Governance Strategy in Corporate

Social Responsibility:
Relational Approach and European
Governments
Laura Albareda, Josep M. Lozano
and TamykoYsa

CSR PAPER 29.2007

DECEMBER 2007
CSRM Corporate Social Responsibility and
Sustainable Management

Laura Albareda, Josep M. Lozano and Tamyko Ysa, Institute for Social Innovation
ESADE Business School (University Ramon Llull-URL)

This paper can be downloaded without charge at:

The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Series Index:

http://www.feem.it/Feem/Pub/Publications/CSRPapers/default.htm

The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the position of
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei
Corso Magenta, 63, 20123 Milano (I), web site: www.feem.it, e-mail: working.papers@feem.it
The special issue on Corporate Social Responsibility Papers: The potential to contribute to the
implementation and integration of EU strategies (CORE) collects a selection of papers presented at
the Marie Curie Conference CORE organised by FEEM.
The CORE conferences Series addresses the question of the goals achievement of the EU strategies.
The main EU strategies (Lisbon, Sustainability, Integration) can be successful if their
implementation involves adequately and effectively the business sector, non-profit partnerships and
networks, local communities and civil society. In this setting CSR holds the potential to stimulate
corporate contributions to the implementation and integration of the mentioned EU strategies and
can be tested as a policy tool.
This batch of papers has been presented at the second Core Conference: The potential of CSR to
support the implementation of the EU Sustainability Strategy.
CORE is financed by the European Commission, Sixth Framework Programme and it is co-
ordinated by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
Further information is available at www.core-project.net

Conferences:

The potential of CSR to support the implementation of the EU Lisbon Strategy

Milan, June 22-23, 2006
The potential of CSR to support the implementation of the EU Sustainability Strategy
Milan, June 14-15 , 2007
The potential of CSR to drive integration in an enlarged Europe
Nottingham, June19-20, 2008
The potential of CSR to support the integration of core EU strategies
Darmstadt, 15-16, 2009

Partners of the CORE network:

Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milano, Italy

Oeko Institut, Freiburg , Berlin, Darmstadt, Germany
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Governance Strategy in Corporate Social Responsibility: Relational
Approach and European Governments

Summary
The paper starts a conversation in the literature about the challenge of interweaving
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and governance, which helps explain the changing
role of government in advanced democracies faced with wicked issues. In recent years,
CSR has become a priority issue on government and international agency agendas. This
empirical research report, provides explanatory keys on how governments, and more
specifically the EU-15 countries, have designed and implemented their CSR policies
and which type of interactions have developed with the different stakeholders. We
analyse and map how, under the umbrella term of governance, the stakeholders in CSR
public policy interrelate. A four ideal typology is built up, concerning the roles played
by public and private actors, legal frameworks, incentives, governance structures and
the ways all of these evolve. The findings can help establish a starting point for dialogue
which involves the business community, universities, government agencies and
consumer groups about their future development in decision making on these policies.
CSR governments strategy may be of various kinds: The kind of CSR policy employed
affects how the relationship between public and private actors is managed. Those who
set policies, whether for public or private institutions, may find some important lessons
in these relational approaches.

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Governance, Public policies, Public-

Private Partnership, Welfare state

JEL classification: M14

Address for correspondence:

Laura Albareda
Institute for Social Innovation
ESADE Business School (University Ramon Llull-URL)
Barcelona, Spain
E-mail: laura.albareda@esade.edu
 3

GOVERNANCE STRATEGY IN CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN EUROPE

THE SO WHAT OF THE ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES IN

CSR
The purpose of this paper1 is to analyze differences in the approaches
adopted by European government policies in the light of their ideals and four
different models of government action are put forward. Our proposals
theoretical coherence stems from the fact that CSR is not a new and isolated
item for inclusion on the political agenda. On the contrary, it forms part of the
current debate on the role of companies in society, clearly shaping the current
challenges to the welfare state and its governance, and the socio-economic
development of each country. This initial hypothesis has been given a relational
reading, which emphasizes the strategy of dialogue and collaboration between
company, government and the organs of civil society.
Today, CSR is already present on the political agendas. Governments
have become CSR enablers or drivers. Supporting business efforts, in the mid-
late 1990s, some pioneer governments, such as those in Denmark, the UK and
Australia, began to promote CSR through their policies and programmes. At the
beginning of this century, those initiatives merged with actions developed by
different international organizations, like the UN Global Compact or the
European Commission, which began to promote and to endorse CSR,
recognizing public policies as a key driver to encourage a greater sense of
CSR.
An important social challenge facing all these governments is to provide
a response to the new role of companies in economic development, with the
social and environmental problems this entails. Furthermore, the European
Commission expects the national CSR policies to tie in with both community
policies and international codes and standards. Many European governments
have started to develop and design actions and policies based on and around
CSR. In general, they have preferred not to introduce compulsory CSR policies
as such. Instead, they have chosen to work towards the furthering and
facilitating of CSR, developing common standards and information practices on
 4

the subject, together with spaces for dialogue and partnership. The role of
governments and public administrations in this process is both fundamental and
irreplaceable. As Aaronson and Reeves (2002b) recalled, these policies can
contribute to greater clarity and awareness when examining the large number of
voluntary approaches taken by the corporate sector over recent years.
The concept of CSR is linked to problems raised by economic
globalization and its affect on challenges, the so-called wicked issues, including:
crisis and change in the welfare state (Midttun, 2004); new forms of governance
(Moon, 2002, 2004); society, corporate and government relationships (Gribben
et al., 2001); and, new corporate imperatives and new social demands (Zadek,
2001b). This approach postulates that the social governance of our
interdependent world requires a series of developments. It requires a new vision
of how companies contribute to society, a new relationship between political
and corporate actors, and the ability to reach a shared diagnosis and
perspective on the main challenges to our companies, which will enable us to
contextualize that vision and that relationship.
As Rome has pointed out (2005), every country's approach to CSR
encapsulates a series of different elements: political and institutional structure;
political style and processes; social structure; emphasis on a voluntary
approach or acceptance of state guidelines and control; local and national views
of the role of companies; the role and posture of NGOs and civil associations in
society; the kind of educational system and the values it transmits; what is
expected of their leaders; and historical traditions. All this means that
companies and countries must be increasingly aware of the need to formulate
their own approach to CSR. CSR does not now simply affect relationships
between company and society. It has become a way of rethinking the role of
companies in society, which takes governance and sustainability as its core
values.
To represent the thinking on what governments can do to drive CSR as a
dilemma about the pros and cons of legislation is to take an essentially
impoverished and sterile line. Legislation is only one element out of many, and
in a large number of cases not even the most useful or important. What is
required is an overall political framework. We should be asking what needs to
 5

be done to promote and encourage increasingly responsible and sustainable

companies and organizations. Does a discourse on CSR based on political
institutions make sense? It does. Particularly if we take as reference for any
discussion the two key words appearing in the subtitles of the European
Commission documents: promotion (from the perspective of political
institutions), and contribution (by the corporate sector). This directly links a
commitment to CSR with a commitment to corporate excellence, quality,
continuous improvement, innovation, differentiation, competitiveness and
internationalization. This is something neither companies nor governments can
achieve on their own. On the contrary, success will only come from a growing
capacity to bring their individual institutional expertise to bear in a joint approach
to the development of CSR.
The governance of our complex societies will be impossible if we cannot
turn the sense of responsibility of their many stakeholders into a sense of co-
responsibility. This is where the recognition of the political dimension of CSR
development comes in. Because the issue of CSR and the role of the company
in society do not require companies to stop being companies, or to take on
functions to which they are not suited (or for which they have no legal remit). It
simply asks them to be fully and wholly companies, but twenty-first century
companies. Indeed, as Frederick indicates (2006: 121) corporations are being
offered an opportunity to match their own operation to these public
expectations. The best ones will do so. The others may wish they had if, in
failing to heed the normative messages, they encounter rising hostility and
increased governmental intervention in their affairs. For public policy makers,
these agreements betoken a growing consensus among the worlds peoples
over what is thought to be morally desirable action by governments.
In relational approaches, the development of cross-sector proposals
(dialogues, partnerships and networks) is one of the objectives of CSRs role of
promoting government. From here on, the paper is structured as follows. First,
we present the development of the literature review of the roles played by
governments in promoting CSR. Secondly, we introduce the methodology
developed to build an analytical framework based on governance theories.
 6

Thirdly, we describe the four government CSR approach models based on the
behaviour of EU-15 countries.

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN STIMULATING CORPORATE

RESPONSIBILITY
The first documents to introduce the debate on governments CSR role
date from the last few decades of the 20th century. Most of these texts put
forward the need for governments to actively promote CSR as a response to the
social and environmental problems caused by corporate action within a
globalized economic context. Another aspect considered in the understanding
of CSR public polices was the soft policy approach introduced by Joseph
(2003). Most CSR policies do not affect regulations but constitute an approach
to law politics in which the role of government is viewed as collaborative and
facilitating through the use of soft tools and means always in collaboration with
the private sector.
Relevant documents that incorporate governments vision, with particular
emphasis being placed on Europe, include the official documents on CSR
published by the European Commission: the Green Paper Promoting a
European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (European
Commission, 2001) and Communication: Corporate Social Responsibility: A
Business contribution to sustainable development (European Commission,
2002). Combined, these two documents provide the keys to understanding a
global perspective on the role of public authorities in CSR development, as well
as an insight into the public initiatives governments can undertake. The
European Commission holds that the action of European governments should
be: (i) to improve CSR knowledge; (ii) to facilitate the exchange of experiences
and good practices, increasing knowledge about the impact of CSR on business
and society; (iii) to develop CSR experience and good practice exchanges
among businesses and societies; (iv) to develop CSR management skills; (v) to
foster CSR among SMEs; (vi) to promote convergence and transparency in
CSR practices and tools; (vii) to launch multi-stakeholder CSR forums, and (viii)
to integrate CSR in public policies (European Commission, 2002).
 7

Apart from these Commission documents, other key materials included

the responses submitted by European governments to the public debate arising
from the Green Paper in 2001. These showed how each government viewed
CSR in relation to other stakeholders and laid out their programmes for action.
An initial compilation on the practices carried out by governments can be found
in a conference document that the Italian government prepared indicating how
European governments described their public action on CSR (European
Conference on Corporate Social Responsibility. The role of Public Policies in
promoting CSR, Venice, 14th November 2003).
Pioneering research on the analysis of the roles adopted by
governments in CSR promotion includes the World Banks report on Public
Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: A Baseline
Study (Fox et al, 2002), which puts forward four public sector roles:
mandating, facilitating, partnering and endorsing (view table Public sector
roles). Furthermore, it constructs and develops a significant matrix of possible
activities for the public sector to play in each role, depending on the aspect of
CSR being dealt with.
Amongst research based on geographical comparative analysis of
government behaviours in European and North American administrations, the
work of Aaronson and Reeves (2002a and 2002b) and the comparative report
Government and Corporate Social Responsibility (CBSR, 2001) shed some light
on the relevance of cultural differences and elements in the development of
national CSR models. Aaronson and Reeves (2002a) analyze the differences
between Europes acceptance of the role of government in promoting CSR and
the less accepting US attitude in this regard. One of the key points in European
governments is how well they cooperate with the business sector. Conversely,
American companies display a poor level of acceptance of CSR in public
policies. They argue that the difference resides in their respective business
cultures.
Along these lines, Moon (2004) analyzes the CSR policy adopted by the
British government when he suggests that it assumed CSR policies in response
to a crisis in social governance and legitimacy affecting the country. Midttun
(2004) views the development of CSR within the context of changes in the
 8

welfare state, based on a comparative analysis of three models. Gribben et al.

(2001) presents the role of governments in the creation of new models of social
partnership to resolve social problems, coordinating with companies, social
organizations and local governments. Guarini & Nidasio (2003) also analyze the
role of CSR in public-private partnerships as models of governance. Bendell &
Kearins (2004) refer to the political dimension of CSR and its application to
company administration and management to meet the demands of society.
Lepoutre et al. (2004) also present a review of the roles of governments
in the CSR debate. Their analysis reviews the strategic roles to be played by
governments managing institutional uncertainty (activate, orchestrate and
modulate) and present common tools for public action managing strategic
uncertainty (public information campaigns, organizational reporting, labelling,
contracts, agreements and incentives). And Nidasio (2004) focuses on
comparing the framework models for reporting developed by four European
governments: Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and France. Today, theories on
CSR frequently include a global overview of its contribution to governance.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ANALYSIS MODEL. A BOTTOM-UP

APPROACH: FROM PROGRAMMES TO POLICIES.
This paper departs from the assumption that planning and implementing
public policies on CSR now goes beyond the traditional relationship of
government action (public administrations) with the private sector (companies).
It includes all the social actors: public sector, private sector, society, and most
importantly the intersections between these, in relational collaboratives. For a
broader and less dualist view on the issue, we worked from a relational model
proposed by Mendoza (1991, 1996). Mendozas analytical model focuses
particularly on the interrelation, collaboration and partnership between the
different actors: companies, governments and society.
This means that CR public policies cannot simply be analyzed in the light of
relationships between governments and business sectors. Added value lies in
exploring the intersections between public and private sectors (including for-
profit and non-profit sectors) and in broadening the areas surrounding the
boundaries between these three sectors. This triangulation approach is adopted
 9

in the research framework for analyzing CR public policies and allows us to

gain a complete vision of possible models and impacts. The relational focus is
thus applied to public policies, classifying administration policies, programmes
and actions by means of the following scheme2 (see figure: Relational model
for CR public policy analysis):

Insert figure 1

Administration-administration
In this classification, we have included public administrations, including the
Commission, that integrate CR principles into their own management systems
and their relationships with stakeholders. Especially noteworthy is the public
policy adopted by the administration as regards its own CR: the idea of
generating leadership through internal CR policies. This could involve engaging
socially responsible companies for good and service supply, adopting internal
CR policies (gender equality and no discrimination) or environmental policies,
as well as applying CR in foreign and trading policies as well as in development
co-operation.

Administration-company
Governments (or their respective agencies) can adopt different policies that
have a direct or indirect influence on company activity and development. These
include labour and social policies, company and economic policies, fiscal and
funding policies, educational and training policies, as well as policies relating to
agriculture, fishing and rural development. We would like to highlight the
following CR public policies adopted by the administration: the promotion of
consistence and transparency in CR practices and instruments adopted by
companies (management norms, codes of conduct, accountability, audits,
reports, fair trade labels, social labels, socially responsible investments, etc.), in
 10

addition to fostering CR experience and best practice exchanges among

companies.

Administration-society
Under this heading, we include governmental activities aimed at society and
favouring CR, such as carrying out campaigns and actions that reveal CRs
positive impact on society, supporting civil societys initiatives intended to
promote CR, informing and educating social actors about CR, and establishing
programmes to interrelate stakeholders.

Administration-company and society or relational CR

This is the most innovative action framework the CR field as well as the least
studied one. It features the public policies or programmes that involve working
in cross-sector partnerships to promote or develop CR, the creation of forums
and areas for CR experience and best practice exchanges, the establishment of
independent institutions for analysing, developing and applying CR, and the
promotion of consistence and transparency in CR practices and instruments.

