Quality Kilowatts: A Normative-Empirical Framework for Assessing TNC Performance on Sustainable Electricity Provision in Developing Countries

Abstract

The article develops a conceptual approach employing ‘modes’ of home-country business culture to evaluate how transnational corporations (TNCs) active in electricity provision in developing countries interpret and incorporate internationally recognised normative standards for ‘sustainable electricity provision’ (SEP) into their own corporate responsibility (CR) policies. Based on a survey of existing SEP norms, qualitative interviews with corporate managers, and analysis of CR materials, the article evaluates how ‘quality kilowatts’ are conceived and applied in three TNC case studies. The initial findings indicate that variations in how TNCs approach SEP reflect differences in regulatory framework and business culture of their countries of origin.

Keywords

electricity provision transnational corporations corporate (social) responsibility sustainable development developing countries

I Introduction

The United Nations (UN) asserts that, ‘The provision of adequate and reliable energy services at an affordable cost, in a secure and environmentally benign manner and in conformity with social and economic development needs is an essential element of sustainable development [SD]’ (UN/IAEA, 2007, p. 5). As a key component of energy services, electricity is vital for eradicating poverty, improving human welfare, raising living standards and achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (Ha & Porcaro, 2005). Yet the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, 2001) has noted that most current patterns of electricity provision and consumption around the world are unsustainable. On the one hand, one-third of the world’s population has no access to adequate and affordable electricity, limiting the possibilities for development. On the other hand, the environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity production and utilization in other areas inhibits SD (OECD/IEA, 2009). As such, there is hardly another industrial sector that has such potential to contribute to economic development, poverty alleviation and improved living standards, but that also has such significant negative impacts for people and planet.

Since the wave of electricity sector privatizations in the 1980s and 1990s, transnational corporations (TNCs) based in Europe and the United States have played an important role in providing electricity in developing countries, primarily as independent power producers (Haar & Jones, 2008). However, the record of TNCs’ in providing electricity in a manner consistent with SD is, at best, mixed (Thomas, 2007). Although investment from TNCs has helped expand access to electricity in some countries, in many cases a focus on short-term profits has led to investment decisions and pricing policies that exclude those in greatest need and contribute to negative impacts on local economies, workforces and infrastructure (Hall, 2005; Yamin & Sinkovics, 2008). In addition, the majority of private investment in the electricity sector of developing countries has been in fossil fuel-based power plants, resulting in significant negative consequences for public health and the climate (UK Committee on Climate Change, 2009).

The international normative framework related to sustainable electricity provision (SEP) derives from UN decision-making and is supplemented by a range of other intergovernmental, civil society, industrial and academic bodies. Despite the existence of this framework, ensuring that electricity provision contributes to SD remains an unfulfilled and urgent task. There is a clear need to devise lessons from current practice as to how the process of developing, promulgating and implementing internationally established norms for SEP can be improved (WCD, 2000). Similarly, despite the increase in activity around corporate responsibility (CR) in the electricity industry, there is little empirical knowledge as to how electricity TNCs incorporate international norms for SEP into their CR policies and how they make the difficult tradeoffs among the various social, environmental and economic issues associated with SEP. Corporate scandals and failures of public–private partnerships involving electricity TNCs in developing countries have raised questions about the intentions of private utilities and their ability and willingness to provide high-quality services to their clients in the South (Palast, Oppenheim & MacGregor, 2000). Given variation in how electricity TNCs approach their responsibility for SEP and the associated impact on communities, workers, economies and the environment in developing countries, it is important to investigate how such variation comes about.

The task thus calls for an applied-science approach that employs ‘strategic research’ to produce knowledge that can be used for positive change by promoting sustainable and equitable energy systems. One such approach is ‘normative-empirical analysis’, which begins with a clarification of the normative premises and analytic categories by which an empirically based assessment of the provision of electricity in a manner that is consistent with SD can be carried out (Lafferty, 2002b; Lafferty, Nordskag & Aakre, 2002). As applied here, the approach builds on a survey of the literature related to normative standards for SEP as a basis for developing an analytic framework using variations in home-country business cultures to explore how electricity TNCs headquartered in different regions incorporate normative standards for SEP into their own procedures and practices. Having identified three regional ‘modes’ of business culture related to CR and SD (European, Nordic and US American), I then select three ‘cases’ of electricity TNCs headquartered in the respective regions with electricity provision operations in developing countries: Endesa (for the European mode), SN Power (Nordic mode) and AES (American mode). Qualitative interviews with corporate managers and an analysis of each company’s CR materials provide the basis for an initial evaluation of the companies’ adoption of SEP-related norms and determining the relevance of the analytic approach for assessing the ‘quality of kilowatts’ provided by each TNC.

II Specifying ‘Quality Kilowatts’: The UN-based Sustainable Development Framework and Sustainable Electricity Provision

Within the electricity industry, the ‘quality’ of electricity is generally understood in terms of technical quality and reliability of supply (Baggini, 2008; CEER, 2005). For the purposes of this article, however, quality is understood more broadly in terms of SD as put forth and developed within the UN framework. Most succinctly, this involves the locus classicus, Our Common Future (WCED, 1987); the accords from the 1992 Rio Summit, particularly Agenda 21; and the MDGs adopted by the UN Summit in 2000. Given the interdependency between satisfying basic needs, modes of production and impacts on natural life support systems, an essential goal of SD is to reconcile the crucial trade-offs among the economic, social and environmental dimensions of development.

Electricity provision figures prominently in the UN framework for sustainable development (Cherni, Dyner, Henao, Jaramillo, Smith & Font, 2007; Modi, McDade, Lallement & Saghir, 2005; McDonald, 2009; UN Energy, 2005). In this context, the notion of ‘quality kilowatts’, or ‘sustainable electricity provision’, implies the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity in a manner that ‘contributes to poverty reduction and the satisfaction of basic needs, without damaging the natural environment or compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987). This logic implies a best-possible integration of social, economic and environmental concerns in specific electricity projects in given societal settings. Such an understanding is, however, still very general. I thus develop more specific benchmarks as to what constitutes ‘quality kilowatts’ in practice. The task addresses what the World Commission on Dams (WCD, 2000) has identified as the challenge of achieving ‘a broad consensus . . . on the norms that guide development choices and the criteria that should define the process of negotiation and decision-making’ in order to resolve underlying conflicts about the environmental, social and economic benefits and impacts of electricity projects.

