IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/gdk/chapte/20.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Key Sustainability Metrics For Labour Practices – A Comparative Evolution Of Freedom Of Association And Of Non-Discrimination In Emerging/Frontier And Developed Markets

In: Contemporary Issues and Challenges in Human Resource Management

Author

Listed:
  • Diana-Maria Tînjalã

    (Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, West University of Timisoara)

  • Alexandru Buglea

    (Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, West University of Timisoara)

Abstract

In the last decades, sustainability reporting has become the norm for most multinational corporations. International organizations, as well as national regulating agencies have issued several standards and guidelines concerning environmental, social and governance (ESG) related corporate impact. This study focuses on the social pillar of corporate sustainability, with emphasis on labour practices and human rights. We present a set of key metrics for measuring labour practices performance, based on the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4, Thomson Reuters’ ASSET 4 and the German Society of Investment Professionals’ Guidelines 3.0. Using the results of content analysis on annual reports and company websites, courtesy of the firm Sustainalytics, we assess the evolution of two labour practices indicators: freedom of association policy and elimination of discrimination policy. Our sample comprises more than 1800 listed companies from 42 industrial sectors. For the selected time frame, 2010-2014, we can observe a slight positive general trend for improving labour practices performance, as measured by the two indicators. The paper concludes with a trend comparison between emerging/frontier market companies and developed market companies, as per the MSCI market classification.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana-Maria Tînjalã & Alexandru Buglea, 2015. "Key Sustainability Metrics For Labour Practices – A Comparative Evolution Of Freedom Of Association And Of Non-Discrimination In Emerging/Frontier And Developed Markets," GUT FME Conference Publications, in: Katarzyna Stankiewicz (ed.),Contemporary Issues and Challenges in Human Resource Management, chapter 2, pages 18-31, Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology.
    • Handle: RePEc:gdk:chapte:20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://ftp.zie.pg.gda.pl/RePEc/gdk/chapte/ENTIME2015_2_CH_2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus Milne & Rob Gray, 2013. "W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 13-29, November.
    2. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808, Decembrie.
    3. Andreas Christofi & Petros Christofi & Seleshi Sisaye, 2012. "Corporate sustainability: historical development and reporting practices," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(2), pages 157-172, January.
    4. Denise Baden & Ian Harwood, 2013. "Terminology Matters: A Critical Exploration of Corporate Social Responsibility Terms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 615-627, September.
    5. Alexander Bassen & Ana Maria Kovács, 2008. "Environmental, Social and Governance Key Performance - Indicators from a Capital Market Perspective," Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik - Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 9(2), pages 182-192.
    6. Alexander Bassen & Ana Maria Kovács, 2008. "Environmental, Social and Governance Key Performance - Indicators from a Capital Market Perspective," Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik - Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 9(2), pages 182-192.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maha Faisal Alsayegh & Rashidah Abdul Rahman & Saeid Homayoun, 2020. "Corporate Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability Performance Transformation through ESG Disclosure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Preeti Sharma & Priyanka Panday & R. C. Dangwal, 2020. "Determinants of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) disclosure: a study of Indian companies," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 17(4), pages 208-217, December.
    3. Joanna Wiśniewska & Joanna Markiewicz, 2021. "The Impact of Poland’s Energy Transition on the Strategies of Fossil Fuel Sector Companies—The Example of PKN Orlen Group," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Ozgur Isil & Michael T. Hernke, 2017. "The Triple Bottom Line: A Critical Review from a Transdisciplinary Perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 1235-1251, December.
    5. Mihai Carp & Leontina Păvăloaia & Mihai-Bogdan Afrăsinei & Iuliana Eugenia Georgescu, 2019. "Is Sustainability Reporting a Business Strategy for Firm’s Growth? Empirical Study on the Romanian Capital Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Anselm Schneider, 2015. "Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 525-536, March.
    7. Daniel Kiel & Julian M. Müller & Christian Arnold & Kai-Ingo Voigt, 2017. "Sustainable Industrial Value Creation: Benefits And Challenges Of Industry 4.0," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(08), pages 1-34, December.
    8. Mähönen Jukka, 2020. "Integrated Reporting and Sustainable Corporate Governance from European Perspective," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-40, July.
    9. Francesco Rosati & Lourenço Galvão Diniz Faria, 2019. "Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 588-597, May.
    10. Nancy E. Landrum & Brian Ohsowski, 2018. "Identifying Worldviews on Corporate Sustainability: A Content Analysis of Corporate Sustainability Reports," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 128-151, January.
    11. Irene Wei Kiong Ting & Noor Azlinna Azizan & Rajesh Kumar Bhaskaran & Sujit K Sukumaran, 2019. "Corporate Social Performance and Firm Performance: Comparative Study among Developed and Emerging Market Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, December.
    12. Thomas A. Tsalis & Kyveli E. Malamateniou & Dimitrios Koulouriotis & Ioannis E. Nikolaou, 2020. "New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations' 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1617-1629, July.
    13. Souhir Khemir, 2011. "Identification des attentes et des besoins des professionnels financiers tunisiens en matière de critères ESG," Post-Print hal-00650534, HAL.
    14. Jiří Hřebíček & Oldřich Trenz & Eliška Vernerová, 2013. "Optimal set of agri-environmental indicators for the agricultural sector of Czech Republic," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 61(7), pages 2171-2181.
    15. Chaokai Xue & Xinghua Dang & Beibei Shi & Jing Gu, 2019. "Information Sharing and Investment Performance in the Venture Capital Network Community: An Empirical Study of Environmental-Social-Governance Start-Ups," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-18, March.
    16. Ana T. Ejarque & Vanessa Campos, 2020. "Assessing the Economy for the Common Good Measurement Theory Ability to Integrate the SDGs into MSMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Burger, Eric & Grba, Fabian & Heidorn, Thomas, 2022. "The impact of ESG ratings on implied and historical volatility," Frankfurt School - Working Paper Series 230, Frankfurt School of Finance and Management.
    18. Thaís Vieira Nunhes & Enzo Viviani Garcia & Maximilian Espuny & Vitor Homem de Mello Santos & Raine Isaksson & Otávio José de Oliveira, 2021. "Where to Go with Corporate Sustainability? Opening Paths for Sustainable Businesses through the Collaboration between Universities, Governments, and Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-31, January.
    19. Francesca Bartolacci & Andrea Caputo & Michela Soverchia, 2020. "Sustainability and financial performance of small and medium sized enterprises: A bibliometric and systematic literature review," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1297-1309, March.
    20. Anastasiia Moldavska & Torgeir Welo, 2018. "Testing and Verification of a New Corporate Sustainability Assessment Method for Manufacturing: A Multiple Case Research Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-40, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sustainability reporting; non-financial indicators; labour practices;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility
    • J5 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining
    • J8 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Standards

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gdk:chapte:20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wojciech Drapinski (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzepgpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.