1. CCCD
Centrum für Corporate Citizenship Deutschland
Corporate Citizenship in Germany
and a Transatlantic Comparison with the USA
Results of a CCCD Survey
ata
2. 2
CCCD – the Center for Corporate Citizenship Ger many is a non-profit
organisation at the inter face between business, academia, and politics. In
cooperation with leading companies, both domestic and foreign, acade-
mic institutions and civil society organisations, CCCD acts as a think tank
and competence centre, providing a platform for dialogue; acting as cata-
lyst and host.
In this capacity, the CCCD arranges forums for exchange between corpo-
rate citizens, business, academia, politics and civil society, supplies and
carries out applied research, facilitates learning processes through deba-
te and skilling opportunities, and supports cooperation between businesses
and partners from civil society, academia, and/or politics.
Using workshops, publications and public events, CCCD also acts as a dri-
ving force for the corporate citizenship debate in Germany and for the
practical efforts by businesses taking an active role in society.
CCCD is the German partner of the Center for Corporate Citizenship at
Boston College, USA, as well as a partner of Business in the Community, UK.
www.cccdeutschland.org
3. 3
Inhalt
I. Preliminar y remarks 5
II. Key Findings 7
III. Introduction 9
• Key issues and objective of the sur vey
IV. Methodology approach, specifics of random sampling, execution of
the sur vey 11
V. Empirical findings from the German sur vey and transatlantic
comparison of selected issues 14
• An unequivocal “ Yes” to corporate citizenship 14
• Types of corporate citizenship 15
• Deploying companies’ material and human resources for corporate
volunteering 16
• Preferred areas for corporate citizenship 17
• Involving partners in corporate citizenship 18
• Corporate Citizenship with a clear local emphasis 20
• Investment in corporate citizenship 21
• Corporate and community objectives at the focus of commitment 22
• Happening by chance or strategic business planning of corporate
citizenship measures 25
Corporate culture as a guideline
Responsibility for corporate citizenship in the company
Corporate Citizenship no PR-tool
• Socio-political attitudes of companies with regard to corporate
citizenship 28
Positive reinforcement factors for corporate citizenship
Factors with a limiting effect on corporate citizenship
• Issues and areas for corporate citizenship 34
• Investing in the future of corporate citizenship 36
VI. Summar y of results 37
4. 4
Views and Comments:
“This is exactly what we were hoping for when we talked about the idea of doing a sur vey
on corporate citizenship on an international level: interesting comparative findings on the
differences and similarities. Both understanding and practice var y considerably in different
national settings. Therefore the global idea of corporate citizenship needs differentiated,
culture sensitive grounding. We hope CCCD’s survey on corporate citizenship in Germany to
be the first one of a whole series, to be conducted in different parts of the world which will
enable us to develop a truly global understanding of the why and the how of corporate citi-
zenship.”
(Prof. Bradley K. Googins, Executive Director, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston
College)
“Responsible activities by businesses need to be geared towards meeting both the society ’s
needs and shareholder interests, which implies following the business strategy. This makes
the key question for issues and projects: what benefits the business? What benefits society?
Changing over from philanthropic individual measures to a strategic overall concept for
corporate citizenship is a learning cur ve we have gone through as well. On the basis of our
corporate values and business strategy we have revised previous activities and put in place
new long-term projects, based on our core competences and the needs of society ”.
(Jürgen W. Cuno, Director, Government & External Affairs, Deutsche BP)
“ Whenever politics expects companies to show social involvement, there is a suspicion that
companies are supposed to act as stopgaps for a state retreating from welfare state respon-
sibilities. This is not the case. Corporate citizenship brings a specific value of its own to both
the community and the economy. In addition, it is a cornerstone for a new social compact
between citizens, the state and business, resting primarily on cooperation and increased
participation.
(Dr. Michael Bürsch, Member of the German Parliament)
“A global and committed company always encounters special circumstances in different
countries. To be successful, in business as in civic engagement, one has to forge links bet-
ween different corporate cultures as well as cultures of involvement. A US business active
in Germany will always build bridges between different economic and community commit-
ment approaches. A comparative study, revealing both the common ground and the diffe-
rences, is most helpful in this respect.”