Three different levels of government action on CSR were analysed, with each
level incorporating the earlier one. The initial analysis dealt with the issues and
instruments used by governments in their initiatives for promoting CSR. This
involved researching each country and building a database on the issues,
policies and instruments applied by governments in promoting CSR. The
second level consisted of looking at stakeholders and contexts. This
perspective considered the relationships between the actors involved, and any
interrelationships and co-responsibilities created. It required a study of the
environment, cultural context and socioeconomic tradition of the country in
which the government framework for CSR had evolved. Thirdly, for a more
systematic and dynamic analysis, the research also covered strategic and
relational aspects, the models for the conception and development of the CSR
discourse and the design of public policies. By combining these data, the
following comprehensive map was created (see figure: Implemented public
policies, programmes and actions promoting CSR) about the actions that UE-
 11

15 governments are implementing in their CSR promotion policies.

Undoubtedly, these policies, programmes and projects are going to become
increasingly sophisticated as the different actors mature and assess their
projects

Insert figure 2

.The application of the relational model to public policies on CSR gave an

overview of government action, taking into account both actors involved and
their contexts: profiles and models for action adopted by the governments;
public programmes and policies; discourses compiled by governments on the
CSR concept, including the dissemination, means and organizations used; and
the incorporation of CSR into the organizational structure. How CSR policy was
assimilated into government structures and public policies was analyzed
examining the following elements in the construction of CSR strategies and their
implementation:
National public policy on CSR: vision, mission and objectives; how the policy
is named within the country, the origin of the political discourse, the
chronological evolution of the policy-making, the localization of the
discourse and the policy.
Government departments assuming liabilities on CSR policies.
Institutional and relational support from existing international agreements on
CSR: Conventions of the ILO, OECD guidelines for multinational
companies, United Nations Global Compact, participation in
international bodies on CSR issues.
Regulation in its diverse forms. Positioning in the relationship between
voluntary action and legislation.
 12

Organizational structure for CSR policies: centralized/decentralized,

transversal/sectoral, multi-stakeholder. Creation of new entities.
And finally: significant actors in the process, turning points and objectives,
environment (socioeconomic, political and cultural context,
administrative tradition).

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY KEY VARIABLES IN A

RELATIONAL APPROACH
Based on the revision of CSR, political science and public management
literature, and a previous initial analysis of three countries, the following key
variables were selected, which explain the actions of governments that allow to
draw a comparison between the different countries.
In the first block CSR in Government ten variables were analyzed (for
each of the variables several examples are highlighted of the programmes and
policies included. However, this is only a sample and not an exhaustive list):
1. Leadership by example: with the presence of the administration in an area
traditionally considered the monopoly of business, the referent of the
example is key. It is included in these variables: action plan for government
offices; work-life balance policies/equal opportunities/ethical investment/anti-
fraud and corruption policies; and accreditation for good employer practices.
2. Creation of internal departments. The public administration sometimes
conveys the relevance and hierarchy of its policies through the constitution
of structures. Other examples considered include: the creation of knowledge
centres; the creation of monitoring organizations and control systems.
3. Coordinating government bodies. With the creation of departments when
dealing with these wicked issues this is not sufficient. In order to achieve the
maximum number of possible outcomes, a cross-cutting collaboration
between the different departments is necessary. This includes: a CSR
minister responsible for coordinating activities; cross-government CSR
programmes; and CSR feasibility studies for new legislation.
4. Capacity building. The integration of new policies requires the generation of
knowledge, as well as training to match the profile of public workers to the
new requirements. In this variable, are included actions such as: the funding
 13

for research and innovation programmes; financial assistance for

companies implementing CSR programmes; the publication of guidelines
and good practice documents.
5. Public expenditure. Policies cannot be sustainable without the specific
allocation of resources or them being linking to hot issues in policies. Thus, it
is necessary to analyze whether the following are applied: social and
environmental criteria in supplier policies; ethical purchasing and
outsourcing; CSR policies for public contracts.
6. Public campaigns. Linked to the generation of knowledge and training is the
diffusion of this information: the promotion of the positive impact of CSR on
business and society; public opinion polls; CSR awards, communication
campaigns and media influence are also analyzed.

Within this section international issues are of particular importance, due to the
influence they can have on accelerating national internal processes. Thus, three
variables analyzed are connected with this:
7. International events. Is the government carrying out activities in which to
share good practices, which also facilitate benchmarking? The following
events are included here: organization of international conferences on CSR;
European Commission events; or European conferences on CSR.
8. Transferring international debate to local contexts. Regionalization
processes and local autonomy make it necessary for national governments
to attain sufficient multilevel management if they want to make an impact.
The following are analyzed here: agreements between national and local
government; seminars on geographic or thematic areas; and the
consideration of regional and local policies.
9. International instruments and agreements. We consider this to be a key
variable because it measures the transposition in accordance with
international regulations, that governments are introducing. This includes:
the promotion of global regulatory frameworks; the development of
international certification systems; the creation of evaluation and certification
bodies.
 14

10. Foreign trade policy and international development. The greatest amount
of maturity in public CSR policies is the power to agree with the companies
that are going to develop behaviour similar to that carried out in their own
country in third-party countries. This includes: CSR integrated into foreign
affairs policies for international markets and international development; the
promotion of good CSR practice in overseas operations (human rights,
labour standards, anti-corruption, environment etc); CSR linked to foreign
investment policy and international relations.
To this end, the profiles and action models adopted by European
governments were analyzed3; public actions identified and the speeches made
by government officials on CSR examined by (a) studying how they were
broadcast as well as measures and organizations used, and (b) analyzing how
CSR had been introduced to governmental structure.
This information was grouped by country and incorporated in specific
reports made by each country analyzed4. In order to have a comparative
analysis of public policies and the corresponding programmes for the
development of CSR we match the available information on the profile of each
country with the relational model applied to public policies on CSR. From this
perspective, the thematic and instrumental approaches are fully integrated in a
strategic-relational approach. We then asked ourselves whether any of these
elements define models for action.
And we defend an affirmative answer to this question. Thanks to the
literature review and field work, we have been able to cluster the characteristics
of the different countries variables into clusters, using the criteria mentioned
above: government CSR public policy (vision, objectives, strategies and
priorities), internal government CSR structure (position of political figure,
organizational structure, centralized or decentralized), CSR responsibilities at
different levels of government (cross-cutting policies, regional/decentralized
government, local government), the scope of CSR policy (domestic versus
international), and the role of other organizations, and finally the context of the
environment (socioeconomic, political tradition). This clustering led to the
following results.
 15

EUROPEAN MODELS OF PUBLIC POLICY GOVERNANCE FOSTERING

CSR
Applying this relational and strategic approach, the analysis concludes
with the identification among the EU-15 countries of four models for government
action in the development of public policies promoting CSR. As a result, a
denomination is suggested that offers a key for interpreting each model,
indicating its dominant, but not exclusive, perspective.

Insert table 1

The partnership model, applied by countries in Northern Europe in their

approach to public policies on CSR. Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands
and Sweden. In these countries, with their strong welfare state tradition,
governments have shifted from acting as a strong welfare state, taking
responsibility for social issues, to a facilitative role, sharing the increasing
costs of addressing social issues with private and public partners.
Countries whose tradition historically favours social negotiation, where
relationships between government and companies is positive, based on
aspects of cooperation. Public policies on CSR are considered to fall
within the area of social and employment issues. Local governments are
heavily involved in channelling the formation of partnerships that
encourage the concept of social co-responsibility between
administrations, companies and social organizations. As Kjaer (2003)
has already suggested for partnership models, on CSR issues we feel
that the Netherlands is closer to the Nordic than the continental model.
The business in the community, applied to the Anglo-Saxon countries
and their way of applying public policies on CSR. The United Kingdom
and Ireland. These two countries base their policies on a consolidated
and well-organized private sector and civil society. Their government
action is therefore conceived as facilitating or mediating, a more liberal
 16

and less normative view of the role of the state. Government actions
on CSR are focussed on supporting the private sector and facilitating
economic and sustainable development and economic regeneration in
support of the private sector. Soft Invervention policies to encourage
companies involvement in governance challenges is one of the main
focus of CSR public policies. These countries pursue the solution of
social problems like unemployment and social exclusion through CSR
policies where companies are involved. This is the result of a crisis in
governance, where governments attempt to promote spaces for
corporate action. Centralized policies linked to local authorities.
Government has based its application of CSR on soft law.

The Sustainability and citizenship model. applied by continental

countries as Germany, Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg. A very special
social context, combining economic crisis with the political challenge of
reform of the welfare state. Although initially placing greater emphasis on
sustainability. it seems as an updated version the the existing social
agreement and government focuses CSR on the sutaianble Develpment
Strategies. CSR as a concept is not in itself a main axis, but is
incorporated into the national strategy for Sustainable Development that
includes. France is the European country with the most regulatory
approach to CSR. The French political tradition is more closely linked to
the value of standardization and legislation, thus differentiating it from the
preceding model. CSR. This is a very centralized model.

The agora model. Applied to Mediterranean countries as Italy, Spain,

Portugal and Greece. Countries who addressed to CSR after the
European Commision initative in 2001.. While some of their governments
are already applying CSR initiatives, many are still only at the discussion
stage with the concept and its possible application in public policies. In
these countries, governmental action has been supported by the drafting
of reports and studies on CSR, analysing the development of CSR in
more proactive European governments and the CSR public policies
 17

undertaken. These elements of public dialogue provide consensus on

whether or not governmental action has been defined or made specific
through tangible political initiatives, especially in Spain, Greece and
Portugal. In these countries, it seems that the governments adopt a
positive attitude towards CSR.

INTERWEAVING CSR POLICIES AND WELFARE STATE REGIMES

Despite inherent limitations in classification attempts, as our comparative

research proceeded, we began to detect some links between individual
countrys policies fostering CR and their welfare state regimes (Esping-
Andersen, 1999, 2000; Heclo 1981). Esping-Andersens welfare regime
classification distinguishes three types of welfare regimes: liberal, social
democratic and continental regimes. The difficulties in fitting the Mediterranean
countries into this initial triad led him to add a fourth type, the Mediterranean
welfare regime, characterised by its delayed development and familys
significant role in welfare provision.

The liberal welfare regime is found in Anglo-Saxon countries. It is based on the

liberal tradition of minimising the role of the state, individualising risks and
encouraging commercial solutions for welfare provision. Social policies are
marginal, in line with a narrow definition of social risks to be dealt with by public
action. Within the European Union, this type of welfare regime is found in the
U.K. and Ireland.

The social democratic welfare regime is virtually synonymous with the Nordic
countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland). Its key differentiating factors include the
universal nature of welfare benefits, global risk coverage, generous subsidy
levels, egalitarian orientation between generations and sexes, and residual
private welfare services. The Nordic countries have undoubtedly pushed the
limits of universalism farther than any other country. Furthermore, rights are
 18

linked to individuals and based on citizenship -while British and Dutch

pensions (1998) are based on contributions made.

The conservative welfare regime -that of continental Europe- is characterised by

a mix of different social benefits linked to social status and the role of families.
Throughout most of continental Europe, liberalism has a genuinely marginal
role, and, until after the Second World War, socialism was typically excluded.
Earlier social policies looked to monarchic statism, traditional corporatism and
Catholic social doctrine for inspiration. Emphasis on compulsory social security
complemented by ad-hoc and effectively residual pension plans for social strata
lacking employment relationships renders private market welfare provision
marginal. Another important feature of conservatism is its reliance on the family.
It combines social protection, skewed in favour of male family heads, with the
caregiver role allotted to the family ult
 19

a relational format opens out a wide range of possibilities and opportunities

for governments and public administrations to influence, intervene, enable,
steer and promote a sounder implantation of CSR within the culture of their
organizations (whether public, private or non-profit). By analysing the spaces
where these three sectors interrelate, and the spaces where synergy or
extension of their boundaries can occur, we can create knowledge that may
help administrations to make better decisions.

Secondly, the deregulation of public services, the increasing power of

companies over governments, the welfare state crisis, drive for national
competitiveness and sustainable development policy are some of the key
drivers for governments to promote CSR. A measure of the levels of economic
growth, unemployment, inequality in income distribution, population ageing,
competitiveness/innovation and ecological impact are ways of identifying the
political challenges that governments may attempt to address through CSR
policy.

Third, we have seen how each country reconstructs its public policies on CSR
from its own social, cultural and political traditions. The almost total concurrence
of European welfare regimes and the developing CSR policies of the EU-15 is
no coincidence. In some countries, CSR has been used as a lever or even an
excuse to strengthen relationships with other sectors. In others, to reinforce the
figure of the state and its regulatory auctoritas. But overall, it reflects the effect
on public policy of the challenges currently being faced by these countries,
which depend on the pre-existing deficits and limits of each welfare state.

Fourth, Governments need to manage a complex set of relationships between

sectors. An understanding of the increasingly interdependent political,
regulatory and commercial exchanges between sectors, and the perceptions
and challenges from different stakeholders are important considerations for
developing CSR policy. This led the government to be broker between sectors.
It is generally accepted that government should assume the role of mediator,
 20

creating a common framework across sectors to promote CR, encouraging

and leading multi-stakeholder dialogue.

A challenge for future research is the work still to be done on models for the
action and behaviours of CSR public policies on multi-level governance, and
relationships between local, regional, national, European ang global levels.
 21

REFERENCES
Aaronson, S. and Reeves, J. (2002a), The European Response to Public
Demands for Global Corporate Responsibility, National Policy
Association, Washington DC.
Aaronson, S. and Reeves, J. (2002b), Corporate Responsibility in the Global
Village: The Role of Public Policy, National Policy Association,
Washington DC.
Bendell, J.; Kearins, K. (2004) Remembering the Politics: The Emergent
Political Dimension to Corporate Social Responsibility and its
Management. Paper presented at the Inter-disciplinary CSR Research
Conference. University of Nottingham, ICCSR, 22-23 October.
CBSR (2001), Government and Corporate Social Responsibility. An Overview
of Selected Canadian, European and International Practices, Canadian
Business for Social Responsibility, Vancouver.
Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2004), Business Ethics. A European Perspective.
Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of
Globalization, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DTI (2001), Business and Society Developing Corporate Social Responsibility in
the UK, UK Government, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
DTI (2003a), Business and Society. Corporate Social Responsibility Report
2002, UK Government, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
DTI (2003b), Corporate Social Responsibility - A Draft International Strategic
Framework, UK Government, Department of Trade and Industry,
London.
European Commission (2001), Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework
for Corporate Social Responsibility, COM (2001) 366-final, Brussels.
European Commission (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business
Contribution to Sustainable Development, COM (2002) 347-final,
Brussels.
Fox, T., Ward, H. and Howard, B. (2002), Public Sector Roles in Strengthening
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Baseline Study, The World Bank,
Washington.
 22

Frederick, W. C. (2006) Corporation, be good! The story of Corporate Social

Responsibility. Dog Ear Publishing, Indianapolis, USA.

Greve, C. (2003) Public-Private Partnerships in Scandinavia, International

Public Management Review, vol. 4, n. 2, pp. 59-68.

