Tag Archives: Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

November 11, 2015 · 12:22 pm

Call for Chapters on CSR

Corporate  Sustainability and Responsibility: The New Era of Corporate Citizenship
CSR Chapter
 This edited book will be published by IGI Global (USA)
Proposals Submission Deadline: January 31, 2016
Full Chapters Due: April 30, 2016
Submit your Chapter here.

 

 

Introduction

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

 

For Further Inquiries:

Mark Anthony Camilleri, Ph.D.

Department of Corporate Communication

Faculty of Media & Knowledge Sciences

Room 603, MaKS Building

University of Malta

Msida, MSD2080

MALTA

Tel: +356 2340 3742

Mob: +356 79314808

Email: Mark.A.Camilleri@um.edu.mt

Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, Shared Value, Social Cohesion, Stakeholder Engagement

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 23, 2015 · 11:54 am

Social responsibility policies in the USA

 

mapImage by newmediatraffic.com

 

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)”.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, Social Cohesion

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 26, 2015 · 10:42 am

CSR 2.0 – A Conceptual Framework For Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

gr

Businesses are capable of implementing responsible behaviours as they pursue their profit-making activities. A thorough literature review suggests that many academic articles have dedicated their energies on organising and evaluating the evidence to establish a link, usually through regression analysis between corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate social performance (CSP) and financial performance. Other authors referred to similar concepts as corporate citizenship has evolved following the concepts of stakeholder engagement and business ethics. In the light of these past theoretical underpinnings, this article reports on the many facets of CSR. This contribution puts forward key constructs representing strategic CSR, creating shared value and systematic CSR. It sheds light on the corporate sustainability and responsibility (CSR2.0) notion. This latter perspective suggests that responsible behavioural practices may be strategically re-conceived to confer competitive advantage over rival firms. Therefore, article makes reference to specific examples of some the latest laudable investments that create shared value. It explains how CSR2.0 requires a focus on building adaptive approaches and directing resources towards the perceived demands of diverse stakeholders for the long term sustainability of business. In a pragmatic approach, this contribution indicates that societal demands are not viewed as constraints on the organisation, but more as challenging opportunities which can be leveraged for the benefit of the firm and its stakeholders.

The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility
CSR can help to build reputational benefits; it enhances the firms’ image among external stakeholders and could lead to a favourable climate of trust and cooperation within the company 1. It may lead to create value for both business and society 2 3 4. Several authors maintained that through strategic CSR engagement businesses may achieve a competitive advantage5 6. Empirical studies have shown that there is a correlation between CSR and financial performance 1 3 7. Yet, it may appear that to date there is no explicit, quantitative translation of socially responsible practices into specific results that affect the profit and loss account8. Nevertheless, many companies are defending the correlation between social practices and financial results. The working assumption revolving around the CSP research is that corporate social and financial performance are universally related3. Strategic CSR increases the financial performance; minimises costs through better operational efficiencies, boosts the employee morale and job satisfaction and reduces the staff turnover, along with other benefits3.

CSR can bring a competitive advantage only if there are ongoing communications and dialogue between all stakeholder groups9 10 (including the employees, customers, marketplace and societal groups). The stakeholder relationships are needed to bring external knowledge sources, which may in turn enhance organisational skills and performance. Acquiring new knowledge must be accompanied by mechanisms for dissemination. There is scope in sharing best practices, even with rival firms. It is necessary for responsible businesses to realise that they need to work in tandem with other organisations in order to move the CSR agenda forward3 4. A recent study has indicated that businesses were investing in environmental sustainability, as they minimised their waste by reducing, reusing and recycling resources11. Several others were becoming more conscientious about their environmental responsibilities, particularly in the areas that were in situated in close proximity to their business. They were increasingly protecting the environment as they reduced their pollution through carbon offsetting programmes and the like11. The researcher believes that there is still room for improvement. There are many business practitioners who ought to realise the business case for CSR. Their organisational culture and business ethos could become more attuned to embrace responsible behavioural practices.

Creating Shared Value – Seeking Win-Win Outcomes
In the past, the stakeholder theory has demonstrated how stakeholders could develop long-term mutual relationships, rather than simply focusing on immediate profits. Of course, this does not imply that profit and economic survival are unimportant. On the contrary, this argument is that it is in the businesses’ interest to engage with a variety of stakeholders, upon whom dependence is vital3 4. The businesses’ closer interactions with stakeholders are based on relational and process-oriented views9. Many corporations are already forging strategic alliances in their value chain in order to run their businesses profitably. Some successful businesses are also promoting the right conditions of employment in their supply chains. At the same time, they are instrumental in improving the lives of their suppliers. They do this as they want to enhance the quality and attributes of their products, which are ultimately delivered to customers and end consumers12.
Nestlé, Google, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever, and Wal-Mart are some of the multinationals who have somewhat embraced Porter and Kramer’s ‘shared value’ approach. In many cases they are building partnership and collaborative agreements with external stakeholders (including suppliers) hailing from different markets. The notion of shared value is opening up new opportunities for sustainability, particularly with its innovative approach to re-configure the value chain4. Yet, there are academics who argued that this concept ignores the tensions that are inherent in responsible business activity13. “Shared value” cannot cure all of society’s ills as not all businesses are good for society nor would the pursuit of shared value eliminate all injustice. However, the profit motive and the tools of corporate strategy will help to address societal problems14. As a matter of fact, many businesses are reconceiving their products as they take a broad view of their purchasing, procurement and production activities4.
Several multi-national organisations are looking beyond their short-term profits for shareholders. They are also looking after their marketplace stakeholders including suppliers who source their products. Many multinational organisations are redefining productivity in the value chain and enabling local cluster developments to mitigate risks, boost productivity and competitiveness. For instance, Nestlé’s business principles incorporated 10 United Nations Global Compact Principles on human rights, labour, the environment and corruption12. Nestlé is an active member of the Compact’s Working Groups and Initiatives. Nestlé maintains that it complies with international regulatory laws and acceptable codes of conduct, as it improves its company’s operations. Yet, at the same time it helps those suppliers hailing from the least in poorer rural regions of the world. Nestlé has revisited its numerous processes and its value chain activities. Each stage of the production process, from the supply chain to transforming resources adds value to the overall end product. This benefits the company itself. Nestlé sources its materials from thousands of farms from developing countries. The company maintains that it provides training to farmers in order to encourage sustainable production while protecting their procurement, standards and quality of their raw materials. This brings positive, long-term impacts on the local economy. At the same time, these suppliers are running profitable farms, as they are offering their children a better education. Moreover, both Nestlé and its suppliers are committed to protecting their natural environmental resources for their long term sustainability.
Corporate sustainability occurs when a company adds a social dimension to its value proposition, making social impact integral to its overall strategy. The rationale behind the corporate responsibility lies in creating value and finding win-win outcomes by seeking out and connecting stakeholders’ varied interests. Creating shared value (CSV) is about embedding sustainability and strategic corporate social responsibility into a brand’s portfolio. As firms reap profits and grow, they can generate virtuous circles of positive multiplier effects11.

 

Conclusion
This article provides the foundation of the conceptual theory and empirical enquiry of the discourse surrounding the corporate sustainability and responsibility (CSR2.0) agenda. A thorough literature review reveals that many authors have often investigated the relationship between corporate social responsibility (corporate social performance or corporate citizenship) and financial performance. This contribution maintains that CSR 2.0 initiatives can be re-conceived strategically to confer competitive advantage in the long term. The business case for CSR 2.0 focuses on building adaptive approaches and directing resources towards the perceived demands of stakeholders (Camilleri, 2015). Stakeholder demands are not viewed as constraints on the organisation, but more as challenging opportunities which can be leveraged for the benefit of the firm. This contribution looks at different aspects of CSR2.0, as it makes specific reference to responsible human resources management, environmental sustainability, forging relationships with marketplace stakeholders and strategic philanthropy towards the community. Engagement in these activities will ultimately create shared value for both the business and the society. CSR2.0 unlocks value, as the business and the community become mutually reinforcing. The value creation arguments focus on exploiting opportunities that reconcile differing stakeholder demands. Businesses ought to realise that laudable investments in CSR2.0 can lead to better organisational performance in the long run. This contribution indicates that there are future avenues for further research in this promising area of strategic management. Empirical studies may focus on how socially responsible behaviour, environmental sustainable practices, stakeholder engagement and regulatory interventions may create value for all.

References

  1. Camilleri, M.A. “Unlocking shared value through strategic social marketing” (paper presented at the American Marketing Association and the University of Massachusetts Amherst: Marketing & Public Policy Conference, Boston, 6th June 2014): 60-66 Accessed June 26, 2015. https://www.ama.org/events-training/Conferences/Documents/MPP14BO_Proceedings.pdf
  2. Sen, Sankar, Chitra Bhanu Bhattacharya, and Daniel Korschun. “The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing science 34, no. 2 (2006): 158-166.
  3. Camilleri, M.A. “Creating Shared Value through Strategic CSR in Tourism” Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2013 – ISBN 978-3-659-43106-7.
  4. Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. “Creating shared value.” Harvard business review 89, no. 1/2 (2011): 62-77.
  5. Crane, Andrew, Abagail McWilliams, Dirk Matten, Jeremy Moon, and Donald S. Siegel, eds. The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press, (2008).
  6. Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. “The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.” Harvard business review 84, no. 12 (2006): 78-92.
  7. Orlitzky, Marc, Frank L. Schmidt, and Sara L. Rynes. “Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis.” Organization studies 24, no. 3 (2003): 403-441.
  8. Murillo, David, and Josep M. Lozano. “SMEs and CSR: An approach to CSR in their own words.” Journal of Business Ethics 67, no. 3 (2006): 227-240.
  9. Morsing, Mette, and Majken Schultz. “Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies.” Business Ethics: A European Review 15, no. 4 (2006): 323-338.
  10. European Union. “A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility” last modified December 10, 2014 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF European Commission Publications (2011).
  11. Camilleri, M.A. “The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility” (paper presented at the American Marketing Association in collaboration with the University of Wyoming, Oklahoma State University and Villanova University: Marketing & Public Policy as a Force for Social Change Conference. Washington D.C., 5th June 2014): 8-14, Accessed June 26, 2015. https://www.ama.org/events-training/Conferences/Documents/2015-AMA-Marketing-Public-Policy-Proceedings.pdf
  12. Camilleri, M.A. “Leveraging Organizational Performance through ‘Shared Value’ Propositions” Triple Pundit last modified November 22, 2013 http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/11/leveraging-organisational-performance-shared-value-propositions/
  13. Andrew Crane, Guido Palazzo, Laura J. Spence, and Dirk Matten. “Contesting the value of “creating shared value”.” California management review 56, no. 2 (2014): 130-153.
  14. A response to Andrew Crane13 article by Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer (2014) http://www.dirkmatten.com/Papers/C/Crane%20et%20al%202014%20in%20CMR.pdf

1 Comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

June 9, 2015 · 8:57 am

CSR and Educational Leadership

people

Adapted from my chapter, entitled; “Reconceiving CSR  programmes in Education” in Academic Insights and Impacts (Springer, Germany).

CSR and sustainability issues are increasingly becoming ubiquitous practices in different contexts, particularly among the youngest work force. This contribution suggests that there is a business case for responsible behaviours. Besides, minimising staff turnover, CSR may lead to strategic benefits including employee productivity, corporate reputation and operational efficiencies. Therefore, CSR can be the antecedent of financial performance (towards achieving profitability, increasing sales, return on investment et cetera).

Notwithstanding, the businesses’ involvement in setting curricula may also help to improve the effectiveness of education systems across many contexts. Businesses can become key stakeholders in this regard. Their CSR programmes can reconnect their economic success with societal progress. They could move away from seeking incremental gains from the market . Proactive companies who engage in CSR behaviours may possibly take fundamentally different positions with their stakeholders – as they uncover new business opportunities. This contribution showed how businesses could inspire their employees, build their reputations in the market and most importantly create value in education. This movement toward these positive outcomes may represent a leap forward in the right direction for global education.

This chapter has given specific examples of how different organisations were engaging in responsible behaviours with varying degrees of intensity and success. It has identified cost effective and efficient operations. It reported measures which were enhancing the human resources productivity. Other practices sought to engage in philanthropic practices and stewardship principles. At the same time, it was recognised that it was in the businesses’ interest to maintain good relations with different stakeholders, including the regulatory ones. Evidently, there is more to CSR than public relations and greenwashing among all stakeholder groups (including the employees, customers, marketplace and societal groups). Businesses ought to engage themselves in societal relationships and sustainable environmental practices. Responsible behaviours can bring reputational benefits, enhance the firms’ image among external stakeholders and often lead to a favourable climate of trust and cooperation within the company itself
(Herzberg et al., 2011). This chapter reported that participative leadership will boost the employees’ morale and job satisfaction which may often lead to lower staff turnover and greater productivity in workplace environments. However, it also indicates that there are many businesses that still need to realise the business case for responsible behaviours. Their organisational culture and business ethos will inevitably have to become attuned to embrace responsible behavioural practices.

Governments may also have an important role to play. The governments can take an active leading role in triggering corporate responsible behaviours in the realms of education. Greater efforts are required by governments, the private sector and other stakeholders to translate responsible behaviours into policies, strategies and regulations. Governments may give incentives (through financial resources in the form of grants or tax relief) and enforce regulation in certain areas where responsible behaviour is necessary. The governments ought to maintain two-way communication systems with stakeholders. The countries’ educational outcomes and curriculum programmes should be aligned with the employers’ requirements (Walker and Black, 2000). Therefore, adequate and sufficient schooling could instil students with relevant knowledge and skills that are required by business and industry (Allen and De Weert, 2007). The governments should come up with new solutions to help underprivileged populations and subgroups. New solutions could better address the diverse needs of learners. This chapter indicated that there is scope for governments to work in collaboration with corporations in order to nurture tomorrow’s human resources.

It must be recognised that there are various business operations, hailing from diverse sectors and industries. In addition, there are many stakeholder influences, which can possibly affect the firms’ level of social responsibility toward education. It is necessary for governments to realise that it needs to work alongside with the business practitioners in order to reconceive education and life-long learning. The majority of employers that were mentioned here in this chapter; were representative of a few businesses that hailed from the developed economies. There can be diverse practices across different contexts. Future studies could investigate the methods how big businesses are supporting education. Future research on this subject could consider different samples, methodologies and analyses which may obviously be more focused and will probably yield different outcomes. However, this contribution has puts forward the shared value’ approach. It is believed that since this relatively ‘new’ concept is relatively straightforward and uncomplicated, it may be more easily understood by business practitioners themselves. In a nutshell, this synergistic value proposition requires particular focus on the human resources’ educational requirements, at the same time it also looks after stakeholders’ needs (Camilleri, 2015). This notion could contribute towards long term sustainability by addressing economic and societal deficits in education. A longitudinal study in this area of research could possibly investigate the long term effects of involving the business and industry in setting curriculum programmes in education. Presumably, shared value can be sustained only if there is a genuine commitment to organisational learning for corporate sustainability and responsibility, and if there is a willingness to forge genuine relationships with key stakeholders.

Recommendations
This contribution contends that the notion of shared value is opening up new opportunities for education and professional development. Evidently, there are competitive advantages that may arise from nurturing human resources. As firms reap profits and grow, they can generate virtuous circles of positive multiplier effects. Many successful organisations are increasingly engaging themselves in socially responsible practices. There are businesses that are already training and sponsoring individuals to pursue further studies for their career advancement (McKenzie and Woodruff, 2013; Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Hunt and Michael, 1983). It may appear that they are creating value for themselves as well as for society by delivering relevant courses for prospective employees. In conclusion, this chapter puts forward the following key recommendations to foster an environment where businesses become key stakeholders in education.

  • Promotion of business processes that bring economic, social and environmental value;
  • Encouragement of innovative and creative approaches in continuous professional development and training in sustainable and responsible practices;
  • Enhancement of collaborations and partnership agreements with governments, trade unions and society in general, including the educational leaders;
  • Ensuring that there are adequate levels of performance in areas such as employee health and safety, suitable working conditions and sustainable environmental practices among business and industry;
  • Increased CSR awareness, continuous dialogue, constructive communication and trust between all stakeholders;
  • National governments ought to create regulatory frameworks which encourage and enable the businesses’ participation in the formulation of educational programmes and their curricula.

References

Allen, J., & De Weert, E. (2007). What Do Educational Mismatches Tell Us About Skill Mismatches? A Cross‐country Analysis. European Journal of Education, 42(1), 59-73.

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) The Synergistic Value Notion in Idowu, S.O.; Capaldi, N.; Fifka, M.; Zu, L.; Schmidpeter, R. (Eds). Dictionary of Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/book/978-3-319-10535-2

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (2011). The motivation to work (Vol. 1). Transaction Publishers.

Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of management Review, 8(3), 475-485.

McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2013). What are we learning from business training and entrepreneurship evaluations around the developing world?. The World Bank Research Observer, lkt007.

Walker, K. B., & Black, E. L. (2000). Reengineering the undergraduate business core curriculum: Aligning business schools with business for improved performance. Business Process Management Journal, 6(3), 194-213.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Education

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 11, 2015 · 3:52 pm

Creating Shared Value: Doing well by doing good!

Relevant research has shown that those companies that had undertaken social and environmental responsibility did prosper in the long run (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Orlitzky, 2003). However, other research has indicated that it is also possible to over-spend on strategic CSR — as this is true of all discretionary marketing expenditures (Lantos, 2001). It may appear that there is an optimal level of spending on strategic CSR (Orlitzky et al. 2010). The factors contributing towards creating value are often qualitative and may prove very difficult to measure and quantify, such as; employee morale, corporate image, reputation, public relations, goodwill, and popular opinion (Miller and Ahrens, 1993). Lantos (2001) advocated the need to identify CSR activities that will yield the highest payback. Of course, every stakeholder group has its own needs and wants. Therefore is is important to continuously balance conflicting stakeholder interests and measure the returns from strategic CSR investments (McWilliams and Siegel, 2011; Freeman, 1984).

Porter and Kramer (2006) believed that organisations can set an affirmative CSR agenda that produce maximum social benefits and gains for the businesses themself, rather than merely acting on well intentioned impulses or by reacting on outside pressures. They referred to the value chain (Porter, 1986) as an appropriate tool to chart all the social consequences of business activities. Figure 1 illustrates inside-out linkages that range from hiring and layoff policies to green house gas emissions, as follows.

Figure 1. Porter’s Value Chain
value chain
(Source: Porter, 1985, reproduced in Tsai et al. 2010)

This value chain model presents operational issues which have an effect on the companies’ performance. It depicts some of the activities a company engages in while doing business. This model can be used as a framework to identify the positive and negative social impacts of those activities. Porter and Kramer (2006) held that through strategic CSR the company will make a significant impact in the community.They suggested that companies may be triggered to doing things differently from competitors, in a way where they could lower their costs. The authors went on to say that strategic CSR involve both inside-out and outside-in dimensions, working in tandem. Interestingly, the authors indicated that there are ‘shared value’ opportunities through strategic CSR (Porter and Kramer, 2006, 2011). They argued that the companies’ may strengthen their competitiveness by investing in social and environmental aspects, as featured in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Corporate Involvement: A Strategic Approach
Figure 2
(Source: Porter and Kramer, 2006)

The success of the company and of the community may become mutually reinforcing (Porter and Kramer, 2006). They maintained that the more closely tied a social issue is to the companies’ business, the greater the opportunity to leverage the firms’ resources and capabilities and will in turn benefit society at large. Falck and Heblich (2007) related the notion of strategic CSR to the shareholder value theory. This approach implied a long term view of wealth maximisation. As it was also the case for the agency theory. These authors suggested that proper incentives may encourage managers ‘to do well by doing good’.

“…as the company’s goal was to survive and prosper, it can do nothing better than to take a long term view and understand that if it treats society well, society will return the favour” (Falck and Heblich, 2007).

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

April 18, 2015 · 2:52 pm

Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosures in Europe

Excerpt from: Camilleri, M. (2015). Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(2). http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2014-0065

 

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).

 

esg

 

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.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2014-0065

 

References

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 10, 2015 · 6:54 pm

Europe’s Energy Efficiency Targets

euThe European Union’s (EU) Member States are required to draft National Energy Efficiency Plans (NEEAPs) that report on adopted measures (or planned to be adopted) to implement the main elements of the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED, 2012/27/EU). All EU countries are required to achieve a certain amount of final energy savings over the period (01 January 2014 – 31 December 2020) by using energy efficiency obligations schemes or other targeted policy measures to drive energy efficiency improvements in households, industries and transport sectors. The Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) entered into force on the 4th December 2012 in order to establish a common framework of measures for energy efficiency within the EU. EED laid down specific rules to remove barriers in the energy market and to overcome certain market failures that impede energy efficiency. It also provides for the establishment of indicative national energy efficiency targets for 2020. All the EU-28 countries are urged to use energy more efficiently at all stages of the energy chain – from the transformation of energy, through its distribution until its final consumption.

EED measures may also translate to significant energy savings for consumers. For instance, this directive proposed that consumers ought to access easy and free-of-charge data on their real-time (and historical) energy consumption to enable them to monitor their energy consumption patterns. Moreover, this directive also recommended that large enterprises should carry out an energy audit at least every four years, with the first energy assessment should be held before the 5th December 2015. It also suggested that SMEs could be incentivised to undergo energy audits to help them identify the potential for reduced energy consumption. As from the 1st January 2014, the directive advised the public sector to lead by example by renovating 3% of the buildings owned and occupied by the central governments and by including energy efficiency considerations in public procurement. EED has even set realistic deadlines for further improvements in energy efficiencies in energy generation, the monitoring of efficiency levels of new energy generation capacities, national assessments for co-generation and district heating potential and measures.

It goes without saying that the requirements laid down in the EED directive are minimum requirements that do not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent measures. As from 2013, every member state have to report on the progress achieved towards national energy efficiency targets in accordance with Part 1 of Annex XIV.

Links:

EU (2012) DIRECTIVE on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012L0027

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

January 10, 2015 · 5:18 pm

The EU’s directive on the disclosure of non-financial information

eu

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).

Links:

http://ec.europa.eu/finance/accounting/non-financial_reporting/index_en.htm

Click to access eccj-assessment-eu-non-financial-reporting-may-2104.pdf

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-301_en.htm?locale=en
 

1 Comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

November 6, 2014 · 6:20 pm

Re-conceiving Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility for Education

employees

(This contribution also appeared on CSRwire)

During their learning journey, individuals acquire knowledge and skills that ought to be relevant for their prospective employment. The provision of their education is the responsibility of national governments. Yet, business and industry seldom offer continuous professional development and training to their human resources that supplement formal education (although they are rarely involved in setting outcomes of curriculum programmes). Very often, companies have to respond to challenging issues such as skill mismatches where candidates lack certain competencies that may be too deep to bridge through corporate training courses. Perhaps, global businesses may compensate to a certain extent as they can shift their operations elsewhere to tap more qualified employees. However, the constraints on their growth can be halted by the broad impact of inadequate education and training in some industries or regions. Therefore, corporations may possibly become a key player in addressing unmet needs in education. Several companies have the resources and the political influence to help improve educational outcomes which will in turn help them to nurture local talent. Leading businesses are already devising Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility (CSR) programmes that are actively supporting education across many contexts:

For instance; Cisco (a provider of networking equipment), has created more than 10,000 networking academies in 165 countries. 4.75 million individuals have improved their employment prospects as they attended training to become network administrators. At the same time, these individuals have increased the demand for Cisco’s equipment. Similarly, SAP and Verizon have often partnered with local universities and education institutions in order to deliver courses, career coaching and customised degrees on site for employees. The companies have discovered that employees that pursue such programmes are more likely to remain loyal to their company. Naturally, it is in the interest of employees to attend educational programmes that may ultimately lead to their career progression and better prospects. Moreover, continuous professional development and training may considerably reduce high employee turnover. Interestingly, SAP employs people with autism in technology-focused roles. In doing so, SAP concentrates on these individuals’ unique strengths. This way, the company can gain access to a wider pool of untapped talent that will help to foster a climate of creativity and innovation. In a similar vein, Intel has also invested in training programmes and partnerships that strengthen education. The company has recognised that its business growth is constrained by a chronic shortage of talent in science, technology, engineering, and maths (STEM) disciplines. Through programmes like Intel Math and Intel Teach, the global multinational has delivered instructional materials, online resources, and professional development tools for hundreds of thousands of educators across the United States. The students’ have acquired STEM and other 21st century skills, including critical thinking with data as well as scientific inquiry. This is a relevant example of a corporate business that has successfully addressed its workforce needs. Intel has recognised specific skill gaps in its central areas like technology and engineering. Accordingly, the company has committed itself for further investment in education. The company has created higher education curricula in demand areas like microelectronics, nanotechnology, security systems and entrepreneurship. Undoubtedly, Intel’s efforts affected millions of US students. At the same time, the company has increased its productivity and competitiveness. In addition, there are many big businesses that contribute in stewardship, charitable and philanthropic causes. In the past, the GE Foundation has supported systemic improvements in urban school districts that were close to GE’s business. These investments have surely helped to close the interplay between corporate sustainability and responsibility (CSR) and corporate philanthropy, while strengthening GE’s long-term talent pipeline.

In a nutshell, this contribution redefines the private sector’s role in the realms of education. It posits that there are win-win opportunities for companies and national governments as they cultivate human capital. Indeed, companies can create synergistic value for both business and society. In the main, such a strategic approach can result in new business models and cross-sector collaborations that will inevitably lead to operational efficiencies, cost savings and significant improvements to the firms’ bottom lines. Notwithstanding, the businesses’ involvement in setting curricula may also help to improve the effectiveness of education systems in many contexts. Businesses can become key stakeholders in this regard. Their CSR programmes can reconnect their economic success with societal progress.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Education, Marketing

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,