Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual Perceptions Among Stakeholders

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the role of NGOs in corporate social responsibility (CSR) through an analysis of various stakeholders’ perceptions and of NGOs’ self-perceptions. In the course of qualitative research based in Spain, we found that the perceptions of the role of NGOs fall into four categories: recognition of NGOs as drivers of CSR; concerns about their legitimacy; difficulties in the mutual understanding between NGOs and trade unions; the self-confidence of NGOs as important players in CSR. Each of these categories comprises the various elements analysed in the paper. We found some discrepancies between the perception of others and the self-perceptions of NGOs, which explains why their role is often controversial. The research confirms that secondary stakeholders, such as NGOs, are key players in CSR, but their role is still regarded as controversial and their legitimacy contested. Deep-seated misunderstandings and mistrust among various stakeholder groups (particularly between NGOs and trade unions) are a possible hurdle to the integration of social and environmental concerns in business activity and corporate governance in Spain. The study finds that business managers need to take a less firm-centric and a more contextual approach, and look more closely into the relationship with and among stakeholder groups. For NGO managers, the research shows that NGOs are not always aware of the stereotypes they generate and the problems caused mainly by what is seen as ambivalent roles: critic and counsellor, accuser and judge, idealist and fund raiser.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackoff, R. L.: 1999, Re-creating the Corporation: A Design of Organizations for the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, New York, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Albareda, L., Ysa, T. and J. M. Lozano: 2006, ‹The role of governments in fostering CSR’, in A. Kakabadse and M. Morsing (eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility: Reconciling Aspiration with Application (Palgrave, Houndmills), pp. 112-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antal, A. B. and A. Sobczak: 2007, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility in France: A Mix of National Traditions and International Influences’, Business and Society 46, 9-32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auberbach, C. F, and L. B. Silverstein: 2003, Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis (New York University Press, New York, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E.: 2000, ‹Strategic Collaboration between Nonprofits and Businesses’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 29, 69-97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K. and G. Palazzo: 2008, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking’, Academy of Management Review 33, 122-136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur, D.: 2006, What Types of Criteria Help Judge the Legitimacy of NGOs as Stakeholder of Corporations? Working Paper, Presented at the Master Class on Corporate Social Responsibility in Lausanne (CH), December 8–9.

  • Bendell, J.: 2000a, ‹Talking for Change? Reflections on Effective Stakeholder Dialogue’ in J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted and S. Rahman (eds.), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking 2: Relationships, Communication, Reporting and Performance (Greenleaf, Sheffield), pp. 53-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendell, J. (ed.): 2000b, Terms for Endearment. Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development (Greenleaf, Sheffield).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendell, J.: 2004, ‹Barricades and Boardrooms. A Contemporary History of the Corporate Accountability Movement’, Technology, Business and Society, Programme Paper 13 (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva).

