This article explores the influence of societal, political and regulatory characteristics and developments on the quality of corporate sustainability disclosures in Norway. The paper presents an assessment both of mandatory reporting under the Norwegian Accounting Act, and of voluntary reporting in annual and separate non-financial reports, by the 100 largest firms in Norway. Our results reveal that only 10% of the companies comply with the legal requirements on environmental reporting, while only half of the firms comply with the legal reporting provisions on working environment and gender equality. The vast majority of firms also report unsatisfactorily on non-financial issues in the voluntary disclosures assessed. Analysing the causes of these results, we contend that the situation is characterized by (1) an apparent lack of politi cal and social drivers for sustainability reporting in Norway and (2) an absence of sufficient monitoring and enforcement of the environmental reporting legislation on the part of Norwegian authorities.

The theme of the Tenth International Conference of the Greening of Industry Network in Göteborg, Sweden, was focused on exploring the social dimensions of sustainability. This focus is timely because extant research and practice in sustainability has emphasized the environmental dimension. The UNWCED definition of sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ is clear about the integration of the economic, ecological and social impacts of development (UNWCED, 1987, p. 43). As underlined by UNWCED, sustainable development refers to the concept of ‘needs’, but limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organizations on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs are also a central concern. Lafferty and Langhelle (1999) suggest that sustainable development must be treated as an ethical code for human survival and progress, and it is on a par with other high‐minded ideas such as democracy, freedom and human rights. The ‘openness of meaning’ of such concepts can never be closed and the fruitfulness of the concept of sustainable development is linked to continued political discourse on the concept's content and future goals and to the continuing debate about the instrumental implications of its normative aspirations (Lafferty and Langhelle, 1999, p. 26). The tenth GIN conference with its explicit focus on the social dimensions of sustainability facilitated the continuation of this discourse.Just as scholars and practitioners concerned with sustainable development have focused mainly on environmental management, those concerned with corporate social responsibility (CSR) have focused on social and ethical issues such as human rights, working conditions and philanthropy. The social principles of justice and inclusiveness embedded in the concept of sustainable development have entered the corporate or research agenda to a very limited extent, even among firms making promising environmental efforts at a global scale (Ruud, 2002a). Promoting sustainable development requires that governments incorporate these principles into designing holistic policies that motivate and enable firms to develop more sustainable strategies (Roome and Cahill, 2001). This was also underlined by the chief executive officer of the Volvo group during the first plenary session of the GIN conference in Gothenburg.We begin by examining to what extent the social aspects of sustainability have been integrated into public policy and government regulations and then into organizational research and practice. We then examine the extent to which the best representative papers in this volume from the tenth GIN conference have been able to achieve the integration of social and environmental dimensions. We conclude with some thoughts on future directions for sustainability research. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Although social acceptance research has blossomed over the last decade, interdisciplinary studies combining market, socio-political and community aspects are scarce. We propose a novel integration of social science theory in which the belief systems or social representations held by key actors play a crucial role in fostering acceptance of novel technologies, and where a polycentric perspective places particular emphasis on ways that middle actors mediate processes of change between scales. We advance a methodological approach that combines qualitative and quantitative research methods and exemplify the framework by focusing on acceptance of renewable energy storage solutions to accommodate high levels of renewable energy deployment. A research agenda for the social acceptance of energy storage is proposed that sets out key research questions relating international, national and local levels. The outcome of such studies would not only lead to enhanced understanding of processes of social acceptance, but deliver important insights for policy and practice.

No abstract

As countries worldwide, and particularly in Europe, move to increase deployment of low carbon energy sources, significant investments in new transmission networks are planned.However, past cases of public opposition -both to power line siting and large-scale renewable energy projects -indicate the importance of understanding public beliefs and acceptance, and using such knowledge to inform policy making and planning. This study conducted a comparative analysis of public beliefs across three European countries (UK, Norway and Sweden) drawing on representative samples of adults in each context (total n=5107). Findings show significant differences between countries, notably lower levels of acceptance and trust in the UK, but also similarities, for example that local residents are considered to have little involvement in planning-and decision-making processes. The results indicate two important principles: that acceptance can be empirically distinguished from support, and that general acceptance of energy projects is higher than local acceptance.Potential geographical, socio-historical and political explanations for the results are proposed and future research needs recommended.

This paper discusses how and to what extent local environmental practices at affiliated units of transnational corporations (TNCs) are influenced by TNC headquarters (HQ). The study focuses on intra‐firm dynamics of what is termed ‘cross‐border environmental management’ of TNCs. The study documents that the environmental management of TNC‐affiliated units in India are strongly influenced by HQ's environmental policies and standards. However, it is found that there are deviations in local practices from intentions and policy commitments stated at HQ. This can be particularly attributed to local economic and political factors. Cross‐border environmental management is making a difference. However it is limited to affiliated TNC units and few additional external environmental impacts are documented. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. and ERP Environment

Abstract:Hydropower has been core in the nation-building process of several countries. This includes Sweden in which it currently supplies around 50% of the electricity and particularly Norway where almost all electricity is generated from hydropower. In these countries, as well as many others, the provision of hydroelectricity enabled urban and rural development, industrialization and other core value-added activities. However, it was realized with significant environmental costs, particularly at the local level. Traditionally, there has been a divide in perceptions on hydropower production, in which stakeholders tend to box it either as an environmental hazard or as a socio-economic benefit. During the last century, these diverging perspectives have influenced political and regulatory approaches as well as the perceived role of hydropower at large. Different attempts to bridge this divide have been made. This is not least true in the present day, considering the role of hydropower as a low-carbon solution, and a balancing source to counter increased intermittency from new renewables into the energy system. These features of contributing to the global good of mitigating climate change need to be assessed against the potential negative environmental consequences on biological diversity, outdoor recreation and landscape perceptions at large. These concerns triggered social mobilization and even became instrumental in establishing environmental NGOs with the core focus of fighting hydropower projects. Contrasting and often conflicting opinions are still prevailing, as exemplified with the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). However, there are current signs and new knowledge available suggesting that we are moving into a new era of hydropower governance. A potential reconciliation of contrasting perceptions is pending, but there is strong inertia to change. We argue that the understanding of past political modes and regulatory approaches are essential to develop more sustainable hydropower governance systems fit for future societal and environmental needs. We currently have the benefit of drawing on lessons learned. This provides an opportunity to shape new governance systems that are more balanced in a way not experienced before.Keywords: integrated water resources management; the role of hydropower and reservoirs in climate change mitigation and adaptation; governance of water resources in regulated river basins Scientific ApproachA potential reconciliation of how to perceive the role of hydropower is pending, but past experiences and well established political practices make this effort demanding. A central aim of this article is to improve the understanding of the factors that have shaped regulatory approaches towards hydropower. This article explores the issue of hydropower governance and more particularly responds

This article addresses the theoretical and practical challenge faced by the European policy community and Member States trying to simultaneously pursue renewable energy and environmental goals, as incorporated in the EU Renewable Energy Directive and the Water Framework Directive. Through the case of hydropower, which is today at a crossroads between being a renewable electricity source − answering to climate change and energy security concerns − and a local environmental challenge in the light of degradation of river ecosystems and local biodiversity, the article explores the way renewable energy and water protection objectives are integrated inside the Common Implementation Strategy at the EU level. Based on document analysis and interviews, the mapping of the different frameworks shows that old conflicts and controversies related to the hydropower technology have been reopened and reframed to accommodate both the issue of energy security and the discourse on EU sustainability and climate change. Conclusions reveal that despite the creation of a multi‐stakeholder platform for negotiation and collaboration, the Common Implementation Strategy fails on several occasions to explain how to achieve the right balance and leaves unclear what specifically has to be integrated and to what degree. Hence, given the plurality and diversity of values, interests and concerns in relation to hydropower and goals of the Water Framework Directive, a prioritization between water, climate and energy policy goals might be needed, with the possibility of having real winners and losers of the integration process. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment