Werbung


Sunday, April 26th, 2015
Ip access

Ausgabe 17 (2015)
Ausgabe 16 (2014)
Ausgabe 15 (2014)
Ausgabe 14 (2014)
Ausgabe 13 (2014)
Ausgabe 12 (2013)
Ausgabe 11 (2013)
Ausgabe 10 (2013)
Ausgabe 9 (2013)
Ausgabe 8 (2012)
Ausgabe 7 (2012)
Ausgabe 6 (2012)
Ausgabe 5 (2012)
Ausgabe 4 (2011)
Ausgabe 3 (2011)
Ausgabe 2 (2011)
Ausgabe 1 (2011)
Businesses
Consultants
Business Councils
NGOs
Academic Networks
Research Institutes
Journals
english
german
CSR reports
Jobs
Events
Call for Papers
New Publications
Podcast


Use CSR NEWS also through the following services designed for your needs:


Daily News per Email


Weekly News per Email


Become CSR NEWS-Friend
on Facebook !


CSR NEWS updates
through Twitter


RSS-Feeds


Europe


April 22nd, 2015
Why diversity quotas in the boardroom may be a good idea


Today we feature a guest post from our colleague over in the law school, Aaron A. Dhir, who is an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and a Senior Research Scholar at Yale Law School. Aaron's book on boardroom diversity is out next month and it is causing quite a stir. So we asked him to tell us a little about the issue of diversity quotas on boards and why, despite the controversy, his research suggests that it might be a good idea. 

The lack of diversity in the governance of business corporations is quickly becoming one of the most discussed topics in corporate governance.  It has ignited a heated global debate, leading policymakers to wrestle with difficult questions that lie at the intersection of market activity and social identity politics.


My new book, Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity, will be published next month by Cambridge University Press.  In it, I draw on semi-structured interviews with corporate board directors in Norway and documentary content analysis of corporate securities filings in the United States to empirically investigate the two main regulatory models designed to address diversity in the boardroom — quotas and disclosure.


In this post, I focus on quotas.  While quotas are anathema in the United States, their presence in Europe has ignited a heated global debate.  In their most potent form, quotas mandate particular levels of gender balance in the boardroom.  Countries such as Norway, France, Italy, Iceland, Belgium, and (just last month) Germanyhave all taken this path.  In Germany, both genders must constitute at least 30 percent of the supervisory boards of specified German companies beginning in 2016.  In Norway, non-compliant firms run the risk of court-ordered dissolution.


Little is known about the day-to-day operation of corporate quotas around the world.  To fill this void in our knowledge, I interviewed Norwegian corporate directors about their experiences under Norway’s controversial law – the very first quota on the books.  The participants in my study included men and women, as well as directors appointed before and after the law came into effect.


A strong majority of the directors I interviewed supported the law.  The dominant narrative my interviewees conveyed was that quota-induced gender diversity has positively affected boardroom work and firm governance.  Generally, respondents emphasized the range of perspectives and experiences that women bring to the board, as well as the value of women’s independence and outsider status.  They also stressed women’s greater propensity to engage in more rigorous deliberations, risk assessment, and monitoring.


But even if diversification has positive effects on company governance, the question remains:  Why are quotas an appropriate mechanism by which to achieve those benefits? 


Some commentators impugn the wisdom of quotas, charging that they stigmatize and marginalize their beneficiaries.  As one critic wrote in The New York Times:  “women admitted to boards in order to fulfill a quota are unlikely to be seen as equals whose presence at the table is merited.”  These critiques must be taken seriously.  If the recipients of affirmative action feel isolated, or that they are perceived as mere tokens, how can such measures possibly be justified?


Without question, quotas are an imperfect means of diversifying corporate boardrooms and in the book I explore the limitations of the quota model.  That said, critics sometimes paint an incomplete picture and seldom ground their arguments in the voices of those who presumably matter the most — those who actually live under quota regimes.  What do they themselves say about quotas’ possibly pernicious effects? 


