The relationships between sustainable behavior, firm reputation, and economic performance are significant issues that continue to become more important. Corporate reputation has important implications for economic performance while corporate social responsibility engagement is considered a key determinant of reputation. The aim of this study is to empirically test such relationships regarding the banking sector and for the sub-prime crisis period (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012). We apply our hypothesis to 75 large international banks using Reputation Institute and ASSET4 data and adopting a multiple econometric approach. Our initial results are encouraging and consistent with the existing literature: bank reputation is positively related to accounting performance and is negatively related to leverage and riskiness profiles. However, while a positive relationship between reputation and social performance exists, relationships between reputation, corporate governance, and environmental performance are always negative. We discuss these results by identifying related causes and by presenting avenues for future research.

No abstract

Business models for sustainability (BMfS) are relevant topics on research agendas, given their orientation toward sustainability issues. However, traditional versions of these models are often ill-equipped at solving complex social problems. Cross-sector partnerships for sustainability (CSPfS) have been recognized as a new paradigm that mitigates the failure of traditional models. Impact investing, and social impact bonds (SIBs) in particular, represent an interesting field of research in innovative business models for sustainable finance, even though the literature does not consider SIBs within this broader field. We propose an exploratory study based on qualitative methods aimed at conceptualizing SIBs within the framework of BMfS and understanding how SIB collaboration varies across social sectors and geographical areas. Our study identifies three different models of SIBs characterized by the different degrees of collaboration between actors: (i) SIB as a fully collaborative partnership; (ii) SIB as a low-collaborative partnership; and (iii) SIB as a partially collaborative partnership. Our findings are useful to policy makers and practitioners involved in the SIB design, suggesting that a fully collaborative SIB model may stand a better chance of achieving the expected social impacts.

No abstract

Teaching hospitals (THs) simultaneously serve three different roles: offering medical treatment, teaching future doctors and promoting research. The international literature recognises such organisations as 'peaks of excellence' and highlights their economic function in the health system. In addition, the literature describes the urgent need to manage the complex dynamics and inefficiency issues that threaten the survival of teaching hospitals worldwide. In this context, traditional performance measurement systems that focus only on accounting and financial measures appear to be inadequate. Given that THs are highly specific and complex, a multidimensional system of performance measurement, such as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), may be more appropriate because of the multitude of stakeholders, each of whom seek a specific type of accountability. The aim of the paper was twofold: (i) to review the literature on the BSC and its applications in teaching hospitals and (ii) to propose a scorecard framework that is suitable for assessing the performance of THs and serving as a guide for scholars and practitioners. In addition, this research will contribute to the ongoing debate on performance evaluation systems by suggesting a revised BSC framework and proposing specific performance indicators for THs.