(Hans-Peter Teufers, Director Public Affairs Central & Eastern Europe UPS)
“Corporate citizenship and corporate social responsibility have become important issues for
the future. But in Germany and elsewhere, an empirical analysis based on sound methodo-
logy is only just beginning. And yet, decision-makers in business, politics and society need
this knowledge… and the present study will provide a useful source of information to all of
the above – and will hopefully be followed by responsible action”.
(Prof. Manfred Güllner, Managing Director, forsa. Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und sta-
tistische Analysen)
5. 5
I. Preliminary Remarks
The study on hand “Corporate Citizenship in Ger- poll, which are relevant for the German con-
many and a Transatlantic Comparison with the text, have been put into German and integra-
USA” surveys corporate citizenship involving com- ted into the German sur vey, paying particular
panies in Germany. For the first time, the data attention to the specifics of the German situa-
collected will be compared with similar findings tion. Taking into account the diverse political,
from the US. Accordingly, some of the points economic, and cultural characteristics of com-
these two cultures of social involvement share p a n i e s i n b o t h c o u n t r i e s, t h e d a t a p e r m i t s
- and some of their differences - can be iden- instructive interpretation of selected dimensi-
tified and analysed, which gives German busi- ons of corporate citizenship in Germany and
nesses an opportunity to place their own prac- the US.
tice of community commitment in an interna-
tional context and, if necessar y, readjust it. The Germany-related results of the final report
as submitted are based in part on comments
The Study contains fundamental results from an on the report made by Professor Dr. Dr. Seba-
empirical sur vey on the issue of “ Corporate Citi- stian Braun and Mark Kukuk of the Paderborn
zenship in Germany ”, conducted between Sep- University research centre on social involvement.
tember and November 2006. The poll formed The sections focusing on the transatlantic com-
part of a research project involving several of parison are based in part on the results elabo-
the cooperation partners of CCCD, to whom we rated by Dr. Karin Lenhart.
would like to express our thanks for their sup-
port and participation. Dr. Frank W. Heuberger
CCCD
Deutsche BP AG acted as a generous principal
sponsor, and UPS supported the evaluation and
publication of the study results. The preparato-
r y work, including drawing up the German que-
stionnaire, was done by CCCD in cooperation
with the Paderborn University research centre
on social involvement. Forsa undertook nation-
wide and cross-sector polling of businesses,
u s i n g c o m p u t e r- a i d e d t e l e - i n t e r v i e w s ( C AT I
system).
For the first time, thanks to the partnership bet-
ween CCCD and the Center for Corporate Citi-
zenship at Boston College, USA, reference could
be made in individual subject areas, to the study 1 The State of Corporate Citizenship in the U.S. Business Per-
“The State of Corporate Citizenship in the US ”, spectives in 2005. The Center for Corporate Citizenship at
conducted in 2005 by the Center and the US Boston College. Boston. 2005. Note: The German text uses the
gender-specific masculine pronoun. This is simply to facilitate
Chamber of Commerce, allowing a direct com- legibility and reading comprehension; the content addresses
parison of results. Those item batteries of the both men and women equally.
6. 6
Introductor y remarks for the English more attractive for the US-American reader to com-
pare individual results and interpretations from
edition
both countries and to contrast these with his or
The English-language edition of the sur vey on Cor- her own experience in this area.
porate Citizenship in Germany and the USA is a
first attempt at a quantity-based identification and Despite the many similarities in some areas of Cor-
analysis of central elements of the social commit- porate Citizenship in Germany and the US, there
ment shown by companies which are either based are also amazing differences in others. In part,
in Germany or which are transnational companies, these are due to different entrepreneurial traditi-
either manufacturing or selling their goods or ser- ons in the two countries, but primarily they reflect
vices in Germany. a historical and cultural development which made
them set different priorities in fields such as health
The results of the sur vey afford the English-langua- care, combating poverty, disaster relief, or exten-
ge reader unparalleled insight into the communi- ding global trade. For both countries these data
ty commitment of businesses operating in the Ger- will ask in the medium-term whether more inten-
man economic environment. The CCCD had the sive Corporate Citizenship will mean that the rules
opportunity to refer to comparative material from of business as a whole will be rewritten.
the 2005 study “ The State of Corporate Citizen-
ship” conducted by the Center for Corporate Citi- Dr. Frank W. Heuberger
zenship at Boston College, which makes it even CCCD
7. 7
II. Key Findings
Irrespective of their size, companies in In Germany, only 40 per cent of businesses, irre-
Ger many profess their social responsibility. spective of company size, expect their com-
Almost all the companies polled, 96 per cent mitment to yield any positive economic result.
exhibit some kind of corporate citizenship. In the US, 63 per cent of all enterprises and 84
per cent of large enterprises, are convinced
that their civic involvement will have an imme-
In a regional context, gif ts of both money
diate and positive effect on their business acti-
and in kind are typical of the corporate citi-
vities
zenship displayed by Ger man companies.
There is also widespread support among the
staff for voluntar y activities and the provision of Only 16 per cent of large-scale German
such ser vices typifies German corporate volun- companies interlink corporate citizenship with
teering. The larger the company, and the more marketing and sales activities.
internationally active it is, the broader the range Instead, traditional PR tools such as press state-
of its commitment. ments, homepages, or customer newsletters
are widely used to inform about the compa-
nies ’ role in public life.
More than three businesses out of four
consider corporate citizenship par t of the
image they have of themselves, and par t of In both Ger many and the US, enterprises
their corporate culture. Still, the majority of are strongly opposed in equal measure to
Ger man businesses have not chosen to be any regulator y inter ference in their enga-
corporate citizens on their own initiative. gement.
Fewer than 40 per cent of the companies que- Only 3 per cent of businesses regard legal pro-
stioned are actively searching for areas in which visions in Germany as positive reinforcement,
to become active and engaged. Even fewer whereas in the US 14 per cent see their com-
businesses set measurable targets. mitment influenced by such provisions.
Most Ger man companies are still – unli- Where the quality of corporate citizenship
ke those in the US – far removed from an inclu- measures adopted is concerned, German
sive concept which would make corporate companies are clearly more self-critical than
citizenship an integral par t of the corpora- their American counterpar ts.
te strategy, integrated into the companies’ Two-thirds of respondents (66 per cent) in Ger-
core business and competencies. many state that corporate citizenship is con-
This is particularly true for small and medium- sidered important in principle though it is not
sized enterprises. actually implemented consistently, but only 47
per cent of American businesses share this view.
Unlike US American companies, the majo-
rity of German businesses are not convin- More than one third (39 per cent) of com-
ced that corporate citizenship can make any panies in Ger many assume their corporate
measurable contribution to their economic citizenship has no relevance to customer satis-
success. faction.
8. 8
Among American companies, this figure is just Surprisingly, exactly the opposite occurs when
11 per cent. Virtually half the German com- company size is taken into account. The lar-
panies (48 per cent) consider that corporate ger the company in Germany, the more fre-
citizenship is not a factor in attracting and retai- quently lack of resources is cited, while in the
ning staff, while only 15 per cent of US com- US it is the opposite case.
panies dispute this.
More than 41 per cent of Ger man com-
According to the majority of businesses panies do not work with a par tner in their cor-
on both sides of the Atlantic by far the most porate citizenship.
serious obstacle to stronger civic involvement That means they forgo the chance of benefi-
is a lack of resources (US: 54 per cent; Ger- ting from experience made in other sectors of
many: 48 per cent). society for their corporate citizenship measures.
9. 9
III. Introduction
The debate on corporate citizenship is driven t i c a l o b j e c t i v e s. A g a i n s t t h i s b a c k d r o p, t h e
by a view of the company as a good corpora- “altruistic motivation” of well-off individual entre-
te citizen, who is or should be, actively invol- p r e n e u r s d o e s n o t m a t t e r v e r y m u c h, u n l i ke
ved in resolving social issues. achieving a win-win strategy. Expectations cen-
tre on a congruence of social and entrepre-
This involves exclusively those corporate activi- neurial interests, requiring a readjustment in the
ties which might contribute to the common relationship between business, the state, and
good, irrespective of any assessment of inter- civil society to provide the launch pad for a
nal company processes. These activities inclu- new social compact.
de all one-off or permanent volunteer ser vices
intended to benefit society at the local, regio-
nal, national, or global level, which are outsi- Key Issues and Objectives of the Sur vey
de the genuine business activities of the com-
pany. Basically, therefore, corporate citizenship The object of the sur vey is an empirical analy-
means company investment in the social or sis of entrepreneurially and socially-oriented cor-
natural environment which exceeds its normal porate citizenship in Germany. The main que-
business sphere. stion asked is: how and to what extent do Ger-
man companies commit to public concerns,
Corporate community commitment is recogni- going beyond their immediate business activi-
zed as benefiting the various ways in which ties. Within a company ’s corporate citizenship
entrepreneurial resources can be employed. measures, which objectives are business-rela-
But increasing attention is being paid to how a t e d a n d w h i c h a r e s o c i e t y- r e l a t e d ? To w h a t
business can profit from its corporate citizen- extent are corporate citizenship measures plan-
ship activities. The benefits accruing to com- ned and implemented as part of the business
panies from their engagement lie in creating strategy? What are the socio-political attitudes
prerequisites for improving economic per for- which companies associate with the issue of
mance. Competitiveness and economic per- corporate citizenship? Which are the social areas
formance, for instance, can be raised by tar- and issues of interest to companies? What is
geting improvements of the corporate image, happening concerning investments in the futu-
infrastructure improvements on production sites, re of corporate citizenship?
a t t r a c t i n g n e w c u s t o m e r s, n e t w o r k i n g i n t h e
company ’s local and regional environment, or Researchers Maaß/Clemens (2002), Heuberger/
positive effects in the area of HR development O p p e n / Re i m e r ( 2 0 0 4 ) , H a b i s c h ( 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d
and external communication. Fabisch (2004) provided initial empirical studies
on corporate citizenship activities undertaken
Linking civic involvement and corporate busi- by companies in Germany. The explorative study
ness objectives provides a new impetus in Ger- of Heuberger/ Oppen/Reimer focuses on selec-
many where so far the debate on community ted corporate citizenship measures taken by
commitment has been ver y much dominated individual companies, while the IfM Bonn study
by a socio-political focus addressing compa- of Maaß/Clemens targets exclusively medium-
nies from, as it were, “outside”. This new direc- sized enterprises, on the basis of a quantitati-
tion ties in closely with the communication-poli- ve sur vey. Habisch (2003) presents “ best prac-
10. 10
tice examples”, using the applications compa- Germany are volunteers in state and/or socie-
nies had submitted for the “ freedom and respon- ty. The current sur vey “ Corporate Citizenship -
sibility ” award. By contrast, the sur vey conduc- Unternehmerisches bürgerschaftliches Engage-
ted by Fabisch (2004) looks into the social invol- ment in Baden-Württemberg ” (entrepreneurial
vement of banks, concentrating its sophistica- community commitment in the state of Baden-
ted empirical and theoretical work on one spe- Württemberg), conducted by the centre for civil
cific industr y. society development (2007) is the most sophi-
But both the so far most influential of all these sticated attempt to date at analysing civic cor-
studies, by the Bertelsmann Foundation (2005) porate involvement at the regional level.
and the “Initiative Neue Marktwirtschaft ” (New
Social Market Initiative), adopted a ver y diffe- The sur vey described follows these other studies
rent approach. Both studies sur vey companies in certain respects, but it also diverges from them
active in Germany on a cross-sectoral basis. by having a different content-focus. This is shown
However, the Bertelsmann sur vey focus is on particularly clearly in the attempt to provide an
“Die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung von Unter- international comparison with the US and inve-
nehmen” (The Social Responsibility of Busines- stigate how corporate citizenship is anchored in
ses) and studies not only external public invol- corporate structures, and linked with flanking
vement, but also internal commitment (e.g. staff socio-political attitudes within. Any insight gai-
equal opportunities, staff social benefits), the ned can give indications to German companies
New Social Market Initiative pays special atten- concerning a strategic (re-) adjustment of their
tion to the extent to which company owners in own corporate citizenship commitment.
2 Maaß F., Clemens, R. (2002). Corporate Citizenship. Das Unternehmen als guter Bürger. Schriften zur Mittelstandsforschung Nr.
94 NF. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. (Corporate Citizenship. Business as a good citizen. Essays on researching
medium-sized enterprises. Pub. German University Press)
Heuberger, F., Oppen, M., Reimer, S. (2004). Der deutsche Weg zum bürgerschaftlichen Engagement von Unternehmen. 10 The-
sen zu quot;Corporate Citizenshipquot; in Deutschland. betrifft: Bürgergesellschaft, Nr. 12. Koschützke, Albrecht (Hrsg.). Bonn. Fried-
rich-Ebert-Stiftung. (The German Road to Corporate Social Responsibility. 10 theses on Corporate Citizenship in Germany.
Regarding: Civil Society, No 12, Koschützke, Albrecht (pub.), Bonn.)
Habisch, A. (2003). Corporate Citizenship. Gesellschaftliches Engagement von Unternehmen in Deutschland. Berlin u.a.: Sprin-
ger.(Corporate Citizenship. Corporate Community commitment by companies in Germany, inter alia Springer.)
Fabisch, N. (2004). Soziales Engagement von Banken. Entwicklung eines adaptiven und innovativen Konzeptansatzes im Sinne
des Corporate Citizenships von Banken in Deutschland. München: Rainer Hampp. (Social Commitment by Banks. Develo-
ping ideas for an adaptive and innovative concept concerning corporate citizenship shown by banks in Germany.)
Bertelsmann Stiftung (Hrsg.) (2005). Die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung von Unternehmen. Dokumentation der Ergebnisse einer
Unternehmensbefragung der Bertelsmann Stiftung. Gütersloh. Verlag Bertelsmann-Stiftung. (Bertelsmann Foundation (Pub.)
(2005) the Social Responsibility of companies. Documenting the results of a corporate sur vey conducted by Bertelsmann
Foundation, Gütersloh. Bertelsmann Publishing.)
Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Hrsg.) (2005). “ Corporate Social Responsibility ” in Deutschland. Textmanuskript zu den Stu-
dienergebnissen. www.insm.de (New Social Market Economy Initiative (Pub.) (2005) “Corporate Social Responsibility in
Germany ”. Full text version of the study results. www.insm.de.)
Zentrum für zivilgesellschaftliche Entwicklung (Hrsg.) (2007).Corporate Citizenship/Unternehmerisches bürgerschaftliches Engage-
ment in Baden-Württemberg. Ergebnisse der repräsentativen Unternehmensstudie. Evangelische Fachhochschule. Freiburg.
(Centre for civil society development (Pub.) (2007) Corporate Citizenship /entrepreneurial civic involvement in Baden
Württemberg. Results of a representative business sur vey.
13. 13
Given this background, a comprehensive intro- für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn (Bonn Institute
duction was used to assess whether a compa- for Medium-sized Enterprise Research), for rea-
ny had any involvement at all in the communi- sons of better legibility of results, a distinction
ty: on the one hand, initially, corporate citizen- is made between 5 :
ship was defined as “all measures and activi-
ties the company in question employs to affect
its social environment, thereby voluntarily assu- small businesses with up to 49 staff or less
ming social responsibility ”. On the other hand, than 10 million Euros annual turnover,
the issue of whether a company shows active
public commitment was analysed with the help medium-sized businesses with between 40
of a list of possible types of public commitment; and a maximum of 499 staff or an annual
in other words, it was defined by way of con- turnover of between 10 million to below 50
crete activities. million Euros,
Following the EU threshold values of 1st Janua- large businesses with a minimum of 500 staff
r y 2005, as well as the definition of the Institut or 50 million Euros annual turnover
3 The term Corporate Citizenship can be incorporated into a comprehensive debate on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with
the two terms overlapping slightly even in literature. CSF also comprises improvements in staff working conditions, whereas Corpo-
rate Citizenship focuses more on the socio-political dimension linked with community commitment by companies. Even terms
such as Corporate Responsibility, sustainability or triple bottom line are not truly helpful in drawing the dividing lines; the interna-
tional debate continues to rage. Compare Bradley Googins, Corporate Citizenship: Lost in Translation, CCC News 07, June,
www.bcccc.net.
4 The following types of commitment were included: Cash donations, gifts in kind, free of charge provision of ser vices, free of
charge permission to use company facilities, equipment or premises, releasing staff members for community activities, support for
staff volunteering, cooperation with non-profit organisations, organisation of fundraisers and charity collections, establishment/fun-
ding of a foundation, miscellaneous (an open categor y).The list of commitment types carefully excludes the instrument of sponso-
ring, as this is seen as a strategic tool for image promotion, i.e. business practice, based on a contractual obligation the reci-
pient of sponsoring has to fulfil in return.
5 This organisation differs from the EU definition concerning distinctions between medium and large-sized enterprises to the
extent that the large business categor y is defined as having 500 and not 250 staff. This corresponds to the rule adopted by the
Bonn Institute for Medium and Large Enterprise Research. Both approaches use 50 million Euros annual turnover as the yardstick
defining a large business.
