Search results

When it comes to measuring and managing corporate impacts on the multiple capitals (financial, natural, social, human and built), Impact Management and Impact Valuation have emerged as best practices in the interrelated fields of corporate social responsibility and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) investing. These practices have two significant shortcomings that are largely unacknowledged: they don't attend to ecological and social thresholds (or the carrying capacities of capitals); and they assume impacts on the various capitals are fungible, and therefore impacts on one capital can substitute for impacts on another capital, which clearly does not reflect reality.

This chapter proposes solutions to both gaps: respect ‘critical capital’ thresholds to retain vital capital stocks necessary to fuel continuing flows of value (and avoid systemic collapses of capital resources), and aggregate impacts across capitals via the common factor of ‘progress towards sustainability’. These steps will mature the fields towards the creation of System Value, where capitals are continually regenerated sustainably in ways that support healthy living systems.

This paper aims to contribute to existing academic work and business practice by presenting original empirical findings and by providing insights into priority setting on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in organizations. From an academic viewpoint, it not only adds to previous work on the topic of SDG materiality (e.g. Van Tulder and Lucht, 2019) but also aims to contribute new insights into the steps that are crucial and influence the adoption of the SDGs in materiality assessments. It may also add to the literature by providing new knowledge on the strategic considerations that organizations may make and institutional dynamics that encourage organizations to implement the SDG materiality method.

By executing a national survey research in Belgium through a collaboration between academics of Antwerp Management School, Louvain School of Management (UCLouvain) and the University of Antwerp, and supported by Belgium’s Federal Institute of Sustainable Development, the authors have obtained several insights into the SDG landscape in Belgium for various types of organizations, including companies, governmental and nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions. This research builds further on a first national survey (SDG Barometer Belgium, 2018) on the adoption and implementation of the SDGs. However, an important aim of this research is to shift the emphasis to more prominent new elements, such as whether or not organizations use the SDGs in materiality assessments. While the main part of the data for this research were collected through an online questionnaire, document analyses were conducted based on the sustainability reports of BEL 20 companies, the benchmark stock market index of Euronext Brussels consisting of 20 companies traded at the Brussels Stock Exchange, and seven interviews were held to obtain additional insights.

A total of 386 organizations across sectors responded to the question “Does your organization perform a materiality analysis”, of which 210 organizations completed the question “Does your organization align the materiality analysis with the SDGs,”after an “exit route” based on a positive answer to the first question. When diving into the survey results, the authors see that no more than 12% of the 210 organizations performing a materiality analysis align their materiality analysis with the SDGs, while 14% indicate that they do not account for the SDGs at all in their materiality analyses. The results show that 41% of the organizations take into account the SDGs to a certain degree when performing their materiality analysis. Speculating on an explanation for these results, it may be the case that organizations do not yet think about coupling the SDGs to their materiality assessment, experience difficulties in practice or generally lack the knowledge for relating the SDGs to the sustainability topics that are relevant to them. This seems in line with other research (e.g. Van Tulder and Lucht, 2019), as the results of this study indicate that it seems to be difficult for organizations to relate the SDGs to the existing sustainability priorities or materiality analyses of companies.

The real contribution of this paper essentially lies in the description of the Janssen Pharmaceuticals case. The company recognized that today’s internally focused approach to goal setting is not enough to address global challenges. Hence, looking at what is needed externally from a global perspective, taking into account sustainability thresholds and setting ambitions accordingly, is needed to bridge the gap between current performance and required performance. From the Janssen Pharmaceuticals case, the authors learned that external stakeholders are an extremely useful source of information to address the required performance by using the SDG framework. For sure, SDG materiality analyses are still in an early phase of development and knowledge on how to conduct such an analysis may be lacking. Future efforts – or the lack thereof – may indicate whether or not companies consider such analyses as sufficiently relevant. Although the uptake of the SDGs is in progress, it remains to be seen which, if any, materiality method will eventually turn out as a new dominant way of defining material issues. The findings presented in this study hopefully serve as a basis for further investigation of the topic.

The purpose of this paper is to first empirically illustrate the construction of accounting for sustainable development tool (Bebbington and Gray, 2001) and, second, to discuss the operationalization of accounting for sustainable development (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014).

This research is based on a unique intervention-research approach, the main author having worked part-time for four years on the development of the tool for a business organization in the organic food sector.

This paper proposes an operationalization of sustainable development within an accounting tool and presents the results of the calculations. It also touches briefly upon the organization’s decision not to adopt the tool. The research concludes on the difficulty of operationalizing the economic, social and environmental capitals while proposing results that demonstrate “unsustainability”.

This research in operationalizing sustainable development paves the way for future potential use of the tool described, and future developments to address the model’s current shortcomings, notably in interconnecting social and economic capitals with natural capital.

The non-adoption of the accounting tool raises questions about the acceptability among practitioners of visualizing the unsustainability of their own organization, in particular within “green” and “socially responsible” businesses. Moreover, it raises the question of growth and decoupling of the organization’s impact from its economic growth.

This paper makes three contributions to the current literature. First, it furthers the discussion on how to operationalize accounting for sustainable development, notably by trying to implement capital as a liability (a debt), placing its “maintenance” at the very heart of the design. Second, it offers an initial operationalization of “system thinking” within a tool to account for sustainable development. Finally, it contributes to the literature on “engagement research” through a four-year intervention-research project.

In the Netherlands, the ‘Tabaksblat Code’ (the Dutch corporate governance code of December) was a semi-private regulation instigated by the Dutch government, the stock exchange and industry associations to restore trust in the public equity markets. The aim was ‘to put the relationship between listed companies and providers of capital under the microscope’ in order to establish a new balance with a larger role for the shareholders (Tabaksblat, 2003, p. 59).

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is talked about a great deal in contemporary academic as well as corporate and commercial circles. This paper argues that despite, or perhaps because of, its fashionable status, CSR is an ill‐defined concept which has consequently been interpreted and implemented in numerous different, and even conflicting, ways. It is demonstrated that currently there is no clear and unanimous definition of what CSR is, or should be. Importantly this means that there are also no clear and unanimous guidelines of how companies or private organisations should adopt CSR. The paper contends that this problem is further amplified through the lack of one single mechanism to measure a firm’s CSR performance ‐ there currently exists a multitude of different tools and strategies which pertain to serve this purpose, however, the lack of consistency or consensus between these mechanisms means that it is impossible to draw valid comparisons between the data they provide. Further, it is noted that this lack of consistency not only makes it hard to measure or compare firm’s progress, but makes it difficult for firms to know how to comply with CSR, or what it is that they should be complying with. The paper therefore argues that there is a need to develop one single standardised mechanism for measuring CSR performance so as to eliminate the current confusion and uncertainty that exists. It is contended that through a clearer picture of what is required of firms it would no longer be necessary for them to spend time and resources defining or interpreting the concept of CSR, rather they could instead focus on making valuable progress towards meeting the goals of CSR. Finally, the paper suggests that international law, and in particular human rights law, provides a strong basis from which to develop the required single, standard mechanism for measuring CSR performance.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

Much has been written about the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the need to assure its importance through formal regulation and reporting requirements. Little reflection has taken place on the role of the market in achieving effective regulation and behaviour changes in this area through an analysis of stock values. This study seeks to fill that gap by presenting an analysis of CSR influences on stock values facilitated by the regulatory methods of the stock markets.

The 90 shares of the US Dow Jones Sustainability Index were chosen as the sample of firms with “value‐generating CSR”. The performance of these individual shares was analysed by comparing their return with the relevant indexes, with the respective industry and on a risk‐adjusted basis, for the six years and the ten years ended 30 June 2006. Several tests were carried out to see whether or not the sample contained a value/growth/core/large cap bias.

The results were impressive: stocks from companies with “value‐driven CSR” clearly outperformed the market and their peers over extensive periods of time, with reasonably low risk.

There are several limitations of this type of analysis ranging from those inherent in the Capital Asset Pricing Model, to the fact that other cultures might define corporate responsibility differently.

The CSR² model introduced suggests how CSR can generate value reflected in the stock market. If so, the markets can prove to be an effective tool in regulating externalities related to pollution or global warming.

Work–family research has mainly focused on nuclear families, neglecting other types of families, such as single self-employed parents. To what extent does the freedom and flexibility attached to being single and self-employed hinder or enhance single parents' work–family balance? Using role theory as a theoretical lens, this study examines single-self-employed parents' work–family balance.

Drawing on the accounts of 25 single self-employed parents in Nigeria, the article uses semi-structured interviews to examine how this group achieves work–family balance.

We found that the freedom and flexibility associated with being single and self-employed form a double-edged sword that increases the spate of singlehood and intensifies commitments to work, altogether preventing the participants in the study from achieving work–family balance. The findings also indicate that singlehood and a lack of spousal support cause and exacerbate work–family imbalance for this group. The findings further indicate that the reconstruction of functions, and the recreation of the traditional masculine gender role overwhelm single self-employed women in their entrepreneurial activities, thereby causing a lack of time and the energy required to function well in a family role, thus creating imbalance between the different spheres of life.

The extent to which the findings of this research can be generalised is constrained by the limited sample and scope of the research.

While literature espouses freedom and flexibility as important ingredients needed to achieve work–family balance, this study shows that they enhance inter-role role conflict. The study suggests creation of private or family time, devoid of work or entrepreneurial engagements, for single female entrepreneurs. This will ensure quality time and energy for the family and for fresh relationship – all of which will impact business positively.

Rather than enhancing work–family balance, the freedom and flexibility attached to being single and self-employed remain the main source of work–family imbalance for Nigerian single self-employed parents.