Business Strategy and Sustainability: Volume 3

The word sustainability is on everybody's lips – in business, in government and in society. There are of course many aspects of sustainability which might be considered to reflect Brundtland's three pillars of economic, environmental and social sustainability. Others of course have different definitions which include such things as governance or supply chain management. Nevertheless business has recognised the significance of the concept and is responding by developing strategies to cope, although some would say that this is little more than window dressing. The debate continues however as to just what is meant by the term sustainability as far as business is concerned and how can this be achieved. This book is designed to address this debate and set it within the context of the global business and societal environment. Equally we have seen that stakeholders are increasingly exercising their power not just in their own interests but also in the interests of long term sustainability. So it is necessary to develop some methods of analysing and measuring sustainable CSR activity in such a way that it is universally understood, and can be evaluated by interested parties. It will therefore become of assistance to societal decision making.

The social responsibility of organisations – commonly known as corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate responsibility – has become an important issue in contemporary international debates (see Aras & Crowther, 2007a). More recently, however, the discourse has changed to that of sustainability, and many corporate reports which used to be designated as environmental reports and subsequently as CSR reports have now been repackaged as sustainability reports. CSR, however, is more problematic as it is often perceived that there is a dichotomy between CSR activity and financial performance with one being deleterious to the other and corporations having an imperative to pursue shareholder value. Moreover, there is no agreed upon definition of exactly what constitutes CSR (Ortiz Martinez & Crowther, 2005) and therefore no agreed upon basis for measuring that activity and relating it to the various dimensions of corporate performance. Consequently, much of the previous research regarding CSR deals with this issue and the problems in development of standards for definition and reporting for such indeterminate activity (see Crowther, 2006).

True to form, it is no surprise that ‘public interest entity’ (which, by EC requirement, must include all listed companies but other entities only at the discretion of individual member states) has been defined in the United Kingdom in the minimal permissible way – it excludes large privately held companies, mutuals, large professional partnerships and so on – about all of which the public has a real interest – as the current financial crisis has clearly shown. Think, for instance, of the need to widen choice in the audit market.

During a UN Commission meeting in 1983, Norwegian Prime Minister Brundtland came to state one of the most comprehensive definitions of sustainability: ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED Report, 1987). Since then, themes related to sustainability proliferated and passed beyond the ‘macro’ level by also adopting ‘mezzo’ and ‘micro’ levels as unit of analysis. To state this more specifically, a macro perspective reflects a community level point of view, while a mezzo perspective adopts organisation and institution level focus point, and a micro perspective adopts an individual level research view. Within this framework, the issue turns out to be a debate of providing sustainability to the community, to the institutions (‘business enterprise’ being one of them) and to the individuals. Such fragmentation is especially necessary in literature as it is the aggregation of research on multiple levels that will lead to seminal contributions in many respects. Literature suggests evidence of how devastating the outcomes could be when there is conflict among these different levels regarding the meaning and implications of sustainability (e.g. Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010; Linnenluecke, Russell, & Griffiths, 2009).

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an emerging field whose norms are still being written and rewritten. The concept of CSR as we know it today¹ started in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s and slowly spread to other developed countries in the 1980s and 1990s. The French for corporate social responsibility is Responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise (RSE), a nearly literal translation which however diverges to some extent from the original English. The concept is still unclear despite having been the subject of an increasing number of academic and professional papers, in management as well as in law journals. In the present study, we shall use the definition as set by the European Commission (2001), which defines it as ‘a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’. The European Commission in its Communication to the Parliament (2006) has stressed the fact that ‘it is about enterprises deciding to go beyond minimum legal requirements and obligations (our emphasis) stemming from collective agreements in order to address societal needs’. The second part of the definition is often omitted, but is at the crux of the problem of determining where CSR begins and ends. Corporate practices which involve ethical, social or environmental problems are defined as CSR practices only if companies go above and beyond their legal obligations. It should also be noted that the definition does not specify which guidelines to take into account in order to identify the standards to be applied in any given circumstances.

Corporate sustainability focuses on three key organisational aspects including social, environmental and financial performance. It deals with how to organise and manage human actions in such a way that they meet physical and psychological demands without compromising the ecological, social and economic base which enables these needs to be met (Unerman, Bebbington, & O'Dwyer, 2007). The fundamental view of sustainability is that organisations should not pursue economic gains at the expense of society (e.g. human rights violations), ecology (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions) and the future generations. The main aim in this chapter is to focus on corporate social and environmental sustainability. In particular, this chapter focuses on the online social and environmental sustainability performance reporting practices of three global supply organisations operating in Bangladesh which is regarded as a developing nation. Social and environmental sustainability activities and associated reporting is a central part of the analysis as it appears that global garments supply organisations in developing nations respond to meet the needs of those stakeholders who are affected by their operations.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR)¹ has become such an important and popular concept along with the rise of the importance of sustainable development (SD) in the world. Nowadays, CSR is focused on goals such as poverty reduction and SD. It has become clear to the business world that SD is no longer only the concern of governments and related non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and that they should also immediately start becoming concerned about the sustainability of resources and human development along with their financial sustainability. In this sense, establishment of multi-stakeholder dialogues and partnerships among all these actors has also become extremely important.

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been widely used in the world, and it is related to the idea that organizations should be not only concerned about making a profit but also engaged in actions which benefit society beyond the interests of the firm and whatever is required by law (McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006). The concepts and definitions of CSR are different according to different academics, and the impact of business on the shareholders from CSR considerations could be analysed and used by different CSR models. These CSR models could take three main forms: social–economic, stakeholder and triple-bottom-line (Zu, 2008).

Quality is often defined as cognitive perceptual attributes or properties, and researchers often disagree about which terms should be appropriate in determining quality(Reeves & Bednar, 1994). Business research in marketing attaches value to the properties of quality (Zeithaml, 1988) and measures this in terms of ‘money’ and customer ‘expectations’. The idea of connecting quality to values through a persistent market – that is determining measurable accounts to products and properties – relies on the idea of an invisible hand controlling the market by competition (March, 1994; Smith, 1776/1976), and it assumes there is a reliable way to control quality and value. But discussions and debates arise when discussing the quality or value of abstract phenomena such as service.

The planning methodology used to elaborate strategic sustainable economic development for the period 2007–2013 is based on two items: technical studies and different modes of participation. Although independence is the example applied by the public sector, the main point to highlight here is the initiative's sustainability because a common framework is used. Every step is taken by applying the widest consensus and using governance from the regional public sector. Finally, everyone who wants to make suggestions and add to the plan is given the chance to help design the future ‘map’ for our region. It is a way to listen to all voices, suggestions and opinions, taking advantage of all possibilities opened by new technologies, and at the same time to involve everyone, from the beginning to the end, through the most representative associations and organisms, working hard with them to design the general framework for regional development and after that to reach and follow the planned objectives.

Globalization has affected science inevitably with a motto of ‘Knowledge conquers the mind’. However, global efforts and harmonization are needed and are established through international rules, laws, norms and standards. The potentially positive and negative results of globalization have altered the production relations and complicated the demographic scale.

A tourist destination represents a dynamically regulated system that evolves in space and time. Therefore, it is necessary to anticipate various system reactions to internal and external influences, so that actions can be directed towards the specific goals of supply and demand for products of tourist destinations. A successful process in the life cycle of tourist destination product planning is based on the anticipation and awareness of all participants of supply and demand, as the sustainability values must be perceived within the framework of an integrated destination product. It is necessary to examine assumptions and features of the market valuation of destination business processes from an economic, social and environmental standpoint in line with the principles of sustainable development. This implies the creation of a methodological basis for the recognition, measurement and tracking of complex processes and synergic effects, important for the development of relevant management information-based structures and functions. Measuring the eco-efficiency of a tourist destination represents the basis for building a system of reporting on changes and impacts individual business subjects deployed in the environment. An integrative information system of tourist destinations should provide information on the eco-efficiency of individual business processes, activities, products or a Strategic Business Unit's (SBU's) entire life cycle. Obtained information allows for the preparation of an information basis for reporting on environmental aspects within the system of tourist destinations sustainable development reporting.

Fulya Akyildiz is Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Usak University, Turkey.