In its latest quarterly magazine the Boston College Centre for Corporate Citizenship (BCCC) has reiterated how community involvement activities can contribute to achieve corporate goals – particularly, when they are aligned with the company’s business context and the interests of its stakeholders. Companies are becoming increasingly adept at tying employee volunteer and corporate giving programmes to their business strategy. Interestingly, BCCC (2015) noted that many businesses have proritised community involvement projects, including; K12 education, youth programmes and health and wellness programmes among others. These social issues have featured as the top priorities for businesses, as evidenced in BCCC’s (2015) Table. In 2009 and 2011 the top issues were more focused on environmental matters.
The inclusion of health in the top three social goals implies that lately there is more concern amongst US citizens regarding the rising cost of health care. In 2015, the U.S. has spent 17% of its gross domestic product on health care. This figure is higher than any other developed nation, and is projected to reach nearly 20 percent by 2024.
Unsurprisingly, science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education is also an area that is receiving increased investments from business communities. According to BCCC’s (2015) study, nearly 40% of companies are focusing on STEM education in their community involvement programmes. These efforts ensure a future pipeline of talent and skills. In fact, OECD (2014) anticipated that there will be a 17 per cent increase in STEM related jobs between 2014 and 2024 (OECD, 2014).
Arguably, businesses are putting food where their mouth is. As they focus their competences and resources in the areas where they can do the most good, there is potential for them to achieve greater returns on their discretionary investments. At the same time, they close the skill gaps and mismatches in their labour market (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2015).
Camilleri, M.A. and Camilleri, A. (2015). Education and social cohesion for economic growth, International Journal of Leadership in Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2014.995721
In the wake of the migration crisis in September, 2015, the European Union (EU) Commission’s had presented comprehensive proposals to relocate more than 160,000 irregular migrants around the its bloc. Yet, so far moved there were fewer than 200 immigrants that have been redistributed from Italy, Greece and Hungary to all other member states (excluding Britain, Ireland and Denmark, who are exempt under EU treaties). In this light, another summit on migration was hosted in Valletta, Malta on the 11-12th November 2015.
In the Maltese summit, there were more than 60 European and African leaders. The EU has agreed on the establishment of a €1.8bn “trust fund” to tackle the migration crisis. Moreover, the commission has also established an Emergency Trust Fund for Stability to redirect resources toward the root causes of irregular migration and the displacement of persons in Africa. Notwithstanding, it is envisaged that the EU Commission will shortly request some additional €3bn to give to Turkey, to halt the flow of migrants from the east. This budgeted figure is over and above the €4.2bn that the EU has already mobilised to Syrian refugees that are currently hosted in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.
This week’s summit was yet another attempt to better manage the migration flows and to strengthen the fight against irregular migration. The Valletta summit’s political declaration implied that both Africa and Europe will have to reinforce their existing agreements and obligations under international law on return and readmission. At the same time, both EU and African leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to ensure that the returning migrants ought to be treated with full respect of human rights and dignity.
The heads of state declared that they seriously intended to scale up their joint efforts to prevent and fight migrant smuggling. The European and African counterparts agreed to eradicate the trafficking of human beings as they shall be combating those individuals who exploit vulnerable people. The trafficking of human beings (including for the purpose of sexual exploitation and forced labour) is a serious crime. As such, it is considered as an unacceptable infringement of fundamental human rights. In addition, the EU and African leaders sought to strengthen the fight against organised criminal networks, including their links to terrorism; through effective border management, enhanced cooperation and the implementation of legislative and institutional frameworks.
Following this summit, the delegates have pledged to step up their support toward the humanitarian dimension. In the main, they maintained that humanitarian protection should be granted to all those who are entitled to it (in accordance with international and regional instruments).
In conclusion, the Valletta Summit has yielded another action plan that responds to the latest challenging issues, in the face of the ongoing migration and mobility crisis. This action plan features the following five priority domains:
• Development benefits of migration and addressing root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement;
• Legal migration and mobility;
• Protection and asylum;
• Prevention of and fight against irregular migration, migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings;
• Return, readmission and reintegration.
The contemporary subject of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has continuously been challenged by those who want corporations to move beyond transparency, ethical behavior and stakeholder engagement. Today, responsible behaviors are increasingly being embedded into new business models and strategies that are designed to meet environmental, societal and governance deficits.
This book builds on the previous theoretical underpinnings of the corporate social responsibility agenda, including Corporate Citizenship (Carroll, 1998; Waddock, 2004; Matten and Crane, 2004), Creating Shared Value (Porter and Kramer, 2011; 2006), Stakeholder Engagement (Freeman, 1984) and Business Ethics (Crane and Matten, 2004) as it presents the latest Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility (CSR2.0) perspective. The CSR2.0 notion is increasingly being recognized as a concept that offers ways of thinking and behaving that has potential to deliver significant benefits to both business and society (The International Conference(s) on Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, organized by the Humboldt University Berlin in 2014, 2016).
This ‘new’ proposition is an easy term that may appeal to the business practitioners as it is linked to improvements in economic performance, operational efficiency, higher quality, innovation and competitiveness. At the same time it raises awareness on responsible behaviors. Therefore, CSR2.0 can be considered as strategic in its intent and purposes, as businesses are capable of being socially and environmentally responsible ‘citizens’ as they pursue their profit-making activities.
Objective
This book is a concise and authoritative guide to students and well-intended professionals. CSR is moving away from ‘nice-to-do’ to ‘doing-well-by-doing-good’ mantra. This contribution covers many aspects of Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility (CSR2.0).
It will include relevant theoretical frameworks and the latest empirical research findings in the area. It shall provide thorough understanding on corporate social responsibility, sustainability, stakeholder engagement, business ethics and corporate governance. It also sheds light on environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures and sustainability reporting; CSR and digital media, socially responsible investing (SRI); responsible supply chain management; the circular economy, responsible procurement of sustainable products; consumer awareness of sustainability / eco labels; climate change and the environmental awareness; CSR in education and training; and responsible behaviors of small enterprises among other topics.This publication will explain the rationale for CSR2.0 as a guiding principle for business success. It shall report on the core aspects of contemporary strategies, public policies and practices that create shared value for business and society.
References
Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and society review, 100(1), 1-7.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, R. Edward (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. ISBN 0-273-01913-9.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management review, 30(1), 166-179.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and society Review, 109(1), 5-42
Target Audience
This book introduces the concept of corporate sustainability and responsibility (CSR2.0) to advanced undergraduate and / or post graduate students in a structured manner. It is also relevant to policy makers, business professionals, small business owners, non-profit organizations and charitable foundations.
Recommended Topics
• Theoretical Underpinnings on Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility;
• The Evolution of Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility;
• International Policies and Regulatory Instruments for Engagement in Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility;
• Responsible Corporate Governance and Sustainable Business;
• Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Disclosures of Sustainable and Responsible Businesses;
• Corporate Citizenship and Sustainable Business;
• Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) for Sustainable Business;
• Responsible Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Business;
• Responsible Procurement of Sustainable Products;
• Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Communications;
• Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Reporting and Digital Media;
• Consumer Awareness of Sustainable Products and Responsible Businesses;
• The Use of Eco labels by Responsible Businesses;
• Global Issues, Climate Change and the Environmental Awareness of Sustainable and Responsible Businesses;
• Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Initiatives in Education and Training;
• Corporate Sustainable and Responsible Behaviors;
• The Business Case for Responsible Behaviors among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.
Submission Procedure
Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit on or before January 31, 2016, a chapter proposal of 1,000 to 2,000 words clearly explaining the mission and concerns of his or her proposed chapter. Authors will be notified by February 15, 2016 about the status of their proposals and sent chapter guidelines. Full chapters are expected to be submitted by April 30, 2016, and all interested authors must consult the guidelines for manuscript submissions at http://www.igi-global.com/publish/contributor-resources/before-you-write/ prior to submission. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-blind review basis. Contributors may also be requested to serve as reviewers for this project.
Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees for manuscripts submitted to this book publication, CSR 2.0 and the New Era of Corporate Citizenship. All manuscripts are accepted based on a double-blind peer review editorial process. All proposals should be submitted through the E-Editorial DiscoveryTM online submission manager.
Publisher
This book is scheduled to be published by IGI Global (formerly Idea Group Inc.), publisher of the “Information Science Reference” (formerly Idea Group Reference), “Medical Information Science Reference,” “Business Science Reference,” and “Engineering Science Reference” imprints. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit http://www.igi-global.com. This publication is anticipated to be released in 2016.
Important Dates
January 31, 2016: Proposal Submission Deadline
February 15, 2016: Notification of Acceptance April 30, 2016: Full Chapter Submission June 30, 2016: Review Results Returned July 31, 2016: Final Acceptance Notification August 15, 2016: Final Chapter Submission
In the past, economic models were mostly built on the premise of ‘take-make-consume and dispose” pattern of growth (EU, 2015). Businesses and industries have customarily followed such a linear model that assumed that resources are abundant, available and cheap to dispose of; as every product is usually bound to reach its ‘end of life’. At the same time, when products worn out or are no longer desired, they are often discarded as waste.
Industrial and mining activities are causing resource depletion and pollution problems (Prior, Giurco, Mudd, Mason and Behrisch, 2012). Notwithstanding, it is envisaged that the reserves of some of globe’s key elements and minerals shall be depleted within the next 50 years or so (Shrivastava, 1995).
Moreover, land degradation is constantly impacting on the natural environment, as arable land continues to disappear. Improper disposal of hazardous waste in landfills could cause health risks for nearby residents and animals (McKinney, Kick and Cannon, 2015).
Incineration of waste products also creates the need to dispose of residual toxic metals, including lead and mercury, which in turn bring problems of groundwater contamination (Singh, Singh, Araujo, Ibrahim and Sulaiman, 2011).
In addition, plastic waste dumped into the ocean is responsible for the deaths of millions of fish, seabirds, and sea mammals, annually (Barnes, Galgani, Thompson and Barlaz, 2009).
Furthermore, the warming of the earth’s climate, that is one of the outcomes of carbon emissions from fossil fuels, is yet another serious problem facing today’s society (Levitus, Antonov, Boyer, Baranova, Garcia, Locarnini and Zweng, 2012).
The world’s growing populations and their increased wealth is inevitably leading to greater demands for limited and scarce resources. Twenty five years ago, Granzin and Olsen (1991) reported that the US municipalities were already running out of landfills. Today, Americans are generating around 251 million tons of trash (EPA, 2012). In a similar vein, every person in Europe consumes more than 4.5 tonnes of waste (EU, 2015).
These contentious issues underline the perennial conflict between economic development and environmental protection. It may appear that the extant economic models seem to rely too much on resource extraction and depletion. If solutions are to be found, the public must be encouraged to alter a number of its irresponsible behaviors (Williams and Zinkin, 2008). There could be scope in using resources more efficiently; as better eco-designs, waste prevention and reuse of materials can possibly bring net savings for businesses, while also reducing emissions.
Perhaps, policy makers could elicit certain behavioral changes that will close the loop of the circular economy. Their responsible proposals may be presented as voluntary principles or could even be mandated by legislation – in some contexts. Regulatory tools and guidelines will help to bring further improvements in the organisations’ operational procedures, for the benefit of all stakeholders (Camilleri, 2015).
The basis of the circular economy lies in extracting the embedded costs of resources; through re-using, repairing, refurbishing and recycling materials and products throughout their life cycle. Arguably, what was used to be regarded as ‘waste’ could be turned into a valuable resource for business and industry.
In sum, this contribution presents the business case for resource efficiency that could possibly bring a new wave of smart, sustainable growth and competitiveness.
References
Barnes, D. K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., & Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 1985-1998.
Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting”. Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 18 (3) 210-222
EPA (2012) Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf retrieved on 03rd November 2015.
Levitus, S., Antonov, J. I., Boyer, T. P., Baranova, O. K., Garcia, H. E., Locarnini, R. A., … & Zweng, M. M. (2012). World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(10).
McKinney, L., Kick, E., & Cannon, C. (2015). A Human Ecology Approach to Environmental Inequality: A County-Level Analysis of Natural Disasters and the Distribution of Landfills in the Southeastern United States. Human Ecology Review, 21(1), 109.
Singh, R. P., Singh, P., Araujo, A. S., Ibrahim, M. H., & Sulaiman, O. (2011). Management of urban solid waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(7), 719-729.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of management review, 20(1), 118-137.
Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2008). The effect of culture on consumers’ willingness to punish irresponsible corporate behaviour: applying Hofstede’s typology to the punishment aspect of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(2), 210-226.
Substantia Mea 
You must be logged in to post a comment.