Science topic
Corporate Responsibility - Science topic
Explore the latest questions and answers in Corporate Responsibility, and find Corporate Responsibility experts.
Questions related to Corporate Responsibility
Under perfect market thinking, the responsibilities of governments and of corporations in development are known, which raises the question: Under perfect market thinking, who is to be blamed if social and/or environmental systems collapse, governments or corporations? Why?
Who do you think is to be blamed? And why do you think that is the case?
A short answer who and why is the best.
Will ESG and sustainability reporting motivate business entities to realistically accelerate green business transformation and reduce the scale of greenwashing used by many companies and enterprises?
In the past, only a few companies and enterprises have, on their own initiative, applied non-mandatory enhanced non-financial reporting, including reporting on issues of meeting sustainability goals, green business transformation, environmental and climate social responsibility, creation and implementation of new green investments and eco-innovations, adding sustainability and green business strategies to the company's mission, conducting business in accordance with the principles of green economics and closed-loop economics, including, among others. Among other things, significantly decarbonizing production processes, basing production processes or the provision of services on energy from renewable and zero-emission energy sources, increasing the scale of recycling and reducing the level of environmental pollution from the manufacturing processes of business entities, organizing and financing pro-environmental and pro-climate projects such as planning and implementing reforestation programs carried out in post-industrially degraded areas, etc. This was usually associated with a situation in which the issues of sustainable development goals and the green economy were, on their own initiative, integrated into the strategy of their business, inclusion in the company's mission and strategic directions of business development within the applied business model.
However, in connection with the growing importance of the issue of achieving the objectives of sustainable development and green transformation of the economy, the increase in the level of general social pro-climate and pro-environmental awareness related to the issue of the accelerating process of global warming, the inclusion of the issue of carbon intensity with the implementation of the objectives of sustainable development and conducting business in accordance with the principles of green economics, the need to reduce the scale of greenwashing practices increasingly used by many companies and enterprises, the linking of the issue of carbon intensity with the system of fees for CO2 emissions being developed in the European Union, etc., the need for legal normalization has emerged. the need for legal normalization of the issue of expanded, full non-financial reporting including ESG reporting has emerged.
The essence of ESG (environmental, social and governance) reporting is to take into account the sphere of social, environmental and managerial responsibility of business as part of full, extended non-financial reporting. In view of the above, ESG reporting has recently become one of the key issues that determine the reputation but also the competitiveness of companies in the market. Research shows that business entities that undertake and develop pro-social, pro-environmental, pro-climate, etc. non-financial ESG reporting projects achieve better financial performance. The issue of improved financial performance is derived from the improvement of image, the increase in the scale of the company's brand recognition, the growth of the company's reputation with customers and investors. Improving the level of competitiveness of the company achieved through ESG measures is a process that requires the implementation of a number of measures in many spheres of business operation. Therefore, business entities should increase the scale of taking into account the sphere of social, environmental and managerial responsibility of business as part of full, extended non-financial reporting. Accordingly, it is necessary to take into account the implementation of social, environmental and risk management objectives in the context of business operations as part of responsible decision-making. In the sphere of corporate social responsibility, companies and enterprises should increase the scale of creating good working conditions, increasing diversity and equality in the workplace and engaging in social activities. All these aspects should positively affect the perception of the company by customers and employees, improve the reputation and image of the business entity which should then positively affect the level of satisfaction and motivation among employees.
The issue of environmental protection, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the level of environmental pollutants is also a particularly important aspect of expanded non-financial ESG reporting, which has a significant impact on the company's image and financial performance. Planning, improving and implementing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, reduce the scale of waste generation, increase the scale of recycling, reduce water consumption in manufacturing processes, apply the green, sustainable and closed-loop economics model are important elements of environmental, pro-environmental and pro-climate measures. Companies and enterprises that undertake and develop such pro-environmental and pro-climate projects gain recognition among customers, business counterparties and investors, which should also result in improved financial performance. Customers, business counterparties and investors noticing the pro-environmental and pro-climate measures taken by companies and enterprises notice that in this way certain business entities are also becoming fully pro-social in real terms.
And in the area of risk management, expanded non-financial ESG-sensitive reporting can help companies minimize the costs associated with potential risks associated with increasingly pro-environmental and pro-climate business activities. This can also reduce the scale of scandals involving ethical issues and increase the likelihood of avoiding risks associated with corrupt practices. The improvement of risk management processes increases the resilience of companies and enterprises to the negative factors of the external economic environment, including the impact of economic crises, economic recessions on the operation of the company's business, contributes to the precise estimation of the level of risk, the definition of risks and the preparation of appropriate safety reserves, the development of early warning systems for threats and development opportunities of business entities, motivates the creation of emergency systems, crisis management, etc. The effect of such activities carried out in the creation and improvement of risk management systems should also result in improved financial performance of companies, enterprises and other business entities. In addition to having a positive impact on a company's image, ESG can also help increase competitiveness in the market. ESG-related activities can generate savings for the company, improve the efficiency of business processes and increase customer and employee loyalty.
According to regulations adopted in the European Union, from 2024, full non-financial reporting will apply to large public interest companies already covered by the NFRD and with more than 500 employees. From 2025, full non-financial reporting will apply to companies with more than 250 employees and/or €40 million in turnover and/or €20 million in total assets. And from 2026, full non-financial reporting will apply to companies in the SME sector and other listed companies with more than 10 employees.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
Will ESG and sustainability reporting motivate business entities to really accelerate green business transformation and reduce the scale of greenwashing practiced by many companies and enterprises?
Will ESG reporting motivate business entities to really accelerate green business transformation?
And what is your opinion on this topic?
What is your opinion on this issue?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
In writing this text I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
Muñoz, Lucio, 2000. Rationality, Responsibility, and Sustainability: When Can Human Behaviour Have a Chance to Be Sustainable?, In: Sustainability Review, Warren Flint/PhD(ed), Issue 20, May, USA
Do you agree that the green business transformation of business entities, including companies, enterprises, financial and public institutions should be a key element of corporate social responsibility, i.e. environmental social responsibility and climate social responsibility?
In this regard, should environmental social responsibility and climate social responsibility be recognized as key factors in corporate reputation and non-financial ESG reporting?
Based on my research, I conclude that the green business transformation of business entities, including companies, enterprises, financial and public institutions, should be a key component of corporate social responsibility, namely environmental social responsibility and climate social responsibility. Accordingly, environmental social responsibility and climate social responsibility should be recognized as key factors in corporate reputation and non-financial ESG reporting. An important factor for effectively carrying out the pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the classic growth brown linear economy of excess to a sustainable green zero-carbon growth zero-carbon economy and a closed loop economy is to increase the pro-environmental and pro-climate awareness of citizens. Awareness of the urgent and effective implementation of the green transformation of the economy, including the implementation of the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions until the creation of a zero-carbon economy, to slow down the process of progressive global warming to save the climate, biosphere and biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems is a key determinant of ensuring the conditions of existence on the planet for future generations of people. Accordingly, the issue of pro-environmental and pro-climate awareness of citizens should be correlated with the environmental social responsibility and climate social responsibility of business, i.e. economic entities, including companies, enterprises, financial institutions and other organizations. Meanwhile, environmental social responsibility and climate social responsibility should be an important factor in the green reputation of companies, businesses, financial and public institutions, and also an important element of non-financial ESG reporting.
Key aspects of the implementation of the goals of sustainable development and the necessary acceleration of the processes of green transformation of the economy to decarbonize the economy, slow down the process of global warming, protect the climate, biosphere and biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems I described in the article:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY DEVELOPMENT AS A KEY ELEMENT OF THE PRO-ECOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECONOMY TOWARDS GREEN ECONOMY AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
In view of this, should environmental social responsibility and climate social responsibility be recognized as key factors in corporate reputation and non-financial ESG reporting?
Do you agree that the green business transformation of business entities, including companies, enterprises, financial and public institutions should be a key component of corporate social responsibility, i.e. environmental social responsibility and climate social responsibility?
Do you agree that the green business transformation of corporate entities should be a key element of corporate social responsibility?
What do you think about this topic?
What is your opinion on this issue?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
In writing this text, I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
Hello Everyone,
I had recently conducted a survey on Enablers and Barriers of Sustainable Manufacturing in addition to other key parameters too amongst 2 different groups; one being the Researchers working in the field of Sustainable Manufacturing all over the world and the other part being the industry professionals focussing various small, medium and large scale industry professionals in Ludhiana (Punjab, India) also known as "Manchester of East" as it has an established manufacturing base for engineering products (Source: http://progressivepunjab.gov.in/keycities.aspx)
The top 3 Enablers and Barriers highlighted by both the groups are shown as follows:
Enablers:
As per Researchers:
- Economic Benefits (associated with Sustainability activities),
- Improving Quality (processes, products etc),
- Government promotions and regulations;
As per Industry Professionals:
- Improving Quality,
- Lowering Manufacturing Cost,
- Education and Training System;
Barriers:
As per Researchers:
- Costs too high (investment related costs, sustainability activities related costs etc),
- Lack of awareness of sustainability concepts,
- Lack of standardized metrics or performance benchmarks;
As per Industry Professionals:
- Lack of awareness of sustainability concepts,
- Costs too high
- Lack of awareness programs conducted locally;
I shall be grateful to all concerned researchers if they could participate and give their views on the highlighted enablers and barriers as on why there is so much of difference in opinions of both the groups and what can be the cause of these enablers & barriers and what are the pertaining issues which needs to be tackled in them.
When I see government responses to crises such as the corona virus, I see a non-systematic response that in the end is more painful for the economy and society.
.
Other things being equal, If governments took proactive responsibility and had a policy of given every citizen a minimum income per months for three months to cover at least rent and basic needs so they stay home at the beginning of the outbreak when people are healthy, they would save money as the number of sick people and therefore, the healthcare cost would be minimal. Proactive responsibility brings social, economic and environmental stability increasing the sustainability of the system during the crisis.
.
But governments seems to love reactive responsibility causing unnecessary economic and social pain as more people get sick trying to make a living during the crisis and the health care cost goes to the maximum. This is happening all over the world right now.
.
Which leads to the theoretical question from the sustainability angle, Is Corona virus response a classic case of lack of proactive government responsibility? I think yes, what do you think?
Dear academic comunity,
My colleagues and I are conducting an international study related to social corporate responsibility in higher education. The survey is available at: https://forms.gle/JyYCHXRH4e1UdTbk8.
Could you join, please? :)
In recent weeks/months, I have received literally dozens of notices from Elsevier to indicate that a journal that was added to its centralized online submission and peer review tracking system, called EVISE, has now been transferred to Editorial Manager (EM), which is owned by Aries Systems Corporation. Much time was used adding journals to EVISE, only now to see that time wasted as journals get shifted. In some / many (?) cases of the transfers to EM, we have to waste time adding new details. I contacted Elsevier about this and got no response. So, my questions to any academic who might know about this, are:
1. Is EVISE being phased out?
2. Is there a security risk or technical or other problems with EVISE?
3. Have there been instances of hacking that might have compromised the integrity of journal submission? This is because one EVISE account (username + password) allows for access to multiple journals.
If others have experienced this, please share.
Hi,
I am currently working on my graduate project about transparent CSR communication, and are looking for people who is willing to contribute to a survey about the topic. You do not need to work or be a researcher within fashion, it could be any sector. Your participation will be anonymously and kept strictly confidential. If you are interested, please click the link: https://forms.gle/XzXUNyA4EEj8cGXr5
Thank you in advance!
I am currently writing a research proposal around the research question:
" How does the perceived practice of greenwashing affect consumers’ perceptions of high involvement brands and their willingness to purchase these brands?"
I am taking a mixed-methods approach and am using both a qualitative semi-structured interview and quantitative questionnaire.
How do I get a sampling frame and what method of sampling would be best?
Hello
I'm seeking collaborators for research on corporate sustainability. My topics of interest include:
- in-flight plastic and food waste
- Southeast Asia corporate responsibility and sustainability
- Thai sustainability movement
- Singapore sustainability movement
Please feel free to suggest anything.
I am based in Singapore with mobility. I currently work for the largest environmental NGO in the world, focusing on greening businesses.
Should small companies be equally held responsible as conglomerates, in terms of corporate social responsibility?
Much needed "social responsibility" dimension of organisations getting a boost from Wall Street! (at least now, rather than later later). This could be a starting point towards achieving elusive social sustainability.
"Wall Street has long been accused of short-termism and focusing only on profits, so having a mammoth icon of the industry embrace corporate responsibility as an investing metric could have ramifications for leaders worldwide."
"The concept of socially-responsible companies has been around for decades, but this week it got a $6 trillion Wall Street ally. Asset management giant BlackRock told the companies in which it invests that to prosper over time,
“every company must not only deliver financial performance but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society.”" "the move could have a trickle downeffect as well, enhancing the voice of other firms pushing for corporate social responsibility and influencing how leaders are chosen and boards are structured. There would be talent implications as well, with leaders ultimately needing a workforce that includes individuals who can deliver more than just profits. And firms would need to come up with metrics on their societal impact along with ways to measure how they are doing."
After fifty years of research on the distribution of fish resources against the marine environment, I have doubts about the regularity of the global system responsible for the objectivity of resource and environmental linkages. Governments and related international corporations are responsible for the degradation of the environment. The same bodies are also the main sponsors of resource and environmental research. For the benefit of our planet, there should be an independent system for carrying out such research. Is fishing restriction the result of overfishing or the removal of an inconvenient witness to destroying the environment by the international community?
Corporate social responsibility does not generally increase profitability. And when corporate executives only implement acts of corporate responsibility that promote profits, and only as much of these activities as promotes profits, they are just being profit-minded, not responsible. This is in fact profitability in the guise of CSR. The correct way of approaching the issue of corporate social responsibility, is to first ask what a company is responsible for, and then implement these responsibilities, whether they increase profits or not. And in some cases they will certainly cut into the bottom line. There is thus a very real possibility that corporations should in certain cases deviate from profit maximization, from maximizing returns to owners, to pursue ends that are more important from a social point of view.
Excuse me, my study is talking about the corporate governance and firm performance with use some of moderating variables. I use the ROA as a measurement for performance. But some of the firms have a Negative ROA. I use panel technique.
I have been reading some articles about sustainable marketing. Now i am trying to understand it and put it in perspective to other corporate sustainability research fields.
Now i have seen there are many different definitions of sustainable marketing, one of them is from (Emery
"A holistic approach whose aim is to ensure that marketing strategies and tactics are specifically designed to secure a socially equitable, environmentally friendly and economically fair and viable business for the benefit of current and future generations of customers, employees and society as a whole."
Whereas marketing, defined by Kotler 2011 as:
"The process by which companies create value for customers and build strong customer relationships in order to capture value from customers in return."
Now, some of the articles I have read are in the field of sustainable supply chain management. Based on the definitions of marketing and sustainability marketing, the notion i get is that sustainable supply chain is a necessary conditions for sustainable marketing, because it is necessary in the “creation of value”, which is an element of marketing according to Kotler.
Because If upstream partners of a business, which itself has a sustainable value chain (all activities meet environmental and social criteria. Plus, after transaction, the product does not have negative effects on the customer or society or environment (also long term), it could be considered as sustainable.
But the input which was obtained from upstream partners, who contribute negatively in a socially and environmentally way through their operations, would make the business of the “sustainable focal company” in the end not sustainable?
And is this rationale, why emery defines sustainable marketing as a “holistic approach”?
Thanks in advance.
Dear all,
I hope all is well. I have recently started working with the MSCI KLD STATS Social Ratings data set as available on WRDS.
In many papers which make use of the KLD dataset, social ratings are said to range between -2 and +2 (e.g., "MSCI KLD assigns a score of zero, one or two for each of the concern and strength areas." - Ekin Alakent Mine Ozer , (2014), Can companies buy legitimacy? Using corporate political strategies to offset negative corporate social responsibility records, Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 318 - 336 // "The KLD categories are rated on a scale ranging from -2 (major concerns), -1 (concern), 0 (neutral), +1 (strength), to +2 (major strength)" - Hillman, Amy J.; Keim, Gerald D. (2001): Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line? In Strat. Mgmt. J. 22 (2), pp. 125–139). However, the data set on WRDS is only binary (1, 0 depending on whether concern or strength was present).
Do you know which data or scale these papers are referring toand where the difference is coming from?
Thanks a lot,
Martin
In Colombia we are in a peace process, and the private sector has challenges. which one?
Can anyone provide me recent data on Corporate Sector Responsibility in India?
Can anyone provide me recent data on Corporate Sector Responsibility in India?
Why transparency and risk management are important? What is the role of transparency? What are the effectiveness of risk management?
I’m doing some work involving board evaluation, board disclosures and board balance. Whilst there are plenty of theories on board evaluation and disclosures, I can hardly lay my hands on any on board balance. Does anyone out there have an idea of theories in that area. I’m applying a standard board balance description as one where the group must be the right size, with the right balance of executive and non-executive directors, and have a good mixture of abilities, knowledge and experience. Any publications will also do.
I am doing a paper on the relationship between CSR in the field of education and healthcare on brand image. I have not set the measuring variable for brand image yet, so there are no constraints on that note. I am not successful in finding any surveys online. I can only find literature that used valid and reliable questionnaires, but none was attached. Any help regarding that would be much appreciated.
Literature over the last 15 years discusses the changing nature of corporate responsibility (CR), and the role that public policy of national governments can play in shaping / enabling CR. However, I am keen to learn more about the role that local governments (or municipal governments) can play. Can anyone point me to recent literature about this?
I am a Graduate Student at Central Washington University doing thesis research on the social impacts of fracking in Colorado. I am working on my IRB application now and am unsure how to include information on subjects who have signed non-disclosure agreements. It is my understanding that if individuals and families have signed an agreement they will choose not to talk to me, however, the ethics review board at CWU may need more information.
I am involved in evaluating a stakeholder engagement project (Technology ethics) . The aim of the project is to improve respect of ethics principles and laws in technology research and innovation, and to ensure that they are adapted to the evolution of technologies and societal concerns.
One of the main focus of the evaluation is assessing the impact of the project to stakeholders. However, I am thinking about ways of measuring impact (qualitatively, quantitatively or a mixture of both) therefore any suggestions are welcome. The evaluation will be looking at, for example, stakeholders change in attitudes or behavior towards technology ethics, evidence of learning, level of involvement/ engagement during and after the project's life cycle.
I am working in university social responsibility but specially trying to include this issue not only in MBA courses, I think a lot of students will work, more or less in a Corporation then CSR must be present in all degrees.
I cannot find any research which just focuses on the team size, structure, integration, reporting lines etc of an "ideal sustainability team" of a large corporate. Does anyone know relevant research on this or can provide direction for new research?
Thank you.
You can follow the following attached file that would be better for your organization.
Corporate Responsibility Statements, generally given by any sizable and notable corporation, outline social responsibilities the company upholds from equality to sustainability or even faith. Do these statements have a positive, negative, or muted effect on loyalty and trust of consumers?
When a student who has earned a grade of "C" (average grade on a F,D,C,B, and A grading scale) in your course has asked you to write a letter of recommendation for employment or a scholarship, is it ethical to write a glowing letter of support? What is the best way to address this issue if a college or department has a normal distribution grading policy?
There are those who say that companies lose a lot of profit when they adhere to ethics.
Companies tend to adopt different ways for determining 'materiality'. But what works and what doesn't? How do we know whether addressing an issue is a cost overrun for companies if at the end of the day stakeholders don't really care about it?
I am looking for studies and journals that explain with examples of where the corporations obligations towards the water and environment start and end.
Thank you
It seems everyone has a sustainability strategy now and calls it a strategy. What makes it "strategic"? Is the theory behind this mainly the resource theory, stakeholder theory and then shared value or is this missing something?
Duty of care is part of a travel policy for business travelers.
Espicially in corporate valuation issues...
For a review we are looking for CSR interventions aimed at promoting physical activity among children and we are looking for evaluation reports (published or grey literature).
Giving the empirical fact that the era of economic growth is over (cf. Richard heinberg "the end of growth", mats larsson "limits to business development and economic growth", and of course dennis meadows et al.), what will this mean to business? How can economic, social and ecological value be created? What kind of organizational forms will we see (e.g. Business ecosystems, networks between profits and non-profits)? These questions are driving my research and i am curious to know what you think.
