Search results

AbstractSmall and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) have generally been portrayed as failures in relation to environmental sustainability due to their low take‐up rates of sustainable business practices. This judgment arises when frameworks and standards that have been developed in, and for, large firms are applied to SMEs. Such assessment can provide a misleading impression of the uptake of sustainable business practices, as SMEs do not operate simply as miniature large firms. The performance of SMEs should be assessed using benchmarks that fit the circumstances of small firms. Based on interviews with 50 small‐business owners in New Zealand, we explore how environmental responsibility is understood and translated into practice. This paper contributes to the emerging stream of research that aims to build a theory of environmental responsibility that is grounded in the experiences of SME owner‐managers, and takes into account the heterogeneity and characteristics of the SME sector. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Why should you choose this book? This publication is primarily intended to academia, including post graduate students pursuing research degrees. It explores the core aspects of contemporary corporate strategies, public policies and practices that create value. This publication is a concise and authoritative guide on the business case for corporate social responsibility (CSR). It provides a thorough understanding on the theoretical underpinnings of corporate social responsibility, business ethics, corporate citizenship and creating shared value, among other notions. Moreover, its empirical studies show how stakeholder engagement and sustainability strategies can create synergistic value for both business and society in a global context. It suggests that both academia and business practitioners can employ corporate sustainability and responsibility practices as a guiding principle for their business success. Mark Anthony Camilleri, PhD (Edinburgh) ; Responsible behaviors are increasingly being embedded into new business models and strategies that are designed to meet environmental, societal and governance deficits. Therefore, the notion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become very popular among academia as this concept has continuously been challenged by those who want corporations to move beyond transparency, business ethics and stakeholder engagement. Back in 1979, Archie B. Carroll affirmed that business have economic responsibilities to provide a decent return on investment to owners and shareholders; by creating jobs and fair pay for workers; discovering new resources; promoting technological advancement, innovation, and the creation of new products and services along with other objectives. Lately, there is a similar discourse in many international fora, conferences, seminars and colloquia about corporate sustainability and responsible behaviors. However, the discussions are usually characterized by the presentation of theories that define the concepts, rather than by being practical workshops (which involve the businesses themselves). In this light, this book clearly identifies the business case for CSR. It attempts to trigger active participation in corporate suites. Inevitably, it contends that there are still some challenging opportunities facing businesses, which will have to be addressed in the foreseeable future; including Stakeholder Relations and Collaborations, Government Regulation for CSR Compliance and the role of Strategic CSR in Education and Training. In this light, this book's theoretical underpinnings and empirical studies suggest that businesses can do well by doing good. It builds on the previous theoretical underpinnings of the CSR agenda, including Business Ethics (Crane and Matten, 2004); Stakeholder Engagement (Freeman, 1984); Corporate Citizenship (Carroll, 1998; Waddock, 2004; Matten and Crane, 2005), Creating Shared Value (Porter and Kramer, 2011; 2006; Crane, Palazzo, Spence & Matten, 2014), as it presents the latest Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility (CSR2.0) perspective (Visser, 2011,2014; Camilleri, 2017). This promising notion is being recognized as a concept that offers new ways of thinking and behaving. It has potential to deliver significant benefits to both business and society as it is an easy term that may appeal to business practitioners. CSR2.0 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' whilst pursuing their profit-making activities. This latter perspective suggests that responsible behavioral practices may be re-conceived to confer competitive advantage over rival firms. Therefore, this contribution makes reference to laudable investments that could unleash value to business and society. It implies that CSR2.0 demands business to build adaptive approaches with stakeholders for the benefit of the firm and for societal advancement. Chapter 1 presents a thorough literature review on corporate social responsibility and its other related constructs, including corporate citizenship, stakeholder engagement and business ethics. Hence, this chapter reported on how CSR has evolved to reflect the societal realities. Chapter 2 reviews the different definitions of the corporate responsibility paradigms and draws comparisons between related concepts. The author contends that organization studies; economic, institutional, cultural and cognitive perspectives are shaping the corporate responsibility agenda. She cleverly presents the benefits of integrating multiple perspectives and discusses about the possible research avenues in the realms of corporate responsibility. Chapter 3 suggests that the field of CSR is ushering a new era in the relationship between business and society: in the CSR 2.0 era. The author puts forward a Total Responsibility Management (TRM) approach that may be useful for business practitioners who intend adopting CSR behaviors. This chapter posits that CSR strategies including managing relationship with stakeholders will contribute to the companies´ success and will also bring community welfare. Chapter 4 focuses on the national governments' regulatory role of raising awareness on CSR behaviors among businesses. The author suggests that there is scope for the state agencies to promote CSR as a business case for companies. She provides an outline of the current state of "supranational regulative policies on public procurement" within the European Union context. Chapter 5 uses a stakeholder perspective to encapsulate the CSR concept. The authors investigated social value cocreation (SVCC) through a qualitative study among different stakeholders (customers, employees, and managers). They implied that businesses ought to clarify their motives, by opening channels of communication with stakeholders. This way, there will be a higher level of SVCC with increased (stakeholder) loyalty toward the firms. Chapter 6 sheds light on Porter and Kramer's (2011) shared value proposition. The author explains how collaborative stakeholder interactions could lead to significant improvements in the supply chain. Chapter 7 involved a longitudinal study that investigated how four different State Owned Enterprises communicated with Māori communities between 2008 and 2013. This study contributes to the extant research on the legitimacy theory and CSR communication with ethnic minorities in the Aotearoa (New Zealand) context. Chapter 8 links the CSR paradigm with risk management. The author suggests that Serbian businesses ought to adopt corporate sustainable and responsible approaches in terms of their disaster risk reduction prior to environmental emergencies. Chapter 9 involved a quantitative analysis that explored the CSR practices within the hospitality industry. The authors suggested that there were distinct social and environmentally responsible behaviors in different geographical areas. They argued that institutions can take their results into account when drawing up policies that are aimed at fostering responsible tourism practices. Chapter 10 examined how CSR communication of self-serving motives can lead to more trust and credibility among stakeholders as well as corporate reputation. The authors implied that the marketers should be aware of how the public perceive CSR behaviors. Chapter 11 reports that corporate or organizational storytelling, is increasingly being used as a promotional tool to communicate CSR information to stakeholders. The authors present four companies that have used storytelling with the aims of transmitting values, fostering collaboration, leading change and sharing knowledge on responsible practices. Chapter 12 relates corporate sustainability to the construct of emotional capital. The authors maintain that emotional capital enables businesses to attract and retain talent. They maintain that there are significant improvements to the firms' bottom lines If they invest in responsible human resources management. Chapter13 suggests that the transition from the CSR to CSR 2.0 requires the adoption of five new principles - creativity, scalability, responsiveness, glocality and circularity. The authors posit that these principles ought to be embedded within the organizations' management values and culture. The authors propose a new framework that can be used to manage the processes of socially responsible organizations. Chapter 14 investigated the banks' behaviors during the economic crisis in Turkey. The authors reported on the bank's CSR strategies as they supported small and medium sized enterprises, as well as local communities during the financial turmoil. Chapter 15 offers insights on sustainable tourism as the authors investigated the constraints that explain why an attitude–behavior gap exists in responsible tourists' behaviors. Chapter 16 examines three leading networks that are intended to promote corporate sustainability and responsibility. The author explores their growing influence as he reviews their objectives, organizational structures, types of activities, practices and impacts. References Camilleri, M.A. (2017) Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319468488 Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of management review, 4(4), 497-505. Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and society review, 100(1), 1-7. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Questioning the domain of the business ethics curriculum. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), 357-369. Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of "creating shared value". California management review, 56(2), 130-153. Freeman, R. E. (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). Strategy and society: the link between corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92. Porter, M. & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89(1/2), 62-77. Visser, W. (2011). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. John Wiley & Sons. Visser, W. (2014). CSR 2.0: Transforming corporate sustainability and responsibility. Heidelberg^ eBerlin Berlin: Springer. Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and society Review, 109(1), 5-42. ; peer-reviewed

The present article analyses why and how Ericsson Telecom assumed a greater responsibility than was legally required when it dismissed more than 23,000 employees in Sweden at the beginning of the 21st century. The analysis starts from neoinstitutional theory and is based on case studies of the company's closures in Norrköping and Linköping. The article focuses, in particular, on the interaction between Ericsson, the trade unions, the County Administrative Board, the County Labour Board, the Public Employment Service, the Swedish Employment Security Council, the government and the respective municipalities. It is shown that the greater responsibility taken by Ericsson was based on its desire to maintain legitimacy by taking into consideration prevailing societal expectations regarding the company's behaviour.

El presente trabajo busca colocar en tela de juicio los efectos provocados por el sistema capitalista actual de corte neoliberal. En este sentido, se aborda fundamentalmente la indefensión latente a la cual se enfrentan las personas en edad de trabajar ante las políticas y leyes laborales imperantes en el mundo. La discusión se centra en el reconocimiento de los efectos provocados por la aplicación de regulaciones cimentadas en el trabajo y los desempleados. Frente a esta situación se han enarbolado —desde la década de 1960— un conjunto de estrategias empresariales tendientes a acallar las denuncias sociales de estos hechos. Una de las estrategias más populares en el mundo para mitigar los efectos de dichas políticas es la RSE. El discurso empresarial en el cual se basa la RSE podría ser calificado como casi perfecto, aunque en el terreno de los hechos ocurra lo contrario. Por lo anterior, la RSE se etiqueta aquí como un conjunto de falacias. Este punto constituye el objetivo fundamental de este documento, es decir, trata de evidenciar la desvergüenza y el cinismo enarbolado por los promotores del neoliberalismo económico-político. ; The aim of this paper is to place into question the effects caused by the current system of neoliberal capitalism. In this sense we will principally tackle the latent helplessness to which working age people are submitted due to the policies and labor laws prevailing in the whole world. The discussion is focused on the recognition of the effects caused by the application of regulations on the job's conditions and on the unemployed people. To face up to this situation a set of business strategies aimed to silence the social claims of these events have been raised since the sixties. One of the most popular strategies in the world to mitigate the effects of such policies is the CSR. The business speech in which the CSR is based could be considered almost perfect. Although in reality the opposite facts occur. Therefore, CSR is labeled here as a fallacy. This approach is trying to show the shamelessness and cynicism raised by the neoliberal economic and political promoters.

Defense date: 26/11/2010 ; Examining Board: Fabrizio CAFAGGI (Supervisor, EUI), Marie-Ange MOREAU (EUI), Horatia MUIR WATT (Sciences Po, Paris), Vincenzo ZENO ZENCOVICH (Università di Roma 3) ; Published online on 17 September 2012, in a slightly corrected version of the thesis, as suggested by the jury. ; L'étude des régimes de responsabilité civile applicables aux prestataires de service en ligne est l'occasion de faire ressortir la fonction de promotion d'une stratégie de régulation octroyée à l'institution de la responsabilité civile dans un contexte de crise de la normativité étatique. À ce titre, il devient opportun de distinguer à côté des fonctions traditionnelles de la responsabilité civile (réparation des victimes, répression des comportements antisociaux, et prévention des dommages) impliquant l'adoption d'une approche horizontale, une nouvelle fonction découlant d'une approche verticale et témoignant de la recherche d'une répartition efficace des activités de régulation entre acteurs publics et acteurs privés aux fins de rendre obligatoires les normes étatiques à leurs destinataires. Au sein du cyberespace, l'État ne bénéficie pas du monopole de l'activité normative comme d'ailleurs les transformations de l'État régulateur le laissaient pressentir au sein du monde réel. Bien plus, l'architecture du réseau réduit les coûts de mise en oeuvre des systèmes d'autorégulation tout en rendant les modes traditionnels de régulation moins effectifs. Un certain nombre d'acteurs privés disposent, du fait de leur maîtrise de la technologie et de leur position d'intermédiaire, d'un pouvoir normatif de fait et de droit, et plus généralement, d'un pouvoir de régulation de fait et de droit se traduisant par la création de normes privées, le contrôle des comportements déviants et leur sanction. L'État a donc besoin de recourir à ces acteurs, véritables régulateurs privés spontanés, aux fins de rendre sa stratégie de régulation efficace. Cependant, derrière le discours de la diversification nécessaire des sources de droit se dessine une « dé-juridicisation » latente en même temps qu'une nouvelle répartition des compétences entre acteurs publics et acteurs privés. Ceci est vrai aux États-Unis comme en Europe et plus particulièrement en France en dépit de l'adoption de stratégies de régulation distinctes. Paradoxalement, le peu de considération accordée à la fonction de promotion d'une « régulation juridique de source privée » attribuée la responsabilité civile a servi à renforcer l'immunité des régulateurs privés. Or, c'est seulement à l'aune de cette fonction qu'il est possible de saisir l'enjeu juridique et politique que représente la responsabilité des prestataires intermédiaires de service en ligne.

This article reviews the findings of a study on social responsibility, particularly that of universities in the twenty-first century. It underscores the importance of the university-business-state relationship as a strategy to encourage the development of research and innovation through an association between education, business and government sectors geared towards generating competitive capacity for the advancement of science, technology and production processes aimed at increasing productivity in a way that will contribute to the advancement of society. The article is divided into five parts. In the first, social responsibility is conceptualized as a key element in the business-society relationship. The second part outlines the university's responsibility to society and points out that, in addition to training professionals, it is the university's mission to create and recreate knowledge relevant to the region. In the third section, the responsibility of companies is analyzed in light of their capacity as organizations that acquire processes for innovation and competitiveness through their relationship with academia. In the fourth section, the responsibility of the university in processes of change in relation to the productive sector is identified; and, in the firth, the establishment of university-business-state relations is described as a strategy to create scenarios of trust between the three sectors. The study concludes that the social responsibility of universities in the XXI century is assumed from the standpoint of the relevance of their core functions to the social context. Therefore, universities should integrate with the economic, political, social, cultural and environmental areas of society by playing a significant role in the development of the region and the country. ; Este artículo de revisión es el resultado de investigación sobre la responsabilidad social (RS), particularmente la que debe cumplir la universidad del siglo XXI. Evidencia la importancia de la relación universidad-empresa-Estado como estrategia para propiciar el desarrollo de investigación e innovación, mediante la interrelación de los sectores educativo, empresarial y gubernamental, a partir de la cual se propende por la generación de capacidad competitiva para el avance de la ciencia, la tecnología y los procesos productivos, encaminados a incrementar la productividad para impactar el avance de la sociedad. Se estructura en cinco partes: en la primera se conceptualiza sobre la responsabilidad social como elemento fundamental en la relación empresa-sociedad; en la segunda se presenta la responsabilidad de la universidad frente a la sociedad, y se puntualiza que, además de formar profesionales, tiene la misión de crear y recrear conocimiento pertinente para la región; en la tercera se analiza la responsabilidad de la empresa, como organización que asume procesos de innovación y competitividad desde la relación con la academia; en la cuarta se identifica la responsabilidad de la universidad frente a procesos de cambio en relación con el sector productivo; y en quinto lugar se describe el establecimiento de las relaciones universidad-empresa-Estado como estrategia para instaurar escenarios de confianza entre los tres sectores. El estudio concluye que la responsabilidad social de la universidad en el siglo XXI se asume desde la pertinencia de sus funciones sustantivas con el contexto social; por consiguiente, debe integrarse a los ámbitos económico, político, social, cultural y ambiental, participando significativa en el desarrollo de la región y el país. DOI:10.5294/edu.2015.18.1.6 ; Este artigo de revisão é o resultado de pesquisa sobre a responsabilidade social, particularmente a que deve cumprir a universidade do século XXI. Evidencia a importancia da relação universidade-empresa-Estado como estratégia para propiciar o desenvolvimento de pesquisa e inovação, mediante a inter-relação dos setores educativo, empresarial e governamental, a partir da qual se propende pela geração de capacidade competitiva para o avanço da ciência, da tecnologia e dos processos produtivos, que visam aumentar a produtividade para impactar o avanço da sociedade. É dividido em cinco partes: na primeira, conceitualiza-se sobre a responsabilidade social como elemento fundamental na relação empresa-sociedade; na segunda, apresenta-se a responsabilidade da universidade perante a sociedade, e assinala-se que, além de formar profissionais, tem a missão de criar e recriar conhecimento pertinente para a região; na terceira, analisa-se a responsabilidade da empresa como organização que assume processos de inovação e competitividade a partir da relação com a academia; na quarta, identifica-se a responsabilidade da universidade diante de processos de mudança com relação ao setor produtivo; em quinto lugar, descreve-se o estabelecimento das relações universidade-empresa-Estado como estratégia para instaurar cenários de confiança entre os três setores. O estudo conclui que a responsabilidade social da universidade no século XXI assume-se a partir da pertinência de suas funções substantivas com o contexto social; portanto, deve ser integrada aos ámbitos econômico, político, social, cultural e ambiental, participando deforma significativa no desenvolvimento da região e do país.

I examine ramifications of the widespread view that scientific objectivity gives us a permission to trust scientific knowledge claims. According to a widely accepted account of trust and trustworthiness, trust in scientific knowledge claims involves both reliance on the claims and trust in scientists who present the claims, and trustworthiness depends on expertise, honesty, and social responsibility. Given this account, scientific objectivity turns out to be a hybrid concept with both an epistemic and a moral-political dimension. The epistemic dimension tells us when scientific knowledge claims are reliable, and the moral-political dimension tells us when we can trust scientists to be socially responsible. While the former dimension has received a fair amount of attention, the latter is in need of analysis. I examine what it means for scientists to be socially responsible, that is, to follow "sound" moral and social values in different stages of scientific inquiry (Kourany in Philosophy of science after feminism, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010). Social responsibility is especially important when scientists function as experts in society. Members of the public and policymakers do not want to rely on scientific research shaped by moral and social values they have good reasons to reject. Moreover, social responsibility is important in social research in which moral and social values can legitimately play many roles. I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different answers to the question of how social scientists can identify appropriate moral and social values to inform their research. I argue that procedural accounts of social responsibility, such as well-ordered science and deliberative polling, have limitations. ; Peer reviewed