Skip to main content
Log in

Benchmarking of Corporate Social Responsibility: Methodological Problems and Robustness

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the possibilities and problems of benchmarking Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). After a methodological analysis of the advantages and problems of benchmarking, we develop a benchmark method that includes economic, social and environmental aspects as well as national and international aspects of CSR. The overall benchmark is based on a weighted average of these aspects. The weights are based on the opinions of companies and NGO's. Using different methods of weighting, we find that the outcome of the benchmark is rather robust for a sample of more than 50 large Dutch companies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, E.: 1993, Value in Ethics and Economics (Harvard University Press, Cambridge/London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chryssides, G. and J. H. Kaler: 1993, An Introduction to Business Ethics (Chapman & Hall, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Erp, H. van: 2000, Moraal geluk en verantwoordelijkheid (Van Gorcum, Assen).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eijffinger, S. C. W. and P. M. Geraats: 2002, ‘How Transparent are Central Banks?’, CEPR Discussion Paper, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

  • Graafland, J. J.: 2002, ‘Modelling the Trade off between Profits and Principles’, De Economist 150, 129–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J. J., B. W. van de Ven and N. Stoffele: 2002, ‘Wat betekent maatschappelijk ondernemen concreet?’, University of Tilburg, www.uvt.nl/wijsbegeerte/ cmo

  • Graafland, J. J., B. W. van de Ven and N. Stoffele: 2003a, ‘Strategies and instruments for organising CSR by small and large business in the Netherlands’, Journal of Business Ethics 47, 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J. J., S. C. W. Eijffinger, N. C. G. M. Stoffele, H. Smid and A. M. Coldeweijer: 2003b, Corporate social responsibility of Dutch companies: Benchmarking and Transparency, http://www.uvt.nl/faculteiten/ fww/cmo.

  • Graves, S. B., S. A. Waddock and J. Kelly: 2002, ‘100 Best Corporate Citizens’, Business Ethics 11(2), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, D. M.: 1992, The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurka, T.: 1996, ‘Monism, Pluralism, and Rational Regret’, Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political and Legal Philosophy 106(3), 555–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeurissen, R. J. M. (ed.): 2000, Bedrijfsethiek: een goed zaak (Van Gorcum, Assen).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J. (ed.): 2000, AA 1000 standaard: richtlijn voor maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen (Van Gorcum, Assen).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinfeld, A.: 2001, ‘Benchmarking the moral decisionmaking strength of European biotech companies: a European research project’, Business Ethics: A European Review 10, 122–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krut, R. and K. Munis: 1998, ‘Sustainable Industrial Development: Benchmarking Environmental Policies and Reports’, Greener Management International 21, 88–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laat, P. B. de: 2001, ‘Open source software: A new Mertonian ethos?’, in A. Vedder (ed.), Ethics and the Internet (Intersentia, Antwerpen-Groningen-Oxford), pp. 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, D.: 1994, ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis and Procedural Values’, Analyse & Kritik, 16(2), 166–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, M., D. Leipziger, K. Jones and G. Coleman: 1998, Corporate Citizenship: Successful Strategies for Responsible Companies (Financial Times Pitman Publishing, London/San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peperstraten, F. van: 1999, Samenleving ter discussie (Coutinho, Bussum).

    Google Scholar 

  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Ondernemingsanalyses: 2001, Trends in de chemie (Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie B. V., Dordrecht).

    Google Scholar 

  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Ondernemingsanalyses: 2002a, Trends in de bouw (Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie B. V., Dordrecht).

    Google Scholar 

  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Ondernemingsanalyses: 2002b, Trends in de retail (Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie B. V., Dordrecht).

    Google Scholar 

  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Ondernemingsanalyses: 2002c, Trends bij banken (Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie B. V., Dordrecht).

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Economic Council: 2001, Corporate social Responsibility: A Dutch Approach (Van Gorcum, Assen).

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasquez, M. G.: 1998, Business ethics. Concepts and Cases, 4th Edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlek, C. A. J., E. M. Steg, D. Feenstra, W. Gerbens-Leenis, S. Lindenberg, H. Moll, A. Schoot Uiterkamp, F. Sijtsma and A. Van Witteloostuijn: 2002, ‘Een praktisch model voor duurzaam bedrijfspresteren’, Economisch Statistische Berichten 87, 524–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, ‘The corporate social performance-financial performance link’, Strategic Management Journal, 303–319.

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graafland, J.J., Eijffinger, S. & SmidJohan, H. Benchmarking of Corporate Social Responsibility: Methodological Problems and Robustness. Journal of Business Ethics 53, 137–152 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039404.67854.e1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039404.67854.e1

Navigation