Survey Corporate Volunteering Eng

CCCD Centrum für Corporate Citizenship DeutschlandCCCD Centrum für Corporate Citizenship Deutschland

Corporate Citizenship in Germany and a Transatlantic Comparison with the USA

Results of a CCCD Survey

ata

2

CCCD – the Center for Corporate Citizenship Germany is a non-profi torganisation at the inter face between business, academia, and polit ics. Incooperation with leading companies, both domestic and foreign, acade-mic inst itut ions and civi l society organisations, CCCD acts as a think tankand competence centre, providing a platform for dialogue; acting as cata-lyst and host.In this capacity, the CCCD arranges forums for exchange between corpo-rate cit izens, business, academia, polit ics and civi l society, supplies andcarr ies out applied research, facil i tates learning processes through deba-te and ski l l ing opportunit ies, and supports cooperation between businessesand partners from civi l society, academia, and/or polit ics.Using workshops, publications and public events, CCCD also acts as a dri-ving force for the corporate cit izenship debate in Germany and for thepractical efforts by businesses taking an active role in society.CCCD is the German partner of the Center for Corporate Cit izenship atBoston College, USA, as well as a partner of Business in the Community, UK.www.cccdeutschland.org

3

I. Preliminary remarks

II. Key Findings

III. Introduction

• Key issues and objective of the survey

IV. Methodology approach, specifics of random sampling, execution of the survey

V. Empirical findings from the German survey and transatlantic comparison of selected issues

• An unequivocal “ Yes” to corporate cit izenship

• Types of corporate cit izenship

• Deploying companies ’ material and human resources for corporate volunteering

• Preferred areas for corporate cit izenship

• Involving partners in corporate cit izenship

• Corporate Cit izenship with a clear local emphasis

• Investment in corporate cit izenship

• Corporate and community objectives at the focus of commitment

• Happening by chance or strategic business planning of corporate cit izenship measures

Corporate culture as a guideline

Responsibil i ty for corporate cit izenship in the company

Corporate Citizenship no PR-tool

• Socio-polit ical att i tudes of companies with regard to corporate cit izenship

Posit ive reinforcement factors for corporate cit izenship

Factors with a l imiting effect on corporate cit izenship

• Issues and areas for corporate cit izenship

• Investing in the future of corporate cit izenship

VI. Summary of results

Inhalt

5

7

9

11

14

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

25

28

34

36

37

4

Views and Comments:“This is exactly what we were hoping for when we talked about the idea of doing a surveyon corporate citizenship on an international level: interesting comparative findings on thedifferences and similarities. Both understanding and practice vary considerably in differentnational settings. Therefore the global idea of corporate citizenship needs differentiated,culture sensitive grounding. We hope CCCD’s survey on corporate citizenship in Germany tobe the first one of a whole series, to be conducted in different parts of the world which willenable us to develop a truly global understanding of the why and the how of corporate citi-zenship.” (Prof. Bradley K. Googins, Executive Director, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at BostonCollege)

“Responsible activities by businesses need to be geared towards meeting both the society’sneeds and shareholder interests, which implies following the business strategy. This makesthe key question for issues and projects: what benefits the business? What benefits society? Changing over from philanthropic individual measures to a strategic overall concept forcorporate citizenship is a learning curve we have gone through as well. On the basis of ourcorporate values and business strategy we have revised previous activities and put in placenew long-term projects, based on our core competences and the needs of society”. (Jürgen W. Cuno, Director, Government & External Affairs, Deutsche BP)

“Whenever politics expects companies to show social involvement, there is a suspicion thatcompanies are supposed to act as stopgaps for a state retreating from welfare state respon-sibil it ies. This is not the case. Corporate citizenship brings a specific value of its own to boththe community and the economy. In addition, it is a cornerstone for a new social compactbetween citizens, the state and business, resting primarily on cooperation and increasedparticipation.(Dr. Michael Bürsch, Member of the German Parliament)

“A global and committed company always encounters special circumstances in differentcountries. To be successful, in business as in civic engagement, one has to forge links bet-ween different corporate cultures as well as cultures of involvement. A US business activein Germany will always build bridges between different economic and community commit-ment approaches. A comparative study, revealing both the common ground and the diffe-rences, is most helpful in this respect.” (Hans-Peter Teufers, Director Public Affairs Central & Eastern Europe UPS)

“Corporate citizenship and corporate social responsibil ity have become important issues forthe future. But in Germany and elsewhere, an empirical analysis based on sound methodo-logy is only just beginning. And yet, decision-makers in business, politics and society needthis knowledge… and the present study will provide a useful source of information to all ofthe above – and will hopefully be followed by responsible action”.(Prof. Manfred Güllner, Managing Director, forsa. Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und sta-tistische Analysen)

The study on hand “Corporate Citizenship in Ger-many and a Transatlantic Comparison with theUSA” surveys corporate citizenship involving com-panies in Germany. For the f i rst t ime, the datacollected wil l be compared with similar f indingsfrom the US. Accordingly, some of the pointsthese two cultures of social involvement share- and some of their differences - can be iden-tif ied and analysed, which gives German busi-nesses an opportunity to place their own prac-tice of community commitment in an interna-tional context and, if necessar y, readjust i t.

The Study contains fundamental results from anempirical survey on the issue of “Corporate Citi-zenship in Germany ”, conducted between Sep-tember and November 2006. The poll formedpart of a research project involving several ofthe cooperation partners of CCCD, to whom wewould l ike to express our thanks for their sup-port and part icipation.

Deutsche BP AG acted as a generous principalsponsor, and UPS supported the evaluation andpublication of the study results. The preparato-r y work, including drawing up the German que-st ionnaire, was done by CCCD in cooperationwith the Paderborn Universi ty research centreon social involvement. Forsa undertook nation-wide and cross-sector pol l ing of bus inesses,us ing computer-a ided te le- inter v iews (CAT Isystem).

For the f i rst t ime, thanks to the partnership bet-ween CCCD and the Center for Corporate Cit i-zenship at Boston College, USA, reference couldbe made in individual subject areas, to the study“The State of Corporate Cit izenship in the US”,conducted in 2005 by the Center and the USChamber of Commerce, allowing a direct com-parison of results. Those item batteries of the

poll, which are relevant for the German con-text, have been put into German and integra-ted into the German survey, paying part icularattention to the specif ics of the German situa-tion. Taking into account the diverse polit ical,economic, and cultural characterist ics of com-panies in both count r ies, the data permitsinstructive interpretation of selected dimensi-ons of corporate cit izenship in Germany andthe US.

The Germany-related results of the f inal reportas submitted are based in part on commentson the report made by Professor Dr. Dr. Seba-st ian Braun and Mark Kukuk of the PaderbornUniversity research centre on social involvement.The sections focusing on the transatlantic com-parison are based in part on the results elabo-rated by Dr. Karin Lenhart.

Dr. Frank W. HeubergerCCCD

5

1 The State of Corporate Cit izenship in the U.S. Business Per-spectives in 2005. The Center for Corporate Cit izenship atBoston College. Boston. 2005. Note: The German text uses thegender-specif ic masculine pronoun. This is s imply to facil i tatelegibi l i ty and reading comprehension; the content addressesboth men and women equally.

I. Preliminary Remarks

Introductory remarks for the Englishedition

The English-language edit ion of the survey on Cor-porate Cit izenship in Germany and the USA is afirst attempt at a quantity-based identif ication andanalysis of central elements of the social commit-ment shown by companies which are either basedin Germany or which are transnational companies,either manufacturing or sel l ing their goods or ser-vices in Germany.

The results of the survey afford the English-langua-ge reader unparalleled insight into the communi-ty commitment of businesses operating in the Ger-man economic environment. The CCCD had theopportunity to refer to comparative material fromthe 2005 study “The State of Corporate Cit izen-ship” conducted by the Center for Corporate Cit i-zenship at Boston College, which makes it even

more attractive for the US-American reader to com-pare individual results and interpretations from both countr ies and to contrast these with his orher own experience in this area.

Despite the many similarit ies in some areas of Cor-porate Cit izenship in Germany and the US, thereare also amazing differences in others. In part,these are due to different entrepreneurial tradit i-ons in the two countr ies, but primari ly they reflecta historical and cultural development which madethem set different prior it ies in f ields such as healthcare, combating poverty, disaster rel ief, or exten-ding global trade. For both countr ies these datawil l ask in the medium-term whether more inten-sive Corporate Cit izenship wil l mean that the rulesof business as a whole wil l be rewritten.

Dr. Frank W. HeubergerCCCD

6

I r respect ive of thei r s ize, companies inGermany profess their social responsibil i ty.Almost al l the companies polled, 96 per centexhibit some kind of corporate cit izenship.

In a regional context, gif ts of both moneyand in kind are typical of the corporate cit i-zenship displayed by German companies.There is also widespread support among thestaff for voluntar y activit ies and the provision ofsuch services typif ies German corporate volun-teering. The larger the company, and the moreinternationally active it is, the broader the rangeof its commitment.

More than three bus inesses out of fourconsider corporate ci t i zenship par t of theimage they have of themselves, and par t oftheir corporate culture. Sti l l , the majority ofGerman businesses have not chosen to becorporate cit izens on their own init iative. Fewer than 40 per cent of the companies que-stioned are actively searching for areas in whichto become active and engaged. Even fewerbusinesses set measurable targets.

Most German companies are sti l l – unli-ke those in the US – far removed from an inclu-s ive concept which would make corporatecitizenship an integral par t of the corpora-te strategy, integrated into the companies’core business and competencies.This is part icularly true for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Unlike US American companies, the majo-r i ty of German businesses are not convin-ced that corporate citizenship can make anymeasurable contr ibution to their economicsuccess.

