Search results

The chapter describes the recent history of Sustainability Indices in three Latin American countries: Brazil, Mexico, and Chile. In these countries, local Stock Exchanges have been recently launching their own Sustainability Indices. This ongoing trend may indicate a particular way of addressing Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) in the region. The chapter relies on secondary data, mainly documents published by the Stock Exchanges themselves, and on some selected academic and practitioner oriented articles. All three countries present some common features. In all cases, local stock markets launched Sustainability Indices, and their composition has been publicly available from the beginning. Consequently, SRI is now developing in the region in a different way from that of developed markets. The chapter is based on secondary data only. Further research may involve interviews and surveys with different stakeholders (i.e., investors, quoted companies, public officials). The illustration of a different way of developing an SRI market may help public officials and investors from other countries, either in Latin America or elsewhere, who intend to promote SRI. There are few studies on SRI in Latin America, and comparative research between different countries in the region is still rare.

This chapter discusses how businesses can create alignment between their corporate sustainability (CS) efforts that focus on the triple bottom line of the financial, environmental, and social, and the 10 principles of the UN Global Compact in the four core areas of environment, human rights, labor standards, and anticorruption.

Based on the literature review, the relationship between CS and corporate responsibility is presented. Creating alignment between CS management and Global Compact initiatives requires knowledge of the Global Reporting Initiative (G4-GRI), third-party CS rankings, green supply chain management, and anticorruption strategies.

UN Global Compact is an international forum to promote and self-report CS and corporate social responsibility [Bitanga & Bridwell, 2010. CS is achieved through a triple bottom line – financial, environmental, and social (Hutchins & Sutherland, 2008). For CS management, businesses use four strategies including defensive, cost-benefit, strategic, and innovation/learning [Buchholtz & Carroll, 2008; Egbeleke, Journal of Management and Sustainability, 4(2), 92–105 (2014); Epstein, 2008; Epstein, Buhovac, & Yuthas, 2010]. The UN G4-GRI is the most widely used comprehensive sustainability reporting standard in the world (G4-GRI, 2013). Third-party, industry sector-specific CS ratings reinforce the self-reported sustainability reports. Each firm has to conduct their own CS cost-benefit analysis to determine how CS practices can lead to value creation for sustained competitive advantage. Creating alignment with Global Compact initiatives offers firms a marketing advantage. Conducting business in accordance with the Global Compact is a value-increasing business strategy [Kaspereit & Lopatta, 2011; Lopatta & Kaspereit, 2014; Michelon, Corporate Reputation Review, 14(2), 79–96 (2011)]. Green supply chain management is essential for CS (Penfield, 2014). Four prevailing anticorruption frameworks or intervention policy approaches include law enforcement, economics, moralism, and cultural relativism (Bellows, 2013). There is little sustainability reporting in the government and public-sector organizations (Adams, Muir, & Hoque, 2014).

It is difficult to quantify the financial and social benefits of aligning the CS efforts with the 10 principles of UN Global Compact [Parisi, Journal of Management and Governance, 17(1), 71–97 (2013); Nilipour & Nilipour, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9), 1084–1092 (2012)]. The environmental impact can be easily quantified.

As the primary driver of globalization, businesses and other organizations can help ensure that markets, commerce, technology, and finance advance in ways that benefit environment, economies, and societies in both developed and developing countries leading to sustained development.

The role of green supply chain management and anticorruption strategies in CS management is explored.

The organizational ecology perspective approaches the integration of sustainability into the accounting curriculum by following the evolutionary process of organizational development. There is a growing interest in sustainability, and, recently, books and articles have appeared that discuss sustainability accounting and reporting. A number of schools have developed standalone courses in sustainability accounting while others have integrated sustainability into existing courses in accounting ethics or corporate social responsibility. This chapter applies ecological, both organizational sociological and anthropological, approaches to argue in favor of integration of sustainability into the accounting curriculum rather than in standalone courses. These two approaches are utilized because these disciplines have well-established theoretical and methodological approaches that can be applied to study the subject of sustainability, natural resources conservation, and ecological management. In addition, the current trend in accounting education is for the incorporation of social and behavioral sciences perspectives, including sociology and anthropology, into the accounting curriculum. Accordingly, the application of the ecological approach from these disciplines contributes significantly to the study of the integration of sustainability into the accounting curriculum.

