68

ISSN 1392-1258.EKoNoMIKa200986

DEvElOpMENT Of SUSTaiNablE aND SOCially rESpONSiblE bUSiNESS iN liThUaNia iN ThE iNTErNaTiONal CONTEXT

Juozas ruževičius Professor,Faculty of Economics, Vilnius UniversitySaulėtekio str. 9, II bld, 715 roomLT-10222 Vilnius, LithuaniaE-mail: juozas.ruzevicius@ef.vu.lt

Abstract. This article analyses the peculiarities, interrelations and development of two relatively new concepts of organizational development – socially responsible and sustainable business. Soci-ally responsible business, which adopts the sustainable development concept, more and more of-ten requires than adequate behaviour of the supply chain partners. The complex of tools to achieve socially responsible and sustainable business – SA 8000 (Social Accountability), Global Compact, OHSAS 18001 (Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series), ISO 14001, EMAS (Eco-Mana-gement and Audit Scheme), FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), eco-labelling, etc. – can be integra-ted into one organization. The paper provides an analysis of the development of these systems in Lithuania within the context of the European and global business. The interrelations of different management systems, the links among them, integration possibilities and improvement proposi-tions are described.

Keywords: socially responsible business, sustainable development, SA 8000, ISO 14001, EMAS, OHSAS, Global Compact.

Introduction

Acrossallcountriesand industrysectors,companies are assessing their approach to non-financialbusinessissues.Atfirst,theissuesweremainly environmental. Thentheterm“sustainabledevelopment”cametothefore.Now,corporatesocialrespon-sibility (CSr) and corporate governance are setting the agenda. The cooperationbetweensocietyandorganizationsisbeingguaranteedbyvariousgoodpracticeideas,voluntarycertifiedstandardsorsystemsba-sed on theconceptofCSR.Environmental

modernizationoftheeconomyincludestheimplementation of environmental policies which connect environmental management to technical environmental innovations and improved economic performance.The scientific problem and novelty. there are insufficient scientific conclusions andrecommendations for business concerning peculiarities,benefitsandlinksbetweenthetwocomparablynewconceptsoforganiza-tional development – socially responsible and sustainable business – and their rela-tionshipswithothermanagementsystems.

69

The complexof tools to achieve sociallyresponsible and sustainable business – SA8000 (SocialAccountability),GlobalCompact,OHSAS 18001 (OccupationalHealthandSafetyAssessmentSeries),andenvironmental (ISO14001,EMAS, eco-labelling) standards – can be integrated into oneorganization.Thesummationofrelatedexperience,methodology,relationsamongcorporatesocialresponsibilities,sustainabledevelopment and other management sys-tems, facilitatingandconstrainingfactorsmakestheessenceofthescientificnoveltyofthisresearch.Theauthorseekstoprovethat theaimof thecertificationofsocial-ly responsible and sustainable business management systems is not only to gain a competitive advantage when showing the certificate,butalsotobeatooltorevealthestrengthsandweaknessesofacompany.

the main purpose of this article is to disclose the peculiarities of the content and practice of socially responsible and sustainable businesses worldwide and inLithuania, aswell as to determine theevaluation of such business development anditsmainbenefits.Thepaperprovidesan analysis of the development of these systemsinLithuaniawithinthecontextoftheEuropean andglobal businesses.Theinterrelations of different management systems,thelinksamongthem,integrationpossibilities and improvement propositions are described Methodology. this research has been performed using the methods of theanalysisof scientific literatureandnormativedocuments,case-studyanalysis,structured interviews, statistical analysisand author’s experience inmanagementconsultancy.

Interface between csR and sustainable development

We assume that the first incentives of corporate social responsibility (CSr) were applied inancientSumerianculture: theybegan calculating the minimum salary for employees.ButtheconceptionofCSRinbusiness and other activities was developed only on the turn of the 19th–20th centuries (Kotler, 2005; Ruževičius, Navickaitė,2007;Vogel,2005;Waddock,2006;Xue-ming,2006).TheroleofCSRinbusinessmanagementhasbeenunderdebate.Scien-tistsquestionedwhetherabusinesscanhaveany responsibilities other than the responsi-bilitytoincreaseitsprofits.However,otherauthors have disagreed (Enquist, 2007).Carroll (1991) argued for a pyramid of four kindsofsocialresponsibilities–economic,legal,ethical,andphilanthropic,thusinte-grating CSr with a stakeholder perspective (Carroll,1991;Enqquist,2007).AccordingtoCarroll,thereisanaturalfitbetweentheideaofCSRandanorganization’sstake-holders.ThisviewwassupportedbyKotlerandLee (2005).The changing nature ofCSRhasalsobeendebated.Vogel(2005),Xueming (2006), Enquist et al. (2007)argued that the prevailing business impera-tivesinCSRwereoriginallyprofitability,compliance and philanthropy.However,from the end of the 1970s and onwards,these authors assert that the prevailing bu-sinessimperativebecame“corporate social responsiveness” (Kotler,2005).Xueming&Bhattacharya(2006)havetriedtosolvecontradictionsbetweenCSRandprofit(Xu-eming, 2006).An important contributionmade by this article is its results regarding the significance of relationship between

70

CSR, customer satisfaction andmarketvalue(Enquist,2007;Xueming,2006).Thelogical assumption is that the contemporary corporate social responsibility is a concept whereby organizations are considering the interests of society and operate responsibly intermsofthesustainabilityofthesocial,economicandenvironmentaldevelopment.Theorganizationsarepusheduptotakeintoaccount the concept of CSr by the internal andexternaldimensions,suchascustomers,employees,shareholders,communities and theenvironment.Todaycompanies,bothsmallbusinesses

and big corporations, are constrained towork inside a complicated environment,beingaffectedbythevalues,concernsandintentionsof society.Businessesmustbeready to make decisions under conditions ofthefrequentlychangingenvironment.Forthis reason,organizationsmust cooperatewith neighbourhood community and not to staybehind. the cooperation between so-cietyandorganizationsisbeingguaranteedbyvariousgoodpractice ideas,voluntarycertifiedstandardsorsystemsbasedontheconcept ofCSR (Ruževičius,Navickaitė,2007).Nowadays,environmentalproblemsare

taken into consideration by economically developedcountries.Attheendofthelastcentury,anumberofenvironmentallaws,technical regulations and normative docu-mentswerecreated.At thesametime, inscientificarticlesthereappearedcombina-tionsofsuchconceptsas“business”,“en-vironment-orientedactivity”,“sustainabledevelopment”,“continuousdevelopment”and“sustainableproductmanagement”(Re-mings,2006;Ruževičius,Waginger,2007;

Scot, 2003).The concept of “sustainabledevelopment”wasfinallyformulatedintheUnitedNationsGroBrundtlandcommissionreport “Our common future” in 1987. a country’s economic and social development should be oriented according to the princi-ple of sustainable development in the way that the current satisfaction of consumer needs would not reduce the possibilities of satisfyingtheneedsofgenerationstocome.the media event of 1992 was undoubtedly the united Nations Conference in rio de Janeiroforenvironmentanddevelopment,betterknownasthe“EarthSummit”.Thisevent changed outlooks in several ways of sustainable development and social responsibility.Thekeychangewasthatitbecame received wisdom that sustainable development should also address not only environmentalissues,butshouldseek equi-librium between the aspects of environment, social activity and the economy (Rennings,2006;Ruževičius andWaginger, 2007;Scot,2003). lithuania signed the declarati-on containing this point together with other countriesinRiodeJaneiroin1992.Everystate must have an environmental policy which links all development strategies of economybranchesandterritories.Seekingfor thehighestqualityofpro-

ductsandservices,companiesmustmanagetheir work by following the principles of sustainable development.Because of therising stakeholders’ pressure, successfulcompanies are engaged to share their suc-cesswithothersandtobenefitpeople,bu-sinessandenvironment.Organizationsareabout to form an informal social-economic contract between an organization and itsstakeholders.Today,suchasituationmay

71

becalled“corporatelife”.Organizationsarebeing motivated to improve both social and environmental practices and cooperation with the stakeholders voluntarily by the attemptsofvariousinternationalinitiatives.In order to guarantee the durable partners-hip between the companies all around the world and the stakeholders concerned about the transparency of the businesses’ results,organizationsconsolidate into theglobalCSRnetworks,usevariousmeanstoimplement the concept of corporate social responsibility into the business practice,from those abstractly declared to standar-dizedworldwide.Clearlyvisiblearedirectand tight links between CrS and sustainable development.Ontheotherhand,organisa-tions’ public reports have shown a marked change from the purely environmental to the current wave of sustainable development andcorporateresponsibilityreporting.

CSr tends to focus less on the company itself and more on its activities – its com-munityandsocialengagement,aswellasthe environmental aspects (Kotler, 2005;Scot,2003).IfCSRistobecomeawidelyaccepted and less threatening alternative tocorporate sustainability,CSRbecomessimply corporate responsibility.

Benchmarking of the development of socially responsible and sustaina-ble business­related tools: national and international context

Modern organizations are implementingmandatory as well as voluntary management systems.Amanagement systembasedonsocial responsibility and sustainable develo-pmentrequirementsfallsintothevoluntary systemcategory. Everyorganizationchooses

the way how to implement the corporate social responsibility and sustainable develo-pmentconceptintoitsdailypractices.PartofLithuanianorganizationschoosestandar-dizedsocialandenvironmentalmanagementsystem and tools – Sa 8000 (Social accoun-tability),OHSAS(OccupationalHealthandSafetyManagementSystem) ISO14001,eco-labelling of products and services other enterprises are involved in the worldwide GlobalCompactsocialactivitiesorEFQM(EuropeanFoundationforQualityManage-ment)excellencemodel(seeFigure1).

one of the best known international net-works of socially responsible businesses is Global Compact (GC) presented by the uni-tedNations(UN)in1999.GlobalCompactseekstwomaingoals:tohelporganizationsto implement the principles of GC into busi-ness’ strategy and to force communication and partnership among various sectors in-side and outside the country while seeking universal aims ofworld’s development.lithuania set the national network of GC in2005.Today,thisnetworkinLithuaniacontainsfiftyoneorganizations(Figure1).the key achievements of the Global Com-pactnetworkofLithuaniaare:

a shift from the • ad hoc approach to the strategic approach to the Network activities;transferfromUNDevelopmentProgram•leadership to company CSr leadership inthenetwork;development of good practice exam-•plesandajointorganizationofmediaevents;regularizationofexperiencesharingon•“businesscaseforGC/CSR”bymem-bersofthenetwork(Local…,2008).

72

ToevaluateinmoredetailtheefficiencyofCRSmeansappliedbytheorganizationsthat participate in the activities of Global Compact Network of lithuania will be possible only when they publish the social responsibility activities’ reports.On thegroundoftherulesofGlobalCompact,theabove-mentioned reports must be started to be published 3 years after starting partici-pationintheGCnetworkactivities.Thus,thefirstreportsoftheCRSactivitiesinLi-thuanianorganizationsshouldbeexpectedtobepublishedintheyear2009.

the Sa 8000 (Social Accountability) in-ternational standard was developed with the purpose to reduce or even to eliminate unfair andnon-humanworkpractice.CompaniesthatarecertifiedagainstSA8000standarddeclare to society that they are working according to all norms stated in internatio-nalconventions.TheSA8000certificationmeansthatallsuppliers/subcontractorsandsub-suppliers/sub-contractorsareobligedto

take care about theirworkers. Increasingawareness of society concerning inhuman work conditions in developing countries led to establishment of CEPaa (Council on Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency) in1997(Ruževičius,Serafinas,2006).Themainpurposeof thisorganizationwas todevelopauniformrequirementdocumentfor work conditions and to assure that goods(especially textile, toys,cosmetics,homeapiece,etc.)inretailoutletsaremadeaccording to international requirementsof social responsibility. Some companiesalready acknowledged the commercial benefitofusinginternationallyrecognizedstandards,buttherewasnosingleopinionthat practically should approve the social responsibilitypolicywithintheorganizati-ons.Thisfactledtosituationswhenthereemergedmanycodesofconducts,thatweredifferentandinsomecasescontradictory.Also, problems arosewhen the auditingprocessesstarted.

Figure 1. The number of CSR and sustainable development related management systems and tools in Lithuanians organizations (May 2008)

Compact

73

Thus, increasingly bigger numbers oforganizations are interested in theCSRconcept, and those already being part ofsocially responsible business more and moreoftenrequirethanadequatebehaviourfromthesupplychainpartnersaswell.InSeptember2007,therewere1461organi-zationswithcertifiedSA8000systemsintheworld.ThreeLithuanianorganisationsalready implemented the Sa 8000 system of socialresponsibility.Thetextilejoint-stockenterprise“Utenostrikotažas”isthefirstLi-thuaniancompanycertifiedin2006forthesocial responsibility system according to the standardSA8000.ThedaughterUkrainianenterprise“Mriya”ofthisorganizationwasalso involved into the social responsibility process;thismeansthatLithuaniancompa-nies are spreading the best practices to orga-nizationsfromothercountriesaccessingtheEU.AninitialauditoftheUkrainiancom-pany showed some similarities to as well as differencesfromtheLithuaniansituation.Similar is the development of competence of the system understanding, leading tomore responsibilities at the place where actual work is performed and initiating more

organizationalfreedomtomakedecisionsatthelovermanagementlevels.Atthesametime, the cultural differences are obviousandrequiremoreattentionfrommanagerscoming towork inUkraine: local peopleare used to communicate “lively”,whilemanagement systems tend to document the activities.ForLithuanianemployeesitwaseasiertounderstandthisconception,whileukrainians consider documenting efforts as worseningtheirorganizationfreedomandthus reducing employees’ satisfaction in this case.AlsothepsychologicalpressureofLi-thuanian managers working in ukraine gives a negative pattern in business communicati-onwithlocalpeople.Asaconclusiononthesituation,itiscomparablyeasiertosolvetheproblems related to documentation and inf-rastructurethantoimprovecommunication,attitudesandreduceculturalbarriers.

thereinafter we provide an analysis of the development of the above-mentioned toolsinLithuaniawithinthecontextoftheEuropeanandglobalbusinesses.InFigures2–4,wepresenttheimplementationoftheSA8000systeminLithuania,theEUandworldwide.All thementionedfiguresare

Figure 2. Worldwide top 10 countries and Lithuania by the number of SA 8000 certified enterprises (September 2007)

Figure 3. Worldwide top 10 countries by the number of SA 8000 certified enterprises per 1000 population (September 2007)

74

designedbyauthor.Intheofficialstatistics,social responsibility activities in different countries are assessed by one indicator – bythenumberofcertifiedenterprises(seeFigure2and4).Inauthor’sopinion,thisindicatorisnot

straight enough for a comparative evalu-ation of the socially responsible business level in different countries and regions.Firstly, countriesdiffer in thenumberofpopulation.Secondly,thenumberofem-ployeesatSA8000certifiedenterprisesisalsodifferent.ForbenchmarkingofCSRactivities,authorproposestousenewre-lative indicators:

thenumberofSA8000certifiedenter-•prises per 1000 population in a country (seeFigure3);the number of employees at Sa 8000 •certifiedenterprisesper1000populationinacountry(Figure5).

Bytheofficialstatistical indicator–thenumberofcertifiedorganizations–Lithu-ania is much behind the worldwide leaders (Figure2),butbythenumberofSA8000

certified enterprises per 1000 populationLithuaniaisthesecondintheworld.BythenumberofemployeesatSA8000certifiedenterprisesper1000population,LithuaniaisthethirdamongtheEUcountries.Italyis the absolute leader in the Eu and in the world by all the three mentioned CSr indi-cators.Inauthor’sopinion,thenumberofemployeesatSA8000certifiedenterprisesper 1000 population is the most objective indicator for countries socially responsible businesslevelassessment.Therefore,thisrelative indicator can be recommended for the international benchmarking of socially responsible activities in different countries andregions.The qualitymanagement systems ISO

9001canalsobedefinedassustainablebu-siness and CSr tools because they facilitate therationaluseofnaturalresources,abettermanagement of personnel, improvementof work environment as part of improve-ment process, including themanagementof responsibility to allocate the necessary resources.InLithuania,thecertificationof

Figure 4. EU top 10 countries by the number of SA 8000 certified enterprises (September 2007)

Figure 5. EU top 10 countries by the number of employees at SA 8000 certified enterprises per 1000 of the population by country (Sep-tember 2007)

75

theQMSstartedin1995,andinthebegin-ningof2008therewerenearly800certifiedorganizations–about1%ofallenterprisesofthecountry(seeFigure1).Atthebeginningof2007,near900000

ISO9001 certificates had been issued in170countriesof theworld.By this time,thebiggestnumberofQMScertificateswereissuedinChina(162259companies),Italy(105799),Japan(80518),Spain(57552),Germany(46458)andUSA(44883)(TheISO…, 2007). The number of certifiedQMSinLithuaniaintheperiod2000–2006increasedaboutfourfold.Thegrowthofthisindicator in lithuania is much faster than theworldaverage.QMSarebeingimple-mented not only in business enterprises,

butalsoinhospitals,higheducationsinsti-tutions,policedepartments,citymunicipa-lities and other public sector institutions in Lithuania.Thedevelopmentofthissociallyresponsible and sustainable business rela-ted tool worldwide is presented elsewhere (Ruževičius,2007).

a comparative analysis of the develo-pment of environmental management sys-tems(EMS)ISO14001inLithuania,intheEu and in the world is presented in Figures 6–13.Allcalculationsofrelativeindicatorsare made by authors from the ISo Survey source(2007).ThenumberofcertifiedEMSsinLithu-

ania increased in the period 2000–2006aboutthirty-fold.Thegrowthofthisindi-

Figure 6. Changes in the number of EMS certi-fied enterprises worldwide

Figure 7. Changes in the number of EMS certi-fied enterprises in Lithuania

Figure 8. Worldwide top 10 countries by the number of EMS certified enterprises (start of 2007)

Figure 9. Worldwide top 10 countries by the number of certified EMS per 1000 population (start of 2007)

76

cator inLithuania isaboutfivefoldmuchfaster than the world average (see Figures 2and3).At the endof2006, the largestnumberofcertificatedEMSswasboastedby Japan (22593 companies),China (18842),Spain(11125),Italy(9825),UnitedKingdom(6070)andSouthKorea(5893)(Figure4).CzechRepublicwith2211EMSsis leading by this indicator in the Eu New Countries group (Figure 8)However,estimationbytheabsoluteva-

riableisnotinformativeenough.Therefore,for amore objective comparison, authorproposes to use a relative indicator – the

numberofISO14001certificatesper1000population(seeFigures9,11and13).Ac-cordingtothisindicator,thehighestrankingcountries in the world are liechtenstein (0.49certificateper1000population)andSweden(0.48certificate).TheCzechRepu-blic(0.22certificateper1000population)is leading in the newcomers’ group of the EUcountries.Lithuania,with0.074EMScertificateper1000population, isbehindEstonia,theleadingBalticcountry(Figure13).Thus,businessorganizationsandstategovernmental institutions of lithuania have everyreasonforconcern.

Figure 13. Top 10 EU new countries by the number of certified EMS per 1000 population by country (start of 2007)

Figure 12. Top 10 EU new countries by the number of EMS certified enterprises (start of 2007)

Figure 10. EU top 10 countries by the number of EMS certified enterprises (start of 2007)

Figure 11. EU top 10 countries by the number of certified EMSs per 1000 population (start of 2007)

77

the Eu Eco-Management and audit Scheme (EMaS) is a management tool for companies and other organisations to evaluate report and improve their en-vironmental performance. The schemehas been available for participation by companies since 1995 and was originally restricted to companies in industrial sec-tors.Since2001,EMAShasbeenopentoalleconomicsectors,includingpublicandprivate services. In addition,EMASwasstrengthenedbytheintegrationofEN/ISO14001 as the environmental management system required byEMAS, by adoptingan attractive EMaS logo to signal EMaS registration to the outsideworld, and byconsidering more strongly indirect effects suchasthoserelatedtofinancialservicesor administrative andplanningdecisions.TheEMAS environmental requirementsarestronger thanISO14001.AnEMAS-validatedorganizationmust continuouslyimprove its environmental performance,systematicallypresentpublicreports,verifythe environmentalmanagement system,validatetheenvironmentalstatement,etc.(Figure14).Unfortunately,Lithuaniahas

Figure 14. EMAS and ISO 14001 requirements: comparison (Source: EMAS…, 2006)

Figure 15. Evaluation of product eco-labelling by Lithuanian marketing specialists (Source: Ruževičius, 2007)

noorganizationsthathaveimplementedtheEMASsystem. Germany is the leader in this field–1444EMAScertifiedorganizations(Spain–936, Italy–810,Austria–253,Latvia–8,Estonia–2;April,2008).

Eco-labelling (El) of products is not only an indicator of sustainable business but alsoatoolofmarketing.Arapidlygrowinginterest of lithuanian businessmen in El shouldalsobepointedout:atthebeginningof2003,onlyonefifthofthesurveyeden-terprises indicated their intention to seek eco-labelling for their products in the futu-re,whereasin2007,thisindicatorgrewto39.4%(Figure15).

78

although lithuania cannot yet boast of the ecological certification and labellingindicatorsofitsproducts,therearebreakt-hroughs to be followed and positive ten-denciesinotherecologyareas.Almostallstate forests of our country have ecological certificatesoftheFSC(ForestStewardshipCouncil).Certification of the forest andwood supplier chain with the FSC certi-ficatefacilitatestheexportsoftimberanditsproducts.Anotherexample:in2007,sixlithuanian seaside beaches received the internationalBlueFlageco-certificates.In2005–2007,severalLithuanianhotelsandvillage farmsteads were presented with internationalGreenKey certificates con-firmingthataccommodationandrecreationservices provided by these organizationsmeet the requirements set for theconser-vationofnaturalresources.Toexpandtheusageofenvironmentally

harmless, safe and sparingproducts, it isrequiredtopromoteconsumereco-educa-tion and eco-information programs on the statebasis,thusimprovingtheconsumer’scompetence and the ecological culture in so-ciety.Onlyanecologicallyawareconsumerwill become a competent and demanding buyer and will cause business represen-tatives to be responsible with respect to environmental and social issues.The im-plementation of eco-labelling in schools may be a valuable contribution to realise theseclaims.Amendmentstolawsonpublicprocurementcouldcontributesignificantlyto promoting the development of “greenmarkets”, the implementation of qualitymanagement schemes and eco-management systems in companies and thus support their participationinpublicprocurement.

Conclusions

TheRiodeJaneiroconferenceforenviron-ment and development changed the outlooks in several ways of sustainable development andsocialresponsibility.Thekeychangewas as follows: it became acceptedwis-dom that sustainable development should address not only environmentalissues,butalso should seek an equilibriumbetweentheaspectsoftheenvironment,socialac-tivityandtheeconomy.Organizationsarebeing motivated to improve both social and environmental practices and the coopera-tion with the stakeholders by attempts of variousinternationalinitiatives.Inordertoguarantee a durable partnership among the companies all around the world and the sta-keholders concerned about the transparency ofbusinessresults,organizationsconsolidateintoglobalCSRnetworks,usevariousmeansto implement the concept of corporate social responsibility intobusinesspractice, fromthose abstractly declared to standardizedworldwide.Thereareclearlyvisibledirectand tight links between CrS and sustainable development.Ontheotherhand,organisa-tions’ public reports have shown a marked change from the purely environmental to the current wave of sustainable development andcorporateresponsibilityreporting.CSRtends to focus less on the company itself and more on its activities – its community and social engagement, aswell as theen-vironmentalaspects.IfCSRistobecomeawidelyaccepted,lessthreateningalternativeto corporate sustainability,CSr becomes simply“corporateresponsibility”.Summarizingtheimportanceofimple-

menting and integrating two new – CrS and sustainable business – concepts into the

79

companies’practice,itshouldbenotedthattheimageandreputationoforganizationinthesocialandenvironmentalfieldsismoreandmoreimportanttoconsumers.Qualifiedworkers prefer to change their workplace and to stay with the companies that do care about their employees because the labour market is very competitive inLithuania.Theauthorconcludes thatcertificationofsocially responsible and sustainable busi-ness management systems means not only acompetitiveadvantage,butitisalsoatoolto reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a company.Unfortunately,Lithuanianorga-nizationsdonotusetheEMASsystemasatoolofsustainabledevelopment.

a comparative estimation of different counties’ corporate responsibility by the ab-solutenumberofcertifiedsystemsandtoolsisnotinformativeenough.Therefore,foramoreobjectivecomparison,authorproposesarelativeindicator–thenumberofcertifi-cates(QMSISO9001,EMSISO14001orEMAS,eco-labelledproductcertificates,etc.)per1000populationofacountry.Thisindi-cator can be useful for comparing sustainable development efforts of different countries and regions.Inauthor’sopinion,thenumberofemployeesatSA8000certifiedenterprisesper 1000 population is the most objective indicator for socially responsible business levelassessmentofacountry.Therefore,thisrelative indicator can be recommended for the international benchmarking of socially responsible activities of different countries andregions.Bythisindicator,LithuaniaisthethirdamongtheEUcountries.

only big lithuanian companies having partners or clients from abroad are imple-menting CSr standards and running social-

lyresponsiblebusinesses,whilesmallandmedium-sizeenterprisesarenotmotivatedenough for socially responsible business development as the civil society of lithu-ania is still weak and people in lithuania (customers,employees, shareholders andcommunities) do not prioritize sociallyresponsible business.Gradually,CSR isbecomingmorevaluableinLithuania,andits future development mainly depends on the government and society.Lithuania isaparticipantoftheglobalprocesses.The-refore, there is an annual increase in thenumberoforganizationsthatareinterestedin the concept of sustainable and socially responsible business and those that are alreadypartof this typeofbusiness.Theleading lithuanian companies are spreading the best practices of sustainable and socially responsiblebusinesstoorganizationsfromothercountriesaccessingintotheEU.Toexpandtheusageofenvironmentally

harmless,safeandsparingproducts, it isrequiredtopromoteconsumereco-educa-tion and eco-information programs on the statebasis,thusimprovingtheconsumer’scompetence and the ecological culture in society. Only an ecologically awareconsumer will become a competent and demanding buyer and cause business repre-sentatives to act responsibly with respect to environmentalandsocialissues.Theimple-mentation of eco-labelling in schools may be a valuable contribution to realising these claims.Amendments to laws on publicprocurementcouldcontributesignificantlyto promoting the development of “greenmarkets”, implementationof qualityma-nagement schemes and eco-management systemsincompanies,andthussupportingtheirparticipationinpublicprocurement.

80

REfEREncEs

1.Calabro,G.(2007).TheEUpolicyofpromot-inggreenpurchases:theroleofecologicallabelling.Forum Ware International.Vol.1.P.1–7.

2.Carroll,A.B.(1991).Thepyramidofcorporatesocialresponsibility:towardthemoralmanagementof organizational stakeholders.Business Horizons.July-August.P.39–48.

3. EMASpresentation (2006). Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/documents/presenta-tion_en.htm

4.Enquist,B., Edvardsson,B., Sebathu, S. P.(2007).Corporate social responsibility for charityor for service business? 10th QMOD Conference Proceedings. Helsingborg.P.1–11.

5.Kotler, P.,Lee,N. (2005).Corporate Social Responsibility. Doing the Most Good for Your Com-pany and Your Cause. NewJersey,Wiley,Hoboken.325p.

6.Local network annual activity interim report (2008).Vilnius,GlobalCompactNetworkLithu-ania,8p.

7.Rennings,K.,Ziegler,A.,Ankele,K.,Hoffmann,E.(2006).TheinfluenceofdifferentcharacteristicsofEu environmental management and auditing scheme on technical environmental innovations and economic per-formance.Ecological Economics.Vol.57.P.45–59.

8.Ruževičius,J.(2007).EconomicglobalizationchallengestoqualitymanagementofLithuanianor-ganizations.The Survey of the Lithuanian Economy. No.1.P.99–109.

9.RuževičiusJ.,Navickaitė, V.(2007). the de-velopment of socially responsible business in lithu-aniaandItaly:acomparativestudy. Economics and Management.N12.P.1025–1032.

10.Ruževičius, J.,Serafinas,D. (2006).Sociallyresponsiblebusiness.Commodities and Markets.Vol.2.P.27–36.

11.Ruževičius,J.,Waginger,E.(2007).Eco-la-bellinginAustriaandLithuania:acomparativestudy.Economics and Management.N12.P.1043–1050.

12.Scot,P.(2003).Managementsystemandsus-tainabledevelopment.Themovinggoalpostsfromenvironmenttocorporateresponsibility.ISO Manage-ment Systems.September-October.P.27–32.

13.The ISO Survey of Certifications(2007)–2003,2004,2005,2006.Geneva,ISOCentralSecretariat.

14.Vogel,D.(2005).The Market for Virtue. The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibil-ity – Washington,BrookingInstitutionPress.217p.

15.Vogel,D.(2005).Themarketforvirtue?Thebusinesscaseforcorporatesocialresponsibility.Cali-fornia Management Review. Vol.47.N4.P.28–39.

17.Waddock, S. (2006).Leading Corporate Citizens: Vision, Values, Value Added – NewYork,McGraw-HillHigherEducation.375p.

18. Xueming L., Bhattacharya C. B. (2006).Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfac-tion, andmarket.Value Journal of Marketing. Vol.70.P.1–18.