This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-744 
entitled 'Globalization: Numerous Federal Activities Complement U.S. 
Business's Global Corporate Social Responsibility Efforts' which was 
released on September 7, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

August 2005: 

Globalization: 

Numerous Federal Activities Complement U.S. Business's Global Corporate 
Social Responsibility Efforts: 

GAO-05-744: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-744, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The trend toward globalization has intensified the debate about the 
proper role of business and government in global “corporate social 
responsibility” (CSR),which involves business efforts to address the 
social and environmental concerns associated with business operations. 
The growth in global trade and the dramatic increase in foreign direct 
investment in developing countries raise questions regarding CSR-
related issues such as labor, environment, and human rights. U.S. firms 
with operations in many countries employ millions of foreign workers 
and conduct a range of CSR activities to address these issues. However, 
there is controversy as to the proper government role. GAO describes 
(1) federal agency policies and programs relating to global CSR and (2) 
different perspectives regarding the appropriate U.S. government role 
and views on the impact of current federal activities on corporate 
global CSR efforts. 

What GAO Found: 

Although there is no broad federal CSR mandate, we identified 12 U.S. 
agencies with over 50 federal programs, policies, and activities that 
generally fall into four roles of endorsing, facilitating, partnering, 
or mandating CSR activities. Many of these programs have small budgets 
and staff and aim to accomplish broader agency mission goals, rather 
than being specifically designed to facilitate or promote companies’ 
global CSR activities. The U.S. government endorses CSR by providing 
awards to companies, such as the Department of State’s Award for 
Corporate Excellence. Federal programs facilitate CSR by such 
activities as providing information or providing funding to engage in 
CSR. For example, a Department of Commerce program facilitates CSR by 
providing training on corporate stewardship. Some agencies partner with 
corporations on specific projects related to their core mission. For 
example, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 
partnered with one U.S. corporation operating in post-war Angola to 
build up the country’s business sector and workforce. Other agencies, 
such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, mandate CSR by 
requiring companies to meet CSR-related criteria to obtain their 
services. 

While perspectives on the government’s role are tied to perspectives on 
CSR and its connection to profit, many we spoke with who are actively 
involved in global CSR desired a government role supporting business’s 
voluntary CSR efforts. Those with a free-market economic perspective 
believe corporations should be primarily concerned with earning a 
profit and government should not promote CSR as it reduces profits. 
Those with a “business case” perspective often welcome government 
assistance with their voluntary efforts because they view their CSR 
efforts as increasing profits and business value. Finally, those with a 
social issues perspective believe that business should contribute to 
broader social goals but split on whether business action should be 
voluntary or mandatory. Most groups we spoke with at U.S. companies and 
others actively engaged in CSR were generally supportive of U.S. 
federal agency efforts to endorse and facilitate CSR and partner with 
companies voluntarily pursuing CSR actions. For example, several groups 
supported a government role in providing CSR-related information and 
convening stakeholders to address CSR-related issues. 

Range of U.S. Government Activities Related to Global CSR: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-744. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Loren Yager at (202) 512-
4347 or yagerl@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Global Corporate Social Responsibility Is an Umbrella Concept Covering 
Many Business Actions and Involving Many Players: 

Although No Broad Federal CSR Mandate Exists, Federal Agencies Conduct 
Many Activities Related to Global CSR: 

Perspectives on the Appropriate Government Role in CSR Vary, but Many 
Support Federal Assistance for Voluntary Efforts: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Federal Agency CSR-Related Programs and Activities: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Sample Definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility: 

Table 2: Definitions of Terms Related to Corporate Social 
Responsibility: 

Table 3: Responses from Department of Commerce: 

Table 4: Responses from Department of Energy: 

Table 5: Responses from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

Table 6: Responses from Export-Import Bank of the United States: 

Table 7: Responses from Inter-American Foundation: 

Table 8: Responses from Department of Labor: 

Table 9: Responses from Overseas Private Investment Corporation: 

Table 10: Responses from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: 

Table 11: Responses from the Department of State: 

Table 12: Responses from the Department of Treasury: 

Table 13: Responses from U.S. Agency for International Development: 

Table 14: Responses from Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Some Federal Programs and Activities Complement U.S. 
Corporate CSR Practices: 

Figure 2: Illustrative U.S. Government Activities Related to CSR Range 
from Endorsing CSR to Mandating CSR: 

Abbreviations: 

CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility: 

DFI: Digital Freedom Initiative: 

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

Ex-Im Bank: Export-Import Bank of the U.S. 

HIV/AIDS: human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency 
syndrome: 

IAF: Inter-American Foundation: 

GRI: Global Reporting Initiative: 

NGO: nongovernmental organization: 

OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 

OPIC: Overseas Private Investment Corporation: 

SEC: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

USTR: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: 

Letter August 8, 2005: 

The Honorable David E. Price: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Sander M. Levin: 
House of Representatives: 

The trend toward globalization--as evidenced by the growth in global 
trade and the dramatic increase in foreign direct investment in 
developing countries, from $22 billion in 1990 to $154 billion in 2002-
-has intensified the debate about the role of business and the U.S. 
government in addressing "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) 
related issues. Presently, for example, some opponents of the U.S.- 
Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) have complained that the 
agreement does not do enough to ensure that workers in these countries 
have adequate labor protections. The term CSR is often used to refer to 
business efforts to address the impact of business operations on such 
concerns as labor, environment, and human rights. U.S. multinational 
corporations, which conduct operations in many countries and employ 
millions of foreign workers, have sometimes responded to the varying 
pressures they face by adopting CSR efforts to address social and 
environmental concerns. Some advocates argue that the U.S. government 
should embrace CSR more actively and use policies such as trade 
agreements to encourage or require its adoption by U.S. multinational 
corporations. Others state that CSR should be a voluntary corporate 
activity, and the federal government should neither regulate nor 
promote CSR. 

Given the role of U.S. corporations in the growth of trade and 
investment in developing nations and your interest in issues related to 
globalization, this report describes (1) global corporate social 
responsibility, (2) federal agency policies and programs relating to 
global CSR, and (3) different perspectives regarding the appropriate 
U.S. government role and views on the impact of current federal 
activities on corporate global CSR efforts. 

To describe global corporate social responsibility, we reviewed 
business and ethics literature and interviewed selected corporations 
and other groups interested in CSR. To determine what policies and 
programs federal agencies have adopted that relate to global CSR, we 
surveyed federal legislation and spoke with agency officials and 
experts in CSR. We obtained information on specific agency programs and 
policies related to CSR using a two-step process. First, we provided a 
general description of global CSR to agency officials and asked them to 
identify relevant programs, policies, and efforts within their agency. 
We then sent a questionnaire to officials responsible for each 
identified program and interviewed officials to obtain further 
information. To identify different perspectives regarding the role of 
the U.S. government related to corporate global CSR efforts, we 
reviewed CSR-related trade and business literature and interviewed, on 
a nonattribution basis, representatives from 14 selected U.S. 
multinational corporations; 4 business interest groups; 4 investor 
groups; 6 nongovernmental organizations; and 4 academic institutions 
that are leaders in the CSR field. We conducted our work from May 2004 
through May 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. (Appendix I provides detailed information on our 
objectives, scope, and methodology.)

Results in Brief: 

Global CSR is an umbrella concept that can best be described through 
the definitions used for the term, the actions companies take to 
practice CSR, and the roles of key players. CSR can be broadly defined 
as addressing the interests of all company stakeholders, which include 
not only shareholders but also customers, employees, suppliers, and the 
surrounding community on issues such as environmental protection, 
worker safety, and ethical conduct. Global CSR addresses these issues 
within international markets, particularly in developing countries. 
U.S. businesses take a variety of actions related to CSR that range 
from voluntary, such as philanthropic donations, to government 
mandated, such as disclosure of significant environmental conditions. 
Businesses play a central role in determining if and how to address 
social and environmental issues they face in their operations. Civil 
society, investor groups, multilateral organizations, and governments 
play key roles in identifying issues of concern and in encouraging 
businesses to adopt CSR efforts to address these issues. 

Although the United States has no broad federal CSR mandate, we 
identified 12 U.S. agencies with over 50 programs, policies, and 
activities that generally fall into four key government roles of 
endorsing, facilitating, partnering, and mandating company CSR 
activities. However, many of these programs have small budgets and 
staff and aim to accomplish broader agency mission goals, rather than 
being specifically designed to facilitate or promote companies' global 
CSR activities. The U.S. government endorses CSR by providing awards to 
companies, such as the Department of State's Award for Corporate 
Excellence and discussing CSR in public speeches. Federal programs 
facilitate CSR primarily by providing information or providing funding 
and incentives to key players to engage in CSR. For example, the 
Department of Commerce facilitates CSR by training its commercial 
service officers specifically on corporate stewardship. The U.S. Agency 
for International Development's (USAID) Global Development Alliance 
provides an example of a federal program that partners with 
corporations to leverage additional resources. Finally, some agencies, 
such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), mandate CSR 
by requiring companies to meet criteria consistent with CSR to obtain 
their services. 

While varying perspectives of the government's role are tied to 
perspectives on CSR and its connection to profit, many we spoke with 
from groups that are actively involved in global CSR reported that a 
government role supporting companies' CSR efforts would be useful. 
Those with a free-market economic perspective state that corporations 
should be primarily concerned with earning profits and that government 
should not promote CSR because it reduces profit. Those with a 
"business case" perspective contend that CSR efforts can increase 
business long-term profits and value, and welcome government assistance 
with voluntary business efforts. Finally, those with a social issues 
perspective believe that business should contribute to broader social 
goals but have mixed opinions of whether this should be accomplished 
through voluntary CSR actions or more extensive regulation. Most 
representatives we spoke with at U.S. companies and other groups who 
were actively engaged in CSR were generally supportive of U.S. federal 
agency efforts to endorse and facilitate CSR and partner with companies 
voluntarily pursuing CSR actions. For example, several groups supported 
a government role in providing CSR-related information and convening 
stakeholders to address CSR-related issues. 

Background: 

The expansion of world trade and investment has led to the increasing 
integration of the world economy in recent decades--a process often 
referred to as "globalization." Total trade in developing countries, 
exports and imports, rose from less than $1.5 trillion in 1990 to $3.8 
trillion in 2002, while foreign direct investment in developing 
counties grew even faster during this period, from $22 billion to $154 
billion. Some view globalization as fostering economic growth, 
increasing employment, and improving living standards in both developed 
and developing nations. At the same time, others view globalization as 
resulting in negative social impacts and raise concerns about the 
expanding activities of multinational corporations, particularly in 
developing countries. U.S. multinational corporations are now faced 
with difficult issues, such as the treatment and conditions of foreign 
workers in corporate supply chains, environmental and health issues 
associated with production in diverse local communities, and human 
rights issues associated with authoritarian governments in countries 
where multinationals operate. In addition, some negative incidents 
involving U.S.-based companies have been widely publicized, hurting 
their own and the United States' image, such as the use of sweatshops 
in the manufacture of clothing and other products. In another example, 
a U.S.-based company recently came under allegations that its overseas 
mining operations produced toxic waste that have caused illnesses. 

U.S. corporations are increasingly building operations or buying 
products from sources in developing countries. However, the legal, 
regulatory and ethical environments in which U.S. businesses and their 
suppliers operate vary across countries. For example, some have 
asserted that developing countries have inadequate or poorly enforced 
environmental and labor laws. Given the limited capacity of some 
developing countries, CSR advocates argue that corporations themselves 
must establish and maintain codes of conduct regarding operating 
standards in these environments. Companies face increasing pressure 
from nongovernmental organizations (NGO), the media, "socially 
responsible" investor groups, and other stakeholders to adhere to high 
standards globally in their own operations and throughout their supply 
chains. In addition, some members of Congress have shown support for 
CSR-related policies, similar to those advocated by working groups 
convened by the Kenan Institute.[Footnote 1]

In response to these business challenges and outside pressures, 
companies are increasingly adopting "corporate social responsibility" 
programs. For example, recently U.S. electronics companies signed a 
joint code of conduct to protect working conditions, workers' rights, 
and the environment in the electronics industry supply chain. A number 
of U.S. companies have instituted programs to address HIV/AIDS and 
other diseases in their operations in developing countries, for 
example, by raising awareness or providing access to treatment. Most 
recently, U.S. companies provided nearly $453 million to relief efforts 
in the wake of the tsunami that hit South and Southeast Asia and East 
Africa in December 2004.[Footnote 2] Despite these efforts, some CSR 
advocates call for more government action to promote CSR, with some 
noting that several national governments in Europe have put in place 
mechanisms to encourage or require the adoption of CSR practices. 

Global Corporate Social Responsibility Is an Umbrella Concept Covering 
Many Business Actions and Involving Many Players: 

Global CSR is an umbrella concept that can best be understood by 
describing the different definitions used for the term, the actions 
businesses take to practice CSR, and the roles of key players involved 
in CSR. Although groups use different definitions and terms, CSR 
generally involves business efforts to address a broad range of issues, 
including the environment, labor, and human rights. Businesses perform 
many different actions to address CSR concerns. The extent and type of 
these actions are influenced by key players in CSR that include not 
only businesses, but also the civil society, investor groups, 
multilateral organizations and governments that seek to influence them. 

The term "global CSR" is sometimes used to refer to business efforts to 
address the social impacts of business in the global economy. 
Discussions of global CSR in the context of developing countries 
focuses on the need for business to address the gaps from inadequate or 
poorly enforced laws to protect the environment, labor, human rights, 
and other social resources. 

CSR Is Generally Defined as Business Efforts to Address the Interests 
of Its Many Stakeholders: 

The term "CSR" is an umbrella concept with many different definitions. 
However, most definitions suggest that, in addition to addressing the 
interests of its shareholders, business should address the interests of 
its other stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, and 
the local community. CSR definitions cover a broad range of potential 
social concerns, including business ethics, community development, 
labor, environment, and human rights. Table 1 presents sample CSR 
definitions. 

Table 1: Sample Definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility: 

Name of group: Business for Social Responsibility (BSR); 
Definition of CSR: "Achieving commercial success in ways that honor 
ethical values, and respect people, communities, and the natural 
environment."[A]. 

Name of group: European Commission; 
Definition of CSR: "A concept whereby companies integrate social and 
environmental concerns in their business operations and in their 
interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis."[B]. 

Name of group: Institute of Business Ethics; 
Definition of CSR: "The voluntary actions taken by a company to address 
the ethical, social, and environmental impacts of its business 
operations and the concerns of its principle stakeholders."[C]. 

Name of group: World Bank; 
Definition of CSR: "The commitment of business to contribute to 
sustainable economic development--working with employees, their 
families, the local community and society at large to improve the 
quality of life in ways that are both good for business and good for 
development."[D]. 

Source: GAO compilation from sources listed. 

[A] Business for Social Responsibility, BSR Issue Briefs, Overview of 
Corporate Social Responsibility. 

[B] European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment and Social 
Affairs, Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social 
Responsibility, Green Paper, July 2001, p. 8. 

[C] Institute of Business Ethics, Web site, [Hyperlink, 
http://www.ibe.org.uk]. 

[D] The World Bank, Corporate Social Responsibility Practice, Public 
Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: Taking 
Stock, January 2004, p. 3. 

[End of table]

CSR definitions vary on whether CSR is considered exclusively voluntary 
or whether it includes mandatory requirements for business regarding 
social and environmental issues. Some definitions of CSR limit it to 
voluntary business decisions and actions, above and beyond what is 
required by law. Others organizations have reasoned that CSR should 
include mandatory efforts, especially because in developing countries 
it can be a tool to encourage compliance with laws and 
regulations.[Footnote 3] This voluntary compliance with laws and 
regulations assumes a greater role in developing countries, because 
even where developing countries have adequate laws and regulations 
concerning social and environmental concerns, they often have limited 
enforcement resources. 

Some groups prefer other terms to address all or some of the ethical, 
social, and environmental issues addressed by CSR. For example, one 
business group preferred the term "corporate citizenship" because 
business social and environmental efforts are indicative of business's 
effort to be good citizens, while they believe the term "CSR" implies 
that those efforts are a responsibility rather than voluntary. Others 
prefer the terms "sustainable development" or "triple bottom line," 
reasoning that business decisions and performance should be evaluated 
in terms of their economic, social, and environmental impacts. Other 
terms such as "business ethics" deal with one of the many concerns of 
CSR. Table 2 presents definitions of some terms related to CSR. 

Table 2: Definitions of Terms Related to Corporate Social 
Responsibility: 

Term: Business Ethics; 
Definition: "The application of ethical values to business 
behavior."[A] 

Term: Corporate Citizenship; 
Definition: "The conduct of business in ways that reflect proactive, 
responsible behavior in business and in dealings with all constituents 
and with respect to communities, society, and the natural environment 
more generally."[B]

Term: Sustainable Development; 
Definition: "[development that] meets the needs of the present without 
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own 
needs."[C]

Term: Triple Bottom Line; 
Definition: "A method that allows companies to assess their performance 
against three bottom lines: environmental, social, and economic."[D]

Source: GAO compilation from sources listed. 

[A] Institute of Business Ethics, Web site, [Hyperlink, 
http://www.ibe.org.uk]. 

[B] Logan David, Roy Delwin, and Regelbrugge Laurie, Global Corporate 
Citizenship - Rationale and Strategies, The Hitachi Foundation, 
Washington D.C.: 1997, p. 7. 

[C] Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, (the 
Brundtland Commission) Our Common Future, United Nations, August 1987, 
p. 24. 

[D] The Sustainable Business Network and Ministry for the Environment, 
New Zealand, Enterprise3 Your Business and the Triple Bottom Line, 
Economic, Environmental and Social Performance, June 2003, p. 2. 

[End of table]

Many U.S. Businesses' Actions Address CSR Concerns: 

U.S. businesses conduct many different types of actions that address 
CSR concerns that range from voluntary, such as philanthropic 
donations, to government mandated, such as disclosure of significant 
environmental conditions. These actions may or may not be part of a 
formal CSR effort. Although groups categorize business actions 
addressing CSR concerns differently, they can broadly be grouped as 
relating to (1) business ethics, (2) community development, (3) 
environment, (4) governance, (5) human rights, (6) marketplace, and (7) 
workplace.[Footnote 4] In our discussions with representatives of U.S. 
corporations, which are noted as leaders in CSR, we identified 
illustrative examples of U.S. companies' actions that address these 
categories of CSR concerns. 

Business Ethics: 

Business actions addressing the CSR concern of business ethics involve 
values such as fairness, honesty, trust and compliance, internal rules, 
and legal requirements. Among the actions taken to address business 
ethics are incorporating ethics into corporate value and mission 
statements, developing ethics codes, conducting ethics training, and 
monitoring ethical performance. In one example from the companies we 
interviewed, the company had recently trained its workforce--including 
all levels of management--on its standards of business conduct and now 
publishes these standards in 20 languages. 

Community Development: 

Business actions addressing the CSR concern of community development 
involve business policies and practices intended to benefit the 
business and the community economically, particularly for low-income 
and underserved communities. Community development activities include 
employing and training disadvantaged workers, partnering with minority- 
and women-owned businesses, and locating facilities in underserved 
communities. One business we interviewed with a factory in South Africa 
works with its employees to develop the physical structures of schools 
for youth and adults in that community. 

Environment: 

Business actions addressing the CSR concern of the environment involve 
company policies and procedures to ensure the environmental soundness 
of its operations, products, and facilities. Examples include pollution 
prevention, energy efficiency, and supply-chain environmental 
management. One company we interviewed stated that it strives to exceed 
minimum U.S. government standards for toxic emissions, even in foreign 
countries. The company stated that it had sent a team of specialists to 
Mexico to bring a Mexican facility to the U.S. standard. 

Corporate Governance: 

Business actions addressing the CSR concern of corporate governance 
involve the broad range of policies and practices that boards of 
directors use to manage themselves and fulfill their responsibilities 
to investors and other stakeholders. Examples include developing 
processes for communication with stakeholders, adopting formal board 
guidelines, and implementing board and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 
performance evaluations. 

Human Rights: 

Business actions addressing the CSR concern of human rights involve 
assuring basic standards of treatment to all people, regardless of 
nationality, gender, race, economic status, or religion. Among the 
concerns in developing human rights policies are to avoid child labor 
in manufacturing, government action depriving citizens of basic civil 
liberties, and forced or prison labor. For example, a company we 
interviewed said it had signed the United Nations Global Compact, which 
requires businesses to comply with human rights requirements as one of 
its 10 principles. 

Marketplace: 

Business actions addressing CSR marketplace concerns involve business 
relationships with its customers and such issues as product 
manufacturing and integrity; product disclosures and labeling; and 
marketing, advertising, and distribution practices. Marketplace- 
related actions include establishing ethical marketing and advertising 
policies, ensuring safety and efficacy of products, and employing 
ethical sales tactics. One company we interviewed that views water, 
health, and hygiene as their business stated it had developed low-cost 
water purifying systems and products to save water in hand washing and 
improve the lives of consumers in developing countries. 

Workplace: 

Business actions addressing CSR workplace concerns generally involve 
human resource policies that directly impact employees, such as 
compensation and benefits, career development, and health and wellness 
issues. Examples of workplace CSR actions include adoption of global 
workplace standards, involvement of employees in business decisions, 
and establishment of employee grievance policies and procedures. 

Business, Civil Society, Investor Groups, Multilateral Organizations 
and Government Play Important Roles in Shaping CSR: 

Businesses play the central role in determining their efforts to 
address CSR concerns, but these efforts can also be influenced by the 
actions of civil society, investor groups, multilateral organizations, 
and government. 

Businesses' Role in CSR: 

Businesses play a central role in CSR by determining which social and 
environmental issues are addressed and how they are addressed. CSR 
literature notes that there is a growing recognition by businesses that 
CSR includes the way the company runs its core business, not just its 
philanthropic activities. Businesses can further influence CSR in their 
relationships with other firms through business networks, 
intermediaries, and supply chains. For example, a business may require 
or promote CSR among its business partners. 

Available but not necessarily representative data on U.S. business 
efforts to address CSR concerns suggests that many firms conduct some 
CSR efforts and that a small number of firms hold themselves to more 
rigorous non financial reporting standards on social, economic and 
environmental information. A 2002 survey of U.S. firm involvement in 
sustainability (a closely related term to CSR) included responses from 
140 U.S.-based firms that were likely among the most active U.S. 
companies in CSR.[Footnote 5] Three-quarters of responding firms 
reported practicing some form of sustainability. Large firms, defined 
as those having revenues over $25 billion annually, were more likely 
than smaller firms to issue sustainability reports, according to that 
same survey. Over half of the firms issuing a sustainability report 
indicated that they were following Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 
guidelines. The GRI is an independent institution that disseminates 
globally applicable sustainable reporting guidelines for companies use 
in reporting on economic, environmental and social dimensions of their 
activities, products, and services. As of March 2005, 69 U.S. firms had 
registered to use the GRI guidelines for reporting CSR Issues. 
Similarly, 71 U.S. firms have signed onto the United Nations Global 
Compact. Signatories to the Global Compact voluntarily agree to support 
its 10 principles in areas of human rights, labor, environment, and 
anticorruption policies. 

Available information from some surveys suggest that business leaders 
address social issues for business as well as for other reasons, 
including consistency with their core operating values. Two recent 
surveys of business executives reported that businesses practiced 
corporate citizenship or sustainable business practices for a variety 
of reasons. The voluntary nature of these surveys makes it impossible 
to project to the universe of all firms. In the first survey, the 
majority of business respondents concurred with the statement that 
"good corporate citizenship helps the bottom line."[Footnote 6] 
Similarly, the majority of the respondents to the second survey 
indicated "cost savings" as a reason for adopting sustainable business 
practices.[Footnote 7] The majority of firms responding to the first 
survey also indicated that their founding traditions and core 
organizational values of their companies dictate their commitment to 
corporate citizenship. Similarly, the second survey reported that the 
majority of responding firms indicated the CEO/Board commitment as a 
contributing reason for their sustainable business practices. Further, 
this survey reported that a number of respondents stated that one 
reason for adopting sustainable practices was because it was "the right 
thing to do."

Despite over 30 years of research, no consensus has been reached on the 
relationship between business social and financial performance. 
Numerous empirical research studies have attempted to determine whether 
those firms that engage in socially responsible practices also do well 
in terms of financial performance. A 1997 study that surveyed 25 years 
of research observes that, many studies find a negative relationship 
between these practices and financial performance, although the largest 
number of studies find a positive relationship.[Footnote 8] More recent 
studies also reach a range of conclusions with some finding a positive 
association,[Footnote 9] some finding at least a neutral association, 
and others finding no significant or a mildly negative 
relationship.[Footnote 10] A recent paper on the business justification 
for CSR concludes, "It has not yet been possible to make a strong, 
causal, quantitative link between CSR actions and financial indicators 
such as share price, stock-market value, return on assets and economic 
value added."[Footnote 11]

The difficulty in accurately measuring CSR benefits to business 
complicates any assessment of CSR. CSR literature, as well as 
discussions with CSR experts, indicates that it can be very difficult 
to assess the profitability of CSR actions because benefits may occur 
far into the future and involve intangibles such as enhanced brand and 
company image or other goodwill. Furthermore, the authors of a recent 
study suggest that the provision of CSR will vary across industries, 
products, and firms. For example, they argue that larger, more 
diversified firms, and those that produce more highly differentiated 
products, may be more likely to engage in CSR practices than smaller 
firms or those that produce in less differentiated markets. The authors 
further suggest that if a firm is successful in implementing a CSR 
action, competitors may adopt similar measures, and this may have the 
effect of eroding any profit advantage. As a result, they argue that 
there should be a neutral relationship between CSR activity and firm 
performance.[Footnote 12]

Civil Society's Role in CSR: 

CSR literature recognizes the impact of civil society on raising 
awareness of social issues among businesses. The World Bank defines 
civil society as the wide array of nongovernmental and not-for-profit 
organizations that express the interests and values of their members or 
others based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious, or 
philanthropic considerations. Civil society organizations include 
community groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), labor unions, 
indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, 
professional associations, and foundations. A recent report by the 
Kennedy School of Government notes that the growth in civil society is 
one of the drivers making CSR more mainstream. 

Civil society groups can serve to strengthen the links between CSR 
activities and business profits by increasing the transparency of 
corporate operations. For example, civil society activities exposing 
sweatshops or other questionable corporate activities can provide an 
incentive for firms to act in ways that would not damage their 
reputation. Further, civil society sometimes establish standards that 
business can use to signal compliance or to enhance their reputation 
with their customers and other stakeholders, potentially increasing 
profits and firm value. In 1997, the Council on Economic Priorities 
Accreditation Agency[Footnote 13] released its Social Accountability 
(SA) 8000, a voluntary standard to help companies monitor a variety of 
workplace concerns. The SA 8000 provides verification of corporate 
performance. The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies 
(CERES) partnered with the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) 
to oversee the development of the GRI[Footnote 14] reporting guidelines 
in the late 1990's. The Interfaith Center for Corporate 
Responsibility[Footnote 15] (ICCR), composed of over 275 religious 
institutions, published a guide to be used as a reference tool by 
companies to monitor policies in such areas as community development, 
environment, ethics, human rights and workplace issues. 

Investor Groups' Role in CSR: 

Investor groups such as mutual funds and pension plans are responsible 
for a growing proportion of U.S. investments and therefore, are a 
potentially increasing influence over business's CSR actions. According 
to a report by the Social Investment Forum,[Footnote 16] a national 
membership organization of social investment practitioners and 
institutions, firms using some type of socially responsible investment 
strategy manage over 11 percent of all U.S. investment assets under 
professional management. The report further indicated that between 1995 
and 2003 social-invested assets grew faster than all other types of 
professionally managed investment assets in the United States. CSR 
literature notes the increased activism of some institutional investors 
and their calls for increased corporate accountability and 
transparency. 

The Role of Multilateral Organizations in CSR: 

Multilateral organizations have played an active role in developing 
standards relating to CSR and in promoting the concept of CSR. The 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development[Footnote 17] 
(OECD) first published its guidelines for multinational enterprises in 
1976. These guidelines include recommendations by OECD-member 
governments to multinational enterprises on appropriate business 
conduct in such areas as business ethics, labor relations, 
environmental practices, and information disclosure. The OECD revised 
the guidelines in 2000 to include a call for companies to respect human 
rights, abolish forced and child labor, and take a more active role in 
promoting environmental sustainability. The United Nations launched its 
Global Compact[Footnote 18] in 1999, and it now consists of 10 
principles covering concerns with human rights, labor, environment, and 
anticorruption. The World Bank also has a number of program goals 
related to CSR, including supporting the development of environmental 
and social practices in individual businesses in emerging markets, 
working with national governments to help countries better understand 
and address CSR, and cosponsoring (with the OECD) the Global Corporate 
Governance Forum,[Footnote 19] which helps countries improve standards 
of governance for their corporations. 

The Role of Governments in CSR: 

A 2002 World Bank study identified four major CSR roles for government: 
endorsing, facilitating, partnering, and mandating. Government 
endorsement of CSR can take a variety of forms, including direct 
recognition of businesses with awards. In their facilitating role, 
governments enable or provide incentives to companies to engage in CSR 
to obtain social and environmental improvements. Government partners 
with the private sector and civil society in tackling complex social 
and environmental problems. In the mandating role, governments require 
minimum CSR-related actions in laws and regulations. 

Some industrialized countries have established programs to foster CSR. 
For example, in 2001, the European Commission published a green paper 
to launch debate on how the European Union could promote CSR. 
Subsequently, the commission held a forum to foster dialogue among the 
business community, trade unions, civil society organizations, and 
other stakeholders on CSR.[Footnote 20] In May 2001, France became the 
first country to require all publicly listed companies to report on the 
social and environmental consequences of their activities. In 2000, the 
United Kingdom appointed a Minister for Corporate Social 
Responsibility, who maintains a central Web site that highlights 
government departments with CSR responsibilities. 

Although the social and economic priorities vary among developing 
countries, the high incidence of poverty and weak civil society means 
there are often fewer conventional drivers for CSR. Most developing 
country governments seek foreign investment to help them grow and 
develop and must attempt to balance development with other social and 
environmental goals. A 2002 World Bank report notes that developing 
country governments do not often participate in the development of CSR 
policies and standards.[Footnote 21] Another report on public sector 
support for CSR among global supply chains states that the lack of 
resources for developing country governments, which do not view export 
sector workplaces as the highest priority for social and environmental 
intervention, hinders progress in addressing CSR-related issues in 
global supply chains.[Footnote 22]

The effectiveness of government programs supporting CSR in achieving 
public policy goals has not been established, in part because of the 
difficulties inherent in such assessments. CSR literature notes that it 
is difficult to assess the impact of CSR-related partnerships on public 
policy goals because it is difficult to measure or compare their 
intangible inputs and outputs. Representatives from the four academic 
institutions we interviewed agreed that it was difficult to assess the 
impact of CSR on social goals. Several of these academicians also noted 
that they had not seen good work measuring the benefit of CSR to 
society. One noted that CSR is incremental and that it is hard to 
measure incremental improvements. 

Although No Broad Federal CSR Mandate Exists, Federal Agencies Conduct 
Many Activities Related to Global CSR: 

While the federal government does not have a formal role in global 
corporate social responsibility, we identified over 50 programs, 
policies, and activities at 12 agencies that are related to global CSR 
using a data collection instrument completed by agency officials. We 
narrowed down the programs to those that were ongoing in fiscal year 
2003 or afterwards, those that may affect U.S. corporations' CSR 
efforts overseas, including their supply chains, and those that touch 
on key components of CSR, such as labor, environment, human rights, 
community development and corporate governance. As illustrated in the 
text below, most of these activities can be loosely categorized into 
the four key roles of governments in global CSR identified by the World 
Bank: endorsing, facilitating, partnering and mandating.[Footnote 23] 
Appendix II catalogs all the programs we identified by agency. 

There Is No Comprehensive Mandated Federal Role, Definition, or Agency 
Coordination in Global CSR: 

There is no comprehensive legislation mandating a federal role in 
global corporate social responsibility, and few agencies actually 
define CSR. Many agencies work with the private sector on issues that 
are generally covered by the concept "corporate social responsibility," 
such as labor, environment, human rights and corporate governance, but 
few agencies define corporate social responsibility or label their 
activities CSR. Some agencies noted that they use other terms, such as 
corporate stewardship or corporate citizenship, to refer to similar 
issues. 

While there is no law designating a lead agency to coordinate federal 
government activities related to global corporate social 
responsibility, United States agencies are currently in the initial 
stages of creating a Web site to catalogue federal CSR initiatives. 
This informal interagency initiative, led by staff at the Inter- 
American Foundation (IAF), initially involved the Department of State, 
USAID, the Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). The 
purpose of the initiative is to publicize the U.S. government programs 
and resources that promote good corporate practices or CSR to 
businesses and NGOs. The IAF expects to make the Web site publicly 
available sometime in 2005. 