  • Berger, P. and T. Luckmann: 1966, The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Anchor Books, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J. and J. Cook: 2006, ‹It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes’, Business Ethics: A Europen Review 15, 154-170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calton, J. M. and S. Payne: 2003, ‹Coping With Paradox. Multistakeholder Learning Dialogue as a Pluralist Sensemaking Process for Addressing Messy Problems’, Business and Society 42, 7-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.: 2007, ‹Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 32, 946-967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charkham, J., 1995: Keeping Good Company. A Study of Corporate Governance in Five Countries (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K., 2000: ‹Grounded theory; Objectivist and constructivist methods’ in Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edition (Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA), pp. 509-535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A.: 1999. ‹Are You Ethical? Please Tick Yes Or No: On Researching Ethics in Business Organizations’, Journal of Business Ethics 20: 237-248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. and D. Livesey: 2003, ‹Are you Talking to Me? – Stakeholder Communication and the Risks and Rewards of Dialogue’ in J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted and R. S. Sutherland (eds.), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking 2: Relationships, Communication, Reporting and Performance (Greenleaf Sheffield), pp. 39-52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W.: 1998, Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions (Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Daboub A. J. and J. M. Calton: 2002, ‹Stakeholder Learning Dialogues: How to Preserve Ethical Responsibility in Networks’, Journal of Business Ethics 41, 85-98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bakker, F. G. A. and F. den Hond: 2008, ‹Introducing the Politics of Stakeholder Influence: A Review Essay’, Business and Society 47, 8-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Cuesta, M. and C. Valor: 2004, ‹Fostering Corporate Social Responsibility Through Publich Initiative: From the EU to the Spanish Case’, Journal of Business Ethics 55, 275-293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P. and R. T. Guay: 2006, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional-Stakeholder Perspective’, Journal of Management Studies 43, 47-72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‹The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20, 65-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A.: 2003, ‹Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs’, World Development 31, 813-829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, Ch. and M. Lenox: 2006, ‹Secondary Stakeholders and Firm Self-Regulation’, Strategic Management Journal 27, 765-781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egels-Zanden, N. and P. Hyllman: 2006, ‹Exploring the Effects of Union-NGO Relationships on Corporate Responsibility: The Case of Swedish Clean Clothes Campaign’, Journal of Business Ethics 64, 303-316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. M. and R. E. Freeman: 1988, ‹A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism’ in T. L. Beaucaamp and N. Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and Business (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), 97-106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick W., Davis, D. and J. Post: 1988, Business and Society. Corporate Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston. MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 2000, ‹Business Ethics at the Millennium’, Business Ethics Quarterly 10, 169-180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., and A. Strauss: 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research (Aldine Pub, Chicago, IL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E.: 1959, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life (Anchor Books. New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J. and A. C. Wicks: 2007, ‹Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility: Making Business Ethics a Two-Way Conversation’, Business Ethics Quarterly 17, 375-398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulding, C.: 2002, Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1992, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Polity Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J.: 2006, ‹Taking Aim at Business: What Factors Lead Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations to Target Particular Firms?’, Business and Society 45, 47-85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, B.: 2008, ‹Turning Stakeseekers into Stakeholders a Political Coalition Perspective on the Politics of Stakeholder Influence’, Business and Society 47, 50-67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W.: 1998, ‹Organizational Justice and the Management of Stakeholder Relations’, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 643-651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, W.: 1999, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together (Doubleday, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J. and A. Nijhof: 2006, ‹Looking Through the Eyes of Others: assessing mutual expectations and experiences in order to shape dialogue and collaboration between business and NGOs with respect to CSR’, Coporate Governance. An International Review 14, 456-466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, M. and R. Van Tulder: 2003, ‹Toward effective stakeholder dialogue’, Business and Society Review 108, 203-224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B.: 2008, ‹A Social Movement Perspective of Stakeholder Collective Action and Influence’, Business and Society 47, 21-49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, J. M.: 2000, Ethics and Organizations: Understanding Business Ethics as a Learning Process (Kluwert, Dordrecht).

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A.: 1984, After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory. Second Edition (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. and J. Moon: 2008, ‹“Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework For a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 33, 404-424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A.: 1992, ‹Understanding and validity in qualitative research’ in A. M. Huberman and M. B. Miles (eds.), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion (Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA), pp. 37-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D.: 2002, ‹Not Only Stakeholders Interests: The Firm Oriented towards the Common Good’ in S. A. Cortright and M. J. Naughton (eds.), Rethinking the Purpose of Business (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and D. J. Wood: 1997, ‹Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’, Academy of Management Review 22, 853-886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T.: 1979, Moral Questions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanus, B and S. M. Dobbs: 1999, Leaders Who Make a Difference: Essential Strategies for Meeting the Nonprofit Challenge (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, S. L. and J. M. Calton: 2004, ‹Exploring Research Potentials and Applications for Multi-stakeholder Learning Dialogues’, Journal of Business Ethics 55, 71-78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E. and A. C. Wicks: 2003, ‹What Stakeholder Theory Is Not’, Business Ethics Quarterly 13, 479-502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A. and D. E. Esser: 2006, ‹From Stakeholder Management to Stakeholder Accountability. Applying Habermasian Discourse Ethics to Accountability Research’, Journal of Business Ethics 65, 251-267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M. and K. Yuthas: 2008, ‹Moral Discourse and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting’, Journal of Business Ethics 78, 47-64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D.A. and T. London: 2003, ‹How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations’, Academy of Management Executive 17, 61-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T.: 1997, ‹Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences’, Academy of Management Review 22, 887-910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J. G.: 2004a, ‹Reconstituting the Global Public Domain –Issues, Actors and Practices’, European Journal of International Relations 10, 499-531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J. G.: 2004b, ‹The Theory and Practice of Learning Networks’ in M. McIntosh, S. Waddock and G. Kell (eds.), Learning To Talk: Corporate Citizenship and the Development of the UN Global Compact (Greenleaf, Sheffield).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schepers, D.H.: 2006, ‹The Impact of NGO Network Conflict on the Corporate Social Responsibility Strategies of Multinational Corporation’, Business and Society 45, 282-299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A.G. and G. Palazzo: 2007, ‹Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility: Business and Society seen from a Habermasian Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 32, 1096-1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Enterprise Knowledge Network Research Team: 2004, Social Partnering in Latin America. Lessons Drawn From Collaborations of Businesses and Civil Society Organizations (Harvard University David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Cambridge, MA).

  • Strauss, A. L. and J. Corbin: 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd Edition (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Teegen, H., Doh, J.P. and S. Vachani: 2004, ‹The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: an international business research agenda’, Journal of International Business Studies 35, 463-483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J. and M. Bennett: 2004, ‹Increased Stakeholder Dialogue and the Internet: Towards Greater Corporate Accountability or Reinforcing Capitalist Hegemony?’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 29 (7), 685-707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utting, P.: 2005, ‹Corporate Responsibility and the Movement of Business’, Development in Practices 15, 375-388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernis, A., Iglesias, M., Sanz, B. and A. Saz-Carranza: 2006, Nonprofit Organizations: Challenges and Collaboration (Palgrave MacMillan, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. and S. Graves: 1997, ‹The Corporate Social performance Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18, 303-319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.E.: 1995, Sensemaking in Organizations (Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D., Fabig, H. and R. Boele: 2002, ‹Paradoxes and Dilemmas for Stakeholder Responsive Firms in the Extractive Sector: Lessons from the Case of Shell and the Ogoni’, Journal of Business Ethics 39, 297-318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler D and M. Sillanpää: 1997, The Stakeholder Corporation. A blueprint for maximising stakeholder value (Pitman, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B.: 1982, Moral Luck (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESADE Business School, Universitat Ramon Llull, Av. Pedralbes 60-64, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Daniel Arenas, Josep M. Lozano & Laura Albareda

Authors
  1. Daniel Arenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Josep M. Lozano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura Albareda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Arenas.

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of participants in the personal interviews and the group sessions in Barcelona and Madrid

The positions of interviewees are in Spanish, as they were given by individuals themselves, to avoid confusion or mistakes in translation. Within parentheses is the type of stakeholder, according to this code:

BUS:

Companies

BUS ASSOC:

Various kinds of business or employers’ associations, general as well as those interested in promoting CSR in particular

NGO:

Different types of civil society organisations or non-profit organisations, including consumer organisations and some foundations (according to Spanish law)

UNION:

Trade unions

POL:

Members of parliament and representatives from public administrations

  • Alloza, Ángel, Secretario General, Foro de Reputación Corporativa (BUS ASSOC)

  • Álvarez, María Luisa, Directora del Área de Responsabilidad Social, Fundación Carolina (NGO)

  • Areizaga, Marta, Directora de Responsabilidad Social, Grupo Eroski (BUS)

  • Azpiroz, José Eugenio, Diputado del PP por Guipúzcoa (POL)

  • Balado, Carlos, Director Obra Social y Relaciones Institucionales, Confederación Española de Cajas de Ahorro (BUS ASSOC)

  • Baselga, Borja, Director de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, Grupo Santander (BUS)

  • Benbeniste, Sandra, Directora de Proyectos, Fundación Ecología y Desarrollo (NGO)

  • Beneyto, Rafael, Director General, Ayuda en Acción (NGO)

  • Blas, María Eugenia de, Directora Corporativa de Relaciones Institucionales, Amena (BUS)

  • Bonilla, Blanca, Directora de Proyectos, Fundación Entorno (NGO)

  • Campuzano, Carles, Diputado de CiU por Barcelona (POL)

  • Carbonell, Xavier, Director de Responsabilidad Corporativa, Mango (BUS)

  • Castro, Marcos de, Presidente, Confederación Española de Economía Social (BUS ASSOC)

  • Ceballo, Ana Isabel, Secretaría General Técnica, Asociación General de Consumidores (ASGECO) (NGO)

  • Cortada, Gemma, Servicio de Dinamización del Tejido Productivo Local (Diputación de Barcelona) (POL)

  • Cuesta, Marta de la, Socia fundadora y miembro del Patronato de Economistas sin Fronteras (NGO)

  • Díaz, Carlos, Observatorio de la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa (NGO)

  • Etchenique, Ana, Coordinadora de Relaciones Institucionales – Confederación de Consumidores y Usuarios (NGO)

  • Fuente, María Jesús de la, Responsable de Relaciones Institucionales, Entreculturas (NGO)

  • Galiano, Juan Pedro, Jefe de Responsabilidad Social y Reputación Corporativa, ADIF (BUS)

  • García, Miguel, Director de Comunicación y Relaciones Externas, DKV Seguros (BUS)

  • García, Rosalina, UGT (UNION)

  • García-Atance, Salvador, Presidente, ASEPAM (BUS ASSOC)

  • González, Almudena, UGT (UNION)

  • González, Carmen, Subdirectora de Reputación Corporativa, Gas Natural (BUS)

  • Gregory, Jaime, Director Financiero y de Promoción de Ingresos, Cruz Roja Española (NGO)

  • Guri, Diego, Jefe de Área de Cooperación Internacional, COPCA (Generalitat de Catalunya) (POL)

  • Hernández, David, Acción Sindical de Transportes y Comunicación, UGT (UNION)

  • Hernández, Eduardo, Secretario Acción Sindical de Transportes y Comunicación, UGT (UNION)

  • Huelin, Sagrario, Responsable de la Unidad de Responsabilidad Social, Abertis (BUS)

  • Jáuregui, Ramón, Diputado del PSOE por álava (POL)

  • López Uralde, Juan, Director Ejecutivo, Greenpeace España (NGO)

  • Martí, Carme, Instituto Municipal de Promoción Económica (Ayuntamiento de Mataró) (POL)

  • Martínez, José Carlos, Reputación Corporativa, Dirección de Comunicación, Iberdrola (BUS)

  • Martínez, Luis, Director de Relaciones Corporativas, Agbar (BUS)

  • Mercader, Mireia, Asesora de Responsabilidad Social, Fundación CECOT Innovación (Terrassa) (BUS ASSOC)

  • Montaña, Mauricio, Club de Excelencia en Sostenibilidad (BUS ASSOC)

  • Montoya, Josep, Secretario de Coordinación Sectorial, UGT (Barcelona) (UNION)

  • Moreno, José Ángel, Director de Responsabilidad y Reputación Corporativas – Grupo BBVA (BUS)

  • Pastor, Tomás – Director General Adjunto – Fundación Empresa y Sociedad (BUSS ASSOC)

  • Pérez Garrido, José María – Director de Reputación Corporativa y Responsabilidad Social, Repsol YPF (BUS)

  • Repullo, Iolanda, Jefa de sección, Promoción Económica de Sabadell, S. L. (Ayuntamiento de Sabadell) (POL)

  • Requejo, Julia, Gabinete Técnico Confederal, UGT (UNION)

  • Roca, Albert, Director de Economía y Política empresarial, PIMEC-SEFES (BUS ASSOC)

  • Román, Yolanda, Responsable de Relaciones Institucionales, Amnistía Internacional (NGO)

  • Ruiz de Arana, Inés, Analista, ASEPAM (BUS ASSOC)

  • Sánchez, Carlos, Adjunto a la Secretaría Confederal de Acción sindical y Políticas Sectoriales, Coordinador Confederal de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, CC.OO. (UNION)

  • Suárez, Roberto, Responsable del área Social Internacional del Departamento de Relaciones Laborales, CEOE (BUS ASSOC)

  • Tamarit, Isabel, Responsable del Programa de Gobernabilidad y Sector Privado, y Coordinadora del Área de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, Intermón Oxfam (NGO)

  • Tapia, Juan Manuel, Responsable de Negociación Colectiva y de RSE, CCOO de Cataluña (UNION)

  • Trigo, Joaquín, Director Ejecutivo, Fomento del Trabajo (BUS ASSOC)

  • Trujillo, Esther, Gerente de Responsabilidad Corporativa, Grupo Telefónica (BUS)

  • Ureña, Luis, Vice-administrador, Caritas (NGO)

  • Valls, Àngels, Secretaria de Promoción Económica, Departamento de Economía y Finanzas (Generalitat de Catalunya) (POL)

  • Vara, Alfred, Coordinador del Área de Empresas, Departamento de Medio Ambiente (Generalitat de Catalunya) (POL)

  • Vera, José, Director de RRHH y Controller de Sostenibilidad, ABB España (BUS)

  • Vilches, Silvia, Directora de Relaciones Corporativas, MRW (BUS)

Appendix 2: List and brief description of main multi-stakeholders

CSR initiatives in Spain

  • AENOR Technical CSR Committee (2001): Committee established by the Spanish Association for Standardisation and Certification (Spanish acronym: AENOR), a private, independent, non-profit Spanish organisation, charged with carrying out its activities by order of the Ministry of Industry and Energy. Among other things, it issues the ISO certificates in Spain. The Committee was initially launched to develop a norm on CSR and various stakeholder groups took part. At the beginning of 2005, after 4 years of deliberation, and due to a very close final vote, the committee concluded that companies were not ready to assume a norm and, instead, it published a guide (de la Cuesta and Valor, 2004). This conclusion was strongly criticised by NGOs and unions that participated in the committee.

  • AECA CSR Commission (2004–present): The Spanish Accounting and Business Administration Association (Spanish acronym: AECA) is the professional institution that issues generally accepted accounting principles and standards, and develops recommendations or studies concerning good practices in business management. It launched a 38-man Commission to establish points of common reference in relation to CSR. Several stakeholder groups are represented (companies, universities, business schools, consultants, NGOs, unions, foundations, public administration and mass media). It has published important documents in the Spanish context in relation to CSR and continues its activities.

  • UN Global Compact Spain (2003–present). Spain is the second country in the world, after France, in terms of the number of companies and institutions to have signed the Global Compact. The Spanish association for the Global Compact (which goes under the acronym ASEPAM) organises a series of meetings to discuss the difficulties and opportunities arising from the implementation of the ten principles of the Global Compact (de la Cuesta and Valor, 2004). Each meeting has a maximum of 30 representatives from the four stakeholder groups (business, NGOs, educational institutions, social and public institutions) and 10 observers.

  • Labour and Social Affairs Ministry: “Experts’ Forum on CSR” (2005–2006). The Spanish government, through this Ministry, launched a series of consultations with approximately 40 representatives of different stakeholder groups to develop a common framework for CSR and discuss how it should be promoted by public administrations. At the time of writing this article, the government announced plans to constitute a National Council for CSR as a consulting organism of the Ministry of Labour with the presence of representatives of different stakeholder groups, but there was still little information about the details, including the presence or absence of NGOs in the Council.

  • Spanish Congress’ Sub-commission to Promote CSR (2006). The Spanish Congress’ Sub-commission invited business leaders, stakeholders and experts to explain their view on the matter. In August 2006 the sub- commission presented a report to promote CSR. Based on this report, in December of 2006 the Congress approved a White Paper on CSR in Spain, which incidentally underlined the need to establish a stakeholder forum to consult and accompany CSR policies.

  • CSR “Table” within the social dialogue between employers’ associations and trade unions (end of 2007): This produced a joint document to clarify the concept, scope and role of CSR, advocating the creation of a CSR Council to advise the government.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arenas, D., Lozano, J.M. & Albareda, L. The Role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual Perceptions Among Stakeholders. J Bus Ethics 88, 175–197 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0109-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0109-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation