The commitment of the European Union (EU) to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is projected into EU law about annual reporting by businesses. Since EU member states further develop this framework by their own domestic laws, annual reporting with CSR information is not unified and only partially mandatory in the EU. Do all European businesses report CSR information and what public declaration to society do they provide with it? The two main purposes of this paper are to identify the parameters of this annual reporting duty and to study the CSR information provided by the 10 largest Czech companies in their annual statements for 2013–2017. Based on legislative research and a teleological interpretation, the current EU legislative framework with Czech particularities is presented and, via a case study exploring 50 annual reports, the data about the type, extent and depth of CSR is dynamically and comparatively assessed. It appears that, at the minimum, large Czech businesses satisfy their legal duty and e-report on CSR to a similar extent, but in a dramatically different quality. Employee matters and adherence to international standards are used as a public declaration to society more than the data on environmental protection, while social matters and research and development (R&D) are played down.

COVID-19 leads to a reinforced need to address sustainability at the economic, environmental, and social pillars, and the six categories of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of businesses, that is, their self-commitment to integrate sustainability in their policies and strategies and to become more effective and efficient. Luxury fashion businesses refer heavily but not identically, to their CSR, by formally issuing CSR reports and Codes of Ethics, and informally voicing their pro-CSR statements. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic hit and brought important changes. This burning issue translates into three objectives in this paper—assessing the CSR statements of International and Czech Luxury Fashion Industry businesses (i) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, (ii) during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (iii) identifying new trends. To address them, a holistic and interdisciplinary case study exploration was performed entailing 10 International Luxury Fashion businesses and 10 Czech Luxury Fashion businesses. The resulting data were explored via Meta-Analysis and content analysis, teleological interpretations, etc. The critical and comparative review revealed six interesting trends indicating a shift in perception of sustainability and CSR caused by COVID-19. The review offers propositions for how the COVID-19 threats could become an opportunity for rebuilding this industry.

The United Nations’ (UN) drive for sustainability culminates in a recent milestone document, Agenda 2030, which sets forth 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Arguably, these SDGs inspire governments more than they do individual businesses and their embracement and measurement at the business level faces a myriad of shortcomings. A case study of internal declaratory documents about sustainability and other ethical commitments, such as codes of ethics, represents a feasible platform to collect fresh and inside primary data about the projection of SDGs in these codes of ethics, and ultimately in the strategy and daily operations of involved businesses. The representativeness of the sample of 30 businesses is ensured by the size of these businesses, their inter-related nature, and significance in the EU. A holistic approach, along with meta-analysis, comparison, and a combination of automatic keyword-based content analysis and of a manual simplified Delphi-method, allows for the addressing of both underlying burning questions—(i) how SDGs are projected in these codes of ethics and (ii) why not in a perfect manner. The main five findings point out the deep conceptual misunderstandings and shortcomings by businesses, which do not properly work with their codes of ethics, and which could take at least partially the SDG’s guidance. These rather pioneering propositions are not conclusive, due to the inherent and inevitable limitations of the performed case study, and need to be verified over time (longitudinally), while expanding the pool of studied codes of ethics.

No abstract

Research background: The Post-Lisbon EU aims at smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth on the single internal market, as indicated by the Europe 2020. The interplay of the competition and consumer protection on such a market is subject to harmonization. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive has been made in order to achieve a full harmonization in this respect in 2007. However, EU member states share different social, political, legal and economic traditions and their approaches to unfair competition, in particular if committed via parasitic commercial practices, are dramatically diverse. In such a context, is it feasible, effective and efficient to install a full harmonization?Purpose of the article: The primary purpose of this article is to describe and assess ap-proaches to unfair competition, in particular if committed via parasitic commercial practices, by the EU law and EU member states law. The secondary purpose is to study and evaluate possibilities for the feasible, effective and efficient harmonization, or their lack. Methods: The cross-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional nature of this article, and its dual purposes, implies the use of Meta-Analysis, of the critical comparison of laws and the impact of their application, to the holistic perception of historical and national contexts, and to case studies. The primary and secondary sources are explored and the yield knowledge and data are confronted with the status quo. The dominating qualitative research and data are complemented by the quantitative research and data.Findings & Value added: The EU opted for an ambitious challenge to install via the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive a full harmonization of the regime against unfair commercial practices, including parasitic ones. The exploration pursuant to the duo of purposes suggests that the challenge is perhaps too ambitious and that the EU underestimated the dramatic diversity of approaches to unfair commercial practices, especially parasitic ones.