1 ICSB 2011 World Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 17 – 18 June 2011
Entrepreneurship education as a part of corporate responsibility Marja-Leena Ruostesaari, University of Turku, Department of, Teacher Education, Finland Jaana Seikkula-Leino, Centre for Training and Development, Lappeenranta University of Technology, University of Turku, Teacher Training School, Finland Eliisa Troberg, University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute, Finland Abstract This article aims at explicating the relationship between corporate social responsibility (hereafter CSR) and entrepreneurship education from the company point of view. Corporate responsibility consists of economical, social and environmental responsibility. The focus of our paper is on corporate social responsibility. The major research questions are: Is entrepreneurship education (hereafter EE) part of corporate responsibility? What is the contribution of CSR in entrepreneurship education? Does entrepreneurship education as part of the stakeholder network and corporate social responsibility bring added value to the company? We have reviewed literature of corporate social responsibility and entrepreneurship education in order to find out whether the company reports are indicating a connection between CSR and EE or not. The findings suggest ways how entrepreneurship education will be beneficial to both business and educational society. Keywords: entrepreneurship education (EE), entrepreneurship corporate responsibility, corporate social responsibility (CSR), stakeholder approach ------------------------Introduction While corporate social responsibility (CSR) as well as entrepreneurship education (EE) have become mainstream issues in their own fields, and much research has been accomplished globally, CSR and EE have rarely been discussed in combination in the literature. The number of entrepreneurship education programs and courses has sharply increased in recent years at each education level. Most research has involved entrepreneurship activity from the school and pedagogic point of view. However, the “real enterprise” is an important part of the learning process. Therefore it is reasonable to ask whether the active relationship and co-operation between entrepreneurship education and the entrepreneurial community should be business as usual and EE part of the company stakeholders‟ network. In addition to that we ask: should entrepreneurship education be an essential part of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as well? Does entrepreneurship education as part of the corporate social responsibility bring added value to the company? The aim of this article is to find out to what extent, if at all, companies are stating in their CSRreports to take responsibility for the education and future of young people. At first we will present the definitions of CSR, the stakeholder approach and EE based on the literature. Secondly we
2 review some company CSR reports in order to monitor how the responsibility for younger generations and education has been indicated in their programmes. We will conclude the article by presenting some conclusions and recommendations for future research.
Concepts
There are many different definitions of corporate social responsibility. Most of the definitions describe it as a notion whereby companies consider their social and environmental impact and integrate these concerns into their business operations. CSR is assumed on voluntary basis, that is, beyond the legal obligations imposed on the company. (Melé 2009; Perrini et al. 2007.) According to Kanji (2010) and Peter and Kramer (2003) there is a space where the interest of pure philantrophy and pure business can coverage and create both social and economical benefits. Thus, CSR can give companies a competitive edge. Corporate responsibility is based on sustainable development and company values and strategy. The term sustainable development was launched 1987 in the report of Gro Harlem Brundtland comission. According to the definition sustainable development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (Juutinen & Steiner 2010; Teräs 2009.) In most CSR literature corporate responsibility has been divided into three parts: economic, social and environmental responsibility. (Melé 2009; Fuentes-Garcia et al. 2008; Uimonen 2006.) An economically responsible, profitable and competitive enterprise or other work community generates added value for its owners, maintains jobs, increases tax revenues and creates welfare in society. Enterprises bear economic responsibility not only for their owners, but other stakeholder groups, too. Social responsibility entails exceeding the minimum legislative requirements for example by ensuring employees‟ wellbeing at work, enhancing their competence and through the enforcement of human rights, by employing those at risk of social exclusion, and networking with stakeholder groups…Recently, the concepts of “decent work” and “flexicurity” have emerged. Flexicurity refers, for example, to socially responsible change management in enterprises. Ecologically responsible enterprises utilise natural resources and raw materials in a sustainable manner, reducing for example environmental pollution and climate change throughout their operations. (Ministry of Employment and Economy 2011.) Corporate social responsibility is no longer only an issue of companies but a concern shared by for example the European Union, the International Labour Organization (ILO), labour market organizations and many others. In the EU, CSR has been defined as the voluntary contribution of
3 business in pursuing competitiveness, social cohesions and environmental stewardships. (EU Commission 2005.) So far, research on CSR has concentrated on assessing the benefits for companies. But what benefits and impact does CSR bring to its stakeholders? Melé 2009 has noted that Corporate social responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the community and society at large. Furthermore, he has added elements of the following issues to the priorities of CSR: Human rights, Employee rights, Environmental protection, Supplier relations, Community involvement and Stakeholder rights. (Melé 2009, 300 -301.) Referring to earlier mentioned definitions of CSR, company social responsibility covers also the whole stakeholder network. Freeman (1999) prefers to talk about corporate stakeholder responsibility rather than CSR. He points out, that the corporate responsibilities are not generically due to society but, rather, to stakeholders: firms are therefore to create economic, social and ecological value for all the firm‟s contacts. However, according to Melé (2009, 309) stakeholder engagement refers to practices that the organization undertakes to involve stakeholders in its activities in a positive manner and respects the legitimate interests of stakeholders in accordance with normal principles. Stakeholder theory is concerned with the nature of the relationship between the company and its stakeholders. Following Freeman‟s (1994) statement, stakeholders are defined as „„any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization‟s objectives‟‟. One of the first challenges for organizations is to identify their stakeholders. Usually stakeholders are classified into primary and secondary groups. The primary or core stakeholder group refers to stakeholders who are essential for the business itself to exist and/or have some kind of formal contract with the business (owners, employees, customers and suppliers).The secondary stakeholder group includes social and political stakeholders who play a fundamental role in achieving business credibility and acceptance of its activities. (Ayuso et al. (2006.) According to Freeman (1999) all stakeholders are equally important, simply because all have moral standing. According to Melé (2009); Teräs (2008) and Uimonen (2006) the CSR program of the companies covers also their stakeholder network as illustrated in following Figure 1.
4
Integration of CSR & EE Corporate Responsibility Economic
Social
Environment
Subcontractors
Stakeholders Employees
Customers
Community Owners Shareholders Authorities
Entr education society
Figure 1. Corporate Responsibility Program covers also the stakeholder network
The European Union sees entrepreneurship education development as one of the key factors for its competitiveness and well being. Its strategy highlights the importance of advancing entrepreneurial culture by fostering the right mindset, entrepreneurship skills and awareness of its career opportunity. (Kyrö and Ristimäki 2008). Since 1994 Finland has included entrepreneurship education extensively in the curriculum in all education levels including primary and secondary schools. The reform and clarification of the program was concluded in 2004 for the basic level (pupils 7 – 16 years old). In this reform EE is not a subject itself, but will be implemented as an area of interaction, which has been implemented into the subjects and the school culture through local curricula. (Seikkula-Leino 2008.) According to Blenker et al. (2008) entrepreneurship is traditionally associated with a particular form of business activity; the creation of a firm. Entrepreneurship education is thus directed towards stimulating entrepreneurship in the form of new venture creation; the focus is on business renewal in an economic sense. However, according to our understanding this is not anymore a valid argument. Entrepreneurship education (EE) has broad implications, introducing entrepreneurship as a career choice but also as an entrepreneurial way of seeing and doing things as well as teaching and learning (Gibb 2002, Kyrö 2005). It is reasonable to ask whether teaching should be for entrepreneurship or about entrepreneurship. This decision is closely related to the question of
5 whether the objective is to improve the students‟ ability to perform entrepreneurial action as a practical activity, or teach entrepreneurship as an academic subject (Blenker et al. 2008; Gibb 2002, 238). Entrepreneurship education is also the way to coach young people to be good, active and innovative citizens who take responsibility to their own learning and coping with targets.
While
EE may not lead directly to entrepreneurship, it may lead to development of unique life-long learning skills and citizenship that are at the foundation of the attributes that society and working life expect and increasingly demand of young students. The Commission of the European Communities defines (2005) an entrepreneurial attitude as characteristic by initiative, pro-activity, independence and innovation in personal and social life, as much as at work. It also includes innovation and determination to meet objectives, whether personal goals and aims held in common with others, and/or work. These are strongly demanding requirements for entrepreneurship education, but they all have been modified and included in the national entrepreneurship education curriculum in Finland since 1994. In addition to these claims the target of the entrepreneurship education is to courage young people to become active and initial individuals, who are able to develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes and mode of operations in order to manage in their own lives. (Seikkula-Leino 2008; Kyrö 1997.) The teaching methods such as co-operative learning, problem-based learning, working in groups and peers, project work, team work and learning by doing could be considered for activating students‟ interactive learning. In all probability these learning methods will prepare the students to manage in the working life. (Seikkula-Leino 2007.) According to Gibb (2005) the pedagogy of entrepreneurship education focuses on students‟ activity in learning. Seikkula-Leino (2007) argues that the pedagogy of entrepreneurship education is based on socioconstructivism and experiential learning theory created by Kolb (1984).
Methodology
The research methodology relies on a qualitative approach. We chose to approach the data using base qualitative content analysis. Content analysis is a technique for gathering data that consists of codifying qualitative information in literary form. The method means the attribution of the incidence of an event as indicated by the mention of the event under question in the literary document that constitutes the raw data. (Abbot & Monsen 1979). According to Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2006, 105) content analysis is a method for analysing the content of the communication in an objective and systematic way.
6 The preliminary data was collected by reviewing literature as well as monitoring the CSR-reports of companies‟ web-sites. Small-scale empirical research was carried out to review existing CSR practice in twelve Finnish companies in different consumer and industrial sectors known to be active in the field of corporate responsibility. Our review covered three big globally listed companies, three co-operative companies, three family-owned and three small and medium-sized enterprises. These firms were monitored by reviewing companies‟ web-sites and CSR reports. We were looking at how companies‟ CSR reports indicated the benefits achieved on the collaborative actions with different partners, especially young people and their future and education. We were also investigating both large and small & medium-sized enterprises (SME) in order to see whether there are differences between their CSR reports. (Appendix 1.)
At first we collected a list of the companies‟ CSR reports in order to find out how the collaboration with young people was mentioned in the CSR-programs (Table 1.) Company
N
Collaboration with young people mentioned
Private companies Family business 3 Co-operative Small companies
3 2 3 3
3 1 (sponsoring) 1 (research with university)
Table 1. Companies’ collaboration with young people.
Results In the following chapter we are presenting the results based on the literature and findings from the companies CSR-reports The above introduced table of the content of the companies´ CSR programs (Table 1. and Appendix 1.) indicates that the large companies seem to take responsibility for the young people meaning either students or young generation as a whole whereas small companies seldom mention this issue.
The following companies were chosen according to the company form: listed
companies: Nokia Corporation, Neste Oil, Kone Group; family owned: Fiskars Group, Onninen, Wihuri; co-operative: S-Group, OP-Pohjola, Valio; SME: Pölkky Oy, Satel Oyj, and Bioferme. (Appendix 1.) The result also indicates that small firms have different needs and they can also play multiple roles in relationships between the owner-manager and various stakeholders. Many SMEs are engaged in socially responsible activities on local communities, presumable also with local school. (Perrini et al. (2007). The problem is that small companies rarely use the language of CSR to describe what they are doing – they just do it without the written report.
7
The large companies, for example Nokia, have considerable programs and actions for young people all over the world. “Access to a quality education is perhaps the most important factor determining the future of young people everywhere. Yet the vast majority of today's youth lack the educational opportunities they need to become productive members of society. “ “Nokia‟s main focus is on education for all, and the various youth projects we are involved in also further this goal. Generally implemented in cooperation with local non-governmental organisations, the projects provide a means of achieving important youth development outcomes, such as improved performance in school, increased literacy, finding and maintaining employment, and active citizenship.” (http://www.nokia.com.) Kone Corporation has made a decision to establish a foundation to support activities of universities and colleges with 3.5 M€ (http://www.kone.com). Also the family-owned company Wihuri promotes and sustains of young students‟ studies by distributing considerable grants for science. (http://www.wihuri.fi.) Pölkky Oy is a small Finnish wood and forest company in Lapland. Its responsible report is focusing merely on the environment. “Wood is the only building material that meets the criteria of sustainable development. We value Finnish forests as one of our most important national renewable resources, and we strive to develop our operations in such a way that they have minimum impact on the environment. (http://polkky.fi). S Group belongs to the co-operative category. The CSR report of the company mentions neither the young generation nor students :…The S Group emphasizes its appreciation of its employees and the stress it places on social responsibility. The S Group is a dependable company for customers and employees and a good corporate citizen. (http://www.s-kanava.fi.) According to our small scale research only five from 12 companies mentioned youth programs or responsibility actions with young people in their CSR reports. Big, globally listed firms have large, clearly presented youth programs, but SME companies very seldom have them. It does not mean a total lack of responsibility in their operations – on the contrary – they can operate very responsively without putting effort to write CSR-reports. Another finding was that co-operative companies concentrated very carefully on their customers and owner-members, and the only mentioned relationship with the young generation is sponsoring sports and events The table of the reviewed firms in Appendix 1. shows also how the companies have indicated the roots of their corporate responsible program, namely sustainable development, values and strategy.
Discussion
8
The results presented in this paper offer some interesting insights on CSR reports of SME‟s and larger firms as well as on CSR reports of different company types. According to our findings the education society does not yet belong to the company stakeholder network (Figure 1.), at least not tightly enough in order to be involved in the CSR-program. Therefore we suggest, that the educational community including entrepreneurship education should self-evidently belong to this network and therefore also to a company‟s CSR policy. As Freeman claimed (1997) the mission of the company is to serve the interests of, and collaborate with, the various stakeholders and according to our findings also with the entrepreneurial students. By looking at the stakeholder relationships of the companies we would like to highlight the link to the educational society and especially to the entrepreneurship education. Freeman (1997) finds that the mission of the company is to serve the interests of, and collaborate with, the various stakeholders – and according to our findings – also with the entrepreneurship students. Jamieson (1984)
presents an interesting three-category framework by which to organize
entrepreneurship education. He distinguishes between education about enterprise, education for enterprise and education in enterprise. The first category deals mostly with awareness creation and means running a business mostly from a theoretical perspective. The second category deals more with the preparation of aspiring entrepreneurs for a career in self-employment with the specific objective of encouraging participants to set up and run their own business. The third category deals mainly with management training for established entrepreneurs and focuses on ensuring the growth and future development of the business. Education in enterprise refers to courses aimed at helping individuals to adopt an enterprising approach, irrespective of the type of organization for which they work. It could be useful to implement this kind of category thinking to the learning environment at school as well. The target of entrepreneurship education in a school environment is not merely dealing with setting up an own business or creating career in self-employment but also to be an entreprenially thinking employee. Henry et al. (2005) note that in exploring the relationship between education and entrepreneurship contrasting the classroom learning situation with the real world learning environment of the entrepreneur the learning emphasis in many educational establishment is very much on the past. In reality, the entrepreneur is focused on the present. In our research question we are asking: What kind of benefits will the integration of CSR and EE bring to both sides? The benefits are outlined in Table 2.
9 Benefits – Win-Win? Companies
Educational society
Employees, Trainees PR & Image Company as a good citizen New, fresh ideas Feedback Window to the future New way of working (short terms) Signals about changing cultural values
Knowledge and Skills of Entrepreneurship Positive attitude towards business Students as good citizens and ready for work Work place, trainees Projects, supervising at work Place for testing ideas & innovations Money, sponsorship Learning methods (e.g. learning by doing) Different and new learning environment The possibility for teachers to increase entrepreneurship competence
their
Table 2. Benefits of integration of CSR and EE
Table 2. is based not only on the published CSR reports but also on the writer‟s long experience as a coordinator of the relationship programs between the big company and the educational society, schools and universities. As can be seen in Table 2, both sides will benefit the collaboration. From the company point of view the most important benefits in addition to new employees and PR are the feedback and fresh and innovative ideas of the young generation. Students who have studied at the entrepreneurship courses are familiar with the idea of sustainable development and environmental issues. Consequently they will expect responsible operation also from their employer. At the beginning of the third millennium, there is growing interest in the social dimension of business activities. Nowadays young students are better informed and their values are just changing form childhood values to young adult values and they are increasingly ecologically and socially aware and demand more from companies than just the work place. Companies have to respond to the new demands by implementing corporate social responsibility actions, which include all their environmental and social activities that go beyond mere economic interests and break away from the traditional image of a company that focuses solely on generating value for its shareholders. (Fuentes-Carcia et al. 2007). By bearing responsibility for young students the company wants to be “a good citizen”. What does it mean? According to Melé (2009, 330 -331) citizenship responsibility is shown by being an agent for good within society. This responsibility includes paying taxes, complying with laws, avoiding negative impacts on society and acting as a good corporate citizen in helping to solve social problems. The latter includes actions that the company undertakes, beyond the sphere of its specific activities, to improve certain aspects of its social environment. We can assume that
10 especially on the local level the local school could be one of the targets of the company‟s specific positive activities. Not only the students but also teachers will benefit of the integration of CSR and EE. They have a chance to increase their knowledge and competence about real entrepreneurship outside the normal learning environment. (Rutonen 2011.)
The collaboration between entrepreneurship
education and the entrepreneurial community provides an opportunity also for educators to improve the entrepreneurial learning process. In addition to those advantages we cannot ignore the significance of the financial support from the business society by sponsorship, scholarships and funding.
Conclusions
The value of this paper is extraordinary due to the fact that the connection between corporate social responsibility and entrepreneurship education has not been examined earlier from the company point of view. Do we know whether the collaboration of corporate social responsibility and education society bring added value to the company or entrepreneurship education? According to our findings we suggest ways how entrepreneurship education will be beneficial to both business and educational society. It is crucial for the young student as well as for the teachers of entrepreneurship to increase their knowledge and competence about real entrepreneurship in a real enterprise. However, while corporate social responsibilities as well as entrepreneurship education have become mainstream issues in their own fields, they rarely have been discussed in combination in the literature. The data of our paper was based on rather small-scale research, but the results were evident. Our study suggests that the published CSR reports of the companies indicate very little, hardly any, connections
between
corporate
social
responsibility
and
entrepreneurship
education.
Previous research in this field has tended to look at the issue from the school and education point of view, the focus being on education rather than on the entrepreneurial community or the company. By integrating EE into the company stakeholder network the company will get valuable feedback as well as unprejudiced thoughts about its way of working. Young people are “the window to the future” for the firm by giving signals about changes in young people‟s culture and view of the world. Students who have participated in EE have readiness to expect and demand for sustainable development and responsible operations from their employer. Big changes are going on in the entrepreneurial community, and young, entrepreneurially thinking students are ready for it – but are the companies ready? Have they taken into account the demands of their future employees?
11 Co-operation between students of entrepreneurship education and the working community is important not only in relation to learning entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial thinking, but also from a learning and learning environment point of view. It is beneficial also for the teachers, who will get the possibility to increase their knowledge, skills and attitudes related to their entrepreneurial competence. Our article highlights the supportive factors that have been found for our hypothesis, which suggest that the collaboration between the environmental society and entrepreneurship education community will benefit both sides (Table 2.). However, at the moment, this relationship is very seldom mentioned in companies´ responsibility reports. In addition to that we found differences between larger and small firms concerning responsibility for young people or education. Based on our literature review it seemed to be evident that larger companies are more likely to identify relevant stakeholders and meet their requirements through specific and formal CSR strategies. Small firms may not publish formal CSR reports, but the responsibility has been embedded into their way of acting. Due to this difference much attention to and more research on relationship between small and large businesses‟ CSR and entrepreneurship education are needed in order to improve our knowledge of this issue. Based on our findings we cannot argue, that by integrating entrepreneurship education into the company stakeholder network would bring financial competitive advantage to the company, but certainly it will strengthen the company‟s good image, PR and brand. Consequently, if and when, the entrepreneurship education programs will be integrated into the company stakeholder network, the CSR policy will self-evidently cover also the young generation, the entrepreneurs of the future. Therefore we suggest that future research should investigate how the responsibility has been taken into consideration in the entrepreneurship education curriculum, whether it should it be a subject itself and how responsibility can be taught.
References Abbott, W.F. and Monsen, R.J. (1979). “On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-Reported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Social Involvement.” Academy of Management Journal, 22 (3), 501-515. Ayuso, S., Rodriguez, M.S. and Ricart, J.E. (2006). “Using Stakeholder Dialogue as a Source of New Ideas: A Dynamic Capability underlying Sustainable innovation”. Corporate Governance, 6 (4), 475-490. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Spain. Blenker, P., Dreisler, P., Faergemann, H.M. and Kjeldsen, J. (2008). ”A framework for developing entrepreneurship education in a university context”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 5(1)
12
Commission of the European Communities 2005 Freeman, R.E., (1999). “Divergent Stakeholder Theory”, Academic of Management Review, 24 (2): 233-236. Freeman, R.E., (1994). “The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 4, 409-29. Friedman, M., Friedman R.D., (2002). Capitalism and Freedom. 40th anniversary edition. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Fuentes- Garcia, F.J., Nunez-Tabales, J.M. and Veros-Herrado, R. (2008). Applicability of Corporate Social Responsibility to Human Resources Management: Perspective from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics 82, 27-44. Gibb, A.A. (1999). Can we build „effective‟ entrepreneurship through management development? Journal of General Management, 24 (4), 1-22. Gibb, A.A. (2002). “In pursuit of a New Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Paradigm of Learning: Creative Destruction, New Values, New Ways of Doing Things and New Combinations of Knowledge”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4 (3), 233-269.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. Education + Training, 47 (2). 98-111. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. UK. Jamieson, I. (1984). “Education for Enterprise”, in Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part 1. Belfast. School of Management, Queen‟s University. Kanji, G.K. and Chopra, P.K. (2010). “Corporate social responsibility in a global economy,” Total Quality Management, 21 (2), 119-143
Juutinen, S. ja Steiner, M-L. (2010). Strateginen yritysvastuu. Helsinki WSOYpro.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experimential Learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.
Kyrö, P. (1997). Yrittäjyyden muodot ja tehtävät ajan murroksessa. Jyväskylä Studies in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics 38, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
13
Kyrö, P. and Carrier, C. (edit.) (2005). The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross Cultural University Context. University of Tampere Faculty of Education. Entrepreneurship Education Series 2/2005. Kyrö, P. and Ristimäki, K. (2008 ). “Expanding arenas and dynamics of entrepreneurship education”. The Finnish Journal of Business Economics, 3/2008, 259-265.
Melé, D. (2009). Business Ethics in Action. Seeking Human Excellence in Organizations. New York, US; Palgrave Macmillan.
Ministry of Employment and Economy, Finland (2011) Perrini, F., Russo, A. and Tencati, A. (2007). “ CSR Strategies of SMEs and Large Firms. Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 74: 285-300. Rutonen, M. (2011). Aika yksin työssään. Opettaja 21.2.2011 (16-17) 8 – 11. Helsinki. OAJ.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). Ohjelmasuunnitelmauudistus ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen toteuttaminen. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2007: 28, Koulutus- ja tiedepolitiikan osasto, Yliopistopaino, Helsinki.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2008). The Development of Entrepreneurship Education Through the Partnership Model in Kyrö, P., Speer, S. and Braun, G. (edit.) (2008) Evaluating, Experiencing and Creating Entrepreneurial and Enterprising networks. Helsinki. Juvenes Print. Helsinki School of Economics.
Teräs, K., (2009). Yritys ja yhteiskunta. Heikki Huhtamäen verkosto- ja sidosryhmäsuhteet. Hämeenlinna. Kariston kirjapaino.
Tuomi, J. and Sarajärvi, A. (2006). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Jyväskylä.Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy.
14 Uimonen, M-L. (2006). Suomalaisten yritysten vapaaehtoinen sosiaalinen vastuu. Sidosryhmäviitekehys yritysten ja ulkoisten sidosryhmien edustajien näkemyksiä. Työpoliittinen tutkimus 2006. Helsinki. Työministeriö.
Appendix 1. The Content of CSR Reports Company CSR Listed company Nokia Oyj * Neste Oil Kone Oyj
Family Fiskars **
Onninen
Wihuri Co-operative S-ryhmä
OP-Pohjola Valio ***
SME (Small & medium enterp.) Pölkky Satel Oy Bioferme
Branch
Sustainabl devel.
Values
Economy
Social
Environm
Stakeholders
Young people
Telecommunic. Advanced traffic fuels Elevators, escalators
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tools for home, garden and outdoors Materials to contractors & industry Trade
x
x
x
x
Network for cooperative retail trade and services Bank Milk processor and developer of functional foods
Forest & Wood Wireless data Organic products
x
x
x
-
x
x
x
x x
-
funding
x
x
x
x
x
-
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
sponsorsh. -
x x
x
x quality x
* Special, large global youth programs ** Special emphasis on the culture *** The best Finnish company 2010 for corporate responsibility
research with university
