Corporate Social Responsibility in the Development Industry: A

preliminary study

By Linda Carroli
(CC) August 2009 This paper is released under a Creative Commons Licence – attribution, non-
commercial use and no derivatives.

Introduction

In addressing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in urban development, the specific

qualities and impacts of the development industry and the industry-specific application of
CSR are considered. While the principles of CSR that apply to industry generally equally
apply to the development industry, there are specificities in the development industry’s
impact that warrant attention. The development industry is characterised by Coiacetto as an
increasingly concentrated yet diverse sector which is both “dominated by large powerful
players (sometimes trampling the rights of local communities and overriding the plans of
local authorities) ... [and] comprising many [competitive] small players”.1 He states that
“evidence suggests that industry concentration is rising: developers are getting bigger and
fewer and more powerful as opposed to merely having some local spatial monopoly or
submarket power.”2 In this context, noting Coiacetto’s parenthetical point about reputation
issues experienced by developers, companies are adopting or considering CSR.

Given that the development industry, together with government (through statutory planning),
markets and financial services, profoundly shapes human settlements, there is an underlying
expectation that industry agents are attentive to the social and environmental outcomes and
impacts of development.3 For example, the provision of community benefit, a requirement in
planning provisions, can be negotiated between the developer and local authority during the
development approval process.4 Another planning/property principle is that of ‘highest and
best use’, a concept that ordinarily expresses property value or investment return. 5 This
notion of value may increasingly be considered within frameworks of social, cultural and
environmental sustainability such as smart growth, biobanking and incentive zoning.6

1
E Coiacetto, ‘Development Industry structure into the global era: The challenge for planning, cities and sustainability’.
Australian Planner. vol 44, no 3, 2007, 50
2
Coiacetto, 2007, 50
3
P Fewings, Ethics for the Built Environment, Taylor & Francis, Oxon, UK, 2009. 171 ff
4
Fewings, 2009, 176. In the UK, ‘community benefit’ is referred to as ‘public gain’.
5
MG Dotzour, TV Grissom, CH Liu & T Pearson, ‘Highest and Best Use: The Evolving Paradigm’, Journal of Real Estate
Research, vol 5, no 1, passim
6
B Roberts, ‘Planning and the Economics of Development’, Australian Planner, vol 45, no 1, 2008, 27

1
CSR and related ideas (such as corporate citizenship, triple bottom line etc) emerge from
and sometimes as critiques of late capitalism and liberal economics7 as well as of the
corporate ontologies they spawned in areas such as management and organisational
behaviour.8 Birch proposes that “CSR is not only about the survival of capitalism, it is about
the creation of Sustainable Capitalism” necessitating a cultural change in business.9 CSR
involves “building systems of corporate ethics and values in the enterprise, tackling
questions of compliance and governance, meeting the needs of the economically and
socially disadvantaged and satisfying responsibilities to the environment”.10 Garriga and
Mele identify four primary motivations for CSR11:

• producing profits
• using business power in a reasonable way
• integrating social demands
• contributing to a good society through ethical behaviour.

CSR fundamentally means that “business is being asked to assume broader responsibilities
to society than ever before and to serve a wider range of human values. They are asked to
contribute more to the quality of human life, it will depend on the quality of management as
well as how they response to the changing expectations of the public”.12 [sic] Importantly,
when expressed in the language of capitalism as a capitalist imperative, CSR can also point
to ways of transforming organisations, industries, markets and capitalism itself.13

7
D Birch, “Corporate Social Responsibility: Some key theoretical issues and concepts for new ways of doing business”, Journal
of New Business Ideas and Trends, vol 1, no 1, 2003, passim
8
Particularly cultures of command and control (linear) which were challenged in the late 20th century by disorganised capital,
decentralisation and internationalisation.
9
Birch, 2003, 2
10
Birch, 2003, 10
11
E Garriga and D Mele, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 53,
2004
12
S Yam, M Ismail & T Yin, “Corporate Social Responsibility in Housing Development – The Developers’ Perspective.”
Conference Paper. Fourteenth Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, 2008, retrieved 1 August 2009
http://www.prres.net/Papers/Yam_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_In_Housing_Development.pdf
13
See Birch, 2003; Barrett, 1998; Senge, 1998; Kaptein & Wempe, 2002

