Salzmann Corporate Sustainability Management in the Energy Sector

An Empirical Contigency Approach
2008
ISBN: 978-3-8349-8132-5
Verlag: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Gabler
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 355 Seiten, eBook

Oliver Salzmann provides a comprehensive view on corporate sustainability management in companies such as Shell and RWE and develops a model for the systematization of strategic, thus profit-oriented, corporate sustainability management.

Dr. Oliver Salzmann promovierte bei Prof. Dr. Ulrich Steger am Institut für Technologie und Management der TU Berlin. Er war zu dieser Zeit als Research Associate am IMD in Lausanne tätig. Zurzeit arbeitet er als Vertriebsingenieur in der Solarbranche.

Zielgruppe

Research

Autoren/Hrsg.

Salzmann, Oliver

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Preface ;6
2;List of contents ;7
3;List of abbreviations ;11
4;List of figures ;12
5;List of charts ;14
6;List of tables ;16
7;List of regression tables ;17
8;1 Introduction ;19
8.1;1.1 Research field ;19
8.2;1.2 Structure ;20
8.3;1.3 Intended contributions ;22
9;2 Theoretical foundation and concepts ;25
9.1;2.1 Contingency theory ;25
9.2;2.2 CSM and related theoretical frameworks ;26
9.3;2.3 Key concepts ;34
10;3 Review of empirical literature ;43
10.1;3.1 Determinants of CSM ;44
10.2;3.2 CSM ;48
10.3;3.3 Outcomes ;53
10.4;3.4 Summary and research gaps ;54
11;4 Conceptual rationale and research questions ;55
12;5 Method ;61
12.1;5.1 Selection of suitable method ;62
12.2;5.2 Instruments ;69
12.3;5.3 Synergistic fit of methods ;86
12.4;5.4 Evaluation ;88
13;6 Sector characteristics ;93
13.1;6.1 Characteristics and activities of companies ;93
13.2;6.2 Trends, drivers and competitive forces ;95
13.3;6.3 Discussion ;97
14;7 Data collected ;99
14.1;7.1 Qualitative data ;99
14.2;7.2 Quantitative data ;100
15;8 Empirical evidence ;105
15.1;8.1 Issues ;108
15.2;8.2 External stakeholders, industry and partnerships ;134
15.3;8.3 Managers ;188
15.4;8.4 Companies ;202
16;9 Synopsis ;287
16.1;9.1 Findings ;287
16.2;9.2 Significance of the study ;296
16.3;9.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research ;302
16.4;9.4 Conclusion ;307
17;Appendices ;309
17.1;Appendix A – Interview samples ;310
17.2;Appendix B – Key financials of sector samples ;314
17.3;Appendix C – Hypotheses and objectives of IMD research project ;315
17.4;Appendix D – Operationalization of key concepts ;317
17.5;Appendix E – Pairwise correlation analysis ;322
17.6;Appendix F – Regression models ;325
17.7;Appendix G – Regression diagnostics ;330
17.8;Appendix H – Interview guidelines ;331
17.8.1;I. Introduction;331
17.8.1.1;A. Introduction to the project ;331
17.8.1.2;B. Confidentiality and anonymity ;331
17.8.1.3;C. Interview road map ;331
17.8.2;II. Interview ;332
17.8.2.1;A. Building the business case: Detecting external pressures and value drivers for building the BCS ;332
17.9;Appendix I – Questionnaires ;340
17.10;Appendix J – Abbreviations in regression tables ;350
18;Bibliography ;351

Theoretical foundation and concepts.- Review of empirical literature.- Conceptual rationale and research questions.- Method.- Sector characteristics.- Data collected.- Empirical evidence.- Synopsis.

Leseproben

1 Introduction (S. 1-2)

1.1 Research field

The history of corporate social responsibility and other related concepts can be traced way back to ancient Mesopotamia and Greece (and probably even further), where businessmen were punished for negligence that harmed workers and the general public. However, it is obvious that the industrial revolution at the end of the 19th cen tury substantially increased the significance of businesses and thus also their scope to behave more or less responsibly within society. Because there was no legislation in this area at that time, history mentions several businessmen who postulated that business should serve society and took corresponding initiatives (Balza & Radojicic, 2004, Wren, 1979). With the emergence of labor unions and legislation (on minimum wages, disability compensation etc.), the concept of the social responsibility of the businessman gained importance over the following decades.

After World War II, social concerns were increasingly incorporated into management education and legislation (foremost social security systems). Between 1960 and 1980, rapid economic growth and its social and environmental effects (including incidents such as e.g. Aberfan, Wales in 1966 and Seveso, Italy in 1976) triggered several initia tives such as the Club of Rome and the Brandt Report as well as new regulatory standards in industrialized countries, e.g. the US Environmental Protection Act (Mohan, 2003).

Obviously the growing acceptance of businesses’ social and environmental responsi bility was intensively discussed among scholars and practitioners. The best known contribution to this debate is undoubtedly Milton Friedman’s claim that "few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundation of our free society as the accep tance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible" (Friedman, 1962). Consequently scholars increasingly built a stronger and more logically grounded case for corporate social responsibility (CSR). For example Johnson (1971) presented several views of social responsibility, among them utility maximization (rather than profit maximization) as the prime motivation of companies. He postulated that socially responsible managers maximize utility by extending their interest beyond their own well being to their fel low employees and citizens.

In the 1980s and 1990s a plethora of further definitions and frameworks were devel oped and refined (Arlow & Gannon, 1982, Carroll, 1999, Davenport, 2000, Moir, 2001). Furthermore, the notion of sustainable development, initially defined in the Brundtland Report by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), gained more and more importance. However, the inflated use of terms such as corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability and corporate citizenship led to significant skepticism and cynicism, particularly in civil society.

So far empirical research essentially only produced a plethora of instrumental studies yielding inconclusive evidence for a sound business case, and failed to describe cor porate sustainability management (CSM) and its economic rationale comprehen sively (Griffin & Mahon, 1997, Morsing, 2003).1 In particular, sector specific and comparative approaches are missing although the contingent character of CSM and related concepts such as social responsiveness was diagnosed as early as the 1970s (Arlow et al., 1982, p. 235, Carroll, 1979, Sethi, 1975). Understandably skepticism has not ebbed away (Walley & Whitehead, 1994).

Über Autor(innen)

Dr. Oliver Salzmann promovierte bei Prof. Dr. Ulrich Steger am Institut für Technologie und Management der TU Berlin. Er war zu dieser Zeit als Research Associate am IMD in Lausanne tätig. Zurzeit arbeitet er als Vertriebsingenieur in der Solarbranche.