Tag Archives: Sustainability

CSR 2.0 – A Conceptual Framework For Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

gr

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

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

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

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

 

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

References

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

1 Comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

Creating Shared Value: Doing well by doing good!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

Responsible Tourism that Creates Shared Value Among Stakeholders

Excerpt from the paper entitled; “Responsible Tourism that Creates Shared Value among Stakeholders” This contribution will shortly be published by  Tourism Planning and Development Journal.

This study revealed how different tourism organisations were engaging in responsible behaviours with varying degrees of intensity and success. It has identified cost effective and efficient operations. There was mention of some measures which enhance the human resources productivity. Other measures sought to reduce the negative environmental impacts. At the same time, it was recognised that it was in the businesses’ interest to maintain good relations with different stakeholders, including the regulatory ones.

rtThe researcher believes that responsible tourism can truly bring a competitive advantage when there are fruitful communications and continuous dialogue among all stakeholder groups (including the employees, customers, marketplace and societal groups). The tourism enterprises ought to engage themselves in societal relationships and sustainable environmental practices (Chiu, Lee and Chen, 2014). The tourism owner-managers admitted that responsible behaviours have brought reputational benefits, enhanced the firms’ image among external stakeholders and led to a favourable climate of trust and cooperation within the company. Similar findings were reported by Nunkoo and Smith (2013). This study reported that a participative leadership boosts employee morale and job satisfaction which may often lead to lower staff turnover and greater productivity in the workplace (Davidson et al., 2010). Evidently, stakeholder relationships are needed to bring external knowledge sources, which may in turn enhance organisational skills and performance (Frey and George, 2010).

The governments may also have an important role to play in this regard. The governments can take an active leading role in triggering responsible behaviours. Booyens (2010) also reiterated that greater efforts are required by governments, the private sector and other stakeholders to translate responsible tourism principles into policies, strategies and regulations. Governments may give incentives (through financial resources in the form of grants or tax relief) and enforce regulation in certain areas where responsible behaviour is required. The regulatory changes may possibly involve the use of eco-label and certifications. Alternatively, the government may encourage efficient and timely reporting and audits of sustainability (and social) practices. The governments may provide structured compliance procedures to tourism enterprises. Responsible tourism practices and their measurement, reporting and accreditation should be as clear and understandable as possible. The governments’ reporting standards and guidelines may possibly be drawn from the international reporting instruments (e.g. ISO, SA, AA, and GRI).

This research posits that sustainable and responsible environmental practices leverage the tourism enterprises performance as innovations can help to improve their bottom-line. This finding was also consonant with Bohdanowicz’s (2006) contribution. This research indicated that the investigated enterprises were increasingly pledging their commitment for discretionary investments in environmental sustainability, including; energy and water conservation, alternative energy generation, waste minimisation, reducing, reusing and recycling policies, pollution prevention, environmental protection, carbon offsetting programmes and the like. Indeed, some of the interviewees have proved that they were truly capable of reducing their operational costs through better efficiencies. Nevertheless, there may be still room for improvement as tourism enterprises can increase their investments in the latest technological innovations. This study indicates that there are small tourism enterprises that still need to realise the business case for responsible tourism. Their organisational culture and business ethos will have to become attuned to embrace responsible behavioural practices.

Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the tourism industry is made up of various ownership structures, sizes and clienteles. In addition, there are many stakeholder influences, which affect the firms’ level of social and environmental responsibility (Carroll and Shabana, 2010). Acquiring new knowledge must be accompanied by mechanisms for dissemination. Perhaps, there is scope in sharing best practices, even with rival firms. It is necessary for responsible businesses to realise that they need to work in tandem with other organisations in order to create shared value and to move the responsible tourism agenda forward. Therefore, this study’s findings encourage inter-firm collaboration and networking across different sectors of the tourism industry.

“…responsible behaviours have brought reputational benefits, enhanced the firms’ image among external stakeholders and led to a favourable climate of trust and cooperation within the company”.

This contribution contends that the notion of shared value is opening up new opportunities for responsible tourism and the sustainability agenda, particularly with its innovative approach to configure the value chain (Pfitzer, et al, 2013; Porter and Kramer 2011). There are competitive advantages that may arise from creating and measuring shared value. Evidently, there is more to responsible tourism than, ‘doing good by doing well’ (Garay and Font, 2012). As firms reap profits and grow, they can generate virtuous circles of positive multiplier effects. This paper has indicated that the tourism enterprises, who engage themselves in responsible and sustainable practices, are creating value for themselves and for society. In conclusion, this research puts forward the following key recommendations for the responsible tourism agenda:

• Promotion of laudable business processes that bring economic, social and environmental value;
• Encouragement of innovative and creative approaches, which foster the right environment for further development and application of sustainable and responsible practices;
• Enhancement of collaborations and partnership agreements with governments, trade unions and society in general, including the marketplace stakeholders;
• Ensuring that there are adequate levels of performance in areas such as health and safety, suitable working conditions and sustainable environmental practices;
• Increased awareness, constructive communication, dialogue and trust;
• National governments may create a regulatory framework which encourages and enables the implementation of sustainable and responsible behavioural practices by tourism enterprises.


References (a complete list of references that were cited in this paper)

Ayuso, S. (2007). Comparing voluntary policy instruments for sustainable tourism: The experience of the Spanish hotel sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 144-159.

Bohdanowicz, P. (2006). Environmental awareness and initiatives in the Swedish and Polish hotel industries—survey results. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(4), 662-682.

Booyens, I. (2010). Rethinking township tourism: towards responsible tourism development in South African townships. Development Southern Africa, 27(2), 273-287.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1-5.

Bramwell, B. & Rawding, L. (1996). Tourism marketing images of industrial cities. Annals of Tourism research, 23(1), 201-221.

Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of tourism research, 26(2), 392-415.

Bramwell, B., Lane, B., McCabe, S., Mosedale, J., & Scarles, C. (2008). Research perspectives on responsible tourism.

Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 528-546

Camilleri, M.A. (2014). Advancing the Sustainable Tourism Agenda Through Strategic CSR Perspectives, Tourism Planning & Development, 11:1, 42-56.

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting”. Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 18 (3).

Carroll, A.B., and Shabana, K.M (2010), The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews 12 (1), 85-105.

Chiu, Y. T. H., Lee, W. I., & Chen, T. H. (2014). Environmentally responsible behavior in ecotourism: Antecedents and implications. Tourism Management, 40, 321-329.

Cooper, C. P. & Ozdil, I. (1992). From mass to ‘responsible’tourism: the Turkish experience. Tourism Management, 13(4), 377-386.

Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. B. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of business research, 44(3), 137-152.
Davidson, M. C., Timo, N. & Wang, Y. (2010). How much does labour turnover cost?: A case study of Australian four-and five-star hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), 451-466.

EU (2007). Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European tourism. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/documents/communications/commissioncommunication- accessed on the 12th December 2014.
EU (2012). European charter for a sustainable and responsible tourism http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/sustainable-tourism/charter/index_en.htm accessed on the 12th December 2014.

Fleischer, A., & Felsenstein, D. (2000). Support for rural tourism: Does it make a difference?. Annals of tourism research, 27(4), 1007-1024.

Frey, N., & George, R. (2010). Responsible tourism management: The missing link between business owners’ attitudes and behaviour in the Cape Town tourism industry. Tourism Management, 31(5), 621-628.

Garay, L., & Font, X. (2012). Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility reasons, practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enterprises. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 329-337.

Getz, D., & Carlsen, J. (2000). Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors. Tourism management, 21(6), 547-560.

Goodwin, H., & Francis, J. (2003). Ethical and responsible tourism: Consumer trends in the UK. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 271-284.

Goodwin, H. (2007). Responsible tourism in destinations. http://haroldgoodwin.info/blog/?p=2745 accessed on the 11th December 2013.

Goodwin, H. (2011). Taking responsibility for tourism. Woodeaton, UK: Goodfellow Publishers Limited.

Goodwin (2013) What role does certification play in ensuring Responsible Tourism? – in WTM blog. http://www.wtmlondon.com/library/What-role-does-certification-play-in-ensuring-Responsible-Tourism#sthash.azaYgVZj.dpuf accessed on the 18th January 2014.

Goodwin (2015) Using Tourism to create shared value http://blog.wtmresponsibletourism.com/2015/02/16/using-tourism-to-create-shared-value-in-kerala/

Graci, S., & Dodds, R. (2008). Why go green? The business case for environmental commitment in the Canadian hotel industry. Anatolia, 19(2), 251-270.

Guardian (2014). http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/jan/23/davos-2014-climate-change-resource-security-sustainability-live accessed on the 18th January 2014.

Hall, C. M., & Lew, A. A. (1998). Sustainable tourism. A geographical perspective. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.

Hall, C. M. (2010). Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 131-143.

Hall, C. M. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 437-457.

Haywood, K. M. (1988). Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism management, 9(2), 105-118.

Iglesias, A., Garrote, L., Flores, F., & Moneo, M. (2007). Challenges to manage the risk of water scarcity and climate change in the Mediterranean. Water Resources Management, 21(5), 775-788.

IHG (2012a). Intercontintental Hotel Group: CSR Report 2012. http://www.ihgplc.com/files/pdf/2012_cr_report.pdf accessed on the 15th January 2014.

IHG (2012b). Intercontinental Hotel Group: CSR Report IHG Green Engage. http://www.ihgplc.com/index.asp?pageid=742 accessed on the 15th January 2014.
Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of tourism research, 22(1), 186-204.

Jones, A. (1987). Green tourism. Tourism management, 8(4), 354-356.

King, C. (2010). “One size doesn’t fit all” Tourism and hospitality employees’ response to internal brand management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), 517-534.

Kirk, D. (1998). Attitudes to environmental management held by a group of hotel managers in Edinburgh. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17(1), 33-47.

Kramer, M. (2012). Shared Value: how corporations profit from solving social
problems. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/shared-value-how-corporationsprofit-
social-problems?intcmp=122 Accessed online on the 12th June 2012.

Krippendorf, J. (1982). Towards new tourism policies: The importance of environmental and sociocultural factors. Tourism management, 3(3), 135-148.

Krippendorf, J. (1987). Ecological approach to tourism marketing. Tourism Management, 8(2), 174-176.

Lee, T. H., Jan, F. H., & Yang, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors from the perspective of community-based tourists. Tourism Management, 36, 454-468.

Lloyd, B. (2015). Addressing Sustainable Development Goals: Shared value on the agenda at the 2015 World Economic Forum in Davos http://sharedvalue.org/groups/addressing-sustainable-development-goals-shared-value-agenda-2015-world-economic-forum-davos Accessed online on the 12th March 2015.

McIntyre, G. (1993). Sustainable tourism development: guide for local planners. World Tourism Organization (WTO).

Merwe, M. and Wöcke, A. (2007). An investigation into responsible tourism practices in the South African hotel industry. S. Afr. J. Bus. Manage, 38(2), 2

Miller, G. (2001). Corporate responsibility in the UK tourism industry. Tourism Management, 22(6), 589-598.
MTA (2015) Malta Tourism Authority: Why become ECO certified? http://www.mta.com.mt/why-become-eco-certified accessed on the 2nd February 2015.

Nunkoo, R., & Smith, S. L. (2013). Political economy of tourism: Trust in government actors, political support, and their determinants. Tourism management, 36, 120-132.

Pavesic, D. V., & Brymer, R. A. (1990). Job satisfaction: What’s happening to the young managers?. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 90-96.

Pfitzer, M., Bocksette, V., & Stamp, M. (2013). Innovating for Shared Value. Harvard Business Review.

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism – and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, (January/February), 62-77.

Poulston, J. M. (2009). Working conditions in hospitality: Employees’ views of the dissatisfactory hygiene factors. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(1), 23-43.

Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable tourism, 8(1), 1-19.

Sharpley, R. (2014). Teaching responsible tourism. The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and Hospitality Education, 171.

Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. (2011). Aspects of service-dominant logic and its implications for tourism management: Examples from the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 32(2), 207-214.

UN (2014) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabledevelopmentgoals

UNWTO – UNEP (2012). Tourism in the Green Economy: Background Report. http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/publications-1 accessed on the 29th June 2013.

Wheeller, B. (1991). Tourism’s troubled times: Responsible tourism is not the answer. Tourism Management, 12(2), 91-96.

WTTC (2002). Speeches and Presentations. Retrieved from http://www.wttc.org/eng/Tourism_News/Speeches_and_Presentations/2002_Speeches_and_Presentations/accessed on the 10th March 2012.

WTTC (2011). Latest Policy on travel and tourism, Retrieved from htp://www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/traveltourism2011.pdf accessed on the 2nd March 2012.

Leave a comment

Filed under SMEs

Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosures in Europe

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

 

Last year, the European Union (EU) announced its new guidelines on non-financial reporting that will only apply to some large entities with more than 500 employees. This includes listed companies as well as some unlisted companies; such as banks, insurance companies and other companies that are so designated by member states; because of their activities, size or number of employees. There are approximately 6,000 large companies and groups within the EU bloc (EU, 2014).  The most prevalent reporting schemes in the EU were often drawn from; the G3 Guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). In addition, several platforms and organisations that promote corporate sustainability reporting have developed partnerships with AccountAbility, OECD, UNEP, Carbon Disclosure Project and with many governments and sector organisations (Van Wensen et al., 2011; Kolk, Levy & Pinkse, 2008).

 

esg

 

When one explores the key topics that companies reported on, it transpired that carbon emission disclosures have become quite a common practice (Kolk et al., 2008). Moreover, recently there was an increased awareness on the subject of human rights and the conditions of employment (Lund-Thomsen & Lindgreen, 2013). Curiously, online reporting has offered an opportunity for accountability and transparency as information is easily disseminated to different stakeholders (Zadek, Evans & Pruzan, 2013). This has inevitably led to increased stakeholder engagement, integrated reporting and enhanced external verification systems. This subject has also been reported by Simnett and Huggins (2015), who have also presented a number of interesting research questions which could possibly be addressed through engagement research. At this point in time, stakeholders are considering reporting schemes as a valuable tool that can improve the quality of their reporting, particularly as it enables them to benchmark themselves with other companies (Adams, Muir & Hoque, 2014). The GRI is often regarded as ‘a good starting point’ for this purpose. Moreover, the provision of a UNGC communication on progress is a new global trend that has become quite popular among business and non-profit organisations. Some of the European organisations are gradually disclosing environmental information or certain other key performance indicators that are of a non-financial nature in their reporting (Zadek et al., 2013). Generally, public policies are often viewed as part of the regular framework for social and employment practices. Therefore, a considerable commitment is made by local governments who act as drivers for stakeholder engagement (Albareda, Lozano, Tencati, Middtun & Perrini, 2008).

 

One way to establish a CSR-supporting policy framework is to adopt relevant strategies and actions in this regard. Such frameworks may be relevant for those countries that may not have a long CSR tradition or whose institutions lack accountability and transparency credentials (Zadek et al., 2013). It may appear that EU countries are opting for a mix of voluntary and mandatory measures to improve their ESG disclosure. While all member states have implemented the EU Modernisation Directive, they have done so in different ways. While the Modernisation Directive ensured a minimum level of disclosure, it was in many cases accompanied by intelligent substantive legislation. National governments ought to give guidance or other instruments that support improvements in sustainability reporting. Lately, there was a trend towards the development of regulations that integrate existing international reporting frameworks such as the GRI or the UNGC Communication on Progress. These frameworks require the engagement of relevant stakeholders in order to foster a constructive environment that brings continuous improvements in ESG disclosures. Regular stakeholder engagement as well as strategic communications can bring more responsible organisational behaviours (Camilleri, 2015). Many corporate businesses use non-governmental organisations’ regulatory tools, processes and performance-oriented standards with a focus on issues such as labour standards, human rights, environmental protection, corporate governance and the like. Nowadays, stakeholders, particularly customers expect greater disclosures, accountability and transparency in corporate reports.

 

At the moment, we are witnessing regulatory pressures for mandatory changes in CSR reporting. Of course, firms may respond differently to reporting regulations as there are diverse contexts and realities. In a sense, this paper reiterates Adams et al.’s (2014) arguments as it indicated that ESG disclosures are a function of the level of congruence between the government departments’ regulatory environment and the use of voluntary performance measures. Somehow, EU regulatory pressures are responding to energy crises, human rights matters and are addressing the contentious issues such as resource deficiencies including water shortages. Notwithstanding, big entities are also tackling social and economic issues (e.g. anti-corruption and bribery) as they are implementing certain environmental initiatives (e.g. waste reduction, alternative energy generation, energy and water conservation, environmental protection, sustainable transport et cetera). In this light, there are implications for practitioners and assurance providers of integrated reports, standard setters and regulators (Simnett & Huggins, 2015). Future engagement research can possibly consider how report content and reporting formats, might impact on organisations’ decision making (Correa and Larrinaga, 2015). This paper indicated that practice and policy issues would benefit from additional empirical evidence which analyse how the European disclosure regulations may positively or adversely affect the corporations’ stakeholders.

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

 

References

Adams, C.A., Muir, S. & Hoque, Z. (2014) “Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5 (1), 46 – 67

Albareda, L., Lozano, J. M., Tencati, A., Midttun, A., & Perrini, F. (2008). The changing role of governments in corporate social responsibility: drivers and responses. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(4), 347-363.

ASB (2006). Reporting Statement: Operating and Financial Review. https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/ASB/Reporting-Statement-Operating-and-Financial-Review-File.pdf Accessed 30th August, 2014.

Bansal, P., Jiang, G. F., & Jung, J. C. (2014). Managing responsibly in tough economic times: strategic and tactical CSR during the 2008–2009 global recession. Long Range Planning.

BSR (2012). Trends in ESG Integration In Investments https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Trends_in_ESG_Integration.pdf Accessed on the 20th September 2014.

Camilleri, M.A. (2015). Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting. Corporate Reputation Review (18) 2.

Carroll, A.B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons 34 (4) 39-48.CBS (2013)
CCA (2008). Climate Change Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents Accessed 2nd October, 2014.

Clark, G.L. & Knight, E.R. (2008). Implications of the UK Companies Act 2006 for institutional investors and the market for corporate social responsibility. Journal of International Law, 11, 259.

ComLaw (2010) Australian Government: “Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Regulations 2010- F2010L01955 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010L01955 accessed on the 7th February 2015.

Companies Act (2013) The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013 No. 1970
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1970/pdfs/uksi_20131970_en.pdf accessed on the 8th February 2015.

Copenhagen Business School Public policy on CSR reporting: Danish experiences and other observations.https://www.globalreporting.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Global-Conference-2013/slides/GRI-Academic-Public-Policy-TRJ-23May2013.pdf accessed on the 5th February, 2015.

Correa, C., & Larrinaga, C. (2015). Engagement research in social and environmental accounting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(1).

CSR Compass (2014). Responsible supply chain management.
http://www.csrcompass.com/responsible-supply-chain-management Accessed 23rd September, 2014.

Danish National Action Plan (2014). Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Danish Business Authority, Copenhagen. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/NationalPlans/Denmark_NationalPlanBHR.pdf Accessed 30th September 2014.

DCCA (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Reporting in Denmark. Danish Commerce and Companies Agency.
http://samfundsansvar.dk/file/319099/corporate_social_responsibility_and_reporting_in_denmark_september_2010.pdf Accessed 14th September 2014.

DCGC (2014). Dutch Corporate Governance Code: Principles of good corporate governance and best practice provisions.
http://commissiecorporategovernance.nl/download/?id=606 Accessed on the 2nd October, 2014.

DECC (2014). UK National Energy Efficiency Action Plan. Department of Energy and Climate Change.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/eed/doc/neep/2014_neeap_united-kingdom.pdf Accessed 29th August, 2014.

ECCJ (2014). Assessment of the EU Directive on the disclosure of non-financial information by certain large companies. http://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/eccj-assessment-eu-non-financial-reporting-may-2104.pdf Accesses on the 3rd January 2015.

EU (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility: A business contribution to Sustainable Development. COM(2002) 347 final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.

EU (2008). National Public Policies in the European Union. ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6716&langId=en accessed on the 10th February 2014

EU (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=701 Accessed 3rd February 2014.

EU (2012a). Sustainable and responsible business European Expert Group on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and SMEs.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/sme/european-expert-group/index_en.htm Accessed 12th July 2014.

EU (2012b). Energy Efficient Directive. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012L0027 Accessed on the 5th January 2015.

EU (2014a). Sustainable Development. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/
Accessed 14th June 2014.

EU (2014b). Non-Financial Reporting.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/non-financial_reporting/index_en.htm Accessed 25th June 2014.

EU (2014c). European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR). http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/general_provisions/l28149_en.htm Accessed 29th August, 2014.

EU ETS (2014). EU Emission Trading Scheme. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm Accessed on the 10th January 2015.
Eurofound (2003). Towards a sustainable corporate social responsibility. European Foundation for the improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

FRC (2012). The UK Corporate Governance Code. Financial Reporting Council. https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/UK-Corporate-Governance-Code-September-2012.aspx Accessed 3rd October, 2014.

Gov.UK, “The UK is the first country to make it compulsory for companies to include emissions data for their entire organisation in their annual reports,” June 20, 2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/leading-businesses-to-disclose-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

Hąbek, P. & Wolniak, R. (2013). European Union regulatory requirements relating to Sustainability Reporting: The case of Sweden. Scientific Journals Maritime University of Szczecin, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademia Morska w Szczecinie.

Hartmann, F., Perego, P., & Young, A. (2013). Carbon Accounting: Challenges for Research in Management Control and Performance Measurement. Abacus, 49(4), 539-563.

Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. (2014). The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. Harvard Business School Research Working Paper 11-100.

IPPC (2013) Integrated pollution prevention and control (until 2013).http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/waste_management/l28045_en.htm Accessed on the 10th January 2015.
Ireland’s Credit Institutions Act (2008). http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/act/pub/0018/ Accessed 19th September 2014.

Kessler, A. & Cuerpo, C. (2011). Macroeconomic Impact of the Sustainable Economy Law. Documentos de Trabajo, 03.

Knopf, J., Kahlenborn, W., Hajduk, T., Weiss, D., Feil, M., Fiedler, R. & Klein, J. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility National Public Policies in the European Union. EU Commission, Brussels.

Kolk, A., Levy, D., & Pinkse, J. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: the institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719-745.

Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132-135.

KPMG (2010). Carrots and Sticks – Promoting Transparency and Sustainability. An update on trends in Voluntary and Mandatory Approaches to Sustainability Reporting.

KPMG in collaboration with United Nations Environment Programme and Global Reporting Initiative in Africa. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Carrots-And-Sticks-Promoting-Transparency-And-Sustainbability.pdf Accessed 01st October, 2014.

Lund-Thomsen, P. & Lindgreen, A. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Value Chains: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?”. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-12.

Martinuzzi, A., Krumay, B. & Pisano, U. (2011). Focus CSR: The New Communication of the EU Commission on CSR and National CSR Strategies and Action Plans. European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN), Quarterly Report No, 23.

Mullerat, R. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: a European perspective. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 13 No. 6, June 2013.

Nidasio, C. (2004). Implementing CSR on a large scale: The role of government. In 3rd Annual Colloquium of the European Academy of Business in Society, Ghent.

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review (89) 1-2.

Progress Report (2008). For a Sustainable Germany. German Strategy for Sustainable Development. http://www.nachhaltigkeitsrat.de/fileadmin/user_upload/English/strategy/2008/German_Govt_NSDS_progress_report_08_E.pdf Accessed 10th October, 2014.

Rasche, A. (2009). Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards – the case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16 (4) 192–205.

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

Transparency International (2012). GRI: Germany’s corporate reports do not deliver what they promise. https://blog.transparency.org/2012/12/11/gri-germanys-corporate-reports-do-not-deliver-what-they-promise/ Accessed 21st September 2014.

Van Wensen, K., Broer, W., Klein, J. & Knopf, J. (2011). The State of Play in Sustainability Reporting in the European Union. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6727&langId=en Accessed 7th June 2014.

Whiteside, K. H., Boy, D., & Bourg, D. (2010). France’s ‘Grenelle de l’environnement’: openings and closures in ecological democracy. Environmental politics, 19(3), 449-467.

Zadek, S., Evans, R., & Pruzan, P. (Eds.). (2013). Building Corporate Accountability: Emerging Practice in Social and Ethical Accounting and Auditing. Routledge.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

Environmental Responsibility in the Hospitality Sector

In a recent media release Hyatt has reiterated its commitment to environmental stewardship with a focus on energy, waste and water reduction, sustainable building, supply chain management as well as stakeholder engagement. In Hyatt’s Corporate Responsibility Report, the listed hotel corporation has unveiled an aggressive set of environmental goals for the year 2020, all designed to strengthen Hyatt’s collective ability to collaborate, inspire and further its commitment to environmental stewardship. Hyatt has also defined a suite of measurable and actionable targets. Hyatt hotels aim to create a more sustainable future for themselves and for their neighbours. The hotel group posits that the conservation efforts have reaped fruit, resulting in major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and water and energy usage by property across their portfolio. Hyatt maintains that its commitment to environmental stewardship touches every aspect of its business, from the way how the hotels are built and operated, to the way they collaborate with their global supply chain, to the way the hotel chain influences change through the passion and commitment of its employees around the world.
Setting Focus Areas
Hyatt 2020 Vision focuses on significantly expanding the global chain’s strategic scope, especially in areas where past efforts have not had as much of an impact due to occupancy fluctuations and rapid business growth in developing markets. With this in mind, the hotel chain’s three strategic priorities include the following;
• “Use Resources Thoughtfully: Hyatt is committed to examining how its hotels source, consume and manage natural resources to serve their guests. Hyatt will identify ways for Hyatt hotels to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, use less water, produce less waste and make more environmentally responsible purchasing decisions. As a highlight, Hyatt has set the goal to reduce water use per guest night by 25 percent, and within water-stressed areas, Hyatt has set a 30 percent reduction goal. Additionally, Hyatt is elevating its recycling efforts by challenging every hotel to reach a 40 percent diversion rate, as well as by setting a recycling goal for renovation waste.
Build Smart: Hyatt will work closely with stakeholders to increase the focus on building more efficient, environmentally conscious hotels across the enterprise. Beginning in 2015, all new construction and major renovation projects contracted for Hyatt managed hotels will be expected to follow enhanced sustainable design guidelines. Hyatt will lead this initiative by mandating that all new construction and major renovation projects for wholly owned full service hotels and resorts achieve LEED certification, or an equivalent certification.
Innovate and Inspire: This goal reflects Hyatt’s commitment to be a catalyst for bringing more hearts, hands and minds to the table to help advance environmental sustainability around the world. This includes Hyatt’s commitment to create a funding mechanism to support the innovation, ideation and acceleration of sustainable solutions within its hotels that can be replicated across the Hyatt portfolio, as well as the broader hospitality industry” (Hyatt Corporate Responsibility Report, 2013/2014).

Reporting Progress
Hyatt’s reported some of its major milestones, including:

• “The launch of Ready to Thrive, Hyatt’s global corporate philanthropy program focused on literacy and career readiness, which included a $750,000 investment in career readiness programs in Brazil.
• Building 11 libraries and supporting reading and writing programs in 30 schools through a new partnership with Room to Read, impacting 30,000 students in India.
• Donating 35,000 books to kids in need across the globe through We Give Books and Room to Read.
• Donating more than 100,000 volunteer hours in 2013 – a 69 percent increase from 2012.
• More than 80 percent of Hyatt hotels recycling at least one or more waste streams.
• A reduction in resource use intensity in each of Hyatt’s three regions compared to 2006 – up to a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, up to a 13 percent reduction in energy and up to a 15 percent reduction in water.
• Development of responsible seafood sourcing goals based on a global purchasing audit in partnership with World Wildlife Fund.
• Required more than 40,000 of its global associates — including housekeepers, front office, concierge, guest services, key service and security personnel, and all management-level colleagues — to complete Human Trafficking Prevention Training. Hyatt also implemented a standard for all of its hotels to have training measures in place” (Hyatt Corporate Responsibility Report, 2013/2014).

Sources:
Hyatt Thrive: http://thrive.hyatt.com/en/thrive.html
Hyatt Corporate Responsibility Report (2013-2014): http://thrive.hyatt.com/content/dam/Minisites/hyattthrive/Hyatt%20Corporate%20Responsibility%20Report-2013-2014.pdf

1 Comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility