Assessing UNGC pharmaceutical signatories stakeholders using big data

Abstract

This article aims to focus on how signatories versus nonsignatories in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector compare with respect to the internal and external stakeholders and principles of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). We seek to answer the question: Do signatories to the UNGC walk the talk better than nonsignatories as determined by a variety of published rankings and data? This research presents an innovative approach to the evaluation of UNGC signatories. It uses several objective and independent data sources to assess a matched group of signatories versus nonsignatories in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector. Signatory organizations in the same sector as determined by SIC codes were matched with nonsignatories on variables such as size and number of employees in U.S. pharmaceutical companies. Then both types of organizations were compared on the following data sources: Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies ratings, ratings by external stakeholders, ratings by employees, unionization data, financial measures, and annual reports to shareholders. Using nonparametric testing the research found there are differences between signatories and nonsignatories in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector for some of the external stakeholder measures and no differences were found for the internal stakeholder measures. K E Y W O R D S Big Data, NVivo, pharmaceutical, signatories, stakeholder, UN Global Compact 202 | ZILIC et aL.

Mainstreaming Global Sustainable Development Goals through the UN Global Compact: The Case of Visegrad Countries

“…Thus, incorporating SDGs for reputational reasons cannot be rejected. This fully corresponds with the previous criticism of the implementation gap (Fortín and Jolly 2015;Pingeot 2015), and, in particular, the insufficiencies of COPs themselves (Coulmont et al 2017;Zilic et al 2019). Nevertheless, findings presented in this study go further, indicating that the expectations related to the importance of the UNGC for the implementation of the SDGs by 2030 might be strongly exaggerated.…”

“…Nevertheless, regarding the UNGC, the research so far has identified many problems, in particular, substantial cross-country differences in adoption and disclosure levels (Ali and Frynas 2018;Schembera 2018;Lim 2017); insufficient quality of annual Communications on Progress (COPs), the primary tool for monitoring participants' commitment to the UNGC Ten Principles (Coulmont et al 2017;Zilic et al 2019); as well as numerous cases of companies adhering to the Principles for the instrumental reasons of seeking protection from criticism and improving their reputation rather than having real intentions of applying them in their everyday operations (Amer 2018;Wettstein et al 2019). Moreover, studies on the practical impacts of the UNGC on the business operations and risk management of companies are almost non-existent (cf.…”

“…However, despite the prominent position of the UNGC within the contemporary global governance architecture, there are serious doubts about its actual impacts in the contemporary scholarly literature (cf. Ali and Frynas 2018;Schembera 2018;Lim 2017;Coulmont et al 2017;Zilic et al 2019). The criticism points especially to the lack of intergovernmental legitimacy, the absence of oversight by the UN General Assembly and the blue-wash phenomenon, i.e., participation to acquire public legitimacy without any real intention to adhere to the Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact.…”