Sustainable Development Goals

Doing Qualitative Research

Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy

Capitalism and Freedom

The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society

The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries

Addressing the critique that communication activities with regard to CSR are often merely instrumental marketing or public relation tools, this paper develops a toolbox of CSR communication that takes into account a deliberative notion. We derive this toolbox classification from the political approach of CSR that is based on Habermasian discourse ethics and show that it has a communicative core. Therefore, we embed CSR communication within political CSR theory and extend it by Habermasian communication theory, particularly the four validity claims of communication. Given this communicative basis, we localize CSR communication as a main means to receive moral legitimacy within political CSR theory. A typology of CSR communication tools is advanced and substantiated by a review of case studies supporting the categories. Thus, we differentiate between instrumental and deliberative, as well as published and unpublished tools. Practical examples for the literature-derived tool categories are provided and their limitations are discussed.

/pdf/instrumental-and-or-deliberative-a-typology-of-csr-4zhmtywg0b.pdf

Instrumental and/or Deliberative? A Typology of CSR Communication Tools

records, social media profiles, and many more (Boyd and Crawford 2012) have altered the way humans interact with each other and with their natural environment. Digital technology, as in the example of Big Data, offers new possibilities and pathways of how to shape the future and research (Shah et al. 2015), for instance, through the “information civilization” brought about by monopolistic structures in the corporate sphere (Zuboff 2015). Algorithmic capacities allow for data processing and analysis that open up unseen predictive capabilities, and thus a “time-ontological shift” (Seele 2016a). Digitalization has (positively as well as negatively) incalculable potential to help achieve sustainability of the planetary and human system, or at least help reduce the negative impact of people. ICT and Big Data can help promote sustainability (Gijzen 2013; Hampton et al. 2013), because the societal complexity of the planetary nervous system is strongly connected and these systems may lead to cascading effects that increase vulnerability (Helbing 2012). Via a big data-driven “transnational sustainability agency” (Seele 2016b) or a digital “global participatory platform”, for instance, digitalization can help increase (strong) sustainability in the environmental, social and economic spheres (Helbing 2012). Hence, digitalization bears consequences for transparency and accountability that open up entirely new ways to shape, monitor, communicate, and govern sustainability (e.g., Heemsbergen 2016). In conclusion, both megatrends, sustainability and digitalization, impose major transitions on our world and how we picture it. In this regard, sustainability science is the scientific way of gathering data to analyze pathways towards a (more) sustainable world, by taking into account future generations. Given its transformative nature, sustainability is expected to adapt to the new possibilities and perils of the digital age, or vice versa, digitalization is the driver that When in 2015, 193 countries agreed on 17 sustainable development goals, the nations’ delegates signed a challenging agenda aimed to render this planet livable for future generations within the next 15 years. This process has just begun and implementation and dialogue with different stakeholders is required to bring the SDG to live. This is true, particularly given the past steps to strive for sustainability, which have not yet led to groundbreaking levels of achieving more sustainability (or less unsustainability). Despite many efforts in developing and developed countries, none of the member states of the United Nations has achieved all goals yet (GeSI 2016), so the call for intensifying engagement and transforming societies remains open. This is where Big Data and Digitalization comes in: Digital technologies in the form of e-health services, robotics, or emission reduction solutions could help individuals, organizations, and nations achieve a more sustainable planet in light of the sustainable development goals. Given the stagnation of sustainable development, the overall “sustainability gap” (Lubin and Esty 2014) continues to be a major issue, as the overconsumption of natural resources and its harmful consequences threaten the basis of our existence and that of future generations (WCED 1987). Parallel to this development stands the increasing speed and spread of digital technology in all areas of life. Information and communication (ICT) technology constitute our new “digital age” (Schmidt and Cohen 2013), encompassing a richness of softand hardware and linked processes. Analyses of genetic sequences, personal health data, phone Sustainability and Digitalization: A Game-Changer? Possibilities, Perils, Pathways

/pdf/the-game-changing-potential-of-digitalization-for-mfb49h5luo.pdf

The game-changing potential of digitalization for sustainability: possibilities, perils, and pathways

This paper aims to deepen the understanding of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting practices toward stakeholder group investors. Quantitative content analysis was applied to 437 articles of CSR reports from the chemicals, and banking and insurance industries in Germany and Switzerland. The results were benchmarked to the Sarasin sustainability rating's weighting of social and environmental industry risks. It was found that the chemicals industry's CSR reports meet the benchmark, whereas those from the banking and insurance industry do not (RQ1). Swiss chemicals producers perform well in reporting on their specific industry risks, while German companies mirror the sector-specific risks in the banking and insurance industry (RQ2). The results thus indicate the appropriateness of investor-specific reporting and suggest – in line with GRI and the European Union – further standardization in order to level the playing field of CSR in Europe. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Analyzing Sector‐Specific CSR Reporting: Social and Environmental Disclosure to Investors in the Chemicals and Banking and Insurance Industry

Recently, researchers have claimed that food and beverage corporations should be excluded from the development of public health policy because their lobbying activities strategically undermine the ...

Irina Lock

Papers

The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries

Instrumental and/or Deliberative? A Typology of CSR Communication Tools

The game-changing potential of digitalization for sustainability: possibilities, perils, and pathways

Analyzing Sector‐Specific CSR Reporting: Social and Environmental Disclosure to Investors in the Chemicals and Banking and Insurance Industry

Deliberative Lobbying? Toward a Noncontradiction of Corporate Political Activities and Corporate Social Responsibility?