The premise for this research is quite simple: Is what one sees/hears a reasonably accurate reflection of reality? When it comes to the reputation companies have with regard to sustainable development, we propose that, as Cervantes had Don Quixote say, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

This study is about the actual relationship between company environmental performance – in this case, relative amounts of toxic chemical releases – and third-party judgments regarding company reputation for sustainability. Our particular concern is this: Are companies that are touted as high achievers regarding sustainable development the best relative performers in their industry with respect to guarding the environment?

We studied 52 Fortune 500 companies with U.S. operations that were cited in at least one of three major international reputational listings as being high achievers for sustainable development. Matched to these highly reputable firms – based on industrial classification and size – were a similar number of firms that had not been given a “good reputation” recognition.

We find no significant difference between the firms that are reported to be engaged in best practices with respect to sustainable development and those that have no such public recognition. The 52 sample companies and their matches from the Fortune 500 population are indistinguishable with respect to environmental performance. As performance does not differ, we are led to the conclusion that perception and reality do.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability have gained prominence in the major capital markets. In Brazil, the São Paulo Stock Exchange (BM&FBovespa) has created the Corporate Sustainability Index (ISE) and the Carbon Efficient Index (ICO2), responsible for indicating the performance of sustainable companies. Therefore, this study proposes to examine and compare the stock returns of the sustainability index member companies with the returns of companies out of these indexes. In this methodology we selected the two principal negotiability indexes of that market (IBOV and IBrX50), which are indexes that meet the most traded stocks of BM&FBovespa, and calculated the average daily returns of the four indexes in order to make performance comparisons over the period 2005–2014, based on nonparametric statistical tests. Our findings indicate that the average returns of sustainability indexes were higher, but these differences were not statistically significant, confirming previous evidence. Additionally, by means of a cointegration test, we found that the indexes are cointegrated in the long term. These findings are limited to the analyzed emerging market and are also subject to the limitations of the estimated models. Thus, we can infer that presence in the sustainability indexes does not indicate statistically significant higher returns, which means that companies with sustainable practices in Brazil are not only concerned with economic performance, but also with social, cultural, and environmental issues. The main findings are aligned with the concept of triple bottom line, even in the case of an emerging market.

This chapter covers a full picture of the remaining chapters. The first part discusses the gap in the literature and the main objectives of this book. The next section overviews the book's design and methodology which includes the conceptual model, the research design and the research methodology. The final section in this chapter is the book's theoretical and practical contributions.

Purpose – To discover how SRI develops in the Asian context.

Methodology/approach – Extended search of SRI initiatives analyzed with Scandinavian neo-institutional approach on how ideas travel and Buddhist Economy.

Findings – Chinese SRI-initiatives imitate western peers, but the imitation results in partial isomorphism that will probably have a weak influence on Chinese companies in ESG.

Research limitations/implications – A limitation of the study is a lack of information and transparency on Chinese homepages.

Practical implications – Chinese SRI is in an early state, and will need back-up and push to become active if it will be able to influence Chinese companies.

Social implications – It is important to have a critical stance, and not trusting optimistic statements about SRI in China as a mean to integrate ESG activities in Chinese companies.

Originality/value of chapter – One of the first overviews and critical analysis of SRI in China.

This chapter forwards a justification, an explanation, and numerous examples related to an emerging integrated sustainability management theory and its connections to other management theories and key-related concepts including systems and immersion. An integrated approach to sustainability solutions presents several implications for educators, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, including the need to consider urgent and immediate responses that address sustainability crises at multiple levels and in multiple systems. This chapter is intended to promote reflection, dialogue, and a collective call to action to secure a sustainable world for present and future generations.