Corporate responsibility and competitiveness

Citation

Lenssen, G. (2006), "Corporate responsibility and competitiveness", Corporate Governance, Vol. 6 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/cg.2006.26806daa.001

Corporate responsibility and competitiveness

This special issue is a part of the European Commission FP6-funded project “The European Platform for Excellence in CSR Research”

Introduction

The current wave of globalisation presents historically unprecedented trends towards interconnectedeness and interdependence that are reshaping global and local political, economic and cultural processes (Held et al., 1999). These trends and processes have signficant global implications for business and industry activities, the natural environment and technologies (Parker, 2005) and have led to a blurring of the boundaries between business, government and society. They have also caused the rise of new actors such as non-governmental organisations and the emergence of what has become known as “civil society”, a phenomen that can be seen as both a response to and a shaper of heightened societal awareness and expectations on social and environmental issues. All of these factors have contributed to the increasingly prominent debate on the role and responsibility of business in society in the political and corporate arenas.

At the same time, in Europe, and elsewhere around the world, there is an increasing focus on the drive to create jobs, growth and competitive economies through the development of human capital and innovation in the knowledge-based economy. The European Union (EU) Lisbon Agenda is an excellent example of this. Set out by heads of member state governments in 2000 as a ten-year plan to make Europe, “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and respect for the environment”, it was revised to focus on jobs and growth in 2005 due to poor performance in its first half decade and what was perceived by national governments and the European Commission as an overloaded agenda. Whilst this has been in large part welcomed by business, there has been a significant backlash amongst civil society, illustrating the difficult path public officials must nagivate in making complex trade-offs between economic, social and environmental issues.

Much of the debate has centred around the idea of a narrowing scope from sustainable development to economic competitiveness and the suggestion that the pendulum has swung to a narrow economic and business agenda. But this masks the real nature of the challenges and paints the picture of a polarised choice between two alternative paths. In fact there is now more focus and there are clearer priorities in an agenda which is still committed to corporate responsibility. This is obvious in the narrative of Commission President Manuel Barroso, who recently said, “we need a fresh start to the Lisbon Agenda and a European Partnership for Jobs and Growth … corporate social responsibility practices can play a key role in contributing to sustainable development, while enhancing Europe’s innovation potential and competitiveness” and his Vice-President for Industry, Gunter Verheugen, who talks about corporate responsibility as, “part of the glue that binds together the re-launched Lisbon Strategy”. This is the backdrop to the increasing focus of the EU strategy and the backdrop to this special issue in attempting to better understand the links between corporate responsibility and competitiveness in achieving sustainable growth.

Conceptual framework

In this context, after more than a decade of debate on the case for and the merits of corporate responsibility, attention is shifting towards a desire to better understand the links between corporate responsibilty and competitiveness at the “macro” level of economies and societies, the “meso” level of industry sectors and supply chains and the “micro” level of companies.

The rise of the concept of corporate responsibility in its various forms and guises such as business ethics, corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, sustainability or the stakeholder view of the firm, seems inseparable from the rise of supply-side economics and theories of competitiveness. At first, corporate responsibility may have been conceived and perceived as a critical outsider agenda, but today it is increasingly understood as integral to the efficient, effective and sustainable functioning of markets and businesses. Interestingly, this is without even considering the explicit ethical dimension captured by the “triple E model” of efficiency, effectiveness and ethics (Gasparski and Ryan, 1996).

This explains the emergence of the concept of “Responsible Competitiveness”, a term that has gained currency through the work of organisations such as AccountAbility and is being explored by the European Commission as a platform for policy development. At first glance, “Responsible Competitiveness” seems to be an oxymoron, or at the very least an ill-fitting combination of concepts from older conflicting schools of thought. One school considers corporate responsibility as a necessary check and brake on the less desirable consequences of unbridled market forces and competition. The other school sees corporate responsiblity as creating additional costs and as a drag to global competitiveness.

The notion of a firm’s competitiveness stems from amongst other’s Michael Porter’s industry structure view of the firm, whereas the notion of corporate responsibility stems from the emerging societal institutional view of the firm. The former seems to sit uncomfortably with the latter, although Porter offered the concept of ”strategic philanthropy” as a possible link during the Second Annual Colloquium of EABIS in Copenhagen. However, it is the resource-based view of the firm that provides a broader link between the two concepts. This is because knowledge and relationships with stakeholders, as well as a firms’ capabilities in managing these interactions, constitute unique intangible resources for competitive advantage (Post et al., 2002). Seen in this context, knowledge sharing in firms’ value chains and stakeholder networks, self-regulatory industry-level standards agreed between firms and joined-up government and policy development (at the macro level), all contribute to the reduction of transaction costs, increased flexibility, greater efficiency within and between companies as well as in the relationship between business and government. Over and above greater flexibility and efficiency, it is a also well-known effect that the additional costs of managing social and environmental issues drive investment and opportunities for product and process innovation – as demonstrated by recent waves of eco-effiency measures in companies – which can in turn drive competitiveness. Therefore, “Responsible Competitiveness” at macro, meso and micro levels no longer appears to be a contradiction in terms, but a dynamic and innovative construct at the heart of new thinking about the knowledge economy.

In the knowledge economy, social and human capital are key assets. Investment in human capital at all levels is increasingly considered the foundation for sustainable growth and a strong pillar of competitiveness, i.e. current productivity and future growth potential. The term human capital was chosen and preferred over “human resources” for two reasons. First, human capital is the result of continuous investment in knowledge, skills and mindsets providing real competitive advantage (instead of being a cost and potentially a competitive disadvantage). Second, human capital is considered an intangible asset in the firm’s relationships with all stakeholders, including employees, consumers, investors, suppliers, local communities and civil society actors such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions and consumer groups. Social capital is based on trust, credibility and legitimacy and relates to the networks that firms build and maintain within their organisations and with stakeholders in wider society. Social capital is sustained by continuous knowledge sharing and communication. It provides the fabric through which human capital can be employed productively and innovatively. Human and social capital complete the triangle of analysis of sustainable growth at macro, meso and micro levels.

The conceptual framework for this special issue of Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society suggests that for economic growth to be sustainable, social and environmental challenges and opportunities must be taken into account, and that in a knowledge-based economy, this is best achieved in a mutually re-inforcing way by investing in human and social capital (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Fourth Annual Colloquium of EABIS

This special issue draws on papers presented at the European Academy of Business in Society Fourth Annual Colloquium in Warsaw, Poland, December 2005. The event was hosted by the Leon Kozminski Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management and the Warsaw School of Economics. It was part of the EABIS-led project, “The European Platform for Excellence in CSR Research”, supported by the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Research Programme.

The Colloquium and this special edition are an attempt to lift debate to another level on both corporate responsibility and competitiveness in order to push the boundaries of knowledge. They are also an attempt to build the platform for serious understanding at the level of corporate strategy[1] and public policy. The colloquium called for business, policy maker and other stakeholder relevant contributions at three levels of analysis: macro, meso, micro. With a few notable exceptions, the links between corporate responsibility and competitiveness have in large part been dominated by research at the micro-level of firms. This has often focused on linking social and environmental performance with financial performance (or the “business case” for corporate responsibility). Far less has been done in terms of analysing corporate responsibility and competitiveness at the level of industries, supply chains, countries or regions. The Colloquium and this special edition attempt to begin to redress the balance.

This multi-level approach also requires drawing not just from a broad range of stakeholder constitutencies, but also from a broad range of disciplines in academia and in practice. Better understanding of the relationship between corporate responsibility and competitiveness through the perspective of human and social capital requires a variety of lenses from across the social sciences and business disciplines. Widening the scope of analysis and debate is also a core objective of EABIS and the “European Platform for Excellence on CSR”.

The Colloquium was consciously organised in Warsaw, a major city in Central and East Europe, in line with EABIS and the European Commission’s desire to include new member states in the European research agenda. Countries in the region are experiencing deep and rapid change in the transition from planned to market economies, as well as from an industrial to a more knowledge-based economy. The impacts on societies are considerable and securing responsible transition trajectories is a major challenge to those who carry public responsibility, which includes both political and business leaders. Nevertheless, change and transition, albeit in different ways, is being felt throughout Europe (Habisch et al., 2004).

A broad platform for knowledge development and learning

The Colloquium called for contributions from academics and practitioners from business, civil society, government and policy making as well as leading think tanks. During the Colloquium, it was repeatedly stressed that research requires a more collaborative approach between academics and practitioners. The editors are concerned that the traditional academic peer-review process does not necessarily produce contributions relevant to practitioners and, in turn, that business-to-business showcasing and benchmarking does not provide the necessary reflective and analytical quality for serious debate on the challenges and opportunities of corporate responsibility. This is predicated based on the hypothesis that sharing both explicit and tacit knowledge through interaction leads to better theory and practice (Nonaka, 1994, Nonaka et al., 1996). As Kurt Lewin famously said quite some time ago, “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” (Lewin, 1951). To this, the editors would add that there is nothing quite so informative to theory as reflective practice and experience. This special edition, the Colloquium, and indeed EABIS are intended to build a bridge to contribute to better theory and practice on the role of business in society.

In the three sections of the journal we present 17 different contributions from authors working in 11 countries across Europe including Belgium, Denmark, France, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. Contributions also come from a broad range of academic disciplines, both in the fundamental social sciences and in the applied business subjects. These include macro economics, political science, managerial economics, business strategy and policy, human resource development/learning and marketing. Recognising the knowledge partnership approach outlined above, we have also included three reflective practitioner contributions from Johnson & Johnson, Shell and Unilever and two business-academic collaborative contributions from Microsoft and Cranfield School of Management and Orange and Zürich University of Applied Sciences. These sit alongside a further three contributions from leading European think tanks – Accountability, Forum for the Future and The Copenhagen Centre.

For a new area of study and action such as corporate responsibility, which cuts across traditional institutional and knowledge boundaries, the editors propose that a traditional approach to “research” (and education) needs to be expanded to a generative and inclusive approach of “knowledge development” (and learning). We hope that the whole adds up to more than the sum of the parts in providing a unique knowledge development (and learning) platform, incorporating a range of different perspectives and lenses through which to analyse and better understand corporate responsibility and competitiveness.

The selection of contributions is a result of peer academic and practitioner review and reflects the dialogue necessary to bridge the two worlds of practice and theory. More than 60 papers and presentations (not including 20-plus papers from PhD students) were selected from more than 100 submissions to the colloquium. The selection process was not easy, since the editors also aimed at including a relevant selection at each of the macro, meso and micro levels in order to “populate” the conceptual framework. Therefore, as in previous years, several very good papers of publishable quality were left out. We look forward to seeing these featured in the Corporate Governance journal and other publications. Abstracts of papers not featured here, but presented at the event can be found at www.eabis.org or the web site for The European Platform for Excellence in CSR Research: www.csrplatform.org

Corporate responsibility and competitiveness at the macro level

Traditional analyses of macro-economic competitiveness (as measured by the World Economic Forum and IMD indexes) or of the quality of the business environment (as measured by The Economist) have not included issues around corporate responsibility. Neither has research on corporate responsibility sufficiently explored these links.

Zadek, founder and CEO of AccountAbility, describes the concept of Responsible Competitiveness, which begins with the business case of the individual firm, then progresses through the meso level of corporate responsibility clusters to reach the macro level of institutional flexibility and innovation. As well as setting out dynamic models for organisational and societal learning, he presents the Global Responsible Competitiveness Index 2005, which suggests a significant correlation between a nation’s global competitiveness ranking and its global rating on corporate responsibility. He discusses the implications of these initial findings and proposes an integrated research and policy agenda on responsible competitiveness and responsible markets.

Rodrigues, Chair of the European Union Social Science Research Advisory Council and a senior economic advisor to the European Commission, reviews the evolution of the Lisbon Strategy and sets out the broader context for European policy on competitiveness. She concludes that the sustainability of the European social model depends on the success of the overall strategy for growth and jobs, in which innovation and life long learning are key. This conclusion is made even more interesting and poignant in light of the European Commission publication of a new communication in March of 2006, which also links corporate responsibility to the broader EU goals of economic growth and competitiveness. The policy document, entitled “Implementing the Partnership for Growth and Jobs: Making Europe a Pole of Excellence on Corporate Social Responsibility” and the document on the related launch of “The European Alliance for CSR” are both available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/csr

Eberhard-Harribey argues that CSR, although originating from the American school of thought on business ethics, could become a very European public policy paradigm. This may represent a significant modification of the neo-classical market ”referential”, which currently serves as the primary economic reference point in society. When the paper was written, the latest Communication from the EU Commission on CSR was not published (see link and details in the previous paragraph). The data stemming from these documents would also make for further interesting analysis and might further support her hypothesis.

Midttun, Gautesen and Gjølberg go on to explore corporate responsibility as a movement for re-embedding the economy in a wider societal context. They begin by reviewing the political economy literature from this perspective. They then distinguish between old welfare state type embeddedness and new corporate responsibility type embeddedness and investigate how both relate to four political economy models: Nordic, Anglo Saxon (including the UK and US), Continental Europe and Mediterranean Europe. They notice significant differences between the USA and the UK.

Albareda, Tencati, Lozano and Perrini explore the role of government in promoting corporate responsibility in Italy and the UK using the model of the “Relational State” developed by Mendoza (Vice Chair of EABIS) at ESADE. For each country four dimensions of the relational model are analysed and compared: government-public administration, government-business, government-civil society, government-business-civil society. In both countries the Relational State manifests itself in different ways and the corporate responsibility agenda takes different shapes.

Bonfiglioli, Moir and Ambrosini use the theories of industrial organisation economics and the resource-based view of the firm to analyse how a multinational company like Microsoft, in co-operation with other firms in Europe, can build competitive advantage by responding directly to public policy priorities. Specifically, the paper focuses on Microsoft’s strategy to implement employability-oriented corporate responsibility initiatives in line with the EU’s Jobs and Growth strategy described by Rodrigues above. In taking this approach, the paper asks important questions about whether companies can, and indeed whether they should, effectively target their corporate responsibility programmes towards public policy objectives, whilst at the same time ensuring that the initiatives also remain aligned to a company’s core business strategy.

Conclusion

The selected papers begin to underpin the notion that corporate responsibility may increasingly become an integral part of the fabric of competitiveness and sustainable growth – possibly in a distinctly European fashion. Corporate responsibility, competitiveness and sustainable growth may, under certain conditions, work in mutually reinforcing through corporate commitment to action in the public domain and an enabling policy environment. Substantial research efforts are still needed to better understand the context and conditions for this mutual reinforcement. This will need to be part of theory building on the relationship and social contract between states, business and civil society. Another interesting area for future inquiry is the link between corporate responsibility, competitiveness and innovation. Finally, there is a need for more policy research to explore and advance the theory and practice of “responsible competitiveness”.

Corporate responsibility and competitiveness at the meso level

Research efforts are currently taking place into the self-regulating forces that shape corporate responsibility and competitiveness between leading companies and across industry sectors as a whole and in supply and distribution chains. For corporate responsibility to have a lasting impact on competitiveness and the creation of sustainable growth the causes and effects of reaching scale and critical mass at the meso level are key.

Draper explores five established models and five case studies for industry sector level corporate responsibility: the vision model, the industry leadership model, the thematic partnership/market based model, the political regulatory model and the education/learning model. She uses Kay’s four elements of competitiveness to demonstrate how a combination of approaches can deliver both improved sector performance on corporate responsibility as well as differentiation for industry leaders.

Senge, Neath and Dow explore how Unilever effectively applied a concept akin to Draper’s education/learning model in partnership with Oxfam in Indonesia and with the Sustainable Food Laboratory. The company set out on a joint learning journey with Oxfam to: better understand its role in the global food and agriculture system and how this global system can be transformed towards sustainability through collective and systemic learning of all stakeholders; and second, to better understand the economic, social and environmental impacts of its business – both positive and negative – on a country. The Unilever-Oxfam partnership is a case study in joined-up learning and partnership between companies and NGOs. It has allowed Unilever to better understand the full impacts of its supply chain and distribution chain and consider measures to enhance positive impacts, whilst reducing negative impacts.

Welvaert and Agyeman-Budu then explore how Johnson & Johnson effectively combines models, similar to those highlighted by Draper around industry leadership, thematic partnership and education/learning, to foster competitiveness and corporate responsibility in the health care sector in Central and Eastern Europe. The company invests significantly in human capital by knowledge transfers as an integral part of its market entry, market development and business driven corporate responsibility in new markets. Their paper examines how Johnson & Johnson’s programme for Health Care Management Training aims to raise the standards of productivity and efficiency in the industry sector, thereby adding value to society and public policy, whilst at the same time creating competitive advantage for the company.

Lewicka-Strzalecka explores the potential and limitations of corporate responsibility in post-communist countries. She looks at issues such as the lack of trust and poor reputation of business in society, high unemployment, weak legal and institutional frameworks, “socialist” associations with CSR rhetoric and an underdeveloped civil society, many of which are related to what can be considered social capital deficits. She notes a strong correlation between a country’s score in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index and the AccountAbility National Corporate Responsibility Index. Research shows that corruption is harmful to competitiveness and that the fight against corruption and for transparency is one of the main priorities in societies in transition, followed by promoting self-regulation and raising standards.

Jorgensen and Knudsen investigate the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in global supply chains and discover that more than half of the (300 Danish) SMEs surveyed face significant corporate responsibility-related requirements from global buyers with a strong push on environmental and health and safety issues, but also including social and ethical demands. However, interestingly, the majority of SMEs do not apply any requirements to their own suppliers. Moreover, the share of SMEs receiving buyer requirements that are contractual and subject to verification is less than a third and the share drops to 20 percent and below when it comes to communicating and verifying requirements to their own suppliers. This raises questions about the governance of global supply chains, which the authors further develop.

Sobczak, Debucquet and Havard take a critical look at higher education as an industry sector. They recognise that the sector is making progress with mainstreaming corporate responsibility in research and education, thereby becoming more responsive to the needs of business and society. However, the authors conclude on the basis of empirical study (through 465 questionaires from students and young managers in France) that the culture of an academic institution has an important impact on the perception of business and corporate responsibility. Moreover, it is not sufficient to research and teach corporate responsibility as a stand alone subject without it being tacitly embedded in the curriculum and the ethos of the whole institution. This has important implications for the role and responsibility of business schools and universities and their relevance to companies, students and society at large. It also seems to imply that corporate responsibility, in a post Bologna era of increased competiton, might play an important role in the competitiveness of the business school itself

Conclusion

High-profile cases like Nike and others have demonstrated the complexity of global supply chains and industry sectors, the challenges of business models that structurally preclude responsible business practice and the prisoner’s dilemma often inherent in taking individual action as a company. Nevertheless, progress is being made in advancing evidence-based understanding of how global supply chains and industry sectors work and can be made more sustainable, responsible and competitive at the same time. This line of inquiry needs to be continued, a recommendation also picked up by Zadek at the end of his paper.

Case studies like that of Unilever-Oxfam on integrated impact assessment (economic, social and environmental) in countries and regions deserve further attention and replication as well as actions by companies such as Johnson & Johnson in building industry-level capacity, which can be seen as both social investment and a driver of long-term competitive advantage. New research is also required on innovation clusters and human capital as well as knowledge development for local government policies on competitiveness and corporate responsibility.

Corporate responsibility and competitiveness at the micro level of the firm

The debate on the “business case” for corporate responsibility has shifted from determining the relationship between social/environmental performance and financial performance to exploring the ways in which corporate responsibility creates value and enhances organisational wealth and performance through better environmental scanning and knowledge management, increased innovation, new business opportunities, stronger corporate identity and greater stakeholder commitment.

Ayuso, Rodriguez and Ricart use two company case studies to explore how stakeholder dialogue together with stakeholder knowledge integration forms an organisational capability that can lead to sustainable innovation for new strategies, processes, products and services. The observed elements of this dynamic capability are: values, employee-oriented structure and systems, customer-oriented structure and systems and innovation-oriented structures and systems. The paper successfully links stakeholder theory with the resource base view of the firm by identifying the knowledge management dimension in stakeholder management.

De Wit, Wade and Schouten explore the evolutionary process at Shell and the gradual construction of the company’s corporate responsibility agenda. They show how sensitising people around critical incidents, discovering and constructing its sustainable development concept and embedding it in management and governance models underpinned by a strong methodology on social and environmental impact assessment and project planning have all made important contributions. However, embedding corporate responsibility in management systems also needs to be supported by embedding in organisational culture and routines, competency frameworks and learning. The paper looks at how Shell is gearing up to make this investment in human and organisational capital.

Sachs, Maurer, Rühli and Hoffmann present a collaborative business-academic case study on Orange Switzerland. The case provided an opportunity to test the employee relations component of the SHV or stakeholder view of the firm (Post et al., 2002). It employed a methodology that assesses both the risks and benefits in all components of the SHV. This also provided a test for the company to identify possible blind spots in their CSR approach. This partnership approach produced significant benefits for both sides and recommendations to the company included: better utilisation of employee knowledge resources, improving risk management in stakeholder relationships thereby enhancing the firm’s strategic resources, capabilities and competitiveness.

Molteni presents his Social Competitive Innovation Pyramid as a logical path for including societal expectations into corporate strategy. The top of this pyramid represents the ideal of a social-competitive synthesis which he explores in some detail. Lower levels of the pyramid are: in context action, sustainable social cost, acceptable compromise and temporary sacrifice of societal expectations.

Clarke and Butcher go on to propose that organisations today face the challenge of managing the plurality of conflicting demands and expectations whilst maintaining coherence. Theories to guide this are stakeholder theory, organisational citizenship behaviour, community of practice theory and complexity-Co-evolutionary theory. But the disjuncture between theory and practice is substantial. The dominant bureaucratic logic of organisation prevails and continues to suppress the full use of human potential and organisational resources. Voluntarism is proposed as a new theory of organisation and management to take advantage of the challenges implied by this plurality of expectations and demands in order to enhance organisational performance.

Conclusion

Research on corporate responsibility and competitiveness at the level of the firm is breaking new ground on organisational development, organisational capabilities and human capital, as demonstrated by the papers discussed here. However, more research is needed to better understand integrated organisational change in response to requirements for corporate responsibility, competitiveness and sustainable growth. More disciplines and methodologies needs to be involved in future analyses, which might include business history, narrative organisation studies, cultural studies as well as other areas.

Business executives and other practitioners are also demanding more collaborative case study research in measuring the value creation efforts around corporate responsibility (or the “business case”). This is often used for the purposes of internal justification within companies and should not be abandoned, despite the need to broaden the agenda. There is also a demand from executives for research on how firms can better contribute to public policy objectives, which mirrors and supports future challenges at the macro and meso levels.

Summary

Overall, the Colloquium participants and the authors of the selected papers in this Special Edition are all attempting to push the boundaries of knowledge development on corporate responsibility into new territories and are raising the bar on quality, rigour and relevance.

There is strong progress on collaborative research efforts between academics and practitioners and we are seeing more multi-disciplinarity. But much still needs to be achieved through an undiminished commitment to joined-up knowledge development. Moreover, examples of true interdisciplinarity – whereby researchers from different disciplines work together, collect data and offer complementary perspectives in their analysis and conclusions – are still few and far between. This remains an important objective for the field in general and EABIS in particular.

In terms of connecting the macro, meso and micro levels of analysis – or in Zadek’s words, pursuing “third generation” knowledge development on corporate responsibility – we have moved out of the starting blocks and we are beginning to see some very promising results in terms of research outputs. This might even open the door in the future to a “meta” level of analysis and theory-building on the relationship between business, government and society. Nevertheless, there is still an important deficit in research on corporate responsibility, which needs to be addressed: an over-emphasis on social issues and an underemphasis on environmental issues. In short, interdisciplinarity in a multi-level approach that links macro, meso and micro levels of analysis should continue to be the aspiration for knowledge development and learning.

We would like to conclude with a dedication to the individuals and institutions who participated at the Colloquium in Warsaw and contributed to this Special Edition, and who have been involved in pioneering the way on corporate responsibility through EABIS and in their own organisations in recent times. The research on corporate responsibility and business in society has made enormous progress in the last five years and has become more relevant to companies, policy makers and society as a whole. Nevertheless, there is still some way to go and we invite the Deans and Directors as well as the mainstream faculty of Business Schools and Universities to recognise the considerable progress of sober analysis and broad knowledge development in a field which is of a growing importance in corporate boardrooms. This strategic importance is now even recognised in The Economist by somebody like Ian Davis, Global Managing Partner of McKinsey & Company (Davis, 2005).

Corporate responsibility and competitiveness will continue to be at the top of the agenda for further knowledge development, but it needs to be better integrated in education and learning (Wilson and Lenssen, forthcoming 2006) whether this is in managing the complex realities and expectations on economic, social and environmental issues in companies or meeting the challenge of developing new theories and educating the next generation of managers in academic institutions. We are confident that the insight and analysis that follows is the next step of a highly promising agenda for better understanding some of the most pressing challenges and opportunities facing us all on the role of business in society.

Notes

1. The Fifth Colloquium of EABIS in Milan September 2006 will explore the link of Corportate Responsibility and Sustainability to Strategic Management through the Stakeholder View of the Firm.

About the guest editors

Gilbert Lenssen is President of the European Academy of Business in Society and visiting professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands. His main field of research interest is managerial theories of organisation and how firms induce organisational change by responding to societal expectations. He is a member of the board of the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) and member of academic advisory boards of several business schools, as well as of editorial boards of several academic journals. He first pursued a business career for 25 years. His last post was Vice President BP Solar International.

Wojciech Gasparski is Professor of Humanities, Vice Rector for Research of the Leon Kozminski Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management (LKAEM) Warsaw, Director and founder of the Business Ethics Centre a joint unit of LKAEM and the Institute of Philosophy & Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences. He teaches: human action theory (praxiology), business ethics, organisational design, methodology, and systems theory. He has visited universities in other countries, extensively contributed at international conferences and published several books and over 300 articles, as well as conference papers.

Boleslaw Rok is an Associate Professor at Business Ethics Centre, Leon Kozminski Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management. In his work he explores implementation models of corporate responsibility strategies toward different groups of stakeholders. He is also partner at consultancy Responsible Enterprise Poland, vice President of the Responsible Business Forum, affiliated to CSR Europe, member of the “Mainstreaming CSR among SMEs” expert group at the European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General.

Peter Lacy is Executive Director of the European Academy of Business in Society. He directs all of the organisations activities and manages its research, education and training portfolio. Peter has written and spoken on the topic of corporate responsibility across Europe and has sat on several boards and advisory committees, including AccountAbility, the UK Government CSR Academy, the Corporate Governance Journal and AIESEC’s Global Sustainability Group. Peter was previously a strategy consultant with Accenture and has also worked in marketing and brand management. He graduated from the University of Nottingham with First Class Honours in Politics.

Gilbert Lenssen, Wojciech Gasparski, Boleslaw Rok, Peter LacyGuest editors