My research asks exactly that question.  Only a small minority of board members I interviewed felt that female directors were stigmatized or isolated.  My female interviewees explained this in different ways.  Some highlighted the importance of the substantial number of women required by the law.  By mandating gender balance, the law made marginalization difficult, if not impossible.  As one female director told me:  “you can’t stigmatize 40 percent of the board. . . . [Y]ou could have stigmatized one person, or 15 percent. . . . But you can’t stigmatize 40 percent.”


The majority of female participants reported that they felt comfortable on the boards on which they sat, discussed their contributions to these boards, and confirmed the feeling that their boards recognized or appreciated these contributions.  Though their stories are complex, most characterized the quota as a positive vehicle that had democratized access to the upper echelons of the corporation — a space previously closed to them.  This suggests that the benefits of the quota law have outweighed any stigmatizing costs, to the extent that these costs have materialized. 


Some critics may suggest that these results are self-evident – of course the beneficiaries of quotas will support the measures that opened up the otherwise closed doors of the boardroom.  The reality, however, is far more complex.  Most directors, including women, were initially opposed, hesitant, or agnostic about quotas.  It was only after seeing the law in action and directly experiencing its effects that they eventually came to endorse it.  A significant degree of the support ultimately stemmed from the view that the law was necessary to diversify boards in a meaningful way.  For some directors, this acceptance of quotas caused them to question their own deeply held beliefs in free market principles.

There are many difficult and unresolved questions about the value and effects of quota laws.  Whether a quota is appropriate for a given country will depend on that country’s socio-political context, its corporate governance culture, and characteristics particular to firms and industries.  As policymakers around the world wrestle with these issues, however, it will be important to draw from the experiences of those who have lived under quota regimes.  These narratives give us reason to believe that quotas are worthy of careful public policy consideration.


This post first appeared (in modified form) on The Faculty Lounge. 

My sincere thanks to Andy and Dirk for inviting me to contribute this guest post to the Crane and Matten blog. 

Aaron A. Dhir, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School & Senior Research Scholar, Yale Law School. 


April 22nd, 2015
Why diversity quotas in the boardroom may be a good idea


Today we feature a guest post from our colleague over in the law school, Aaron A. Dhir, who is an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and a Senior Research Scholar at Yale Law School. Aaron's book on boardroom diversity is out next month and it is causing quite a stir. So we asked him to tell us a little about the issue of diversity quotas on boards and why, despite the controversy, his research suggests that it might be a good idea. 

The lack of diversity in the governance of business corporations is quickly becoming one of the most discussed topics in corporate governance.  It has ignited a heated global debate, leading policymakers to wrestle with difficult questions that lie at the intersection of market activity and social identity politics.


My new book, Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity, will be published next month by Cambridge University Press.  In it, I draw on semi-structured interviews with corporate board directors in Norway and documentary content analysis of corporate securities filings in the United States to empirically investigate the two main regulatory models designed to address diversity in the boardroom — quotas and disclosure.


In this post, I focus on quotas.  While quotas are anathema in the United States, their presence in Europe has ignited a heated global debate.  In their most potent form, quotas mandate particular levels of gender balance in the boardroom.  Countries such as Norway, France, Italy, Iceland, Belgium, and (just last month) Germanyhave all taken this path.  In Germany, both genders must constitute at least 30 percent of the supervisory boards of specified German companies beginning in 2016.  In Norway, non-compliant firms run the risk of court-ordered dissolution.


Little is known about the day-to-day operation of corporate quotas around the world.  To fill this void in our knowledge, I interviewed Norwegian corporate directors about their experiences under Norway’s controversial law – the very first quota on the books.  The participants in my study included men and women, as well as directors appointed before and after the law came into effect.


A strong majority of the directors I interviewed supported the law.  The dominant narrative my interviewees conveyed was that quota-induced gender diversity has positively affected boardroom work and firm governance.  Generally, respondents emphasized the range of perspectives and experiences that women bring to the board, as well as the value of women’s independence and outsider status.  They also stressed women’s greater propensity to engage in more rigorous deliberations, risk assessment, and monitoring.


But even if diversification has positive effects on company governance, the question remains:  Why are quotas an appropriate mechanism by which to achieve those benefits? 


Some commentators impugn the wisdom of quotas, charging that they stigmatize and marginalize their beneficiaries.  As one critic wrote in The New York Times:  “women admitted to boards in order to fulfill a quota are unlikely to be seen as equals whose presence at the table is merited.”  These critiques must be taken seriously.  If the recipients of affirmative action feel isolated, or that they are perceived as mere tokens, how can such measures possibly be justified?


Without question, quotas are an imperfect means of diversifying corporate boardrooms and in the book I explore the limitations of the quota model.  That said, critics sometimes paint an incomplete picture and seldom ground their arguments in the voices of those who presumably matter the most — those who actually live under quota regimes.  What do they themselves say about quotas’ possibly pernicious effects? 


My research asks exactly that question.  Only a small minority of board members I interviewed felt that female directors were stigmatized or isolated.  My female interviewees explained this in different ways.  Some highlighted the importance of the substantial number of women required by the law.  By mandating gender balance, the law made marginalization difficult, if not impossible.  As one female director told me:  “you can’t stigmatize 40 percent of the board. . . . [Y]ou could have stigmatized one person, or 15 percent. . . . But you can’t stigmatize 40 percent.”


The majority of female participants reported that they felt comfortable on the boards on which they sat, discussed their contributions to these boards, and confirmed the feeling that their boards recognized or appreciated these contributions.  Though their stories are complex, most characterized the quota as a positive vehicle that had democratized access to the upper echelons of the corporation — a space previously closed to them.  This suggests that the benefits of the quota law have outweighed any stigmatizing costs, to the extent that these costs have materialized. 


Some critics may suggest that these results are self-evident – of course the beneficiaries of quotas will support the measures that opened up the otherwise closed doors of the boardroom.  The reality, however, is far more complex.  Most directors, including women, were initially opposed, hesitant, or agnostic about quotas.  It was only after seeing the law in action and directly experiencing its effects that they eventually came to endorse it.  A significant degree of the support ultimately stemmed from the view that the law was necessary to diversify boards in a meaningful way.  For some directors, this acceptance of quotas caused them to question their own deeply held beliefs in free market principles.

There are many difficult and unresolved questions about the value and effects of quota laws.  Whether a quota is appropriate for a given country will depend on that country’s socio-political context, its corporate governance culture, and characteristics particular to firms and industries.  As policymakers around the world wrestle with these issues, however, it will be important to draw from the experiences of those who have lived under quota regimes.  These narratives give us reason to believe that quotas are worthy of careful public policy consideration.


This post first appeared (in modified form) on The Faculty Lounge. 

My sincere thanks to Andy and Dirk for inviting me to contribute this guest post to the Crane and Matten blog. 

Aaron A. Dhir, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School & Senior Research Scholar, Yale Law School. 


April 15th, 2015
Report: Lobbyisten in Europa können fast ungehindert Einfluss nehmen



Slowenien ist das Land in der Europäischen Union mit den besten Regelungen für den Umgang mit Lobbyismus. Dennoch zeigen auch die dort bestehenden verpflichtenden Lobbyregulationen Lücken auf und zeigen Schwächen in der Umsetzung. Das ist ein Ergebnis des heute veröffentlichten Reports „Lobbying in Europe: Hidden Influence, Privileged Access“. Dafür hat die Antikorruptionsorganisation Transparency International 19 EU-Staaten und ihren Umgang mit Lobbyismus untersucht. Interessenvertreter haben demnach einen fast ungehinderten Zugang zu politischen Entscheidungsprozessen.

March 31st, 2015
Einsichten – Der DHL Nachhaltigkeitsbericht für 2014



Der Logistikkonzern Deutsche Post DHL will zum Maßstab für verantwortungsvolles unternehmerisches Handeln werden. Das ist das erklärte Ziel der im vergangenen Jahr verabschiedeten Unternehmensstrategie 2020. Ein wichtiger Bestandteil dieser Strategie ist die Entwicklung neuer umweltfreundlicher Logistiklösungen. Aber bis 2020 sollen auch noch weitere Ziele erreicht werden, beispielsweise die Verbesserung der CO2-Effizienz. 2014 konnte der Konzern mit einem soliden Geschäftsergebnis abschließen und auch wichtige Nachhaltigkeitsziele wurden erreicht. Über die Fortschritte berichtet der neue, inzwischen elfte Nachhaltigkeitsreport.

March 28th, 2015
Germanwings 4U9525: The art of asking the right questions



The crash of the Germanwings flight earlier this week is still dominating much of the (Western) news media. It is not just the fact that it happened with a well known Airline with a good safety record (Germanwings is a part of Lufthansa) right in the middle of Europe – in fact one of us sat on a Lufthansa A320 just a day before the crash. But it is also the absence of any good explanation as to the cause of the crash.


Now that story has evolved over the last hours. First, we learned from the voice recorder of the black box that the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit and did not open the door for the pilot to come back after his toilet break. It was interesting to see how Lufthansa, the prosecutors and most media then jumped to the conclusion that the co-pilot deliberately crashed the plane.


While that is indeed one option, only few reports raised the question why the flight data recorder – the other black box – could not be found. Or why when it was found the hard disk with the data was missing. Because only those data would clearly document which actions the co-pilot actually took while alone in the cockpit. It is still conceivable, that we saw a repeat of an incident on a Lufthansa A321 just five months ago when iced sensors sent the plane on route from Bilbao to Munich on a similar descent and could only be saved by the pilot switching off the autopilot.


And maybe it was not suicidal intent but other forms of incapacitation that made the co-pilot behave that way. After all, as we finally learned today, he had a history of psychological problems and should in fact have been on sick leave rather than flying.


Nearly unanimously, most commentators jumped to the conclusion that his medical condition just proves that the plane was brought down intentionally by a mentally sick individual. And in particular Lufthansa appeared to be relieved to identify a rare singular individual case as the reason for the accident – rather than technical or other reasons which might have put the company in a much trickier position.


Or does it? After all, air crashes have a long history as case material and illustrative incidents in the business ethics debate. Even if we assume that an individual is to blame - more often than not such behavior occurs in a specific organizational context which normally leads to this behavior. One of the most recent examples is certainly the 2009 Crash of the Colgan Air  commuter plane in Buffalo (similar to this week’s case, a supplier of Continental Airways), which initially all looked like pilot error. However, as a brilliant PBS documentary illustrates, this incident revealed a host of unethical practices and infractions not just with the airline but in fact with the wider industry.


So, this is the time to ask the right questions. The first of which would be to get some more insight as to why the co-pilot did conceal his mental illness from his employer. Does Germanwings have a procedure for this? Do they just fire people like him, when such condition is revealed? Do they care?


A next question would be how on earth his depression could have gone unnoticed by his colleagues? After all, pilots spend a lot of time together and observe each other from up-close. How could it be that the pilot was totally comfortable to leave this co-pilot in charge for a couple of minutes? What does this say about the culture at Germanwings? Does anybody care about how his colleagues are doing?


The more important questions would look at the wider context of work in the airline. Germanwings recently had strikes as Lufthansa tries to impose a low wage no frills-system of wages and working conditions on their low cost branch, which competes with the likes of Easyjet or Ryanair. This is an object of fierce dispute and Lufthansa itself is in a middle of a merciless battle with their pilots. Just last week, thousands of flights on Lufthansa were cancelled due to a strike. This climate does not exactly encourage a young aspiring pilot – on the way to live his childhood dream – to expect an empathetic reception when broaching his personal issues.


The problematic working conditions at other low cost carriers are by now common currency. So the question we have to ask is in how far Lufthansa has made its subsidiary Germanwings in nothing but a clone of Ryanair and the others. This raises the question if we are actually talking about an environment where someone with mental health issues would think the last thing to disclose to his employer and to hope for empathy would be his personal troubles and problems?


Overall then, there are a lot of questions to ask to Lufthansa, the investigating bodies, and in fact the media. But there are also larger questions unanswered. European pilots associations now openly challenge why so many facts of an ongoing investigation are leaked to the press. Or why certain questions, most notably about the flight data recorder have not been addressed. One cannot help but having some uncomfortable reminiscences with the disappearance of MH370 in South East Asia about a year ago. As the even the CEO of Emirates, Sir Tim Clark (far from being one of the inevitable conspiracy theorists in these incidents), has very vocally set out, the way the public gets (dis-)informed about those disasters raises serious questions. Questions, to which we ultimately need an answer.



Image copyright Plane13.com, Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence


March 28th, 2015
Germanwings 4U9525: The art of asking the right questions



The crash of the Germanwings flight earlier this week is still dominating much of the (Western) news media. It is not just the fact that it happened with a well known Airline with a good safety record (Germanwings is a part of Lufthansa) right in the middle of Europe – in fact one of us sat on a Lufthansa A320 just a day before the crash. But it is also the absence of any good explanation as to the cause of the crash.


Now that story has evolved over the last hours. First, we learned from the voice recorder of the black box that the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit and did not open the door for the pilot to come back after his toilet break. It was interesting to see how Lufthansa, the prosecutors and most media then jumped to the conclusion that the co-pilot deliberately crashed the plane.


While that is indeed one option, only few reports raised the question why the flight data recorder – the other black box – could not be found. Or why when it was found the hard disk with the data was missing. Because only those data would clearly document which actions the co-pilot actually took while alone in the cockpit. It is still conceivable, that we saw a repeat of an incident on a Lufthansa A321 just five months ago when iced sensors sent the plane on route from Bilbao to Munich on a similar descent and could only be saved by the pilot switching off the autopilot.


And maybe it was not suicidal intent but other forms of incapacitation that made the co-pilot behave that way. After all, as we finally learned today, he had a history of psychological problems and should in fact have been on sick leave rather than flying.


Nearly unanimously, most commentators jumped to the conclusion that his medical condition just proves that the plane was brought down intentionally by a mentally sick individual. And in particular Lufthansa appeared to be relieved to identify a rare singular individual case as the reason for the accident – rather than technical or other reasons which might have put the company in a much trickier position.


Or does it? After all, air crashes have a long history as case material and illustrative incidents in the business ethics debate. Even if we assume that an individual is to blame - more often than not such behavior occurs in a specific organizational context which normally leads to this behavior. One of the most recent examples is certainly the 2009 Crash of the Colgan Air  commuter plane in Buffalo (similar to this week’s case, a supplier of Continental Airways), which initially all looked like pilot error. However, as a brilliant PBS documentary illustrates, this incident revealed a host of unethical practices and infractions not just with the airline but in fact with the wider industry.


So, this is the time to ask the right questions. The first of which would be to get some more insight as to why the co-pilot did conceal his mental illness from his employer. Does Germanwings have a procedure for this? Do they just fire people like him, when such condition is revealed? Do they care?


A next question would be how on earth his depression could have gone unnoticed by his colleagues? After all, pilots spend a lot of time together and observe each other from up-close. How could it be that the pilot was totally comfortable to leave this co-pilot in charge for a couple of minutes? What does this say about the culture at Germanwings? Does anybody care about how his colleagues are doing?


The more important questions would look at the wider context of work in the airline. Germanwings recently had strikes as Lufthansa tries to impose a low wage no frills-system of wages and working conditions on their low cost branch, which competes with the likes of Easyjet or Ryanair. This is an object of fierce dispute and Lufthansa itself is in a middle of a merciless battle with their pilots. Just last week, thousands of flights on Lufthansa were cancelled due to a strike. This climate does not exactly encourage a young aspiring pilot – on the way to live his childhood dream – to expect an empathetic reception when broaching his personal issues.


The problematic working conditions at other low cost carriers are by now common currency. So the question we have to ask is in how far Lufthansa has made its subsidiary Germanwings in nothing but a clone of Ryanair and the others. This raises the question if we are actually talking about an environment where someone with mental health issues would think the last thing to disclose to his employer and to hope for empathy would be his personal troubles and problems?


Overall then, there are a lot of questions to ask to Lufthansa, the investigating bodies, and in fact the media. But there are also larger questions unanswered. European pilots associations now openly challenge why so many facts of an ongoing investigation are leaked to the press. Or why certain questions, most notably about the flight data recorder have not been addressed. One cannot help but having some uncomfortable reminiscences with the disappearance of MH370 in South East Asia about a year ago. As the even the CEO of Emirates, Sir Tim Clark (far from being one of the inevitable conspiracy theorists in these incidents), has very vocally set out, the way the public gets (dis-)informed about those disasters raises serious questions. Questions, to which we ultimately need an answer.



Image copyright Plane13.com, Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence


March 16th, 2015
Erste GOTS-zertifizierte Babykollektion bei C&A



C&A Europe führt erstmalig eine Babykollektion ein, die nach dem Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) zertifiziert ist. Damit baut das Unternehmen sein Angebot an nachhaltiger Mode weiter aus. Die neue Babykollektion ist in ausgewählten europäischen C&A Filialen sowie in den C&A Online-Shops erhältlich.

March 6th, 2015
BSH gehört erneut zu den besten Arbeitgebern in Europa



Zum wiederholten Male gehört die BSH Hausgeräte GmbH zu den besten Arbeitgebern in Europa und wurde vom unabhängigen Top Employers Institute als „Top Employer Europe 2015“ ausgezeichnet. Besonders überzeugen konnte der Hausgerätehersteller durch seine außerordentlichen Leistungen und Angebote in den Kategorien Talentstrategie, Training & Entwicklung und Karriere- & Nachfolgeplanung.

March 1st, 2015
C&A und C&A Foundation geben Zusammenarbeit mit Save the Children bekannt



C&A, eines der führenden Modeunternehmen, und die C&A Foundation sind gemeinsam eine dreijährige internationale Partnerschaft mit der Hilfsorganisation Save the Children eingegangen, die Millionen von Müttern in humanitären Krisen Unterstützung bieten soll. Im Mittelpunkt der geplanten Projekte stehen die Katastrophenvorsorge sowie sofortige Hilfsmaßnahmen im Krisenfall. Die C&A Foundation stellt Save the Children für diese wichtige Arbeit bis zu 3 Millionen Euro jährlich zur Verfügung.

February 26th, 2015
CSR NEWS briefly vom 26.02.15


Tagesaktuelle Ereignisse und Themen rund um die gesellschaftliche Unternehmensverantwortung:

February 16th, 2015
CSR People: Bereits über 70 fachkundige Kollegen und Experten verzeichnet



Sie arbeiten sich neu in das Themenfeld CSR ein? Sie sind dort bereits tätig, stehen aber vor einer neuen Herausforderung oder einem Problem? Oder Sie wollen sich mit anderen CSR-Akteuren zu Ihren Erfahrungen und Lösungsansätzen austauschen? CSR People erleichtert es Ihnen, die richtigen Gesprächspartner zu finden. Über 70 CSR-Experten sind hier bereits zu über 150 Themengebieten verzeichnet - Praktiker, Wissenschaftler, Berater und Nachhaltigkeitsjournalisten.

February 10th, 2015
Leitfaden für die Umsetzung der EU-Richtlinie zur Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung mit GRI



Etwa 6.000 Unternehmen in der Europäischen Union sind von der EU-Richtlinie zur Veröffentlichung nicht-finanzieller Informationen betroffen. Es handelt sich hauptsächlich um große, börsennotierte Unternehmen, an denen ein öffentliches Interesse besteht. Bei diesen Unternehmen sind die GRI-Richtlinien quasi der Standard für die Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung. Wie diese genutzt werden können, um im Einklang mit der EU-Richtlinie zu berichten, zeigt ein neuer Leitfaden der Gloabl Reporting Initiative.

