enjoys certain rights to that speech (subject to a four-part balancing test).[231] False commercial speech is entitled to less protection than false non-commercial speech.[232]
There are two opposing schools of thought about the issue of whether communications about CSR are commercial speech. On the one hand, some argue that corporate speech is commercial speech and thereby all corporations should have lower levels of constitutional protection over their speech. According to this view, CSR communications are made to influence sales and as such are commercial speech. Unless the speech is regulated, there will not be an enforcing body to ensure consumers are accurately informed and to “promote market efficiency.”[233] Because of its political aspects, it should be regulated to avoid the situation where “corporate participation in candidate elections [poses] unique risks of corruption, and the appearance of corruption, of our political institutions.[234] This school of thought is based on the philosophy that “[c]orporations do not, or should not, have ‘free speech’ rights coextensive with those of individuals because corporations are artificial, state-created entities that have no legitimate claim to a political voice.”[235] Under this philosophy, regulation will protect consumers from misleading statements. Regulation also protects the integrity of the marketplace of ideas. Regulation of a commercial entity will not result in chilling of speech, but will be one of the factors in determining the cost and benefits when deciding whether to communicate.
An opposing view is that corporate statements about CSR “should be treated on par with political and/or artistic statements" and be granted full First Amendment protection.[236] The rationale for this stance is that it is in the public interest to allow businesses to fully participate in debates about policy issues concerning globalization, human rights and other aspects of CSR activities. This begs the question of what a business is communicating.[237] Communication in the form of opinions and communication about facts of operations have not been differentiated by the courts. Thus, whether communicating opinion or communicating facts about operations, a manager should be aware of the laws concerning false advertising, unfair business practices and commercial speech.
The Business Manager’s Dilemma when Issuing a CSR Report
Nike v. Kasky leaves the matter of whether communication about CSR is commercial speech undecided. This puts a business manager in a dilemma when deciding whether to communicate about CSR. If a business issues a CSR report that contains inaccuracies, a business may open itself to liability. Some would say that part of CSR is to issue a CSR report, practice transparency in operations and relinquish all privacy on any subject that is reported.[238] Gap Inc., took this approach to its extreme in 2004.[239] Its CSR report includes statistics about violations of its code of conduct and a discussion about the difficulties in enforcing the code.[240] It remains to be seen whether such an approach positively affects the triple bottom line.
The other approach a business can take is to use aspirational language, such as goal setting. This is recommended by the OECD code of conduct.[241] However, because it is not clear whether communicating a code of conduct is commercial speech, a business manager cannot rely on aspirational language to protect the business from legal action. This fact is demonstrated by the ongoing Smith v. Nike Retail Service case.[242] Nike is in litigation for race-based discrimination under the theory that it had not fulfilled its policy of “a culture of inclusion and respect for all employees.”[243]
Privacy in Operations when Issuing a CSR Report and Code of Conduct
Another issue a business manager should be aware of is the relinquishment of privacy interests when communicating the adoption of a code of conduct. The risk of loss in privacy in operations a business takes when adopting a code of conduct stems from an increased level of scrutiny by stakeholders. As Nike v. Kasky showed, a business may no longer be able to take the stance that such information is confidential.[244] This gives rise to the issue of whether a business has a right to keep its doors closed to the public, media, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), or governmental entities when it has put forth that it has voluntarily adopted a code of conduct. Although theoretically, this issue may be moot if a business includes transparency in its code of conduct and practices this code, in the real world setting, things are not so simple. Thus, a business manager should be aware of the extent to which the law will recognize and protect the privacy of a business’ operations.
Alan F. Westin defines privacy as “the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others."[245] There are publicly visible aspects of a company’s actions, such as marketing practices and interactions with customers, and potentially private aspects, such as supply chain management and policy making. Exposure to risk if someone challenges the accuracy of a conduct in relation to a code of conduct may vary, depending on whether the activity is publicly visible or not. One way circumvent this issue may be to communicate about CSR as an aspiration. However, as Nike v. Kasky, demonstrates, there is no certainty when taking this route.
Protection of privacy rights for a business and enforcement of a business’ code of conduct are two sides of the same coin. A business manager can use the law to protect the privacy of a business. A business can protect its privacy through tort law, theories based on the constitution or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits. It might also employ regulatory law as a way to protect privacy.[246]

Privacy Interests Founded in the Constitution and Case Law
A business manager cannot expect the law to protect a business’ privacy from the media. Supreme Court opinions indicate that businesses have a right to privacy grounded in the Bill of Rights, but it is much more limited than that possessed by individuals.[247] Further, rarely do courts protect that privacy.[248] In 2004, the Seventh Circuit found that a business has no privacy rights because “corporations are not alive. Where does a corporation go when it just wants to be left alone? Most states hold that business entities lack privacy interests.”[249] Thus, a business manager should not expect a court to recognize a general privacy interest (outside of regulatory law) grounded in the Bill of Rights. This, at least, is the state of protection from public actors. When looking to protect privacy interest against private actors, such as the media, NGOs, or citizens, a business can expect some protection from civil law.
One way to protect a privacy interest is tort law. Professor Prosser broke the right of privacy into four torts.[250]
1. Public Disclosure of Private Fact: When someone makes public information that is both “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and for which the public has no “legitimate concern.”[251]
2. Intrusion on Seclusion: If someone intrudes into another’s solitude, private affairs or private concerns in a way that is “highly offensive to a reasonable person.”[252] False Light. If someone makes public a characterization of another that is not true and “highly offensive to a reasonable person.”[253]
3. Appropriation: If someone another uses a party’s name of likeness, they may be liable for the tort of approproation.[254]

Underlying these four torts is a premise of ownership. Ownership gives rise to rights against trespass on that ownership. Once the law recognizes a right of ownership, or correspondingly, a right against trespass, one has a privacy right. However, the degree to which a court will protect that right depends on a number of factors.
The court will enforce tort law differently depending on whether the party is a business or an individual. Two cases with similar facts illustrate the importance of the difference in privacy interests for a business and a person. In one case, journalists pretending to be clients gathered and then published evidence of a business’ irresponsible conduct at the place of business.[255] Finding no illegal breach of privacy, Judge Posner wrote that “[n]o embarrassingly intimate details of anybody's life were publicized in the present case. There was no eavesdropping on a private conversation . . . no theft, or intent to steal trade secrets; no disruption of decorum, of peace and quiet; no noisy or distracting demonstrations.”[256] In very similar circumstances, the Court upheld the privacy interest of a person who was conducting the business of medical quackery in his home.[257] The key difference is that in the latter case the plaintiff was a person and the invasion occurred in his home where in the other case the plaintiff was a business and the invasion occurred at the business. Given this distinction, a business manager cannot expect recourse in the judicial system should reporters choose to masquerade as customers and publish thier findings.
If the media masquerades as employees and publishes information gathered by means of deceit, a business manager might expect some protection from privacy in the court system. However, the protection of privacy is grounded not in the tort of “intrusion on seclusion” but on fraud and trespass. In Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC. Inc., reporters falsified job applications and clandestinely gathered and published information about the business’ operations.[258] The information gathered and broadcast demonstrated irresponsible business activities. The business was successful in its suit for fraud, trespass, and breach of loyalty. The court preformed a balancing test with three factors: “press' rights, the public's need to know, and a business' right to privacy.”[259]
A business manager should consider the three factor balancing test when trying to forecast whether or not a business has a privacy interest. In Food Lion, the reporters engaged in prolonged tortuous acts to get their information, in the capacity of employees. In Desnick, they acted tortuously in singular incidences, and in the role of customers.
Taken in conjunction, these cases indicate that a manager can expect that when a reporter disobeys the law for an extended period of time and the information might be accessed by single incidences of disobeying the law, the business will have a cause of action in the civil court system. However, one of the factors the court will likely consider when performing the balancing test is whether there are alternative ways to attain the information. If a court were to find that there were no legal means to acquire information about business operations that were perceived to harm the environment or the welfare of the public, then the court might decide that the public’s need to know overrode a business’ right to privacy. In this case, the business could not expect to protect its privacy from reporters masquerading as employees or others.
Business Suits against Consumers, the Media and NGOs
It may not be in the best interests of a business to pursue its privacy rights in courts. If a business sues the media or others in court, the result may be a greater focus on the information reported, and a barrage of negative criticism from stakeholders. Negative impacts on a business’ brand, image, or goodwill can be the outcome not only from suits against media exposes, but also suits against an individual. Businesses have sued for “1) harassment; 2) disclosure of financial information; 3) unfair business practices; and 4) misuse of the discovery process” when unfavorable, untrue, or misleading information was published to the internet.[260] However, the law disfavors such action.
California law designates these as, SLAPP suits. These suits are commonly taken by business to stop defamation by a party publishing to the internet. Under California law, once a business sues a person for defamation and the person raises the First Amendment as a defense, the burden shifts to the business to prove “that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim .”[261] The court will perform a two-part test before allowing a business to go forward with a suit for defamation, harassment or other theories: “(1) whether the postings were an exercise of Defendants' right to free speech ‘in connection with a public issue,’ and (2) whether [business has] a probability of success on [its] claims.”[262] In some instances, the Court will recognize a privacy interest in the protection from harassment.[263] However, rarely, if ever, will the court rule so as to preserve that privacy interest in suits where a business sues to silence another for internet postings.[264]
When a business sues a person for its speech on the internet, stakeholders may assume that a business is suing an individual in an effort to silence criticism of that business.[265] In any suit to keep criticism at bay, a business puts itself at considerable risk of negative backlash. In 1995, McDonald’s began legal proceedings against two British citizens for their active and vocal campaign against McDonald’s. The case ran for over two years, cost McDonald’s sixteen million dollars and sparked a movement against the business.[266]
A business manager has several options when confronted with misinformation about the business being published on the internet. A business manager may decide to sue anonymously.[267] This way the business avoids negative backlash, by keeping the business’ name private. However, in at least one case, the Virginia Supreme Court found that economic interest was not a sufficient reason to protect the privacy of a party’s name.[268] This decision is not necessarily indicative of the position of other courts. Nonetheless, a business manager should not expect that a business can remain anonymous when looking to the courts to stop individuals from issuing slander and misinformation.
