Of course quantitative data is only one type of information, with the inherent problems that statistics do not often reveal the complexities and contexts of phenomena being analysed. Despite this, surveys remain a dominant research tool in the social sciences. Three surveys on corporate citizenship were launched in the quarter, which provide some useful data for discussion.

The first, the "CEO Survey: Sustainability and Corporate Reputation", was conducted from the Cambridge Business School's Judge Institute of Management and surveyed 34% of the CEOs from the Global Fortune 500. 43 The research was designed to forecast the impact of sustainability issues on the reputation of large multinational corporations across seven elements: emotional connections, environmental credibility, financial credibility, knowledge, leadership & vision, quality, and social credibility.

One of the interesting features of the survey was that CEOs were asked to rank the importance of various sustainability issues in each of three scenarios for the future: fortress world, market world, and transformed world. These categories, like all used in surveys, were derived from a particular and contestable way of understanding the world. The first was seen as a return to protectionism , the second representing a continuing of the current neo-liberal paradigm and the third describing a sustainability road of social, ecological and economic balance. The overall importance ranking of the seven reputation elements for the future was as follows: 1st) leadership & vision, joint-2nd) skills & knowledge and quality, joint-3rd) financial and social credibility, 4th) environmental credibility, and 5th) emotional connections.

It is perhaps not surprising that, in the transformed world scenario, social and environmental credibility rank highest. More surprising is that financial credibility scores highest in the fortress world, and low in the market world scenario. It is also noteworthy that European companies consistently assign higher significance to environmental, financial and social credibility than their North American counterparts, who favour leadership & vision, knowledge and quality.

The second featured survey is a study of CSR website reporting in Asia, conducted by the International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility at Nottingham University Business School. 44 The research analysed the websites of the top 50 companies in seven developing Asian countries and compared the results to Japan and the UK. The findings show that the highest prevalence of CSR web reporting occurs in India (72%), followed by South Korea (52%), Thailand (42%) and Singapore (38%), while Malaysia (32%), The Philippines (30%) and Indonesia (24%) lag behind.

The researchers distinguish three waves of CSR reporting that are reflected in their results. The first is disclosure on Community Involvement, on which an average of 59% of the companies in the seven countries reported, and includes such activities as supporting local economic development, arts & culture, education & training, sport, and environmental conservation. The second wave, with 39% reporting, is Production Processes and relates to the management of environmental, health and safety impacts, as well as human resources and ethics policies and programs. The final wave, with only 18% disclosing information, is Employee Relations, including employee welfare and employee engagement.

Also of interest was that the only statistically significant explanatory variable that could be determined for the level of CSR reporting was that firms that operated internationally were more likely to disclose CSR performance. In contrast, none of the socio-economic factors reviewed, such as national GDP, national sector profile, life expectancy and adult literacy, showed any correlation with levels of CSR disclosure. Perhaps companies with a global profile have to be seen to be doing more on CSR than perhaps their national counterparts. However, with all "statistically significant" findings, a correlation does not necessarily imply a cause. Moreover, correlations can be produced by the definition of ones categories - especially as the current concept of CSR has been developed largely in the West, and so companies with more contact with the West may have more exposure to it. Sceptics might therefore remind us reporting on CSR does not necessarily accurately reflect social and environmental impacts, or even actual CSR performance.

Finally, in a KPMG East Africa Business Ethics Survey, released in July 2003, nearly 100 companies were asked about their ethics policies and practices. 45 The findings show that more than 80% have a written statement of values and principles, but only around a third have provided employee training on its application in the organisation. Also, 60% have appointed a senior level manager responsible for ethics initiatives, and approximately half have instituted a whistle-blowing mechanism. Given the poor reputation that Africa has for corruption, it is clear that business will need to improve the performance reflected in this survey, if it is to demonstrate that it can operate credibly and ethically in developing countries.

The director of Sustainability Services for KPMG in South Africa, Shireen Naidoo, told us that the survey results could have a continent-wide significance, in the context of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). "Central to NEPAD's voluntary African Peer Review Mechanism is the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. The Declaration states that good economic and corporate governance, including transparency in financial management are essential prerequisites for promoting economic growth and reducing poverty. Our survey suggests that at least companies are moving in the right direction to give substance to this Declaration."