by Peter Davis (Feb. 9, 2005)
… Despite varied attempts to apply a quasi-scientific approach to the
topic, most corporate responsibility case studies still lack any degree
of intellectual or academic rigour…There are some notable exceptions
to this rule. For example, Shell’s studies of its impacts on its
“fence-line” communities – those close to its oil instillations – are
thorough and insightful. International Alert’s work on the
relationships between companies and conflicts is also thoughtful and
analytical…
To be sure, for some aspects of the corporate responsibility agenda,
[the] quantitative approach works perfectly – environmental factors
such as waste emissions for example…
We are all familiar with the structure of a typical corporate
responsibility “case study”: a brief description of the activity;
quotes from admiring participants; local officials saying how valuable
the event/ investment/ activity was; all accompanied by pictures of
smiling people…
The world of academic social science has produced tomes upon tomes to
enable researchers rigorously to analyse qualitative data…First we
need to know the point of view of a study’s author…Second, case
studies must take into account the views of a true cross-section of
those involved…Third, interviews and the gathering of information
should be as neutral as possible and the questions asked need to be
made explicit in any write-up. This also requires careful consideration
to be given to factors that might prevent people from giving open,
frank and truthful responses – fear of oppression for instance.
Finally, if comparisons are meaningfully to be drawn between different
case studies, then the methodology used needs to be comparable – we
need to know that we are not comparing apples and oranges…