Some agencies also reported that while they do not have a formal 
program focused on global corporate social responsibility, they have a 
number of initiatives that relate to global CSR. For example, officials 
at the Department of State, which had the greatest number of 
initiatives related to global CSR, told us that they house their CSR- 
related activities in several bureaus linked through informal 
coordination. Likewise, at the EPA, which also had a large number of 
related initiatives, an official told us that the agency does not have 
a specific CSR program, but acknowledged there were many links between 
EPA programs on the environment and the goals of CSR. Further, EPA 
recently completed an internal inventory of its voluntary initiatives 
that partner with corporations to improve coordination and policy 
consistency. 

While Agency Perspectives on CSR Vary, Many Federal Programs in Pursuit 
of Broader Mission Goals Are Related to Global CSR: 

Agency perspectives on global corporate social responsibility vary from 
active endorsement to reluctance to labeling their programs CSR. For 
example, several bureaus in the Department of State foster corporate 
CSR practices as a means to enhance their own efforts aimed at public 
diplomacy, protecting human rights, and other areas. Similarly, the 
Department of Commerce has officially endorsed corporate social 
responsibility, stating that American companies must follow the highest 
standards of conduct anywhere they do business and that American 
companies contribute to the communities in which they do business. 
Through good corporate governance and global corporate social 
responsibility, the Department of Commerce maintains that American 
companies are helping to spread democratic values and prosperity around 
the globe, which leads to greater economic freedom, higher standards of 
living, and greater social and political freedoms. However, other 
agencies do not want their programs to be labeled CSR because they do 
not see it as part of their mission or believe they lack authority to 
engage in CSR activities. For example, while officials from the Office 
of the U.S. Trade Representative acknowledged that the agency 
undertakes some activities that might complement CSR, they stated that 
the agency's mission is to negotiate trade agreements, not to engage in 
CSR efforts. Similarly, a senior official at the Department of Labor 
said that, while the department has many activities that could 
conceivably be seen as supporting global CSR, the department is not 
doing them for that reason. He believes the department lacks specific 
authority to do work on CSR. 

Some agencies without a formal position on CSR actively take advantage 
of mutual interests between their missions and company CSR practices to 
achieve their broader mission goals. For example, USAID and the IAF 
leverage resources from corporations for development missions, and EPA 
intends to control pollution through voluntary programs with 
corporations. Specifically, USAID's Global Development Alliance aims to 
achieve the agency's development goals by leveraging resources from the 
private sector and other partners. USAID's alliances address a range of 
issues, such as encouraging economic growth, developing businesses and 
workforces, addressing health and environmental problems, and expanding 
access to education and technology. To illustrate, USAID partnered with 
one U.S. corporation operating in post-war Angola to build up the 
country's business sector and equip Angola's workforce with necessary 
business skills. The company and USAID each agreed in 2002 to provide 
$10 million over 5 years for a series of projects to strengthen small 
and medium-sized businesses, including helping refugees and former 
soldiers to return to agriculture, developing an enterprise development 
bank, and supporting the creation of an agricultural training center. 
From fiscal years 2002 to 2004, USAID reported funding approximately 
290 public-private alliances with over $1.1 billion in federal money 
and over $3.7 billion in partner contributions.[Footnote 24] Figure 1 
illustrates how federal agency programs sometimes complement company 
CSR practices. 

Figure 1: Some Federal Programs and Activities Complement U.S. 
Corporate CSR Practices: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Other agencies, such as OPIC, the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States (Ex-Im Bank), and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC) engage in activities that are related to CSR, generally in 
response to statutory or congressional requirements rather than based 
on a formal agency decision on CSR. 

Many Federal CSR-Related Programs Are Recent, Focus on a Range of 
Countries and Sectors, and Have Small Budgets and Staffs: 

Many of the programs we identified started in the last 5 years. For 
example, the Department of State's Partnership to Eliminate Sweatshops 
Program started in 2000 to provide grants to address unacceptable 
working conditions in manufacturing facilities overseas that produce 
goods for the U.S. market. In fiscal year 2003, the program funded the 
development of a confidential database of factory monitoring reports 
that would be accessible by companies seeking compliance information on 
factories in their supply chains. The effort was in response to U.S. 
companies that have cited lack of information about factory compliance 
as an obstacle to improving their own compliance efforts and 
responsible behavior. 

Since 2001, several presidential initiatives aimed at foreign 
assistance have partnered with companies to achieve the initiative 
goals, which also complement corporate CSR practices. For example, one 
interagency presidential initiative led by the Department of 
Commerce,[Footnote 25] the Digital Freedom Initiative, was announced in 
2003 to partner with U.S. businesses to transfer the benefits of 
information and communication technology to businesses in the 
developing world.[Footnote 26] The program has over 90 U.S. corporate 
and nonprofit organization partners that provide volunteers and other 
resources to support its activities. As part of the initiative, in 
Senegal, a U.S. information technology company is developing 12 
academies to train Senegalese to install, manage, and maintain modern 
computer networks.[Footnote 27]

Federal agency activities related to CSR focus on a range of countries 
and sectors. For example, the International Child Labor Program at the 
Department of Labor funds projects in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Central 
America, and West Africa that work with various industry associations 
to address the use of child labor. The Department of State funds a 
number of projects in China and other countries in various sectors, 
including the apparel industry and the extractives sector. Federal 
programs and activities assist U.S. companies with their philanthropic 
efforts, as well as with their efforts to be socially responsible in 
their core business operations, including their supply chains. None of 
the programs we identified were specifically designed to monitor 
company CSR activities. 

Most federal programs, policies, and activities related to CSR have 
small budgets and staffs. Many programs do not specifically track 
budget and staffing information for their CSR-related activities. Of 
the programs reporting budget and staffing information, most are 
relatively small. The Departments of Commerce and State and EPA, which 
identified the largest numbers of discrete initiatives related to CSR, 
reported relatively modest budgets and staffing for their initiatives. 
In total, only four programs reported budgets at or over $2 million in 
fiscal year 2003 for CSR-related activities. The two programs that 
reported the largest annual budgets of around $20 million and $30 
million are at the Department of Labor[Footnote 28] and USAID, 
respectively. Similarly, many federal CSR efforts are staffed by agency 
officials with multiple responsibilities, working part time on the 
effort. 

Federal Agencies Conduct a Range of Activities that Endorse, 
Facilitate, Partner and Mandate Company CSR Activities: 

Most U.S. government programs, policies, and activities related to 
global CSR can be loosely categorized into the World Bank's four public 
sector roles: endorsing, facilitating, partnering, and 
mandating.[Footnote 29] These roles range from the least government 
involvement--endorsing companies' voluntary efforts above and beyond 
compliance with laws and regulations--to the most government 
involvement through mandating behavior consistent with CSR. Although 
some federal efforts related to CSR can be classified as serving more 
than one role, roughly two-thirds of the U.S. government programs, 
policies, and activities, that we identified fell in the middle of the 
spectrum by either facilitating and/or partnering with companies on 
their voluntary CSR efforts. The remainder either fell into the 
mandating and endorsing roles, or outside the World Bank's roles. 
Figure 2 illustrates the range of U.S. government activities in the 
World Bank framework. See appendix II for a complete listing and brief 
description of the 54 CSR-related programs and activities that we 
identified at 12 U.S. agencies. 

Figure 2: Illustrative U.S. Government Activities Related to CSR Range 
from Endorsing CSR to Mandating CSR: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Endorsing: 

The U.S. government has a number of awards programs that endorse CSR by 
recognizing companies for socially responsible activities. U.S. 
officials also endorse the concept to audiences through public speeches 
on an ad hoc basis. Some examples of endorsing include: 

* The Department of State's annual Award for Corporate Excellence, 
which emphasizes the role U.S. businesses play to advance good 
corporate governance, best practices, and democratic values overseas. 
Since 1999, 12 businesses have received the Award for Corporate 
Excellence,[Footnote 30] following nominations submitted by Chiefs of 
Missions at U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad. In fiscal year 2004, 
the Department of State received 50 award nominations from Chiefs of 
Missions. 

* The EPA's Climate Protection and Stratospheric Ozone Protection 
Awards, which encourage and recognize outstanding corporate 
environmental efforts in climate protection. For example, a 2002 
corporate recipient of EPA's Climate Protection Award reduced its 
energy use by over 30 percent internationally and offset all the 
remaining greenhouse gas emissions both in the United States and 
overseas. 

Facilitating: 

The U.S. government facilitates CSR by providing information, funding 
or incentives to companies and other players to engage in CSR-related 
issues. Some examples include: 

* The Department of Commerce's training on rule of law, human rights, 
and corporate stewardship for commercial service employees. The 
training helps these officers provide information on corporate 
stewardship issues to companies involved in the export promotion 
process. Additionally, commercial service officers can use this 
information in their work with overseas chambers of commerce. As of 
March 2005, 260 commercial service employees had received the training 
since the program's inception in 2003.[Footnote 31]

* The Ex-Im Bank's Environmental Exports Program, which began in 1993. 
The program enhances the Ex-Im Bank's financing package for such U.S. 
goods and services, thereby encouraging foreign buyers to purchase U.S. 
exports that are beneficial to the environment. Specifically, the 
program extends loan repayment terms, finances the interest accrued 
during the disbursement period, and finances local costs to an amount 
equal to 15 percent of the contract price. Exports eligible for the 
program include renewable energy projects, water treatment projects, 
air quality monitoring instruments, equipment for waste collection and 
clean up, services for environmental assessments and ecological 
studies, and other projects that meet specified emission thresholds. 
During fiscal year 2003, Ex-Im Bank supported over $173 million of 
environmentally beneficial goods and services, including $13 million in 
products and technologies related to renewable energy. 

Partnering: 

Several U.S. government programs partner with corporations or convene 
partnerships with key stakeholders, which can help companies accomplish 
their CSR initiatives. In addition to USAID's Global Development 
Alliance discussed earlier, representative examples include: 

* EPA's Climate Leaders Program, which partners with companies to 
achieve EPA's goal of protecting the environment. The Climate Leaders 
Program is a voluntary government partnership that enlists major U.S. 
companies to set an aggressive greenhouse gas reduction target. EPA 
established inventory protocols to assist the companies in tracking 
their success toward their greenhouse gas target. Partners receive 
training and technical assistance in completing the greenhouse gas 
inventories, and EPA works with each partner to develop standard 
Inventory Management Plans. EPA plans to provide recognition in later 
years after partners have met or exceeded their targets, which are 
publicly available on the EPA Web site. 

* The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which provide 
guidance to oil and mining companies on how to ensure respect for human 
rights in their security procedures. In 1999, together with the 
government of the United Kingdom, the Department of State convened 
international NGOs with U.S. and United Kingdom oil and mining 
companies concerning human rights abuses by hired security forces. A 
set of voluntary principles was developed through collaboration with 
the relevant stakeholders. According to a State Department official, 
nearly every major oil and mining company is now a participant in the 
Voluntary Principles process. 

Mandating: 

While there is debate over whether complying with laws and regulations 
constitute CSR, a number of federal requirements and regulatory 
mechanisms that mandate social and environmental issues could fall 
under the CSR umbrella. Examples of regulations and agencies that 
require participating companies to comply with CSR-related requirements 
include:[Footnote 32]

* An SEC rule,[Footnote 33] which provides anyone who owns more than 
$2,000 in a company's stock for more than 1 year with the opportunity 
to propose issues for shareholders to vote on. SEC ensures that 
companies do not exclude shareholder proposals for vote at annual 
company meetings, unless they meet the legal criteria for exclusion 
outlined in the rule. According to an investor group that tracks 
shareholder proposals, out of 1,052 shareholder proposals that were 
filed at U.S. companies for 2005 meetings, approximately 350 proposals 
focused on issues related to corporate social responsibility, such as 
global warming and global labor standards. 

* The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), which provides 
long-term financing and/or political risk insurance to U.S. companies 
investing in over 150 emerging markets and developing countries, 
requires that all beneficiary companies comply with certain CSR 
criteria. These requirements cover issues that include host country 
development impact, environmental protection, international labor 
rights, and human rights. The requirements are written into contracts, 
and OPIC specifies that they must be carried down to the subcontract 
level. 

Strengthening Enforcement and Compliance with CSR-Related Regulations 
in Other Countries: 

In addition to the four roles discussed above, a number of U.S. 
programs foster a business environment conducive to CSR by working with 
other national governments to strengthen compliance and enforcement of 
social and environmental regulations in countries where U.S. companies 
operate. These efforts serve to protect U.S. businesses from competing 
with companies that are not complying with weakly enforced laws and 
regulations. Some examples include: 

* The Department of Labor's program on Protecting the Basic Rights of 
Workers, which works with host country ministries of labor to improve 
adherence to international core labor standards and acceptable 
conditions of work in developing countries. In accordance with a 
congressional appropriation, in fiscal year 2003 the office allocated 
$20 million for these efforts worldwide, including in a number of 
countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and in Ukraine. However, 
according to an agency official, the budget decreased significantly in 
subsequent years to $2.5 million in fiscal year 2004 and no funding in 
fiscal year 2005. 

* EPA's International Compliance Assurance Division, which works with 
governments to ensure compliance of companies with environmental 
standards. Since 2001, approximately 20 trainings have been held for 
officials from a wide range of countries, including South Africa, 
Nigeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil, Guatemala, and Egypt, among 
others. 

Perspectives on the Appropriate Government Role in CSR Vary, but Many 
Support Federal Assistance for Voluntary Efforts: 

Our review of CSR literature revealed support for government 
involvement in CSR varied with views of CSR's connection to business 
profit. Opinions of those we interviewed on the impact of existing 
federal agency efforts and the appropriate government role related to 
CSR generally revealed a desire for government involvement and the 
widest support for federal agency activities that assist businesses in 
their voluntary efforts. 

Perspectives on the Appropriate Government Role in CSR Vary with Views 
of CSR's Connection to Business Profits: 

Based on our review of CSR literature, perspectives on the appropriate 
role of government in CSR vary, but generally correlate with three 
major perspectives on the connection of CSR to business profits: (1) 
free-market economic, (2) "business case," and (3) social issues. 

Free-Market Economic Perspective: 

Those with a free-market economic perspective generally view businesses 
engaging in CSR as a potential taking of profits from the business 
owners that will ultimately diminish the effectiveness of the business 
and a free-market economy. The well known economist, Milton Friedman 
refers to the doctrine of "social responsibility" as fundamentally 
subversive in a free society, stating, "there is one and only one 
social responsibility of business--to use it[s] resources and engage in 
activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within 
the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free 
competition without deception or fraud."[Footnote 34] According to this 
free-market economic perspective, business managers have a primary duty 
to maximize value for shareholders and in doing this businesses serve 
the general welfare by directing resources to produce goods and 
services society wants. In this view, engaging in CSR actions that are 
not based on profitability can affect not only business performance but 
also potentially reduce the general welfare of society. David 
Henderson, an economist who has written extensively questioning the 
value of CSR, recently wrote "The general adoption of CSR, in response 
to social pressures, would undermine the market economy and make 
businesses less effective in performance of their primary 
role."[Footnote 35] While this free-market economic perspective 
recognizes that government has a role in structuring the legal 
framework of a market economy, those with this view do not support 
government involvement in the general adoption of the concept of CSR. 

Business-Case Perspective: 

Many CSR proponents cite a "business-case" perspective, in which 
business CSR efforts are supported based on their contribution to 
business profit and value. Those with the business-case perspective 
reason that businesses can undertake CSR actions that will increase 
businesses' value or return on investment in terms of increased 
revenue, increased asset value, or reduced cost. Business leaders often 
indicate that their CSR practices help their bottom line. Supporters of 
the business-case perspective assert that addressing important social 
issues in the business environment can contribute to the long-term 
value of the firm. Supporters of this perspective have developed many 
different lists of potential benefits to a business in adopting CSR. 
For example, one discussion of the business case identified the 
following six potential business benefits:[Footnote 36]

* Operational cost savings--Investment in environmental efficiency 
measures such as waste reduction and energy efficiency can save money 
as well. 

* Enhanced reputation--Good company performance in relation to 
sustainability issues can build reputation, while poor performance, 
when exposed, can damage brand value. 

* Increased ability to recruit, develop, and retain staff--These can be 
direct results of introducing 'family friendly' policies. Also, 
volunteering programs may improve employee morale and loyalty to the 
company. 

* Better relations with government--More favorable government relations 
and regulatory rulings are key for many companies looking to extend 
their business in politically unstable conditions. 

* Anticipation and management of risk--Managing risk is increasingly 
complex in a global market environment. Greater oversight and 
stakeholder scrutiny of corporate activities makes managing risk key to 
company success. 

* Learning and innovation--The interaction required with a wide range 
of individuals and organizations outside the traditional business 
relationships can encourage creativity, which can lead to increases in 
profitability. 

The benefits of CSR can also be viewed in a global context, with the 
interaction between multinational businesses and foreign host-country 
governments concerning issues of foreign direct investment and business 
operations in host countries, generally. Engaging in CSR practices may 
help the multinational business manage certain political and reputation 
risks in their operations, particularly with regard to host countries 
in the developing world.[Footnote 37]

Negative publicity can seriously undermine the reputation of 
multinational business internationally, and it can create a political 
climate that may lead a host government to take actions, such as 
regulation or other restrictions, that can undermine the firm's 
efficiency and profitability. In addition, some developing countries 
may not have adequate laws to address concerns about workers rights or 
the local environment, and even where they do, these countries may not 
have the resources, technical expertise, or the willingness to 
adequately enforce their laws and regulations. By demonstrating a 
commitment to good business practices, such as through CSR, 
multinational businesses may send a signal that they are committed to 
helping mitigate problems or issues that may arise regarding their 
operations, thus creating a more positive climate in which to pursue 
business opportunities. 

Those with a "business case" perspective view a major role of 
government as supporting business's voluntary CSR-related efforts. 
Surveys of business leaders indicate that they believe that CSR should 
be completely voluntary. This perspective stresses business involvement 
in the development of CSR efforts because the business knows its 
resources and constraints and can best identify potential benefit to 
the business. Supporters of this perspective look for business to work 
with civil society and government to develop CSR approaches that 
address relevant social issues. Subscribers to this view see advantages 
of government working with business. For example, in a recent book 
Walking the Talk the Business Case for Sustainable Development, the 
authors state, "Governments too, have a vested interest in 
collaborating with companies. Governments are spending less time on 
command-and-control regulations and more on forms of cooperation with 
industry to produce workable, incentive based solutions. They are 
finding that historically intractable social and environmental 
problems, such as poverty, disease, and threats to biodiversity, can 
only be solved through partnership."[Footnote 38]

Social Issues Perspective: 

Those with a social issues perspective focus on the extent to which 
business addresses social issues, but opinions within this group are 
mixed on whether to rely on voluntary or mandatory CSR approaches. A 
1999 survey of 25,000 consumers worldwide found that two-thirds of the 
population in countries surveyed indicated that "they want companies to 
go beyond their historical role of making a profit, paying taxes, 
employing people and obeying all laws; they want companies to 
contribute to broader societal goals as well."[Footnote 39] Some 
supporters of the social issues perspective cite successes of some 
business voluntary CSR efforts in contributing to social issues. Some 
also call on business to voluntarily adopt CSR practices to address 
social issues beyond what might be justified by business profit. Such 
organizations see a role for government in fostering voluntary 
corporate CSR actions. 

Others with a social issues perspective take a very different view. 
They believe that business is primarily concerned with profit and thus 
should not be trusted to develop solutions for important social issues 
on their own. According to those with this view, business involvement 
in CSR efforts can become merely a branch of public relations instead 
of effectively addressing social problems.[Footnote 40] As a result, 
they feel that governments should move to mandate CSR. Several groups 
have argued for increased government engagement in CSR initiatives 
aimed at ensuring that business adhere to international norms. For 
example, one consumer group's position paper on CSR calls on 
governments and international agencies to introduce legislation to set 
standards that transnational corporations must observe and also a 
framework for monitoring corporate behavior.[Footnote 41] Similarly, 
another group noted that there is a need for increased government 
engagement in CSR initiatives aimed at ensuring that businesses adhere 
to international norms because governments are the only actors with 
jurisdiction over the private sector.[Footnote 42] Another human rights 
NGO states that voluntary initiatives will often be ineffective and 
insufficient. This organization further states that more attention 
should be given to the role international law can play in anchoring 
these responsibilities in a legal framework that crosses national 
boundaries.[Footnote 43]

Views of Groups Actively Engaged in CSR Vary on the Appropriate Role of 
the U.S. Government and the Impact of Current Federal Activities 
Related to CSR: 

In addition to reviewing the available literature, we also interviewed 
32 individuals representing groups actively engaged in CSR to obtain 
their views on the appropriate role for the federal government and the 
impact of current federal activities on their CSR efforts. 
Specifically, we interviewed 14 companies, 4 business groups, 6 NGOs 
focused on environmental, human rights and labor issues, 4 investor 
groups, and 4 academic institutions (See app. I for a complete list of 
the respondents).[Footnote 44] A majority of respondents supported a 
government role in global CSR, yet views varied regarding the 
appropriate federal role and the impact of current activities. Most 
respondents generally supported government assistance with voluntary 
CSR efforts such as endorsing, facilitating, and partnering, while some 
also expressed an interest in government-mandated CSR, especially to 
increase disclosure of CSR-related information. Most respondents saw a 
need for the U.S. government to encourage foreign governments to 
enforce CSR standards to help level the playing field for U.S. 
companies adhering to high CSR standards.[Footnote 45] Some respondents 
based their discussion of the government role on their knowledge of 
current U.S. government activities related to global CSR, yet we found 
that several were unaware of these efforts. Also, some said they were 
aware of U.S. government efforts, but primarily cited domestic CSR 
efforts or initiatives that are not led by the U.S. government. Several 
respondents called for a greater U.S. government role in CSR, as in 
some other countries, and greater coordination of existing U.S. 
efforts. 

Mixed Reactions Regarding the Impact of U.S. Government Efforts to 
Endorse CSR through Awards: 

A number of respondents were aware of U.S. government award programs 
that endorse CSR, but had mixed reactions regarding their 
effectiveness. Whereas a majority of companies we interviewed who 
commented on awards[Footnote 46] said they have a positive impact, for 
example, by motivating employees and validating the company's efforts, 
some were not motivated by awards. One company in favor of government 
endorsing CSR through awards said that, although there are a lot of 
awards given to companies for corporate social responsibility, an award 
from the U.S. government or another government is credible and 
valuable. However, another company said it receives so many awards that 
receiving one more is not very useful, unless it is accompanied by 
significant media attention. Most of the business groups reacted 
positively to federal government awards, stating that awards call 
attention to success stories and provide a signal of the type of 
behavior the government likes, help to motivate companies, and provide 
a positive counterbalance to regulations and compliance by rewarding 
voluntary efforts. Most of the NGOs that were aware of federal 
government awards for global CSR activities were skeptical of the 
impact of the awards, questioning the nominations and selection 
processes and whether the awards are a good indicator for companies' 
CSR performance. The two investor groups that were aware of federal 
government awards programs thought they were a positive influence. In 
addition to awards, a few respondents also suggested the government 
should more actively endorse CSR in its own procurement processes and 
in government pension investments. 

Respondents Viewed Government Efforts to Facilitate CSR Favorably: 

Many respondents from the various groups expressed support for federal 
government efforts to facilitate CSR, especially through providing 
information. Representatives from companies and other groups suggested 
that the government could play a more active role in providing 
information on setting benchmarks in areas such as the environment and 
human rights, providing information on best practices and how to start 
CSR activities in other countries, or establishing a clearinghouse with 
CSR-related information. A few respondents suggested that providing 
information or assistance would be particularly helpful for small and 
medium-sized companies and companies just getting started with CSR. 

Respondents Generally Viewed Partnerships with Government on CSR 
Favorably: 

Many respondents viewed government partnerships with companies and 
efforts to convene stakeholders to accomplish CSR goals favorably and 
thought it was an appropriate role for the U.S. government. One company 
that has worked with USAID and the Centers for Disease Control on a 
health-related issue in Haiti said that the government is well placed 
to help companies focus on the needs of those living in poverty and 
that companies have a lot to contribute by helping to provide safe 
drinking water, fight HIV/AIDS, and improve education and economic 
welfare. Two NGOs that are aware of partnership programs had mixed 
reactions. For example, while one NGO said partnerships are helpful in 
bringing parties together and leveraging private sector resources, 
another NGO was concerned about potential conflicts of interest. 
Respondents from business groups, investor groups, and academic 
institutions who commented on federal efforts to partner with companies 
on CSR issues were generally positive about these partnerships. Many 
organizations supported a federal role in partnering by convening 
stakeholders to address specific CSR issues or to share information. 
For example, the Department of State's involvement in developing the 
Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights was cited as an 
example of a positive effort by the U.S. government to convene 
stakeholders to address a CSR-related issue. 

Mixed Views on Government Mandating CSR through Laws and Regulations: 

Companies and business groups generally held mixed views regarding the 
impact of laws and regulations on company global CSR efforts, whereas 
NGOs and investor groups largely believed that laws have a positive 
impact on CSR. In general, these latter groups desired a government 
role in mandating CSR, especially to increase disclosure and 
transparency of company CSR activities. A few respondents cited the 
lack of U.S. legislation or involvement in CSR as an impediment to 
companies' CSR efforts. 

While some companies were concerned about burdensome mandates, several 
said that certain existing regulations and government efforts create 
minimum standards and level the playing field internationally, which is 
helpful to companies with active CSR programs.[Footnote 47] According 
to one director of CSR, the company's initial reaction to CSR 
requirements, such as import controls, is negative because they are 
costly and burdensome. However, the company recognizes that new rules 
can help level the playing field, as not all companies voluntarily 
adopt high standards. Another company said the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act has had a positive impact on the company's CSR activities 
by enhancing the visibility of CSR and helping to raise standards of 
transparency and governance. Similarly, customs legislation that set 
minimum criteria allows the company to discuss CSR standards with its 
suppliers and ensures that it is not the only company focusing on these 
issues, which could create a competitive disadvantage. A business group 
expressed concern that codes can also lead to two moral principles 
conflicting with each other, such as policies to prevent harm to 
animals or the environment may inhibit the ability of companies from 
discovering life-saving treatments or technologies. One multinational 
company said it upholds homogenous standards globally, so in that 
sense, U.S. programs could affect its global standards in reporting, 
building design standards, and worker health and safety. However, the 
company also noted that its own standards often exceed legal standards. 

Many respondents agreed that government should play a role in promoting 
transparency and disclosure of companies' CSR efforts. Some companies 
strongly supported a federal role in promoting transparency, yet others 
warned against regulation and adverse consequences, for example, if 
U.S. companies face regulatory burdens and are forced to disclose more 
than their foreign competitors. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 
2002 was cited by companies as a costly and burdensome mandate. 
However, some NGOs and investor groups supported government mandating 
that companies should disclose information on CSR-related issues. Three 
academic institutions cited recent European regulations on disclosure 
of CSR issues as a model for the U.S. government. 

A majority of respondents from the various groups supported a 
government role in encouraging other governments to enforce their own 
laws and standards related to common CSR issues. A few suggested that 
trade agreements offer an opportunity to encourage other governments to 
enforce CSR standards. According to one business group,

"The single most useful activity of the U.S. government to promote 
corporate responsibility would be to promote the implementation and 
enforcement of existing national laws in other countries and to assist 
national governments in this regard. The majority of countries around 
the world have adequate laws, but such laws are not implemented or 
enforced. Commercial activity and private enterprise depend on national 
governments to set a level playing field so that competitive markets 
can flourish for the benefit of consumer and society. This requires . . 
. appropriate legal frameworks in areas such as corporate governance, 
financial disclosure, bribery and corruption, environmental protection 
and labor rights."

Some Respondents Want More Coordination among U.S. CSR Activities and 
Greater Role in Global Leadership on CSR: 

Some respondents expressed a desire for more coordination among U.S. 
activities related to global CSR and pointed out that other countries 
are more involved in CSR than the U.S. government. Some noted that 
federal efforts are not well coordinated, which can make it difficult 
for companies to participate in U.S. government activities, and called 
for increased coordination among U.S. government agencies for CSR 
activities. Several respondents also expressed a desire for a greater 
U.S. government role in CSR, stating that the United States is absent 
from world leadership, especially the European Union, on this issue. 
According to one company, many European countries are involved in CSR 
activities; and if the U.S. government does not play a role regarding 
U.S. companies' international CSR activities, leadership will go 
elsewhere. Similarly, another company wanted the U.S. government to 
participate in the global debate on CSR and to continue its efforts to 
represent U.S. interests in the face of the European Union's more 
regulatory approach to CSR. 

Concluding Observations: 

The globalization of recent decades has increased the breadth and 
extent of U.S. corporations' operations in foreign markets, through 
both increased investment and trade. These globalization trends have 
led to increased pressure on U.S. multinational corporations to adopt 
more CSR-related activities in their global operations, particularly 
for developing countries. Nevertheless, the extent that U.S. 
multinationals adopt CSR practices continues to vary by industry, 
location, and by individual firm priorities. At the same time, if the 
recent CAFTA debate in Congress is any guide, the U.S. government also 
faces calls to strengthen labor, environmental, and social conditions 
abroad. Thus, the debate over the right balance between private sector 
and government roles in achieving these CSR-related goals will likely 
continue. 

Important public policy questions have been raised by the trends in 
globalization and global corporate social responsibility such as 
whether the U.S. government should adopt an official position regarding 
global CSR. However, the dichotomy of views regarding the benefits of 
CSR to business and society complicates any consensus on the 
appropriate government role. Our research shows that U.S. federal 
agencies already conduct a number of programs and activities that 
overlap and/or interact with corporate global CSR efforts. In addition, 
our interviews with agency officials indicate many view CSR as a useful 
complementary tool for attaining their broader policy missions. Key 
private sector players in CSR, meanwhile, indicate that they generally 
found current U.S. government activities helpful in their voluntary CSR 
efforts. More generally, it appears that CSR--even if not a substitute 
for regulation--has resulted in the commitment of U.S. multinational 
resources, and focus on issues of importance to the U.S. and to host 
countries. The challenge for the U.S. government is to determine how 
global CSR fits within the broader range of policy tools directed at 
achieving sustainable improvements in the quality of life for both U.S. 
and foreign citizens. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Administrator, Agency for 
International Development; the Administrator, Environmental Protection 
Agency; the President, Export-Import Bank; the President, Inter- 
American Foundation; the President, Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation; the Executive Director, Securities and Exchange 
Commission; the U.S. Trade Representative; and the Secretaries of the 
Departments of Commerce, Energy, Labor, State, and the Treasury. We 
received technical comments from the Agency for International 
Development; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Export-Import 
Bank; the Inter-American Foundation; the U.S. Trade Representative; and 
the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and State. We revised the text 
based on these comments, where appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this 
report to interested Congressional Committees and to the Agency for 
International Development; Environmental Protection Agency; the Export-
Import Bank; the Inter-American Foundation; the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the 
U.S. Trade Representative; and the Departments of Commerce, Energy, 
Labor, State, and Treasury. We will also make copies available to 
others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4347 or at [Hyperlink, yagerl@gao.gov]. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Loren Yager, 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Members of the House of Representatives asked us to provide information 
on the federal involvement in global corporate social responsibility. 
This report describes (1) global corporate social responsibility (CSR), 
(2) federal agency policies and programs relating to global CSR, and 
(3) different perspectives regarding the appropriate U.S. government 
role and views on the impact of current federal activities on corporate 
global CSR efforts. 

To describe global corporate social responsibility, we reviewed 
business and ethics literature and interviewed corporations and other 
groups interested in CSR. Specifically, we reviewed documentation from 
academic institutions, business associations, and multilateral 
organizations, including the European Commission and the World Bank CSR 
Practice. However, the information on foreign law in this report does 
not reflect our independent legal analysis, but is based on interviews 
and secondary sources. We collected major definitions and descriptions 
of CSR and global CSR and related terms and obtained information on 
different perspectives that have led to different definitions for CSR 
and CSR-related terms. 

To determine what policies and programs U.S. federal agencies have 
adopted that relate to global CSR, we surveyed federal legislation, 
reviewed literature, and spoke with agency officials and experts in 
CSR. To select the federal agencies to involve in our review, we first 
considered which agencies' missions suggest possible involvement with 
promoting, facilitating, or monitoring global corporate social 
responsibility efforts, which yielded seven agencies. We then added two 
additional agencies to include all of the agencies that participate in 
the interagency working group developing a Web portal to publicize the 
U.S. government programs and resources that promote good corporate 
practices or CSR. We added the remaining three agencies, following 
referrals by agency officials or CSR experts, and had discussions with 
some agency officials to determine if their agencies had relevant 
programs for this review. The agencies we identified with CSR-related 
programs were: 

* Department of Commerce,

* Department of Energy (DOE),

* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

* Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank),

* Inter-American Foundation (IAF),

* Department of Labor,

* Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC),

* U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),

* Department of State,

* Department of the Treasury,

* U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and: 

* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 

We identified specific agency programs and policies related to CSR 
using a two-step process. First, we provided a standard Data Collection 
Instrument (DCI) with a general description of global CSR to agency 
officials and asked them to identify current programs, policies, and 
efforts within their agencies that directly or indirectly promote, 
facilitate, or monitor global CSR efforts. The description discussed 
the general elements that a global CSR program can involve, including 
labor, human rights, environmental and corporate governance efforts. In 
addition, we also asked agencies about programs that we identified 
through interviews or literature review. We then sent a more detailed 
DCI to officials responsible for each identified program to obtain 
further information, such as the program's objective, start year, legal 
basis, targeted groups, and activities. Most of the programs have other 
goals and objectives, and some only relate to CSR in particular aspects 
of their activities. We collected budget information and staffing 
levels, where available, to estimate the level of effort dedicated to 
the CSR activities by the agency. 

After we received the responses from the agencies, we followed up with 
many of the identified federal programs to obtain additional 
information, which helped us determine whether we should include the 
program in our review. We also obtained additional documentation from a 
subset of the programs to verify the information and conducted a 
thorough review of all of the responses identifying the legal basis for 
the program/activity. We narrowed down the programs to those that met 
the following criteria: (1) were ongoing in fiscal year 2003 or 
afterwards; (2) may affect U.S. corporations' CSR efforts overseas, 
including their supply chains (e.g., government to government efforts); 
and (3) touch on key components of CSR, such as labor, environment, 
human rights, community development and corporate governance. We also 
obtained agency concurrence that the program is related to CSR. 

We excluded programs or activities that are primarily aimed at U.S. 
corporations' CSR efforts within the United States, although they may 
influence a company's CSR efforts overseas, and efforts that are 
primarily targeted at the federal government, such as government 
procurement policies. Due to the lack of federal legislation on, and a 
generally accepted definition of, corporate social responsibility, 
there are likely additional programs, policies, and efforts related to 
global CSR within the federal government that we did not identify. 

To obtain different perspectives regarding the role of the U.S. 
government in corporate global CSR efforts, we reviewed CSR literature. 
In addition, we conducted and synthesized information from a structured 
interview with 32 individuals representing a diverse variety of groups 
actively engaged in CSR. We initially identified 25 U.S. companies that 
were (1) leaders in CSR, based on companies that appeared on the 
Business Ethics Magazines's Top 100 to Corporate Citizens list each 
year from 1999 to 2004 and (2) had international operations. Fourteen 
of these companies agreed to participate in interviews with us. 
However, their views may not represent those of all 25 leaders we 
identified, or those of all U.S. companies. We identified 
representatives from other groups actively engaged in CSR through a 
review of CSR literature and referrals from experts and agency 
officials. We selected these groups and organizations to help us obtain 
a broad range of knowledgeable and informed views on global CSR and the 
federal government's role in global CSR; our selection was not intended 
to be representative in any statistical sense. Groups that are not 
active in global CSR may have different views and opinions, especially 
in terms of the federal government's role. Specifically, we 
interviewed: 

* Fourteen U.S. multinational corporations that appeared on the 
Business Ethics Magazine's Top 100 Corporate Citizens list for each 
year from 1999 to 2004--Brady Corporation; Coors Brewing Company; 
Cummins, Inc; Deere & Company; Herman Miller, Inc; Hewlett-Packard 
Development Company, L.P; International Business Machines Corporation; 
Intel Corporation; Merck & Co., Inc; Modine Manufacturing Company; 
Motorola, Inc; Procter & Gamble; The Timberland Company; and Whirlpool 
Corporation;

* Four business interest groups that have been active in CSR--Business 
for Social Responsibility; the Conference Board; the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce Center for Corporate Citizenship; and the U.S. Council for 
International Business;

* Four investor groups--Calvert Group, Ltd; Domini Social Investments, 
LLC ; Dow Jones Sustainability Index; and the Interfaith Center on 
Corporate Responsibility;

* Six nongovernmental organizations--Coalition for Environmentally 
Responsible Economies; Fair Labor Association; Human Rights Watch; 
Social Accountability International; World Resources Institute; and 
Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production; and: 

* Four academic institutions--Center for Corporate Citizenship, Boston 
College; Center for Responsible Business, the Haas School of Business, 
University of California at Berkeley; the Corporate Social 
Responsibility Initiative, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 
Harvard University; the Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private 
Enterprise, University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business 
School. 

The structured interview instrument included questions designed to 
obtain information from these organizations on their definition of CSR 
and similar terms; efforts related to evaluating the effectiveness of 
CSR activities; the impact of current U.S. government programs, 
policies and practices; and opinions regarding the appropriate U.S. 
government actions or role regarding U.S. companies' global CSR 
activities. However, in this report, we do not evaluate the concept of 
CSR nor the justification or efficacy of any government role with 
regard to CSR activities. 

We conducted our work from May 2004 through May 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Federal Agency CSR-Related Programs and Activities: 

This appendix provides a listing and brief description of the 54 
programs and activities we identified at 12 U.S. agencies that relate 
to global CSR. Currently, an inventory of U.S. government efforts 
related to global corporate social responsibility is unavailable. To 
develop this list, we provided a standard DCI to 12 agencies with a 
general description of global CSR to obtain information on current 
programs, policies, and efforts within their agency that directly or 
indirectly promote, facilitate, or monitor global CSR efforts. For 
programs or activities that are interagency in nature, we list the 
program or activity with the lead agency and indicate other agencies 
involved with a footnote. Due to the lack of federal legislation on, 
and a generally accepted definition of, corporate social 
responsibility, we do not consider this list exhaustive. See appendix I 
for a more detailed description of our data-collection process. 

Table 3: Responses from Department of Commerce: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Training on Human Rights, Rule of Law and 
Corporate Stewardship; Sarah.Murphy@mail.doc.gov, Foreign Commercial 
Service; 
Objective: To train commercial service officers and foreign service 
nationals on rule of law, human rights and corporate stewardship; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: 15 U.S.C. 4051 et seq.[C]; 
Groups targeted: Commercial officers, foreign service nationals, 
domestic trade specialists; 
Activities: Trainings. Since inception, 260 commercial employees have 
been trained. The office is planning both a certificate and an award 
program to recognize companies and commercial officers, respectively, 
for corporate stewardship activities; 
Budget information[A]: $500,000; 
Staff level[B]: One full- time equivalent (FTE) divided among three 
people plus contractor support. 

CSR-Related program/activity: The President's Export Council's Report 
on Corporate Stewardship; http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/pec/; 
Objective: To disseminate information on good citizenship activities of 
U.S. corporations; 
Start year: 2003[D]; 
Legal basis: Executive Order 11753; 
Groups targeted: U.S. and foreign companies, U.S. missions, foreign 
governments; 
Activities: Report production and public awareness through the report's 
launch. The Council maintains subcommittees to pursue its own interests 
and, in 2003, created a subcommittee on corporate stewardship to 
produce this report; 
Budget information[A]: $18,311 for publication expenses; 
Staff level[B]: One staff works full time, and four staff work part 
time on all of the Council's activities, which are ongoing. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Digital Freedom Initiative[E]; 
www.dfi.gov; 
Objective: To promote economic growth by providing information and 
communications technology to businesses in the developing world through 
partnership with U.S. business volunteers; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: Executive Order 13317; 
Groups targeted: U.S. business community, government agencies and 
business community in four partner countries; 
Activities: Placing business and NGO volunteers in small businesses in 
partner countries. For example, in Senegal, an E-market training 
program was implemented in partnership with two large U.S. information 
technology companies; 
Budget information[A]: No specific funding.[F]; 
Staff level[B]: One person works 50 percent on this program.[F]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Good Governance Program; 
www.ita.doc.gov/goodgovernance; 
Objective: To increase market access and ensure a level playing field 
for U.S. companies in emerging markets by training foreign companies on 
business ethics, corporate governance and rule of law issues; 
Start year: 2000; 
Legal basis: 15 U.S.C. 1512; 
Groups targeted: Foreign companies and individual entrepreneurs, 
business associations, civil society groups, and foreign federal and 
regional governments; 
Activities: Training, providing tools and resources, capacity building, 
awareness building, and outreach. In FY 2003, over 1,000 
companies/individuals were trained directly through the program or 
indirectly through train the trainer programs.[G]; 
Budget information[A]: $1,065,585for FY 2002-2003h; 
Staff level[B]: Three full time,[I] one part time staff.j. 

CSR-Related program/activity: HIV/AIDS Initiative; 
shalizeh.nadjmi@mail.doc.gov; 
Objective: To further private sector engagement on HIV/AIDS by 
fostering public-private partnerships with other key stakeholders 
focused on HIV/AIDS; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria 
Act of 2003, See P. L. 108-25; 
Groups targeted: U.S. companies and trade associations, and chambers of 
commerce; 
Activities: Information publication and dissemination, liaison between 
businesses and other U.S. government organizations, multilateral 
organizations, NGOs and academia. Hosted 2004 forum on business 
involvement in HIV/AIDS for more than 200 companies and other entities; 
Budget information[A]: No specific funding. However, $15,000 from the 
$500,000 appropriation listed above for training commercial service 
officers was spent on the Forum; 
Staff level[B]: Five people work on this initiative ranging from 15 
percent to 80 percent of their time[K] [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Implementation of the Labor Standards 
Provision of the Bilateral Textile Agreement with Cambodia; 
Ross_Arnold@ita.doc.gov; 
Objective: To provide incentives to the Government of Cambodia to 
improve working conditions in the Cambodian textile and apparel 
industry through effective enforcement of local labor laws and 
internationally recognized core labor standards; 
Start year: 1999; 
Legal basis: U.S.-Cambodia Bilateral Textile Agreement, paragraph 10, 
as notified under Article 2.17 of the World Trade Agreement on Textiles 
and Clothing; 
Groups targeted: Government of Cambodia; 
Activities: Two consultations every year between the governments of the 
United States and Cambodia to discuss labor standards, specific 
benchmarks, and the implementation of the program. Based on those 
consultations, the U.S. Government made a determination as to whether 
working conditions in the Cambodia textile and apparel sector 
substantially comply with such labor law and standards, and apply quota 
increases commensurate with progress on labor issues.[L]; 
Budget information[A]: $7,500; [Estimate]; 
Staff level[B]: One staff for 2 weeks. Five staff for 1 day apiece; 
[Estimate]. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Budget information is for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[B] Staff located in the Russia and Independent States Division. 

[C] The conference committee for H.J. Res. 2, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Resolution, 2003, instructed the department to establish 
this program. See p. 684 of H. Rept. 108-10. 

[D] This is the year when the Subcommittee on Corporate Stewardship was 
created to work on this report. The report was released in September 
2004. 

[E] In addition to the Department of Commerce, members of the Digital 
Freedom Initiative Interagency Working Group include USAID, the 
Department of State, the Peace Corps, the Small Business 
Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission. 

[F] Other agencies, such as USAID, contribute resources to this 
initiative, which are not reflected here. For example, there are local 
Digital Freedom Initiative coordinators in Senegal and Peru that are 
funded through USAID funds. 

[G] Since 2003, the Program has expanded to additional countries in 
Eastern Europe and Latin America, published manuals on Corporate 
Governance and on Business Ethics, and is facilitating institutional 
capacity building through partnerships with private sectors, government 
and nongovernmental organizations, and international institutions. In 
fiscal years 2005 to 2006, the Business Ethics manual will be 
translated and published in five other languages. 

[H] The 2003 program initiatives were fully funded through Freedom 
Support Act Funds through the Department of State. 

[I] Staff located in the Russia and Independent States Division. 

[J] Staff located in the Latin America Division. In FY 2004, the 
program had three full time and two part time employees. 

[K] The one staff person who worked 80 percent of her time on the 
HIV/AIDS Initiative in fiscal year 2003 noted that her time dedicated 
to the initiative decreased in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to 33 percent 
of her time. 

[L] The International Labor Organization and the Departments of State 
and Labor provided input into this process. 

[End of table]

Table 4: Responses from Department of Energy: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy - Select Activities within the Office of Technology Development; 
michael.mills@ee.doe.gov; 
Objective: To strengthen America's energy security, environmental 
quality, and economic vitality in public- private partnerships that 
enhance energy efficiency; 
Start year: Not available; 
Legal basis: Various acts.[B]; 
Groups targeted: Private sector, academia, states, local governments, 
trade organizations, research organizations, other federal agencies and 
the U.S. Congress, foreign governments and multilateral agencies.[C]; 
Activities: Select programs work with the U.S. private sector on global 
energy issues, such as the Clean Cities Program and Freedom Cooperative 
Auto Research (CAR).[D]; 
Budget information: No discrete budget; Staff level[A]: Not 
available.[E]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum; 
cslfsecretariat@hq.doe.gov; 
Objective: To develop and make available internationally improved cost-
effective technologies for the separation and capture of carbon 
dioxide, a greenhouse gas, for its transport and long-term safe 
storage; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: Presidential initiative; 
Groups targeted: Foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations, 
U.S. and foreign-owned companies that produce and/or utilize energy, 
environmental organizations, and international experts on energy and 
environment; 
Activities: Under development. Ten projects that were proposed by 
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum; members have been endorsed. 
Stakeholder registry is forthcoming. U.S. companies have participated 
in discussions as observers, but a formal role for companies is yet to 
be developed; 
Budget information: Not available; Staff level[A]: Six people work part 
time on this effort; [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Secretariat for the International 
Partnership for Hydrogen Economy; michael.mills@ee.doe.gov; 
Objective: To organize and coordinate multinational research and 
projects among 16 member nations to advance the transition to a global 
hydrogen economy.[F]; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: Presidential initiative; 
Groups targeted: Governments, international organizations, civil 
society, companies; 
Activities: Under development. However, seven companies sponsored the 
inaugural meeting of the member nations, and the Department of Energy 
engages in ongoing discussion with U.S. companies to obtain their 
input; 
Budget information: No discrete budget; Staff level[A]: Two to three 
FTE plus two full-time contractors [Estimate]. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Staff levels are for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[B] See Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (See P.L. 95-91), 
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486), Energy Security Act of 
1980 (P.L. 96-294), Hydrogen Research, Development and Demonstration 
Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-566) and the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (P.L. 
104-271). 

[C] The office's efforts with foreign governments and multilateral 
agencies are indirect via relationships established and maintained by 
the U.S. Department of State and USAID. 

[D] The Clean Cities program promotes public-private partnerships to 
increase the use of alternative fuel vehicles. Freedom Cooperative Auto 
Research (CAR) partners with automobile companies to research cleaner, 
more efficient transportation systems. 

[E] According to an agency official, it would be difficult for anyone 
to identify how much time they spend on CSR activities. The office 
takes on a broad portfolio of activities, and with the problem of 
defining what constitutes CSR, it is not possible to identify budget 
and staffing for the office's CSR activities. 

[F] Hydrogen is considered an alternative, cleaner energy source. 

[End of table]

Table 5: Responses from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Climate Leaders Program; 
www.epa.gov/climateleaders/; 
Objective: To enlist major U.S. companies to voluntarily set and track 
their success toward meeting an aggressive greenhouse gas reduction 
target; 
Start year: 2002; 
Legal basis: Clean Air Act, section 103; 
Groups targeted: Large U.S. companies; 
Activities: Training and technical assistance to help partners complete 
greenhouse gas inventories. By the end of fiscal year 2003, close to 50 
partners had signed up. EPA plans to provide recognition in later years 
for partners who meet or exceed their targets; 
Budget information[A]: 15 percent of the total budget of $900,000 was 
used for international efforts; [Estimate]; 
Staff level[B]: 15 percent of three full time staff members' time was 
spent on international efforts; [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Climate Protection Awards; 
http://www.epa.gov/cppd/awards/climproawards.htm; 
Objective: To recognize and provide incentive to businesses, 
organizations and individuals who voluntarily make significant 
achievements in climate protection; 
Start year: 1998; 
Legal basis: Section 13103(b)(13) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 
1990, Pub. L. 101-508; 
Groups targeted: U.S. and foreign companies, foreign governments, 
institutions, nonprofit organizations, individuals; 
Activities: To date, over 100 individuals, companies, and organizations 
from all over the globe have received awards. Award winners are 
recognized at a special dinner, along with the Stratospheric Ozone 
Protection Award winners; 
Budget information[A]: $25,000; [Estimate]; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person works 2 months per year on this 
program; [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Stratospheric Ozone Protection Awards; 
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/awards/; 
Objective: To recognize and provide incentive to businesses, 
organizations, and individuals who voluntarily make significant 
achievements in protecting the ozone layer; 
Start year: 1990; 
Legal basis: Section 13103(b)(13) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 
1990; 
Groups targeted: U.S. and foreign companies, foreign governments, 
institutions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals; 
Activities: To date, 477 individuals, companies, organizations, and 
teams from over 40 countries have earned the award; 
Budget information[A]: $25,000; [Estimate]; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person spends about 150-200 hours per year on 
this program, plus some additional support; [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Energy Star Program - International 
Efforts; schmeltz.rachel@epa.gov; 
Objective: To promote international consistency in specifications for 
energy efficient products in voluntary programs.[C]; 
Start year: 1995[D]; 
Legal basis: Various acts.[E]; 
Groups targeted: U.S. manufacturing companies, retailers, energy 
efficiency program sponsors/utilities, foreign governments; 
Activities: The program has signed international agreements with the 
European Commission, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan 
and is starting to harmonize product specifications with China. The 
program is working with international partners on a common database of 
Energy Star qualified products; 
Budget information[A]: $30,000 was spent on international efforts[F] 
[Estimate]; 
Staff level[B]: One staff member spends 25 percent of her time on the 
international efforts [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Bilateral and Regional Trainings on 
Environmental Compliance, Inspections and Enforcement; 
jones.davis@epa.gov; 
Objective: To increase the capacity of governments to ensure compliance 
with environmental standards; 
Start year: 1990; 
Legal basis: Various acts.[G]; 
Groups targeted: Government officials; 
Activities: In fiscal year 2003, EPA trained officials from several 
countries including Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, El 
Salvador, Belize, Guatemala, Mexico, India and Brazil; 
Budget information[A]: Not available; 
Staff level[B]: One full-time[H] staff plus additional support. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Co chair of the International Network for 
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE); www.inece.org; 
Objective: INECE is a network of government and non-government 
enforcement and compliance practitioners from over 100 countries. It 
aims to increase the capacity of governments to monitor and detect 
violations of domestic environmental laws by corporations; 
Start year: 1989; 
Legal basis: 1985 Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and Dutch 
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment led to 
creation of INECE.[I]; 
Groups targeted: Governmental environmental enforcement authorities, 
including prosecutors, investigators, environmental ministries, and 
nongovernmental organizations working to increase environmental 
compliance; 
Activities: INECE connects developed and developing governments' 
environmental compliance and enforcement authorities. Specifically, 
INECE provides training, holds conferences, and issues publications; 
Budget information[A]: EPA and the Dutch government each provide about 
half of the expenses totaling $200,000-250,000 a year[J] [Estimate]; 
Staff level[B]: One FTE spread among several people working on INECE. 

CSR-Related program/activity: China-U.S. Cooperation in Industrial 
Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency Cooperative Agreement; 
giannini-spohn.suzanne@epa.gov; 
Objective: To assist China to develop voluntary government-industry 
partnership programs in industrial pollution prevention and energy 
efficiency; 
Start year: 2001; 
Legal basis: Clean Air Act, Section 103 and National Environmental 
Policy Act, Sec. 102(2)(f); 
Groups targeted: Companies in China, including U.S. companies, and the 
Chinese government; 
Activities: Training, awards,[K] and information provision; 
Budget information[A]: $300,000 total approved costs for the 
project.[L]; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person works 25-50 percent of her time 
[Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Chair of the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI)'s Ad Hoc Group on CSR; www.ansi.org; 
Objective: To track the strategic and policy implications of CSR work 
in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO); 
Start year: 2004; 
Legal basis: The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 and OMB Circular A-119; 
Groups targeted: ANSI members, including consumer groups, industry, 
government, and NGOs; 
Activities: As a member of the Interagency Committee on Standards 
Policy composed of the Standards Executives from all federal agencies, 
the EPA member coordinates input from federal agencies regarding the 
development and utility of an international standard in CSR; 
Budget information[A]: No discrete budget; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person works part time on this effort. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Party to Commission for Environmental 
Cooperation, Financially-Relevant Environmental Information Project; 
correa.sylvia@epa.gov; 
Objective: To improve voluntary corporate disclosure of environmental 
information that is financially relevant; 
Start year: 2002: 1998: 1990: 1995[D]: 1990: 1989: 2001: 2004: 2003; 
Legal basis: A side agreement to the North American Agreement on 
Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA) established the Commission for 
Environmental Cooperation, See P. L. 103-182, title V; 
Groups targeted: Corporations in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, as well 
as institutional and other investors who are users of financially 
relevant information; 
Activities: The commission held a workshop of experts in early 2003 and 
published background papers for the workshop, as well as a report; 
Budget information[A]: No specific budget; 
Staff level[B]: Two staff work part time on this effort. 

CSR-Related program/activity: U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) - 
CSR Project; Hill-Macon.Cam @epa.gov; 
Objective: The objective is to facilitate exchange of information and 
expertise on best practices that have been used by companies to promote 
sustainable development; 
Start year: 2002: 1998: 1990: 1995[D]: 1990: 1989: 2001: 2004: The U.S.-
Chile FTA went into effect in January 2004. This project is likely to 
start in spring/summer 2005; 
Legal basis: Annex 19.3, Section 1(d) of the U.S.-Chile Free Trade 
Agreement; 
Groups targeted: Companies, in particular business councils for 
sustainable development, Chilean National Environmental Council 
(CONAMA); 
Activities: The project will try to build and promote networking and 
exchange of information between business councils. EPA, USTR, the 
Department of State and CONAMA held a workshop on corporate 
responsibility in Chile in 2004 as part of the FTA; 
Budget information[A]: $25,000 through FY 2005; 
Staff level[B]: Three staff work part time on this effort. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles; 
metcalfe.jane@epa.gov; 
Objective: To address vehicular air pollution worldwide by eliminating 
lead in gasoline and phasing down sulfur in diesel and gasoline, and 
adopting cleaner vehicle technologies; 
Start year: 2002: 1998: 1990: 1995[D]: 1990: 1989: 2001: 2004: 2002; 
Legal basis: Clean Air Act, Section 103; National Environmental Policy 
Act, Section 102; 
Groups targeted: Governments, private sector, NGOs, international 
organizations; 
Activities: Clearinghouse of information, publications, technical 
assistance to African countries to phase out lead in Africa, and 
related projects in other countries. U.S. companies participate on the 
Advisory Board, which steers the partnership; 
Budget information[A]: $700,000; 
Staff level[B]: Two FTEs. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Budget information is for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[B] Staff levels are for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[C] The objective of the Energy Star product labeling program is to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by encouraging 
consumers and businesses to purchase and use more efficient products. 

[D] The Energy Star program was introduced in 1992. The first agreement 
with another country to recognize the Energy Star label internationally 
was in 1995 with Japan. 

[E] Statutory Authorities for EPA's Climate Programs: Clean Air Act, 42 
U.S.C. 7401 ct sew. - section 103(a), (b), (g); National Environmental 
Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 ct seq. - section 102(2)(F); · Global 
Climate Protection Act of 1987, 15 U.S.C. 2901 - section 1103. 

[F] The total budget for the Energy Star program was approximately 
$50.3 million in FY 2003. 

[G] Clean Air Act § 103; Clean Water Act § 104; Solid Waste Disposal 
Act § 8001; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act § 20; 
Toxic Substances Control Act § 10; National Environmental Policy Act § 
102(2)(f). 

[H] This staff person works full time on these efforts as well as 
efforts related to the International Network for Environmental 
Compliance and Enforcement (INECE), although more of the time is spent 
on this effort. 

[I] See also Clean Air Act § 103; Clean Water Act § 104; Solid Waste 
Disposal Act § 8001; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act § 20; Toxic Substances Control Act § 10; National Environmental 
Policy Act § 102(2)(f). 

[J] This figure does not include resources for staffing or additional 
funding that came from the State Department. 

[K] The awards are incentives offered by China's State Environmental 
Protection Administration to companies operating in China (including 
U.S. companies) named "China Environmentally Friendly Enterprises." The 
local environmental protection bureau reduces the frequency of routine 
inspections and gives a higher priority to loans for capital 
environmental improvements to these companies. 

[L] A total of $200,00 had been funded as of March 2005. 

[End of table]

Table 6: Responses from Export-Import Bank of the United States: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Environmental Procedures and Guidelines; 
http://www.exim.gov/products/policies/environment/environment.html; 
Objective: To take; into account the potential beneficial and adverse 
environmental effects of; goods and services for which support is 
requested under its direct lending; and guarantee programs; 
Start year: 1995[C]; 
Legal basis: Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, codified at 12 
U.S.C. 635; 
Groups targeted: Foreign buyers and U.S. exporters participating in 
foreign projects; 
Activities: During FY 2003, Ex-Im Bank screened approximately 70 
applications for their potential environmental effects. The Bank's 
Engineering and Environment Division undertook formal environmental 
evaluations of the projects related to 21 separate applications for 
financing; 
Budget information[A]: $531,000 [Estimate]; 
Staff level[B]: Three FTEs [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Environmental Exports Program; 
http://www.exim.gov; products/policies/environment/environment.html; 
Objective: To; encourage the use of its programs to support the export 
of goods and; services that have beneficial effects on the environment 
or mitigate; potential adverse environmental effects; 
Start year: 1993; 
Legal basis: Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, codified at 12 
U.S.C. 635; 
Groups targeted: U.S. suppliers of environmentally beneficial products, 
and participants[D] undertaking projects that are beneficial to the 
environment; 
Activities: The Environmental Exports Program was instrumental in 
enabling Ex-Im Bank to support over $173 million of environmentally 
beneficial goods and services in FY 2003, including $13 million in 
products and technologies related to renewable energy; 
Budget information[A]: $148,000 [Estimate]; 
Staff level[B]: 0.80 of an FTE [Estimate]. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Budget information is for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[B] Staff levels are for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[C] Interim guidelines were established in 1993. 

[D] Participants refer to both U.S. suppliers and/or foreign buyers. 

[End of table]

Table 7: Responses from Inter-American Foundation: 

CSR-Related program/activity: U.S. Government CSR Web Portal[B]; 
ajones@iaf.gov; 
Objective: To provide public access to U.S. government CSR programs, 
case studies, events, and contacts; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: Authorizing legislation, See 22 U.S.C. 290f; 
Groups targeted: U.S. companies and other organizations operating in 
the U.S. and abroad; 
Activities: A web portal will be launched in 2005 housing each agency's 
activities related to CSR or corporate stewardship; 
Budget: Information: $37,000 was obligated in FY 2003, but activities 
were carried out in FY 2004; Staff level[A]: 20-25 percent of one staff 
person's time [Estimate].[C]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Program Office - Corporate Outreach; 
ajones@iaf.gov; 
Objective: To meet IAF's mandate of providing grants to support 
grassroots initiatives by cofunding projects with corporations 
interested in developing or enhancing their CSR efforts in the region; 
Start year: 1991; 
Legal basis: Authorizing legislation, See 22 U.S.C. 290f; 
Groups targeted: U.S., Latin American and Caribbean corporations and 
business associations, local governments and NGOs; 
Activities: Supports innovative projects in Latin America and the 
Caribbean in partnership with companies that want to invest in 
grassroots development; Facilitates tax-deductible contributions by 
U.S. corporations to support grassroots development programs in Latin 
America and the Caribbean; Provides technical assistance to corporate 
partners to create more sustainable, participatory CSR programs; 
Budget: Information: $1,039,500.[D]; Staff level[A]: 0.75 of an FTE 
divided among several staff persons; [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: RedEAmérica Initiative[E]; 
wprice@iaf.gov; 
Objective: To encourage companies and corporate foundations to take 
leadership in grassroots development in the Americas; 
Start year: 2002; 
Legal basis: Authorizing legislation, See 22 U.S.C. 290f; 
Groups targeted: U.S. and foreign companies and corporate foundations; 
Activities: Learning exchanges among members, strategy formulation, 
development of trainings in all countries, mobilizing corporate and 
other resources; At the end of FY 2004, 52 companies were in the 
network, several of which represented multiple companies; 
Budget: Information: $1,848,560 for FY 2004; Staff level[A]: Two full 
time staff starting in FY 2004. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Cosponsor for CSR Americas Conference[F]; 
ajones@iaf.gov; 
Objective: To bring together government, civil society, business, the 
academic world; and other institutions to develop effective and 
sustainable; CSR principles for the Western hemisphere; 
Start year: 2002; 
Legal basis: Authorizing legislation, See 22 U.S.C. 290f; 
Groups targeted: Private, public and nongovernmental sectors; 
Activities: Provides funding, participated on steering and operating 
committee; 
Budget: Information: $35,800 for FY 2004.[G]; Staff level[A]: 10-15 
percent of one staff person's time [Estimate].[H]. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Staff levels are for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[B] The Inter-American Foundation is leading this interagency effort. 
Additional participating agencies include the Departments of Commerce 
and State, USAID, and EPA. 

[C] This estimate includes only IAF staff time. 

[D] This figure represents grants from IAF for which corporations are 
cofunding part of the activities with cash or in-kind contributions. 
These figures are not exhaustive as not all foundation representatives 
had submitted their figures. 

[E] The full name of the RedEAmérica Initiative is the Inter-American 
Network of Corporate Foundations and Companies for Grassroots 
Development. 

[F] The Inter-American Development Bank is the lead organizer for the 
conference. The U.S. Department of State has also played a role 
coordinating U.S. government involvement in the conference. 

[G] This figure does not include resources dedicated to the conference 
from the Department of State. 

[H] This estimate does not include staff time dedicated to the 
conference from the Department of State. 

[End of table]

Table 8: Responses from Department of Labor: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Bureau of International Labor Affairs 
(ILAB) - Protecting the Basic Rights of Workers program; 
www.dol.gov/ilab; 
Objective: To improve the capacity of developing country governments to 
achieve compliance with national labor laws and internationally -
recognized workers rights; 
Start year: 2000; 
Legal basis: Annual appropriations legislation. Current authority is P. 
L. 108-447, Div. F, Title 1 (Department of Labor Appropriations Act, 
2005); 
Groups targeted: Foreign Governments, workers and employers; 
Activities: Training, equipment provision,[C]; drafting of training 
materials and promotional activities. The program works in a range of 
sectors and countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and in Ukraine. 
One project in Cambodia is establishing an independent monitoring 
system to generate reliable information on the implementation of core 
labor standards in the garment sector; 
Budget information[A]: $20 million[D]; 
Staff level[B]: Nine staff work part time on this program. 

CSR-Related program/activity: ILAB - International Child Labor Program 
- activities working with industry associations[E]; www.dol.gov/ilab; 
Objective: To support efforts to eradicate exploitive child labor 
worldwide; 
Start year: 1993; 
Legal basis: Annual appropriations legislation. Current authority is P. 
L. 108-447, Div. F, Title 1 (Department of Labor Appropriations Act, 
2005); 
Groups targeted: Children, parents, community leaders, government 
officials, and industry associations; 
Activities: The program has funded several projects for various lengths 
of time in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Central America, and West Africa that 
involve industry associations to combat child labor. For example, the 
program provided a $6 million grant to the International Labor 
Organization to prevent child labor in the coffee industry in Central 
America and the Dominican Republic, which included the creation of a 
child labor monitoring system, among other activities; 
Budget information[A]: About $35 million between fiscal years 1999-2004 
for all projects working with industry associations; 
Staff level[B]: Not available. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Budget information is for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[B] Staff levels are for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[C] Examples of equipment include computers or vehicles to access 
workplaces. 

[D] The budget for this program decreased significantly in fiscal years 
2004 and 2005 to $2.5 million and no funding, respectively. 

[E] The International Child Labor Program generally provides technical 
assistance and funds international projects designed to eliminate the 
most hazardous and exploitive forms of child labor; researches and 
reports information to inform U.S. foreign policy, trade policy, and 
development projects; and raises awareness of the U.S. public to 
increase their understanding of the issues relating to international 
child labor and recent efforts to combat the problem. For example, the 
program works with foreign governments to improve their capacity to 
handle the issue of child labor and has provided funds to the 
International Labor Organization to address trafficking of children for 
labor exploitation. However, the program informed us that they consider 
their work with industry associations to be most relevant to global 
corporate social responsibility. 

[End of table]

Table 9: Responses from Overseas Private Investment Corporation: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Corporate social responsibility 
requirements; www.opic.gov; 
Objective: To develop and implement policies and procedures to comply 
with OPIC statutory mandates and management policies with respect to 
host country development impact, environmental protection, 
international labor rights, human rights and related risk management 
responsibilities; 
Start year: 1971[A]; 
Legal basis: Various acts[B]; 
Groups targeted: Companies receiving OPIC support in the form of direct 
loans, loan guaranties, political risk insurance and "subprojects" 
obtaining funds from OPIC-supported financial intermediaries; 
Activities: Evaluates each project's expected impact on development, 
the environment, and requires projects to meet all applicable host 
country labor laws or international conventions on labor rights; 
Budget information: Not available; Staff level: Not available. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Corporate governance requirements; 
www.opic.gov; 
Objective: To ensure that OPIC users' corporate governance policies and 
practices follow and implement OPIC policies and procedures in 
compliance with OPIC's statutory responsibilities and risk management 
requirements; 
Start year: 1971[C]; 
Legal basis: Overseas Private Investment Corporation Amendments Act of 
1977, See P. L. 95-268, Sec. 237(1); 
Groups targeted: U.S. investors that receive OPIC support and the 
companies in which they invest; 
Activities: All major sponsors of an OPIC financed project must answer 
questions relating to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and OPIC 
ensures that support does not go to persons and practices restricted by 
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. OPIC monitors loan 
projects on an ongoing basis; 
Budget information: Not available; Staff level: Not available. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Certain policies and procedures have been in effect since OPIC 
began operations in 1971 with periodic updates in response to evolving 
statutory requirements, U.S. executive branch requirements and 
international best practices: 

[B] Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, OPIC Amendments Act of 1985, Export 
Enhancement Act of 1999, Jobs through Exports Act of 1992, and annual 
appropriations since 1992. 

[C] Certain policies and procedures have been in effect since OPIC 
began operations in 1971 with periodic updates in response to 
subsequent statutory requirements. 

[End of table]

Table 10: Responses from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Implementation of Rule 14a-8 on 
Shareholder Proposals[A]; lynnd@sec.gov; 
Objective: To ensure that companies do not exclude shareholder 
proposals for vote at annual company meetings, including those related 
to global CSR, unless they meet the legal criteria for exclusion 
outlined in Rule 14a-8; 
Start year: Late 1960s; [Estimate]; 
Legal basis: Rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, See 17 
C.F.R. 240.14a-8; 
Groups targeted: SEC reporting companies; 
Activities: The Shareholder Proposal Taskforce corresponds with 
companies regarding requests to exclude shareholder proposals that do 
not meet the criteria according to Rule 14a-8; 
Budget information: Not available; Staff level: Not available. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Full Disclosure Program - Office of 
Global Security Risk; blyec@sec.gov; 
Objective: To ensure that companies disclose all material information 
regarding their operations in, or contacts with, countries identified 
as supporting terrorism or associated with the production or 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or human rights abuses; 
Start year: 2004[B]; 
Legal basis: Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934[C]; 
Groups targeted: Foreign companies and U.S. companies with foreign 
subsidiaries that have contacts with countries of concern; 
Activities: Review company documents to ensure that companies are aware 
of the disclosure standard applicable to their operations or contacts; 
Budget information: Not available; Staff level: Three full time staff 
in FY 2004. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Full Disclosure Program; 
ParrattS@sec.gov; 
Objective: To ensure that companies whose securities trade in the U.S. 
capital markets or that sell securities through public offerings 
provide appropriate narrative and financial disclosure regarding their 
operations, their financial condition, and the terms of their 
securities offerings; 
Start year: 1933; 
Legal basis: Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934; 
Groups targeted: SEC reporting companies; 
Activities: Review company disclosure and provide comments to 
companies; 
Budget information: Not available; Staff level: Not available. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Rule 14a-8 provides shareholders owning more than $2,000 of company 
stock for more than 1 year with the opportunity to place a proposal in 
the company's proxy materials for presentation to a vote at an annual 
or special meeting of shareholders. The rule generally requires the 
company to include the proposal unless the shareholder has not complied 
with the rule's procedural requirements or the proposal falls within 1 
of the 13 substantive bases for exclusion contained in the rule. For 
some or most of the proposals, the company accepts the proposal or 
negotiates with the shareholder and the issue never reaches the SEC. 
However, if a company intends to exclude a proposal from its proxy 
materials, the company must submit its basis for excluding the proposal 
to the SEC. The Shareholder Proposal Taskforce reviews these requests 
for exclusion. Accordingly, the task force considers proposals that 
address a range of issues, including global CSR issues. 

[B] The Office of Global Security Risk was established in 2004. 
However, the Division of Corporate Finance began focusing on this type 
of disclosure in 2001. 

[C] See conference report at H. Rept. 108-221. The conference committee 
considering the Commerce Justice State Appropriations Act, 2004 
(enacted in Div. B of P. L. 108-299) requested the establishment of 
this initiative. 

[End of table]

Table 11: Responses from the Department of State: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and 
Labor (DRL) - Partnership to Eliminate Sweatshops Program; camponovocn@ 
state.gov; 
Objective: To address unacceptable working conditions in manufacturing 
facilities overseas that produce goods for the U.S. market; 
Start year: 2000; 
Legal basis: State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as 
amended, See 22 U.S.C. 2651a(c)(2) and 22 U.S.C. 2151n(d)(3); 
Groups targeted: NGOs, governments, U.S. and foreign companies; 
Activities: The Partnership has provided several million dollars to 
support public and private sector initiatives to establish codes of 
conduct, encourage effective workplace monitoring and auditing systems, 
and conduct research, training and education initiatives. The program 
has funded projects in a number of countries, including China and other 
Asian countries, Central America, the Middle East and Africa; 
Budget information[A]: $1,994,554[C]; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person works 60 percent of his time and one 
staff person works 25 percent of her time on this effort [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: DRL - Voluntary Principles on Security 
and Human Rights; camponovocn@ state.gov; 
Objective: To provide guidance to extractives companies on how to 
ensure respect for human rights in the creation and implementation of 
security procedures; 
Start year: 1999; 
Legal basis: State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as 
amended, See 22 U.S.C. 2651a(c)(2); 
Groups targeted: NGOs, U.S. and U.K. oil and mining companies, and 
corporate responsibility organizations; 
Activities: The bureau convenes companies, NGOs, and local governments 
to implement the principles, and is working to include additional 
governments. Nearly every major oil and mining company is a participant 
in the Voluntary Principles process; 
Budget information[A]: $10,000 in FY 2004; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person works15-20 percent of his time on this 
effort [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: DRL - Bilateral efforts; camponovocn@ 
state.gov; 
Objective: To utilize private investment to strengthen human rights and 
the rule of law in select countries; 
Start year: 2001; 
Legal basis: State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as 
amended, See 22 U.S.C. 2651a(c)(2); 
Groups targeted: U.S. companies, NGOs, foreign governments; 
Activities: Ongoing or planned projects in Equatorial Guinea, Oman and 
China; 
Budget information[A]: Equatorial Guinea - $225,000; Oman - N/A; 
China - $400,000in FY 2004; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person works 20 percent of his time on this 
effort [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: DRL - Work Within Multilateral 
Institutions; camponovocn@ state.gov; 
Objective: To promote and protect U.S. government interests in the area 
of CSR and human rights within multilateral institutions; 
Start year: Not available; 
Legal basis: State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as 
amended, See 22 U.S.C. 2651a(c)(2); 
Groups targeted: Multilateral organizations and their member states; 
Activities: Prepares guidance for U.S. delegations and responds to 
requests for information from United Nations organizations when issues 
arise related to corporate responsibility. DRL also represents the 
State Department and the U.S. Government at a variety of conferences 
and meetings related to corporate responsibility, where human rights 
issues are directly relevant; 
Budget information[A]: No specific budget; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person works 5 percent of his time on this 
effort [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Bureau of Economics and Business Affairs 
(EB) - Secretary of State's Award for Corporate Excellence; smith- 
nissleyn@ state.gov; 
Objective: To promote best business practices, good corporate 
governance, and democratic values overseas; 
Start year: 1999; 
Legal basis: Mission of the Bureau of Economics and Business Affairs; 
Groups targeted: U.S. small and medium-sized companies and 
multinational corporations; 
Activities: Award nominations, public ceremony. In FY 2004, the 
Department received a record number of 50 nominations from U.S. Chiefs 
of Mission worldwide; 
Budget information[A]: $6,000[D]; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person works 30-40 percent of her time on 
this effort[E] Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: EB - US-Mexico Good Partner Award; smith-
nissleyn @state.gov; 
Objective: To recognize the role that U.S. and Mexican enterprises, 
business associations, and academic institutions play in advancing the 
goals of the Partnership for Prosperity[F] to boost the social and 
economic well-being of Mexican citizens; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: Presidential initiative; 
Groups targeted: U.S. and Mexican businesses, associations and academic 
institutions; 
Activities: Award nominations, public ceremony. Seventy nominations 
were received in FY 2003. More than 900 people attended the Award 
Ceremony and Gala, which received extensive media coverage, especially 
in Mexico; 
Budget information[A]: Not available.[G]; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person works 100 percent on the award program 
from April - June and 30 percent for the remainder of the year; 
[Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: EB - OECD National Contact Point[H]; 
usncp@state.gov; 
Objective: To raise awareness among U.S. companies of the OECD 
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises[I] and to facilitate 
resolution when parties raise issues concerning U.S. companies' 
treatment of the guidelines; 
Start year: 1976; 
Legal basis: Requirement as signatory to the OECD Declaration and 
Decisions on International Investment and Multilateral Enterprises; 
Groups targeted: Companies, labor unions and NGOs; 
Activities: Promotes understanding of the OECD Guidelines and helps 
companies, labor unions and NGOs in their efforts to resolve issues 
that may arise with respect to the Guidelines; From 2000-2004, 16 
specific instances were brought to the attention of the National 
Contact Point; 
Budget information[A]: No discrete budget; 
Staff level[B]: One staff person spends 33 percent of his time on this 
effort and one office director spends 10-15 percent of his time on this 
effort [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: EB-U.S. Lead to OECD Working Group on 
Bribery[J]; brownpa@state.gov; 
Objective: To combat transnational bribery of foreign public officials 
and monitor enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of 
Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions 
(Antibribery Convention); 
Start year: 1999; 
Legal basis: See Pub. L. 100-318, The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 
Act of 1988, asking the Executive Branch, led by State, to negotiate a 
convention on bribery at the OECD. See also Senate Resolution of Advice 
and Consent to the OECD Antibribery Convention, of July 31, 1998; 
Groups targeted: Foreign governments, companies; 
Activities: Leads U.S. delegation[K] to the OECD Working Group on 
Bribery to monitor implementation and enforcement of the OECD 
Antibribery Convention, and to assess areas where the Convention could 
be amended to decrease bribery and other corrupt activity. Meet with 
the private sector and civil society groups regarding implementation of 
the OECD Antibribery Convention; 
Budget information[A]: No separate funding; 
Staff level[B]: One deputy office director spends 50 percent of his 
time on this effort [Estimate]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: EB-U.S. Lead to G-8 Anticorruption and 
Transparency Pilots; brownpa@state. gov; 
Objective: To reduce corruption and enhance transparency to ensure that 
development assistance resources and budget revenues achieve their 
intended purposes; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: 22 U.S.C. 2656; 
Groups targeted: Georgia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Peru, other G-8 
governments; 
Activities: Provide assistance through the Bureau of International 
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to develop a series of projects 
with four countries that signed compacts with G-8 countries in 2004 
committing to reduce corruption and enhance transparency in their 
budgets, government procurements and concession-letting procedures.[L]; 
Budget information[A]: $150,000 (cost of contractor who serves as 
project coordinator); 
Staff level[B]: 1.25 FTEs. 

CSR-Related program/activity: EB - Coordinate U.S. input to the United 
Kingdom's Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI); 
brownpa@state. gov; 
Objective: To increase transparency over payments and revenues in the 
extractives sector in countries heavily dependent on these resources; 
Start year: 2002; 
Legal basis: Presidential initiative; 
Groups targeted: Governments, companies, industry associations, 
international organizations, civil society, investors; 
Activities: Liaise with USAID, Treasury, the private sector and civil 
society, coordinate U.S. policy toward the EITI, a United Kingdom-led 
initiative; 
Budget information[A]: No separate funding; 
Staff level[B]: 0.25 of an FTE. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Bureau of Oceans and International 
Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) - CSR-Related Activities; 
lbrutten@state. gov; 
Objective: To promote corporate responsibility through its efforts on 
sustainable development, particularly through voluntary public-private 
partnerships, and on making trade liberalization and natural resource 
protection mutually supportive of our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) 
objectives; 
Start year: 2001; 
Legal basis: Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended; 
Groups targeted: U.S. companies and business groups, civil society, 
foreign governments, and international organizations; 
Activities: Meets with representatives from the private sector and 
civil society on a regular but ad hoc basis, includes representatives 
from the private sector and civil society on official U.S. delegations 
relating to sustainable development, provides information about and 
encourages sustainable development partnership efforts. In addition, 
OES leads negotiations for environmental side agreements to trade 
agreements; 
Budget information[A]: No specific budget; 
Staff level[B]: Not available. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Office of Private Assistance, Iraq; 
GramagliaTR@state.gov; 
Objective: To coordinate U.S. private donations and private 
partnerships intended for the Iraqi people, including financial and in-
kind donations, and mentoring; 
Start year: 2004; 
Legal basis: Coordinating function operating through the bureau; 
Groups targeted: U.S. commercial, academic or cultural contacts and 
civic groups; 
Activities: Manages a Web site for donations, coordinates referrals 
from Congress, and with other agencies, presents to gatherings of 
individuals or organizations with an interest in supporting 
reconstruction and humanitarian needs in Iraq; 
Budget information[A]: No specific budget; 
Staff level[B]: One full-time person. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Middle East Partnership Initiative - 
Business Internship Program; FranceskiS@state; gov; 
Objective: To provide women from the Middle East with skills to promote 
successful businesses in the region while promoting mutual 
understanding and ongoing relationships between people in the United 
States and the Middle East; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 
(See P. L. 108-11) and chapter 4 of Part II of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961, as amended; 
Groups targeted: U.S. companies. ; 
Activities: U.S. companies host interns for three months at their own 
expense. In fiscal year 2003, more than 35 companies hosted interns; 
Budget information[A]: $2,000,000; 
Staff level[B]: One part time plus contractor support. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Middle East Partnership Initiative - 
Junior Achievement Program; FranceskiS@ state.gov; 
Objective: To help the Middle East region's youth gain the skills 
required to build and succeed in their nations' economies and to become 
productive and participative citizens; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 
(See Pub. L. 108-11) and chapter 4 of Part II of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961, as amended; 
Groups targeted: U.S. and foreign companies; 
Activities: Through a cooperative agreement to the Junior Achievement 
program, MEPI is setting up chapters throughout the region to promote 
entrepreneurship, such as job training, among high school-aged youth. 
U.S. and foreign companies serve as long-term sponsors and mentors for 
this program; 
Budget information[A]: $2,400,000[M]; 
Staff level[B]: One part time plus contractor support. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Bureau of International Organization 
Affairs - select activities; DaleyPB@state. gov; 
Objective: To ensure that initiatives related to CSR at the United 
Nations and its affiliated organizations remain consistent with the 
imperatives of the marketplace and compatible with United States 
interests; 
Start year: Not available.[N]; 
Legal basis: United Nations Participation Act of 1945; 
Groups targeted: United Nations programs, funds, agencies and other 
organizations; 
Activities: Negotiations over resolutions, work programs and budgets in 
United Nations organizations, and reviews of programs and activities; 
Budget information[A]: No specific budget; 
Staff level[B]: Several staff in this bureau devote time to CSR on an 
ad hoc basis. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Office of the U.S. Global AIDS 
Coordinator (OGAC) - Public-Private Partnerships[O]; Moloney- KittsMA@ 
state.gov; 
Objective: To combat HIV/AIDS, promoting integrated prevention, 
treatment and care interventions with an urgent focus on 15 countries 
that are among the most afflicted nations in the world; 
Start year: 2004; 
Legal basis: The U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 
Malaria Act of 2003, See Section 101 of P.L. 108-25; 
Groups targeted: Private sector; 
Activities: The private sector is a critical partner at the country 
level.[P] These partnerships facilitate company workplace programs to 
create awareness about the spread of HIV/AIDS, decrease stigma among 
those who know their HIV status, and provide antiretroviral therapy to 
employees and their families. The office began keeping track of the 
number of partnerships in FY 2005; 
Budget information[A]: No specific budget; 
Staff level[B]: Not applicable. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Budget information is for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[B] Staff levels are for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[C] This represents grants that were funded in fiscal year 2003. Grants 
funded in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 were also ongoing in fiscal year 
2003. 

[D] This figure represents expenses only, incurred by the Bureau of 
Economics and Business Affairs. This figure does not include staff 
salaries or the Secretary's representation funds for ceremony 
hospitality and the design, manufacture and shipping of the awards. 

[E] More than 50 additional staff help to plan and organize the award 
ceremony. 

[F] The Partnership for Prosperity is a bilateral initiative between 
Mexico and the United States designed to leverage private sector 
resources and expertise to boost the social and economic well-being of 
Mexican citizens, particularly in regions where economic growth has 
lagged. 

[G] The cost is the responsibility of the host country. The U.S. will 
host the ceremony in 2005, but the program had not yet established a 
budget for the costs. 

[H] In addition to the Department of State, USTR, EPA and the 
Departments of Treasury, Commerce, and Labor help resolve complaints 
against companies. 

[I] The guidelines are a set of nonbinding recommendations that have 
been agreed upon by OECD member countries. Their aim is to provide 
guidance for companies on a range of business activities, including 
industrial relations, human rights, environment, information 
disclosure, competition, taxation, and science and technology. 

[J] The Department of State also coordinates with the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice to address, as appropriate, alleged incidents of 
bribery of foreign public officials (by foreign-based corporations) 
that adversely affect the opportunity for U.S. companies to compete on 
a transparent and level playing field for international tenders and 
contracts. 

[K] The Departments of Commerce and Justice are also members of the 
U.S. delegation. 

[L] These projects implement the Evian Declaration on Fighting 
Corruption and Improving Transparency that was signed by G-8 leaders in 
2003, and proposes specific actions to reduce corruption and enhance 
transparency as part of a strategy to ensure that development 
assistance resources and budget revenues achieve their intended 
purpose. According to a State Department official, the Declaration 
proposed a partnership between donor and recipient countries to change 
the incentives to make corruption less attractive to public officials, 
expose the economic and political costs of corruption, and 
institutionalize effective checks and balances on corrupt regimes. 

[M] Fiscal year 2003 funds are also being spent in fiscal year 2004. 

[N] According to an agency official, this has been a continuing effort 
that has become more or less intense as CSR issues have become larger 
or smaller pieces of the work programs at these UN agencies. 

[O] OGAC is not an implementing office. Actual implementation of 
partnerships with the private sector and other workplace activities are 
put forth from its implementing agency partners, primarily USAID and 
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

[P] At the local level, U.S. government offices work with 
pharmaceutical companies on an ad hoc basis to facilitate drug 
donations in specific countries. 

[End of table]

Table 12: Responses from the Department of Treasury: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Implementation of the Clean Diamond Trade 
Act and Executive Order 13312 by the Treasury Department's Office of 
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) - (with the Department of State)[B]; 
www.treas.gov/ofac; 
Objective: To implement the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, 
pursuant to which participating countries, including the United States, 
seek to prevent rough diamonds used to fuel armed conflict aimed at 
undermining or overthrowing legitimate governments from entering the 
legitimate world diamond trade; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: Clean Diamond Trade Act (P.L. 108-19), Executive Order 
13312, and Rough Diamonds Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 592; 
(Regulations); 
Groups targeted: Companies or individuals involved in the export from 
and/or import into the United States of rough diamonds; 
Activities: The Regulations provide that trade in rough diamonds is 
prohibited unless the rough diamond is controlled through the Kimberley 
Process Certification Scheme as set forth in the Regulations.[C] The 
U.S. also participates in Kimberley Process multilateral working groups 
on Monitoring and Statistics.d; 
Budget information: No specific budget.[E]; Staff level[A]: Three 
FTEs.[F]. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Staff levels are for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[B] OFAC administers the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations. In 
addition, pursuant to the Clean Diamond Trade Act (Act), OFAC (as the 
designee of the Secretary of the Treasury) and the Department of State 
cochair a Kimberley Process Implementation Coordinating Committee to 
coordinate implementation of the act and the Kimberley Process 
Certification Scheme for the United States. The Committee meets 
periodically to evaluate implementation issues, and, if necessary, take 
steps to improve performance. Other agencies, including the U.S. Census 
Bureau and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are also involved with 
the implementation. 

[C] The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme as set forth in the 
regulations includes, among other requirements, trading rough diamonds 
only with other Kimberley Process participants having a validated 
Kimberley Process Certificate accompanying all exports and imports, and 
keeping accessible records about these transactions for at least 5 
years. 

[D] As part of the Kimberley Process, the diamond industry undertook to 
implement a voluntary system of self-regulation through a system of 
warranties that allows for the traceability of rough diamond 
transactions. 

[E] This does not capture the resources of additional agencies involved 
in the implementation of the Clean Diamond Trade Act. 

[F] According to an official at Treasury, most of the staff time is at 
the Department of State. This does not capture the resources of 
additional agencies involved in the implementation of the Clean Diamond 
Trade Act. 

[End of table]

Table 13: Responses from U.S. Agency for International Development: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Global Development Alliance; 
www.usaid.gov/gda; 
Objective: To encourage public-private partnerships for development 
projects; 
Start year: 2001; 
Legal basis: Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P. L. 87-195), as amended; 
Groups targeted: Foundations, for-profit firms, civil society 
organizations, foreign governments; 
Activities: Trains USAID staff on public-private alliances and conducts 
outreach to private sector and civil society partners. For fiscal years 
2002-2004, USAID leveraged over $3.7 billion in partner assets through 
$1.1 billion in agency funding; 
Budget information[A]: $29.8 million.[C]; 
Staff level[B]: Six full time staff plus contractors and field 
support.[D]. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Volunteers for Prosperity[E]; 
www.volunteersforprosperity.gov; 
Objective: To deploy skilled volunteers in U.S. foreign assistance 
programs.[F]; 
Start year: 2003; 
Legal basis: Executive Order 13317; 
Groups targeted: U.S.-based organizations, including corporations; 
Activities: By the end of FY 2004, Volunteers for Prosperity recruited 
nearly 200 for-profit and nonprofit organizations, representing a pool 
of at least 34,000 skilled American professionals available to serve as 
volunteers. Participating organizations reported having deployed nearly 
7,000 volunteers; 
Budget information[A]: No specific budget; 
Staff level[B]: Three full time staff.[G]. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Budget information is for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[B] Staff levels are for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[C] In addition, according to officials, USAID overseas missions and 
USAID/Washington funded alliances to the total amount of $360 million. 

[D] Each USAID mission office and bureau has a Global Development 
Alliance point of contact, and each mission office manages at least one 
public-private alliance. 

[E] USAID serves as the interagency coordinator for this initiative. 
Per the executive order, USAID, the Departments of State, Commerce and 
Health and Human Services were required to set up Volunteers for 
Prosperity offices or operating units. 

[F] The volunteers serve to support efforts related to six presidential 
initiatives: The Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Trade for African 
Development and Enterprise Initiative, the Water for the Poor 
Initiative, the Digital Freedom Initiative, the Middle East Partnership 
Initiative, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Organizations 
that become Volunteers for Prosperity participants and support the 
deployment of highly skilled American volunteers are given priority for 
federal funds for these initiatives. 

[G] As of March 2005, three full-time staff were approved, although two 
staff were in place. 

[End of table]

Table 14: Responses from Office of the U.S. Trade RepresentativeA: 

CSR-Related program/activity: Negotiating Free Trade Agreements; 
www.ustr.gov; 
Objective: To ensure that negotiating objectives on labor and the 
environment laid out in the Trade Act of 2002 and issues of concern to 
trading partners are included in free trade agreements; 
Start year: 2002; 
Legal basis: Trade Act of 2002; 
Groups targeted: Foreign governments; 
Activities: Negotiating terms of trade agreements with U.S. trading 
partners. USTR will consider including CSR issues and projects in trade 
agreements if the issue is raised by trading partners. For example, CSR 
language is included in the US-Chile and US- Singapore free trade 
agreements; 
Budget information: No discrete budget; 
Staff level[B]: FTA negotiators address CSR as warranted during 
negotiations. 

CSR-Related program/activity: Outreach to Business Associations; 
www.ustr.gov; 
Objective: To improve labor standards and business conduct in U.S. 
business overseas; 
Start year: Not available; 
Legal basis: Not available; 
Groups targeted: Business groups; 
Activities: USTR meets with business groups on an ad hoc basis to 
discuss a range of issues. On occasion, this includes encouraging 
businesses to implement corporate codes of conduct; 
Budget information: No discrete budget; 
Staff level[B]: One percent of one staff person's time. 

Source: GAO based on information provided by agency officials. 

[A] Officials from the USTR acknowledged that the agency undertakes 
some activities that might complement CSR, but emphasized that the 
agency's mission is to negotiate trade agreements, and not to engage in 
CSR-related efforts. 

[B] Staff levels are for fiscal year 2003 unless otherwise noted. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements: 

GAO Contact: 

Loren Yager (202) 512-4347: 

Acknowledgements: 

In addition, Kate Blumenreich, Kenneth Bombara, Martin De Alteriis, 
Mark Dowling, Tim Fairbanks, and Kim Frankena made key contributions to 
this report. Shirley Brothwell, Emilie Cassou, Jeanette Espinola and 
Richard Lindsey also provided assistance. 

(320271): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise - 
Washington Center, www.kenaninstitute.unc.edu. 

[2] U.S. Chamber of Commerce Web site, www.uschamber.com, April 28, 
2005. 

[3] The World Bank, Public Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate 
Social Responsibility: A Baseline Study, October 2002, p. 1. 

[4] Business for Social Responsibility Education Fund, Corporate Social 
Responsibility: A Guide to Better Business Practices, 2000. 

[5] 2002 Sustainability Survey Report, August 2002, 
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. 

[6] The State of Corporate Citizenship in the U.S.: A View from inside 
2003-2004, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College and 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Center for Corporate Citizenship, 2004. 

[7] 2002 Sustainability Survey Report, August 2002, 
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. 

[8] They further caution, "Even though there is hope in the large 
number of studies that have shown a positive relationship, academics 
and practitioners alike should be concerned with the variability and 
inconsistency in these results. Some of the reasons for these 
contradictory results stem from conceptual, operationalization, and 
methodological differences in the definitions of social and financial 
performance." Griffin, Jennifer J., and John F. Mahon, "The Corporate 
Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate: Twenty- 
Five Years of Incomparable Research," Business and Society, Mar. 1997, 
pp. 5-31. 

[9] Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, Corporate Social 
Responsibility: Making the Business Case, London, 2002; Orlitzky, Marc, 
Frank L. Schmidt and Sara L. Rynes, "Corporate Social and Financial 
Performance: A MetaAnalysis," Organization Studies, Vol. 24, no. 3 (May-
June 2003). 

[10] Laffer, Arthur B., Andrew Coors and Wayne Winegarden, "Does 
Corporate Social Responsibility Enhance Business Profitability?" Laffer 
Associates, 2004 available via www.csrwatch.com. 

[11] Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, Corporate Social 
Responsibility: Making the Business Case, London, 2002. 

[12] McWilliams, Abigail and Donald Siegel, "Corporate Social 
Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective," Academy of 
Management Review, 2001, Vol. 26: No. 1, pp. 117-127. 

[13] www.cepaa.org. 

[14] www.globalreporting.org. 

[15] www.iccr.org. 

[16] www.socialinvest.org. 

[17] www.oecd.org. 

[18] www.unglobalcompact.org. 

[19] www.gcgf.org. 

[20] http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/. 

[21] Public Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social 
Responsibility: A Baseline Study, the World Bank, October 2002. 

[22] Public Sector Support For The Implementation of Corporate Social 
Responsibility (CSR) in Global Supply Chains: Conclusions from 
Practical Experience, the World Bank, December 2004. 

[23] In trying to categorize programs into these roles, we identified 9 
programs that did not clearly fit into these categories. We also 
identified 13 programs that appear to have elements of more than one 
category. 

[24] Funding reported by USAID includes moneys obligated in the 
planning stage as well as actual expenditures. The partner 
contributions include committed contributions that are projected for 
future years as well as contributions already expended by partners. 

[25] Members of the Digital Freedom Initiative Interagency Working 
Group include the Department of Commerce, USAID, the Department of 
State, the Peace Corps, the Small Business Administration, and the 
Federal Communications Commission. 

[26] The Digital Freedom Initiative is part of the Volunteers for 
Prosperity Initiative. Managed by USAID's Office of Volunteers for 
Prosperity, this is also an interagency Presidential initiative that 
promotes international voluntary service by highly skilled American 
professionals in support of the nation's global health and prosperity 
agenda. 

[27] According to a Commerce official, the Digital Freedom Act (DFI) 
has no specific funding. The program uses some USAID money already 
assigned to projects that complement the DFI program. For example, 
these training efforts are a component of an ongoing alliance the 
company has through the USAID Global Development Alliance. 

[28] However, an official from the Protecting the Basic Rights of 
Workers program at the Department of Labor, which reported a $20 
million budget in fiscal year 2003, said the program received no 
funding from the fiscal year 2005 appropriations. 

[29] See Fox, Tom; Ward, Halina; and Howard, Bruce. Public Sector Roles 
in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: A Baseline Study. The 
World Bank, 2002. The report describes four principle public sector 
roles as follows (The report acknowledges overlaps across the four 
categories): 

Endorsing: Political support and public sector endorsement of the 
concept of CSR and in particular, CSR-related initiatives. 

Facilitating: Enabling or incentivizing companies to engage with the 
CSR agenda or to drive social and environmental improvements. 

Partnering: Bringing the complementary skills and inputs of the public 
sector, the private sector, and civil society in tackling complex 
social and environmental problems. 

Mandating: Defining minimum standards for business performance embedded 
within the legal framework. 

[30] Typically, one award is given to a multinational enterprise and 
one award is given to a small and medium-sized enterprise each year, 
but that is flexible and up to the selection committee to decide. 

[31] This figure includes 183 commercial officers, 56 foreign service 
national commercial specialists, and 21 domestic trade specialists. 

[32] In addition to the regulations listed here, various respondents 
also mentioned the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; the Sarbanes-Oxley 
Act of 2002; the Alien Tort Claims Act; and import controls, such as 
those prohibiting the importation into the United States of merchandise 
produced by forced or indentured child labor as laws or regulations 
that impact companies' CSR activities. 

[33] Rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

[34] Friedman, Milton, "The Social Responsibility of Business is to 
Increase Profits." New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. 

[35] Henderson, David, "The Role of Business in the Modern World: 
Progress, Pressures and Prospects for the Market Economy." (Landover 
Maryland, Competitive Enterprise Institute) 2004, p. 20. 

[36] Raynard, Peter and Forstater, Maya, Corporate Social 
Responsibility: Implications for Small and Medium Enterprises in 
Developing Countries, The United Nations Industrial Development 
Organization, Vienna, 2002, pp. 8 and 9, with reference to: Raynard, P 
& Forstater, M (2001) The Business Case for Sustainability. London, 
SIGMA. 

[37] Haufler, Virgina, A Public Role for the Private Sector: Industry 
Self-Regulation in a Global Economy (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace) 2001. 

[38] Holiday, Charles O. Jr; Schmidheiny, Stephan; and Watts, Phillip, 
Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development, 
Greenleaf, Sheffield; 2002, p. 156. 

[39] The Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility, Conducted 
by Environics International Ltd. In cooperation with the Prince of 
Wales Business Leaders Forum and the Conference Board. Consumers in 23 
countries were surveyed. 

[40] Behind the Mask: The Real Face of Corporate Social Responsibility, 
Christian Aid, p. 2. 

[41] Consumers International and Corporate Social Responsibility, 
Consumers International. 

[42] Calder, Fanny and Culverwell, Malaika, Following Up the World 
Summit on Sustainable Development Commitments on Corporate Social 
Responsibility, Options for Action by Governments, Royal Institute of 
International Affairs, February, Chatham House, 2005, p. 36. 

[43] International Council on Human Rights Policy, "Beyond Voluntarism, 
Human Rights and the Developing International Obligations of 
Companies," Versoix, Switzerland, 2002, p. 2. 

[44] We selected these groups and organizations to help us obtain a 
broad range of knowledgeable and informed views on global CSR and the 
federal government's role in global CSR; our selection was not intended 
to be representative in any statistical sense. Groups that are not 
active in global CSR may have different views and opinions, especially 
in terms of the federal government's role. 

[45] For example, see The Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private 
Enterprise, Washington Center, Statement of Findings: Promoting CSR in 
China, Sept. 2004 and Promoting Global Corporate Social Responsibility: 
The Kenan Institute Study Group Consensus, Sept. 2003. 

[46] Respondents tended to speak generally of U.S. government and non- 
U.S. government awards, as they were not always clear whether or not a 
particular award was given by the U.S. government. 

[47] Some companies held both views: that some regulations are 
burdensome, while other regulations are useful in setting minimum 
standards and leveling the playing field. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: