Social Responsibility Journal: Article Information

Social Responsibility Journal
Think global, act local: Corporate Social Responsibility Management in Multinational Companies
M. Morand L. Rayman-Bacchus
Article information:
To cite this document:
M. Morand L. Rayman-Bacchus, (2006),"Think global, act local: Corporate Social Responsibility Management in Multinational
Companies", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 2 Iss 3/4 pp. 261 - 272
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471117200600003
Downloaded on: 15 January 2015, At: 07:42 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 789 times since 2006*
Downloaded by OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY At 07:42 15 January 2015 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Esben Rahbek Pedersen, Peter Neergaard, (2009),"What matters to managers?: The whats, whys, and hows of
corporate social responsibility in a multinational corporation", Management Decision, Vol. 47 Iss 8 pp. 1261-1280 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984532
Claudio Vignali, (2001),"McDonald’s: “think global, act local” – the marketing mix", British Food Journal, Vol. 103 Iss 2 pp. 97-111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700110383154
Katherine Trebeck, (2008),"Exploring the responsiveness of companies: corporate social responsibility to stakeholders", Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 349-365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471110810892857
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 382580 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Social Responsibility Journal 261
Volume 2 Number 3/4 November 2006
Think global, act local: Corporate Social Responsibility Management in Multinational Companies
M. Morand & L. Rayman-Bacchus
Abstract
This paper investigates corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy management in multinational companies (MNCs).
The focus is on examining the relationship between subsidiaries and headquarters in the management of CSR, in terms
of the commonplace notion of ‘think global, act local’. Primary and secondary data was collected in one MNC and a
case study produced. The findings show that the initiative to launch a CSR policy is taken and enacted exclusively by
the headquarters, mainly as an answer to the financial and legal pressure felt to accompany the present widespread
interest in CSR. Findings are articulated around three major steps used to manage CSR initiatives: the determination of
values, the integration of those values in action and the evaluation of the policy. Consistency of policy is driven from
headquarters, through adoption of a corporate value framework, while the implementation is to some extent localised.
Feedback from subsidiaries is collected and shared by the centre, which also seeks out synergies in pursuit of increased
efficiency. Corporate structure is therefore linked to CSR management. Implementation is observed to comprise three
parts: the headquarters seek to motivate local actions through reference to the company culture, through directive
measures, and by pedagogic action. Pedagogy comes out as necessary in order for the CSR policy to permeate the
entire organisation and initiate the right actions and reactions in the variety of situations encountered throughout the
organisation. Constant scrutiny and evaluation are considered necessary in order to sustain the credibility of the policy
in relation to external stakeholders.
Introduction
This paper is arranged in five sections. First the Background is laid out, outlining the growth of the Multinational
Corporation (MNC) and the increasing awareness of CSR. This induces some discussion about the notion of ‘think
global act local’, the need for a corporate values framework around CSR policy initiatives, and some assessment of the
role of stakeholders. A framework for realising CSR initiatives is suggested, based on corporate value setting,
integration and implementation of values, and evaluation and communication of policy aims. Next the Research Design
is presented, outlining the use of a case study of Food Corp, a French food manufacturing MNC. Results and Discussion
first describes then examines Food Corp’s commitment to corporate values and how this drives socially responsible
strategy in terms of realising abstract values (implementation and pedagogy) and the need to evaluate the extent to
which CSR policy initiatives are successfully implemented and lead to socially responsible competitive benefits.
Conclusions follow.
Background
Development of corporate global power and the CSR movement

In the conduct of business, MNCs have an increasing power, they take strategic decisions (e.g., locating production,
organising distribution, transferring funds and information across borders) with almost no regard to national
governments concerns (Hammond and Grosse 2003) and many argue that this is their right (Kobrin 20011, Buckley and
Casson 1976, Ghemawat 2002). The development of corporate global power is complex, shaping economic and social
policy, political behaviour, and cultural change (Brinkman and Brinkman, 2002). A central concern of CSR, achieving a
balance between profitability and responsibility, is left largely to the discretion of MNCs (Kumar and Steinman, 1998,
p.2), although arguably legislation is increasingly setting minimum performance standards. Corporate concerns for CSR
is further sharpened by competitive pressures and an increasing awareness among customers in western economies to
‘buy responsibly’ (Waddock and Bodwell, 2002).
More generally, the current focus on CSR is developing against the background of an increasingly
interconnected global political economy. This globalisation is at the same time accompanied by a rising chorus from
governments concerned for the environmental consequences of industrial activity and lobby groups representing the
disaffected and marginalised (e.g., many developing economies, human rights activists, consumer pressure groups). The
ethical policies of MNCs are therefore, as underlined by Mackenzie and Rice (2001), under ‘particular scrutiny’. In the
process MNCs are being called upon to meet higher standards across a broad range of factors, both environmental and
social. The debate about globalisation is targeting MNCs and the management of their international operations, but how
do these MNCs manage CSR? As George Molenkamp, Chairman of KPMG Global Sustainability Services, the
challenge for a company embracing CSR is its “integration into strategy and operations in a complex organisation in a
more and more globalizing economy” (KPMG, 2005 p.3).
Think global act local

This idea of “global responsibility” is easy to conceive but “difficult to concretize” (Pérez, 2003). The commonplace
prescription for corporations to realise this is: “think global, act local”. However this simple framework needs
1
cited in Agmon (2003)
elaboration. According to Dunning J.H. and Mucchielli J. (2002) acchieving both represents a dilemma ; some
compromise is inevitable. The concerns of numerous stakeholders must be accommodated, some of whom have global
interests (e.g., NGOs) while others have local interests (community groups). ‘Accommodation’ here often means
achieving a manageable compromise, though this too is at times fragile. CSR policy may be part of corporate strategy
created by headquarters, but the implementation always demands local action. Consequently complex interactions
develop between the centre and the subsidiaries invoking both deliberate strategy making and emergent strategy.
Unavoidably there is a tension between globalisation (in the form of universal policy prescriptions from the centre) and
localisation (recognising and respecting local priorities, traditions and conditions). For some (De Wit and Meyer, 2004)
there is also a tension between profitability and responsibility, the implication being that one needs to choose between
the two.
The Shell Statement of General Business Principles provides a good example of the recognition that corporations
see the need to reconcile the seemingly contradictory goals of standardised values sustaining the value of the Group and
local adaptation of values. The Shell statement articulates clearly that although the Royal Dutch Shell Group of
companies is decentralized and diversified, all staff hold collective responsibility for the brand reputation. Kitchin
(2002) remarks that ‘true CSR is ultimately a process of business and brand adaptation’ as brand mediates the values
and contextualises relationships with the various stakeholders locally and globally. However stakeholder relationships
cannot be normalised worldwide.
This research sought to evaluate the management of CSR within MNCs, with a focus on the relationship between
headquarters and subsidiaries. In particular we wanted to understand: the strategy framework supporting the
determination of a consistent worldwide social responsibility policy; the methods used in implementing consistent
global social responsibility values; and understand the CSR evaluation processes used.
Need for a corporate values framework

CSR definitions vary, but most would agree that an organisation has an effective CSR policy when it manages its
business ‘in a manner that meets or exceeds the ethical, legal, commercial and public expectations that society has for
business’ (Business for Social Responsibility, 2005). This requires a ‘comprehensive set of policies, practices and
programs that are integrated into business operations, supply chains, and decision-making processes throughout the
company’ (Business for Social Responsibility, 2005).
Demands - especially from within developed economies - for corporations to consider and manage their impact
on both the social and physical environment invoke the need for MNCs to foster appropriate global corporate value
frameworks. Citigroup, the global banking corporation, has been criticised for various questionable practices in recent
years. This led to a change of CEO, who then set in motion a campaign to change the Bank’s culture. Citigroup’s
website claims that the Bank is ‘… committed to making the communities in which it operates better, and at the same
time, setting standards for business practices and corporate values that exceed industry norms’
[http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/citizen/index.htm, accessed May 14, 2006]. Kline (2005) suggests that if global
values are clearly set through normative frameworks and key actors integrate ethical analysis into their decision-making
schemes, this could foster global development. In terms of CSR Kline’s proposition of ‘fostering of global
development’ is easily modified to ‘fostering socially responsible development, globally’.
Managing stakeholder interests

As already noted numerous stakeholders have an interest in an organisation’s affairs. As de Wit and Meyer (2004,
p.590) underline ‘shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, governments and communities’ all place demands on
the firm. These demands, which reflect each group’s self interest, are often conflicting. The managers of an organisation
have to balance these sometimes competing expectations and attempt to secure broad stakeholder support for the firm’s
mission. This consensus seeking is particularly challenging for an MNC as the number and diversity of stakeholder
interests multiply with each market and site of operations. The nature of this diversity is clear to see as multinationals
may operate through branches or subsidiaries, joint-ventures comprising organisational structures where they may have
partial control, activities spanning more than one state, staff engaging with differing cultures, languages, and ethical
standards (August, 2004). MNCs therefore sit in a complex web of relations. When set against this complex terrain,
statements setting out the areas that MNC corporate values and CSR policy frameworks need to address begin to look
overly simplistic.
Clearly dialog with the various stakeholders is particularly important for the implementation and evaluation of a
CSR policy. However implementation remains difficult since hopes may be raised that cannot be fulfilled. Moreover, as
Brodhag (2000) underlines, finding a consensus is a complicated task, which success depends on the convergence of the
goals of the different actors, which itself depends on numerous intermediations between these actors. In the network of
stakeholders, actors come from different backgrounds and they have different sets of references, the concept of CSR can
therefore be considered as undefined. However, as Jobert1 observes, this is not necessarily a disadvantage as it enables a
multiplicity of interpretations, negotiations and synergies. According to Brodhag (2004) for MNCs to successfully
intermediate in this complex situation the whole organisation has to adapt and systemic efforts have to be made to
1
cited in Brodhag, 2000
embrace complex relations, such as developing a common language, a shared understanding and shared approaches to
problem solving. Again such generalisations seriously understate the challenges facing managers of MNCs. A readiness
to compromise is likely to be essential since many cultural differences, political ambitions, and customs and practices
are irreconcilable.
Brodhag (2004, p.3) suggests three alternative forms of network that support management relations between the
centre and the subsidiaries (Figure 1). The network can have a top-down orientation, the central information being
spread by the centre. The orientation can be bottom-up, supporting decentralisation and feedback from the subsidiaries.
Lastly, the orientation can be towards “networking”, with emphasis on a more distributed interrelationship between the
different subsidiaries and with the centre. This network will be present at different levels: between headquarters and
subsidiaries, and inside the entities between the management and the non-management.
Centre Centre
Members Members Members Members

Members Members
Top down network organisation Bottom up network organisation

Centre
Members Members
Members
Networking organisation
Figure 1: Typology of network functioning
The challenge for companies is therefore to find an adequate overall management system, which corresponds to the
corporate parenting style and to corporate strategy (Nilsson, 2000). In their study of parenting styles, Goold and
Campbell (1987), argue that the headquarters can shape the subsidiaries’ strategy through:
 the structure of the organisation and therefore how information flows are organised and decision-making;
 how plans are reviewed and therefore the degree of autonomy of the subsidiary;
 the extent to which subsidiaries are free to interpret requests and instructions from the centre;
 managerial overlaps with headquarters in coordinating functional synergies across different subsidiaries;
 the allocation of resources.
Regardless of parenting style, the centre will have varying influence on the way managers of subsidiaries deal with
ambiguous business situations, and therefore their ethical stance when dealing with the unfamiliar. The centre may set
broad or narrow goals, and subsidiaries will always seek to exploit any flexibility provided by such goals. As a strategic
issue developing and implementing CSR policy is clearly subject to corporate strategy, organisational structure, the
allocation of discretionary decision-making and resources. Control over resources (funds, expertise, facilities) seems
likely to be particularly important for implementing a CSR policy. For example the centre may call upon subsidiaries to
implement CSR policy within budget constraints, while leaving the subsidiary in control of how allocated funds are
spent.
On-going scrutiny of MNC behaviour hightens the need for transparency, accountability and responsiveness to
rapidly changing social, economic and political circumstances. Brodhag (2004) argues that on a global scale which is
also a complex socio-economic context, the success of a CSR policy will depend on the organisation of an efficient
network linking corporate concerns such as brand value and shareholder relations, with everyday business realities in
very different contexts. The context is complex, so that decision-making is mainly based on negotiation, differing
reactions are linked to one another and often difficult to assess. In such a situation, no actor has full information, or the
authority to define a clear strategy for the long term (Brodhag et al., 2004). Ehlinger (1997) emphasizes that strategy
formation is also based on social interactions. While management style and internal power dynamics are important, top
management is no longer perceived as predominant in strategy formation, and numerous other stakeholder groups are
recognised as legitimate participants in the process. To the extent that strategy formation is a social process, CSR policy
can only emerge from interactions between different stakeholders, at all levels within the company, both within and
outside the company, and including staff in differing geographical locations.
Realising CSR initiatives: value setting, integration and implementation, evaluation and communication
Managing CSR policy could be seen as a three-stage process: the setting of values, their integration with strategy as
well as implementation, and performance measurement and communication on the performance of the policy (Waddock
and Bodwell, 2002; ORSE, 2003, Litgeringen and Zadek, 2005). Ligeringen and Zadek (2005) puts the stages simply as
the need to ‘fix values’ which help establish ‘what to do’; the management systems which will determine how to
integrate the policy with corporate strategy; and the process guidelines to know ‘how to measure and communicate’
what is done.
Both Hendry (2004) and Andrews (2003) suggest a similar process. They suggest the first challenge for senior
managers is to develop managers and subordinates as moral individuals; this is the challenge of leadership. The second
challenge concerns more middle and senior level managers who may or may not feel some duty to infuse particular
corporate values into day-to-day management and run the ‘business organisation as a moral society’ (Hendry, 2004,
p.27). Thus the organisation will generate a moral environment and influence actions. The third challenge is learning
(through doing), and affects all managers and subordinate staff.
Value-setting
Value setting is the first step toward a change in behaviours. Corporate values stem from organisational culture,
leadership and vision. Clearly, attempts at changing corporate values require communication between the leadership
and all staff wherever they are, in order to shape company culture. There is scope for variation in how corporate vision
is transmitted throughout the organisation. Three archetypal positions seem possible. First, a corporate values
framework could be developed that reflects some universal standards, applicable across all the regions and functions in
which the company is active. Alternatively, it could primarily be oriented towards satisfying the local operational
context and conditions, reflecting a decentralised value framework. Lastly, it could be strictly set by the headquarters
according to its own value framework and be applied in a directive manner across the subsidiaries.
Integration and implementation

As Kline (2005) observes, the challenge of socially responsible behaviour begins with the individual; personal concern
by consumers, managers and other stakeholders will connect communities and enable behavioural change. Corporate
values have to inform company strategy and practices as well as become part of managing stakeholder relations. Here
too, differing parenting styles induce differing approaches to implementation (see Goold and Campbell, 1987 on
strategy reporting; Brodhag, 2004 on CSR). However, as noted by Litgeringen and Zadek (2005), the challenge here is
to integrate the concept of sustainable development into organisational and exterior relationships (supply chain and
consumer) at both strategic and the operational levels.
Evaluation and communication

Continual evaluation and communication of CSR policy initiatives will provide the impulse for innovation and
improvement. Communication should not be limited to reporting performance, but should be a feature of all stages of
the process. This is particularly challenging for distributed organisations held together by networks of interaction
between the various divisions and constituent operational business units.
This three step process of managing CSR policy in a MNC lends itself to continuous improvement consistent
with the Deming Cycle (Brodhag, 2004). In this model, business processes are continually assessed, in order to identify
and modify those areas that need improvement, and is similar to the classical framework of a total quality management
model (Waddock and Bodwell, 2002). It is particularly important in complex and evolving processes, such as managing
CSR policy initiatives. There is little doubt that the way a company is organised influences how CSR policy is
implemented and the evaluation methods likely to be employed. For example methods will vary according to the form
and degree of organisational centralisation- decentralisation.
Research Design
The focus is here to get a better understanding of the realities of relations between the headquarters and the subsidiaries,
and the attitudes of individuals at different levels concerning CSR. This invites an interpretivist perspective, and an
inductive approach, moving from the observation to the development of theory.
The research focused on one French multinational corporation, under the pseudonym ‘Food Corp’. Semi-
structured interviews were conducted at different levels in the company, at the headquarters and in two subsidiaries, in
order to get an insight to the decision-making processes and the interactions of the different parts of the company
concerning the development and implementation of a CSR policy. At the headquarters, contacts were made with the
manager of the total quality management programme (responsible for implementing the values of the company), and
with the communication manager. Communication has been a key role internally and externally in the implementation
and evaluation of a CSR policy. At the Austrian subsidiary the Marketing Manager was interviewed, while at the British
subsidiary the Production Manager was consulted. Interviews were conducted in person and by telephone, each lasting
approximately one hour and twenty minutes. Observation was also employed in the research. The researcher had
worked six months for the Food Corp Austrian subsidiary before beginning the study. It was possible to observe and to
feel the attitudes of the subsidiary employees towards the headquarters during this period, notably on the company’s
CSR project. This enabled the inclusion in the study of some non-managerial points of view.
In order to gain an overview of the phenomenon, the corporate view was complement with the views of
observers. Three consultants specialised in CSR were interviewed, as well as a consultant specialised in small and
medium enterprises. This fourth interview enabled us to add knowledge about the actions and reactions that would be
encountered by an international Group in its relation with its small subsidiaries and its suppliers. Many subsidiaries of
Food Corp, often cheese manufactures and milk producers, are indeed small and situated in rural areas. Theory emerged
gradually from the research, which can be referred to as grounded approach (Saunders et al., 2003). The emergent
patterns recognised could indeed be tested on other respondents. The use of different sources of data and methods of
collection, typical of a case study research (Robson, 2002: 178)1 enabled a triangulation of the information, enhancing
both the validity and the reliability of the research and strengthening the conclusions (Eisenhardt, 1991).2
Results
Food Corp is a French multinational company, listed on the French stock exchange; it is one of the tenth biggest
companies worldwide in the dairy industry with about 88 production facilities and commercial subsidiaries in 21 out of
30 country operations on all continents (Figure 2). It employs almost 20 000 people. The majority of shares is held by
the founding family. There is no public promotion of the Group name, and the company name itself only carries
meaning and value for shareholders and professionals. The Group name is not known in consumer markets although
many of the products are internationally known brands. The Group wants to stay close to the taste and habits of the
different markets, therefore most products are locally produced. Strategy is proposed by the Group executive and used
as a general orientation to the subsidiaries. The subsidiaries at the same time analyse their markets independently and
determine from these analyses major strategic directions, which are then proposed to the Group executive. The
subsidiaries, which are in direct contact with their various stakeholders, adapt the Group’s orientation to their particular
situation and propose an action plan, which is in turn must be validated by the Group executive before being put in
place. Headquarters impose financial control on all subsidiaries, and accounts are consolidated on a global basis.
The management structure of the Group is decentralised, an arrangement that the leadership regards as
‘enhancing responsibility taken at all level of the company as well as promoting an entrepreneurial spirit within the
company’ (Food Corp Annual Report, 2004). One of the key strategic orientations of the Group, as stated on its website,
is the adaptation of products to local markets.
1
cited in Saunders et al. 2003 p.93
2
cited in Harrison (2002)
Food Corp Group

Headquarters
Group Purposes
- To prepare and sell products and services of very high quality which satisfy the expectations of consumers
perfectly by being constantly innovative
-To encourage the professional and social development of the men and women who work with and for the
group
- To secure and make fruitful the capital invested in the Group by preserving independence and its decision-
making autonomy
- To participate in the social and economic development of the countries which receive the Group and serve
the common good
Group Values Principles of action Working methods

- Tolerance - Delegation - Strategic process
- Courage - Autonomy - Budget process
- Honesty - Collective - Participative
- Loyalty management management
Total Quality Management programme
Global activities
Manufacturing 88 production units in 21 countries

and
Research and Research and development decentralised in
development production units
Sales Commercial subsidiaries in 28 countries
Figure 2: Food Corp: Group organisation
Commitment to ethical values

The Group promotes the culture of a family business in its subsidiaries throughout the world. Moreover, the values of
the company focus on behaving responsibly toward social, environmental and food security issues. These values were
set by the founder of the company and remained central when it expanded internationally. These values have always
been present in the internal communication of the Group, and are deeply embedded in the company culture. The
implementation of corporate values, and thereby CSR implementation, is an integral part of its Total Quality
Management (TQM) programme, as described below.
The Group’s corporate values are referred to in many internal communication documents and on the Group’s
website. Every two years meetings are organised bringing together the directing committees of all the subsidiaries. Part
of the agenda of these meetings is to reinforce the values of the Group. The company culture is communicated around
purposes, values, principles of actions, and working methods, (Figure 2). The values and its correlatives are deeply
embedded in the Group culture. According to the Austrian manager, ‘if someone does not fit with this culture and these
values, this person will not remain long in the company’. Values clearly influence employees’ actions. For example
when seeking to recruit new staff managers try to assess whether a potential employee’s values fit within the company
culture. Management practice in the company encourages ethical behaviour among staff; it is a core element of the
company management.
The company has been adhering to the United Nations Global Compact since 2003. The Compact rests on
corporate engagement with nine social principles regarded as universal (the respect of human rights, the freedom of
association, the elimination of forced and child labour, the elimination of discriminations and the promotion of
environmental responsibility). The motivation to adhere to this treaty was mainly internal. Indeed the Compact
encouraged the Group to further formalise and improve its implementation of CSR. The Compact also provides an
external measure of its commitment to universally accepted moral values, though communication around the Group of
the significance of these principles is little developed. However, as the Communication Manager remarked,
communication with the external environment would probably develop as external forces are pushing the company to
be more open about its CSR commitment.
Those interviewed (consultants and corporate actors) agree that values should be determined at the corporate
level. Such values support the Group’s unity of purpose and help motivate all members of the organisation towards
common objectives. However, recognising that values need to have a basis in reality, some consultants underline the
importance of dialog among staff about the values of the company. They suggest that the meaning of a CSR policy
should be spread corporate-wide but its implementation should be decentralised. However, for McCaig, a food industry
consultant, companies are often too directive and do not leave enough room for the subsidiaries to adapt corporate
intention to local conditions. In addition, internal communication including feedback from subsidiaries is often poorly
developed.
Quality Management: Audit

In order to formalise the Group’s commitment to its values, and make managerial and administrative processes more
efficient, a TQM programme, was developed. The business case for introducing this programme was very strong; it
promised improvements in organisational efficiency. The first part, an internal audit was developed in 2000 and in
2003, followed by a reporting process. The whole process was reinforced in 2004 following the new French financial
regulations {Nouvelles Régulations Economiques (NRE)}, which require companies listed on the stock market to report
on the social and environmental impact of their activities.
The audit is a corporate-wide process, intended to be a precursor to improving the efficiency of the subsidiaries’
internal functioning. It has been developed as a method of continuous improvement in a complex organisational
framework. The results of the audit are intended for use at the local level only; there is no report to Head Office. The
project is developed for all subsidiaries on a voluntary basis, but it is strongly encouraged by the corporate direction.
This fits with the ‘Group habit never to impose anything’ (Communications Manager). The analysis of business activity
is based on the European Foundation for Quality Management model (EFQM), and therefore includes CSR among the
other aspects of management. Through this audit, the corporate values are converted into concrete measures.
The TQM audit is less rigorous than the financial audit, and it is more pedagogic. That is, the TQM process starts
with an audit, which is one step in a process of continuous improvement. Following this audit, the Group provides
training, methods and personalised consulting to the subsidiaries in order to help each of them improve their actions.
Indeed, according to the TQM manager, evolutions in practice that are based on negotiation, training and a shared
understanding require more time but they are more sustainable and efficient. The audit is based on the work of an
independent consulting firm. Interviewees regard the system as ‘quite complicated and abstract’ and the introduction of
the programme was and still is difficult to accept in some parts of the company. It was perceived by some subsidiaries
as culturally typically French as it required complex paperwork, which was perceived as a loss of time. Nevertheless,
with this system, the Group enables the subsidiaries to develop an efficient and ethical decentralised management
process while remaining faithful to the values and objectives of the Group. For McCaig, a consultant to the food
industry, local management of CSR is the best policy, because most impacts on the exterior world are local and are best
dealt with by who understand local conditions, that is, local communities.
Evaluation: Voluntary and Legal

An internal reporting process has been developed in 2003 to complement the audit programme. This reporting control
system is a lot more directive; it is compulsory for all subsidiaries, which have to transmit their results to the
headquarters twice a year. This reporting process has been set up in order to monitor the evolutions in relation to the
audit programme. It also enables the Group executive to assess the development and the shortcomings of the
programme, and to exploit synergies where similarities across the subsidiaries are encountered. The reporting process
provides a benchmark, showing in both absolute and comparative terms where each subsidiary stands.
The company’s own assessments of its quality standards in food, environmental and social responsibility
show general improvement. This improvement is, according to the TQM manager, mainly due to the
pedagogic approach of looking for continuous improvement. Moreover due to this reporting, synergies
are being developed by the Group, which also contribute to improvements and efficiencies in production
and administrative processes.
Food security has improved in order to protect the consumers but also to protect the company itself. Everyone
interviewed regard this as crucial for the company’s reputation and survival. To this end the Group imposed in 2004
very strict quality control procedures on all of its production units.

The social policy, which follows corporate principles is to a large extent left to the subsidiary, which also has to
finance it. Decentralised management may have many advantages but here the small and remote subsidiaries struggle to
implement the generous social policies advertised by the Group. Some subsidiaries complain about the burden of
implementing CSR, both direct costs and indirect organisational costs.
Environmental performance is mainly dealt with at the corporate level. The Group tries to have all its
subsidiaries evolve towards the ISO 14000 standards. However, costs are high and many production units, especially
old ones, are expected to achieve only the minimum legal level.
The Strategic Value of CSR

As Food Corp is quoted on the French stock exchange, it has to abide by French law (Nouvelles Régulations
Economiques). According to this regulation, the Group must provide to both shareholders and regulatory authorities a
detailed quantitative and qualitative report of how the company is managing its social and environmental effects around
the world. Indirectly this regulation requires an evaluation of the progression of the implementation of the CSR policy
through a survey of the subsidiaries. This evaluation and communication is required by law, however the Group looks at
it as an opportunity. It makes the whole CSR implementation more structured and facilitates the implementation at the
local level. This regulatory requirement also helps the Group polish the image communicated to shareholders.
Food Corp Group is well aware that behaving responsibly is more than meeting regulatory demands. It also
includes being able to satisfy the financial performance expectations of interested parties (shareholders, employees). In
order to convince the different subsidiaries of the importance of CSR, the Group executive must argue the business
case. Responsible business behaviour is a long-term commitment and the Group has to support its implementation
financially as the costs are otherwise often too high to be borne by small organisations, such as subsidiaries.
The US division head of the Group declared that for the company a commitment to responsible corporate values
has a clear positive impact on performance. The company pursues a single basic approach to the markets, but the action
plans are diversified according to the various local situations. The local approach of Food Corp is well illustrated by the
company’s relationships with its suppliers. The company set very strict worldwide quality standards for the milk it
purchases from farmers. It develops close relationships with local producers, as they cooperate on livestock diet and
livestock housing conditions. At the same time both Group executives and subsidiary managers recognise that local
tastes and expectations need to be respected; good sales depend on it! The setting or raising of standards here can be
seen as good, both for animal rights and the environment. Moreover, failure to deal respectfully with such high profile
issues could have a damaging impact on quality, and dramatically affect the products’ reputation and sales results.
Discussion
All actors in this study support a ‘think global, act local’ CSR management strategy. This means they support a
framework where there is interaction between local action and global values: local action must be coordinated centrally,
while at the same time global values have to be supported by local actions. Managing the development of CSR
initiatives and implementation at Food Corp involves drawing on corporate culture, the use of directive measures, and
pedagogic action (Figure 3).
The first step, setting and spreading values: the decision-making process
Corporate values are set unilaterally by headquarters and applied throughout the company. These values define a
mission, are explicit, and express the commitment by the firm to satisfying the expectations of society. The values
provide unity of purpose and constitute a large part of the organisation’s culture; Leadership is also infused with, and
reinforces, this culture. The commitment to principles and attitude among staff within the whole enterprise is the
product of the expectations of the directing family. The Group executive transmit these principle to the firm’s managers,
through internal auditing and communication programmes. Managers must translate these into operational objectives;
the implementation and realisation of these principles rests firmly with line managers and employees. The findings
show that the diffusion of ethical values follows a vertical division of tasks, as described by Hendry (2004). The pursuit
of TQM touches all functions and levels within the company, and is driven from the centre. The programmes are
enacted through frameworks of actions (values and principles of actions), working methods, policies (food security
requirements,), programmes (safety at work).
While the Food Corp executive see their organisation as decentralised, the above example of TQM is also clear
evidence of top-down management. The reality is a mix of the parenting styles, reflecting some combination of
Brodhag’s (2004) and Gould and Campbell’s (1987) archtypes. This is unavoidable. For example in order to identify
and make use of synergies, the Group seeks to keep control of strategy making. At the same time, the subsidiaries
determine how best to achieve their business objectives, seeking support from the centre where necessary. To the extent
that local objectives may not be in full harmony with corporate desires, there is tension between localisation and
globalisation (De Wit and Meyer, 2004).
The extent to which there is a tension between profitability and responsibility, as suggested for example in De
Wit and Meyer (2004) can here be questioned. The ethical responsibilities the company takes are closely related to
financial performance. Food Corp’s corporate values have a strong financial motivation, and the sustainability of the
firm is seen to rest on exceeding minimum food quality standards, as well as in meeting or exceeding social and
environmental responsibilities. Philanthropy is rare and seen as unsustainable; most action must be justified by a
compelling business case. In case this suggests that managers are fully in control of their strategy, we should not forget
that external factors often drive justification and managerial behaviour. This can be seen for example in Food Corp
transforming its own normative framework into one set out by the UN Global Compact (www.globalcompact.org).
Further, in the context of public concerns around the price of global economic development, adopting such an external
standard also contributes to a positive corporate image of the company, which managers know often translates into
increased revenue.
Where international standards are non-partisan and respected, such as the UN Global Compact, they drive the
convergence of standards, and often raise standards. Within a global economy stakeholder groups (such as shareholders,
consumers, unions) often criticise MNCs for harbouring inconsistent social policies, for example, in providing
differentiated employee benefits in differing parts of the world. A global set of values internationally recognised, such
as the Global Compact helps minimise the effects of such semi-globalisation (Ghemawat, 2003).
From top-management value setting to day-to-day business: the challenge of implementation

Any organisation seeking to adopt a more socially responsible approach faces challenges. Primary among these is the
need to develop managers as moral individuals, under whose influence the whole organisation will become an
environment where socially responsible business behaviour is regarded as important. Implementation comprised three
elements: the company culture, directive measures, and pedagogic actions.
Company culture
In Food Corp organisational culture is perceived as very strong. Cultural coherence is reinforced notably by the
pedagogical method of cross-functional and cross-regional meetings as well as training. Directive measures give the
limits of liberty within the Group culture. There is a compulsory dimension in the values of this culture and therefore
has a clear impact on practice; managers take the company values into account in everyday action. This pressure is also
present in the recruitment process. Day-to-day practice and induction of new staff help reinforce a unity of purpose. At
the same time individual staff draw their direction from the power of the cultural influence.
Directive measures
Directive measures take a number of forms: the unequal distribution of power and authority in managerial relations;
meeting statutory requirements; and the need to meet financial performance targets. There is indeed a clear power
relationship between the headquarters and the subsidiaries. Although negotiation and pedagogical action are preferred,
where this does not work, or is inappropriate, the implementation of corporate decisions is carried out anyway. This
again brings into question claims by the executive about the decentralised organisation and decision-making. CSR
measures are now to an extent legally motivated. Legal obligations have to be implemented through directive measures,
for example in order to comply with the new French regulation (NRE). Where the Group executive see CSR measures
as being of critical financial importance, these are also implemented in a directive manner. Factors contributing to a
concern with financial targets include external pressures (shareholders, creditors, alliances), public and consumer
concern for food security and quality, and competitive pressure on Food Corp, from both local and global competitors.
Pedagogic action
The “pedagogue” etymologically refers to the one who shows the way (give knowledge) and helps develop more
independence and responsibility in the one receiving knowledge. In Food Corp training and communication (meetings,
training programmes) helps build trust and encourages decentralised decision making. Delegation rests on trust among
staff in an organisation, and as in Food Corp, this trust can be developed through training and practise. This role of trust
seems particularly clear in the decentralised structure of Food Corp where decision making and social interaction is not
restricted by formal hierarchy between the centre and the subsidiary.
This study highlights that pedagogic action takes place in a context of uncertainty. First, the idea of CSR offers a
very loose framework, covering almost every action of an organisation’s staff. The range of activities covered by the
term CSR is very broad and includes many qualitative elements, and therefore may not be fully definable and
controllable. These include: how company policies treat employees as well as how employee behaviour toward each
other, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders; attitudes to implementing food quality standards; and attitudes to
meeting environmental standards. Second, preaching corporate responsibility can appear abstract and disconnected from
everyday life at first, as was initially the case in some subsidiaries of Food Corp. However, as noted above, the
development of practise through continuous improvement provided the means of learning, enabling headquarters to
convey corporate values and slowly transform behaviour. In this way espoused values become better understood and
accepted. Third, pedagogy does not mean removal of the need for managerial discretion and initiative. The global
competitive landscape seems to be evolving towards greater social and economic recognition of local stakeholders (for
example the Fair Trade movement). Such movements offer scope to Food Corp or its subsidiary managers to reflect on
whether they herald new ways of competing, for example through novel forms of cooperation with local stakeholders.
Evaluation
Unavoidably, in order for the Group to assess the success or otherwise of directive measures, there is regular evaluation
of CSR related activity, through the pedagogical process previously described. The necessity for global consistency
combined with the significance of the issue, requires these directive measures to be strictly controlled.
Investors Institutions Society

Investors Institutions Society
Pressures Communication
COMPANY
COMPANY
Directive measures Reporting Pedagogy

Directive measures Reporting Pedagogy
Company
values
Company
Subsidiary
Subsidiary values
Subsidiary
Subsidiary
Subsidiary
Subsidiary Subsidiary
Subsidiary Subsidiary
Subsidiary
Suppliers Customers Society

Suppliers Customers Society
Figure 3: Managing CSR Implementation at Food Corp
A Bottom-up information flow is needed

McCaig, the food industry consultant, observes that often headquarters take a too directive attitude towards the
subsidiaries. Subsidiaries operating in cultures differing from the French headquarters, sometimes find the hierarchical
power difficult to accept, so that the CSR policy may lose their value. It is therefore important for headquarters to invite
local managers away from their day-to-day reality and to reflect on the meanings and purposes of the corporate values.
This would foster cooperation and help build understanding and acceptance of abstract corporate values and its
translation into local action. Moreover, supporting self-reflection by subsidiary managers, and encouraging interactions
internally and externally, through training and decentralisation, would enable these managers to adapt in appropriate
ways to local competitive and regulatory conditions. This seems to be developing as it is sustained by economic results.
Business priorities are also at times a source of conflict in the implementation of CSR. The subsidiaries are
closer to the short-term realities of particular markets, while the driver of CSR initiatives is normally from the Group
executive with its own concern for the long-term development of the company as a whole. To some extent these
tensions are managed by the Group facilitating interactions between subsidiaries, corresponding to the networking
model described by Brodhag, (2004) and presented earlier. For example, the centre often coordinates the development
of joint actions and meetings to communicate best practice.
More generally, managing tensions between headquarters and subsidiaries in developing and implementing CSR
initiatives demands finding a balance between the level of control exercised by the centre and the level of freedom
afforded to subsidiary managers. The model of the cycle of continuous improvement can help achieve an adequate
balance, but this is bound to be incremental and slow to achieve understanding, requiring patience and openness, while
recognising the limitations to any attempt at reconciling competing agendas.
Evaluation and Improvement

From a corporate level perspective, the evaluation of CSR policy and its implementation is a crucial part of CSR
management. Such evaluation is necessary for several reasons: to satisfy shareholders that there is value in such a policy
(financial and ethical); to satisfy regulators; and to satisfy other stakeholders, who are often sceptical of the motives and
claims made by corporations about their CSR commitment.
At Food Corp, the self assessment and the audit are tools given to the subsidiaries to improve their efficiency.
This reduces the need for a well-developed system of control. Paraphrasing Kline (2005: 250), the auditors, who are
specially trained, can help bridge the distant demands of the centre and the immediate need by local managers to make
‘best-choice decisions’ while often lacking time and information.
The pursuit of continuous improvement should not be relaxed in light of improving results as the organisational
capabilities and competitive pressures are constantly evolving. Moreover, communication is continuously necessary in
order to keep staff aware of the issues affecting their daily action, and to remind external stakeholders of the
corporation’s continued commitment to action. Feedback from different stakeholders, both within and outside the
company, is often ignored or too little formalised, but could usefully inform the evaluation process.
Conclusions
The first objective of the research was to analyse the decision-making processes in determining a consistent worldwide
social responsibility policy in a MNC. The initiative comes from the headquarters and is diffused in a top-down manner.
CSR is multidimensional, general and therefore supervised at the corporate level. General values and principles of
action are transmitted from the top management to the whole organisation. CSR is seen as financially sensible. The
CSR policy is mainly about making explicit, updating and formalising common values throughout the company. The
achievement of consistent global values grows out of communication, which in turn generates increased awareness,
more appropriate actions, leading to global consistency in the interpretation of corporate value.
The level of centralisation or decentralisation of a corporation influences the way a CSR policy is implemented.
In Food Corp, the centre sets the corporate values, and will use the hierarchical structure of the company to implement
these values. In addition, headquarters appear to take authoritative measures when financial performance depends on
good shareholder relations. This top down approach is joined by an organisational culture demanding compliance with
socially responsible employee behaviour. At the same time pedagogic actions seem to enable a controlled
decentralisation of subsidiary action. However tensions appear between the lofty values determined by top management
and the reality of day-to-day business, notably in the allocation of resources. Subsidiaries seem more concerned with
profitability while the centre seems more focused on being, and being seen, as behaving social responsibility.
Information flow from the bottom up is vital in order for CSR policy initiatives to work in an organised and coherent
manner, given the dispersed nature of the organisation.
Evaluation of practice and associated policy adjustments are integral to implementation, following a cycle of
continuous improvement. The growing interest in CSR, by stakeholders and shareholders, and the strictures of new
regulations, all help shape how the company communicates with its external environment. CSR evaluations should
include stakeholder attitudes since their support or dissatisfaction can significantly affect sustainable corporate
performance. It seems that this still has to be developed. The financial value of CSR is accepted but there is no strict
measure of it.
References
Agmon T. (2003) “Who gets what: the MNE, the national state and the distributional effects of globalization”, Journal of
International Business Studies 34, 416-427
Andrews K. R. (2003) “Ethics in practice” in Breeze Race to the top, Social Market Foundation, London, pp.67-83
August R. (2004) International business law, text cases and readings (4th edn) Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Brinkman R.L., Brinkman J.E. (2002) “Corporate power and the globalisation process” International Journal of Social Economics
29:9, 730-752
Brodhag C. (2000) Gouvernance et évaluation dans le cadre du développement durable, available at
www.agora21.org/articles/brodhag00b.htm (10/08/2005)
Brodhag C. (2004) “La dynamique des réseaux et des systèmes d’information en soutien au renforcement des capacities”, Colloque
international sur Économie de l’Eau & Développement Durable : Ouagadougou (6 avril 2004) available at
http://brodhag.nuxit.net/article.php3?id_article=40 (03/08/2005)
Brodhag C., Gondran N. and Delchet K. (2004) “Du concept à la mise en œuvre du développement durable : théorie et pratique
autour de guide SD 21000”, VertigO - La Revue en Sciences de l’Environnement, 5:2, 09/2004
Buckley P.J. and Casson M. (1976) The future of the multinational enterprise, Macmillan, London
Burke L., Logsdon J. (1996) “How corporate social responsibility pays off”, Long Range Planning, vol.29, August 1996
Business for social responsibility (2005) “Introduction,” available at
http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/WhitePaperDetail.cfm?DocumentID=48809 (16/07/2005)
Callon M. and Latour B. (1991) « Réseaux technico-économiques et irréversibilités » in Les figures de l’irréversibilité en économie,
Boyer R., Chavance B, Godard O. (Eds), Editions de l’EHESS, Paris
Carrigan M. and Attala A. (2001) “The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 18:7, 560-578
Davidson W.H. and De La Torre J. (1989) Managing the global corporation : case studies in strategy and management, McGraw-
Hill International Editions, New York
Davies R. (2003) “The business community: social responsibility and corporate values” in Dunning et al. Making globalization good,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, Chp. 13
Dawkins J. (2004) “Corporate responsibility: the communication challenge” Journal of Communication Management, 9:2, 108-119
De Wit B. and Meyer R. (2004) Strategy: process, content, context, Thomson International Business Press, London
Dunning J.H. and Mucchielli J. (2002) Multinational firm: the global – local dilemma, Routledge, London
European Foundation for Quality Management (2005) The Fundamental Concepts of Excellence, available at
http://www.efqm.org/Default.aspx?tabid=36 (05/09/2005)
EBBF (2001) Emerging values for a global economy, available at http://www.ebbf.org/publications/english/publications001.html
(20/07/2005)
Ehlinger S. (1997) L’approche socio-cognitive de la formation de la stratégie : apports théoriques et méthodologiques ; available at
http://www.strategie-aims.com/montreal/ehlinger.pdf (12/08/2005)
Food Corp Annual Report, 2004.
Forum Européen pour le Développement Durable et une Entreprise Responsable, 3ème Edition (2004) ; Développement durable et
stratégie d’entreprise ; available at
http://www.institut-entreprise.fr/fileadmin/Docs_PDF/Global_Compact/FEDERE__DD_et_strat_gie_d_entreprise.pdf
(25/08/2005)
Ghemawat P. (2002) “Semiglobalization and international business strategy” Journal of International Business Studies 34, 138-152
Goold M. and Campbell A. (1987), Strategies and Styles: the role of the centre in managing diversified corporations, Blackwell,
Oxford
Halal W.E. (2000) “Corporate community: a theory of the firm uniting profitability and responsibility” Strategy and Leadership,
28:2, 10-16
Hammond C., Grosse R. (2003) “Rich man, poor man: resources on globalization” References service review 31:3, 285-295
Harrison A. (2002) “Case study research” in Partington D. Skills for Management Research SAGE, London, Chp. 9
Hendry J. (2004) Between enterprise and ethics, business and management in a bimoral society, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hines C. (2000) Localization, a global manifesto, Earthscan Publications, London
Hopkins M. (2003) The planetary bargain, Earthscan, London
Jones I.W. and Politt M.G. (2002) Understanding how issues in business ethics develop, Palgrave Macmillan, London
Kitchin T. (2002) “Corporate social responsibility, a brand explanation”, Brand Management, 10:4-5, 312-326
Kline, J.M. (2005) Ethics for international business: decision-making in a global political economy, Routledge, London
Kotler P. and Lee.N. (2005) Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause, Wiley, Hoboken
KPMG Global Sustainability Services (2005) KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2005, available at
http://www.kpmg.com/Rut2000_prod/Documents/9/Survey2005.pdf
Kumar B.N. and Steinmann H. (1998) Ethics in international management, De Gruyter, Berlin
Lantos G.P. (2002) “The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19:3, 205-232
Lewis S. (2003) “Reputation and corporate responsibility”, Journal of Communication Management, 7:4, 356-364
Ligteringen E. and Zadek S. (2005) The future of corporate responsibility codes, standards and frameworks, an executive briefing by
the Global Reporting Initiative and AccountAbility, available at www.globalreporting.org/upload/Landscape_Final.pdf
(16/07/2005)
McCann G. and McCloskey S. (2003) From the local to the global, key issues in development studies, Pluto Press, London
Martinet A.C. and Reynaud E. (2001) “Entre “shareholders” et “stakeholders”, la stratégie: une illustration par le management
environnemental d’Evian-Danone”, Revue Française de Gestion, Novembre-Décembre
McAdam R. and Leonard D. (2003) “Corporate social responsibility in a total quality management context: opportunities for
sustainable growth”, Corporate Governance, 3:4, p.36-45
Mackenzie A. and Rice D. (2001) “Ethics and the multinational corporation” in Bentley T. and Stedman-Jones D. (Eds), The moral
universe, Demos Collection, London, issue 16 pp.125-132
Middlemiss N. (2002) “Authentic, not cosmetic: CSR as brand enhancement” Brand Management, 10: 4-5, 353-361
Moir L. (2001) “What do we mean by corporate social responsibility”, Corporate Governance, 1: 2, 16-22
Nilsson F. (2000) “Parenting styles and value creation: a management control approach”, Management Accounting Research, 11, 89-
112
O’Higgins E. (2003) “Part 2: Global business means global responsibilities: Research: Global strategies – contradictions and
consequences”, Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society 3:3
ORSE (Observatoire sur la Responsabilité Sociale des Entreprises) (2003) “Les Stratégies de développement durable nourrissent-
elles la performance économique des entreprises”, ORSE, Paris
ORSE (Observatoire sur la Responsabilité Sociale des Entreprises) (2004) ; Rapport de mission remis au gouvernement : bilan
critique de l’application par les entreprises de l’article 116 de la loi NRE ; available at:
http://orse.org/fr/home/download/rapport_NRE.pdf (25/08/2005)
Pérez R. (2003) “Research about “global responsibility” in management” Corporate Governance 3:3, 78-89
Saunders M., Lewis P., Thornhill A. (2003) Research Methods for Business Students (3rd edn), FT Prentice Hall, Harlow
Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies, (1997) Statement of general business principles, available at
http://www.shell.com/static/media-en/downloads/sgbp.pdf (20/07/2005)
Strategic Direction (2003a) “The business world’s latest buzzword? CSR and what it means to you” Strategic Direction, 19:6, 7-9
UN Global Compact [www.globalcompact.org]
Van Lee R., Fabish L. and McGaw N. (2005) “The value of corporate values”, Strategy + Business, available at http://www.strategy-
business.com/article/05206?gko=7869b-1876-9176155&tid=230&pg=all (14/08/2005)
Waddock S. and Bodwell C. (2002) “From TQM to TRM, total responsibility management approaches”, Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, available at http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/pdfs/jcc7wadk.pdf (12/08/2005)

Social Responsibility Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Responsibility Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Responsibility Journal

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

M. Morand & L. Rayman-Bacchus

Development of corporate global power and the CSR movement

Think global act local

Need for a corporate values framework

Managing stakeholder interests

Members Members Members Members

Top down network organisation Bottom up network organisation

Figure 1: Typology of network functioning

Integration and implementation

Evaluation and communication

Food Corp Group

Group Values Principles of action Working methods

Total Quality Management programme

Manufacturing 88 production units in 21 countries

Sales Commercial subsidiaries in 28 countries

Figure 2: Food Corp: Group organisation

Commitment to ethical values

Quality Management: Audit

Evaluation: Voluntary and Legal

very strict quality control procedures on all of its production units.

The Strategic Value of CSR

From top-management value setting to day-to-day business: the challenge of implementation

Investors Institutions Society

Directive measures Reporting Pedagogy

Suppliers Customers Society

Figure 3: Managing CSR Implementation at Food Corp

A Bottom-up information flow is needed

Evaluation and Improvement

You might also like