*This offer is valid from 1st April to 1st May 2017.
Impact investing is one of the fastest growing and promising areas of innovative development finance (Thornley, Wood, Grace & Sullivant, 2011; Freireich & Fulton, 2009). This form of socially-responsible investment (SRI) also has its roots in the venture capital community where investors unlock a substantial volume of private and public capital into companies, organisations and funds – with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.
The stakeholders or actors in the impact investing industry can be divided into four broad categories: asset owners who actually own capital; asset managers who deploy capital; demand-side actors who receive and utilise the capital; and service providers who help make this market work.
Impact investments can be made in both emerging and developed markets, and target a range of returns from below market to market rate; depending on the investors’ strategic goals. Bugg-Levine and Emerson (2011) argued that impact investing aligns the businesses’ investments and purchase decisions with their values. Defining exactly what is (and what is not) an impact investment has become increasingly important as it appears that the term has taken off among academia and practitioners.
The impact investments are usually characterised by market organisations that are driven by a core group of proponents including foundations, high-net worth individuals, family offices, investment banks and development finance institutions. Responsible entities are mobilising capital for ‘investments that are intended to create social impact beyond financial returns’ (Jackson, 2013; Freireich & Fulton 2009). Specific examples of impact investments may include; micro-finance, community development finance, sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, conservation, micro-finance and affordable and accessible basic services, including; housing, healthcare, education and clean technology among others.
Micro-finance institutions in developing countries and affordable housing schemes in developed countries have been the favorite vehicles for these responsible investments, though impact investors are also beginning to diversify across a wider range of sectors (see Saltuk, Bouri, & Leung 2011; Harji & Jackson 2012). Nevertheless, micro-finance has represented an estimated 50% of European impact investing assets (EUROSIF, 2014). This form of investing has grown to an estimated €20 billion market in Europe alone (EUROSIF, 2014). The Netherlands and Switzerland were key markets for this investment strategy, as they represented an estimated two thirds of these assets. These markets were followed by Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany.
Generally, the investors’ intent is to ensure that they achieve positive impacts in society. Therefore, they would in turn expect tangible evidence of positive outcomes (and impacts) of their capital. Arguably, the evaluation capacity of impact investing could increase opportunities for dialogue and exchange. Therefore, practitioners are encouraged to collaborate, exchange perspectives and tools to strengthen their practices in ways that could advance impact investing. The process behind on-going encounters and growing partnerships could surely be facilitated through conferences, workshops, online communities and pilot projects. Moreover, audit and assurance ought to be continuously improved as institutions and investors need to be equipped with the best knowledge about evaluation methods. Hence, it is imperative that University and college courses are designed, tested and refined to improve the quality of education as well as professional training and development in evaluating responsible investments.
For evaluation to be conducted with ever more precision and utility, it must be informed by mobilising research and analytics. Some impact investing funds and intermediaries are already using detailed research and analysis on investment portfolios and target sectors. At the industry-wide level, the work of the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) and IRIS (a catalogue of generally accepted Environmental, Social and Governance – ESG performance metrics) is generating large datasets as well as a series of case studies on collaborative impact investments. Similarly, the Global Impact Investing Rating System (GIIRS) also issues quarterly analytics reports on companies and their respective funds in industry metrics (Camilleri, 2015).
For the most part, those responsible businesses often convert positive impact-investment outcomes into tangible benefits for the poor and the marginalised people (Garriga & Melé, 2004). Such outcomes may include increased greater food security, improved housing, higher incomes, better access to affordable services (e.g. water, energy, health, education, finance), environmental protection, and the like (Jackson, 2013).
Interestingly, high sustainability companies significantly outperform their counterparts over the long-term, both in terms of stock market and accounting performance (Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012). This out-performance is stronger in sectors where the customers are individual consumers, rather than companies (Eccles et al., 2012).
It may be complicated and time-consuming to quantify how enterprises create various forms of humanitarian and environmental value, yet some approaches and analytical tools can help to address today’s societal challenges, including the return on impact investments in social and sustainability projects.
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The impact of a corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance (No. W17950). National Bureau of Economic Research.
EUROSIF (2014). Press Release: 6th Sustainable and Responsible Investment Study 2014. Europe-based national Sustainable Investment Forums. http://www.eurosif.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Press-Release-European-SRI-Study-2014-English-version.pdf (Accessed 14 May 2016).
Freireich, J., & Fulton, K. (2009). Investing for social and environmental impact: A design for catalyzing an emerging industry. Monitor Institute, January.
Harji, K., & Jackson, E. T. (2012). Accelerating impact: Achievements, challenges and what’s next in building the impact investing industry. New York, NY: The Rockefeller Foundation.
Saltuk, Y., Bouri, A., & Leung, G. (2011). Insight into the impact investment market: An in-depth analysis of investor perspectives and over 2,200 transactions. New York, NY: J.P. Morgan.
Chapter 1 presents a thorough literature review on corporate social responsibility and its other related constructs, including corporate citizenship, stakeholder engagement and business ethics. Hence, this chapter reports on how CSR has evolved to reflect the societal realities.
Chapter 2 reviews the different definitions of the corporate responsibility paradigms and draws comparisons between related concepts. The author contends that organization studies; economic, institutional, cultural and cognitive perspectives are shaping the corporate responsibility agenda. She cleverly presents the benefits of integrating multiple perspectives and discusses about the possible research avenues in the realms of corporate responsibility.
Chapter 3 suggests that the field of CSR is ushering a new era in the relationship between business and society. The author puts forward a Total Responsibility Management (TRM) approach that may be useful for business practitioners who intend adopting CSR behaviors. This chapter posits that CSR strategies including managing relationship with stakeholders will contribute to the companies´success and will also bring community welfare.
Chapter 4 focuses on the national governments’ regulatory role of raising awareness on CSR behaviors among businesses. The author suggests that there is scope for the state agencies to promote CSR as a business case for companies. She provides an outline of the current state of “supranational regulative policies on public procurement” within the European Union context.
Chapter 5 uses a stakeholder perspective to encapsulate the CSR concept. The authors investigated social value cocreation (SVCC) through a qualitative study among different stakeholders (customers, employees, and managers). They implied that businesses ought to clarify their motives, by opening channels of communication with stakeholders. This way, there will be a higher level of SVCC with increased (stakeholder) loyalty toward the firms.
Chapter 6 sheds light on Porter and Kramer’s (2011) shared value proposition. The author explains how collaborative stakeholder interactions could lead to significant improvements in the supply chain.
Chapter 7 involved a longitudinal study that investigated how four different State Owned Enterprises communicated with Māori communities between 2008 and 2013. This study contributes to the extant research on the legitimacy theory and CSR communication with ethnic minorities in the Aotearoa (New Zealand) context.
Chapter 8 links the CSR paradigm with risk management. The author suggests that Serbian businesses ought to adopt corporate sustainable and responsible approaches in terms of their disaster risk reduction prior to environmental emergencies.
Chapter 9 involved a quantitative analysis that explored the CSR practices within the hospitality industry. The authors suggested that there were distinct social and environmentally responsible behaviors in different geographical areas. They argued that institutions can take their results into account when drawing up policies that are aimed at fostering responsible tourism practices.
Chapter 10 examined how CSR communication of self-serving motives can lead to more trust and credibility among stakeholders as well as corporate reputation. The authors implied that the marketers should be aware of how the public perceive CSR behaviors.
Chapter 11 reports that corporate (or organizational) storytelling is increasingly being used as a promotional tool to communicate CSR information to stakeholders. The authors present four companies that have used storytelling with the aims of transmitting values, fostering collaboration, leading change and sharing knowledge on responsible practices.
Chapter 12 relates corporate sustainability to the construct of emotional capital. The authors maintain that emotional capital enables businesses to attract and retain talent. They maintain that there are significant improvements to the firms’ bottom lines If they invest in responsible human resources management.
Chapter13 suggests that the transition from the CSR to CSR 2.0 requires the adoption of five new principles – creativity, scalability, responsiveness, glocality and circularity. The authors posit that these principles ought to be embedded within the organizations’ management values and culture. The authors propose a new framework that can be used to manage the processes of socially responsible organizations.
Chapter 14 investigated the banks’ behaviors during the economic crisis in Turkey. The authors reported on the bank’s CSR strategies as they supported small and medium sized enterprises, as well as local communities during the financial turmoil.
Chapter 15 offers insights on sustainable tourism as the authors investigated the constraints that explain why an attitude–behavior gap exists in responsible tourists’ behaviors.
Chapter 16 examines three leading networks that are intended to promote corporate sustainability and responsibility. The author explores their growing influence as he reviews their objectives, organizational structures, types of activities, practices and impacts.
Further details on this contribution is available here: http://www.igi-global.com/book/csr-new-era-corporate-citizenship/166426
About the Editor:
Dr. Mark Anthony Camilleri is a resident academic in the Department of Corporate Communication at the University of Malta. He specializes in strategic management, stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility and sustainable business. Mark successfully finalized his PhD (Management) in three years’ time at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland – where he was nominated for his “Excellence in Teaching”. During the past years, Mark taught business subjects at under-graduate, vocational and post-graduate levels in Hong Kong, Malta and the UK.
Dr Camilleri has published his research in peer-reviewed journals, chapters and conference proceedings. He is also a member on the editorial board of Springer’s International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility and a member of the academic advisory committee in the Global Corporate Governance Institute (USA). Mark is a frequent speaker and reviewer at the American Marketing Association’s (AMA) Marketing & Public Policy conference and in the Academy of Management’s (AoM) Annual Meeting.
Ozan Nadir ALAKAVUKLAR is a lecturer in management at Massey University School of Management. His research interests are based on sustainability, community organizing and social movements.
Marcello ATZENI received his PhD at the University of Cagliari. His research interests are related to tourism authenticity and consumer behavior.
Elisa BARAIBAR DIEZ is a Lecturer in Business Administration at the University of Cantabria. Her fields of research are corporate transparency, CSR, corporate governance and reputation. She focuses on transparency and its effects not only in a business context but also in other contexts such as universities.
Jesús BARRENA MARTINEZ is an Assistant Professor postdoctoral in the Department of Business Management at the University of Cadiz. He has a PhD in the field of Economics and Business Management. His teaching and research interests include Human Resource Management, Corporate Social Responsibility and Intellectual Capital. He has presented papers at international and national conferences and published in journals such as Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Journal of Human Values, Tourism and Management Studies and Intangible Capital.
Roland BERBERICH is Independent researcher in Project Management with additional MRes degree from Heriot Watt University. He has acquired more than 10 years of project experience.
Claudiu George BOCEAN is Associate Professor at and PhD supervisor Faculty of Economics and Business Administration within University of Craiova. In 2000, graduated Bachelor Degree, major in Accountancy and Informatics, Faculty of Economics, University of Craiova, Romania. In 2004, graduated Master program in Business Administration, Faculty of Economics, University of Craiova, Romania. In 2007, PhD in Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of Craiova, Romania. In 2015, Habilitation title in Management, Academy of Economic Sciences Bucharest, Romania. Since 2002 – present, teaching and researching in Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Craiova on topics such as Human Resource Management, Corporate Social Responsibility, Organization Theory, Business Economics, and co-operating within projects with national and international universities and organizations.
Michael Devereux obtained both Master in Business Administration (MBA) from University of North Carolina at Wilmington and a Master in International Business from Universitat de Valencia. Prior to graduate school, he gained a Bachelor in Economics and Geography focusing on international economics and Central/South America from Weber State University. Additionally, he has studied in Costa Rica, and in Guatemala participating in a microfinance and economic development project for indigenous women in Guatemala. His current interests are focused on international affairs, humanitarian components, health and well-being, economic development, community engagement, energy and environmental sustainability.
José Ignacio ELICEGUI REYES is Graduate in Management Business Administration and Business Sciences, as well as he has studied a Masters in Human Resource Management at the University of Cadiz. Currently, he is studying a Masters in Teacher Training in Secondary Schools and High Schools, Vocational Training and Language Training for the specialty of Business Administration at the University of Cadiz. Also, he is developing his PhD in the Human Resource Management field.
Martina G. GALLARZA lectures in the Marketing Department of Universidad de Valencia (SPAIN). She has formerly taught at Universidad Católica de Valencia, where she was Dean of the Business Faculty. Her research interests include consumer behavior and tourism services. She has authored more than 40 articles (in Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Journal of Services Marketing, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management among others), and has presented more than 70 papers in Congresses (EMAC, MKT TRENDS Conference, AMA Servsig, ATMC). She teaches in several international masters in Europe (MTM in IGC at Bremen (Germany) and MAE at IGR-IAE Rennes (France). Guest scholar for short periods at Columbia University (New York City. USA), ESCP (France), Sassari University (Sardinia. Italia), Strathclyde University (Glasgow, UK), She is member of the American Marketing Association (AMA), Asociación Española de Marketing (AEMARK), Association Française de Marketing (AFM) and formerly of Association Internationale d’Experts Scientifiques en Tourisme (AIEST She is member of the Board of Directors of Pernod Ricard. S.A. since 2012.
Raquel GOMEZ LOPEZ is a Lecturer in Business Management at the University of Cantabria (Spain). Her current research interests include quality management, excellence models, responsible management, family firms, innovation, and tourism. Raquel’s works have been published in journals of international impact such as Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence and Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development among others. She is also author of several chapters in various collective works and one book. She regularly participates in prestigious international and national conferences, such as those organized by FERC, IFERA and ACEDE.
Misra Cagla GUL is an Associate Professor of Marketing and the Vice Director of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Isik University. She holds a PhD degree from Bogazici University, and an MBA degree from Georgia State University. She has published in the fields of marketing and consumer behavior in times of recession, corporate social responsibility, social marketing, status consumption, green consumer behavior and strategic marketing. She teaches various marketing courses including consumer behavior, advertising and services marketing, both at undergraduate and graduate levels. Her professional experience includes over 5 years in marketing in telecommunications and energy sectors. She has a B.Sc. degree in Industrial Engineering from Bogazici University.
Jose Ramon CARDONA received a doctorate in business economics from the University of the Balearic Islands in 2012. He worked as lecturer in marketing at the University of Zaragoza, Pablo de Olavide University and the University of the Balearic Islands. He’s a research associate of the research group Business Management and Tourist Destinations.
Giacomo DEL CHIAPPA is an assistant professor of marketing at the Department of Economics and Business, University of Sassari (Italy), and Associate Researcher at CRENoS. He is also a senior research fellow, School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. His research is related to destination governance and branding, consumer behavior, and digital marketing. He has published articles in several international journals, among others the International Journal of Hospitality Management, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Travel Research, International Journal of Tourism Research, International Journal of Contemporary and Hospitality Management, Current Issues in Tourism, and Information Systems and E-Business Management.
Michael DEVEREUX obtained both Master in Business Administration (MBA) from University of North Carolina at Wilmington and a Master in International Business from Universitat de Valencia. Prior to graduate school, he gained a Bachelor in Economics and Geography focusing on international economics and Central/South America from Weber State University. Additionally, he has studied in Costa Rica, and in Guatemala participating in a microfinance and economic development project for indigenous women in Guatemala. His current interests are focused on international affairs, humanitarian components, health and well-being, economic development, community engagement, energy and environmental sustainability.
José Luis FERNANDEZ SANCHEZ, PhD is a Professor of Business Administration at the University of Cantabria. He specializes in CSR, especially social investment.
Paul George HOLLAND, received a Bachelor in Business degree from the Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand in 2012 and a Master of Business Studies from Massey University, New Zealand in 2015.
Mehmet KAYTAZ is currently professor of economics and the Dean of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences at Işık University, Istanbul, Turkey. He holds a M.A. degree from the University of Manchester (1974) and Ph.D. from the University of Nottingham (1978). He was a faculty member of Boğaziçi University between 1978-2005.He served as President of State Institute of Statistics, Turkey; as Undersecretary of Treasury; as an alternate director in European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and as Chairman of Board of Directors of Eregli Iron & Steel Factories. He has authored articles and books on small-scale enterprises, income distribution, economic growth, statistics, finance and education.
Valentín-Alejandro MARTINEZ FERNANDEZ is a Permanent Professor at University of A Coruña, Area of Marketing and Market Research. B.A. Information Sciences, Complutense University of Madrid. MBA Management and Business Administration, University of A Coruña. PhD. Information Sciences, Complutense University of Madrid.
Patricia MARTINEZ GARCIA DE LEANIZ is an Assistant Professor at the University of Cantabria (Spain). Her current research interests include corporate social responsibility, consumer behavior, corporate marketing and responsible management. Her research focuses on theoretical and empirical studies in the tourism sector. Patricia’s works have been published in journals of international impact such as International Journal of Hospitality Management, Journal of Business Ethics, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing among others. She is also author of several chapters in various collective works and one book. She regularly participates in prestigious international and national conferences, such as those organized by EMAC, AEMARK and ACEDE.
Lars MORATIS is an expert in corporate social responsibility (CSR) affiliated with Antwerp Management School in Belgium as the Academic Director of the Competence Center Corporate Responsibility and with the NHTV University of Applied Sciences in The Netherlands as Professor of Sustainable Business. His research interests lie in the credibility of corporate CSR claims, ISO 26000, CSR strategy, CSR implementation, responsible management education and critical perspectives on CSR. His other interest is the psychology of sustainability. He received an MSc in Business Administration from Erasmus University Rotterdam School of Management and his PhD from the Open University the Netherlands. His PhD dissertation on ISO 26000 carried the title ‘Standardizing a better world? Essays and critical reflections on the ISO 26000 standard for corporate social responsibility’. He publishes on his research interest in both scientific and practitioner-oriented journals and book chapters. He has written several books, among which is ‘ISO 26000: The business guide to the new standard on social responsibility’.
María D. ODRIOZOLA (PhD) is a Lecturer in Business Administration at the University of Cantabria. Her research focuses on Human Resources Management and CSR. Particularly, she is specialized in labor social responsibility practices.
Mariella PINNA is a Research Fellow at the University of Sassari where she teaches in the area of “Ethics”. Her research interest is related to ethical consumption and consumer behavior.
Vesela RADOVIC is an associate professor, works in the Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, Belgrade University, Serbia. Dr. Radovic has an MPH in fire safety protection and a PhD in safety, protection and defense from the Faculty of Safety in Belgrade. She has a long record of experience in the area of disaster management. As an expert in the area of disaster management she prepared the handbook, Methodology of Risk Assessment and Emergency Management Planning at the Local Level. This manual was a part of the activities of the USAID, Serbia Preparedness, Planning and Economic Security Program, implemented by the DAI/Washington. She spent a year with the Fulbright/Hubert Humphrey Fellowship, at Tulane University, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Department of International Health and Development, New Orleans, LA. During that year in USA her focus was on public policy making and emergency preparedness. Dr. Radovic will focus her future activities in academic community in order to share acquired knowledge to help her country, Serbia in supporting the necessary reforms in the context of Euro-Atlantic Integrations.
Amir Hossein RAHDARI is one of the top 25 youngest Sustainable Business professionals (2degrees). He is the director of research at Corporate Governance and Responsibility Development Centre, an external reviewer to several Int. peer-reviewed journals (JCR and Scopus indexed), a research contributor to CSRI and some other leading platforms. He is also an independent research & consultant and a member of several leading panels on sustainability including GBI Panel (US), NG Panel (UK), Ministry of Petroleum CSR Committee (Iran).
Pedro M. ROMERO FERNANDEZ is a Professor in the Department of Business Management at the University of Cadiz. His teaching experience (more than 15 years) spans the broad range of strategy, human resources and management. He has published his work in the field of HRM in peer-reviewed top national and international journals, such as the International Journal of Human Resource Management, British Journal of Management, Journal of Business Research and Journal of Business Ethics.
María Dolores SANCHEZ FERNANDEZ is a PhD “Competitiveness, Innovation and Development” and a Lecturer at the University of la Coruña (Spain), Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Analysis and Business Management, Business Organization area. She is also part of the GREFIN (University of A Coruña) and GEIDETUR (University of Huelva) research groups and associate researcher at the Centre of CICS.NOVA.UMinho and Lab2PT research at the University of Minho, GEEMAT (Brazil) and REDOR Network (Mexico). She has been the author or co-author of several articles published in indexed journals. She has participated in over 100 communications in national and International conferences and is a member of the scientific committee. She reviews international scientific magazines in Spain, United States and Brazil. Her main research topics are: Corporate Social Responsibility, quality, tourism, the hotel industry and human resources.
Katharina SARTER is an Ailsa McKay Postdoctoral Fellow at Glasgow Caledonian University. Previously Research Fellow at Bielefeld University, University of Muenster, and University of Rostock as well as Bernheim Postdoctoral Fellow at the Hoover Chair of Economic and Social Ethics at the Catholic University of Louvain and Visiting Scholar at the Public Procurement Research Group at the School of Law of the University of Nottingham.
Catalina SITNIKOV is Professor at University of Craiova (Romania), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. She has PhD title in Management since 2000, Habilitation title in Management since 2014 and since February 2015 is PhD supervisor in Management. For 3 years activated as Visiting Lecturer at Helsinki University of Technology, Lahti Center (Finland). Since 1995, she has been teaching undergraduate, master and PhD students. She teaches Quality Management, Total Quality Management and Management. Her main research areas include: management, strategic management, and mostly quality management, instruments and models specific to the stages of quality planning, control and improvement, quality management strategies, ISO standards, CSR from the perspective of specific standards and instruments.
Marius Sorin TUDOR holds a PhD from the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration within University of Craiova. In 1998, graduated Bachelor Degree, major in Accountancy and Informatics, Faculty of Economics, University of Craiova, Romania, In 2001, graduated Master program in Business Administration, Faculty of Economics, University of Craiova, Romania In 2008, PhD in Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of Craiova, Romania Since 2006 – present, teaching and researching in Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Craiova on topics such as Project Management, Environmental Economics, Marketing public, Methods and techniques for decision-making in public organizations, Media management. Since 2015 – present, Manager of Universitaria – Publishing house within University of Craiova.
Başak UCANOK TAN received her B.A. degree in Business Administration from Başkent University. Upon her graduation she was granted the Sunley Management Scholarship and completed MSc in International Management from the University of Northampton, UK. Her master’s dissertation focused on the adverse psychological effects of financial crises on layoff survivors. She continued her academic pursuits in Marmara and Istanbul Bilgi University and earned her PhD in Organizational Behavior with her dissertation on the investigation of organizational citizenship behaviors in Turkish SMEs. Her academic research focus concentrates on the dynamics of micro organizational phenomena including work values, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, alienation, leadership and cooperative behavior. She has served as coordinator in Public Relations program in Istanbul Bilgi University from 2010 to 2012 and has recently became Associate Professor.
Anya Catharina Eva ZEBREGS is a master student at University of Amsterdam. Last January she completed her masters in Business Administration and currently she is writing her thesis for the Social Psychology masters. The two masters complement each other very well; she gathered knowledge about consumers, organizations, groups of people and how to influence them and combined this with strategic and economic knowledge. She is interested in marketing and consultancy and after her internship, which will start this September, she would like to find a job in either marketing or consultancy. Further, Anya has always been very interested in CSR and the non-profit market, one of the reasons why she chooses to write her first master thesis about CSR. Further, she is president of the board of SOLVE Consulting Amsterdam. SOLVE is a professional student consultancy organization active in social enterprise consulting. The organization advises non-profits and social enterprises in their efficiency and effectiveness.
The corporate governance principles have initially been articulated in the “Cadbury Report” (Jones and Pollitt, 2004) and have also been formalised in the “Principles of Corporate Governance” by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Camilleri, 2015a; Lazonick and O’Sullivan, 2000). Both reports have presented general principles that help large organisations in corporate governance decisions. Subsequently, the federal government in the United States enacted most of these principles that were reported in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 (Abbott, Parker, Peters and Rama, 2007). Different governments and jurisdictions have put forward their very own governance recommendations to stock exchanges, corporations, institutional investors, or associations (institutes) of directors and managers, sometimes with the support of intergovernmental organisations. With regards to social and employee related matters, large organisations could implement ILO conventions that promote fair working conditions for employees (Fuentes-García, Núñez-Tabales and Veroz-Herradón, 2008). The corporate disclosure of non-financial information can include topics such as; social dialogue with stakeholders, information and consultation rights, trade union rights, health and safety and gender equality among other issues (EU, 2014). The compliance with such governance recommendations is usually not mandated by law. Table 1 presents a selection of corporate governance principles:
Most of these principles have provided reasonable recommendations on sound governance structures and processes. In the main, these guidelines outlined the duties, responsibilities and rights of different stakeholders. In the pre-globalisation era, non-shareholding stakeholders of business firms were in many cases sufficiently protected by law and regulation (Schneider and Scherer, 2015). In the past, the corporate decisions were normally taken in the highest echelons of the organisation. The board of directors had the authority and power to influence shareholders, employees and customers, among others. Sharif and Rashid (2014) suggested that non-executive directors had a positive impact on the CSR reporting. Moreover, Lau, Liu and Liang (2014) examined how board composition, ownership, and the composition of the top management team could influence corporate social performance. However, with the diminution of public steering power and the widening of regulation gaps, these assumptions have become partly untenable (Lau et al., 2014). In many cases, stakeholders of business firms lack protection by nation state legislation. Notwithstanding, with the inclusion of stakeholders, corporate governance may compensate for lacking governmental and regulatory protection and could contribute to the legitimacy of business firms (Miller and del Carmen Triana, 2009). Schneider and Scherer (2015) argued that the inclusion of stakeholders in organisational decision processes on a regular basis can be regarded as the attempt of business firms to address the shortcomings of a shareholder-centred approach to corporate governance. The casual consultation with stakeholders is often characterised by unequal power relations (Banerjee, 2008).
Previous research may have often treated the board as a homogeneous unit. However, at times there could be power differentials within boards (Hambrick, Werder and Zajac, 2008). Boards are often compared to other social entities, in that they possess status and power gradations. Obviously, the chief executive will have a great deal of power within any organisation. In addition, the directors may include current executives of other firms, retired executives, representatives of major shareholders, representatives of employees and academics. Who has the most say? Is it the directors who hold (or represent) the most shares or does it reflect the directors’ tenures? Alternatively, it could be those who hold the most prestigious jobs elsewhere, or the ones who have the closest social ties with the chairman. These power differentials within top management teams could help to explain the firms’ outcomes. Ultimately, the board of directors will affect processes and outcomes.
A more macro perspective on informal structures opens up new questions regarding the roles of key institutional actors in influencing the public corporation (Hambrick, Werder and Zajac, 2008). Although researchers have long been aware of different shareholder types, there has been little consideration of the implications of shareholder heterogeneity for the design and implementation of governance practices. Managers and shareholders, as well as other stakeholders, have wide variations of preferences within their presumed categories. For instance, there are long-term- and short-term-oriented shareholders, majority and minority shareholders, and active and passive shareholders. In addition, the rise of private equity funds have created a whole new shareholder category, which is becoming more and more influential. The idea of heterogeneity within stakeholder categories, including diversity among equity shareholders, will become a popular topic in future governance research (Miller and del Carmen Triana, 2009). Growing shareholder activism raises questions that could have been overlooked in the past. Who runs, and who should run the company? Corporate governance does not begin and end with principals, agents, and contracts. Beyond the obvious roles of regulatory authorities and stock exchanges, we are witnessing an increasing influence from the media, regulatory authorities, creditors and institutional investors, among others. These various entities may have a substantial effect on the behaviours of executives and boards of public companies. Arora and Dharwadkar (2011) had suggested that effective corporate governance could discourage violation of regulations and standards. Jizi, Salama, Dixon, Stratling (2014) examined the impact of corporate governance, with particular reference to the role of board of directors, on the quality of CSR disclosure in US listed banks’ annual reports after the US sub-prime mortgage crisis. Jizi et al. (2014) implied that the larger boards of directors and the more independent ones are in a position to help to promote both shareholders’ and other stakeholders’ interests. They found that powerful CEOs may promote transparency about banks’ CSR activities for reputational concerns. Alternatively, the authors also pointed out that this could be a sign of managerial risk aversion.
Recently, many businesses have linked executive pay to non-financial performance. They tied executive compensation to sustainability metrics such as greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, energy efficiency goals and water stewardship, in order to improve their financial and non-financial performance (CERES, 2012). Interestingly, the latest European Union (EU) Directive 2014/95/EU on non-financial disclosures EU directive has encouraged corporations and large undertakings to use relevant non-financial key performance indicators on environmental matters including; greenhouse gas emissions, water and air pollution, the use of (non) renewable energy and on health and safety (Camilleri, 2015b).
Abbott, L. J., Parker, S., Peters, G. F., and Rama, D. V. (2007). Corporate governance, audit quality, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Evidence from internal audit outsourcing. The Accounting Review, 82(4), 803-835.
Arora, P., and Dharwadkar, R. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate governance: an international review, 19(2), 136-152.
Banerjee, S.B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical sociology, 34(1), 51-79.
Camilleri, M. A. (2015a). Valuing stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting. Corporate Reputation Review, 18(3), 210-222.
Camilleri, M. A. (2015b). Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(2), 224-242.
CERES (2012). Executive compensation tied to ESG performance. The CERES roadmap for sustainability. http://www.ceres.org/roadmap-assessment/progress-report/performance-by-expectation/governance-for-sustainability/executive-compensation-tied-to-esg-performance-1 accessed on the 2nd February 2016.
EU (2014). EU adopts reporting obligations for human rights and other “non-financial” information. Lexology http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=41edd30b-e08c-4d26-ba6f-b87158b5ee85 accessed on the 10th February 2016.
Fuentes-García, F. J., Núñez-Tabales, J. M. and Veroz-Herradón, R. (2008). Applicability of corporate social responsibility to human resources management: Perspective from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 27-44.
Hambrick, D. C., Werder, A. V. and Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381-385.
Jizi, M. I., Salama, A., Dixon, R. and Stratling, R. (2014). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 601-615.
Jones, I., and Pollitt, M. (2004). Understanding how issues in corporate governance develop: Cadbury Report to Higgs Review. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(2), 162-171.
Lau, K. L. A. and Young, A. (2013). Why China shall not completely transit from a relation based to a rule based governance regime: a Chinese perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(6), 577-585.
Lazonick, W., and O’sullivan, M. (2000). Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance. Economy and society, 29(1), 13-35.
Miller, T. and del Carmen Triana, M. (2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management studies, 46(5), 755-786.
Schneider, A. and Scherer, A. G. (2015). Corporate governance in a risk society. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 309-323.
Sharif, M. and Rashid, K. (2014). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: an empirical evidence from commercial banks (CB) of Pakistan. Quality & Quantity, 48(5), 2501-2521.
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.
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.
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
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.
• 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.
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.
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
For Further Inquiries:
Mark Anthony Camilleri, Ph.D.
Department of Corporate Communication
Faculty of Media & Knowledge Sciences
Room 603, MaKS Building
University of Malta
Tel: +356 2340 3742
Mob: +356 79314808
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and communicating activities within the areas of philanthropy, stewardship, volunteerism and environmental affairs are not treated as a regulatory compliance issue in the United States of America (USA). Therefore, organisations are not obliged to satisfy their numerous stakeholders’ expectations vis-a-vis their corporate sustainability and responsibility practices. CSR practices are voluntary practices encompassing laudable behaviours that go beyond financial reporting requirements. At the same time, it must be recognised that sustainable and responsible practices are increasingly being embedded into core business functions and corporate decisions, such as supply chain, transportation, engineering and marketing. In this light, this chapter sheds light on major US institutional frameworks that have been purposely developed to foster CSR engagement among organisations. Policies, principles and voluntary instruments include formal accreditation systems and soft laws that stimulate business to implement and report their CSR-related activities. Several agencies of the US Government are currently employing CSR programmes that are intended to provide guidance in corporate citizenship and human rights; labour and supply chains; anticorruption; energy and the environment; as well as health and social welfare among other issues.
This contribution looks at the US governmental institutions’ processes and their discretionary investments in responsible behaviours, in terms of financial and human resources. It looks at the establishment of particular standards, procedures and expectations. There is a discussion on how US entities have often interpreted their own view on business ethics and corporate citizenship, within the context of their own organisation. Moreover, it contends that there could still be a lack of an appropriate definition which could encapsulate CSR terminology. Arguably, as corporate responsibility becomes more widely understood, accepted and practiced, there could be positive implications for greater convergence of common activities that could be included in corporate responsibility disclosures. In conclusion, this chapter posits that there are indications that US business, industry and governmental organisations are changing their attitudes on CSR, sustainability reporting and corporate governance. It also identifies the drivers and actors that are raising the CSR agenda in the USA.
Excerpt from: “Camilleri, M.A. (2016) A descriptive overview of social responsibility policies in the United States of America. In Idowu, S.O. & Vertigans, S. (eds) CSR in Challenging Times. Springer (Forthcoming)”.
Last year, the European Union (EU) announced its new guidelines on non-financial reporting that will only apply to some large entities with more than 500 employees. This includes listed companies as well as some unlisted companies; such as banks, insurance companies and other companies that are so designated by member states; because of their activities, size or number of employees. There are approximately 6,000 large companies and groups within the EU bloc (EU, 2014). The most prevalent reporting schemes in the EU were often drawn from; the G3 Guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). In addition, several platforms and organisations that promote corporate sustainability reporting have developed partnerships with AccountAbility, OECD, UNEP, Carbon Disclosure Project and with many governments and sector organisations (Van Wensen et al., 2011; Kolk, Levy & Pinkse, 2008).
When one explores the key topics that companies reported on, it transpired that carbon emission disclosures have become quite a common practice (Kolk et al., 2008). Moreover, recently there was an increased awareness on the subject of human rights and the conditions of employment (Lund-Thomsen & Lindgreen, 2013). Curiously, online reporting has offered an opportunity for accountability and transparency as information is easily disseminated to different stakeholders (Zadek, Evans & Pruzan, 2013). This has inevitably led to increased stakeholder engagement, integrated reporting and enhanced external verification systems. This subject has also been reported by Simnett and Huggins (2015), who have also presented a number of interesting research questions which could possibly be addressed through engagement research. At this point in time, stakeholders are considering reporting schemes as a valuable tool that can improve the quality of their reporting, particularly as it enables them to benchmark themselves with other companies (Adams, Muir & Hoque, 2014). The GRI is often regarded as ‘a good starting point’ for this purpose. Moreover, the provision of a UNGC communication on progress is a new global trend that has become quite popular among business and non-profit organisations. Some of the European organisations are gradually disclosing environmental information or certain other key performance indicators that are of a non-financial nature in their reporting (Zadek et al., 2013). Generally, public policies are often viewed as part of the regular framework for social and employment practices. Therefore, a considerable commitment is made by local governments who act as drivers for stakeholder engagement (Albareda, Lozano, Tencati, Middtun & Perrini, 2008).
One way to establish a CSR-supporting policy framework is to adopt relevant strategies and actions in this regard. Such frameworks may be relevant for those countries that may not have a long CSR tradition or whose institutions lack accountability and transparency credentials (Zadek et al., 2013). It may appear that EU countries are opting for a mix of voluntary and mandatory measures to improve their ESG disclosure. While all member states have implemented the EU Modernisation Directive, they have done so in different ways. While the Modernisation Directive ensured a minimum level of disclosure, it was in many cases accompanied by intelligent substantive legislation. National governments ought to give guidance or other instruments that support improvements in sustainability reporting. Lately, there was a trend towards the development of regulations that integrate existing international reporting frameworks such as the GRI or the UNGC Communication on Progress. These frameworks require the engagement of relevant stakeholders in order to foster a constructive environment that brings continuous improvements in ESG disclosures. Regular stakeholder engagement as well as strategic communications can bring more responsible organisational behaviours (Camilleri, 2015). Many corporate businesses use non-governmental organisations’ regulatory tools, processes and performance-oriented standards with a focus on issues such as labour standards, human rights, environmental protection, corporate governance and the like. Nowadays, stakeholders, particularly customers expect greater disclosures, accountability and transparency in corporate reports.
At the moment, we are witnessing regulatory pressures for mandatory changes in CSR reporting. Of course, firms may respond differently to reporting regulations as there are diverse contexts and realities. In a sense, this paper reiterates Adams et al.’s (2014) arguments as it indicated that ESG disclosures are a function of the level of congruence between the government departments’ regulatory environment and the use of voluntary performance measures. Somehow, EU regulatory pressures are responding to energy crises, human rights matters and are addressing the contentious issues such as resource deficiencies including water shortages. Notwithstanding, big entities are also tackling social and economic issues (e.g. anti-corruption and bribery) as they are implementing certain environmental initiatives (e.g. waste reduction, alternative energy generation, energy and water conservation, environmental protection, sustainable transport et cetera). In this light, there are implications for practitioners and assurance providers of integrated reports, standard setters and regulators (Simnett & Huggins, 2015). Future engagement research can possibly consider how report content and reporting formats, might impact on organisations’ decision making (Correa and Larrinaga, 2015). This paper indicated that practice and policy issues would benefit from additional empirical evidence which analyse how the European disclosure regulations may positively or adversely affect the corporations’ stakeholders.
Adams, C.A., Muir, S. & Hoque, Z. (2014) “Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5 (1), 46 – 67
Albareda, L., Lozano, J. M., Tencati, A., Midttun, A., & Perrini, F. (2008). The changing role of governments in corporate social responsibility: drivers and responses. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(4), 347-363.
ASB (2006). Reporting Statement: Operating and Financial Review. https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/ASB/Reporting-Statement-Operating-and-Financial-Review-File.pdf Accessed 30th August, 2014.
Bansal, P., Jiang, G. F., & Jung, J. C. (2014). Managing responsibly in tough economic times: strategic and tactical CSR during the 2008–2009 global recession. Long Range Planning.
BSR (2012). Trends in ESG Integration In Investments https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Trends_in_ESG_Integration.pdf Accessed on the 20th September 2014.
Camilleri, M.A. (2015). Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting. Corporate Reputation Review (18) 2.
Carroll, A.B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons 34 (4) 39-48.CBS (2013)
CCA (2008). Climate Change Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents Accessed 2nd October, 2014.
Clark, G.L. & Knight, E.R. (2008). Implications of the UK Companies Act 2006 for institutional investors and the market for corporate social responsibility. Journal of International Law, 11, 259.
ComLaw (2010) Australian Government: “Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Regulations 2010- F2010L01955 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010L01955 accessed on the 7th February 2015.
Companies Act (2013) The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013 No. 1970
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1970/pdfs/uksi_20131970_en.pdf accessed on the 8th February 2015.
Copenhagen Business School Public policy on CSR reporting: Danish experiences and other observations.https://www.globalreporting.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Global-Conference-2013/slides/GRI-Academic-Public-Policy-TRJ-23May2013.pdf accessed on the 5th February, 2015.
Correa, C., & Larrinaga, C. (2015). Engagement research in social and environmental accounting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(1).
CSR Compass (2014). Responsible supply chain management.
http://www.csrcompass.com/responsible-supply-chain-management Accessed 23rd September, 2014.
Danish National Action Plan (2014). Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Danish Business Authority, Copenhagen. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/NationalPlans/Denmark_NationalPlanBHR.pdf Accessed 30th September 2014.
DCCA (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Reporting in Denmark. Danish Commerce and Companies Agency.
http://samfundsansvar.dk/file/319099/corporate_social_responsibility_and_reporting_in_denmark_september_2010.pdf Accessed 14th September 2014.
DCGC (2014). Dutch Corporate Governance Code: Principles of good corporate governance and best practice provisions.
http://commissiecorporategovernance.nl/download/?id=606 Accessed on the 2nd October, 2014.
DECC (2014). UK National Energy Efficiency Action Plan. Department of Energy and Climate Change.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/eed/doc/neep/2014_neeap_united-kingdom.pdf Accessed 29th August, 2014.
ECCJ (2014). Assessment of the EU Directive on the disclosure of non-financial information by certain large companies. http://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/eccj-assessment-eu-non-financial-reporting-may-2104.pdf Accesses on the 3rd January 2015.
EU (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility: A business contribution to Sustainable Development. COM(2002) 347 final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
EU (2008). National Public Policies in the European Union. ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6716&langId=en accessed on the 10th February 2014
EU (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=701 Accessed 3rd February 2014.
EU (2012a). Sustainable and responsible business European Expert Group on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and SMEs.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/sme/european-expert-group/index_en.htm Accessed 12th July 2014.
EU (2012b). Energy Efficient Directive. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012L0027 Accessed on the 5th January 2015.
EU (2014a). Sustainable Development. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/
Accessed 14th June 2014.
EU (2014b). Non-Financial Reporting.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/non-financial_reporting/index_en.htm Accessed 25th June 2014.
EU (2014c). European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR). http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/general_provisions/l28149_en.htm Accessed 29th August, 2014.
EU ETS (2014). EU Emission Trading Scheme. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm Accessed on the 10th January 2015.
Eurofound (2003). Towards a sustainable corporate social responsibility. European Foundation for the improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
FRC (2012). The UK Corporate Governance Code. Financial Reporting Council. https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/UK-Corporate-Governance-Code-September-2012.aspx Accessed 3rd October, 2014.
Gov.UK, “The UK is the first country to make it compulsory for companies to include emissions data for their entire organisation in their annual reports,” June 20, 2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/leading-businesses-to-disclose-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
Hąbek, P. & Wolniak, R. (2013). European Union regulatory requirements relating to Sustainability Reporting: The case of Sweden. Scientific Journals Maritime University of Szczecin, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademia Morska w Szczecinie.
Hartmann, F., Perego, P., & Young, A. (2013). Carbon Accounting: Challenges for Research in Management Control and Performance Measurement. Abacus, 49(4), 539-563.
Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. (2014). The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. Harvard Business School Research Working Paper 11-100.
IPPC (2013) Integrated pollution prevention and control (until 2013).http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/waste_management/l28045_en.htm Accessed on the 10th January 2015.
Ireland’s Credit Institutions Act (2008). http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/act/pub/0018/ Accessed 19th September 2014.
Kessler, A. & Cuerpo, C. (2011). Macroeconomic Impact of the Sustainable Economy Law. Documentos de Trabajo, 03.
Knopf, J., Kahlenborn, W., Hajduk, T., Weiss, D., Feil, M., Fiedler, R. & Klein, J. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility National Public Policies in the European Union. EU Commission, Brussels.
Kolk, A., Levy, D., & Pinkse, J. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: the institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719-745.
Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132-135.
KPMG (2010). Carrots and Sticks – Promoting Transparency and Sustainability. An update on trends in Voluntary and Mandatory Approaches to Sustainability Reporting.
KPMG in collaboration with United Nations Environment Programme and Global Reporting Initiative in Africa. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Carrots-And-Sticks-Promoting-Transparency-And-Sustainbability.pdf Accessed 01st October, 2014.
Lund-Thomsen, P. & Lindgreen, A. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Value Chains: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?”. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-12.
Martinuzzi, A., Krumay, B. & Pisano, U. (2011). Focus CSR: The New Communication of the EU Commission on CSR and National CSR Strategies and Action Plans. European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN), Quarterly Report No, 23.
Mullerat, R. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: a European perspective. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 13 No. 6, June 2013.
Nidasio, C. (2004). Implementing CSR on a large scale: The role of government. In 3rd Annual Colloquium of the European Academy of Business in Society, Ghent.
Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review (89) 1-2.
Progress Report (2008). For a Sustainable Germany. German Strategy for Sustainable Development. http://www.nachhaltigkeitsrat.de/fileadmin/user_upload/English/strategy/2008/German_Govt_NSDS_progress_report_08_E.pdf Accessed 10th October, 2014.
Rasche, A. (2009). Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards – the case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16 (4) 192–205.
Simnett, R. & Huggins, A.L. (2015) “Integrated reporting and assurance: where can research add value?: “, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6 (1).
Transparency International (2012). GRI: Germany’s corporate reports do not deliver what they promise. https://blog.transparency.org/2012/12/11/gri-germanys-corporate-reports-do-not-deliver-what-they-promise/ Accessed 21st September 2014.
Van Wensen, K., Broer, W., Klein, J. & Knopf, J. (2011). The State of Play in Sustainability Reporting in the European Union. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6727&langId=en Accessed 7th June 2014.
Whiteside, K. H., Boy, D., & Bourg, D. (2010). France’s ‘Grenelle de l’environnement’: openings and closures in ecological democracy. Environmental politics, 19(3), 449-467.
Zadek, S., Evans, R., & Pruzan, P. (Eds.). (2013). Building Corporate Accountability: Emerging Practice in Social and Ethical Accounting and Auditing. Routledge.
On the 29th September 2014, the European Council has introduced amendments to Accounting Directive (2013/34/EU) that mandates corporate business to disclose their non-financial performance. The EU Commission proposed non-binding guidelines on the details of what non-financial information ought to be disclosed by big businesses operating from by EU countries. This legislation respects environmental, human rights, anti-corruption and bribery matters as expressed in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the “Ruggie Principles”) and OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (ECCJ, 2014).
This recent EU directive has marked a step forward towards the hardening of human rights obligations for large “public interest entities” with more than 500 employees. At the moment there are approximately 6,000 large undertakings and groups across the EU. Public interest entities include all the undertakings that are listed on an EU stock exchange, as well as some credit institutions, insurance undertakings and other businesses so designated by Member States.
In a nutshell, these non-financial disclosures should shed light on the corporate businesses’ social and environmentally responsible policies and practices. They will feature a brief description of the undertaking’s business model, including their due diligence processes resulting from their impact of their operations. This EU directive encourages corporates to use relevant non-financial key performance indicators on environmental matters including; greenhouse gas emissions, water and air pollution, the use of (non) renewable energy and on health and safety.
With regards to social and employee related matters, the corporate firms ought to implement ILO conventions that promote fair working conditions for employees. The corporate disclosure of non-financial information can include topics such as; social dialogue with stakeholders, information and consultation rights, trade union rights, health and safety and gender equality among other issues. Businesses should also explain how they are preventing human rights abuses and/or fighting corruption and bribery.
Through this directive the EU commission emphasises materiality and transparency in non financial reporting. It also brought up the subject of diversity at the corporate board levels. It has outlined specific reference criteria that may foster wider diversity in the composition of boards (e.g. age, gender, educational and professional background). The EU Commission has even suggested that this transparency requirement complements the draft directive about women on boards.
This new directive still allows a certain degree of flexibility in the disclosures’ requirements. As a matter of fact, it does not require undertakings to have policies covering all CSR matters. Yet, businesses need to provide a clear and reasoned explanation for not complying with this directive. Therefore, non-financial disclosures do not necessarily require comprehensive reporting on CSR matters (although this is encouraged by the Commission), but only the disclosure of information on policies, outcomes and risks (ECCJ, 2014). Moreover, this directive gives undertakings the option to rely on international, European or national frameworks (eg. the UN Global Compact, ISO 26000) in the light of the undertaking’s characteristics and business environment.
It is envisaged that the first CSR reports will be published in financial year 2017 (ECCJ, 2014).
Laudable corporate responsibility practices often involve the development of network relations, as both private and government actors are increasingly investing their discretionary resources in social capital. Societal governance is intrinsically based on a set of increasingly complex and interdependent relationships. Several governments are stepping in with their commitment for corporate governance as they are setting their social and environmental responsibility agenda through different policies and frameworks.
Many countries are following the guidelines of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as these organisations have provided highly recognised international benchmarks for transparent and accountable practices. However, there are other pertinent actors within the local levels of society, which may include civil organisations and industry practitioners. There may be different expectations and perceptions within each stakeholder relationship, which have to be addressed successfully to develop appropriate CSR policies. Essentially, such relational approaches are based on the idea that recent changes and patterns affecting the economic and political structure may transform the roles and capacities of various social agents.
The corporations’ political role has inevitably raised the need for further transparency and accountability of practices. Apparently, the so called ‘standards’ represent voluntary predefined norms and procedures for organisational behaviour with regards to social and environmental issues and are often valid on a global level. There are several well-known examples of such standards, which may contain considerable differences. These standards help corporations to be accountable to the consequences of their actions. Organisations are encouraged to assess and communicate their responsible activities (and impacts) on sustainable issues to their stakeholders.
Yet, it may seem that to date there is still no formal model which can be used as a yardstick to evaluate the standards’ strengths and weaknesses. The accountability standards reflect a shift towards a ‘quasi-regulation’ which is based on a substantive (outcome-based) and reflexive (process-based) law approaches. A ‘substantive’ law approach is regulated by prescribing predefined outcomes, whereas a ‘reflexive’ law approach is regulated by prescribing procedures to determine outcomes in a discursive way. Since most accountability standards are addressing corporations all over the world, their macro-level norms may appear to be quite generic and broad in their content.
According to the EU Commission Expert Group (2012), non-financial reporting enables investors to contribute to a more efficient allocation of capital, and to better achieve longer-term investment goals. It can also help to make enterprises more accountable and contribute to higher levels of citizen trust in business. Several experts have supported the idea of a principles-based approach, rather than a detailed, rules-based one. The EU Commission Expert Group suggested that their framework on non-financial reporting has given flexibility to the companies to decide the topics to report on. The European Union’s experts (hailing from the Directorate General of the Internal Market and Services) came up with an innovative approach, which incentivised the companies to report their non-financial information. Of course, materiality is considered a key concern by audit experts. The experts stressed that improving materiality of reports is useful to address the comparability issues. They advocated that the companies’ boards should have ownership on reporting, in order to make it relevant and effective.
Clearly, the experts did recognise that there were significant differences in national cultural contexts as well as in their respective reporting mechanisms. Some experts have indicated their concern about the consequences of adopting more detailed reporting requirements (including specific key performance indicators) into EU legislation. On the other hand, they did not reject the idea of proposing a list of topics which could be covered by any company when reporting its responsible practices. The current EU framework still does not provide a specific reference framework as to the expected quality of the disclosure of the non-financial reports.
For the time being, the instruments for sustainable reporting are not compulsory, although a wide array of CSR tools and standards have already been developed. The voluntary nature of private non-financial reporting can be a valid reason why governments and businesses did not take a hands-on approach in the development of CSR policy. The governments could possibly play a more pro-active role by setting the regulatory social and environmental standards. The introduction of standards, phase-in periods and use of innovative technologies can possibly bring operational efficiencies and cost savings to the businesses themselves. Such measures may improve the environment, and increase the organisations’ competitiveness. Adequate regulation can possibly contribute to the wider societal and environmental objectives.
Mark Camilleri recently completed his PhD (Management) degree at the University of Edinburgh