A business manager has other options when confronted with campaigns against business practices. The manager can ignore the publicity or join forces with opponents. One way to do this is to form a coalition. A business manager who forms coalitions with critics creates an opportunity to bring about a mutually beneficial outcome. In 2000, subsequent to criticism about its refrigeration, McDonald’s, Greenpeace, and Danish government officials began a program to find mutually beneficial solutions to “climate wrecking refrigeration.”[269] In this case, embracing opponents and practicing transparency built the business’ brand, fostered relationships and is positively affecting the triple bottom line. When forming such coalitions, a business manager should be alert to other concerns the stakeholder groups may have, including those later in time. In April of 2006, Greenpeace opened to McDonald’s another opportunity to find solutions to practices with which it disagreed.[270]

Role of Regulation and Privacy
Some propose that all commercial speech be regulated.[271] If commercial speech were regulated in the United States, the truthfulness and completeness of a statement would be subject to verification by an administrative agency.[272] Some advocates for the regulation of CSR take the position that it is not the role of business, but of government “to promote and protect human rights."[273]
The notion of regulation of CSR is not that remote. Already in some countries in Europe, CSR reporting is mandatory. In May of 2001, the French government passed a law requiring all French corporations that trade on the French public market (premier marché) to include in their annual reports reporting on social, and environmental activities.[274] In 2003, the United Kingdom passed a Corporate Responsibility Bill that requires businesses to create a CSR report and imposes liability for the failure to comply with the reporting requirements, and for “harm to the environment.”[275] In Australia, transnational companies must comply with CSR standards as defined by the Australian Senate and report on them.[276] A business manager should expect the trend in regulations to increase, as ‘the size and importance of multinational corporations made them a prime target for regulation, in both home and host states.’[277]
In the United States, some aspects of CSR activities are already regulated. Legislation against bribery and fraud mirror aspects of the OECD code of conduct.[278] International treaties that include provisions for human rights or environmental protection mirror labor and environmental principles in codes of conduct. For example, NAFTA includes rules for “promoting labor and environmental standards.” [279] A side agreement to NAFTA deals specifically with social and environmental issues associated with free trade between Mexico, Canada, and the United States.[280] The agreement represents a step toward incorporating the social and environmental rules in treaty agreements.
Ironically, once regulations are passed, a business may expect a greater protection of its privacy interest than without regulations. The Supreme Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment protected a business from a warrantless search of “commercial premises . . . not open to the public” despite regulations of that premises.[281] Thus, when investigated for compliance with regulations, a business can object that such an investigation is an invasion of its privacy.

PART FOUR: WHY ISSUE A CSR REPORT? THE BUSINESS CASE FOR CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

This section includes a short history of CSR and three arguments for creating a CSR report and practicing sustainability. They are part of the business case for CSR. The first argument is that CSR is profitable. Profit is the real business case for CSR. [282] If CSR practices do not bring profit to a business, then such practices are ultimately destructive to a business. Two other reasons are that business is responsible to its community, and that it is a good marketing tool.
History of CSR
An agreed-upon definition would be helpful to the development of CSR. However, today, even the simple term corporate responsibility “lacks a single and universally accepted definition.”[283] Today, “corporate social responsibility" commonly denotes voluntary financial, social, and environmental “commitments and practices” that “[shape] ‘what’ social and environmental responsibilities corporations ought to have, plus ‘how’ to implement and assess their performance.”[284] Over time, a definition of CSR will emerge thru implementation and reportage of CSR in practice.
The first focused legal debate over CSR arose in the era of the Great Depression.[285] At that time, there were two prevailing standpoints. One addressed the agency-principal tension between managers and shareholders, looking no further than the equitable power of courts.[286]
One viewpoint focused on the agency-principal dilemma, and looked no further than a business manager’s responsibility to increase the value to the shareholder when addressing CSR. Managers who make decisions that are detrimental to the bottom line, but from which they realize personal gain are not fulfilling their responsibility. A remedy for irresponsible behavior on behalf of a manager can be found in the court system.[287] This narrow definition of CSR is no longer applicable today, where CSR is defined in terms of stakeholders and shareholders. However, the agency-principal concept can be expanded so as to include responsibility to stakeholders. The definition of a manager’s responsibility depends on whether profitability is defined in long or short term. If a manager is responsible for long-term profitability, then the manager is responsible for ensuring the environment and society in which a business operates will support financial profitability. Thus, a manager, or agent, makes decisions that increase the value to the shareholder when practicing stewardship of the environment and community.[288] In light of this, one scholar suggests expanding the role of the board of directors from that of moderating to mediating.[289] A “mediating board” has a fiduciary duty to shareholders and the firm itself and therefore ensures that a business is managed to meet the goals of shareholder and “other corporate constituencies.”[290] Other constituency statutes represent another way to redefine a manager’s responsibility.[291] Such statues are legislative actions that allow the board of directors to consider interests beyond that of increasing the value to the shareholder. Under this approach, a manager may consider environmental and social factors when making decisions.
The other prevailing stance taken in the 1930s concerning CSR was based on the concept that corporations had a responsibly to share their profits with society because profits could not be generated without society.[292] This notion of responsibility is partly based on a fear of social and political unrest should “nonshareholder constituencies,” or stakeholders, come to resent shareholders who benefited at their expense.[293] Today, the fear of social unrest due to vast differences in distribution of wealth lives on, and is a motivating factor in CSR efforts.[294]
Early debate over CSR quickly fizzled because neither side offered effective solutions.[295] The 1950s saw a brief re-emergence of CSR arguments putting forth that a manager would naturally balance the interests of society and shareholders.[296] Proponents of CSR believed that corporations would bring about “a kind of utopia” when managers made decisions that were socially responsible.[297]
Peter Drucker is commonly seen as the founding father of modern business management. His teachings are followed by academics and business executives alike. CSR is deeply rooted in Peter Drucker’s theories. Embedded in many of Drucker’s essays is the notion that a business manager can help to bring about a utopian society.[298] In 1973, Drucker wrote “[o]ne is responsible for one’s impact . . . this is the first rule. There is no doubt regarding management’s responsibility for the social impacts of its organization.” [299] Drucker did not deny that a business must make profit (“profitability is a crucial need of economy and society”) but he held that a manager bears a professional responsibility to do no harm.[300] Harm is defined as omission of acts to do good, such as when a business manager does not employ “social innovation” to solve the problems of society in ways that directly and indirectly profit a business.[301] A good business manager considers the negative externalities as opportunities for profitable business endeavors.[302] Drucker’s vision for enhanced profitability through socially responsible business practices bridges the promise of a corporate created utopia with the proposition put forth today by stakeholders including The European Commission and Business for Social Responsibility.[303]
It is noteworthy that historically, the legal debate in the United States on CSR is based largely on voluntary actions. Changes in the law, such as other constituency statutes, reflect the philosophy that a business manager who is allowed to consider interests beyond that of increasing the wealth to the shareholder will make better decisions. Harvard Professor Michael Porter, a leader in competitive strategy, suggests that empirical evidence exists to show that operational changes for meeting goals of environmental responsibility enhance profitability.[304]
Nonetheless, arguments for regulation imposing CSR exist. A business manager should take these arguments seriously because of the movement towards regulation of CSR in other countries, including France, Australia and England. Stakeholders advocating regulatory schemes include Amnesty International, Global Witness, and World Wildlife Fund.[305] Proponents for legislation of CSR activities and reporting say that businesses will benefit from regulations.[306] This reasoning is based on the understanding that with obligations imposed by regulation, so come benefits.[307] The benefits a business would enjoy include absence of attack from stakeholders when a business is in compliance of a regulation. As with the WTO agreements, a business could expect equal treatment across the globe. Enforcing CSR could also ensure higher levels of protection for society. For example, regulations for CSR could elevate protection of human rights above that of national laws such as the Alien Tort Claims Act in which the absence torture and violence are the standards for human rights.[308]
Critics of regulatory schemes for CSR state that they are “a license to harm: a permit by a government to an industry so that it may dispense sickness, destruction, and death at an ‘acceptable’ rate.”[309] The problem with regulation is that it enforces a certain level of conduct, but does not include provisions to encourage continual improvement in those activities. Voluntary adoption of CSR activities does not set a bar as to the good a business can do to be considered responsible.[310] Rather, a responsible business continually improves its environmental, social and financial performance.[311] Others argue that involvement in CSR puts business in a position for “direct civil society participation in global governance.”[312] The European Commission, and organizations that form codes of conduct and guidelines, are examples of this sort of global governance.
In a voluntary scheme, the CSR activities of a business are monitored by a combination of forces, including the media, civil actors, and the law. This interaction becomes part of a cycle in which actors in the market take ownership for CSR, which changes the market’s taste, which in turn, inspires more businesses to be socially responsible. Socially responsible businesses invest in infrastructure, support the society and environment in which they operate. Effective practice of CSR requires either voluntary activity or regulation. Regulation requires enforcement. In the situation where a business does not act socially and environmentally responsibly, but makes profit in a manner such as to deplete a country’s society and environment, a government may be left at a deficit when trying to replace its infrastructure. This is the situation whereby it may be impossible for a “deficit ridden” government that is “outstripped by the effects of globalization” to enforce CSR.[313] A business puts itself in a better position by taking on global problems and contributes to social, environmental and economic stability through the practice of CSR.[314]
Unlike in the past, today’s movement for CSR is backed with tools that enable a manager to meet the interests of shareholder and stakeholders by making socially responsible decisions. As the movement evolves, one can see that goals are becoming “concrete and identifiable,” auditing services are being provided, and there are “sanctions of an economic and non-economic nature.”[315] These tools make it more likely that voluntary CSR will be successful in bringing about a world where economies, societies, and the ecosystem are better off because of business.
Making Good by Doing Good.
The most compelling case for CSR is that it brings higher profits. If CSR does not ultimately increase profits, then it will not survive as a method of doing business absent governmental mandates. Some propound that CSR is an oxymoron on the basis that “CSR and profit maximization [are] incompatible.” [316] Milton Friedman, a representative of the Chicago School of thought on law and business, claims that socially responsible managerial decisions “undermine the very foundations of our free society.”[317] Friedman calls CSR “unadulterated socialism.”[318] Taken to its extreme, the Chicago School encourages practicing business in ways that are socially harmful or even illegal as long as they increase the value to the shareholder. The long-term effects of this perspective may ultimately bring down profit and stock value, as demonstrated by Enron and WorldCom. Shareholders bore the burden of corporate leaders’ irresponsibility, and Congress reacted by passing the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.[319] This legislation was passed to instill in businesses the concept that “maximization of profits may be undermined if they are not pursued in an ethical manner.”[320]
The paradigmatic framework whereby CSR is seen as antithetical to profit is being broken by businesses demonstrating that CSR can sustain and increase profit. Some still insist that by definition, business activities that make a profit are not socially responsible, even if the activities create positive externalities that help society or the environment.[321] Good business managers know that unless CSR activities increase profits, they cannot be practiced.[322]
Time will tell if CSR is profitable. Already, there are indications that it is.[323] The Amsterdam survey showed that 74% of companies prepared thier CSR report for 'economic reasons.' The financial gain was reported by companies to come in the form of improved shareholder value by 39 %, increased market share by 21%, innovation and minimization of risk for more than 50% of companies. Professor Michael Russo’s research on environmental ratings concluded that high ratings are “a consistent predictor of profitability.”[324] Sustainable business practices also represent niche industry opportunities. In the United States, the equipment (home and industrial) remanufacturing industry stood at $53 billion in 1996.[325] The remanufacturing industry is a success story for CSR, as it demonstrates that sustainable business practices can and do work.
Businesses adopt CSR for other “sound business goals.”[326] When a business adopts CSR practices, balance sheets can be buoyed by an increase in goodwill.[327] A business that practices CSR may also see shareholder value increased through increased interest by investors. The investment industry is proving that “ethics pays.”[328] Social Investment Funds represent a growing proportion of investors on the marketplace. As much as $2 trillion dollars (about 11%) of professionally managed assets in the United States and $435 billion in the European Union investment decision include CSR criteria. The emergence of the Domini 400 Social Index (DSI), and the Dow Jones Sustainable Index demonstrate that practicing CSR matters to investors. In addition, a business can market its accolades from organizations that certify or control CSR guidelines, codes of conduct or standards for to investors.[329]
If governments were to require CSR through regulation, all businesses would incorporate it into their practices. Initially such a plan may raise the cost of doing business, but eventually new designs, practices, ways of doing business would bring costs down and create new opportunities. In this case, regulation may be one way to prove the business case. On the other hand, if CSR does not increase financial profits, regulations would simply increase costs for all, thereby preserving the competitive landscape as well as the environment and society.
Making the Marketing Case for CSR
A business that can market itself as socially and environmentally friendly creates a positive impression on the consumer, which “increases market opportunities and yields direct economic benefits.”[330] Phillip Kotler and Nancy Lee, in their book Corporate Social Responsibility, give six reasons from a marketing standpoint. They are:
· Increase sales and market share.
· Strengthen brand positioning.
· Enhanced corporate image and clout.
· Increased ability to attract, motivate, and retain employees.
· Decreased operating costs.
· Increased appeal to investors and financial analysts.[331]

Kotler and Lee give examples which they contend demonstrate how CSR marketing efforts can increase profit including Dell and McDonald’s practices that protected the environment while cutting costs. Dell gave discounts to customers who turned in unwanted products to be recycled and bought a refurbished item. The program saw as much as a 200% increase in sales.[332] McDonald’s efforts to streamline packaging and convert to recycled material resulted in a reduction of 35 million pounds in packaging materials in 2002.[333] Besides the savings in packaging, a business that takes similar measures also saves on transportation costs and labor. Motorola saves $4.3 million per year by reusing suppliers’ packaging materials.[334] Mustang Survival, a life vest manufacturing business partnered with a local hospital to prevent children from drowning and saw an increase in sales of 25%.[335] Cisco constructed faculties to exceed energy conservation regulations and enjoyed the benefits of incentives as well as lower operating costs.[336] Marketing efforts undertaken taken by Starbucks include eco-labeling products and making brochures available in brick and mortar locations. The brochures communicate how Starbucks does business with its lending programs, standards and other aspects of CSR.

Risks of CSR Marketing
There are risks to marketing CSR. One occurs when conduct does not match claims in communications. The other stems from consumer cynicism. In both cases, business can suffer declines in reputation, customer loyalty, and profit.
The Body Shop based much of its marketing on no animal testing for its products. In 1991, Jon Entine published a report in Business Ethics exposing the fact that one of the company’s products had been tested on animals.[337] The Body Shop saw huge declines in sales and reputation. The Body Shop eventually recovered, but not without drastic financial results and a leadership shakeout.[338] Nike initially reacted to Kasky’s suit against it by retreating from transparency in its labor practices. However, Nike now sets an example in communications with annual CSR reports, independent audits, and publicly available monitoring reports of its international manufacturing facilities.[339] Both Nike and The Body Shop ultimately strengthened their CSR performance and reporting. [340] Today, The Body Shop’s distinctive competency is its CSR activities.[341] CSR gives it a competitive advantage.
A business may decide to refrain from communicating on CSR.[342] Businesses that simply integrate CSR into operations build confidence and loyalty with customers, employees, and investors. However, a business must rely on word of mouth and stakeholder interest for stakeholders to know about its actions.[343] In addition, a CSR report can be a tool for business managers to manage performance, as the indicators in the GRI show.
Deciding neither to practice CSR nor to report CSR can be devastating for a business and industry.” The fallout from Royal Dutch Shell’s activities in Nigeria demonstrate this. In 1995, nine national leaders were publicly executed for protesting against the negative environmental impact of Royal Dutch Shell’s business practices. The business’ image took such a dive that it had difficulty recruiting new employees.[344] Three years later, in 1998, Royal Dutch Shell issued its first version of a CSR report, stating “we . . . are striving to live up to our responsibilities -- financial, social, and environmental."[345]

The Competitive Advantage of CSR Regulations
A business practicing and reporting CSR may also be able to achieve a competitive advantage if regulations for CSR are adopted by governments. A business can protect its competitive advantage by advocating for regulations that create a barrier to entry for businesses that are not socially or environmentally responsible.[346] There is an emerging trend for businesses to advocate for social and environmental regulations.[347] Royal Dutch/Shell and BP support governmental interaction with businesses on the issue of climate change.[348] Nike supports NGOs lobbying governments in both the United States and EU to promulgate regulations governing the apparel industry and use of sweat shops in developing nations.[349]
Those opposing CSR regulations claim that enforcing socially responsible behavior on businesses is “bad for the public at large.”[350] This viewpoint holds that CSR regulations would slow the economies of developing nations.[351] This theory rests on the assumption that information about business operations is transparent, thus business, already under constant scrutiny, must already “behave decently.”[352] Such reasoning holds that if this were not the case, a private enterprise system would not exist.[353] The problem with this theory is that there is no absolute transparency in the business environment. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that a business would publish a CSR report for which one of the goals is transparency.
Another reason some advocate for CSR regulations is that it would “harmonize market rules.”[354] Already businesses use the voluntary adherence to the ILO and ISO standards as a means to ensure consistency along the supply chain. If CSR practices were imposed by regulations, any hike in prices reflecting additional costs of supervising, reporting, and managing practices would be uniform across the regulated industry. Although this may the be the case at the onset of adoption of a regulation, as economies of scale and the effects of the learning curve occur, costs and prices should eventually go down.
Today’s voluntary guidelines and codes of conduct for CSR will be the “stepping stones in the crystallization of law.”[355] A business that already practices and reports on CSR is at an advantage over one that does not, should CSR become law. On the other hand, some businesses voluntarily practice CSR to avert the creation of regulations. [356] Such business managers hope that by creating a world in which businesses behave socially, environmentally and financially responsibly, governments will have no need to regulate.

The Business Case for Being a Good Corporate Citizen
The Business Roundtable sent out a message that businesses should engage in CSR activities and issue CSR reports, finding “no trade-off between making good money and being a good corporate citizen.”[357] Thus, the profit motive is not destructive to CSR, but rather, CSR is driven, in part, by a profit motive. Moreover, a business manager with a strong ethical basis for decisions may be in a better position by practicing CSR in a profitable way.[358]
The impact a business has on its community extends well beyond transactions.[359] No matter who one is, business affects each person’s everyday existence. What one eats, where one sleeps, how one gets around: the most basic needs are met with the aid of commerce. When a business makes a decision to make profit at the expense of environment or society, that externalization of costs can have wide ranging and long lasting effects. However, when a business operates in a way that benefits the environment, helps the social community, and enhances both its own fiscal health and that of others, a business makes the world a better place. People care whether or not a business operates in a way that is beneficial to society.[360]
Businesses’ behaviors decide the outcome of economies and affect ecosystems and social systems. The line between the health of a nation’s economy and the well being of the business sector is blurry. Today, for some multinational corporations, the “annual revenues . . . outstrip the gross national product (GNP) of the poorest of the less developed countries.”[361] The authors of Corporate Citizenship note that “[t]he largest 100 companies have annual revenues that exceed the GDP of 50 per cent of the world’s nation states.” and that “[t]en corporations control almost every aspect of the worldwide food chain.”[362]
David Korten, in his book When Corporations Rule the World cites the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report 1992 to show the gap between the rich and poor.[363] According to this report, “[t]he richest fifth [of the world’s population] receives 82.7% of total world income.”[364] Korten notes that while in 1950, the wealthiest in the world made 20 times as much as the poorest, by 1989, the wealthiest made 60 times as much as the poorest.[365] OECD statistics showing a correlation between countries embracing a shareholder wealth maximizing doctrine had wider rich-poor gaps.[366]
OECD statistics indicate that the “American shareholder system,” in which the goal of maximizing shareholder’s wealth dominates economic equality may contribute to economic inequality.[367] With businesses making more money than some nations, and businesses distributing the wealth to their shareholders, there is a potential for the creation of social unrest and instability.[368] Thus, it is incumbent upon a business to protect stability within nations and economies. By practicing in socially, environmentally and financially responsible ways, businesses can meet the interests of profit, wealth creation, and stability across the globe.
With one decision, a business can directly affect its stakeholders. If a business holds the position of market leader, other businesses within the industry react, and the indirect effect can create a shift in nations’ economies, environments, and social communities. The context in which multinational businesses operate magnifies their effect on the economy, the environment, and stakeholders. With the global trend towards greater liberalization, businesses are “in the driver’s seat” in making decisions for which the results can be for the greater good or at the expense of the environment and people.[369]
Another reason a business should behave socially responsibly is that a business is a member of its community. In order to thrive, community members must safeguard their community.[370] In the United States, a corporation has the status of legal personhood. [371] A corporation is a legal person acting globally, and as such, it is a global citizen. In 1776, when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, corporations were tied to their community; employees and community member knew who the shareholders of a company were and managers could see the results of their actions. Today, “globalization” is blurring borders and the boundaries between business, government and society. Information technology is changing how we communicate, access information, and how we define our relationships to each other and to the planet. These changes make it at once easier to and harder to get away with socially and environmentally irresponsible activities. It is easier to be irresponsible because businesses no longer need to be tied to a community. They can be incorporated in one jurisdiction, headquartered in another and operate all over the globe. Thus, stakeholders may not be able to track a business’ activities. It is harder because the Internet is bringing about transparency. Nike experienced this as the Nike v. Kasky case demonstrates. A business is better off practicing CSR, and avoiding the risk of irresponsible behavior. CSR presents a graceful means to be a part of “the larger process of globalization itself.”[372] By acting as a responsible global corporate citizen, a business protects the future well-being of the globe, thereby laying the ground for long term profitability.
An often heralded business case for CSR is that by safeguarding human rights, productivity is increased, and “economic failures such as famine and inefficient capital markets” are avoided.[373] Whether or not a corporation has a duty to care for the environment and society, in the long run it serves the interest of a business to sustain the environment and communities in which it operates. Before the term “corporate social responsibility” was coined, managers recognized this and set up charitable donation programs. The law saw charitable donations as compatible with the purposes of a corporation.[374] Charitable contributions fulfill a “powerful public relations function” when donations and actions put corporations in a favorable position within communities.[375] Where once CSR and charity were synonymous, today, CSR is interpreted in terms of operational practices, compliance with regulations, and charitable donations.
As industry matures, businesses eventually absorb costs that were once externalized. Formerly externalized costs are sometimes imposed by regulation, as is the case with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, (CERCLA).[376] CERCLA imposes a tax or latent cost on industries. The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 was born in reaction to the Enron and WorldCom scandals. These regulations now impose costs on all publicly traded businesses as well as those that are positioning to be acquired or go public. Accumulation of externalities can catch up to a business in the courtroom, as is the case in the asbestos industry and class action suits for damages from asbestos. CSR is a proactive way of managing costs before they are imposed by congress or the legal system. Businesses can go beyond avoiding costs to turning situations into future markets and growth and become a “sustainable long term profitable business.”[377]
Conclusion
“Doing good” for the environment and society must make good financial sense, and CSR activities must increase profits, if it is to become a way of doing business. It takes managers with vision, strategic thinking and the ability to persist until their dreams come true to make CSR a reality. It takes managers who are willing to listen and incorporate the inventions and tools of stakeholders into business practices. It is already happening. In order to prove the business case for CSR, meaningful measurements for managing performance are needed. Although efforts are being made, it is incumbent upon stakeholders in the global community to create meaningful measurements so that business managers can guide their businesses towards meeting the triple bottom line. Businesses that are profiting from CSR activities make the case for CSR and provide other businesses with benchmarks. By issuing CSR reports, following the GRI guidelines and adopting a common code of conduct, other businesses can more easily benchmark, and thus, begin the journey of practicing CSR.
CSR, “triple line bookkeeping,” “sustainable business practices,” “stewardship of the earth and community” and socially, environmentally, and fiscally responsible business practices are constantly evolving. Thus, CSR knows no boundaries in its capacity to do good and make good. Business can make the world’s ecosystems and societies a better place, and make money doing it. CSR is the way.

[1] Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 539 U.S. 654 (2003).
[2] In 1998, the European Council invited firms to create a MANAGING CHANGE REPORT as a baby step in adopting guidelines and codes of conduct for CSR. The European Commission suggested this “baby step” CSR report focus on labor issues. A manager meets with employees, and together they decide the form of the report and content of the report. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, PROMOTING A EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK FOR CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 18 (July 2001) [hereinafter EU CSR REPORT].
[3] GRI, SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING GUIDELINES, 1 (2002) [hereinafter GRI GUIDELINES]. The GRI GUIDELINES can be accessed at http://www.globalreporting.org (last visited March 25, 2006).
[4] Pall Davidsson, Legal Enforcement of Corporate Social Responsibility Within the EU, 8 Colum. J. Eur. L. 529, 538 (2002).
[5] BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1135 (8th ed. 2004).
[6] See http://www.grig3.org (last visited March 25, 2006).
[7] The AA1000 can be access at: http://www.accountability.org.uk (last visited March 25, 2006).
[8] John Brooks, International Standards and Instruments, OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES: ANNUAL REPORT 2001 91 (2001). The SA 8000 can be accessed at: http://www.sa-intl.org (last visited March 25, 2006).
[9] Kathryn Gordon, The OECD Guidelines and Other Corporate Responsibility Instruments, OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES: ANNUAL REPORT 2001 61 (2001).
[10] David Monsma & John Buckley, Non-Financial Corporate Performance: The Material Edges of Social and Environmental Disclosure, 11 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 151, 159 (Spring 2004).
[11] “A global reporting survey conducted in 2004 by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and CorporateRegister.com found that the number of corporate social, environmental, and sustainability reports increased from fewer than 100 in 1993 to more than 1,500 in 2003. Similarly, a 2003 study of the world's 100 largest companies by the consulting group CSR Network found that almost half of them (49) issued an environmental, social, or sustainability report.” BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (April 2005) available at http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/IssueBriefDetail.cfm?DocumentID=50962 (last visited March 27, 2006).
[12] Steven Pearlstein, Social Responsibility Doesn't Much Sway the Balance Sheet, Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2005, at D.1.
[13] JOHN KRITON & MICHAEL TREBILCOCK, Introduction: Hard Choices and Soft Law in Sustainable Global Governance in HARD CHOICES AND SOFT LAW IN SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE 11 (2004).
[14] Id.
[15] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 538.
[16] See EU CSR REPORT supra note 2, at 19 (July 2001); Davidsson, supra note 4, at 538.
[17] KMPG GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY SERVICES, KMPG INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING 2005 8, 12, 24 (2005) available at http://www.wimm.nl/publicaties/kpmg2005.pdf (last visited March 25, 2006) [hereinafter KMPG CSR REPORTING SURVEY].
[18] Id. at 41.
[19] SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL, OVERVIEW OF SA 8000 (date unknown), at http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=473 (last visited March 27, 2006).
[20] AA1000, Looking Back, Looking Forward AccountAbility, 7 (2004-2005) available at http://www.accountability.org.uk/uploadstore/cms/docs/AccountAbility%20looking%20back%20looking%20forwards.pdf (last visited March 27, 2006).
[21] SYNERGIES BETWEEN THE OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES (MNEs) and the GRI GUIDELINES, supra note 3 and available at http://www.globalreporting.org/about/OECDSynergies.pdf 5 (last visited March 27, 2006).
[22] GRI, ORGANIZATIONS USING OUR GUIDELINES (date unknown) at http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/reports/search.asp (last visited March 27, 2006).
[23] Sol Picciotto, Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation of International Business, 42 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 131, 135 (2004).
[24] See OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 624 (10th ed. 2002). The upside of greenwashing is that it can be one step towards infusing CSR into the core of a business’ culture and practices. In the early 1990’s, Nike was attacked by various media and non-governmental organizations for its “appalling working conditions.” Simon Zadek, The Path to Corporate Responsibility, HAR. BUS. REV., 7 Dec. 2004, at 7. Within less than a decade, Nike became a leader in CSR, creating a corporate responsibility department and working to ensure its suppliers enacted Nike’s code of conduct. Id. at 4-6. In 2000, Nike’s CEO publicly supported the launch of the Global Compact, a code of conduct that included the provisions for labor. Nike had also formed alliances with the Fair Labor Act. Id. at 7.
[25] See infra pp. 44-53.
[26] SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL, SA8000 (date unknown) at http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=528 (last visited March 27, 2006).
[27] BUREAU VERITAS, CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (date unknown) at http://www.bureauveritas.com/pages/corporate_social_responsibility.html (last visited March 27, 2006).
[28] The GRI will be re-issued in 2006. The new guideline promises a greater robustness in applicability to all business systems through broader guideline and education processes and digital solutions. It will also contemplate verification and auditing processes. http://www.globalreporting.org/G3/.
[29] GRI GUIDELINES, supra note 3, at 17, 24.
[30] Two examples of industry specific auditors are: The Forest Stewardship Council for the forestry industry: http://www.fscus.org/standards_criteria and The Clean Clothes Campaign for the garment industry available at http://www.cleanclothes.org/codes/ccccode.htm#ii ((last visited March 27, 2006).
[31] KMPG CSR REPORTING SURVEY, supra 16, at 37.
[32] Project History, International Auditing and Assurance Standards (date unknown) at http://www.ifac.org/IAASB/ProjectHistory.php?ProjID=00084 (last visited March 27, 2006).
[33] Starbucks, Striking a Balance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Fiscal 2004 Annual Report (2004) available at http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/CSR2004fullbook.pdf p.10 (last visited March 27, 2006).
[34] Center Launches New McDonald’s Research Fellows Program, Haas School of Business at U.C. Berkeley (2005) available at http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/responsiblebusiness/documents/CenterLaunchesMcDonaldsResearchFellowsProgram.pdf (last visited March 27, 2006).
[35] WILLIAM MCDONOUGH & MICHAEL BRAUNGART, CRADLE TO CRADLE (2002).
[36] One organization that gives awards firms based on their annual report is CERES, the founders of the GRI. Information about this organization can be accessed at http://www.ceres.org/sustreporting (last visited March 27, 2006).
[37] Michael Porter, in his book, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, brought the business world the concept of the value chain. The value chain describes the activities of a business. Along the value chain there are primary activities; upstream activities, including sourcing raw materials and research and development, occur before manufacturing. Downstream activities, such as marketing and service, occur after manufacturing. Support activities include technology, human resources management and the infrastructure of a business. NET MBA, THE VALUE CHAIN (date unknown) available at http://www.netmba.com/strategy/value-chain/ (last visited March 27, 2006).
[38] Gordon, supra note 8.
[39] GRI GUIDELINES, supra note 3, at 9.
[40] Id. at 13.
[41] SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL, OVERVIEW OF THE SA 8000 (date unknown) at http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=473 (last visited March 25, 2006).
[42] GRI GUIDELINES, supra note 3, at 15.
[43] Id. at 13.
[44] KMPG CSR REPORTING SURVEY, supra 16, at 22.
[45] Id.
[46] The conditions are:
Report on the numbered elements in Sections 1 to 3 of Part C.
Include a GRI Content Index as specified in Section 4 of Part C.
Respond to each core indicator in Section 5 of Part C by either (a) reporting on the indicator or (b) explaining the reason for the omission of each indicator.
Ensure that the report is consistent with the principles in Part B of the Guidelines.
Include the following statement signed by the board or CEO: “This report has been prepared in accordance with the 2002 GRI GUIDELINES. It represents a balanced and reasonable presentation of our organization’s economic, environmental, and social performance.”
GRI GUIDELINES, supra note 3, at 13.
[47] Part C, sections 1-3 consists of the guidelines and section 5 consists of core indicators.
In addition, a firm is expected to incorporate in its own industries guidance for sustainable behavior into the GRI or vice versa. Id. at 10. When there is not enough data to report on an activity or an indicator is not relevant to its operation to that effect, the report includes a notation to such. Id. at 14.
[48] Transparency and inclusiveness are the overarching principles with three categories falling from them. One set includes completeness, relevance and sustainability context. Another set is comprised of accuracy, neutrality and comparability. The third set is clarity and timeliness. All of the principles are grounded by the principle of auditabily. GRI GUIDELINES, supra note 3, at 23.
[49] There are various resources available for measuring intangible socially responsible activities, such as that offered by Hubbard and Hubbard (http://www.hubbardnhubbardinc.com) and those compiled in American Institute of Certified Public Accountant’s somewhat older but not irrelevant book “The Measurement of Corporate Social Performance.” See AICPA, THE MEASUREMENT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE (1977).
[50] MALLENBAKER.NET, THE GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE (GRI), (2002) available at http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/GRI.html (last visited March 827, 2006).
[51] GRI, TECHNICAL PROTOCOLS, (dates vary) at http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/protocols.asp (last visited March 25, 2006).
[52] The five indicator protocols are: Environment, Economic, Labor Practices & Decent Work, Human Rights, and Product Responsibility.
[53] Director of Communication for Global Reporting Initiative Alyson Slater, Address at the University of Washington Program on the Environment Speaker Series (Winter 2005).
[54] ACCOUNTABILITY, STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT STANDARD (2005) available at http://www.accountability.org.uk/uploadstore/cms/docs/SES%20Exposure%20Draft%20dtv.pdf (last visited March 25, 2006).
[55] Id. at 21-23 (last visited March 25, 2006).
[56] The aim of the AA1000 is to improve ethical and social performance. Environmental and financial performances are not the goal of the AA1000, but the authors of the AA1000 consider that a business should see long term financial and environmental improvement because of the changes made when adopting the AA1000. The four uses contemplated by the AA1000 are stakeholders, suppliers and other developers of CSR standard and the business adopting the AA1000. The principles of the AA1000 are accountability and inclusively. The three principles to support accountability are transparency, responsiveness and compliance. The ten principles to support inclusively are completeness, materiality, regularity, timeliness, quality assurance, accessibility, information quality, embeddedness and continuous improvement.
[57] SOCAIL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL, SA8000 ACCREDITED CERTIFICATION BODIES, (date unknown) at http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&amp;amp;pageId=505&parentID=617&grandparentID=479&nodeID=1 (last visited March 25, 2006).
[58] SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL, CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), (date unknown) available at http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=729&parentID=479&nodeID=1.(last visited March 25, 2006).
[59] SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL, OVERVIEW OF SA8000 (date unknown) available at http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=473 (last visited March 27, 2006).
[60] Wesley Cragg, Multinational Corporations, Globalization and the Challenge of Self-Regulation in HARD CHOICES AND SOFT LAW IN SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (John J. Kriton & Michael J. Trebilcock eds., 2004).
[61] Michael Porter asserts businesses can increase profits by re-engineering, re-designing or changing operations so as to meet environmental regulations. Some examples he cites in his article include 3M’s switching to a batch technique to run quality tests of adhesives so as to meet hazardous waste laws, resulting in a cost savings of $200,000 a year. Dow Chemical saw an increase in quality when it met environmental laws to reduce waste by setting new managerial goals for variance in processing. “Towards a New Conception of Environmental-Competitive Relationships.” Michael Porter & Claas van der Linde, Towards a New Conception of Environmental-Competitive Relationships, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, mo. 4, 97-118, 102, 107 (Fall 1995).
[62] Stuart Hart, CAPITALISM AT THE CROSSROADS (2005).
[63] The debate about morality is explored in the forth section of this paper.
[64] BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 205 (8th ed. 2004).
[65] See JOHN IKERD, SUSTAINABLE CAPITALISM: A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE (2005). It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore these principles.
[66] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 535, citing to European Parliament, Committee on Development and Cooperation, Report on EU Standards for European Enterprises Operating in Developing Countries: Towards a European Code of Conduct (Final A4-0508/1998, PE 228.198/fin).
[67] Picciotto, supra note 22, at 141-44.
[68] OECD, CODES OF CORPORATE CONDUCT: EXPANDED REVIEW OF THEIR CONTENTS OECD WORKING PAPER ON INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT (Nov. 2001) available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/24/1922656.pdf (last visited March 25, 2006).
[69] Id.
[70] Hevina S. Dashworth, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Evolution of International Norms in HARD CHOICES AND SOFT LAW IN SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE 197 (John J. Kriton & Michael J. Trebilcock eds., 2004).
[71] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 535, 538.
[72] OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES, OECD ANN. REP. 57-75 (2001) available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/36/2075173.pdf (last visited March 25, 2006) [hereinafter OECD CODE OF CONDUCT]. The OECD is an organization that promotes “democratic government and the market economy,” representing 30 countries, including the United States, much of Europe and Japan. See http://www.oecd.org/ for more information on the OECD.
[73] Business for Social Responsibility (http://www.bsr.org/) is a global organization that acts as a hub of information and support for CSR in the business world. It is supported by businesses and governments. OECD CODE OF CONDUCT, supra note 71, at 58.
[74] The OECD CODE OF CONDUCT is specific enough to offer consistence in content. A business manager should still be aware of the several other codes of conduct.
The OECD’s study did not include the following codes of conduct in its comparative analysis, listed here with their source. These codes of conduct are more general than the OECD CODE OF CONDUCT and so should not be adopted.
· CERES Principles
§ www.ceres.org/coalitionandcompanies/principles.php
· ICC Business Charter for Sustainable Development
§ http://www.bsdglobal.com/tools/principles_icc.asp
· Human Rights Principles and Responsibilities for TNCs and Other Business Enterprises
§ www.umn.edu/humanrts/PrinciplesWithCommentary5final.html
The International Standards Organization is currently forming its standard for corporate social responsibility to be called ISO 26000. See http://www.iisd.org/standards/csr_documents.asp.
There are many other codes of conduct, too numerous to list here. Some are generated by interfaith groups, some by business people, and others by representatives of various interests. It is important for a manager to get a feel for the landscape of these codes, so as to understand how the OECD compares to the other codes of conduct.
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992 is a code of conduct aimed at governments. It is very general, but an informed business manager should be aware of it. See http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163.
[75] OECD, OECD ANNUAL REPORT 2001 71 (2001).
[76] Id. at Annex table note 1.
[77] Gordon, supra note 8, at 63.
[78] OECD CODE OF CONDUCT, supra note 71, at 59.
[79] THE UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL COMPACT, WHAT IS THE GLOBAL COMPACT? (date unknown) available at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html (last visited March 25, 2006).
[80] Id.
[81] Gordon, supra note 8.
[82] Davidsson, supra note 4.
[83] Ilias Bantekas, Corporate Social Responsibility in International Law, 22 B.U. Int’l L.J. 309, 319 (2004).
[84] EURPOEAN COMMMISSION, CORPORATE SOCIAL RESONSIBILITY 7 (2002) available at http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/csr2002_col_en.pdf (last visited August 3, 2006).
[85] GRI, SYNERGIES BETWEEN THE OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES (MNES) AND THE GRI 2002 SUSTAINABLE REPORTING INITIATIVE (date unknown) available at http://www.globalreporting.org/about/OECDSynergiesConsultation17-11-03.pdf (last visited Mar. 25, 2006).
[86] Picciotto, supra note 22, at 147-49.
[87] David M. Bigge, Bring on the Bluewash: A Social Constructivist Argument Against Using Nike v. Kasky to Attack the UN Global Compact, 14 Spg Int'l Legal Persp. 6, 15 (2004).
[88] Id. at 6-7.
[89] Id at 13-14.
[90] Id. at 19.
[91] OECD CODE OF CONDUCT, supra note 71.
[92] Bigge, supra note 86, at 9.
[93] ISO NET and WTO, ISO (date unknown) available at http://www.iso.org/iso/en/networking/isonet/activities/isonetwto.html (last visited March 27, 2006).
[94] Picciotto, supra note 22, at 148-50.
[95] Bigge, supra note 86, at 9.
[96] IKERD, supra note 64.
[97] Id.
[98] OECD CODE OF CONDUCT, supra note 71, at 3.
[99] Id.
[100] The OECD provides links to the national contact points available at http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,2340,en_2649_34889_2663562_1_1_1_1,00.html (last visited March 26, 2006).
[101] THE GLOBAL COMPACT, THE TEN PRINCIPLES (date unknown) available at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html (last visited March 27, 2006).
[102] OECD CODE OF CONDUCT, supra note 71, at 21.
[103] Picciotto, supra note 22, at 147.
[104] The Ethical Trading Initiative defines effective abolition of child labor as efforts that "develop or participate in and contribute to policies and programs which provide for the transition of any child found to be performing child labor to enable her or him to attend and remain in quality education until no longer a child." Ethical Trading Initiative, The Base Code § 4.2, available at http://www.eti.org.uk/pub/publications/basecode/en/index.shtml.
[105] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 544.
[106] Simon Zadek, The Path to Corporate Responsibility, HAR. BUS. REV., 7 Dec. 2004, at 6.
[107] Id. at 6-7.
[108] Id. at 7-8.
[109] Picciotto, supra note 22 and SHELL, THE SHELL REPORT 2004 (2004) available at http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=shellreport2004-en (last visited March 26, 2006).
[110] See Overview of Business and Corporate Accountability, available December 2005 at http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/IssueBriefDetail.cfm?DocumentID=48907 (last visited March 26, 2006). One might find that BSR’s accolades to Royal Dutch Shell go a long way to giving its adoption of sustainable business practices credibility.
[111] Halina Ward, The Interface Between Globalisation, Corporate Responsibility and the Legal Profession, 1 U. St. Thomas L.J. 813, 824 (2004).
[112] Id. at 824.
[113] Id.
[114] Id.
[115] Id.
[116] For other examples of CSR activities that increased profits, see LORINDA ROWLEDGE, ET AL., MAPPING THE JOURNEY, CASE STUDIES IN STRATEGY AND ACTION TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (1999) and PAUL HAWKEN, ET. AL., NATURAL CAPITALISM (1999).
[117] Ronald Chen & Jon Hanson, The Illusion of Law: The Legitimating Schemas of Modern Policy and Corporate Law, 103 Mich. L. Rev. 1, 52 (2004).
[118] Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI), Clear Advantage: Building Shareholder Value. Environment: Value to the Investor (Feb. 2004).
[119] A fuller explanation of hiring consultants, forming coalitions, and stakeholder involvement is covered in part two of this paper.
[120] Gordon, supra note 8. ILO Standards available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/norm/ and http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage (last visited March 26, 2006).
[121] International Organization for Standardization, at http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage (last visited March 17, 2006).
[122] International Labor Standards at http://www.ilo.org/ (last visited March 17, 2006).
[123] Id.
[124] Monsma & Buckley, supra note 9, at 159.
[125] Id.
[126] Id. In 2003, at least 1,500 businesses, of which 250 are in the Global Fortune 500, issued CSR reports, BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, EXECUTIVE S UMMARY (April 2005) available at http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/IssueBriefDetail.cfm?DocumentID=50962#business. The Business Roundtable, composed of numerous Fortune 500 companies, sent out a message that businesses should form CSR reports. Pearlstein, supra note 11.
[127] The EU CSR Report suggests that a business use the GRI for environmental issues and the SA8000 for reporting on labor issues. EU CSR REPORT supra note 2, at 19 (July 2001). Their reasoning is that the scope of the GRI includes reporting on labor issues, where the scope of the SA 8000 more limited and the SA 8000 can be incorporated into a GRI report. For the purposes of consistency, it makes sense to use the GRI as the overarching guideline, and to either use the SA 8000 or International Labor Organization standards to augment the “Labor Practices and Decent Work” and “Human Rights” sections of the GRI.
[128] GRI GUIDELINES, supra note 3, at 23.
[129] ACOUNTABILITY, WELCOME TO ACOUNTABILITY (date unknown) available at www.accountability.org.uk.
[130] Randall Frost, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Reassessment, 2 available at http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/524.html (last visited March 9, 2006).
[131] MALCOME MCINTOSH ET. AL., CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP 257 (1998).
[132] MCDONALD’S, MCDONALD’S EUROPEAN CORPORATE R ESPONSIBILITY REPORT 2005 65 (2005).
[133] THOMAS FRIEDMAN, THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE 248 (2000).
[134] Id. at 266.
[135] Amory B. Lovins, et. al., A Road Map for Natural Capitalism, HAR. BUS. REV., May-June 1999, at 154.
[136] MALLENBAKER.NET, MCDONALD'S SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT - A REVIEW, April 2002) available at http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/nl/28.html (last visited April 26, 2006).
[137] Letter from Karen Van Bergen, Assistance Vice President Government Relations, McDonald’s Europe, to the European Commission (Dec. 20, 2001) available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/pdf/046-COMP_McDonald_US_011221_en.pdf (last visited July 30, 2006).
[138] MCDONALD'S, OTHER MCDONALD'S CORPORATE RESPONSIBLITY REPORTS, (date unknown) at http://www.McDonalds.com/corp/values/socialrespons/sr_report/otherreports.html (last visited July 30, 2006).
[139] MCDONALD'S, MCDONALD’S WORLDWIDE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY REPORT 2004 (2004) website at http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/socialrespons/sr_report.html (last visited July 30, 2006).
[140] Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 539 U.S. at 656.
[141] MCDONALD’S SWITZERLAND, MCDONALD’S SWISS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME (2004) available at http://www.environment.McDonalds.ch/en/gri_list.shtml (last visited March 7, 2006).
[142] STARBUCKS, CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (2005) at http://starbucks.co.uk/en-GB/_Social+Responsibility/ (last visited March 7, 2006).
[143] Michael Porter conceived of the four Ps for marketing purposes: product, price, place and promotion.
[144] MCDONALD’S, OPEN TO DISCUSSION (date unknown) http://csr.blogs.mcdonalds.com/default.asp?mode=author (last visited March 8, 2006)
[145] MCDONALD’S, supra note 131 available at: http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/socialrespons/sr_report/otherreports.RowPar.0003.ContentPar.0001.ColumnPar.0029.DownloadFiles.0001.File.tmp/European_Corporate_Responsibility_Report_2005.pdf (last visited March 7, 2006).
[146] Jill Meredith Ginsberg & Paul N. Bloom, Choosing the Right Green Marketing Strategy, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol.46 no.1 (Fall 2004).
[147] BEN & JERRY’S, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004 ONCE SCOOP AT A TIME 7 (2004).
[148] STARBUCKS, supra note 141.
[149] MCDONALD’S, supra note 138.
[150] MCDONALD’S SWITZERLAND, supra note 140.
[151] See MCDONALD’S, supra note 138, at 12, 18 (2004)(describing goals for the company and listing the expectations for suppliers).
[152] MCDONALD’S, supra note 138, at 82, 83.
[153] Anne Y. Ilinitch, et. al., Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 17 383-408 (1998).
[154]MCDONALD’S, supra note 143 available at http://csr.blogs.mcdonalds.com/default.asp?item=139267 (last visited March 8, 2006). Kolk and Mauser suggested three indicators for determining the level of sustainability: the environmental management indicator (EMI), the environmental performance indicators (EPI), and the environmental condition indicators (ECI). Ans Kolk & Anniek Mauser, The Evolution of Environmental Management: From Stage Models to Performance Evaluation, Bus. Strat. Env. 11, 14-31 (2002).
[155] MCDONALD’S, supra note 150 at 24, 31.
[156]MCDONALD’S, supra note 140 available at http://www.environment.mcdonalds.ch/en/oekobilanz.shtml (last visited March 7, 2006 ).
[157] MCDONALD’S, supra note 140 available at http://www.environment.mcdonalds.ch/en/goals.shtml (last visited March 7, 2006) (scrolling down will reveal the report cards).
[158] STARBUCKS supra note 141, at 52, 59.
[159] BEN & JERRY’S, supra note 146, at 20.
[160] Porter & Linde, supra note 60, at 101.
[161] Donald Reed, Stalking the Elusive Business Case for Corporate Sustainability, WRI 7 (December 2001).
[162] MCDONALD’S, supra note 138 available at http://www.McDonalds.com/corp/values/socialrespons/sr_report/2004_downloadable.RowPar.0001.ContentPar.0001.ColumnPar.0039.File.tmp/reporting_2004_beyond_pgs82_83.pdf.
[163] Peter Asmus, 16th Annual Business Ethics Awards (date unknown) available at http://www.business-ethics.com/annual.htm#Gap%20Inc.Best Social Reporting Award from Business Ethics Awards available at http://www.gapinc.com/public/SocialResponsibility/sr_report.shtml (to see the report: http://www.gapinc.com/public/documents/CSR_Report_04.pdf “The report disclosed that in Africa, for example, over 50 percent of factories had machinery without adequate safety devices, while in Mexico up to 25 percent of factories paid less than the minimum wage. A majority of factories used in China had inadequate storage of hazardous materials, while in north Asia there was a prevalence of factories with obstructed aisles or exits.”
[164] THE GAP INC., FACING CHALLENGES FINDING OPPORTUNITIES 2004 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT 21-24 (2004) available at
http://www.gapinc.com/public/documents/CSR_Report_04.pdf.
[165] Id. at 14-18.
[166] Interview with Will Lew, Director of Human Resources conducted at McDonald’s Northwest Regional Headquarters (June 2005).
[167] Randall Frost, Corporate Responsibility and Globalization: A Reassessment, A World Connected 6 (date unknown) available at http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/524.html (last visited March 9, 2006).
[168] KPMG, supra note 16 at 5 available at http://www.wimm.nl/publicaties/kpmg2005.pdf (last visited March 1, 2006) (If the link is broken, go to the home page at http://www.wimm.nl/ and click to “publications”).
[169] STARBUCKS supra note 141, at 10.
[170] THE GAP INC., supra note 163, at 14-18.
[171] Id.
[172] STARBUCKS supra note 141, at 6, 72 (including an independent verifier’s report by Moss Adams L.L.P., a certified pubic account).
[173]BUSINESS ETHICS, BUSINESS ETHICS ONLINE (date unknown) at http://www.business-ethics.com (last visited March 1, 2006).
[174] MCDONALD’S, AWARDS & RECOGNITION (date unknown) at http://www.rmhc.org/corp/values/socialrespons/resrecog/awards___recognition.html (last visited March 7, 2006).
[175] MCDONALD’S, MCDONALD’S CORPORATION 2004 SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORT 2 (2004).
[176] Ginsberg & Bloom, supra note 145.
[177] MCDONALD’S, supra note 131, at 70.
[178] MCDONALD’S, EXPERT ADVISORS (date unknown) at http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/socialrespons/resrecog/expert_advisors0.html (last visited March 7, 2006 ).
[179] MCDONALD’S, ENVIRONMENT (date unknown) at http://www.rmhc.org/usa/good/environment.html (last visited March 9, 2006).
[180] Matthew Berglinda & Cheryl Nakata, Cause-related Marketing: More Buck than Bang?, Business Horizons (2005) 48, 443-53, available at: www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor (last visited March 9, 2006).
[181] Paul Hawkin, Taking the Natural Step, In Context, issue 41, 36 (1995) available at:
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/Hawken2.htm (last visited March 7, 2006).
[182] Jill Rosenblum, McDonald's Sweden- Case Study (date unknown) available at http://www.rrfb.com/pages/Secondary%20pages/restaurant%20study/mcdonalds.html (last visited March 7, 2006)
[183] ACCOUNTABILITY, WELCOME TO ACCOUNTABILITY (date unknown) at http://www.accountability.org.uk(last visited March 7, 2006).
[184] William McDonough & Michael Braungart, A World of Abundance, Interfaces, 30, 2(May June 2000).
[185] BEN & JERRY’S, supra note 146, at 23.
[186] MCDONALD’S, MCDONALD’S BRAZIL SOCIAL REPORT 2003 4 (2003) available at http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/socialrespons/sr_report/otherreports.RowPar.0003.ContentPar.0001.ColumnPar.0003.File.tmp/SocialReport.pdf
[187] BEN & JERRY’S, supra note 146/
[188] MCDONALD’S SWITZERLAND, supra note 140.
[189]MCDONALD’S, supra note 138.
[190] STARBUCKS supra note 141.
[191] GRI GUIDELINES, supra note 3, at 25.
[192] MCDONALD’S, supra note 174, at 33.
[193] Id. at 30
[194] Id. at 33.
[195] See MCDONALD’S, supra note 138, at 31, 74.
[196] Id. and MCDONALD’S SWITZERLAND, supra note 140.
[197] MCDONALD’S, MCDONALD’S DENMARK OPENS WORLD'S FIRST HFC-FREE RESTAURANT (2003) available at http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/news/corppr/2003/cpr01162003.html (last visited March 7, 2006).
[198] Peter Senge & Goran Carsed, Innovating Our Way to the Next Industrial Revolution, 42 MIT SLOAN MGMT. REV. Winter 2001, at 24.
[199] MCDONALD’S EUROPE, supra note 131, at 67.
[200] MCDONALD’S SWITZERLAND, supra note 140.
[201] Id.
[202] U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNSIL, LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED (2006), at http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19 (last visited March 7, 2006).
[203] MCDONALD’S, supra note 143 (blogging by Robert Langert, Senior Director of Corporate Responsibility, that McDonald’s is exploring LEED and other opportunities.)
[204]Telephone interview of Dr. Phillip Thompson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Seattle University. Conducted March 7, 2006 Seattle, Washington. (Dr Phil Thompson worked along side the current chief operating officer, Mike Roberts, and was one of McDonald’s youngest managers).
[205] MCDONALD’S supra note 174.
[206] Zadeck, supra note 105.
[207] Berglinda & Nakata, supra note 179 at 453.
[208] MCDONALD’S, CORPORATE WEBSITE (2006) at http://www.McDonalds.com/usa.html (scroll to left window for popup) (last visited March 10, 2006).
[209] Id. and MCDONALD’S, supra note 143 (both websites are frequently changed. The first hosted an announcement and link about the nutritional information on packaging, the latter, a blog on the subject) (last visited March 10, 2006)
[210] MCDONALD’S, supra note 177
[211] ILLINOIS RETAIL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, FAMILY VALUES: 2002 RETAILER OF THE YEAR PROFILE (2003) at http://www.irma.org/retailersoftheyear/contentview.asp?c=5356 (last visited March 10, 2006).
[212] Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 539 U.S. 654 (2003) (finding certiorari dismissed a improvidently granted after California Supreme Court found Nike potentially liable for unfair and deceptive trade practices when issuing a code of conduct in Nike, Inc, v. Kasky, 27 Cal. 4th 939, 964, 45 P.3d 243, 259, (Cal. 2002).
[213] See ESTHER DE HAAN & VIVIAN SCHIPPER, NIKE: COMPANY PROFILE (date unknown) at http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nikecase99-11-2.htm (last visited March 26, 2006).
[214] Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. § 17200 et seq.
[215] RECLAIM DEMOCRACY.ORG, KASKY V. NIKE: JUST THE FACTS (2006) at http://reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/kasky_nike_justfacts.html (last visited March 26, 2006)
[216] Andrew Young, former United Nations Ambassador, wrote the report finding Nike did not violate its code of conduct. Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 539 U.S. at 656.
[217] Id. at 658-65.
[218] Id. at 663.
[219] Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 27 Cal. 4th 939, 964, 45 P.3d 243, 259 (Cal., 2002) (finding Nike to be “a commercial speaker, because its intended audience was primarily the buyers of its products, and because the statements consisted of factual representations about its own business operations” therefore the code of conduct and communication about it was commercial speech).
[220] Vicki McIntyre, Note, Nike v. Kasky: Leaving Corporate America Speechless, 30 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1531, 1553 (2004).
[221] As noted above, Nike settled with Kasky. (The settlement terms included a 1.5 million payment to and the Fair Labor Association and at least half a million over two years for education and micro-loan programs to the communities where the children labor occurred. NIKE BIZ.ORG, NIKE, INC. AND KASKY ANNOUNCE SETTLEMENT OF KASKY V. NIKE FIRST AMENDMENT CASE (2006) at http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/news/pressrelease.jhtml?year=2003&month=09&letter=f (last visited April 1, 2006).) also see supra note 219, at 1551.
[222] Nike, supra note 211, at 664.
[223] See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R.R., 118 U.S. 394 (1886); Minneapolis & Saint Louis Ry. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889).
[224] Carl Mayer, Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and The Bill of Rights, 41 Hastings L.J. 577, 581 (1990) citing Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R.R., 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
[225] Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad, 147 U.S. 165 (1893).
[226] Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771 (1976) (finding Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 574 (1980) established that business’ speech is a form of property and defining commercial speech as relating only to the economic interests of the speaker and those addressed). Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 235 (1986) (finding it legitimate that businesses have an expectation of privacy).
[227] Mayer, supra note 223, at 611-12.
[228] First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 802 (1978).
[229] Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. Public Utilities Com'n of California, 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986).
[230] Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 764 (1976).
[231] Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 563-64 (1980). Central Hudson’s four-part test to determine it regulation of commercial speech is constitutional is:
(1) Does the speech concern an unlawful activity? If so, it may be suppressed;
(2) Does the government have a substantial interest?;
(3) Does the regulation directly advance the governmental interest?; and
(4) Is the regulation broader than necessary?
Id.
[232] Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981); see also Nike v. Kasky, 539 U.S. at 657.
[233] Briefs of Amici Curiae Domini Social Investments LLC, KLD Research & Analytics, Inc., and Harrington Investments, Inc., Nike v. Kasky, 539 US 654 (2003) (No. 02-575); and The States of California, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in Support of Respondent, Id., and The National Association of Consumer Advocates as Amicus Curiae, Id. Nike v. Kasky.
[234] Brief of Amicus Curiae Campaign Legal Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent, Id.
[235] Brief Amicus Curiae Reclaimdemocracy.com in Support of Respondent, Id.
[236] Jason A. Cade, If the Shoe Fits: Nike v. Kasky and whether Corporate Statements about Business Operations Should be Deemed Commercial Speech, 70 Brook. L. Rev. 247, 276 (Fall 2004).
[237] Some conclude that this is only an issue in California, because Californian’s Unfair Competition Law is so broad (broad enough to be unconstitutional). McIntyre, supra note 219 at 1555. Thus, to protect oneself from legal action like that of Kasky, a business needs only not do business in California. This is not a viable option for a MNC and thus, is not seriously considered in this paper.
[238] Mayer, supra note 223, at 667.
[239] GAP, INC., GAP, INC 2004 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT, (2004) available at http://www.gapinc.com/public/documents/CSR_Report_04.pdf (last visited March 26, 2006).
[240] Id. at 10-14.
[241] OECD CODE OF CONDUCT, supra note 71, at Section IV, clause 1(b). 2000. Section V, clause 1 and Section IV, clause 1(b). The entire clause is: “Establish and maintain a system of environmental management appropriate to the enterprise including: a) Collection and evaluation of adequate and timely information regarding the environmental, health, and safety impacts of their activities, b) Establishment of measurable objectives and, where appropriate, targets for improved environmental performance, including periodically reviewing the
continuing relevance of these objectives; and c) Regular monitoring and verification of progress toward environmental, health, and safety objectives or targets.” OECD CODE OF CONDUCT, supra note 71, at Section V, clause 1(a)(b) and (c).
[242] Smith v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 648 (N.D. Ill., 2006).
[243] NIKEBIZ.COM, PRESS RELEASE (2006) available at: http://www.nike.com/nikebiz.nws.pressrelease.jhtml;bsessionid=ZSIIJ5S24LFUQCQFTBDSF4UKAWMEQIZB?year=2006&month=03&lettter=f. (last visited April 27, 2006) and see Smith v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., ---F.R.D. ---, 2006 WL 715788 (N.D. Ill.).
[244] Esben Pedersen & Peter Neergaard, Caveat Emptor – Let the Buyer Beware! Environmental Labelling and the Limitations of ‘Green’ Consumerism, Business Strategy and the Environment, Bus. Strat. Env.15 29, 26 (2006).
[245] ALAN WESTIN, PRIVACY AND FREEDOM 7 (1967).
[246] Picciotto, supra note 22, at 145-47.
[247] Lori Keeton, What is Really Rotten in the Food Lion Case: Chilling the Media’s Unethical Newsgathering Techniques, 49 Fla. L. Rev. 111, 130 (1997); United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652, (1950) (stating “corporations can claim no equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy” but finding no privacy interest in not complying with disclosure to a regulatory agency).
[248] Dow Chemical Co. v. United States., 476 U.S. 227, 230(1986) (recognizing “that Dow indeed had a subjective expectation of privacy in certain areas” but no defensible privacy right when a helicopter flew over and observed Dow facilities.).
[249] See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652I Comment c.; cf. American States Ins. Co. v. Capital Associates of Jackson Cy.,, Inc., 392 F.3d 939, 942 (7th Cir. 2004).
[250] DANIEL SOLOVE ET AL., INFORMATION PRIVACY LAW 30-31 (2d ed. 2006).
[251] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977).
[252] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (1977).
[253] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977).
[254] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C (1977).
[255] Desnick v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1995).
[256] Id. at 1353.
[257] Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971).
[258] Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 1217 (M.D.N.C. 1996).
[259] Lori Keeton, What is Really Rotten in the Food Lion Case: Chilling the Media’s Unethical Newsgathering Techniques, 49 Fla. L. Rev. 111, 114 (1997).
[260] David Scileppi, Anonymous Corporate Defamation Plaintiffs: Tramping the First Amendment or Protecting The Rights of Litigants?, 54 Fla. L. Rev. 333, 350 (2002).
[261] Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., 63 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1129 (N.D. Cal. 1999) referring to Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16(b)(1) (2003).
[262] Global Telemedia Intern., Inc. v. Doe 1, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1265 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
[263] Scileppi, supra note 256, at 350.
[264] Global Telemedia Intern., Inc. v. Doe, 1, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (finding that Internet posting criticizing a business were a “matter of public significance,” and that the business did not establish sufficient probability such postings harmed it); Dendrite Intern., Inc. v. Doe, No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001) (finding the corporation did not show harm from the admittedly defamatory statements posted on the Internet).
[265] Scileppi, supra note 257, at 336.
[266] Scot Wilson, Corporate Criticism on the Internet: The Fine Line between Anonymous Speech and Cyber Smear, 29 Pepp. L. Rev. 533, 578 (Apr. 2002); see also http://www.mcspotlight.org/case (last visited March 29, 2006).
[267] Scileppi, supra note 257, at 336.
[268] America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 261 Va. 350, 364, 542 S.E.2d 377, 385 (Va., 2001).
[269] MARC GUNTHER, FAITH AND FORTUNE: THE QUIET REVOLUTION OF AMERICAN BUSINESSES 3 (2004); see also GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, COOL COALITION (2004) at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/top-companies-ditch-climate-wr (last visited April 1, 2006)
[270] GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, NATIONWIDE PROTEST AS FAST FOOD GIANT IS LINKED TO AMAZON DESTRUCTION (2006) available at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/media/pressrelease.cfm?ucidparam=20060406122129 (last visited April 27, 2006.
[271] Ronald K.L. Collins & David M. Skover, The Landmark Free-Speech Case That Wasn’t: The Nike v. Kasky Story, 54 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 956, 992 (2004).
[272] Id.
[273] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 534, citing to Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, available at http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/001220_fsdrl_principles.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2006).
[274] Lucien J. Dhooge, Beyond Voluntarism: Social Disclosure and France’s Nouvelles Regulations Economiques, 21 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 441, 443 (2004).
[275] Ilias Bantekas, Corporate Social Responsibility in International Law, 22 B.U. Int’l L.J. 309, 327 (2004).
[276] Picciotto, supra note 22; see Corporate Code of Conduct Bill, 2000 (Austl.); see also Corporate Responsibility Bill, 2003 (Eng.).
[277] Picciotto, supra note 22, at 133.
[278] See 1977 U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) 15 USC § 78 (2000) and U.S, Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 7201-7266 (2004) available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/36/1922428.pdf%20page%2024 (last visited March 29, 2006).
[279] Dashworth, supra note 70.
[280] Abdallah Simaika, The Value Of Information: Alternatives To Liability In Influencing
Corporate Behavior Overseas, 38 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 321, 330 (2005).
[281] See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 545 (1967).
[282] EU CSR REPORT, supra note 2, at 4 (placing expectations in increased profitability foremost as the reason for a business’ adaptation of CSR strategies).
[283] Lucien J. Dhooge, Beyond Voluntarism: Social Disclosure and France’s Nouvelles Regulations Economiques, 21 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 441, 466 (2004).
[284] Monsma & Buckley, supra note 9, at 176.
[285] C.A. Harwell Wells, The Cycles of Corporate Social Responsibility: An Historical Retrospective for the Twenty-First Century, 51 UKSLR 77, 79 (November 2002).
[286] Id. at 90-92.
[287] Id.
[288] This raises the issue of whether financial analysts can be retrained to recognize that long term can be defined as 10 or 100 years, rather than just one year. Where a financial analyst recognizes that a business expects to continue operations for 100 years, he will also accept that stewardship of the ecological and social environment in which a business operates is a good investment.
[289] Lynn A. Stout, The Shareholder as Ulysses: Some Empirical Evidence on Why Investors in Public Corporations Tolerate Board Governance, 152, U. Pa. L. Rev. 667, 688 (December 2003).
[290] Id.
[291]The first other constituency statute was legislated in 1983. 30 states have legislated other constituency statutes. Brett H. McDonnell, Corporate Constituency Statutes And Employee Governance, 30 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1227, 1230-31 (2004).
[292] Wells, supra note 280, at 93-94.
[293] Id.
[294] DAVID KORTON, WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD, (2001); Bigge, supra note 86, at 10.
[295] Wells, supra note 280, at 93-94.
[296] Id. at 100-103.
[297] Id. at 104.
[298] See PETER DRUCKER, Peter Drucker on the Profession of Management, HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PRESS, (1998) (a collection of articles published in the Harvard Business Review from 1950-1995).
[299] PETER DRUCKER, MANAGEMENT, TASKS, RESPONSIBILITIES, PRACTICES, SOCIAL IMPACTS AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS (1974).
[300] Id.
[301] Id.
[302] A negative externality is “a social or monetary consequence or side effect of one's economic activity” that is detrimental to another. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 478 (8th ed. 2004). An example of a negative externality is noise pollution born by those living near an airport. See PETER DRUCKER, MANAGEMENT, TASKS, RESPONSIBILITIES, PRACTICES, SOCIAL IMPACTS AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS (1974).
[303] EU CSR REPORT supra note 2.
[304] Porter & Linde, supra note 60, at 97-118.
[305] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 549.
[306] Picciotto, supra note 22, at 133 .
[307] Id.
[308] Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004); Terry Collingsworth, “Corporate Social Responsibility," Unmasked, 16 St. Thomas L. Rev. 669, 669 (2004).
[309] MCDONOUGH & BRAUGARD, supra note 34, at 61.
[310] EU CSR REPORT supra note 2.
[311] Monsma & Buckley, supra note 9, at 161.
[312] JOHN KRITON & MICHAEL TREBILCOCK, Introduction: Hard Choices and Soft Law in Sustainable Global Governance in HARD CHOICES AND SOFT LAW IN SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE 5 (2004).
[313] Id.
[314] Lorinda Rowledge, Mapping the Journey: Case Studies in Strategy and Action towards Sustainable Development, in MAPPING THE JOURNEY, CASE STUDIES IN STRATEGY AND ACTION TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 16 (Rowledge, et al. eds., 1999).
[315] John W. Foster, The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations and Social Movements in Developing Countries in HARD CHOICES AND SOFT LAW IN SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Kriton & Trebilcock eds., 2004).
[316] Dashworth, supra note 70.
[317] Chen & Hanson, supra note 116, at 44.
[318] Id. at 66.
[319] J. Brent Wilkins, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: The Ripple Effects of Restoring Shareholder Confidence, 29 S. Ill. U. L.J. 339, 340 (Fall, 2004/Winter, 2005).
[320] Dashworth, supra note 70.
[321] Author Unknown, The Union of Concerned Executives, THE ECONOMIST, Jan. 22, 2005, at 3.
[322] Id. at 4.
[323] KMPG CSR REPORTING SURVEY, supra note 16, at 22 (surveying of over 1,500 businesses that formed CSR reports).
[324] Paul Hawken et al., A Road Map for Natural Capitalism, HARVARD BUS. REV. May-June 1999 at 152
[325] Id.
[326] Bigge, supra note 86, at 19.
[327] Id.
[328] Marianne Jennings & Jon Entine, Business with a Soul: A Reexamination of What Counts in Business Ethics, 20 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 1, 14 (Fall 1998).
[329] CERES, COALITIONS AND COMPANIES (dates unknown) at http://www.ceres.org/coalitionandcompanies/company_list.php (last visited March 28, 2006).
[330] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 532.
[331] PHILLIP KOTLER & NANCY LEE, CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 10-11 (2005).
[332] Id. at 35-36.
[333] Id. at 45.
[334] Id. at 217.
[335] Id. at 125.
[336] Id. at 213.
[337] Jon Entine, Shattered Image, Business Ethics (September/October 1992).
[338] AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW, BODY SHOP’S PACKAGING STARTS TO UNRAVEL (2002) at http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/Body_Shop_AFR.htm (last visited April 1, 2006) and http://www.thebodyshopinternational.com/web/tbsgl/news_financial.jsp (last visited April 1, 2006).
[339] NIKEBIZ.COM REPORTING, (2005) a: http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/nikebiz.jhtml?page=29 (last visited April 1, 2006) and Zadeck, supra note 105, at 7.
[340] A WORLD CONNECTED, BACKGROUNDERS (date unknown) at www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/524.html 5 (April 1, 2006) (citing to an ruling on March 23, 2006 allowing employees to sue Nike for not upholding its “corporate policy or efforts to create a culture of inclusion and respect for all employees.”).
[341] Dashworth, supra note 70.
[342] Other ways to manage the risk of accusations of insincerity are covered in this paper, and so not included except as a footnote in this section. Tactics include forming coalitions with activist organizations to work together in finding solutions that serve both interests. McDonald’s did this in 1989. See ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSES, MCDONALD'S & ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND MARK 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF LANDMARK ALLIANCE (1999) at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=1299 (last visited April 1, 2006). Coalitions also run the risk of being labeled window dressing by other activists. In this case, stakeholders may need to be reminded that CSR is an incremental process. Use of the AA1000AES stakeholder process is one way to help stakeholders understand the reasons for an incremental approach to CSR practices. External auditing, certification by a well-respected organization and establishing connections with NGOs that promote CSR are other ways to manage the risk of accusations of insincerity. A business can also look upon such criticism as the fruits from the marketplace of ideas, and thus as opportunities to increase markets and deepen communications.
[343] Picciotto, supra note 22, at 139.
[344] Sara McConnell, Pouring Oil on Troubled Waters, GUARDIAN, July 2002.
[345] Picciotto, supra note 22, at 140-41 (2003) citing to The Shell Report 1998: Profits and Principles--Does There Have to be a Choice? (1999). Royal Dutch Shell continued CSR reports demonstrate not only a change in behavior but also a shift in corporate culture. SHELL, SHELL SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS (2006) available at http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=envandsoc-en&FC2=/envandsoc-en/html/iwgen/our_approach_reporting/our_latest_report/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/envandsoc-en/html/iwgen/our_approach_reporting/our_latest_report/the_shell_sustainability_report_24042006.html (last visited April 1, 2006). If the link is broken, click to it from Shell’s main website: http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=home.
[346] Chen & Hanson, supra note 116, at 30.
[347] Id. and SUSTAINABILITY & WWF, INFLUENCING POWER (2005) available at http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/influencingpower.pdf (last visited April 1, 2006).
[348] Influencing Power, SustainAbility & WWF (2005) and SUSTAINABILITY & WWF, INFLUENCING POWER (2005).
[349] Zadek, supra note 105.
[350] Author Unknown, The Union of Concerned Executives, THE ECONONMIST, Jan. 22, 2005, at 6.
[351] Id.
[352] Id.
[353] Id.
[354] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 548.
[355] Sean D. Murphy, Taking Multinational Corporate Codes of Conduct to the Next Level, 43 Colum. J. Transnat’l, 389, 424 (2005); see also Bigge, supra note 86, at 19.
[356] C.A. Harwell Wells, The Cycles Of Corporate Social Responsibility: An Historical Retrospective For The Twenty-First Century, 51 U. Kan. L. Rev. 77, 94 (2002).
[357] Pearlstein, supra note 11.
[358] Dashworth, supra note 70.
[359] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 533.
[360] Berglinda & Nakata, supra note 179, at 453.
[361] Dashworth, supra note 70.
[362] MALCOM MCINTOSH ET AL., CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP 15 (1998).
[363] DAVID KORTEN, WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD, 111 (2nd ed., 2001) and See Human Development Report, United Nations, Development Programmes (2005) at http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1992/en/ for report (last visited April 1, 2006).
[364] Id.
[365] Id.
[366] Mark J. Roe, Political Preconditions to Separating Ownership from Corporate Control, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 539, 564 (2002).
[367] Cynthia A. Williams, Corporate Social Responsibility on an Era of Economic Globalization, 35 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 705, 744 (2002).
[368] Bigge, supra note 86, at 10.
[369] Dashworth, supra note 70.
[370] PETER DRUCKER, MANAGEMENT, TASKS, RESPONSIBILITIES, PRACTICES, SOCIAL IMPACTS AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS (1974).
[371] See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
[372] Dashworth, supra note 70.
[373] Davidsson, supra note 4, at 532.
[374] See A.P. Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow, 13 N.J. 145, 161, 98 A.2d 581, 590 (N.J. 1953).
[375] Berglinda & Nakata, supra note 179, at 443-53.
[376] The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 103 (1980).
[377] Dashworth, supra note 70.

CSR and the Triple Bottom Line

How to Write A Corportate Social Responsiblity Report