Given that the MDGs were formulated as a specific set of SD benchmarks, they provide a logical place to start for guidance on standards for SEP in developing countries. Expanded access to affordable electric power is crucial for meeting all of the goals (Modi et al., 2005). Beyond the MDGs and the UN foundation, there exists an array of initiatives and literature from academic, (inter-)governmental, trade union, NGO and industry sources related to normative standards and criteria for SEP. For example, Voß, Rath-Nagel and Ellersdorfer (2005) have developed a conceptual framework for sustainable electricity supply employing a lifecycle assessment approach to evaluate various generation technologies. Tully (2006) assessed the normative and legal standards associated with access to electricity as a human right, while Fthenakis and Kim (2008) have explored the social and environmental impacts of land use change associated with the extraction of electricity generation fuels. The UN/IAEA (2007) has led an effort to establish a set of national-level energy indicators for SD, while the OECD-NEA (2000) and the IEA (2010) have attempted to develop SD indicators for nuclear power and bioenergy, respectively. The WCD (2000) focuses on the core values of equity, efficiency, participatory decision making, sustainability and accountability for sustainable hydroelectric projects, and Public Service International’s ‘Quality Public Services’ campaign elaborates norms for providing electricity based on equality, social justice and respect for electricity industry workers in order to ensure electricity provision contributes to poverty alleviation (Pillinger, 2009). Finally, Greenpeace’s Teske (2010) has thoroughly fleshed out the technical, environmental and economic aspects of various electricity generation technologies.

Two of the most significant international norm-setting initiatives to focus specifically on the role and responsibility of electricity TNCs are the GRI’s (2008) Electric Utilities Sector Supplement, which identifies critical sustainability issues in the sector and establishes reporting guidelines for companies to follow in informing their stakeholders, and the industry-led WBCSD’s (2002) work to provide normative and best-practice indicators for companies to follow.

Hirschberg, Dones, Heck, Burgherr, Schenler and Bauer (2004, p. 13) note that ‘There seems to be general consensus that promotion of sustainable development within the electric sector calls for the integration of economic, ecologic and social dimensions’ by electricity providers. An essential goal of SEP is thus to promote strategies for economic and social development that avoid environmental degradation. This must be done, moreover, in a manner that recognises ‘differentiated responsibility’ between North and South (Lafferty, 2002a) and acknowledges that the social and economic elements of SEP, in particular, poverty reduction, meeting basic needs and economic development, have a stronger entitlement in the global south than in industrialized countries (Visser, 2008).

Figure 1 synthesizes the range of normative indicators related to CR for SEP that can be found in the literature, roughly categorized according to the three SD pillars, as well as a number of ‘cross-cutting’ indicators. The social pillar of SEP is focused on satisfying basic human needs by expanding access to affordable electricity while respecting human and labour rights. The environmental pillar includes issues like minimizing waste and pollution, promoting renewable energy and preserving biodiversity. Important elements of the economic component include job creation, facilitating local economic development, and improving efficiency.

Figure 1.

Compilation of Normative Indicators for SEP in Developing Countries

It is thus clear from the literature that there is currently no single comprehensive set of normative standards for SEP that TNCs providing electricity in developing countries must follow. There exists no sectoral code of conduct for the electricity industry as there does for other industrial sectors. Nevertheless, the normative discourse related to CR for SEP in developing countries is anchored in international standards and indicators recognized by governments, business, academia and civil society. These norms constitute a source of moral pressure on all electricity TNCs to align their policies and practices with the principles of SD. The fact that SEP norms are not consolidated into a single comprehensive, enforceable standard means, however, that electricity TNCs are able to interpret their responsibility for SEP in different ways and to integrate the SEP norms into their own policies as they see fit. They are free to choose which standards they will follow (and which not) and which issues they will prioritize. This can lead, of course, to wide variation in how electricity TNCs perform with regard to SEP norms, with significant consequences for communities, workers, governments and the environment in the developing countries in which they operate. There is thus an urgent need to explain the variation in how electricity TNCs approach SEP, and to draw lessons as to how the process of developing, promulgating, and implementing normative standards for SEP can be improved (WCD, 2000).

The following section proposes a conceptual approach employing ‘modes’ of home-country business culture to explain variation in electricity TNCs’ interpretation of their responsibility for SEP and their uptake and operationalization of existing SEP norms.

III Modes of Home-country/Region Business Culture

Although it is assumed that all TNCs are primarily focused on profit maximization, I posit that electricity TNCs from different national/regional-cultural backgrounds will translate the international SEP norms into their own culturally based policies.

This approach is firmly grounded in the literature on (cross cultural) management, cultural economics and new institutionalism. The literature surrounding Hofstede’s (1983) seminal work on natural cultural differences and Hall and Soskice’s (2001) work on varieties of capitalism provides a wealth of documentation, evidence and analysis in this respect. Levy and Rothenberg (2002) argue that a firm’s unique culture and history filter the plethora of institutional forces to which a firm is exposed, thus affecting how such pressures are perceived and interpreted by the firm’s managers and employees. Delmas and Toffel (2004, p. 212) refer to this cultural filter as a firm’s ‘cognitive frame’. Barr, Stimpert and Huff (1992) and Weick and Roberts (1993) insist that such cognitive frames can be held collectively within entire firms. New institutionalism views the ‘historically deposited culture’ of firms as a series of embedded organizational practices and structures that have built up over time (Kim & Benson, 2007).

Literature from the field of business ethics suggests that a company’s cultural filter is largely determined by the regulatory framework and business culture of the country in which it ‘grew up’ (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997). This approach hypothesizes that the home nation of internationalized firms ‘is distinguished by specific value systems that can account for divergences in the types of strategies implemented by enterprises originating from different countries’ (Dimitratos, Petrou, Plakoyiannaki & Johnson, 2010, p. 1). For example, Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv and Sanders (1990, p. 313) find that ‘organizational cultures are partly pre-determined by nationality’. A recent examination of internationally operating firms from four different countries by Dimitratos et al. (2010, p. 1) find that ‘the national culture of the focal internationalized enterprise has significant impact on its strategic posture and activity’. Similarly, Stajkovic and Luthans (1997, p. 19) consider adoption of certain normative standards to be a key part of business strategy that is influenced by national culture, noting that, ‘Ethical standards and resulting ethical behavioral conduct is grounded in the unique characteristics of each national culture’. In particular, Kirca, Cavusgil and Hult (2009) find that national cultures affect how corporations internalize values and norms such as responsibility, equality, innovativeness, flexibility and the need to protect the environment. More specific to the present problem, Lyons and Deutz (2010) note that various regions around the world prioritise certain elements of SD over others. Vogel (1996) has also identified differences in behaviour of TNCs from distinct groups of countries with varying cultures and traditions for business regulation.

Though the notion of national/regional business culture is well founded in the literature, it is not uncontroversial. Some researchers (e.g., McSweeney, 2002; Shalom & Mark, 1992; Triandis, 1993) have criticised Hofstede’s (1983) research methods and argued that several of his assumptions exhibit critical fallacies. They contend, for example, that Hofstede’s reliance on the opinions of a ‘narrow sample’ of individuals from a single company (IBM) to draw general conclusions about the normative ideals of an entire nation’s culture is methodologically questionable. They further claim that Hofstede’s assumption that culture can be simplified into a few bi-polar categories resulting in a homogenous and well-defined entity does not hold true. Others have critiqued Hofstede’s (1983) conceptual approach. Søderberg and Holden (2002) contend that ‘Hofstede’s work is fundamentally flawed by its conceptualization of culture as unconscious, shared, territorially-bound and deterministic’ and criticise Hofstede for being out of touch with the realities of globalized business by taking the nation-state as his point of departure for defining culture and cultural influences on TNCs. Hall and Soskie’s (2001) work on varieties of capitalism is similarly critiqued for attempting to oversimplify enormously complex systems by ‘labeling’ national economies and forcing them into a dichotomous characterization (see e.g., Crouch, 2005; Crouch, Schröder & Voelzkow, 2009; Hyman, 2001).

In this context, I establish a normative-analytic framework expressing different national/regional ‘modes’ of business culture. ‘Business culture’ is employed as an heuristic term, and ‘mode’ is used in what Kaplan (1964) refers to as the ‘academic cognitive style’ of modelling. I identify systematic, problem-relevant (i.e., SEP-related) differences within the general category of TNCs providing electricity to developing countries. In Kaplan’s (1964, pp. 259–60) terms, ‘the materials dealt with in this style tend to be ideational rather than observational data, and their treatment tends to be highly theoretical’. The systematic aspect is ‘introduced by way of great “principles”, applied over and over to specific cases, which illustrate the generalization rather than serve as proofs for it’. In the present case the ‘great principles’ are those of sustainable corporate practice, and the generalizations are formulated in terms of variation within the conceptual space of electricity-providing TNCs.

Figure 2 illustrates the proposed analytic framework: International normative standards for SEP apply, in theory, equally to all electricity TNCs operating in developing countries around the world. However, the mode of business culture in a TNC’s home country/region serves as a filter to the norms and thus influences the degree to which the TNCs adopt the SEP norms and how they translate them into their own CR policies.

Figure 2.

Analytic Framework

This approach avoids some, though admittedly not all, of the criticism of McSweeney (2002), Søderberg and Holden (2002) and others on the national culture hypothesis. Rather than seeking to ‘define’ entire national cultures, the present approach focuses specifically on business culture, and where possible even more specifically on business culture in the energy sector, in line with Crouch et al.’s (2009) sectoral approach. The present conceptualization also does not attempt to classify cultures in homogenous, bi-polar terms, but rather acknowledges the diversity of business cultures on a scale with infinite variations in between ideal types and instead seeks to identify priorities within the various business cultures in terms of the social, environmental and economic aspects of SD. Methodologically, rather than relying on the opinions of a small sample of individuals, the descriptions of national/regional business culture presented below are based on academic literature and the official positions and regulations of governments and intergovernmental organizations such as the European Commission and the Nordic Council. Finally, in contrast to Hofstede’s taking the nation-state as a point of departure, the approach employed here takes international normative standards for CR and SD as an analytical starting point. This ‘resonates’ more soundly in an increasingly globalized economy and the realities of today’s TNC (Søderberg & Holden, 2002). Also rather than claiming that national culture is the single determining factor, national/regional business culture is employed here as a kind of filter for the international norms. Even critics of the national culture hypothesis such as McSweeney (2002) and Søderberg and Holden (2002) agree that some collectively held values exist among various countries/regions around the world and that these values shape the way companies interpret their responsibilities.

The European Mode

Vogel (1996) describes the European pattern business culture as one of stakeholder capitalism and clear public-interest focused performance, and McSweeney (2002, p. 99) highlights the ‘long-termism’ of European capital markets when compared to the ‘short-termism of the US capital market’. Maanavilja (2010, p. 27) contends that ‘the idea that companies can contribute to societal well-being and SD beyond their legal obligations has a long tradition in many parts of Europe’. The European Commission (EC) has recently sought to formalize this tradition and promote a common vision of CR across the continent. In its most recent communication, the EC (2006) stresses that the notion of CR and the importance given to it rests on common values, including a commitment to SD, found throughout Europe.

The European business culture of CR extends beyond the government to a wide range of European stakeholder groups who have demanded a more prominent and clearer role for CR. The European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ) is an umbrella group that brings together national platforms of civil society organizations from around Europe including NGOs, trade unions, consumers’ organizations and academic institutions promoting corporate accountability and responsibility for SD. European businesses have also shown considerable interest in CR. The European Alliance for CSR and CSR Europe are networks of European businesses that provide a forum for businesses to exchange best practices on CR in a number of social, environmental and economic issue areas. Graus, Voogt and Langeraar (2004) found that European electricity companies generally scored higher than other regions on commitment to renewable energy and transparency. It should be noted, however, that European businesses have lobbied hard to ensure that normative standards for CR and SD remain voluntary and do not become law (CEO, 2008).

Langlois and Schlegelmilch (1990) emphasize that, in contrast to the American focus on issues of legality and procedural correctness, European businesses’ codes of conduct concentrate on more macro-level ethical issues and a greater responsibility to overall society. Stajkovic and Luthans (1997, p. 23) note that the legal impact of ethics legislation in defining corporate conduct ‘does not seem to be as great in European countries as it is in the US’ and that ‘legislation might not be as directly influential in affecting ethical business standards’ in Europe as in the United States. The European business culture surrounding CR and SD is both more oriented towards voluntarism and more toward a multi-stakeholder approach than is the case in the United States. Stajkovic and Luthans (1997, p. 29) call the European mode of recognising the interests of other stakeholders ‘communicative ethics’. They claim that this ‘trans-individual level of analysis’ may be the reason the European business culture tends to regard international standards as important and rely heavily on cooperative initiatives like the UN Global Compact and ‘soft law’ such as the EC ‘communications’ on CSR (Welzel, Peters, Höcker & Scholz, 2007).

In terms of priority issues within the realm of SEP, Maanavilja (2010, p. 28) notes that ‘environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, pollution, and natural resource use are currently given high priority in Europe’. Transparency is also increasingly becoming an integral part of European business culture, with countries like Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden and the UK all introducing mandatory reporting by companies on social and environmental performance (Maanavilja, 2010). A study by ECOTEC (2007) found that environmental and economic issues appear to be more important for European electricity companies than social concerns, which are often neglected in favour of economic results and high-profile environmental issues like climate change.

The Nordic Mode

The Nordic countries have much in common with the mainland European mode, but exhibit certain key differences with regard to CR and SD. The Nordic mode goes beyond the European CR tradition by combining it with the Scandinavian welfare culture that includes aspects such as universal coverage for services, a high degree of gender and income equality, and a Nordic tradition of transparency and social dialogue with companies that dates back to the beginning of the industrial period (Aarhus, 2010; Kuhnle & Ervik, 1996). In line with this tradition, ECOTEC (2007) found that electricity companies based in Nordic countries publish even more information about their CR policies than their counterparts in mainland Europe. The Swedish government has made sustainability reporting by state-owned companies mandatory, and in Denmark a new law encourages Danish businesses ‘to work actively on ways they can contribute to solving social challenges’ by requiring the country’s 1,000 largest companies to include information on their CR policies and practices in their annual financial reports.

Hohnen (2009) believes that the ‘Scandinavian appetite for pushing the corporate responsibility agenda to the fore’ is based on the ‘[Nordic] region’s support for high ethical standards’. For example, a recent ‘white paper’ published by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2009) firmly sets CR in the context of SD, highlighting the importance of ethical frameworks, international standards, and transparency. The Norwegian government has also established ethical guidelines for its ‘Government Pension Fund—Global’ that are among the strictest in the world for pension fund investments (Norwegian Finance Ministry, 2008).

Reflecting this history and cultural context, many Nordic companies claim that the concepts of CR and SD are ‘deeply ingrained in their culture’ (SN Power, 2008). To assist Nordic businesses in implementing this approach, regional and national business associations have developed tools and training materials on CR issues such as anti-corruption and human rights (Aarhus, 2010).

Environmental issues such as climate change are likely to have a prominent place in Nordic corporate policies, along with human rights and transparency issues. As in the European mode, engagement with civil society and other stakeholder groups is expected to characterize the approach of Nordic businesses (Aarhus, 2010).

The US Mode

The voluntary philanthropic endeavors of early 20th-century American business leaders like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford set the stage for the business culture with regard to CR in the United States (Debroux, 2009). Since then, however, CR in the United States has evolved along a legal path, with CR reflecting legislative control rather than proactive corporate policies. Jones (2010, p. 437) notes, ‘Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the US government established regulatory agencies that shaped much of the CSR benchmarks guiding business operations’. More recently, the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed in the wake of the Enron and World-Com corporate financial scandals to improve the accountability of the private sector, is another example of the US tendency to legislate elements of CR and impose stiff legal penalties for non-compliance (Daugherty & Georgieva, 2011).

Consequently, Ciulla (1991) believes that US companies develop and comply with strict codes of legal practice primarily as a defense against lawsuits. This notion is corroborated by Langlois and Schlegelmilch (1990), who conclude that the vast majority of US company codes of ethics are ‘concerned about the government’s legal impact’ and by Stajkovic and Luthans (1997, p. 28) who note that ‘most US managers appear to be primarily focused on upholding the legal requirements of ethical conduct’. The strict legal focus of CR also plays out in the US electricity industry. Palast et al. (2000, p. 2) contend that the US ‘holds to the strictest, most elaborate system of electricity sector regulation anywhere’.

Vogel (1996) additionally characterises the US pattern as one based on a fierce respect for private property and ownership and a culture of shareholder capitalism that leaves little or no room for CR among companies. Reflective of this is what McSweeney (2002, p. 99) identifies as the ‘short-termism of the US capital market’. Taka and Foglia (1994) emphasise the American tradition of relegating of decisions on ethic standards and corporate conduct to individual managers rather than involving stakeholders.

Thus, instead of a culture of CR based on international standards for SD as exists in Europe and the Nordic region, the US mode exhibits a high degree of legal regulation and individualism. As a result, US American corporations are expected to have less well-developed CR policies than their European and Nordic counterparts. American electricity TNC’s approach to SEP is expected to be more focused on economic issues such as job creation and generating return on investment than on social or environmental issues, especially in developing countries where strict American-style legal regulation is often lacking or weak.

IV Results of Initial TNC analysis

An initial analysis of the CR polices, strategies and management styles of three electricity TNCs (European Endesa, Nordic SN Power and American AES) reveals that although all of the companies claim that contributing to SD is a top priority, their approaches to SEP in developing countries vary widely. Each of the companies has a different formula for balancing environmental, social and economic concerns. Although the analysis is admittedly limited to a very small sample size, the results do lend credence to the notion that differences in TNC approaches to SEP may be a result of regional differences in their home-country business culture. Table 1 provides a comparison of the three companies on several key operational and CR-related aspects.

Table 1.
Comparison of Selected Companies on Key Global Operational and CR Aspects, 2010

Headquarters Spain Norway USA

Revenue $9,860 (€7,474) million $114 million $16,600 million

Countries of operation Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Greece, Peru, Portugal, Morocco, Spain Chile, India, Nepal, Peru (largest market), Philippines, Sri Lanka 29 countries on five continents, largest activity in Latin America

Employees 24,732 427 29,000

Installed electricity generation capacity (MW) 40,141 1,481 40,500

Annual output (GWh) 130,484 5,954 85,000

Degree of reliance on international normative standards in CR policies Very high. Nine sets of SEP-relevant normative standards mentioned in CR materials, including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the ILO Core Conventions, and the UN Global Compact High. Five sets of SEP-relevant normative standards mentioned in CR materials, including the UN Global Compact, ILO Core Conventions and the IFC Performance Standards Low. AES claims that its CR policies are based on ‘international standards’ (AES, 2010b), but does it identify which standards this refers to. The only specific standard mentioned is the ISO 14001 certification it recently received for its EMS

Degree of accessibility and visibility of CR policies Very high. Significant amount of information about CR & SD available in annual reports and prominently on website Very high. Significant amount of information about CR & SD available in annual reports and prominently on website Low. Very limited amount of public information about the company’s CR policies. The company does not produce an annual CR report

Nature of CR approach Endesa’s vision on CR is to ‘supply customers with quality service responsibly and efficiently, while providing a return to [its] shareholders, fostering [its] employees’ professional development, assisting with the development of the social environments where [it] operate[s] and using the natural resources necessary for [its] activities in a sustainable manner’ (Fraile, 2008). Commitments to corporate responsibility and sustainability ‘deeply ingrained in SN Power’s culture’ (Kopstad, 2008).
SN Power (2012) its ‘long-term investment strategy’ and ‘Norwegian renewable energy tradition’ as its competitive advantage Many of AES’ decisions on key SEP issues like climate change and minimizing pollution are based on the perception that a certain decision may be a ‘strategic business opportunity’, ‘a growth area’, ‘a low-cost’ solution, or ‘economically advantageous’, rather than a corporate responsibility issue. CR is generally approached as an afterthought, such as when the company makes profit-motivated business decisions that happen to ‘also be good for the environment’ (AES, 2010a).
Much of the publicly available information on AES CR policies and activities is related to the company’s philanthropic activities rather than key SEP issues.

Non-renewable versus renewable fuel mix for electricity generation • 66% non-renewable
• 34% renewable (29% large hydro, 4% wind, 1% small hydro) • 0% non-renewable
• 100% renewable (95% large hydro, 3% wind, 2% small hydro) • 78% non-renewable
• 22% renewable (18% large hydro, 4% wind)

Headquarters	Spain	Norway	USA
Revenue	$9,860 (€7,474) million	$114 million	$16,600 million
Countries of operation	Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Greece, Peru, Portugal, Morocco, Spain	Chile, India, Nepal, Peru (largest market), Philippines, Sri Lanka	29 countries on five continents, largest activity in Latin America
Employees	24,732	427	29,000
Installed electricity generation capacity (MW)	40,141	1,481	40,500
Annual output (GWh)	130,484	5,954	85,000
Degree of reliance on international normative standards in CR policies	Very high. Nine sets of SEP-relevant normative standards mentioned in CR materials, including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the ILO Core Conventions, and the UN Global Compact	High. Five sets of SEP-relevant normative standards mentioned in CR materials, including the UN Global Compact, ILO Core Conventions and the IFC Performance Standards	Low. AES claims that its CR policies are based on ‘international standards’ (AES, 2010b), but does it identify which standards this refers to. The only specific standard mentioned is the ISO 14001 certification it recently received for its EMS
Degree of accessibility and visibility of CR policies	Very high. Significant amount of information about CR & SD available in annual reports and prominently on website	Very high. Significant amount of information about CR & SD available in annual reports and prominently on website	Low. Very limited amount of public information about the company’s CR policies. The company does not produce an annual CR report
Nature of CR approach	Endesa’s vision on CR is to ‘supply customers with quality service responsibly and efficiently, while providing a return to [its] shareholders, fostering [its] employees’ professional development, assisting with the development of the social environments where [it] operate[s] and using the natural resources necessary for [its] activities in a sustainable manner’ (Fraile, 2008).	Commitments to corporate responsibility and sustainability ‘deeply ingrained in SN Power’s culture’ (Kopstad, 2008). SN Power (2012) its ‘long-term investment strategy’ and ‘Norwegian renewable energy tradition’ as its competitive advantage	Many of AES’ decisions on key SEP issues like climate change and minimizing pollution are based on the perception that a certain decision may be a ‘strategic business opportunity’, ‘a growth area’, ‘a low-cost’ solution, or ‘economically advantageous’, rather than a corporate responsibility issue. CR is generally approached as an afterthought, such as when the company makes profit-motivated business decisions that happen to ‘also be good for the environment’ (AES, 2010a). Much of the publicly available information on AES CR policies and activities is related to the company’s philanthropic activities rather than key SEP issues.
Non-renewable versus renewable fuel mix for electricity generation	• 66% non-renewable • 34% renewable (29% large hydro, 4% wind, 1% small hydro)	• 0% non-renewable • 100% renewable (95% large hydro, 3% wind, 2% small hydro)	• 78% non-renewable • 22% renewable (18% large hydro, 4% wind)

Endesa’s approach to SEP is characterized by a thoroughly developed CR policy, firmly rooted in existing international standards and norms. Endesa (2008) makes reference to nine different sets of international standards relevant for SEP issues, including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the ILO Core Conventions and the UN Global Compact, in its Sustainability Report, more than either of the other two companies examined here. Fraile (Endesa 2008, personal communication with J. Wilde-Ramsing, 28 May 2008) claims that the company’s aim is to ‘supply customers with quality service responsibly and efficiently, while providing a return to [its] shareholders, fostering [its] employees’ professional development, assisting with the development of the social environments where [it] operate[s] and using the natural resources necessary for [its] activities in a sustainable manner’. This approach to SEP and the company’s willingness to engage with civil society on the topic of SEP seems to accurately reflect the European ‘pattern’ of stakeholder capitalism and clear public-interest focused performance (Vogel, 1996).

SN Power also has a well-developed CR policy, referencing five sets of international standards, including the UN Global Compact, ILO Core Conventions and IFC Performance Standards, in its CR materials (H. F. Lauritzsen’s, Vice President Social and Environmental Programs, SN Power 2011, personal communication with J. Wilde-Ramsing, 18 October 2011). However, SN Power’s conceptualization and implementation of SEP is less defined by these standards than the Endesa approach. For example, Kopstad (2008) admitted that, ‘SN Power has not been able to implement international health and safety standards at all of its projects’. Instead of being defined by international standards, SN Power’s approach to SEP seems to be based more on an old-fashioned, possibly deeply ingrained Nordic conception of (sustainable) development. Kopstad (2008) notes that ‘Although SN Power was created as a profit-making enterprise and operates as a fully commercial entity, the company has a deep commitment to SD’, which is reflected by the fact that its operations are exclusively in developing countries and based solely renewable sources of energy. SN Power (2012) believes that its ‘long-term investment strategy’ and ‘Norwegian renewable energy tradition’ are a ‘competitive advantage’. As such, SN Power’s approach to SEP seems to reflect the Nordic mode. With the history of egalitarian development principles and experience with renewable sources of energy in its country of origin, it is perhaps unsurprising that Kopstad (2008) claims that the concepts of CR and SD are ‘deeply ingrained in [SN Power’s] culture’. SN Power has the highest percentage (100 per cent) of renewables in its fuel mix of the companies in this study, and conforms to the Nordic tradition of placing a high value on transparency by publishing a large amount of CR material in annual reports and on its website.

AES’ approach to electricity provision in developing countries appears less motivated by social and environmental concerns than by economic realities. Many of AES’ decisions on climate change and other environmental issues are based on the perception that a certain decision may be a ‘strategic business opportunity’, ‘a growth area’, ‘a low-cost’ solution or ‘economically advantageous’, rather than an understanding that a certain decision may be good for the environment (AES, 2010b). The environment generally seems to be viewed as an afterthought or bonus as the company makes profit-motivated business decisions that can ‘also be good for the environment’ (AES, 2010a). This is also the case when the company chooses suppliers, noting that first and foremost it will make ‘procurement decisions that achieve the best value for AES’ (AES, 2007, p. 9).

For AES, a highly developed CR policy seems to be less important than for Endesa and SN Power. Although AES does claim on its website that SD and CR are an integral part of its operations, the company does not produce an annual CR report, nor does it have a CR department. Much of the information that AES does publish about CR is more related to the company’s philanthropic activities than any of the SEP norms. AES claims that its CR policies are based on ‘international standards’ (AES, 2010b), but it does not identify which standards. Furthermore, with 78 per cent of its electricity generation capacity based on fossil fuels, AES’ fuel mix is far less sustainable than the other companies, indicating less concern for this key environmental issue.

Given the US pattern of shareholder capitalism in which return on investment is paramount (Vogel, 1996) and CR is primarily an issue for legal compliance (Palast et al., 2000), it is not surprising that the AES approach places a lower priority on CR issues than its European and Nordic counterparts and is less motivated by environmental and social elements of SEP than by economic factors and basic legal compliance.

V Summary and Conclusions

The normative standards for SEP in developing countries identified in this article have their base in the UN sustainable development framework and are further elaborated and defined by a range of government, industry, academic and civil society bodies. However, the analysis of the CR approach and policies of three case study TNCs reveals that companies’ uptake of SEP norms, and their prioritization of SEP issues, varies. The SEP norms are clearly not yet universally accepted or equally adopted by electricity TNCs. The approach taken by Endesa relies heavily on international norms, and its CR policy addresses many of the SEP indicators across all three pillars. SN Power’s approach also aims at an equal integration of the three SEP pillars but references fewer international standards than Endesa. AES, on the other hand, appears to prioritize the economic pillar over the social and environmental, and has a less integrated and less developed CR policy than the other two companies.

In each case, the analysis indicates that the TNC’s approach to SEP reflects the business culture in which the company is headquartered. The approaches of Endesa, SN Power and AES thus generally correspond with the posited differences in behaviour for TNCs from Europe, Scandinavia and the United States, respectively. This finding lends credence, therefore, to the analytic approach of using modes of home-country business culture to explain variation in electricity TNC’s interpretation of their responsibility for SEP and their uptake and operationalization of existing SEP norms.

Implications and Further Research

The existence of clear differences in the uptake and application of SEP norms depending on the modal business culture of electricity-providing TNCs has important implications for future progress on SEP and SD in general. If the preliminary results documented here at the level of TNC policy prove to be instrumental in how the companies actually provide electricity services on the ground, there can then be developed a ‘culturally sensitive lens’ for understanding and working with different TNCs. Implications will here be relevant for both the international/regional providers of overarching SEP norms (e.g., the UN, OECD, EU, etc), as well as communities and other stakeholders in developing countries. The conclusion also has important implications for governments in developing countries as they decide whether and which TNCs should be prioritized for electricity provision to their citizens and businesses.

To make the ‘lens’ more conceptually robust and effective, however, further work must be done at the interface between company practice and the political-business cultures, institutions and strategic actors in the recipient developing countries. Future research will thus be oriented towards documenting the TNCs’ practice and performance on the ground in developing countries. The policies and management approaches to SEP documented and analyzed here may not necessarily be translated into practice, especially in developing countries where regulatory oversight is often weak or non-existent and enforcement ineffective. This empirical research will involve structured interviews with a range of stakeholder groups including members of communities affected by the TNCs’ operations and local company workers and managers.

Furthermore, it is important to note that TNCs based in emerging economies are playing an increasingly important role in electricity provision in developing countries. The South African company Eskom is active in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa and is a dominant player in regional markets. Similarly, the Chinese power company Datang has expanded its operations beyond Chinese borders into Southeast Asia. In order to capture the implications of these south–south relationships, the scope of the research will be expanded to include the South African and Chinese modes and TNCs.

References

Aarhus

2010: Norway. In Visser

and Tolhurst

, editors, The world guide to CSR: A country-by-country analysis of corporate sustainability and responsibility. Greenleaf.

AES. 2007: The AES values: From words to action, AES code of conduct. AES.

AES. 2010a: Alternative energy, http://aes.com/aes/index?page=alternative_energy, last accessed on 12 May 2010 .

AES. 2010b: Corporate responsibility, http://www.aes.com/aes/index?page=corporate_responsibility, last accessed on 6 May 2010 .

Baggini

, editor. 2008: Handbook of power quality. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Barr

P.S.

, Stimpert

J.L.

and Huff

A.S.

1992: Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(1), 15–36, https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2486350, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

CEER. 2005: Third benchmarking report on quality of electricity supply. Council of European Energy Regulators, http://www.autorita.energia.it/allegati/pubblicazioni/volume_ceer3.pdf, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

CEO. 2008: Watering down the EU’s Climate Policies: A multi-pronged corporate attack. Corporate Europe Observatory, http://archive.corporateeurope.org/docs/climatelobby2008.pdf, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

Cherni

J.A.

, Dyner

, Henao

, Jaramillo

, Smith

and Font

R.O.

2007: Energy supply for sustainable rural livelihoods. A multi-criteria decision-support system. Energy Policy, 35, 1493–1504, https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/B6V2W-4K4WN1R-3/2/579c082de07a6ce75b31b32a839f52aa, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

10.

Ciulla

J.B.

1991: Why is business talking about ethics: Reflections on foreign conversations. California Management Review, 1991(Fall), 67–86.

11.

Crouch

2005: Models of capitalism. New Political Economy, 10(4), 439–56.

12.

Crouch

, Schröder

, and Voelzkow

2009: Regional and sectoral varieties of capitalism. Economy and Society, 38, 654–78.

13.

Daugherty

and Georgieva

2011: Foreign cultures, Sarbanes-Oxley Act and cross-delisting foreign cultures, Sarbanes–Oxley Act and cross-delisting. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 21, 208–23, https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S1042444X1100034X, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

14.

Debroux

2009: CSR and sustainable development in Asia. In Hasegawa

and Noronha

, editors, Asian business & management: Theory, practice and perspectives. Orlando, Florida: Palgrave Macmillan, 25–44.

15.

Delmas

and Toffel

M.W.

2004: Stakeholders and environmental management practices: An institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 209–22, https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1002/bse.409, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

16.

Dimitratos

, Petrou

, Plakoyiannaki

and Johnson

J.E.

2010: Strategic decision-making processes in internationalization: Does national culture of the focal firm matter? Journal of World Business, https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/B6W5M-50B5WG7-1/2/d83533324d7393bfb7af2fbd9c55c21f

17.

EC. 2006: Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: Making Europe a pole of excellence on CSR (COM(2006)136 final). European Commission, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0136:FIN:EN:PDF, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

18.

ECOTEC. 2007: Describing developments in the European electricity sector: Drivers for change: Corporate Social Responsibility—A report to the sectoral social partners. Eurelectric, EPSU and EMCEF, http://www.epsu.org/article/describing-developments-european-electricity-sectordrivers-change-corporate-social, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

19.

Endesa. 2008: Endesa Sustainability report 2007. Endesa.

20.

Fthenakis

and Kim

H.C.

2008: Land use and electricity generation: A life-cycle analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1465–74, https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/B6VMY-4TMRNX4-2/2/284db55eafeb62f6822086268b4395b0, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

21.

Graus

, Voogt

and Langeraar

J.W.

2004: Ranking power: Scorecards electricity companies. WWF and Ecofys, http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?16811/Ranking-Power-Report, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

22.

GRI. 2008: Sustainability reporting guidelines & electric utilities sector supplement. Global Reporting Initiative, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3-English-Electric-Utilities-Sector-Supplement.pdf, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

23.

P.-H.

and Porcaro

2005: Energy and the millennium development goals. The impact of rural energy services on development. Journal of International Affairs, 58, 193–207, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=19463400&site=ehost-live, last accessed 5 April 2017 .

24.

Haar

L.N.

and Jones

2008: Misreading liberalisation and privatisation: The case of the US energy utilities in Europe. Energy Policy, 36, 2610–19.

25.

Hall

2005: Electricity privatisation and restructuring in Latin America and the impact on workers. Public Services International Research Unit, University of Greenwich, www.psiru.org, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

26.

Hall

and Soskice

2001: Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press.

27.

Hirschberg

, Dones

, Heck

, Burgherr

, Schenler

and Bauer

2004: Sustainability of electricity supply technologies under German conditions: A comparative evaluation. Villingen: Paul Scherrer Institut, http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/36/108/36108754.pdf, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

28.

Hofstede

1983: The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75–89, https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/222593

29.

Hofstede

, Neuijen

, Ohayv

D.D.

, and Sanders

1990: Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286–316.

30.

Hohnen

2009: Non-financial reporting: Denmark ups the ante. Ethical Corporation, http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content/non-financial-reporting-denmark-ups-ante, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

31.

Hyman

2001: Understanding European Trade Unionism: Between market, class and society. London: SAGE Publications.

32.

Jones

2010: United States of America. In Visser

and Tolhurst

, editors, The world guide to CSR: A country-by-country analysis of corporate sustainability and responsibility. Greenleaf.

33.

Kaplan

1964: The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. Chandler.

34.

Kim

and Benson

2007: Institutionalism and capitalism in organization studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/5/1/4/p185144_index.html, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

35.

Kirca

A.H.

, Cavusgil

S.T.

and Hult

G.T.M.

2009: The effects of national culture on market orientation: Conceptual framework and research propositions. International Business Review, 18(2), 111–18. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.02.003

36.

Kopstad

M. L.

2008: External Affairs Manager, SN Power – Personal communication with J. Wilde-Ramsing. Amsterdam/Oslo (10 September and 3 November 2008).

37.

Kuhnle

and Ervik

1996: The Nordic welfare model and the European Union. In Greve

, editor, Comparative welfare systems: The Scandinavian model in a period of change. Macmillan Press.

38.

Lafferty

W.M.

2002a: Introduction: Grounding the evaluation of ‘Sustainable Development’’. In Lafferty

W.M.

, Nordskag

and Aakre

H.A.

, editors, Realizing Rio in Norway: Evaluative studies of sustainable development. Program for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society (ProSus).

39.

Lafferty

W.M.

2002b: Political evaluation: Premises, approaches and methods (Working Paper No. 2/02), Program for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society (ProSus).

40.

Lafferty

W.M.

, Nordskag

and Aakre

2002: Realizing Rio in Norway: Evaluative studies of sustainable development. Program for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society (ProSus).

41.

Langlois

C.C.

and Schlegelmilch

B.B.

1990: Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe and the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(4), 519–39, https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/155058, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

42.

Levy

, and Rothenberg

2002: Heterogeneity and change in environmental strategy: Technological and political responses to climate change in the global automobile industry. In Hoffman

and Ventresca

, editors, Organizations, policy and the natural environment: Institutional and strategic perspectives. Stanford University Press, 173–93.

43.

Lyons

D.I.

and Deutz

2010: Regional sustainable development: Making development work in politically contingent space. Sustainable Development, 18, 183–86.

44.

Maanavilja

2010: Europe. In Visser

and Tolhurst

, editors, The world guide to CSR: A country-by-country analysis of corporate sustainability and responsibility. Greenleaf.

45.

McDonald

D.A.

2009: Introduction: The importance of being electric. In McDonald

D.A.

, editor, Electric capitalism: Reconolising Africa on the power grid. Earthscan and HSRC Press, http://www.hsrcpress.ac.za/product.php?productid=2243, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

46.

McSweeney

2002: Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89–118.

47.

Modi

, McDade

, Lallement

and Saghir

2005: Energy services for the millennium development goals. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, UN Milennium Project, and World Bank.

48.

Norwegian Finance Ministry. 2008: The Government Pension Fund divests its holdings in mining company, https://www.financite.be/sites/default/files/references/files/144_0.pdf, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

49.

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2009: Corporate social responsibility in a global economy (Report No. 10, 2008 – 2009 to the Storting).

50.

OECD-NEA. 2000: Nuclear energy in a sustainable development perspective. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, http://www.nea.fr/ndd/docs/2000/nddsustdev.pdf, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

51.

OECD/IEA. 2009: CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. OECD International Energy Agency.

52.

OECD/IEA. 2010: Task 29, https://www.jc-bingo.com/details/0084FE48/task29-net, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

53.

Palast

, Oppenheim

and MacGregor

2000: Democratic regulation: A guide to the control of privatized public services through social dialogue, (Sectoral Working Paper No. 166) ILO.

54.

Pillinger

2009: Quality public services for all: PSI resource pack. Public Services International.

55.

Shalom

H.S.

and Mark

P.Z.

1992: Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology,Vol. 25. Academic Press, 1–65, https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0065260108602816, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

56.

SN Power. 2008. CSR, http://www.snpower.no/Corporate_Responsibility, last accessed on 15 September 2008 .

57.

SN Power. 2012: About SN Power, http://www.snpower.com/about-us/, last accessed on 3 March 2012 .

58.

Søderberg

A.-M.

and Holden

2002: Rethinking cross cultural management in a globalizing business world. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2, 103–121.

59.

Stajkovic

A.D.

and Luthans

1997: Business ethics across cultures: A social cognitive model. Journal of World Business, 32, 17–34, https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/B6W5M-4625MJH-4/2/52b5fd8be385e049bcdef25e7b3a2a89, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

60.

Taka

and Foglia

W.D.

1994: Ethical aspects of Japanese leadership style. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(2), 135–148.

61.

Teske

2010: Energy [r]evolution: A sustainable world energy outlook. European Renewable Energy Council and Greenpeace International.

62.

Thomas

2007: Electricity liberalization experiences in the world. Public Services International Research Unit, University of Greenwich, http://www.psiru.org/reports/electricity-liberalization-experiences-world.html, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

63.

Triandis

H.C.

1993: Review of cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1), 132–134.

64.

Tully

2006: The human right to access electricity. The Electricity Journal, 19, 30–39, https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/B6VSS-4JJGB86-4/2/957a58c8d7633cfd262d0e2302fb0570, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

65.

UK Committee on Climate Change. 2009: Meeting carbon budgets—The need for a step change. First progress report to parliament, http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/1st-progress-report, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

66.

UN Energy. 2005: The energy challenge for achieving the millennium development goals. United Nations, http://www.un-energy.org/publications/50-the-energy-challenge-for-achieving-the-millennium-development-goals, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

67.

UN/IAEA. 2007: Energy indicators for sustainable development: Country studies on Brazil, Cuba, Lithuania, Mexico, Russian Federation, Slovakia and Thailand. Vienna: United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/energy_indicators/full_report.pdf, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

68.

UNCSD. 2001: Commission on sustainable development, Report of the ninth session. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/intergovernmental/csd9, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

69.

Visser

2008: Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In Crane

, McWilliams

, Matten

, Moon

and Siegel

, editors, The Oxford Handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press, 473–79.

70.

Vogel

S.K.

1996: Freer markets, more rules: Regulatory reform in advanced industrial countries. Cornell University Press.

71.

Voß

, Rath-Nagel

and Ellersdorfer

2005: A conceptual framework for sustainable electricity supply: EUSUSTEL – WP 8.2. Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung, http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/publikationen/pb_pdf/04_EUSUSTEL_Final_Report_WP8.pdf, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

72.

WBCSD. 2002: Sustainability in the electricity utility sector. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=125&nosearchcontextkey=true, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

73.

WCD. 2000: Dams & development: A new framework for decision-making. World Commission on Dams, https://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/dams-and-development-a-new-framework-for-decision-making-3939, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

74.

WCED. 1987: Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

75.

Weick

K.E.

and Roberts

K.H.

1993: Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–81, https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2393372, last accessed on 5 April 2017 .

76.

Welzel

, Peters

, Höcker

and Scholz

, editors. 2007: The CSR navigator: Public policies in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe. Bertelsmann Stiftung, http://www.ku.de/fileadmin/160124/CSR_Navigator.pdf, last accessed on 9 October 2016 .

77.

Yamin

and Sinkovics

R.R.

2008: Infrastructure or foreign direct investment? An examination of the implications of MNE Strategy for economic development. Journal of World Business, 44, 144–57.