In Germany, only 40 per cent of businesses, irre-spective of company size, expect their com-mitment to yield any posit ive economic result.In the US, 63 per cent of al l enterprises and 84per cent of large enterpr ises, are convincedthat their civic involvement wil l have an imme-diate and posit ive effect on their business acti-vit ies

Only 16 per cent of large-scale Germancompanies interlink corporate citizenship withmarketing and sales activities.Instead, tradit ional PR tools such as press state-ments, homepages, or customer newslet tersare widely used to inform about the compa-nies ’ role in publ ic l i fe.

In both Germany and the US, enterprisesare st rongly opposed in equal measure toany regulator y inter ference in thei r enga-gement.Only 3 per cent of businesses regard legal pro-vis ions in Germany as posit ive reinforcement,whereas in the US 14 per cent see their com-mitment inf luenced by such provis ions.

Where the quality of corporate citizenshipmeasures adopted i s concerned, Germancompanies are clearly more self-critical thantheir American counterpar ts.Two-thirds of respondents (66 per cent) in Ger-many state that corporate cit izenship is con-sidered important in pr inciple though it is notactually implemented consistently, but only 47per cent of American businesses share this view.

More than one third (39 per cent) of com-panies in Germany assume their corporatecitizenship has no relevance to customer satis-faction.

7

II. Key Findings

Among American companies, this f igure is just11 per cent. V i r tual ly half the German com-panies (48 per cent) consider that corporatecitizenship is not a factor in attracting and retai-ning staff, whi le only 15 per cent of US com-panies dispute this.

According to the majority of businesseson both sides of the Atlantic by far the mostserious obstacle to stronger civic involvementis a lack of resources (US: 54 per cent; Ger-many: 48 per cent).

Surpr is ingly, exactly the opposite occurs whencompany s ize is taken into account. The lar-ger the company in Germany, the more f re-quently lack of resources is cited, whi le in theUS i t is the opposite case.

More than 41 per cent of German com-panies do not work with a par tner in their cor-porate cit izenship.That means they forgo the chance of benefi-t ing from experience made in other sectors ofsociety for their corporate citizenship measures.

8

9

The debate on corporate cit izenship is drivenby a view of the company as a good corpora-te cit izen, who is or should be, actively invol-ved in resolving social issues.

This involves exclusively those corporate activi-t ies which might cont r ibute to the commongood, i r respective of any assessment of inter-nal company processes. These activit ies inclu-de all one-off or permanent volunteer servicesintended to benefit society at the local, regio-nal, national, or global level, which are outsi-de the genuine business activit ies of the com-pany. Basically, therefore, corporate cit izenshipmeans company investment in the social ornatural environment which exceeds its normalbusiness sphere.

Corporate community commitment is recogni-zed as benef i t ing the var ious ways in whichentrepreneur ial resources can be employed.But increasing attention is being paid to how abusiness can profit from its corporate cit izen-ship activit ies. The benefits accruing to com-panies from their engagement l ie in creatingprerequis i tes for improving economic per for-mance. Competit iveness and economic per-formance, for instance, can be raised by tar-geting improvements of the corporate image,infrastructure improvements on production sites,at t ract ing new customers, network ing in thecompany ’s local and regional environment, orposit ive effects in the area of HR developmentand external communication.

Linking civic involvement and corporate busi-ness objectives provides a new impetus in Ger-many where so far the debate on communitycommitment has been ver y much dominatedby a socio-polit ical focus addressing compa-nies from, as it were, “outside”. This new direc-tion ties in closely with the communication-poli-

t ical object ives. Against th is backdrop, the“altruistic motivation” of well-off individual entre-preneurs does not matter ver y much, unl ikeachieving a win-win strategy. Expectations cen-tre on a congruence of social and entrepre-neurial interests, requir ing a readjustment in therelationship between business, the state, andcivi l society to provide the launch pad for anew social compact.

Key Issues and Objectives of the Survey

The object of the survey is an empir ical analy-sis of entrepreneurially and socially-oriented cor-porate cit izenship in Germany. The main que-st ion asked is: how and to what extent do Ger-man companies commit to publ ic concerns,going beyond their immediate business activi-t ies. Within a company ’s corporate cit izenshipmeasures, which objectives are business-rela-ted and which are society- re lated? To whatextent are corporate citizenship measures plan-ned and implemented as part of the businessstrategy? What are the socio-polit ical att i tudeswhich companies associate with the issue ofcorporate citizenship? Which are the social areasand issues of interest to companies? What ishappening concerning investments in the futu-re of corporate cit izenship?

Researchers Maaß/Clemens (2002), Heuberger/Oppen/Reimer (2004), Habisch (2003), andFabisch (2004) provided init ial empirical studieson corporate cit izenship activit ies undertakenby companies in Germany. The explorative studyof Heuberger/ Oppen/Reimer focuses on selec-ted corporate cit izenship measures taken byindividual companies, while the IfM Bonn studyof Maaß/Clemens targets exclusively medium-sized enterprises, on the basis of a quantitati-ve survey. Habisch (2003) presents “best prac-

III. Introduction

10

tice examples”, using the applications compa-nies had submitted for the “ freedom and respon-sibi l i ty ” award. By contrast, the survey conduc-ted by Fabisch (2004) looks into the social invol-vement of banks, concentrating its sophist ica-ted empir ical and theoretical work on one spe-cif ic industr y. But both the so far most inf luential of al l thesestudies, by the Bertelsmann Foundation (2005)and the “ Init iative Neue Marktwirtschaft ” (NewSocial Market Init iative), adopted a ver y diffe-rent approach. Both studies survey companiesactive in Germany on a cross-sectoral basis.However, the Bertelsmann sur vey focus is on“Die gesellschaftl iche Verantwortung von Unter-nehmen” (The Social Responsibi l i ty of Busines-ses) and studies not only external public invol-vement, but also internal commitment (e.g. staffequal opportunit ies, staff social benefits), theNew Social Market Init iative pays special atten-t ion to the extent to which company owners in

Germany are volunteers in state and/or socie-ty. The current survey “Corporate Cit izenship -Unternehmerisches bürgerschaftl iches Engage-ment in Baden-Württemberg” (entrepreneurialcommunity commitment in the state of Baden-Württemberg), conducted by the centre for civi lsociety development (2007) is the most sophi-st icated attempt to date at analysing civic cor-porate involvement at the regional level.

The survey described follows these other studiesin certain respects, but it also diverges from themby having a different content-focus. This is shownparticularly clearly in the attempt to provide aninternational comparison with the US and inve-stigate how corporate citizenship is anchored incorporate structures, and l inked with f lankingsocio-polit ical attitudes within. Any insight gai-ned can give indications to German companiesconcerning a strategic (re-) adjustment of theirown corporate citizenship commitment.

2 Maaß F., Clemens, R. (2002). Corporate Cit izenship. Das Unternehmen als guter Bürger. Schriften zur Mittelstandsforschung Nr.94 NF. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. (Corporate Citizenship. Business as a good cit izen. Essays on researchingmedium-sized enterprises. Pub. German University Press)

Heuberger, F., Oppen, M., Reimer, S. (2004). Der deutsche Weg zum bürgerschaftl ichen Engagement von Unternehmen. 10 The-sen zu "Corporate Cit izenship" in Deutschland. betr ifft: Bürgergesellschaft, Nr. 12. Koschützke, Albrecht (Hrsg.). Bonn. Fr ied-r ich-Ebert-St iftung. (The German Road to Corporate Social Responsibil i ty. 10 theses on Corporate Citizenship in Germany.Regarding: Civi l Society, No 12, Koschützke, Albrecht (pub.), Bonn.)

Habisch, A. (2003). Corporate Cit izenship. Gesellschaftl iches Engagement von Unternehmen in Deutschland. Berl in u.a.: Sprin-ger. (Corporate Citizenship. Corporate Community commitment by companies in Germany, inter alia Springer.)

Fabisch, N. (2004). Soziales Engagement von Banken. Entwicklung eines adaptiven und innovativen Konzeptansatzes im Sinnedes Corporate Cit izenships von Banken in Deutschland. München: Rainer Hampp. (Social Commitment by Banks. Develo-ping ideas for an adaptive and innovative concept concerning corporate cit izenship shown by banks in Germany.)

Bertelsmann Stiftung (Hrsg.) (2005). Die gesellschaftl iche Verantwortung von Unternehmen. Dokumentation der Ergebnisse einerUnternehmensbefragung der Bertelsmann Stiftung. Gütersloh. Verlag Bertelsmann-Stiftung. (Bertelsmann Foundation (Pub.)(2005) the Social Responsibil i ty of companies. Documenting the results of a corporate survey conducted by BertelsmannFoundation, Gütersloh. Bertelsmann Publishing.)

Init iative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Hrsg.) (2005). “Corporate Social Responsibi l i ty ” in Deutschland. Textmanuskript zu den Stu-dienergebnissen. www.insm.de (New Social Market Economy Init iative (Pub.) (2005) “Corporate Social Responsibil i ty inGermany ”. Full text version of the study results. www.insm.de.)

Zentrum für zivi lgesellschaftl iche Entwicklung (Hrsg.) (2007).Corporate Cit izenship/Unternehmerisches bürgerschaftl iches Engage-ment in Baden-Württemberg. Ergebnisse der repräsentativen Unternehmensstudie. Evangelische Fachhochschule. Freiburg.(Centre for civi l society development (Pub.) (2007) Corporate Citizenship /entrepreneurial civic involvement in BadenWürttemberg. Results of a representative business survey.

11

The sampling frame covered private commer-cial undertakings in Germany with an annualturnover of at least one mill ion Euros and a mini-mum of 20 staff. This approach was chosen deli-berately in order to include a wide range ofcompanies in the survey, thereby possibly high-l ight ing dif ferences between smal l, medium,and large companies.

Because the number of large businesses in Ger-many is proport ionally smaller than the numberof small and medium-sized enterprises, the sam-ples were taken to reflect this difference: com-panies with a minimum of 250 staff and an annu-al turnover of at least 50 mil l ion Euros were con-s idered above average. Th is d isproport ionalapproach makes it possible to evaluate large

companies as well, based on a statistically ade-quate number of cases and also to highl ightdist inctions between differently-s ized compa-nies. In the actual evaluation, this disproport io-nal e lement was removed by means of aweighting process; i.e. in the sample, large busi-nesses are weighted less than small and medi-um-sized companies, which receive a higherweighting factor. Businesses were selected ona random basis. The sampling frame was the“Fi rmendatenbank Deutschland ” (companydatabase Germany) of Hoppenstedt informati-on service. This director y l ists the most impor-tant companies from one mil l ion Euros turnoverand with at least 20 staff upwards. The 225,000businesses of the database in question repre-sent approximately eighty per cent of German

IV. Methodology Approach, Specifics of RandomSampling, Execution of the Survey

© C

CC

D 2

00

7

Source: Opinion poll on corporate cit izenship of companies in Germany

In percentage terms

Structural Data Businesses in Germany

Fig. 1: Businesses per number of staff, annual turnover, and sector of industr y in Germany

Number of employees Annual turnover in mill ions Sector of industry

< 50 staff

> 50 – 499 staff

> 500 staff

0,2 no statement

< 10 Mio. Euro annual turnover

> 10 up to 50 Mio. Euro annualturnover

> 50 Mio. Euro annual turnover

3,7 no statement

Services

Manufacturing sector

Construction sector

Other

Wholesalers

Retailers

62,4

33,5

3,964,1

25,9

6,4

36,726,4

14,7

10,67,24,5

real net output, meaning it is ver y comprehen-sive, so the results gained from it can by andlarge be applied to the all private businessesin Germany.

As far as the evaluation of the American survey“The State of Corporate Cit izenship in the US”(2005) is concerned, there are 1189 comple-ted polls of companies but, for evaluation pur-poses, i t is important to bear in mind that theauthors of the American study have a differentapproach to the Germans in the way they defi-ne company size. The definit ion for small com-panies is 99 staff, medium companies up to999 staff, and large companies over 1000 staff.In addit ion, the sales f igures for the US com-panies are given in US Dol lars rather than inEuros.

In Germany, board members or members ofcorporate PR departments were interviewed. As

part of the sur vey process, 58,3 per cent ofat tempted inter v iews had to be counted assystematic fai lures: 29,7 per cent refused totake part, in 28,6 per cent of the cases the tar-get person could not be interviewed in the requi-site t ime. The coverage rate of the sample was41,7 per cent. This coverage rate would be con-sidered fair ly good in telephone poll terms, andis signif icantly above the success rate of writ-ten surveys. Altogether, we obtained comple-ted interviews from 501 companies.

There is no consensus to date about a standardGerman translation of the Anglo-American term“corporate cit izenship” which is why the Englishterm appears to be becoming the usual wordused in politics, business, and academia. Despi-te this, i t cannot be assumed that ever yoneinterviewed is famil iar with the term. That is whyin the sur vey, the term (voluntar y) corporatecommunity commitment was used.

12

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Structural Data US Businesses

Fig. 2: Businesses per number of employees, annual turnover, and sector of industr y in the USA

Number of employees Annual turnover in mill ions Sector of industry

< 50 staff

> 50 – 499 staff

> 500 staff

2,0 no statement

< 10 Mio. $ annual turnover

> 10 bis 50 Mio. $ annual turnover

> 50 Mio. $ annual turnover

3,0 no statement

Services

Manufacturing sector

Construction sector

Other

Wholesalers

Retailers

5728

13

59

21

17

28,3

26,4

13,1

12,6

10,5 9,2

13

Given this background, a comprehensive intro-duction was used to assess whether a compa-ny had any involvement at al l in the communi-ty: on the one hand, init ial ly, corporate cit izen-ship was defined as “al l measures and activi-t ies the company in question employs to affectits social environment, thereby voluntari ly assu-ming social responsibi l i ty ”. On the other hand,the issue of whether a company shows activepublic commitment was analysed with the helpof a l ist of possible types of public commitment;in other words, i t was defined by way of con-crete activit ies.

Fol lowing the EU threshold values of 1st Janua-r y 2005, as well as the definit ion of the Inst itut

für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn (Bonn Inst i tutefor Medium-sized Enterprise Research), for rea-sons of better legibi l i ty of results, a dist inctionis made between5:

small businesses with up to 49 staff or lessthan 10 mil l ion Euros annual turnover,

medium-sized businesses with between 40and a maximum of 499 staff or an annualturnover of between 10 mil l ion to below 50mil l ion Euros,

large businesses with a minimum of 500 staffor 50 mil l ion Euros annual turnover

3 The term Corporate Cit izenship can be incorporated into a comprehensive debate on Corporate Social Responsibi l i ty (CSR) withthe two terms overlapping sl ightly even in l i terature. CSF also comprises improvements in staff working condit ions, whereas Corpo-rate Cit izenship focuses more on the socio-polit ical dimension l inked with community commitment by companies. Even termssuch as Corporate Responsibi l i ty, sustainabil i ty or tr iple bottom l ine are not truly helpful in drawing the dividing l ines; the interna-tional debate continues to rage. Compare Bradley Googins, Corporate Cit izenship: Lost in Translation, CCC News 07, June,www.bcccc.net.

4 The fol lowing types of commitment were included: Cash donations, gifts in kind, free of charge provision of services, free ofcharge permission to use company facil i t ies, equipment or premises, releasing staff members for community activit ies, support forstaff volunteering, cooperation with non-profit organisations, organisation of fundraisers and charity collections, establishment/fun-ding of a foundation, miscellaneous (an open categor y).The l ist of commitment types careful ly excludes the instrument of sponso-r ing, as this is seen as a strategic tool for image promotion, i.e. business practice, based on a contractual obligation the reci-pient of sponsoring has to fulf i l in return.

5 This organisation differs from the EU definit ion concerning dist inctions between medium and large-sized enterprises to theextent that the large business categor y is defined as having 500 and not 250 staff. This corresponds to the rule adopted by theBonn Inst itute for Medium and Large Enterprise Research. Both approaches use 50 mil l ion Euros annual turnover as the yardstickdefining a large business.

14

An unequivocal “ Yes” to Corporate Citizenship

The findings show that 96 per cent, or virtuallyall the German businesses surveyed, participa-te actively in some form of corporate cit izen-ship. Among businesses with at least 500 staffpart icipat ion is 100%. Even the commitmentlevel of small and medium-sized enterprises, thepredominant s ize of businesses in Germany ’scorporate landscape, is on a markedly high level.

Retail companies appear to consider corpora-te cit izenship as part icularly important. The factthat ever y one of the companies polled is inve-st ing in its social environment, is probably dueto the fact that, unl ike wholesalers for instance,retai lers are typically in direct contact with theirend consumers. Social commitment could con-tr ibute to improved customer contact throughtargeted measures tying the consumer to thecompany.

V. Empirical Findings from the German Survey andTransatlantic Comparison of Selected Issues

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Businesses with Corporate Citizenship

Fig. 3: Committed businesses, broken down into number of staff and sector of industr y

total

staff

up to 49

50 to 499

500 and more

sector

Manufacturing Sector

Construction Sector

Wholesalers

Retailers

Services

Other

95,6

95,2

95,8

100

97,0

97,3

97,2

100

93,4

96,2

50 100

Types of Corporate Citizenship Corporate Giv ing – refer r ing to donat ions ofmoney and in kind – is the preferred type ofcorporate cit izenship. Virtually ever y companyshowing social commitment uses this tradit io-nal type of commitment to support the com-mon good. Cash donations are the most fre-quent form, the type of commitment used by83 per cent of companies. Three out of f iverespondent undertakings make donations in kindor give products or goods to organisations orindividuals. In addit ion to which, one businessin f ive organises fundraisers or collections forcharitable purposes. Instances of companieschoosing to set up foundations are quite rare

by comparison, despite the current nationwideboom in new foundations, including corporatefoundations.

A modern form of donation has also evolved;with managerial staff and executives donatingtime and know-how, commonly grouped underthe buzzword corporate volunteering. The cor-porate volunteering tool, which the survey revea-led is being used in signif icantly more than halfthe companies analysed, can be employed indifferent ways. At least two aspects play a role:the f i rst covering support for those employees,who are already engaged in society at largeoutside working hours. Forty-eight per cent of

15


In percentage terms

Types and Tools

Fig. 4: Types and tools of corporate cit izenship

among others Cash donations

Donations in kind

Organise fundraisers and collections

Establishment and maintenance of foundations

among others Support for corporate volunteering

Release of staff for Corporate Cit izenship

among others Provision of services

Permission to use company facil i t ies,equipment, or rooms

19,7

32,3

41,3

31,4

47,0

2,6

50 100

Corporate Giving 91,0

3,8

47,9

Cooperation with non-profit par tners

© C

CC

D 2

00

7

54,1

60,5

59,7

83,4

Other types of commitment

Services free of charge

Corporate Volunteering

16

businesses support such types of civic involve-ment. The second aspect goes beyond accep-ting private staff engagement in the companyby allott ing working hours to this external civicengagement. Among the respondent compa-nies, 32 per cent release their employees forsuch activit ies, putt ing in t ime with the volunta-r y f ire brigade for example. Releasing employe-es for civic involvement can also mean usingsuch people for selected projects of a non-pro-f it type. What comes to mind are one-off acti-vit ies by al l members of the staff, or individualdepartments (so-cal led act iv i ty days, e.g. amanual work day), or s i t t ing in on classes orcourses for several days, or a longer-term len-ding of staff to serve charit ies in a managerialfunction.

Entrepreneur ial resources of a dif ferent k ind,involving neither cash nor people, can also beused, as is shown by at least 54 per cent ofbusinesses which make such corporate resour-ces as services (41 per cent) or infrastructure(e.g. premises and equipment) available to soci-al concerns free of charge (31 per cent).

Moreover, the companies surveyed frequentlyopt for corporate cit izenship in conjunction withnon-profit partners. Cooperation with charita-ble organisations is practised by 47 per cent ofthe businesses in the survey. As a rule, such apartnership with a non-profit organisation tack-les projects aimed at resolving social problems,bundl ing corporate resources and non-prof i tknow-how, which are then used jointly to achie-ve a specif ic objective.

Deploying Companies’ Material and HumanResources for Corporate Volunteering

A nuanced analysis of those businesses (48 percent) which state they promote community com-mitment by their staff, concluded as fol lows:

Eighty-one per cent of these businesses allowthe staff to use business resources ( i.e. PC,copier, company phone, company car) fortheir civic involvement.

Seventy-eight per cent of these businessesallow their staff to engage in civic involve-ment during working hours.

In addit ion to a company providing mate-r ial and human resources for civic engage-ment, one in four of these businesses alsomakes money available, by supplementingcash donations made by members of thestaff (matching funds).

Less than one in ten (9 per cent) of this groupof companies actively encourages employe-es to engage in civic involvement in certainprojects and areas.

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Cooperation with a Par tner

Fig. 5: Cooperation between businesses committed to the community and other organisations and inst itut ions

with partner

without partner

58,9 41,1

Preferred areas for Corporate Citizenship

In choosing areas for commitment, the busines-ses involved concentrate largely on “sports andleisure t ime”, primari ly through funding sportsand leisure t ime clubs. Other areas of commit-ment, namely “education and training” also playa role, as do “neighbourhood and communi-ty ”, or “social affairs”, which are also importantfor many of the companies part icipating in thesurvey. Adopting different policies, companiescommit in a variety of ways.

If cash or donations in kind are involved, themost frequently quoted recipient is the sportsand leisure t ime sector. The available datadoes not, however, al low conclusions to bedrawn concerning the scale of support givento this or other areas of involvement.

The foremost benefactor of Corporate Volun-teering is the area of “neighbourhood andcommunity ”, fol lowed by “sports and leisu-re t ime” and “social affairs”

The ranking of subject areas for cooperati-on with non-prof i t partner organisat ions isled by the sector “social affairs”, with “sportsand leisure t ime” in second place, fol lowedby “education and training”.

Al l in al l, companies presumably prefer thoseareas which can cont r ibute to creat ing anattractive environment for their business loca-tion. There appears to be a clear focus on crea-ting a well-functioning public l i fe with a workinginfrastructure, promoting the education of thelocal people and mitigating social problems inthe vicinity.

17

Involving par tners in Corporate Citizen-ship

Corporate cit izenship often occurs in the formof cooperation with other organisations and insti-tut ions. This f requently has the advantage ofproviding a local partner for concrete corpo-rate cit izenship projects who is famil iar with thepartnership between a company and a localpressure group, a k indergarten, a char i tableorganisation, or part of a local administration.

In such cases, businesses support the work ofthe external partner by using resources such ascash, gifts in kind or human resources, while thepartner provides know-how, competence, and

social networks to resolve a specif ic task in asustainable way.

The majority of the companies involved (59 percent) operate their corporate cit izenship acti-vit ies in conjunction with at least one partner,not necessari ly a non-profit organisation.

Whether o r not a par tnersh ip i s sought w i thanother organisation varies according to com-pany size. Three out of four medium-sized enter-pr ises, and four out of f ive large companies,declared having entered into partnerships fortheir corporate citizenship activit ies, while smal-le r companies on ly rare ly cooperate wi th apartner.

18

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Par tner Specification

Fig. 6: Partner specif ication

Local volunteer organisations (e.g. sports clubs)

Nurser y schools, schools, hospitals, etc.

Charitable organisations

Local authorit ies

Other businesses

Employers’ Organisations, Confederations of Industry

Churches

International Aid Organisations

Lobby groups

Government at county and regional level

Polit ical part ies

Trade Unions

Other partners

25

22

21

13

11

11

6

4

25 50

41

12

12

2

5

19

Approximately half the smaller businesses enga-ge in the community without having a coope-ration partner. The presumed reason is that smallcompanies often show their social commitmentby donat ing smal ler amounts and adopt ingmeasures which do not need the support of anexternal partner. Broken down into sectors, onlyretai l companies stand out by having at leastone partner in seventy-one per cent of thei rcommitment, al l the others are the averagelevel.

In principle, partners are not essential for cor-porate cit izenship; after al l, 41 per cent of busi-nesses have so far dispensed with this type ofcooperation. St i l l, i t could be argued that i r re-spective of company size, this implies a loss ofbenefit from valuable experience, together withpossible eff iciency increases for corporate cit i-zenship.

Scrut in i s ing the par tners of companies w i thcommuni ty commi tment in g reate r deta i lshows that local organisat ions such as clubsand loca l in i t ia t i ves come f i r s t. Among theundertak ings cooperat ing wi th a partner, 41per cent work with such types of voluntar y orga-

nisat ions as clubs, projects, and in i t iat ives.

On the fol lowing ranks are publ ic inst i tut ionssuch as education facil i t ies and hospitals (25per cent), national charitable organisations (22per cent), international aid organisations andlobby groups (11 per cent each) as well as chur-ches (12 per cent) are found.

On the other hand, businesses turn increasing-ly to governmental and polit ical bodies: at least21 percent cooperate wi th local author i tydepartments, 6 per cent with borough or regio-nal governments and 4 per cent with polit icalpart ies.

In this context, cooperation with industr y play-ers, specif ically other businesses (13 per cent),or employer organisations or trade unions enjoyrelatively high popularity (12 per cent).

The var iety of di f ferent cooperat ion partnersindicates that a considerable number of busi-nesses actively collaborate with representativesfrom the three sectors: state, market and, espe-cial ly, the tert iar y sector, when implementingcorporate cit izenship.

20

Corporate Citizenship with a clear localEmphasis

The great importance given to local volunteerassociations as cooperation partners, indicatesthat corporate cit izenship concentrates predo-minantly on a company ’s immediate vicinity.

Among the committed companies, three quar-ters state they operate within their region andin the local environment around their s ites. Bycontrast, companies rarely become involved ina national (15 per cent) or international con-text (14 per cent). Therefore, businesses tend tofocus primarily on an intact environment for theircompany HQ, or their production site/s. Givenhow important a functioning corporate environ-ment is for a successful business, this result doesnot come as a surprise.

Higher staff levels and higher sales also meana geographical extension of corporate cit izen-ship measures. At the same time, the kind ofcorporate cit izenship which reaches out to anational or even international arena emergesas an activity not left exclusively to medium andlarge-sized enterprises. After all, the social com-

mitment of almost one in ten small companiesexceeds the regional sphere.

The range covered by individual corporate cit i-zenship measures therefore hinges on the con-text in which the business concerned operates.Companies with a geographically l imited mar-ket and suppl iers, s taf f, customers etc. , a l lcoming from the immediate neighbourhood,also tend to l imit their engagement to this area.Assuming that large companies tend to opera-te on a national and global scale, the data sug-gest a geographical overlap between the envi-ronment in which a company conducts its busi-ness, where it also focuses its social commit-ment.

This assumption is supported by studying theextent of corporate cit izenship efforts in indivi-dual sectors of industr y: primari ly service-cen-tred businesses (17 per cent) and the proces-sing industr y (15 per cent) are running corpo-rate cit izenship programmes with an internatio-nal focus. Whereas the commitment of retai lersdeeply anchored in their local communities onlyrarely reach national (1 per cent) or even inter-national (5 per cent) level.

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Range of Corporate Citizenship

total

Local/ regional, in the vicinity of the business HQ 79,5 64,4 57,9

Local/ regional, in the vicinity of business sites 17,8 32,5 57,9

National 11,4 19,4 26,3

International 8,4 22,0 21,1

Fig. 7: Range of corporate cit izenship

73,8

14,5

13,6

▲ ▲ ▲

▲ Small enterprises ▲ Medium-sized enterprises ▲ Large-scale enterprises

24,3

21

Investment in Corporate Citizenship

Adding up the costs involved or investmentrequi red for corporate ci t i zenship measures,including project and HR costs, donations andPR expenses, yields a ver y diverse picture.

In 2005, 38 per cent of the companies with upto 49 employees spent less than 5,000 Euros oncorporate cit izenship. By contrast, 32 per centof companies with 500 or more staff invest morethan 100,000 Euros in this f ield.

Adding these f igures up shows that three quar-ters of businesses spend below 50,000 Euros.Small companies in part icular, but even medi-um-s ized ones too, ver y rare ly exceed the50,000 Euro limit. Thus far-reaching, large-scale,

and cost intensive corporate cit izenship mea-sures remain the province of big business. Invest-ments exceeding one mil l ion Euros are compa-ratively rare.

In this context, it is extraordinary how many busi-nesses did not answer this question or claimednot to know the amount spent on corporate cit i-zenship measures, because the overriding majo-r ity of those which did not provide informationabout the f inancial cost of their commitmentare large companies (5 per cent “no answer ”,26 per cent “don’t know”). The fact that a majo-r i ty of these proved unable even to est imatethe amounts involved either points to insuff i -cient control l ing of their civic engagement orindicates few such funds are available withinthe company in question.

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Amount in Euros for 2005

total

Up to 5,000 max 37,9 15,6 5,3

From 5,000 to 10,000 max 19,5 13,8 10,5

From 10,000 to 50,000 max 28,9 36,3 10,5

From 50,000 to 100,000 max 4,0 6,9 10,5

100,000 plus 1,7 12,5 31,6

no statement/don’t know 8,1 15,0 31,6

Fig. 8: Corporate cit izenship expenditure in 2005

29,1

17,2

30,5

5,2

6,5

11,5

▲ ▲ ▲


22

Corporate and Community Objectivesat the Focus of Commitment

The central issue for committed companies isan awareness of corporate ci t i zenship andefforts to create a “healthy ” environment aroundcommercial or production sites. Just about halfof businesses involved consider these objecti-ves important or ver y important. This means thatunequivocally society-related objectives are atthe focus of the corporate cit izenship efforts ofbusinesses, whereas st rategic considerat ionsrelating to the economic success of the com-pany play a less important role.

Yet there are also str ik ing differences in how thedifferent categories of businesses, dependingon their s ize, assess these objectives. After al l,

there are discrepancies, occasionally very largeones, between big business and other underta-kings. Large companies assess vi r tual ly ever yone of the objectives as more important thansmal l and medium-s ized operat ions do. Theobvious conclusion is that the concept of cor-porate cit izenship, an Anglo-American importafter al l, is recognised more clearly by largeGerman companies because thei r manage-ment is more famil iar with corporate cit izenshipand its terminology in terms of socio-polit icalissues.

As shown in figure 9, a proportionally larger num-ber of respondents rate society-related objec-tives highly for their business: 95 per cent citeapplied social responsibi l i ty as important; 74per cent consider maintaining and improvingthe local environment around the company site

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Objectives

total

Being aware of social responsibi l i ty 51,5 66,7 94,5

Maintaining and improving the environment at business HQ/sites

46,3 52,2 73,7

Improving own competit ive posit ion 24,9 22,7 21,1

Investing in society as a prerequisite for corporate economic success 20,5 23,8 47,3

Promoting corporate volunteering 22,5 22,2 16,7

Allowing society to part icipate in business suc-cess 17,8 28,9 27,8

Communicating on a polit ical level with lobbies and committed cit izens. 17,5 23,3 31,6

Improving the bottom l ine 12,9 8,7 20,0

Fig. 9: Corporate cit izenship objectives – top two findings (crit ical and high importance)

58,1

49,1

24,1

22,5

22,4

22,1

19,9

11,9

▲ ▲ ▲


Scale from 1 = critical, up to 5 = no impor tance

to be important, and 47 per cent believe cor-porate cit izenship a prerequisite for economicsuccess.

This is a relatively high result. But at the sametime it is clear that market and customer-rela-ted objectives are not the main focus, becau-se only 20 per cent of companies relate theirpublic involvement to improvements in the bot-tom l ine.

The picture which emerges of objectives being

pursued in a diffuse way becomes even moreclear when we relate this to comparable resultsfrom the 2005 survey “The State of corporatecit izenship in the US”. Data is available for threeof the objectives cited in i l lustration no. 9. Com-paring the top two results of US businesses withthose of German bus inesses on the issue of“maintaining and improving the envi ronmentaround a business or production location”, showsthat businesses on both s ides of the At lant icrate this question equally highly in relative terms(US 55 per cent, Germany 49 per cent). Str ik in-

23

© C

CC

D 2

00

7Source: Opinion poll on corporate cit izenship of companies in Germany

In percentage terms

Comparing Corporate Citizenship Objectives in Germany/the US

Fig. 10: Comparing corporate cit izenship objectives in Germany/the US

Importance of objective corporate cit izenship engage-ment within the business com-munity

How about...

... improving condit i-ons in your communi-ty

...supportingemployee volunteer-ism

...responding to community/ interestgroups regarding issu-es they care about

Not at al l important

Somewhat important

Important

Ver y Important

Crit ical

don’t know

Total478

1158*478

1158*478

1158*

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

0,7

18,0

9,5

8,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

34,5

25,0

45,3

37,0

9,6

12,0

0,0

0,0

7,1

26,0

22,7

22,0

39,6

29,0

25,5

20,0

4,3

2,0

6,3

37,0

26,5

22,0

41,8

21,0

21,8

15,0

3,4

5,0

*no statement 0,4 *no statement 0,9 *no statement 0,3

24

gly different is the fact that 18 per cent of Ger-man businesses but only 0,7 per cent of Ame-rican businesses state this objective bears norelation to their own corporate cit izenship acti-vit ies.

There is a similar result for “Pol it ical communi-cation with lobby groups and engaged citizens”.Here again, there is not much difference bet-ween the top two results (US 25 per cent, Ger-many 20 per cent). And a str ik ing feature in thiscontext is the number of German businesseswhich do not assess communication with sta-keholders having any importance (Germany 37per cent, US 6,3 per cent).

The same differences come up in the third areaof compar ison “Promot ion of s taf f volunteer

engagement ”. In Germany 22 per cent rate thisobjective highly and in the US the f igure is 30per cent rate. It is hardly surpris ing that this so-called “corporate volunteering” is not yet wide-ly known in Germany, what is surpris ing is thefact that 26 per cent of German companies,as opposed to just 7 per cent of US companies,consider this issue to be of no importance wha-tever.

Obviously, German companies st i l l have diff i-cult ies in consistently determining the objecti-ves l inked to their corporate cit izenship activi-t ies. Their perception of social responsibi l i ty alt-hough highly rated, does not yet fol low a stra-tegy of corporate and communi ty- focusedengagement together wi th a cor respondingcommunication concept.

25

Happening by Chance or Business Stra-tegy Planning of Corporate CitizenshipMeasures

Corporate Culture as Orientation

In more than three quarters of al l cases corpo-rate cit izenship is part of the way a companysees and defines itself. Just as many busines-ses take care to ensure that any outside sug-gestions for involvement in issues f i t the busi-ness, and that the business model plays a vitalrole in determining the planning and implemen-tation of societal stewardship activit ies, corpo-rate cit izenship in most German businesses canbe counted an integral part of the corporateculture.

At the same time, the data suggest that busi-

nesses as a whole tend to shape their involve-ment in a reactive way. The majority of respon-dent businesses only become involved in thecommunity when appropriate charitable or soci-al concerns are suggested from outside. The-refore, only a minority of 38 per cent is active-ly looking for a way to show societal steward-ship and invest in the common weal with con-cepts and projects init iated in-house. Havingcorporate cit izenship deeply anchored in cor-porate culture, while at the same time havinga more reactive approach to it, reveals a discre-pancy which does not match the clear strate-gic posit ioning of the idea of corporate cit izen-ship in the company. But here again, compa-ny size plays a role which should not be over-looked: the larger a business, the more strate-gic and active the planning and implementa-tion processes for corporate cit izenship appe-

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Strategic Approach to Corporate Citizenship

total

Corporate cit izenship is part of our self- image and weprovide money, working hours, gifts in kind especial lyfor this.

78,5 76,7 84,2

We take care that any request is f i t t ing for our compa-ny. 75,2 78,6 75,2

We fol low our company model in planning and imple-menting our social involvement. 64,1 74,4 84,2

We are, ourselves, actively looking for ways to com-mit. 33,3 42,1 63,2

Our community commitment fol lows clear, measura-ble targets. 33,2 27,7 31,6

There is a predetermined action plan for our commu-nity commitment. 11,4 14,5 21,1

We have evaluation tools for our commitment measu-res. 13,1 9,4 26,3

Fig. 11: Strategic anchoring of corporate cit izenship measures

78,2

77,2

68,5

37,5

31,5

12,9

▲ ▲ ▲


12,3

ar to be. Another f inding also comes into playin this context – large enterpr ises tend to putgreater emphasis on evaluat ion, i.e. employ-ing tools to evaluate corporate citizenship mea-sures.

Responsibility for Corporate Citizenship in theCompany

Responsibi l i ty for societal stewardship rests pri-mari ly with company executives. In larger busi-nesses, management and organisation of cor-porate cit izenship measures are also delega-ted to more than one person. As a rule, the cor-porate ci t i zenship theme is then part of the

responsibi l i ty of both the press and PR depart-ments, as well as being addressed as a cross-sectional task by a variety of other concernedareas. But it is rare to f ind a dedicated depart-ment for corporate cit izenship established wit-hin the company; though where such depart-ments do exist, they are not exclusively the pro-vince of large-scale businesses.

Corporate Citizenship no PR-tool

Among engaged businesses it is the large com-panies with large turnovers in part icular (89 percent) which make their corporate cit izenshipengagement clear to the public. Usually, this isdone via press notices and press reports (79 percent of large companies), v ia the companyhomepage (58 per cent) or via customer maga-zines (32 per cent), al l of which provide writteninformation about corporate citizenship. In addi-tion, all sorts of events are used to draw people’sattention to this engagement. Also, 21 per centof companies with high staff levels mention theircorporate cit izenship activit ies in their annualreports.

A mere 16 per cent of large-sized enterprisesuse their image as corporate cit izens in activeself-promotion in the print and electronic media.This means that only a t iny group of companiestie their community commitment in with promo-ting their marketing and sales activit ies. The factthe German public might take a rather scepti-cal view of a l ink between civic engagement

26

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Responsibil it ies

total

Owner/manager 93,6 86,9 65,0

Board 5,0 11,3 21,1

Press/PR department 3,7 10,0 31,6

No part icular responsibi l i ty/ever yone is responsi-ble 0,7 3,8 5,3

Cross-sectional unit from different departments 0,7 3,1 10,5

Special ly established department/body for cor-porate cit izenship 0,7 2,5 5,3

Other departments/staff 5,0 8,8 21,1

Fig. 12: Responsibi l i t ies for corporate cit izenship within the business

6,9

▲ ▲ ▲


90,2

1,9

1,9

1,5

7,7

6,9

27

and business self- interest, may explain this att i-tude. Companies have no wish to expose them-selves to complaints of having abused corpo-rate cit izenship as a PR tool, which might puttheir credibi l i ty at r isk. I t seems equally l ikely,though, that companies simply do not expectsuff icient benefit from extensive communicati-on of corporate cit izenship activit ies.

For small and medium-sized businesses corpo-rate cit izenship hardly appears to matter at al l

as a PR tool. Unl ike large companies, SMEs doexpend much effort on publicising their com-munity commitment. Half the small businessesand 43 per cent of medium-sized enterpriseseven state they do not report their activit ies inthe community at al l. The motto “do good andtalk about it ” therefore seems to apply muchmore to large-sized companies. They use diffe-rent ways in which to communicate their civicengagement and tr y to publicise this in a cre-dible and responsible manner.

28

Socio-political Attitudes of Companieswith Regard to Corporate Citizenship

The survey “The State of corporate cit izenshipin the U.S.” has prov ided comparat ive dataregarding the complex issue-related att itudeswhich companies have vis-à-vis corporate cit i-zenship, the effect of factors with both posit iveand negative influence, as well as a selectionof core areas for corporate cit izenship. In Ger-many, just 83 per cent of companies surveyedassumed that many companies have more cor-

porate ci t i zenship than is perceived by thepublic. Among the companies interviewed inthe US, 92 per cent agree with this statement.In Germany, the view is held predominantly bysmall and medium-sized companies, (83 percent each), in other words, by those which doleast to publicise their civic engagement, whe-reas in the US, mainly large businesses subscri-be to this opinion (98 per cent).

S imi lar v iews are expressed by German andAmerican businesses when asked whether cor-porate cit izenship should be regulated by the

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Attitudes

Fig. 13: Comparative f indings of socio-polit ical att i tudes, Top two findings (ful ly agree, agree)


Many companies do a great deal more for their communit ies than is talked about or known

83,0

91

83,2

90

73,6

98

Corporate cit izenship should be completely voluntar y - no laws / regulations should govern it

80,4

81

81,5

78

73,7

75

Many companies promote corporate cit izenship, but are not truly committed to it

64,1

49

69,2

48

66,7

42

Corporate cit izenship needs to be a priority for companies

61,6

77

57,7

87

66,7

98

The public has a r ight to expect good corporate cit izenship from companies

41,5

66

52,9

69

63,1

91

Corporate cit izenship makes a tangible contr ibutionto business' bottom l ine

40,7

61

40,1

65

42,1

84

82,8

92

▲ ▲ ▲total

D

USA

80,5

80

D

USA

66,2

47

D

USA

60,6

81

D

USA

46,1

69

D

USA

40,4

64

D

USA

Scale: from 1 = agree completely, to 5 = do not agree at all

state. On this, there is agreement across theborder: 81 per cent of German and 80 per centof American companies reject this. In Germa-ny, though, this opposit ion is clearly more pro-nounced (68 per cent of German businessesreject this total ly compared to 40 per cent ofUS businesses). This has to be considered againstthe backdrop of histor y, where in Germany thereis already an institutional system which has evol-ved over t ime, the social market economy,which inst i tut ionally integrates businesses intosociety at large; e.g. the dual vocational trai-ning system, sustainabil i ty strategies, or cl ima-te protection programmes. St i l l, businesses areinterested in being independent in select ingwhether and which type of corporate cit izen-ship practices to choose, and to use their resour-ces freely without restr ictions imposed by thestate. In both countr ies, i t is above all the smalland medium-sized enterpr ises which are theones to reject state intervention. In principle,the type and scale of corporate cit izenship issomething they believe should be decided ona voluntar y basis.

As far as questions of att i tude are concerned,clear dist inctions can be made between Ger-man and American companies, indicating howdeeply anchored corporate cit izenship is in theway American companies see themselves ascoming from the tradit ion of “welfare capita-l ism”. The postulated statement that society hasa r ight to expect companies to be societal ste-wards meets with the ful l or part ial approval of69 per cent of American businesses surveyed,with large-scale enterprises by far the ones mostin favour. Only 46 per cent of German busines-ses share this view but here, too, 63 per centof large-scale companies are in favour; putt ingthem clearly above the average. Just about 61per cent of the German companies asked con-sider societal stewardship a corporate priority,while in the US this amounts to as much as 81per cent.

German companies are far more self-cr i t icaland therefore also fair ly realist ic when asses-sing how well they implement corporate cit izen-ship in practice. 66 per cent of German respon-dents are of the opinion that civic engagementmay well be highly rated within the company,but is not implemented suff iciently well. 67 percent of large-scale businesses agreed with that.In the US, only 47 per cent of respondentsagreed.

The huge gap which exists in both countries con-cerning their assessment of a tangible contr i-bution of corporate cit izenship to business suc-cess is remarkable. The American response is agood 63 per cent, clearly above the Germanresponse by 23 per cent. I r respective of com-pany size, only about 40 percent of Germanbusinesses admitted to deriving a posit ive busi-ness effect from corporate cit izenship, where-as in the US, the response differs more clearlyaccording to company size. 84 per cent of Ame-rican large-scale businesses give a positive ans-wer. This last comparison in particular shows howdifferent companies see and define themsel-ves in this respect, which is the key point for cor-porate cit izenship on both sides of the Atlantic.

Positive Reinforcement Factors for Corpora-te Citizenship

When asked which factors reinforce corporatecit izenship, a similar picture emerges, indica-ting that corporate cit izenship is anchored to adifferent extent in the two countries ’ businesses.

Here again, there are clear differences betweenGermany and the US, regarding the att itudes ofsmall and medium-sized enterprises as well aslarge businesses. On average, 62 per cent ofal l German companies agree that corporatecit izenship f its in well with the tradit ion and thevalues of the company, but for large-scale busi-nesses the f igure is 83 per cent. About 73 per

29

cent of the American companies in the survey,and 91 per cent of large businesses, confirmthis reinforcing effect.

With regard to the second most important moti-vation for corporate cit izenship, image impro-vement, we notice similar differences concer-ning company size in Germany and the US. Onaverage, opportunit ies for image improvement

are an important factor for one German busi-ness out of two, with three quarters of large-scale business respondents making this clear.In the US too, image matters to 56 per cent ofal l companies, in part icular to 76 per cent oflarge businesses.

A major difference between American and Ger-man companies emerges when asking whether

30

Internal factors

I t f i ts our company tradit ions and values60,168

62,979

83,391

It improves our reputation/image45,854

54,457

73,776

It is part of our business strategy30,841

28,345

36,964

It helps to recruit and retain employees12,425

14,034

50,055

External factors

I t is expected in our community 36,720

38,224

70,050

It is important to our customers/consumers21,133

28,336

36,853

It responds to laws and polit ical pressures 3,714

1,212

5,318

In percentage terms

Factors of Positive Reinforcement of Corporate Citizenship

Fig. 14: Comparative f indings of factors with posit ive reinforcement on corporate cit izenship in Germany/USA Top two findings (ver y strong posit ive reinforcement effect, strong posit ive reinforcement effect)


total

Scale from 1 = very strong positive reinforcement effect, to 5 = no positive reinforcement effect at all

© C

CC

D 2

00

7

▲ ▲ ▲

61,8

73

D

USA

49,6

56

D

USA

44

D

USA

D

USA

38,3D

USA

D

USA

14,7

30

24

24,2

36

D 3,1

USA 14

30,1


i t should be taken for granted to exercise cor-porate cit izenship on the spot, as believed byabout 38 per cent of al l businesses and 70 percent of large companies in Germany. This putsGermany far ahead of US companies, whereonly 24 per cent agree, making this the second-to-last i tem in the US ranking of reinforcing fac-tors. Against the backdrop of previous f indingsregarding the anchoring of corporate cit izen-ship in American corporate culture, this is a sur-pris ing result, requir ing further research.

Another remarkable result is that in Germanyabout 30 per cent of total respondents andapproximately 37 per cent of large companiesregard corporate citizenship as part of their busi-ness strategy; whereas 44 per cent of total USrespondents directly l ink engagement and cor-porate strategy. A clear 64 per cent of Ameri-can companies with 500 staff or more link enga-gement and business strategy, which emphasi-ses the potential of what is sometimes seen as“soft ” factor corporate cit izenship as a factorin “hard” entrepreneurial strategy, especial ly ina US context. The extent of the difference bet-ween German and American businesses as towhether corporate cit izenship is, or is not, partof the business strategy becomes clear whencomparing the negative values on the rankingscale. While just 9 per cent of al l US companiesdo not recognize corporate cit izenship as partof their business strategy, among German com-panies the f igure is 32 per cent, i.e. this is theview of almost one German company in three;a remarkable f inding.

But the factor ‘attracting staff ’ also reveals majordifferences, when company size is taken intoaccount. For small and medium-sized enterpri-ses this factor has virtually no relevance (12 and14%), while it is a major issue for one out of twolarge businesses in Germany. More Americancompanies than German express agreement tothis factor. What matters to them even more,

however, is customer satisfaction (36%), whichclearly appears less important to German busi-nesses (24%). This also applies to large busines-ses.

What is most str ik ing about these two factors isthe negative importance German companiesass ign them. Thi r ty-nine per cent of Germancompanies compared with only 11 per cent ofAmerican undertakings do not see corporatecit izenship as a factor in customer satisfaction.And where attracting and retaining staff is con-cerned, as many as 48 per cent of Germancompanies do not consider corporate cit izen-ship has any relevance at al l, compared withjust 15 percent in the USA.

Both German and American businesses feel leastmotivated when reacting, or being obliged toreact, to legislative or polit ical intervention, alt-hough more US companies express agreementthan German. A mere 3 per cent of Germancompanies f ind that regulations act as posit i-ve reinforcement for their corporate cit izenshipactivit ies, which compares with just 14 per centof US companies.

Al l things considered, when assessing the pollresul ts of the large-scale bus inesses in bothcountr ies, i t is remarkable that the corporatecitizenship efforts of German and American busi-nesses are guided by company tradit ion andvalues, and that German companies are star-t ing to agree more with American companiesabout the result ing image gain. But they lag farbehind US businesses where the posit ive rein-forcement obtained through l ink ing businessstrategy and corporate cit izenship is concer-ned. Recognizing the benefits of social enga-gement for a posit ive current account balan-ce seems as yet to be insuff iciently well deve-loped among German companies. The under-rated or negated aspects of attracting and retai-ning staff appear to underl ine this fact.

31

Factors with a limiting Effect on CorporateCitizenship

When asked about which obstacles inf luence astronger corporate cit izenship, German and American companies agree. Fifty-four per cent of American and 48 per cent ofGerman companies name a lack of resourcesas the overr iding obstacle. Looking at compa-

ny size the reverse results are impressive. In theUS, this obstacle is cited ver y much by smallcompanies, less so by medium-sized compa-nies and even less by large-sized businesses. InGermany, it is exactly the other way round. Thelarger the business, the more a lack of resour-ces is seen as an obstacle to corporate cit izen-ship.

Why above-average financially strong large busi-nesses do not feel able to provide addit ionalresources requires further clar i f ication. In thisrespect, another result is of interest. There is aposit ive correlation between the lack of resour-ces as an obstacle and the frequently by largecompanies expressed view that civic involve-ment is not being implemented with the neces-sar y consistency. Many of the respondent large-

scale businesses seem to be well aware of thisdiscrepancy between general endorsement ofthe objective “awareness of social responsibi l i-ty ” and the real- l i fe activity of this type whichcompanies engage in. German large enterpri-ses are particularly well aware of a lack of resour-ces as an obstacle because there is a greatdivergence between the companies ’ activit ies

32


In percentage terms

Factors with a limiting Effect

Fig. 15: Comparatives f indings of factors with a l imit ing effect on corporate cit izenship Germany/USA Top Two findings (ver y strong l imit ing effect and ver y l imit ing effect)


total

Scale from1 = strongly l imiting effect, to 5 = no limiting effect at all

Lack of resources, e.g. t ime, staff, funds47,859

47,648

57,938

No signif icant benefit to the business7,113

13,213

10,58

Not sure what being a good "corporate cit izen"means

9,311

11,98

10,09

Not of real interest to our employees 8,018

7,218

2,02

Top management does not support i t6,49

9,012

10,59

Middle management does not support i t3,27

7,111

4,06

© C

CC

D 2

00

7

▲ ▲ ▲48,1

54

12,3

13

10,1

10

7,5

16

7,5

10

4,5

8

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

33

and the required value in the perception of cor-porate cit izenship, which is also reflected – toa somewhat lesser extent – in public involve-ment as part of the corporate self- image. Thismeans there is not so much a problem of att i-tude, more one of implementation. The assump-tion is that an integration of theor y and practi-ce in an evaluation context would cause moreresources to be provided.

Far less important is the second respectively.third ranking obstacle l isted, saying that civicengagement does not yield tangible economicbenefit. This argument is put forward by an ave-rage of 12 per cent of German and 13 per centof American companies. Regarding US compa-nies, this f inding is hardly surpris ing, becausewhen commenting on thei r att i tudes, 63 percent assume corporate cit izenship wil l contr i-bute demonstrably to their economic success,compared to just 40 per cent of German busi-nesses. At the opposite end of the scale, com-menting on their attitude vis-à-vis corporate citi-zenship, 42 per cent of German companies –as compared with just over 5 per cent of Ame-rican companies – state that corporate cit izen-ship wil l not wil l rather not make a contr ibutionto the economic success of a company. Thisrejection by the German companies could hard-ly be stronger. That is why it is amazing that thisview is not considered to be a l imit ing factorfor, or impediment to, civic engagement. Afterall, 71 per cent of German companies hold thatthis fact has no or ver y l i t t le adverse effect ontheir commitment.

In both countr ies only one company in ten citesa lack of understanding about how to achievecivic involvement as an obstacle to appropria-

te engagement. Looking at the argument thatcorporate cit izenship lacks relevance for theemployees does, however, reveal a major andvis ible difference between the two countr ies.This argument is advanced by 16 per cent ofAmerican, but by only just about 8 per cent ofGerman businesses. In both countries this is l imi-ted to small and medium-sized enterprises, whileit is virtually i r relevant for large businesses. Whatis amazing is how vehemently German compa-nies reject this factor as an obstacle. Fifty-eightper cent of German businesses do not recog-nize this as constitut ing any kind of obstacle fortheir commitment, compared with only 16 percent of US f i rms. Since German staff involve-ment in corporate cit izenship is st i l l clearly lag-ging behind that of the US, the assumption isthat the importance of employee volunteerismis simply not suff iciently recognized.

According to the information the respondentcompanies provided about themselves in boththe US and Germany, the factor which least limitsfurther commitment is insuff icient or inadequa-te support by top management (8 and 10 percent respectively) or middle management (4and 8 per cent respectively). On the contrar y,70 per cent of German respondents state thatlack of top or middle management support con-st i tutes no obstacle at al l. Against the back-ground of this self- image it can be concludedthat both groups provide strong support for com-munity commitment. This is another amazingresul t because in many meet ings wi th thoseresponsible for CC in German companies, therewere repeated complaints that it is the very lackof any managerial support which prevents dyna-mic corporate cit izenship from taking hold inthe company.

Issues and Areas for Corporate Citizen-ship

According to both German and US businessesin the survey, improvement in product safety,product quality and safety precautions for thestaff top the l ist of all preferred issues and areasof engagement. Four out of ten and five out often companies respectively make such state-ments. This is increasingly true for large-sizedbusinesses in both countr ies, where about sixout of ten say they are committed as mentio-ned above. Twenty-five and 23 per cent, of Ger-man and US companies respectively, show analmost similarly strong commitment to infrastruc-ture maintenance and improvement. Commit-ment in this area is i r respective of companysize.

There are three areas where differences bet-ween the two countr ies emerge: in Germanythe third of these is support for social and carefacil i t ies with on average 32 per cent, 41 percent among large businesses. By contrast thisissue ranks in the bottom section of the l ist ofprior it ies for an average of 14 per cent US com-panies. Though, conversely, American busines-ses are particularly keen on access to the healthsystem via health insurance, which is not anissue for German companies. On average threeUS f i rms out of ten commit in this area. Giventhe comparatively good health care system inGermany, only 15 per cent of German compa-nies do l ikewise. Disaster rel ief is another areawhere there are major differences; on average22 per cent of al l US companies are involved,among the large companies the f igure is ashigh as 48 per cent. Given the model state ofdisaster control in Germany, it is understanda-ble that only just about 12 per cent of al l Ger-man companies and 15 per cent of large-scalecompanies opt for this area of engagement.

Looking at engagement in academic educati-on and universit ies reveals differences between

large-scale companies and SMEs across natio-nal borders. In the US an average 25 per centof all companies and 51 per cent of large-scalecompanies commit to this area, compared to16 and 56 per cent respectively in Germany.This test i f ies to the ext raordinar y importancecompanies on both sides of the Atlantic giveto the promotion of university education.

A comparison between large-scale businessesreveals: US-American large businesses commitabove average, i.e. 39 per cent (US average:26%) to the environment, unl ike German com-panies, where 21 per cent show this type ofcommitment. Thirty-three per cent of large Ame-rican companies are involved in extending worldtrade, again an above average commitment,while German large businesses commit far lessin this sector, with only about 14 per cent whichcorresponds to the German average. In addi-t ion, enterprises from both countr ies, part icu-larly large-scale enterprises once again, differas far as their commitment for civic r ights andhuman rights is concerned. On average 7 percent of German f i rms answered accordingly,but 15 per cent of US ones. When comparinglarge businesses directly, the gap widens evenmore. Twenty-one per cent of American busi-nesses report their activit ies centre on this issue,as compared to only 3 per cent of large Ger-man ones. Smal l companies, amazingly, aremore active in this f ield.

Convergence in the commitment activit ies ofcompanies in both countr ies also occurs in avariety of different areas: both countr ies rateinvolvement in combating poverty, disease, ope-ning up alternative sources of energy or com-bating global cl imate change as low pr ior i tyareas. Bus inesses f rom both count r ies aremoving on a fair ly similar low level.

To sum up: German and American companiesare primarily committed in areas where a stronglink to their business interests can be presumed,

34

35

e.g. product quality assurance, safety and secu-r ity at the workplace and infrastructure invest-ment. It is certainly no coincidence that Ame-rican companies increasingly turn towards pro-viding access to the health system or to dis-aster rel ief, given the sadly insuff icient levels ofstate protect ion in both these f ields. In both

countr ies companies are also heavily commit-ted to education. It can be assumed that Ger-man companies react to the educational plightof their countr y in this way, and therefore com-mit to an area which is one of the core f ieldsof government responsibil ity and thus bears furt-her observation.


In percentage terms

Issues

Fig. 16: Comparative f indings on areas and issues involving corporate cit izenship Germany/ USA Top two findings (ver y strong and strong)


total

Scale from 1 = not at all, to 5 = very strong * there are no comparative data concerning these items

Employee safety measures *47,5

-52,4

-63,1

-

Improving the safety and eff iciency of products37,034

38,741

66,656

Helping to support dependent care30,312

35,716

40,026

Social integration of the disabled *24,8

-30,6

-26,4

-

Insuring infrastructure development23,323

26,424

31,622

Improving the environment21,523

19,523

22,239

Improving community college and higher education 9,619

24,432

57,951

Improving public health11,911

19,811

25,023

Developing alternative energy sources12,5

813,2

910,619

Il lness (e.g. AIDS, cancer) *9,7

-15,9

-27,8

-

Responding to disaster 10,016

14,426

10,548

Reducing poverty10,011

12,514

5,319

Helping to safeguard civi l or human rights7,415

7,711

3,021

Addressing global cl imate change5,15

5,43

10,615

Expending international trade2,911

6,616

15,033

© C

CC

D 2

00

7

▲ ▲ ▲49,7

38,4

38

32,6

14

26,8

24,4

23

20,8

26

16,4

25

14,9

12

13,0

10

12,6

11,8

22

10,8

13

7,2

15

5,3

6

4,8

14

D

USA

D

USA

D

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

USA

D

36

Investing in the Future of Corporate Citi-zenship

A majority of al l the companies which replied,more than 70 per cent overall, reports that theirfuture CC investment wil l stay roughly at currentlevels. This assessment by the businesses pol-led refers to both cash gifts and donations inkind and the use of own staff for communitycommitment.

This unequivocal result is either due to the expec-tat ion that avai lable resources for corporatecit izenship wil l remain l imited, or i t may indica-te an ongoing hes i tat ion, and inadequatelyand/or insuff iciently detailed assessment of there levance of corporate ci t i zenship and theopportunit ies it opens up.

In this context, i l lustration 17 indicates that thosecompanies which do not expect investments toremain at their present level tend, by and large,to incline towards investing more in corporateci t i zenship measures, especial ly in f inancialterms. While just 10 per cent of businesses beginto l imit thei r f inancial commitment, twice asmany expect to raise their budget for corpora-te cit izenship.

Amazingly, a large number of small and medi-um-sized businesses expect to increase theirfunds for civic involvement in the future. Large-scale bus inesses, by contrast, tend to focusmore on using gifts in kind for their commitmentefforts. Development potent ial for corporatevolunteer ing is recognized predominant ly,though with few genuine differences, by medi-um-sized enterprises.

© C

CC

D 2

00

7


In percentage terms

Future Investment in Corporate Citizenship

Fig. 17: Future investment into corporate cit izenship

Cash donations

Donations in kind

Corporate volunteering

25 50

9,6

19,4

8,2

11,6

9,0

11,8

0,8

1,8

1,6

75

increasing

unchanged

decreasing

don’t know

77,6

78,4

70,2

37

The survey of 500 German companies makesone thing ver y clear: German companies areaware of their social responsibi l i ty. They com-mit to society at large in a range of differentareas, using a wealth of measures and types ofact iv i ty, thei r commitment var y ing widely inintensi ty and durat ion. Social responsibi l i ty isdeeply embedded with in German corporateculture. Internal factors, such as relating theircommitment to corporate culture and tradit i-ons, play a more vital role than external fac-tors, such as customer expectation or even stateregulation and polit ical measures.

But the survey also shows ver y clearly that thereis st i l l a great deal of unexploited potential forGerman companies to face up to their socialresponsibi l i ty and use it inter al ia for the bene-f i t of the enterpr i se. Despi te 96 per cent ofrespondent companies reporting corporate citi-zenship activit ies, a closer look at their s ize andscale shows that in the main thei r act iv i ty isreact ive. That means they predominant lyrespond to applications; above all by providingmaterial or cash gifts, fol lowed by supportingstaff members for volunteer work and providingservices. Less than 40 per cent of respondentcompanies are actively looking for areas andissues, even fewer orient their engagement toachieve measurable targets. Th is reveals aneven greater potential for development. Inste-ad of reacting to requests, companies can assu-me an active role, developing their own ideas,concepts and perspectives which match theircore business, and thus al low a more targetedcooperation with external partners.

Most f i rms in Germany are sti l l far removed frommaking corporate cit izenship an essential partof their corporate strategy and communicati-on within an integrated concept. Only 40 percent of those polled recognise that communi-

ty commitment can have a direct impact oneconomic success, and only12 per cent of Ger-man businesses associate corporate cit izenshipwith the objective of improving the bottom l ine.This att i tude marks a vast gap when comparedto the answers given by the US companies sur-veyed, with 84 per cent of large enterprises rela-t ing corporate cit izenship to their business suc-cess in a posit ive vein. It is possible the statedUS belief in public involvement is at least par-t ial ly more in tune with entrepreneurial intereststhan is the case in Germany, because publicexpectations as well as those of potential cus-tomers have been factored in, so that businessrelevance becomes apparent. By contrast, neit-her the German public nor German customershave so far evinced any part icular expectati-ons of corporate citizenship. Thus German com-panies as a whole have as yet only developedrudimentar y ideas of a win-win strategy. But aprocess of rethinking can be expected, becau-se consumer focus on matters such as the sustai-nabil i ty of products and services as well as theintegration of corporate social per formance isincreasingly impacting decisions to purchase,even in Germany.

Social responsibility and economic performanceneed not be mutually exclusive, as the largerbusinesses in Germany in particular have begunto understand. They also adopt a more offen-sive approach to their engagement, in accor-dance with the motto “do good and talk aboutit ”. In this way they are taking the lead in brea-king the established pattern under which cor-porate ci t izenship is phi lanthropic behaviourand, best case, a decorative accessor y in suc-cessful business per formance. The occasional-ly voiced cr i t icism that publ ic involvement issimply a tool used to obtain legit imacy vis-à-vis an increasingly critical public, and as camou-flage for ever tougher business practices, fal ls

VI. Summary of Results

38

flat. The really offensively corporate cit izenship-focused businesses in particular can only enhan-ce their image if al l their business strategy iscredible and if there is no loss of trust. Ever ynew glossy report, ever y award given amid theglare of cameras, puts executives on the spotand makes them more accountable.

Most companies put their corporate cit izenshipcommitment in a context of cooperation withone or more partners. This means primari ly col-laborat ion wi th local volunteer organisat ions(clubs, projects, in i t iat ives). But other sectorscan also act as partners in community involve-ment, such as state (educational facil i t ies, e.g.nurser y schools and schools, adminis t rat ion,government at county and regional level), themarket (e.g. other companies), and the thirdsector (e.g. charit ies, international aid organi-sations). corporate cit izenship measures havea strong focus on the local environment of abusiness. A signif icant f inding concerns the factthat more than one German business in three(41 per cent), declines to cooperate with part-ners from other sectors in society. This wastesthe entrepreneurial eff iciency increase oppor-tunity which civic involvement could yield.

In general investment for community commit-ment amounts to sums which in Germany ave-raged less than 50,000 Euros per company in2005. Despite this, large-scale businesses doinvest signif icantly more than 100,000 Euros insocietal stewardship. Even given the fact thatindividual business investment clearly exceedsthe one mil l ion Euro l imit, the funds committedto corporate cit izenship clearly do not correla-

te to the overall profit development of the com-panies - another indicator that corporate cit i-zenship is not seen to be a calculated part ofthe business activit ies.

Looking at the l ist of prior it ies in terms of areasand issues for engagement shows that theseare relatively close to “hard” business interests,both in Germany and the US. While it would bepremature to apply the motto “ the more com-munity commitment benefits genuine businessinterests, the better ”, one can observe a gene-ral trend in this direction. Lasting corporate invol-vement wil l happen only if and when corpora-te cit izenship can be made a “business case”.Such corporate commitment is more urgentlyneeded than ever before, in the face of majorsocial challenges accompanied by increasing-ly l imited f inancial room for manoeuvre on thepart of the state. Perhaps pol i t ical ly- inducedcommunication can help overcome the gapbetween the posit ive att itudes towards corpo-rate cit izenship held by German companies,and the things they actual ly do. On the onehand, the funds available and the way in whichthese resources are employed for communitycommitment are rather modest, whi le on theother hand large businesses in part icular reportver y posi t ive balance sheet results – makingoptimisation of commitment desirable, last butnot least to close the credibi l i ty gap whichthreatens to loom large. This gap might grow ifthe corporate cit izenship claims, and the self-image propagated by businesses, correspondless and less with the everyday business of enter-prises, and with the means and rules of theircorporate cit izenship programmes.

PublisherCCCD – Centrum für Corporate Cit izenship Deutschland e.V.Kollwitzstraße 7310435 Berl inwww.cccdeutschland.org

Author Dr. Frank W. HeubergerMember of the Executive Board of the [email protected]

DesignNepenthes Digital Media Serviceswww.nepenthes.biz

Berl in, 2007

This survey was produced with the kind support of forsa. Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und statist ische AnalysenmbH (Society for Social Research and Statist ical Analysis), Deutsche BP AG, and UPS

Date post:	09-May-2015
Category:	Business
Upload:	guest278cf3f
View:	926 times
Download:	0 times