Gribben, C., Pinnington, K. and Wilson, A. (2001), Governments as Partners:

The Role of the Central Government in Developing New Social
Partnerships, The Copenhagen Centre, Copenhagen.
Guarini, E. and Nidasio, C. (2003), "CSR Role in Public-Private Partnerships:
Models of Governance", paper presented at the research track 6 The
Policy Framework/The Societal Context in the 2nd Annual Colloquium of
the European Academy of Business in Society, Copenhagen.

Hardis, J. (2003) "Social Multipartite Partnerships When Practices Do Not Fit

Rhetoric". Paper presented at the European Academy of Business in
Society. Copenhagen.

Joseph, E. (2003), A New Business Agenda for Government, Institute for Public
Policy Research, London.
Kjaergaard, C. and Westphalen, S. (2001), From Collective Bargaining to Social
Partnerships: New Roles of the Social Partners in Europe, The
Copenhagen Centre, Copenhagen.
Lepoutre, J., Dentchev, N. and Heene, A. (2004), On the Role of the
Government in the Corporate Social Responsibility Debate, paper
presented at the research track 7 Policy Making and the Role of
Government in the 3rd Annual Colloquium of the European Academy of
Business in Society, Ghent.
Lozano, J.M., Albareda, L., Ysa, T., Roscher, H. and Marcuccio, M. (2005), Los
gobiernos y la responsabilidad social de las empresas. Polticas pblicas
ms all de la regulacin y la voluntariedad, Granica, Barcelona.
Mendoza, X. (1991), Algunas reflexiones acerca de la 'transicin al mercado'
de los servicios sociales, Jornades Pblic-Privat i Benestar Social,
Barcelona.
 23

Mendoza, X. (1996), Las transformaciones del sector pblico en las

sociedades avanzadas. Del estado del bienestar al estado relacional,
Papers de Formaci, No. 23, Diputaci de Barcelona.
Midttun, A. (2004), Realigning Business, Government and Civil Society: The
C(S)R Model Compared to the (Neo)Liberal and Welfare State Models,
Paper presented at the research track 7 Policy Making and the Role of
Government in the 3rd Colloquium of the European Academy of
Business in Society, Ghent.
Moon, J. (2002), Business Social Responsibility and New Governance,
Government and Opposition, 37, pp. 385-408.
Moon, J. (2004), Government as a Driver of Corporate Social Responsibility:
The UK in Comparative Perspective, ICCR Research Paper Series, n.
20-2004, The University of Nottingham, pp. 1-27.
Moon, J.; Sochaki, R.: (1996) The Social Responsibility and New Governance.
Government and Opposition, n. 27, pp. 384-408.

Morsing, M. (2005) Inclusive Labour Market Strategies. In: Habisch, A.;

Jonker, J.; Wegner, M; Schmidpeter, R. (eds.) Corporate Social
Responsibility Across Europe. Berlin: Springer.

Nidasio, C. (2004), Implementing CSR on a Large Scale: The Role of

Government, paper presented at the research track 7 "Policy Making
and the Role of Government" in the 3rd Colloquium of the European
Academy of Business in Society, Ghent.

Rosdahl, A. (2001) The Policy to Promote Social Responsibility of Enterprises in

Denmark. Discussion Paper from Host Country Expert. Danish National
Institute of Social Research. Copenhagen, 17-18 September.

Rome N. (2005) The Implications of national agendas for CSR in Habish, A.;
Jonker, J.; Schmidpeter, R. (eds), Corporate Social Responsibility Across
Europe, Berlin, Springer
Zadek, S. (2001a), The Civil Corporation: the New Economy of Corporate
Citizenship. London, Earthscan, Stirling.
Zadek, S. (2001b), Third Generation Corporate Citizenship, The Foreign Policy
Centre and AccountAbility, London.
 24

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1. Relational model for CR public policy analysis

Governments
1
2 3
4

Civil
Businesses
Society

1. CSR in governments
2. CSR in government-business relationships
3. CSR in government-society relationships
4. Relational CSR

.

Figure 2. Implemented public policies, programmes and actions promoting CSR
A d m in istratio n s
Le a d e rs h ip b y e xa m p le
(i nte r na l C S R p o lic ie s )
L i nk i n g p u b lic s p e nd i n g
to s o c ia lly re s p o ns i b le
c o m p a n ie s
P a rtic ip a t io n i n
in te r na tio na l e v e nts
T ra ns fe r o f i nte r na tio na l
d e b a te o n C S R to t he
na t io na l a n d lo c a l c o nte x t
F o s te ri n g i n te r na ti o na l
ins t ru m e n ts a nd
a gre e m e nts
E xte r na l p o lic y , t ra d e
a nd d e v e lo p m e n t
c o o p e ra tio n p o l ic y
D e v e lo p m e nt o f
te c h nic a l k no w h o w fo r
i m p le m e n ti n g C S R i n
c o m p a n ie s
C o o rd i na t io n o f C S R
p o lic ie s in a d m i nis t ra tio ns
P u b lic c a m p a i g ns
C re a tio n o f i nte r na l
d e p a rt m e nts
25
P u b lic ad min istratio n s an d C S R
C o mp an y S o ciety R elatio n al
P u b lic p o licies
E m p lo y m e n t a nd s o c ia l is s u e s p o lic y W o r k i n i nte rs e c to ria l
E n v iro n m e nta l p o l ic y p a rt ne rs hip
T a x a nd fu n d i n g p o l ic ie s F a c ilita t i n g
E d u c a tio n a nd tra i n i n g p o l ic ie s P ro m o tio n o f s o c ia lly
R u ra l b u s i ne s s p o lic y re s p o ns ib le i nv e s t m e nt
A g ric u ltu re , fis he r ie s a nd ru ra l d e v e lo p m e nt p o l ic ie s C o o rd i na t io n o f a c tio ns
C o ns u m e r d e fe nc e p o lic y b e tw e e n c iv il s o c ie ty a nd t he
b u s i ne s s s e c to r
P ro m o tio n o f re s p o ns ib le
c o ns u m p tio n
P ro m o tio n o f t he in te re s ts
o f a ll s ta k e ho ld e rs
Le g is la tio n (c o m p u ls o ry ) R e gu la t io n (b y re s tr ic tio n )
(p ro d u c e rs , e m p lo y e e s ,
R e gu la t io n (b y re s tr ic tio n ) D ire c tiv e s a nd gu id e li ne s (s o ft la w )
c o ns u m e rs , i nv e s to rs )
D ire c tiv e s a nd gu id e li ne s (s o ft la w ) T o d is s e m i na te t he p o s itiv e i m p a c t
In fo r m a nd e d u c a te a ll
F is c a l a nd fu nd i n g fra m e w o rk o f C S R i n s o c ie ty
s o c ia l a c to rs
T o p ro m o te c o n v e r ge nc e a nd T o s u p p o rt C S R p ro m o tio n i n itia ti v e s
E nc o u ra ge m e n t, c re a tio n
tra ns p a re nc y i n C S R i ns tru m e n ts o f c iv il s o c ie ty
a nd s u p e rv is io n o f
a nd p ra c tic e s T o info r m a nd e d u c a te a ll s o c ia l a c to rs
m e c ha nis m s fo r e v a lu a tio n
T o c a ta ly s e a nd fa c ilita te v o lu n ta ry about C S R
a nd a c c o u nta b il ity
C S R i nitia tiv e s , e xc ha n ge o f T o p ro m o te a nd fa c il ita te R e s p o ns i b le
E nc o u ra ge m e n t o f
e xp e rie nc e s a nd go o d p ra c tic e s C o ns u m p ti o n
e xc ha n ge o f e x p e rie nc e s a nd
P ro m o tio n o f C S R i n c o m p a nie s : T o p ro m o te a nd fa c il ita te S o c ia ll y
go o d p ra c tic e s
m a k e k no w n p o s i tiv e i m p a c t R e s p o ns ib le Inv e s t m e n t
P ro m o tio n o f c o n v e r ge nc e
T o e xp o rt C S R i n c o m p a ny a ttitu d e s T o p ro m o te a nd fa c il ita te t he
a nd tra ns p a re nc y i n C S R
in te r na tio na lly p a rtic u la r i nte re s ts o f a ll s ta k e ho ld e rs i n
p ra c tic e s a nd i ns tru m e n ts
P o lic ie s o f a tte nti o n to ne e d s a n d C S R te r m s
c ha ra c te ris t ic s o f S M E s i n C S R
T o fo s te r c o m p a ny re la ti o ns hip s
w i t h t he m a rk e t a n d s ta k e ho ld e rs
(i m p a c t o n c u s to m e rs , s u p p lie rs ,
e m p lo y e e s , c a p ita l p ro v i d e rs )
T o fo s te r s o c ia l a c tio n b y t he c o m p a n y
T o d ra w u p b u s i ne s s re s tru c tu ri n g
p o lic ie s
 26

Table1. Models of government action in the development of CSR-

endorsing public policies in EU-15 counties

Model Characteristics Countries

Partnership Partnership as strategy shared Denmark, Finland,
between sectors for meeting the Netherlands,
socio-employment challenges. Sweden.

Business in the Soft intervention policies to Ireland, the United

community encourage company involvement Kingdom.
in governance challenges
affecting the community
(entrepreneurship and voluntary
service).
Updated version of the existing Germany, Austria,
Sustainability and social agreement and emphasis Belgium,
citizenship on a strategy of sustainable Luxembourg.
development.

Regulatory. France.
Agora Creation of discussion groups for Italy, Spain, Greece,
the different social actors to Portugal
achieve public consensus on
CSR.
 27

1
This research was made possible thanks to the support of the Ministry of Economy and Finance of the
Regional Government of Catalonia.
2
Given the definition of the study object, focused on governments, the actions between the private, for-
profit and non-profit sectors do not form part of this analytical framework.
3
Sources of information on government actions are based on the reports and discourses offered by the
governments themselves.
4
For further information on the results for each country please see: Lozano, Albareda, Ysa, Roscher,
Marcuccio (2005) Los gobiernos y la responsabilidad social de las empresas. Polticas pblicas ms
alls de la regulacin y la voluntariedad. Barcelona: Granica.