Tag Archives: ESG Disclosures

The market for socially responsible investing

This is an excerpt from my latest paper, entitled: “The market for socially responsible investing: A review of the developments”. 

How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. (2020). The market for socially responsible investing: A review of the developments. Social Responsibility Journal. DOI. 10.1108/SRJ-06-2019-0194.


There are various ratings and reference indices that are utilized by investors to evaluate financial and SRI portfolios (Scalet and Kelly, 2010). Typically, the SRI indices constitute a relevant proxy as they evaluate the ESG performance of listed businesses (Joliet and Titova, 2018; Le Sourd, 2011). A large number of SR contractors, analysts and research firms are increasingly specializing in the collection of ESG information as they perform ongoing analyses of corporate behaviors (Dumas and Louche, 2016). Many of them maintain a database and use it to provide their clients with a thorough ESG analysis (including proxy advice), benchmarks and engagement strategies of corporations. They publish directories of ethical and SRI funds, as they outline their investment strategies, screening criteria, and voting policies (Leite and Cortez, 2014). In a sense, these data providers support the responsible investors in their selection of funds.

 

SRI Indices, Ratings and Information Providers

KLD / Jantzi Global Environmental Index, Jantzi Research, Ethical Investment Research Service (Vigeo EIRIS) and Innovest (among others) analyze the corporations’ socially responsible and environmentally-sound behaviors as reported in Table 1. Some of their indices (to name a few) shed light about the impact of products (e.g. resource use, waste), the production processes (e.g. logging, pesticides), or proactive corporate activities (e.g. clean energy, recycling). Similarly, social issues are also a common category for these contractors. In the main, the SRI indices benchmark different types of firms hailing from diverse industries and sectors. They adjust their weighting for specific screening criteria as they choose which firms to include (or exclude) from their indices (Leite and Cortez, 2014; Scalet and Kelly, 2010). One of the oldest SRI indices for CSR and Sustainability ratings is the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. The companies that are featured in the Dow Jones Indices are analyzed by the Sustainable Asset Management (SAM) Group (i.e. a Swiss asset management company). Another popular SRI index is FTSE Russell’s KLD’s Domini 400 Social Index (also known as the KLD400) which partners with the Financial Times on a range of issues. Similarly, the Financial Times partners with an ESG research firm (i.e. EIRES) to construct its FTSE4 Good Index series. Smaller FTSE Responsible Investment Indices include the Catholic Values Index, the Calvert Social Index, the FTSE4Good indices, and the Dow Jones family of SRI Indices, among others. The KLD400 index screens the companies’ performance on a set of ESG criteria. It eliminates those companies that are involved in non-eligible industries. Impax, a specialist finance house (that focuses on the markets for cleaner or more efficient delivery of basic services of energy, water and waste) also maintain a group of FTSE Indices that are related to environmental technologies and business activities (FTSE Environment Technology and Environmental Opportunities). The Catholic Values Index uses the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Socially Responsible Investment Guidelines (i.e. positive screening approach) to scrutinize eligible companies (e.g., corporations with generous wage and benefit policies, or those who create environmentally beneficial technologies). This index could also exclude certain businesses trading in “irresponsible” activities. listed businesses according to their social audit of four criteria: the company’s products, their impact on the environment, labor relations, and community relations. The latter “community relations” variable includes issues such as the treatment of indigenous people, provision of local credit, operations of overseas subsidiaries, and the like. The responsible companies are then featured in the Index when and if they meet Calvert’s criteria. This index also maintains a target economic sector weighting scheme. Other smaller indices include; Ethibel Sustainability Index for Belgian (and other European) companies and OMX GES Ethical Index for Scandinavian companies, among others.

 

Table 1. Screenings of Responsible Investments

Positive Screens Negative Screens
Community Investment Alcohol
Employment / Equality Animal Testing
Environment Defence / Weapons
Human Rights Gambling
Labour Relations Tobacco
Proxy Voting

 

Generally, these SRI indices are considered as investment benchmarks. In a nutshell, SRI Indices have spawned a range of products, including index mutual funds, ETFs, and structured products (Riedl and Smeets, 2017). A wide array of SRI mutual funds regularly evaluate target companies and manage their investment portfolios. Therefore, they are expected to consider other important criteria such as risk and return targets (Trinks et al., 2018; Leite and Cortez, 2015; Humphrey and Lee, 2011). For instance, iShares lists two ETFs based on the KLD Index funds, and the Domini itself offers a number of actively managed mutual funds based on both ESG and community development issues (such as impact investments). In addition, there are research and ratings vendors who also manage a series of mutual funds, including Calvert and Domini (Scalet and Kelly, 2010).

 

Discussion

The SRI indices serve as a ‘seal of approval’ function for the responsible businesses that want to prove their positive impact investment credentials to their stakeholders. Currently, there are many factors that may be contributing for the growth of SRI:

 

Firstly, one of the most important factors for the proliferation of SRI is the access to information. Today’s investors are increasingly using technologies, including mobile devices and their related applications to keep them up to date on the most recent developments in business and society. Certain apps inform investors on the latest movements in the financial markets, in real-time. Notwithstanding, the SRI contractors are providing much higher quality data than ever before. As a result, all investors are in a position to take informed decisions that are based on evidence and research. Investors and analysts use “extra-financial information” to help them analyze investment decisions (GRI, 2019; Diouf and Boiral, 2017). This “extra-financial information” includes ESG disclosures on non-financial issues (Brooks and Oikonomou, 2018). These sources of information will encourage many businesses and enterprises to report on their responsible and sustainable practices (Diouf and Boiral, 2017). The companies’ integrated thinking could be a precursor for their integrated reporting (Camilleri, 2018; 2017b; GRI, 2019). Business can use integrated disclosures, where they provide details on their financial as well as on their non-financial information for the benefit of prospective investors and analysts, among other stakeholders.

 

Secondly, the gender equality issue has inevitably led to some of the most significant developments in the financial services industry. Nowadays, there are more emancipated women who are in employment, who are gainfully occupied as they are actively contributing in the labor market. Many women are completing higher educational programs and attaining relevant qualifications including MBA programs. Very often, these women move their way up the career ladder with large organizations. They may even become members on boards of directors and assume fiduciary duties and responsibilities. Other women are becoming entrepreneurs as they start their own business. During the last decades, an increased equality in the developed economies has led to SRI’s prolific growth. As a result, women are no longer the only the beneficiaries of social finance, as they are building a complete ecosystem of social investing (Maretick, 2015). “By 2020 women are expected to hold $72trn, 32% of the total. Most of the private wealth that changes hands in the coming decades is likely to go to women (The Economist, 2018). This wave of wealth is set to land in the laps of female investors who have shown positive attitudes toward social investing, when compared to their male counterparts. Maretick (2015) reported that half of the wealthiest women expressed an interest in social and environmental investing when compared to one-third of the wealthy men.

 

Thirdly, today’s investors are increasingly diversifying their portfolio of financial products. The default investment is the market portfolio, which is a value-weighted portfolio of all investable securities (Trinks and Scholtens, 2017). A growing body of evidence suggests that many investors do not necessarily have to sacrifice performance when they invest in socially responsible or environmentally sustainable assets. A relevant literature review denied the contention that social screening could result in corporate underperformance (Trinks and Scholtens, 2017; Lobe and Walkshäusl, 2011; Salaber 2013). Investors have realized that strategic corporate responsibility is congruent with prosperity (Porter and Kramer, 2011; Schueth, 2003). In fact, today’s major asset classes including global, international, domestic equity, balanced and fixed-income categories also comprise top-performing socially responsible mutual funds (Riedl and Smeets, 2017). Therefore, various financial products are reflecting the investors’ values and beliefs (Fritz and von Schnurbein, 2019). Consequentially, the broad range of competitive socially responsible investment options have resulted in diverse, well-balanced portfolios. In the U.S. and in other western economies, top-performing SRI funds can be found in all major asset classes. More and more investors are realizing that they can add value to their portfolios whilst supporting socially and environmental causes.

 

Fourthly, there are economic justifications for the existence of mutual funds in diversified portfolios. Although SRI funds are rated well above average performers no matter which ranking process one prefers to use (Scalet and Kelly, 2010; Schueth, 2003), other literature suggests that there are situations where the positive or negative screens did not add nor destroy the financial products’ portfolio value (Auer, 2016; Trinks and Scholtens, 2017; Hofmann et al., 2009). This matter can result in having mixed investments where there are SRI products that are marketed with other financial portfolios.

Currently, the financial industry is witnessing a consumer-driven phenomenon as there is a surge in demand for social investments. This paper mentioned a number of organizations that have developed indices to measure the organizational behaviors and their laudable practices. Very often, their metrics rely on positive or negative screens that are used to define socially responsible and sustainable investments (Leite and Cortez, 2014; Hofmann et al., 2009). However, despite these developments, the balanced investors are still investing their portfolio in different industries. As a result, they may be putting their money to support controversial businesses. Perhaps, in the future there could be alternative screening methods in addition to the extant inclusionary and exclusionary approaches. Several corporations are willingly disclosing their integrated reporting of financial and non-financial performance; as stakeholders including investors, demand a higher degree of accountability and transparency from them (Diouf and Boiral, 2017). As a result, a growing number of firms, are recognizing the business case for integrated thinking that incorporates financial and strategic corporate responsible behaviors. They can support the community through positive impact investments by allocating funds to reduce their externalities in society. Alternatively, they may facilitate shareholder activism and advocacy, among other actions (Viviers and Eccles, 2012). In sum, the responsible businesses’ stakeholder engagement as well as their sustainable investments can help them improve their bottom lines, whilst addressing their societal and community deficits.

 

References (This is a list of all the references that appeared in the full paper)

Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2007), “What level of trust is needed for sustainability?”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 60-68.

Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2009), “Corporate sustainability reporting: a study in disingenuity?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp. 279-288.

Auer, B.R., (2016). “Do Socially Responsible Investment Policies Add or Destroy European Stock Portfolio Value?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 135, No. 2, pp. 381-397.

Barber, R. (1982), “Pension Funds in the United States Issues of Investment and Control”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 31-73.

Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R., Dalò, A. and Herzel, S. (2015), “Socially responsible and conventional investment funds: performance comparison and the global financial crisis”, Applied Economics, Vol. 47 No. 25, pp. 2541-2562.

Bengtsson, E. (2008a), “Socially responsible investing in Scandinavia–a comparative analysis”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 155-168.

Bengtsson, E. (2008b), “A history of Scandinavian socially responsible investing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 969-983.

Benijts, T. (2010), “A framework for comparing socially responsible investment markets: an analysis of the Dutch and Belgian retail markets”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 50-63.

Berger, A. N., Demsetz, R. S. and Strahan, P. E. (1999), “The consolidation of the financial services industry: Causes, consequences, and implications for the future”, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 23, Nos. (2-4), pp. 135-194.

Berry, T. C. and Junkus, J. C. (2013), “Socially responsible investing: An investor perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 112, No. 4, pp. 707-720.

Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Cañal-Fernández, V. and Bilbao-Terol, C. (2013), “Selection of socially responsible portfolios using hedonic prices”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 515-529.

Brooks, C. and Oikonomou, I. (2018), “The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value: A review of the literature in accounting and finance”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 1-15.

Brundtland, G. H. (1989), “Global change and our common future”, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 16-43.

Bugg-Levine, A. and Emerson, J. (2011), “Impact investing: Transforming how we make money while making a difference”, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 9-18.

Busch, T., Bauer, R. and Orlitzky, M. (2016), “Sustainable development and financial markets: Old paths and new avenues”, Business and Society, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 303-329.

Camilleri, M. A. (2015a), “Valuing stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 210-222.

Camilleri, M. A. (2015b), “Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 224-242.

Camilleri, M. A. (2017a), “Measuring the corporate managers’ attitudes towards ISO’s social responsibility standard”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, pp. 1-13 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14783363.2017.1413344 (Accessed 14 August 2019).

Camilleri, M.A. (2017b), “The integrated reporting of financial, social and sustainability capitals: a critical review and appraisal”,  International Journal of Sustainable Society, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 311 – 326

Camilleri, M. A. (2018), “Theoretical insights on integrated reporting: The inclusion of non-financial capitals in corporate disclosures”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 567-581.

Camilleri, M. A. (2019), “The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 530-536.

Capelle‐Blancard, G. and Monjon, S. (2012), “Trends in the literature on socially responsible investment: looking for the keys under the lamppost”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 239-250.

Carroll, A. B. (1999), “Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct”, Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 268-295.

CDFA (2005), “Inside Out: The State of Community Development Finance”, CDFA, London, UK.

Charmaz, K. and Belgrave, L. L. (2007), “Grounded theory”. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.

Colgate, M. and Lang, B. (2001), “Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investigation of the financial services industry”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 332-347.

Crifo, P. and Mottis, N. (2016), “Socially responsible investment in France”, Business and Society, Vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 576-593.

Diouf, D. and Boiral, O. (2017), “The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 643-667.

Dumas, C. and Louche, C. (2016), “Collective beliefs on responsible investment”, Business and Society, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 427-457.

Durand, R. B., Koh, S. and Limkriangkrai, M. (2013a), “Saints versus Sinners. Does morality matter? Journal of International Financial Markets”, Institutions and Money, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 166–183

Eichholtz, P., Kok N. and Quigley, J. M. (2010), “Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings”, American Economic Review, Vol. 100, No. 5, pp. 2492-2509.

Emmelhainz, M. A. and Adams, R. J. (1999), “The apparel industry response to “sweatshop” concerns: A review and analysis of codes of conduct”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 51-57.

Entine, J. (2003), “The myth of social investing: A critique of its practice and consequences for corporate social performance research”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 352-368.

Epstein, M. J. (2018), “Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts”, Routledge, Oxford, UK.

EUROSIF (2019), “SDGs for SRI Investors”, http://www.eurosif.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Eurosif-SDGs-brochure.pdf (Accessed 14 August 2019).

Fabozzi, F. J., Ma, K. C. and Oliphant, B. J. (2008), “Sin stock returns”, The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 82–94.

Freireich, J. and Fulton, K. (2009), “Investing for social and environmental impact: A design for catalyzing an emerging industry”, Monitor Institute, pp. 1-86.

Friedman, A. L. and Miles, S. (2001), “Socially responsible investment and corporate social and environmental reporting in the UK: An exploratory study”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 523-548.

Friedman, M. (2007), “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”, In Corporate ethics and corporate governance, (pp. 173-178), Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Fritz, T. M. and von Schnurbein, G. (2019), “Beyond Socially Responsible Investing: Effects of Mission-Driven Portfolio Selection”, Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 23, pp. 6812-6827.

Garriga, E. and Melé, D. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, Nos. 1-2, pp. 51-71.

Giamporcaro, S. and Gond, J. P. (2016). “Calculability as politics in the construction of markets: The case of socially responsible investment in France”, Organization Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 465-495.

Global Footprint Network (2019), “Do we fit on the planet?”, (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/ (Accessed 10 August 2019).

GRI (2019), “Linking GRI standards and the EU directive on non-financial and diversity disclosure”, https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/resource-download-center/linking-gri-standards-and-european-directive-on-non-financial-and-diversity-disclosure/ (Accessed 16 August 2019)

Ghoul, W. and Karam, P. (2007), “MRI and SRI mutual funds: A comparison of Christian, Islamic (morally responsible investing), and socially responsible investing (SRI) mutual funds”, Journal of Investing, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 96-102.

Gillan, S. L. and Starks, L. T. (2000), “Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 275-305.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). “Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory”, Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 27-49.

Guay, T., Doh, J.P. and Sinclair, G. (2004), “Non-governmental organizations, shareholder activism, and socially responsible investments: Ethical, strategic, and governance implications”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 125-139.

Hellsten, S. and Mallin, C. (2006), “Are ‘ethical’or ‘socially responsible’investments socially responsible?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 393-406.

Hofmann, E., Penz, E. and Kirchler, E. (2009), “The ‘Whys’ and ‘Hows’ of ethical investment: Understanding an early-stage market through an explorative approach”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 102-117.

Hong, H. and Kacperczyk, M. (2009), “The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 15-36.

Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 1277-1288.

Humphrey, J.E. and Lee, D.D. (2011), “Australian socially responsible funds: Performance, risk and screening intensity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102, No. 4, pp. 519-535.

Humphrey, J. E. and Tan, D. T. (2014), “Does it really hurt to be responsible?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 122, No. 3, pp. 375–386.

Humphrey, J. E., Warren, G. J. and Boon, J. (2016), “What is different about socially responsible funds? A holdings-based analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 138, No. 2, pp. 263-277.

Jackson, J. (2009), “How risky are sustainable real estate projects? An evaluation of LEED and ENERGY STAR development options”, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 91-106.

Jackson, E. T. (2013), “Interrogating the theory of change: evaluating impact investing where it matters most”, Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 95-110.

Joliet, R. and Titova, Y. (2018), “Equity SRI funds vacillate between ethics and money: An analysis of the funds’ stock holding decisions”, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 97, pp. 70-86.

Kempf, A. and Osthoff, P. (2007), “The effect of socially responsible investing on portfolio performance”, European Financial Management, Vol. 13, No 5, pp. 908-922.

Krumsiek, B. J. (1997), “The emergence of a new era in mutual fund investing: Socially responsible investing comes of age”, The Journal of Investing, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 25-30.

Lane, M.J. (2015), “The Mission-Driven Venture: Business Solutions to the World’s Most Vexing Social Problems”, Wiley, Hoboken New Jersey, USA.

Leite, P. and Cortez, M.C. (2014), “Style and performance of international socially responsible funds in Europe”, Research in International Business and Finance, Vol. 30, pp. 248-267.

Leite, P. and Cortez, M.C. (2015), “Performance of European socially responsible funds during market crises: Evidence from France”, International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 40, pp. 132-141

Le Sourd, V. (2011), “Performance of socially responsible investment funds against an efficient SRI index: The impact of benchmark choice when evaluating active managers”, EDHEC-Risk and Asset Management Research Centre, Nice, France.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.A. (1985), “Naturalistic Inquiry”, Sage,  Beverly Hills, CA, USA.

Logue, A.C. (2009), “Socially Responsible Investing for Dummies”, John Wiley and Sons, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Lydenberg, S. D. (2002), “Envisioning socially responsible investing”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 7, pp. 57-77.

Majoch, A. A., Hoepner, A. G., and Hebb, T. (2017), “Sources of stakeholder salience in the responsible investment movement: why do investors sign the principles for responsible investment?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140, No. 4, pp. 723-741.

Mair J. and Milligan K. (2012), “Q and A roundtable on impact investing”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, http://ssir.org/articles/entry/qa_roundtable_on_impact_investing (Accessed 20 August, 2019).

Maretick, M. (2015), “Women Rule: Why the Future of Social, Sustainable and Impact Investing is in Female Hands”, TriplePundit. http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/04/womenrule-future-social-sustainable-impact-investing-female-hands/# (Accessed 02 September 2019)

Martí-Ballester, C. P. (2015), “Investor reactions to socially responsible investment”, Management Decision, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 571-604.

Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit and explicit CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 404-424.

McCann, L., Solomon, A. and Solomon, J. (2003), “Explaining the growth in UK socially responsible investment”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 15-36.

McLaren, D. (2004), “Global stakeholders: Corporate accountability and investor engagement”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 191-201.

Miller, A. (1992), “Green Investment”, In Owen, D. (ed.), Green Reporting: Accountancy and the Challenge of the Nineties. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp. 242–255.

Nilsson, J. (2009), “Segmenting socially responsible mutual fund investors: The influence of financial return and social responsibility”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 5-31.

Ogrizek, M. (2002), “The effect of corporate social responsibility on the branding of financial services”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 215-228.

Oikonomou, I., Platanakis, E. and Sutcliffe, C. (2018), “Socially responsible investment portfolios: does the optimization process matter?”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 379-401.

Ooi, E. and Lajbcygier, P. (2013), “Virtue remains after removing sin: Finding skill amongst socially responsible investment managers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 199-224.

Paul, K. (2017), “The effect of business cycle, market return and momentum on financial performance of socially responsible investing mutual funds”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 513-528.

Pienitz, R. and Vincent, W. F. (2000), “Effect of climate change relative to ozone depletion on UV exposure in subarctic lakes”, Nature, Vol. 404, No. 6777, pp. 484-487.

Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. (2011), “The big idea: Creating shared value”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Rendtorff, J.D. (2009), “Responsibility, Ethics and Legitimacy of Corporations”, Society and Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 266-268.

Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J. and Zhang, C. (2008), “Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behaviour”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 1723-1742.

Rhodes, M. J. (2010), “Information asymmetry and socially responsible investment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95, No. 1, pp. 145-150.

Richardson, B.J. (2008), “Socially Responsible Investment Law: Regulating the Unseen Polluters”, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Richardson, B. J. (2009), “Keeping ethical investment ethical: Regulatory issues for investing for sustainability”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 555-572.

Riedl, A. and Smeets, P. (2017), “Why do investors hold socially responsible mutual funds?”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 72, No. 6, pp. 2505-2550.

Rojas, M., M’zali, B., Turcotte, M. and Merrigan, P. (2009), “Bringing about changes to corporate social policy through shareholder activism: Filers, issues, targets, and success”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 114, No. 2, pp. 217-252.

Salaber, J. (2013), “Religion and returns in Europe”, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 149–160.

Sandberg, J. (2011), “Socially responsible investment and fiduciary duty: Putting the freshfields report into perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 101, No. 1, pp. 143-162.

Sandberg, J. (2013), “(Re‐) interpreting fiduciary duty to justify socially responsible investment for pension funds?”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 436-446.

Scalet, S. and Kelly, T.F. (2010), “CSR rating agencies: what is their global impact?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 69-88.

Schepers, D. H. and Prakash Sethi, S. (2003), “Bridging the Gap Between the Promise and Performance of Socially Responsible Funds”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 108, No. 1, pp. 11-32.

Scholtens, B. and Sievänen, R. (2013), “Drivers of socially responsible investing: A case study of four Nordic countries”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 605-616.

Schueth, S. (2003), “Socially responsible investing in the United States”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.  43, No. 3, pp. 189-194.

Silva, F. and Cortez, M.C. (2016), “The performance of US and European green funds in different market conditions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 558-566.

Smith, M. P. (1996), “Shareholder activism by institutional investors: Evidence from CalPERS”. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 227-252.

Sparkes, R. (2001), “Ethical investment: whose ethics, which investment?”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 194-205.

Sparkes, R. and Cowton, C. J. (2004), “The maturing of socially responsible investment: A review of the developing link with corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 45-57.

Sparkes, R. (2017), “A historical perspective on the growth of socially responsible investment”, In Responsible investment  Routledge, Oxford, UK, (pp. 39-54).

Starr, M.A. (2008), “Socially responsible investment and pro-social change”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 51-73.

The Economist (2018), “Women’s wealth is rising”, https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/03/08/womens-wealth-is-rising (Accessed 7 August 2019).

Thornley, B., Wood, D., Grace, K. and Sullivant, S. (2011), “Impact Investing a Framework for Policy Design and Analysis”, InSight at Pacific Community Ventures and The Initiative for Responsible Investment at Harvard University, Cambridge (MA), USA.

Trinks, P. J. and Scholtens, B. (2017), “The opportunity cost of negative screening in socially responsible investing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140, No. 2, pp. 193-208.

Trinks, A., Scholtens, B., Mulder, M. and Dam, L. (2018), “Fossil fuel divestment and portfolio performance”, Ecological economics, 146, pp. 740-748.

Viviers, S. and Eccles, N.S. (2012), “35 years of socially responsible investing (SRI) research-general trends over time”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 1-16.

Willis, A. (2003), “The role of the global reporting initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 233-237.

Walker, H. and Brammer, S. (2009), “Sustainable procurement in the United Kingdom public sector”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 128-137.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Social Responsibility, Impact Investing, Marketing, Socially Responsible Investment, SRI

Integrated Reporting: Valuing the Financial, Social and Natural Capital

The end of year financial statements usually focus on financial capital, whereas organisational performance relies on resources – such as the expertise of people, intellectual property that was developed through research and development, and interactions with the environment and the societies in which they operate.  In this light, Integrated Reporting (<IR>) was developed to fill such reporting gaps. The IR Framework categorises different stocks of value, including; Financial Capital; Manufactured Capital; Intellectual Capital; Human Capital; Social (and Relationship) Capital; as well as Natural Capital.

 

 

The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has promoted the concept of integrated thinking and reporting. In 2013, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) released a framework for integrated reporting. By doing so, IIRC has paved the way for the next generation of annual reports that enable stakeholders to make a more informed assessment of the organisation’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects. IIRC has aligned capital allocations and corporate behaviours with the wider goals of financial stability and  sustainable development. Its framework established the following ‘Guiding Principles’ and ‘Content Elements’:

Guiding Principles

  1. Strategic focus and future orientation –gives an insight of the organisation’s strategy;
  2. Connectivity of information – provides a holistic picture of the combination, inter relatedness and dependencies between the factors that affect the organisation’s ability to create value over time;
  3. Stakeholder relationships – describes the nature and quality of the organisation’s relationships with its key stakeholders;
  4. Materiality – discloses relevant information about matters that substantively affect the organisation’s ability to create value over the short, medium and long term;
  5. Conciseness – provides sufficient context to understand the organisation’s strategy, governance and prospects without being burdened by less relevant information;
  6. Reliability and completeness – includes all material matters, both positive and negative, in a balanced way and without material error;
  7. Consistency and comparability – ensures consistency over time and enabling comparisons with other organisations to the extent material to the organisation’s own ability to create value.

Content Elements

  1. Organisational overview and external environment – What does the organisation do and what are the circumstances under which it operates?
  2. Governance – How does an organisation’s governance structure support its ability to create value in the short, medium and long term?
  3. Business model – What is the organisation’s business model?
  4. Risks and opportunities – What are the specific risk and opportunities that affect the organisation’s ability to create value over the short, medium and long term, and how is the organisation dealing with them?
  5. Strategy and resource allocation – Where does the organisation want to go and how does it intend to get there?
  6. Performance – To what extent has the organisation achieved its strategic objectives for the period and what are its outcomes in terms of effects on the capitals?
  7. Outlook – What challenges and uncertainties is the organisation likely to encounter in pursuing its strategy, and what are the potential implications for its business model and future performance?
  8. Basis of preparation and presentation – How does the organization determine what matters to include in the integrated report and how are such matters quantified or evaluated?

The ‘Guiding Principles’ underpin the preparation of an integrated report, whilst, the ‘Content Elements’ are the key categories of information that should be included in an integrated report according to the IR Framework. There are no bench marking for the above matters and the report is primarily aimed at the private sector; but IR could be adapted to the public sector and to not-for-profit organisations. The IIRC has set out a principle-based framework rather than specifying a detailed disclosure and measurement standard. This way each company sets out its own report rather than adopting a checklist approach. Hence, the report acts as a platform which explains what creates value to the business and how management protects this value. This gives the report more business impetus rather than mandating compliance-led approaches.

For the time being, the integrated reporting is not going to replace other forms of reporting but the vision is that large undertakings, including corporations, state-owned entities and government agencies, among others, may be expected to pull together relevant information already produced to explain the key drivers of their non-financial performance. Relevant information will only be included in the report where it is material to the stakeholder’s assessment of the business. The term ‘materiality’ suggests that there are legal connotations that may be related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting, Yet, some entities out of their own volition are already including ESG information in their integrated report.

In sum, the integrated reports aim to provide an insight into the company’s resources, relationships (that are also known as the capitals) and on how the company interacts with its external environment to create value.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, ESG Reporting, Integrated Reporting, Stakeholder Engagement, sustainable development

An Introduction to Socially Responsible Investment

Socially responsible investment (SRI) is the practice of incorporating social and environmental goals into investment decisions. Therefore, SRI is a strategy that encourages corporate practices that promote social responsibility and laudable initiatives such as impact investing, shareholder advocacy and community investing (Sparkes & Cowton, 2004; Guay, Doh & Sinclair, 2004; Schueth, 2003). At the same time, the rationale behind SRI is to consider both financial return as well as responsible investments for societal development. Its goals are based upon environmental issues, human rights, community involvement and labour relations (Ooi & Lajbcygier 2013; Sparkes, 2003; Friedman & Miles, 2001).

SRI’s professionally managed assets have emerged as a dynamic and quickly growing segment of the U.S. financial services industry (Schueth, 2003). In many cases, responsible and sustainable investments are influencing how asset managers invest in diversified portfolios (Lemke & Lins, 2014). This term refers to responsible investments that seek to avoid negative externalities. In fact, the investment portfolios of listed companies are often screened by SRI contractors (Renneboog, Ter Horst & Zhang, 2008). In fact, in recent years, SRI funds have become a popular investment opportunity. Many investors are attracted to businesses that will yield return on investment. Yet, it may appear that a large and growing segment of the population possess a spiritual yearning to integrate personal values into all aspects of life, including finance and investing (Schueth, 2003). As a result, many conscientious investors were avoiding businesses that are involved in alcohol, tobacco, fast food, gambling, pornography, weapons, contraception and abortion, fossil fuel production, and / or the military industries, among others (Logue, 2009; Ronneborg et al., 2008; Ghoul & Karam, 2007; Statman, 2000). In addition, responsible investors have become increasingly aware about the numerous instances of accounting fraud and other scandals that may have eroded their trust in corporate leadership. The areas of concern recognised by the SRI practitioners are often denoted under the heading of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, including social justice, human rights, anti-corruption and bribery issues and diversity on the boards (Camilleri, 2015).

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, Socially Responsible Investment, SRI

Corporate Governance Regulatory Principles and Codes

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:

 

cg

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).

References

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR

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