leadership hguuygjhb

7/28/2019 Leadership hguuygjhb

1/8

Multinational Firms Leadership Role

in Corporate Social Responsibilityin Latin America

Gladys Torres-BaumgartenVeysel Yucetepe

ABSTRACT. This paper explores the commitment to

corporate citizenship on the part of the largest U.S.-based

multinationals in the emerging market region of Latin

America. The websites of the largest U.S.-based firms

according to the 2007 Fortune 500 list are reviewed and

their CSR efforts in Latin America are noted. The firms

positions on corporate citizenship in Latin America are

mapped onto a three-by-three matrix in which firms

commitment to corporate citizenship ranges from profit-

making motivations to a more holistic approach where

support for non-profit causes is embraced by the entire

firm and implemented at all levels (Marsden, Business and

Society Review 105(1), 926, 2000). The largest U.S.-

based multinationals were selected for this study because

of their leadership role and the fact that other firms within

their respective industries may seek to emulate the firms

level of commitment to corporate citizenship. While thematrix can be used to evaluate corporate citizenship ef-

forts in any market or globally the emphasis in this

study is on Latin America, a region of interest for two

reasons: because of the paucity of research on this par-

ticular emerging market region as it relates to CSR, and

because there is some evidence to suggest that philan-

thropic initiatives by the regions wealthy individuals lag

behind individual philanthropic efforts in other world

regions (Oppenheimer, Latin Americas Rich Should Donate

More. McClatchey-Tribune Regional News, 2007). If this

is the case, this study aims to identify whether companies

are picking up the slack.

KEY WORDS: business ethics, corporate social

responsibility, Latin America

You make a living by what you get; but you make a

life by what you give. Winston Churchill

Introduction

As multinational firms have continued their geo-

graphic expansion efforts, globalization has become

an issue of interest not only to businesspeople, butalso to society, policymakers, and government offi-

cials in general. As cross-border barriers to interna-

tional trade and international investment have been

eroded, the multinational enterprise has been rec-

ognized as a vehicle for sustaining growth, both from

the firms as well as the host countrys perspec-

tive. This presents a dilemma for many firms in that

they are accountable to multiple stakeholders, often

with competing interests. While pressuring business

to focus on social responsibility efforts has long been

the cry of social and political activists, increasingly itis being echoed by consumers, employees, and the

greater communities-at-large of which the corpo-

rations are a part. As is often the case, the activities of

the multinational corporations are often under more

intense scrutiny from multiple stakeholder groups

when their foreign direct investments are in devel-

oping market regions. The firm then must balance its

obligations to its shareholders vis-a-vis its commit-

ment to the local community, as well as other

stakeholders in the home and host country markets.

Gladys Torres-Baumgarten earned her Ph.D. in International

Business from Rutgers University. She is an Associate Pro-

fessor in the Department of Management at Kean University.

Her research interests are focused on corporate social respon-

sibility behavior and international marketing communications.

Veysel Yucetepe earned his Ph.D. in Marketing from the

University of Illinois at Chicago. He is an Assistant Professor

in the Department of Marketing at Kean University. His

research and teaching have focused on international marketing,

business ethics, consumer behavior, and services marketing.

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 85:217224 Springer 2008

DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9940-8


2/8

It is particularly difficult for the largest multinational

enterprises to distance themselves from their share-

holders needs when balancing the needs of the local

communities in the developing market regions in

which they operate. Firms of this size must act in asocially and fiscally responsible way, as they will have

to be accountable to both shareholders and other

stakeholders. This presents some very real challenges

to firms, and is particularly acute for large multi-

national corporations as is the case for those that are

ranked by Fortune Magazine on the basis of their

annual revenues. Multinationals in Latin America

may feel additional pressure to be socially responsible

because recent evidence on philanthropic efforts by

the regions wealthiest individuals suggests that the

spirit of giving in Latin America may not becomparable to the levels seen in developed markets

or even in other developing market regions

(Oppenheimer, 2007). To be fair, Oppenheimer also

argues that it is not that there is disproportionately

less giving in Latin America, but that theres less

willingness to identify the source of the giving, in

light of the dangers associated with publicizing ones

personal wealth.

Developing countries are of interest because the

social programs or the overall social responsibility

efforts that large multinational firms undertake in

developing markets may differ from corporateresponsibility programs in their home market or

other developed markets. Of interest here, is whe-

ther the corporate citizenship efforts in Latin

American countries differ in a significant way from

the programs in more developed markets. Given the

diverse needs and often times basic needs that

may need to be addressed in developing markets, an

opportunity exists to contribute in meaningful ways

to the host market. However, because the stan-

dards of good corporate citizenship may not be well

established by either multinational or local firms,there could also be a tendency for firms to skirt the

issue of corporate responsibility in these markets.

This paper was undertaken to study the current

corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices of

large multinational firms in emerging market re-

gions, with particular attention placed on the activ-

ities of these firms in Latin America. The extent to

which multinationals are committed to social

responsibility initiatives in the region appears to be

mixed. Larry Palmer, the president of the Inter-

American Foundation, an independent foreign assis-

tance agency of the United States government,

recently stated that his agency has witnessed the

spread of CSR in Latin America (Green, 2007).

However in 2004, FOCAL (the Canadian Founda-tion for the Americas) published a policy paper in

which it was revealed that there is a huge gap

between CSR activity in Canada and the U.S. and the

rest of the Americas (Haslam, 2004). Furthermore, it

reported that as deep as this gap is, a similar gap exists

between the most advanced developing countries of

the region and the rest. This paper aims to assess the

current level of commitment to CSR efforts in the

region by select multinational enterprises.

Methodology

This study sought to categorize the nature of CSR

initiatives undertaken by some of the largest multi-

nationals in the Latin American region. The com-

panies of interest were the top ten U.S.-based

multinationals from the 2007 Fortune 500 list. The

firms size and prominence in world markets is of

significance since, simply by the nature of their size,

they are poised to advance socially responsible pro-

grams in the region. More importantly, they may also

be viewed by other firms as instrumental in settingindustry standards that other firms may choose to

emulate in several respects in their for-profit

activities as well as their corporate citizenship initia-

tives. Information on the firms corporate citizenship

activities was compiled through the firms websites.

The Internet was deemed to be a suitable source of

information on the firms CSR efforts given its use as

a popular and effective tool for communicating with

multiple stakeholder groups on various aspects of a

firms activities. Each of the authors in this study

evaluated the ten firms independently of the otherauthor and plotted the firms CSR efforts onto a

three-by-three matrix (Marsden, 2000) aimed at

characterizing the extent to which firms are com-

mitted to social responsibility. The two independent

plots were then compared to ensure that both authors

were in agreement as to where each company

belonged on the matrix. If there was any disagree-

ment, the researchers provided evidence to support

their position until both authors agreed on the most

representative position in the matrix. While the

218 Gladys Torres-Baumgarten and Veysel Yucetepe


3/8

matrix has been used in previous studies to categorize

firm behavior and commitment in the area of CSR

overall, it has not been applied on a more micro level,

i.e., using it to evaluate a firms commitment to social

responsibility efforts in particular world regions.

Corporate citizenship

In an earlier view of corporate citizenship, Friedman

(1970) maintained that the role of business was that

of a profit-making machine and that the business of

business was business. The Friedmanesque attitude

toward the role of business coincided with periods of

heavy geographic expansion on the part of multi-

nationals. However, over the past thirty years, cor-

porate attitudes toward their role in society have

evolved to the point where businesses, governments,

and non-government organizations (NGOs) often

work toward a common goal to benefit society,

suggesting that maximizing shareholder value and

social responsibility are not necessarily incompatible

objectives. Corporate citizenship has been defined as

the adoption by a business of a strategic focus for

fulfilling the economic, legal, ethical and philan-

thropic social responsibilities expected of it by its

stakeholders (Thorne-McAlister et al., 2003). The

reference to the firms multiple stakeholder groupsin this recent view of corporate citizenship dem-

onstrates how far the concept has evolved since

Friedman advocated maximizing shareholder wealth.

While progress has been made in fine-tuning the

corporate citizenship concept, have multinational

corporations also changed in their implementation of

corporate citizenship? To aid in answering this

question, Marsden identified two dimensions that

can be used to analyze a firms views on corporate

citizenship: company objectives and commitment to

corporate citizenship. Each dimension is viewed as

having three levels: (i) commitment to citizenship

levels are described as denial (consistent with the

Friedman view of the firm as a profit generator),

reactive engagement (when firms are pressured to

support a societal issue), and proactive engagement

(when firms willingly seek out societal issues on

which its business can have a positive effect), and (ii)

company objectives are described as managerial sat-

isficing (when shareholder and managerial interests

are equally important), shareholder value (when

firms actions are largely dictated by their impact on

shareholder wealth), and triple bottom line (an ideal

situation in which firms seek to maximize share-

holder value, while placing equal weight on social

and environmental goals) (Table I).A description of each corporate citizenship cate-

gory follows (Marsden, 2000):

1. Discretionary philanthropy is characterized

by donations made from discretionary bud-

gets and deemed to be worthy causes by

an executive or their spouse.

2. Specialists reporting to CEO occurs when

a company official is hired to identify worth-

while issues within the community. Projects

will generally be managed by this individual

who reports to the CEO, yet mainstream

businesses will remain largely unaware, and

not involved in these efforts.

3. Specialist intervention in external issues

occurs when strategic philanthropy is still di-

rected by specialists hired by the firm to

identify potential recipients of funds and in-

kind contributions. Philanthropic efforts are

still largely supported by senior firm officials

and not viewed as affecting individual busi-

ness units in any significant way.

4. Devolved external affairs is a level that de-scribes external corporate philanthropic activ-

ities as very local, entirely business driven,

but devoid of strategic links from one pro-

gram to another. This is the position of

many large conglomerates with multiple

subsidiaries in which decision making is lar-

gely decentralized and funneled down to the

subsidiary level.

5. Reactive partial engagement occurs when

external philanthropic efforts are funded by

the firm after community pressure is exerted

upon the firm or when the threat of impend-

ing regulation exists. Programs typically ad-

dress an environmental, safety or social

impact issue.

6. Pro-active partial engagement occurs when

the firm sees an opportunity to increase (or

maintain) shareholder value by taking up a

cause on a specific societal issue.

7. No term exists. It is difficult to envision that

this category would exist in actuality since it

Multinational Firms Leadership Role 219


4/8

assumes that a corporation would embrace

corporate citizenship, while denying respon-

sibility for the societal issues which itimpacts.

8. Reactive holistic engagement occurs when

firms out of external pressures and possibly

even a crisis manage their CSR programs

with one corporate vision, and evaluate the

short- and long-term impact on the firm by

monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of

its programs on a regular basis.

9. Active sustainability leadership is an

ideal level of corporate citizenship, one in

which firms embrace CSR efforts in a holis-tic fashion, and whose commitment cannot

be questioned, particularly since it may even

border on political activism and support for

its social causes.

Discussion

The focus of this study is on multinationals CSR

efforts in Latin America. Despite the fact that only

ten firms were used in this analysis, some inter-firmdifferences in commitment to corporate responsi-

bility efforts in Latin America soon became evident.

In an attempt to avoid cross-country differences in

views on CSR, the firms included in this study were

solely from one country, the U.S. The list used to

determine the largest U.S.-based multinationals (as

determined by annual revenues) was published by

Fortune Magazine in April 2007 (Table II). The

websites and other on-line reports (such as corporate

responsibility or annual reports) for the top ten U.S.-

based firms were perused to gauge commitment to

corporate citizenship initiatives in Latin America.According to Fortune Magazine(4/07), the top ten

U.S. firms based on annual revenues were:

Wal-Mart was deemed to be in the devolved

external affairs cell of the Marsden grid (see Table III)

due to the fact that Wal-Marts CSR initiatives are

focused on the local communities, although this is a

conscious strategy on Wal-Marts part. They have

extensive CSR initiatives in the U.S., but the pro-

grams in Latin America appear to be more limited.

The website stated that in 2005, Wal-Marts inter-

national operations contributed more than$26 million to support local communities. One can

safely assume that a good portion of this went to

Latin American countries since nearly two-thirds of

Wal-Marts international stores are found in Latin

American countries. Community outreach efforts in

Latin America included funding of soup kitchens in

Argentina; food banks in Mexico; economic devel-

opment, family strengthening programs and cultural

programs in Brazil; and supporting non-profit

organizations in Puerto Rico, as well as the Amer-

ican Red Cross and the Muscular Dystrophy Asso-

ciation and a local, yet, internationally acclaimed artmuseum, El Museo de Arte de Ponce.

Exxon Mobil in 2006 spent a total of $139.4 mil-

lion in community investments worldwide, of which

$2.4 million was spent in Latin America, the lowest

allocation by region (as compared to $79.3 million in

the U.S., $19.5 million in Africa, $7.2 million in

Asia/Pacific region, $3.6 million in Europe, and

$3.0 million in the Middle East) (Exxon Mobils 2006

Corporate Citizenship Report). The Latin American

TABLE I

Corporate citizenship matrix nine categories of corporate citizenship

Corporate citizenship Denial Reactive engagement Pro-active engagement

Company objectives

Triple bottom line 7 8 Reactive holistic engagement 9 Active sustainability leadership

Shareholder value 4 Devolved

external affairs

5 Reactive partial engagement 6 Pro-active partial engagement

Managerial satisficing 1 Discretionary

philanthropy

2 Specialists report to CEO 3 Specialist intervention

in ext. issues

Source: Marsden, 2000.



5/8

expenditures that were made were largely in support

of education initiatives for women. In addition to

education initiatives, Exxon Mobil is committed to

spending on health initiatives in developing coun-

tries, but these currently appear to be focused on

AIDS education and on eradicating malaria in the

African continent. There were no discernible health-

related expenditures in Latin America. As a result,

Exxon Mobil was deemed to be in the reactive partialengagementcell of the Marsden matrix.

General Motors has operations in eight Latin

American countries; however, the GM Corporate

Responsibility Report is largely focused on issues

relating to energy savings, diversity on the work-

force, and health and safety in the workplace. Two

social outreach initiatives are mentioned in the

section on developing markets (where Latin

America, Africa, and the Middle East are grouped

together). One is an AIDS education mentorship

program established in South Africa, and the other

is a program aimed at supporting science and

technology education in Israel. There was no

reference to any social outreach programs having

been established in Latin America. As a result,

GMs CSR efforts in Latin America can best be

categorized as being in the discretionary philanthropy

cell.

Chevron in 2006 donated $90.8 million dollars toglobal community investments. The allocations by

region were as follows: 47% in North America, 23%

in Africa (primarily dedicated to fighting the spread

of HIV/AIDS and malaria on the continent), 11% in

Eurasia, 10% in Asia-Pacific, 4% in the Middle East,

4% in Latin America, and 1% in Europe. While

the nature of the programs that were supported in

Latin America through these expenditures was not

revealed, the regional spending pattern seen here

parallels Exxon Mobils priorities. Chevron was also

TABLE II

Top ten U.S.-based multinationals (based on annual revenues)

Rank Firms Revenues (in $ mil.) Profits (in $ mil.)

1 Wal-Mart Stores 351,139.0 11,284.0

2 Exxon Mobil 347,254.0 39,500.0

3 General Motors 207,349.0 -1,978.0

4 Chevron 200,567.0 17,138.0

5 ConocoPhillips 172,451.0 15,550.0

6 General Electric 168,307.0 20,829.0

7 Ford Motor 160,126.0 -12,613.0

8 CitiGroup 146,777.0 21,538.0

9 Bank of America Corp. 117,017.0 21,133.0

10 American International Group 113,194.0 14,048.0

Source: Fortune Magazine, April 30, 2007.

TABLE III

Top ten Fortune firms and corporate citizenship in Latin America

Corporate citizenship Denial Reactive engagement Pro-active engagement

Company objectives

Triple bottom line 7 8 Reactive holistic engagement 9 Active sustainability

leadership: GE, Citigroup

Shareholder value 4 Devolved external

affairs: Wal-Mart, Ford

5 Reactive partial engagement:

ExxonMobil, Chevron

6 Pro-active partial engagement

Managerial satisficing 1 Discretionary

philanthropy: GM

2 Specialists report to CEO:

Bank of America, AIG

3 Specialist intervention in ext.

issues: Conoco Phillips



6/8

deemed to be in the reactive partial engagement cell of

the Marsden matrix.

Conoco Phillips, the third largest U.S.-based en-

ergy company, has a philosophy that their ability to

grow depends not only on business successes, but ontheir commitment to corporate citizenship as well.

They, however, do not have a strong presence in

Latin America. While they have exploration and

production facilities in Argentina, Peru, Venezuela,

Ecuador, and Puerto Rico, only 0.7% of their

worldwide workforce is found in this region (2006

Sustainable Development Report). As a result, there

was no reference to CSR initiatives in this world

region, leading the authors to categorize them in

Marsdens specialist intervention in external issues cell.

General Electric, a company with a vast array ofbusinesses, spanning from financial services to energy

to aviation and healthcare. The GE family is cited

as having given over $200 million and more than

1 million volunteer hours on community and relief

initiatives worldwide in 2006 (http://www.ge.com/

company/culture/index.html ). GEs CSR initiatives

in Latin America range from transportation to

healthcare and infrastructure needs (GE 2007 Citi-

zenship Report). Additional outreach efforts are

leading to cleaner water and better education in

underprivileged areas. In the following fiscal year,

GE plans to expand a healthcare initiative to LatinAmerica, which to date has been known as the

Africa Project (and implemented in that continent,

respectively). This program helps to upgrade and

maintain hospitals in rural communities through

product and service donations. It appears that as GEs

revenues from emerging markets continue to rise,

their CSR efforts will continue to increase in these

regions (In 2000, GE received $10 billion in reve-

nues from emerging market regions, as compared to

the $29 billion it received in 2006, and the projected

$50 billion that it expects to receive in 2010). GE isconsidered to be in the active sustainability leadership

cell of the Marsden matrix due to the fact that GEs

CSR initiatives are proactive, often arising as part of

the corporate strategy, rather than as external pres-

sure from local governments or stakeholder groups.

Ford Motor Company has a history of supporting

the communities it serves since the days when its

founder, Henry Ford stated that a business that

makes nothing other than money is a poor business,

thus advocating good works on the part of the

company and its employees. In 2006, the Ford Motor

Company demonstrated its commitment to these

ideals by donating $87 million and 80,000 volunteer

hours to community outreach efforts. However, the

20062007 Sustainability Report cited challengingbusiness conditions as affecting the level of charita-

ble donations over the past year, and the report failed

to mention any specific community outreach pro-

grams implemented in Latin America during that

time period. The company appeared to have focused

its social responsibility initiatives on energy and water

preservation projects worldwide. Ford Motor Com-

panys programs are categorized under the devolved

external affairs cell since some positive environmental

programs were maintained, but some CSR cutbacks

were also made due to the companys difficult year.Citigroup has several CSR programs related to its

business that it has implemented in various emerging

market regions, including Latin America. As is the

case with many of the previous companies, Citibank

feels that it is important to support programs finan-

cially, but also by encouraging volunteerism among

its global workforce. Citibank volunteers (1) in

Mexico collected and distributed over 50 tons of

food to 50+ cities, and (2) throughout all of Latin

America revitalized their communities by painting

schools, planting trees, and visiting hospitals. In

addition, Citibank launched a financial educationprogram in Latin America to benefit families who

were receiving new homes from Habitat for

Humanity, but that might also benefit from guidance

on understanding and managing their own finances.

Micro-financing programs, targeted especially for

women were also implemented in Latin America by

Citigroup. Given the nature of Citigroups CSR

initiatives in Latin America, Citigroup was deemed

to be in the active sustainability leadership cell.

Bank of America, in 2006, donated $200 million to

philanthropic efforts. However, these funds were allgiven to U.S. communities (http://www.bankof

america.com/foundation/ ). The lack of funding to

Latin America may be reflective of the fact that Bank

of America only has operations in the Mexican mar-

ket. While not much information was provided on

any emerging market region, we deemed Bank of

America to likely be in the specialists reporting to

CEO cell.

AIG, one of the worlds leading international and

financial services organization with a presence in 130

http://www.ge.com/company/culture/index.htmlhttp://www.ge.com/company/culture/index.htmlhttp://www.bankofamerica.com/foundation/http://www.bankofamerica.com/foundation/http://www.bankofamerica.com/foundation/http://www.bankofamerica.com/foundation/http://www.ge.com/company/culture/index.htmlhttp://www.ge.com/company/culture/index.html


7/8

countries believes that neighborhoods are the

foundation for communities and as result, they fund

community-based non-profits. However, these

communities are all in the U.S. (with one exception

London). Despite the fact that AIG has a presencein 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, its

outreach to the region appears to be limited. For this

reason, AIG was placed in the specialists reporting to

CEO cell.

General Motors, Bank of America, AIG, and Co-

noco Phillips (all firms that appear in the lower part of

the grid, i.e., the managerial satisficing category,

purported to be firmly committed to corporate citi-

zenship; they identify it as a core value for the firm,

and claim that the firm has an extensive history in

supporting socially responsive programs. However,because their efforts in emerging markets are small

(relative to comparable programs in the U.S. home

market), these firms for now find themselves in these

categories. It is likely that as their social investments in

emerging market regions increase, they may move to

a higher level of corporate citizenship. Wal-Mart and

Ford both were categorized in the devolved external

affairs cell because their programs are highly local,

yet the Marsden matrix makes this category seem as a

lower level of commitment to CSR than some of the

later cells. However, it may be unfair to judge these

companies as being less committed to CSR because inboth cases, the local nature of their outreach programs

in an integral part of their CSR strategy, i.e., they are

local by design.

Exxon Mobil and Chevron are in the reactive

partial engagement cell. Lastly, GE and Citigroup

appear to have the greatest commitment to the

region judging by the companies CSR efforts

targeted at Latin America.

Conclusion

This investigation revealed that CSR initiatives in

Latin America on the part of U.S.-based multina-

tionals are limited. This is evidenced by the fact that

CSR programs by some of the largest multinationals

appear to be focused on other emerging market re-

gions, primarily Africa and Asia, garnering even

more attention than Latin America, with programs

focused on AIDS education/outreach and literacy

enhancement. CSR spending in Latin America falls

significantly short of spending in the home market,

i.e., the U.S. Since the companies in this study were

the largest U.S.-based multinationals, further inves-

tigation into the home-country orientation in CSR

efforts is warranted among small and medium-sizedfirms as well. The finding that CSR programs in

Latin America are lacking (relative to the volume of

business contributed by this emerging market re-

gion) may suggest that the standards for good cor-

porate citizenship may not be well established either

by multinational or local firms in the region.

From a methodological standpoint, corporate

websites were used to analyze corporate citizenship

efforts of the top ten revenue-generating firms in the

U.S. This was considered to be an effective method

since access to the companies development or sus-tainability reports is available online. Both websites

and the development/ sustainability reports were

used in this analysis. However, some companies

present their data on a regional basis, while others do

not, and as a result, it was difficult to gauge the

specific CSR initiatives in Latin America per se. As

reporting standards develop, this may be more easily

accomplished in the future.

References

Fortune Magazine. Fortune 500: 2007, Americas LargestCorporations. April 30, 2007.

Friedman, M.: 1970. The Social Responsibility of

Business is to Increase Profits, New York Times Mag-

azine, 3233.

Green, E.: 2007, Corporate Social Responsibility Is

Smart Business, U.S. Information Service, 7 August

2007.

Haslam, P. A.: 2004. The Corporate Social Responsi-

bility System in Latin America and the Caribbean,

FOCAL Policy Papers; FPP-04-1. March. http://

www.focal.ca/pdf/csr_04.pdf.

Investing in a Sustainable Future. GE 2007 Citizenship

Report. http://www.ge.com/company/citizenship/

downloads/pdf/GE_2007_citizen_07rep.pdf.

Marsden, C.: 2000, The New Corporate Citizenship of

Big Business: Part of the Solution to Sustainability?,

Business and Society Review 105(1), 926.

Oppenheimer, A.: 2007, Latin Americas Rich Should

Donate More, The Miami Herald. McClatchey-Tribune

Regional News, 20 September 2007.

Thorne-McAlister, D., O. Ferrell and L. Ferrell: 2003,

Business and Society: A Strategic Approach to Corporate

Citizenship (Houghton Mifflin Company, NY).

http://www.focal.ca/pdf/csr_04.pdfhttp://www.focal.ca/pdf/csr_04.pdfhttp://www.ge.com/company/citizenship/downloads/pdf/GE_2007_citizen_07rep.pdfhttp://www.ge.com/company/citizenship/downloads/pdf/GE_2007_citizen_07rep.pdfhttp://www.ge.com/company/citizenship/downloads/pdf/GE_2007_citizen_07rep.pdfhttp://www.ge.com/company/citizenship/downloads/pdf/GE_2007_citizen_07rep.pdfhttp://www.focal.ca/pdf/csr_04.pdfhttp://www.focal.ca/pdf/csr_04.pdf


8/8

Gladys Torres-Baumgarten

Management Department,

Kean University,Willis Hall 403, 1000 Morris Ave., Union,

NJ 07083, U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected]

Veysel Yucetepe

Marketing Department,

Kean University,Willis Hall 407B, 1000 Morris Ave., Union,

NJ 07083, U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected]


leadership hguuygjhb

Documents