Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2011-01 - Best and Worst Performing National Networks, UNGC

    Uploaded by

    Global Compact Critics
    2K views3 pages
    The list with expelled companies provided by the Global Compact Office forms an interesting basis for analysis. One of the most interesting findings is that about 65 percent of the expelled companies are small and medium-sized enterprises. Another noteworthy fact is that some of the most efficient local networks are found in Ukraine, Belarus, Panama and Kenya, while local networks in China, USA and Switzerland are lagging far behind. Here is an overview of the best and worst performing local networks. For our analysis with regard to efficiency and idleness, we have only included networks with a membership of over 50 companies since 2000.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The list with expelled companies provided by the Global Compact Office forms an interesting basis for analysis. One of the most interesting findings is that about 65 percent of the expelled companies are small and medium-sized enterprises. Another noteworthy fact is that some of the most efficient local networks are found in Ukraine, Belarus, Panama and Kenya, while local networks in China, USA and Switzerland are lagging far behind. Here is an overview of the best and worst performing local networks. For our analysis with regard to efficiency and idleness, we have only included networks with a membership of over 50 companies since 2000.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2K views3 pages

    2011-01 - Best and Worst Performing National Networks, UNGC

    Uploaded by

    Global Compact Critics
    The list with expelled companies provided by the Global Compact Office forms an interesting basis for analysis. One of the most interesting findings is that about 65 percent of the expelled companies are small and medium-sized enterprises. Another noteworthy fact is that some of the most efficient local networks are found in Ukraine, Belarus, Panama and Kenya, while local networks in China, USA and Switzerland are lagging far behind. Here is an overview of the best and worst performing local networks. For our analysis with regard to efficiency and idleness, we have only included networks with a membership of over 50 companies since 2000.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    Best and worst performing UN Global Compact Networks (January 2011)

    Most efficient Global Compact Networks (with over 50 business participants since 2000)

    Countries Expelled Active Non-communicating Total (since 2000) Expelled companies (%) Active companies (%)
    Japan 2 122 1 125 1,64% 97,60%
    Malaysia 1 55 1 57 1,82% 96,49%
    Netherlands 3 55 4 62 5,45% 88,71%
    Belarus 3 53 5 61 5,66% 86,89%
    Ukraine 6 79 9 94 7,59% 84,04%
    Sweden 8 90 14 112 8,89% 80,36%
    Panama 13 56 3 72 23,21% 77,78%
    Kenya 10 41 3 54 24,39% 75,93%
    Singapore 3 50 13 66 6,00% 75,76%
    Denmark 9 153 42 204 5,88% 75,00%

    Most deficient Global Compact Networks (with over 50 business participants since 2000)

    Countries Expelled Active Non-communicating Total (since 2000) Expelled companies (%) Active companies (%)
    Philippines 105 12 1 118 88,98% 10,17%
    Dominican Republic 84 18 13 115 73,04% 15,65%
    Mexico 221 62 40 323 68,42% 19,20%
    Indonesia 20 28 68 116 17,24% 24,14%
    Bulgaria 48 35 10 93 51,61% 37,63%
    China 97 112 48 257 37,74% 43,58%
    Italy 71 83 31 185 38,38% 44,86%
    Turkey 66 88 42 196 33,67% 44,90%
    Switzerland 16 37 27 80 20,00% 46,25%
    USA 78 171 103 352 22,16% 48,58%

    SOMO | Database consulted on January 26-27, 2011 1


    Best and worst performing UN Global Compact Networks (January 2011)
    Global Compact Networks with the highest number of active business participants

    Countries Expelled Active Non-communicating Total (since 2000) Expelled companies (%) Active companies (%)
    Spain 159 510 208 877 18,13% 58,15%
    France 230 472 148 850 27,06% 55,53%
    Brazil 72 196 52 320 22,50% 61,25%
    USA 78 171 103 352 22,16% 48,58%
    Denmark 9 153 42 204 4,41% 75,00%
    Argentina 103 149 25 277 37,18% 53,79%
    Colombia 53 138 52 243 21,81% 56,79%
    United Kingdom 39 130 40 209 18,66% 62,20%
    Germany 34 128 25 187 18,18% 68,45%
    Japan 2 122 1 125 1,60% 97,60%

    Global Compact Networks with the highest number of expelled business participants

    Countries Expelled Active Non-communicating Total (since 2000) Expelled companies (%) Active companies (%)
    France 230 472 148 850 27,06% 55,53%
    Mexico 221 62 40 323 68,42% 19,20%
    Spain 159 510 208 877 18,13% 58,15%
    Philippines 105 12 1 118 88,98% 10,17%
    Argentina 103 149 25 277 37,18% 53,79%
    China 97 112 48 257 37,74% 43,58%
    Dominican Republic 84 18 13 115 73,04% 15,65%
    USA 78 171 103 352 22,16% 48,58%
    Brazil 72 196 52 320 22,50% 61,25%
    Italy 71 83 31 185 38,38% 44,86%

    SOMO | Database consulted on January 26-27, 2011 2


    Best and worst performing UN Global Compact Networks (January 2011)
    Global Compact Networks with the highest number of non-communicating business participants

    Countries Expelled Active Non-communicating Total (since 2000) Expelled companies (%) Active companies (%)
    Spain 159 510 208 877 18,13% 58,15%
    France 230 472 148 850 27,06% 55,53%
    USA 78 171 103 352 22,16% 48,58%
    Indonesia 20 28 68 116 17,24% 24,14%
    Brazil 72 196 52 320 22,50% 61,25%
    Colombia 53 138 52 243 21,81% 56,79%
    China 97 112 48 257 37,74% 43,58%
    Turkey 66 88 42 196 33,67% 44,90%
    Denmark 9 153 42 204 4,41% 75,00%
    Mexico 221 62 40 323 68,42% 19,20%
    United Kingdom 39 130 40 209 18,66% 62,20%
    Croatia 1 32 32 65 1,54% 49,23%
    Italy 71 83 31 185 38,38% 44,86%

    SOMO | Database consulted on January 26-27, 2011 3

    You might also like