2018
DOI: 10.21201/2018.3378
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Walking the Talk: Assessing companies' progress from SDG rhetoric to action

Abstract: Oxfam Discussion Papers are written to contribute to public debate and to invite feedback on development and humanitarian policy issues. They are 'work in progress' documents, and do not necessarily constitute final publications or reflect Oxfam policy positions. The views and recommendations expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Oxfam.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
51
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
51
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, the adoption of standalone reports could favor the disclosure of information that includes a high degree of connection between SDGs (Le Blanc, 2015). Furthermore, the adoption of standalone reports could favor the disclosure of information useful to comprehend different impacts on internal and external stakeholders due to the requirement to analyze both the financial and non‐financial impacts in these reports (Mhlanga, Gneiting, & Agarwal, 2018; GRI and UN Global Compact, 2017). Moreover, prior studies have discussed the possibility for analysts to extract data from firms' financial reports that are useful for effective comprehension of each firm's real orientation to sustainable development (Cho & Patten, 2007; Gray, 1997).…”
Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, the adoption of standalone reports could favor the disclosure of information that includes a high degree of connection between SDGs (Le Blanc, 2015). Furthermore, the adoption of standalone reports could favor the disclosure of information useful to comprehend different impacts on internal and external stakeholders due to the requirement to analyze both the financial and non‐financial impacts in these reports (Mhlanga, Gneiting, & Agarwal, 2018; GRI and UN Global Compact, 2017). Moreover, prior studies have discussed the possibility for analysts to extract data from firms' financial reports that are useful for effective comprehension of each firm's real orientation to sustainable development (Cho & Patten, 2007; Gray, 1997).…”
Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, OXFAM [52], a non-governmental organization operating in over 90 countries worldwide, investigates the content of non-financial disclosures (on the SDGs) included in the final balance sheets of 76 larger companies. From this analysis, five serious defaults emerge lack of a coherent approach to prioritize and implement the SDGs; the poor impact of the SDGs on sustainability strategies and related action plans; reduced link between policy and risk in terms of human rights and the SDGs; fragmentary and at times incoherent SDG reporting.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The implication is that local and national authorities are left to accept or mitigate trade-offs without adequate resources, as the same level of finance is not made available for SDGs with lower returns on investment. As Mhlanga et al (2018) explain, the private sector primarily engages with SDGs that are most 'material' or 'relevant' to their business strategy. The same is also true of governments that may seek financial and/or geopolitical returns on investment, which is why China often exhibits a willingness to finance mega-infrastructure projects that align with the BRI while demonstrating relatively little concern for the environment or social responsibility.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%