2
CSR Commitments of Development Companies

There are a range of sustainability initiatives in the development and construction industry
that advocate or aspire to higher standards. Peak bodies in the development industry, such
as the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA)14 and Australian Green Development
Forum (AGDF), are forming policy on and other responses to social inclusion and
environmental responsibility. The UDIA has developed a sustainability certification protocol
titled EnviroDevelopment.15 The Property Council of Australia has released a draft
discussion paper and guidelines on CSR in the property sector.16 Professional bodies, such
as the Planning Institute of Australia,17 are also considering such matters as they apply to
their organisation and the industry more broadly. As a diverse profession, urban planning
can be underpinned by ethical drives including stakeholder engagement, social equity, public
interest and environmental stewardship.

In order to consider the development industry’s engagement of CSR in a more granular way,
a scan of eight corporate websites was undertaken. It is acknowledged that only information
made publicly available via this media is accessed. Publication of CSR information is
considered as an ‘expression’ of that company18 and a means of contributing to a public
discourse or community of interest about CSR. It may be an indication that CSR and
company values are integral to the company’s public interface and corporate culture, and
considered sufficiently significant to warrant communication (for reasons such as
transparency or accountability). The study scanned the websites of GPT, Lend Lease, GHD,
Watpac, Laing O'Rourke, Devine, Conics and Stockland Development.19 The core business
and geographic reach of each company are tabulated below:

Company Core Business Geographic

Lend Lease Integrated property solutions providers. With capabilities that Global
span the property value chain, from the origination of
opportunities through to the delivery of property outcomes.
GHD Professional and technical consultants in water, energy & Global

14
Urban Development Institute of Australia, National Policy Statement. UDIA, Sydney, retrieved 29 July 2009,
http://www.udia.com.au/resource/UDIA-National%20Policy.pdf
15
Urban Development Institute of Australia, EnviroDevelopment, retrieved 4 August 2009,
http://www.envirodevelopment.com.au/
16
Property Council of Australia, A Guide to Corporate Responsibility in the Property Sector: Draft Discussion Paper, Property
Council of Australia, Sydney, 2009, retrieved 29 July 2009,
http://www.propertyoz.com.au/library/A%20Guide%20to%20Corporate%20Responsibility%20Reporting%20in%20the%20Prop
erty%20Sector%20V1.0.pdf
17
Planning Institute of Australia, retrieved 1 August 2009, http://www.planning.org.au
18
M Kaptein & J Wempe, ‘The Corporation as Moral Entity’, The Balanced Company: a theory of Corporate Integrity, Oxford
University. 2002. 146
19
These companies are all large companies, as per Coiacetto’s description of the industry structure, and were selected from
various lists of state and national top company. There is a further question about how small to medium companies are adopting
CSR and whether this presents challenges in supply chain, competition and marketplace. Smaller companies may, for
example, be less inclined to offer generous community dividends or ‘do more’.

3
 resources, environment, property & buildings, and transportation.
Laing Construction of both buildings and infrastructure projects as well Global
O'Rourke as capability in investing equity into property and infrastructure
developments and specialist manufacturing, plant and trades
businesses.
Watpac Construction, property development, specialty services National, plus
(refurbishments), civil landscaping, civil infrastructure, civil Vietnam
engineering, and mining.
Stockland Diversified property group - developing and managing a portfolio National, plus
Development of residential community, apartment, retirement living, retail, office UK
and industrial assets.
Devine Residential property, masterplanned communities, some National
commercial property
Conics Urban planning, growth and infrastructure: planning, environment, National
design and survey
GPT Diversified property trust with quality property across various real National
estate sectors. The ownership, management and development of
Australian retail, office and industrial property.

The study identifies indications of each company’s commitment to CSR by referring to the
seven main areas of activity identified through the 2005 Ashridge Business School study.20
While the classes of activity associated with these areas of CSR are not exhaustive, 31
activities are noted. CSR commitments of these companies, as expressed on company
websites, are summarised in the tables in Appendix 1.

Discussion

The website scan documented in Appendix 1 reveals that these companies are variously
engaging in and aware of CSR and that this is impacting on the way they conduct business
and their workplaces. As a scan, the findings are not conclusive and there is some value in
further exploring each company’s use of CSR. For example, it is worth nothing that GPT,
one of the companies appearing to have one of the highest commitments to CSR, is a
participant in the Corporate Responsibility Index. In a 2008 report of the Sixth Corporate
Responsibility Index, the company’s scores measuring performance using that index were
74-% in five areas with two higher ratings in corporate strategy and assurance and
disclosure.21

Of these eight companies:

• Three maintain offices globally

20
Ashridge Centre for Business and Society, A Catalogue of CSR Activities, Ashridge Centre for Business and Society,
Berkhamsted, 2005, passim
21
Corporate Responsibility Index, Sixth Corporate Responsibility Index: 2008 Index Results, Corporate Responsibility Index,
published May 2009, retrieved 5 August 2009, http://www.corporate-responsibility.com.au/sites/default/files/2009-cri-results.pdf

4
 • Two maintain at least one international office
• Three have offices only in Australia (and two are known to service international
markets).

This is indicative of the trend in internationalisation and decentralisation of markets and

capital,22 and also highlights how global companies can respond to local community needs
(e.g. RPI, global profit/local value).

Fewings asks whether voluntary or self-regulated CSR “is a complementary or fairer system
than the current dependence on the planning system to guide compliance to a more
sustainable built environment”.23 That is, is it sufficient in terms of CSR or corporate
citizenship for companies to just comply with statutes and regulations rather than create
additional opportunities for sustainable, innovative, integrated and responsible corporate
activity? If companies are expected to ‘do more’ then should that be voluntary or
legislated?24 ‘Doing more’ is a repeated refrain in discussions and definitions of CSR, for
example,

[CSR means] private firms doing more than they are required to do under applicable
laws and regulations governing the environment, worker safety and health, and
investments in the communities in which they operate.25 (my italics)

As companies are expected to ‘do more’ than is legally required, they are also moved to be
more innovative in their CSR programs and capability, particularly as planning reforms
increasingly respond to sustainability considerations. Longstaff argues that:

No matter how much they [developers] might argue that they are just responding to
“market forces”, the economic realities of their industry or the planning requirements
of local government, they cannot escape ultimate responsibility for the way in which
they shape the world in which most of us live. As such, developers have a particular

22
S Lash & J Urry, The end of organised capitalism, Polity, Cambridge, 1987, passim
23
Fewings, 2009, 300
24
For example, Kelly, 2003, proposes that “voluntary change is not enough”, while Campbell, 2006, as Chen & Bouvain report,
“argues that corporations are more likely to behave in a socially responsible way, the more they encounter strong state
regulation, collective industrial self regulation, NGOs, and other independent organizations that monitor them and a normative
institutional environment that encourages socially responsible behavior.” M Kelly, The divine right of capital: dethroning the
corporate aristocracy, Barrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2003, 148; S Chen & P Bouvain, “Is Corporate Responsibility
Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany”, Journal of
Business Ethics, vol 87, 2009, 303
25
PR Portney, “Corporate social responsibility: an economic and public policy perspective”, in B.L. Hay, RN Stavins and RHK
Vietor (eds), Environmental Protection and the Social Responsibility of Firms: Perspectives from Law, Economics, and
Business, Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 2005, 108

5
 responsibility to be clear about the values that they bring to the development
process.26

In other words, the company should be “held responsible for the effects of its actions”27 if it
seeks a license to operate. Devinney’s warnings about the need for domain specification in
CSR - in terms of identifying societies and responsibilities determined by the needs and
demands of those societies - are especially relevant for the development industry given its
role in shaping human settlements.28

Several companies – Lend Lease, GHD, Stockland and GPT – include more detailed
information about CSR on their websites, such as strategies and plans, and CSR appears
internalised by the company’s culture. An assumption is that these companies also dedicate
more resources to their CSR or there are internal CSR champions. Devine, a residential
property developer, and Watpac, a major infrastructure developer, do not provide significant
detail about their CSR commitments. This indicates that these companies are at different
stages of CSR development and this is akin to Zadek’s formulation of first, second and third
generation corporate citizenship.29

All websites provide indications that the companies have set their compasses30 and are
leaning towards CSR-like initiatives and values, with several couched in sustainability terms
rather than CSR.31 Environmental commitments across these companies are prioritised with
several companies demonstrating their commitments in publicly available actions plans and
performance reports.

Other CSR indications include:

• Possible collaboration with suppliers, clients and markets about the social and
environmental sustainability of products, projects and activities
• Supporting the community through their development activities
• Establishing grant giving programs or foundations.

26
S Longstaff, ‘Urban development matters’. St James Ethics Centre, Sydney, 1997, retrieved 26 July 2009.
http://www.ethics.org.au/about-ethics/ethics-centre-articles/ethics-subjects/architecture-and-urban-development/article-
0037.html. Echoing arguments for CSR, Longstaff foregrounds issues such as stakeholder engagement and disclosure
(transparency) as pivotal for the development industry.
27
Kaptein & Wempe, 2002, 124
28
TM Devinney, “Is the Socially Responsible Corporation a myth? The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Corporate Social
Responsibility”, Academy of Management Perspectives. May, 2009, 54
29
S Zadek, The Civil Corporation: the new economy of corporate citizenship, Earthscan, London, 2001, 73ff
30
Kelly, 2003, 146
31
This stands in contrast to Birch’s 2002 study about corporate citizenship in Australia in which he concluded that
environmental issues played a marginal role in a company’s understanding of corporate citizenship. This indicates a corporate
cultural shift, possibly due to escalating concerns about sustainability since 2002. D Birch, “Corporate Citizenship in Australia:
Some ups, some downs”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Issue 5, Spring, 2002

6
Workforce activities generally focus on health and safety with indications that companies
provide support and training for their employees and, in at least two, volunteering
opportunities. The values statements and codes of conduct of the companies also indicate
commitments to diversity, integrity and the like as integral to company culture. This can be
interpreted as awareness of values-based leadership32. The inclusion of these statements
indicates the companies are promoting ethical organisational cultures and communicating
how they ‘do culture’.33

While diversity can be acknowledged in company values and supported in the workplace,
there is only one specific acknowledgement of Indigenous people as traditional owners or as
beneficiaries of CSR initiatives. GPT has allocated resources for improving the health and
wellbeing of Indigenous communities. Other development companies have not considered
cultural protocols, community partnerships and Reconciliation (e.g. Reconciliation Action
Plans34) in their CSR. However, the Planning Institute of Australia is currently drafting a
Reconciliation Action Plan.

Two companies have also indicated their involvement with or otherwise refer to the Global
Reporting Initiative,35 a widely used sustainability reporting framework, while others appear
unstructured in their approach to and communication of CSR initiatives. The Global
Reporting Initiative provides a sector supplement for the construction and real estate
industry, highlighting key priorities for developers.36 Other involvements include the UNEP’s
Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative (SBCI)37 and Principles for Responsible
Investment (PRI).38 Pivo describes Responsible Property Investment as CSR for the
property sector39 which has particular significance in orienting development and/or
investment activity to responsible development.40

32
R Barrett, Liberating the Corporate Soul: Building a Visionary Organisation, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, Mass., 1998, 2
33
D Birch & M Glazebrook, ‘Doing business – doing culture: corporate citizenship and community’ in S Rees & S Wright (eds),
Human Rights, Corporate Responsibility: a dialogue, Pluto Press, Sydney, NSW, 50
34
Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Action Plans, Reconciliation Australia, retrieved 29 July 2009,
http://www.reconciliation.org.au/home/reconciliation-action-plans
35
Global Reporting Initiative, Netherlands, retrieved 4 August 2009, http://www.globalreporting.org
36
Global Reporting Initiative, Supplement for Construction and Real Estate, Global Reporting Initiative, Netherlands, retrieved 4
August 2009, http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/SectorSupplements/ConstructionandRealEstate
37
Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative, retrieved 4 August 2009, http://www.unepsbci.org
38
Principles for Responsible Investment, retrieved 4 August 2009, http://www.unpri.org
39
RPI is defined by Pivo as “making and managing property investments in ways that go beyond compliance with minimum
legal requirements in order to better manage social and environmental issues. The goal is to help solve societal and ecological
problems while also managing their associated business risks and opportunities.” G Pivo, “Responsible property investment
criteria developed using the Delphi Method”, Building Research and Information, vol 36, no 1, 2008, 21.
40
For example, see L Carroli, “Community Benefits Agreements: Grounding Equitable Development in Negotiation”, 2009,
http://flytrapper.yolasite.com/community_benefits.php

7
Some company websites include information about measuring and improving project
performance. This means ensuring the social and environmental impacts/risks of projects
are mitigated and well managed. In a development context, such concerns are also
embedded in statutory planning, raising the issue of how companies negotiate their CSR
beyond legal obligations. In this sense project delivery, supply chain, service provision and
CSR are interleaved.41

The results indicate there is need for some of these companies – Devine and Watpac in
particular - to consolidate their CSR commitments and/or communicate their CSR
commitments. In so doing, CSR is understood as integral to the operations, policies and
decision-making of the company.42 An assumption is that companies have inadvertently
‘fallen into’ CSR by adopting sound governance, risk management and HR practices to
maintain competitiveness through staff retention and organisational development. If ‘doing
more’ is expected of corporations, then those organisations must formalise their CSR
commitments so that results can be demonstrated across operations, projects and products.
Unless the activities and their impact are measured or monitored, they cannot be
meaningfully improved or accounted for, particularly in terms of correlating CSR to market
performance.

Conclusion

This essay has provided an introduction to the use of CSR in eight major development
companies by scanning the CSR commitments of those companies, as expressed on
company websites, and situating those within a broader discussion of CSR and the
development industry. From this study, challenges of CSR for development companies and
their workplaces may include:

• Exerting influence in the marketplace and supply chain

• Adopting responsible property investment
• Formalising CSR within companies and across the industry
• Use of the planning system to enhance CSR
• Reporting, monitoring and improving CSR
• Harnessing workforce creativity and innovation

41
This also represents a further research opportunity, perhaps to undertake a comparative study of several planning
consultancies and identification of how company values can drive planning or project outcomes. With some companies
endeavouring to generate CSR impact in the marketplace and supply chain, it could be valuable to chart their spheres of
influence in the sector.
42
Birch, 2003, 13ff

8
 • Adaptation to new economics and organisational models
• CSR blueprints and agendas for small to medium development companies
• Continuing CSR development from philanthropic modes to integration and
innovation43 (for example, how products are taken to market, such as innovative
financing options for low income earners, and how products respond to social and
environmental issues, such as the reinvention of suburbs for walkability and place
management)
• Developing and adopting industry-wide and industry-specific CSR guidelines,
business case and/or accounting methods.

Through its interaction with the planning system, the CSR in the development industry, and
individual companies therein, has a specific role to play in the urban environment and its
governance which may, applying systems thinking, result in feedback or causal loops of
change and adaptation.44 In a study of inner urban renewal, CSR is regarded as “vital ... to
achieve sustainable, civic and accountable systems of urban governance through which
urban regeneration can be realised”.45 The prevailing economic dynamics of the late 20th
century (fin de siecle era) have been described by many urbanists as neo-liberal46 which
marks the urban environment through gentrification, privatisation, diminished social capital,
and intractable urban problems. In response, others call for a renewal of hope in the urban
and suburban domains.47 While CSR in the development industry may be integral to the
pursuit of sustainability both within and external to individual companies, it may also
eventually be vital to the fitness of companies and human settlements as new social
ecologies and complexities emerge and for corporate adaptation, resilience and survival into
the future.

43
M Halme & J Laurila, “Philanthropy, Integration or Innovation? Exploring the Financial and Societal Outcomes of Different
Types of Corporate Responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol 84, 2009, 329. Also, Innovations such as the Melbourne
Model have also emerged which enables business, government and civil society groups to jointly tackle urban issues in a
mutually beneficial and sustainable manner. Its approach of all-sector collaboration emerges from two observations: “first, that
current corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities are generally ineffective in harnessing the true capacity inherent in the
private sector to help resolve systemic issues; and, second, that there is a growing public frustration with existing forms of
governance which seem unable to develop efficient and effective solutions to emerging and pressing urban problems.” See D
Teller, “The Melbourne Model and its All Sector Taskforces: Theoretical Framework and Delivery Mechanism for the United
Nations Global Compact Cities Programme (UNGCCP)”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol 26, Summer, 2007, 47
44
P Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organisation, Currency, USA, 2006, passim
45
J Gannon & G O’Brien, The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Urban Regeneration, unpaginated, retrieved 2 August
2009 http://www.thefuturesacademy.ie/sites/default/files/CSR-in-urban-regeneration.pdf
46
See, for example, J Hackworth, The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism, Cornell
University Press, New York, 2006; B Gleeson, and NP Low, N.P. Australian urban planning: New challenges, new agendas,
Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 2000
47
See, for example, B Gleeson, Australian heartlands: Making space for hope in the suburbs, Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 2006;
D Harvey, Spaces of Hope, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2000

9
Appendix 1
Summary of CSR Commitments of Development Companies: Table A

Note:
Yes = affirmative commentary on website
Blank = no commentary on website
Indicative = commentary on website indicates a commitment; maybe

Company Leadership, Marketplace Workforce Supply chain Stakeholder Community Environ- Notes
vision & activities activities activities engagement activities mental
values activities
Lend Lease Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes Global Reporting Initiative & other indices
Extensive program of Sustainability aspirations
and initiatives across economic, environment
and social priorities
Aims for compliance with UN Global Compact
10 Principles
GHD Yes Yes Yes Indicative Yes Yes Yes member of the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development and Australian Green
Infrastructure Council
Laing O'Rourke Yes Yes Yes Indicative Indicative Yes Yes
Watpac Yes Indicative Yes Indicative Indicative Indicative
Stockland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability
Development Strategy
Devine Yes Yes Indicative Indicative
Conics Yes Indicative Yes Indicative Indicative Yes Yes Sustainability Policy and Strategy
GPT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Corporate Responsibility Strategy
Participates in Global Reporting Initiative

10
Summary of CSR Commitments of Development Companies: Table B

Lend Lease GHD Laing Watpac Stockland Devine Conics GPT

O'Rourke Development
Leadership, vision & values
Purpose, values and vision Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Policies & procedures Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Putting into practice Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ethical leadership & championing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marketplace activities
Customer relations Yes Yes Yes Indicative Yes Indicative Indicative Yes
Product responsibility Yes Yes Yes Indicative Yes Indicative Yes
CR product labelling Yes Yes Indicative Yes
Ethical competition
Making markets work Indicative Indicative Indicative Yes
Workforce activities
Employee communication &
representation
Employability and skills development Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Diversity & equality Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Responsible / Fair remuneration Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Work-life balance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Healthy, safety & wellbeing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Responsible restructuring
Supply chain activities
Fair customer Indicative
Social & environment standards in supply Yes Indicative Indicative Yes Indicative Yes
chain
Stakeholder engagement
Mapping key stakeholders Indicative Yes Indicative Yes
Stakeholder consultation Yes Yes Indicative Indicative Yes Indicative Yes
Responding to and managing Indicative Indicative Indicative Indicative Yes
stakeholders
Transparent reporting & communication Yes Indicative Indicative
Community activities
Financial donations Yes Yes Yes Indicative* Yes Indicative* Yes Yes
Volunteering employee time Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

11
Giving gifts in kind Indicative Yes
A good neighbour Indicative Yes Yes Indicative Yes
Environmental activities
Resource and energy use Yes Yes Yes Indicative Yes Indicative Yes Yes
Pollution & waste management Indicative Yes Yes Indicative Yes Indicative Yes Yes
Environmental product responsibility Yes Yes Yes Indicative Yes Indicative Yes Yes
Transport planning Indicative Indicative Indicative Indicative Indicative

*There are indications on the websites that there is some attention to community activities but it is unclear how this is undertaken. For example, Devine published a press release indicating that
it presented a ‘community day’.

12
Bibliography

R Barrett, Liberating the Corporate Soul: Building a Visionary Organisation, Butterworth-

Heinemann, Boston, Mass., 1998

Z Baumann, Postmodern Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford, 1993

D Birch, “Corporate Citizenship in Australia: Some ups, some downs”, Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, Issue 5 Spring, 2002, 73 - 84

D Birch, “Corporate Social Responsibility: Some key theoretical issues and concepts for new
ways of doing business”, Journal of New Business Ideas and Trends, vol 1, no 1, 2003, 1-19

D Birch & M Glazebrook, “Doing business – doing culture: corporate citizenship and
community” in S Rees & S Wright (eds), Human Rights, Corporate Responsibility: a
dialogue, Pluto Press, Sydney, NSW, 41-52

Chartered Institute of Building, Corporate Social Responsibility and Construction, Chartered

Institute of Building, UK, retrieved 29 July 2009, http://www.ciob.org.uk/home

S Chen & P Bouvain, “Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate

Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany”, Journal of Business
Ethics, vol 87, 2009, 299–317

E Coiacetto, “Development Industry structure into the global era: The challenge for planning,
cities and sustainability”, Australian Planner, vol 44, no 3, 2007, 50 – 51

Corporate Responsibility Index, 2008 Index Results, Corporate Responsibility Index, May
2009, retrieved 5 August 2009, http://www.corporate-
responsibility.com.au/sites/default/files/2009-cri-results.pdf

M Davidson, “Gentrification as global habitat: a process of class formation or corporate

creation?”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol 32, no 4, October, 2007,
490-506

TM Devinney, “Is the Socially Responsible Corporation a myth? The Good, the Bad and the
Ugly of Corporate Social Responsibility”, Academy of Management Perspectives. May 2009.
44-56

MG Dotzour, TV Grissom, CH Liu & T Pearson, “Highest and Best Use: The Evolving
Paradigm”, Journal of Real Estate Research, vol 5, no 1, Spring, 1990, 17-32

J Gannon & G O’Brien, The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Urban Regeneration,
retrieved 2 August 2009
http://www.thefuturesacademy.ie/sites/default/files/CSR-in-urban-regeneration.pdf

B Gleeson, Australian heartlands: Making space for hope in the suburbs, Allen and Unwin,
Sydney, 2006

B Gleeson & NP Low, Australian urban planning: New challenges, new agendas, Allen and
Unwin, Sydney, 2000

Global Reporting Initiative, Netherlands, retrieved 4 August 2009,

http://www.globalreporting.org

13
Global Reporting Initiative, A Snapshot of Sustainability Reporting in the Construction and
Real Estate Sector, Global Reporting Initiative, Netherlands, retrieved 4 August 2009,
http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/SectorSupplements/ConstructionandRe
alEstate

J Hackworth, The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American

Urbanism, Cornell University Press, New York, 2006

M Halme & J Laurila, “Philanthropy, Integration or Innovation? Exploring the Financial and
Societal Outcomes of Different Types of Corporate Responsibility”. Journal of Business
Ethics, vol 84, 2009, 325–339

D Harvey, Spaces of Hope, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2000

B Hayes & B Walker. “Corporate responsibility or core competence?”, Development in

Practice, vol 15, no 3 & 4, 2005, 405- 412

M Kaptein & J Wempe, ‘The Corporation as Moral Entity’, The Balanced Company: a theory
of Corporate Integrity, Oxford University, UK, 2002, 109–158

M Kelly, The divine right of capital: dethroning the corporate aristocracy, Barrett-Koehler
Publishers, San Francisco, 2003

S Lash & J Urry, The end of organised capitalism, Polity, Cambridge, 1987

S Longstaff, ‘Urban development matters’. St James Ethics Centre, Sydney, 1997, retrieved
26 July 2009http://www.ethics.org.au/about-ethics/ethics-centre-articles/ethics-
subjects/architecture-and-urban-development/article-0037.html

RD McNeil, ‘Partners in the Marketplace: A new model for Business-Civic Leadership’.

National Civic Review. Summer/Fall, 1995, 248–255

S Petrovic-Lazarevic, Corporate Social Responsibility in the Building and Construction

Industry. Working Paper 36/04. Department of Management Working Paper Series, Monash
University, July, 2004

S Petrovic- Lazarevic & V Lazarevic, Corporate Social Responsibility in the Australian

Building and Construction Industry, Working paper 1/09. Department of Management
Working Paper Series, Monash University, January, 2009

G Pivo, ‘Responsible property investment criteria developed using the Delphi Method’,
Building Research and Information, vol 36, no 1, 2008, 20–36

PR Portney, “Corporate social responsibility: an economic and public policy perspective”, in

BL Hay, RN Stavins & RHK Vietor (eds), Environmental Protection and the Social
Responsibility of Firms: Perspectives from Law, Economics, and Business, Resources for
the Future, Washington, DC, 2005, 107–131

Principles for Responsible Investment, retrieved 4 August 2009, http://www.unpri.org

Property Council of Australia, A Guide to Corporate Responsibility in the Property Sector:

Draft Discussion Paper, Property Council of Australia, Sydney, 2009, retrieved 29 July 2009,
http://www.propertyoz.com.au/library/A%20Guide%20to%20Corporate%20Responsibility%2
0Reporting%20in%20the%20Property%20Sector%20V1.0.pdf

14
Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Action Plans, Reconciliation Australia, retrieved 29
July 2009, http://www.reconciliation.org.au/home/reconciliation-action-plans

B Roberts, “Planning and the Economics of Development”, Australian Planner, vol 45, No 1,
2008, 26-27

P Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organisation, Currency,
USA, 2006

United Nations Environment Program, Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative,

retrieved 4 August 2009, http://www.unepsbci.org

DE Sweat & AA Jacquelyn, “The Role of Corporations in Urban Revitalisation: The

Experience of the Atlanta Project”, National Civic Review, Summer-Fall, 1995, 239–247

D Teller, “The Melbourne Model and its All Sector Taskforces: Theoretical Framework and
Delivery Mechanism for the United Nations Global Compact Cities Programme (UNGCCP)”,
Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol 26, Summer, 2007, 43-52

Urban Development Institute of Australia, National Policy Statement. UDIA, Sydney,

retrieved 29 July 2009, http://www.udia.com.au/resource/UDIA-National%20Policy.pdf

E Werna, R Keivani & D Murphy, Corporate Social Responsibility and Urban Development:
Lessons from the South, Macmillan Publishers Limited, Hampshire, UK, 2009

S Yam, M Ismail & T Yin, “Corporate Social Responsibility in Housing Development – The
Developers’ Perspective.” Conference Paper. Fourteenth Pacific Rim Real Estate Society
Conference, 2008, retrieved 1 August 2009
http://www.prres.net/Papers/Yam_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_In_Housing_Developme
nt.pdf

S Zadek, The Civil Corporation: the new economy of corporate citizenship, Earthscan,
London, 2001, 65-76

15