Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of characteristics of the institutional environment on the disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

This is a quantitative and descriptive research. The dependent variables used were environmental dimension (ED) and social dimension (SD) that together compose the corporate social performance (CSP). The independent variables that will be used are the characteristics of the institutional environments of Brazil and the UK. Thus, for this end, variables of the national business system of both countries will be used: corruption transparency, access to credit by countries, quality of the education system and labor relations. After their collection, the data were submitted to descriptive and inferential statistics and hierarchical regression.

Data show that UK companies make more disclosure in CSR than Brazilian companies. Through linear regression, it can be seen that the institutional environment affects disclosure in CSR. In the UK, a country with better educational, labor, political and financial indicators than Brazil, it presented better CSR practices. The findings reveal that the better an institutional environment, the more firms act in CSR. The findings of the research confirm the premise of institutional theory: different institutional fields can modify business performance.

The study analyzed only the disclosure practices of companies in the public sector. Thus, the results should be carefully analyzed, without generalizations for all industry sectors. Therefore, it is suggested that future research looks at other industry sectors as well as other institutional contexts, i.e. other countries.

Multinational companies may have different CSR practices according to the institutional environment in which they operate. For example, companies in developed countries, such as the UK, have greater stakeholder pressure. Given this, managers must adapt their environmental strategies according to the institutional environment in which they operate.

This research contributes to CSR studies in various institutional contexts. There is a consensus in the literature that institutional environments affect firms' CSR practices. However, few empirical studies show results between the national business system and CSR. Thus, the present study intends to fill this research gap.

This paper aims to examine the use of coproduction to create a film “Do You See Me?”, to amplify the voices of a “hard to reach” group: older lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) victim-survivors of domestic abuse (DA).

Qualitative methods were used as part of the co-production, which included two practitioner focus groups and 14 narrative interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning persons or the community (LGBTQ+) victim-survivors.

Despite differences in gender, sexualities, roles and “lived experiences” across stakeholders, there was a shared aim to ensure victim-survivors had a sense of ownership in this endeavour. Consequently, a positive reciprocity existed that helped to foster effective communication, allow for capacity building and subsequent knowledge exchange. The collaboration produced a nuanced meta-narrative making visible the “lived experiences” of LGB victim-survivors’ perceptions of perpetrator behaviours.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is original in two ways, firstly, providing insights into the “lived experiences” of an invisible group; older LGBTQ+ victim-survivors, and secondly, in involving them in the co-production of a film. The paper aims to reveal how interdependencies that developed between stakeholders helped to disrupt understandings, develop new ways of knowing and build levels of trust. Group interactions helped to dismantle hierarchies, so those with experiential knowledge: the survivors, had greater control throughout the research process. The paper is significant in providing a critical reflection on the ethical, methodological and resource challenges involved in co-production. It also makes recommendations for researchers and funders about the value of using co-production as a method to engage with hard-to-reach groups.

This paper analyzes two external costs often associated with port development, cost to fisheries from marine dredge disposal and damages from air pollution, using estimates of development and operation for a proposed (but since cancelled) container port as a case study. For dredge disposal, a bio-economic model was used to assess short- and long-term and indirect (joodweb) damages to fisheries from marine disposal of clean sediments. In the case of air pollution, estimates of annual activity levels and emission coefficients are used to estimate incremental annual emissions of three key pollutants (NOx, HC and CO) for trucks, trains, yard vehicles, and vessels. These estimates allow for phasing in of strict new air pollution regulations. For both external costs, sensitivity analyses are used to reflect uncertainty. Estimates of shadow values in year 2002 dollars amount from $0.094 per cubic yard to $0.169 per cubic yard of clean dredged material for the selected disposal site and from $0.0584 per mile (jor current control standards) to $ 0. 0023 per mile (after phasing in of new regulations) for air pollution from heavy trucks.