scholarly journals The Willingness of Generation Z to Financially Support CSR – A Central European Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 271-282
Author(s):  
Radka MacGregor Pelikánová ◽  
Robert K. MacGregor

Abstract Sustainability, with its three pillars, is projected into Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and their effectiveness and efficiency depend upon the operation of the multi-stakeholder model. Both the EU and the EU member states depone clearly that, via CSR, we can exit from the COVID-19 crises stronger and better. The feasibility of the CSR depends upon the eager support of all stakeholders, including consumers. Therefore, it is highly relevant to assess whether the new group of consumers, known as Generation Z, is open to financially support CSR, to what extent and why and/or under what conditions. These three research questions became the foundation of a survey of 179 college students paying for their tertiary study at a private university in Prague. The survey included both closed and open question, brought forth a highly revealing and surprisingly consistent message about the conditional and rather generous readiness of this new generation of consumers in Central Europe, and led to a set of recommendations.

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. 390
Author(s):  
Radka MacGregor Pelikánová ◽  
Martin Hála

The COVID-19 pandemic brought a myriad of challenges and opportunities and has influenced the modern concept of sustainability as projected into the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the underlying multi-stakeholder model. The new generation of consumers, Generation Z, has progressively increased its participation in the market and its shopping trends have been impacting the entire CSR scenery. However, little is known about their attitudes, consumption preferences and expectations. In Spring 2021, this induced a pioneering case study survey involving members of Generation Z, students from a private university in Prague, focusing on their (lack of) readiness to pay any “CSR bonus”. The principal research aim was to study and understand the rather surprising unwillingness of a solvent part of the new generation of consumers to support CSR during the COVID-19 era by paying at least a symbolic CSR bonus. A formal survey involving a questionnaire, replied to by 228 students, out of which 18 totally rejected the CSR bonus, was assessed via contingency tables. It was accompanied by a complementary questioning via an informal interview and glossing. This plethora of data was processed by meta-analysis and lead to an unexpected proposition: prima facie sustainability heretics denying to pay any CSR bonus can be conscious consumers and responsible and progressive supporters of the sustainability and CSR. Their rejection is a deontological cry in a desert for more transparency, trust and the rule of law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radka MacGregor Pelikánová

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.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Buhmann

AbstractThis article analyses the EU Commission's policy-based approach to regulating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the role of international human rights law as a normative source for the regulatory output in two initiatives launched in 2002 and 2006. The article argues as a starting point that the understanding of CSR as ‘beyond law’ tends to shroud the contributions that international human rights law and legal theory based regulatory technique lend to CSR normativity and regulation, not only outside the EU but also within. The EU experience shows that due to power relations and their impact on multi-stakeholder negotiations and their outcome, this potential does necessarily unfold. It also shows that the procedural design of reflexive multi-stakeholder regulatory processes is significant for bringing forth the normative contributions of international law to CSR in public–private regulation. Finally, the article suggests that within the public policy context in which EU CSR regulation is emerging, the normative role of international human rights law which the Commission suggests for CSR in Europe and the application of the reflexive regulatory technique contribute to a substantive as well as procedural juridification of CSR, especially in the formative stage of defining CSR normativity. The latter adds a significant new perspective to the understanding of CSR and its relation to law, although it need not conflict with the understanding of CSR being ‘voluntary’ in the sense of action beyond direct legal obligations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oksana Safonchyk ◽  
Konstiantyn Vitman

In the world practice, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is recognized an important component of sustainable development strategy, for which reason governments of many countries pay considerable attention to the promotion of CSR ideas at the national level, creating favourable conditions for socially responsible behaviour of national and foreign enterprises. The author aims to analyse the experience of regulation of corporate social responsibility policy in the EU Member States, to show the practice of national governments of the EU Member States in the field of CSR, and to determine prospects of corporate social responsibility at the modern development stage in view of implementing the concept of sustainable development. Summarizing approaches to the definition of CSR, it can be emphasized that CSR should positively influence society, in which the enterprise operates. It is a free choice in favour of increasing the welfare and moral and ethical values of society through appropriate approaches to doing business. Relations between enterprises both in the European Union and in other countries are increasingly based on the principles of CSR. Compliance with these principles becomes an important prerequisite for attracting foreign investment and obtaining government orders. In the international context, CSR is an efficient instrument to develop partnership and cooperation of countries in the context of achieving the Millennium Development Goals, to control the negative influence of the industrial sector on ecology, to prevent social crises, as a consequence, to ensure sustainable development of the world civilisation. Among the European institutions, the European Commission’s committees play a key role in disseminating the idea of CSR. One of the main factors in strengthening the EU economy is considered precisely the stable growth based on the rational use of resources, ecology, and competition. Plans of the Strategy for 2012–2015–2020 clearly show that the European Union intends to strengthen control over economic management and “voluntarily oblige” the business to follow the rules of CSR. The goal of a new CSR Strategy is to create conditions favourable for sustainable development, responsible business conduct, and permanent employment in the medium and long term. Key changes in comparison with the policy for 2010 – definition of corporate social responsibility as “Responsibility of enterprises for their impact on society” and rejection of the principle of voluntariness: “the European Commission recognizes that some regulations stimulate CSR, therefore, public authorities should support the CSR development by applying a mix of voluntary and regulatory policies”. As the study showed, the governments of the EU countries are actively engaged in the development and promotion of corporate social responsibility. The role of the state is manifested in the implementation of the following key functions: the state as a legislator and a controlling authority; the state as an employer; the state as a consumer and a buyer; the state as a partner; the state as an institutional investor; the state as a participant in international relations. The most significant results have been achieved by those EU Member States that use the systemic approach to CSR development. In these countries, responsible state structures have been formed that coordinate work in all areas. The approach to the choice of instruments is individual and is selected taking into account the priorities of the country’s socio-economic development and the importance of economic, environmental, and social aspects. An example of Great Britain, France, Belgium, Estonia, and Spain shows the possibility of successful CSR development.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gijs van Houten ◽  
Agnes Akkerman ◽  
Roderick Sluiter ◽  
Giedo Jansen ◽  
Greet Vermeylen

Direct and indirect employee participation in the EU This study looks at different forms of direct and indirect employee participation in the EU. The research questions are: (1) which forms of direct and indirect employee participation can we distinguish?; (2) to what extent do forms of direct and indirect employee participation coincide within organisations?; and (3) to what extent are forms of direct and indirect employee participation associated with (a) workplace wellbeing and (b) the (economic) performance of the organisation? Using the ECS-2013 we analyse data from 24,251 establishments in the 28 EU Member States. Latent class analyses distinguished four types of indirect employee participation and five types of direct employee participation that vary in the extent to which participation is being facilitated. We found little support for the hypothesis that direct employee participation is deployed to replace indirect employee participation: establishments most commonly combine direct and indirect forms of employee participation. Multilevel analyses showed that more extensive forms of direct and indirect employee participation are associated with beneficial outcomes for the organisation (performance) and their employees (workplace wellbeing).


Author(s):  
Radka MacGregor Pelikanova

The commitment of the EU to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is projected in the 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 just partially mandatory in the EU. Do all European businesses report CSR information and what public declaration to society do they provide with it? The main dual purpose of this paper is identifying the parameters of this annual reporting duty and studying the CSR information provided by the ten largest Czech companies in their annual statements for 2013-2017. Based on legislative research and the 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 the CSR is dynamically and comparatively assessed. It appears that, at a minimum, large Czech businesses satisfy their legal duty and e-report on CSR in a similar extent, but in 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 R&D are played down.


Author(s):  
Juho Saloranta

AbstractDespite being an internationally accepted corporate social responsibility framework, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have not managed to provide victims of corporate human rights violations with access to remedy. The European Commission has announced plans to introduce an EU-level human rights due diligence directive which may include corporate grievance mechanisms. This article considers potential synergies between the planned directive and the mechanism laid down in the Whistleblowing Directive. Three issues are highlighted. First, stakeholders usually face retaliation after making a complaint about human rights abuses in a company’s operations. By setting formal levels of protection against retaliation, the Whistleblowing Directive offers a regulatory framework to change this reality. Second, conducting effective human rights due diligence must be based on meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders. If companies approach this issue in a top-down manner using auditing firms, they risk non-compliance with human rights due diligence requirements. Therefore, the legislation should include corporate grievance mechanisms to match remedies with victims’ expectations. Third, in terms of corporate grievance mechanisms, victims often lack resources to participate in them in a fair and respectful manner. This requires EU Member States to use their legislative power to lay down regulations that effectively enhance cooperation and coordination with independent monitoring bodies. To enhance the development as to access to remedy, the Whistleblowing Directive offers synergies through which to achieve greater accessibility, transparency, and victim empowerment. Corporate grievance mechanisms, facilitated by the Whistleblowing Directive, could take this a step further.


2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (139) ◽  
pp. 247-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Jürgen Bieling

Recent theoretical conceptions of imperialism may be useful correctives against idealising and harmonising views of international interdependency and co-operation. Analytically, however, they are not necessarily helpful. In terms of the EU, they do not really comprehend its particular international role. Despite improved financial and military capacities, the EU represents not yet an imperial power. Instead, it still pursues a rather hegemonic foreign policy approach due to internal economic restrictions, fragmented political sovereignty and the historical experiences of beneficial economic and political co-operation after World War II. Eventually, however, it remains an open question, whether the multilateralist, law-based and co-operative posture of the EU will prevail even under conditions of economic crisis and further military conflicts in the adjacent neighbourhood.


Author(s):  
Ľuboš SMUTKA ◽  
Helena ŘEZBOVÁ ◽  
Patrik ROVNÝ

The European sugar beet quota system is in very high dynamic process in recent years. The number of sugar companies involved in this system has been constantly decreasing. The aim of this paper is to define subjects (companies/alliances), which possess the current production capacities working under the production quotas system. The paper is determining especially the level of beet sugar production quota holder system concentration using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. The paper provides the following findings. The European quota holder system is extremely concentrated and it is becoming more and more dominated by fewer players. Sugar quota is distributed among 19 EU-Member States. In this regard, the quota is generous, especially in relation to France, Germany, Poland and United Kingdom. In Finland, Lithuania, Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovakia and the United Kingdom controlled by two or even one subject (companies, alliances). There is a large discrepancy between political efforts to distribute equitable R 1308/2013-sugar quotas among states and the actual reality of those distributions. While the EU-quota holder system does not indicate an extreme concentration, an analysis according to the headquarters´ location and allocated quotas to owners of production capacities provides the evidence of extreme concentration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document