Search results

For over thirty years, one of the most overt forms of employer opposition to unionization has been anti-union campaigns conducted by union avoidance consultants. As a result, both union and employer associations have attempted to influence the provisions of the LMRDA that cover consultant activities. This article provides the first comprehensive historical analysis of the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements covering employers and consultants. The first section examines consultant reporting policy from the late 1950s to the late 1970s, a period when unions filed relatively few complaints and the DOL initiated few investigations, but the consultant industry expanded significantly. Section two examines developments in the 1980s – the period of greatest congressional and judicial activity on consultant reporting since the 1950s. The final section looks at post-1980s events and examines why organized labor has persisted with its campaign to reform government policy on consultant reporting, despite its inability to make progress on the issue over the past four decades.

Over the past few decades, the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) has become one of the most controversial and politicized divisions of the Department of Labor. Republic and Democratic Administrations have adopted starkly different practices concerning both the allocation of resources and the focus of regulatory activities at the division. These differences have been brought into sharp focus during the Bush II and Obama Administrations. Under the Bush Administration, funding for OLMS increased significantly, and the DOL revised union financial reporting requirements, imposing a more onerous burden on unions in the name of promoting transparency and accountability. Section 1 of this paper provides a summary and analysis of the most significant changes and innovations at the OLMS under the Obama Administration. Section 2 of the paper provides a detailed summary of the Bush era reforms and their fate under the Obama OLMS, and an analysis of the impact of these reforms in the area of increasing union transparency and accountability. It argues that the Bush reforms did little or nothing to achieve greater accountability and may instead have been motivated largely by a desire to impose a more onerous administrative burden on reporting unions.

The research aims to empirically investigate the determinants of the breadth of the corporate social disclosure (CSD).

The study adopts a multi-perspective approach, referring to different theoretical frameworks on CSD, such as the legitimacy theory, the stakeholder theory, the agency model, the asymmetric information theory, and the institutional perspective.

The empirical research is based on the sustainability reports of 80 companies in which investments were made by European socially responsible funds (SRFs) listed on the Morningstar platform during the years 2009–2008.

The theoretical hypotheses are tested by a univariate and multivariate analysis.

The breadth of the CSD depends on multiple factors, both external and internal, such as the country of origin, the industry reputation, the firm size, the frequency of the SRFs participation, the corporate social performance.

Limits inherent in this type of research are the comparability of the CSR reports and the systematization of the categories of content to be analyzed.

The chapter identifies several factors that lead to a greater completeness of the CSD, exploiting the capacity of the social reporting to trigger benefits for the firms such as a stronger social legitimacy and the reduction of asymmetric information.

The research supports the investigation of the levers of CSD to meet the demand for a broader accountability.

The reference to firms in which SRFs participated allows to focus on companies ascertained as socially responsible in accordance with a “certification function” of these funds. Findings support an approach which is not one-sided, thus enabling to look at the determinants of the CSD through different theoretical perspectives.

This chapter covers the history and development of sustainability reporting. Four phases are discussed; the first phase began during the 1950s and this is associated with the development of the term corporate social responsibility (CSR). The second phase explains the development of the ‘environmental dimension’ which started in the 1980s. The third phase was in the early 1990s, and the concept of sustainability reporting covering the social, environmental and economic dimensions has been appearing. The last phase was in 2010, where the GRI announced the integrated reporting framework which brings together economic, environmental, social and governance information.

Diversity management concerns organizational practices to enhance the value of diversity in organizations by changing organizational culture and shaping work environment in which diversity can promote the organizational goals. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the diversity management practices in sustainability reports by exemplifying in the case of Turkey, which is an emerging economy with a complex and multiethnic society.

A comprehensive literature and qualitative research is conducted in order to understand the diversity management in a cultural context by looking at the company’s sustainability report in Turkey.

In Turkey, companies have responsibility to position the participation of employees in business opportunities as an important value of corporate culture by implementing diversity projects, and they announce these initiatives in their sustainability reports.

This research is a study about diversity in Turkey case. An example is limited to the company publishing a sustainability report.

This study may be useful for the board of directors and managers since they should become aware of understanding of the diversity management in the workplace especially in their sustainability mechanisms.

This study is valuable and attractive to create an open organizational culture where each employee is valued and where diversity issues all employment practices. Also, it is original to show why diversity is important in sustainability disclosures.

The study of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL)11BHEL was founded in 1950s. It has emerged as the largest engineering and manufacturing enterprise of its kind in India. Power equipment major BHEL has approached the government for the grant of coveted Maharatna status, which will give the company greater financial autonomy. At present, BHEL is a Navratna company. A company qualifying for the Maharatna status should have an average annual turnover of more than Rs 20,000 crores in the last three years, according to the new guidelines. Once a company gets the Maharatna status, its board would not be required to take the government’s permission for investments up to Rs 5,000 crores in a joint venture project or wholly owned subsidiary. For the Navratna companies, the limit is Rs 1,000 crores. was undertaken to understand the quality of corporate governance in public sector and to gain insight into the major infirmities in internal and external conditions that impinge on the quality of corporate governance in the public enterprises. In India, to bring in more transparency and accountability in the functioning of Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs), the government of India in June 2007 introduced the Guidelines on Corporate Governance. These Guidelines were originally of voluntary nature. The government has acknowledged the need for continuing the adoption of good Corporate Governance Guidelines for ensuring robust public sector with high level of transparency and decided to make these Guidelines mandatory and applicable to all CPSEs. Thereby, government in March 2010 asked all the 246 CPSEs to mandatorily follow corporate governance norms and business ethics, a step to ensure more transparency in their functioning.