January 21st, 2015
C&A Europe und C&A Foundation kooperieren mit Women on Wings



C&A Europe und die C&A Foundation gehen gemeinsam eine Partnerschaft mit der niederländischen Non-Profit-Organisation Women on Wings ein. Im Mittelpunkt der Zusammenarbeit stehen ehrenamtliche Einsätze von C&A Mitarbeitern bei Unternehmen, die überwiegend Frauen in ländlichen Regionen Indiens beschäftigen.

January 15th, 2015
UPJ-Jahrestagung: Verbindungen entwickeln – Mit CSR und Sozialen Kooperationen Zukunft gestalten



Die Jahrestagung des UPJ-Netzwerks am 19. März 2015 im Roten Rathaus in Berlin bietet für den Austausch über diese Frage eine ideale Plattform. Diskutieren Sie mit über 250 Experten und Verantwortlichen aus großen und mittelständischen Unternehmen, Non-Profit-Organisationen, Bund, Ländern, Kommunen, Wissenschaft und Verbänden über Themen, die in der nächsten Zeit "dran" sind!

January 5th, 2015
Hierzu suchen wir Autoren


Das Lexikon auf csr-knowledge.net ist ein Lexikon von CSR-Experten für CSR-Experten. Es erleichtert Praktikern eine schnelle Orientierung und ein vertieftes Einarbeiten in CSR-Themen und -Begriffe. Zu den Lexikoneinträgen wird in den entsprechenden Nachrichten auf CSR NEWS verlinkt und die Einträge selbst verweisen auf



December 12th, 2014
Neuer Dirty Profits Report erschienen


Die Organisation Facing Finance hat zusammen mit anderen NGOs, darunter Urgewald und Frinds of Earth, anlässlich des internationalen Tags der Menschenrechte ihren inzwischen dritten Dirty Profits Report veröffentlicht.

December 11th, 2014
CSR-Forschung: Von „Ethics in Business“ bis „Soft Law als ordnungspolitisches Element einer Global Governance“



Wer forscht gerade wo zu welchen Aspekten der gesellschaftlichen Unternehmensverantwortung? CSR NEWS stellt in einer Serie aktuelle Projekte und Publikationen aus der deutschsprachigen Forschungslandschaft vor: Hier die vielfältigen Forschungsprojekte an der Universität St. Gallen.

December 1st, 2014
Umweltverantwortung: Unternehmensschwerpunkte und ihre Kommunikation



Welche Schwerpunkte setzen Unternehmen in Bezug auf ihre ökologische Verantwortung? Und wie kommuniziere sie diese? CSR NEWS hat die im CSR-REPORTING.NET verzeichneten Unternehmen danach gefragt. und dokumentiert nachfolgend die Antworten im Überblick. Neben dem großen Umweltthema Klimaschutz nennen die Befragten eine Vielzahl weiterer Umweltthemen, wobei der Wasserversorgung der Zukunft eine besondere Bedeutung zukommt.

November 29th, 2014
Umweltverantwortung bei der RZB-Group: Die Schwerpunkte und ihre Kommunikation



Welche Schwerpunkte setzen Unternehmen in Bezug auf ihre ökologische Verantwortung? Und wie kommuniziere sie diese? CSR NEWS hat die im CSR-REPORTING.NET verzeichneten Unternehmen danach gefragt. Die Antworten der Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich und der RZB-Gruppe übermittelte die RZB-Nachhaltigkeitsmanagerin Ulrike Capelare.

November 29th, 2014
Umweltverantwortung bei der BASF: Die Schwerpunkte und ihre Kommunikation



Welche Schwerpunkte setzen Unternehmen in Bezug auf ihre ökologische Verantwortung? Und wie kommuniziere sie diese? CSR NEWS hat die im CSR-REPORTING.NET verzeichneten Unternehmen danach gefragt. So antwortete der internationale Chemiekonzern BASF:












© 2005- | CSR NEWS GmbH | CSR NEWS ist ein Projekt des Vereins Unternehmen - Verantwortung - Gesellschaft e.V.
Contact: editors@csr-news.net | Phone: +49 (0) 2192 – 8546458
Disclaimer | Legal Notice | Powered by WordPress | 0.588 seconds | web design by kollundkollegen.