Collaborative Governance 2.0

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to explore how existing collaborative governance arrangements in the context of corporate responsibility (e.g. the Global Reporting Initiative and Social Accountability 8000) need to collaborate more directly in order to enhance their impact. The objective of this paper is twofold: primarily, to explore existing and potential linkages between multi-stakeholder standards; but, at the same time, to explore the potential for standard convergence. Design/methodology/approach -The paper follows a conceptual approach that is supported by a variety of case examples. First, the nature and benefits as well as shortcomings of multi-stakeholder standards are explored. Second, a categorization scheme for the availability of such standards is developed. Third, linkages between the different standard categories are explored and discussed. Last but not least, the paper outlines practical implications. Findings -A variety of linkages between existing multi-stakeholder standards exist. These linkages need to be strengthened, as the market for corporate responsibility is unlikely to support a great variety of partly competing and overlapping initiatives.Originality/value -The paper offers a structured discussion of potential linkages between multi-stakeholder standards and thus complements the literature where such initiatives are discussed (usually without much mention of linkages). Practitioners will find the discussion useful to explore how their participation in a variety of initiatives can be better coordinated.

Development of Sustainability Indicators: Approaches, Challenges and Opportunities

“…At the global level, the most adopted multi-stakeholder standards which address a wide range of sustainability issues are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the UN Global Compact (UNGC). As pointed out by Rasche (2010), the ‗market' for sustainability reporting is nowadays highly fragmented with numerous standards, certifications, principles etc. which, on one hand, increases the opportunities for reporting, but, on the other hand, creates difficulties for corporations and stakeholders in operating and evaluating firm performances.…”

“…With the GRI Standards, -GRI aims to maintain the proven principles of sustainability reporting, but to provide users with more flexibility, clearer instructions, clear terminology and a modular structure of the GRI standards, to remedy content redundancies and to provide a more logical structure of the GRI standards compared to GRI G4-(on the comparison between GRI G4 and GRI Standards see: Stojanovic-Blab & Blab, 2017). Unlike GRI, which is viewed mainly as a reporting standard, the UNGC is termed as a principle-based standard (Rasche, 2010). The UNGC framework has a simple and relatively logical structure with criteria related to the four core sustainability issues (Human Rights, Labor, Environment and Anti-Corruption) and 10 UNGC principles for responsible and sustainable business behavior that corporations are required to report.…”

Advancing the Sustainable Tourism Agenda Through Strategic CSR Perspectives

“…Apparently, the so-called accountability standards were assisting businesses in taking into account their stakeholders' interests (see Rasche, Baur, Van Huijstee, Ladek, & Naidu, 2008). The accountability standards represent voluntary predefined norms and procedures for organisational behaviour with regard to social and/or environmental issues and are often valid on a global level (Rasche, 2010). However, past research in the field of tourism has been a mere reflection of the debates over sustainability not of CSR itself (see Pender & Sharpley, 2005).…”

Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting

“…Apparently, the so-called accountability standards were assisting businesses in taking into account their stakeholders' interests (see Rasche et al, 2008). The accountability standards represent voluntary predefined norms and procedures for organisational behaviour with regard to social and/or environmental issues and are often valid on a global level (Rasche, 2010). There are several well-known examples of such standards, which of course possess considerable differences.…”