Publicado

2015-01-01

Identificación de indicadores relevantes del desempeño RSE mediante la utilización de técnicas multicriterio

Identification of Relevant Indicators of CSR Performance Through the Use of Multi-Criteria Techniques

Identificação de indicadores relevantes do desempenho RSE mediante a utilização de técnicas multicritério

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v25n55.47197

Palabras clave:

Responsabilidad Social Empresarial, decisión multicriterio, grupos de interés, rendición de cuentas (es)
Corporate social responsibility, multi-criteria decision making, interest groups, accountability (en)
Responsabilidade Social Empresarial, decisão multi-critério, grupos de interesse, prestação de contas (pt)

Descargas

Autores/as

  • Marta de la Cuesta González Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)
  • Eva Pardo Herrasti Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)
  • Juan Diego Paredes Gázquez Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)

Uno de los principios básicos de la gestión e información reportada en materia de Responsabilidad Social Empresarial (RSE) es que se centre en los aspectos relevantes para la sociedad. Adicionalmente, la necesidad de realizar comparaciones entre empresas exige un esfuerzo sintetizador en la rendición de cuentas en RSE. Este trabajo se centra en la aplicación de técnicas de decisión multicriterio, concretamente procesos analíticos jerárquicos, para ofrecer una herramienta que permita medir el desempeño de RSE, con base en aquellos aspectos que son relevantes y materiales para empresas y stakeholders conjuntamente, en un contexto y sociedad determinados. El artículo explica cómo se aplicó la metodología de proceso de análisis jerárquico a una muestra de 10 sujetos (6 empresas españolas y 4 organizaciones de la sociedad civil española) en la selección de los indicadores materiales en el reporte de RSE y los resultados alcanzados. Se identificaron 60 indicadores distribuidos en cuatro dimensiones: medioambiente, economía, gobierno corporativo y social. Esta última dimensión concentra el mayor número de indicadores y mezcla impactos sobre diferentes grupos de interés, por lo que es dividida en cuatro subdimensiones (recursos humanos, derechos humanos, responsabilidad del producto y sociedad), con el objeto de discernir con mayor detalle su complejidad.

One of the basis for companies' CSR management and reporting is to focus on issues that are relevant to the society. This requirement along with the necessity of comparing CsR performance among companies obliges firms to make a great effort on their CSR accountability. This study focuses on the application of multicriteria decision-making techniques, specifically the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), to identify corporate social responsibility issues which both companies and stakeholders consider relevant and material with the aim of providing a tool for measuring the corporate social performance. This work explains how the AHP methodology was applied in the selection of material indicators in corporate social responsibility reporting and their relative importance. It was done for the spanish case and applied to a sample of six spanish big companies and four of the most representative civil organizations. The results of this study are summarized in 60 indicators distributed in four areas: environment, economy, corporate governance and society. As this last area contains the greatest number of indicators, it was divided into four sub-dimensions (human resources, human rights, product responsibility and society), for a more in-depth analysis of its complexity.
Um dos princípios básicos da gestão e informação informada em matéria de Responsabilidade Social Empresarial (RSE) é que se concentre nos aspectos relevantes para a sociedade. Adicionalmente, a necessidade de realizar comparações entre empresas exige um esforço sintetizador na prestação de contas em RSE. Este trabalho se concentra na aplicação de técnicas de decisão multicritério, concretamente processos analíticos hierárquicos, para oferecer uma ferramenta que permita medir o desempenho de RSE, com base naqueles aspectos que são relevantes e materiais para empresas e stakeholders conjuntamente, em um contexto e sociedade determinados. O artigo explica como foi aplicada a metodologia de processo de análise hierárquico a uma amostra de 10 sujeitos (6 empresas espanholas e 4 organizações da sociedade civil espanhola) na escolha dos indicadores materiais no relatório de RSE e os resultados atingidos. Foram identificados 60 indicadores distribuídos em quatro dimensões: Meio ambiente, economia, governo corporativo e social. Esta última dimensão concentra o maior número de indicadores e mistura impactos sobre diferentes grupos de interesse, motivo pelo qual é dividida em quatro subdimensões (recursos humanos, direitos humanos, responsabilidade do produto e sociedade), com o objetivo de discernir com maior detalhe a sua complexidade.

Referencias

Accountability (2006). The Materiality Report: Aligning Strategy, Performance and Reporting. London: Accountability.

Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529-546.

Agle, B. R., & Kelley, P. C. (2001). Ensuring Validity in the Measurement of Corporate Social Performance: Lessons from Corporate United Way and PAC Campaigns. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(3), 271-284.

Alphonce, C. B. (1997). Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Agriculture in Developing Countries. Agricultural Systems, 53(1), 97-112.

Aupperle, K. E. (1991). The use of forced choice survey procedures in assessing corporate social orientation. En J. E. Post (Ed.) Research in corporate social performance and policy, l2, (pp. 269-280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.

Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 42(5), 448-506.

BME (2010). Informe del Mercado 2009. Bolsas y Mercados Españoles.

Bouten, L., Everaert, P., Liedekerke, L. V., De Moor, L., & Christiaens, J. (2011). Corporate social responsibility reporting: A comprehensive picture? Accounting Forum, 35(3), 187-204.

Brammer, S., Brooks, S., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97-116.

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2004). Stakeholder pressure, organizational size, and the allocation of departmental responsibility for the management of corporate charitable giving. Business & Society 43(3), 268-295.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business & Society 38(3), 268-295.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Governance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.

CERSE (2011). El papel de la RSE ante la crisis económica: su contribución a un nuevo modelo productivo, la competitividad y el desarrollo sostenible. Grupo de Trabajo del Consejo Estatal de Responsabilidad Social Empresarial (CERSE).

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.

Comisión Europea (2011). Summary report of the responses received to the public consultation on disclosure of non-financial information by companies. European Commission, Directorate General for the Internal Market and Services.

Davidson, W. N. III, & Worrell, D. L. (1988). The impact of announcements of corporate illegalities on shareholder returns. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 195-200.

Davidson, W. N. III, & Worrell, D. L. (1990). A Comparison and Test of the Use of Accounting and Stock Market Data in Relating Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Akron Business and Economic Review, 21(3), 7-19.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone.

Epstein, M. J. (2004). The Identification, Measurement and Reporting of Corporate Social Impacts: Past, Present and Future. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 2(1). 1-29.

Escrig, E, Muñoz, M. J., & Fernández, M. A. (2010). Socially responsible investing: sustainability indices, ESG rating and information provider agencies. International Journal of Sustainable Economy 2(4), 442-461.

Fieseler, C. (2011). On the corporate social responsibility perceptions of equity analysts. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(2), 131-147.

Fombrum, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.

Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Perspective. Boston: Pitman.

Forética (2011). Informe Forética. Evolución de la Responsabilidad Social de las Empresas en España. Forética.

Fryxell, G. E., & Wang, J. (1994). The Fortune corporate 'reputation' index: Reputation for what?. Journal of Management, 20(1), 1-14.

Galbreath, J. (2006). Does primary stakeholder management positively affect the bottom line? Some evidence from Australia. Management Decision, 44(8): 1106-1121.

Gj0lberg, M. (2009). Measuring the Immeasurable? Constructing an Index of CSR Practices and CSR Performance in 20 Countries. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(1), 10-22.

Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425-445.

Graafland, J., & van de Ven, B. (2006). Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility". Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22(1), 111-123.

Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1035-1046.

Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability.. and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society 35(1). 47-62.

Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society 39(3), 254-280.

GRI (2006). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

GRI (2011). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

GRI (2012). GRI Sustainability Reporting Statistics. Publication year 2011. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

GRI (2013). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Principles and Standard-Disclosures. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate: Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research. Business Society, 36(1), 5-31.

Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: Reviewing results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005.

Hsu, C., Lee, W., & Chao, W. (2013). Materiality analysis model in sus-tainability reporting: A case study at lite-on technology corporation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 142-151.

Igalens, J., & Gond, J. P. (2005). Measuring Corporate Social Performance in France: A Critical and Empirical Analysis of ARESE Data. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(2), 131-148.

Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2010). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Investment Recommendations. Working paper 11017. Harvard Business School, Cambridge.

Integrated Reporting (2011). Towards integrated reporting. Communicating Value in the 21st Century. Integrated Reporting.

Klofstad, C. A. (2005). Interviews. K. En Kempf Leonard, (2005). Encyclopedia of social measurement, 2: (pp. 359-364). Amsterdam; London: Elsevier/AcademicPress.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283-297.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and Profits? The Search for a Link Between a Company's Social and Financial Performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Margolis, J. D., Elfebein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). People and Profits? The Search for a Link Between a Company's Social and Financial Performance. Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.

Menichini, T., & Costa, R. (2013). A multidimensional approach for CSR assessment: The importance of the stakeholder perception. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(1), 150-161.

Mitnick, B. M. (2000). Commitment, Revelation, and the Testaments of Belief: The Metrics of Measurement of Corporate Social Performance. Business Society, 39(4), 419-465.

Nakao, Y., Amano, A., Matsumura, K., Genba, K., & Nakano, M. (2007). Relationship between environmental performance and financial performance: an empirical analysis of Japanese corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(2), 106-118.

Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional Ownership and Corporate Social Performance: The Moderating Effects of Investment Horizon, Activism and Coordination. Journal of Management, 32(1), 108-131.

OBRSC (2010). La Responsabilidad Social Corporativa en las Memorias Anuales de las Empresas del IBEX 35. Análisis del ejercicio 2008. Observatorio de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa.

OBRSC (2013). La Responsabilidad Social Corporativa en las Memorias Anuales de las Empresas del IBEX 35. Análisis del ejercicio 2011. Observatorio de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa.

O'Connor, M., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2008). A Methodology for CSR Reporting: Assuring a Representative Diversity of Indicators Across Stakeholders, Scales, Sites and Performance Issues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(13), 1399-1415.

O'Neill, H. M., Saunders, C. B., & McCarthy, A. D. (1989). Board members, corporate social responsiveness and profitability: Are tradeoffs necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 353-357.

Orlitzky, O., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.

Pava, M. L., & Krauzs, J. (1996). The Association Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 321-357.

Pérez, J. (1995). Some Commentson Saaty's AHP. Management Science, 41 (6), 1091-1095.

Perrin, B. (1998). Effective Use and Misuse of Performance Measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(3), 367-379.

Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A Brand New Brand of Corporate Social Performance. Business and Society, 39(4), 397-418.

Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Change in Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 143-156.

Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., & Paul, K. (1998). The Development of a Systematic, Aggregate Measure of Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Management, 24(1), 119-133.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw Hill.

Saaty, T. L. (1990). An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36 (3), 259-268.

Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2001). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schàfer, H., Beer, J., Zenker, J., & Fernandes, P. (2006). Who is who in Corporate Social Responsibility rating? A survey of internationally established rating systems that measure Corporate Responsibility. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation.

Stam, A., & Silva, P. D. (1997). Stochastic judgements in the AHP: The measurement of rank reversal probabilities. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 655-688.

Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Role of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (5), 463-490.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658-672.

Van Beurden, P., & Gõssling, T. (2008). The Worth of Values - A Literature Review on the Relation Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 407-424.

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance - Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.

Wang, Y. M., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2006). An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1474-1480.

Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758-769.

Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26(4), 247-261.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691-718.

Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theo-rical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229-267.

Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50-84.

Dimensions

PlumX

Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo

1751

Descargas

Los datos de descarga aún no están disponibles.

Cómo citar

de la Cuesta González, M., Pardo Herrasti, E., & Paredes Gázquez, J. D. (2015). Identificación de indicadores relevantes del desempeño RSE mediante la utilización de técnicas multicriterio. Innovar, 25(55), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v25n55.47197

Licencia

Derechos de autor 2015 Innovar

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0.

Todos los artículos publicados por Innovar se encuentran disponibles globalmente con acceso abierto y licenciados bajo los términos de Creative Commons Atribución-No_Comercial-Sin_Derivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Una vez seleccionados los artículos para un número, y antes de iniciar la etapa de cuidado y producción editorial, los autores deben firmar una cesión de derechos patrimoniales de su obra. Innovar se ciñe a las normas colombianas en materia de derechos de autor.

El material de esta revista puede ser reproducido o citado con carácter académico, citando la fuente.

Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons: