Tag Archives: ESG Reporting

January 11, 2022 · 11:00 am

The European Union’s corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD)

The European Union (EU)’s non-financial reporting directive (NFRD) law requires that large undertakings including corporations, listed businesses and government entities, among others, to disclose information on the way they operate and manage social and environmental challenges. This helps investors, civil society organisations, consumers, policy makers and other stakeholders to be in a better position to evaluate their non-financial performance (Camilleri, 2015; Camilleri, 2018; EU, 2014).

Recently, the EU (2021) put forward its proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which would amend the existing reporting requirements of the NFRD. In sum, the proposal extends the audit requirement to large companies and listed businesses in regulated markets (except listed micro-enterprises). They will be expected to introduce more detailed reporting requirements, according to mandatory EU sustainability reporting standards. At the time of writing this contribution, it is envisaged that the first set of standards would be adopted by October 2022 (EU, 2021).

References:

Camilleri, M.A. (2015). Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(2), 224-242. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2014-0065/full/html

Camilleri, M.A. (2018). Theoretical insights on integrated reporting: The inclusion of non-financial capitals in corporate disclosures, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(4), 567-581. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2018-0016/full/html

EU (2014). Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0095

EU (2021). EU Taxonomy, Corporate Sustainability Reporting, Sustainability Preferences and Fiduciary Duties: Directing finance towards the European Green Deal COM/2021/188 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0188

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, ESG Reporting, Integrated Reporting

March 11, 2020 · 12:46 pm

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

Tagged as Calvert Social Index, Catholic Values Index, corporate social responsibility, Dow Jones, Dow Jones Index, ESG, ESG Disclosures, ESG Reporting, Ethibel Sustainability Index, Ethical Investment, Finance, financial markets, financial products, FTSE Responsible Investment Index, Impact Investing, Jantzi, KLD, KLD400, negative screening, OMX GES Ethical Index, positive screening, Responsible and Sustainable Investing, responsible investment, Socially Responsible Investing, SRI, SRI funds

June 25, 2018 · 9:40 am

The Corporations’ Non-Financial Disclosures

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Jenkins Report may be considered as one of the major documents that has provided the foundations for non-financial disclosures. Notwithstanding, there were other guidelines that were developed by other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including; the Global Reporting Initiative, AccountAbility, Accounting for Sustainability (A4S), the World Intellectual Capital Initiative (WICI), the Enhanced Business Reporting Consortium, the CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project), the International Corporate Governance Network, the Sustainability Reporting Standards Board and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board, among others. The International Standards Organization (ISO), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Greenpeace, Rainforest Alliance and Home Depot Certifiable, Fair Trade and the US Department of Agriculture’s USDA Organic Labelling, among others, have formulated uncertifiable, multi-stakeholder standards and instruments to support organizations in their CSR communication. In addition, certain listed corporations are adopting Fortune’s reputation index, the KLD Social index or RepTrak (Camilleri, 2017). Such measures require corporate executives to assess the extent to which their organization behaves responsibly towards the environment and the community. Despite the development of these guiding principles and indices, their appropriateness remains doubtful (Camilleri, 2015).

In 2010, the development of ISO 26000 had represented a significant milestone in integrating socially and environmentally responsible behaviors into management processes. ISO 26000 was developed through a participatory multi-stakeholder process as the International Labor Organization (ILO) had established a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to ensure that ISO’s social responsibility standard is consistent with its own labor standards. In fact, ISO 26000’s core subject on ‘Labor Practices’ is based on ILOs’ conventions on labor practices, including; Human Resources Development Convention, Occupational Health and Safety Guidelines, Forced Labor Convention, Freedom of Association, Minimum Wage Fixing Recommendation and the Worst Forms of Child Labor Recommendation, among others. Moreover, ISO’s core subject on ‘human rights’ is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (that was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948). On the other hand, many academic commentators argue that ISO 26000 has never been considered as a management standard (Camilleri, 2017). The certification requirements have not been incorporated into ISO 26000’s development and reinforcement process, unlike other standards, including ISO 9000 and ISO 14001. Notwithstanding, ISO 14001 belongs to a larger set of ISO 14000 certifications that conform with the European Union’s Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS).

The European Union (EU) has developed its non-binding guidelines for the non-financial disclosures of large, public-interest entities that engage more than 500 employees (Stubbs and Higgins, 2015; EU, 2014). The European Parliament mandated Directive 2014/95/EU on non-financial reporting; that was subsequently ratified by the European member states. Therefore, large undertakings are expected to disclose material information on their ESG behaviors. These entities are required to explain any deviations from their directive’s recommendations in their annual declaration of conformity, as per the EU’s “Comply or Explain” principle (Camilleri, 2015; EU, 2014). Their non-financial disclosures include topics, such as; social dialogue with stakeholders, information and consultation rights, trade union rights, health and safety and gender equality, among other issues. Moreover, the organizations’ environmental reporting could cover; material disclosures on energy efficiencies, the monitoring of efficiency levels their energy generation capacities, assessments on the co-generation of heating facilities, the use of renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, water and air pollution prevention and control from the production and processing of metals, mineral industry, chemical industry, waste management, livestock farming, etc. (Camilleri, 2015). Therefore, large undertakings are expected to bear responsibility for the prevention and reduction of pollution. The EU recommends that the large organizations implement ILO’s Tri-partite Declaration of Principles on Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, as well as other conventions that promote the fair working conditions of employees. It also makes reference to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the 10 principles of the UN Global Compact, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and mentions ISO 26000 Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility (EU, 2014). Following, the EU’s mandate for non-financial reporting, it is expected that 6,000 European public interest entities will be publishing their sustainability reports in 2018, covering financial year 2017-2018 (GRI, 2017).

Additional Reading:

Camilleri, M.A (2015). Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosures in Europe. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 6 (2), 224 – 242. Emerald. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2014-0065 Download this paper

Camilleri, M.A. (2015). Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting. Corporate Reputation Review, 18 (3), 210-222. Palgrave Macmillan DOI:10.1057/crr.2015.9 http://www.palgrave-journals.com/crr/journal/v18/n3/full/crr20159a.html Download this paper

Camilleri, M.A. (2017). Measuring the corporate managers’ attitudes toward ISO’s social responsibility standard. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. (forthcoming). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1413344 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14783363.2017.1413344 Download this paper

Camilleri, M.A. (2017). Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. ISBN 978-3-319-46849-5 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319468488

CSRWire (2015). Environmental, Social and Governance Reporting in Europe. http://www.csrwire.com/blog/posts/1574-environmental-social-and-governance-disclosures-in-europe

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, ESG Reporting, Integrated Reporting, Marketing, Socially Responsible Investment, SRI, Stakeholder Engagement, Sustainability, sustainable development

Tagged as Business, Communications, corporate social responsibility, Corprorate communications, CSR, csr communication, CSR Reporting, ESG Reporting, EU, Global Compact, GRI, ILO, Integrated Reporting, ISO, Mark Camilleri, oecd, SRI, Sustainability, UN, University of Malta

January 12, 2018 · 7:10 pm

The Integrated Reporting of Financial, Social and Sustainability Capitals

An excerpt from my latest paper, entitled, “The Integrated Reporting of Financial, Social and Sustainability Capitals: A Critical Review and Appraisal” that will be published by the International Journal of Sustainable Society (this journal is indexed in Scopus).

A thorough literature review suggests that the integrated report is more than just a summary of financial, social, sustainability and governance information in corporate disclosures (Adams, 2015). The integrated disclosures constitute a full picture of a company’s overall business performance. Organisations are looking at all aspects of their value-creating capitals, including; financial; manufactured; intellectual; human; social (and relationship); as well as natural capitals (IR, 2013). These capitals complement and compete against each other. Therefore, the practitioners who would like to comply with IIRC’s <IR> framework will probably experience a dynamic process of adaptation, learning and action to redesign their disclosures. They may have to change their internal management systems, processes and strategies to incorporate ESG issues into their core business model (Camilleri, 2015b, Adams, 2015, Churet & Eccles, 2014; Eccles & Krzus, 2010).

Relevant academic literature has yielded many recommendations, ideas and concepts that have surely improved corporate reporting (Crowther, 2016). This contribution also reported how “integrated thinking” in corporate reporting involves the inclusion of material information on financial and non-financial matters (Adams & Simnett, 2011). Moreover, it linked the organisations’ integrated reporting with the conceptual developments that were conspicuous in the stewardship, institutional and legitimacy theories, among others. This paper has indicated that these theoretical insights have focused on the rationale for the inclusion of non-financial information in corporate disclosures (Adams et al., 2016; Eccles & Krzus, 2010). Although, there are reasonable arguments in favour and against integrated reporting; in sum, the researcher believes that the IIRC’s framework has proved to be a useful instrument for those responsible organisations who are communicating about their financial and non-financial capitals (IIRC, 2017). The framework contains guiding principles and content elements that will enable organisations to disclose a true and fair view of their holistic activities. Conversely, the avoidance of ESG disclosures from their corporate reports can result in a highly-distorted picture of current and future business activities (Camilleri, 2017).

This research has evidenced how the theoretical insights from academic literature have led to the development of integrated reporting. It explained that the organisations’ stewardship behaviours, including their ‘integrated thinking’ can help them improve their legitimacy among stakeholders and institutions. The researcher contended that IIRC’s <IR> framework supports organisations in their holistic reporting approaches as it takes into account material information on financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and natural capitals.

Indeed, the IIRC’s <IR> framework was a recent development in corporate reporting. This framework has its inherent limitations that were duly pointed out in this paper. However, this contribution maintains that integrated reporting provides a road map for those organisations who would like to pursue the sustainability path (Dacin et al., 2007). The framework is based on the general notion that integrated accounting considers both financial and non-financial information to give a true and fair view of the company’s overall business performance. When practitioners embed ESG disclosures and “integrated thinking” they help to catalyse positive behavioural change within their respective organisation (Adams & Simnett, 2011). This integrated thinking influences the practitioners’ ethical behaviours and their stance on financial and non-financial performance (Camilleri, 2015b). The researcher believes that the framework’s strategic focus calls for both internalisation and externalisation processes. Internalisation is a process through which the organisation’s human resources adopt the framework’s external ideas, opinions, views or concepts, as their own. This process starts with learning about the reporting framework, and why its development makes sense to the organisation, as a whole. The internal stakeholders will probably experience a process of adaptation until they finally accept that their organisation’s integrated reporting of financial and non-financial capitals creates value over time. Thus, the internalisation process can be understood as a process of acceptance of a new set of norms and working practices that will improve the organisation’s performance, in the long term.

The organisations’ internal transformation may lead to significant changes in terms of the embeddedness of ESG performance in their operational processes. The non-financial disclosures will shed light on the externalities that affect stakeholders and other unrelated parties. In other words, through integrated reporting; the internal effects of integrated reporting are finally externalised outside the organisations’ boundaries. At times, organisations may intentionally or unintentionally conceal ESG information from stakeholders. Certain unethical practices may result from conscious or unconscious organisational behaviours or simply from misconduct when dealing with extensive information outputs.

In conclusion, this contribution suggests that the <IR> framework is a step in the right direction as integrated reporting leads to the re-evaluation of the organisations’ legitimacy (Beck et al., 2015; Dacin et al., 2007; Brown & Deegan, 1998). Hence, IIRC’s framework encourages organisations to report both positive and negative behaviours that substantively affect their ability to create value over the short, medium and long term. Practitioners are also expected to provide an adequate and sufficient context about their strategy, governance and prospects in a balanced way (Camilleri, 2017).

References

Adams, C. A. & Larrinaga-González, C. (2007). Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 333-355.

Adams, C. A. & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum. 32, (4), 288-302.

Adams, S., & Simnett, R. (2011). Integrated Reporting: An opportunity for Australia’s not‐for‐profit sector. Australian Accounting Review, 21(3), 292-301.

Adams, C. A. (2015). The international integrated reporting council: a call to action. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 27, 23-28.

Adams CA, Potter B, Singh PJ and York J (2016). Exploring the implications of integrated reporting for social investment (disclosures) British Accounting Review, 48(3), 283-296.

Beck, C., Dumay, J., & Frost, G. (2015). In pursuit of a ‘single source of truth’: from threatened legitimacy to integrated reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15.

Bhimani, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2007). Structure, formality and the importance of financial and non-financial information in strategy development and implementation. Management Accounting Research, 18(1), 3-31.

Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-economic review, 10(1), 3-28.

Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information—a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and business research, 29(1), 21-41.

Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2014). Integrated reporting: On the need for broadening out and opening up. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1120-1156.

Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829-846.

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.

Camilleri, M. A. (2017). Corporate sustainability, social responsibility and environmental management: an introduction to theory and practice with case studies. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.

Camodeca, R., & Almici, A. (2017). Implementing Integrated Reporting: Case Studies from the Italian Listed Companies. Accounting and Finance Research, 6(2), 121-135.

Campbell, D., & Cornelia Beck, A. (2004). Answering allegations: The use of the corporate website for restorative ethical and social disclosure. Business Ethics: A European Review, 13(2‐3), 100-116.

Cheng, M., Green, W., Conradie, P., Konishi, N., & Romi, A. (2014). The international integrated reporting framework: key issues and future research opportunities. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 25(1), 90-119.

Churet, C., & Eccles, R. G. (2014). Integrated reporting, quality of management, and financial performance. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 26(1), 56-64.

Crowther, D. (2016). A social critique of corporate reporting: Semiotics and web-based integrated reporting. Routledge. Abington, Oxford, UK.

Dacin, M. T. (1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of management journal, 40(1), 46-81.

Dacin, M. T., Oliver, C., & Roy, J. P. (2007). The legitimacy of strategic alliances: An institutional perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 169-187.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management review, 22(1), 20-47.

Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures–a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311.

Deegan, C 2007, ‘Organisational legitimacy as a motive for sustainability reporting’ in J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, B. O’Dwyer (ed.) Sustainability accounting and accountability, Routledge, London, United Kingdom, pp. 127-149.

Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate?. Academy of management journal, 39(4), 1024-1039.

de Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L., & Unerman, J. (2014). Integrated Reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1042-1067.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of management, 16(1), 49-64.

Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J., & Demartini, P. (2016). Integrated reporting: a structured literature review. In Accounting Forum. 40(3), 166-185.

Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P. (2010). One report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.

Eccles, R. G., Serafeim, G. & Krzus, M. P. (2011). Market interest in nonfinancial information. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 23(4), 113-127.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Agency-and institutional-theory explanations: The case of retail sales compensation. Academy of Management journal, 31(3), 488-511.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of management review, 14(1), 57-74.

Erlingsdóttir, G. & Lindberg, K. (2005). Isomorphism, Isopraxism and Isonymism-Complementary or Competing Processes? (No. 2005/4). http://www.lri.lu.se/pdf/wp/2005-4.pdf (accessed 19 April, 2017).

EU (2014). Non-financial reporting. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/non-financial_reporting/index_en.htm (accessed 15 November 2015).

EU (2015). Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – State of Play. Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2015)144 final.. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/11621/attachments/1/translations/ (accessed 15 November 2015).

EU (2017) Corporate Social Responsibility. European Commission, Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Brussels, Belgium.

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/corporate-social-responsibility_en (accessed 15 November 2015).

Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 53-63.

Flower, J. (2015). The international integrated reporting council: a story of failure. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 27, 1-17.

Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 401-420.

Harding, T. (2012). How to establish a study association: Isomorphic pressures on new CSOs entering a neo-corporative adult education field in Sweden. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(1), 182-203.

Hedberg, C. J. & Von Malmborg, F. (2003). The global reporting initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish companies. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 10(3), 153-164.

Higgins, C., Stubbs, W., & Love, T. (2014). Walking the talk (s): Organisational narratives of integrated reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1090-1119.

Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3), 433-439.

Idowu, S. O., Capaldi, N. & Zu, L. (2013). Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.

Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 834-864.

Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. (2016). The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting: evidence from four countries. Harvard Business School Research Working Paper No. 11-100 https://papers.ssrn.com/soL3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1799589 (accessed 14 April, 2017

IR (2013). International IR Framework, International Integrated Reporting Council. available at: http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf (accessed 16 May, 2017).

IR (2017). Integrated Reporting. International Integrated Reporting Council https://integratedreporting.org/the-iirc-2/ (accessed 19 May, 2017).

Lozano, R. & Huisingh, D. (2011). Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(2), 99-107.

Maniora, J. (2015). Is integrated reporting really the superior mechanism for the integration of ethics into the core business model? An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(4), 755-786.

Maniora, J. (2017). Is integrated reporting really the superior mechanism for the integration of ethics into the core business model? An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(4), 755-786.

Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M. & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of sociology, 103(1), 144-181.

Muth, M. & Donaldson, L. (1998). Stewardship theory and board structure: A contingency approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 6(1), 5-28.

Ness, K. E. & Mirza, A. M. (1991). Corporate social disclosure: A note on a test of agency theory. The British Accounting Review, 23(3), 211-217.

Neu, D., Warsame, H. & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports. Account. Org. Soc., 23, 265–282

O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 523-557.

Parent, M. M. & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 1-23.

Perego, P., Kennedy, S., & Whiteman, G. (2016). A lot of icing but little cake? Taking integrated reporting forward. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 53-64.

Rensburg, R. & Botha, E. (2014). Is integrated reporting the silver bullet of financial communication? A stakeholder perspective from South Africa. Public Relations Review, 40, 44-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.016

Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Simnett, R., & Huggins, A. L. (2015). Integrated reporting and assurance: where can research add value?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(1), 29-53.

Stacchezzini, R., Melloni, G. & Lai, A. (2016). Sustainability management and reporting: the role of integrated reporting for communicating corporate sustainability management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 102-110.

Stubbs, W. & Higgins, C. (2014). Integrated reporting and internal mechanisms of change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1068-1089.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571-610.

Thomson, I. (2015). But does sustainability need capitalism or an integrated report: S commentary on ‘The International Integrated Reporting Council: A story of failure’ by Flower. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 27, 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.07.003

Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of management Review, 11(3), 601-617.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, ESG Reporting, Integrated Reporting

Tagged as corporate social responsibility, CSR, csr communication, CSR Reporting, ESG Reporting, Integrated Reporting, Sustainability, Sustainability Reporting

November 11, 2017 · 10:44 am

The conceptual developments that paved the way for Integrated Reporting

The International Integrated Reporting Council’s <IR> Framework’s broader view of value creation and its multiple capital concept calls for an enhanced stewardship of the organisations’ capitals; whilst promoting a better understanding of the interdependencies between the capitals (IIRC, 2013, p.8). Relevant theoretical perspectives as well as sound empirical research suggest that the practicing organisations’ underlying motive behind their non-financial disclosures is to maximise their financial capital and profit. This argumentation is synonymous with many conceptual theories in academic literature that seek to justify the rationale for voluntary, integrated reporting (Adams et al., 2016; Idowu et al., 2013; Deegan, 2002, Suchman, 1995; Scott, 1995; Eisenhardt, 1989):

The Agency Theory

In the twentieth century, corporations were clearly distinguishing the difference between ownership and control of wealth. The business owners were considered as principals as they employed executives (agents) to manage their firms. The latter executives acted as agents for the principals, and they were morally responsible to maximise their shareholders’ wealth (i.e. the prinicipals’ wealth). The executives have accepted their agents’ status because they perceived the opportunity to maximise their own utility. The agency theory suggests that the company executives and their principals are motivated by opportunities for their own personal gain (Eisenhardt, 1989). Rightly so, the principals may invest their wealth in profitable companies and design governance systems in ways that maximise their investments. On the other hand, agents accept the responsibility of managing their principals’ undertakings to secure their employment prospects.

However, at times, there may be interest divergence between the managers and their principals. There may be situations where the agents may feel constrained by their principals’ imposed structures and controlling mechanisms (Davis et al., 1997). This matter could lead to unproductivity outcomes and will ultimately bring significant losses to the principals themselves. In the event where the agent would have no discretion at all, the firm would be owner-managed. In this case, having a situation where principals are autocratic towards their agents could result in serious repercussions for the businesses’ prospects. The crux of the agency theory is that principals are expected to delegate authority to agents to act on their behalf (Ness & Mirza, 1991). It is this delegation that at times allows agents to opportunistically build their own utility at the expense of the principals’ utility. This happens when there are unaligned objectives; where managers may be motivated by their individualistic, self-serving goals, rather than being stewards for their principals (Eisenhardt, 1989).

The Stewardship Theory

The stewardship theory is the collective-serving model of behaviour that is driven by the organisations’ intrinsic values and a genuine desire to do what is best for society and the planet (Donaldson & Davis, 1991). The stewardship behaviours benefit principals through the positive effects of profits on corporate dividends and share prices. Consequently, the stewards place higher value on cooperation than defection (these terms are also found in the game theory), because they perceive greater utility in cooperative behaviours. Stewardship theorists assume that there is a strong relationship between successful organisations and their principals’ satisfaction. The stewards protect and maximise their shareholders’ wealth because by so doing, they maximize their utility functions toward principals.

Stewards who successfully improve their organisational performance will also satisfy other stakeholder groups who have their own vested interests. Therefore, pro-organisational stewards are motivated to maximise organisational performance, whilst satisfying the competing interests of shareholders. The utility that they gain from pro-organisational behaviours is higher than the utility that could be gained through individualistic, self-serving behaviours. This theory suggests that stewards believe that their interests are aligned with those of the corporation that engaged them (Muth & Donaldson, 1998). Ideally, the stewards ought to be committed to improve their organisational performance rather than satisfying their personal motivations. This theory’s ideals are closely aligned with <IR>’s principles for value creation. IIRC’s <IR> Framework emphasises the stewardship of multiple capitals, including; financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and natural capital. In the past, the accountability of social and environmental capitals has often been found to be completely lacking in financial reporting (Adams et al., 2016; Muth & Donaldson, 1998). In addition, some anecdotal evidence suggests that companies are not always presenting a true and fair view of their negative impacts. On the other hand, there are other organisations who may be reluctant to promote their responsible and sustainable behaviours. This may be due to a lack of awareness on the business case for such activities. The motivations for undertaking stewardship behaviours, including; material ESG initiatives (that may be reported within integrated reports) seem to fall into two increasingly converging camps: doing good practices (this is consistent with the predictions of the stewardship theory) or doing well (this is consistent with both institutional and legitimacy theories).

The Institutional Theory

Different components of the institutional theory explain how certain processes become established as authoritative guidelines for societal behaviours. Very often, structures and institutions are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time; and eventually they may also fall into decline and disuse. Unlike the efficiency-based theories which focus on profit maximisation or on the interactions between markets and governments, the institutional theory considers a wider range of variables that could influence the decision-making processes in organisations.

This theory clarifies how firms respond to their institutional environments in which they operate. Stakeholders, including; governments, regulatory authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and organisations within the supply chain can exert their influence on any business. Scott (1995) held that, in order to survive, organisations must conform to norms and rules that are prevailing in their operating environment. Their compliance with the institutions’ formal regulations and ethos will earn them legitimacy among stakeholders (Beck et al., 2015; Dacin, 1997; Deephouse, 1996; Suchman, 1995). The institutional theory’s applications have expanded even further; as more research is showing how the institutions effect organisational behaviours, particularly on CSR issues. Historically, the notion of CSR has emerged from the institutionalised forms of social solidarity from liberal market economies. The institutional theory offers promising ways of investigating what lies at the heart of the publics’ concern. Therefore, corporations may be influenced by the institutions’ voluntary principles, policies and programmes. Their responsible behaviours have often been triggered by socio-political forces and pressure groups. In this case, CSR practice rests on the dichotomy between the corporations’ voluntary engagement and their socially binding responsibilities (Brammer et al., 2012). The fact that CSR is ‘voluntary’ is a clear reflection of the practicing organisations’ institutional context. Alternatively, CSR may be driven by legal, customary, religious or other defined institutions.

Undoubtedly, numerous institutions have played a dynamic role, both individually and collectively in the development of integrated reporting. While governments have been the primary force for the promotion of financial reporting standards through security exchange commissions; other institutions like IIRC or GRI have facilitated the growth and diffusion of ESG reporting among practicing organisations. For the time being, it may appear that there is a demand for CSR reporting mechanisms by marketplace stakeholders. For this reason, corporations are communicating their ESG credentials (Camilleri, 2015a). This way, they are accountable and transparent about their modus operandi with regulators, industry, and stakeholder groups. Moreover, the corporations continuous engagement with external institutions, particularly multi-governmental organisations, social and environmental NGOs as well as the standard-setting organisations have brought valuable principles and guidelines in the realms of sustainability reporting (Camilleri, 2015a).

Isomorphism has been constructed in conjunction with the applications of the institutional theory (Erlingsdottir & Lindberg 2005; Dacin, 1997; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). This concept has largely been propagated through global cultural and associational processes. Isomorphic developments arise when ideas or innovations travel and are adopted in different contexts (Harding, 2012; Dacin, 1997; Deephouse, 1996).. For instance, despite all possible configurations of local economic forces, power relationships, and forms of traditional culture it might consist of, a previously-isolated island society that has made contact with the rest of the globe would quickly take on standardised forms that are similar to a hundred other nation-states around the world (Meyer, Boli, Thomas & Ramirez, 1997). Similarly, the notion of isopraxism refers to ideas that are translated and modified by different actors to suit their own needs.

Isomorphism and its related notion, isopraxism are potentially helpful for framing our interpretation of why corporate reporting approaches may converge (or not) over time. For example, the principles-based and non-mandatory <IR> Framework could potentially create explicit and implicit reporting norms that shape the non-financial information of organisations that ought to be communicated through their integrated reporting. In this sense, isomorphism may be useful to understand how and why the disclosures of ESG content can become widely accepted across companies, over time (Adams et al., 2016; Deephouse, 1996). In a similar vein, isopraxism has been used to describe instances where identifiable institutional forces lead to new and different actions within specific organisational and social instances. Therefore, isopraxism suggests that organisations may be intrigued to move toward more integrated approaches to reporting. At times, legitimate organisations may be willing to voluntarily disclose their adapted ESG reports, out of their own volition. However, they may not necessarily label them ‘integrated’, or join the IIRC’s <IR> Framework (Erlingsdottir & Lindberg 2005; Harding 2012).

The Legitimacy Theory

Very often, the institutional environments provide regulatory frameworks and may be considered as a considerable breath of narratives pertaining to non-financial disclosures, in different jurisdictions. Hence, there is a possibility that responsible organisations will become legitimate if they comply with relevant societal rules that are found in the countries where they operate (Beck et al., 2015; Deegan, 2002). The stakeholders perceive that organisations are legitimate when “their actions are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially-constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). This conception suggests that the role of the legitimacy theory is to justify the organisations’ behaviour, particularly when they implement and develop social and environmental initiatives. It goes without saying that the stakeholders will recognise those legitimate organisations that are upholding their social contract in accordance with the expectations of society. Therefore, the drivers of institutional legitimacy may be influenced by the organisations’ external environment; according to the culturally-defined values and beliefs. On the other hand, stakeholders will severely sanction irresponsible organisations when they do not respect social norms and ethical values.

Suchman (1995) described legitimacy as an operational resource assuming a “high level of managerial control over legitimating processes” (p. 576). Others suggested that legitimacy is strategic as it emanates from recurring conflicts between management and stakeholders (Dacin, Oliver & Roy, 2007; Suchman 1995). Organisational legitimacy could be achieved by forging strong relationships with external stakeholders (Camilleri, 2017). For this reason, organisations may decide to change and adapt their corporate disclosures according to their stakeholders’ expectations to achieve legitimacy. On the other hand, changes in disclosure patterns may be driven by internal decisions on materiality. Corporate reporting could be considered as a mitigating factor that is driven from inside the organisation (Campbell & Beck, 2004). Therefore, the managers’ agenda is to strategically enhance their legitimacy through stakeholder engagement. They may also make financial and ESG disclosures widely available to interested parties to achieve legitimation. This position is consistent with <IR>’s framework. Within this context, the <IR> framework provides significant support to organisations who are willing to disclose their non-financial reports. However, when organisations utilise IIRC’s framework for their very first time, they may inevitably have to adapt their financial and ESG reports as per <IR>’s recommended framework. Hence, <IR>’s reporting guidelines provide a passive avenue for institutional legitimsation. It is through the development of such guiding principles that society and external stakeholders are continuously influencing organisations to restore their ethical and social disclosures (Campbell & Beck, 2004).

The conditions for legitimacy are often constructed by responsible organisational behaviours. For example, relevant research on the legitimacy theory reported that there were organisations who were voluntarily disclosing their non-financial reports. Companies were seeking external legitimation by reporting their environmental performance (Brown & Deegan, 1998). Other corporations who decided to follow GRI’s reporting guidelines or resorted to the <IR>’s framework were increasingly aligning their internal reflections with external outputs (Beck et al., 2015). Initially, the rationale behind their integrated reporting was to improve their organisations’ external legitimation among stakeholders. However, at a later stage they realised that their external reports were informed by their organisation’s strategic positioning, and not constrained by the promulgation of the voluntary guidelines (Beck et al., 2015). Evidently, more organisations are conforming to the prevailing definitions of legitimacy through their disclosures of responsible and sustainable actions. Consequently, these responsible organisations’ leadership sets the agenda for stakeholder engagement and ESG reporting. The underlying objective is to build or enhance reputation (Aerts & Cormier, 2009) that will positively impact on the organisations’ capital flows.

This is an excerpt from my latest working paper, “Theoretical Insights on Integrated Reporting: Valuing the Financial, Social and Sustainability Disclosures”.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, ESG Reporting, Stakeholder Engagement

Tagged as Corporations, CSR, CSR Reporting, ESG, ESG Reporting, Global Reporting Initiative, GRI, Integrated Reporting, Sustainability, Sustainability Reporting

May 24, 2017 · 6:44 pm

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

Strategic focus and future orientation –gives an insight of the organisation’s strategy;
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;
Stakeholder relationships – describes the nature and quality of the organisation’s relationships with its key stakeholders;
Materiality – discloses relevant information about matters that substantively affect the organisation’s ability to create value over the short, medium and long term;
Conciseness – provides sufficient context to understand the organisation’s strategy, governance and prospects without being burdened by less relevant information;
Reliability and completeness – includes all material matters, both positive and negative, in a balanced way and without material error;
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

Organisational overview and external environment – What does the organisation do and what are the circumstances under which it operates?
Governance – How does an organisation’s governance structure support its ability to create value in the short, medium and long term?
Business model – What is the organisation’s business model?
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?
Strategy and resource allocation – Where does the organisation want to go and how does it intend to get there?
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?
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?
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.

1 Comment

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

Tagged as , corporate communication, corporate social responsibility, CSR, CSR Reporting, ESG, ESG Disclosures, ESG Reporting, IR, Sustainability Accounting

June 12, 2016 · 12:33 pm

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

Tagged as Business, Business Ethics, Calvert Social Index, Catholic Values Index, corporate social responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, creating shared value, CSR, Dow Jones, Dow Jones Index, EIRIS, ESG, ESG Disclosures, ESG Reporting, Ethibel Sustainability Index, Ethical Investment, EURSIF, FTSE, FTSE Responsible Investment Index, Jantzi, KLD, KLD400, OMX GES Ethical Index, Responsible and Sustainable Investing, socially responsible business, Socially Responsible Investing, Socialy Responsible Investment, SRI, Sustainability, Sustainable Asset Management, USSIF

March 5, 2016 · 7:35 pm

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:

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

Tagged as Business, Corporate Governance, Corporate Governance Reporting, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, ESG Disclosures, ESG Reporting, Responsible Corporate Governance, stakeholder engagement, Sustainability Reporting

November 11, 2015 · 12:22 pm

Call for Chapters on CSR

Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility: The New Era of Corporate Citizenship

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 Circular Economy, Corporate Governance, corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, creating shared value, CSR, csr policy, CSR Reporting, eco-labels, Environmental Reporting, Environmental Responsibility, ESG, ESG Disclosures, ESG Reporting, green economy, Recyclying, Reducing, Resource Efficiency, Responsible Corporate Governance, Responsible Procurement, Reusing, shared value, socially responsible business, Socially Responsible Investments, SRI, stakeholder engagement, Stakeholder Theory, Sustainability, Sustainability Reporting, sustainable business, sustainable marketing

Tag Archives: ESG Reporting

Archives

Categories

Follow Blog via Email

Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies

Twitter

Meta

Tag Archives: ESG Reporting

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

An excerpt from my latest paper, entitled, “The Integrated Reporting of Financial, Social and Sustainability Capitals: A Critical Review and Appraisal” that will be published by the International Journal of Sustainable Society (this journal is indexed in Scopus).

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility: The New Era of Corporate Citizenship

This edited book will be published by IGI Global (USA)

Proposals Submission Deadline: January 31, 2016

Full Chapters Due: April 30, 2016

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Archives

Categories

Follow Blog via Email

Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies