Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2011.100.4.24

Governance Types of Corporate Philanthropic Forestry Activities  

Chung, Jee Yong (Business School, Seoul National University)
Youn, Yeo-Chang (Department of Forest Sciences, Seoul National University)
Cho, Dong-Sung (Business School, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science / v.100, no.4, 2011 , pp. 722-732 More about this Journal
Abstract
Firms initiate philanthropic activities to improve social welfare that is beyond the scope of their responsibility towards society. Forestry activities, among other philanthropic areas, simultaneously improve corporate environment and social performance and provide the opportunity to cooperate for a large number of employees. Firms can effectively contribute to forest conservation with their financial and human resources. To encourage participation of more firms, we need to understand how and why firms engage in such activities. This study aims to explore different types of philanthropic forestry activities that these firms undertake. Corporate philanthropic activities can be categorized as donation, in-house project, or collaboration according to the governance type. We analyzed Yuhan-Kimberly's forestry campaign to investigate how and why the firm engaged in each type. We also propose some practical implications for firms, government, and non-profit organizations to invigorate firm's participation in philanthropic forestry activities.
Keywords
corporate social responsibility; corporate philanthropy; forestry activity; case study;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김재현, 이미홍, 최광림, 김해창. 2009. 기업의 사회적 책임 (CSR) 활동을 통한 산림조성 및 관리활성화 방안. 산림청. pp. 323.
2 김재현, 장주연, 태유리, 김해창. 2010. 국내 500대 기업의 산림분야 사회공헌활동 프로그램의 유형과 추진방식. 한국임학회지 99(6): 816-826.
3 문국현, 조동성, IDS&Associates. 2005. 유한킴벌리: 세계가 배우는 한국기업의 희망. 한스미디어. pp. 263.
4 신강균. 2003. 기업의 사회적 책임활동(Corporate Social Responsibility: CSR)의 효과에 관한 연구: 유한킴벌리의 우리강산 푸르게 푸르게 캠페인(KKG) 20년 활동사례를 중심으로. 광고학연구 14(5): 205-221.
5 유한킴벌리. 2010. 유한킴벌리 2010 사회책임경영보고서. 유한킴벌리. pp. 108.
6 이성호, 황의록, 안길상. 2003. 유한킴벌리의 공익연계마케팅. 한국마케팅저널 5(4): 132-152.
7 전국경제인연합회. 2009. 2008 기업.기업재단 사회공헌백서. 전국경제인연합회. pp. 817.
8 전영우. 2002. 한국 숲 운동에서의 다영역간 파트너십 사례연구. 한국비영리연구 1(1): 117-144.
9 Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J.J. 2003. What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product Features?. Journal of Business Ethics 42(3): 281-304.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Austin, J.E. 2000. Strategic Collaboration Between Nonprofits and Business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 29(suppl 1): 69-97.
11 Bowen, F. 2007. Corporate Social Strategy: Competing Views from Two Theories of the Firm. Journal of Business Ethics 75(1): 97-113.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Carroll, A.B. 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. The Academy of Management Review 4(4): 497-505.
13 Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. pp. 332.
14 Dyke, J., Cash, S.B., Brody, S.D. and Thornton, S. 2005. Examining the Role of the Forest Industry in Collaborative Ecosystem Management: Implications for Corporate Strategy. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management 12(1): 10-18.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Fig, D. 2007. Questioning CSR in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: the case of Aracruz Celulose sa. Third World Quarterly 28(4): 831-849.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Ford, D. and D. Farmer. 1986. Make or buy - a key strategic issue. Long Range Planning 19(5): 54-62.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Geyskens, I., J.-B. Steenkamp, E.M. and Kumar, N. 2006. Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal 49(3): 519-543.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Grillo, N., Tokarczyk, J. and Hansen, E. 2008. Green advertising developments in the U.S. forest sector: A follow- up. Forest Products Journal 58(5): 40-46.
19 Gulati, R. and Nickerson, J.A. 2008. Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance. Organization Science 19(5): 688-708.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Huber, G.P. 1991. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organization Science 2(1): 88-115.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Panwar, R. and Hansen, E.N. 2009. A process for identifying social and environmental issues: a case of the US forest products manufacturing industry. Journal of Public Affairs 9(4): 323-336.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Peloza, J. and Hassay, D.N. 2008. Make versus Buy Philanthropy: Managing Firm-Cause Relationships for Strategic and Social Benefit. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 19(2): 69-90.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Poppo, L. and Zenger, T. 1998. Testing alternative theories of the firm: Transaction cost, knowledge-based, and measurement explanations for make-or-buy decisions in information services. Strategic Management Journal 19(9): 853-877.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Ricks, Jr., J.M. and Williams, J.A. 2005. Strategic Corporate Philanthropy: Addressing Frontline Talent Needs Through an Educational Giving Program. Journal of Business Ethics 60(2): 147-157.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Sethi, S.P. 1975. Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Analytical Framework. California Management Review 17(3): 58-64.   DOI
26 Sharma, S. and Henriques, I.I. 2005. Stakeholder Influences on Sustainability Practices in the Canadian Forest Products Industry. Strategic Management Journal 26(2): 159-180.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Weinhofer, G. and Hoffmann, V.H. 2010. Mitigating Climate Change? How Do Corporate Strategies Differ?. Business Strategy & the Environment 19(2): 77-89.
28 Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA. pp. 181.
29 Husted, B.W. 2003. Governance Choices for Corporate Social Responsibility: to Contribute, Collaborate or Internalize?. Long Range Planning 36(5): 481-498.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Husted, B.W., Allen, D.B. and Rivera, J.E. 2010. Governance Choice for Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society 49(2): 201-215   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Jauch, L.R. and Wilson, H.K. 1979. A strategic perspective for make or buy decisions. Long Range Planning 12(6): 56-61.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Kogut, B. and Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3): 383-397.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. 2004. Market Strategies for Climate Change. European Management Journal 22(3): 304-314.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Levinthal, D. and March, J.G. 1981. A Model of Adaptive Organizational Search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2(4): 307-333.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Levitt, B. and March, J.G. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14: 319-340.   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Havard University Press. Cambridge, Mass. pp. 437.
37 Nickerson, J.A. and Zenger, T.R. 2004. A knowledgebased theory of the firm: The problem-solving perspective. Organization Science 15(6): 617-632.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Panwar, R. and Hansen, E.N. 2007. The standardization puzzle: An issue management approach to understand corporate responsibility standards for the forest products industry. Forest Products Journal 57(12): 86-91.