Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Governance Types of Corporate Philanthropic Forestry Activities

기업의 산림 관련 사회공헌 활동 참여 유형

  • Received : 2011.08.19
  • Accepted : 2011.10.21
  • Published : 2011.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

기업의 사회공헌 활동은 사회에서 요구하는 것 이상으로 사회복지 향상을 위해 수행하는 활동과 관련이 있다. 여러 분야 중에서도 산림 분야는 기업들의 환경적 성과와 사회적 성과를 동시에 향상시켜주기 때문에 잠재적으로 기업의 선호도가 높은 분야이다. 기업은 재정, 인력 등의 자원을 보유하고 있어 효과적인 산림 관리 및 보존 활동에 중요한 기여를 할 수 있는 주체이다. 그러나 우리나라는 아직 기업들의 산림 활동 참여율이 낮기 때문에 향후 더 많은 기업들의 참여를 효과적으로 돕기 위한 논의가 필요하다. 그 일환으로 본 연구에서는 기업이 산림 관련 사회공헌 활동에 참여하는 다양한 방식의 특징과 차이를 분석하고자 하였다. 기업이 산림 관련 사회공헌 활동에 참여하는 방식은 실행 주체에 따라 자선기부, 직접사업, 협력사업의 세 가지 유형으로 구분할 수 있다. 세 가지 유형을 모두 활용하여 숲 가꾸기 캠페인을 펼쳐온 유한킴벌리의 사례를 통해, 각 유형에 따라 기업의 역할, 활동 내용, 활동 방식 등이 어떻게 달라지는지를 탐색적으로 분석하였다. 기업의 산림 관련 사회공헌 활동의 활성화를 위한 실무적인 시사점도 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022212816261
  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9240-0
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.73
  15. Fig, D. 2007. Questioning CSR in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: the case of Aracruz Celulose sa. Third World Quarterly 28(4): 831-849. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590701336705
  16. Ford, D. and D. Farmer. 1986. Make or buy - a key strategic issue. Long Range Planning 19(5): 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(86)90009-9
  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. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794670
  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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0345
  20. Huber, G.P. 1991. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organization Science 2(1): 88-115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88
  21. Husted, B.W. 2003. Governance Choices for Corporate Social Responsibility: to Contribute, Collaborate or Internalize?. Long Range Planning 36(5): 481-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(03)00115-8
  22. Husted, B.W., Allen, D.B. and Rivera, J.E. 2010. Governance Choice for Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society 49(2): 201-215 https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650308315504
  23. Jauch, L.R. and Wilson, H.K. 1979. A strategic perspective for make or buy decisions. Long Range Planning 12(6): 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(79)90056-6
  24. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3): 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
  25. Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. 2004. Market Strategies for Climate Change. European Management Journal 22(3): 304-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.04.011
  26. Levinthal, D. and March, J.G. 1981. A Model of Adaptive Organizational Search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2(4): 307-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(81)90012-3
  27. Levitt, B. and March, J.G. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14: 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535
  28. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Havard University Press. Cambridge, Mass. pp. 437.
  29. Nickerson, J.A. and Zenger, T.R. 2004. A knowledgebased theory of the firm: The problem-solving perspective. Organization Science 15(6): 617-632. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0093
  30. 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.
  31. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.336
  32. 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. https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v19n02_04
  33. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199809)19:9<853::AID-SMJ977>3.0.CO;2-B
  34. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-1175-3
  35. Sethi, S.P. 1975. Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Analytical Framework. California Management Review 17(3): 58-64. https://doi.org/10.2307/41162149
  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.439
  37. Weinhofer, G. and Hoffmann, V.H. 2010. Mitigating Climate Change? How Do Corporate Strategies Differ?. Business Strategy & the Environment 19(2): 77-89.
  38. Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA. pp. 181.