16. 16
businesses support such types of civic involve- Deploying Companies’ Material and Human
ment. The second aspect goes beyond accep- Resources for Corporate Volunteering
ting private staff engagement in the company
by allotting working hours to this external civic A nuanced analysis of those businesses (48 per
engagement. Among the respondent compa- cent) which state they promote community com-
nies, 32 per cent release their employees for mitment by their staff, concluded as follows:
such activities, putting in time with the volunta-
r y fire brigade for example. Releasing employe- Eighty-one per cent of these businesses allow
es for civic involvement can also mean using the staff to use business resources (i.e. PC,
such people for selected projects of a non-pro- copier, company phone, company car) for
fit type. What comes to mind are one-off acti- their civic involvement.
vities by all members of the staff, or individual
departments (so-called activity days, e.g. a Seventy-eight per cent of these businesses
manual work day), or sitting in on classes or allow their staff to engage in civic involve-
courses for several days, or a longer-term len- ment during working hours.
ding of staff to ser ve charities in a managerial
function. In addition to a company providing mate-
rial and human resources for civic engage-
Entrepreneurial resources of a different kind, ment, one in four of these businesses also
involving neither cash nor people, can also be makes money available, by supplementing
used, as is shown by at least 54 per cent of cash donations made by members of the
businesses which make such corporate resour- staff (matching funds).
ces as ser vices (41 per cent) or infrastructure
(e.g. premises and equipment) available to soci- Less than one in ten (9 per cent) of this group
al concerns free of charge (31 per cent). of companies actively encourages employe-
es to engage in civic involvement in certain
Moreover, the companies sur veyed frequently projects and areas.
opt for corporate citizenship in conjunction with
non-profit partners. Cooperation with charita-
ble organisations is practised by 47 per cent of
the businesses in the sur vey. As a rule, such a
partnership with a non-profit organisation tack-
les projects aimed at resolving social problems,
bundling corporate resources and non-profit
know-how, which are then used jointly to achie-
ve a specific objective.
19. 19
Approximately half the smaller businesses enga- nisations as clubs, projects, and initiatives.
ge in the community without having a coope-
ration partner. The presumed reason is that small On the following ranks are public institutions
companies often show their social commitment such as education facilities and hospitals (25
by donating smaller amounts and adopting per cent), national charitable organisations (22
measures which do not need the support of an per cent), international aid organisations and
external partner. Broken down into sectors, only lobby groups (11 per cent each) as well as chur-
retail companies stand out by having at least ches (12 per cent) are found.
one partner in seventy-one per cent of their
commitment, all the others are the average On the other hand, businesses turn increasing-
level. ly to governmental and political bodies: at least
21 percent cooperate with local authority
In principle, partners are not essential for cor- departments, 6 per cent with borough or regio-
porate citizenship; after all, 41 per cent of busi- nal governments and 4 per cent with political
nesses have so far dispensed with this type of parties.
cooperation. Still, it could be argued that irre-
spective of company size, this implies a loss of In this context, cooperation with industr y play-
benefit from valuable experience, together with ers, specifically other businesses (13 per cent),
possible efficiency increases for corporate citi- or employer organisations or trade unions enjoy
zenship. relatively high popularity (12 per cent).
Scrutinising the partners of companies with The variety of different cooperation partners
community commitment in greater detail indicates that a considerable number of busi-
shows that local organisations such as clubs nesses actively collaborate with representatives
a n d l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e s c o m e f i r s t. A m o n g t h e from the three sectors: state, market and, espe-
undertakings cooperating with a partner, 41 cially, the tertiar y sector, when implementing
per cent work with such types of voluntar y orga- corporate citizenship.
24. 24
gly different is the fact that 18 per cent of Ger- engagement ”. In Germany 22 per cent rate this
man businesses but only 0,7 per cent of Ame- objective highly and in the US the figure is 30
rican businesses state this objective bears no per cent rate. It is hardly surprising that this so-
relation to their own corporate citizenship acti- called “corporate volunteering” is not yet wide-
vities. ly known in Germany, what is surprising is the
fact that 26 per cent of German companies,
There is a similar result for “Political communi- as opposed to just 7 per cent of US companies,
cation with lobby groups and engaged citizens”. consider this issue to be of no importance wha-
Here again, there is not much difference bet- tever.
ween the top two results (US 25 per cent, Ger-
many 20 per cent). And a striking feature in this Obviously, German companies still have diffi-
context is the number of German businesses culties in consistently determining the objecti-
which do not assess communication with sta- ves linked to their corporate citizenship activi-
keholders having any importance (Germany 37 ties. Their perception of social responsibility alt-
per cent, US 6,3 per cent). hough highly rated, does not yet follow a stra-
t e g y o f c o r p o r a t e a n d c o m m u n i t y- f o c u s e d
The same differences come up in the third area engagement together with a corresponding
o f c o m p a r i s o n “ Pr o m o t i o n o f s t a f f v o l u n t e e r communication concept.
27. 27
and business self-interest, may explain this atti- as a PR tool. Unlike large companies, SMEs do
tude. Companies have no wish to expose them- expend much effort on publicising their com-
selves to complaints of having abused corpo- munity commitment. Half the small businesses
rate citizenship as a PR tool, which might put and 43 per cent of medium-sized enterprises
their credibility at risk. It seems equally likely, even state they do not report their activities in
though, that companies simply do not expect the community at all. The motto “do good and
sufficient benefit from extensive communicati- talk about it ” therefore seems to apply much
on of corporate citizenship activities. more to large-sized companies. They use diffe-
rent ways in which to communicate their civic
For small and medium-sized businesses corpo- engagement and tr y to publicise this in a cre-
rate citizenship hardly appears to matter at all dible and responsible manner.
29. 29
state. On this, there is agreement across the German companies are far more self-critical
border: 81 per cent of German and 80 per cent and therefore also fairly realistic when asses-
of American companies reject this. In Germa- sing how well they implement corporate citizen-
ny, though, this opposition is clearly more pro- ship in practice. 66 per cent of German respon-
nounced (68 per cent of German businesses dents are of the opinion that civic engagement
reject this totally compared to 40 per cent of may well be highly rated within the company,
US businesses). This has to be considered against but is not implemented sufficiently well. 67 per
the backdrop of histor y, where in Germany there cent of large-scale businesses agreed with that.
is already an institutional system which has evol- I n t h e U S, o n l y 4 7 p e r c e n t o f r e s p o n d e n t s
v e d o v e r t i m e, t h e s o c i a l m a r ke t e c o n o m y, agreed.
which institutionally integrates businesses into
society at large; e.g. the dual vocational trai- The huge gap which exists in both countries con-
ning system, sustainability strategies, or clima- cerning their assessment of a tangible contri-
te protection programmes. Still, businesses are bution of corporate citizenship to business suc-
interested in being independent in selecting cess is remarkable. The American response is a
whether and which type of corporate citizen- good 63 per cent, clearly above the German
ship practices to choose, and to use their resour- response by 23 per cent. Irrespective of com-
ces freely without restrictions imposed by the pany size, only about 40 percent of German
state. In both countries, it is above all the small businesses admitted to deriving a positive busi-
and medium-sized enterprises which are the ness effect from corporate citizenship, where-
ones to reject state inter vention. In principle, as in the US, the response differs more clearly
the type and scale of corporate citizenship is according to company size. 84 per cent of Ame-
something they believe should be decided on rican large-scale businesses give a positive ans-
a voluntar y basis. wer. This last comparison in particular shows how
different companies see and define themsel-
As far as questions of attitude are concerned, ves in this respect, which is the key point for cor-
clear distinctions can be made between Ger- porate citizenship on both sides of the Atlantic.
man and American companies, indicating how
deeply anchored corporate citizenship is in the Positive Reinforcement Factors for Corpora-
way American companies see themselves as te Citizenship
coming from the tradition of “ welfare capita-
lism”. The postulated statement that society has When asked which factors reinforce corporate
a right to expect companies to be societal ste- citizenship, a similar picture emerges, indica-
wards meets with the full or partial approval of ting that corporate citizenship is anchored to a
69 per cent of American businesses sur veyed, different extent in the two countries’ businesses.
with large-scale enterprises by far the ones most
in favour. Only 46 per cent of German busines- Here again, there are clear differences between
ses share this view but here, too, 63 per cent Germany and the US, regarding the attitudes of
of large-scale companies are in favour; putting small and medium-sized enterprises as well as
them clearly above the average. Just about 61 large businesses. On average, 62 per cent of
per cent of the German companies asked con- all German companies agree that corporate
sider societal stewardship a corporate priority, citizenship fits in well with the tradition and the
while in the US this amounts to as much as 81 values of the company, but for large-scale busi-
per cent. nesses the figure is 83 per cent. About 73 per