THE FIRST EUROPEAN STANARD FOR THE EVALUATION OF

THE FIRST EUROPEAN STANARD FOR THE EVALUATION OF
ETHICAL AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT – SGE
21:2008
Radosław Wolniak
Abstract
The paper presents some of the problems connected with Spanish standard SGE 21:2008 for
the evaluation of ethical and socially responsible management. This is the firs European
standard for this problem. There is in the paper detailed description of the standard and also
comparison between some indicators in SGE 21:2008 and GRI guidelines, because the two
standards are compatible.
Key words: Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR reporting, sustainable development, ethical
management, GRI.
1. Introduction
In developed countries, entrepreneurs, hoping to meet the growing demand, should
feel responsible for the methods and results of their operations [1, 2]. To do this, they must in
his business concentrate not only on the purely business - the company's profit, but also to
determine the impact of they business on society. In other words, they must adapt their
practice to rules of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). Implementation of Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) into business practice is, however, a difficult task. On one hand,
the concept of CSR is not easy to explain, and includes the whole range of issues. In the
narrow sense mainly social issues, but in a wide they should approaching in meaning to the
concept of sustainable development. So different meaning of CRS causes a number of
standards related to corporate social responsibility.
This paper concentrate on problem of CSR implementation in the organization. There
is detailed description of very interesting social responsible management standard – SGE
21:2008 about evaluation of ethical and socially responsible management in organization.
This standard can be implemented in organization and indicators conducted in the
implementation process should be used in corporate social responsibility reporting. This
standard is the first European social responsibility management system standard, according to
which companies can, on a voluntary basis, be certified.
The analyses in this paper were conducted during the reporting of the research project
in the field of sustainable development of enterprises in Poland versus the experience of
selected countries of the European Union 2011/03/B/HS4/01790 PBU10/ROZ3/2012 symbol
at the university, funded by the National Science Centre.
2. Corporate Social Responsibility reporting – main questions
In terms of community involvement activities often divided into mandatory activities and
voluntary activities. In this case, the area of mandatory activities include: main economic
- 101 -
activity of the organization. However, the area of the voluntary sector is made up of three
groups of actions: 1
• projects in a commercial environment,
• investment in local communities
• philanthropy.
Organization to show that it actually has implemented measures that can be defined as
CRS should demonstrate how it cans the results. Speaking of reporting for systems that take
into account social responsibility, we can distinguish two approaches. The first approach,
based on the requirements of the specific norms and standards (mandatory approach), and the
second consisting of a completely voluntary approach to corporate social responsibility and its
reporting (voluntary one). Comparison between the two mentioned approaches is presented in
Table 1
Table 1. Reasons for and against mandatory and voluntary approaches
Reasons for
Mandatory approaches to
• Changing the corporate culture –
reporting
leaders will continue above
minimum requirements
• Incompleteness of voluntary reports
• Comparability
• Non-disclosure of negative
performance
• Legal certainty
• Market failures – theory of
regulation
• Reduction of non-diversifiable
market risk free rider problem
• Cost saving
• Standardization
• Equal treatment of investors
Voluntary approaches to
• Flexibility
reporting
• Proximity
• Compliance
• Collective interest of industry
Reasons against
Knowledge gap between
regulators and industry
One size does not fit all
Inflexibility in the face for
innovation
Constraints on efficiency and
competitiveness
• Conflicts of interests
• Inadequate sanctions
• Under-enforcment
• Global competition
• Insufficient resources
Źródło: Wensen van K., Broer W., Klein J., Knopf J.: The state of play in sustainability reporting in the
European Union, European Union 2011.
Nowadays there are many initiatives to the formulation and further development of
guidelines in CSR reporting. In 2000, the first version of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
standard had been developed. One of the first in the word practical applications of the GRI
standard was recorded in 1999. In 2009, the level of GRI standard use reached value close to
40% and the trend maintained upward tendency. 2
During the last few years the debate has become more mature. 3 There are now
companies, investors and analysts that are promoting regulation, and trade unions that use
1
Hąbek P.: Coroprate Community Involvement, “Problemy Jakości” nr 5 2008, s. 19-23; Hąbek P.: Analysis of
the European Union regulatory requirments with implications for sustainability reporting, „Annals of the
Uniwersity of Bucharest” w druku..
2
Hys K., Hawrysz L., Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting, China-USABusiness Review, No. 11/2012,
str. 1515-1524; Hys K., Hawrysz L., CSR in Poland as a important foundations of modernsocieties, Management
Study, No. /2013; Hys K., Hawrysz L., CSR versus PR analiza zmiennych wiodących, Polityki Europejskie,
Finanse i Marketing, ZNPO, FiM, SGGW, No. 9(58)/ 2013, str. 209-219.
3
Corporate Social Responsibility. National Public Policies in the European Union, European Comission, 2010.
- 102 -
voluntary standards amongst their members. The relationship between mandatory and
voluntary approaches is framed differently today. Instead of presenting mandatory and
voluntary sustainability reporting as exclusive options, they are in fact highly complementary.
Assuming a complementary relationship between mandatory and voluntary approaches, the
challenge for governments then becomes to determine the appropriate minimum level of
mandatory requirements. For the reporting entities the question remains as to how much they
would be prepared to do beyond their compliance with mandatory requirements (figure 1).
The reason for doing this is to gain a competitive advantage in both the present and the
future. 4
Innovations
Best practice
Voluntary Sphere
Minimum requirment
Regulatory Sphere
Comptiance
Figure 1. The interplay between the voluntary and regulatory spheres
Źródło: Wensen van K., Broer W., Klein J., Knopf J.: The state of play in sustainability reporting in the
European Union, European Union 2011..
Notably, that the social reporting is not easy because of the different solutions are used
in different countries, and there is a plurality of indicators. The literature mentions the
following, the most important problems in the future of corporate social responsibility
reporting: 5
• the problem with defining key performance indicators,
• sensitive of the information for different audiences,
• non-financial information have a smaller value in many cases and they are
irreverent,
• CSR reporting is expensive,
• there is too little knowledge about the companies reporting
• problems with continuation of corporate social responsibility reporting.
4
Wensen van K., Broer W., Klein J., Knopf J.: The state of play in sustainability reporting in the European
Union, European Union 2011; Hąbek P., Wolniak R.: Ewolucja w raportowaniu danych pozafinansowych
przedsiębiorstw, [w:] Nowoczesność przemysłu i usług w warunkach kryzysu i nowych wyzwań, [red.] J.
Brzóska, J. Pyka, TNOiK, Katowice 2013, s. 290-299.
5
Carrots and sticks – promoting transparency and sustainability.
- 103 -
The major international guidelines on corporate social responsibility reporting include
the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) guidelines which often refer to their country by
creating local solutions in this area. The mains solutions contained in the GRI are confirmed
by the fact that by June 2011 until 2889 organizations around the world have conducted many
social reports prepared in accordance with these guidelines. These guidelines in a very
detailed manner regulate the content of the report, which should include the following
elements: 6
• strategy and profile - a description of the organization strategy with reference to
the sustainable development issue, a review of the structure of the organization and
scope of the report,
• approach to the management - contains a description of the organizational
structure, policies, management systems and efforts to involve stakeholders,
• performance indicators included in the three areas - economic, environmental and
social.
Many countries has it’s own CSR reporting standards and habits which can vary between
them. 7
3. Spanish standard SGE 21:2008
Actual version of the standard is from 2008 and represents the third revision since its
initial introduction in October 2000. The owner of the standard – Foretica, has its origin in
Barcelona in 1999. In those year a large group of executives and opinion makers reflected on
a way to promote a business culture based on recognizing the responsibilities of all those who
form it and their relationship with society and the environment. In this way a large number of
professionals, companies, academics and NGO’s created a multidisciplinary forum, in which
all partners collaborate to promote responsible management.
Foretica is the leading association of CSR business and professionals in Spain, with more
than 10 years of experience and 240 members. It’s mission is to promote a culture of ethical
management and social responsibility, equipping organizations with knowledge and relevant
tools for successfully developing a competitive and sustainable business model. The
organization is a national Spanish partner of CSR Europe and a member of its Council.
Moreover, among its various roles, it is a member of Eurosif, an organizational stakeholder in
Paszkiewicz A.: Społeczna odpowiedzialność przedsiębiorstw i jej raportowanie w instytucjach finansowych,
Prace i Materiały Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego "Zarządzanie wartością instytucji
finansowych" nr 4/5, 2011, s. 331-342; Paszkiewicz A.: Raportowanie rozwoju zrównoważonego
przedsiębiorstw według wytycznych GRI, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego Finanse, Rynki
Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia, Rachunkowość w teorii i praktyce nr 668, 2011, s. 627-643.
7
Graafland J. J., Eijffinger S. C. W., Stoffele N. C. G. M., Smid H., Coldeweijer A. M.: Corporate social
responsibility of Duch companies, http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=5837; The CSR Navigator. Public Policies in
Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe, Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2007; Carrots and stick for starters, UNEP, France
2010; A guide to CSR in Europe. Country insights by CSR Europe’s national partner organization, CSR Europe,
2010; Wolniak R., Hąbek P.: Holenderski standard zaangażowania w zakresie raportowania społecznej
odpowiedzialności biznesu, [w:] Nowoczesność przemysłu i usług w warunkach kryzysu i nowych wyzwań,
[red.] J. Brzóska, J. Pyka, TNOiK, Katowice 2013, s. 588-590; Hąbek P., Wolniak R.: European Union
Regulatory Requirements Relating to Sustainability Reporting. The case of Sweden, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademi
Morskiej w Szczecinie, (w druku); Wolniak R. Hąbek P.: Raportowanie społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu
we Francji i Holandii, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademi Morskiej w Szczecinie, (w druku).
6
- 104 -
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and, in Spain, Foretica is an expert representative to the
state council on CSR. 8
This standard concentrate on Ethical and Socially Responsible Management. It represents
a response on the part of organization to the challenges of transparency, integrity and
sustainability, understood as featuring three key facets: economic, environmental and social.
Document develops the criteria which permits establish, implant and evaluate in organizations
the Ethical and Socially Responsible Management System proposed by Foretica. System can
be applied to the whole organization, or to specific business units, provided that compliance
with each of the aspects can be evidenced. This standard should be a part of an organization’s
overall management system and, as such, compatible and integration with the quality,
environmental, work hazard prevention and innovation systems. 9 The technical requirements
of the standard are undergoing constant revision, according to recent changes and the
experience gathered thought their application.
The standard is comprised of six sections. The first five explain the background and the
general aspects of the document, whilst the last section set out the requirements. The six
section also summarizes in nine management areas the requirements which are considered
adequate to demonstrate evidence of the standards’ proper implantation. Foretica think that
the structure of the standard will facilitate the incorporation of ethical values which are more
representative of current realities, in accord with the current thinking and social circumstance.
The nine management areas in the standard are: 10
• senior management:
o compliance with legislation and regulations,
o ethical and socially responsible management policy,
o code of conduct,
o ethical and social responsibility management committee,
o ethical and social responsibility director,
o objectives and indicators,
o dialogue with stakeholders,
o information security,
o anti-corruption policy,
o follow-up evaluation,
o management review and continuous improvement,
o social responsibility and communication,
• clients:
o responsible research, development and innovation,
o quality principles,
o good commercial relations practices,
o product and service quality
o accessibility,
o responsible advertising,
• suppliers:
o responsible purchasing,
o system of diagnosis and evaluation,
8
Correlation Document SGE 21 Standard vs. G3.1 (GRI), http://www.foretica.org/biblioteca/documentos-deinteres/latinoamerica/doc_download/326-documento-de-correlacion-sge-21-guia-g3-de-gri-en-ingles-?lang=es
9
Wolniak R.: Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu w aspekcie doskonalenia systemów zarządzania jakością,
„Problemy Jakości” nr 9 2013, s. 2-5; Wolniak R.: The social responsibility of business as part of the quality
management system improvement, “Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu”, w druku..
10
SGE 21 2008. Ethical and CSR management system,. Standard for the evaluation of ethical and socially
responsible management in organization.
- 105 -
o promotion of good practices, support and improvement measures,
• person forming the organization:
o human rights,
o diversity management,
o equal opportunities and anti-discrimination,
o work life balance,
o job description,
o training and improving employability,
o monitoring working environment,
o responsible restructuring,
o conflict resolution channels,
• social conditions:
o evaluation and monitoring impacts,
o transparency,
o social action,
• environment,
o pollution prevention and climate change strategy,
o identification of activities and impacts,
o environmental management program,
o hazard prevention plan,
o environmental communication,
• investors:
o good governance,
o information transparency,
• competition:
o fair competition,
o cooperation and alliances,
• government authorities:
o collaboration with the government.
The very interesting solution in this standard is the Management Committee, which should
be establish to be a conductive body in the standard’s implementation process. This
committee should: 11
• be named by the top official of the organization and made up of the people designated
by him or her, this group should be representative of the organization’s different areas
and may include external experts,
• assure the resources to guarantee that this system is established, implanted and
maintained in an efficient manner and in accordance with the organization’s strategy
and objectives,
• set for a model for relationships and dialogue with stakeholders,
• outline the plans and initiatives carried out regarding Social Responsibility,
guaranteeing the fulfillment of their objectives and goals,
• identify the legal, social, labor and environmental risks which may affect the
organization,
• provide management with suggestions, initiatives and proposal for improvement,
• assume responsibility for the revive and interpretation of the Ethical and Socially
Responsible Policy and the Code of Conduct,
11
SGE 21 2008. Ethical and CSR management system,. Standard for the evaluation of ethical and socially
responsible management in organization.
- 106 -
•
report on the consequences for management systems of any changes in the
organization’s structure,
• meet at last twice yearly.
Senior Management will establish a Social Responsibility Plan with measurable,
comparable and verifiable objectives. Corresponding indicators for follow-up should be
defined within the organization at least yearly in order to evaluate compliance with the plan.
Those indicators can be used to CSR reporting especially voluntary reporting process.
Senior Management should present, at least once every two years, a report on the current
status of Social Responsibility in its organization. The report should be available to public and
contain information about: 12
• the organization’s profile,
• its strategy for social responsibility management,
• its dialogue mechanism with stakeholders,
• the main economic, social and environmental indicators it applies.
The important part of the system is problems about persons in organization.
Organization should to demonstrate them in the area of Human Rights they carry out a
process of supervision and monitoring for the observation of those rights in their relationship
with organization’s personnel. The different diversity profiles present in organization should
be defined, prioritizing their expectations and needs and establishing action plans which
guarantee the responsible management of said diversity. The organization should guarantee
respect for the principle of equal opportunity, specifically as regards access to work position,
training, professional development and compensation. They should guarantee the absence of
discrimination perpetrated due to gender, race and ethnically, religion or convictions,
incapacity, age, sexual orientation and culture, among other grounds. The next problem which
organizations should to resolve is the reconciliation of personal, family and professional life
for their personnel through the active application of policies.
According to actual information 13 there are 108 organizations in Spain having
implemented management system described in this article. The generality of those
organizations are from Spain but there are some from other Spanish language countries such
as Colombia.
There are some benefits of the implementation of the standard: 14
• It brings rigor to the management of the organization. It incorporates the principles
of Social Responsibility of existing frameworks: European Commission , UN
Global Compact , the International Labour Organization and Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development , among others.
• The standard is easily integrated with other management systems . Allows
integration with management systems for quality, environment and occupational
safety of the organization.
• The standard obtaining indicators. Facilitates the generation of information to
establish indicators Social Responsibility Scorecard for the organization and for
the development of sustainability reports.
• Awareness and organizational change. Facilitates both large organizations and
SMEs , the incorporation of a responsible culture in their teams . Contributes to
12
ibidem.
Listado entidades certificads segun la sage 21,
http://www.foretica.org/images/stories/documentos_generales/listado_empresas_certificadas_segun_sge21.pdf.
14
Ventajas de la implantacion de la LA SGE 21,
http://www.foretica.org/index.php?option=com_joomdoc&task=doc_download&gid=387&Itemid=122.
13
- 107 -
•
•
improving the reputation internally and externally and companies responsible,
innovative and sustainable .
Builder confidence. Your recognition is growing by the organizations that use it
and the institutions that support its dissemination.
Contributes to credibility. Allows independent third party audit (certification) and
a maximum guarantee to all interested parties.
Table 2. Correlation document GSE 21:2008 – GRI – selected indicators
GRI G3.1
SGE 21:2008
Requirement
Materials used by weight or volume
Identification of activities and impacts
6.6.2
Direct energy consumption by primary Identification of activities and impacts
6.6.2
energy source
Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas Pollution prevention and climate change
6.6.1
emissions by weight
strategy
Percentage of products sold and their Identification of activities and impacts
6.6.2
packaging materials that are reclaimed by
category
Total number and rate of employee turnover Training and promotion employability
6.4.7
by age group, gender and religion
Health and safety topics covered in formal Health and safety at work
6.4.5
agreements with trade unions
Percentage of employees receiving regular Training and promotion of employability
6.4.7
performance and career development reviews
Actions taken in response to incident of Anti-corruption policy
6.1.9
corruption
Practices related to customer satisfaction, Quality standards
6.2.2
including results of surveys measuring
customer satisfaction
Source: Correlation Decument SGE 21 Standard vs. G3.1 (GRI), http://www.foretica.org/biblioteca/documentosde-interes/latinoamerica/doc_download/326-documento-de-correlacion-sge-21-guia-g3-de-gri-en-ingles?lang=es
As we describe organization implemented this standard should conduct action to
report the mail economic, social and environmental indicators. The structure of the report
should be corresponding to G3 Guidelines on Sustainability Reporting by Global Reporting
Initiative. The aims of those guidelines are to harmonize reporting standards for all
organizations, of whatever size and geographical origin, 15 on a range of issues with the aim of
elevating the status of environmental reporting with that of, for example, financial auditing. 16
Environmental transparency is one of the main areas of business under the scope of the GRI.
As outlined in this section the GRI encourages participants to report on their environmental
performance using specific criteria. The standardized reporting guidelines concerning the
environment are contained within the GRI Indicator Protocol Set. The Performance Indicators
(PI) includes criteria on energy, biodiversity and emissions. There are 30 environmental
indicators ranging from EN1 (materials used by weight) to EN30 (total environmental
expenditures by type of investment). 17
The GRI3 guidelines outline a collection of principles which aim to define the content
of the report and to guarantee the quality of the information that is disclosed. It also include
15
GRI. "Indicator Protocol Set".
Willis, Alan (2003). "The Role of the Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in the
Social Screening of Investments". Journal of Business Ethics 43 (3): 233–237.
17
GRI Portal. "Reporting Framework Overview".
16
- 108 -
the so-called “basic contents” – consisting of the performance indicators – and other sections,
such as a series of basic guidelines on technical aspects related to the production of the report.
The GRI.3.1 also includes an annex with a new technical protocol, which will help companies
to determinate what to report. Organizations that have based their sustainability reports on G3,
can do so in this format to upgrade to G3.1.
The standard described in the paper and GRI are compatible. In table 2 there is a
comparison of some areas of those two standards to show how standards are consistent. The
compatibility of standard is very imported in the CSR reporting process. If standard are
compatible you can report information as other European and world organization. This allows
comparison between organizations and countries in the field of CSR functioning in the
organization.
4. Conclusion
Foretica’s SGE 21 Ethical and CSR Management System is the first European
standard to establish the requirements that must be accomplished in order to guarantee the
integration of CSR management into business’ strategies. It facilitate not only the efficient
management of CSR, but also the evaluation and certification of it level of application and
commitment in the organization. Also the standard is compatible to GRI guidelines. This
ensures compatibility of CSR reporting in companies using it with the world's requirements in
this regard. The many benefits of standard’s implementation suggests that standards will
continue to grow in popularity and more and more organizations will implement it.
Sources:
1. A guide to CSR in Europe. Country insights by CSR Europe’s national partner
organization, CSR Europe, 2010.
2. Carrots and stick for starters, UNEP, France 2010.
3. Carrots and sticks – promoting transparency and sustainability.
4. Corporate Social Responsibility. National Public Policies in the European Union,
European Comission, 2010.
5. Correlation Document SGE 21 Standard vs. G3.1 (GRI), http://www.foretica.or
g/biblioteca/documentos-de-interes/latinoamerica/doc_download/326-documento-decorrelacion-sge-21-guia-g3-de-gri-en-ingles-?lang=es
6. GRAAFLAND J. J., EIJFFINGER S. C. W., STOFFELE N. C. G. M., SMID H.,
COLDEWEIJER A. M.: Corporate social responsibility of Duch companies,
http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=5837
7. GRI Portal. "Reporting Framework Overview".
8. GRI. "Indicator Protocol Set".
9. HĄBEK P., WOLNIAK R.: European Union Regulatory Requirements Relating to
Sustainability Reporting. The case of Sweden, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademi Morskiej w
Szczecinie, (w druku).
10. HĄBEK P., WOLNIAK R.: Ewolucja w raportowaniu danych pozafinansowych
przedsiębiorstw, [w:] Nowoczesność przemysłu i usług w warunkach kryzysu i
nowych wyzwań, [red.] J. Brzóska, J. Pyka, TNOiK, Katowice 2013, s. 290-299.
11. HĄBEK P.: Analysis of the European Union regulatory requirments with implications
for sustainability reporting, „Annals of the Uniwersity of Bucharest” w druku.
- 109 -
12. HĄBEK P.: Coroprate Community Involvement, “Problemy Jakości” nr 5 2008, s. 1923.
13. HYS K., HAWRYSZ L., Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting, ChinaUSABusiness Review, No. 11/2012, str. 1515-1524, ISSN 1537-1514.
14. HYS K., HAWRYSZ L., CSR in Poland as a important foundations of
modernsocieties, Management Study, No. /2013, ISSN 2328-2185.
15. HYS K., HAWRYSZ L., CSR versus PR analiza zmiennych wiodących, Polityki
Europejskie, Finanse i Marketing, ZNPO, FiM, SGGW, No. 9(58)/ 2013, ISSN 20813430, str. 209-219.
16. Listado entidades certificads segun la sage 21, http://www.foretica.org/images/stori
es/documentos_generales/listado_empresas_certificadas_segun_sge21.pdf.
17. PASZKIEWICZ A.: Raportowanie rozwoju zrównoważonego przedsiębiorstw według
wytycznych GRI, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego Finanse, Rynki
Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia, Rachunkowość w teorii i praktyce nr 668, 2011, s. 627643.
18. PASZKIEWICZ A.: Społeczna odpowiedzialność przedsiębiorstw i jej raportowanie
w instytucjach finansowych, Prace i Materiały Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytetu
Gdańskiego "Zarządzanie wartością instytucji finansowych" nr 4/5, 2011, s. 331-342.
19. SGE 21 2008. Ethical and CSR management system,. Standard for the evaluation of
ethical and socially responsible management in organization.
20. The CSR Navigator. Public Policies in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe,
Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2007.
21. Ventajas de la implantacion de la LA SGE 21,
http://www.foretica.org/index.php?option=com_joomdoc&task=doc_download&gid=
387&Itemid=122.
22. WENSEN VAN K., BROER W., KLEIN J., KNOPF J.: The state of play in
sustainability reporting in the European Union, European Union 2011.
23. WILLIS, A.: The Role of the Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines in the Social Screening of Investments". Journal of Business Ethics 43 (3):
233–237, 2003.
24. WOLNIAK R. HĄBEK P.: Raportowanie społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu we
Francji i Holandii, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademi Morskiej w Szczecinie, (w druku).
25. WOLNIAK R., HĄBEK P.: Holenderski standard zaangażowania w zakresie
raportowania społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu, [w:] Nowoczesność przemysłu i
usług w warunkach kryzysu i nowych wyzwań, [red.] J. Brzóska, J. Pyka, TNOiK,
Katowice 2013, s. 588-590.
26. WOLNIAK R.: Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu w aspekcie doskonalenia
systemów zarządzania jakością, „Problemy Jakości” nr 9 2013, s. 2-5.
27. WOLNIAK R.: The social responsibility of business as part of the quality
management system improvement, “Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego
w Poznaniu”, w druku.
Contact
dr hab inż. Radosław Wolniak, prof nzw. w Pol. Śl.
Silesian Technical University, Organization and Management, Production Engineering
Department
ul. Roosvelta 26, 41-800 Zabrze, Polska;
Tel: (32)2777405
e-mail: [email protected]
- 110 -